Talk:Aquanator

Advert?
Is this just an advert? Fig 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair question but I don't think so. It is factual and sourced. TerriersFan 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It obviously is an advertisement. I certainly wouldn't call it factual. In one sentence the author claims it produces 100 kW, then in the immediately following senence claims 1 MW. Also, it makes the common error of mistaking units of power and energy. IE it claims to make "100 kW of energy" where a kW is a unit of power, and also says a current of 2.5 knots yields 7 kWhr without defining a time scale. I agree with the poster who says numbers don't add up. This article should be removed in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.235.133 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, the term "Aquanator" appears 24 times in an article barely a page long. This is quite obviously an advertisement. 128.84.221.170 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Aquanator and its ilk
I agree with the above comment. At a meeting in the Centre for Alternative Energy recently I listened to the discussion of a similar device to tap into the energies of the ocean currents flowing between Certain Scottish islands. Of far greater mass than wind these currents can provide an immense torque in turbines driven by them, potentially allowing a vast energy harvest. The only snag I could see was what if the current moved after you built your plant as in changes to the North Atlantic drift etc due to ice melt up north. One to watch and encourage I feel.Ethicalafforestation 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture
The picture was an obscene and idiotic spoof! 163.244.62.121 19:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up
While these guys are happy yo take the early bonus from the floating of shares, the numbers don't add up. If this technology is capable of the performance claimed then the turbine would be producing many times more in efficiency terms then the most efficient turbine ever invented. Most water turbines have efficiencies around 20% - 25% with with some shrouded turbines achieving 60% - however to produce the power claimed from this device the efficiency would need to be nearly 300%. 202.169.176.118 (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Aquafoil"
By convention, an foil defined for use underwater is termed a "hydrofoil". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.50.91 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aquanator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706102258/http://www.brandarchitecture.com.au/1/smart_files/Issue_2_final.pdf to http://www.brandarchitecture.com.au/1/smart_files/Issue_2_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquanator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027031725/http://atlantisresourcescorporation.com/about-atlantis/history.html to http://www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com/about-atlantis/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)