Car Powered By Salt Water?

a reply to: andy06shake

Im not the one that expects something for nothing

Buts that how some claim the entire universe came into existence so there is that...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Why does a salt water car need a

The question is will this technology be adopted by a major car manufacturer so we can have electrolyte liquid filling stations.

www.scifront.com... YzjZUxriZoGsepymc

Because where do you get salt water in Ohio???

a reply to: surfer_soul

I could argue that something comes from nothing at least down there amongst the quantum foam with particles popping in and out of existence all the time.

So the initial leap from nothing to something might be inevitable.

Now if that something happened to resemble space-time then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into the massive, and complex universe, we see today just down to inflation.

But its not quite the same thing as patents and profit margins at least for the purpose of this discussion.

People in power and/or monies always want there slice of the pie, its just how they roll with control.

a reply to: surfer_soul
If they use geothermal to produce the energy to split water then replacing the fossil fules to melt the steel would be greener.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

I'm trying to find an article that came up back around the Obama administration for use of biofuels. More importantly lumping the use of "Sea Water" turned into a combustible fuel intended for the U.S. Navy.

My memory must be severely flawed as I could swear that Physics.org had information on it. I'm having zero luck finding anything. I remember a video of a Doctor of physics igniting the transformed sea water...

If anyone can find it. Great. If not, I'll just assume it was my brain making up more fantasies.


From 2014...
Yep looks like I didn't remember right.😑

US Navy 'Game-Changer': Converting Seawater into Fuel

www.industryweek.com...

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as "a game-changer" because it would significantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The U.S. has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: PhoenixOD

I'm trying to find an article that came up back around the Obama administration for use of biofuels. More importantly lumping the use of "Sea Water" turned into a combustible fuel intended for the U.S. Navy.

My memory must be severely flawed as I could swear that Physics.org had information on it. I'm having zero luck finding anything. I remember a video of a Doctor of physics igniting the transformed sea water...

If anyone can find it. Great. If not, I'll just assume it was my brain making up more fantasies.


From 2014...
Yep looks like I didn't remember right.😑

US Navy 'Game-Changer': Converting Seawater into Fuel

www.industryweek.com...

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as "a game-changer" because it would significantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The U.S. has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

Here is the problem with sea water cars. corrosion of the engines and parts. Ceramic engines were used in the US version of a sea water car. they would crack under temp extremes.

a reply to: yuppa
Sea water batteries not sea water in an internal combustion engine.

a reply to: Bluntone22

However, to fill up the tank which has the 3x capacity of large SUV will take quite a bit of time but certainly not hours.

exactly what i was thinking....in order for this to be true ... it would need a break thru in electric motor design...
cause 3x the weight would require a motor with 3x the performance of other motor and consume 3x less power than other...

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Pretty awesome. But the real question is at the bottom of the article

The question is will this technology be adopted by a major car manufacturer so we can have electrolyte liquid filling stations.

I suppose it's possible. The amount of charging stations for EV's I see popping up is continually growing.

The problem with this, is that it will not work. It is basically a replacement of fuel station that could be worst. Unlike EV which gets electricity directly from power stations. This is the on going issue what environmentalist called "environmental impact". If you are forced to mine resource and store that resource in order to power vehicle later on then it is bad. Tesla doesn't do that. They don't need to store any electricity as it just charges direct from a certain power source to the battery already in the car, so there is no extra mining involved for fuel source. The other question is what happens to the salt waste after powering the car?

This was the on going problem with Hydrogen powered cars because you have to break down water and store Hydrogen in fuel station for cars waiting to fill up. Hydrogen is an unstable gas that is why Hydrogen fuel station blown up a couple a times like shown in media unlike EV charging stations.

EV is still the future of transportation. Now if those other companies concentrate on building spacecrafts instead and harvest Jupiter gas to jump to other solar systems and planets. That is something we should be moving on.

a reply to: THeGreaTZoiD
Not really, the numbers don't just multiply across the board.

Brushless DC motors are already 70-90% efficient while a 4 stroke gasoline engine has a max of 25% but in typical conditions it is supposed to be in the teens so let's just say 15%. So there you have around 5 times the performance.

Also, 3x the weight in fuel is not the total weight of the vehicle and you would subtract the weight difference in the engine, cooling system, maybe even transmission compared to the electric motors.

As for salt water in Ohio, you mix salt and water.

a reply to: makemap

I agree. Also, it's hard to do any speculating on this vehicle because there really isn't any technical information on it. At least I cant find anything explaining how it works. It's just generalizations given from the company.

