Well how about Oberon heads up there and turns that methane into DME?


Energy Department Seeks Methane Hydrate Proposals
ANCHORAGE, Alaska April 13, 2014 (AP)
By DAN JOLING Associated Press Share1Share on email
The U.S. Department of Energy is soliciting for another round of research into methane hydrates, the potentially huge energy source of "frozen gas" that could step in for shortages of other fossil fuels.

The department is looking for research projects on the North Slope of Alaska that could explore how to economically extract the gas locked in ice far below the Earth's surface.

DOE is also seeking researchers to document methane hydrate deposits in outer continental shelf waters of coastal states.

The DOE anticipates federal funding of $20 million over two years that could be leveraged into research costing $80 million, according to its "funding opportunity announcement." The department could award money for both methane hydrate extraction research and for documentation or just one of those two research areas, according to the announcement.

A spokeswoman for the DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, Shelley Martin, said the department could not comment on funding opportunities while they are open.

Methane is the main ingredient of natural gas. It comes from buried organic matter after it's ingested by bacteria or heated and cooked. The gas migrates upward, under high pressure and low temperature, and can combine with water to form methane hydrate.

The DOE describes methane hydrate as a lattice of ice that traps the molecules but does not bind them chemically. Methane is released when the combination of ice and gas is warmed or depressurized.

Deposits can be found under permafrost in Alaska. For extraction research, such landlocked reservoirs provide a stable platform. Larger methane hydrate deposits can be found in sediment below the sea floor.

A Minerals Management Service study in 2008 estimated methane hydrate resources in the northern Gulf of Mexico at 21,000 trillion cubic feet, or 100 times current U.S. reserves of natural gas. The combined energy content of methane hydrate may exceed all other known fossil fuels, according to the DOE.

The department calls methane a clean-burning fuel and an important bridge to a time when non-carbon sources will supply more of the nation's energy supply. Since no one has figured out the extraction puzzle, it's uncertain exactly how it could be used.

Critics say burning methane will exacerbate the world's greenhouse gas problem and contribute to warming. Unburned methane released into the atmosphere is 20 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2 but not as long-lived.

DOE has funded previous methane hydrate research.

The department and industry partners Houston-based ConocoPhillips and Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. drilled into a methane hydrate deposit over two Alaska winters ending in spring 2012 in a nearly $29 million extraction experiment.

The research was an application of laboratory studies done by ConocoPhillips and the University of Bergen in Norway indicating that carbon dioxide molecules injected into methane hydrate could swap placed with methane molecules, freeing methane to be harvested. The goal was extraction without compromising the integrity of the below-ground ice.

The experiment in 30 days of production captured nearly 1 million cubic feet of methane. Researchers concluded that a sizeable portion of the injected gas interacted with the methane hydrate.

The objective of the new DOE solicitation is to stimulate research that industry is not likely to pursue on its own accord in next two to three years.

In Alaska, the department wants field studies to evaluate extended response of methane accumulations to destabilization by lowering the pressure or other approaches.

The "marine hydrate characterization" solicitation is looking for field programs that will collect data and samples such as drilling cores.

Applications are due May 22.

Climate Report a "wakeup" for entrepreneurs...

I think Jim and AFTC was one HUGE step ahead of him!


http://www.france24.com/en/20140413-un-climate-report-wakeup-entrepreneurs-kerry-says/#./?&_suid=139740835214006029689333338823

considering the update history.. a wise strategy.

How about a little light-hearted fun?

AFTC says they will post updates the end of April or early May...

Might as well make it interesting!

I'll start.

April 25th!

GL!

Ill do my best to keep track... no duplicates!

End of April, Early May.

From AFTC Website.

"Statement 3-27-14

This statement is being made to address stockholder questions and concerns sent to the company via email.

Updates and financials will be posted on our website within 45 days following the end of each fiscal quarter. This is a requirement for reporting corporations. AFT is a non-reporting company, but will adhere to these standards.

AFT has received cash investments for some stock that was issued by the company. Any stock that was not issued by the company is considered trading on the secondary market. The company does not receive money for these transactions.

An update and financials for the first quarter of 2014 will be posted in late April or early May..."


Given this timetable, I think we can expect the updates anytime starting late April!

Good Luck

Navy Awaits

July 2009 Article about DME. Navy, and Alternative Fuel Technology (AFTC).

It has been a while, but they have completed the job. I belive navy awaits as the Army ties up the deal.

