Solar Hydrogen Trends Announce Results of 'Oxygen to Hydrogen Transmutation' [Update: Tester's Report Published]

Here’s a new press release from Solar Hydrogen Trends:

US Enters Hydrogen Era, Says Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc.

Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc., developer of innovative breakthrough technology with the world’s first hydrogen reactor for production of unlimited hydrogen, conducts final series of control tests on technology

MENLO PARK, Calif., July 22, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — American company, Menlo Park based technology firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. (www.SolarHydrogenTrends.com) today announced that it has conducted a final series of control tests on hydrogen reactor Symphony 7A.

A follow-up series of tests was required due to the fact that the two previous series of tests had shown such incredible production of hydrogen in reactor Symphony 7A, that even most reputable scientific firms were hard-pressed to accept and/or verify the test results.

New test results carried out by TRC Solutions are even more staggering: the previous performance results of 79,000 liters per hour increased to 127 cfm or 215,800 liters per hour and the content of hydrogen in the gas mixture increased from 93.1% to 97.5%. Oxygen content in the gas mixture on the exit of Symphony 7A was twice lowered to 1.34%, indicating that the process of transmutation of oxygen into hydrogen in the last test was more active.

With this performance the hydrogen reactor can convert 1 barrel of water into 200 kg of hydrogen, which is energetically equivalent to 3 barrels of oil.

However, the most impressive result of this experiment was that the external energy needed to make these 208,678 liters of pure hydrogen fell by 20%; it averaged at 414 watt hour = 4.6 volts x 90 amps.

To repeat: In these tests, 1 barrel of water = 3 barrels of oil.

At the moment this is an absolute record for energy costs with “cold fusion” Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR). It outpaces all research centers, laboratories and universities involved in the hydrogen problem of (LENR) for 20-30 years.

The ratio of spent and obtained energy in hydrogen reactor Symphony 7A in percentage is 134,477%. Today, hydrogen reactor Symphony 7A with the size of standard suitcase can produce enough hydrogen in one day equivalent to 6.5 barrels of oil, at the mere cost of $1.68 per hour to operate.

Observers should imagine two economic possibilities:

1. Barrel of oil actually would cost $5.07. (When the market price on commodities exchange trades at $100 to $110).

2. With 50,000 Symphony 7D Hydrogen Reactors (units), such a quantity would provide 30% more hydrogen equivalent than the largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, in one year.

Solar Hydrogen Trends believes that the most expedient next step would be if the United States takes the lead as global supplier of this technology, creating a consortium of willing countries, including oil and gas producing nations, which would then all become the co-owners of this groundbreaking technology developed by American company Solar Hydrogen Trends. Since the technology is developed and owned within/by the United States, all future sales and transactions of hydrogen will be made in US dollars (Hydrodollar) jointly with petrodollar.

In this scenario, the country members of the consortium could within 20-25 years accomplish the gradual replacement of fossil fuels with hydrogen. Over the years they could diversify their economies and avoid economic dependence and/or collapse. We believe that the hydrogen era is here to stay, cannot be stopped or slowed, and should not be considered as revolutionary but rather an evolutionary worldwide progression.

The United States is the first to enter into the hydrogen era – the new evidence of American exceptionalism – and this grand step forward is precisely what makes us exceptional as a people and a country.

Hakop Jack Aganyan
Konstantin Balakiryan
Founders, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.

For more information on the hydrogen reactor, test results and the Company, please visit www.SolarHydrogenTrends.com.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2070618#ixzz38EXxjdLX

UPDATE: Report from TRC, the company who conducted the engineers test, is now available on the Solar Hydrogen Trends web site:

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_TRC_Test_Results_0614.pdf

 

 

  • georgehants

    As one of the most optimistic of people I still find the only word to use is “unbelievable”

    • Christina

      I still worry that this method of obtaining energy will eventually mess up the oxygen in the air and cause HUGE problems.

      Not being a scientist, I don’t know what problems; but, c’mon, I can’t see this being sustained for centuries and not causing some kind of serious problem.

      • Ophelia Rump

        If it worked you could use it to crack water and generate free oxygen.
        So there is a whole lot to not worry about with this.

  • georgehants

    As one of the most optimistic of people I still find the only word to use is “unbelievable”
    That is just surprise not disbelief, time will tell.

    • Christina

      I still worry that this method of obtaining energy will eventually mess up the oxygen in the air and cause HUGE problems.

      Not being a scientist, I don’t know what problems; but, c’mon, I can’t see this being sustained for centuries and not causing some kind of serious problem.

      • Ophelia Rump

        If we learned the secrets of transmutation, we could generate new oxygen.
        Otherwise we need to do it the way the plants did, by cracking CO2, or water.

        • bachcole

          But if all of our energy was from O -> 8H -> H2O, then we would be breaking even, wouldn’t we, or even falling behind.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I am starting to feel like there is a disinformation campaign going on.
            Is someone throwing these wild stories out there so that anyone who writes about LENR sounds like a crackpot? If you consider all the giddy postings yesterday, it seems like it would be very effective.

            Oxygen is non-flammable, It is a reactant for other gasses, it will not burn if pure. But just try to tell that to any patient who has smoked a cigarette after receiving oxygen and had their hair catch fire. The waste of burning hydrogen is water. The burnt H binds to oxygen.

            So destroy the O in H20 and the H will bind to some other O in the air, depleting the supply of free O. Split water and release the O and you have more of both, I suppose you need to dump the H somewhere so it does not bond back to water. Old fashioned inefficient electrolysis would be the answer if you got rid of 2/3 of the product, the H, so the cure would be inefficient but not nearly as inefficient as the efficiency of producing energy they claim.

            If it did work, you could use a small percent of the output power to perform inefficient electrolysis, and dump the H somewhere permanently. Or we would end up with an atmosphere rich in H and low in O. O is heavy and H is light, so you might let the H rise above the O and not have to dump H. I have no idea what effect that might have on the upper atmosphere.

            Vast plumes of H rising in the atmosphere might be dangerous. If they were to detonate. it would be like air fuel saturation bombing, which is what the Japanese first thought had been done when the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

  • Curbina

    I am still willing to be proven wrong about this being just a sophisticated prank. But so far no even Sterling Allan was able to have any confidendence in SHT’s claims.

  • Curbina

    I am still willing to be proven wrong about this being just a sophisticated prank. But so far no even Sterling Allan was able to have any confidendence in SHT’s claims.

    • bachcole

      Perhaps someone is testing us to see how gullible we are? I’m not.

  • Ophelia Rump

    OK that is magic. You can call it science if it makes you feel better.
    I have nothing against magic, as long as it works as advertised.
    If someone had unicorns that poop fuel, I would burn the stuff if it is cost effective.

    I wonder if we will ever get to see the unicorn.

  • Ophelia Rump

    OK that is magic. You can call it science if it makes you feel better.
    I have nothing against magic, as long as it works as advertised.
    If someone had unicorns that poop fuel, I would burn the stuff if it is cost effective.

    I wonder if we will ever get to see the unicorn.

    • Broncobet

      People like you and me use unicorns as a polite way to say something is improbable but it is true that almost nothing is impossible only unlikely. I’m pretty sure it was on this site where a blogger wrote a very convincing procedure for producing a unicorn. You start with a young goat and cut the skin and rearrange things. I just read wiki and there is a reference to this practice. I enjoyed your jousting with the minions of Miles but a company called SHT wins the prize for branding and being unlikely. 10to the 80 is more than the number of elemental particles in the universe ,that’s about how likely their symphony 7 is.

  • Christopher Calder

    Either they are telling the truth or they are a bunch insane liars throwing away their lives and reputations on an easily uncovered hoax. From my perspective, they look like nice people and I do not understand why anyone would try to sell such an unbelievable product unless it were true. If I were going to make up a lie for money, I would try to make it a believable lie. As a financial fraud, it makes no sense at all. I am keeping an open mind and hope it is true, because this technology, if real, can be quickly installed in cars, trucks, aircraft, trains, and ships. We know how to burn hydrogen, so once you have the cheap portable source of hydrogen in hand you can do almost anything with it. As far as making electricity, you can generate such high temperatures you will get spectacular efficiency and need only very small cooling towers because of the high heat levels. The higher the heat, the smaller the cooling tower needed. You could probably even use a heated gas like helium or nitrogen to drive turbines instead of steam.

    Solar Hydrogen Trends should loan a reactor to NASA to test. The public will believe NASA.

    • LilyLover

      At this juncture I think public needs to realize the power of open source and start to abandon priestly words of NASA and other ivory towers.

    • Curbina

      I doubt they are interested on really validating their “technology”. They are interested in investors. They haver their independent confirmation from a third party, and don’t care if you believe it or not. I just was reading some comments from one alleged friend of SHT (in one of linked in LENR forums) and I am under the impression that they are in a sort of PR campaign to hook investors. It has many red flags that for me scream “scam”.

    • bachcole

      I like your attitude. Although I am completely skeptical theoretically, they do seem like nice people and they haven’t been insulting to the competition and that they haven’t said silly-ass things like Mills. I will wait and see, but if they come to my door and ask for money, they will have to let me alone with a good scientist and their reactor for a day.

  • Either they are telling the truth or they are a bunch insane liars throwing away their lives and reputations on an easily uncovered hoax. From my perspective, they look like nice people and I do not understand why anyone would try to sell such an unbelievable product unless it were true. If I were going to make up a lie for money, I would try to make it a believable lie. As a financial fraud, it makes no sense at all. I am keeping an open mind and hope it is true, because this technology, if real, can be quickly installed in cars, trucks, aircraft, trains, and ships. We know how to burn hydrogen, so once you have the cheap portable source of hydrogen in hand you can do almost anything with it. As far as making electricity, you can generate such high temperatures you will get spectacular efficiency and need only very small cooling towers because of the high heat levels. The higher the heat, the smaller the cooling tower needed. You could probably even use a heated gas like helium or nitrogen to drive turbines instead of steam.

    Solar Hydrogen Trends should loan a reactor to NASA to test. The public will believe NASA.

    • LilyLover

      At this juncture I think public needs to realize the power of open source and start to abandon priestly words of NASA and other ivory towers.

      • Broncobet

        NASA being one of the few friends of LENR.

    • Curbina

      I doubt they are interested on really validating their “technology”. They are interested in investors. They haver their independent confirmation from a third party, and don’t care if you believe it or not. I just was reading some comments from one alleged friend of SHT (in one of linked in LENR forums) and I am under the impression that they are in a sort of PR campaign to hook investors. It has many red flags that for me scream “scam”.

      • bachcole

        You still haven’t told us what city you live-in in the Atacama Desert. Are you a native Spanish speaker?

    • bachcole

      I like your attitude. Although I am completely skeptical theoretically, they do seem like nice people and they haven’t been insulting to the competition and that they haven’t said silly-ass things like Mills. I will wait and see, but if they come to my door and ask for money, they will have to let me alone with a good scientist and their reactor for a day.

    • Asterix

      “Either they are telling the truth or they are a bunch insane liars
      throwing away their lives and reputations on an easily uncovered hoax.
      From my perspective, they look like nice people and I do not understand
      why anyone would try to sell such an unbelievable product unless it
      were true.”

      It could just be that they are scammers looking for an easy mark. Hakop/Jacob/Jack has his relatives in the outfit, though he does not own up to that (uses just an initial for their last name). He’s had some very curious dealings in California real estate, but otherwise, I can find nothing for him to be proud of.

      The good doctor maintains a residence in Moscow and has peddled (on Russian sites) his scheme (for $500) for winning at roulette. He also appears to be a big admirer of Kourtney Kardashian.

      What reputation? Have you done your homework?

    • Broncobet

      When a doctor or some intelligent person commits a sloppy murder they use that as a defense “you know I’m too smart to do anything that stupid”. No,they do not know that and the police calmly collect evidence and not only know who did it but can prove it in court. There is no need to test anything these people do, anyone who gives them money deserves their fate.

  • the claims are one order of magnitude harder to swallow than cold fusion.

    oxygen to hydrogen should be endothermal (consuming energy)…
    I am very skeptic, and since I honest I just ask for a good test (and I don’t want to pay it, because I expect a bad result).

    the worst point is that there is no apparent scientific record on that phenomenon..

    anyway a good test can change all. Current test are not so credible for people who doubt on the sincerity of the claims. More required.

    • builditnow

      Right, getting oxygen from hydrogen = lots of energy = interesting.
      Creating hydrogen from oxygen = requires lots of energy = what are they talking about.
      Magic obviously. I rate it at 1 trillion to one as having any possibility of being true.
      Just my opinion, I have been wrong before 🙂

      • Anon2012_2014

        O->8H Agreed — it’s an energy sink, not a source.

    • Ophelia Rump

      AlainCo, How would it work if it were not transmutation but a more complete conversion of oxygen to energy. If you unzipped all the binding energy might you be left with a pile of protons and neutrons.

      Would that mean a dangerous neutron release as we used to hear speculated about?

      • LENR is not so hard to admit because the only surpise is the way to trigger the fusion.
        SHT looks crazy if we interpret naively as an oxygen fission, but maybe is it as you say something unexpected.
        the quantity of energy produced ruleout neutrons that would have filled everybody around the SHT, even if only a small part of the neutron are thermalized..

        however maybe is it a metal fission (ablation), or fusion/fission, or something stranger…
        I don’t think so, but if someone have some money to risk and some pressure method to convince the inventor to be sincere, why not…

    • Broncobet

      You are a thousand orders of magnitude off even if we grant CF as a certainty, which it is not.

  • the claims are one order of magnitude harder to swallow than cold fusion.

    oxygen to hydrogen should be endothermal (consuming energy)…
    I am very skeptic, and since I honest I just ask for a good test (and I don’t want to pay it, because I expect a bad result).

    the worst point is that there is no apparent scientific record on that phenomenon..

    anyway a good test can change all. Current test are not so credible for people who doubt on the sincerity of the claims. More required.

    • builditnow

      Right, getting oxygen from hydrogen = lots of energy = interesting.
      Creating hydrogen from oxygen = requires lots of energy = what are they talking about.
      Magic obviously. I rate it at 1 trillion to one as having any possibility of being true.
      Just my opinion, I have been wrong before 🙂

      • Anon2012_2014

        O->8H Agreed — it’s an energy sink, not a source.

    • Ophelia Rump

      AlainCo, How would it work if it were not transmutation but a more complete conversion of oxygen to energy. If you unzipped all the binding energy might you be left with a pile of protons and neutrons?

      Would that mean a dangerous neutron release as we used to hear speculated about?

      Or is this not possible, and only transmutation is possible?

