Solar Hydrogen Trends Publishes Patent

Thanks to Fyodor for posting a link to this article from the New Energy Treasure website which discusses a new patent published by Solar Hydrogen Trends, who claim to have developed a technology that can produce huge amounts of hydrogen from a previously undisclosed process.

Here’s the abstract from the patent application:

“The present invention provides multifactorial hydrogen reactor with elevated hydrogen production due to complex set of sixteen (16) physical and chemical processes, acting simultaneously on the hydrogen bonds in aqueous solutions of electrolytes. This is achieved due to the process, which takes place in forty two (42) distributed volumes of hydrogen reactor under the effect of the electro-hydraulic shock, which forms local micro-cavities with pressures in the hundreds of thousands of atmospheres and a temperature of several thousand degrees (plasma). Frontline water wave pressure passing through electrolyzer’s electrodes creates in micro-environment infrasonic, sonic, and ultrasonic vibrations that, along with the heat, ultrasound and hydrodynamic cavitation, turbulence, high-pressure, chemical catalysts, light energy, electrostatic and electromagnetic fields, dramatically increases decomposition process of water molecules. Simultaneously, electro-hydraulic shock destroys the oxide film, allowing the oxidation reaction of reactive metals to continue continually; reactive metals, from which plates of electrolyzer are made, are part of the hydrogen reactor”.

It has always been difficult to classify SHT’s claims as LENR, but they do mention here cavitation, which has been seen as a way to produce a form of LENR technology (e.g. Mark LeClair’s Nanospire)

The New Energy Treasure article proposes that the SHT system is using a sonoluminescence process in which sound is turned into light:

“It can also be regarded as the supersonic implosion of sonoluminescing bubbles. Like its nephew, Sonofusion (deuterium based), it occurs when a sound wave of sufficient intensity induces a gaseous cavity within a liquid and causes it to collapse quickly. Early observations noted that bubbles in a fluid were emitting light when an ultrasound was turned on. The light flashes from the bubbles are extremely short; lasting between 35 and a few hundred picoseconds. When multiple bubbles are activated simultaneously, this is known as multi-bubble sonoluminescence (MBSL)”.

As we all know by now, there’s a lot of work to be done when one takes an idea that is set forth in a patent, and tries to create a commercial product with it. I am not sure where Solar Hydrogen Trends are in the commercialization process, and I think we will need to see more test results, and especially more third party testing, before we can start to make any firm evaluation of this technology.

  • bachcole

    When I see them make scads of money selling hydrogen or energy, then I will get off my inner fence.

  • Ecco

    This reminds me a bit of Ugo Abundo’s (Open Power) experiments which MFMP shared recently on Facebook. http://www.hydrobetatron.org/files/Role-of-Lithium-_part-three_Pubb-.pdf

    (Also read the presentation Abundo was unable to show at ICCF19:
    http://www.hydrobetatron.org/files/Def_ICCF19_ABUNDO_Gen_Pubb.pdf)

    Solar Hydrogen Trends have a convoluted explanation for their process, but in the end they are definitely doing (or at least claiming to be doing) cold fusion/LENR.

  • Their technology would allow the manufacture of synthetic gasoline of a higher quality and purity than traditional gasoline derived from oil, and at a very reasonable price. If they can figure out how to make a much smaller version of their reactor work inside an automobile, then we can dispense with gasoline altogether. Those who clamor for a new carbon free energy solution should take note.

    • Allan Shura

      Or perhaps high quality coal and kerosene.

      • How any cars and trucks are there in the world? We will need gasoline and diesel fuel for a long time even if pure hydrogen cars suddenly become technically practical and affordable.

  • Their technology would allow the manufacture of synthetic gasoline of a higher quality and purity than traditional gasoline derived from oil, and at a very reasonable price. If they can figure out how to make a much smaller version of their reactor work inside an automobile, then we can dispense with gasoline altogether. Those who clamor for a new carbon free energy solution should take note.