Entire Article:



New Fuel System for US Navy

Posted July 2nd, 2009 by USNavySeals

While the Navy is usually associated with huge aircraft carriers, the Navy SEALs is best known for the use of vehicles that are more scaled down in size. These assault and patrol vehicles are usually used for the purpose of delivering troops and equipment to high-risk and critical areas, which mean that they should be highly maneuverable and can be operated stealthily at high speeds.

The Navy SEALs already have such vessels for their use. However, it has been noticed that the performance of these crafts are affected when they are used to carry greater “payloads”. Payloads can be combat operatives, the equipment that these troops will need in order to complete their missions, and the weapons that they will need. This impact on the performance of the vessel may not be that big a deal if the vessel had been used for personal or commercial purposes; for military purposes, such degradation in performance may not only jeopardize the mission’s success, it can also have an impact on the survival of the team.

Research and development company Alternative Fuel Technology Inc. has reportedly submitted a proposal for an advanced fuel system that will burn Dimethyl Ether (DME), a replacement for diesel fuel that can be produced from resources that exist in abundance, such as landfill methane and coal. If it works, this system can serve as an alternative to the diesel fuel propulsion systems used in existing marine crafts. The expectation is that the alternative system will enable these vessels to accommodate an increase in payload without affecting its speed and maneuverability.

Aside from the fact that an alternative fuel system may be a way for the Navy SEALs to get “the best of both worlds” as far as transporting troops and equipment are concerned, it may also prove to be a more cost effective option. DME can reportedly be produced at a cost that is less than half that of conventional fuel. It will also be a more environmentally-friendly choice.

Origination Link:

http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2009/07/new-fuel-system-developed-for-us-navy.html

GL

Personal Opinion: Yes, the Army SBIR was stated as a pump compatible with JP-8, but that's all they have right now. This same pump, that works with low-lubricity JP-8, will create an Army-sized (and more) fleet of diesel engines that can, at any time, switch to DME as it becomes available... with Oberon etc... making our own fuel from local resources would be amazing both logistically and in reducing high risk transport of liquid fuels to our troops over long distances.. amazing potential for this.

Can't happen fast enough.

YES! We are all anxious to see a generous return on our investment, after so many years of AFTC's innovative and hard work and our patient investment money's hard work!

As we wait to see what might be very exciting news in the next 2 weeks or so, we can take a minute to appreciate that our investments in AFTC's groundbreaking work and future that could well have some very significant benefits to our environment. Things need to change quickly and (I Believe) DME will be a very big part of reducing airborn pollution and (PM 2.5..particutates, soot) moving forward. It should be a bellweather year for DME(No, I'm not taking questions on why I belive that, It's an educated opinion based on my interpretation of what I consider to be compelling DD which points in one direction) and the technologies that allow us to replace dirty soot-bomb fuel with a much cleaner DME "Blue-Flame, No-Soot", fuel.

Air: It is what it is and what it is, is not good

April 13, 2014

Globally, in 2012, from the effects of air pollution 7 million people died prematurely, according to the World Health Organization or WHO. This is up from an estimated 800,000 in 2000. The fact of the matter is, without mitigation, the situation could get worse.

Although the 7 million amounts to just 0.1 percent of the 7 billion in total world population, it is the growth in the numbers of those deaths that is troubling. In the span of just 13 years, deaths caused by air pollution skyrocketed: an increase of 775 percent. Imagine that kind of increase every dozen or so years. Personally, I can’t imagine.

So, at what point do people take a stand and say “enough is enough already?!” Or, how many people need die from air pollution’s effects before the world starts to pay attention? I mean really starts to pay attention? My sense is those thresholds have not yet been reached.

The fact that there is as much loss of life as there is this way is disquieting. Whether this many people or if even one person dies on account of air-pollution-related sickness is indeed sad. And, even if we are not exposed to moderately unhealthful or hazardous levels of air pollution on an ongoing basis ourselves, based on the way print, broadcast and video news reports get disseminated and therefore by association who this is reaching, we know for a fact that many are exposed.

That smog, the toxic brew that it is, damages delicate lung tissue. Not unlike other toxic gaseous compounds, elements or substances, depending upon smog exposure level and to what degree (concentration) and over what time duration, no doubt determines the extent of lung-tissue damage done.

Smog isn’t the only concern, though. There are other pollutants on the radar also; namely, particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur oxide (SOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and others.