      • LENR is not so hard to admit because the only surpise is the way to trigger the fusion.
        SHT looks crazy if we interpret naively as an oxygen fission, but maybe is it as you say something unexpected.
        the quantity of energy produced ruleout neutrons that would have filled everybody around the SHT, even if only a small part of the neutron are thermalized..

        however maybe is it a metal fission (ablation), or fusion/fission, or something stranger…
        I don’t think so, but if someone have some money to risk and some pressure method to convince the inventor to be sincere, why not…

    • Broncobet

      You are a thousand orders of magnitude off even if we grant CF as a certainty, which it is not.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I cannot even conceive how that much gas could come off the plates fast enough on something that small to make that volume of gas. If the plates become covered in gas, the reaction stops.

    2633 liters per minute. For a 400 watt input the recommended surface area is .25 watt per square inch of plate surface. So that is 1600 square inches of plate surface.

    It equals 1.64 liter per minute of tiny bubbles of gas rising off of each square inch of plate surface, when do the plates have the chance to be wet?

  • Christopher Calder

    I am not jumping up and down, but the test report pdf is interesting.

    http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_TRC_Test_Results_0614.pdf

    How do you explain this and the earlier positive test reports if there is not something to it?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Indeed those test results are very interesting.

      This is either very real or very much a fraud, there is no middle ground.

      The testers only tested gas flow, they do not know where the gas came from, other than the end of the pipe. They would not even know that this is some radical design when testing. They could be easily fooled by circulating the hydrogen in the pipe in a circle.

      Or it could be electrolysis functioning hundreds of times beyond it’s theoretical maximum efficiency, with a dash of transmutation thrown in to reduce credibility.
      Why would you add some insane transmutation side story to a lie about electrolysis?

      It should be an interesting story to follow!

    • bachcole

      It challenges me. I don’t want to call it a scam, but the difficulty with the nuclear physics makes Rossi look like a piker.

  • I am not jumping up and down, but the test report pdf is interesting.

    http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_TRC_Test_Results_0614.pdf

    How do you explain this and the earlier positive test reports if there is not something to it?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Indeed those test results are very interesting.

      The AirKinetics report is the more interesting one, it provides the input power which translates to 400 watts, along with flow rates and gas composition.
      AirKinetics seems to be a genuine testing service in business since 1995.

      Select Performance, Performance Results on their website for the AirKinetics report.

      This is either very real or very much a fraud, there is no middle ground.

      Could it be electrolysis functioning hundreds of times beyond it’s theoretical maximum efficiency, with a dash of transmutation thrown in to reduce credibility.
      Why would you add some insane transmutation side story to a lie about electrolysis?

      It should be an interesting story to follow!

    • bachcole

      It challenges me. I don’t want to call it a scam, but the difficulty with the nuclear physics makes Rossi look like a piker.

  • Warthog

    So, these guys are going to convert OXYGEN, the gas we and all the rest of animal life need to breath, into hydrogen. And then BURN that hydrogen in air (or oxygen), reducing the breathable gas even more, and nobody thinks that might become a problem???

    • Freethinker

      They have some serious explaining to do to show that they in an efficient way can dismantle an oxygen atom into its constituents without some serious “fissive” action going on. I do not buy they O to H transmutation. That is just crap to hide the true process, for which they will have to patent and secure.

    • Broncobet

      Oxygen is very common ,it is the waste product of all the plants and makes a large percent of the ground of the Earth, why would you believe something by people calling their company SHT? No more thought necessary. The oceans are mostly Oxygen also the H is very small while the O is much bigger.

  • bachcole

    Given the massive transmutations on this one, I am going to require a truly independent third party test that I already know and trust before I am going to get past 51% belief.

  • bachcole

    Given the massive transmutations on this one, I am going to require a truly independent third party test that I already know and trust before I am going to get past 51% belief.

    • Broncobet

      Scientific American and Nature could swear by it and I’d ignore it and know they were not trustful any more.

  • pg

    As an average person, I can tell you that when open minded scientists can not grasp the leap forward immediately in a not groundbreaking field (like solar)it makes me suspicious

  • pg

    As an average person, I can tell you that when open minded scientists can not grasp the leap forward immediately in a not groundbreaking field (like solar)it makes me suspicious

  • Bilbo Bagginfeld

    Since there were two organizations that provided a thumbs up, and at least one of them is reputable (TRC), the most likely possibility for a scam is a hidden source of input energy, or a hidden source of hydrogen. After all, a hidden source of hydrogen and a fan could duplicate
    what they have shown. So to make a believeable test, we would need an independent, third party “open box” test.

    • Christopher Calder

      If they had NASA or Stanford Research Institute sign a NDA and allowed them to do a complete test and look inside for hidden containers of hydrogen, then that test would be difficult to refute. If the US Government offered to test the reactor through the DOE or other agency, they could offer Solar Hydrogen Trends a NDA and fast track for patent approval if the thing worked as promised. It seems to me that would be a small and reasonable effort to solve the global energy crisis.

      • GreenWin

        Of the three orgs you name only SRI is reputable. And probably only a few people within SRI.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Or running the gas in a circle in the pipe.

  • Sandy

    The reason I do not believe their report is that if they really can make hydrogen that cheaply then they could be selling hydrogen NOW and they would soon have all the capital they need to open a factory to mass-produce their Symphony 7A reactors. They could easily make themselves into billionaires without any help from the U.S. government or from private investors. So why are they not doing that? Their “Symphony” sounds like a cacophonous hoax.

    • bachcole

      Good point.

  • Bilbo Bagginfeld

    Since there were two organizations that provided a thumbs up, and at least one of them is reputable (TRC), the most likely possibility for a scam is a hidden source of input energy, or a hidden source of hydrogen. After all, a hidden source of hydrogen and a fan could duplicate
    what they have shown. So to make a believeable test, we would need an independent, third party “open box” test.

    • If they had NASA or Stanford Research Institute sign a NDA and allowed them to do a complete test and look inside for hidden containers of hydrogen, then that test would be difficult to refute. If the US Government offered to test the reactor through the DOE or other agency, they could offer Solar Hydrogen Trends a NDA and fast track for patent approval if the thing worked as promised. It seems to me that would be a small and reasonable effort to solve the global energy crisis.

      • GreenWin

        Of the three orgs you name only SRI is reputable. And probably only a few people within SRI.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Or running the gas in a circle in the pipe.
      Two organizations did not give a thumbs up. They generated a report based upon industrial tests. They were not hired to prove weird physics, just to measure input power and output gases. They could not have cared less about everything in the middle.

  • bachcole

    Is this some kind of test to see how gullible we are?

    • Stephen Haigh

      Im sure they picked the company name to show that doubly so!

      • Asterix

        Maybe they’d have better luck peddling the good Doctor’s “sure fire way to win at roulette” (which he defends as valid).

        • Broncobet

          Pick # 17 at roulette (so its about 32 to 1) put all your money on it, they spin once every 10 seconds for a billion years (it’s an honest wheel), and you win every spin ,that would be a billion times more likely than even one of the many routes SHT uses, but not impossible.

  • steve high

    I think they may have overextended themselves by presenting us with a technology that could so easily be shown to be deliciously overunity. Set up a large plexiglass table. Place the reactor on the table along with a generator of electricity that is converted to run on hydrogen gas. Use the output of the generator to run the reactor and the output of the reactor to run the generator. Voila, a closed system that ought to be able to easily run itself with no input from nothing nowhere. An achingly simple way to show the world that you have the answer. They told us they had their reactor up and running several months ago and could easily have had a demonstration like this set to go by now. If credibility was the pie this would be the cherry. Meanwhile the clock is ticking, ticking, ticking…..

    The question I am turning over in my mind is why does the SHT machine seem so enchantingly believable? If you look at it hardheadedly, it reads like an outright parody of Rossi and Mills. 17 amazing and exotic processes all rolled into one nondescript little black magic box. Water in, hydrogen out. The symphony of 17 exotic processes is so exquisitely coordinated that a transmutation that ought to require vast amounts of energy if it could be done, instead releases vast amounts of energy.

    I think they call it Symphony because what they have “created” has the same effect on its human listeners as a beautiful piece of music might have. In classical terms this might well be described as a “fantasia”. It plays lovingly on our human ears and hearts, evoking a grand design of 17 coordinated themes and counter-themes, harmonized and fashioned into counterpoint with the precision of JS Bach. In its Wagnerian aspect it drives at the eternal human conundrum of “can freedom from want be godly if the Devil is whispering the solution in your ear”? Does anybody feel the need to ask if a truly beautiful piece of music is “real” or not? It is as real as the emotions it unleashes in your heart. That’s why we love to pick it up and listen to it. “Music to our ears” doesn’t need to be grounded in reality in order to evoke beauty and transcendence.

    • GreenWin

      Can a scientist be a poet also? You are reminding us that a couple centuries ago nearly all “scientists” were artists too. How wonderful it would be to return to those well rounded beings!

  • steve high

    I think they may have overextended themselves by presenting us with a technology that could so easily be shown to be deliciously overunity. Set up a large plexiglass table. Place the reactor on the table along with a generator of electricity that is converted to run on hydrogen gas. Use the output of the generator to run the reactor and the output of the reactor to run the generator. Voila, a closed system that ought to be able to easily run itself with no input from nothing nowhere. An achingly simple way to show the world that you have the answer. They told us they had their reactor up and running several months ago and could easily have had a demonstration like this set to go by now. If credibility was the pie this would be the cherry. Meanwhile the clock is ticking, ticking, ticking…..

    The question I am turning over in my mind is why does the SHT machine seem so enchantingly believable? If you look at it hardheadedly, it reads like an outright parody of Rossi and Mills. 17 amazing and exotic processes all rolled into one nondescript little black magic box. Water in, hydrogen out. The symphony of 17 exotic processes is so exquisitely coordinated that a transmutation that ought to require vast amounts of energy if it could be done, instead releases vast amounts of energy.

    I think they call it Symphony because what they have “created” has the same effect on its human listeners as a beautiful piece of music might have. In classical terms this might well be described as a “fantasia”. It plays lovingly on our human ears and hearts, evoking a grand design of 17 coordinated themes and counter-themes, harmonized and fashioned into counterpoint with the precision of JS Bach. In its Wagnerian aspect it drives at the eternal human conundrum of “can freedom from want be godly if the Devil is whispering the solution in your ear”? Does anybody feel the need to ask if a truly beautiful piece of music is “real” or not? It is as real as the emotions it unleashes in your heart. That’s why we love to pick it up and listen to it. “Music to our ears” doesn’t need to be grounded in reality in order to evoke beauty and transcendence.

    • GreenWin

      Can a scientist be a poet also? You are reminding us that a couple centuries ago nearly all “scientists” were artists too. How wonderful it would be to return to those well rounded beings!

  • jousterusa

    Sorry – “the world’s first hydrogen reactor for production of unlimited hydrogen” was demonstarted by Dr. Howard Phillips at the HHO Games Green Technology Expo at the Tampa, Fla., Museum of Science & Technology in January 2014. See hhogamescom for more.

  • jousterusa

    Sorry – “the world’s first hydrogen reactor for production of unlimited hydrogen” was demonstarted by Dr. Howard Phillips at the HHO Games Green Technology Expo at the Tampa, Fla., Museum of Science & Technology in January 2014. See hhogamescom for more.

    • Broncobet

      That means we can stop work on LENR or hot fusion or fission and close all the coal plants,that is IF that’s true,what are the odds (of it being true not that they had a demonstration).

  • Tim

    Just leave the terrorist-funding OPEC nations out of the loop, and we’ll be golden.

    • Broncobet

      No ,scams of this type are often used by terrorists for funding.

  • bernhard

    if a barrel is 120 liter and therefor the water weights 120kg, how do you produce 200kg Hydrogen out of it?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Just add water? 😉

    • USSSkipjack

      I think they are referring to oil barrels which are 160 liters (or 160 kg). But even with that, their math is still off by quite a large factor here…
      Good call, Bernhard!

  • Freethinker

    Well…

    The pathoskeptics should go mental wild on this, as this is so much far out than anything Rossi said so claimed, with much less to show for it.

    I looked at their web page, read the above piece. I see nowhere any description of theory, ideas etc, except for this:

    “a set of 16 physical and chemical processes, acting simultaneously on the hydrogen bonds”.

    Oxygen is transmuted to hydrogen, and 1 barrel of water = 3 barrels of oil. Some 4.6 volts @ 90 amps does this.

    Maybe they do have an apparatus that produce hydrogen, but I have a hard time seeing it being transmuting oxygen to hydrogen. Note that on their web page they talk about, the key word being the “bonds”. To me that is breaking up molecules, and not serialized fissioning of oxygen, which by they way should yield, save a lot of ugly particles and radiation, a measurable abundance of N,C,B,Be,Li and He – and be so NOT LENR.

    If we take a more relaxed view, there could be a chain of reasoning like so:

    But what if a neutron is just expelled from Oxygen? And not taken up by any other nuclei. There would be the a life time of some 14 min, and the neutron decay into a proton via beta decay. We would have hydrogen.

    Oxygen [16O] is coerced to drop a neutron, there is a beta decay with half-life of 122s forming stable 15N. Now we need to coax that stable Nitrogen to give up a neutron … Naw … Serialized spontaneous neutron expulsion and subsequent beta + decay? All the way down to hydrogen?

    Hmm, is there even such a thing as coercing a nuclei to surrender a neutron?

    Maybe. K-capture (electron-capture). What happens here is that a proton in the nuclei may decay into a neutron, by the capture of an electron.

    16O->16N decays to 16O after 7s. Will not help us.
    If we are quick about it (and we could be in a very strong electric field perhaps) we may compel two protons to be converted:

    16O->16C which decays to 15N in 700ms – while emitting a neutron, which could
    decay into a proton and – voila – we have hydrogen. Is it even possible? Don’t know, sounds star trekish.

    I have a hard time seeing that Oxygen being *transmuted* to Hydrogen, though. Seriously.

    It will be interesting to follow, and I will not dismiss it right away. But as with Andrea Rossi, they too need to do openly published third party tests of significance, otherwise I will for sure not be convinced. Also they should be clearer on the process, as the message they now convey is utterly not believable.

  • Freethinker

    Well…

    The pathoskeptics should go mental wild on this, as this is so much far out than anything Rossi said or claimed, with much less to show for it.

    I looked at their web page, read the above piece. I see nowhere any description of theory, ideas etc, except for this:

    “a set of 16 physical and chemical processes, acting simultaneously on the hydrogen bonds”.

    Oxygen is transmuted to hydrogen, and 1 barrel of water = 3 barrels of oil. Some 4.6 volts @ 90 amps does this.

    Maybe they do have an apparatus that produce hydrogen, but I have a hard time seeing it being transmuting oxygen to hydrogen. Note their claims, the key word being the “bonds”. To me that is breaking up molecules, and not serialized fissioning of oxygen, which by they way should yield, save a lot of ugly particles and radiation, a measurable abundance of N,C,B,Be,Li and He – and be so NOT LENR.

    If we take a more relaxed view, there could be a chain of reasoning like so:

    But what if a neutron is just expelled from Oxygen? And not taken up by any other nuclei. There would be the a life time of some 14 min, and the neutron decay into a proton via beta decay. We would have hydrogen.

