Could EDE's pyrolysis handle this if scaled up?, page-6

@Crystaltrade

Having studied chemistry at university, I know that the first thing they teach is the law of conservation of mass.

You must have studied Chemistry for Humanities. Because Conservation of Mass is Year 10 material.

Your Conservation of Mass argument is nonsense because the vast majority of methane exits the reactor unchanged. No law is broken.

Stoichiometry doesn't tell you the yield or rate of any reaction,or even whether it will even occur. It simply states what products will be produced as a result of the reaction under ideal conditions. [Many reactions never occur in the real world despite being theoretically possible.]

But I am just an anonymous poster, so a reader of this forum can choose to believe a repeated ASX vetted statement from EDE about their elegantly simple methane pyrolysis process that has been through yrs of real world usage, been developed and refined by 2 different universities, been patented and is currently being reviewed by another 3rd party;

Nobody vets the claims made in AS announcements. We've been waiting three years the worthless shell SPI to make good on the USD48M 'deal'.

Anybody with any real chemistry training would do a literature and patent survey. They would be aware is nothing particularly novel or interesting about the EDE process. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis has been around the early 1960s. Iron based catalysts are completely normal. It is just the sort of PhD research you would expect at any second/third tier university (aka all Australian universities). Patents are trivially to obtain and almost invariably totally worthless. Australian universities have a bad habit of patenting any piece of research they produce. [A former USPTO Chief Examiner once stated that less than 1 in 10,000 US patents generated significant revenue. ]