    • Allan Shura

      Or perhaps high quality coal and kerosene.

      • How any cars and trucks are there in the world? We will need gasoline and diesel fuel for a long time even if pure hydrogen cars suddenly become technically practical and affordable.

  • Nixter

    Mark LeClair of Nanospire warned about the dangers of cavitation technology. He experienced serious radiation sickness numerous times when experimenting with this tech.

    ABD posted on Vortex about this here:
    https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg40544.html

  • Gerard McEk

    In the past they were also claiming that water was converted to hydrogen allone (without oxigen). I do not see that in the short explanation above. I will read the patent to see if they are still claiming that.

    • According to the linked article, the SHT reactor produces 17kg of hydrogen from 5 gallons of water. If it is assumed that this means US gallons, then this equates to 18.93 litres, i.e., 18.93 kg of water. As the hydrogen content of water by weight is 11.11%, the actual H2 content of 18.93 kg of water is only 2.1kg, so SHT are essentially still claiming mass transmutation of oxygen to hydrogen on demand. Nanospire reported some weird effects during their experiments, but very little control of these. Given the tests so far, SHT’s claims can’t be rejected out of hand, but acceptance is definitely still a big ask.

      • Gerard McEk

        I partly read the patent, but it does not mention any of these bizar claims. According the patent they use (oxidize pure) aluminium to make hydrogen and they found a route to do this without interruption. They do a brief cost/energy calculation but they forget the cost of making aluminium of aluminium oxide again. The patent seems ‘normal’ technology.

        • They made the claims on the link below. Look at the comments section. They were the first to comment on the article. http://newenergytreasure.com/2014/11/24/whats-the-deal-with-solar-hydrogen-trends.

        • Obviously there isn’t any hydrogen in aluminium or it’s oxide, so the H2 can only come from the water, whatever means is used to decompose it.

          The claim is clearly that oxygen can be transmuted into hydrogen – there is no other way that 5 gallons of water could yield 17kg of H2 – unless of course some other undisclosed (and limited) hydrogen source is involved.

          • Gerard McEk

            It is exactly that claim that is bizar (but the patent does not claim that). It will cost vast amounts of nuclear energy to transmute oxigen into hydrogen. Simply because that energy seems to come from nowhere, I consider this process as ‘bizar’. Let them independently proof that they can do that during a long period and that they are not using some hidden source of water and aluminium. Give the SHIT reactor to some independent (and not payed by them) researchers and let them make sure that this works as they claim.

      • US_Citizen71

        I might be able to accept some process that causes fission of oxygen to create hydrogen. But to me the really big ask is the transmutation of the neutrons that make up half of oxygen’s mass into protons.

        Edit: Unless 80%+ of the mass of the hydrogen produced is actually deuterium, in which case the device will never be allowed for open sale.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The need to loose the neutrons is not necessary – if the majority of the “Hydrogen” is actually Deuterium, not solely Protium – and this would be the killer – literally – toxic to every organism on earth. SHT need to confess about the isotopic nature of the product of their reactor.

          This would therefore mean that this technology is only suitable for military supremacy, where the insidious toxicity to all flora and fauna can be overlooked in the interests of having the supremacy to suppress and oppress with huge advantage.

          Lastly, as others have noted, this technology will permanently sequester O2 – something that does not happen with the carbon cycle.

          For these reasons, it will not be a solution to our energy needs, it will offer an advantage to one group of humans at the permanent expense of others and life in general.

          Radiation decays – Deuterium stays.

          That is why their statement that “Spreading this technology worldwide at this stage will be irresponsible because it has the potential to crash the world markets.” sounds so criminal and indefensible – and why “It is our duty to bring maximum benefit to USA and to its national security” sounds so megalomaniacal.

          I hope they are neither criminals or megalomaniacs, but it would seem they have no choice but to be economical with the truth.

          Of course, this assumes it is not just chemical.

          • Deuterium production is a very interesting possibility, and does seem to be the only even vaguely acceptable explanation of where the oxygen neutrons are going (IF SHT’s claims are taken at face value of course).

