«

»

Hydrogen Production Breakthrough ? Update 4

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinby feather

 

Kudos to Sterling Allan for his report from observing the test run of the SHT’s “Symphony Hydrogen Generator”.  Although we among many others point out Sterling’s failure to ask the hard questions or challenge claims in the past, I was impressed with the way he handled this observation given his limited technical knowledge. 

IMage sht

Photo Credit Sterling Allan Peswiki

Sterling made some excellent suggestions like doing the old bottle in water gas measuring trick. I have been involved in a lot of hydrogen testing over the years in some very sophisticated labs and we have often reverted to that technique. Their rejection of trying this raises more Red Flags, in other words the BS meter is pegged..

Sterling also observed the heat in the tank which of course is a dead give away of the chemical reaction. The majority of the Hydrogen is not from the “electrical input” but form a straight forward chemical reaction using a metal or metal hydride. This combined with the significantly reduced output leads to only one conclusion. It is really on the company to get their act together.

So to you Sterling, my angelic nemesis, well done.

 

The following are some highlights from Sterling’s coverage with some comments from myself in blue. 

Demo Ready, Testers Not

You know the phenomenon that the quality of a movie is inversely proportional to the number of big-name stars in it? Well, it seems that this principle was in play on Friday. The big players each thought the other was going to perform, so they were not prepared to do what they came to do. I was there as an “observer”, not as a tester. (create a smoke screen to confuse everyone)
It turns out that the Kennedyesque group who was there as the primary group to test the device did not bring any gas flow measurement equipment. All they had was a high-end hydrogen ratio sensor, which they couldn’t get to work. They guessed that the chlorine gas from the swimming pool next to the demo apparatus fouled the sensor.
No radiation detecting equipment was present.(this is a real red flag over site given some of the theories put forward) 

Shen, from AirKinetics, didn’t bring any test equipment, either, because his understanding was that he was there as an “observer”. Jack couldn’t get a second third-party test group lined up. (I know Jack had several offers from other groups, companies and individuals to design and perform such tests, another big red flag)  So all we had was an anemometer, which wouldn’t even turn when placed in front of the ~1¼-inch opening (see video), though it would turn with the slightest breeze in the air.

The anemometer that Jack had required a minimum air flow of 186 cubic feet per minute before it would begin measuring accurately — over a 1″+ pipe opening. The highest rate of flow that AirKinetics had reported was 82 ACFM, with an input power of nearly double what they were running on Friday. Even though I was supposed to be just and observer, I had an idea.

Sitting outside there with us, we had a 2-liter beverage bottle and several 5-gallon buckets, and hose — everything we needed to do a flow rate measurement by filling the 2-liter bottle with water, inverting it, taking the cap off, and running the gas into it, and timing how long it takes for the gas to reach the “2-liter” mark near the top of the bottle (bottom, when inverted), being sure to hold the bottle in such a way that the water level in the bottle is near the top of the water level in the 5-gallon bucket, so as to not introduce any positive or negative pressure on the gas. Most everyone I have talked to has said this method, though somewhat archaic, is very accurate, notwithstanding the simplicity of the components involved. Those who agree with this include the Kennedyesque guys, Shen, my dad (atomic clock physicist), Tai and Fred Robinson, who install hydrogen/natural gas retrofits on vehicles for a living. Two liters of gas of any kind is going to fill 2 liters of space, by definition. And the time it takes to fill that space will give you “liters per minute”. (Excellent suggestion by Sterling and would give a reasonably accurate reading)

However, the inventor flatly refused to use such a “barbaric” method. “It’s like comparing a donkey to a Ferrari. I only want professional methods employed.” And his business partner, Kirill Gichunts, who had flown in from the Ukraine for the event, agreed that employing such a methodology for measuring flow rate would not play well among the scientific community. (this is the largest red flag of all. I have worked with some of the most brilliant scientists and engineers in their field and I have never encountered this attitude before. More often than not any makeshift method will suffice especially when the test equipment is in question)

Konstantine insisted that only “professional” methods be used to measure his device. (nothing wrong with the old water displacement test. I guess doing the test in someones backyard near the swimming pool is also very scientific lol)

Well done Sterling, I take my hat of to you.

For the full story: http://pesn.com/2014/05/19/9602501_Questioning_EPA-Certified-Lab_Test-Results_that_Concluded_Massive-Overunity_on_SHT-Technology/

Revolutions_Greens Previous Coverage

It has been a month since we updated the Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc claim to making 1 kgs of hydrogen out of a liter of water. So this up date is in two parts, some information I have gathered followed by their recent press release.

The following are bits and pieces I can share that has been gathered by different parties I know who are dealing with them directly. Some are under NDA so I am limited in what I can discuss. We have also had in the past some emails from their science people.

Jack

Jack Aganyan

1. There is anotehr consumable involved which has to be replaced frequently. (that explains what we knew was impossible , so the other consumable is obviously the primary source of hydrogen.

2. There is another country and institution that the IP is shared with and or have a interest in the project.

3. They have been seeking rather large funds in a very naive way.

4. They only have one test they are using as the official independent verification.

 

5. Efforts are underway by at least one third party to fund and have a credible institution/organisation verify the test. this should happen in the next few weeks.

 

In summary: it still is a mystery but there is still interest and hope that this will pan out as an economical way to produce Hydrogen. I will sit on the fence until more data and information is gathered. One thing for sure,  there business approach as can be seen by the following press release is a little amateurish and raises some red flags regards their business skills, experience and approach. I will defiantly be watching this closely and keep an open mind until the data confirms the results and more importantly the economics. I do have this down still as a real possibility.

Press Release

American company Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. announced in early March of 2014 the invention of world’s first hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A” capable of converting of 1 liter of water (including sea water) into 1kg of hydrogen.

And here is the reaction:

A. “It’s totally impossible 
B. This is too good to be true.

With such assertions, the greatest and most needed discovery (not only our opinion) for all mankind would be put in the coffin and buried.

Investor skepticism is understandable, particularly when the discoverer is a newly launched, little-known company. Given the extraordinary nature of this project, even sane scientists have a hard time believing it.

Such uncertainty about this fantastic and largely anomalous production of hydrogen with Symphony 7A would be acceptable if not for one important fact: The results of the hydrogen reactor were confirmed and carried out by two independent and reputable laboratories in the United States. Their data demonstrates that the output from hydrogen generator Symphony 7A had an average content of hydrogen purity at 93.1% (three samples were taken 95.8%, 86.8%, and 96.8% hydrogen purity).

At this rate of production of hydrogen we underscore pure hydrogen gas flow rate is at 2,797 cubic feet per hour. And this is not the limit of the hydrogen output. The portfolio of generator prototypes at Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. are very promising and models of hydrogen generators Symphony 7AM and Symphony 7DM, capable of producing hundreds of tons of hydrogen per day, are currently in development. Indeed, hydrogen production technology developed by Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. is 20 to 30 years ahead of all the known hydrogen production technologies available today.

A historic scientific milepost can be readily compared: great Stanley Meyers water fuel cell produced around 300% more energy than it consumed. The hydrogen generator Symphony 7 Series made by Solar Hydrogen Trends produces 40,000% more energy than it consumes!

The United States of America is a very fortunate country:

1. It has two coastlines of ocean. 
2. Only the United States is in possession of this stunning hydrogen generator “Symphony 7″ which is capable of converting oceans of water into oceans of hydrogen with no harm to the sea. Merely two (2) cubic miles of ocean water could solve all fuel challenges in the U.S. for many years ahead.

The sooner this development of technology begins, the faster we will solve major geopolitical, economical, social and ecological problems facing the United States.

Dear President Barack Obama: In which of two oceans would you direct us to begin?

Jack Aganyan, Founder and President 
Konstantine Balakiryan, Founder, CEO/Chief Scientist

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.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf)

For more information on the hydrogen reactor and the Company, please visit

http://www.SolarHydrogenTrends.com.

About Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.:

Menlo Park based firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. is an innovative technology firm focused on the development of clean air, cost reducing energy solutions for the multi-billion dollar Energy Services industry. Recipient of a 2013 grant from the Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen Foundation supporting scientists and engineers in developing creative and innovative ideas that will improve the quality of life for all, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. consists of a team of chemists, physicists and engineers from across the globe.

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical or current fact constitute “forward-looking statements.” Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other unknown factors that could cause the Company’s actual operating results to be materially different from any historical results or from any future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. In addition to statements that explicitly describe these risks and uncertainties, readers are urged to consider statements that contain terms such as “believes,” “belief,” “expects,” “expect,” “intends,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “plan,” to be uncertain and forward-looking.

Contact Information: 
J. Jacobsen 
Phone: 323 963-5708

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11773463.htm

Original Story

SOLAR HYDROGEN TRENDS INC. have claimed to have developed a reactor that with an input of 500 watts,  produces an output of 2,797 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour (electricity equivalent 221.5 kWh), at cost of $1.80. The also claim in the following press release that  the reactor provides high yield hydrogen making 1 kg of hydrogen out of 1 litre of water for 25 cents (USD). Is this an error in calculation or a real breakthrough?       

download (26)
I always stand to corrected but last time I looked it took just under 9 liters of water to get 1 kg of hydrogen. I will discuss this and other maths claimed after the press release.
 
UPDATES!
I have included letters in the story I recently received which poses some valid questions and answers. Efforts are also underway to have this independently validated with the full energy balance accounted for.


 

I had the following letter forwarded to me and asked if it could be included in the story

Dear Colleagues,

I am closely following all the discussions  on multiple forums.

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?

 

Sincerely,

Konstantin Balakiryan

PhD, Professor

 

I also received this email from the principle scientist in response to the questions Simon asked.


 

Hakop Jack Aganyan
President
Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc.
Dear Simon,
As someone rightly pointed out at the forum that I do not have time to answer hundreds of questions.However, ignoring your question, certainly  would be understood by all of you as cowardness or scientific unsoundness.
Your calculations are absolutely correct, if it only operates from concepts of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, but the nucleons in nuclei are binding with interaction which is called in nuclear physics “strong interaction ” (nuclear strong force or color force) which is equal to (7-8) MeV / nucleon.
We have managed to make these forces work for us in our hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”.
If you promise to keep my secret than I will only reveal that secret to you.
As it is known “Strong interaction” in the nuclei, the distances between the nucleons is ~ (XX-XX) fm (femtometers), Binds them into the nuclei.
In the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”. due to the collective excitation of nucleons from the external electrical source ( just 0.5 Kwt / h we were able to increase the distance between nucleons to a magnitude of ~ (XX-XX), fm in strong interaction in the beginning it drops to zero and then starts to push away nucleons , causing decay of the nucleus.
As my partner Jack Aganyan likes to say I should tell myself to stop now.
Because 2-3 more words and absolutely everything will become clear to you how in the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”. 1liter of water is converted into 1kg of hydrogen.
P.S.  Last time I was so sincere and open that was back in 1961 in the conversation with the great Niels Bohr.

Sincerely,

Konstantin Balakiryan

PhD Professor

 

Press Release

MENLO PARK, Calif., March 12, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — Menlo Park, Calif., March 12, 2014 – Menlo Parkbased technology firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. (www.SolarHydrogenTrends.com) announced a breakthrough in hydrogen production that will revolutionize the energy market with the world’s least expensive fuel source – hydrogen. Their invention is the world’s first reactor for the production of unlimited hydrogen (patent pending) and provides clean fuel that can be generated anywhere across the globe.(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20140312/MN81281)Economic ImpactSolar 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! According to the US Department of Energy, 1 kg of hydrogen has the same energy content as 1 gallon (3.2 kg) of gasoline (downloadhttp://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/permitting/pdfs/43061.pdf). With this 25 cent price tag, 1kg of hydrogen equaling the same energy as 1 gallon of gasoline is an unprecedented breakthrough for the US and World Economy.Environmental Impact
Hydrogen is an extremely effective alternative to fossil fuels as the fuel does not produce any harmful byproducts (its main byproduct being water vapor). Current electricity production relies on pollutants through dangerous fuels including coal, natural gas and nuclear reactors. Coal and natural gas contribute to climate change, already manifesting through alarming weather patterns. Nuclear is simply deadly: One needs look no further than Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi as proof. World leaders, scientists, experts and citizens understand that there is far too much reliance on oil for energy, another major pollutant.
Global Energy BreakthroughIt is widely agreed that the USA needs is another breakthrough in energy with magnitude of Manhattan project. This breakthrough has occurred and will change the landscape of energy generation over the course of the next decade and into the distant future. Jack Aganyan and Konstantine Balakiryan, Founders of Solar Hydrogen Trends commented “The world is looking to the United States for leadership in this field. Our hydrogen reactor is one of the most significant inventions of the 21st Century that will positively and permanently improve our world with unprecedented flexibility in low cost energy production.Kirill Gichunts, a venture capital investor, said “Solar Hydrogen Trends is on track to be the most valuable start-up company this decade, and will become the largest company by market cap coming out of Silicon Valley. If used to fuel cars, the hydrogen reactor will save 90% over gasoline.” Kirill further commented that “the hydrogen reactor coupled with CHP technology (fuel cell or turbine) will bring energy generation to industrial and consumer clients and slash the price per kWh by over 50% — saving hundreds of billions by avoiding the grid distribution.”The Impossible Becomes Possible
The hydrogen reactor actually turns 1 liter of water into 1kg of hydrogen! While this flies in the face of today’s basic science where even a 5th grader knows that 1 liter of water contains 111.11 grams of hydrogen and 888.89 grams of oxygen — nevertheless, numerous performance tests, including Airkinetics Inc., a prominent EPA-certified national emissions testing specialist, measured the output reactor at 50 ACFM with 93.1% Hydrogen content.
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.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf.)
For more information on the hydrogen reactor and the Company, please visit www.SolarHydrogenTrends.com.
About Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.:
Menlo Park based firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. is an innovative technology firm focused on the development of clean air, cost reducing energy solutions for the multi-billion dollar Energy Services industry. Recipient of a 2013 grant from the Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen Foundation supporting scientists and engineers in developing creative and innovative ideas that will improve the quality of life for all, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. consists of a team of chemists, physicists and engineers from across the globe.
Media Contact: J. Jacobsen, MediaRich, 3239635708, jerry@mediarichmarketing.com
News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com
SOURCE Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.

