Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: markdansie on March 14, 2014, 02:23:33 PM

Title: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: markdansie on March 14, 2014, 02:23:33 PM
If this is real its game over. However i question their claim of getting 1kg of hydrogen out of one liter of water


http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/


Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: ramset on March 14, 2014, 02:41:38 PM
Mark
It says Go daddy domain expired on that link ?
 
Thx
Chet
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: Groundloop on March 14, 2014, 02:44:16 PM
.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: Paul-R on March 14, 2014, 04:10:37 PM
If this is real its game over. However i question their claim of getting 1kg of hydrogen out of one liter of water


http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/ (http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/)


Kind Regards
Mark
My chemistry is old and patchy but, if the atomic weight of H is 1, and oxygen is 16, the theoretical maximum should be (2/18 times 1.0) Kg, shouldn't it?

i.e. 110 grams.

Is this the same article?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1786979
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: lancaIV on March 14, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breakthrough-in-hydrogen-production-provides-the-cheapest-fuel-source-game-changer-for-the-global-energy-market-249754851.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breakthrough-in-hydrogen-production-provides-the-cheapest-fuel-source-game-changer-for-the-global-energy-market-249754851.html)

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com (http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com)

wmbr
         OCWL


p.s.:      Water to HHO/Hydrino/Watergas and price/KWh -competition :
       
              http://aveuropa.net (http://aveuropa.net) 
              http://aveuropa.net/index.php/wasserstoff-herstellung

              http://www.blacklightpower.com (http://www.blacklightpower.com)
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: ramset on March 14, 2014, 05:37:34 PM
LancaIV

what is this tiny spinning thingy you posted
http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com (http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/)

thx
Chet
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: lancaIV on March 14, 2014, 05:43:15 PM
LancaIV

what is this tiny spinning thingy you posted
http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com (http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/)

thx
Chet




                 This is these thread-theme-object ! I think so !? ::) 

       1 KWh Water-"fuel" as gasoline-equivalent  for less than 1 US$cent

      +/-  the water-"fuel" barrel(bbl)  for less than 16US$    fob home reactor

wmbr
          OCWL
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: TinselKoala on March 14, 2014, 06:15:43 PM
If this is real its game over. However i question their claim of getting 1kg of hydrogen out of one liter of water


http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/ (http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/)


Kind Regards
Mark

And so you should question it, because one liter of water weighs one kilogram, close enough.... and as Paul-R pointed out above, water is mostly oxygen (atomic weight 16, one atom per water molecule), not hydrogen (atomic weight 1, with two atoms per water molecule), with a ratio of 16:2 or 8 to 1 by weight. So either the reporting is wrong, or the claimants are wrong, or they are creating matter from nothing. What is most likely to be true, from those alternatives?
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: lancaIV on March 14, 2014, 06:29:06 PM
And so you should question it, because one liter of water weighs one kilogram, close enough.... and as Paul-R pointed out above, water is mostly oxygen (atomic weight 16, one atom per water molecule), not hydrogen (atomic weight 1, with two atoms per water molecule), with a ratio of 16:2 or 8 to 1 by weight. So either the reporting is wrong, or the claimants are wrong, or they are creating matter from nothing. What is most likely to be true, from those alternatives?

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 (http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf).)


.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: MarkE on March 14, 2014, 06:47:32 PM
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 (http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/SHT_performance%20_test.pdf).)


.
They make at least two claims of creating energy / matter:  112g becomes 1000g, 500Wh becomes 221,500Wh, etc. without offering any proof.  The one page report cover from a smog lab consisting of three samples:  two that more or less agreed and a third that was off by 75% does not convey confidence to me.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: TinselKoala on March 14, 2014, 06:51:42 PM
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 (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?
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: mscoffman on March 14, 2014, 08:27:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: centraflow on March 15, 2014, 11:44:14 AM
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 8)
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: MarkE on March 15, 2014, 12:03:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: centraflow on March 15, 2014, 12:33:37 PM
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 ;D


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 8)
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: MarkE on March 15, 2014, 12:51:30 PM

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 ;D


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 8)
The 1 liter of water to 1kg of hydrogen claim is in their PR.  They note that it is "impossible".  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breakthrough-in-hydrogen-production-provides-the-cheapest-fuel-source-game-changer-for-the-global-energy-market-249754851.html

Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: centraflow on March 15, 2014, 12:58:46 PM
OK, I would agree, impossible ;)


regards


Mike 8)
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: ramset on March 15, 2014, 02:08:48 PM
Yes . The Claimants also agree its not possible , the "every 5th grader Knows"" comment in their press release
 
So they have a certified lab report [EPA certified] that is somebody's reputation on the line right there!

The claim must be Transmutation ....
 
@ Mark E
There was a case recently in social media where a young startup turned down 3 billion dollars for his new idea/product.[wanted more....]
 
hunting for the proper market/money is in no way a red flag in this case.
 
                      They aggressively solicit investigation

""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.""
---------------------------
As Mark Dansie stated in his opening post.
This would change everything..
 
thx
Chet
 
 
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: Paul-R on March 15, 2014, 02:49:48 PM
And so you should question it, because one liter of water weighs one kilogram, close enough.... and as Paul-R pointed out above, water is mostly oxygen (atomic weight 16, one atom per water molecule), not hydrogen (atomic weight 1, with two atoms per water molecule), with a ratio of 16:2 or 8 to 1 by weight. So either the reporting is wrong, or the claimants are wrong, or they are creating matter from nothing. What is most likely to be true, from those alternatives?
You are quite right, TK. My mistake.

