They had better be based on sound scientific principles. These are cutting edge work done by real scientists, not conspiracy theory spouting over-unity crackpots.

That's why I posted it.

the third article nailed it.

it has huge implications for the field of industrial chemical conversion process

..score one for nano tech?

.. i be watching this one.

First I have to apologize :my formal education is very poor [my english as well!], but I think that the main question shouldn't be the effiency of the specific device,the question is little more complex:The cost of the device is a very important factor, there are some devices that by mass production their price will lower,others the price might even rise ,if for the manufacturing will be precious materials be used,and this might rise their price!The feasibility depends too on the oil prices,and no one can tell how they will be.But there are less suphisticated technologies, but still scientific based,I refer to technologies to use wind energy to convert sea water into hydrogen,to utilyze storm energy could be done at night and at arctic regions,were the storms are stronger.4 kw could be gained per 1 square meter!The question is now who will dare to invest now in such technology

Chemistry is a deep, fascinating, mystical subject - a subject where you can be incredibly creative and imaginative. Material science, physical chemistry...etc. Love it.

Very interesting concepts I must admit. Yet, I am rather puzzled that none of the articles talked about issues of fouling during use. There is also no mention of the stability of performance - meaning for how long each one functioned before losing its functionality. Finally, the time factor in production setting was not addressed.

I note these not to be a master pessimist, but rather to highlight that "concept validation" does always equate to "commercial viability". I remember the early 1980s when semiconductors were going to be all silicon-gallium layers that would let PCs operate at extremely fast speeds; funny though after all these years, the speed is coming more from architecture designs innovations than from silicon-gallium layers chip.

Just thinking I suppose.

These were definitly just puff pieces, more than in depth study, most likely we won't see anything on a commercial level for 15-20 years... I note these not to be a master pessimist, but rather to highlight that "concept validation" does not always equate to "commercial viability". This is probably what you meant.

I posted a question a while back on electrolysis as a way to produce Hydrogen from separating water. But this entailed several steps and produced little Hydrogen even the most elaborate systems designed. Since then I have been reading up on Stan Myers and his process on fracturing water molecules. The science behind his design is straight forward and simple. I believe that the time spent on nanotechnology sciences should be adapted to utilizing the design of Stan Myers work to produce Hydrogen cheaply and inexpensively. If this were to happen I believe our oil based economy could radically be changed within a period of under two years. Look into this and see what could be the future of our energy. Gary Karm out...

You are on the wrong forum, at least the wrong thread: http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/35169?frmtrk=cr4sd&Pg=2#comment372033

If you have data present it?

You pop up from time to time with this nonsense

Why are you here?

Stan Myers was a fraud and his work thrown out. Please do not post this again.

I must say when you stated this I was not sure what or how you could have come to this conclusion. I typed the statement in and was taken back at what I read. You are correct. But please do not dismiss me for not knowing the full story. It was my understanding from my limited sources that there were aspects that were never fully revealed. My mistake. I will make this last statement short and maybe you and everybody else can understand my point of view. Back when I was in my freshmen year of collage I approached my chemistry professor with what I thought was a rather simple question. I asked " Professor X I have this Idea" My father's house has a swimming pool and he goes through a lot of chlorine to keep the water clean.... Is it or what would it take to separate plain salt into sodium and chlorine? The professor thought awhile and said that it would take to much energy and that it could not be done on a commercial level like I know you have in mind. She said this because at that age I was riding the lighting in my mind and it was not uncommon for me to ask such semi-relevant questions after class. So I basically accepted the wisdom of what she told me and did not think of it until some ten years later. Ten years later I was over at a friends house helping him clean his pool and in the circulation line of his pump system was a device that did an dose just that it produces chlorine and caustic soda through low voltage electrolysis. The only thing about the chlorine is that the quality is not as stable as commercial chlorine. I do not own a pool but the point is it was possible and is possible. So Stan Myers work was said to be bogus. Yes. But the idea of the pure and instantaneous separation of Hydrogen from Oxygen in a water molecule can not be done. I believe that any sane person would in this day and age have to believe that not only is it possible but that is was meant to be possible. Man has in his/her collective minds have achieved far greater things, along this line of thought, the pure and instantaneous separation of Hydrogen from Oxygen in a water molecule. Would you agree??? So, my belief in poor dead Stan Myers concept should not be discounted and asked to leave this forum based on a few simple words from you or anyone else. The real question in my mind is just this why has somthing as simple... yes simple. Why has this not already been accoumplished??? I thank you for allowing me to voice this in your forum. Scincerely, Gary Karm out....