We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
I am closely following all the discussions on multiple forums.
I really like your judgments and their proximity to understandingthe processes that occur in reality in the hydrogen reactor "Symphony7A".
Unfortunately, according to the existing ethics in thescientific community, the authors are not encouraged to discuss about any researchresults with the media before they are published in scientific journals.
However, in order for you to understand what a great discovery GOD gave to us all please try to find answersin the following questions:
1. If the working substance in the reactor is water, howcome the output is almost only hydrogen ?
2. After splitting water where do molecules of oxygendisappear?
3. What role in stunning efficiency of "Symphony7A" plays a collective excitation of nucleons in the nuclei of atoms of oxygen?
4. Is it possible at a rate of 0.5 kW energy hour and atoperating temperature 60 degrees centigrade, to have a nuclear fission and fusion?
5 . To produce 1kg of hydrogen it is necessary to split 9liters of water, then how or in what way in this hydrogen reactor"Symphony 7A", it takes only 1 liter?
I'm an old, conservative and old fashion man.
So I can't break the tradition of the scientific community which I belong to for more than40 years .
I ask all participants to wait a little more for theoretical justification for anomalousprocesses that occur in hydrogen reactor "Symphony 7A".
All the data that we have published is within statistical error of 2-3%.
As you know every scientist cherishes its scientific reputation and his life .
Result of 1Lit. of water = 1 kg of hydrogen is a Damoklovsword for our reputation (sharp sword hovering over our heads), our lives andthe lives of people we love. We are not stupid to risk the most valuable thingswe have.
To understand how serious this is, please remember the fate of Stanley Meyer,Andrea Puharich and Francisco Pacheco, as well as a dozen other mysteriousdeaths of researchers working on the hydrogen problem.
For all those who we throw the challenge, their own profits are more important thanhappiness that will bring humanity Great Hydrogen Revolution .
If this process is safe and as efficient as claimed it would compliment FC-makers like UK-based Ceres Power Holdings. Producing H2 from water, to fuel a product like Ceres' Steel Cell FC stack could be competitive with solar+storage for residential applications. Ceres is expanding via a recent partnership with giant Cummins Power Generation. More fodder for off-grid movement. http://www.cerespower.com/t...
Great news, soon or later we'll see important shifts in the global energy production. This seem very interesting for all the industrial applications and for teleheating. I hope this blog can follow also such technology!
They're just in Menlo Park. Can somebody in the Bay Area maybe call or pop over there and check it out?
From a press release by the company."The groundbreaking technology can be used as hybrid solution for energy savings up to 95% when . . . "
95% is a little short of a COP 500 which is 50,000%.The press release is below unity, believe it.95% is the most respectable hydrogen production I have ever heard of.I think industry standard is somewhere around 35%. If they can deliver 95% they do not need any grander claims.
The cost savings numbers on their site do suggest either over-unity or a complete unfamiliarity with math and reason. I do not like to jump to conclusions, so I will not flip a coin to decide which is true.
"COP 500 which is 500%"500% would be COP 5
By god sir you are correct! 50,000% My apologies, my mind refuses to accept such an absurd percentage.
We need to know the cost of raw materials used in these 16 chemical and physical processes, and how often must they be replenished. We also need information about the reliability and stability of the process, and what will be the ongoing the cost of maintaining these 16 chemical and physical processes over time. There is insufficient information in this release to decide whether this will become a viable competitor to LENR.
For me, on the credibility scale that the technology actually works or will work of 0 to 100, Mills is around 12; Rossi is 100; SHT is like 2. I am not saying this because I am emotionally invested in Rossi, McKubre, et. al. However, SHT might have an interesting niche in the LENR world. But only if it actually works, which I still doubt.
COP is not the same thing as energy-out. Hot fusion has huge energy-out, but the energy-in is even higher. Don't be standing next to a hot fusion chamber when it goes off for it's glorious 100 milliseconds if you ever want to have children.
I just received this back from Solar Hydrogen Trends, presumably:
Just to inform you that this is not a perpetual motion device. Length 32" x Width 14" x Height 20.5" and weighs about 250 lbs. Yes, the internals/cartridges have to be replaced once every 2-3 weeks. Smaller units should be affordable for everyone.
But this is the email that I sent:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Dear Solar Hydrogen Trends,
You're not giving us much in the way of details. How long will the generator last. Is it eternal? Does it degrade? When does the internals have to be replaced. What are the dimensions of the generator? Can you give us a clue about the technology? Are you claiming a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of greater than 1? What is a ballpark figure for the cost of a generator.
Your complete lack of details or even an antiquate description makes some people very skeptical.
I guess the sender thought that telling me that it was not a perpetual motion machine was supposed to reassure me that it was real. At Length 32" x Width 14" x Height 20.5", it is either a nuclear device, like LENR, or else it is bullshit.