The other thing is that there is no mention in USPTO of solar hydrogen trends, either as inventor, or assignee or as their AANM tag. Nor a response for Agaanyan or Balakiryan.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: MarkE on March 15, 2014, 03:57:04 PM
Yes . The Claimants also agree its not possible , the "every 5th grader Knows"" comment in their press release
 
So they have a certified lab report [EPA certified] that is somebody's reputation on the line right there!

The claim must be Transmutation ....
 
@ Mark E
There was a case recently in social media where a young startup turned down 3 billion dollars for his new idea/product.[wanted more....]
 
hunting for the proper market/money is in no way a red flag in this case.
 
                      They aggressively solicit investigation

""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.""
---------------------------
As Mark Dansie stated in his opening post.
This would change everything..
 
thx
Chet
The physics claims are impossible.  The garden path works like this:  "You are getting very sleepy.  You feel relaxed.  You have forgotten that hydrogen is not a primary fuel stock.  Your eyelids are so very heavy.  You cannot remember that the energy required to separate hydrogen from compounds it is bound to always exceeds the energy that can be released forming new bonds with the same or other substances.  Your wallet is feeling so heavy.  It is so unbearably full of money.  You cannot hold the thought that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed.  Your money is such a terrible burden.  When you awake you will feel better each time you buy our stock.  The more of our stock you buy, the better you will feel.  You can feel your wallet getting lighter now.  Each time your wallet gets lighter, you feel happier and more relaxed..."
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: ramset on March 15, 2014, 04:50:26 PM
Mark E
 
you forgot...."all things are possible"!
 
For myself" Prejudice with out investigation" is not an option.
 
We shall see?
 
Chet
 
 
 
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: mikestocks2006 on March 15, 2014, 06:35:14 PM
If this is real its game over. However i question their claim of getting 1kg of hydrogen out of one liter of water


http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/ (http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/)


Kind Regards
Mark

From: http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/ (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_139490401743510&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F14401%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F&v=1&libId=ca737a37-daa4-4731-9a3d-0e301988e04f&out=http%3A%2F%2Frevolution-green.com%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F14401%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F15%2F&title=Hydrogen%20Production%20Breakthrough&txt=http%3A%2F%2Frevolution-green.com%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F)
SOLAR HYDROGEN TRENDS INC. have claimed to have developed a reactor that with an input of 500 watts,  produces an output of 2,797 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour”
 
If they can produce any gas at that Volumetric Rate under STP conditions (standard temperature and pressure at the outlet) using 500 Watts, then in effect they demonstrate a 4.4  to 1 direct mechanical theoretical overunity.  Even with 50% overall conversion losses, they should be able to self loop (mechanical <-> electrical) and get more than 1 watt net out for every watt recycled…
Is the demo completed already?
 
Thanks for posting.
Mike
 
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: lancaIV on March 15, 2014, 07:58:32 PM

From: http://revolution-green.com/hydrogen-production-breakthrough/ (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_139490401743510&key=0de1c882bae3a5d7344e394b19608218&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F14401%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F&v=1&libId=ca737a37-daa4-4731-9a3d-0e301988e04f&out=http%3A%2F%2Frevolution-green.com%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2F14401%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F15%2F&title=Hydrogen%20Production%20Breakthrough&txt=http%3A%2F%2Frevolution-green.com%2Fhydrogen-production-breakthrough%2F)
SOLAR HYDROGEN TRENDS INC. have claimed to have developed a reactor that with an input of 500 watts,  produces an output of 2,797 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour”
 
If they can produce any gas at that Volumetric Rate under STP conditions (standard temperature and pressure at the outlet) using 500 Watts, then in effect they demonstrate a 4.4  to 1 direct mechanical theoretical overunity.  Even with 50% overall conversion losses, they should be able to self loop (mechanical <-> electrical) and get more than 1 watt net out for every watt recycled…
Is the demo completed already?
 
Thanks for posting.
Mike


                                                 They claim
             a chemical 440X/electrical 220X amplifying factor not a 4,4 factor !


             221KWh chemical output dividing with 0,5 KWh electrical input !
110KWh converted (50% lost)electrical output dividing with 0,5 KWh electrical input
 and with such a factor a partial feedback cycle is ever possible,
                           perpetuum hydrogen plant work concept


                          I.T.E.R.: low budget version ::)
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: mikestocks2006 on March 15, 2014, 08:32:59 PM

                                                 They claim
             a chemical 440X/electrical 220X amplifying factor not a 4,4 factor !


             221KWh chemical output dividing with 0,5 KWh electrical input !
110KWh converted (50% lost)electrical output dividing with 0,5 KWh electrical input
 and with such a factor a partial feedback cycle is ever possible,
                           perpetuum hydrogen plant work concept


                          I.T.E.R.: low budget version ::)

You've miseread my post - there was no mention of chemical conversion energy output. ONLY theoretcal mechanical.! 
 
Thanks
Mike
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: TinselKoala on March 15, 2014, 11:38:06 PM
You are quite right, TK. My mistake.

The other thing is that there is no mention in USPTO of solar hydrogen trends, either as inventor, or assignee or as their AANM tag. Nor a response for Agaanyan or Balakiryan.
You didn't make a mistake. Your (2/18) x (start mass) gives the correct mass of the hydrogen in the water. I just did it differently: the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen by atomic weight in water H2O is 2:16 or 1:8, so water is one part hydrogen and eight parts oxygen, by weight. Same answer as you got.
You have 2/18 parts hydrogen and 16/18 parts oxygen, for a ratio of 2:16 or 1:8, same as me.

Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: MarkE on March 16, 2014, 12:54:16 AM
Mark E
 
you forgot...."all things are possible"!
 
