Posts by Alan Smith

Quote from Zeus46

Roger Barker RIP. I for one will miss your unique take on the art and science of improper calorimetry.

FTFY.

Only if it works and continues to work reliably.

Hi Nigel.

Thank you for your kind words. At the moment we are ok for cash thank you. If it all works out as I hope then we can begin a very serious pro-bono research programme.

Quote from axil

. You can seek to keep pace by doing less posting and more studying.

I would recommend that course of action.

Quote from axil

If not, at least I hope you don't drag down LION's progress in this area.

Dear oh dear.

It seems that axil is progressing from particles to cavities. I hesitate to speculate about what comes next.

Just provide me one proof that a macroscopic cavity CAN be a Casimir (note capital 'C' it is a proper noun) cavity instead of asking me to prove a negative.

Only by reading the papers to you. The dimensions of all the containment are described, boring I know, but true.

Quote from axil

It is my conjecture that the EVO is based on photon containment (containment of light) in a cavity rather that electrons.

There is no cavity, of Casimir dimensions, anyway.

Max Nozin Nowhere near. Ton for ton cans contain as much hydrogen energy as crude oil. And crude oil yields around 50% gasoline by weight. But they also displace another 1/2 ton or so of crude oil that would be used to mine, refine and ship the 2.5 tons of aloxite we can make from the cans. Don't get blindsided by the nearly free hydrogen - the very high-grade aloxite is the most valuable product the process produces

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Anything related to this? https://www.newscientist.com/a…on-demand-just-add-water/

Not even a kissing cousin. The devil is in the detail, nano-aluminium which they are using is a a very expensive product, probably $10k/tonne. especially when you add gallium (and possibly bismuth) to is as these guys must do. And when you have produced the very expensive hydrogen you have a difficult and expensive clean-up to do on the sludge, There are a few systems like this around, but with the hydrogen costing around $100/kilo they are only of interest to the military, who can just throw the crap over the nearest hedge, and need fuel 'at any cost'.

Thank you Shane.

Nobody has done this trick before, unless they use micronised Al powder and some fairly expensive and nasty chemicals. On a bigger scale, reducing scrap cans to hydrogen and sodium aluminate with sodium hydroxide is trivial chemistry. But the sodium aluminate you end up with requires extensive and expensive post-processing to make it useable for almost anything. Doing it with nothing but hot water and recoverable catalyst is a game changer, since our pre and post-processing systems are easy and low energy. That's because 'there's no crap in there'. No lacquer dioxins and no sodium. No plant emissions at all and a COP of around 8.5 in terms of electrical energy in vs hydrogen energy out.

It has been 3+ years extensive study and experiment for me and a colleague, plus a number of 'informed people' with knowledge of all the various commercial strands, it has taken this long on the bench since can scrap requires extensive pre-processing and we have done a lot of work on both that and catalyst development. Currently we are involved in writing 'end-to-end' patents to satisfy our investors, who are currently forming what might be described as a 'short but impatient' line.

I think the full reveal will have to wait till June, by which time we should have the 5th generation plant up and running in the UK and sufficient patents in place. We keep building bigger and bigger systems, which has somewhat overtaken the LENR research and cost a lot of cash in relative terms. But on the topic of LENR, I think we should have something very surprising and easy to do to show in Stockholm too. Full reveal then- and I mean full description of every aspect, but right now we have de-bugging and system reliability tests to run. That's why my short posts are mostly getting shorter!

Depends on what you want to feel happier about. You can swallow the Kool-Aid dispensed by the packaging industry and their chums, or you can do what I did and spent 2 years checking out what really happens. Then you will realise what the true situation is. Why do you think they are so cheap? It certainly isn't because they are 'a product in demand'. Don't swallow the slick PR campaigns, just check this out.

https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/aluminium-can-scrap.html

Alibaba.com offers 1,348 aluminium can scrap products. About 100% of these are aluminum scrap. A wide variety of aluminium can scrap options are available to you, There are 1,352 aluminium can scrap suppliers, mainly located in Asia. The top supplying countries are United States, Philippines, and Thailand, which supply 33%, 19%, and 18% of aluminium can scrap respectively. Aluminium can scrap products are most popular in South Asia, Domestic Market, and North America. You can ensure product safety by selecting from certified suppliers, including 12 with ISO9001, 1 with Other certification.

ETA - and ask yourself why white aloxite from the Beyer Process sells for $600/tonne? It produces far less aluminium than re-smelting cans (because of the oxygen) yet is worth twice as much. Strange, eh?

Quote from Shane D.

I think part of it is his: "AnImpossibleInvention" book sales. That is not to say Mats lacks integrity, because he has plenty of that, but money can never be factored out as an influence on ones judgement

I doubt he has sold many copies. Enough to buy a few coffees maybe. It's very readable, but it isn't Harry Potter.

That's why it is new.

And don't even look into bauxite mining and the Bayer process. Every ton of Al2O3 produced means 8 tons of CO2 emissions, 3 tons of red mud pollution, thousands of gallons of polluted water and quite a few square meters of virgin land ripped up for strip-mining.

There are somewhere between 2 and 5M tons stockpiled globally. Nobody wants them. Available on long-term contract (36-48 months) at $250 tonne FOB Copenhagen (for example) or even less from china in total contract quantities of up to 100 ktons per contract. Aluminium cans are despised by all the smelters, since recovery of the aluminium from them requires gas smelting and releases dioxins and furans from the thermal decomposition of the 1% (by weight) of Bisphenol-A based lacquer they are coated with. Also the sugar syrup and the paint makes for very slaggy-high carbon aluminium and to boost metal recovery rates beyond around 75-80% generally requires anything up to three melts altogether. This end product is then generally sold into the market as 'recovered metal' for around $600/tonne and sold on to arc smelters for a 4th melt and further refining operation. It is neither green or eco-friendly or profitable to smelt and re-smelt metal 4X to recover it.

I have spent 2 years working on this with experts on the metal market, and they know a lot of things about this market that you won't find on the internet. 85% of all cans globally end up stockpiled waiting for the Al price to pass $1800/tonne -or land-filled. Collection is not recycling, any more than planting trees is making a forest.

Quote from [email protected]

So any company looking to go into production looking for patents as Intellectual Property protection is going to be disappointed. It would be a free-for-all.

Time for the 'trade secret' approach perhaps? After all, it has worked for coca-cola for a long long time.

Quote from Robert Horst

At 200 W/Kg, a 100 Kg pack (replacing a battery) would deliver up to 20 KW, which is about the power needed to drive a Tesla on flat ground at 65 MPH.

A little engineering work may be needed first...

That would point toward hybrid systems - a modest battery and a 5kW 'always on' charger for it.

Quote from Epimetheus

I dont find this research conclusive.

I will tell Takahashi. I expect he will be devastated.