BachcoleThanks for the information, I was wondering about that myself. If these claims are true, It sounds like a very promising development. The best part is that it will be very difficult for the oil companies to suppress this technology, since it is based on Hydrogen, which is widely recognized as a legitimate power source.
An article at http://www.innovationtoront... says:
Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. stands by its performance claims and welcomes other independent performance measurements of its hydrogen reactor input/output by the media and leading industry experts. (Download Airkinetics Inc fuel performance test results :http://www.solarhydrogentre....
Similar to: http://www.fwfuel.com/techn...
Abundant H2 @3-4cent/kWh is nice. But most H2 energy production comes from combustion of some sort. So even if we have low cost H2, we still have to compress it, tank it, ship it, pump or pipe it into some device or other. This would help the Bloom Box SOFC product become more profitable - but there is little to no H2 infrastructure today. SOFCs are efficient and good sources of electricity -- but maintenance heavy and volatile.
Would I prefer a combustible gas system producing heat for my Stirling or FC genset - or a COP 1:6 non-combustible LENR heat source? Explosion potential of pure H2 combustion is far greater than LENR. But this will be good for micro-CHP SOFC products like the Bosch residential micro-CHP. http://www.fuelcelltoday.co...
Catalytic hydrogenation of CO2 to make alcohol might be a better option in this respect. There are many highly efficient pathways available, e.g., https://www.google.com/pate....
Morning Peter, good to see you think of the important things but ----Can they make it into a very good vintage red?
That's Great. Will need a lot to celebrate all the technology breakthroughs that seem to be coming.
Also, Well need a few shots as we procrastinate over which technology we should deploy to our homes. :-)
Bunch of old soaks. It's much too early here to be thinking of booze. At least another hour to go.
Morning fellow soaks. Lovely to think one's own exhalation could produce the next round. Note that the patent Peter cites is assigned to Batelle Memorial Inst. - the very same lab the USAF assigned to study materials recovered from Roswell NM. http://ufocon.blogspot.com/...
The fact is natural fact is natural gas (methane) distribution systems could be used. It could be morereactive to metal so the pipe may or may not need inner lining but these hare not big technical issues.In the case of the Honda and Toyota hydrogen fuel cell cars for 2015 mass production they will havean on board hydrogen tank refueled by home or commercial stations. I don't share the level of concern.
Right. This would help FC automobiles. Except if one can recharge an EV for pennies, why buy H2? And why expose oneself to highly combustible H2?
As we get closer to the E-Cat six month report these late technological breakthrough claims, demonstrations, and announcements appear to be surfacing more frequently. Its word has disseminated to comparable scientific and technological companies causing their investors' angst. Their strategy to provide perhaps exaggerated claims of their devices lessens the LENR impact as an alternate fuel source compared to their own.
This certainly is not meant to cast dispersions on new promising energy technologies but to offer perspective in the timeline of the claims and their proportional benefits to society. The more promising energy participants will not only certainly drive down costs and increase availability but also provide a means to merge those technologies with flexibility and combine the strengths of each for a variety of uses. Case in point: the Solar Hydrogen system mentioned here driven by LENR energy could generate unlimited hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell stations (no fuel trucks just filtered tap water and additives). Hydrogen fuel cells provide on-demand quick electrical current to electric motors whereas LENR is not an on-demand power source since it cannot be turned on/off at will but could provide cheap continuous energy to the Solar Hydrogen system. The combined scenarios are limitless.
Unfortunately they do not provide enough information to evaluate what they are doing. The claim of 2700 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour also should mean 1350 cubic feet per hour of oxygen produced as well, but they claim the output to be close to 94% hydrogen. This means the oxygen is leaving the system in another form other than as a gas. It could be that they also produce H2O2 or some type of hydroxide such as NaOH. What the other chemicals they produced are exactly matters, as they could be producing toxic waste as well as hydrogen, too little information provided to tell. They claim a cost of $1.80 to produce the output and use .5kWh of electricity, so they are using approximately $.05 worth of electricity and $1.75 worth of other consumables per hour. These prices are today's prices. When scaled up to produce energy on a global scale, scarcity of the unnamed consumables could easily raise the price of production. Until more information is provided the viability of this process to be a global scale energy producer is a complete unknown.
To me it seemed like the O2 was low as well. I suspect some sort of hydroxide production process, possibly with ammonia is being used, with byproduct H. The output volume is consistent with oxidation of aluminum to aluminum hydroxide. Perhaps somehow they have figured out how to reverse part of the process electrically in combination with additional catalysts. The question is then what other products beside the gases are there, if any, and how long the system can be run without replacing materials other than water.
