One of the quotes that seems really impressive, provided it is accurate, is:
"Every hour, the first commercial version will turn 10 tons of auto
waste-tires, plastic, vinyl-into enough natural gas to produce 17 million
BTUs of energy (it will use 956,000 of those BTUs to keep itself running). "
That would be an incredible way to recover the energy from the massive
amounts of trash that is clogging our landfills. Imagine if this works and
we have them at every landfill and junk yard in the country. Later on, it
could be used around the world. Turning asphalt, water bottles, plastic
bags, tires, vinyl, etc into new energy or even just turning them into new
products if necessary would be a huge benefit.
Ron Purvis wrote:
> Anyone have thoughts about Frank Pringle's invention? I found it at
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html as one of the
> innovators of the year. His machine is supposed to extract oil or natural
> gas out of just about anything that has hydrocarbons in just a few seconds.
Clearly it's largely nonsense (at least as reported) but there may be a grain of
truth hidden in there.
Graham
I read the article in Popular Science Magazine (I'm a subscriber) but don't
recall much of what was written about pollution. The name of the company
is Global Resource Corp (GBRC.PK) and trades for about $2 on the OTC.
"Much learning does not teach a man to have intelligence." -- Heraclitus
====================================================
"Ron Purvis" <am...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OQs2j.2675$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Ron Purvis wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Ron Purvis wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone have thoughts about Frank Pringle's invention? I found it at
> >> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html as one of
> >> the innovators of the year. His machine is supposed to extract oil or
> natural
> >> gas out of just about anything that has hydrocarbons in just a few
> >> seconds.
> >
> > Clearly it's largely nonsense (at least as reported) but there may be a
> > grain of truth hidden in there.
>
> Can you please explain why it is largely nonsense as reported? This is not
> an area that I have a great degree of knowledge in so I may not know enough
> to see what you see wrong with it.
Well, the 'seconds later' is clearly complete nonsense. It's what I've come to
expect from the 'media' these days of course. Not one newspaper, magazine or
broadcaster employs anyone who's technically competent any more.
I suspect the near mystical role of microwaves in the process that the article
suggests is largely rubbish too. I imagine it's simply thermal decomposition.
Graham