 

How does it work?

The Hydrogen Reactor

Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. invented a Hydrogen Reactor. The technology provides multifactorial hydrogen reactor with elevated hydrogen production due to a set of sixteen (16) physical and chemical processes, acting simultaneously on the hydrogen bonds. The hydrogen reactor uses water as main fuel and its emissions are 100% clean (clean air).

The technology is non-volatile and produces free flowing hydrogen which can be compressed or used to convert to another form of energy.

The technology can be used as a free standing electrically powered device to produce unlimited amount of hydrogen at world’s cheapest rates or as a “bolt-on” hybrid solution.

On input of 500 watts, the mini reactor produces an output of 2,797 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour (electricity equivalent 221.5 kWh), at cost of $1.80

The Company

One thing that does impress me is the team involved. From the website:

Jack Aganyan is a founder and president at Solar Hydrogen Trends. He led the development of the technology and has created the vision for the company. Jack has funded and sold number of projects and has founded several companies.

Konstantine Balakiryan, PhD, is a founder and CEO at Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. As a chief scientist he is the driving force behind the 7 models of the hydrogen reactor. Konstantine was a Professor and head of physics, chemistry and mathematics department at the Russian University of Friendship (Moscow). He received his Master Degree in Physics from Moscow Lomonosov University and PhD in Physics from Russian Academy of Science.

Kirill Gichunts helped structure the business and drives strategic financial and commercial aspects of the company. Kirill was a managing partner at a venture capital accelerator fund. He founded, funded and helped grow a number of companies. Prior, as an investment banking executive, Kirill completed M&A and ECM transactions. Kirill received a bachelor’s degree in business and political economics from University of California, Berkeley.

Anahit M. specializes in chemistry and chemical analysis at SHT. Her background is in inorganic and organic chemistry within laboratory setting. She holds a Masters degree in chemistry from Yerevan State Medical University.

Vernald M. is an engineer with experience in electrical design, testing, analysis, and project coordination. He was a lead quality control manager at the largest jewelry factory in Russia and served as an electrical adviser in development of multiple in-house electroplating and electrolysis processes. He received bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from State Engineering University of Armenia.

Ashot A. is an engineer with over 33 years of experience with wide range of mechanical design and fabrication expertise. His focus lies with creative custom fabrication to prototype development. He studied mechanical engineering from State Engineering University of Armenia.

Suren M. heads the electrical works at SHT. He has over 30 years of experience in electrical engineering during which he has worked as a chief for two laboratories, led R&D, and developed and manufactured electronic devices. Suren received a master’s degree in radio physics and electronics from Yerevan State University and a PhD degree in radio physics and Electronics from Gorkiy University.

Kerry Smith is currently a Partner with Montgomer&Hansen LLP and has more than 20 years experience in the practice of corporate and securities law at major U.S. law firms and has been CFO of a NASDAQ listed public company. His primary focus is on international and domestic M&A, public and private offerings of debt and equity, MBO’s, LBO’s, recapitalizations, spin-offs, venture capital and private equity transactions, as well as general corporate representation. Kerry holds a J.D. from Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and a B.S. in Accountancy from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is a CPA (inactive) and practiced at Deloitte & Touche prior to attending law school.

In 1997, Mark Rabinovich obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Boalt Hall School of Law, at University of California, Berkeley. For over 16 years he has practiced law in California, representing business entities in the variety of transactions. Mr. Rabinovich acts as an outside counsel for numerous start-ups and established businesses. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Living Tree Foundation, a United States charity, which supports programs for veterans of the United States Armed Forces.

Questions and Red Flags

1. How do you get 1 kg out of hydrogen out of 1 liter of water?

Link to performance test: http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf

2. What are the 16 chemical and Physical processes?

3. What is the true cost (not just the electricity) ?

If what they say is true them for $1.80 you would produce enough hydrogen to power a 100kw off the shelf hydrogen powered genset !

I will see how this pans out, I will not form an opinion until we know more about this one. Lets hope it is true

Sources: 

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

http://www.virtualpressoffice.com/publicsiteContentFileAccess?fileContentId=1534529&fromOtherPageToDisableHistory=Y&menuName=News&sId=&sInfo=

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinby feather
  • Mark Euthanasius

    That’s a trick Jesus might appreciate: 1 liter of water has hydrogen mass of 112grams. These guys say give them a quarter and they’ll turn that into 1000 grams. OK, I wish to place my first order for 1 million kilos of hydrogen please. I will pay $250K. upon delivery.

    What people need to recognize is that hydrogen is not a primary fuel. It is an energy storage vehicle. So when someone comes along and offers energy in the form of hydrogen for less energy than has to be supplied they are making free energy claims.

    When someone comes along and claims that they can turn 112g of some material into 1kg of the same material they are making claims to being an almighty deity.

    • alpcns .

      Not so fast, oh Technical Unbeliever. Maybe their contraption is a rotating machine, a form of Q(M)(N)oGen, and therefore must be true – assuming it is interfacing with that wondrous Wheelwork Of Nature we keep hearing so much about and see so little of :-)

      • TinselKoala

        Even the Wheelwork of Nature won’t allow you to create matter from nothing. Free Energy is all well and good, but when you start multiplying matter…. the gears start to grind and Nature becomes very upset with you.

        To create 882 extra grams of hydrogen matter, from the one liter of water and the energy input, we follow Einstein and see that E=mcc, so it’s gonna take quite a bit of that old “E” stuff to make your hydrogen “m”.

        Or are we talking about a radiation-free fission phenomenon that breaks down Oxygen into hydrogen, argon, nitrogen and…. ?? I LOL at that one.

        Please look up the EPA Method 3 protocol. I have, and I don’t think it can be legitimately applied to this electrolysis method.

      • TR M

        You forgot the HOHOHO energy source. I’m sure it incorporates that :)

        Seriously my guess is that somebody got their measurements or reports off by an order of magnitude. A typo? Who knows. I too will happily pay upon delivery.

        One other question is what type of water does it require? Distilled? Just filtered? Tap?

        Hopefully they clarify/correct that one. If they stick to it all I can say is at least they are welcoming 3rd party validation.

        • Simon Derricutt

          Mark’s maths is right, so in that 1kg of water input where does the other 888g or so Hydrogen come from? The only other possibility is to transmute the Oxygen into lower Z elements but that takes about 8MeV input to split the nucleus per transmute, and you’d need to get the protons out and give the neutrons 10 minutes or so to decay to Hydrogen atoms. The result would be one Nitrogen atom and 2 Hydrogen atoms (and about 16MeV input), so that gives you “air” as output, but we need to get 8 times as many H so the maths still doesn’t add up after putting a whole lot more energy in than 500W.

          If this does work, of course, you can run a generator on the Hydrogen to provide the electricity, and you’d be running on water as a fuel and getting a whole load of free energy. Is this therefore any more or less believable than any other “water as fuel” claims?

          If they are right, then the claim that this is the most valuable start-up is somewhat of an understatement, since the New Age of free energy just started.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        Oh, yeah, I never considered the broken wagon wheel of nature. Or was it the axis of unnatural evil?

    • humblemechanic

      You are wrong about deity, Sterling is the Sainted One.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        As I recall Sterling has referred to himself as the “One Mighty and Strong”. That was about the time that according to Sterling’s accounts he was about 30 years old and contemplating running off with a 14 year old girl. Maybe when he was thinking “One Mighty and Strong” he was into products pushed by Ron Jeremy.

        • humblemechanic

          I think Sterling reached new heights in that number juggling effusion of his
          a few months ago, something like self-beatification. It must have been him
          pictured soaring over the clouds with greatest of ease; no Raphiel-MYT
          engine, no rotors and no broom: he must have been “elevated”. I do not
          have the time and the maths to check out his sums but something must
          have gone awry lately for there was some more numbers play recently in
          which I have noticed that inverted treble-nine he maybe connected with or
          just alluded to. That inverted treble nine is my mentor’s symbol whose name
          or symbol I never take in vain. Simon D. could enlighten you about my
          association and connection with hiM, my tutor and mentor.

    • rebecca

      Mark, you said
      “What people need to recognize is that hydrogen is not a primary fuel.”

      What about this table?

      Heat of Combustion for some common fuels (higher value)[citation needed]

      Fuel kJ/g kcal/g

      Prorene 49.9 11.9
      Butane 49.2 11.8
      Gasoline 47.0 11.3
      Ethanol 29.7 7.1
      Diesel 45.0 4.4
      Hydrogen 141.9 33.9

      • Mark Euthanasius

        Rebecca in order for something to be a primary fuel, it needs to occur naturally. Unless someone finds a pipeline to the sun, a source of elemental hydrogen is not something that occurs on earth. All the hydrogen here is already bound up in molecules with other elements. We can break the molecular bonds by applying energy which makes hydrogen here a storage vehicle, not a primary fuel.

        • johnBas5

          Applying energy to hydrogen as in putting in energy to seperate hydrogen from the other molecules. This process is less than 100% efficient in converting the electricity into the chemical reaction products.

        • rebecca

          Dispute about is it a primary fuel or is not a primary fuel, absolutely scholastic dispute.

          Who cares about gasoline which he fills
          up in a tank of the car.
          What do you think people realy need to recognize that this gas is not primary fuel
          and described by a chemical formula C8H18. Moreover that it is a product of oil rectification?

          • Mark Euthanasius

            Rebecca if you do not understand what the term “primary fuel” means, then kindly look it up. Hydrogen may be used as an energy storage vehicle. Since there is no natural supply, we have to expend the energy that we can later extract from it. We either do this by consuming a primary fuel such as methane and reforming that fuel to obtain hydrogen, or electrolyzing hydrogen out of water or alcohol.

  • Mark Euthanasius

    Have you considered the broken wagon wheel of nature, or axis of unnatural evil? Let’s count the number of letters in wheel: 5, then lets add the letter values subtracted from 47 in reverse order from the word wagon: 33, 32, 40, 46, and 24. See 24 is what you get when you multiply 4*6, and 4*0 = 4 the first number in 4*6, and 3*2 = 6, and 3+3 equals six which is one more than the number 5. And when you subtract 5 from 47 you get the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. So obviously we can see that the broken wagon wheel of nature is predicted to give us unlimited broccoli at no extra charge. Then if you count the letters in: broken wagon wheel you get 16 letters. Subtract out the two spaces and you get 14. Add the numbers together and you get 30. Some think that 30 and 14 would have made a perfect union.

    • ngepro

      None of you skeptics considered that they condensed ordinary water to make super heavy water, called quaterium. This process can be used to reduce the ocean levels, which may rise due to global warning.
      I myself have been pressured and been called ‘super dense’ after trying to explain the process.
      I admit, with a heavy heart, that my weight is now 6 lbs (~2.7 kg for those outside civilisation) more.

      • johnBas5

        The SI system of units (kg, meters and other) is used by the civilized world.
        lbs is used by that industrialized country that acts like a third world country in regards to social safety and pretends to be a first world country because the top 1% lives in luxury.

        • mark dansie

          That is one of the best descriptions of the land of the free (and most monitored) I have heard.
          Mark

      • rebecca

        TO NGEPRO:

        NOT …. D16O, NOT…. HD16O, NOT….T16O, NOT….HT16O

        ONLY…..Н216O
        SO:

        NOT….. “D” =2H

        NOT…. “T” = 3H

        NOT….. “Q = 4H

        ONLY “H”= 1H

        • TinselKoala

          Oh yeah that’s clear enough Rebecca. Can you provide any evidence, like a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal reporting on actual experiments? Or perhaps a little YouTube video demonstrating the process in a way that makes sense and can be accurately verified?

    • http://www.revolution-green.com/ Ken

      Wow your Achilles tendon must be really sore from all that typing?

  • mark dansie

    I have decided to give this reactor a name, the HMoGen
    Kind Regards
    Mark

  • mark dansie

    I am doing some follow up calls with this company and have people willing to visit, will keep everyone updated

  • kyle carrington

    That’s 1320 litres of hydrogen per minute on 500 watts. I’m in, i want one.

  • mark dansie

    I was asked to post this Mark

    Dear Colleagues,

    I am closely following all the discussions on multiple forums.

