• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Solar Hydrogen Trends  RSS feed

 
Bill Bradbury
pollinator
Posts: 684
Location: Richmond, Utah
32
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Solar Hydrogen Trends recognized as the "most interesting technology" of 2014. Not only does it produce over 1300 times more energy out than in, but it does so cheaply.
Filename: SHT-handout.pdf
File size: 68 Kbytes
 
Troy Rhodes
Posts: 626
26
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The Solar Hydrogen trends people are claiming to produce a kilogram of hydrogen from one liter of water.

One liter of water contains ~112 grams of hydrogen, total. So if you split it with 100% efficiency, you'd get 112 grams.


They claim to get 1,000 grams.


That strikes me as a surprising and unlikely outcome.


And, not that there is anything wrong with making money, but they are actively soliciting investors...



troy
 
Bill Bradbury
pollinator
Posts: 684
Location: Richmond, Utah
32
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Troy, I looked for anything like what you state about the SHT technology, but I can't find anything like that. What I did find is a 45 day gag order while the military snuffs this out for their own evil plans.
 
Michael Cox
Posts: 1699
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
54
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill Bradbury wrote:
Solar Hydrogen Trends recognized as the "most interesting technology" of 2014. Not only does it produce over 1300 times more energy out than in, but it does so cheaply.


Really, 1300 times more energy out than in? I had a look at their website and my male-cow-excrement detector was sounding off like mad. Recognised by who as the "most interesting technology"?


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


Water is not a "fuel" in this context. It doesn't provide energy to the system - I will give that it is the main compound required to make the hydrogen, but the use of language here is manipulative, suggesting that the energy needed to split the hydrogen from water is coming from the water itself. Actually the energy comes from the electricity powering the device (solar, wind, mains etc...).

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


Volatile has two meanings - one technical meaning to do with substances easily evaporated at room temperature. "Free flowing hydrogen" is a gas unless cryogenically chilled and compressed. They are using technical sounding language for no reason here, other than to blind with jargon.

Of course they could intend the other meaning of "non-volatile" - suggesting that it is not likely to explode - but surely that should be a given for any device advertised? I don't buy staplers with stickers saying "guaranteed not to explode when used".

According to TRC Solutions test, on input of 415 watts, the mini reactor produces an output of 7,369 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour (electricity equivalent of 626 kWh). The estimated cost of inputs is $1.68 per hour.

According to AirKinetics test, on input of 500 watts, the mini reactor produces an output of 2,797 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour (electricity equivalent of 237 kWh). The estimated cost of inputs is $1.80 per hour.


These numbers are so ridiculously out of line with reasonable expectations that I simply don't trust them. 0.5kWh to produce hydrogen sufficient to generate 237kWh? Notice how they switched units in one sentence from Watts to kiloWatthours? common sense suggests that you would provide the info in a way that lets the reader compare the input and output directly; say comparing Joules in with Joules out, kWh with kWh etc...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them... so far all we have are cryptically misleading pseudo-science statements.

Personally I can think of at least one way to make their statements totally factually correct, yet also totally misleading as to what is going on.

[hydrogen storage cylinder that buffers generated hydrogen and releases it in short bursts - measure the hydrogen release over few seconds, multiply by the seconds in a hour - BAM - we get a huge figure of hydrogen per hour which is true but wrong]

I'm not saying that there is nothing to their product, but that their website is selling snakeoil and hype to the unwary.
 
Troy Rhodes
Posts: 626
26
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here's their press release website and a quote:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11773463.htm

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




And here's an unrelated web site that describes how much hydrogen is in a liter of water:


http://www.quora.com/If-water-is-split-into-Hydrogen-and-Oxygen-how-much-of-each-gas-is-produced-per-liter-of-water-processed



That appears to me to be an irreconcilable disconnect. Water only contains 112 grams hydrogen per liter. SHT claims to get 1,000 grams of hydrogen out of that same liter of water.


 
Michael Cox
Posts: 1699
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
54
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill Bradbury wrote:Troy, I looked for anything like what you state about the SHT technology, but I can't find anything like that. What I did find is a 45 day gag order while the military snuffs this out for their own evil plans.


Got a link for anything on that, Bill?
 