    Oxygen [16O] is coerced to drop a neutron, there is a beta decay with half-life of 122s forming stable 15N. Now we need to coax that stable Nitrogen to give up a neutron … Naw … Serialized spontaneous neutron expulsion and subsequent beta + decay? All the way down to hydrogen?

    Hmm, is there even such a thing as coercing a nuclei to surrender a neutron?

    Maybe. K-capture (electron-capture). What happens here is that a proton in the nuclei may decay into a neutron, by the capture of an electron.

    16O->16N decays to 16O after 7s. Will not help us.
    If we are quick about it (and we could be in a very strong electric field perhaps) we may compel two protons to be converted:

    16O->16C which decays to 15N in 700ms – while emitting a neutron, which could
    decay into a proton and – voila – we have hydrogen. Is it even possible? Don’t know, sounds star trekish.

    I have a hard time seeing that Oxygen being *transmuted* to Hydrogen, though. Seriously.

    It will be interesting to follow, and I will not dismiss it right away. But as with Andrea Rossi, they too need to do openly published third party tests of significance, otherwise I will for sure not be convinced. Also they should be clearer on the process, as the message they now convey is utterly not believable.

  • Adam J

    Read in previous post on the subject: Well known process.Oxidize aluminium in a water using electricity and some chemicals. Plenty of H2 small amounts of O2
    Al+H2O->AlO+H2

    • steve high

      You may be on the right track. Are you, or is anyone visiting here, sufficiently skilled to make a judgement as to whether the aluminum trickery would be sufficient to produce the output that has been certified by the testing authority?

      • steve high

        What mass of aluminum would be required to produce this output, and would it fit into a box roughly the size of what SHT is showing us?

  • kasom

    So, there are enormous amounts of hydrogen, Balakiryan says repeatedly…..

    If Balakiryan simply took the 414 W input out of a 500 W hydrogen fuel cell it is worth a closer look at it.

    As long as this Symphony 7A needs power from the grid, it is a scam.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Just add water? 😉

  • steve high

    For the sake of this argument let’s assume that the scientists and engineers at SHT are brilliant individuals possessing an unsurpassed fountainhead of creativity. Even granting that, what is the chance that such a group would be able to sit down, design and engineer a device that would coordinate 16 exotic processes to produce the output they claim? That would seem to require at least a gigabyte of properly made engineering decisions for the machine to hum the tune. I would think it would take at least several generations for even a brilliant group of folks to work that out. Randall Mills seems fairly brilliant, and it has taken him twenty years to get where he is, using a single process not sixteen. If SHT is real I would have to say that it is almost certainly “found” technology, found in a crashed UFO that is. Or channeled in a fever dream straight from a superior race into the head of one of their scientists. Things sort of like this have happened before. Watson (or was it Crick?) took a hit of LSD and visualized DNA’s double helix,or so we’ve been told.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Serendipity.

      • steve high

        I would like some of that, if you don’t mind

        • Ophelia Rump

          Wouldn’t we all!

    • GreenWin

      Most UFOs don’t crash these days. It likely beamed these scientists up and implanted the knowledge in their tiny little human brains. Put em under hypnosis and all will be revealed.

  • steve high

    For the sake of this argument let’s assume that the scientists and engineers at SHT are brilliant individuals possessing an unsurpassed fountainhead of creativity. Even granting that, what is the chance that such a group would be able to sit down, design and engineer a device that would coordinate 16 exotic processes to produce the output they claim? That would seem to require at least a gigabyte of properly made engineering decisions for the machine to hum the tune. I would think it would take at least several generations for even a brilliant group of folks to work that out. Randall Mills seems fairly brilliant, and it has taken him twenty years to get where he is, using a single process not sixteen. If SHT is real I would have to say that it is almost certainly “found” technology, found in a crashed UFO that is. Or channeled in a fever dream straight from a superior race into the head of one of their scientists. Things sort of like this have happened before. Watson (or was it Crick?) took a hit of LSD and visualized DNA’s double helix,or so we’ve been told.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Serendipity.

      • steve high

        I would like some of that, if you don’t mind

        • Ophelia Rump

          Wouldn’t we all!

    • Stephen Haigh

      If this is true ( which would be amazing but im struggling to accept it! ) it would be a discovery light years beyond the double helix. Crick and Watson were given Franklins Xray diffraction results which rather helped them. I suspect the LSD reference is rather apocryphal.

    • GreenWin

      Most UFOs don’t crash these days. It likely beamed these scientists up and implanted the knowledge in their tiny little human brains. Put em under hypnosis and all will be revealed.

    • bachcole

      Nice comment.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Oxygen is non-flammable, It is a reactant for other gasses, it will not burn if pure. But just try to tell that to any patient who has smoked a cigarette after receiving oxygen and had their hair catch fire. This is why the waste of burning hydrogen is water. The burnt H binds to oxygen.

    So destroy the O in H20 and the H will bind to some other O in the air, depleating the supply of free O. Split water and release the O and you have more of both, I suppose you need to dump the H somewhere so it does not bond back to water. Old fashioned inefficient electrolysis would be the answer if you got rid of 2/3 of the product, the H, so the cure would be inefficient but not nearly as inefficient as the efficiency of producing energy they claim.

    If it did work, you could use a small percent of the output power as remediation on an ongoing basis, if you could figure out how to dispose of the H.

  • steve high

    You may be on the right track. Are you, or is anyone visiting here, sufficiently skilled to make a judgement as to whether the aluminum trickery would be sufficient to produce the output that has been certified by the testing authority?

    • steve high

      What mass of aluminum would be required to produce this output, and would it fit into a box roughly the size of what SHT is showing us?

  • Fyodor

    It would seem that if they actually are doing what they claim they would have no trouble rigging this thing to a hydrogen-gas electric generator and demonstrating a closed-loop electricity generating device. That they have not makes me pretty skeptical.

  • ecatworld

    Report from TRC, the company who tested the SHT system is available now: http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_TRC_Test_Results_0614.pdf

  • Frank Acland

    Report from TRC, the company who tested the SHT system is available now: http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_TRC_Test_Results_0614.pdf

  • Giancarlo

    it shoud be a very new born company as at the address picked from their website Google Maps shows another consulting company (2014).

    has anybody else checked it?

  • GreenWin

    Another piece of the “masterpiece?” What is emerging is a very palatable combination of new energy technology, E-Cat for heat, SF-CIHT for electric, Symphony 7A for H2. More interesting is the political pitch to convert from oil to H2 via “petrodollars.” With this trio in place and more to come from unannounced players, things are shaping up pretty well for a new energy epoch.

    Personally I am not interested in H2 as a fuel e.g. in a combustion engine or fuel cell. I will be happy to charge my EV with $.01/kWh electricity at home. But if Exxon wants to replace gasoline with H2 pumps at the local gas station – have at it.

    Now, if we can solve the difficulties in the sim… 🙂

    • Ophelia Rump

      Except that you compound the improbability of any of these working with the expectation that they all work :{

      I will hope for one. More would be nice.

      • GreenWin

        Yes perhaps. The validations of CIHT I have seen are good (Rowan Uni, Harvard Center Astrophysics, 4 reputable scientists.) The TRC validation of the Symphony 7A is hard to believe but there it is. And the Elforsk-Levi validation of E-Cat HT is hard to deny. So, expectation buffered by validations.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The more I look the less crazy the Suncell looks at small scale, However it would quickly become impossible to scale up further.

          I see major design flaws too:

          The light collection is on top where the heat rises, instead of on the bottom which would make obvious sense.

          The mirror and glass shield for the optical / sensor compartment are made of Lexan. I would expect from the light show video, sparks something like from a welder constantly striking them quickly destroying the optical surfaces.

          They use a water spray from a tube across the top of the chamber to wash down the surfaces, all the debris from the top window falls down on the bottom mirror. I expect that with much output the water would become steam.

          There is some serious Lexan abuse going on here.

          • GreenWin

            Ambient heat in this design is not much of a problem. Think of how your laptop (unless you’re using an Ivy Bridge chip) cools itself. With a $5 fan. Mills’ engineers could easily add a variable speed fan, or even an AC-compressor to chill air around the plasma zone.

            Didn’t see where the spec for a Lexan window is. As long as the material is transparent to 5800K radiation it should do okay.

  • GreenWin

    Another piece of the “masterpiece?” What is emerging is a very palatable combination of new energy technology, E-Cat for heat, SF-CIHT for electric, Symphony 7A for H2. More interesting is the political pitch to convert from oil to H2 via “petrodollars.” With this trio in place and more to come from unannounced players, things are shaping up pretty well for a new energy epoch.

    Personally I am not interested in H2 as a fuel e.g. in a combustion engine or fuel cell. I will be happy to charge my EV with $.01/kWh electricity at home. But if Exxon wants to replace gasoline with H2 pumps at the local gas station – have at it.

    Now, if we can solve the difficulties in the sim… 🙂

    • Ophelia Rump

      Except that you compound the improbability of any of these working with the expectation that they all work. That expectation requires a higher level of confidence, not in a personal sense but in a factual supportive science process sense, high confidence science as opposed to fringe low confidence science. :{

      I will hope for one. More would be nice.

      • GreenWin

        Yes perhaps. The validations of CIHT I have seen are good (Rowan Uni, Harvard Center Astrophysics, 4 reputable scientists.) The TRC validation of the Symphony 7A is hard to believe but there it is. And the Elforsk-Levi validation of E-Cat HT is hard to deny. So, expectation buffered by validations.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The more I look the less crazy the Suncell looks at small scale, However it would quickly become impossible to scale up further.

          I see major design flaws too:

          The light collection is on top where the heat rises, instead of on the bottom which would make obvious sense.

          The mirror and glass shield for the optical / sensor compartment are made of Lexan. I would expect from the light show video, sparks something like from a welder constantly striking them quickly destroying the optical surfaces.

          They use a water spray from a tube across the top of the chamber to wash down the surfaces, all the debris from the top window falls down on the bottom mirror. I expect that with much output the water would become steam.

          There is some serious Lexan abuse going on here. I think you could upgrade the plastic to some Corning Glass magic, for serious improvements.

          • GreenWin

            Ambient heat in this design is not much of a problem. Think of how your laptop (unless you’re using an Ivy Bridge chip) cools itself. With a $5 fan. Mills’ engineers could easily add a variable speed fan, or even an AC-compressor to chill air around the plasma zone.

            Didn’t see where the spec for a Lexan window is. As long as the material is transparent to 5800K radiation it should do okay.

  • Job001

    Given no peer replication or data authentication;It is promotion, not science.

    • GreenWin

      It is more commerce than science yes. This is how commerce works. It replaces “peer replication” with third party validation. Unless the guys at TRC Solutions intend to go out of business soon, their measurement of dscfm average 113 is impressive. TRC employs scientists who presumably can be considered “peers.”

      http://www.trcsolutions.com/AboutUs/OurHistory/Pages/default.aspx

      • Job001

        No, company paid scientists are NOT peers, because they are “Funding biased”.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

        Bias is the reason science requires independent peer replication, and commerce in absolutely no way replaces it.

        Excuses on behalf of any commerce, including fudged drug testing, which fails replication routinely due primarily to funding bias are totally unacceptable.

        That said, it is ok to give them some slack until they permit science replication, but, without unbiased science, it is too risky except for deep pocket sharks who break knees and own you and your invention.

        Major drug companies routinely fudge science, lie, cheat, and steal and then remove bad drugs from the market with a nasty “prove you were damaged by us” legal tactics.

        Companies routinely incorporate as LLC or just close down and start up under a new name dumping debt and investor interests, and of course absconding with the cash.

        • GreenWin

          So, you’re saying you believe that TRC scientists are funding biased and that academics and government scientists are not funding biased?

          At any rate, we are seeing a realignment of commercial technology. Commerce allows a technology to be judged by the marketplace rather than funding biased scientists. As Andrea Rossi says, “In the market is truth.”

          • Job001

            Nope, funding bias is normal and now neurological science.

            People routinely modify what they believe to support their business and funding source. New neurological science provides us new insights into normal biased cognition.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

            In no way does commerce replace science, it often corrupts scientists and the scientific method, temporarily at least, but absolutely does not obviate it. Nor does this excuse mainstream corrupt funding biased physicists who obstructed CF and caused the exile of F&P.

            The market is a form of truth and this is a different truth than unbiased science truth. Different assumptions have different truths.

          • GreenWin

            I agree about different “truths.” My sense is we are moving to a more open time where innovation is not gated by a need for science “truth.” Best example is the widespread use of superconductivity (MRI) without benefit of a confirmed theory. Some innovations are simply too important and useful to sit idly about in labs while scientists figure how they work.

            Hopefully we will begin to see a new trend away from knowledge monopolies and fear of “forbidden technology.” Proof of that fear is found in the new X-Prize title: “Forbidden Energy.” http://www.xprize.org/visioneering

          • Job001

            No! Science standards are not changing just because it is difficult and often has been funding biased temporarily.
            Just because superconductivity or the cause of gravity cannot be proven (200 years counting for gravity) or other science questions cannot yet be answered does not mean the scientific method is being forgotten or changed.

            It is science as usual even if big money vested interests try to call the tune. In the end, good science eventually does get done.

            Science is also not about patents or monopolies which have caused problems, science is about science only.

          • GreenWin

            Like it or not the trend indicates government & academic (aka “consensus”) science will be taking a back seat to innovation. This is healthy IMO, as the pendulum has swung too far right to big science as warned by Eisenhower in 1961.

            If for example Mitsubishi commercializes their CF transmutation process for stabilizing spent fuel rods – commercial science will have done what government (funding biased) science has failed to do. Same with CF; CIHT; various forms of LENR, biocentrism, and work in consciousness. All are pioneered by small groups of innovators not confined to consensus.

            Government funded science IS working in programs like India’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle – costing one tenth what NASA would charge. Frankly, technology that truly benefits mankind is not coming from establishment science. This is where market and academic science “truth” depart. The market is like the legal analogy to the village square. Everybody can attend, try, and buy. Personally I prefer this form of innovation and trade to the established consensus system.

          • Job001

            Interesting, makes sense. The pendulum does swing socially, some claim a 72 year cycle, doubtful it is that predictable. Human limitation causality, it takes a long time for the herd to learn lessons about subtle things like innovation.

        • this is a bit true, but too general to be meaningful.

          digging into fraud you see that often it is not money but career that motive frauds… even more than career it is belief, since beliefe in the intereste of the research, and aven worse than that it is belief in a just cause.

          the most dishonest people are not paid, are not even fighting for their glory, but for a god or any thing like that (to save the nation, the earth, the people).

          basically like in a trial the best is to have various interest, because nobody is disinterested…
          problem is when one camp is so radical, so desperate that it will fraud until en the of any possible defense. the people who have the data to conclude, will not be seen as convinced people, but as believers.

          there will be the 3 category of people we all know :
          – a camp of believers in A
          – a group of informed people who see Non-A
          – the mass of uninformed people who look at the suit and hear the way people talk to conclude who is right.

