Hydrogen Production Breakthrough

[TinselKoala]

TinselKoala,you are wright ! But did you reed the prnews-content ?


The Impossible Becomes Possible
The hydrogen reactor actually turns 1 liter of water into 1kg of hydrogen!  While this flies in the face of today's basic science where even a 5th grader knows that 1 liter of water contains 111.11 grams of hydrogen and 888.89 grams of oxygen --nevertheless, numerous performance tests, including Airkinetics Inc., a prominent EPA-certified national emissions testing specialist, measured the output reactor at 50 ACFM with 93.1% Hydrogen content.
Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc. stands by its performance claims and welcomes other independent performance measurements of its hydrogen reactor input/output by the media and leading industry experts.   (Download Airkinetics Inc fuel performance test results :http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf.)


.

Sure, I read it, and I've encountered reports like that before. Tell me this: If what is being analyzed is the output of a water electrolysis device, what is argon and nitrogen doing in the output gas stream? With a power level of over 400 Watts supplied to the cell.... why is there not more moisture content in the gas stream, since the water is probably boiling at places inside the electrolysis cell? Why are the "appendices" not included with the report pdf?  And further.... where is the peer-reviewed scientific paper announcing this Nobel-worthy discovery?

Here's the EPA Method 3 protocol. Is it properly applied to this type of claim?

[mscoffman]

Would something that easily turns lots of other atoms into hydogen gas be a good thing? I don't necessarily think so.
...More Fission Energy trade offs?

[centraflow]

Sure, I read it, and I've encountered reports like that before. Tell me this: If what is being analyzed is the output of a water electrolysis device, what is argon and nitrogen doing in the output gas stream? With a power level of over 400 Watts supplied to the cell.... why is there not more moisture content in the gas stream, since the water is probably boiling at places inside the electrolysis cell? Why are the "appendices" not included with the report pdf?  And further.... where is the peer-reviewed scientific paper announcing this Nobel-worthy discovery?

Here's the EPA Method 3 protocol. Is it properly applied to this type of claim?

The Argon and nitrogen were probably flushing gases prior to starting the system (would normally be in the appendices). Localised boiling (400w) would only apply if you are talking about standard electrolysis and energy lost to heat, may not apply to this and why there is little water vapour. With the high claims normal electrolysis can't be the system of molecular breaking! we do not know the system parameters apart from the claimed 16 different reactive components, which in itself is quite a claim to identify. I can identify in my work the creation of water clusters through magnetic influence which increases the dielectric constant in distilled water. This increases the conductivity of water by reducing it's resistance with no need for electrolytes. I can also identify by using inductive high voltage low current (reactive power) the double layer of cell electrodes can be reduced if not eliminated and so giving the charge to the water clusters. At some point the charge becomes so high that the water clusters form a chain link forming a "short circuit", and delivering hundreds of amps across the electrodes at no cost to the supply. (this is not a water capacitor as the double layer has been removed).


The low oxygen content is not a surprise, this is easy and energy producing, oxydation creates surplace electrons which in turn are used to power part of the system, it is just how you do that   (electro chemical complex reaction).


There are many things I still need to know how and why certain things happen, their claims of 16 reactive components I would love to see along with their explinations, but I doubt that they will be forthcoming, that would let the cat out of the bag in more ways than one


regards


Mike

[MarkE]

When someone comes along and says that they turn 112g of hydrogen into 1000g, and that same person says that they convert 500Wh into 221.5kWh, and that person says they need investment money:  Run, do not walk in the opposite direction as fast as possible.

[centraflow]

When someone comes along and says that they turn 112g of hydrogen into 1000g, and that same person says that they convert 500Wh into 221.5kWh, and that person says they need investment money:  Run, do not walk in the opposite direction as fast as possible.

Yes I would agree, I do not know of any possibility to change 112g/h2 into 1000g/h2, where is that stated? if they can do that then just ordinary power consuming electrolysis would be a game winner


My point is that the hydrogen in water is the only component required, so the oxygen is used to create energy to drive part of the system, kill two birds with one stone, remove oxygen and reduce energy costs just to create hydrogen.


regards


Mike