Yes, look at how little oxygen is present in the exhaust gas, verified by a "reputable" testing company. I'm assuming that this ain't hydrolysis-wouldn't hydrolysis give you roughly one third oxygen? Listen to the interview if you have the time. The inventor appears to be blithely suggesting that there is wholesale conversion of oxygen to hydrogen taking place in there. Huh what? I find it fascinating that a person with the integrative skills to produce the patents we find in his résumé, would be able to smilingly suggest that he has a machine that uses 700 watts of electric power to convert oxygen to hydrogen. Wouldn't that be a rather endothermic procedure? It increasingly feels like we are peering through a looking glass at what could mildly be described as an Alice-in-Wonderland parallel universe. Once the door is open wide enough something is bound to come through. Are you prepared to meet the Red Queen, or perhaps the Singularity that surpasses all understanding? I really want to be around to hear the Rest of the Story! Steve High
On May 3, 2014, at 1:44 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
