Solar Hydrogen Trends Announce Results of ‘Oxygen to Hydrogen Transmutation’ [Update: Tester’s Report Published]

Here’s a new press release from Solar Hydrogen Trends:

US Enters Hydrogen Era, Says Solar Hydrogen Trends Inc.

Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc., developer of innovative breakthrough technology with the world’s first hydrogen reactor for production of unlimited hydrogen, conducts final series of control tests on technology

MENLO PARK, Calif., July 22, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — American company, Menlo Park based technology firm Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. ( today announced that it has conducted a final series of control tests on hydrogen reactor Symphony 7A.

A follow-up series of tests was required due to the fact that the two previous series of tests had shown such incredible production of hydrogen in reactor Symphony 7A, that even most reputable scientific firms were hard-pressed to accept and/or verify the test results.

New test results carried out by TRC Solutions are even more staggering: the previous performance results of 79,000 liters per hour increased to 127 cfm or 215,800 liters per hour and the content of hydrogen in the gas mixture increased from 93.1% to 97.5%. Oxygen content in the gas mixture on the exit of Symphony 7A was twice lowered to 1.34%, indicating that the process of transmutation of oxygen into hydrogen in the last test was more active.

With this performance the hydrogen reactor can convert 1 barrel of water into 200 kg of hydrogen, which is energetically equivalent to 3 barrels of oil.

However, the most impressive result of this experiment was that the external energy needed to make these 208,678 liters of pure hydrogen fell by 20%; it averaged at 414 watt hour = 4.6 volts x 90 amps.

To repeat: In these tests, 1 barrel of water = 3 barrels of oil.

At the moment this is an absolute record for energy costs with “cold fusion” Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR). It outpaces all research centers, laboratories and universities involved in the hydrogen problem of (LENR) for 20-30 years.

The ratio of spent and obtained energy in hydrogen reactor Symphony 7A in percentage is 134,477%. Today, hydrogen reactor Symphony 7A with the size of standard suitcase can produce enough hydrogen in one day equivalent to 6.5 barrels of oil, at the mere cost of $1.68 per hour to operate.

Observers should imagine two economic possibilities:

1. Barrel of oil actually would cost $5.07. (When the market price on commodities exchange trades at $100 to $110).

2. With 50,000 Symphony 7D Hydrogen Reactors (units), such a quantity would provide 30% more hydrogen equivalent than the largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, in one year.

Solar Hydrogen Trends believes that the most expedient next step would be if the United States takes the lead as global supplier of this technology, creating a consortium of willing countries, including oil and gas producing nations, which would then all become the co-owners of this groundbreaking technology developed by American company Solar Hydrogen Trends. Since the technology is developed and owned within/by the United States, all future sales and transactions of hydrogen will be made in US dollars (Hydrodollar) jointly with petrodollar.

In this scenario, the country members of the consortium could within 20-25 years accomplish the gradual replacement of fossil fuels with hydrogen. Over the years they could diversify their economies and avoid economic dependence and/or collapse. We believe that the hydrogen era is here to stay, cannot be stopped or slowed, and should not be considered as revolutionary but rather an evolutionary worldwide progression.

The United States is the first to enter into the hydrogen era – the new evidence of American exceptionalism – and this grand step forward is precisely what makes us exceptional as a people and a country.

Hakop Jack Aganyan
Konstantin Balakiryan
Founders, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc.

For more information on the hydrogen reactor, test results and the Company, please visit

Read more:

UPDATE: Report from TRC, the company who conducted the engineers test, is now available on the Solar Hydrogen Trends web site:



  • Shreder

    Hey, H2Fan

    You’re trying to compare the results of Solar Hydrogen Treds and laboratories of «Phlips company». It’s like comparing a “Ferrari” and “Fiat 500”.

    For those who do not know what the “Fiat 500 is” explaining: – This is a dog house on wheels. You will be fully satisfied if you can get directly to SHT. They have “crazy” scientific team that will prove and show you that the laboratory «of Philips company», as well as many other scientific centers are behind the Solar Hydrogen Treds forever.