    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?

    Sincerely,

    Konstantin Balakiryan

    PhD, Professor

    • Simon Derricutt

      This is a tantalising message – it’s implying that this is a nuclear reaction. It is implying that the Oxygen nucleus does actually split up into 16 Hydrogen nuclei thus giving the equation H2O + Q => 9H2 (Q is the energy needed to do this fission). That binding energy is massive, and exceeds the chemical energy we get from burning the Hydrogen by a long shot. To supply this energy, you’d need to use either fusion of some light element below Iron or fission from some element above Bismuth (OK, really above Iron but there’s not much energy/nucleus till you get to a pretty heavy nucleus). You’d also need somewhat more of the energy-donor material to get that Hydrogen out as the product.

      So, basically it’s unbelievable according to current theory. Again, though, looking at the credentials of the people I can’t think they’d either scam or get it wrong, so maybe the 5-year delay that has been noted is because they didn’t believe it themselves.

      We’ll know a bit more about this when the validation efforts have been concluded. If it is true, it rewrites the rulebook on nuclear reactions. If it uses the energy of fissile materials to produce the effect, though, it is actually pretty wasteful. The utility of it will really depend on what the input and output materials are, apart from the Hydrogen we know about. If during the process it produces expensive elements we are short of, then it could be very viable.

      Whereas most uses of material do not use up the elements, but just mix them up and they can be recovered by recycling, if the implication is correct here then we will be using up Oxygen in the process. In the long term, this could be a problem.

      • http://www.revolution-green.com/ Ken

        Using up oxygen in the water which is changed permanently from the sound of it. As far as oxygen we breathe, are you implying that this would be using that up as well?

        • Simon Derricutt

          Ken – yep, that is precisely the implication. There is a lot of it available, but the supply is limited and we need it to live.

          • Simon Derricutt

            Reference http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/index.html for 8-O-16 (99.762% of Oxygen) the total binding energy is about 127.6 MeV. In 1kg of water we have 55.52296789 moles, thus around 3.3436E+25 molecules, each of which has one Oxygen atom. To change that Oxygen into 16 Hydrogen atoms we thus need around 4.267E+27MeV. 1 eV is 1.602E-19J, and thus 1MeV is 1.602E-13J, so the total energy input would need to be about 6.836E+14J to change all the Oxygen into Hydrogen. That is really quite a lot of energy input to produce your kilo of Hydrogen. I haven’t taken away the energy we’d recover from the combination of 2 H atoms to an H2 molecule, but that is pretty insignificant and would be lost in the decimal places I haven’t written down. Burning that kilo of Hydrogen (to produce water again, but this time around 9kg of water) would produce around 121MJ (or 1.21E+8J, or 33.6kWh) or 1.77E-7 of the amount of nuclear energy needed to make that Hydrogen out of the Oxygen.

            Yep, I’ve made a few approximations in this calculation by ignoring some of the chemical energies, but in burning the Hydrogen we end up with about 1/6000000 of the nuclear energy used to make it. Working to 4 decimal paces the calculations would look no different.

            If we can control that amount of energy (translates as about 189.9MWh for a kilo of water input, with input electrical energy as around 0.5kWh) then what are we doing just making Hydrogen with it and just using the chemical energy of combustion of that Hydrogen?

            You’re welcome to check my back-of-the-envelope calculations.

          • mark dansie

            Hi Mark, can you please place this on Revolution Green forum. This is in response to calculations by Simon Derricutt. I have translated from Russian to the best of my ability. :) Thanks for understanding.

            Hakop Jack Aganyan

            President

            Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc.

            Dear Simon,

            As someone rightly pointed out at the forum that I do not have time to answer hundreds of questions.

            However, ignoring your question, certainly would be understood by all of you as cowardness or scientific unsoundness.

            Your calculations are absolutely correct, if it only operates from concepts of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, but the nucleons in nuclei are binding with interaction which is called in nuclear physics “strong interaction ” (nuclear strong force or color force) which is equal to (7-8) MeV / nucleon.

            We have managed to make these forces work for us in our hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”.

            If you promise to keep my secret than I will only reveal that secret to you.

            As it is known “Strong interaction” in the nuclei, the distances between the nucleons is ~ (XX-XX) fm (femtometers), Binds them into the nuclei.

            In the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”. due to the collective excitation of nucleons from the external electrical source ( just 0.5 Kwt / h we were able to increase the distance between nucleons to a magnitude of ~ (XX-XX), fm in strong interaction in the beginning it drops to zero and then starts to push away nucleons , causing decay of the nucleus.

            As my partner Jack Aganyan likes to say I should tell myself to stop now.

            Because 2-3 more words and absolutely everything will become clear to you how in the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”. 1liter of water is converted into 1kg of hydrogen.

            P.S. Last time I was so sincere and open that was back in 1961 in the conversation with the great Niels Bohr.

            Sincerely,

            Konstantin Balakiryan

            PhD Professor

          • Simon Derricutt

            Professor Balakiryan – even with resonance, the energy you need to accumulate to pull a nucleon from the ~1.25fm to around 1.7fm when the strong force becomes repulsive is still the 7-8 MeV as calculated. Unless you can then recover the energy used and pass it on to the next nucleon you wish to extract, the sums don’t work. At heart, your basic claim is that you are making energy from nothing. Although this event is implied in the Big Bang theory, it’s also supposed to be something that has not happened since and cannot do so.

            Also implied in your explanation is that for each Oxygen nucleus, 8 neutrons will be emitted. These have a half-life of around 10 minutes before decaying to a Hydrogen atom, but in the meantime I’d presume that they are slow – thermal velocities or less. They would therefore tend to drop into any nearby nucleus, as there will be no Coulomb repulsion to stop them. This addition often produces radioactive isotopes. It thus seems likely that there would be a pretty severe radiation problem while your device is running. This would of course be fixed if the neutrons decayed to Hydrogen immediately on emission, but currently we don’t know of a way to ensure that.

            There seem to be too many miracles. I’ll look forward to the proof that it works. If it is in fact a chemical process but your costings are correct, it’s still very important.

          • Mark Euthanasius

            This is just more bafflegab. The whole chase for LENR/LANR/Cold fusion is the fact that nuclear energy density is millions of time greater than chemical bond energy density. These con-artists are trying to put over the complete BS idea that they would use nuclear energy levels to generate feed stock for chemical reactions. It is total BS. Note that the “professor” does not state any university where he supposedly is a “professor”. Maybe he is the lost professor Russell Johnson and Rebecca is Mary Anne.

      • REBECCA

        You are absolutely correct, if it only operates from concepts of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, but the nucleons in nuclei are binding with interaction which is called in nuclear physics “strong interaction ” (nuclear strong force or color force) which is equal to (7-8) MeV / nucleon.
        They have managed to make these forces work for us in our hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        Simon it is the overplayed hand of a con-artist.

    • Mark Euthanasius

      What a load of BS. Let’s see what we have:
      An appeal to religion.
      A claim of explanation that is really just inane baffle gab questions.

      Konstantin Balakiryan just think what you could do if you team up with John Rohner, or Wayne Travis.

      1. It is you guys who claim water is the feedstock. Therefore one third the molar output and 88%+ of the mass is oxygen.

      2. Who says any oxygen disappears?

      3. Ridiculous baffle gab.

      4. Oooh, oooh, ooh, it’s the Rohneresque claims to simultaneous fission and fusion. Put on your tin foil helmets and gamma shields!

      5. Ooh, more questions predicated on the silly unestablished claims being true.

      This is a bad fraud of the kind Dr. Dr. Con John Rohner tried to pull.

  • John Pate

    I thought you were going to have “scams section”? If we want to read this sort of nonsense we can hang out at PESWiki.
    There ought to be some genuinely interesting stuff about storage tech and improvements in solar or somesuch that you can have as real news.

    • Simon Derricutt

      John – maybe this is a bit “arguing from authority”, but the people involved are pretty impressive. We’re finding out more about the processes, since the rest of the Hydrogen may be coming from one of those 16 sequential processes – it seems unlikely that water is the only input. Again looking at the people involved and their qualifications and background, there’s been a lot of money invested in this, so it would seem unlikely that they would be mistaken. They just aren’t telling the whole story yet. If the overall cost per kilo of Hydrogen is however right, whatever its source, then this is a major advance and will change the economics of energy. It’s thus worth knowing about.

      • ben__w

        “maybe this is a bit “arguing from authority”, but the people involved are pretty impressive.”

        You’ve said this about various people who are not, in any way, impressive. You’ve said it about Randell Mills of Blacklight, for example. In both cases you have a company that is making absurd claims, have achieved nothing, and your defence of them is to say how brilliant the people behind it are — based, it would seem, on nothing more than how brilliant they claim to be.

      • Asterix

        Not to put too fine a point on it, Simon, but have you done due diligence on the people involved in this? There are claims, but there’s also no fool like an old fool.

        • Simon Derricutt

          Asterix – at that time all I had to go on was the claimed qualifications. It was also not at that time claimed to be a nuclear process as it is now. It is still possible that they can produce Hydrogen that cheaply, but the current data from Sterling implies that they’ve measured the quantity wrongly. It looks like a bust…. There is still some effort behind the scenes in getting proper confirmations, since if the claimed costing were correct then this would indeed be a breakthrough, and there is still that Armenian university connection to investigate.

          As I’ve said before, approaching these claims from a point of view of either belief or disbelief can be a problem, so get the data to show it one way or another. At the moment both the available data and the attitude of professor B imply that this is an empty claim. It is still possible, though, that the underlying process may be commercially viable – depends on the exact chemistry and the cost of the input materials. It won’t be world-changing, though, but an incremental decrease in costs.

          • Asterix

            Simon, it’s good that you take that approach.

            Personally, since I believe that demonstrations are too easy to fake and CVs too easy to lie about, it’s much easier to delve into the histories of the key personnel involved. For example, the principal of PI was convicted on fraud charges 15 years ago and was only able to obtain an “exoneration” because of the Italian justice system’s interesting idea of the statute of limitations. I had to dig into the newspaper archives to discover that.

            Rossi’s case, of course, is legend.

            Hakop seems to have a history in real-estate dealings. He has several relatives working for SHT (could be why he doesn’t list their surnames). I haven’t done much digging past that–yet. My hope is that Sterling will give up on his operation.

          • Simon Derricutt

            Asterix – for professor B I found one Russian patent to do with magnetics and one book where he was co-author – it looked like it was explaining standard techniques, so the sort of thing you might expect a college senior to write. My Russian is by now almost non-existent, and I didn’t run the patent through Google. Both a long time ago, and nothing visible on Russian search engines or Google for the last few decades. More recent history for professor B is somewhat less academic. I also found an address in a Moscow suburb for him, his wife and daughter. No evidence that I could find of malfeasance, and quite a few clever people think they can beat a roulette wheel. The only people who got rich from such a method, though, are the ones that sold books on how to do it.

            Yep, demos can be faked, and depending on what’s being shown it can be easy to do. Mark D has a lot of experience debunking that type. There was an attempt to get some very qualified people in to view, but there was no success. They weren’t wanted – possibly because they were so qualified. They obviously expected to be able to fool Sterling as to the measurements – that backfired a bit!

            If you total up the messages from professor B, you’ll see that he’s been displaying what he doesn’t know while avoiding the hard questions. I’ve given him some rope. I’ve also put numbers up for energy transfers, and so far no-one has challenged those. If they were wrong I’d expect to be challenged by someone, even if professor B didn’t.

            While the claim was for massive amounts of Hydrogen per minute, we now know (thanks to Sterling) that it was less than 2cfm and that they were still trying to say that was 186cfm because that’s what the anemometer said. No wonder the numbers were jumping around – the anemometer was at its lowest operational speed just above the frictional stop.

            Still, it could have been true, at least for the cost for a kilo of H2. It might actually be an economic method and worth commercialising. Many a scam is based on something that’s true. The story is not quite over yet – there’s still some other stuff happening in the background. There might be an update 5.

            I’ve seen a lot of changes in accepted theory (the laws of physics) in my life. A theory stands until it’s disproved by experiment. If you do something that hasn’t been done before, then you can predict the outcome from those laws but you can’t be absolutely sure. This attitude is the basis of how I deal with exotic energy inventions. If it reduces to something that’s been done before and didn’t work, it won’t work this time either so look for the fraud. If there’s corroborating evidence of anomalies from other sources, then it could be true and needs more work to prove or disprove it. Your technique of looking at the history of the people involved is also useful, but that’s only an indication. Chewing something over here is useful – other people see things I missed.

            Instantly saying something is against the laws of physics would be easy. The only law I still regard as sacrosanct is that of conservation of energy/mass – all others may have limits beyond which they don’t apply. If you accept the Big Bang theory, then CoE was broken then.

            Importantly, work is not a conserved quantity. There’s thus a hope that if we’re clever enough we can get free work. It would be a shame to miss that one good one through discounting it too quickly as being against the rules. Comparing it with devices that have previously failed to work is useful there, and that’s why Sterling’s website is so valuable.

            /rant….

          • Asterix

            Simon, I don’t think the Big Bang theory has been proven not to be a theory–and it’s a boundary condition if true–and we know how complicated boundary conditions are.

