Re: H2 burner

On Jun 14, 6:51 pm, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.


And accurate.


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.

Obviously.


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?  

I'm at about 16% of the limit for this material.

How much precision is possible with a PET
hot press molded shape?  

Well, one can go through the relevant optical calculations, but since
we can't even get heat engines right, around here, lets take another
route.

Consider a hot press molded package, or a blow molded water bottle.
They're both very shiny, and smooth and attractive as packaging
material because of that. PET is a preferred packaging material
because of its optical qualities. This derives from their optically
smooth surface. Plain polyethelyne is dull by comparison - that's
because the surface is not optically smooth. Obviously, they're
precise enough.

I don't know the answer but that sounds like
a potential design challenge.

Because you don't know, you can't really say - you are merely looking
for roadblocks in an effort to sound smart - as a consequence you
reveal your ignorance. On the positive side, you openly admit your
ignorance which makes you easier to take than others who don't admit
such, or worse yet, aren't even aware of what they do not know.

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.

No, *** you for gratuitously calling me a liar. I have given you
quality references and valid logic for every step along the way I have
published in patent form much of my work and you out of the blue call
me a liar. The only appropriate response to someone who gratuitously
calls me a liar is *** you - I mean you don't have evidence what I
say isn't real. You feel discomforted by my claims. That's
understandable. That's your problem not mine.

 You haven't provided any third party confirmation that
your claims are true.

I have patents. How is the USPTO not a third party?

 All we have is you saying that you invented
this device that can do these things,

I have patents. Go to the USPTO web site type in Mook and Solar and
see.

but there are no photos,

go to http://www.usoal.com and fill out the contact information and
ask for photos I will send you some.

no test
results,

I will send these, or you can review my patents which include test
results of test units.

no articles anywhere.

http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp

Please see the 7th article from the top - I don't know why news
organizations ignore me while giving obvious charlatans top billing -
that's not my problem, and fortunately, I'm not dependent on publicity
to fund my projects.

I would be a fool not to be somewhat
skeptical.

You worry about being made out to be a fool - this is a ommon concern
when dealing with new ideas. This is your problem, not mine.

 That said, I *hope* your claims are true.

I understand, but just because you lack the innate capacity to figure
this out for yourself does not give you the right to call me a liar.



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.

They have. Sarah Kurtz came out about 10 years ago to my lab, and
interviewed me, she offered me an SBIR grant for $250,000 - I said I
was spending $250,000 per month - and didn't need that kind of
money. She did set up the first CPV conference after talking with me
- that only created a half dozen competitors - it didn't do much for
me.

 I would think that after a demonstration they would be
throwing money at you.

Money is not an issue for me. Projects are.

The money DOE has to throw at me is very inadequate to my needs.
Since I am pretty well off due to other invenstions o fmine (computer
based cash register, sporting products, etc.) I really can't use the
amounts of money they have to spend. I am at a point now where I am
sponsoring major energy projects overseas - which will result in the
sort of business structure I seek.



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.  

Yes I have.

Here is what I suggest: Post some photos and test
results of the device on your website.  

No, I have posted information in my patents - anyone who wants more
must fll out contact information and I will send them information in
response to such requests.

Demonstrate a prototype to
some journalists

Why?

and get the story written up.  

Why? When I invented my golf ball that changed color, I sent a
single press release to the major newspapers, and the New York Times
and Wall Street Journal and USA Today ALL published articles about
it. When I signed a $600 million deal in Indonesia creating the
world's largest solar energy project to make oil from coal with zero
emissions - every newspaper in Asia published it - NO ONE in the USA
published anything. A reporter from the New York Times and the Wall
Street Journal interviewed me for two days when I was in New York to
talk to Chase about $70 million loan against the project, and stories
were written. Guess what? Both stories got pulled before they ran-
much to the chagrin of the reporters who spent a few days interviewing
me.

What's up with that?

No one knows. No one has published anyting about my efforts since
then.

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.

I understand, but your beliefs are your problem, not mine, and not a
sound basis to call me a liar.

 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.

