Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. Claims Breakthrough Hydrogen Production System (COP 400 Claimed)

I thought that readers of E-Cat World would be interested in this press release from Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. — a Menlo Park, CA company. (Thanks to Alan Smith) This is the first time I have heard of this company.

Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. Invents Groundbreaking 100% Carbon Free, Clean Air Hydrogen Reactor

Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. develops innovative breakthrough technology with the world’s first hydrogen reactor for production of unlimited hydrogen; reactor uses water as main fuel and is 100% carbon free! “Endless fuel from water…”

Menlo Park, CA (PRWEB) March 05, 2014

March 5, 2014 – Menlo Park based technology firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. (http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com) today announced that it has revolutionized the world of energy production with their invention of the world’s first hydrogen reactor for the production of unlimited hydrogen (patent pending). The hydrogen reactor uses water as a main fuel and is 100% carbon free.

The groundbreaking technology can be used as hybrid solution for energy savings up to 95% when coupled with coal, natural gas, gasoline, biofuels, diesel power plants or incinerators (three to five times cheaper than coal power plants – two to three times cheaper than nuclear, WITHOUT hazards to the environment). In addition, the reactor can be coupled for production of amplified energy output with Hydropower, Solar or Wind farms in peak hours.

Jack Aganyan, Founder and President of Solar Hydrogen Trends commented that “This is a critical step in the development of alternative, clean air energy. As the nation continues its drive to reduce air pollution and mine more cost-effective energy production, we are excited to launch our groundbreaking hydrogen reactor, which provides a formidable solution to these green initiatives. We believe this technology is of national strategic importance. It is clean, efficient, scaleable, and can help the dollar gain back its strength.”

Konstantine Balakiryan, Founder, CEO/Chief Scientist and driving force behind the seven models of the hydrogen reactor, added “With our technology, a hydrogen plant with 150 million cubic feet per day production would provide enough hydrogen to power 200 thousand homes. With only 500 watts/hour of input energy we produce 2,797 cubic feet or 79,098 liters per hour of hydrogen or 221 kWh energy equivalent – at the cost of only $1.80USD. Our hydrogen reactor technology could very well be the biggest breakthrough of our time.”

How does the Hydrogen Reactor work?

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 technology is non-volatile and produces free flowing hydrogen which can be compressed or used to convert to another form of energy. The reactor can be used as a free standing electrically powered device that will produce unlimited amount of hydrogen at world’s cheapest rates or a simple “bolt-on” solution that provides savings when coupled with energy producing technology.
Hydrogen reactor performance.

Airkinetics, a prominent EPA-certified national emissions testing specialist conducted an engineering test that measured the hydrogen reactor output at 50 ACFM with 93.1% Hydrogen content. Downloadable report: http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf

The mini hydrogen reactor model measures: Length 32″ x Width 14″ x Height 20.5″ and weighs 250lbs.

More information from the press release can be found here, and at the Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc. website.

  • Daniel Maris

    Sorry – I really, really did mean to write fission!! – I do know they are different. :(

  • GreenWin

    If this process is safe and as efficient as claimed it would compliment FC-makers like UK-based Ceres Power Holdings. Producing H2 from water, to fuel a product like Ceres’ Steel Cell FC stack could be competitive with solar+storage for residential applications. Ceres is expanding via a recent partnership with giant Cummins Power Generation. More fodder for off-grid movement. http://www.cerespower.com/technology/why-the-steel-cell-is-unique

  • GreenWin

    Right. This would help FC automobiles. Except if one can recharge an EV for pennies, why buy H2? And why expose oneself to highly combustible H2?

  • Paul

    Great news, soon or later we’ll see important shifts in the global energy production. This seem very interesting for all the industrial applications and for teleheating. I hope this blog can follow also such technology!

  • Linda

    They’re just in Menlo Park. Can somebody in the Bay Area maybe call or pop over there and check it out?