Michael Cox
Posts: 1699
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
54
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here is a great snippet from one of the few commentaries on this that is anything than a PR statement from the company itself:

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


Article of SHT - critical of testing session
 
John Wolfram
Posts: 656
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
24
trees
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
From the their website:
According to TRC Solutions test, on input of 415 watts, the mini reactor produces an output of 7,369 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour (electricity equivalent of 626 kWh). The estimated cost of inputs is $1.68 per hour.


Ha! Take that, Second Law!!
 
Michael Cox
Posts: 1699
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
54
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I shouldn't get sucked in to these things, but here is another longer thread.. in the comments beneath is some good (critical!) discussion and some responses from the creator.

Personally, I think there is some kind of chemical reaction taking place within the system that accounts for most of the hydrogen produced... perhaps Sodium metal reacting with water or something similar? Some comments mention "other consumables" without being specific. The agrees with the suggestion that there is another energy source involved, other than the electricity - the exothermic reaction between water and what ever chemical they have used - so the device is not really "over unity" because the embodied production energy of the other consumables is ignored.


Common sense checks for flow rate and the link were rejected by the equipment owners (use displacement underwater to fill a bottle of known volume and check flowrate, while at the same time insisting the flowrates were much higher than reasonable.

More cricism

Oh, and the professor/inventor of this device does a good job of discrediting himself in the the comments below by confusion the measurements of power and energy... surely someone who had a clue about the field would get those concepts spot on?
 
Troy Rhodes
Posts: 626
26
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I hope all of us critics are wrong, because if their claims are true, then the planet's energy worries are over.


 
Chris Knipstein
Posts: 45
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
8
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Sadly a scam of some type for sure.

Ignoring that they get more hydrogen out of the water than the water contains...

All you really have to look at about the whole thing is, no one with a system that produced energy at a 1 input to 1,300 output ratio would need to solicit the general public for investors.
 
Bill Bradbury
pollinator
Posts: 684
Location: Richmond, Utah
32
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I like to follow these things because I find them interesting. They are usually a scam, but some have been bonafide breakthroughs that were squashed by a system that has no room for equality, which is really what we are talking about here.

I think the real path to salvation for the human race is the one we are on here at Permies. I see this cheap energy thing as truly dangerous to our planet, but a stop gap in which we transition from our current state of disaster to a clean energy source. The next step is the dangerous one; putting our own comfort behind the needs of the myriad beings that inhabit our planet with us. As it stands, I don't know if we are responsible enough to handle free or even cheap energy.
 
Mike Kuhn
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And yet it doesent surprise any of us that a small amount of a certain kind of fuel, small enough to fit into a standard size cofee can can run an aircraft carrier, for 6 months
 
Michael Cox
Posts: 1699
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
54
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill Bradbury wrote:I like to follow these things because I find them interesting. They are usually a scam, but some have been bonafide breakthroughs that were squashed by a system that has no room for equality, which is really what we are talking about here.

I think the real path to salvation for the human race is the one we are on here at Permies. I see this cheap energy thing as truly dangerous to our planet, but a stop gap in which we transition from our current state of disaster to a clean energy source. The next step is the dangerous one; putting our own comfort behind the needs of the myriad beings that inhabit our planet with us. As it stands, I don't know if we are responsible enough to handle free or even cheap energy.


Bill - I hear the line "squashed by the system" , "squashed by big oil", "squashed by government" or some version of quite frequently. I've yet to see it actually be true for a technology that had a competitive advantage over the competition. Usually the reason for lack of development is pretty clear cut - not living up to hype is an obvious one, but a technology has to also beat the existing competition, be compatible with lots of other technologies, etc... Imagine a fabulous new car technology that requires all cars to be 5m wide, but can run for twice the distance off a single tank of fuel. Lets widen every road and make it happen... or not.

If you know of a tech that actually was "squashed" in some way I'd love to know about it, but in my experience it is usually a cover/catch-all phrase for some other systematic failure (ie not being compatible with roads is a failure of the new car design - you would hardly say the car was "squashed").
 
