Climeon Claims Superior Low Temperature Heat to Electricity Process, Applies for Patent

A Swedish company named Climeon claims that it has developed a new and superior technology for converting low temperature heat to electricity. I learned about the company late last year, but couldn’t find too much information about them, except what was their web site where they claim:

“Climeon is currently developing a patent-pending power cycle called C3 for converting hot water to electricity that is different from any other thermal to electricity conversion technologies today. The technology is based on a fundamentally different principle, has been optimized from start for the low temperature region and has potential of getting significantly closer to an ideal Carnot cycle than any other existing technology.”

Climeon is receiving funding from the Swedish Energy Agency to help with research and development of the C3 process, and the research is taking place at KTH School of Industrial Engineering, Stockholm University, and Chalmers University of Technology, all in Sweden. (More information here)

Climeon has made a patent application for their process to the World Intellectual Property Organization which can be found here. The description of the process states in part:

“For low temperature conversion specifically, an effective way of minimizing energy losses and reducing material cost would be to cycle around the ambient ground level temperature and around atmospheric pressure. Also maximizing the delta temperature over the expansion machine and minimizing the energy losses during entropy reduction during the cooling part of the cycle is crucial for efficient conversion.

The solution disclosed by this invention optimizes all of the above by dividing the Rankine cycle into a Carbon Carrier Cycle, C3. Instead of a condenser, a carbon dioxide chemical absorption process is used to create a very efficient pressure reduction downstream of the turbine/expansion machine. The working gas for the turbine/expansion machine is thus stored temporarily in liquid state with associated advantages, such as pumpability.

Since the absorption is a spontaneous chemical reaction, the temperature of the gas exiting the turbine/expansion machine may be as low as -70 °C and the efficiency in the cycle can get very close to an ideal Carnot cycle. With a hot source of 90 °C and ambient temperature of 25 °C, the C3 will, due to low energy losses and large delta T, be able to reach 15% corresponding to 300% more electricity compared to current low temperature conversion technologies.”

Given the amount of waste heat that is emitted at all times throughout the world, both naturally, and from machines, a process to convert it to electricity much more efficiently than is currently available would be a tremendous technological breakthrough if it can be shown to work well. Andrea Rossi has mentioned the difficulty of using the low temperature E-Cat to produce electricity. Perhaps this is something he will look into.

  • gary

    my 2nd law violator.

    I have been working on resonance mode solid state sphere heat pumps that can produce a large volume of hot water / air from a tiny amount of electricity. They are cascaded multi layer heat pumps forming a sphere with maximum heat concentration towards the centre.

  • georgehants

    From PhysOrg

    Physicists measure fleeting electron waves to uncover the elusive mechanism behind high-temperature superconductivity
    February 24, 2013
    Identifying the mysterious mechanism underlying high-temperature superconductivity (HTS) remains one of the most important and tantalizing puzzles in physics. This
    remarkable phenomenon allows electric current to pass with perfect
    efficiency through materials chilled to subzero temperatures, and it may
    play an essential role in revolutionizing the entire electricity chain,
    from generation to transmission and grid-scale storage. Pinning down
    one of the possible explanations for HTS—fleeting fluctuations called
    charge-density waves (CDWs)—could help solve the mystery and pave the
    way for rapid technological advances.
    Read more at:

  • Gedo

    It is quite clear that Andrea Rossi still holding hard the secret of the Cold Fusion reaction and he is not willing to release it to the public.

    • Peter Roe

      Would you?

      • GreenWin

        Some people feel entitled to the labor of others. Maybe they’ll invite us to live in their home and eat their food.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, guys, and gals,

    Whas sup, with these Swiss folks, they just don’t get it, about lenr or anything else, they pue poed, Dr. Rossi’s work, and couldn’t take measurements correctly, and now another bunch says they cant find any excess energy, and now these guys are trying to make the old Carnot effect, deliver electricity, what next, it like a Chinese fire drill, lol

    • yamal

      get a map of europe and figure out where the swiss folks live (hint – it isn’t sweden).