  • Fortyniner

    “1 kg of hydrogen from 1 liter of water ” only appears on the press release, and these obviously inaccurate figures are not repeated on the website or in the PDF. The actual theoretical maximum yield of hydrogen from 1 litre of water would be 111g. I assume that some technically illiterate copywriter dreamed up the numbers you quote – I hope they issue a correction, or the whole thing will look pretty ridiculous. I’ve followed your lead and emailed Jack Karayan to see what is actually being claimed, and I’ll copy any reply here if he allows this.

    Copy email:

    I notice that in the press release relating to your
    invention, the claim is made that the reactor produces 1 kg hydrogen from
    1 litre of water. However the maximum theoretical yield of hydrogen from 1 litre
    of water is actually 111g, the bulk of the mass being oxygen. I wonder if you
    would be kind enough to clarify this apparent disparity for me?

    My second question is, what happens to the oxygen?
    As you don’t specify oxygen gas released, can I assume that it is chemically
    reacted during the process, producing a relatively large amount of chemical
    waste? If so, can this waste product be recycled to return the reactants to
    usable condition, or does the process require large quantities of chemical
    feedstock of some kind.

    Thank you in advance for your reply. I would like
    if possible to copy your answer to a blog at http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/solar-hydrogen-trends-claims-breakthrough-hydrogen-production-system-cop-400-claimed/ where
    the press release has given rise to considerable speculation. If you do not wish
    this, please let me know.

    With best regards,

    • Fortyniner

      I have now received a reply of sorts to my email above, from Prof. Balakiryan of SHT. It appears to be a generic reply, presumably to many similar enquiries, and unfortunately doesn’t actually answer any questions, and in fact poses a few more, citing publishing ethics as the reason for this. Not too helpful I’m afraid.

      “Dear Colleagues,

      I am closely following all the discussions on multiple forums.

      I really like your judgments and their proximity to understanding the processes that occur in reality in the hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”.

      Unfortunately, according to the existing ethics in the scientific community, the authors are not encouraged to discuss about any research results with the media before they are published in scientific journals.

      However, in order for you to understand what a great discovery God gave to us all please try to find answers in the following questions:

      1. If the working substance in the reactor is water, how come the output is almost only hydrogen ?

      2. After splitting water where do molecules of oxygen disappear?

      3. What role in stunning efficiency of “Symphony 7A” plays a collective excitation of nucleons in the nuclei of atoms of oxygen?

      4. Is it possible at a rate of 0.5 kW energy hour and at operating temperature 60 degrees centigrade, to have a nuclear fission and fusion?

      5. To produce 1kg of hydrogen it is necessary to split 9 liters of water, then how or in what way in this hydrogen reactor “Symphony 7A”, it takes only 1 liter?

      Sincerely,

      Konstantin Balakiryan PhD, Professor

  • Fortyniner

    I don’t think it’s very likely that anyone would be be too interested in our collective gullibility or otherwise, and as disinfo it would be weak in the extreme if it can’t be backed up with proof in any way. If the system works as claimed, and the cost and availability of consumables is acceptable (critical), then in due course they can slug it out in the marketplace, like anyone else trying to get something new accepted.

    My own suspicion is that increasing knowledge of the reality of LENR, and its likely imminent disclosure, is now forcing the hands of others in the ‘new energy’ arena, who need to try to grab a slice of the pie before Rossi’s LENR takes all. This has (apparently) already caused BLP to try to grab some headlines, and it is to be expected that others will do the same (hopefully with rather more justification).

  • Ophelia Rump

    From a press release by the company.
    “The groundbreaking technology can be used as hybrid solution for energy savings up to 95% when . . . ”

    95% is a little short of a COP 500 which is 500%.
    The press release is below unity, believe it.
    95% is the most respectable hydrogen production I have ever heard of.
    I think industry standard is somewhere around 35%. If they can deliver 95% they do not need any grander claims.