  • mind2matter2reality

    Well, this is very interesting!
    I have posted this video in couple of LENR and Hydrogen groups on LinkedIn as well and it has silenced the noise there just like it has done it here.
    Not a peep from anyone!
    Should I assume that everyone has become a believer? Everyone is speechless? Nobody cares? What is it? I am eager to understand.
    Don’t speak all at once 🙂

    • pelgrim108

      I watched the video. Now Im thinking if there is anything I could say that isnt already sad by better minds then me in this thread. I will just say that I will just wait for some rigorous test.

  • GreenWin

    Here is the chief scientist Balakiryan’s explanation of some of the nucleonic activity in his H2 generator:

    He relies on “neutron decay” to create protons and a host of other effects to account for conversion of oxygen to H2. He further describes fast electrons resulting from this “neutron decay” ionizing O2 which collides with free proton to make H. Nuclear chemists?

    The most offbeat explanation is, if the Director of the Fermilab Center for Astrophysics is correct and we all live in a huge cosmic hologram — transmutation of elements is a rather simple analog to digital function. The hologram concept is readily proved by driving the system beyond its peak resolution and measuring the render latency.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, not so simple if the resolution is say below the Plank length and time resolution is smaller than his time limit.
      Not that those limits cannot be broken.

      • GreenWin

        The system I occupy is easily driven beyond peak resolution by focus on complex mapping, e.g. three dimensional reflective bodies like water. If that water body is intended to represent a terrestrial habitat (e.g. an estuary alive with biomass) — the system resolution is quickly exhausted.

        However, the programmers will divert extra processing and rendering to provide detail in the focus map – with significant latency. On the order of seconds and even minutes for the most complex rendering. This confirms the presence of holographic rendering typical of a certain level of volumetric displays.

        The real issues are how to correct for virtual human behaviors that fail to recreate even a semblance of organic human behavior. Some in the program believe they do not need organic participation for this – and so we are at a permanent standstill.

        • georgehants

          Ha, Wonderful, I am happy to say you have completely lost me.
          I personally now have to connect your observations with my readings of Seth that take us into another World altogether.
          But he does give the most amazingly consistent explanations for the existence of this and many other realities.
          some 20 odd books.
          I will stop there as I do not wish to put over my beliefs beyond invitation.
          Best wishes.

          • GreenWin

            Thanks George, I am aware of Seth and many derivatives that fall under the study of expanded consciousness. They have been seminal in my path of learning and appreciating the enormous potential in human beings. However, like LENR, certain entities impede such learning – and even supporters refuse to comfortably fund its growth.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Thank you, I have similar belief systems to the Seth perspective. My beliefs are of my own devising based upon my own experience.

            I believe that our reality is at least partially based upon a consensus of opinion with proximity of the participants being a weighting value to their contribution.

            I once knew a man a trained expert in computer electronics among a group of eight other experts, half digital experts half analog.

            He had said to himself often enough that if he stepped within ten feet of a certain printer that the printer would break. A common jest.

            This became litteral. We took the printer and put it on electronics workstation. He could take one step forward and it would power off, one step back and it would power on. The lights for the bench were continually lit. There was nothing wrong with the computer as long as he was 11 feet back.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The consciousness is constantly overwhelmed, the unconscious parallel processing not so much, but who knows if it can be?

    • Ophelia Rump

      If you know the answer to this question I would be grateful to be understand what has been said.

      “The hologram concept is readily proved by driving the system beyond its peak resolution and measuring the render latency.”

      How would someone go about driving the system beyond it’s peak resolution and measuring it’s latency?

      Is this just abstract model based parallelism without corollary or is there an actual method for driving change within the moment beyond realities capacity to maintain coherence?

      Since reality occurs in the mind of the individual and the individual has a stuttering frame rate of perception equivalent to an old movie, is he talking about flooding the individual’s ability to perceive?