    • svenhakoff

      “Chinese fire drill” please don’t spark a world war 3. Those chins chins have gone to space and have nukes.

  • buffalo

    this is a step 4ward but chek out for better than theoretical carnot efficiency.a 2nd law violation?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It obeys 2nd law, it’s a thermionic converter but allegedly enhanced by reduction of surface work function by nanoshaping. They claim “possibly over 50% of Carnot”.

      • buffalo

        mm yes pekka.although if you chek out you will see why even at 50percent carnot it may be partly a 2nd law breach as the maximum allowable efficiencies by the 2nd law shouldnt exceed maybe 30percent at most

        • Pekka Janhunen

          My reply disappeared for some reason, maybe it dislikes the percent sign. In short: says “50 percent OF Carnot”. is a different story, they indeed claim to break the 2nd law.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    On Vortex, Storms has a novel sounding idea. He proposes that for some reason inside a “crack” (my remark: perhaps dislocation) the electron of a hydrogen atom gets lifted to the second shell (p) after which H-atoms can form a chain by supporting two instead of one covalent bonds.[email protected]/msg77120.html

    If I understand his suggestion right, one would then have a linear molecule of hydrogen like a snake inhabiting a tunnel, and the size of the molecule would somehow promote nuclear reactions by coupling enough degrees of freedom together(?).

    To be sure, it’s not yet a full theory because it’s not enough just to have a large hydrogen molecule to enable CF. But nevertheless the idea sounds somewhat interesting to me.

    • clovis ray

      Dr. storms, is an interesting guy, indeed, and he is still sticking with his cracked lattes theory,that is some what cracked it’s self, never could get my head around this idea.

  • GreenWin

    NASA’s PR people working back channels to spread the news of LENR’s impending disclosure. They must be careful to include disclaimers and plausible deniability, which includes the old rube about “melting windows” – presumably referring to radiation distortion of an old CRT displaying M’soft Windows 386.

    • artefact

      The melting windows should be what Defkalion has said about a little “window” they made into their reactor. They said they saw a bright light and then it melted.

    • SteveW

      Long post left on the Forbes message board yesterday by Lewis Larson regarding NASA’s statements on the dangers of LENR. I guess he’s annoyed by it enough to spend the time to write this long response.

      Lewis Larsen 1 day ago

      If successfully commercialized (which hasn’t happened yet), LENRs indeed have the potential to eventually become a truly ‘green’ radiation- and waste-free nuclear power generation technology. In that regard, I would like to comment about some inaccuracies emanating from several outside news sources that were quoted or referenced in your otherwise concise, well-written, and very informative article.

      Specifically, so that your readers will not have any lingering misapprehensions about the intrinsic safety of LENRs, I would like to clarify and beg to differ with rather loose, technically inaccurate talk about “fires,” “windows melting,” and “explosions” that has been widely promulgated by Dennis Bushnell of NASA, among others.

      Firstly, all such violent energetic events are quite rare — only a handful have ever occurred over the past 20+ years during the course of literally hundreds of thousands of LENR experiments; most have involved water-filled reaction vessels of one kind or another . Secondly, and most importantly, NONE of these incidents were caused by a nuclear explosion per se. In every one of these events, an abnormally large burst of LENRs in an experimental device (such as a metal cathode in an aqueous electrolytic chemical cell) simply flash-heated some nearby materials that either melted (e.g., solid walls or windows in glass or metal reaction vessels) or expanded rapidly as the result of a heat-induced phase change (e.g., a volume of liquid water within a reaction vessel can expand violently by ~1,500 times when LENRs suddenly flash-vaporize it into superheated steam).

      At this point in the technology’s evolution, heat production in LENR thermal devices is poorly controlled and also rather difficult to reliably reproduce macroscopically. Indeed, that very issue is at the heart of the experimental reproducibility problem (at least with regard to experimentally producing macroscopically measurable, very substantial amounts of excess heat) that has haunted the LENR field for over two decades. By contrast, microscopic amounts of LENR nuclear transmutation products reproduce very readily in properly designed/executed experiments and are rather easy to detect post-experiment with modern mass spectroscopy analytical techniques. Fortunately, technical insights provided by the new Widom-Larsen theory will enable the application and adaptation of key knowhow already developed in the field of nanotechnology that can solve the previously intractable problems of designing, fabricating, and operating LENR-based thermal sources that can reliably produce macroscopically large, controllable heat fluxes for long periods of time.