          Science is politics… an old article that is very valuable today.

          http://www.academia.edu/3705830/politics_of_science

          • Ophelia Rump

            AlainCo, I have another technical question for you if you would be so kind.
            This is regarding a thought I had about the BLP Suncell. The device is stated to produce 60% heat and 40% Infrared light.

            What would happen to this nuclear reaction if you performed it in a vacuum where the heat could not radiate away?

            What would happen to the heat? It has no where to go and no where to stay?

          • in fact IR is one of the 3 common way heat is evacuated.
            radiation (microwave, THz, IR, or even light, or even X-rays), conduction and convection.

            in space, there is no convection, no conduction, so all is by radiation…
            this mean that the surface temperature will grow until it radiate enough to dissipate all the heat that was previously evacuated as convection (by water?). if the object is small and the power high it may have to be hot enough to glow, bright, and even emit UV (and melt)

          • Ophelia Rump

            Thank you. It gets interesting at that level.

          • Job001

            Thanks, fun article about politics in science.

            Agree that biases are common and include money, politics, God, morality, and causes. However, money(Funding) often represents all of these(probably because money represents life, will, freedom, power, etc.) and is the most common bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F

            The recent science cognitive biases created a long list, somewhat contrary to the normal belief that people are “logical”.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

          • money is motivating, but people looking for money are basically rational and mostly risk adverse. they are afraid to be caught and avoid troubles. only when they are locked do they do fraud…

            the people in groupthink, as it is documented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink are living in an alternate reality where they are sure to be right, when they have no risk to be caught. they can do fraud and crime and be sure to be free… it happened in LENR and they were protected by the groupthink.

            compare the fraudsters like MIT , the incompetent at Caltech, the wrong paper of Lewis and Hansen, the failure to prove of Huizenga, with how Defkalion was cooked by the first evidence of tweaking the measurement.

            there is double standard. groupthink, really or at least in the imagination of deluded participant, protect the liars of the consequence of their crimes.

            if you dig into fraud in medical experiments you mostly see small researchers desperate for a budgets, or mostly believing they are right… their capitalist clients seldom participate the tweaking, except if they know it is not so risky, either by lack of control, or lack of sanctions.

            genocide are done by people who believe, people who obey believers, seldom for money
            In a way money play a role as money fuel the belief in the groupthink, like scientists following well funded ideas, or genociders following hate against the rich or the one endangering his wealth.
            but it is only when the money is transformed in belief that it allow limitless crime allowance.

            we cannot do crime rationally because it is mostly an incompetent answer to a practical problem. we can do it when the group(think) allows us to do it. and we , I agree, choose the group which gives us the best money expectation.

          • Job001

            Basic agreement, it appears my explanatory focus is at the level of behavior/belief causes(bias motivations and assumptions) rather than Group level attributes.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group-serving_bias

            In all branches of knowledge, everything follows the original assumptions until these are replaced or modified. Often original assumptions are bad.
            E1:Money is a primary motivator, subconscious assumptions are key and often obsolete or unmonitored vs current reality.
            E2:The original coulomb barrier assumptions for a 1s electron level atom are invalid for a 1p excited electron level atom. Likewise, a bare atom in a vacuum is a bad model for an atom contained within a lattice, for many reasons.
            E3:Most researchers(including CF) strongly criticize each other to protect their funding and turf.
            Identifying unstated assumptions is an art and more challenging for written than verbal when body language is observable. It has been claimed that 95% of communication is nonverbal for spoken language.

          • links are bad…

          • Job001

            Thanks, fixed.

  • Job001

    Given no peer replication or data authentication;It is promotion, not science.

    • GreenWin

      It is more commerce than science yes. This is how commerce works. It replaces “peer replication” with third party validation. Unless the guys at TRC Solutions intend to go out of business soon, their measurement of dscfm average 113 is impressive. TRC employs scientists who presumably can be considered “peers.”

      http://www.trcsolutions.com/AboutUs/OurHistory/Pages/default.aspx

      • Job001

        No, company paid scientists are NOT peers, because they are “Funding biased”.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

        Bias is the reason science requires independent peer replication, and commerce in absolutely no way replaces it.

        Excuses on behalf of any commerce, including fudged drug testing, which fails replication routinely due primarily to funding bias are totally unacceptable.

        That said, it is ok to give them some slack until they permit science replication, but, without unbiased science, it is too risky except for deep pocket sharks who break knees and own you and your invention.

        Major drug companies routinely fudge science, lie, cheat, and steal and then remove bad drugs from the market with a nasty “prove you were damaged by us” legal tactics.

        Companies routinely incorporate as LLC or just close down and start up under a new name dumping debt and investor interests, and of course absconding with the cash.

        • GreenWin

          So, you’re saying you believe that TRC scientists are funding biased and that academics and government scientists are not funding biased?

          At any rate, we are seeing a realignment of commercial technology. Commerce allows a technology to be judged by the marketplace rather than funding biased scientists. As Andrea Rossi says, “In the market is truth.”

          • Job001

            Nope, funding bias is normal and now neurological science.

            People routinely modify what they believe to support their business and funding source. New neurological science provides us new insights into normal biased cognition.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

            In no way does commerce replace science, it often corrupts scientists and the scientific method, temporarily at least, but absolutely does not obviate it. Nor does this excuse mainstream corrupt funding biased physicists who obstructed CF and caused the exile of F&P.

            The market is a form of truth and this is a different truth than unbiased science truth. Different assumptions have different truths.

          • GreenWin

            I agree about different “truths.” My sense is we are moving to a more open time where innovation is not gated by a need for science “truth.” Best example is the widespread use of superconductivity (MRI) without benefit of a confirmed theory. Some innovations are simply too important and useful to sit idly about in labs while scientists figure how they work.

            Hopefully we will begin to see a new trend away from knowledge monopolies and fear of “forbidden technology.” Proof of that fear is found in the new X-Prize title: “Forbidden Energy.” http://www.xprize.org/visioneering

          • Job001

            No, Science standards are not changing just because it is difficult and often has been funding biased temporarily.
            Just because superconductivity or the cause of gravity cannot be proven (200 years counting for gravity) or other science questions cannot yet be answered does not mean the scientific method is being forgotten or changed.

            It is science as usual even if big money vested interests try to call the tune. In the end, good science eventually does get done.

            Science is also not about patents or monopolies which have caused problems, science is about science only.

          • GreenWin

            Like it or not the trend indicates government & academic (aka “consensus”) science will be taking a back seat to innovation. This is healthy IMO, as the pendulum has swung too far right to big science as warned by Eisenhower in 1961.

            If for example Mitsubishi commercializes their CF transmutation process for stabilizing spent fuel rods – commercial science will have done what government (funding biased) science has failed to do. Same with CF; CIHT; various forms of LENR, biocentrism, and work in consciousness. All are pioneered by small groups of innovators not confined to consensus.

            Government funded science IS working in programs like India’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle – costing one tenth what NASA would charge. Frankly, technology that truly benefits mankind is not coming from establishment science. This is where market and academic science “truth” depart. The market is like the legal analogy to the village square. Everybody can attend, try, and buy. Personally I prefer this form of innovation and trade to the established consensus system.

          • Job001

            Interesting, makes sense. The pendulum does swing socially, some claim a 72 year cycle, doubtful it is that predictable. Human limitation causality, it takes a long time for the herd to learn lessons about subtle things like innovation.
            What you may be describing is a second path that is not strict scientific method. I’ll make the point that when theory is accepted, it is accepted based upon strict science. Therefore research paths may differ but the endpoint remains unchanged.
            UFO’s and bigfoot are still not science. No body, no replicated science observations, so, conjecture, promotion, whatever, but not science.

        • this is a bit true, but too general to be meaningful.

          digging into fraud you see that often it is not money but career that motive frauds… even more than career it is belief, since beliefe in the intereste of the research, and aven worse than that it is belief in a just cause.

          the most dishonest people are not paid, are not even fighting for their glory, but for a god or any thing like that (to save the nation, the earth, the people).

          basically like in a trial the best is to have various interest, because nobody is disinterested…
          problem is when one camp is so radical, so desperate that it will fraud until en the of any possible defense. the people who have the data to conclude, will not be seen as convinced people, but as believers.

          there will be the 3 category of people we all know :
          – a camp of believers in A
          – a group of informed people who see Non-A
          – the mass of uninformed people who look at the suit and hear the way people talk to conclude who is right.

          Science is politics… an old article that is very valuable today.

          http://www.academia.edu/3705830/politics_of_science

          • Ophelia Rump

            AlainCo, I have another technical question for you if you would be so kind.
            This is regarding a thought I had about the BLP Suncell. The device is stated to produce 60% heat and 40% Infrared light.

            What would happen to this nuclear reaction if you performed it in a vacuum where the heat could not conduct away?

            What would happen to the heat? It has no where to go and no where to stay?
            Would the plasma ions become progressively hotter until they had a chance to discharge the heat on contact?
            Would it reach some point where the heat energy was discharged as light?

          • in fact IR is one of the 3 common way heat is evacuated.
            radiation (microwave, THz, IR, or even light, or even X-rays), conduction and convection.

            in space, there is no convection, no conduction, so all is by radiation…
            this mean that the surface temperature will grow until it radiate enough to dissipate all the heat that was previously evacuated as convection (by water?). if the object is small and the power high it may have to be hot enough to glow, bright, and even emit UV (and melt)

          • Ophelia Rump

            Thank you. It gets interesting at that level.

          • Job001

            Thanks, fun article about politics in science. 

            Agree that biases are common and include money, politics, God, morality, and causes. However, money(Funding) often represents all of these(probably because money represents life, will, freedom, power, etc.) and is the most common bias.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
            
The recent science cognitive biases created a long list, somewhat contrary to the normal belief that people are “logical”.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases


          • money is motivating, but people looking for money are basically rational and mostly risk adverse. they are afraid to be caught and avoid troubles. only when they are locked do they do fraud…

            the people in groupthink, as it is documented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink are living in an alternate reality where they are sure to be right, when they have no risk to be caught. they can do fraud and crime and be sure to be free… it happened in LENR and they were protected by the groupthink.

            compare the fraudsters like MIT , the incompetent at Caltech, the wrong paper of Lewis and Hansen, the failure to prove of Huizenga, with how Defkalion was cooked by the first evidence of tweaking the measurement.

            there is double standard. groupthink, really or at least in the imagination of deluded participant, protect the liars of the consequence of their crimes.

            if you dig into fraud in medical experiments you mostly see small researchers desperate for a budgets, or mostly believing they are right… their capitalist clients seldom participate the tweaking, except if they know it is not so risky, either by lack of control, or lack of sanctions.

            genocide are done by people who believe, people who obey believers, seldom for money
            In a way money play a role as money fuel the belief in the groupthink, like scientists following well funded ideas, or genociders following hate against the rich or the one endangering his wealth.
            but it is only when the money is transformed in belief that it allow limitless crime allowance.

            we cannot do crime rationally because it is mostly an incompetent answer to a practical problem. we can do it when the group(think) allows us to do it. and we , I agree, choose the group which gives us the best money expectation.

          • Job001

            Basic agreement, it appears my explanatory focus is at the level of behavior/belief causes(bias motivations and assumptions) rather than Group level attributes.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group-serving_bias

            In all branches of knowledge, everything follows the original assumptions until these are replaced or modified. Often original assumptions are bad.
            E1:Money is a primary motivator, subconscious assumptions are key and often obsolete or unmonitored vs current reality.
            E2:The original coulomb barrier assumptions for a 1s electron level atom are invalid for a 2p excited electron level atom. Likewise, a bare atom in a vacuum is a bad model for an atom contained within a lattice, for many reasons.
            E3:Most researchers(including CF) strongly criticize each other to protect their funding and turf.
            Identifying unstated assumptions is an art and more challenging for written than verbal when body language is observable. It has been claimed that 95% of communication is nonverbal for spoken language.

          • links are bad…

          • Job001

            Thanks, fixed.

  • Curbina

    I’d expect a third party report of something often thought to be impossible to come with some sort of comment respect to how the testers unserstand the possibility of that absolutely unexpected result. Given the lack of this simple but necessary statement, I can’t take this third party seriously.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    I just can’t believe this atm. The validation report is too short on details, like if they checked for any hidden cables and such. Right now it just looks like a validation assuming no tricks is done. The claim is so remarkable, that we need better verification, to start putting this in a positive light. So let’s post this skepticism and ask for a more meaty report.

    • US_Citizen71

      It does have one important detail. “During the test, voltage and current supplied to the system was recorded from the provided panel at approximately 10 minute intervals.” To me that reads as TRC did not connect their own power/multi-meter to the system, but instead read the numbers off the unit itself. If true then verification of input power was not done and once again only what is coming out of the machine has been verified.

  • Curbina

    I’d expect a third party report of something often thought to be impossible to come with some sort of comment respect to how the testers unserstand the possibility of that absolutely unexpected result. Given the lack of this simple but necessary statement, I can’t take this third party seriously.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    I just can’t believe this atm. The validation report is too short on details, like if they checked for any hidden cables and such. Right now it just looks like a validation assuming no tricks is done. The claim is so remarkable, that we need better verification, to start putting this in a positive light. So let’s post this skepticism and ask for a more meaty report.

    • US_Citizen71

      It does have one important detail. “During the test, voltage and current supplied to the system was recorded from the provided panel at approximately 10 minute intervals.” To me that reads as TRC did not connect their own power/multi-meter to the system, but instead read the numbers off the unit itself. If true then verification of input power was not done and once again only what is coming out of the machine has been verified.

  • Christopher Calder

    The people at Solar Hydrogen Trends are thinking the right thoughts. They are seeing the big picture and wanting to work with governments to create an orderly switchover to new technology that gradually replaces fossil fuels. They must know that no one is going to give them substantial amounts of money unless they reveal all the inner workings of the reactor. Setting themselves up for quick exposure as frauds makes no sense to me. I would not assume it all works as promoted. What are the ingredients in the box? Does it use precious metals? How reliable is the reactor? Are their cost estimates for real? Do they factor in the energy required to manufacture the active ingredients? We need to find out all the answers and understand how it works before we can really believe it. That said, I think it is wrong to simply dismiss them just because the claims are spectacular. A 60″ diagonal LED LCD television for $800 is pretty unbelievable to people who can remember when 24 inch diagonal CRT based color televisions cost $1,200 in 1960s dollars, or $3,000 or more in 2014 valued dollars.

  • UPDATED POST

    The people at Solar Hydrogen Trends are thinking the right thoughts. They are seeing the big picture and wanting to work with governments to create an orderly switchover to new technology that gradually replaces fossil fuels. They must know that no one is going to give them substantial amounts of money unless they reveal all the inner workings of the reactor. Setting themselves up for quick exposure as frauds makes no sense to me. I would not assume it all works as promoted. What are the ingredients in the box? Does it use precious metals? How reliable is the reactor? Are their cost estimates for real? Do they factor in the energy required to manufacture the active ingredients? We need to find out all the answers and understand how it works before we can really believe it. That said, I think it is wrong to simply dismiss them just because the claims are spectacular.

