Hello, attaboy. I have been encouraging Howard to comment on TOUP, and I hope that the answers to his questions will help clear up the general skepticism that any such potentially monumental discovery as this would be likely to raise.
The following phrase from the May report, section 1.12, "Insufficiencis of Presentation," speaks to a concern that a couple of my physicist type friends have raised.
>>We should finally indicate that this presentation is specifically restricted to the certification of AquaFuel at ìbelow-unitî conditions, that is, at conditions under which the ratio between the energy contained in AquaFuel EAF, Out and the electrical energy input EEl, In is smaller than one, EAF, Out / EEl., In < 1. <<
What this means, I think, is that more energy is being put into the process of creating Aquafuel than is being produced by it. In order for Aquafuel to be commercially viable on a large scale, it would seem that this is a major concern which must be addressed if Aquafuel is to become economically viable for the replacement of gasoline and heating oil, for example. Unless, of course, we are looking at prducing Aquafuel merely as a by-process of cleaning waste water, etc. Or unless the fuel produced is so valuable as to be worth much more than the cost of energy required to produce it.
Of course this is just a quote from the very first report on Aquafuel and the company has a lot more work to do on the production process.
Finally, as Mark Clancy pointed out, it is useful to remember that TOUP is in the process of commercializing many technologies. Aquafuel is only one of those. |