This is the best I can find on it

The special electrolyte solution used in the nanoFlowcell® is not called bi-ION for nothing. The word bi-ION stands for "bi", as in two, and "ION", as in ions. Although we consistently speak of the bi-ION electrolyte liquid (singular), it is in fact two electrolyte liquids - one positively charged electrolyte and one negatively charged electrolyte. Despite this charge, the conductive liquid itself is electrically neutral.

The two energy-storing electrolytes circulate in two separate circuits, between which an exchange of positive and negative ions occurs across a special membrane in the nanoFlowcell's® voltaic cell. Inside the cell, the chemical reaction itself takes place in the form of reduction or oxidation, releasing electrical energy. In short, chemical energy is converted into electrical energy.

This process neutralises the electrolytes. In contrast to conventional redox flow cells, in which the discharging process is reversible, i.e. the electrolytes can be "recharged", the process in the nanoFlowcell® is irreversible. Following discharge, bi-ION cannot be recharged.

Compared with the reversible electrolyte solutions in conventional redox flow cells, this situation made it possible to achieve a far higher energy density. nanoFlowcell thus combines the convenience of a refillable battery with the performance of a solid-state battery.

link

This is what they say on emissions.

he spent electrolyte solution in an electric car powered by a nanoFlowcell® is released while driving. This means the used electrolyte solutions are filtered, the small quantities of solids stored in the filter and the remaining liquid released into the atmosphere as pure water.

a reply to: FauxMulder

I imagine the salt water provides the electrolyte used in a chemical reaction.

Then the chemical reaction creates electricity, similar to how a battery functions, which run a motor to power the car.

Same as the rest of the vehicles that claim the same or similar.

a reply to: FauxMulder

According to wiki the NanoFlowcell is a redox flow battery. At least it gives the general idea of how it works but the electrolyte is the big secret.

a reply to: THeGreaTZoiD

I don't believe the numbers transfer straight across like that.
An SUV might have a 20 gallon tank that weights 200lbs. Gas plus tank weight.
3x capacity says to me it takes 60 gallons for this vehicle. Plus tank. I don't know the weight of their fuel. Even if it's equal we are saying around 600 pounds.

A gas tank gets lighter as it empties.
Batteries do not.
I don't know what this design does.

Honestly I doubt this will go anywhere.
Usually the energy density of these "breakthrough" technologies is way to low to replace gas.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

2.4 seconds 0-60mph / 0-100kmh is brutal. If the specs are correct, this thing is a weapon.

This however is wrong

One fill up of the tanks are good for 621 miles (1,000 km) which astonishingly is greater distance our gasoline vehicles can take us.

My Audi would take me +1000km a fill with very discipline driving but hills and curves.

a reply to: PhoenixOD

I love this idea, and - theoretically - I want one, as long as I can do 2 important things to help such a car work better for me, in my temperate (cold Wintery-type) environment:

1) I want the ability to have large tanks of the salt fuel on my own private property, for long term storage options.

2) I want a decent 'heater'. Unfortunately, the electric cars I have read about and ridden in so far (only a Tesla, and a prius; so not tooo much experience) didn't have very good heaters, probably because electric cars generate less 'waste heat'. That is the second 'sticking point' ... for me.

But I am sure these problems can be circumvented!

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: THeGreaTZoiD

I don't believe the numbers transfer straight across like that.
An SUV might have a 20 gallon tank that weights 200lbs. Gas plus tank weight.
3x capacity says to me it takes 60 gallons for this vehicle. Plus tank. I don't know the weight of their fuel. Even if it's equal we are saying around 600 pounds.

A gas tank gets lighter as it empties.
Batteries do not.
I don't know what this design does.

Honestly I doubt this will go anywhere.
Usually the energy density of these "breakthrough" technologies is way to low to replace gas.

your right i dint consider the fact that no battery is needed...and yes efficiency would increase on an almost empty tank

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Did you notice this part?


"However, to fill up the tank which has the 3x capacity of large SUV will take quite a bit of time but certainly not hours."

It can go father than most gas cars, my truck can do over 500 miles on a tank, but it carries 3x the fuel capacity.. Hmmm

I also question the safety of this design. Some metallic salts are fricken dangerous.
Some are used in hair dye.

I'm going on record as saying this is just a pipedream.

I was thinking the same thing. My DTE has read 650 on my truck after a fill up before.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
From 2017:


www.youtube.com...

Nice taillights. Must have real blinker fluid in them the way they look like they're jiggling with water in them.

a reply to: THeGreaTZoiD
It is a fuel cell and, if I'm not mistaken, it also loses water as it is driven so not much different than an emptying gas tank.

Add in the weight of the ICE and systems needed to make it run and you are not gaining much from the emptying gas tank and that is before even looking at the already pretty bad efficiency of the ICE.