Toups Technology Licensing, Inc (TOUP) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Toups Technology Licensing, Inc (TOUP)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Buster who wrote (97)	11/19/1998 12:05:00 PM
From: Howard Williams	of 317

Buster and attaboy.....reading the Richardson patents is worth doing. Use IBM patent server at: patents.ibm.com Go to alternate searches and pick search by number. US5435274 and US5792325 give the constituents of AquaFuel (hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide) that come from pyrolyzing water and cover his pyrolyzing apparatus designs. An electric arc is discharged across carbon electrodes, forming a plasma. The gases recombine to form the AquaFuel constituents. All true. Adding in US5692459 and US5826548 rounds out the AquaFuel story by patenting using AquaFuel to power vehicles and run electrical power generators without releasing harmful emissions. All valid claims. Burning hydrogen mixed with some CO and CO2 (AquaFuel) with air produces CO2 and water and a little CO. Absolutely true. So Richardson has patents on the production and use of AquaFuel. No question about it. But that's not all that's important. What's extremely important is finding out how much electrical energy is consumed in the water pyrolyzer to produce AquaFuel and then comparing that with the energy that can be used to run a vehicle or an electrical generator by combusting the AquaFuel with air. The numbers I've seen suggest that about $20 worth of electricity is consumed to produce 1000 cubic feet of AquaFuel that contains about 20% more energy (upon combustion with air) than hydrogen produced by other means. That's pricey gas, I believe. They suggest that an optimized apparatus will be much more efficient. That remains to be seen. The pyrolysis process is very straightforward. X amount of electrical power produces Y amount of plasma at 5000 deg C and it recombines to produce Z amount of AquaFuel. There may not be much room for improvement over what they've achieved already. Bottom line: They have valid patents on something that is scientifically correct but which, IMHO, is unlikely to make sense economically. I think the process consumes more energy than you get out. This is not rocket science or quantum mechanics or general relativity. Attaboy....check through all your stuff, including Santilli's. My recollection is that they have never given a good economic argument based on energy in/energy out. I'll be happy to comment on anything substantive you post and will eat crow in a minute if I'm wrong. I think I remember comments in Toups/Santilli stuff that they're addressing the scientific basis first [clearly that has to be done] and they'll work the economics when the process development is complete. That's ducking the issue, IMHO. No crystal ball is required to understand water pyrolysis as a method to produce a hydrogen-dominated gas and understand its market value. I have not studied any of the other TOUP product lines at all......they apparently have several. Looking forward to substantive "product value vs production cost" extracts from Toups/Santilli being posted here, H.W.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next