So, why has world air condition gotten as bad as it has?

Transportation: We’ve gone too far?

Looking at motorized transport in America, this much I know: In an average day, approximately 50,000 airplanes take to the skies; in transit at the same time are roughly 40 million of a total quarter billion road-based power vehicles; and nearly 32,000 commuter, intercity and subway trains roll on down the lines. Keep in mind this does not include the myriad freight train and maritime moves added to the mix, but, when factored in, it’s a lot of to-and-fro-traffic moving about.

As it applies, through my researching and writing on matters having to do with the air, I’ve learned about healthcare costs arising from the effects of polluted air. In monetary terms those are huge.

Renee Schoof in an Oct. ‘09 McClatchy Newspapers article (“Report looks at hidden health costs of energy production”) mentions a one-year National Research Council (NRC) study that considered such costs. The report committee, consisting of 19 panel members “… looked at transportation by motor vehicles, which make up 75 percent of transportation energy use, but it didn’t monetize the pollution damages from air, rail or water transportation. It estimated the pollution damages from motor-vehicle transportation at $56 billion in 2005,” Schoof wrote.

“The dollar amounts were mainly early deaths due to pollution, with the value of each life put at $6 million, consistent with other studies,” added the McClatchy Newspapers columnist.

Over nine-tenths or more than $5.4 million represented what Schoof referred to as “the statistical cost of early deaths.” As I understand it, there were other costs examined by the panel in the studies as well such as asthma and chronic bronchitis, this information came courtesy of committee panel Vice Chair and University of Maryland Economics Professor, Maureen Cropper. Meanwhile, in “High price of breathing polluted air: Energy production and transportation in the crosshairs,” I indicated also the “… NRC report estimated the yearly hidden costs associated with early mortality and health impacts to the thousands of Americans so-affected, and in this case all attributable to fossil fuel use, totaled $120 billion. Roughly half – $62 billion – was tied to electricity production from the burning of coal, according to Schoof.”

So, what are some viable ways to cut pollution from the motorized transport sector?

In “Landmark California program could have huge emissions-reductions impact,” in referencing a Cambridge Systematics, Inc.-prepared study in July 2009 for the Moving Cooler Steering Committee called: Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, I wrote: “Among effective strategies identified to mitigate deficiencies directly linked to the production of greenhouse gas and other emissions are: improve both motor vehicle and fuel efficiency, decrease the production of carbon coming from ignited fuels, reduce the number of vehicle travel miles and improve the transportation network.”

What matters

Eliminating pollution in the air is not impossible. With the correct prescriptive approach applied, plus with people motivated and resolved enough to get the job done right it is this combination that will result in air pollution being gone for good. This is exactly what I believe it will take.

For more on related conducted studies, see: “Polluted air: The ‘heart’ of the problem,” “$64 million question: To exercise or not in the presence of dirty air,” “Tracking pollution: Research helps explain air-contaminant survival,” “Air: It ain’t what it used to be … but it can be again,” and “Can PM 2.5 lead to early mortality?”

Tickety Tock!

To Infinity...and Beyond! Yes, I think the stock will hit a PPS of infinity*


*that may be optomistic

Happy Sunday! Let's hope it is one of the last Sundays we are pondering what seems to be the age-old question...when will we get to contacts and HOW BIG will they be! Yes! I am and have been very optomistic!! I feel I have every reason to be!

The reality of the single fuel concept as seen from this 2005 article.

The link to the full story:


http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr05/reality.html

An excerpt relevant to the recommendation and the need for a common rail pump that can be used with JP-8:



"The most recent version of DOD Directive 4140.25, DOD Management Policy for Energy Commodities and Related Services, stipulates that “. . . it is imperative that combat support and combat service support vehicles and equipment be capable of receiving support (i.e., fittings, nozzles, etc.), achieving and sustaining acceptable operational performance using both kerosene-based turbine fuel and diesel fuels to the maximum extent practical.” Policy directives may not always match reality, which is the case with the large numbers of diesel-fuel-consuming vehicles and equipment with rotary-distribution, fuel-injection pumps.

Certainly, the significant increases in maintenance requirements that have been experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq strain an individual’s understanding of the phrase “sustaining acceptable operational performance.” This is not saying that the SFC doctrine is flawed, but some changes are urgently needed.