That's not true, obvious charlatans get half hour specials on the
Science Channel - while my projects and programs get no mention at
all. Obviously, workability is not a criterion for publicity.
Plainly, painting everyone with an alternative idea as a crackpot or
too expensive feathers the interests of major oil producers - while
showing a feasible serious sober low-cost alternative obviously does
not.

 Hence my skepticism.

Your skepticism is based on your inabilities, so they're your
problem. They don't give you a right to call me a liar.

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.  

So, you knowingly quoted figures you KNEW were out of date just to
make it SEEM like my claims were outrageous? Wow. Now I know the
kind of guy I'm dealing with.

I'm following
this stuff as a hobby in my spare time.  

Your level of knowledge is on par with most people who are not expert
in the field, but what I would call an intelligent layman. Investors,
banks, and so forth, have similar concerns - they don't want to be
made a fool of - and so, they come up with very similar objections.
Objections I can't think of, but which you can. Answering your
objections helps me answer serious objections that are equally ill
informed. See?

I'm not claiming to have any
cutting edge knowledge of it.

Again, you waxed poetic about how impossibly highly efficient my
system was compared to any reasonable efficiencies you've EVER heard
of. That's pretty damning of me. It doesn't leave you much wiggle
room. I mean, you NEVER even hinted that you might be wrong or that
the information was out of date.

Obviously, 55% is less than the best thermo-electro-chemical water
decomosition unit out there, and my claims of achieving it, are not
impossibly high.

 If you want to get people excited,

I don't want to attract negative attention from the majors. I spoke
with Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania about a factory I was
building in his State - employing 690 people. He got all excited by
my vision of US energy independence. He flew to Washington to talk to
the Democratic leadership about my vision. I was conferenced in on
some very exciting calls. The very next day Lee Raymond, then CEO of
Exxon went on Nightline and said this recent talk in Washington of the
USA being independent of foreign sources of energy was poppy***! The
USA doesn't have the resources to be independent at any reasonable
cost - and the sooner the politicians in Washington understand that
the better off we'll all be! Governor Rendell wanted to know what I
thought of this? I said if I owned 10 billion barrels of oil in the
Middle East I would have the same advice for America. The question
leaders have to ask themselves, is shoudl we believe Lee Raymond's
advice? In the following months from July through November, a large
number of articles appeared in Forbes, everywhere, detailing all the
'reasonable' alternatives and why anything other than oil from the
Middle East was ludicrous. Suipport evaporated.

I work with Accenture, they felt at that time that I had gotten just
the faintest 'negative attention' of the majors. They helped arrange
meetings with CEOs of Exxon, BP, Shell ... and their boards, and
technical committees.. This resulted in ultimately me being invited
to the White House and Capitol Hill. In the end, they're very
concerned with market stability and the value of existing reserves to
their stockholders. Fact is, the ability to convert 5.5 billion tons
of coal and 1.2 billion tons of natural gas to 53 billion barrels of
oil each year - to add to the 28.3 billion barrels of extracted oil
each year - has the potential to undermine the value of the 900
billion barrels of oil reserves world wide knocking prices back to MY
cost of production - which is $8.57 per barrel. My cost since its
higher than the cost of pumping oil out of the ground.

Now, at $100 per barrel - 900 billion barrels remaining have a value
of about $90 trillion. At $10 per barrel this oil has a value of
about $9 trillion. this $87 trillion differential is subtracted from
the CREDIT RATING of the oil rich kingdoms - and the major oil
companies.

Their debt to equity ratio ranges from 30% to 70% - reducing the value
of their asset base to 10% to 20% - would BANKRUPT ALL OF THEM
IMMEDIATELY.

This concerns them and our government.

It is also a big stick our governmetn could weild to get oil prices in
line - hence the basis of what I urged the Congress and the White
House to do back in 2004.


show
your invention and demonstrate to the public

Please read my patents

or the media

The Western media attended my press conference in Jakarta - they
merely failed to publish it.

that it
works.  

I am sponsoring 8 projects - I will be doing something this year that
should garner some publicity.

Just you writing about it isn't enough.- Hide quoted text -

You misapprehend why I write here. I understand you'd like to believe
and you feel foolish if I'm trying to fool you - but please understand
that is your problem - I have no problems.


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.