Re: H2 burner

On Jun 14, 8:53 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

This isn't an optics issue its a manufacturing issue. What kind of
tolerances do you need and what kind of tolerances can the process
provide with mass production.

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.  

Bill what crawled up your ass? Qualifying my statement with an "if"
is not calling you a liar. It is just reflecting the fact that you
have *not* provided proof that what you invented is real. Calling you
a liar would be stating that I *know* you did not invent what you say
you did. I am not making that statement. If you can't see that then
you are just a belligerent ass who is sorely lacking in people
skills. Starting in with the "*** you" is pretty damn immature and
does not help make your case.

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.

I like your claims. They would make the world a better place. It
nice to see that someone has the vision and skills to pursue such
things. When I see third party verification that your claims are true
I will feel better still.

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

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

Bill, I am an engineer and I have a patent (hopefully the first of
many) so I am well aware of what the USPTO requires. They don't
require a working prototype. They don't require test results. They
care if the idea is unique. They don't make sure it works as
claimed. Having a patent means *nothing* in terms of proving whether
your invention works. Of course you already knew that.

 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.

Thats great. Now how about something that proves the idea works.


but there are no photos,

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

I might do that but I'm not sure why you don't just put the photos up
for all to see.


no test
results,

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

no articles anywhere.




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.

I am not worried about being a fool. I am justing pointing out that
only a fool would not be skeptical. But you already know that.


 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.

Bill, why don't you buy yourself a dictionary and get back to me when
find the definition for "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.

If you have test results by a reputable lab to show, why they hell
would you only let them out on a per request basis? I would have that
*** plastered all over my website. "Look at me, I'm real."


Demonstrate a prototype to
some journalists

Why?

So people believe you. Why do you think we have journalists? Anyone
can make claims. If a journalist reports it he or she is putting
their professional reputation on the line that the reported facts are
true.


.