Axil-- Where did you find the information about the use of TETA? If it is in the third party report details, it seems those are only available with a NDA.
It (TETA) does not show up in the cover page of the full report and Sterling Alan, regarding his interview with SHT, does not mention it, TMK. Alan only seems to think H2O is used up. The interview with SHT does question the source of N, however, it is dismissed by SHT as being a contamination from an unknown source. I did not see or hear anything in the interview that addressed the Ar. It seems I must be missing some of the report in the link you provided or not have fully digested the interview with SHT. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Oxygen to hydrogen? Take a look at the third party test results. http://pesn.com/2014/04/29/9602478_Solar-Hydrogen-Trends_revolutionizing-all-energy/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf I could not find how long this test ran. On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 12:07 AM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 2 May 2014 16:28:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> How much energy does it take to make TETA? Its an old radioactive >> chelating agent and not cheap used in decontamination. However, it >> production costs may have improved since the time we used it >> > >US $20-22 / *Liter* *( FOB Price)* >800 Liters *(Min. Order)* > >The economic flaw in this system is the cost of the consumables. I wonder if they have taken into account all possible sources of energy in the system? The temperatures available during cavitation would likely catalyze any chemical reaction that was energetically possible, and then there is the energy from ultrasound generators etc. as well. I don't expect that the latter would contribute much, however the chemical energy could be considerable. I would like to see a proper accounting, especially given the claim that they can get 1 kg H2 from 1 kg H2O. That claim is most likely a simple mistake, but might be true if the Hydrogen is also coming from other chemicals in the mix. In order for it to be true for only water, they would have to be converting all the Oxygen into Hydrogen too, which apparently is what they believe is happening. If so, then they are being extraordinarily wasteful. In order to split Oxygen into Hydrogen you need to supply roughly the binding energy of Oxygen which is about 127,000,000 eV. Having spent 127,000,000 eV converting Oxygen into Hydrogen, they then get back about 12 eV in chemical energy, when the Hydrogen is burnt using atmospheric oxygen, about 1 part in 10 million of the energy input. They might do better to find a means of tapping the original energy source more directly. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