For myself" Prejudice with out investigation" is not an option.
 
We shall see?
 
Chet
Chet, we have this thing called S C I E N C E.  It is the collective work of millions over hundreds of years.  To date, it has some First Principles that we have found inviolable.  Those include that matter/energy are conserved.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: ramset on March 16, 2014, 01:27:21 AM
Mark
the collective works of men will build upon and improve that thing called science ,   hopefully forever more.
 
and just like days gone by we will have moments like this all along the way.
profound and defining changes in the possibilities and potentials.
 
we'll see if these fellows want to discuss this claim on Monday?
I am intrigued
thx
Chet
 
 
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: MarkE on March 16, 2014, 05:02:16 AM
Mark
the collective works of men will build upon and improve that thing called science ,   hopefully forever more.
 
and just like days gone by we will have moments like this all along the way.
profound and defining changes in the possibilities and potentials.
 
we'll see if these fellows want to discuss this claim on Monday?
I am intrigued
thx
Chet
We have had and will continue to have lots of moments when the deluded and charlatans alike make absurdly ridiculous claims.  In the instant one we have a claim of matter / energy creation with absolutely no supporting evidence.  A smog test does not evaluate transmutation.  Nor does it evaluate claims of energy creation.  These guys are completely FoS.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: Newton II on March 16, 2014, 08:46:46 AM

Is it a confusion between Kg and litres?

http://www.rexresearch.com/kanarev/kanarev4.htm

Quote :

"One liter of hydrogen weighs 0.09 g; one liter of oxygen weighs 1.47 g. It means that it is possible to produce 111.11 / 0.09 = 1234.44 liters of hydrogen and 888.89 / 1.47 = 604.69 liters of oxygen from one liter of water. It appears from this that one gram of water contains 1.23 liters of hydrogen. Energy consumption for production of 1000 liters of hydrogen is 4 kWh and for one liter 4 Wh. As it is possible to produce 1.234 liters of hydrogen from one gram of water, 1.234 x 4 = 4.94 Wh is spent for hydrogen production from one gram of water now."


Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: MarkE on March 16, 2014, 09:10:03 AM
Is it a confusion between Kg and litres?

http://www.rexresearch.com/kanarev/kanarev4.htm

Quote :

"One liter of hydrogen weighs 0.09 g; one liter of oxygen weighs 1.47 g. It means that it is possible to produce 111.11 / 0.09 = 1234.44 liters of hydrogen and 888.89 / 1.47 = 604.69 liters of oxygen from one liter of water. It appears from this that one gram of water contains 1.23 liters of hydrogen. Energy consumption for production of 1000 liters of hydrogen is 4 kWh and for one liter 4 Wh. As it is possible to produce 1.234 liters of hydrogen from one gram of water, 1.234 x 4 = 4.94 Wh is spent for hydrogen production from one gram of water now."
No, because they directly state that they are getting 1kg of hydrogen from one liter of water which they acknowledge "even a fifth grader" knows contains only 112g of hydrogen.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: Newton II on March 16, 2014, 11:00:53 AM

No, because they directly state that they are getting 1kg of hydrogen from one liter of water


That can happen only if  water is recycled.  Becuase when hydrogen burns with oxygen,  it again produces water. 

Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: vineet_kiran on March 18, 2014, 10:27:55 AM
That can happen only if  water is recycled.  Becuase when hydrogen burns with oxygen,  it again produces water.

It means that you are just breaking the chemical bonds between hydrogen and oxygen by supplying energy and getting that energy back by again making the bonds between H2 and O2.
 
I feel that the bonds between  molecules can be broken by using only force without energy.  By using only force if you break the bonds between H2 and O2 in water, you will get free energy when they again burn to form water by making bonds again. Will not it be a simple method of converting force into energy?
 
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: Newton II on March 18, 2014, 12:34:17 PM
Yes.. it is possible.  But mechanical force straightaway cannot be applied on water.  You can apply force on water only in terms of pressure (force per unit area).

Water vapourizes under low pressure and it also vapourizes under high pressure at some specific temperature.  when water in a container is subjected to pressure using hot air,  portion of water vapourizes.  Since vapourized water is gas, it further rises the pressure inside the container causing more water to vapourize.  This process continuse causing a kind of 'vapour chain reaction'  releasing more and more water vapours and rising the pressure to a great extent.

Since P*V  (pressure multiplied by volume under temperature)  is energy,  some of the water vapours absorb this energy and get split into Hydrogen and oxygen.  You have to collect these gases in two separate containers using Graham's law of diffusion or you can burn hydrogen with oxygen by passing them through a burner.  The energy required to keep the air hot inside the container is very less compared to energy released when hydrogen burns with oxygen.

The main problem here is at some point the 'vapour chain reaction'  becomes uncontrollable and hydrogen formed inside the container burns there itself causing an explosion.

This method was actually tried by somebody and it had worked. But it caused an explosion killing a person. So, the local police siezed it and I don't know what happened afterwards.

