Arugela

Once again, I already answered your question. Wherever you want it too. it's not that specific of a proposal. [snip] . I'm just starting a simple conversation of the feasibility for new applications. Everything I mentioned were examples to get the conversation rolling. That shouldn't be hard to infer. I directly stated so. Here is another link. Read up at your leisure: https://www.science.lu/fr/my-research-90-seconds/cold-plasma-what-it-and-how-can-it-be-used

Why don't you actually read the things I've said more carefully. You have misread everything I've stated or asked. I'm not to blame for that. It doesn't even sound like you read the OP and just started blasting everything you skimmed over like the other participants. I proposed sticking them on nozzles to cover food in plasma or along any system designed to use them... I'm not responsible if you refuse to read anything before commenting. I'm talking about all potential feasibility. It's a ship. You can stick anything anywhere. Thing in the real world don't work like a small science experiments. There are large interconnected systems that can be done anyway you want. A ship is a large metal structure with stuff attached inside. This is not complicated. There was nothing about MHD being used as a primary source of anything. Although that would be a possibility. MHD could be used along any cold plasma system that directly flows gas or plasma to a location at minimum. This would reduce or amend energy costs. It's normally done. It can be used in millions of ways in millions of circumstances. This is how you design a real system. From what I've seen there are a lot of ways to utilize pretty much anything involving plasma production. You can invert many methods to make or amend a system. If you have such a system and it gets any amount of fuel. why not us it to at minimum make a fuel additive. That is a simple proposal. I'm sure there are much more specific and varied uses. Ok, yes it was to produce electricity...(I'm tired atm.) It was simple example. Yes, if it's not as efficient change it out for something else. But functionality could be added. There is a lot of stuff it could be used for. Cold plasma is not a buzzword. The temperature difference is extremely applicable. The easy examples are hand washers compared to other systems. If you can use it for enough thing it may out way other systems. Assuming a lot. If it can use resources it might be useful for more interesting things on ships. Ships are a potentially interesting testbed... You don't have to completely replace fuel etc. I'm not saying you have too. It's a discussion on feasibility. I thought it would be interesting...

I'm referring to 1:1 between the things added to the ships systems. You are not understanding what is being said [snip]. The propulsion system is not perfectly efficient. It may be very inefficient in a real world application. Any new thing could easily be more efficient or adjust that efficiency. Real world things are often kept because what it takes to make a generic efficient device is not the same as what is realistically efficient in a circumstance. Hence the fuel choice. I'm referring to any added system being 1:1 to alternatives. His premise acts as if the laws of thermal dynamics mean anything to a specific choice because he's acting as if everything starts at the same efficiency inherently in practice. His argument was irrelevant to the conversation. My questions are from a very simple real world application. It's not that complicated. Like I said. Try looking into specifics. None of you are even familiar with the potentials of cold plasma by your own admittance. There is nothing absurd about adding it to a boat for a very large amount of reasons. I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

It comes from wherever you want it come from. Quite asking question like this. Go read about it. There are endless methods to produce it. That one video goes over one application. It's the same methods for other normal plasmas. I've answered it many time.

I'm sorry, but there was no presumption of me answering any questions. Read the original post and please stick to the subject [snip] I didn't propose an idea. These are existing ideas. [snip] Last I checked proper science was going over the extremities. It's certainly a normal engineering practice. I don't understand how this simple of a conversation can produce such a response from people. If you disagree with the premise why don't you respond with actual specifics others can analyse and see if you are correct. That would be a proper discussion. It would be a lot more interesting that insulting people because they think free energy is impossible(let alone relevant to the conversation.) or saying I'm crazy for mentioning a real life application like super cavitation. Which is a specific and extreme way to get rid of things related to fuel efficiency. There is no reason you can't use it for transport... In the real world that would be gone over seriously.

Go read up on it's uses. I've already stated in other posts. Sorry.