Ironically, a strategy research project completed in April 1996 at the Army War College identified some possible problems with the SFC and gave
several recommendations. Two of the more significant recommendations were—

• The fuel pumps on all new equipment must be compatible with JP8.
• All future military equipment must be designed to use JP8 as the primary fuel source.Both of these recommendations are as relevant today as they were in 1996.

DOD Directive 4140.25 requires that acceptable operational performance be achieved with both kerosene-based turbine fuels and diesel fuels. However, one fuel type must predominate over the other, and, since compression-ignition engines are essentially designed and manufactured for diesel fuel consumption, the predominant fuel naturally would be diesel. An engine’s fuel pump must be JP8 compatible in all types of operating conditions, not just in environments with cold to moderate temperatures.

Because of the large number of existing vehicles and equipment that use the fuel-lubricated, rotary-distribution, fuel-injection pumps, one approach would be to make the SFC doctrine more flexible by requiring use of diesel fuel when systems operate for sustained periods in a high-temperature environment. This change would least affect the Air Force because it typically operates from fixed sites that are removed from direct combat operations so that two fuel distribution and storage systems are easier to implement. The Army and Marine Corps would be affected more because they require one fuel distribution system for ground equipment and a second for helicopters and both systems require intense protection and support. This dual-system option is complicated further by doctrine calling for highly mobile, distributed, autonomous combat units.

Another, albeit more complicated, approach would be to require that the rotary-distribution, fuel-injection pumps be replaced with pumps that are less sensitive to fuel viscosity and lubricity, such as the common rail or pump-line nozzle systems.
Failure to recognize and act on the problems inherent in the use of kerosene-based fuel with rotary-distribution, fuel-injection pumps will only serve to decrease operational readiness and increase maintenance costs over time. ALOG

Maurice E. Le Pera is the president of Le Pera and Associates of Harrisonburg, Virginia. He is a graduate of the University of Delaware and had 36 years of Government service.

The author wishes to thank Emilio S. Alfaro of the Air Force Petroleum Office and Edwin C. Owens of the Southwest Research Institute for their assistance in developing this article."

IMHO..only speculation.. a crap shoot... but... hmmmm... I will not be surprised to hear the name Navistar mentioned by AFTC.

The Army has yet to final the SBIR Summary proposal for Phase 2 on the portal. It's about the only one from that cohort that has not gone final. They are chewin' on that for a long time...

As i consider the logistics of commercializing a high pressure common rail pump..it seems more and more likely, to me, that the Army would approve the pump for use and AFT would contract with Navistar to sell the pump as original equimpent on the engines sold to Army. Army would somehow funnel the money through Navistar to AFT.

With the sole source provider provision that accompanies the SBIR award, this would allow AFTC to provide it to all DoD engine providers without each having to individually contract up with AFTC...they have an umbrella contract for others interested in purchasing the product courtesy of SBIR.

I can't imagine Army buying them and then outsourcing retrofitting new engines and i think Navistar provides a lot of the new Army diesel engines.

I do not see a direct purchase for delivery from AFTC to Army.

This would also require a concurrent contract with Bosche and AFTC if they continue to use that pump for their starting point.

Possibly the "many interested" are the many engine manufacturers who would use it OEM on new diesel engines.

Although, Army might buy direct from AFTC to retrofit existing engines and just train Army mechanics to change them out.

Just a thought... a perhaps...


IMHO..but Id be willing to bet a few candy bars on it (skybars, please)

IMHO!

GL

I bet THEY got some good responses to a survey on why not to invest.

I'm trying to come up with a reason if anyone has two please give me one. :)

well lets hope we get some thoughtful responses..constructive criticism and complete thoughts.

I think that would be the best question.

Re: another gas to liquid fuel for the long term future*

In My Opinion:

Gas to liquid fuels are low-lubricity fuels. This new technology looks pretty amazing. MY GUESS is that as a low lubricity fuel it will require a pump that does not have the leakage and wear issues current pumps have when using a low lubricity fuel (like DME or JP-8)

http://blink.htcsense.com/web/articleweb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=21320677


I humbly submit my semi-educated guess that AFTC's new high pressure common rail not only will be a game changer for DME..but it does not need to wait for DME to grow to be very much in demand for a very widely used low-lubricity fuel... JP-8. IMHO Just the best of all worlds... fill existing needs and grow with DME's amazing future potential..


*please consult with a qualified financial expert before believing any forward-looking statments by Sleeperstock.