            I tend to take a more social outlook. (I guess you missed the comment on Kourtney Kardashian’s blog by B trying to sell her on signature jeans–identifying himself as “PhD Professor–or his trying to sell a roulette “system” a few years ago.)

            When a group of people use Sterling almost exclusively as their PR conduit, it seems to me that they know that they will not withstand serious scrutiny.) The good “Professor PhD” knows that he only stands to gain even in the case of a successful scam. Witness “Professor Duarte” and Yildiz’ PM scam. I suspect the good professor stood to gain if someone bought Yildiz’s claims and had nothing to lose if no one did.

            Greed and its cousin, power, is a powerful motivator to do all sorts of unspeakable things. A diploma does not automatically confer incorruptibility.

          • Simon Derricutt

            Asterix – no I didn’t miss the jeans design and I commented on the roulette discussions. As for Big Bang, I regard it as an explanation with a lot of hand-waving that I can’t accept. It may be true, but the relevance here is that the physics we know has boundaries beyond which the laws we’ve deduced may not apply.

            I totally agree on your take on the PR conduit. That’s why I was so pleased that Sterling observed so much this time and compared it to what he should have seen if the claims had been kosher. He was limited in what he was allowed to measure, but reported what he saw and got useful data. Also to be noted was his cautious report on the QEG over unity claim. This newfound understanding of measurements and their errors bodes well for reducing the number of scams he’s enthusiastic about. We may well see a bit more criticism from Sterling in future if this continues – he’s coming more towards the dark side.

    • mark dansie

      Hi John
      it is always good have a bit of the “exotic stuff now and then” as it promotes debate, exercises the mind. In this case some serious people are behind the scenes going to be testing this device.
      Historically you are correct, and i will try and behave myself lol
      Kind Regards
      Mark

    • REBECCA

      John!

      You really do not understand???
      This is committed and confirmed experimentally as the greatest Scientific discovery in nuclear physics.

      (1kg) of water is converted to 1 kg of hydrogen !!!!!!!!!!!

      To believe in it is difficult, even impossible.

      Then present your self on streets of Madrid in 1470-1480, to telling citizens about phone, the TV, rockets, a hydrogen bomb……..

      You would be very lucky if the Inquisition didn’t accuse you of heresy and didn’t burn on a fire.

      • mark dansie

        extraordinary claims requires similar proof, they do not have any strong evidence at this stage

        • rebecca

          Hi, Mark.
          Achievements of the Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. have no analogs in the history of
          natural sciences in general, and in nuclear physics in particular. Scientists
          of this company possess intellectual property, which is almost invaluable. It
          allows to dominate in the energy market with an annual capacity of $7 000 000
          000 000. I am sure you Mark wouldn’t
          begin to be scattered by such information.

          • Mark Euthanasius

            Rebecca you should really improve on your scamming skills.

    • rebecca

      John,
      You really do not understand or ?…
      This is committed and confirmed experimentally as the greatest Scientific discovery in nuclear physics.
      (1kg) of water is converted to 1 kg of hydrogen
      To believe in it is difficult, even impossible.
      Than present your self on streets of Madrid in 1470-1480, to telling citizens about sattelites, phones, the TV, a hydrogen bombs……..
      You would be very lucky if the Inquisition didn’t accuse you of heresy and didn’t burn on a fire.
      So, what about “scams section” and ” nonsens” ?

      Rebecca

  • http://www.revolution-green.com/ Ken

    In case anyone missed the update in the article. In response to Simon’s comment, Konstantin Balakiryan replied via email in a statement below.

    Your calculations are absolutely correct, if it only operates from concepts of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, but the nucleons in nuclei are binding with interaction which is called in nuclear physics “strong interaction ” (nuclear strong force or color force) which is equal to (7-8) MeV / nucleon.

    We have managed to make these forces work for us in our hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”.

    If you promise to keep my secret than I will only reveal that secret to you.

    As it is known “Strong interaction” in the nuclei, the distances between the nucleons is ~ (XX-XX) fm (femtometers), Binds them into the nuclei.

    In the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”. due to the collective excitation of nucleons from the external electrical source ( just 0.5 Kwt / h we were able to increase the distance between nucleons to a magnitude of ~ (XX-XX), fm in strong interaction in the beginning it drops to zero and then starts to push away nucleons , causing decay of the nucleus.

    So does anyone have any input on their explanation? From what I gleaned, they basically claim to be able to split an atom’s nucleus via .5 kw (assuming kwt is meant to be Kw) electrical power. Stating it bluntly, they are claiming to be able to convert oxygen to hydrogen.

    • John Pate

      In other words, another breakthrough that re-writes the laws of physics. I have a castle I can sell you, situated right here in the centre of Edinburgh…

      • Simon Derricutt

        John – a real breakthrough does rewrite physics. There’s work going on to get the proof that the claims are valid, but this won’t be instant. If the process produces the Hydrogen as stated, but the theory as to why is a bit faulty, I won’t be too worried. The better explanation as to why can come later. Once the process is no longer secret, a lot of people will be analysing it.

        • http://www.revolution-green.com/ Ken

          I vote…..wait till we see the data. Several efforts underway by well known institutions to validate these claims.

          • Simon Derricutt

            Yep – firstly does it produce the Hydrogen as stated for the energy input as stated. Then what are the input components and what is the ash. If the process is nuclear, then there will be transmutations and unusual isotopic concentrations in the ash, and there will likely also be measurable radiation from the lower-probability reactions at least. These effects can all be measured.

            In claims like this, which comprehensively break Conservation of Energy, it’s natural to discount it as being impossible. I try to avoid confirmation bias, though, and get data that either proves or disproves the claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias for a good explanation. Here we want to first prove/disprove the claim of a kilo of Hydrogen for $1.80 in materials and electricity, and this does not need “extraordinary evidence”. If proved, then that is a major advance in energy security and costs, and if disproved then it’s a scam – that sort of measurement is easy to be sure of so they can’t get it wrong accidentally. If the first claim is good, then check on the nuclear ideas, and get the ash analysed. Since if Hydrogen becomes that cheap and easy to produce then there’s a lot of profit in this, the second claim of it being nuclear can have a lot more effort put into it. If it’s wrong (chemical process only and the Hydrogen comes from the materials used), you still make a big profit, but if it’s right then there are a whole lot of other possibilities opened.

            Given that their box weighs around 120kg and that Iron-Titanium alloy can store around its own weight in Hydrogen, if the box produces more than around 60kg of Hydrogen before the contents need to be renewed then it’s reasonably certain that the Hydrogen is being produced and not stored (chemical methods of storing Hydrogen will produce a lot less mass of it, maybe 25kg if you use Ammonia). In this case, burn some output Hydrogen to generate the power to run the system and the rest to heat up water and measure the energy output that way. Even a rough test can get within 10% accuracy, which is adequate to prove a COP of >400.

          • mark dansie

            the consumable need to be replaced every 2 to 4 hours

          • Simon Derricutt

            OK – 2 orders of magnitude less than I’d heard. Chemical production would be quite easy on that basis – depends on the mass being replaced.

      • mark dansie

        I have a Bridge in Sydney, I take Bitcoin as a deposit. Its always good to have the “breakthroughs” for entertainment purposes. The sad things is many believe everyone of them.
        Kind Regards to you John

        PS makes for some interesting debate

      • rebecca

        To John Pate.
        You said:
        “In other words, another breakthrough that re-writes the laws of physics.”
        Fortunately it sometimes happens!
        Be happy that you found out about this one of the first in the world

        • Richard

          Rebecca, I hope You get paid for what You write, if You believe what You write, we should open a donation account that You can pay Your treatment and pills.

    • rebecca

      Bravo, Ken!
      Every thing is O.K.
      But there is not 5 Kw, it is only 0.5 Kw.

  • rebecca

    Sorry M. ben_w For you I sending the same letter with small correction.

    M. ben_w

    You really do not understand or ?…..

    This is committed and confirmed experimentally as the greatest Scientific discovery in nuclear physics.
    (1kg) of water is converted to 1 kg of hydrogen
    To believe in it is difficult, even impossible.
    Than present your self on streets of Madrid in 1470-1480, to telling citizens about sattelites, phones, the TV, a hydrogen bombs……..
    You would be very lucky if the Inquisition didn’t accuse you of heresy and didn’t burn on a fire.

    So, what about “scams section”, ” nonsens”, “absurd claims,” and “achieved nothing” ?

    Rebecca

    • Mark Euthanasius

      Where is the proof? Oh, that’s right there isn’t any. This is just another scam.

    • ben__w

      No idea what your semi-literate post is supposed to mean. Blacklight are scammers making absurd claims and have achieved nothing.

  • humblemechanic

    The “stunning efficiency” of Symphony A and the Divine Inspiration mentioned sound to me
    like cacophony. The discord is continued by excellent and accomplished commenters lobbing
    date back and forth. Fundamental physics are invoked and as I have mentioned before, purely
    cerebral reasoning might not be enough to arrive at the correct solution or at least a definition.
    Perhaps some commenter who is endowed with both CEREBRAL and FUNDAMENTAL intellect
    and logic could explain to me in plain language what it is all about? It can be done, I still remember
    a book on Psychoanalysis, a very inexact subject, that struck me by its clarity. Much later on
    I noted that Freud was awarded a literary Prize for it.

  • rebecca

    To TinselKoala:

    I like a lot of your concepts that you are writing about.

    And I absolutely agree with what you say” from nothing you get nothing”.

    Just remember that nucleons are in the atomic nucleus and this is fact it is “something” not nothing.

    Do you know what Professor Franklin Hadley Cocks wrote:
    … ” greatest storehouse of energy in the universe: nucleus of the atom.”

    The scientists of SHT Inc forced this energy to work for them.

    I don’t want to repeat myself and therefore I ask you to read what
    I wrote to Mark Dansie about SHT Inc accomplishments: …” Achievements of the Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc ….

    • Simon Derricutt

      Rebecca – it looks like you are either part of that scientific team or publicity for it. At the moment the data we know or infer is that from a box weighing in total around 120kg you can produce 2-3kg of Hydrogen for an input energy of 1-1.5kWh. To produce the chemical energy from burning the Hydrogen, if the process splits the Oxygen into 16 Hydrogen atoms then the energy generated “from nothing” to do this is around 6,000,000 times that chemical energy.

      Given those figures, which have not yet been contested, the possibility that this is a chemical production of Hydrogen from the consumables in the cartridge (we don’t know the mass that needs to be replaced for each batch of 2-3kg of Hydrogen) needs to be considered as more likely than a nuclear reaction. No mention is made of any dangerous radiation hazard in the process, either, and we would expect there to be quite a bit.

      If the materials are as cheap as specified, and the Hydrogen produced is as stated, then this is an important process anyway. Before accepting it as a nuclear process we need to see the evidence as quantitative analysis of the cartridge contents before/after and that of the gas produced, and also isotopic analyses of the relevant changed nuclei. Since such analyses also give us a big clue as to what materials you use, I don’t expect this to be published here until patents are sorted etc.. I would expect them to have been done, though, and the figures to be available to someone who wanted to invest in the process.

  • http://www.cilectric.com.au Manuel Cilia

    Dear Mark,
    Any more news on the hydrogen generator. The bit I do not understand is if there are using 0.5kwh why is the cost $1.80, if you took a rate of $0.3kwh then the running cost should be about $0.15 so where does the rest of the money go

    • Simon Derricutt

      Manuel – there are some chemicals also involved, and they need to be replaced every 2-3 hours according to the inventors. It is reasonable to presume that these consumables make up the remaining costs (possibly $4.80 for the consumables for 3kg Hydrogen, best-case). We have no further data yet as to whether it actually works.

    • mark dansie

      I will do a full update tomorrow as part of a story on the technology. I know several parties talking to them and there is another consumable involved and possibly a foreign government. All a little complex I will try and unravel it.

  • Disillusioned Guest

    Claiming this to be a gift from GOD invalidates anything else that might be said. Why? Because blind faith in a nonexistent god(s) shows that any scientific methodologies used are tainted with illogic :-(
    Anyone with these beliefs is incapable of being an impartial observer.

    • Simon Derricutt

      DG – they might still be correct about the costs and quantities though. If they’ve got that wrong then they aren’t using the eyes God gave them (or their brains). Quite a few of the 19th and 20th century scientific advances were said to have been divinely inspired. If the actual production is verified by an acceptably-reputable scientist (and the people involved in verification are definitely that) then getting the mechanism wrong doesn’t really matter. Someone will work out what is really happening and we’ll get cheap Hydrogen power.

      If someone had claimed that they could do this same task chemically for the same costs, they’d have people begging to invest. Since they claim a nuclear transmutation, and we know that’s massively improbable, they have a few problems being believed. As usual, though, we’re getting the data. See what it shows in a few weeks. Like Mark, I think this has a good chance of being a real (though chemical-only) process.

      • Disillusioned Guest

        I do not believe in divine inspiration, intervention or any other manner of fairy tale stuff. When this nonsense is used to explain, rationalize or justify anything, I turn off and tune out.

        The whole point of the scientific method is to document, provide data, analyze and produce proof or lack of it. Blind faith has absolutely no place in the scientific method.

