New invention.

[Slick]

The article mentions reverse osmosis. Not sure why it mentions it, but it does. Reverse osmosis is real and it works great. I wonder what the author's point is.

Slick.

[dogscoff]

Just what we need- a cheaper and more efficient way to grinf up the bones and offal of animal carcasses and feed tham back to other animals.

BSE, foot & mouth- have we learned nothing?

[freduk]

I have also no idea why it mentions reversed osmosis. The machine has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, the machine sucks. From what I get from the article, which I read haphazardly, it only grinds stuff, wow what an achievement.

And that it would produce more energy is also a joke, it simply grinds stuff, with leaves us with the same matter, only in smaller particles, but it has added a lot of hot air and other energy into it, which gives us a net energy loss.

[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 ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Sounds like some kind of trick or miss-understanding by the reporter and possibly even deception by the inventor.

On the other hand according to the company website (History Page) testing was done at the University of Maryland so there might be some truth to the fact.

http://www.vortexdehydration.com/

[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.