            The gas product would be roughly 11% hydrogen, 87% deuterium, and as as you say would constitute an insidious threat to all life on earth if it was ever used as a general energy source. So as well as providing independent proof of principle, SHT also need to have the gas product analysed by a third party ASAP.

            If it does turn out that their device manufactures deuterium on demand, i.e., is a source of unlimited quantities of deuterium/’heavy water’, I would expect the technology to disappear from view fairly quickly.

        • bachcole

          The only way that I can make sense out of SHT is that they are pulling energy out of a different dimension or from dark energy or dark matter. Otherwise, I will keep waiting patiently for some reason, any reason, to actively believe them, sort of like my opinion of yeti or UFOs.

  • Dave Lawton

    It is cobbled together from previously known effects nothing new here.

    • Agaricus

      The transmutation of oxygen to hydrogen/deuterium is certainly not a previously known effect, but of course is yet to be proven.

  • Dave Lawton

    It is cobbled together from previously known effects nothing new here.

    • The transmutation of oxygen to hydrogen/deuterium is certainly not a previously known effect, but of course is yet to be proven.

      • Dave Lawton

        I have seen these effects before. Using pulse electrolysis I obtained efficiencies of over 300% which was replicated by a third party also there was a
        molecular change in the water. That was years ago,another interesting
        effect was a surface change on the cathode due to hydrogen
        absorption,I expect there was some transmutation going on but I did
        not have the kit to check that out. And all this was with deionised water, no aluminium and ultrasound which will enhance the electrolysis which is a well known technique. Now this is a neat patent because of its simple design.It has a cop of about 10.It uses two magnets to create a vortex to remove the bubbles from the spiral electrodes.http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4105528

  • Twobob

    I may not be understanding This correctly?
    But after reading the patent They state:-
    “Calculations show that to production of 1kg of hydrogen,
    requires oxidizing of 9kg of aluminium”.
    So is the Energy required to make the Aluminium.
    More or less than the COP they claim of 1500.?

    • They’re saying that’s according to current technology. Their own Symphony technology works differently and therefore doesn’t consume as much aluminium. The “shock waves” are what make this possible.

      • Twobob

        The shock waves as I read it ,shake the oxide off.
        So that the oxidisation of the aluminium can continue.
        I believe the use of sound was there fix for this.
        which led to the “discovery”.
        The do say that the aluminium ore could be used. “maybe”.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Producing 1 kg aluminium requires in average 15 kWh, so you need 135 kWh for 9 kg. The energy content of 1 kg hydrogen comes to 141.8 MJ, or 39.4 kWh…

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Of course, you may get some energy back from the oxidisation of the aluminium. Burning 9kg should yield 119.4 kWh (maybe somebody can check these numbers).

        • Bob Greenyer

          If this is purely chemical, the one advantage is that excepting the initial mining process, the Aluminium is normally made using Hydroelectricity in say Iceland. Once the aluminium is used – it could be re-smelted / re-cycled without having to be re-mined.

          If only chemical, it allows for high density energy which after the aluminium, only needs additional water to operate in the field.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Some prices from Alibaba:

            Aluminium powder 4000–5200 USD/t
            Al2O3, industrial grade 500–750 USD/t

            9 kg Al would yield 17 kg Al2O3, but there remains still a difference of -23.25 to -38.3 USD per charge. I am not sure if they could cover it by sales of hydrogen and waste heat. Besides, commodity prices are everything else but stable, and there are certainly many other factors that would have to be considered.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is the situation we face.

    http://goo.gl/OQmGw5

    By Steve Andrews

    “In reviewing BP’s latest Statistic Review of World Energy, the big story for world oil last year was obvious: the USA’s third straight record-breaking increase in average annual production. Just over 75% of the net increase in world oil production during 2014 came from the USA; add in Canada and 90% of the total increase came from North America. Throw in Brazil’s first significant increase in three years and you have all the world’s net gain in world oil production accounted for by three non-OPEC players. Production from all other producers combined was flat. So the question for 2015 is straightforward: will we see a repeat of those gains…and the flat-liners?