        Whether this particular project is chemical or nuclear, I have no idea since there has not been enough disclosure for anyone to say yah or nay.

        • Simon Derricutt

          DG – I’m not bothered what people believe in provided the data is good. Einstein was quite devout. The lack of a divinity of some sort cannot be proved, so I figure people can believe what suits them in that area. I’ll accept scientific data that has been proved, and all else is a matter of opinion. For that I balance the available evidence and make a guess.

          It will take a while for the verification to happen, and until then we won’t know.

          • Disillusioned Guest

            Yes, Einstein was a devout agnostic. He did not believe in a personal god but rather in nature; it’s beauty, it’s wonders and it’s order.
            These beliefs were complimentary to the scientific method whereas belief in a personal god(s) goes directly against science and logic.
            The claims here are obviously of the religious, personal god kind and therefore not to be taken without a heavy dose of skepticism.
            In the end, as you say, it is only good data that will carry the day. These folks wont be the ones to provide that ‘good data’.

  • Mark Euthanasius

    Directions for miracle hydrogen generator:

    Red Devil drain cleaner
    Water
    Aluminum foil

    The drain cleaner will not be consumed!

    Alternate recipe:

    Citric acid
    water
    aluminum foil

    Third recipe:

    Drano brand drain cleaner
    water

    • Asterix

      Well, actually, the drain cleaner is consumed in the sense that NaAl02 and various other sodium-aluminum complexes are formed.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        Unless one botches the concentrations, the NaOH does not dilute, H2, and AlO3 are the only products.

  • Asterix

    Here’s an odd thing–Solar Hyrdrogen’s web site gives their address as 525 Middlefield Rd., Suite 250 in Menlo Park.

    However, the law offices of Montgomery and Hansen, LLP claim to occupy that space.

    Very strange. Perhaps we should have a Bay Area denizen pay them a visit–or a phone call (M&H, not SHT).

    • Asterix

      Not only that, but their phone number is area code 818, which is Los Angeles, not northern California.

      • http://www.anandtech.com/ Ganesh

        I am in the Bay Area myself ; If the SHT people reach out to me, I can definitely pay them a visit (and do a write-up for Rev-Green, if possible).

        On the other side of the spectrum, I find the latest PR really laughable. Being on the receiving end of various PR pitches (as a journalist / reviewer / analyst for a technology website), I would have sent this over right to the Trash can if I had received it. I am ready to help these guys with the PR drafting part of their PR efforts (and I would definitely not do a childish write-up like the one they have put out right now) — I have no idea about dissemination, though.

        • Asterix

          Well, if you do manage to get them to agree to an interview, make sure that it’s at their place of business, not at a restaurant–and make the interview contingent upon a demonstration of the technology.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        818 as in down by the emissions lab they used?

  • Mark Dansie

    Hi Ben
    I do not remember calling Mills impressive. In this case I am waiting until some more independent tests that I know will be done in the next few weeks are in. I agree with Simon it will be one of the other processes and materials used that produces the hydrogen…its value is in the economics.
    Mark

    • ben__w

      I was replying to, and quoting, Simon. I thought that was clear.

  • Konstantine Balakiryan

    “When you’re one step ahead
    of the crowd you’re a genius.
    When you’re two steps ahead,
    you’re a crackpot.”– Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

    “When you’re ten steps ahead
    of the crowd you’re a Leper”- Konstantine Balakiryan (Apr.2014)

    • johnBas5

      Those guys are two steps behind the crowd.
      The crowd in this saying is the scientific community.

    • humblemechanic

      Pontificating Poodlefaker.

  • Simon Derricutt

    I got the following message this morning:
    Hi Simon.

    Can you please post this on Revolution Green.

    Thanks

    Hakop Jack Aganyan
    Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc.

    Dear ladies and gentlemen !

    I really sympathize with you, I see as you’re struggling and trying to unravel phenomenon of hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”.
    I’m going to help you.
    Try it for yourself, not for us to answer the following questions:

    1. What role in the process of transmutation in the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A” plays antineutrinos ?

    2. How do we manage to turn to 180 degrees vector of “color “force of interaction?

    3. What physical process promotes ” collective ” excitation of nucleons ?

    4. What is the role of the Baryon Resonance in the anomalous production of hydrogen in hydrogen reactor “Symphony” 7A ?

    5. What happens to the wave packets ( particles) in the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A” when an electrical signal is applied from an external source?

    6. What are the real numbers “From (XXXX) fm. to (XXXX) fm” behind those hidden characters (XXXX)?

    When you answer correctly to all these listed questions you can get closer to understanding of the process of transmutation of atoms of oxygen into hydrogen atoms which occurs in hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”.

    Konstantin Balakiryan
    Professor PhD
    Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc.

    *******************************************************

    My answer:
    I’m not struggling. The mass/energy difference between an Oxygen atom and 8 Hydrogen molecules is equivalent to such a large amount of energy (for which there is no source) that the explanation does not make sense. This, if the mechanism as stated were correct, would be free energy on a massive scale. Given the difficulty the universe has in accommodating the introduction or loss of even a small amount of new mass/energy, there has to be an energy source for all that mass/energy. See my earlier back-of-envelope calculations of the energies involved at http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/#comment-1291128300 . No-one has challenged this bit of maths over the last month.

    Let’s assume for a moment that this process can disassemble an Oxygen nucleus into its constituent nucleons (and I’ll ignore other isotopes other than 16-0). The protons can each take an electron and go. The neutrons will be free, and have a half-life of around 10 minutes before disintegrating into a Hydrogen atom. While they are still neutrons, however, they would presumably be thermal velocities and thus have a large cross-section for dropping into any nuclei they come close to. If they are higher velocity, of course, they’ll travel some distance before losing enough energy to do this – so where are the dead grad-students? Of course, the detail of the process could add another miracle that the neutrons immediately decay too…. That would cope with that objection.

    There is however a further objection, in that water is not the only compound that will be in the reaction focus, and given the size of the equipment that focus will be fairly large in molecular terms. Why don’t the other nuclei in the reaction volume also split into their constituent nucleons? Getting things so fine-tuned that only the Oxygen is acted upon is yet another miracle.

    If this process functioned as stated, therefore, we’d see the following:
    The radiation in the vicinity of the reaction would be extremely high, and all known radiation would be part of it.
    The other elements in the mix of chemicals used would also produce unusual isotopes, and the production of Hydrogen would be far in excess of the water used.
    There would be a tendency to produce a lot of Helium and light elements where the process does not go to completion as nuclei move around in the focus. You can’t expect a single product.
    The ash from the process would be highly radioactive.

    If this process works as specified, then the textbooks will need to be rewritten, starting with Conservation of Energy. It’s just too many miracles.

    It’s thus more logical to assume this is a chemical process. I don’t know the chemicals used or the process, but I’ll assume that the verification process will look at the residues and tell us what the inputs and outputs are, and thus whether the Hydrogen has magically appeared (with the concomitant loss of Oxygen) or whether the input and output nuclei remain unchanged as we expect and it’s just some chemical bond rearrangements.

    As stated before, if the process produces Hydrogen for the stated cost then this will be a very profitable idea both for Dr. Balakiryan and the world in general. The first step is to verify that the cost of the process is correct, and then to work out exactly what is happening.

    • Richard

      Give me the final price for 1 metric ton of 100% clean H-gas.
      if the price is as estimated aquivalent 1.80 Dollar for 2797 cubic feet I will buy any quantity you can deliver FOB.
      Please send me the the contract details

      • Simon Derricutt

        Exactly right Richard. For that price, get it 90% pure and you can afford the purification to take it as good as you need. For burning in a power station, 90% is probably just fine.

        • Richard

          Simon, the best way is to grab the bull at its horns and make them do what they promise.
          Just imagine if 100 people order gas and later ask “Where is the gas?” we can expect funny excuses, or lots of cheap gas.
          .Monday I will send them my first order and will keep You informed.

    • Konstantine Balakiryan

      Mr. Simon Derricutt!

      Before challenging the possibilities of hydrogen reactor, one has to look carefully and read the 28 page test report submitted by independent laboratory.( not for public viewing)

      According to report, the gas mixture in hydrogen reactor contains virtually no Oxygen! and hydrogen content is 8 times more.

      Your attempts to refute these results based on the knowledge you have received 20-30, or more years ago are absolutely helpless.

      In fairness I can say that quantum mechanics and modern nuclear physics is largely behind the unusual results recently obtained in experimental physics.

      As for our results, quite correct explanation can be obtained by using Quantum chromodynamics tools.

      Konstantine Balakiryan

  • Richard

    Dont worry everybody, all doubts will end soon,
    STERLING has taken the story and HIS test and expertise will show the TRUTH, as usual.
    I had a good and funny start into the day, reading HIS article, hope all others enjoy it too.

    • Simon Derricutt

      This started with a crazy claim, but it is just possible that a chemical process will work. I can’t think of any that would, of course, but that’s not my problem. Now that the processes are stated to involve ultrasound, infrasound and LENR, and actually getting a qualified person to see it working is proving a little difficult, the believability is dropping. Going to #1 on Sterling’s list is not a good sign.

      One can hope that they actually do a demonstration and prove that they can produce Hydrogen for the stated costs. However, as the great E.M.Smith stated, “Hope is not a strategy”.

  • Richard

    Provided their claim would be realistic:
    If I had such a technologie, I would produce the hydrogen and sell it with a discount of 10% compared to the competion. The result would be a permanent never ending flow of income selling the gas.
    Why should they sell the “engines”? Not a clever idea!
    No matter how much profit they could make per sold “engine”, it is ONCE
    per engine, and this would be nothing compared to an infinite income as
    there is a constant request for the gas.

    Anybody that can ad 1+1 will be sure what is the better choice to earn REAL BIG MONEY to infinity.
    May I ask, what You would do?

    • Simon Derricutt

      Richard – it depends on how you value money. Over a certain amount, I suspect excess money gets to be a negative thing, and you have to devote too much energy to stopping people taking it away from you. Logically, therefore, they’d get someone else to make the machines and sell them and they’d get royalties, and go play at something else. All the headaches are Somebody Else’s Problem and they can buy all the toys they’d ever want. That’s what I’d do. Business people enjoy the business, so let them do it. I enjoy the research and finding out new stuff, so I’d be free to do that. Everyone’s happy and the world gets cheaper energy far faster than one business could do it alone.

      • Richard

        Simon, I completely agree with You, a “natural born” scientist or inventor will behave as you predict.
        But in every group are people of more or less money orientation.
        I would give the all day business of selling gas into an experts hand, check the bookkeeping from time to time and have even more and constant money for my science or hobby or whatever.
        I wrote the above example only to show the irrational logic of those people.
        What had happened to Rockefeller if he had sold the lamps and gave the petrol for free?
        Selling the engines with whatever profit is selling the lamps here
        A business concept without big future, in my opinion.
        As long as I have the monopole on the engines I make constant profit, but with every “engine” sold the price of the gas will fall and soon noody will buy my engines any more as the gas gets cheaper and cheaper.
        All this is theory but more likely to happen than such a “engine” to materialize.
        I also agree with Simon, that being #1 on Sterlings list is the last step before the abyss.

        • Simon Derricutt

          Richard – my view is that as the gas gets cheaper, everyone would be better off so I’d be living in a nicer and more prosperous world where there would be less fighting over resources. We won’t be able to stop people fighting over religious interpretations, and whether the single sandal should be worn on the left foot or right foot, but that’s life. Once you’ve enough money for your requirements, the excess is just a number that doesn’t really mean much. Having too much also imposes a requirement to use that power wisely, like Bill Gates is now doing. Another little point is that the value of that money changes each day as to what it can be exchanged for. It could suddenly be worth a lot less, too.

          Overall, it seems better to spread the technology as far and as fast as possible (if it works). They’ll still get more money than they can usefully spend.

          Ideas are free. Working on them takes time and some money. Taking them to market takes a lot of money, and if the people who supply that money don’t make enough profit it won’t get to market. For the inventor to get 5% of the profit would actually be pretty good, since the development to get to market and pass all the regulations is tedious and expensive. Most inventors seem to want to hold on to a majority, though, since it was their idea. Which is better – 100% of nothing or 5% of a very large pot? Unless, like James Dyson, you’re prepared to finance the development by selling your house to raise the money and then working all hours on the manufacturing processes and regulatory approvals, it’s better to go for a small cut of a large profit. You can then use the time you’ve saved to think up another idea.

          Back to the Hydrogen idea, though, we’re still waiting for verification that it actually works. That seems to be taking some time – currently I’ve not heard of a date that it might happen, which is strange since the kit is there and presumably in working order. Sterling even has a photo of it….

