PESN: Solar Hydrogen Trends Technology PrimarilyBased on Chemical Reaction

Thanks to Sanjeev for providing a link to a story by Sterling Allan at PESN who reports about Solar Hydrogen Trends, a company whose claims of high levels of overunity in its hydrogen production system we have covered here before. The main PESN article is here: http://pesn.com/2015/07/26/9602642_Constantine-no-longer-with-SHT__reaction-primarily-chemical/

Sterling Allan reports that one of the original team members at Solar Hydrogen Trends, Constantine Balakirian, has been dismissed from the company and has started a new company called KB Consulting. In a press release, Balakirian describes a process in which aluminum is oxidized in a specially prepared solution to produce hydrogen without the creation of an oxide film on the surface of the metal that stops the oxidization process.

Allan states that what he has found alarming is that the Solar Hydrogen Trends method of producing hydrogen is primarily based on a chemical reaction, rather than some unknown method of producing hydrogen via a type of transmutation.

He writes:

I had (wrongfully) imagined their process to be primarily turning water (H2O) into hydrogen via electrical input, in which the oxygen was transmutating into hydrogen; and that the process was probably a variation of nuclear, hence the huge “overunity” of 1300+x more energy out than the electricity put into the system.

Now, I realize that the primary input isn’t electricity, but chemical: aluminum and water, which are the two consumables in the reaction, and that the oxygen is going primarily to aluminum oxide, not being transmutated to hydrogen.

Solar Hydrogen Trends had stated that their reaction can last for hours at a time, before it stops — and it seems now that the limitation of the reaction is because of the consumption of the catalyst during the reaction. In a patent application, SHT claims that 16 “physical and chemical” processes act on the hydrogen bonds in the electrolyte solution.

I’ve never really considered Solar Hydrogen Trends to be working in the LENR field, since their process seems very different from many other LENR claims. In the patent application mentioned above, they do say that a cavitation process which has been considered by many as an LENR process, but it does seem now that a chemical reaction is a central part of the SHT reaction, and I think it’s probably best to consider that the company is not really working in the main LENR field.

  • Navdrew

    A very interesting option for on-board hydrogen generation for vehicle propulsion. Economics will depend on the total energy costs of hydrogen production and the final implementation in a useful hydrogen generator. The key seems to be the elimination of aluminum oxide buildup on the aluminum feedstock and the process may involve a LENR process but very debatable. Still worth watching as a relatively clean renewable energy source.

    • If the process eats up any significant amount of aluminum, then it is not an “energy source” at all, just a new way to shift energy from one commodity to another. All the energy you put into the aluminum to create it in pure form is shifted to the potential energy in pure hydrogen gas. They made claims of producing hydrogen gas at a very low cost, but were they totally ignoring the capital cost of constructing the devices and the continuous cost of the aluminum fuel? They have to come clean and present all the ingredients and have an independent analysis of the true cost per kilogram of hydrogen gas produced. The TRUE COST will tell us if it is an authentic energy source or just a battery. Cost is a pretty good measurement of energy efficiency.

      • tobalt

        What else was ever to consider? lol

        Oxygen transmutation to Hydrogen would be hugely endothermic.

        in contrast: what LENR claims, is that certain exothermic nuclear transmutation are allowed to occur at technologically achievable conditions. This makes sense and is wonderful if established.

        but solar hydrogen trends’ concept is and always will be a nonsensical concept which can only adress people with absolutely no physics education.

        • georgehants

          tobalt, 99% of scientists with a “physics education” have and do “dismiss Cold Fusion”.
          How do you fit that into your above comment?
          Do you mean that now Cold Fusion is “proven” no other, unknown effects to the Dogma of science, are allowed?

          • tobalt

            Dear george,

            I am myself a professional in solid state physics. There are dogmas, which have never encountered any disproval. I am not talking about stuff like the standard model which leaves few open questions that have to be adressed in the future by refined models. Instead, Im talking primarily about the conservation laws, that of energy, of momentum, ofcharge.. No piece of data, no experiment ever has shown to be in conflict with those. under the action of the 4 fundamental forces knwon today, the laws of conservation are fundamental and doubtlessly established. Surely more forces can exist, but these will not play a role at present conditions. So anything which proposes an apparatus that violates conservation of energy ‘IS’ nonsense as long as it relies on “normal” machines and not on very exotic environments like a black hole or processes happening on the scale of Planck times.

            In contrast: what LENR suggests, is not in conflict with any those laws. Whats limiting the belief in LENR is basically just the very low crosssections. This however, enters a very different problem. Many body physics. Crosssections can be probed very efficiently as long as few particles are involved, as is famously done in colliders (large TeV ones, and small lab based MeV ones). In many body systems, solid state physicists define so called quasi particles which can assume strange properties like fractional charge, or attractive electron-electron bounds… Although quantum electrodynamics is as accepted as it gets when it comes to theories, the pecularities of many body systems (i.e. materials) lead to ever knew discoveries. The same is basically true for flavour- and chromodynamics. That is why I doubt that physics can give at this time a definite answer to crosssections of reactions in many body systems, particularly under dynamic excitations. I clearly understand the point of main stream physics regarding the low chance for atoms to fuse. but I also believe that such crosssections as derived from colliders cannot probe the picture encountered in a many body system. Therefore, I will not say that cold fusion is “likely” based on the shady experiments at hand, but it’s for sure “not impossible”, because to ascertain impossibility, one would need to compute the dynamic many body scenario which is right now impossible. The tentative experiments that exist and the important promises clearly varant more experiments regarding LENR inside condensed matter systems.

            I think, your reception of “mainstream physics” is quite biased. The dismissal of cold fusion is not nearly as strict as you perceive I think. The establishment of the Tohoku research center gives me great hope that the field will be looked at with great scrutiny now.