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11640463.htm

    • Daniel Maris

      Savings are not the same thing as COP. You could have a very expensive set of machinery that delivers a higher COP but at a much higher cost, for instance. In fact you could say this is the problem with nuclear fusion, which actually has a huge COP I believe, but is very costly in terms of the capital build and ongoing maintenance, due to it being such a potentially lethal process.

    • artefact

      “COP 500 which is 500%”
      500% would be COP 5

      • Ophelia Rump

        By god sir you are correct! 50,000% My apologies, my mind refuses to accept such an absurd percentage.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Making 1 kg of hydrogen from 1 liter of water – 25 cents!

    Your commentary, priceless!

  • Alain Samoun
  • GreenWin

    Abundant H2 @3-4cent/kWh is nice. But most H2 energy production comes from combustion of some sort. So even if we have low cost H2, we still have to compress it, tank it, ship it, pump or pipe it into some device or other. This would help the Bloom Box SOFC product become more profitable – but there is little to no H2 infrastructure today. SOFCs are efficient and good sources of electricity — but maintenance heavy and volatile.

    Would I prefer a combustible gas system producing heat for my Stirling or FC genset – or a COP 1:6 non-combustible LENR heat source? Explosion potential of pure H2 combustion is far greater than LENR. But this will be good for micro-CHP SOFC products like the Bosch residential micro-CHP. http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2013/march/bosch-to-launch-fuel-cell-micro-chp-in-europe-from-2014

    • Christopher Calder

      Making hydrogen is the *start ingredient* for making synthetic gasoline. If such a system did work at a low enough cost, it could be used to make synthetic octane or heptane, etc. That you can easily transport anywhere.

      • Fortyniner

        Catalytic hydrogenation of CO2 to make alcohol might be a better option in this respect. There are many highly efficient pathways available, e.g., https://www.google.com/patents/US7858667.

        • Omega Z

          Alcohol.

          That’s Great. Will need a lot to celebrate all the technology breakthroughs that seem to be coming.

          Also, Well need a few shots as we procrastinate over which technology we should deploy to our homes. :-)

          • Fortyniner

            Bunch of old soaks. It’s much too early here to be thinking of booze.

        • georgehants

          Morning Peter, good to see you think of the important things but —-
          Can they make it into a very good vintage red?

  • BroKeeper

    As we get closer to the E-Cat six month report these late technological breakthrough claims, demonstrations, and announcements appear to be surfacing more frequently. Its word has disseminated to comparable scientific and technological companies causing their investors’ angst. Their strategy to provide perhaps exaggerated claims of their devices lessens the LENR impact as an alternate fuel source compared to their own.

    This certainly is not meant to cast dispersions on new promising energy technologies but to offer perspective in the timeline of the claims and their proportional benefits to society. The more promising energy participants will not only certainly drive down costs and increase availability but also provide a means to merge those technologies with flexibility and combine the strengths of each for a variety of uses. Case in point: the Solar Hydrogen system mentioned here driven by LENR energy could generate unlimited hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell stations (no fuel trucks just filtered tap water and additives). Hydrogen fuel cells provide on-demand quick electrical current to electric motors whereas LENR is not an on-demand power source since it cannot be turned on/off at will but could provide cheap continuous energy to the Solar Hydrogen system. The combined scenarios are limitless.

  • US_Citizen71

    Unfortunately they do not provide enough information to evaluate what they are doing. The claim of 2700 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour also should mean 1350 cubic feet per hour of oxygen produced as well, but they claim the output is claimed to be close to 94% hydrogen. This means the oxygen is leaving the system in another form other than as a gas. It could be that they also produce H2O2 or some type of hydroxide such as NaOH. What the other chemicals they produced are exactly matters as they could be producing toxic waste as well as hydrogen, too little information provided to tell. They claim a cost of $1.80 to produce the output and use .5kWh of electricity, so they are using approximately $.05 worth of electricity and $1.75 worth of other consumables per hour. These prices are today’s prices. When scaled up to produce energy on a global scale scarcity of the unnamed consumables could easily raise the price of production. Until more information is provided the viability of this process to be a global scale energy producer is a complete unknown.

