PESN: Solar Hydrogen Trends Technology PrimarilyBased on Chemical Reaction

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

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

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

He writes:

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

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

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

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

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder
  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Well, at least the news from Rossi seems promising.

    “Update about the new Hot Cat: is working. It is working. So far. It is now 09.20 p.m. of July 28 in the plant, the 1 MW E-Cat is stable, no major problems, and the new Hot Cat works in a very promising way. I am very satisfied of this “incipit”. Let’s see what is gonna happen next. Promising night.” – A.R.

  • Axil Axil

    The claim that oxygen was being transmuted to hydrogen could not be correct. That process is a fission process involving a light element, oxygen. This nuclear operation requires lots of energy to happen. The fission reaction involving light elements is endothermic; it reqires lots of energy to happen. LENR might be happening in the SHT system, but the LENR energy cannot be enough to produce hydrogen from oxygen; such an amount of energy required is truly huge.

    • Bob Matulis

      Agreed. My understanding was that the claims of oxygen being transmuted to H2 was impossible when considering energy states.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Plus, you have polluted allot of water with aluminum oxide. You will have to clean that up and recycle the aluminum, which will be expensive and clumsy. It does not sound like an environmentally or economically desirable solution to anything. If aluminum was used only as a catalyst, that would be one thing. To use it is a active ingredient and fuel makes the whole affair sound pointless. They need to explain everything clearly and prove their cost figures, which are now in doubt. Honesty is the best policy.

    • Obvious

      Since the water is the source of hydrogen, in a perfect reaction, there would be no water left. Imperfectly, some water will likely be vaporized by the heat of the reaction, but this should effectively distill the water, especially if a good distillation assembly is incorporated into the design.
      The novel design element here seems to be using electricity to reduce the work function of the reaction, immediately remove the aluminum oxide from the aluminum metal to allow the reaction to work unimpeded by the products, or replace acid as the catalyst, or a combination of those effects (and 13 other things?…).
      The aluminum oxide left over might be a real problem. Possibly it could be used as ceramic feedstock. If it is contaminated by other materials used in the process or impurities in the water, then it may have limited value at best, Aluminum alloys fed in as feedstock, on purpose or by accident, might make a nasty by-product.

    • US_Citizen71

      The only solution I can see their system being useful for is in a long term storage power system. Something that could power a lifeboat or equivalent. Maybe even as a mobile emergency power source. It would be a lot safer to airdrop aluminum plates and water then a hydrogen tank or diesel fuel.

      • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

        I agree. It may have some uses, but they need to do allot of explaining and show solid third party proofs before anyone will believe they have anything like a universal energy solution. I really do not understand what they are thinking. They are smart enough to know that oxidation of aluminum is not an energy source and that the cost of the aluminum must be counted when figuring the cost of the hydrogen gas they produce. Hopefully there is more to this story than we know and an explanation will be forthcoming soon.

  • tobalt

    What else was ever to consider? lol

    Oxygen transmutation to Hydrogen would be hugely endothermic.

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

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

    • georgehants

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

      • tobalt

        Dear george,

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

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

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

        • georgehants

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

        • Ted-X

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

        • Axil Axil

          Tobalt,

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

          Reference:

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

          “Major development in the understanding of macroscopic quantum behavior”

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

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

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

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

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

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

          “The size of the condensate is a limiting factor

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

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

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

          Also. from the SpaceDaily article it states:

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

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

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

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

          Wormholes Untangle a Black Hole Paradox

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

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

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

  • Gerard McEk

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

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

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

    • Mats002

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

  • Navdrew

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

    • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

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

    • wpj

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

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

      See

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

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

  • bachcole

    Yeah, but is it over-unity?

    Yeah, I know, that seems like a stupid question. But it is not in light of the fact the LENR per se already destroys the dominant paradigm. So, is it over-unity? And that is really the only question that matters.

    • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

      If there is no LENR involved, then there can be no “over-unity”. Aluminum is often referred to as “solidified electricity”, because it takes so much electricity to produce.

      • georgehants

        Christopher, do you mean that you know that there could not be another unknown effect besides Cold Fusion that they have found that produces “over-unity”
        What is that Evidence please?

        • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

          If the theorized effect is neither chemical nor nuclear, then what is it? Is it voodoo? There are a number of companies with new and novel chemical means to produce hydrogen gas at a little lower cost. This seems to be just another option that may not be cheaper than making hydrogen gas from methane or the newer solar systems. All the methods I have seen are still expensive, and using the hydrogen gas as a fuel to burn or as a fuel for fuel cells still is not “green” or economically viable. We are better off burning fossil fuels than making hydrogen gas for a fuel cell automobile. Time will tell if they have anything important, but the situation does not look good right now. They need to reveal everything now to regain credibility.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Great answer!

            I much agree here.

            We burn coal – and we simply releasing the chemical energy
            from that process. Burning coal gives you lots of energy and as such is not over unity from a pure physics/logical point of view.

            However, I do agree with your “general” use of the term
            over-unity.

            So in a sense digging up coal and burning coal is “over unity” for OUR costs and efforts (that 2nd caveat of “our efforts” is the MOST important point here).

            As you stated rather well. Burning aluminum is really just capturing the energy we used to create that product! As you WELL state – this is
            crazy – full stop!!!

            And for everyone reading here, LENR not over unity either – the reduced state of the electrons in orbit is where the energy comes from (based on most favorable theories as to how LENR works).

            So using coal, or that of LENR is not over-unity from a physics point of view. However, as a practical use of the term, it clear we mean that
            OUR input costs and efforts to harness the existing potential energy produces MORE energy on the output side. (that potential energy when used simply means the “fuel” we used is now in a lower state of energy).

            Of course I don’t’ think ANYONE here is interested in some chemical process – we have coal and oil for that!

            The MASSIVE difference here is LENR is it works at the nuclear
            level – nuclear is our ONLY real hope for a future with abundant and clean energy.

            However, I think most here are missing the REAL point here! That point is SHT is outright lying and are thus dishonest. As stated well here – they need to reveal everything now to regain credibility.

            It is POSSIBLE the folks at SHT thought they had some process that does produce energy – but that is rather slim. However it does NOT matter.

            NOW that such information has come to light – it is HOW they respond to such information that will really determine if the folks at SHT are worthy of respect, or are simply scum and part of the ever growing crowd on the internet trying to pawn and sell you some magic elixir. The sole purpose is to get your money.

            The above also shows that people will outright try to sell you something with FULL knowledge they are deceiving you.

            This much explains WHY so many are skeptic of Rossi. At the end of the day I much believe Rossi has a working LENR plant, we do no know the COP at this point in time. So some “possible” disappointment is still a possibility in regards to how commercially viable Rossi’s e-cat is.

            However, at least there “reasonable” evidence that Rossi’s’ e-cat is out of the lab and being used in a “real” world scenario – that bodes well for the e-cat.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada
            [email protected]

      • bachcole

        Chris, I am well aware of the standard chemical model. You just used theory to decide observation. I wanted to know if the SHT people had observed over-unity or if there was some miscommunication with us from them.

    • Obvious

      Perceived overunity is far too often a matter of putting the start and finish points at some arbitrary, selected point, rather than proper consideration of the total system from the “real” start to finish. Selection of an appropriate start and finish point can be problematic in many systems. Nobody wants to account for the energy consumed since the beginning of the universe, or from assembly in a star, as the beginning of a particular process, for example. Nor is that level of accounting really expected.
      Once the losses involved in making aluminum metal are considered, the high level of excess required to recover that input are substantial in this case.