  • ngepro

    I just posted on PESN http://pesn.com/2014/04/29/9602478_Solar-Hydrogen-Trends_revolutionizing-all-energy/

    Why were the ‘qmogens’ dropped from the #1 spot? Surely a compact unit that produces endless free energy is preferable to needing potentially explosive gasses? And remember, >40 ‘qmogens’ have been announced as being/going in production.
    What is shown is a ‘proof of concept’ prototype, NOT a production prototype.
    My math :
    in 1 minute:
    ~700 Wmin of energy is consumed
    2322 liters of H2 is produced (assuming STP) = 209 g
    energy in 1 g of H2 = 33.4 kWh/kg -> 33400 gWh/kg -> 33.4 gWh/g -> .557Wmin/g
    energy in 209 g = 209 g X .557Wmin/g -> 116Wmin.
    COP (Eout/Ein) 116Wmin/700Wmin = 0.116

    • Simon Derricutt

      Bill – your maths seems a bit odd. I’d work in joules rather than watt-minutes or watt-hours. 700W for 60 seconds is 42000 joules (4.2E+4J). 2g of H2 goes to 22.4l at STP. 2322 litres is thus your 209g (I got 207, but rough calcs). 1kg of H2 is 33.4kWh, so multiply by 3600 to get to joules = 1.2E+8J. 209g thus gives around 2.5E+7J. With 4.2E+4J in, 2.5E+7J out, that gives a COP of 598, and since I’m doing a rough calculation anyway I’d say 600 near enough – it’s not as if these figures are precise. I’m not sure where you’ve dropped some figures here, but I think you’ve inverted something.

      • ngepro

        Simon, you are correct. Should have used Joules.
        Too early in the morning?
        I edited my PESN comment.

        • Simon Derricutt

          Nice one Bill. Evening here for me. Have another cup of coffee.

          It’s also a good example of accepting a correction rather than insisting it was right all along, like Sterling with his ammeter measurement. He still thinks he’s right on that one.

          • ngepro

            Had two after I wrote that!
            If I got a quarter ($0.25) for every time I was wrong, I’d be a rich man.

    • Disillusioned Guest

      It looks like your post over there is on the cutting room floor :-(

      • Simon Derricutt

        Probably correct – looks like maybe Stuart started work a couple of hours ago, but he’s starting to implement my idea of whitelisting people who aren’t insulting or too negative. Dave Haack should be whitelisted so may have gone straight through and we can’t infer that Stuart has started. Bill will always have to wait for moderation there. Apart from the maths error, what Bill says is exactly right, in that a free energy machine that worked would be better than any fuel production system.

  • Konstantine Balakiryan

    Mr. Simon Derricutt!

    Before challenging the possibilities of hydrogen reactor, one has to look carefully and read the 28 page test report submitted by independent laboratory.( not for public viewing)

    According to report, the gas mixture in hydrogen reactor contains virtually no Oxygen! and hydrogen content is 8 times more.

    Your attempts to refute these results based on the knowledge you have received 20-30, or more years ago are absolutely helpless.

    In fairness I can say that quantum mechanics and modern nuclear physics is largely behind the unusual results recently obtained in experimental physics.

    As for our results, quite correct explanation can be obtained by using Quantum chromodynamics tools.

    Konstantine Balakiryan

    Professor, PhD

  • Simon Derricutt

    Professor Balakiryan – I cannot read the 28-page report, not having signed the requisite NDA.

    At the base of your claimed process is that you are generating mass/energy in the quantity of around 6,000,000 times the energy that you would produce by combustion of the Hydrogen produced. Instead of the “official” calculated COP of around 600 it is instead around 3.6E+9, and that extra energy comes from nothing. Quoting quantum physics (and the changes in the last 40 years) does not change the fact that you are creating a whole lot of energy from nothing. I have seen no developments in quantum physics (or quantum chromodynamics) which would allow breaking of conservation of mass/energy. If there is an academic paper that demonstrates such a possibility, then maybe you’d be so kind as to point me at it. I’m pretty sure it would have been world-shattering news if someone had demonstrated this before, so it’s surprising I haven’t heard.

  • Simon Derricutt

    Professor Balakiryan – Since you’ve put this in twice I’ve copied my reply. I cannot read the 28-page report, not having signed the requisite NDA.

    At the base of your claimed process is that you are generating mass/energy in the quantity of around 6,000,000 times the energy that you would produce by combustion of the Hydrogen produced. Instead of the “official” calculated COP of around 600 it is instead around 3.6E+9, andthat extra energy comes from nothing. Quoting quantum physics (and the changes in the last 40 years) does not change the fact that you are creating a whole lot of energy from nothing. I have seen no developmentsin quantum physics (or quantum chromodynamics) which would allow breaking of conservation of mass/energy. If there is an academic paper that demonstrates such a possibility, then maybe you’d be so kind as to point me at it. I’m pretty sure it would have been world-shattering newsif someone had demonstrated this before, so it’s surprising I haven’t heard.

  • Konstantine Balakiryan

    Dear ladies and gentlemen !

    Those unkind words that you have said or just going
    say to the miracle that we have created for you (yes, for you)
    anticipated the man who was born in these days of April exactly 450 years ago.

    Who will believe my verse in time to come,
    If it were fill’d with your most high deserts?
    Though yet, heaven knows, it is but as a tomb
    Which hides your life and shows not half your parts.

    If I could write the beauty of your eyes
    And in fresh numbers number all your graces,
    The age to come would say ‘This poet lies:
    Such heavenly touches ne’er touch’d earthly faces.’

    So should my papers yellow’d with their age
    Be scorn’d like old men of less truth than tongue,
    And your true rights be term’d a poet’s rage
    And stretched metre of an antique song:

    But were some child of yours alive that time,
    You should live twice; in it and in my rhyme.

    • Simon Derricutt

      Professor Balakiryan – at this moment there are qualified people who wish to see your device working, and through that there will be access to financing if you so wish. They seem to be having some difficulty getting a date. These are the people you need to convince that it works, not the people like me on the blogs.

      If I were in your position, therefore, I would not be entering into any discussions on these blogs or giving hints of how it works. I’d be busy convincing the investors that it is a reliable process.

      I’ve noted that it’s not at all critical whether this is chemical or nuclear from a commercial viewpoint, though of course if it works as you state it will mean a rewrite of a lot of textbooks and theories.

      Don’t try to convince me, therefore. Try to convince the people who can invest enough to bring this into commercial use as soon as possible. Get some validation that it works from the people that count.

      • Konstantine Balakiryan

        Soory, Simon, I’m not a salesman,

        I’m a scientist.

        So I can’t use.your advice.

        • PieEconomics

          Professor Balakiryan, I’m glad you’ve taken time to answer some questions here. Can you provide some ballpark guesses about the following?

          (1) What is the total cost of materials for the working unit pictured in the PESN article?

          (2) Are any consumables required other than input electricity and water– such as catalysts? If so, what are their total costs per interval of time?

          By disclosing aggregate dollar totals only, I don’t think this would give away any proprietary information.

          • Konstantine Balakiryan

            Please, some more patience. During the next 11 days will be published our new press release .
            I am confident you will find answers on majority of your questions
            Konstantin Balakiryan
            Professor, PhD

        • Simon Derricutt

          Professor Balakiryan – Jack is however the salesman, and you presumably have some influence. Simply produce a credible demonstration to the people who can supply the money to develop this commercially.

  • Disillusioned Guest

    This is all starting to sound and look like the Wasif Kahloon debacle. Each time I see one of these statements like ‘it’s all in the report but you can’t read it'; I turn off a bit more a credibility shrinks at logarithmic speed :-(

  • douglas gray

    The University that Professor B. taught at is regarded as being one of the top five for science in Russia. He does not fit the profile of being a scam artist, but appears to be a physicist with solid credentials.
    Dear Professor Bal., my family has a small cabin in the Sierras off the grid, and we have a noisy propane generator. I hope you can provide us with a very small unit in the near future to replace it.

  • Asterix

    You know, it really is a small world. Back in 2009, Rebecca and Constantine were promoting a system for playing roulette:

    From http://vib.adib92.ru/admin/ForumGetListID.mhtml?PubID=8069
    ——————————————————————————————————
    rebecca Aug 18 2009 8:34AM
    E-mail:
    HomePage:

    Рулетка побеждена!
    Профессор Константин Балакирян из Калифорнии завершил работу над монографией «Оптимизация математического ожидания в квазигенераторах случайных чисел»
    Прикладное значение этой работы далеко выходит за пределы достигнутых теоретических результатов, и станет «бомбой» для казино. В приложении к своему исследованию, названному «Отсроченный мартингейл» профессор Балакирян изложил стратегию игры в рулетку. Каждый игрок в рулетку знает, как важно минимальным количеством фишек закрыть максимальное количество номеров, следующих друг за другом на рулеточном колесе. В «Отсроченном мартингейле» всего 3-мя фишками покрывается 2 огромных сектора , а именно: ( 4-16-33-21-6-18-31-19-8-X-29 ) и ( 5-17-32-20-7-X-30-9-28 ). Вне непрерывной последовательности номеров в каждом секторе остаётся всего по однму номеру – 12 и 26, обозначенных выше буквой Х.
    Сделав 3 «лайн бета» (4-9), (16-21) и (28-33), Вы повторяете их до тех пор пока не выграете сумму равную Вашей первоначальной ставке. Если номера из Вашей комбинации будут выпадать реже чем остальные , (а это именно так и будет, поскольку ВЫ покрыли всего 18 из 38 номеров, т.е несколько меньше половины) , Вам необходмио вести подсчёт того, сколько раз выпадали не Ваши номера.
    Известная многим игровая система Мартингейл и множество других прогрессивных систем основано на правиле –удвоения или увеличения ставки после проигрыша.
    В «Отсроченном мартингайле» ставка увеличивается только на величину первоначальной ставки прсле каждого 4-го отрицательного результата.
    Таким образом ВЫ проигрываете казино при низких ставках, а выигрываете при повышенных. При этом Вы никогда не приближаетесь к ограничениям, существующим в казино и не оказываетесь в ситуации, когда в результате многократных повышений, чтобы выиграть $1 Вы вынуждены сделать ставку в $512.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    I’ll leave the translation to the reader (or to Google Translate), your pick.

    No offense people; I really do like to see a good long con.

    • Konstantine Balakiryan

      It is good work. I mean the book of the theory of probability,but not the Appendix
      -(2.5 pages devoted to a roulette wheel).
      Thank you reminded me about that.
      As you started being picked my biography, can you will find also my medical patent about treatment of congenital dislocation of a hip. And the patent for the device for training in foreign languages which represented
      the USSR at all world Education exhibitions by from 1975 to 1985 from Warsaw and Grenoble to San Paulo.
      In general I did so many things that would suffice on 10 lives.
      But the main achievement I consider theoretical and practical works on a cold thermonuclear reaction the made in USA and which witnesses were all of you
      Sincerely
      Konstantin Balakiryan

      P.S.Sorry, English is my ninth language

    • Konstantine Balakiryan

      It is good work. I mean the book of the theory of probability,but not the Appendix
      -(2.5 pages devoted to a roulette wheel).
      Thank you reminded me about that.
      As you started being picked my biography, can you will find also my medical patent about treatment of congenital dislocation of a hip. And the patent for the device for training in foreign languages which represented
      the USSR at all world Education exhibitions by from 1975 to 1985 from Warsaw and Grenoble to San Paulo.
      In general I did so many things that would suffice on 10 lives.
      But the main achievement I consider theoretical and practical works on a cold thermonuclear reaction the made in USA and which witnesses were all of you.
      Sincerely
      Konstantin Balakiryan

      P.S.Sorry, English is my ninth language

      • Asterix

        Dr Balakiryan, exactly how much money did you make from roulette venture?

        And who, exactly is Rebecca? Is she related to you?

        • Konstantine Balakiryan

          1. ” N ! ” ( N Factorial)
          2. Rebecca? -She is my destiny!

    • Konstantine Balakiryan
      • ngepro

        All you are doing is delaying; not eliminating the (inevitable) long term loss. When you have a negative expectation (as you do in roulette) for each outcome, the result is a negative outcome for the total; I have seen many betting systems (including yours) and variations, but none will change that. The only ‘sure’ ways to win at roulette are:
        a: discovering and exploiting a bias in the system or
        b: calculating the expected ball drop area, based on the speed and path of the ball delivery (using a camera and computer, e.g. smart phone this can be done)

        • Simon Derricutt

          The long-term expectation should, I think, be 36/37 since with 0 the house gets all the bets. The bias, like that of the lottery, will be very slight if it can even be measured. The second method, therefore, is the only reasonable way round it, and that requires a fast camera and processor and for you to place the bets after the wheel is spinning. It probably won’t work on the computerised roulette gambling machines unless you can crack their random-number generator. Probably be an inside job to get the source-code, though, and since the winnings would also be scrutinised it’s unlikely you’d be able to do it for long.

          Since gambling houses really don’t like to lose money, if there was any system that worked it would result in the game being stopped. It’s OK to win money from the other punters, but not from the house.

          • ngepro

            We have the ’00’ here, so the odds are worse.

            There are commercial systems that use a hidden camera to record the ball trajectory; they casinos do not allow them and will (at best) gently eject you if caught.
            The biased wheel method is not likely to be so bad that it can be detected by a player (requires many hours of recording numbers). The casinos supposedly check the wheels daily.

  • Asterix

    By all means, you should investigate the good professor’s system for winning at roulette also.

  • Simon Derricutt

    They’ve been discussing this over at Vortex, too. Axil seems to have worked out what the chemical input is and Jones found out a bit more, having visited the business address and finding only a law firm there. Worth reading http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93185.html and following that string, since the background picture for SHT has been traced (on energeticforum) to a picture of a Chinese bottling-plant. Oh well, it looks impressive….