It is either a misunderstanding or disinformation of some kind. Perhaps it is a test to see how gullible the ECW peanut gallery is. Whenever I try to tell people on the Internet about the E-Cat or LENR in general (or homeopathy), they like to educate me because they think that I am stupid.
I don't think it's very likely that anyone would be be too interested in our collective gullibility or otherwise, and as disinfo it would be weak in the extreme if it can't be backed up in any way. If the system works as claimed, and the cost and availability of consumables is acceptable (critical), then in due course they can slug it out in the marketplace, like anyone else trying to get something new accepted.
My own suspicion is that increasing knowledge of the reality of LENR, and its likely imminent disclosure, is now forcing the hands of others in the 'new energy' arena, who need to try to grab a slice of the pie before Rossi's LENR takes all. This has (apparently) already caused BLP to try to grab some headlines, and it is to be expected that others will do the same (hopefully with rather more justification).
??? http://www.esolarenergynews... ???
Did the NSA put this out to test how stupid we are: "Solar Hydrogen Trends' reactor provides high-yield hydrogen cheaply and efficiently, making 1 kg of hydrogen from 1 liter of water at the cost of only 25 cents!" One liter of water weighs EXACTLY 1 kilogram. So, how does one get 1 kilogram of hydrogen out of 1 kilogram of water MINUS the oxygen? My skepticism is beginning to go ape-shit. Perhaps there is some kind of miscommunication or typo somewhere, but I won't be losing any sleep due to excitement on this one. I patiently await more reliable and reasonable information.
"1 kg of hydrogen from 1 liter of water " only appears in the press release, and these obviously inaccurate figures are not repeated on the website or in the PDF. The actual theoretical maximum yield of hydrogen from 1 litre of water would be 111g. I assume that some technically illiterate copywriter dreamed up the numbers you quote - I hope they issue a correction quickly, or the whole thing will look pretty ridiculous. I've followed your lead and emailed Jack Karayan to see what is actually being claimed, and I'll copy any reply here if he allows this.
I notice that in the press release relating to your invention, the claim is made that the reactor produces 1 kg hydrogen from 1 litre of water. However the maximum theoretical yield of hydrogen from 1 litre of water is actually 111g, the bulk of the mass being oxygen. I wonder if you would be kind enough to clarify this apparent disparity for me?
My second question is, what happens to the oxygen? As you don't specify oxygen gas released, can I assume that it is chemically reacted during the process, producing a relatively large amount of chemical waste? If so, can this waste product be recycled to return the reactants to usable condition, or does the process require large quantities of chemical feedstock of some kind?
Thank you in advance for your reply. I would like if possible to copy your answer to a blog at http://www.e-catworld.com/2... where the press release has given rise to considerable speculation. If you do not wish this, please let me know.
With best regards,
I have now received a reply of sorts to my email above, from Prof. Balakiryan of SHT. It appears to be a generic reply, presumably in response to many similar enquiries.
Unfortunately it doesn't actually answer either of the questions I sent, and in fact poses a few more, citing publishing ethics as the reason for this. Not too helpful I'm afraid.
I really like your judgments and their proximity to understanding the processes that occur in reality in the hydrogen reactor "Symphony 7A".
Unfortunately, according to the existing ethics in the scientific community, the authors are not encouraged to discuss about any research results with the media before they are published in scientific journals.
However, in order for you to understand what a great discovery God gave to us all please try to find answers in the following questions:
1. If the working substance in the reactor is water, how come the output is almost only hydrogen ?
2. After splitting water where do molecules of oxygen disappear?
3. What role in stunning efficiency of "Symphony 7A" plays a collective excitation of nucleons in the nuclei of atoms of oxygen?
4. Is it possible at a rate of 0.5 kW energy hour and at operating temperature 60 degrees centigrade, to have a nuclear fission and fusion?
5. To produce 1kg of hydrogen it is necessary to split 9 liters of water, then how or in what way in this hydrogen reactor "Symphony 7A", it takes only 1 liter?
Konstantin Balakiryan PhD, Professor"
Looks like we'll need to wait to learn any more about this. One for the 'back burner' I think.
Making 1 kg of hydrogen from 1 liter of water - 25 cents!
Your commentary, priceless!
It looks like Info-war. Sorry.
This in any case a huge achievement. Congratulations. This is probably a LENR technology, because otherwise how would arise so much energy? If the introduction of LENR other solutions will be slow, it could be a temporary solution.
You are assuming that it is real. I checked out the website also. It is a problem for my willingness to believe when someone is extraordinarily vague. This makes Rossi at his worse seem positively Open Source.