This is a long time back incident (25 years ago).  I am searching the websites for this information without success.
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: lancaIV on March 22, 2014, 04:43:57 PM
Here some oficial statements from the Solarhydrogentrends staff :


http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/135-Solar-Hydrogen-Trends-Inc-Claims-Breakthrough-Hydrogen-Production-System-COP-400/


Siccerely
              OCWL
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: ramset on March 22, 2014, 05:50:57 PM
LancaIV

here is an entre' from your link     
 
 SolarHydrogenTrends (http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=6afc0f67&f=ecw&t_i=7500%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-catworld.com%2F%3Fp%3D7500&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-catworld.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsolar-hydrogen-trends-claims-breakthrough-hydrogen-production#) • 4 days ago (http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&disqus_version=6afc0f67&f=ecw&t_i=7500%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-catworld.com%2F%3Fp%3D7500&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-catworld.com%2F2014%2F03%2Fsolar-hydrogen-trends-claims-breakthrough-hydrogen-production#comment-1289453749)   
 
 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
Title: Re: Hydrogen Production Breakthrough
Post by: lancaIV on April 17, 2014, 02:13:32 PM
From Prof.Kanarev the "over"-in/out-unity factor :
http://www.pssurvival.com/ps/Electrolysis/Electrolisis_Of_Water_What_Voltage_2008.htm (http://www.pssurvival.com/ps/Electrolysis/Electrolisis_Of_Water_What_Voltage_2008.htm)

Thus, the voltmeter shows a capacitor charge voltage value, and the oscillograph shows a value of its recharge, which characterizes the energy consumed by the cell from the line. It appears from this that in order to calculate energy consumed by the low current electrolyzer cell from the line it is necessary to use voltage, which is registered not by the voltmeter, but by the oscillograph. As a result, energy consumption for hydrogen production from water in case of low current electrolysis are reduced not 12fold, but almost 2000fold.

from www.aveuropa.net (http://www.aveuropa.net) the HHO/Hydrogen/Browngas-2-electricity generator
http://www.vrenergie.com/index.php/wasserstoff-herstellung/hydrogen-energy-station-100-mw.html (http://www.vrenergie.com/index.php/wasserstoff-herstellung/hydrogen-energy-station-100-mw.html)
 ( correction:100 generators á 100KW = 10MW : not 100MW )
 


from www.ecoglobalfuels.com (http://www.ecoglobalfuels.com) the production costs compensation


COMPARISON and ECOGLOBAL SOLUTIONEGF process with Electricity @ $0.04 per kWh wholesale[/i]E.G.F. process costs 70 kWh per kg of Hydrogen.[/li]
[li]EGF also produced by-product 8 kg oxygen.[/li]
[li]Wholesale  electricity $0.04 per kWh.[/li]
[li]Hydrogen: $0.04 cents X 70 kWh = $2.80.[/li]
[li]Oxygen: 20 cents per kg (8 kg) wholesale = $1.60.[/li]
[li]E.G.F. process Carbon credits = $0.37 per kg Hydrogen[/li]
[li]FORMULA:Hydrogen $2.80 minus Oxygen $1.60 minus Carbon Credits 0.37[/li]
[li]EGF wholesale cost of making Hydrogen = $0.83 per kg Hydrogen[/li]
[li]MAKING this the cheapest hydrogen in the world[/li]

[li]           FORMULA with $   0,03
                                       $   0,02
                                       $   0,01  electricity KWh costs ?


                       : Hydrogen $  - Oxygen $ - Carbon credits $


and the Solarhydrogentrends-arguments will not be more fantastic !

                                Solarhydrogentrends
                        SHT-Reactor production costs:
               1,8US$/220KWh hydrogen = 0,0082 US$/ KWh hydrogen
                                  1 barrel ~ 1602 KWh
                                  $ 0,0082 X 1602 =

          $13,1  for 1 barrel hydrogen  Solarhydrogentrends
                                           versus


The cost of extracting shale gas with existing technology now stands at around $125 per thousand cubic metres (cbm), while the price of conventional gas in the US varies around $80 per 1,000cbm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Shale_gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Shale_gas)

                                               but               


                   $  6,0   for 1 bbl     gasoline    David Judbarovski
            or    $ 40,5  for 1000cbm natural gas (10.800 KWh) energetic equivalent
     
5. Potassium cycle to produce hydrocarbons from air, water and sunshine(1) 3 * [4 * K + CO2 = 2 * K2O + C + 333 kJ] (potassium burning in carbon dioxide)(2) 3 * [C + O2 = CO + 110 kJ] (carbon burning in the air)(3) 2 * [CO + H2O = (at less 800 C) = CO2 + H2 - 3.0 kJ](4) CO + 2 * H2 = CH2 + H2O + 240 kJ (Fischer-Tropsch at ~ 400 C)(5) 3 * [2 * K2O = K2O2 + 2 * K = 4 * K + O2 – 726 kJ] (thermolysis at ~ 400 C) If utilizing the heat of the exothermic reactions, we use 3 * (726 – 333 – 110) + 2 * 3 - 240 = 615 kJ per 1 mol of CH4 and we use 1 mol of CO too and a capital expenditures being a lion share taken by Fischer-Tropsch process that isn’t needed in costly pre-cleaning, because CO2 can extract from the air. It is by USD 4.5 per a ton of pure CO2 by my technologies offered earlier (see Chapter 4). So supposing capital expenditures as USD 20.0 per a ton of CH4, and very few high temperature heat and USD 0.001 per kWh of the middle temperature heat (see Chapter 1), so 1.0 ton of CH4 would be (0.001 * 620,000,000/3600 + 1 * 4.5 * 44) / 16 + 20 = USD 43.1, or USD 43.1 * 0.159 * 0.9 * 12/16 + 20 % for others = USD 6.0/bbl of oil being a tremendous achievement.
                           from this here :

05:42 pm March 9th, 2014 (http://l-Era (http://l-Era) of Renewables – 3, 2013yr.-Updated

David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/)