    As before, there is a (mental) health-warning associated with Vortex. Don’t go there if you like your science to only follow the theories you grew up with. They entertain ideas that a lot of people just reject. Their ideas may be crazy, but are they crazy enough?

    • Richard

      I honour the efforts of Axil and Terry to inform the makers and readers of PESN. I tried such things on other topics too and learned that facts that dont fit into the PESN perception of reality have a fatal tendency to disappear in a big black hole of ignorance.
      May be PESN adresses a different clientel, where believe and hope are stronger than facts?
      Sterling is the first to report about new “QumoGens” and after supporting the hype, those “machines” disappear silently or with a scandal and Sterling does not have the strenght to say, that “QumoGen number 453″ failed like all 452 before.

  • E_man

    Now I see just 3 possibility:
    1. It is scam
    2. It is based on Hydrino energy. There is used hydrogen energy of 1 liter of water to generate 1 kg hydrogen, from adequate quantum of water (oxygen escapes to atmosphere).
    3. Mr.Balakiryan discovered method, how to cover high energy deficit between 1 oxygen atom and 16 hydrogen atoms (more then 100MeV). But energy is mass! If he discovered, how to import energy deficit in form of mass to the oxygen atom (it is only 7 g for oxygen in 1 liter of water if I am correct), he departed oxygen to protons and neutrons and after a while he will obtain 1 kg of hydrogen. It is fantastic possibility but is it impossible?

    Any other possibility?

    • humblemechanic

      Yes, there is. The Bard quoting professor disdainful of salesmen is a farceur and a comedian.

  • Richard

    Sterling passes the hat for a travel to SHT
    and the “chief scientist” makes some wild statements with creative formulas how the symphony works.
    Have fun

    • Disillusioned Guest

      How does fission take place without enormous amounts of input energy?
      Maybe those formulas are the ones for winning at roulette…

    • humblemechanic

      Symphony 7 A in BS major = cacophony.

  • Hope4dbest

    Since SHT has made the results of Airkinetics public, would it be possible to contact Airkinetics for more info?

  • Simon Derricutt

    My other comments on this have been spread around here and on PESN, and the measurements do seem to have been deliberately inaccurate. That reminds me somewhat of Rossi’s initial demos.

    I think they chose Sterling to attend the verification because of his reputation for believing without evidence. This time Sterling did a good job though, and they probably didn’t expect that. He tested the anemometer by blowing on it and comparing that to other real-world experience, and although he didn’t realise that the anemometer can’t tell you cubic feet per minute from the airspeed unless you tell it the duct dimension, he did report what he was told which, together with the anemometer manual and his observations, tells us that the rate of production of Hydrogen in this test was less than 2cfm rather than the ~200 or more that had been claimed. This of course brings into question the claimed cost per kilo of Hydrogen, if they are two orders of magnitude out with their measurements.

    The heat of the water tank was something else Sterling noticed. This wasn’t measured as such, but we know that at 60°C it is painful to hold your hand on something so this is a reasonable estimate. Professor B tried to explain this away as heat from the sun, and quoted the power of the sun as 4-4.5kW/m² to me as justification. That figure is of course about 4 times more than the accepted figure. Each time he tries to explain the observed data he digs himself a little deeper.

    There is still the possibility that the process will produce Hydrogen cheaper than current methods, but it looks likely that it won’t be world-changingly cheaper.

    • Mark Dansie

      The heat is generated by the chemical reaction…..end of story.
      Mark

    • Mark Euthanasius

      They are con artists. The interview with Sterling was a steaming pile of pungent fertilizer.

  • James Thomas

    I too was very impressed with your “angelic nemesis” :-)

    He definitely arrived at the demo with the attitude of “Show me the data!”; and he was not a happy camper returning home empty handed.

    It appears someone may be turning towards the dark side.

  • Bruce M

    I like this better than SHT. Mist energy systems combined with high temperature electrolysis.
    7.5 KW vs 450 KW To Make 450 LBS Of Steam Per Hour. No boiler needed.

    http://www.mistenergysystems.com/19059/dsp_agent_page.php/198192/Less_Power__More_Steam/Less_Power__More_Steam

    • Simon Derricutt

      Bruce – they haven’t managed to get this running over unity although their calculations say it will. The reason may be that they are confusing energy with power (a common mistake).
      Quote from their website:

      The energy we must apply in order for our 10 HP pump to produce
      the required pressure to process 120 lbs. of water per hour is 7.46 Kw
      which is 124.3 watts per minute to pump 2 lbs. 0f water at 30,000 psi
      and a velocity of 3,000 m/s. This gives us and output of 1139 watts
      using only 124.3 watts of energy. The rest of the energy comes from the
      energy contained within the bonding of the molecules of water.

      unquote.

      The way to avoid these problems is to calculate using joules for each transaction, so we’re working in a common unit – put the seconds in afterwards and convert to watts. There are often slips of calculation when working between units of BTU, BTU/h and all the other historical methods of calculating for steam. It’s just too easy to cock things up with all the conversion constants and to lose a dimension here or there.

      If they self-loop it by putting the output from their steam engine through a generator (maybe 95% efficient) to power the hydraulic pump that makes it function, and they can still demonstrate it’s 400% efficient, then I’ll stand corrected, but without that physical confirmation I’ll say they’ve got their calculations wrong.

      It could possibly still be a steam engine of worthwhile efficiency, even if not over unity.

  • Mark Euthanasius

    I listened to the interview that Sterling conducted with the “chief scientist”. It was a load and a half of nonsense.

    • Konstantine Balakiryan

      Interview of Professor Konstantin Balakiryan to Sterling Allan never happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Simon Derricutt

        True – it seems to have been deleted from PESN (or at least I can’t find it). So it never happened, even though Mark E listened to it. He must be mistaken….

        • Disillusioned Guest

          Why would SA delete it? This can only make it look like he made the whole thing up!

          And just when he was looking like a real investigative reporter.

          • Simon Derricutt

            DG – I didn’t spend the time listening to it, though I suppose I really should have done. If SA was asked to remove it, then he’d have to do that. Possibly they realised it exposed too many gaps in professor B’s knowledge (note confusion of power and energy in his replies).

            It is still possible that the process is economically viable and that professor B will earn a lot of money from it. It won’t however make much difference to the rest of us, since it can’t be that much cheaper than standard methods of producing Hydrogen. I suspect the best it can do would be to bring Hydrogen energy costs down to about par with that of oil, but there’s not enough data to back that supposition.

      • Mark Euthanasius

        The interview was with your partner if fraud Jackob Aganyan. You two should go back to pitching retail ventures to the Kardashians.

      • ngepro
      • Mark Euthanasius

        When and where did you receive your Ph.D.?
        In what discipline?
        What was the subject of your doctoral thesis?
        Why do you conflate energy and power?

    • Max

      Link?

  • Konstantine Balakiryan

    Enemies of the United States will use any methods to sabotage and prevent the American people to take advantage of the greatest discovery of the century.

    Here’s a good example of that – Simon Derricutt of France.

    Simon: TSI (Total Solar Irradiation) is about 1.4kW / m² above the atmosphere, and at LA I’d expect maybe around 1.1kW / m² at this time on a clear sunny day. Your estimate of solar power is about 4 times too high. The (white) water tank will not actually heat up at this rate, and you might just about get somewhere in the region of 400W heat input if you’re lucky. The water in the tank was heated by at least 4x that rate.

    Konstantin: These are the real numbers that actually exist:

    This chart shows solar insulation ( It is also called solar irradiation) in kilowatt-hours per square meter per day in many US locations.

    State___________City_____________________High____Low_______Avg

    AZ_____________Pheonix__________________7.13____5.78 ______6.58 

    CA_____________Los Angeles_______________6.14____5.03______5.62

    CA_____________Santa Maria_______________6.52____5.42______5.94 

    CA_____________Fresno___________________6.19____3.42______5.38

    CA_____________Riverside_________________6.35_____ 5.35_____5.87           

    http://www.bigfrogmountain.com/SunHou...

    He’s just fooling us and fulfilling someone’s order.

    Konstantine Balakiryan ,
    PhD.Professor.

    • Mark Dansie

      Hi Konstantine, why did you not allow the volume test using water displacement? I have conducted test in the countries (Australia and the USA) leading EPA approved and government research labs and we resorted to this method more than once when testing hydrogen output when meters were out of commission or under suspicion. We had an incredible team at every place we visited (at a cost )
      Why did you not accept the many offers made to have other reputable scientists and companies assist in the tests? At best this was poorly organized, exhibited poor communications but made for a good pool party.
      You should also have measured the heat in the tank before and after, and have a control tank.
      Talk of enemies if the state is gibberish, misleading and against peer review standards. Simon may or not be right, the dialogue is about establishing the truth.
      You have fallen well short of professional standards in both methodology, organizational skills.

    • Simon Derricutt

      Professor B – the correct link is http://www.bigfrogmountain.com/SunHoursPerDay.html and this gives the number of kWh PER DAY at those locations. You might also wish to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Solar_Irradiance#Total_Solar_Irradiance for the figure I quoted. You have made the common mistake of confusing kWh with kW – energy and power. Funnily enough, you have indeed stated that this is measured in kWh/day but haven’t realised what this means in terms of kW.

      Assuming you didn’t wait all day after filling up the tank (maybe start 30 minutes or less after filling it?) then you exposed the tank of water to the sun for around a couple of hours. If it were painted matt black and you had a square metre exposed to the sun, then you’d have put around a couple of kWh into it from the sun. This would account for around half the heat increase experienced, however it’s much less than a square metre (about 0.3m²?) and it’s white so my estimate of 400W maximum still looks about right.

      The extra heat in that tank cannot be explained by the sun shining on it. Who is trying to fool people?

      • H.M.Bronkhorst

        Simon if I am correct the water tank is under the table not completely
        in the sun .
        Regards : Henk

        • Simon Derricutt

          Henk – there is one photo where the end of the tank is obviously in the sun. By allowing the best (for him) explanation this makes the discrepancy obvious rather than subject to opinion. The 400W I allowed as a maximum is way too big for the circumstances (under the table), and the estimate of temperature rise was smaller than I thought it probably was, since an “almost burning” sensation was experienced by Sterling so it was more likely 70-80°C rather than the 60°C I took it as. By the time you’ve taken 80 litres from a tap in a house, you’re taking water that has been underground and is thus at around 17°C rather than the 20°C I took it as for the rough calculation. No real figures there, so take the most optimistic estimates to try to explain it away, with solar heating at least twice what would be properly estimated and temperature rise getting on for 2/3 of what could be inferred. It hasn’t been explained away.

          • Mark Euthanasius

            The picture that I saw has the tank mostly in shadow. If you can notice shadow with your eyes, then the incident light has been knocked down by at least 80%, usually 90% or more. It really is much cooler in the shade!

          • Simon Derricutt

            Mark – depending on when that photo was taken, there may have been more or less sun directly on the tank during the demo. Since the calculations show that even if it were in full sun then it wouldn’t heat up by as much as it did, it’s better to allow him the leeway.

            For comparison anyway, there are sun-powered showers available. Contents maybe 10 litres, area about 0.25m² and they take around a couple of hours to get a hot shower (rise of 20°C) here at 45°N. They are also black….

          • Mark Euthanasius

            Simon, the angle of declivity set by the table is pretty darn low.

            Anyway, the emissivity of white polyethylene is only about 0.1. I estimate the width of that thing at about 0.6m and the diameter at maybe 0.4m So if we allow a generous surface area of 0.4m^2 and two hours at solar noon and an emissivity of 0.1, the absorbed heat would have been 288 kJ. If the thing was half full it would have held about 38 liters. 288kJ could have heated that by less than 2 degrees C.

          • Simon Derricutt

            Mark – they said they put in 24 gallons (presumed US measure). About 80 litres. I didn’t go look up the emissivity, just assumed it less than 1 and calculated as if it was 1. I still find it funny watching the wriggling trying to explain that temperature rise. As Mark D said, it’s a chemical reaction going on, and that’s cooling water.

            If it’s really economic to run this, why all the smoke? If they’d sold it as a cheap way of producing Hydrogen through an electrochemical process I’d have been applauding it. That implies it isn’t cheaper than current methods, though.

          • Mark Euthanasius

            80 liters would about fill up the tank as I estimated its size. It would also require 334kJ for every degree C, and I estimate in the best case the solar exposure was less than 300kJ.

            It is probably a variation on drain cleaner.

          • Simon Derricutt

            Mark – those estimates seem good to me. It also fits with experience with outdoor paddling-pools for the kids. They don’t heat up quickly even in full sun, larger area and less volume of water.

          • Mark Euthanasius

            The people who size up solar spa heaters have this down pat. The “professor” and his pal Jackob come off as a pair of the more ignorant con artists I have encountered. They rival John Rohner.

          • H.M.Bronkhorst

            Thanks Mark a good picture .
            Regards Henk

          • H.M.Bronkhorst

            I have ask Streling to give me the time of the pictures at pesw
            the same I have commend here is removed from pesw .
            The time from the pictures it is al about .
            Now Simon I am 100 % behind you .