Michael Cox
Posts: 1699
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
54
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Mike Kuhn wrote:And yet it doesn't surprise any of us that a small amount of a certain kind of fuel, small enough to fit into a standard size cofee can can run an aircraft carrier, for 6 months


Hardly comparable to the device being discussed:

Nuclear science is very very well understood and was developed in the open by scientist from many countries. There is no "secret technology" behind it, just incremental development of ideas and technologies that take advantage of the natural process of nuclear fission. It doesn't contradict any of our current understanding and acts in a predictable manner.

The device proposed by "Solar Hydrogen Trends" breaks multiple laws of physics - it wouldn't just be a cheap way to generate electricity, it would totally overthrow our understanding of physics, chemistry etc... paradigm shifts in science do happen, but it isn't going to come from a few money hungry pseudo-scientists with a fraudulent device, spinning a story of hype on a self-published website.
 
Bill Bradbury
pollinator
Posts: 684
Location: Richmond, Utah
32
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Mike; I used to train the guys who run those aircraft carrier reactors and it has always surprised me that a nuclear reactor can generate tremendous power over a very long period of time and be controllable, not just explode.

Michael, actually the inventors have stated that there is a nuclear reaction happening and the device emits low level beta if I remember correctly. I would also assert that nuclear science is still in it's infancy. We still don't even know what to do with high level waste!
 
Mike Kuhn
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill: Like you I like to keep an open mind about new discoveries, some people think that we have learned all there is to know, and invented everything there is to invent, And many of the worlds greatest inventors had little or no FORMAL education, and worked by themselves in little backyard shacks or garages!
 
Michael Cox
Posts: 1699
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
54
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Bill Bradbury wrote:Mike; I used to train the guys who run those aircraft carrier reactors and it has always surprised me that a nuclear reactor can generate tremendous power over a very long period of time and be controllable, not just explode.

Michael, actually the inventors have stated that there is a nuclear reaction happening and the device emits low level beta if I remember correctly. I would also assert that nuclear science is still in it's infancy. We still don't even know what to do with high level waste!


They say they think there might be some nuclear reaction happening but

  • have never put a geiger counter near it
  • have no plans to test it for radioactivity
  • Have no proposed mechanism by which this novel nuclear process might be taking place
  • are all still alive and apparently healthy
  • are not obviously wearing lead-lines underwear
  • say they are "happy with the natural level of shielding from a few inches of water"
  • People with a lot more knowledge of this than me have pointed out that their "low level beta radiation" would quickly turn anything near it radioactive in it's own right


  • If they genuinely believed there was some nuclear component to this don't you think there would be a lot more care taken - if only for the sake of the operators themselves?

    Regarding nuclear waste; not knowing what to do with it is a political and social issue and not problem with our technical understanding of nuclear processes. Early choices in the nuclear industry were driven by a political need for weapons grade materials hence the uranium/plutonium reaction systems. Thorium reactors have been around equally long, have safer operating processes and have waste material that is more easily treated, they are inherently safer but don't make the plutonium/enriched uranium governments demanded.
     
    Bill Bradbury
    pollinator
    Posts: 684
    Location: Richmond, Utah
    32
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    Michael, I agree with you that there are "red flags" and I don't whole-heartedly believe any of these guys. People do crazy stuff when there is a lot of money and recognition on the line.

    Low level radiation is something we all live with every day, luckily it doesn't take much to shield us from alpha and beta particles. They are larger and are easily stopped by a little aluminum shielding like the case of the machine. If it is high level radiation, then it could cause a molecular change to the shielding much the way our high level waste does to the containers that we keep redesigning because of metallurgic changes at the molecular level. I've only worked with Uranium reactors and I don't know enough about Thorium to provide any sort of critique. I am alive and apparently healthy and I have been inside a reactor compartment snuggled up to the containment vessel performing maintenance for hours at a time.
    What we really don't understand is water! My high school science fair project was hydrolized H2 power, since then('80's) anything that runs on water grabs my attention.
     
    I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed - shakespear. Unarmed tiny ad:
    Permaculture Playing Cards by Paul Wheaton and Alexander Ojeda
    https://permies.com/wiki/57503/digital-market/digital-market/Permaculture-Playing-Cards-Paul-Wheaton
    • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
    • New Topic
    Boost this thread!