Caveat Emptor!

GL

here are some excepts from the post to which you refer

I believe....


.........I believe


....I firmly belive....I think...

I also expect....

IMHO

What could I have possibly done to make it more clear that it was my opinion.

And "I BELIEVE" the information in my post was justified by the additional verbiage "as an opinion".

Take it or leave it for what it is... If anyone is taking my opinion to the bank..well good luck with that. But do not suggest I did not caveat the heck out of that as my belief and IMHO.

There are pleanty of people here who snipe in with a one sentence unsubstantiated negative comment without the cortesy of any indication that it is an opinion.

Another suggestion.. If you don't like my opinion..provide a differing opinion of your own and why you think that rather than just spend time picking mine apart...contribute...positive or negative.

Or just ignore it like many do...



IMHO (In My Huble Opinion)

Ill be away for a good part of the day... pondering DME (gotta stay on topic!)....

GL!

Yes I certainly welcome and encourage any differing point of view but simply request the thought process from which it is derived. Both for my edification and that of others.

I have maintained a very salient and optomistic point of view almost without exception. That could well be proven to be to my detriment. I have found little to disuade me, thus far.

I recently asked anyone to provide any objective DD that might temper my point of view and continue to look for some. I do not cherry pick my posting for just the good ones.

My IMHO has an emphisis on "humble" ... I read challenges, with thoughtful reasoning, eagerly and with appreciation for the tempering of my singular opinion of AFT's future success.

My point of view may well be a BIG swing and a BIG miss.. but who knows. I'm more assured in my point of view as days go by.

I have said here before that i never learned anything from someone who agreed with me...but i don't consider a one line comment without reasoning to be very educating.

just me....

of course. Look at the terminology.

Perhaps you could take the opposing position?



"I belive"

"I think"

"IMHO"


And yes, nobody is more semi-educated than am I.. haha

It's a point of view. I think it is defended adequately ..it's an IMHO... It's "I belive" not "you should" believe.


Rather than people just challenging my optomistic assumptions would someone post difffering views with reasons?

I was offering a response suggestion to the person who asked the question but anyone is more than encouraged to do it.. even a debate #team.. Id prefer not to have my irrational exhuberace go unchallenged..

GL!

In any case.. one good thing is we will all know pretty soon one way or the other! Let's at least agree that we hope for substantial good news in a couple of weeks regardless of where we stand philisophically right now!

GO AFTC!



GL

Let's look at it this way...University old-school.

I was given the topic:

AFTC has announced it will begin quarterly financial reports and updates starting around May 1, 2014. After reading available Due Diligence, here is your thesis:

AFT will be making some major announcements in it's next update, DEFEND:

I did.


Here is your topic:

AFTC has announced it will begin quarterly financial reports and updates starting around May 1, 2014. After reading available Due Diligence, here is your thesis:

AFT will continue to provide the same type of shareholder updates that is always has. No important news will be announced, DEFEND:



This way everyone will have two points of view as to what the future has in store, yours and mine...It will help everyone make a better decision.

Thanks

It is not a matter of you being right or me being right ..just an opportunity to sorta thrash out all points of view with available information. We can both have differing opinions that are completely accurate for us. Others have the opportunity to read our defenses and see what resonates with them. Likely most will take something from each as our topics are very polarized.

GL

I belive the first of the now quarterly reporting schedule will lay out, clearly, the initial work, the companies with whom they have completed the contracts, the scope of the initial contracts or some of the contracts they have alluded to in previous updates that, until that time, have been confidential. I believe the work with the Army will just be part of an overall DoD use of the JP-8 pump that will eventually, if not immediately, include completion of the work started with Navy that seems to have been held in abeyance pending the complition of the SBIR for the same needed product ...funded by Army/SBIR. I am unsure of how the aerospace will fit in, but I think it may.

I also think there will be a departmentalization of AFTC with a new executive position, at least.

SBIR awards are self funding and do not require an initial capital expenditure. Hiring, working capital for initial larger production processes and possible physical plant expansion and additional tooling machinery, I believe, was initially funded by the stock sale mentioned. Why else?

AFTC, it was said, is not a reporting company and is not required to release quarterly financials or shareholder updates. That they will begin doing them at the end of April, early May is not somthing that is being done solely for our benefit. It is being done becaue they have some larger investors and some large customers who require it.

