Thu, Jul 31, 2014, 9:50 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 6 hrs 10 mins


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.


  • robomax12345 robomax12345 Apr 15, 2010 6:51 PM Flag


    I know this is probably "off-topic" concerning the rest of the messages posted here, but does anyone know if the new "recycling plant" (they just grind to crumb) in LV is related to the Phoenix who is attempting a JV with GBRC? I spoke to some people in the Industry who say no, and GBRC's partner is still delaying their large pelletizing plant because of no financing. Just interested! And BTW if MITK, Bella, or anyone wants to discuss the microwave process, efficiencies, and potential problems, as I have done some time doing proper DD as Hawk could probably attest. Also, arguing or calling Hawk names doesn't change the fact both he and Joe P. were pioneers in this soon to be completed process, and I am sure they have forgotten more than most of us will ever take the time to learn about it.


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • But Hawk, you know it doesn't take any special training or skills to second guess and micro manage complex issues like these on a message board...almost anyone can do it LOL.

    • ""it doesn't work that way.""

      It doesn't work what way?

      ""the chamber surface would have to be a very specific shape""

      No, it wouldn't.

      ""the stuff holding the material (conveyor belt, grid, etc) would have to allow the energy to pass thru""

      Or be reflective, also. But either way, so what?

    • No, it doesn't work that way. The chambers would have to be 1) lined with copper, silver, or aluminum to be able to reflect the energy. If they chamber is steel or stainless steel, 80% of the energy that hits the wall just heats up the steel! 2) Even if the chamber was a low loss metal, the chamber would have to be designed to reflect the energy back into the material. Kind of like an antenna design--the chamber surface would have to be a very specific shape, and the stuff holding the material (conveyor belt, grid, etc) would have to allow the energy to pass thru.

    • ""they must be doing it to scam Phoenix, Schlumberger, Universal Alternative Fuels""

      How do you know they're not?

    • I should also mention that while it might remove 1 of the 3 strikes, it certainly wouldn't remove them all. It's not necessarily less efficient to use 2.5 GHz because the microwave energy would eventually be fully absorbed after multiple reflections inside the chamber.

    • ""10 or 20 feet later, sure it has absorbed into the material""

      hawkhogan claims that GBRC's frequencies (significantly higher than 2.5 GHz) can't penetrate the entire crumb layer in GBRC's microwave chamber at their current power levels. If his claim is false, then that would remove one of the 3 strikes against the company.

      Has anyone purchased and read Ward and Chen, 1992 or Bur, 1985? It seems like one or both of these papers might answer this question authoritatively. It would be nice to have all three axes labeled on this....

    • Tough to answer that question. Even though they have 'publicly' demonstrated their tire processing system it always seemed that they did the demo with a very small amount of material even though it was supposed to handle more. We have no idea if 'private' demos did anything differently. I seem to recall someone like Robomax reporting from friends who saw the demo that they were disappointed in not seeing the system go full bore.

      Based on their comments to date it does seem that they intend to have a throughput in the range you're mentioning. There were some specifics about that in the conference call recording.

    • I don't know anything about tires. But I do know something about shale oil and tar sands. The reason food heats up very readily in a microwave oven is that the water molecules in the food are "polar", in other words the molecule with 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen tends to align itself up with the microwave field, and then rotate 180 degrees when that field changes polarity one-half cycle later. So water molecules generate a lot of frictional force even at very low frequencies (915 and 2450 Mhz). Oil is much less polar in nature, so the little spining the oil molecules do at 2450 MHz is not enough to efficiently heat themselves up. So, the microwave energy just kind of "goes through" the stuff you are trying to heat. 10 or 20 feet later, sure it has absorbed into the material (which is why they can crack shale oil underground--after a long period of heating). But above ground, 2450 MHz kind of goes thru the material and hits the vessel wall a few feet away without much absorption.

      So it stands to reason that higher frequencies, like 8 Ghz, will absorb more in the material. Therefore, you have a more efficient process in a small confined space (an above ground reactor). The problems are that the tubes are much more expensive, and the lifetime is much lower (so they have to be replaced every 1000 hours or so instead of every 4000 hours for a 915 MHz system).

      So, I think the theory supports what Global is saying. I just want to know if they have any sort of large scale processing equipment already demonstrated? Anything that handles say 2 tons of shale an hour?

    • robomax1234, I'm definitely interested in understanding more about the efficiency of microwave generation for this type of process.

      It had always seemed reasonable to me that certain frequencies would require less power to convert ground tire crumb than other frequencies.

      However, Joe and Hawk both claim that any such advantage is completely superceded by inefficiencies involved with generating higher frequency microwaves. Compounding that problem is the fact that the equipment required to generate the higher frequencies is significantly more expensive than lower frequency (and more efficient) generators.

      Is that your current take on the situation, also? If so, do you think GBRC can recover from this constraint given the fact that their patents only cover higher frequency microwave systems?

      • 1 Reply to bellacorkie
      • Great question, but I am sure Hawk and Joe have both covered this before. Microwave efficiency has alot to do with penetration, but higher frequencies, that GBRC has patented, require much more power to obtain that penetration and therefore are less efficient. From what I have learned, power and penetration are the key, not frequency as they all seem equally effective in vibrating apart the loose C chains. I recall listening to large AM radio stations when I was a kid (very large waves) from very far away, but much closer FM stations with small wavelengths and equal power were not able to be received!


0.00010.0000(0.00%)Feb 21 10:59 AMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.