      • GreenWin

        Your last para is correct with the exception that human optics in healthy beings do not stutter on minimally moving objects. They function at a fixed rate of perception far faster than 16 fps (human optics can perceive detail at 1/300 sec.) The parietal and prefrontal cortex where visual memory is stored can then compare real time “reality” (i.e. what one is observing) with memory. These original memories have been accumulated from past, organic (non-holographic) or higher resolution observations.

        The water body example is germane because of the multiple levels of transparency and reflectivity required to accurately map how one sees into a living body of water – like a tidal pool or river estuary. Such habitats team with a diversity of life. The combination of complex reflection/transparency and diverse animate lifeforms exceed the nominal render engine (holographic projection) capacity.

        If observation continues to focus on the subject, the system diverts additional process and render capacity to match the original with the memory. My experience in such experiments yields render latency in seconds or minutes. It makes a fun thesis!

        • Ophelia Rump

          You misunderstand. The stuttering is the consciousness, not the optics.

          Think of the mind a processor with multi-cycle per instruction processing.

          The input processing and cognition is cycle one. Processing housekeeping or some other operation is cycle two. Our minds flicker. This known behavior is as I recall, why we can watch flickering movies and see them as continuous.

          I have not dealt with the subject for many decades, but I recall it.

          I have found a reference to it here for you.

          • GreenWin

            Not sure I get what you’re getting at. My experience with a holographic (simulated) world confirms that in scenes requiring complex rendering – “reality” looks fake. Until the render engine can catch up with organic memory. This requires extensive, terrestrial human experience. People without such experience will not have perceive the latency.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I have personally proven that humans are capable per perceiving visual inputs of sub millisecond duration. You are probably referring to the Riese Limen threhold, this only applies to minimum duration for conscious awareness, not for perception.

          If you take a computer display and randomly show a number from 0 to 9 at different locations on the screen for sub threshold durations, being careful to overwrite the value with both white and black boxes of the same duration to compensate for persistence of vision. You will not notice the number shown on the screen, neither will you be any better at guessing that number.

          If you show the same value multiple times, you will progressively become better at guessing the number. Eventually you will see the number, If you display the same number one hundred times at sub threshold values, you will swear that you see the number all over the screen and that it is very persistent.

          The effect of exposure is cumulative, it depends upon duration of exposure, intensity of exposure, and number of exposures.

          This is the effect known as subliminal manipulation. I assure you it is quite real, and testable. You should try it. It’s a great programming project.

      • JDM

        Do you walk to work or bring your lunch?

        • Ophelia Rump

          I telecommute.

  • Shreder

    Yesterday was a fantastic day and a fantastic forum.

    Let’s forgive those who write about the hydrogen balloon inside Symphony 7A, hidden cables,
    recirculating hydrogen in pipe.

    Let’s forgive SHT’s violation of the first and second law of
    thermodynamics laws of conservation of mass
    and energy. Let’s assume SHT has forgotten about the impossibility of creating a perpetuum
    mobile .
    Let us imagine what our planet would be if everything writing about them is true.

    And it will be true , because SHT does not want to look like idiots offering something fake to the government and the investors.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I would count the trucks they fill, number of plants they build and whether they can sell below competitors cost without going bankrupt.

      The will sell plants to companies the can sell product to for long periods without going broke. They must put some production plants up themselves.

      If it works, it works, and no one can stop their juggernaut. Otherwise, bankrupt.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I like Solar Hydrogen Trends for the simple fact that their claim is so obviously impossible.

    There is no pretense here, no attempt to justify or explain. No bogus theory. They had the usual industry testing lab come in and test the gas for volume and purity. Yup if you buy that gas, you will get that flow rate and quality. Which is what those kinds of testing labs are for.