    ***A 60″ diagonal LED LCD television for $800 is pretty unbelievable to people who can remember when 24 inch diagonal CRT based color televisions cost $1,200 in 1960s dollars, or $7,300 or more in 2013 (2014 minus one years inflation) valued dollars.***

    I found an on-line calculator that gives relative values of dollars per year. It said:

    “In 2013, the relative value of $1,200.00 from 1960 ranges from $7,300.00 to $37,100.00.”

  • Sanjeev

    As noted below, that report by TRC is worthless if you are hoping for a proof or something. They just hired the guys from TRC, who simply checked the readings on SHT’s instruments and devices installed beforehand. They probably checked the flow rates using their own instruments, but I’m not sure.
    The flow rate is 127 cubic feet per minute at 415W input power. Now I’m no expert in this area, but the report does not say how much of the water/O2 was converted to H2 and for how many minutes it ran. Its easy to separate O2 after electrolysis and send it to some other exhaust or let it absorbed by another substance placed inside the vent.
    As already commented by bernhard below, 1 barrel of water is about 160 Kg, so it can’t produce 200 Kg of matter unless he is creating the H2 out of just empty space.

  • Sanjeev

    As noted below, that report by TRC is worthless if you are hoping for a proof or something. They just hired the guys from TRC, who simply checked the readings on SHT’s instruments and devices installed beforehand. They probably checked the flow rates using their own instruments, but I’m not sure.
    The flow rate is 127 cubic feet per minute at 415W input power. Now I’m no expert in this area, but the report does not say how much of the water/O2 was converted to H2 and for how many minutes it ran. Its easy to separate O2 after electrolysis and send it to some other exhaust or let it absorbed by another substance placed inside the vent.
    As already commented by bernhard below, 1 barrel of water is about 160 Kg, so it can’t produce 200 Kg of matter unless he is creating the H2 out of just empty space.

  • Asterix

    Wow, a 52KB one-page PDF is a “report”? No mention even of the equipment used, photos taken of the setup, etc.. Heck, Lutec even had a better bogus report than this.

  • Asterix

    Wow, a 52KB one-page PDF is a “report”? No mention even of the equipment used, photos taken of the setup, etc.. Heck, Lutec even had a better bogus report than this.

  • H2FAN

    A Barrel of oil is 42 gallons, called 210 litre or 200 kgs, and one gr of Al makes two liters of Hydrogen, 192,000 per hour divided by ( 2 ) liters equals 96,000 gr’s of Al required , divided by 28 (gr’s per US pound) equals 3428.57 pounds US, I don’t think that would fit in that tiny little reactor box guys. You guys ever hear of google search ???? LOL

    • Ophelia Rump

      I am pretty sure he claims to recycle the aluminum to some degree, but if you keep exploding anything it degrades. With a feed of that much aluminum you could just burn the aluminum and probably get a splendid energy output.

      By happy coincidence they burn aluminum to give off copious infrared light to distract IR sensitive missiles.

      Hmmmmm.

      • US_Citizen71

        “With a feed of that much aluminum you could just burn the aluminum and probably get a splendid energy output.” – I know a US Vietnam War era tank driver who would agree with you. He told me that watching a M551 Sheridan burn was an impressive display of heat release to observe.

        • Ophelia Rump

          It is also a main ingredient in solid fuel rockets and MOABs.

          I wonder if you lit aluminum bits with an electrical arc could you use water vapor as an oxidizer and maintain a plasma burn of aluminum?

          That design sounds somehow familiar.

          Curiously aluminum can burn above the temperature where water molecules spontaneously dissociate, High Temperature Electrolysis occurs at 850 C, Aluminum burns at 3826 C

          This configuration really sounds familiar, where have I seen this before?

          Of course there is no LENR in my idea but it is a darn fine High Temperature Electrolysis device, burn the aluminum, burn the hydrogen from the electrolysis, use the oxygen as the oxydizer. This might get great efficiency as long as you have lots an lots of aluminum to burn.

          If you added solar cells you could convert the IR it gives off to electricity.

          I just feel like someone else had this idea before me!
          I should run out and patent this High Temperature Electrolysis device.

          Your friends would think it is magic or something, because you get out more heat than you can account for burning the aluminum.
          What a clever prank.

    • US_Citizen71

      Actually it is 28 grams to an ounce. So you need to divide your pound weight above by 16 giving 214.29 pounds of Aluminum needed to produce 192,000 liters of H2. With a density of 2.7 grams per cm3 that works out to a cube slightly smaller than 33 cm on a side. Something that would easily fit in their device.

      • Ophelia Rump

        You lost me, I do not think you are saying that 214.29 pounds of aluminum fits in a 33 cm cube. But thats what my mind keeps telling me you are saying.

        That would be a roughly 13 inch cube of aluminum. I think I could easily lift that.

        Ah, you are talking about the the H2. That was painful. The mind does not easily go where it does not want to.

        • US_Citizen71

          Do the math:
          33 cm x 33 cm x 33 cm = 35937 cm3
          35937 cm3 x 2.7 grams/cm3 = 97029.9 grams
          97029.9 grams x 1 oz./28 grams x 1 lb/16 oz. = 216.6 lbs

          • Ophelia Rump

            LOL! I see I was trying to cram it into one single 33 CM Cube.
            That would take a lot of pushing.

          • US_Citizen71

            It is one cube about 13 inches on a side.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Seriously, that heavy?
            I guess looks can be deceiving.

      • H2Fan

        Lunchtime calculations , eh the one gram of Al per two liters of H, is in the Japanese lab setting, real world is far less, and we must add the five gallons of H2O and the space the reactor takes up. plus theirs video of the dude adding the water to the reactor box, and you can hear it splashing on the bottom of the reactor, and no reaction until they power it up. So Al is out, I guess we wait and see when someone looks inside.
        Blacklight powers demo powerpoint is up , if anyone is interested Thanks USCitizen

  • pg

    Commenting this report feels like a waste of everybody s time.

  • pg

    Commenting this report feels like a waste of everybody s time.

    • Broncobet

      TY

  • Christopher Calder

    Our opinions make no difference. The only opinions that count are the investors who will do their own tests with their own equipment. I believe we should have both skepticism and hope at the same time in this situation.

  • Our opinions make no difference. The only opinions that count are the investors who will do their own tests with their own equipment. I believe we should have both skepticism and hope at the same time in this situation.

  • GreenWin

    According to the TRC letter: “The test results are summarized in Table 1 and all supporting documentation is attached.” It would be helpful to see the documentation.

    • GreenWin

      The supporting documentation at least in the Air Kinetics Inc report include:
      1) Test results
      2) Field data and Equipment Calibrations
      3) Analytical data

      Note this test reported the far lower ACFM average 50, in January 2014. The TRC test results show 2X+ improvement in flow rate.

  • GreenWin

    According to the TRC letter: “The test results are summarized in Table 1 and all supporting documentation is attached.” It would be helpful to see the documentation.

    • GreenWin

      The supporting documentation at least in the Air Kinetics Inc report include:
      1) Test results
      2) Field data and Equipment Calibrations
      3) Analytical data

      Note this test reported the far lower ACFM average 50, in January 2014. The TRC test results show 2X+ improvement in flow rate.

  • Steven Strittmatter

    The nuclear binding energy of oxygen is ~8 MeV per nucleon vs. ~1 Mev for hydrogen. Translation: you can’t get energy from the transmutation of oxygen into hydrogen. PERIOD.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I agree with your fact statement, however I think an apostrophe goes where you placed your period.

    • yes, it is endothermic.

      beside the easy simple assumption that is the most probable given the test are not bullet proof there is few exit.

      If the apparent production of H from O is proven, and it is not chemical

      first method is to assume the theory of the claimant is wrong…
      it may not be O->16H (or O->8D) but something involving fission of a heavy metal
      (I have the same feeling for BLP).

      then only you can imagine that “evident” assumption are not true…
      for example when hot fusionist assumed LENR was hot fusion, was QM in free space and twobody interactions, they made invisible assumption refusing to consider the theoretically possible idea of collective behavior in a lattice.

      at last you can try to extend the mainstream theory at it’s core, but that is very improbable as it is very much tested…
      an extension should add some rounded corners, not more.

      anyway the first things to do is to check the results with an independent test, by people who control the pipes and wires, do it for a long time, can rule-out chemistry, check all fraud hypothesis…

      I am very pessimistic, but since I am uninformed I let informed people pay a test.

      if the reality of the claim is confirmed, I will first challenge the claimant theories which are probably bogus, then challenge hidden assumption in the skeptic arguments.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am pretty sure he claims to recycle the aluminum to some degree, but if you keep exploding anything it degrades. With a feed of that much aluminum you could just burn the aluminum and probably get a splendid energy output.

    By happy coincidence they burn aluminum to give off copious infrared light to distract IR sensitive missiles.

    Hmmmmm.

    • US_Citizen71

      “With a feed of that much aluminum you could just burn the aluminum and probably get a splendid energy output.” – I know a US Vietnam War era tank driver who would agree with you. He told me that watching a M551 Sheridan burn was an impressive display of heat release to observe.

      • Ophelia Rump

        It is also a main ingredient in solid fuel rockets and MOABs.

  • US_Citizen71

    Actually it is 28 grams to an ounce. So you need to divide your pound weight above by 16 giving 214.29 pounds of Aluminum needed to produce 192,000 liters of H2.

    • Ophelia Rump

      You lost me, I do not think you are saying that 214.29 pounds of aluminum fits in a 33 cm cube. But thats what my mind keeps telling me you are saying.

      That would be a roughly 13 inch cube of aluminum. I think I could easily lift that.

      • US_Citizen71

        Do the math:
        33 cm x 33 cm x 33 cm = 35937 cm3
        35937 cm3 x 2.7 grams/cm3 = 97029.9 grams
        97029.9 grams x 1 oz./28 grams x 1 lb/16 oz. = 216.6 lbs

        • Ophelia Rump

          LOL! I see I was trying to cram it into one single 33 CM Cube.
          That would take a lot of pushing.

          • US_Citizen71

            It is one cube about 13 inches on a side.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Seriously, that heavy?
            I guess looks can be deceiving.

    • H2Fan

      Lunchtime calculations , eh the one gram of Al per two liters of H, is in the Japanese lab setting, real world is far less, and we must add the five gallons of H2O and the space the reactor takes up. plus theirs video of the dude adding the water to the reactor box, and you can hear it splashing on the bottom of the reactor, and no reaction until they power it up. So Al is out, I guess we wait and see when someone looks inside.
      Blacklight powers demo powerpoint is up , if anyone is interested Thanks USCitizen

  • mytakeis

    One way or the other, man will discover the means to break free from oil dependency. It is not a dream, it’s real, and the folk here reflect the way I feel.

  • HS61AF91

    One way or the other, man will discover the means to break free from oil dependency. It is not a dream, it’s real, and the folk here reflect the way I feel.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I agree with your fact statement, however I think an apostrophe goes where you placed your period.

  • Shreder

    To: Sanjeev and bernhard.

    Barrel is one of several units of volume applied
    in various contexts; there are dry barrels, fluid barrels (such as the UK beer
    barrel and US beer barrel), oil barrels and so on. volumes in common usage
    range from about 100 litres ( 26 US gal) to 200 litres
    (53 US gal).

    To: Asterix
    For you only “52KB one-page PDF is a”report”.
    Protocols only for investors.

    To: jousterusa.
    “Sorry – “the world’s first hydrogen reactor for
    production of unlimited hydrogen” was demonstarted by Dr. Howard Phillips
    at the HHO Games Green Technology Expo at the Tampa, Fla., Museum of Science
    & Technology in January 2014. See hhogamescom for more.”

    May 18, 2014, 5:48am ET — In a powerful and significant demonstration of the
    utility and feasibility of hydrogen as a source of automotive fuel…
    In that environment, inventions like Dr.Howard Phillips 30-gallon-per-minute
    hydrogen generator could play a central role.
    For comparison: “Symphony7A”- 956 gallon-per-minute

    To: H2FAN and Adam J
    After the second series of testing SHT explained what processes take place in “Symphony7A”:

    “In Symphony 7A, active metal alloy is involved in the oxidation
    reaction. However, the amount of formed oxide for a one hour period is only
    2.1%. During that same time, Symphony 7A produces more than 7 kg of hydrogen
    and the share of that chemical reaction is only about 189 grams of hydrogen. If
    all the hydrogen in Symphony 7A reactor was produced by oxidation – reduction
    reaction, then in one hour we would spend 97.9 % of all active metal alloy and
    the cartridge would practically be replaced every hour. This could have become
    the weak point of our hydrogen reactor, however, in Symphony 7A cartridge is
    replaced once a week, and for the model Symphony 7AM
    cartridge replacement will take place once every four weeks.”

    • GreenWin

      Excellent comments. Thank you Shreder.

    • H2Fan

      Hey Shreder, I checked the Phlips company website, and they state that “In a lab setting” that they produced 4 liters of H2 with 40 grams of Aluminum powder. 10 grams per liter.

      SHT claims of the average of two tests (113/127) 120 ft3 per minute. Correct so far ?

      Philps,,10 grams per liter and SHT, 120 ft3/minute (400 watts/$1.80hr) Right ??

      (So, keep an eye on my math)

      Cubic foot of H2 has 28.316 liters per

      28.316 (L) X’s 120 (ft3) = 3397.92 per min,, correct so far ??

      @ 10 grams per liter X’s 3397.92 = 33,979 grams (duh)

      33,979 grams is 33.979 Kgs, correct ? Call it 34 Kgs

      34 Kgs is 74 US pounds, correct me if Im wrong please

      34Kgs X’s 60 (minutes) for the hour long run is 2,038 Kgs an hour or 4,500 US pounds (two and half tons) of Aluminum an hour to produce that much hydrogen. And that’s a lab setting and doesn’t include the coating that aluminum gets on it and prevents conversion. So “In a perfect world” setting.

      Aluminum powder per ton, about $3000 US

      http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Best-quality-aluminium-powder-with-low_1248766371.html?s=p

      Phlips website, pdf on lab results( 40 gms per 4 liters) or 10 gms a liter

      http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/HYDROGEN.html

      SHT website performance results stating $1.80 an hour for All inputs, H20,watts,catalysts etc

      http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

      Correct me if Im wrong please…Thanks

  • Shreder

    To: Sanjeev and bernhard.

    Barrel is one of several units of volume applied
    in various contexts; there are dry barrels, fluid barrels (such as the UK beer
    barrel and US beer barrel), oil barrels and so on. volumes in common usage
    range from about 100 litres ( 26 US gal) to 200 litres
    (53 US gal).