      On Slide #53 in the following public Lattice SlideShare 78-slide PowerPoint presentation dated June 25, 2009, I list and discuss a small collection of unusually energetic thermal events that have occurred in various LENR experiments:

      The best-measured and most completely documented experimental data on a large LENR thermal event was collected and published by Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno in Japan. On Slides #54 – 59 on the above PowerPoint presentation I ‘dissect’ Mizuno’s reported results and conclude that it was indeed a water-to-steam explosion that wrecked his apparatus. By applying the Widom-Larsen theory, I was also even able to calculate a predicted number for total heat production in his specific experiment that was in reasonable rough agreement with the value that he actually observed.

      In the case of rare LENR-triggered thermal runaways in Lithium-ion batteries: again, we are NOT dealing with nuclear explosions per se. In such events, an intense microscopic LENR heat release simply superheats a tiny region of local materials inside a battery cell which in turn triggers an escalating macroscopic cascade of prosaic chemical oxidation reactions. This dynamic is akin to what happens when the sharp sound (acoustic energy) of a single gunshot can trigger a huge avalanche of snow that engulfs the entire side of a huge mountain. In this fashion, a physically large multi-cell Li-ion battery pack can potentially ‘ignite’ and be destroyed by thermal fratricide occurring between adjacent cells; see document dated July 16, 2010:

      In my opinion, loose statements by otherwise believable technologists implicitly suggesting that there may be hidden weaponization issues with LENR technology amounts to spewing of technical nonsense and grandstanding to gain public attention — nothing more.

      As to astounding experimental evidence for the inherent safety and ‘greenness’ of LENR technology, one needs to look no further than catalytic converters installed on an estimated 500+ million cars and trucks worldwide. Incredibly, many papers involving analysis of emissions from catalytic converters have been published in refereed journals by environmental chemists — some of their reported isotopic data obtained via mass spectroscopy, when analyzed with the Widom-Larsen theory, strongly suggests that small amounts of LENRs are constantly occurring in car converters during normal vehicle operation. This fascinating data and its implications are discussed in the following 76-slide Lattice SlideShare presentation dated June 25, 2010:

      If this isn’t truly green nuclear technology, then I don’t know what is.

      Lewis Larsen
      President and CEO
      Lattice Energy LLC (Chicago, IL)

      • Richard Hill

        Larsen’s idea of catalytic converters possibly exhibing LENR effects reminds me of another speculation.
        It is a problem with diesel engines that injectors can be damaged if there is water in the fuel. It is invariably ascribed to the expansion effect. Water to steam 1500 times vloume increase as the fuel is injected into the hot combustion chamber. But, the injectors are made of the toughest material around. It would be good to see if injector life was related to the deuterium content of the water.

      • Peter Roe

        I share Larsen’s concern about Bushnell’s mention of explosions and ‘melting windows’. The latter strikes me as particularly worrying, conjuring as it does an image of a burst of heat radiation so intense that it melted windows in a laboratory.

        If the explosions were relatively minor, and simply due to accidental steam or hydrogen generation, and the ‘window’ in question was just a glass observation port in a reactor as Larsen says (and Artefact confirms) then Bushnell’s comments appear to be deliberately alarmist, and his motives for highlighting and exaggerating this ‘safety issue’ must be open to question.

      • LCD

        I have to agree with Bushnell on this one but still understand Larsen’s POV. Bushnell has always said he ascribes to the Precautionary Principle.

        In and of itself it makes sense and I agree with it specially with LENR…it’s potentially a lot of concentrated energy that may in the future be easily accessible. Some ambitious Edison may hit on a recipe that is indeed dangerous.

        I see Larsen’s point as well though, that it does show tremendous promise as a truly green technology and I certainly don’t want to prevent ambitious Edison’s from experimenting.