Introduction

Energy and production have to be and are ready to be green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible, while all materials and parts of equipments for that purpose can be recyclable.
Here below I intend to show it.
It is based on
(1) solar energy concentrator especially invented for producing of breakthrough cheap heat energy up to about 600 Centigrade and down to USD 0.001/kWh (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/89510.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/89510.html) );
(2) new type of electrochemical generators (ECG) invented for producing of breakthrough cheap electricity down to USD 0.0012/kWh using the above-mentioned extremely cheap heat energy for the said ECG recycling, can be without any interruption of the said ECG work (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84244.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84244.html) );
(3) method to produce very cheap high temperature energy down to USD 0.0015/kWh by using the said extremely cheap electricity (see: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84535.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84535.html) );
(4) technology to extract carbon dioxide from the air by breakthrough USD 2.0/ton CO2 if its 90% concentration, and the said CO2 further purification down to USD 4.5 per a ton of pure CO2 using the said extremely cheap high temperature energy (see: (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84925.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/84925.html) );
(5) potassium cycle process invented to produce extremely cheap hydrocarbons down to USD 6.0 /bbl o.e. (barrel of oil equivalent) using the said cheap heat energy and the said extremely cheap carbon dioxide, and water (see: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85188.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85188.html) );
(6) universal water purification/desalination technology as incredibly cheap as USD 0.05/m3 for green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible fresh clean water supply can be delivered to any point of Earth cheaply by extremely cheap energy (see: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/86261.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/86261.html) );
(7) plants’ farming using the said cheap concentrated carbon dioxide for the plants feeding that can sufficiently increase and cheapen the plants yield (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85523.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85523.html) );
( 8) microbiological technology using the said extremely cheap artificial hydrocarbons, e.g. methane, as raw material to produce industrially green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible meat products down to USD 0.02/kg from air, water and sunshine (see:http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85815.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/85815.html) );
All cost estimations were made by world market prices of 2013 yr. of materials and if used own mass industrial production of all equipments used for mass end product by them. The said equipments are especially designed to be not sophisticated, even very simple ones for all above-mentioned technologies disclosed here below.
In any case all that can be considered as “a roadmap” for skeptics.

1. Energy concentrator (SEC)
When investigating a preferable method by economics point of view, to transform solar energy into consume heat over 100 Centigrade or into electricity, every normal engineer can answer that it must be based on reflecting mirrors, not on photoelectric receiver. For non-normal people I can underline, that conclusion ensues from a cost of sq. meter of such mirrors being from some tens cents up to a few dollars, while for such cost we can buy some sq. centimeter of photovoltaic, i.e. it is some thousands more expensive. And it is principle proportion, not historical one.
I heart two contrary arguments.
The first was following: we are scientists, and cost matter is very vulgar for our subtle nature and for high science.
Another argument was, that solar energy is a very subtle nature for consume applying, because it is very unpredictable, and all science results in the field was obtained in conditions of “to catch the sun”, being a professional common term of people involved in the business.
But if
(1) solar concentrator being about 1 sq. meter,
(2) its focus being motionless,
(3) a distance from the focus to a collector of heat carrier being less 1 meter,
so being summarized, a cost of thermal insulation can be negligible share of a cost of consumed solar energy, and such system would be independent of variable solar irradiation, if being supported by heat storage supported by storage in a form of chemical energy for a case of long sunless weather.
Here just below I disclose such solar concentrating system, further accompanied with direct calculation of its cost and consume economics.
The said concentrator is quite small, e. g for 1 m2 of solar flux, and consists of a pair of mirrors. One of them serves to redirect solar beams to another being a Fresnel concentrator. Each of them is a cocoon made of foils of PET at its front side and Al-foils at its other sides and serve to protect its reflector placed inside the cocoon against degradation, dirties, air precipitation and wind load.
The first reflector is planar, is stretched on a steel frame, and comprises a thin PET sheet laminated by very thin reflecting cover.
The Fresnel reflector is more sophisticated device. It is reflective concentric blunted cones of revolution, and is made of aluminum foil of 40 microns thickness by simple punching and then that flat pieces are rolled to form such cones. The smaller base of each cone is saw-shape, and it allows such cones to be fixed to an aluminum thin flat base of 40 micron thickness by bending, inserting and slightly pressing by fingers. The said flat base is placed vertically and it is motionless when operate, because the said Fresnel concentrator is motionless too. Small flections of the said base being induced by a very small weight of the said fixed cones, is compensated by stretching the said base on steel frame.
Both the planar reflector and the Fresnel reflector divide their cocoons into two cameras being pneumatically jointed each other by peripheral holes.
Each of the said mirrors has a pedestal, and the said planar mirror is moved around a ball and socket joint fixed to the middle of the said planar reflector and by a short console to the pedestal too, and controlled by a system of thin wires, rollers for them and micro-motors. The said planar mirror position can be precisely controlled by an optical sensor and a microcontroller, and the both can be extremely cheap, small and simple, because the said Fresnel concentrator and its focus are motionless.
The said SEC of 1.0 m2 of solar flux, is made of
(a) PET foils (1.25 * 1.25 m2 + 1.4 m2 * 2) * 20 micron * 1.4) of 153 gram by USD 0.77 totally;
(b) Aluminum foils (2 * 1.25 * 1.25 m2 * 40 micron + (4 * 1.4 * 0.2 m2 + 4 * 1.25 * 0.2 + 1.4 * 1.4 + 1.25 * 1.25) *10 micron) * 2.7) of 490 gram by USD 1.47 totally;
(c) two pedestals of steel tubes (d=2.8 cm, thickness = 0.28 cm) by USD 1.6 totally;
(d) cocoons’ frames of 16 steel bars of 160 gram each and USD 1.5 totally;
(e) control system: sensor plus microcontroller by about USD 0.5 + micro-motors by USD 1.5 + thin wires by USD 0.8 + rollers by USD 0.4 + ball and socket joint by USD 0.5, and by USD 3.7 totally.
So the said SEC is USD 9.0 + ~ 20% = ~ USD 10.0 per 1 m2 of direct solar flux being about 2000 kWh for southern regions.
All material and parts of the SEC can serve 5-10 years and are recyclable.
So our SEC can produce heat energy up to about 600 Centigrade (see {93}-p.121) by
USD 10.0/ (2000 kWh* 5 -10 yrs.) = USD 0.0005-0.001/kWh and even less (QED!).
For moderate climate regions it would be about 25% more expensive.