    The second-biggest oil story from 2014 came at year’s end: the oil price crash. While that event came too late to impact production data for 2014, it is already slowing the USA’s shale oil train and dominating investment decisions–near- and long-term–throughout the non-OPEC oil sector. The early indication is that the history-making growth rates from North America during 2014 will be significantly reduced during 2015. If so, where might 2015 production growth come from?

    In pursuing possible answers to that question, here are three additional trends from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2014 to consider going forward:

    Production declines related to violence and political upheaval in Libya, Syria and Yemen totaled 521,000 b/day during 2014 on top of 673,000 b/day drop during 2013, with Libya accounting for most of that decline. How likely is a reversal of that trend during 2015? Might production in adjacent nations be impacted?

    Russia and China, the world’s #2 and #5 producers, together produced nearly 18% of the world’s oil. But recently, their annual gains have been shrinking: BP’s Review shows Russia’s gain during 2014 was 0.6% and China edged up 0.7%.

    Iraq and Iran have the potential to make significant production gains going forward. Iraq increased by 144,000 b/day last year, its 9th consecutive annual increase, and BP shows Iran increased a notable 89,000 b/day after declining a total of 848,000 during the two previous years. What are the odds that production from either or both of those two volatile producers will increase as dramatically as some analysts hope and expect?”

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is the situation we face.

    http://goo.gl/OQmGw5

    By Steve Andrews

    “In reviewing BP’s latest Statistic Review of World Energy, the big story for world oil last year was obvious: the USA’s third straight record-breaking increase in average annual production. Just over 75% of the net increase in world oil production during 2014 came from the USA; add in Canada and 90% of the total increase came from North America. Throw in Brazil’s first significant increase in three years and you have all the world’s net gain in world oil production accounted for by three non-OPEC players. Production from all other producers combined was flat. So the question for 2015 is straightforward: will we see a repeat of those gains…and the flat-liners?

    The second-biggest oil story from 2014 came at year’s end: the oil price crash. While that event came too late to impact production data for 2014, it is already slowing the USA’s shale oil train and dominating investment decisions–near- and long-term–throughout the non-OPEC oil sector. The early indication is that the history-making growth rates from North America during 2014 will be significantly reduced during 2015. If so, where might 2015 production growth come from?

    In pursuing possible answers to that question, here are three additional trends from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2014 to consider going forward:

    Production declines related to violence and political upheaval in Libya, Syria and Yemen totaled 521,000 b/day during 2014 on top of 673,000 b/day drop during 2013, with Libya accounting for most of that decline. How likely is a reversal of that trend during 2015? Might production in adjacent nations be impacted?

    Russia and China, the world’s #2 and #5 producers, together produced nearly 18% of the world’s oil. But recently, their annual gains have been shrinking: BP’s Review shows Russia’s gain during 2014 was 0.6% and China edged up 0.7%.

    Iraq and Iran have the potential to make significant production gains going forward. Iraq increased by 144,000 b/day last year, its 9th consecutive annual increase, and BP shows Iran increased a notable 89,000 b/day after declining a total of 848,000 during the two previous years. What are the odds that production from either or both of those two volatile producers will increase as dramatically as some analysts hope and expect?”

    • So to cover USA energy needs (11.6m barrels per day) you’d need about 300,000 Symphony units consuming 1 million barrels of water per day or 2 swimming pools, each the size of a football field.

      • Bob Greenyer

        don’t forget the aluminium.

        oh, and that it may be producing nearly 1 million barrels of deuterated water which is permanently toxic to all life on earth – does’t even have the advantage of decaying.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Producing 1 kg aluminium requires in average 15 kWh, so you need 135 kWh for 9 kg. The energy content of 1 kg hydrogen comes to 141.8 MJ, or 39.4 kWh…

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Of course, you may get some energy back from the oxidisation of the aluminium. Burning 9kg should yield 119.4 kWh (maybe somebody can check these numbers).