        However 2 decades of relatively safe LENR experiments means nothing when energy levels go up by several orders of magnitude (i.e. Rossi/DGT vs Pons/Fleishman) in the last few years however unreproducible the reactions may be.

        Bushnell’s fundamental point is if you are going to introduce something to the world take it upon yourself, make a concerted effort to see that it’s safe.

        Believing that LENR+ exists is already to good to be true. Now believing that they exist and are completely safe without knowing the underlying mechanism behind it, is not just too good to be true, but just plain silly. It simply “can be safe” but with that much energy density, it may also have certain configurations where “it is unsafe”.

        Caution is necessary.

        • Peter Roe

          Caution, yes – alarmism, no.

          • LCD

            If you warn people is that alarmist?

  • georgehants

    Quantum algorithm breakthrough
    February 24, 2013
    An international research group led by scientists from the University of
    Bristol, UK, and the University of Queensland, Australia, has
    demonstrated a quantum algorithm that performs a true calculation for
    the first time. Quantum algorithms could one day enable the design of
    new materials, pharmaceuticals or clean energy devices.
    Read more at:

  • Roger Bird

    I am certainly no expert on these matters, but 15% doesn’t sound all that great. Please explain what it is I don’t understand.

    • Zvi Ben Yosef

      They are comparing it to what is possible with present technology. By comparison with that 15% is pretty good compared with 5%.

      • Martin

        The theoretically maximum is 18 %. 15 % is rather astonishing in that light.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    In any case, converting low temperature heat to electricity is necessarily inefficient even if it could be done at ideal Carnot efficiency. For example between 100 C and 20 C the Carnot efficiency is only 21%. Rossi is better off using his HotCat, as was clearly his strategy. At 600 C the theoretical Carnot efficiency is 66% and at 1050 C 78%. A practical sustained efficiency over 50% might be eventually within reach for him (minus the driver).

    • GreenWin

      Thanks Pekka. A practical efficiency over 50% betters the best combined cycle steam turbines fired by NG today (~33%.) Of course the fact that the “consumables” might cost 0.25 cents /kWh makes the whole thing a lot more attractive. An entire world of energy solutions opens up with a cost of 1/4cent kWh thermal.

      • Carlos Hoyos

        I assure you that as soon as the “consumables” prove they can power an entire city, the prices won’t stay as cheap as they currently are. It has happened before with the plant that generated energy from cow dung. Before that plant existed, people PAID to get rid of cow dung, but the inventors found out the providers started to ask money for it. It looks even cow dung becomes pricier when there’s demand for it.

        • GreenWin

          Yes Carlos, but surprisingly there is a lot less cow dung than nickel and hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and easily derived from water. And the earth and oceans contain about 140 million tons of accessible nickel; it is the 5th most common element on earth.

          Besides, metallic-like lattices can be fabricated from other materials and will be as LENR expands.

  • Daniel Maris

    Others like Highview are working on this sort of solution. Not sure what it’s got to do with the E Cat story really. This site seems to have lots of this non-related stories now. What’s going on?

    • yamal

      nothing much. the latest real news that had anything to do with the e-cat and wasn’t purely based on what rossi said was the sgs certification, i think. that was, what… six months ago?

      • Peter Roe

        As you say, Rossi has said almost nothing of substance since then except for unsubstantiable snippets about the 3rd party tests and perhaps the information that a second low temp unit has been assembled and is due to be shipped.

        With the domestic unit dead in the water, I don’t think we’ll hear anything else particularly interesting about e-cats until the hot cat prototype is ready to be ‘launched’, and it looks like AR has been told to keep quiet about that (assuming he is still in the loop).

        Realistically, this could take months, maybe even a year or more. In the meantime I guess we have to broaden the discussion base a bit if we want to avoid going round in diminishing circles (or getting on with work and other more constructive activities).

        • kasom

          if i’d believe there should be more than 1.300 boxes in the *military* customers field in operation since more than 8 months.