I wonder if the skeptopaths are going to go ape-shit over this. There is no replication. There is no pictures. There is no discussion about the technology. But the inventors are not foolish enough to use the words "nuclear" or "cold fusion". So, we will see. Other than those two words/phrases, this announcement is skeptopath bait, or at least it should be.
Perhaps this "public" announcement is a way for them to get around insider trading laws; they announce it to the world, except only people who know them and perhaps even are related to them and EVEN sleep with them, literally, are going to rush out and buy stock in their company. As it stands, they show MUCH less than Rossi ever showed. Even the worst demo by Rossi is better than this announcement.
Having said all of that, I believe them, and I believe that they have something of value. Almost certainly the input in solar. I am emotionally invested in Andrea Rossi, so my initial reaction to this announcement was that of threat. Now I say more power to them. Good for them! Way to go! There will probably be a place in the future for this technology. Unfortunately for them, the math is with LENR. But one thing is for sure, the math and the technology is NOT with ALL of the conventional energy sources that we have now, except perhaps with natural gas for a while.
Creating Hydrogen from water is not cold fusion from my understanding. This appears to be a Stan Meyers type of invention where they are more readily able to break the bonds of water using 16 processes simultaneously. Sounds like they've researched every possible angle on breaking water down and added it to the mix.
Let's hope they don't meet a Stan Meyers fate... The autopsy stated it was a cerebral aneurysm that killed him, but the timing still remains fishy. He was slated for a major demonstration the following day. There are conspiracy theorists who say he was murdered. Google it...
And an E-Cat will only need picograms of hydrogen. PSAnd World War III will make all of this a moot point.
A chemical process is impossible. You cannot make energy, unless you 'consume' something (like e.g. aluminium), but then you should include the use of metal and acids in the price, which they may have done for 'small' quantities. Another method would be a kind of bichemical solar process as Frank assumes. If they have developed this well sought after process, then they have gold in their hands. Let's wait and see.
And what about BLP process? Because of Nitrogen in protocol KNO3 cold be a catalyst. And what about Zn(NO3)2 catalyst? Zn have great potencial to be BLP catalyst.
OK let's be careful here. They claim only 500 Wh electrical input and over 200 kWh (equivalent) output in the form of pure hydrogen, which is the best chemical source of energy you can get.
They do NOT say that the electric energy is the only energy provided. In fact they state a combination of 16 chemical and physical processes under the hood. So in a thorough energy balance equation the input side includes the 500 Wh electrical but also all the chemical energy and other energy released by those 16 processes. They may be burning methane as part of the process for all we know. So they are not claiming over-unity and they are not claiming COP 400.
Their actual concrete claim of 221.5 kWh for $1.80 is more important. That works out to less than 1 cent per kWh (most consumers pay around 10 times that for electricity). Factor in conversion and other inefficiencies and you're probably up to 3 cents per kWh.
If we had an existing hydrogen infrastructure that would be very attractive. Alas we don't and 3 cents per kWh is not going to win in the LENR era.
Excellent analysis. As you say, the actual cost of the product (hydrogen) is the most important factor, but it is far from clear whether the $1.80 includes consumables other than electrical input, or takes account of the energy cost of such consumables, or of waste recycling costs. Unless the oxygen (for instance) is released as a gas, then you are going to consume large quantities of chemical feedstock in order to absorb it, and end up with at least an additional 900g or so of oxidised chemical waste for every litre of water consumed. If this can't be quickly and easily recycled in a way that doesn't consume significant extra energy (e.g., for heating) then the system may not be viable.
Until there is additional data available, this is another one for the 'wait and see' category I think.
By my calculations, if the reactor is only one foot deep, the surface area would be 260 square meters. My understanding is that the Sun gives us one kW per square meter (a very nice coincidence). So the Sun would be whacking the generator at 260,000 watts during sunny days, and the generator is creating 221,500 watts during sunny days. Add the 500 watts from electricity, and the COP becomes 221,500 divided by 260,500, which would be a very impressive .85. Not too shabby.
The question comes to my mind, how long will the generator last. Is it eternal? Does it degrade? When does the internals have to be replaced.
If the generator is more shallow than 1 foot, then my calculations would have to change. But then the foot print becomes more problematic. But for a solar generator, well, they other guys better be scrambling. But this assumes that it is all true.
Given the complete lack of anything that is remotely close to a description or the technology, and being a little difficult to understand, frankly, I must in all good faith be a little skeptical.
Hi Bachcole, (see last sentence from Franks article:) the mini hydrogen reactor model measures: Length 32″ x Width 14″ x Height 20.5″ and weighs 250lbs.32" is 0.8 meter and 14" is 0.36 meter, so the surface is less than 0.30 square meters.
The reactor itself could have virtually any active surface area, depending on numbers of plates/layers, surface folding or etching, granulation, irregularity etc. etc.