You're viewing the old website

Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively

 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe


Energy Topics

• Alt Fuels
• Anti-Gravity
• Batteries
• Betavoltaic
• Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
• Body Electric
• Brown's Gas
• Cold Fusion
• Conservation
• Electrolysis
• Electromagnetic OU
• Fuel Cells
• Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
• Fusion
• Geothermal
• Gravity Motors
• Human Powered
• Hydro
• Hydrogen
• Joe Cells
• Lighting
• Magnet Motors
• Nanotechnology
• Nuclear
• Nucl. Remediation
• Oil
• Piezoelectric
• Plasma
• River
• Salt Water Mix
• Solar
• Solid State Gen.
• Tesla Turbines
• Thermal Electric
• Tidal
• Vortex
• Waste to Energy
• Water
 - Water as Fuel
• Wave
• Wind
• Wireless Electricity
• Zero Point Energy
• MORE . . .

Open Source
• Freddy's Cell
• Bedini SG
• Safe Haven Villages
• MORE . . .

• Awards
• Conservation
• Conspiracy
• Directories
• Investment
• Kudos
• Legal
• Organizations
• Plastic and Energy
• Recycling
• Suppression
• Tools
• Trends
• MORE . . .

• OverUnity Forum
• Employment
• Events
• Humor
• Magazines
• Movies
• Newsletters
• Discuss. Groups

• Store
• Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact




You are here: > News > May 19, 2014; 2:00 pm MDT

I'm Questioning EPA-Certified Lab Test Results that Concluded Massive (e.g. 577x) Overunity on SHT Technology

On July 26, 2015, it was made known to us that the SHT reaction is primarily chemical, using aluminum plates exposed to water to produce hydrogen and aluminum oxide (plus more). So all prior representations of "overunity" are erroneously depicted, because they only accounted for the electrical input and the hydrogen output, and do not account for the aluminum/water expendable fuel input. That said, SHT's symphony of 16 processes that facilitate the production of hydrogen, including by enabling the aluminum plates to stay exposed to water and not be covered with a film of aluminum oxide to prevent further reaction, is indeed a significant breakthrough toward enabling the hydrogen economy, and appears to include some exotic processes.

It's Good, but not That Good. AirKinetics Inc results not accurate? Need another good test. The government guys didn't come prepared to measure. SHT does have something of game-changing magnitude, just not 577x. Maybe better than 10x; and O to H.

Background • Demo Ready, Testers Not • Variation in AirKinetics Data • What Does 1000 L/m Hydrogen Look Like? • Anemometer Data • Wager • Rebuttal from AirKinetics • Dropping in Top 5 • Poll • Poll Results • Videos • Photos • Water Tank Became Very Hot • Follow-up • Contact

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
(Began composing May 17)

I'm returning from my trip to observe a demonstration in Pasadena, California, USA, of Solar Hydrogen Trends, Inc's (SHT) hydrogen generating machine, Symphony 7, which I had very high expectations for, so much so that I put them in #1 position in our Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies listing.

I'm very impressed with the SHT team. There were 6-7 PhD scientists from their team, including the inventor, Konstantine Balakiryan, that showed up for the demonstration May 16. All seem to be in the upper 1-2 percent in their fields, from what I could gather in the roughly eight hours I was there. I would estimate that the inventor has been in the upper 0.1 percent in some areas of work he has done in the past, according to some stories he was telling me during our visit.


SHT issued a press release on March 5, stating that they were getting over 400 times more energy out in the form of hydrogen gas than the electricity required to run the equipment on the input side; and that the purity of the hydrogen produced is in the region of 93 percent. This conclusion is according two third-party test results from last January, one by AirKinetics, Inc, and the other by a very large, well-respected testing company that doesn't wish to be named, the later of which only did qualitative analysis (ratios and types of gas), not quantitative (flow rate). I was able to glance through both tests, but didn't have time to absorb them because we were talking.

(click on images for enlarged view)

Shen Chen of AirKinetics, Inc.

The primary purpose for the demonstration that I was there as an observer to witness, was to show the technology to a couple of representatives of a high-level U.S. government Center (they wish to be anonymous). For ease of writing, I'll call them "Kennedyesque". Also present was Shen Chen, Project Manager at AirKinetics, Inc. the EPA-Certified laboratory that ran third party testing of Symphony 7 in January.

I reported last month that what AirKinetics had measured in January was that with an input of 698 Watts (7.14 V x 97.75 A), Symphony 7 produced 82 ACFM (Actual Cubic Feet per Minute = 2322 L/m) of hydrogen gas at a purity of 96.8% hydrogen and 1.78% oxygen, with 1.4% nitrogen -- from water. That was the best of three runs they did.