          Remeber, Rossi said, he had sold 1 + 12 1MW Low-temp-cats to mititary customers, each of 100+ boxes.

          No leak? No report? No notice to the gov? Nothing at all?

          No sustance, all lies?

          • Daniel Maris

            Wasn’t it more like 50 boxes rather than 100? I seem to remember 46 inside with a few on top.

            • yamal

              i saw a data sheet mentioning 52 boxes with 20kW each. but whatever it is. having at least 13 of them in production somewhere in the (us?) military and vanilla customers being able to buy these things for over a year now doesn’t seem realistic given the absolute silence around it from everybody except mr. rossi. if you take a step back and look at what we really know about the e-cat, we’re still stuck with levi and focardi. if rossi somehow managed to fool these two (and i don’t see why that would be a problem since they’re just scientists and not investigators) then this whole thing being a semi elaborate fraud is still a lot more probable than the alternative.

              • Pekka Janhunen

                1) Customers, but I think not vanilla. 2) As we know there were also others such as Essen, Kullander, Stremmenos.

                • yamal

                  afaik they (essen, kullander, stremmenos) weren’t really involved but were only shown what everybody else could see on youtube.

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  In that case you seem to know nothing about what happened in 2010. Essen and Kullander went to Bologna to measure the device with their own equipment and came out with a statement that is must be a nuclear reaction becaues the black box produced more energy than any chemical process could explain.

                • yamal

                  in deed. i have seen a report by essen and kullander dated 3 april 2011 describing a demonstration they attended in march. they didn’t use their own equipment to measure anything apart from eyeballing the inflow and assuming dry steam as output. which 2010 event do you mean?

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  Sorry I mistyped, I meant 2011. In April 3 report K&E had calibrated the water flow by measuring how long it takes to fill up 0.5 liters. They also measured input electric power. It is not said if the ammeter was their own, Rossi’s or perhaps Levi’s who also participated. In any case they noted that the measured input power (300 W) also matched with the nameplate power of the internal resistor which they could see because the reactor had been opened.

                  In two follow-up tests on April 19 and 28 Mats Lewan then used his own instruments brought from Sweden.

                • yamal

                  and that is what you call ‘to measure the device with their own equipment’? an ammeter which may have been theirs or rossi’s or levi’s?

                • Bernie Koppenhofer

                  I have learned not to respond to skeptics like yamal, if he lived in 1908 he would be looking for a balloon holding up the Wright Bros. plane demonstrated in 1903.

                • yamal

                  a bad analogy. heavier than air flight was successfully demonstrated when the first insect took off a couple of hundred million years ago. evidence for cold fusion is a lot less clear, let alone that for rossi’s e-cat. and i doubt back in 1908 anybody had to say something along the lines of ‘the witnesses went to the beach and saw it with their own eyes – or maybe they were orville’s eyes or wilbur’s’ – least of all because by that time there was more than the inventor himself talking about flying on a lonely… whatever the equivalent to a blog was before the internet.

              • georgehants

                yamal, all very true which simply brings us to the decision of shall we be pessimists and non-scientists and deny that Rossi could be legit without the Evidence to show that as fact, or shall we be scientific and not abuse etc. but wait for conformation of the situation.
                Prejudgement is and always has been a marker of “opinion” givers who for various reasons are unable or unwilling to take the scientific road, that only Evidence and Facts count.
                You could well be right but by taking the negative course before clear Evidence you leave yourself open to looking very foolish if you are wrong.

                • yamal

                  i am talking about probabilities. in a way determining a probability certainly is a kind of prejudgement and, yes, i am guilty of that (as are you – although you probably won’t admit it).

                • georgehants

                  yamal, You agree you are guilty, then it may be a good idea to put that right.
                  If you are giving a probabilistic analysis based on such reasoning as which horse will win the 3.30 please make that very clear.
                  You have accused me of being guilty by insinuation, please supply Evidence of that charge or withdraw it.
                  You have accused me of “- although you probably won’t admit it).”
                  I resent your prejudgement, As if I am wrong I will always happily admit my error.
                  Please apologise for your insult.
                  Thank you.