I already answered the question?! I don't know what you are asking. It's normal plasma at lower temperatures. The video shows it in use. You can generate it anywhere like in an arc welder to start with. Any plasma of sufficiently low temperature. Alot of experiments make it then run argon through it to lower it more. It can have gases passed through it to modify it's results. It can even freeze water and whatnot. It's something to do with the atoms or ions in the plasma not letting the heat out efficiently or something. It's pretty common thing being researched at the moment. Google it if I'm not answering it correctly. If that didn't answer it I have no idea what you are asking me. This might answer it: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/chilling-out-with-cold-plasmas/ This may be the first place I heard the idea of air and water being used to make fuel. I don't think It's the only place I've seen it.

No, it means cold fire. Like a plasm torch. You actively spew it on things. Or you stick it in a small space in an air filter or water filter system and run things over it. The superficial difference is that it's cold temperature wise. In some cases based on human touch. In others relative to other plasmas. Actually I'm not sure it can't be made and stored. Maybe magnetically or other means could be used. It can also be used with magnetic fields and MHD generators and lots of other stuff. It's pretty interesting. this is only one variation. From what I can tell it's very versatile and can be used in many ways. Basically anything whatsoever that can use a normal plasma can use cold plasma potentially.

It could be added to decontaminate stuff in the ship or when it comes into or leaves the ship for extra safety. I don't know if it's being looked at for ships. It probably has been. It's being developed for other areas. Plus it has potential application in other areas. There is a lot of stuff being worked on atm for it. It has a lot of potential application. One is for space probes to extent the life of the bells on ion propulsion and gain longer deeper travelling space probes. the cold plasma doesn't wear out the material as badly. This actually is one use for ship and other things. It could play nicer with the ship itself.

It's a room temp or relatively cold plasma. It's something being looked at now because of corona in particular. People have gotten it down to below freezing and can make ice with fire!! 8d Actually fridge applications could be good. If you just apply a gas to change the temp you could use it for food or emergency reasons for various application. Medical maybe. I wonder if it could slow down and explosion or other odd things. Maybe some fire fighting or other applications. It's being looked at for corona and other things because it kills micro-organisms potentially. and being cold won't hurt produce as much compared to hotter plasmas. Plus it can be used in place of or in conjunction with UV for filtration systems. It can use a lot of electricity, but people have been giving reports of reducing this heavily. And who knows how far the tech can be taken.

The base idea is cleaning food for redundant measures on boats(or even the people in case of cross contamination at some point.). the second idea is also seeing how much it can turn surrounding resources into fuel or other things to improve the boats. Maybe make fuel or fuel additive or anything feasible. We don't know if corona will morph or future things happen that would call for more drastic measures. We don't know enough now potentially. Not to mention fun new technology to figure out new things for. They might make good hand cleaners too. They are already working on air and water filtration and for more sensitive foods to increase life span of produce.

[snip] You are mistaken. I said they are not evenly applied. [snip] You cannot take those laws and simply apply them to real world to get a real world understanding. What you are saying is so grossly simplified it is not applicable to anything in the real world. You can call them laws until you are blue in the face. You are mistaken about their application and know nothing about how they are used in the real life. Everything you have said is mistaken. psnip] You cannot apply any "law" in physics directly and get a correct result. And without having tested them yourself you can't even know if it's correct(And btw it needs to be tested endlessly. Not just a handful of times.). What does that make your theorising...(maybe theorising.) knowledge starts with you and ends with you. Other peoples thoughts or knowledge have nothing to do with whether you know you are correct. There is a practical reality to knowledge that has to be gone through. You also have some personal attachment to them. That means you don't understand the subject. You don't even have anything to do with where they supposedly come from. [snip] Nor do you have any experience or knowledge to know if they or you are correct on any level. [snip]

Actually I had an idea for such a thing. But instead of a pad you have a base launcher to drive it in the water and up into the air from underwater and then separate once slightly in the air. Basically a ballast based ICBM or sub missile that starts deep or move quickly in shallow water then goes up into the air to separate the real rocket. It could be reusable as it only jumps out of the water and relands and acts as a moveable landing pad for the real rocket. It could even try to use super cavitation or other exotic methods to make it more efficient. Maybe you could reduce some delta v by launching it with some inertia out of the water before ignition of the main rocket. It could be unmanned and return to port or use various propulsions on top of actual ballast. It could be a reusable supercav missile base launcher. The supercav part could be on the real rocket or detached from the nose or something and collected. the ship could collect the part. Or navy or other vessels could collect. And it could use different fuel sources or an electrical or other system to be as efficient as possible for the substage of the launch. Or any other exotic needed to produce the results. The point would be to save energy on the upper stage. Or to give more launch sites. Or whatever else is useful.