IDA has stated that they will be announcing news in the coming months of a plan to roll out DME as a transportation fuel in North America, I firmly belive AFT will figure prominently in that..and finally we will se why they are included on the IDA website as the only company they list a involved in the use of DME...and why they are listed on the Executive PPt the IDA has presented to such groups at Those attending at their presentaion done at The Senate Office Building last October.

I see good things.

IMHO

I also expect a leading indicator would be an updated website in the days prior to the new financials and update. Lots of people will be looking at the "face" of AFTC and will expect a site commensurate with the news.

Well..AFT will certainly be known in the industry, but i doubt the average person will know any more about them than who made the fuel injectors in their current car. Especially as we are after the diesel engines, robust, large, marine, AG, trucks, aero etc.

But I would foresee people knowing the term DME as well as they know the term diesel,,but with a smile on their face.


LNG and CNG..20 years of that same technology and few outside of those who use it or are in the industry could tell you what they stand for.. move over..!

LOL

GL

..storage space, 2600 psi, etc

The great thing about DME? It lets them still sell their product and get out of the gas compression and fleet conversion business.

They don't want to do that. They just want to sell natural gas. And now they can.

Big Coal, Big Gas will pave the way... not try to stop it.

When one of America's largest Natural Gas LDC's, with one of the largest CNG (compressed natural gas) fleets sees a future in DME..

Well..

That says a lot.

http://www.greenfleetmagazine.com/news/50611/socalgas-oberon-team-on-alt-fuel-rd-project'

...it's starting!

2014 the last year in which anyone will ask.. What is DME?

Aerospace, Aviation, Diesel, Fischer-Tropsch Process

IMHO!

It appears that any vehicle using JP-8 or Fischer-Tropsch derived fuels (FT Process is a general term for making liquid fuels from natural gas/methanol by that comapany) share the wear and leakage issues inherent to low lubricity fuels, the fuel is currently supplimented by oil injection systems in the pumping process (including Volvo).

The AFT pump has, from every indication i can see, resolved that issue or remedied it or improved how to negate it with their high pressure common rail fuel delivery system - the most notable verifiable interest is that Army has selected the post Phase 2 and is moving past Phase 2 to what i belive is commercialization (see Army Email) . Updates from the company provide very inticing references to interest from many other parties that are currently being negotiated.

Anyway.. regardless of the fuels source or type..it appears the need for the AFTC pump is universal.

I maintain that Army has taken the SBIR R & D lead for the DoD..We know Navy was very interested and also that Wright-Patt AFB has been testing fuel derived from the Fischer tropsch Process mixed with JP-8.. it, like JP-8. suffers low lubricity.

AFTC has provided prototype pump to the Chinese demonstration projects and Korean... Now that the only technological hurdles have been overcome..I think we may hear of new developments from these existing AFTC customers.

IMHO

GL



2012-01-1197
The Ignition Behavior of a Coal to Liquid Fischer-Tropsch Jet Fuel in a Military Relevant Single Cylinder Diesel Engine

Technical Paper2012-04-16Peter Schihl, Laura Hoogterp-Decker, Eric Gingrich
The U.S. Army currently uses JP-8 for global operations according to the "one fuel forward policy" that was enacted almost twenty years ago in order to help reduce the logistics burden of supplying a variety of fuels for given Department of Defense vehicle and base applications. One particular challenge with using global JP-8 is the lack of or too broad a range of specified combustion and fuel system affecting properties including ignition quality, high temperature viscosity, and lubricity. In addition to these challenges, the JP-8 fuel specification currently allows the use of blending with certain types of synthetic jet fuels up to 50% by volume. This blended fuel also doesn't include an ignition quality or high temperature viscosity specification, but does include a lubricity specification that is much less restrictive than DF-2. One particular currently available synthetic fuel that could be used as a blending agent with JP-8 is produced by Sasol for use in South Africa and is a Fischer-Tropsch's (FT) coal-to-liquid (CTL) aviation fuel that has poor ignition quality (25 cetane number and 52 cetane index) and is more volatile than JP-8.
2011-01-0119
On the Ignition Behavior of JP-8 in Military Relevant Diesel Engines