2. New type of electrochemical generator (ECG)

ABSTRACT
Metal-hydrogen electrochemical generators (ECG) and nitrogen ones (e.g. Li-N, Zn-H etc.) can be promising in terms of possibility to be thermal recycled, and of some other surprises. The hydride/nitride if having a density, sufficiently differs from electrolyte density, and if not being adhesive to cathode or to a special cover on the cathode, by gravitational force the said hydride/nitride pops-up above the electrolyte or settles to the bottom, and then goes for recycling. So we haven’t to care to have very porous structure of cathode to increase a power density, and we weaken a terrible problem of collection of non-conductive product on the cathode and inside its pores. So we can create a device with very high energy effectiveness of ECG-s, but with very high energy- and power density of heat engine, but consuming any combustible or another heat as energy source.

I can suppose some metal-hydrogen electrochemical generators (ECG) and metal-nitrogen ones can be promising in terms of possibility to be thermal recycled, and of some other surprises. It can be Li-N or Zn-H and they are far not only variants. That idea goes back to my potassium-oxygen ECG, when oxidation process and recycling go at quite suitable temperatures. Now it is a metal oxidation by hydrogen or by nitrogen followed by parallel recycling by thermolysis of hydride/nitride inside separate vessel, while the thermolysis products being the metal and hydrogen/nitrogen are returned in anode and to cathode correspondingly.
By that trick we can create a device with very high energy effectiveness of ECG-s, but being extremely small and cheap and being able to consume any combustible or another heat as energy source.
My concept can allow the anode to be with relatively high melting point too vs. melting points of its hydride/nitride and electrolyte. Really, we can melt the metal after recycling in separate vessel and then to pump it to anode and to be crystallized on it from its end to compensate consume of it when it operates.
My ECG conception vs. rechargeable battery has very unexpected advantage can
open new class of electrochemical generators, including new interpretation of well known ones!!! Really, in my case the hydride/nitride if having a density sufficiently differ from electrolyte density, and if not being adhesive to cathode or to a special cover on the cathode, by gravitational force the said hydride/nitride is pops-up above the electrolyte or settles to the bottom and then goes for recycler. So being not adhesive to the cathode, we haven’t to care to have very porous structure of cathode to increase a power density, and we weaken a terrible problem of collection of non-conductive product on the cathode and inside its pores.
I can renounce of necessity of a product of electrochemistry to be melted at a fuel cell temperature, or to be dissolved in the electrolyte.
For example, the solid LiH pops-up on the electrolyte operates at room temperature but under a pressing. Then LiH can be simply and continuously pumped out for following thermolysis into the Li and hydrogen, when the Li can be return into anode. The said hydrogen goes to a storage vessel and further goes to cathode. It can be quite small vessel. Moreover it eliminates a heavy problem of constant and precise drying, cleaning and expensive production of the said hydrogen.
For Li-H ECG, theoretically by Faraday’s law the energy density is 11.64 kWh/kg Li being more than 3.85 kWh/kg, follows from thermodynamics, and if we suppose 10 minutes cycle for our non-stop process, it is 3.85 * 60’/10’ = 23 kW/kg Li, or 162 kW/kg H independent of mileage, so if a electric motor of 190 kW, so we can use 190/23 = 8.26 kg Li and 1180 g H to satisfy the engine power.
So it is normal 22.4 * 1180/2 = 13.2 n. cubic meter H, or 200 liter at 66 bar, and for pressing we have to consume about 13.2 * 100 * ln 66 / 600 sec = 9.2 kW, or about 5 % of the electric car’s power.
We can consider some other reasonable candidates to be used as an anode, e.g. potassium, sodium, calcium, iron, zinc, strontium, magnesium, but I can think the lithium is best of them. Now it can be looked as: Na-H, K-H, Li-H, Li-N, Sr-H, Ca-H, Mg-H, Fe-H, Zn-H, Z-N, or zinc (H, N), litheum (H, N), magnesium (H), iron (H), strontium (H), calcium (H), sodium (H), potassium (H), see detailed survey in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/67094.html (http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/67094.html)
For many cases of them and taken in mind their high energy efficiency up to more then 90%, and the reachable cost of heat energy shown in Chapter 1, we can produce electricity down to USD 0.0005-0.001/0.8 = USD 0.0006-0.0012/kWh (QED!!!)
For moderate climate regions it would be about 25% more expensive.

3. Method to produce very cheap high temperature energy

Reachable very cheap cost of electricity shown in chapter 2, gives a possibility to produce very cheap high temperature energy if using transformers of the said electricity into head. It can be very energy effective and quite reliable and durable and not expensive transformers, e. g magnetrons with effectiveness up to 80% and cost down to about USD 50.0 per kW.