Hmm, I don't know. maybe that all things start at a 1:1 efficiency. You act as if there is no variance to the existing equipment and that the laws of thermodynamics are constantly simply in play. That is not how the real world works. Real world can make inefficient things last a long time for varied reasons. In fact the most efficient thing is basically never used. Real world application even commonly make the most inefficient thing more efficient in given normal scenarios. Because what you call efficient is only in a given generalized math formula that never applies directly without endless other considerations changing what is best. Not to mention all it minimally has to do is add needed function or improve the existing. You realize you are going to see more and more of this in the future as this stuff becomes more common. And not to be rude. But you obviously also have lots of real world experience. In fact I wonder if you ever worked at Boeing. This whole idea is feasible even if you stuck it to the toilet in two rooms and cleaned some drinking water(Or desalinated it. And no you don't have to use cold plasma to remove the salt, you possibly could, you just have to do part of the process.). You don't seem to understand how this works when applying to a real object.. But if you could do that much more it would be a bit stupid not to find out or possibly test it in real life. The whole point of this discussion was a verbal feasibility test. You know, an intelligent conversation. That requires as many specifics as possible and an open mind. [snip]

Go over the number specifically. Your assumption is complete nonsense as it assumes a relationship on any level. Laws of thermodynamics have nothing to do with this when it's not part of how the ship runs to start with. If more energy is grounded in the water it simply is. You lack any ability to think these things out in the real world. If the ship design came before the realization of the energy produced it's not proportional. The only way it is if it's completely considered in the design in an absolute way. Which is not realistic as many consideration of the time ships are produced could result in a 0 use such as not being able to utilize it or utilize it safely and it being consider a pure hazzard that has to be dealt with to the extremity. Everything you have said is nonsense. You guys need to stop mocking people when you don't have any understanding of the subject.

[snip] How much electricity/energy is generated by large metal ship hull while going through the water normally? How much of this is stopped/diverted to make the ship safe or currently utilized on modern vessels?

Yes I am. You just need to learn more about the subject. Since you can't follow the subject [snip] I'll put it in simpler words. The taking of water from the ocean is free outside of maintenance cost and equipment and other things. The actual taking is not a cost in the most blunt sense. And the resource itself has no cost atm. Unless you apply one. Think out what is being said more please. Please stop making [snip] comments about free energy. You have no understanding of what is being discussed. This is real world engineering. It's obviously far beyond your knowledge. BTW, free energy isn't nonsense either. It's just something real world given another name that people with no understanding mock stupidly. It's literally just how you work on engine efficiency. It's real world applicable. It's the logical extremity of the thing and is actually something you are supposed to learn in school. The people who started free energy are making fun of [people] who never learned anything in practice. You are all too uneducated to realize you are being made fun of. Free energy is a joke. But a joke based on a real world subject. Get the picture!? IT'S AN ENGINEERING JOKE!!! You are the one taking the bait. engineers make jokes to catch logical failures. Free energy is one of them. You mock it on sight because you see something superficially that has one insignificant mistake because you don't know the first thing about it. But some of the subject is real. In fact 99% of it is real except for one part(That was purposely put there!!). Because that is part of learning things in practice.(And the world is full of these jokes and they are all around you right now and you don't know it!) And it has nothing to do with me or this discussion. You interjected it for no reason because you don't understand what is being said sufficiently. Engineering is taking the stuff in the real word and using it and seeing the results over and over again(Real world level of making things.). That is 99% of all real knowledge. That is where scientist get it and their theories. Although they have a very thin to non existent understanding of any of it. There are things related to the brain(it's entire functionality) that require repetition to learn things thoroughly. That does not exist in sciences unless use sufficiently or primarily in conjunction with something more thorough. The other thing is supposed to be dominant or you won't learn anything. Degrees in science aren't even supposed to exist for this reason outside of classes for applied degrees.