    To: Asterix
    For you only “52KB one-page PDF is a”report”.
    Protocols only for investors.

    To: jousterusa.
    “Sorry – “the world’s first hydrogen reactor for
    production of unlimited hydrogen” was demonstarted by Dr. Howard Phillips
    at the HHO Games Green Technology Expo at the Tampa, Fla., Museum of Science
    & Technology in January 2014. See hhogamescom for more.”

    May 18, 2014, 5:48am ET — In a powerful and significant demonstration of the
    utility and feasibility of hydrogen as a source of automotive fuel…
    In that environment, inventions like Dr.Howard Phillips 30-gallon-per-minute
    hydrogen generator could play a central role.
    For comparison: “Symphony7A”- 956 gallon-per-minute

    To: H2FAN and Adam J
    After the second series of testing SHT explained what processes take place in “Symphony7A”:

    “In Symphony 7A, active metal alloy is involved in the oxidation
    reaction. However, the amount of formed oxide for a one hour period is only
    2.1%. During that same time, Symphony 7A produces more than 7 kg of hydrogen
    and the share of that chemical reaction is only about 189 grams of hydrogen. If
    all the hydrogen in Symphony 7A reactor was produced by oxidation – reduction
    reaction, then in one hour we would spend 97.9 % of all active metal alloy and
    the cartridge would practically be replaced every hour. This could have become
    the weak point of our hydrogen reactor, however, in Symphony 7A cartridge is
    replaced once a week, and for the model Symphony 7AM
    cartridge replacement will take place once every four weeks.”

    • GreenWin

      Excellent comments. Thank you Shreder.

    • H2Fan

      Hey Shreder, I checked the Phlips company website, and they state that “In a lab setting” that they produced 4 liters of H2 with 40 grams of Aluminum powder. 10 grams per liter.

      SHT claims of the average of two tests (113/127) 120 ft3 per minute. Correct so far ?

      Philps,,10 grams per liter and SHT, 120 ft3/minute (400 watts/$1.80hr) Right ??

      (So, keep an eye on my math)

      Cubic foot of H2 has 28.316 liters per

      28.316 (L) X’s 120 (ft3) = 3397.92 per min,, correct so far ??

      @ 10 grams per liter X’s 3397.92 = 33,979 grams (duh)

      33,979 grams is 33.979 Kgs, correct ? Call it 34 Kgs

      34 Kgs is 74 US pounds, correct me if Im wrong please

      34Kgs X’s 60 (minutes) for the hour long run is 2,038 Kgs an hour or 4,500 US pounds (two and half tons) of Aluminum an hour to produce that much hydrogen. And that’s a lab setting and doesn’t include the coating that aluminum gets on it and prevents conversion. So “In a perfect world” setting.

      Aluminum powder per ton, about $3000 US

      http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Best-quality-aluminium-powder-with-low_1248766371.html?s=p

      Phlips website, pdf on lab results( 40 gms per 4 liters) or 10 gms a liter

      http://www.phillipscompany.4t.com/HYDROGEN.html

      SHT website performance results stating $1.80 an hour for All inputs, H20,watts,catalysts etc

      http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

      Correct me if Im wrong please…Thanks

  • JC

    If this is real, it might be the easiest solution for closing the loop. Let’s see them use the hydrogen to generate electricity and run the whole process. It seems very doubtful that they have what they say. The report is really not helpful as any kind of scientific validation. The tester stated, “During the test, voltage and current supplied to the system was recorded from the provided panel at approximately 10 minute intervals.” The power was read from the “provided panel,” so who knows what the real power input was.

  • JC

    If this is real, it might be the easiest solution for closing the loop. Let’s see them use the hydrogen to generate electricity and run the whole process. It seems very doubtful that they have what they say. The report is really not helpful as any kind of scientific validation. The tester stated, “During the test, voltage and current supplied to the system was recorded from the provided panel at approximately 10 minute intervals.” The power was read from the “provided panel,” so who knows what the real power input was.

    • Fyodor

      Right? If they are really generating as much hydrogen as the claim, this should be a no-brianer. Even a highly inefficient hydrogen to electricity process could create a self-sustaining generator.

  • Tom59

    What is also interesting in Solar Hydrogens press release is reference to American greatness, execptionalism, leadership… at the end of the article. The German Ex-E-cat licensee – in the article on 17JUL – had mentioned in the interview that US national interests were involved in Rossis decision to pull back from his commitments to the licensees. To me there seems someone already pulling the strings to ensure LENR is exploited in and by the US. It’s encouraging for the technology but reminds me bit of French industrial policy – just more subtle.

  • Tom59

    What is also interesting in Solar Hydrogens press release is reference to American greatness, execptionalism, leadership… at the end of the article. The German Ex-E-cat licensee – in the article on 17JUL – had mentioned in the interview that US national interests were involved in Rossis decision to pull back from his commitments to the licensees. To me there seems someone already pulling the strings to ensure LENR is exploited in and by the US. It’s encouraging for the technology but reminds me bit of French industrial policy – just more subtle.

  • Owen Geiger

    Although it’s possible that they have something, there’s not enough information to make an informed decision. Here’s one possibility: What they’ve provided so far could be a stage show to attract billionaire investors. Once they have their attention, they confide that X, Y and Z claims were fabricated to throw off the competition, but this is what we really have and it’s worth billions. Time will tell.

  • Owen Geiger

    Although it’s possible that they have something, there’s not enough information to make an informed decision. Here’s one possibility: What they’ve provided so far could be a stage show to attract billionaire investors. Once they have their attention, they confide that X, Y and Z claims were fabricated to throw off the competition, but this is what we really have and it’s worth billions. Time will tell.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Solar Hydrogen Trends: Violates Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. times arrow or that the entropy always increases).

    Why? Because the low entropy state was the universe when it formed and was all hydrogen and a bit of helium. The free energy of fusion was used up to change that hydrogen into oxygen in stars.

    The process cannot go backwards and produce energy and reduce entropy.

    They have made a mis-measurement.

    • georgehants

      As science does not have a clue as to how the Universe formed beyond the usual excepted guess preached today and as there is a very fair debate as to if in such a Universe, the beginning would be regarded as the highest or lowest entropy, I think a little caution in such statements would be in order.
      As the laws of Thermodynamics rely on a closed Universe and science is completely ignorant as to if it is, they clearly cannot be guaranteed to apply in all cases.

      • Anon2012_2014

        George,

        Science is a model called the hypothesis to explain and predict what we can do with sciece. I don’t care about “the Big Bang” now as that doesn’t effect me. But I do believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been shown to be correct for that past 200 years and that until we get a better model, I will use it to predict what we can do with it.

        In this case, it appears as if we can create a conventional fusion reactor to fuse 8H -> O and then later make a “LENR” reactor to move O->8H for only a little bit of energy. I think the net energy produced is positive from 8H->O >> O->8H, so that what has been proposed is the reaction is perpetual motion. For a barrel of oil equivalent output he needs 1000x less energy input. But the fusion of 8H->O for a reaction mass the weight of a barrel of oil equivalent of H2, we are talking about enough energy to vaporize the entire earth.

        Something is missing here because otherwise we have a perpetual motion device. It is as if the Universe or [diety] decided to give man enough energy to live forever. All this violates Second law and my gut feel says I want to see the experiment clearly before I change MY model of the universe.

        • georgehants

          You can analysis things any way you wish and will not change the Facts I have put above.
          Science is Facts and Evidence not religious proclamations of ridiculous beliefs.
          You must make your “opinions” fit the Facts, not try and stupidly make Facts fit “opinion” as most of incompetent science does.
          If “something is missing” find the bloody answer and not try and make it fit within established priestly Dogma.

          • GreenWin

            George, the concept of “open” universe or multi-dimensional universe is alien to all but a few theoretical astrophysicists. Standard science grads have been drilled on 2nd Law as inviolable which of course makes it appear so to these observers.

            When and if the full implications of “the measurement problem” are confronted by mainstream science – the religious belief in physical laws will be tempered. Such a radical change in education is unlikely short of “An Impossible Invention.”

            Happily, one or two such inventions are here. And a very few scientists like Craig Hogan, Director of Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, even say radical stuff like:

            “If the GEO600 is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram.”

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, these guys have never heard or been taught in their incompetent schools of such things as the, Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Infinite is a little more than we require. Perhaps that is why the call it a catastrophe. I hope you are not planning on building one?

          • georgehants

            Well Ophelia, I am sure I do not have any idea what you are saying but it sounds good, I think.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Infinite radiation spewing from one of your ultraviolent things.

          • georgehants

            Ha, Ophelia, no, the point obviously is that one small inconsistency led through the great work of Plank to a new reality completely unknown and more basic than our known one.
            A big lesson for scientists to learn.

          • Ophelia Rump

            That is a very optimistic sentiment.

          • georgehants

            O’dear Ophelia, it is history, no debate, no opinions, just Factual History.
            Any scientist unaware of such scientific principles can only be at best half a scientist unless they develop their own intuitive ability to reason well.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I am fairly certain that there is still some hydrogen left in the universe.
      There also appears to be heat and other energies left lying around like children’s toys on the lawn of the universe. Where did the creation of the universe go wrong?

  • Anon2012_2014

    Solar Hydrogen Trends: Violates Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. times arrow or that the entropy always increases).

    Why? Because the low entropy state was the universe when it formed and was all hydrogen and a bit of helium. The free energy of fusion was used up to change that hydrogen into oxygen in stars.

    The process cannot go backwards and produce energy and reduce entropy.

    They have made a mis-measurement.

    • georgehants

      As science does not have a clue as to how the Universe formed beyond the usual excepted guess preached today and as there is a very fair debate as to if in such a Universe, the beginning would be regarded as the highest or lowest entropy, I think a little caution in such statements would be in order.
      As the laws of Thermodynamics rely on a closed Universe and science is completely ignorant as to if it is, then they clearly cannot be guaranteed to apply in all cases.

      • Anon2012_2014

        George,

        Science is a model called the hypothesis to explain and predict what we can do with sciece. I don’t care about “the Big Bang” now as that doesn’t effect me. But I do believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been shown to be correct for that past 200 years and that until we get a better model, I will use it to predict what we can do with it.

        In this case, it appears as if we can create a conventional fusion reactor to fuse 8H -> O and then later make a “LENR” reactor to move O->8H for only a little bit of energy. I think the net energy produced is positive from 8H->O >> O->8H, so that what has been proposed is the reaction is perpetual motion. For a barrel of oil equivalent output he needs 1000x less energy input. But the fusion of 8H->O for a reaction mass the weight of a barrel of oil equivalent of H2, we are talking about enough energy to vaporize the entire earth.

        Something is missing here because otherwise we have a perpetual motion device. It is as if the Universe or [diety of the reader’s choice] decided to give man enough energy to live forever. All this violates Second law and my gut feel says I want to see the experiment clearly before I change MY model of the universe.

        • georgehants

          You can analysis things any way you wish and will not change the Facts I have put above.
          Science is Facts and Evidence not religious proclamations of ridiculous beliefs.
          You must make your “opinions” fit the Facts, not try and stupidly make Facts fit “opinion” as most of incompetent science does.
          If “something is missing” find the bloody answer and not try and make it fit within established priestly Dogma.

          • GreenWin

            George, the concept of “open” universe or multi-dimensional universe is alien to all but a few theoretical astrophysicists. Standard science grads have been drilled on 2nd Law as inviolable which of course makes it appear so to these observers.

            When and if the full implications of “the measurement problem” are confronted by mainstream science – the religious belief in physical laws will be tempered. Such a radical change in education is unlikely short of “An Impossible Invention.”

            Happily, one or two such inventions are here. And a very few scientists like Craig Hogan, Director of Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, even say radical stuff like:

            “If the GEO600 is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram.”

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, these guys have never heard or been taught in their incompetent schools of such important things as the, Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Infinite is a little more than we require. Perhaps that is why the call it a catastrophe. I hope you are not planning on building one?

          • georgehants

            Well Ophelia, I am sure I do not have any idea what you are saying but it sounds good, I think.
            Certainly nothing central to my point.
            Back to Wiki-rubbish for another try.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Infinite radiation spewing from one of your ultraviolent things.

          • georgehants

            Ha, Ophelia, no, the point obviously is that one small inconsistency led through the great work of Plank to a new reality completely unknown and more basic than our known one.
            A big lesson for scientists to learn.

          • Ophelia Rump

            That is a very optimistic sentiment.

          • georgehants

            O’dear Ophelia, it is history, no debate, no opinions, just Factual History.
            Any scientist not taught to be aware of such scientific principles can only be at best half a scientist unless they develop their own intuitive ability to reason well.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I am fairly certain that there is still some hydrogen left in the universe.
      There also appears to be heat and other energies left lying around like children’s toys on the lawn of the universe. Where did the creation of the universe go wrong?
      After reading what you had to say, the creation of the universe seems obviously incomplete.

  • georgehants

    These pages, in places remind me of one of my previous lives when there was a debate regarding if the World was flat or round.
    The clever guys in those days just had an open-mind and good sense and thought, I will wait for the final Evidence and encourage all Research.
    They did not think that the holy laws of physics could not be broken, or any such restrictive propaganda taught to students by the religious priests.
    “opinions” as always mean nothing.
    Only time Research and Evidence will find the Truth.
    Thanks to those on page that are fairly looking at good Evidence and informing those of us not interested in pointless speculation or mind numbing personal denials.
    Who did win that flat Earth debate, I forget now.

  • georgehants

    These pages, in places remind me of one of my previous lives when there was a debate going on regarding if the World was flat or round.
    The clever guys in those days just had an open-mind and good sense and thought, I will wait for the final Evidence and encourage all Research.
    They did not think that the holy laws of physics could not be broken, or any such restrictive propaganda taught to students by the religious priests.
    “opinions” as always mean nothing.
    Only time Research and Evidence will find the Truth.
    Thanks to those on page that are fairly looking at good honest Evidence and informing those of us not interested in pointless speculation or mind numbing personal denials etc.
    Who did win that flat Earth debate, I forget now.

  • yes, it is endothermic.

    beside the easy simple assumption that is the most probable given the test are not bullet proof there is few exit.

    If the apparent production of H from O is proven, and it is not chemical

    first method is to assume the theory of the claimant is wrong…
    it may not be O->16H (or O->8D) but something involving fission of a heavy metal
    (I have the same feeling for BLP).

    then only you can imagine that “evident” assumption are not true…
    for example when hot fusionist assumed LENR was hot fusion, was QM in free space and twobody interactions, they made invisible assumption refusing to consider the theoretically possible idea of collective behavior in a lattice.

    at last you can try to extend the mainstream theory at it’s core, but that is very improbable as it is very much tested…
    an extension should add some rounded corners, not more.

    anyway the first things to do is to check the results with an independent test, by people who control the pipes and wires, do it for a long time, can rule-out chemistry, check all fraud hypothesis…

    I am very pessimistic, but since I am uninformed I let informed people pay a test.

    if the reality of the claim is confirmed, I will first challenge the claimant theories which are probably bogus, then challenge hidden assumption in the skeptic arguments.