4. Breakthrough cheap carbon dioxide extracted from air

If being maximally cheapened, the carbon dioxide extracted from air would be a key element of industrial green & cheap & abundant & inexhaustible production.
Below I intend to show a technology looked me very promising for it by its cost & simplicity points of view.
At first, the air is bubbled through a optimal chosen liquid hydrocarbons’ solvent, and the air’s carbon dioxide is dissolved in it up to quite high concentration, even if normal pressure and temperature, while air’s nitrogen and oxygen being extremely poorly soluble in it, so in such solution we can obtain a content’s ratio of carbon dioxide to nitrogen/oxygen more than 10 to 1. After that we can heat a little such solution, so we can obtain high concentrated gaseous carbon dioxide, and then the said solvent can be condensed and cooled by ambient air to be ready to repeat such procedure. For example, if such solution was heated from 22 Centigrade to 60 C, so consume of the heat would be approximately 2.22 * (60-22) * 1000 /3600 = 23.5 kWh of heat to produce about 6.0 m3 of CO2, or 12 kg per 1 m3 of the solvent. So carbon dioxide cost can be estimated taking in mind chapter 1, to be 0.001 USD/ kWh * 2,000 kWh = US$ 2.0 per a ton of CO2 of quite high concentration, and if needed it can be cheaply converted in pure CO2 chemically by reaction with aqueous solution of Ca(OH)2, then can be thermally split into CaO and CO2.
If supposed breakthrough cheap cost of high temperature heat energy (see Chapter 3), for reaction temperature heated up to 900 C it consumes with 90 % heat recuperation 0.1 * 900 * 81 = 7 kJ/mol of CO2, and for chemistry 177 kJ/mol, so in sum it is 184 * 10 ^6/44/3600 = 1160 kWh/ton of CO2 = 1160 * 0.001/0.8/0.8 USD/kWh = US$ 1.8/ton
Totally, the carbon dioxide would be (2.0 + 1. 8) + 10% = US$ 4.5/ton

5. Potassium cycle to produce hydrocarbons from air, water and sunshine

(1) 3 * [4 * K + CO2 = 2 * K2O + C + 333 kJ] (potassium burning in carbon dioxide)
(2) 3 * [C + O2 = CO + 110 kJ] (carbon burning in the air)
(3) 2 * [CO + H2O = (at less 800 C) = CO2 + H2 - 3.0 kJ]
(4) CO + 2 * H2 = CH2 + H2O + 240 kJ (Fischer-Tropsch at ~ 400 C)
(5) 3 * [2 * K2O = K2O2 + 2 * K = 4 * K + O2 – 726 kJ] (thermolysis at ~ 400 C)
If utilizing the heat of the exothermic reactions, we use 3 * (726 – 333 – 110) + 2 * 3 - 240 = 615 kJ per 1 mol of CH4 and we use 1 mol of CO too and a capital expenditures being a lion share taken by Fischer-Tropsch process that isn’t needed in costly pre-cleaning, because CO2 can extract from the air. It is by USD 4.5 per a ton of pure CO2 by my technologies offered earlier (see Chapter 4). So supposing capital expenditures as USD 20.0 per a ton of CH4, and very few high temperature heat and USD 0.001 per kWh of the middle temperature heat (see Chapter 1), so 1.0 ton of CH4 would be (0.001 * 620,000,000/3600 + 1 * 4.5 * 44) / 16 + 20 = USD 43.1, or USD 43.1 * 0.159 * 0.9 * 12/16 + 20 % for others = USD 6.0/bbl of oil being a tremendous achievement.

6. Universal water purification & transportation technology

ABSTRACT
Cost of water supply consists of the water cost plus a transportation of the water. Oceans/seas water is abundant & inexhaustible source for its treatment into fresh clean water.
My water purification technology can be applied for avoiding all dissolved solids, solid and semi-solid impurities from the water treated.
Wholesale cost of our water treated & transported up to 1500 km would be less than USD 0.20/m3 being comparable with countries that rich of natural clean fresh water sources, so the water consume can be unlimited and cheap practically for any point of Earth, now suffering of lack of fresh clean water, moreover we can restore most of water reservoirs now dirtied and poisoned, and make it by very cheap and quick way.

They are known numerous quite cheap and energy effective systems of thermal water purification being evaporation cameras (EC) and condensation cameras (CC) are jointed each other by thermal conductive walls in counter-flow mode. The main disadvantage of most of them is its operating pressure being sufficiently not the normal one. It sufficiently increases a weight and capital cost of such equipments.
Here the water purification is carried out at normal pressure, because the said cameras have much bigger cross-section and have much bigger heat transfer area at their hot end than at their cold end, and the fresh portions of the treated water are sprayed into drops by split up feeding mode controlled to keep the said normal pressure and to control heat flow through the walls. Such pairs of EC & CC are jointed in series each other with thin thermal conductive walls shared.
Heat flow through the said system is supported by temperature differential on each of the said walls. A heat released by condensation practically fully transferred to an EC of a neighboring pair of EC & CC. The hot water condensate after each pair of EC & CC can be used for pre-heating of the water that goes for the evaporation.
The EC of first pair of the EC & CC is heated by initial heat can be the heat of condensation of water vapor too.
I have supposed a payback period being 5 years, the initial vapor in its input end is 200.0 C, each temperature differential is 2.0 C, each cold end of CC-s and EC-s is 100.0 C, and 20 stages (i.e. a number of pairs of EC & CC) of our multistage process, supposing a coefficient of convective heat transfer to be 10.000 for drops evaporation/condensation, vapor flow velocity at the said hot ends to be 2.0 m/s for the water purification system consists of 2 subsystem, each of 30 million ton per a year, and my results were following ({98}-(10)), while my calculation weren’t optimized and for simplicity were quite approximate.
The water treatment plant is 400 m length, 70 m width, 20 m height, when at hot ends vapor was saturated at the said normal pressure.
Because of normal operational pressure, the said heat transfer walls can be maid of Al-foil of very small thickness of 20 micron (US cent 2.5/m2), and their total share in a cost of end product would be negligible.
A share of thermal insulation of outer walls of the said plant in a cost of the end product would be negligible too (about US cent 0.03/ton).
Share of fans and pumping and their energy is extremely negligible.
If initial heat is very cheap (USD 0.001/kWh – see Chapter 1), it is only sufficient share in a cost and is USD 0.04 per 1.0 ton of purified water as the end product.
The only problem could be looked, it is to convert cheaply unpredictable solar energy of such low cost into uninterrupted power source. It isn’t serious problem in a light of technology disclosed in Chapter 2, because we can convert effectively the heat energy into cheap chemical energy storage being by all points of view much better than thermal energy storage, and cost of it had been pre-assumed by adding of 20%.