That is a mouthful of information with huge ramifications. First of all, the energy equivalent of that rate of flow of hydrogen gas comes to 402 kilowatts of power -- 577 times more energy out than input. Second, the qualitative analysis showing the output gas being close to 100% hydrogen, when the input was H2O, rather than 2/3 H and 1/3 O, which is what you would expect. This has huge scientific ramifications, suggesting transmutation of oxygen into hydrogen as being one of the primary sources of energy in the equation, and that both third party analyses gave this qualitative conclusion is very significant. SHT welcomes any qualified party doing due diligence to run their own tests to corroborate these results. (Konstantine said that he predicts that the only radiation being emitted is low level beta decay, most of which the water will block from emitting beyond the apparatus.)

So, you can imagine that my expectations were very high coming into this demonstration. Nevertheless, I know enough from past experience to be flexible and open to whatever happens. Getting fixed on expectations can lead to huge disappointment and burnout.

Demo Ready, Testers Not

You know the phenomenon that the quality of a movie is inversely proportional to the number of big-name stars in it? Well, it seems that this principle was in play on Friday. The big players each thought the other was going to perform, so they were not prepared to do what they came to do. I was there as an "observer", not as a tester.

It turns out that the Kennedyesque group who was there as the primary group to test the device did not bring any gas flow measurement equipment. All they had was a high-end hydrogen ratio sensor, which they couldn't get to work. They guessed that the chlorine gas from the swimming pool next to the demo apparatus fouled the sensor.

No radiation detecting equipment was present.

Shen, from AirKinetics, didn't bring any test equipment, either, because his understanding was that he was there as an "observer". Jack couldn't get a second third-party test group lined up. So all we had was an anemometer, which wouldn't even turn when placed in front of the ~1Ό-inch opening (see video), though it would turn with the slightest breeze in the air.

The anemometer that Jack had required a minimum air flow of 186 cubic feet per minute before it would begin measuring accurately -- over a 1"+ pipe opening. The highest rate of flow that AirKinetics had reported was 82 ACFM, with an input power of nearly double what they were running on Friday.

Even though I was supposed to be just and observer, I had an idea.

Sitting outside there with us, we had a 2-liter beverage bottle and several 5-gallon buckets, and hose -- everything we needed to do a flow rate measurement by filling the 2-liter bottle with water, inverting it, taking the cap off, and running the gas into it, and timing how long it takes for the gas to reach the "2-liter" mark near the top of the bottle (bottom, when inverted), being sure to hold the bottle in such a way that the water level in the bottle is near the top of the water level in the 5-gallon bucket, so as to not introduce any positive or negative pressure on the gas. Most everyone I have talked to has said this method, though somewhat archaic, is very accurate, notwithstanding the simplicity of the components involved. Those who agree with this include the Kennedyesque guys, Shen, my dad (atomic clock physicist), Tai and Fred Robinson, who install hydrogen/natural gas retrofits on vehicles for a living. Two liters of gas of any kind is going to fill 2 liters of space, by definition. And the time it takes to fill that space will give you "liters per minute".

Business partner, Kirill Gichunts works with a 3 billion dollar private equity fund

However, the inventor flatly refused to use such a "barbaric" method. "It's like comparing a donkey to a Ferrari. I only want professional methods employed." And his business partner, Kirill Gichunts, who had flown in from the Ukraine for the event, agreed that employing such a methodology for measuring flow rate would not play well among the scientific community.

Konstantine insisted that only "professional" methods be used to measure his device.

Variation in AirKinetics Data

Talking about alleged "professional" and "accurate", take a look at the data from AirKinetics from January (taken from a graphic I prepared for the interview video I did). I didn't notice these points until doing this analysis today.


Run one and two were both very close to 400 Watts input (4.08 volts x 100.25 amps = 409 Watts), varying only by 3%. Yet the output flow rate measured in those two tests (41 and 27 cubic feet per minute) varied by 33%. I seriously doubt that this small of a difference in input would result in that huge a variation in output. If they are indeed on the brink of a sweet spot, then by all means, they should be hunting for and honing in on that sweet spot. Had that flow rate been measured by the "barbaric" method I described, given the same input, it would vary maybe by 1 percent, but probably by 0.1 percent. That's the accuracy it is capable of, as simple as it is, and the simplicity is one of the reasons for its reproducibility. 