          • georgehants

            tobalt when people write 50 pages in reply to a simple given Fact I become weary.
            You or any part of science do not have the slightest idea what is and is not possible beyond known knowledge.
            I am certainly “biased” for the Truth, that makes me unpopular to the vast majority of scientists educated irrationally in the belief that science knows.
            “mainstream physics” does not have a clue as to if there are other unknown effects similar to Cold Fusion and any amount of expert opinion and hand waving will not change that Fact.
            Best

          • Ted-X

            The conservation “laws” should be really called “rules”. We do not know WHY the transitions (electricity into heat etc.) are proceeding with the conservation of energy. We have just observed it. There are still doubts about their validity: for example the Maxwell demon in the version of a micro-ratchet mechanism would not proceed with the conservation of energy according to thermodynamics. I would risk the statement that the conservation of energy is valid when the transitions are proceeding with the random-events mechanisms. There is actually some evidence that the ambient heat can be converted into energy, mechanical or even electrical, but these systems require some “directional mechanisms” (eg. the “ratchet demon”).
            —————————————————————————————————-
            A lot of evidence still does not mean that the “rule” can be extrapolated to all possible situations. Please be open-minded. All “experiment-based laws” that we know have only a certain probability of being correct and they may apply to a more limited set of circumstances than those universal ones that we assume. Extrapolation brings the possibility of significant errors in interpretations. Many of “our physics laws” might be more limited than what we think.

          • Axil Axil

            Tobalt,

            How did you know that LENR was caused by black holes?

            Reference:

            http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/World_first_Significant_development_in_the_understanding_of_macroscopic_quantum_behavior_999.html

            “Major development in the understanding of macroscopic quantum behavior”

            As a preface, DGT has provided original experimental research info on the behavior of the magnetic bubbles that the DGT experimenters observed through their observation window during the operation of the R5 reactor Hyperion Lab Prototypeas as follows:

            “These induced magnetic domains are expected to create many localized magnetic fields, randomly distributed on Ni surfaces, which can be regarded as localized magnetic traps (LMT) for hydrogen pairs and molecules. The sizes of LMTs may range from nano-scale to micro-scale.”

            More broadly, the Referenced SpaceDaily article provides some valuable experimentally derived insights into how LENR works and additionally lends insight into what these LMTs are.

            In this nanoplasmonic research article reference in SpaceDaily, information sets the context related to the DGT observation above as follows:

            “For the first time, the wavelike behavior of a room-temperature polariton condensate has been demonstrated in the laboratory on a macroscopic length scale.”

            Then getting into the specifics, the article relates a valuable piece of info that resolves a LENR puzzle as follows:

            “The size of the condensate is a limiting factor

            In addition to directly observing the organic polariton condensate’s wavelike behavior, the experiment showed researchers that ultimately the condensate size could not exceed approximately 100 micrometers. Beyond this limit, the condensate begins to destroy itself, fragmenting and creating vortices.”

            The DGT references an observation of a Bosenova that eventually destroys the LMT Bose condinsate at a certain size limit. This Bosenova is when through an explosion, the LMT gives up it store of energy to the structure of the reactor.

            To rap up everything into a set of conclusions, the LMT is really a polariton dark mode soliton. Specifically, this soliton is a vortex of coherent light that behaves as a black hole for EMF: a hybrid waveform of light and electrons. It grows in size to about 100 micrometers whereupon it becomes unstable and explodes when the main photonic vortex motion begins to produce countervailing peripheral vortex currents. The research in the reference article puts a limit to how large these black holes of light can grow: 100 micrometers.

            Also. from the SpaceDaily article it states:

            “The condensate is created by first exciting a sufficient number of polaritons using a laser and then observed via the blue light it emits. Its dimensions can be comparable to that of a human hair”

            The light emitted at LMT explosion(Bosenova) was company proprietary information, but it was almost certainly blue in the visible and beyond as black light ultra violet as observed and reported by Mills.

            From cutting edge physics theory getting back to black holes, the latest mechanism to remove the firewall paradox from the Black Hole theories is communication of entanglemnet through worm holes. The force that enables LENR is entanglement associated with Hawing radiation that is catalized by worm holes which provide the quantum mechanical communication mechanism for LENR.

            If you have the time, here is an explanation of this idea:

            Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox

            https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150424-wormholes-entanglement-firewalls-er-epr/

            Take note: “To be sure, ER = EPR does not yet apply to just any kind of space, or any kind of entanglement. It takes a special type of entanglement and a special type of wormhole. “Lenny and Juan are completely aware of this,” said Marolf, who recently co-authored a paper describing wormholes with more than two ends.”

            This is why the polaritons must produce a Black Hole of EMF to insure that the special type of entanglement develops that satisfies the condition: ER=EPR.

    • wpj

      This is a stupid concept, full stop! Aluminium costs a fortune in electricity to produce (from aluminium oxide) which is why we need to recycle it.

      The best option for the above is sodium on silica gel (35%) which is amazingly stable and is already being developed for the purpose that you speak of. Additionally, it is far cheaper to produce than aluminium.

      See

      http://signachem.com/hydrogen-energy/

      I use this for chemical processes and it is very easy to handle.

  • Too bad. Aluminum-air batteries have been in development for a long time. Is this just an aluminum-water battery?

    • Mats002

      SHT probably invented something new but I get the impression they lied about their invention. What were they hoping for?

  • Gerard McEk

    This was exaxtly my conclusion a while ago. Their statement that all the water was ‘consumed’ and converted to hydrogen was mislading. If they really were able to produce over-unity than they would have been much further in the compitition than they are now.