New invention.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Hmm, that�s very strange? The first time I clicked the link and read the article I clearly remember something being mentioned about reverse osmosis but I dismissed it. Then I closed the link and read the rest of the Posts here, after finding and doing a little reading at the company�s website I made my post below. Now when I go back to the MSNBC article I can�t find any reference to reverse osmosis? Does anyone else see it? Or did they edit the article? I think they edited it as it reads a little different now, but I can�t put my finger on what that difference is.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Or did they edit the article? I think they edited it as it reads a little different now, but I can�t put my finger on what that difference is.

I think they edited the article. Probably got some emails from readers along the same lines as our discussion here and decided to take it out for clarity. It doesn't really fit the pattern of the other techs mentioned since it is a real functioning technology despite being a little over-hyped at times.

[Baron Munchausen]

Even if it works, this is not quite the 'big deal' that they seem to make it out to be. The 'standard' process of grinding something up uses big rollers or 'gears' that smash things between them. These wear out and have to be replaced, yes. But this thing has got to have 'wear and tear' as well. The stuff you dump into it is banging against the insides. What happens when it finally pounds a hole in itself? Replace the whole machine? It might be a nifty innovation but this does not automatically make it commercially viable.

[geoschmo]

Aye, well that's "the rub" as they say. I would imagine though that the life span of one of these vortex devices would be orders of magnitude longer then a grinder. No moving parts for one. And the objects inside are spinning around so contact with the sides is glancing blows instead of hitting at right angle vectors to the wall. A lot would depend on what you are putting in it too. It sounds like they are talking mostly about organic and semi-organic waste. I would think you would probably prefer to sort out metals and other hard objects to be recycled via melting.

Don't think of this as a universal dispos-all machine. Just think of this thing as a replacement for the burning or landfill that is the typical end result of the organic portion of the waste stream.

But sure in the end, like anything else it's gonna wear out. Someday the pyramids will be sand dunes too.

[ April 26, 2004, 17:37: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[geoschmo]

The reason the article mentions reverse osmosis is that that is a technology that has historically been over-hyped my marketing folks trying to make a buck off gullible people. The basis for RO is a real functioning technology. It's being used in many coastal areas where fresh water supplies are scarce and therefore very expensive. But it's often billed as some sort of magical technology that turns seawater into drinking water at little or no cost and with little or no negative impact on the environment.

In fact RO desalination is an expensive process. Much more so then simply pumping fresh water out of a natural aquifer. Of course in areas where natural aquifers are unavailable, or insufficent for the population level, the cost of alternative methods of filtration, or conventional fresh water transportation eventually reaches a point where RO becomes economically feasible.

There is also some significant evidence that RO can have some pretty drastic environmental impact. Raising the salt levels of the water in the coastal area immedietly around the desalination plant can have effects that we don't really understand yet. Recent studies indicate the problem might be worse then we thought.

It's a proven tech though, and despite it's flaws is crucial in some circumstances. It's just not the magic pill some have made it out to be.

[geoschmo]

Also, the article doesn't say the machine produces energy. What it is saying is the machine seems to do work that would take much more energy then is actually being put into it. In fact that is obviously impossible. The people saying that simply don't understand the process that is going on. They make a false assumption, and therefore reach a false conlusion. It's like how people have always said it's impossible for a bumble bee to fly. But it wasn't really impossible, we just didn't have a thourough understanding of the aerodynamic principles involved.

This is actually a pretty exciting new application of an old process. It could significantly improve the environment if it helps us dispose of waste products more efficently.

[ April 26, 2004, 12:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]