Technical Paper2011-04-12Peter Schihl, Laura Hoogterp-Decker
U.S. Army ground vehicles predominately use JP-8 as the energy source for ground vehicles based on the ‘one fuel forward policy’. Though this policy was enacted almost twenty years ago, there exists little fundamental JP-8 combustion knowledge at diesel engine type boundary conditions. Nevertheless, current U.S. Army ground vehicles predominately use commercial off-the-shelf or modified commercial diesel engines as the prime mover. Unique military engines are typically utilized when commercial products do not meet the mobility and propulsion system packaging requirements of the particular ground vehicle in question. In either case, such engines have been traditionally calibrated using North American diesel fuel (DF-2) and overall engine performance degradation while operating on Jet Propellant 8 (JP-8) wasn't given much consideration since any such associated power loss due to the lower volumetric energy density was not an issue for most applications at then targeted climatic conditions.
NextBackViewing

This is something that AFTC may wish to consider. It has built its business on SBIR Awards from the Army. It awaits news on yet another Phase 1 SBIR that will secure business and R & D going forward as it moved the pump R & D into the commercialization phase.

Also, with new personnel, IMHO, either secured or in the process of being hired..It will allow whomever takes the reigns on SBIR interaction to network with the various program administrators, devolop relationships, and learn the intricacies of getting the awards.

I belive Jim did the technicals and Kathy did the submissions of the previous ones. My personal feeling as that once this company is staffed and up to speen she will be a CEO-emmeritus, advisor, or be involved in a non daily role there.

http://www.nationalinnovationsummit.com/program/National_SBIR_Conference.html

AFTC has built a solid reputation with SBIR..this will alow the AFTC Award Administrator to network and learn what needs to be known in that SBIR world.

GLTA

It should be very interesting

Here are some ideas that are my conjecture, but based on information that we have garnered.

Definately IMHO but I think people can decide for themselves.


The Navy article i posted as well as the Air Force having already done test flights with a renewable fuel (Fischer Tropsh Process)

The Army is the source for the SBIR funds and R & D for the JP-8/DME pump. Obviously, other branches of DoD had interest in pumping low lubricity fuel prior to the Army awarding SBIR funds to AFTC for the development of the pump.


There would be no reason for all three branches to individually do it. I think Army took the lead through sponsoring the SBIR and the others are just waiting for commercialization.

Amelia has "areospace" in her profile, Jim spoke to marine (ship) work and areospace..confidential.


Do not be surprised to see that Army has lead the way for all DoD... why would the DoD switch just army engines? If it works for Army..it works for all branches of the military.

Let's hope!

Exciting times.

IMHO


Jim often rolled out the "it's confidential" card when queried about specifics of projects that had been alluded to or actually PR'd previously.

He talked Aerospace, (Amelia has Aerospace in her profile). People usually, especially in the engineering field, are very diligent about stating areas of expertise publicly unless they have the experience to back it up.

Marine (ships).. Hello Navy engine! I doubt that the Navy would have begun an SBIR project for it's own interest if the Army was doing an SBIR at the same time for the same technology. I look for Navy to tag along on the new JP-8/DME pump... possibly at the same time as Army announces. (really? A full engine prototype they valued at $20 million?) Soon after the 2009 Navy topic was discussed in the article in my previous posting, the Army began it's SBIR for that technology with AFTC.

Ford... again..soon after that article we only heard about "confidential" work with a european automaker. When asked by Monda I believe Ford replied "we do not discuss this type of R & D until it is made public.

Agriculture: I think John Deere said the same as Ford.


Interesting times. Bringing any one of these projects to fruition after Jim's passing would demand the most diligent work by the most competent people. Doing them all? PRICELESS! Glad Jim planned ahead for that.

Thanks AFTC Employees!

GL

That's all the opinions I have off the top of my head.

Thanks Monda.. I have done a lot of postings on environmental sites energy blogs, etc.

Here is a little history lesson on where it all started..


http://blue-fuel-dme-dialogue-info.blogspot.com/2009/07/alternative-fuel-technology-inc-making.html

AFT-STOUNDING!

GL

Excerpted without revision from the link following the quote:


"Following successful completion of Phase 2, the project may qualify for Phase 3 whereby the Company can commercialize the product and sell it to the military and commercial customers," said McCandless"



http://www.defenceindustryreports.com/news_alternative_fuel.html


Army SBIR PMO responded by email to my request about the status of the Phase 2 JP-8 work (listed on the SBIR Summary Report Portal).


Following is unedited email from SBIR (my name changed) received on January 6, 2014.. regarding the JP-8 Army Phase II work.


