I checked this with my big brother (even adults call their big brothers to help with homework, it seems!), a physics PhD with 25 years experience (most recently as Chief Scientist) at a mid-size (500 employee), reputable, science-based company.
His take is much the same as yours: start with water, end with water, you ain't gonna get any great whack of energy out of it <gg>.
Moreover, he read (and forwarded to me) the patent app - it should be said also he has extensive experience with filing and researching patents, as the business generates a lot of them - and he was struck by several things:
- it is not the most professional patent app, to put it kindly, sort of like almost like the FAQ page <gg>
- it mentions NO prior art, highly unusual - and there certainly is prior art, other patents in this area, and it should be referenced
- it makes no mention of patenting method (ie. new understanding of why and how this works), but rather only the apparatus itself
- while there are indeed the two forms of hydrogen mentioned, he fails to see how the simple apparatus mentioned has any bearing on the ability to produce either or a mixture of both at will by simply varying the mix of power supplied to the coil or the anodes; this looks highly suspect
- he finds it interesting that providing pulsed power to the coil, etc (RF frequency for the coil, much lower for the anodes) solves the problem of the hydrogen bubbles sticking to the producing device rather than freely escaping for capture (and also insulating the producing device, lowering its efficiency), but also finds it surprising nobody would have tried that before. Not saying it works or doesn't but it raises more questions to him.
In his mind all this recalled the cold fusion furor.
People are saying "hey, it was demonstrated to the exchange before the agree o take the halt off". Demonstrating it to the exchange is a very mild form of review indeed: I can't imagine they have the capabilities or interest to peer review it, but rather need at least to know it's not a total lie. Even patent apps don't review the efficacy - or whether in fact it works as its purported to - but really more to ensure the method or physical apparatus is patentable (unique, distinct, etc). A number of perpetual motion machines have been patented over the years...
And this is, after all, only at the application stage, no? It hasn't even been approved yet.
All in all, it's not where my money is going. I'm too nervous of it as a momo stock, either long or short. I'll just watch, I guess.
Cheers
WUWT |