          • Simon Derricutt

            Henk – your comment on PESN is still there, but Stuart hasn’t got around to it yet. The time that the pictures were taken, and whether the tank is in full sun or shadow, is not really that important since even in full sun it wouldn’t get that hot that quickly, unless the Sun was suddenly putting out at least 4 times its usual amount. I think we’d have noticed that.

          • H.M.Bronkhorst

            I now Simon I am about 5 degrees south I have
            a water thank ( 2000 liters ) black in the sun but no
            hot water .

    • ngepro

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
      Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – the amount of solar radiation
      received at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere – has been measured since
      1978 by series of overlapping NASA and ESA satellite experiments to be
      1.361 kilo⁠watts per square meter (kW/m²)

      Exactly as Simon said.

      • Konstantine Balakiryan

        Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – is the average ANUAL amount of solar radiation in the EARTH including North and South Pole, Siberia, Alaska.
        The experiment was conducted in California on a sunny day in May.
        And I am sure that Simon understands that difference.

        • johnBas5

          The maximum energy flux from the sun you can have at the distance the earth is from the sun is called the solar constant, it is 1.361 (solar minimum) up to 1.362 (solar maximum) kW/m².

          The number given by @ngepro is the Solar Constant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

          • Simon Derricutt

            Thanks John – you got there first. It’s measured (obviously) perpendicular to the line to the sun, so as you move away from perpendicularity your square metre receives less energy.

            Professor B – you are exposing your lack of knowledge. TSI is not an average at all, over time or over space. I gave the links – look it up.

        • ngepro

          You seem to be confused; the peak amount of solar energy over a 2 hour period in L.A. is 2 kWh.
          Given the actual area of the tank at 0.3 sq. meter, that leaves at most ~600 Wh contributed to the heating of the water.

      • johnBas5

        The 1.2 kW/m² is referring to the solar constant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

        Definition of the solar irradiance can be found here:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

        Information about Total Solar Irradiance can be found here:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#Total_Solar_Irradiance

    • Max

      (x-post from pesn)

      Hi Konstantine. Are you sure you’re a professor? Because I double checked Simon’s numbers and I think he’s correct. The site you linked quoted the wrong values (well the right values, wrong dimension). They posted the numbers for solar insolation (kWh/m^2) and instead claimed they were daily solar radiation (kWh/m^2/day). The actual value is less than 2 kWh/m^2/day from the NREL maps I’m looking at.

      If you take Simon’s numbers and work out their dimensions I hope you’ll come to the same conclusion as I did. This kind of thing is really just dimensional analysis and algebra, I would hope that a professor would be able to do these things with ease (otherwise we’re all doomed!)

      • Richard

        As I stated before, not every Russian diploma is worth the paper it is printed on, If You pay enough or have the right parents, You get everything in Russia. So, diploma is not equal diploma

    • Mark Euthanasius

      OMG, you claim to have a Ph.D. but you’re conflating power with energy. Simon Derricutt quoted irradiance: IE incident power correctly for solar noon. You’re conflating that power value with an energy value: total daily insolation. BTW: The term is “insolation”, not “insulation”.

      • ngepro

        I thought that insolation was the state of being insolent…

        • humblemechanic

          And I am a dour old barnacle, an Insolator

      • Max

        He also claims to be a professor, but there’s a curious lack of publications:

        http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Balakiryan

        Something is fishy…

        • Mark Euthanasius

          His partner in fraud played the “conspiracy against us” card in his interview with Sterling. Now this bozo is claiming that Simon is trying to sabotage their wonderful efforts towards relieving the gullible of excess wallet mass.

  • Mark Euthanasius

    At about 58:20 in Sterling’s interview there was discussion of where to get the water to convert into hydrogen. They mentioned atmospheric water. The moron Aganyan insisted that it depends on how much water is in the air. This is yet another example of what incompetent scam artists these clowns are. Recall that they claim to convert 1kg of water into 1kg of hydrogen. That means that they claim to get 89% of the their hydrogen mass from the oxygen in water. Who cares about the 11% by mass that is in water?

  • Simon Derricutt

    Mark – it takes a bit more refrigeration to get the water out of the air when it’s low relative humidity. Since most of the energy goes into taking out the latent heat, it’s not a drastic amount more than in high humidity air, but it does cost a bit more. Difficult in Antarctica, but then there’s all that ice anyway so you wouldn’t need to. In real terms, water is going to be available anywhere in one form or another.

    • Mark Euthanasius

      Simon, they claim to have a scheme that gets 89% of its hydrogen by transmutating the oxygen in water. Therefore they can forget the water and just transmutate oxygen straight from the air. Of course the reason they don’t is that they are just liars. As Mark Dansie has pointed out the hot vat of water indicates an exothermic chemical reaction. Drain cleaner, aluminum and water will get you plenty of evolved hydrogen.

      • Simon Derricutt

        Mark – I get the point. They’d need a bit of Hydrogen to start with to make the water, since presumably their process needs water. Having kickstarted it, some of the Hydrogen would be cycled through the burner, coincidentally running the generator for the electricity to run the machine. If it was really doing that, it would work.

        • Mark Euthanasius

          Simon, why do they need any water? They claim to transmute oxygen. They claim that they get almost all of their hydrogen by transmuting oxygen. Water isn’t fuel. Water won’t kick start anything.

          • Simon Derricutt

            Mark – it could be some special resonance of water or that the pixie dust needs to dissolve in it. I don’t know. If it needs water, then they can make it from the Oxygen, and if not then they can just take in the Oxygen. If it works with Oxygen alone, though, why doesn’t it work with Nitrogen or anything else? Why doesn’t it eat through the Stainless Steel and turn it into Hydrogen as well? Feed it limestone or sand (there’s lots of it and about half its mass is Oxygen) instead.

            How it is supposed to work doesn’t make sense – far too many miracles and it would create about 190MWh of energy (from nothing) per kilo of Hydrogen produced. During that demo, though, we saw that they didn’t understand how to measure the quantity produced and thought it was a couple of orders of magnitude higher than it actually was. The process might actually work (chemically) but the quantity produced is much lower than stated and roughly the same cost per kilo as current methods.

          • Mark Euthanasius

            It is just a cheap scam. If you can scare up an hour, and have anti-convulsives handy then listen to Sterling’s interview.

  • Simon Derricutt

    Over at PESN, professor B’s “enemy of the States” (talking about me) post has been deleted. I don’t think Stuart would have done this. I have a copy in case it gets deleted from here. It did show that professor B doesn’t understand the difference between energy and power, and we know from the anemometer measurements that he doesn’t understand the difference between velocity and flow rate. It’s a problem of dimensions, and not losing some here or there (especially time). Funnily enough, in the interview Jack did say he was working in 4 dimensions where the rest of science was working in 3, but I don’t think he meant it that way.

    Although I’m probably not his most favourite person for asking difficult questions, if he had had Mike McKubre of SRI involved (as was also stated on that interview) then I’m sure he would have asked them as well. AFAIK Mike McKubre has not been involved at all, apart from a fleeting contact. It was too risky to invite him to that demo. If he was stopped from measuring things the way he wanted he’d have walked out.

    Overall, a lot of smoke has been blown. I still don’t know whether the process is economic, though I do know it doesn’t work as stated. I think professor B came on the blogs to publicise his process because he thought we were credulous – maybe he realises now we aren’t.

    • Simon Derricutt

      Correction – Stuart tells me that the post was edited a few times, and each time it came up on his list as a new one, so he deleted the duplicates. It was in fact copy/pasted in another article at PESN as well as here, so Stuart deleted one too many. He’s reinstated that comment now, and we’ve learnt something new about Disqus.

  • Asterix

    I’m a little confused. On their “technology” page, SHT says:

    “In 2013, Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. received a grant from The Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen Foundation. According to the foundation: “The Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen Foundation supports original research that seeks to create innovative products or services which integrate science and engineering with management concepts in the context of global cultures that address sustainability, solve social problems and evolve society so as to improve the quality of life for our society.”

    Except, that one looks at the web site of the fund: http://www.gallowaynielsenfoundation.com/grantees.asp

    SHT isn’t mentioned in the list of grantees.

  • Richard Amodeo

    There is a part of me that wants to believe this for the sake of humanity but knowing how human nature truly is, I find that this falls under the category of science fiction. Many people will do anything to obtain funding and financial gain are experts of deception and therefore they can not be trusted. The only way I would ever believe such an technological breakthrough, if it were verified by multiple well know and respected industry experts. The number of scams now days on breakthroughs are nearly unlimited and once industry experts investigate it always turns out to be pie in the sky and pipe dreams with impure motivates. I am sorry I have to be so blunt but I have to be truthful.

  • Simon Derricutt

    Richard – since that demo to Sterling Allan, where they demonstrated that they couldn’t measure flow-rates correctly (they overestimated by around 2 orders of magnitude) and tried to cover up the reaction heat by blaming the sunshine, we haven’t heard anything more. OK, there were a few insults flying around from them as they tried to wriggle, but the explanations were not believable. At the moment it looks like a chemical process, and the costings to produce 1kg of Hydrogen may also be a couple of orders of magnitude higher than they claimed so it may not even be economic. People we know who are competent tried to get into that demo but were refused. SHT expected to pull the wool over Sterling’s eyes but he surprised them by getting good data despite their limitations.

    We’ll try to not be influenced by the history of such claims, and to look at each claim on its own merits. You never know when one of them might actually be real.

  • humblemechanic

    It would be a disaster for humanity. BAL, BALA, BAAL. I got the info by h-mail
    from hE who knows.

  • Mircea Bidian

    Ever since the beginning I was skeptical regarding the way in which this type of generator will be put into use. It’s not the skepticism that drives me, it’s something else.
    I am absolutely sure this invention works as Mr. Balakiryan is claiming and I am also convinced that he is aware of the details which I will explain below.
    From a very brief description we know that we obtain approx. 97% hydrogen.
    From the chemistry class we know that 1 kg of water has 111.19 grams of hydrogen and 888.81 grams of oxygen.
    Oxygen, as we all know, is formed from 8 electrons, 8 protons and 8 neutrons, which considering its 888.81 grams means ~0.25 grams electrons, ~443.65 grams protons and ~444.9 grams neutrons. This means that from 1 kg of water we can obtain a maximum of ~555.34 grams hydrogen! Where did the ~444.9 grams of neutrons disappear? Well, they did not disappear! Mr. Balakiryan says that it’s 97% of the mass of water. If it’s so, it means that the ~444.9 grams of neutrons are inside the hydrogen’s nucleus resulted by splitting the oxygen atom, and we do not have hydrogen but deuterium, which means a final result of 111.19 grams hydrogen and 888.81 grams of deuterium.
    A remarkable invention, even from the point of view! Using this on an industrial scale would mean an enormous quantity of heavy water released into the atmosphere, which is harmful to all living creatures. Basically this pollution would be worse than the one with carbon dioxide, which is recycled by plants. As a conclusion, the real reason why this invention will not be put into any practical use is this and not because it threatens the global economy.

    • Simon Derricutt

      Mircia – if a neutron is loose and unbound to a nucleus, it will decay to a proton and electron (Hydrogen) with a half-life of around 10 minutes. If the Hydrogen produced was instead Deuterium, this could be easily distinguished by the mass, being around twice the mass per volume than Hydrogen. Note that Deuterium is not radioactive and also exists naturally as about 1/6000 ratio of natural Hydrogen.

      It’s possible that this process does produce cheap Hydrogen, but it’s extremely unlikely that it does so by splitting the Oxygen nuclei. If there were such a process, then there is no good reason why it would only work on the Oxygen and no other nuclei, and also no good reason why it would always be complete. We’d thus expect that a lot of other atoms would be consumed and that the ash would contain a lot of light elements. If you also look at the energy required to split an Oxygen nucleus (you’ll find the calculations in other comments) you’ll see that it’s around 7 orders of magnitude greater than the energy released by burning that Hydrogen.

      Give the time that this has been going on without a convincing demonstration (for example fill a weighted weather-balloon with the Hydrogen and release it, which would demonstrate both the volume produced and that it’s sufficiently lighter than air) then even people who believe that it’s real should maybe have a few qualms about it. Surely they could make more money for extra research by selling Hydrogen from the machine they already have? This hasn’t happened.

      Let’s say I have a process that I claim will produce an ounce of Gold from a ton of scrap bottles. I have a small-scale process and I want to get investment to make a bigger-scale system. The obvious way is to process a ton of bottles on small-scale and sell the gold, and use that to re-invest in the larger-scale process – no shareholders or banks needed since the process is profitable. Much the same here – SHT have what ought to be a saleable product and the selling of it also proves that the process is real and works. It hasn’t happened. The longer this situation goes on (claims that are not backed by a solid demonstration or profits) the less credibility the claims must have.

    • mark dansie

      The sad thing is the consumables used in the chemical reaction are not taken into account when calculating the hydrogen produced vs the electrical input. They most likely use very expensive metal hydride which explains why they can derive so much hydrogen from little water.
      I will be shooting a video showing a replication of this using the same measurement criteria, will expose how easy it is to make claims like this without full independent third party testing or peer review. This one has not dies as quick a death as the Quantum energy generator, but I an sure this will all be forgotten soon.
      Kind Regards
      Mark Dansie