Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: attaboy who wrote (104)	11/19/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Howard Williams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 317

>>>it is new<<<.....I can't prove it, but I'd guess water has been hydrolyzed using high voltage and carbon rods in the past. I doubt if anyone saw value in patenting it before. >>>and it does react differently than normal hydrogen<<<......Yes, it certainly does in view of the variable amounts of CO and CO2 that are constituents of AquaFuel. So it doesn't react the same as pure hydrogen. >>>and those differences are good. Do you agree?<<<........In a word, no. ---my rationale: I have seen zero evidence that AquaFuel produced by hydrolyzing water with a Richardson-patented apparatus is in any way more economical or cleaner-burning as a vehicle or generator fuel than hydrogen produced in other, well-known, conventional manners. I'm talking end-to-end, production through consumption, total efficiency. >>>Therefore this argument is over economics.<<<.......exactly right, except I like to think it's a rational discussion as opposed to an argument. >>>OTOH most new technology is not economical in it's infancy. The issue is when and how this gas is economically viable.<<<........AND IF. This is not like transitioning from the first transistor to today's computer chips. This is like understanding about boiling water on a stove and extrapolating it to a boiler. The physics and chemistry of AquaFuel production and its use as a fuel are reasonably easy to understand by scientists in the field. In fact, I've solicited comments from independent, qualified scientists today. I await their comments. There, I've taken pains to answer your comments clearly. Now it's you turn to post substantive, credible information that shows that AquaFuel has a shot at becoming economically viable. H.W.