      • Bob Greenyer

        If this is purely chemical, the one advantage is that excepting the initial mining process, the Aluminium is normally made using Hydroelectricity in say Iceland. Once the aluminium is used – it could be re-smelted / re-cycled without having to be re-mined.

        If only chemical, it allows for high density energy which after the aluminium, only needs additional water to operate in the field.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Some prices from Alibaba:

          Aluminium powder 4000–5200 USD/t
          Al2O3, industrial grade 500–750 USD/t

          9 kg Al would yield 17 kg Al2O3, but there remains still a difference of -23.25 to -38.3 USD per charge. I am not sure if they could cover it by sales of hydrogen and waste heat. Besides, commodity prices are everything else but stable, and there are certainly many other factors that would have to be considered.

          • Omega Z

            Don’t know if this is the real deal, But
            If it is, the Government wont let John Q Public have it.
            At 4x the energy density of Gasoline, They don’t want you producing it at will in any quantities you want…

  • LuFong

    These devices don’t run for very long (8 hours). Test results may have come from runs of 1 hour or so. I think the next step is to run one continuously for a day or two. To me this means that the technology is still not proven. We will have to wait to see what they come up with.

    http://revolution-green.com/solar-hydrogen-trends-believe-it-or-not/

  • AstralProjectee

    Keep covering this topic Frank.

  • Allan Shura

    There is a lot going on at all levels of energy in electrolyzers and electrolysis that have been ignored leading to the new theory of field energy. It seems in over 100 years very little data has been assembled for public access in this area.
    Observations most definitely challenge what has been taught in formal applied physics here.

  • Allan Shura

    There is a lot going on at all levels of energy in electrolyzers and electrolysis that have been ignored leading to the new theory of field energy. It seems in over 100 years very little data has been assembled for public access in this area.
    Observations most definitely challenge what has been taught in formal applied physics here.

  • John

    it is outrageous, Mr. Frank, we have to support lenr only, because, people from SHT is playing with our time.Did you studied the patent? this is a joke, use aluminium to hidrogen production, a very expensive process. And the patent is fuzzy, looks like they made cut and paste from texts catched on books and internet…

    • Dave Lawton

      I completely agree John its a dogs dinner. And its only a Application I doubt if a full patent
      would be granted on what I have seen.

  • Bob Greenyer

    don’t forget the aluminium.

    oh, and that it may be producing nearly 1 million barrels of deuterated water which is permanently toxic to all life on earth – does’t even have the advantage of decaying.

  • Asterix

    Whatever happened to their claim of being able to take (my own units) 1kg of water and produce 1kg of hydrogen from it? Clearly, this is what set off speculation of LENR.

    But, according to the patent application, this is clearly not the case. In the presence of elemental aluminum, hydrogen is split from water via hydrolysis and the oxygen goes into production of a hydrated oxide of aluminum. So no hydrogen from oxygen–and thus, no possibility of 1kg of hydrogen from 1kg of water.

    So why isn’t anyone calling “outright fraud” on this?

  • vokzzi V

    Looks like Axil Axil wrote their abstract 🙂

    • How is ECN these days – still revolving on its own axis?

  • Agaricus

    How is ECN these days – still revolving on its own axis?

  • SteveA

    Was looking at their webpage today and noticed that Konstantin Balakiryan is no longer shown as a member of their team. Does anyone know what happened? I thought the whole technology was his baby.

  • Omega Z

    bachcole

    It’s said that there is a correlation between UFO’s and Big Foot.

    As evidence, Wookie here
    http://giphy.com/gifs/swag-star-wars-relax-GNVmMgSdY5nxK

  • Omega Z

    Don’t know if this is the real deal, But
    If it is, the Government wont let John Q Public have it.
    At 4x the energy density of Gasoline, They don’t want you producing it at will in any quantities you want…