If 1500 km transportation of 10 m3/s of water through tubes of 2 m diameter (320 million ton annually per a tube), it would be needed about 250,000 kW for pumping, or about 2.5 milliard kWh per a year, by 0.12 cent/kWh if using my thermally recyclable fuel cells invented (see Chapter 2), so USD 2,750,000/320 million ton = 0.94 cent/m3 for energy.
Such tube cost would be about USD 250 million, or USD 0.75/m3, or if 6 years payback, it is 12.5 cent/m3.
Totally it is 0.94(energy) + 12.5(tube) + 5.0 (water purification) = 18.5 cent/m3 + 15% = ~ 20 cent/m3, while its waste water can be purified by about the same 5.0 cents/m3 saving the said long transportation expenditures, so our water cost would be comparable with countries that rich of natural clean fresh water sources.
Really, our water consume can be unlimited and cheap practically for any point of Earth, now suffering of lack of fresh clean water, moreover we can restore water reservoirs now dirtied and poisoned by very cheap and quick way. QED!

7. Method to increase and to cheapen of plants’ productivity

Feeding of plants by breakthrough cheap carbon dioxide concentrated from the air.

Only the enough cheap carbon dioxide for additional feeding of plants can be profitable farm technology. My method (see Chapter 4) to concentrate the carbon dioxide up to 90% from the air is about USD 2.0/ton of CO2. The criteria of profitability in that case is y*Y*c > eq/t,
here y – yield increasing, Y-ordinary yield (kg/m2), c-cost of the farm production (USD/kg), eq-capital cost of the feeding equipments, t-the said equipments durability.
For majority of plants and farm sites it can be very profitable business.

8. Meat produced from Air, Water and Sunshine

Present scientists and process engineers are concerned by a problem of eco-friendly & not expensive and satisfactory alternative to fossil hydrocarbons being now as a blood for our life and economics. Huge mass of agriculture products is devoured as a biomass for the alternative fuels production, and this entails serious rise of food prices, foods’ deficit in the world, and soil depletion.
Here I intend to look at the problem from reverse side, and to prove that present science and technologies are ready, without any detriment to the fuels supply for energy needs, to use hydrocarbons as nutrition for chemotrophic bacteria as a producer of biomass then can be remade in eco-friendly & extremely cheap & high-quality meat products in abundant & inexhaustible quantities.
It isn’t a wishful thinking, but based on following premises. I’ll comment a list of them shortly.
(1) Methane can be both energy and nutrition sole source for the so-called Methanotrophs, and a dry biomass of the said bacteria typically comprises 60-80% by the weight crude protein, 5-20% - crude fat, 3-15% nucleic acids (RNA and DNA), 2-10% ash, and plenty share of phosphorus, iron and cupper. Preferably, the biomass will comprise ~ 70% crude protein, ~10% -crude fat, ~10% nucleic acids, ~7% - ash, and P, Fe, Cu. It is very promising by its food quality vs. consume meats, e.g. beef is 60% -protein, 35%-fat, bacon is 35% -protein, 62% -fat, veal is 90% - protein, 5.5% -fat, all those if excluding their water (up to 78% depended on kind of meat).
(2) Methane is very excellent in the terms of its chemical potential and its microbiological industry perspective in terms of carbon & hydrogen contents’ compactness as both energy and nutrient sources, and of high yield.
(3) Synthetic methane can be competitively produced from air and water and sunshine, and it isn’t a joke, but quite safety estimated business based on conventional technologies and apparatus. The technology was developed by British company of Air Fuel Synthesis. See also a report of Department of Energy (USA) DOE-Energy Innovation Hub-Fuel from Sunshine (DE-FOA-0000214) named “Closing the Carbon Cycle: Liquid Fuels from Air, Water and Sunshine”, Claus S. Lackner et al. (Columbia University et al.).
(4) Such technology was sufficiently upgraded by me, and the said methane can be about US$ 6.0/barrel oil equivalent (see Chapter 5), or can be US$ 55.0/ton at world prices conjuncture of 2013 yr., and using 40,000 sq. km of arid lands for all present mankind’s fuel consume.
(5) 1.0 ton of the methane is enough to produce industrially about 1.0 ton of the said Methanotrophs dry biomass by conventional and very cheap apparatus, so if adding 20% to its cost and water it would be about US$ 20.0 per a ton of consume meat well imitated, or 2.0 cents/kg !!!).
In summary, by the way we can supply meat of natural quality for all mankind now living on the Earth (200 kg per capita annually) by 2.0 cent/kg from air, water and sunshine, i.e. unlimited resources, by eco-friendly manner, consuming for the meat production 1500 sq. km of arid lands, or each sq. meter of production area can create more than 1000 kg/year of the meat products.[/color][/color][/size]