    • GreenWin

      Ophelia, you might want to look more closely at TRC Companies Inc. They regularly do permitting and electrical engineering for large scale renewable energy projects. They are 40 years in the engineering business and:

      “For forty years, a growing group of TRC engineers and scientists
      have served a broad range of government and industry clients
      –implementing complex projects from initial concept to delivery and
      operation. We are proud to have developed scientific and engineering
      methodologies that are used in the environmental business today…”

      This does not verify the SHT H2 process. It does go rather far to dispel the idea they are incompetent engineers too dumb to measure or record electrical energy. That sounds like the whining of Maryugo.

      • Ophelia Rump

        That is very nice, but this was not the work of an electrical engineering department in their company.

        The group which tested this probably deals with the bulk gasses / refineries also bulk food and other industries. These people would be industrial measurement specialists. I have been on the opposite side of the meter from such people loading oil tankers. The horror stories I could tell about how they cheat each other. You would not believe. It is a war and these testing people are the UN forces.

  • Qcjym

    Just read the report. Seriously, who the heck does measurements for a critical test like this and doesnt provide his own f*** power meter?

    • GreenWin

      Qcjym, do you have evidence that both TRC Solutions and Air Kinetics Inc. failed to use their “own f*** power meter?”

      According to the TRC letter: “The test results are summarized in Table 1 and all supporting documentation is attached.” The supporting documentation in the Air Kinetics Inc report include:
      1) Test results
      2) Field data and Equipment Calibrations
      3) Analytical data

      Do you suppose TRC and Air Kinetics Inc. have conspired together?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Its OK you can say Fluke.

  • georgehants

    Finish each day and be done with it. You have done
    what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget
    them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; begin it well and
    serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old
    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882)

  • yes, it is endothermic.

    beside the easy simple assumption that is the most probable given the test are not bullet proof there is few exit.

    If the apparent production of H from O is proven, and it is not chemical

    first method is to assume the theory of the claimant is wrong…
    it may not be O->16H (or O->8D) but something involving fission of a heavy metal
    (I have the same feeling for BLP).

    then only you can imagine that “evident” assumption are not true…
    for example when hot fusionist assumed LENR was hot fusion, was QM in free space and twobody interactions, they made invisible assumption refusing to consider the theoretically possible idea of collective behavior in a lattice.

    at last you can try to extend the mainstream theory at it’s core, but that is very improbable as it is very much tested…
    an extension should add some rounded corners, not more.

    anyway the first things to do is to check the results with an independent test, by people who control the pipes and wires, do it for a long time, can rule-out chemistry, check all fraud hypothesis…

    I am very pessimistic, but since I am uninformed I let informed people pay a test.

    if the reality of the claim is confirmed, I will first challenge the claimant theories which are probably bogus, then challenge hidden assumption in the skeptic arguments.

  • georgehants

    These pages, in places remind me of one of my previous lives when there was a debate regarding if the World was flat or round.
    The clever guys in those days just had an open-mind and good sense and thought, I will wait for the final Evidence and encourage all Research.
    They did not think that the holy laws of physics could not be broken, or any such restrictive propaganda taught to students by the religious priests.
    “opinions” as always mean nothing.
    Only time Research and Evidence will find the Truth.
    Thanks to those on page that are fairly looking at good Evidence and informing those of us not interested in pointless speculation or mind numbing personal denials.
    Who did win that flat Earth debate, I forget now.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Solar Hydrogen Trends: Violates Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. times arrow or that the entropy always increases).

    Why? Because the low entropy state was the universe when it formed and was all hydrogen and a bit of helium. The free energy of fusion was used up to change that hydrogen into oxygen in stars.

    The process cannot go backwards and produce energy and reduce entropy.

    They have made a mis-measurement.

    • georgehants

      As science does not have a clue as to how the Universe formed beyond the usual excepted guess preached today and as there is a very fair debate as to if in such a Universe, the beginning would be regarded as the highest or lowest entropy, I think a little caution in such statements would be in order.
      As the laws of Thermodynamics rely on a closed Universe and science is completely ignorant as to if it is, they clearly cannot be guaranteed to apply in all cases.

      • Anon2012_2014


        Science is a model called the hypothesis to explain and predict what we can do with sciece. I don’t care about “the Big Bang” now as that doesn’t effect me. But I do believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been shown to be correct for that past 200 years and that until we get a better model, I will use it to predict what we can do with it.