  • georgehants

    Finish each day and be done with it. You have done
    what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget
    them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; begin it well and
    serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old
    nonsense.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882)

  • Qcjym

    Just read the report. Seriously, who the heck does measurements for a critical test like this and doesnt provide his own f*** power meter?

    • GreenWin

      Qcjym, do you have evidence that both TRC Solutions and Air Kinetics Inc. failed to use their “own f*** power meter?”

      According to the TRC letter: “The test results are summarized in Table 1 and all supporting documentation is attached.” The supporting documentation in the Air Kinetics Inc report include:
      1) Test results
      2) Field data and Equipment Calibrations
      3) Analytical data

      Do you suppose TRC and Air Kinetics Inc. have conspired together?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Its OK you can say Fluke.

  • Qcjym

    Just read the report. Seriously, who the heck does measurements for a critical test like this and doesnt provide his own f*** power meter?

    • GreenWin

      Qcjym, do you have evidence that both TRC Solutions and Air Kinetics Inc. failed to use their “own f*** power meter?”

      According to the TRC letter: “The test results are summarized in Table 1 and all supporting documentation is attached.” The supporting documentation in the Air Kinetics Inc report include:
      1) Test results
      2) Field data and Equipment Calibrations
      3) Analytical data

      Do you suppose TRC and Air Kinetics Inc. have conspired together?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Its OK you can say Fluke.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I like Solar Hydrogen Trends for the simple fact that their claim is so obviously impossible.

    There is no pretense here, no attempt to justify or explain. No bogus theory. They had the usual industry testing lab come in and test the gas for volume and purity. Yup if you buy that gas, you will get that flow rate and quality. Which is what those kinds of testing labs are for.

    • GreenWin

      Ophelia, you might want to look more closely at TRC Companies Inc. They regularly do permitting and electrical engineering for large scale renewable energy projects. They are 40 years in the engineering business and:

      “For forty years, a growing group of TRC engineers and scientists
      have served a broad range of government and industry clients
      –implementing complex projects from initial concept to delivery and
      operation. We are proud to have developed scientific and engineering
      methodologies that are used in the environmental business today…”
      http://www.trcsolutions.com/aboutus/ourhistory/pages/default.aspx

      This does not verify the SHT H2 process. It does go rather far to dispel the idea they are incompetent engineers too dumb to measure or record electrical energy. That sounds like the whining of Maryugo.

      • Ophelia Rump

        That is very nice, but this was not the work of an electrical engineering department in their company.

        The group which tested this probably deals with the bulk gasses / refineries also bulk food and other industries. These people would be industrial measurement specialists. I have been on the opposite side of the meter from such people loading oil tankers. The horror stories I could tell about how they cheat each other. You would not believe. It is a war and these testing people are the UN forces.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I like Solar Hydrogen Trends for the simple fact that their claim is so obviously beyond reason.
    If I wanted to buy a plant, I would just bring a Fluke Meter and load some trucks while testing flow rate off the generator’s main.

    The reason the testing company did not bring their own Fluke Meter is because input is not a standard part of their test. It was obviously an additional test performed by special request.

    There is no pretense here, no attempt to justify or explain. No bogus theory. They had the usual industry testing lab come in and test the gas for volume and purity. Yes Sir! If you hook up to that pipe, you will get that flow rate and quality. Which is what those kinds of testing labs are for.

    These testing companies exist to make sure that when you buy a tanker full of gas, you get a tanker full of gas of the specified quality and volume. They protect the buyer and seller.
    They are not in the business of verifying new physics. It was probably the first time a volume gas buyer or seller ever asked them to look at the electrical input for the process.

    Their proof is very simple. Count the trucks being loaded with gas and, watch the electric meter before you invest. No we do not know how we do it. It just happens. How much hydrogen gas would you like to buy?

    I like this model for introducing revolutionary technology. No B.S. no song and dance. Business as usual, count the trucks. Keep an eye on the electric bill. You want to buy a plant? Bring a Fluke Meter, load some trucks.

    What problem can you have with that?
    Do not go out of your way to manufacture problems to invalidate anything that crosses your path. Count the trucks, watch the meter. Keep your eye on the bills.

    They are not even trying to convince anyone to accept their numbers up front, they seem to be doing the exact opposite. Yes Sir, the numbers do seem wrong, you should verify them.

    • GreenWin

      Ophelia, you might want to look more closely at TRC Companies Inc. They regularly do permitting and electrical engineering for large scale renewable energy projects. They are 40 years in the engineering business and:

      “For forty years, a growing group of TRC engineers and scientists
      have served a broad range of government and industry clients
      –implementing complex projects from initial concept to delivery and
      operation. We are proud to have developed scientific and engineering
      methodologies that are used in the environmental business today…”
      http://www.trcsolutions.com/aboutus/ourhistory/pages/default.aspx

      This does not verify the SHT H2 process. It does go rather far to dispel the idea they are incompetent engineers too dumb to measure or record electrical energy. That sounds like the whining of Maryugo.

      • Ophelia Rump

        That is very nice, but this was not the work of an electrical engineering department in their company.

        The group which tested this probably deals with the bulk gasses / refineries also bulk food and other industries. These people would be industrial measurement specialists. I have been on the opposite side of the meter from such people loading oil tankers. The horror stories I could tell about how they cheat each other. You would not believe. Business is a war and these testing people are the UN forces.

        I absolutely agree, not only would they not be qualified to verify the existence of some new physics. The were not even trying to verify it. They were hired to verify two things.

        1 How much electricity went in.
        2 What volume of what gasses came out of the pipe.

        They probably did not even care what the electrical box was actually for.

        We know that this is the only thing they were hired to verify because it is the only contents of the report. They would not have cared if the gas came from a storage tank. This was just a routine lab verification of a flow measurement and an electrical measurement. the electrical measurement would have probably cost extra.

        So a man who is usually hired to measure gas deliveries is asked to do a gas check and, the customer wants him to check some electrical measurement, The work order says that the customer provides meter and someone to handle the meter, the tester is just to verify the numbers for him, and include them in the report.

        People here are radically misinterpreting the purpose of this report.
        If the customer asks to have it measured, you measure it for him.
        No where in that report is there any purpose stated.

        Where the buyer will steal your commodities is during the transaction by dumping cargo into undocumented tanks. Where the seller will cheat you is by putting his thumb on the scale, leaving your tanks part empty
        The role of these people in business is during the transaction.

        Anyway their claims are unlikey.

    • Sandy

      SHTI claims that “In 2013, Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. received a grant from The Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen Foundation”. http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com [“Technology” tab]

      John M. Fluke, Jr. is the Chairman of Fluke Capital. He is also an electrical engineer. And he is a member of the Advisory Board of the Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen Foundation; http://www.gallowaynielsenfoundation.com/advisors.asp

      “Fluke’s company is now an iconic name in electronic meters. Fluke himself served many years on the College of Engineering Visiting Committee, endowed the first chaired professorship in the College of Engineering (alas, not in Electrical Engineering) and contributed significant funds to the Washington Technology Center, whose building now bears his name. His son, John Fluke Jr., was a 1964 graduate of the Electrical Engineering Department.” http://www.ee.washington.edu/people/alumni/profiles/fluke_john_m.html

      “The [Patricia Galloway and Kris Nielsen] Foundation will be working with the Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and Central Washington University in order to enhance the abilities of grantees to pursue commercial applications for their ideas.” http://www.gallowaynielsenfoundation.com/grantees.asp

      Notice that argon gas was measured by TRC; http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_TRC_Test_Results_0614.pdf

      Argon gas was part of the Stanley Meyer’s “water fuel injector plug”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pa2sjMN8sMc#t=2608

      Stanley Meyer’s twin brother is an electrical engineer. He probably has a Fluke meter of his own.

  • Shreder

    Yesterday was a fantastic day and a fantastic forum.

    Let’s forgive those who write about the hydrogen balloon inside Symphony 7A, hidden cables,
    recirculating hydrogen in pipe.

    Let’s forgive SHT’s violation of the first and second law of
    thermodynamics laws of conservation of mass
    and energy. Let’s assume SHT has forgotten about the impossibility of creating a perpetuum
    mobile .
    Let us imagine what our planet would be if everything writing about them is true.

    And it will be true , because SHT does not want to look like idiots offering something fake to the government and the investors.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I would count the trucks they fill, number of plants they build and whether they can sell below competitors cost without going bankrupt.

      The will sell plants to companies the can sell product to for long periods without going broke. They must put some production plants up themselves.

      If it works, it works, and no one can stop their juggernaut. Otherwise, bankrupt.

  • Shreder

    Yesterday was a fantastic day and a fantastic forum.

    Let’s forgive those who write about the hydrogen balloon inside Symphony 7A, hidden cables,
    recirculating hydrogen in pipe.

    Let’s forgive SHT’s violation of the first and second law of
    thermodynamics laws of conservation of mass
    and energy. Let’s assume SHT has forgotten about the impossibility of creating a perpetuum
    mobile .
    Let us imagine what our planet would be if everything writing about them is true.

    And it will be true , because SHT does not want to look like idiots offering something fake to the government and the investors.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I would count the trucks they fill, number of plants they build and whether they can sell below competitors cost without going bankrupt.

      They will sell plants to companies which they sell product to for long periods without going broke. They must put some production plants up themselves.

      If it works, it works, and no one can stop their juggernaut. Otherwise, bankrupt.

      They are the worst liars in the world, if they are liars.

  • GreenWin

    Here is the chief scientist Balakiryan’s explanation of some of the nucleonic activity in his H2 generator:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/solar-hydrogen-trends-inc-chief-155800347.html

    He relies on “neutron decay” to create protons and a host of other effects to account for conversion of oxygen to H2. He further describes fast electrons resulting from this “neutron decay” ionizing O2 which collides with free proton to make H. Nuclear chemists?

    The most offbeat explanation is, if the Director of the Fermilab Center for Astrophysics is correct and we all live in a huge cosmic hologram — transmutation of elements is a rather simple analog to digital function. The hologram concept is readily proved by driving the system beyond its peak resolution and measuring the render latency.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, not so simple if the resolution is say below the Plank length and time resolution is smaller than his time limit.
      Not that those limits cannot be broken.

      • GreenWin

        The system I occupy is easily driven beyond peak resolution by focus on complex mapping, e.g. three dimensional reflective bodies like water. If that water body is intended to represent a terrestrial habitat (e.g. an estuary alive with biomass) — the system resolution is quickly exhausted.

        However, the programmers will divert extra processing and rendering to provide detail in the focus map – with significant latency. On the order of seconds and even minutes for the most complex rendering. This confirms the presence of holographic rendering typical of a certain level of volumetric displays.

        The real issues are how to correct for virtual human behaviors that fail to recreate even a semblance of organic human behavior. Some in the program believe they do not need organic participation for this – and so we are at a permanent standstill.

        • georgehants

          Ha, Wonderful, I am happy to say you have completely lost me.
          I personally now have to connect your observations with my readings of Seth that take us into another World altogether.
          But he does give the most amazingly consistent explanations for the existence of this and many other realities.
          some 20 odd books.
          I will stop there as I do not wish to put over my beliefs beyond invitation.
          Best wishes.
          http://www.sethlearningcenter.org/

          • GreenWin

            Thanks George, I am aware of Seth and many derivatives that fall under the study of expanded consciousness. They have been seminal in my path of learning and appreciating the enormous potential in human beings. However, like LENR, certain entities impede such learning – and even supporters refuse to comfortably fund its growth.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Thank you, I have similar belief systems to the Seth perspective. My beliefs are of my own devising based upon my own experience.

            I believe that our reality is at least partially based upon a consensus of opinion with proximity of the participants being a weighting value to their contribution.

            I once knew a man a trained expert in computer electronics among a group of eight other experts, half digital experts half analog.

            He had said to himself often enough that if he stepped within ten feet of a certain printer that the printer would break. A common jest.

            This became litteral. We took the printer and put it on electronics workstation. He could take one step forward and it would power off, one step back and it would power on. The lights for the bench were continually lit. There was nothing wrong with the computer as long as he was 11 feet back.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The consciousness is constantly overwhelmed, the unconscious parallel processing not so much, but who knows if it can be?

    • Ophelia Rump

      If you know the answer to this question I would be grateful to be understand what has been said.

      “The hologram concept is readily proved by driving the system beyond its peak resolution and measuring the render latency.”

      How would someone go about driving the system beyond it’s peak resolution and measuring it’s latency?

      Is this just abstract model based parallelism without corollary or is there an actual method for driving change within the moment beyond realities capacity to maintain coherence?

      Since reality occurs in the mind of the individual and the individual has a stuttering frame rate of perception equivalent to an old movie, is he talking about flooding the individual’s ability to perceive?

      • GreenWin

        Your last para is correct with the exception that human optics in healthy beings do not stutter on minimally moving objects. They function at a fixed rate of perception far faster than 16 fps (human optics can perceive detail at 1/300 sec.) The parietal and prefrontal cortex where visual memory is stored can then compare real time “reality” (i.e. what one is observing) with memory. These original memories have been accumulated from past, organic (non-holographic) or higher resolution observations.

        The water body example is germane because of the multiple levels of transparency and reflectivity required to accurately map how one sees into a living body of water – like a tidal pool or river estuary. Such habitats team with a diversity of life. The combination of complex reflection/transparency and diverse animate lifeforms exceed the nominal render engine (holographic projection) capacity.

        If observation continues to focus on the subject, the system diverts additional process and render capacity to match the original with the memory. My experience in such experiments yields render latency in seconds or minutes. It makes a fun thesis!

        • Ophelia Rump

          You misunderstand. The stuttering is the consciousness, not the optics.

          Think of the mind a processor with multi-cycle per instruction processing.

          The input processing and cognition is cycle one. Processing housekeeping or some other operation is cycle two. Our minds flicker. This known behavior is as I recall, why we can watch flickering movies and see them as continuous.

          I have not dealt with the subject for many decades, but I recall it.

          I have found a reference to it here for you.

          http://dyslectern.info/2014/05/29/discrete-or-continuous-consciousness/

          • GreenWin

            Not sure I get what you’re getting at. My experience with a holographic (simulated) world confirms that in scenes requiring complex rendering – “reality” looks fake. Until the render engine can catch up with organic memory. This requires extensive, terrestrial human experience. People without such experience will not have perceive the latency.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I have personally proven that humans are capable per perceiving visual inputs of sub millisecond duration. You are probably referring to the Riese Limen threhold, this only applies to minimum duration for conscious awareness, not for perception.

          If you take a computer display and randomly show a number from 0 to 9 at different locations on the screen for sub threshold durations, being careful to overwrite the value with both white and black boxes of the same duration to compensate for persistence of vision. You will not notice the number shown on the screen, neither will you be any better at guessing that number.

