Re: H2 burner

On Jun 13, 10:31 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:59 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 11, 9:55 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 11, 12:02 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Williamknowsbest" <William.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ebe75388-e9d6-466f-a157-e0c8a403b07e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyone who visits my web site and fills out the contact information
may request information including such photos.
http://www.usoal.com

Nice business.
Must be raking in money.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Its highly leveraged at present - so, like Churchill I find I must
rely on allies I don't particularly trust or like!  lol.  But we will
prevail, that's for sure.

Hey William, have you seen this paper?

http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm

Please check out a more reliable source

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Schultz.pdf


Thanks. Thats a very interesting link.


They describe a direct-thermal solar to hydrogen process where they
achieved 1 to 2% efficiency.  

Interesting.  Thermal cycles using nuclear or solar sources have
demonstrated over 60% efficiency.  I have a hybrid cycle using sulfide/
sulfate - that is 55% efficient.

The interesting part was the section
near the end talking about efficiencies of various methods.

The Stanford paper is a more reliable source of information.

Probably more up to date. I don't remember seeing a date on the one I
posted a link to, but apparently the state of the art has progressed
since.

Apparently, the solar-to-hydrogen efficiency obtained using silicon
photovoltaic cells and an alkaline electrolyzer is about 6%.  

That efficiency has been achieved certainly.   Is it the highest
efficiency possible?  No.   As I said, I have a hybrid system that is
55% efficient, which is less than the peak of 60% - however, my system
is the lowest cost per watt.

The
conversion efficiency for a solar dish Stirling generator combined
with an alkaline electrolyzer is 19%.  

Stanford and General Atomics report 60% efficiency - my system is only
55% efficient, but has the lowest cost per watt of any other system.

The long term solar-to-hydrogen
efficiency goal established by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory is 25%.

This was true 20 years ago.  That value has been exceeded recently by
more than double.

Now you come along and say you can achieve 55% thermodynamic
efficiency

Yes.  Its a hybrid cycle - involving BOTH eletrolytic process and heat
with a sulfide/sulfate process.

with a device that is relatively inexpensive to boot.  

Yes.  The MEMs PV/Electrolysis 'dot' unit is 0.775 cents  per square
millimeter ($547 per 300 mm wafer) and operates at 2500x solar
intensity -which means a square meter of collector contains 400 sq mm
and  adds $3.10 per square meter to panel system cost.

How much precision do you need to get the 2500X light beam to hit
right on the little dot? How much precision is possible with a PET
hot press molded shape? I don't know the answer but that sounds like
a potential design challenge.

The lenses consist of 2 sheets of 100 micron thick PET hot press
molded into lens shapes - and bonded together in a water bath to
encase water - which is the lens medium.   The focal point is inside
the lens medium.   The water also reacts at the dot when illuminated.

A square meter of two PET films each 100 microns thick  contains 200
cc of PET massing 350 grams costing 0.15 cents per gram totalling
$0.53 per square meter.   Water cost is nil.   Total cost is $3.63 per
square meter.   At 1,000 watts per square meter solar influx, and 55%
efficiency, this generates 550 watts for $3.63 - which 0.726 cents per
peak watt.

This is just the cost of the solar panel.  The entire system - runs on
average $0.07 per peak watt - which is expected to drop to $0.02 per
peak watt as volume increases.

Your
efficiency is more than double the long term goal.  

Long term goal 20 years ago has been doubled recently - you are
absolutely right.   I would suggest you read a more current, and more
reliable source of information - such as Stanford and General Atomics
and current DOE literature.

This seems like a
huge breakthrough.  

It builds on a number of improvements.

As long as you have your designs protected by
patents, why don't you publish some results in a peer-reviewed
journal?  

They already have been published as you can see in my reference.

You say you don't like the allies you have to rely on.  

They're the best ones I have - hell, sometimes, I don't even like my
kids - that doesn't mean I don't love them and cherish them.

If
this breakthrough is real

*** you.

Easy killer. You haven't provided any third party confirmation that
your claims are true. All we have is you saying that you invented
this device that can do these things, but there are no photos, no test
results, no articles anywhere. I would be a fool not to be somewhat
skeptical. That said, I *hope* your claims are true.

you should be sharing the news of it with
the world.  

I have - the world has uniformly ignored it in the West.   Not so in
Asia.

People and politicians are hungry for this sort of
technical breakthrough.  

Yes.  But not the major energy companies - which fund most of the
research and direct most of the capital in the world.

I find it hard to imagine that the DOE wouldn't take interest in your
invention. I would think that after a demonstration they would be
throwing money at you.


If you want allies you need to to let people
know and convince them that this is real.  

What would you suggest?   I have done as you suggest.

No you haven't. Here is what I suggest: Post some photos and test
results of the device on your website. Demonstrate a prototype to
some journalists and get the story written up. I find it hard to
believe that something that could potentially be an important solution
to the worlds energy problems would not attract the attention of
western journalists. Your claim that you have been uniformly ignored
in the West only seems possible if you don't really have anything real
to show them. Hence my skepticism.


A usenet newsgroup is
probably not the most efficient forum to spread the word.- Hide quoted text -

I am not here to spread the word - I am here for other reasons. One
for example is to guage the level of ignorance among people who THINK
they are up to date - people like yourself - before learning this is
money meetings.

Funny, I never remember claiming that I was up to date. I'm following
this stuff as a hobby in my spare time. I'm not claiming to have any
cutting edge knowledge of it. If you want to get people excited, show
your invention and demonstrate to the public or the media that it
works. Just you writing about it isn't enough.



.