    • Obvious

      To me it seemed like the O2 was low as well. I suspect some sort of hydroxide production process, possibly with ammonia is being used, with byproduct H. The output volume is consistent with oxidation of aluminum to aluminum hydroxide. Perhaps somehow they have figured out how to reverse part of the process electrically in combination with additional catalysts. The question is then what other products beside the gases are there, if any, and how long the system can be run without replacing materials other than water.

  • E_man
    • E_man

      It looks like Info-war. Sorry.

  • Christopher Calder

    I visited their website at http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/ and found it interesting. This is NOT a solar power scheme. It smells like LENR to me. Maybe one of their “physical” processes involves nickel powder. Nuclear = physical. I emailed them and asked them to delete reference to biofuels. Smart people should not be associated in any way with the biggest crime against humanity of our generation. Other than that, the company looks interesting and may be real. More power to them if it works.

  • malkom700

    This in any case a huge achievement. Congratulations. This is probably a LENR technology, because otherwise how would arise so much energy? If the introduction of LENR other solutions will be slow, it could be a temporary solution.

    • bachcole

      You are assuming that it is real. I checked out the website also. It is a problem for my willingness to believe when someone is extraordinarily vague. This makes Rossi at his worse seem positively Open Source.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    And an E-Cat will only need picograms of hydrogen.
    PS
    And World War III will make all of this a moot point.

  • Gerard McEk

    A chemical process is impossible. You cannot make energy, unless you ‘consume’ something (like e.g. aluminium), but then you should include the use of metal and acids in the price, which they may have done for ‘small’ quantities. Another method would be a kind of bichemical solar process as Frank assumes. If they have developed this well sought after process, then they have gold in their hands. Let’s wait and see.

    • E_man

      And what about BLP process? Because of Nitrogen in protocol KNO3 cold be a catalyst. And what about Zn(NO3)2 catalyst? Zn have great potencial to be BLP catalyst.

  • LENR G

    OK let’s be careful here. They claim only 500 Wh electrical input and over 200 kWh (equivalent) output in the form of pure hydrogen, which is the best chemical source of energy you can get.

    They do NOT say that the electric energy is the only energy provided. In fact they state a combination of 16 chemical and physical processes under the hood. So in a thorough energy balance equation the input side includes the 500 Wh electrical but also all the chemical energy and other energy released by those 16 processes. They may be burning methane as part of the process for all we know. So they are not claiming over-unity and they are not claiming COP 400.

    Their actual concrete claim of 221.5 kWh for $1.80 is more important. That works out to less than 1 cent per kWh (most consumer pay around 10 times that for electricity. Factor in conversion and other inefficiencies and you’re probably up to 3 cents per kWh.

    If we had an existing hydrogen infrastructure that would be very attractive. Alas we don’t and 3 cents per kWh is not going to win in the LENR era.

    • ecatworld

      The name of the company — Solar Hydrogen Trends — suggests that solar power may be involved, although they do not mention a solar process.

      • Fortyniner

        A lot of companies have been looking at various forms of ‘synthetic photosynthesis’ as a new way to harvest solar power. Perhaps these people started out on that path?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe you are right, but in contrast to LENR technology, hydrogen technology is already well developed. For instance, there are hydrogen cars and busses. (I’m happy that I did not sell my fuel cell shares…). I don’t know if gas power plants could be switched over to hydrogen, though. In home applications there is the danger of explosions, but as we know the certification of domestic LENR reactors is problematic as well.

      • LENR G

        Nothing against hydrogen fuels but LENR, if it comes to market, is far superior.

        LENR’s specific energy is orders of magnitude better (and thus it has many more applications), just as inexpensive to start with and certainly drastically less expensive as the technology matures, is easier to deploy within the existing infrastructure and has fewer safety concerns.