          If you show the same value multiple times, you will progressively become better at guessing the number. Eventually you will see the number, If you display the same number one hundred times at sub threshold values, you will swear that you see the number all over the screen and that it is very persistent.

          The effect of exposure is cumulative, it depends upon duration of exposure, intensity of exposure, and number of exposures.

          This is the effect known as subliminal manipulation. I assure you it is quite real, and testable. You should try it. It’s a great programming project.

      • JDM

        Do you walk to work or bring your lunch?

        • Ophelia Rump

          I telecommute.

  • GreenWin

    Here is the chief scientist Balakiryan’s explanation of some of the nucleonic activity in his H2 generator:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/solar-hydrogen-trends-inc-chief-155800347.html

    He relies on “neutron decay” to create protons and a host of other effects to account for conversion of oxygen to H2. He further describes fast electrons resulting from this “neutron decay” ionizing O2 which collides with free proton to make H. Nuclear chemists?

    The most offbeat explanation is, if the Director of the Fermilab Center for Astrophysics is correct and we all live in a huge cosmic hologram — transmutation of elements is a rather simple analog to digital function. The hologram concept is readily proved by driving the system beyond its peak resolution and measuring the render latency.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, not so simply proved if the resolution is say at the Plank length and time resolution is at his time limit. (I think)
      Not that even those limits cannot be broken.

      • GreenWin

        The system I occupy is easily driven beyond peak resolution by focus on complex mapping, e.g. three dimensional reflective bodies like water. If that water body is intended to represent a terrestrial habitat (e.g. an estuary alive with biomass) — the system resolution is quickly exhausted.

        However, the programmers will divert extra processing and rendering to provide detail in the focus map – with significant latency. On the order of seconds and even minutes for the most complex rendering. This confirms the presence of holographic rendering typical of a certain level of volumetric displays.

        The real issues are how to correct for virtual human behaviors that fail to recreate even a semblance of organic human behavior. Some in the program believe they do not need organic participation for this – and so we are at a permanent standstill.

        • georgehants

          Ha, Wonderful, I am happy to say you have completely lost me.
          I personally now have to connect your observations with my readings of Seth that take us into another World altogether.
          But he does give the most amazingly consistent explanations for the existence of this and many other realities.
          some 20 odd books.
          I will stop there as I do not wish to put over my beliefs beyond invitation.
          Best wishes.
          http://www.sethlearningcenter.org/

          • GreenWin

            Thanks George, I am aware of Seth and many derivatives that fall under the study of expanded consciousness. They have been seminal in my path of learning and appreciating the enormous potential in human beings. However, like LENR, certain entities impede such learning – and even supporters refuse to comfortably fund its growth.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Thank you, I have similar belief systems to the Seth perspective. My beliefs are of my own devising based upon my own experience.

            I believe that our reality is at least partially based upon a consensus of opinion with proximity of the participants being a weighting value to their contribution. I am fairly certain the strength of belief is another factor.

            This effect becomes heightened under conditions of confined isolation, like people who are confined to small ships for long periods of time.
            We share a common dream called reality, and our expectations manifest themselves.

            A person who is isolated among the isolated, will witness the effect of the presence of the group because they are outvoted in the presence of the group, because of this they can witness the shifts in reality.
            A computer which was working will fail when the group enters, because the group believes the computer does not work. A broken computer will become magically repaired when the group has confidence in the ability of someone to make it work.

            I once knew a man a trained expert in computer electronics among a group of eight other experts, half digital experts half analog.

            He had said to himself often enough that if he stepped within ten feet of a certain printer that the printer would break. A common jest.

            This became litteral. We took the printer and put it on an electronics workstation. He could take one step forward and it would power off, one step back and it would power on. The lights for the bench were continually lit. There was nothing wrong with the printer as long as he was 11 feet back. I personally witnessed him step forward and back a dozen times. We posted guards on every switch and circuit breaker in the room. I went over every component to make sure they did not wire in some kind of remote switch as a joke. They were a spirited group, I would not have put as great a joke as that past them. It was no joke.

            The permanent fix was for him to stay away from the printer, which was what he desperately wanted, never to have to go near that printer to fix it again.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The consciousness is constantly overwhelmed, which is to say the senses provide more data than it can handle. But conscious mind is only fed what it can handle.

          The unconscious parallel processing deals with the totality, but who knows if it can be overwhelmed with input?

          What overwhelms humans is not the input, it is the filtering and gating of bits of that data, prioritizing it for presentation to the consciousness, where the consciousness must then also process it. The consciousness can only be overwhelmed by being unable to post process the pre-selected data fast enough to keep up with incoming data.

          The sentient computer you seek must have an asynchronous and analog conscious processor, able to process independently of real time perceptive streams, and pre-processed input streams which feed it. By definition it must have more processing time than is required to process the perceptual streams presented to it. Which is to say it must be allowed enough processing time to think. That thinking is a reassessment of prior inputs which arrive at different times in the processing, and so could not have been fully explored for relationships in the real-time.

          It must have the ability to relate things which were not presented to it as related in the moment, so it must have the ability to step out of the moment. It should probably have parallel post processing to provide targets for consideration to the conscious. Post processors seem like a likely component of the human model since we pre-process.

          It must store abstracted models of the high priority input streams and models of what the conscious mind found important. Meaning memories of the components of significant thoughts and a little more detail of the input streams to those moments, otherwise it could only repeat the initial thought without re-consideration of details.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If you know the answer to this question I would be grateful to be understand what has been said.

      “The hologram concept is readily proved by driving the system beyond its peak resolution and measuring the render latency.”

      How would someone go about driving the system beyond it’s peak resolution and measuring it’s latency?

      Is this just abstract model based parallelism without corollary or is there an actual method for driving change within the moment beyond realities capacity to maintain coherence?

      Since reality occurs in the mind of the individual and the individual has a stuttering frame rate of perception equivalent to an old movie, is he talking about flooding the individual’s ability to perceive?

      • GreenWin

        Your last para is correct with the exception that human optics in healthy beings do not stutter on minimally moving objects. They function at a fixed rate of perception far faster than 16 fps (human optics can perceive detail at 1/300 sec.) The parietal and prefrontal cortex where visual memory is stored can then compare real time “reality” (i.e. what one is observing) with memory. These original memories have been accumulated from past, organic (non-holographic) or higher resolution observations.

        The water body example is germane because of the multiple levels of transparency and reflectivity required to accurately map how one sees into a living body of water – like a tidal pool or river estuary. Such habitats team with a diversity of life. The combination of complex reflection/transparency and diverse animate lifeforms exceed the nominal render engine (holographic projection) capacity.

        If observation continues to focus on the subject, the system diverts additional process and render capacity to match the original with the memory. My experience in such experiments yields render latency in seconds or minutes. It makes a fun thesis!

        • Ophelia Rump

          You misunderstand. The stuttering is the awareness inside the machine, not the optics. As I recall the skull is a resonant cavity. We resonate.

          I am decades out of date on perceptual signal encoding of human senses, but as I recall there were hundreds of competing theories back then, often partially or totally in conflict with one another for each of the senses. No doubt they have come a long way.

          Think of the mind as a processor with multi-cycle per instruction processing. The input processing and cognition is cycle one. Processing housekeeping, some other operation is cycle two. Our minds flicker. This known behavior is as I recall, why we can watch flickering movies and see them as continuous. I have not dealt with the subject for many decades, but I recall it.

          I have found a reference to it here for you.

          http://dyslectern.info/2014/05/29/discrete-or-continuous-consciousness/

          This is related to strobes affecting epileptics, and migraine headache sufferers experience of the world flickering.
          I am personally experienced with the phenomenon.

          I think the awareness can be entrained out of cycle with processing. The conscious therefore may be continuous and uninterrupted but presentation of sensory data to the conscious is in frames.
          The person inside the body becomes aware of the gray space between the frames where nothing happens. Seeing both.

          Yes I am suggesting that the actual consciousness is not a function of the sensory processing unit, or it would be locked in phase, incapable of perceiving the existence of the time when it is not actively processing presented world perceptions.
          Whatever that independence might entail.

          Now please allow me to say my analogy is both correct for a digital computer, and inappropriate for a true neural network architecture.
          A neural network is analog and totally asynchronous, Digital is synchronous. Electronic neural networks were forced to be analog and synchronous until IBM discovered the long missing fourth basic element of computing electronics, the memristor in 2008.

          The memristor allows analog storage of values in a component as basic as the resistor. Without this the neural networks had to be forced to synchronous planes of operation with Digital Analog Converters processing the weighting values of each synapse, a DAC for each synapse of a single neuron. DAC’s are small independent processors with a resistive ladder for output, each DAC a chip, in recent years.

          Any preconceptions about processing which you may have accumulated from experience in digital computing may be really bad models to apply to consciousness.

          • GreenWin

            Not sure I get what you’re getting at. My experience with a holographic (simulated) world confirms that in scenes requiring complex rendering – “reality” looks fake. Until the render engine can catch up with organic memory. This requires extensive, terrestrial human experience. People without such experience will not have perceive the latency.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I have personally proven that humans are capable of perceiving visual inputs of sub millisecond duration. You are probably referring to the Riese Limen threshold, this only applies to minimum duration for conscious awareness, not for perception. Human consciousness gates and focuses upon subsets of the overwhelming sensory input, to better address issues of priority. The human mind parallel processes information and feeds priority information to the consciousness.

          Question: If human consciousness can parallel process data, why does it need to be independent of the perception process?
          I humbly submit this answer for consideration; so it can think outside of real-time.

          If you take a computer display and randomly show a number from 0 to 9 at different locations on the screen for sub threshold durations, being careful to overwrite the value with both white and black boxes of 1 millisecond duration to compensate for persistence of vision. You will not notice the number shown on the screen, neither will you be any better at guessing that number.

          If you show the same value multiple times, you will progressively become better at guessing the number. Eventually you will see the number. If you display the same number one hundred times at sub threshold values, you will swear that you see the number all over the screen and that it is very persistent.

          The effect of exposure is cumulative, it depends upon duration of exposure, intensity of exposure, and number of exposures.

          This is the effect known as subliminal perception. I assure you it is quite real, and testable. You should try it. It’s a great programming project.

      • JDM

        Do you walk to work or bring your lunch?

        • Ophelia Rump

          I telecommute.

  • Broncobet

    The funny thing is: I rant about how unlikely these claims to be true are ,1 to 1 Googleplex, but not impossible. As a matter of fact in some scenarios we would find it to be likely. In a multi verse with an unlimited number of universes,this would come to pass,or in our universe the laws of nature could change,which shows us the great difference between unlikely and impossible. Movie ” Dumb and Dumber” “would you go out with me?” ” I wouldn’t go out with you if you were the last man on earth” His face lights up with joy and rapture “So you’re saying there’s a chance!!”

  • Here is the link to the latest video release from Solar Hydrogen Trends.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7kL-SwqXlE

    The raw video was released yesterday to Allen Sterling at PESNetwork (PESWIKI) who did the final editing and uploading to YouTube.
    Notice the loud hissing of the hydrogen.

  • mind2matter2reality

    Well, this is very interesting!
    I have posted this video in couple of LENR and Hydrogen groups on LinkedIn as well and it has silenced the noise there just like it has done it here.
    Not a peep from anyone!
    Should I assume that everyone has become a believer? Everyone is speechless? Nobody cares? What is it? I am eager to understand.
    Don’t speak all at once 🙂

    • pelgrim108

      I watched the video. Now Im thinking if there is anything I could say that isnt already sad by better minds then me in this thread. I will just say that I will just wait for some rigorous test.

  • Well, this is very interesting!
    I have posted this video in couple of LENR and Hydrogen groups on LinkedIn as well and it has silenced the noise there just like it has done it here.
    Not a peep from anyone!
    Should I assume that everyone has become a believer? Everyone is speechless? Nobody cares? What is it? I am eager to understand.
    Don’t speak all at once 🙂

    • pelgrim108

      I watched the video. Now Im thinking if there is anything I could say that isnt already sad by better minds then me in this thread. I will just say that I will just wait for some rigorous test.

  • H2Fan

    Hey Shreder, I checked the Philips company website, and they state
    that “In a lab setting” that they produced 4 liters of H2 with 40 grams
    of Aluminum powder. 10 grams per liter.

    SHT claims of the average of two tests (113/127) 120 ft3 per minute. Correct so far ?

    Philps,,10 grams per liter and SHT, 120 ft3/minute (400 watts/$1.80hr) Right ??

    (So, keep an eye on my math)

    Cubic foot of H2 has 28.316 liters per

    28.316 (L) X’s 120 (ft3) = 3397.92 per min,, correct so far ??

    @ 10 grams per liter X’s 3397.92 = 33,979 grams (duh)

    33,979 grams is 33.979 Kgs, correct ? Call it 34 Kgs

    34 Kgs is 74 US pounds, correct me if Im wrong please

    34Kgs
    X’s 60 (minutes) for the hour long run is 2,038 Kgs an hour or 4,500 US
    pounds (two and half tons) of Aluminum an hour to produce that much
    hydrogen. And that’s a lab setting and doesn’t include the coating that
    aluminum gets on it and prevents conversion. So “In a perfect world”
    setting.

    Aluminum powder per ton, about $3000 US

    http://www.alibaba.com/product

    Philips website, pdf on lab results( 40 gms per 4 liters) or 10 gms a liter

    http://www.phillipscompany.4t….

    SHT website performance results stating $1.80 an hour for All inputs, H20,watts,catalysts etc

    http://www.solarhydrogentrends

    Correct me if Im wrong please and…Thanks

  • Shreder

    Hey, H2Fan

    You’re trying to compare the results of Solar Hydrogen Treds and laboratories of «Phlips company». It’s like comparing a “Ferrari” and “Fiat 500”.

    For those who do not know what the “Fiat 500 is” explaining: – This is a dog house on wheels. You will be fully satisfied if you can get directly to SHT. They have “crazy” scientific team that will prove and show you that the laboratory «of Philips company», as well as many other scientific centers are behind the Solar Hydrogen Treds forever.

  • Shreder

    Hey, H2Fan

    You’re trying to compare the results of Solar Hydrogen Treds and laboratories of «Phlips company». It’s like comparing a “Ferrari” and “Fiat 500”.

    For those who do not know what the “Fiat 500 is” explaining: – This is a dog house on wheels. You will be fully satisfied if you can get directly to SHT. They have “crazy” scientific team that will prove and show you that the laboratory «of Philips company», as well as many other scientific centers are behind the Solar Hydrogen Treds forever.

  • H2Fan

    Sterling just posted a new article about Solar Hydrogen Trends , they went to a big investor conference.. Looks like some heavy hitters are paying attention

    SHT visits SRI; “This could be the biggest discovery in the history of mankind

    http://pesn.com/2014/08/12/9602526_SHT-visits-SRI_McKubre_biggest-discovery-in-history/