Once again. You are missing too many things already present on a boat. You simplify things grossly. Your argument on free energy is completely convoluted and unrealistic. Two there are endless resource generated by a boat in the real world including static and other things that could be used. You are not considering a tiny slice of the current resources that could be used if desired in a real world scenario. You are just applying ground based wind turbines to a boat. And you probably could generate wind intake with minimal drag on top of it all. Or maybe 0 drag(or near 0) is you used reverse forces and used suction from something internal if you really wanted to. Look up how much energy is produced by a ship hull going through the water. There is massive potential for electricity. Remember, science theories are oversimplified and have thing to do with real world application. In the real world there are endless things that can be applied in endless ways to get results when desired.

Because it's not for free.... It's just freely taking resources(not freely taking energy wise but taking something that is free monetarily) as part of the production. And it could be free financially if done correctly. Or less than buying fuel. You still have to spend on maintenance and whatnot. Sorry, there is nothing fundamentally wrong about what I'm saying. Look into real world subjects and you will see what can be done even with existing equipment. The potential is all their atm. If someone wants to. It's a matter of efficiency and applicability not whether it can be done.

I know it takes high voltage. Just not sure how much. Or what ranges can be used. Maybe use of storms can purposely get hit by lightning and used in a system potentially. Or ground stations could be deployed in areas where it can be solved in other ways. Again assuming cost efficiency or other factors don't make it more convenient. Some people were getting cold plasma in general down to like 4-5 watts also. Not sure if it looses it's ability to do anything at those levels though. Might be a matter of application and equipment. How much electricity of voltage can be make using a large vessels hull. Or how much can it be made to create. If you get to unmanned vessels or can deal with safety issues the sky may be the limit. There are lots of means for electricity production in vary large numbers. We are currently doing lots of work to stop this from happening. That means there is lots of potential!! ;p Even if you make the fuel only when the ship if empty. It's potential production for something. Real world application makes that a lot of things to look into for it to be useful. At minimum maybe large unmanned fleets. You could also make ships to have areas for generation even when full or convert ships for this purpose or simply do the work when convenient based on current ship cargo. Assuming equipment exists to do it. You could even use cold or hot plasma at that point or a lot of other things or in any of the other suggestions.

Then why has everyone else I've talked to about this said it can break down water and make fuel? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_plasma_water_splitting_have_a_future_for_hydrogen_production https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330341968_Catalyst-free_highly_selective_synthesis_of_ammonia_from_nitrogen_and_water_by_a_plasma_electrolytic_system Plasma splitting in general. This is referring to ambient conditions. Is that temperature or something else? I'm pretty sure I've seen many things say you can use cold plasma. I have no idea on the efficiency. But I've heard it's efficient in general. No idea on scale or reference for that efficiency. Is this cold or normal plasma? This is just making steam with MHD generators which could be used in line with other forms of plasma or cold plasma for other reasons. Regardless, if cold plasma can be used it could be good compared to other methods for safety reasons. The Beirut explosion being an example assuming no other complexities. You are avoiding heat which means certain cargoes won't become an issue. I wonder if this method could be used in conjunction as a duel system to use the energy more thoroughly down the chain. Or would this all be more useful for some sort of battery production and hybrids? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328438939_Application_of_plasma_for_efficient_H_2_production_A_realism_of_copper_electrode_in_single_dielectric_barrier_discharge_reactor This is using cold plasma. Not sure if the argon can be replaced with stuff like oxygen for convenience. Maybe it could lead to machines at home to make our own hydrogen peroxide! 8) Like those crappy juice machines. that would make it applicable for at least emergency kit usage. Either as machines or temp devices to produce it in air and maintain a supply. We'll probably produce ways to deal with the electricity over time if possible. Could make some interesting and futuristic tech. What if static charge can be used to power it. Lots of stuff on a boat to utilize. Just a matter of being clever enough. What about a very small device using static from it's materials to auto-generate until full. Stuff like that may just be a matter of time. In fact a boat can in principle create huge amounts of electricity with it's hull.