        LENR is close to an ideal energy source. Output, cost, safety, side effects… all A+.

    • Mr. Moho

      On their homepage they’re claiming this:

      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)
      .

      • Fortyniner

        Low energy decomposition of water using a combination of variables. These might include specific electrolytes, catalysts, RF, EM fields or microwaves – who knows. It sounds like they may have ‘mixed and matched’ a shedload of marginal ‘alternative’ technologies to come up with something that makes water molecules just fall apart.

        Low pressure hydrogen storage systems (hydrides) have been evolving quickly in recent years, and if the claims are justified this could give LENR a serious run for its money in many areas, but predominantly in transport. As the kit seems relatively small, shipping propulsion in particular might be transformed, along with cars etc.

        If.

      • bachcole

        By my calculations, if the reactor is only one foot deep, the surface area would be 260 square meters. My understanding is that the Sun gives us one kW per square meter (a very nice coincidence). So the Sun would be whacking the generator at 260,000 watts during sunny days, and the generator is creating 221,500 watts during sunny days. Add the 500 watts from electricity, and the COP becomes 221,500 divided by 260,500, which would be a very impressive .85. Not too shabby.

        The question comes to my mind, how long will the generator last. Is it eternal? Does it degrade? When does the internals have to be replaced.

        If the generator is more shallow than 1 foot, then my calculations would have to change. But then the foot print becomes more problematic. But for a solar generator, well, they other guys better be scrambling. But this assumes that it is all true.

        Given the complete lack of anything that is remotely close to a description or the technology, and being a little difficult to understand, frankly, I must in all good faith be a little skeptical.

        • Pedro

          Hi Bachcole, (see last sentence from Franks article:) the mini hydrogen reactor model measures: Length 32″ x Width 14″ x Height 20.5″ and weighs 250lbs.
          32″ is 0.8 meter and 14″ is 0.36 meter, so the surface is less than 0.30 square meters.

          • Fortyniner

            The SA of one side of the casing, anyway. The reactor itself could have virtually any active surface area, depending on numbers of plates/layers, surface folding or irregularity etc. etc.

    • Fortyniner

      Excellent analysis. As you say, the actual cost of the product is the most important factor, but it is far from clear whether the $1.80 includes consumables other than electrical input, or takes account of the energy cost of such consumables, or of waste recycling costs. Unless the oxygen (for instance) is released as a gas, then you are going to consume large quantities of chemical feedstock, and end up with an additional 900g or so of oxidised chemical waste for every litre of water consumed. If this can’t be quickly and easily recycled in a way that doesn’t consume significant extra energy (e.g., heating) then the system may not be viable.

      Until there is additional data available, this is another one for the ‘wait and see’ category I think.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If you take the average values from the test protocol, you get

    50 * 0.931 ft^3 = 1.3181 m^3 hydrogen, with an energy content of 16.8 MJ.
    The input of 5.04 V * 99.5 A * 1 min equals 0.03009 MJ.

    Therefore the average COP would be 558.

    In any case, we have another story that is “too good to be true”.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      more than too good to be true, it is
      – not clear about the process
      – not observed in labs

      but maybe is it simply LENR producing energy that split H2O

      too good to be true is not a serious argument.
      World is full of too good to be true, and too awful not to be a conspiracy of the Devil.

      see what water is, what the pork was for medieval civilisation, what the cow and the beef was as food, milk and engine…

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Alain, I did not use “too good to be true” (or “too bad to be true”, for those who are currently working on LENR reactors…) as an argument. Note that there are quotation marks. It’s at least somewhat odd that this company doesn’t provide more information. I hope that we will hear more in the near future.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          right,
          anyway too good to be true is an heuristic much used…
          it detect claim that can be fraud, because fraudster try to fulfill out dreams, and have to compete with reality…
          the problem is that some take that heuristic, as an evidence.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I don’t particularly want science to advance at the moment. I much prefer that the technology advances enough to survive the preemptory onslaught of the current scientific community.