Mr. xxxx (Sleeperstock),

In the SBIR portal, Topic # A08-128, has been selected and is going through contracting to be awarded.

Thank You
Army SBIR PMO
The referenced Topic is the JP-8 Phase 2 SBIR

Good luck - I do realise this is not anything new, It is a reposting for those who may not have previously read the DD.

And I have posted a few forward-looking positive blurbs on here that were not directly substantiated - concurrently - with objective DD. One of the reasons i thought to make clear that my personal comments are only that.. DD speaks for itself, by definition.

I'll always be happy to respond to a board reader with a private email containing any DD that I may have posted in the past. Or, if requested, re-post it on the board.


Cheers!


Onward!

Musings



I'm about 1 day from funds available on my trading site...Happy Happy here.


Ive said many times that I am perfectly happy to see this PPS dive in the time before all doubt is removed!


My personal view when reading DD is to separate true Due Diligence (that supported by an objective link or reviewable news..often supplemented by IMHO verbiage) from a quick toss-away comment - Either positive or negative - about what the future may hold.

I have posted DD on a few occasions which I considered to have the potential effect of garnering interest and therefore a rise in PPS... even though I may have had to wait several days to get my buy in at a higher price after the posting.

Lucky for me, it seems that some readers give as much weight to a simply negative personal opinion that is left hanging there on the board with no objective substantiation as they would a simple positive personal optinion left hanging there on the board with no objective substantiation. Each may be true, but I think readers should be able to differentiate and weigh postings accordingly. There is a substantial difference between a "comment" (positive or negative) and a posting considered to be "Due Diligence".



That said, if ANYONE can post some objective negative due diligence regarding AFTC in the next couple of weeks I think it would be only fair to post it so that the PPS reflects that uncertainty and those who wish to can get bargain basement prices.

Not just a "comment"...due diligence.

I have looked and i simply cannot find any.

Good Luck To Most!

Interesting

This is an older PR but the wording of this one does resolve something that I think has been more conjecture and assumption up until now.

This clearly marries the JP-8 pump technology developed for the Army with the use of DME...

It also discusses more than the oft-refered to JP-8 SBIR work..other Army projects. Quite possible they have been doing work with the Army that was not SBIR related..Im guessing

GLTA

(may be something you all already knew?) I never really have been able to transfer the JP-8 pump directly to the pump that will be used for DME. This does just that.

GLTA!


http://frontierindia.net/ultra-high-pressure-jet-propellant-8-fuel-injection-system-contract-awarded-by-us-army#axzz2y3CnW3Xn

Monda I am gonna have a DD award made up to hang around your neck in Las Vegas...

Allow me to butcher a quote from Rev. Theodore Parker...


"The Arc of Due Diligence is Long, But it Bends Inexorably Toward AFTC's Success"


..My appologies to the memory of Rev Parker... :)

GLTA!

I find it difficult to mesh those statements with the Army assertion that "they have been selected and are in negotiations" It may just be semantics about what "completed" means. Maybe completed is that they completed what was necessary to submit the summary report?

In any case. It certainly looks promising and with no information to contradict it I'm happy to wait to see what is coming up with the first of the now formally scheduled updates and financials.

It would be difficult to imagine that they would choose to begin the new communication schedule by not having something of importance to tell the world. Why now...?

But..we will see!

I remain very hopeful.

GLTA

It is a good resource, if you look back there are just a few Army contracts listed each day.

I believe the limit on what is posted to the site is $6 million awards and higher..but will recheck to see if that is the case.

GLTA

My experience when working with that Army in negotiations for energy projects has been different than your perception.

I worked with them for 8 months to install a 100kw natural gas fired fuel cell that was, for them, free. The Connecticut company had it paid for by a DOE grant. They also installed one at 29 Plams Marine base in California... The electric company also ponied up a 30k check for energy efficiency rebate.

But as i do not know, I can only go by what the Army told me.

You may well be spot on.

The summary report is submitted at the completeion of the phase for which it was submitted.

If you look up Altermative Fuels Technology in the ortal..you will see Phase 1, marked as final, and you can hit "view" to see the summary report.

Above that you can see Phase 2 (both phases for JP-8) It has been sumbitted, but not yet maked as final.

The email that I posted was specific to the Phase 2 summary report that is listed in the SBIR contract Portal.

As of January 6, according to The Army SBIR PMO, AFTC was selected and is in negotiations.

Everyone can decide for themselves what they interpret as the meaning.