        In this case, it appears as if we can create a conventional fusion reactor to fuse 8H -> O and then later make a “LENR” reactor to move O->8H for only a little bit of energy. I think the net energy produced is positive from 8H->O >> O->8H, so that what has been proposed is the reaction is perpetual motion. For a barrel of oil equivalent output he needs 1000x less energy input. But the fusion of 8H->O for a reaction mass the weight of a barrel of oil equivalent of H2, we are talking about enough energy to vaporize the entire earth.

        Something is missing here because otherwise we have a perpetual motion device. It is as if the Universe or [diety] decided to give man enough energy to live forever. All this violates Second law and my gut feel says I want to see the experiment clearly before I change MY model of the universe.

        • georgehants

          You can analysis things any way you wish and will not change the Facts I have put above.
          Science is Facts and Evidence not religious proclamations of ridiculous beliefs.
          You must make your “opinions” fit the Facts, not try and stupidly make Facts fit “opinion” as most of incompetent science does.
          If “something is missing” find the bloody answer and not try and make it fit within established priestly Dogma.

          • GreenWin

            George, the concept of “open” universe or multi-dimensional universe is alien to all but a few theoretical astrophysicists. Standard science grads have been drilled on 2nd Law as inviolable which of course makes it appear so to these observers.

            When and if the full implications of “the measurement problem” are confronted by mainstream science – the religious belief in physical laws will be tempered. Such a radical change in education is unlikely short of “An Impossible Invention.”

            Happily, one or two such inventions are here. And a very few scientists like Craig Hogan, Director of Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, even say radical stuff like:

            “If the GEO600 is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram.”

            • georgehants

              GreenWin, these guys have never heard or been taught in their incompetent schools of such things as the, Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

              • Ophelia Rump

                Infinite is a little more than we require. Perhaps that is why the call it a catastrophe. I hope you are not planning on building one?

                • georgehants

                  Well Ophelia, I am sure I do not have any idea what you are saying but it sounds good, I think.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  Infinite radiation spewing from one of your ultraviolent things.

                • georgehants

                  Ha, Ophelia, no, the point obviously is that one small inconsistency led through the great work of Plank to a new reality completely unknown and more basic than our known one.
                  A big lesson for scientists to learn.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  That is a very optimistic sentiment.

                • georgehants

                  O’dear Ophelia, it is history, no debate, no opinions, just Factual History.
                  Any scientist unaware of such scientific principles can only be at best half a scientist unless they develop their own intuitive ability to reason well.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I am fairly certain that there is still some hydrogen left in the universe.
      There also appears to be heat and other energies left lying around like children’s toys on the lawn of the universe. Where did the creation of the universe go wrong?

  • Owen Geiger

    Although it’s possible that they have something, there’s not enough information to make an informed decision. Here’s one possibility: What they’ve provided so far could be a stage show to attract billionaire investors. Once they have their attention, they confide that X, Y and Z claims were fabricated to throw off the competition, but this is what we really have and it’s worth billions. Time will tell.

  • Tom59

    What is also interesting in Solar Hydrogens press release is reference to American greatness, execptionalism, leadership… at the end of the article. The German Ex-E-cat licensee – in the article on 17JUL – had mentioned in the interview that US national interests were involved in Rossis decision to pull back from his commitments to the licensees. To me there seems someone already pulling the strings to ensure LENR is exploited in and by the US. It’s encouraging for the technology but reminds me bit of French industrial policy – just more subtle.

  • JC

    If this is real, it might be the easiest solution for closing the loop. Let’s see them use the hydrogen to generate electricity and run the whole process. It seems very doubtful that they have what they say. The report is really not helpful as any kind of scientific validation. The tester stated, “During the test, voltage and current supplied to the system was recorded from the provided panel at approximately 10 minute intervals.” The power was read from the “provided panel,” so who knows what the real power input was.