Since when did cold plasma not have the ability to break down water and air? And this stuff could be good for general safety in case of future outbreaks and other issues. It's a decontamination method for a ship. Offsubject but on subject: https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2020/February/cold-plasma-PFAS-water-treatment/ http://eeer.org/journal/view.php?number=975 If anything maybe water can be turned into a foam or gas mechanically and then broken down. This already happens in boats. If anything maybe it can make an additive to current fuel in order to increase fuel efficiency at sea and save cost potentially.

It's a real world engineering issue. It's not about justification. It could be done hypothetically. If it's efficient enough or useful enough it could get rid of fuel costs by using water and air and changing out the generators for the turbines. This would be good for fleets as they could gain versatility in case of emergencies or just in changing routes as they won't have to refuel and do as many things at port. Plus it's a universal decontamination method for anything. Corona is just a reason to look into it. The rest are just other things that could be done with it in order to hypothetically improve travel times or other things. No idea on feasibility. But we know it's already possible. It's a matter of realistic loads. And whether you use propeller or other things is just a matter of converting to the most efficient or needed matter of propulsion. Converting stuff is normal in designs. All real world examples do multiple times for everything from cars to boats. We already or can already use gas to potentially charge batteries. Strap a boat to an intake method with infinite air and water and you have potentially infinite fuel and travel. The rest is a matter of details. They could even take on new methods of staying out of port and having ships come get goods that are then a part of the port. Depends on the ship and the load and the realities of what is being carried. And that is one example of potentially many new things(or old things) that could be applied or reapplied if needed or desired. It could open up lots of interesting things. It's something real companies should be doing real world feasibility tests for if they haven't already. Imagine and airport with free fuel near an ocean and the lowered cost of travel. The planes wouldn't need the equipment potentially as it would likely be heavey unless it can convert air and water fast enough mid flight.(which it could by going into clouds to get water. Although I don't know if enough could be collected. Although it might be good for specialized functions). But you could remove fuel cost almost entirely from tickets. And install cold plasma in the airliner for safety and corona reason as an air filter. This would then make the going into clouds useful for an emergency refill for those safety features potentially. The fuel thing on the other hand would be a matter of the efficiency of the fuel developed. Can you produce a fuel as good as normal oils from resources at the airliner? Or even offsight and shipped in? Obviously it has to be cheaper though outside of other practicalities.

If that is the case maybe they should have left them to their normal messy ways. That is a real world way of dealing with things. They live in an area where that is common from heat and other realities. It's completely viable and fits normal experience. It's not always good to force things that are normal in one environment to another. Too many subtle details. People do things for a reason. Even if they don't know why(which they probably do there.). The longer we are in one place the more highly adapted we become. Speaking of which, I wonder if there are any animals or bugs that could have been used in the environment to destroy the stuff long ago for basically free. As long as it doesn't produce highly explosive ants or something. That or the fact they are in a desert, maybe they could take a policy of selling it for actual fertilizer use. Could have solved the money problems. Or is that usable in the environment. Not sure how farming works there. If there are other dangers may be pre mix it in dirt or something and make it inert somehow. Compost maybe? Whatever actually works.

That isn't how that works. It's unlimited because it's freely available in realistically infinite amounts. Conversion energy means nothing if you can pump in more and convert it. You are missing how realistic things work. Cold plasma is supposed to be very efficient at breaking down things. If it can do that efficiently then it's sustainable. If you want you can use solar or other things to start the process or another source. One being the existing gas tanks. Which is very realistic in a real world scenario. The primary purpose is decontaminating the food. There are natural things at work doing the work for use we can tap into.