Look also at the variation in the gas ratios reported. The hydrogen ratio varies from 86.8 percent to 96.8 percent -- ten points; and that is even true of run 1 and 2 -- huge variation.

If those were truly accurate readings, then that would indicate that the Symphony 7 apparatus is highly unstable and unpredictable.

The only thing that is being adjusted on the apparatus is the power supply.

When I mentioned that AirKinetics is an "EPA-certified lab" to Tai Robinson of InterGalacticHydrogen and AmericanFuelVehicles, who retrofits vehicles to run on clean fuels, including hydrogen, he laughed. First, he has no respect for the EPA, seeing how they do everything to block true clean methods like what he and others are promoting. They're all about bureaucracy and control, not about protecting the environment.

Here are some photos of the apparatus Shen had Jack assemble for them to fit their instruments to for measuring the flow rate of the hydrogen.

I have a hard time believing that an ~8-inch-diamter tube, 1.5 feet long, is going to be able to properly channel the hydrogen gas in such a way as to properly measure it's flow rate. It would be too easy for ambient air to foul the readings, even in an indoor setting. If they truly were getting 1000+ L/m, then perhaps this apparatus might be a little more accurate -- but certainly not as accurate as the 2-liter bottle timed test method.

Here are links to the two EPA peer-reviewed papers describing the authorized methodology for such tests.

Here's a figure from those documents.

While I don't believe the AirKinetics quantitative results, I do tend to trust what they showed regarding the qualitative evaluation showing around 93.1% hydrogen in the out-flowing gas, since it was corroborated by the second third party group as well, and they are probably far more well-equipped to make this evaluation than they are to make the flow rate evaluation..

What Does 1000 L/m Hydrogen Look Like?

In preparation for the May 16 demonstration, I've been trying to wrap my head around what 2322 liters per minute would visually look like. Dividing by 60, that is 38.7 liters per second (around 40 L/s).

Speaking of "mouthful", the average male lung capacity is 6 liters (Wikipedia). You know what it sounds like when someone exhales rapidly: "whoosh". You can exhale all of your air in about half a second. I timed it on the plane. Doing the math, that comes to roughly one third the rate of flow of 38.7 L/s, or 12.9 L/s, we'll round it to 13 liters per second. And it actually comes to nearly exactly what we were supposed to be seeing on Friday, with the power set to 350 Watts (3.5 volts x 100 amps) [The multimeter measured 3.89 volts, which is the reading we'll go with (389 Watts)]. So picture someone blowing through a tube as quickly as they can, first inhaling a full 7 liter lung-full, then blowing, with no impedance, but going continuously, and that is what a flow rate of 720 liters a minute would sound like -- if it was emitting air. But air is 14 times the density of hydrogen. So to approximate what that would sound like, you would need to slow down the exhaling from ½ second to 7 seconds, and that would show you roughly what the hydrogen would sound like exiting at the same rate, but with 14 times less impact as air. Acoustically, you have to think about the size of the molecules versus mass, so that would pose a difference as well.

With that in mind, here is an overview video of me quickly blowing through two different orifices that approximate the size of the orifices that were in play on Friday. One orifice, Friday, was about 1 to 1½ inch in diameter, and the other was about ½ inch in diameter. I show what it would sound like if it were air flowing at that rate, then what it would sound like if it were hydrogen flowing, by reducing the flow rate by 14 times, to seven seconds. You're free to try it for yourself using whatever you have kicking around your house that might come close to these sizes -- such as a toilet paper roll holder.

In addition to the sound is the feel, as you put your hand in front of the opening. That's what it should feel like -- approximately -- with that volume of hydrogen gas emerging.

The reason why I'm going to such lengths about this is because what I saw Friday did not at all correspond to what I was expecting to see, in terms of rate of flow. I hadn't yet done the math as I have done above, and I was actually expecting more volume than that the above would indicate is reasonable. When they put the gas through a ½ inch metal pipe, I would have thought it would be screaming. I was incorrect in that assumption. What I saw instead was that the 1-inch anemometer they put in front of it just barely turned. It was right at the point of moving it from stand still to just turning. Sometimes it wouldn’t turn, but if positioned better, the turbine would just barely start turning. It never turned when they placed it over the 1Ό-inch opening. 

The emerging gas from either opening was essentially imperceptible to my hand placed in front of it. I couldn't feel anything. You could visibly see some vapors emerging, at a slow rate, like vapors from a pot about to boil.

This was a huge disconnect for me, and it led to some interesting dialogue between myself, the inventor, Jack, and the others. Though things got heated in the conversation, we remained on good terms with each other as we talked things through; but I could not get Konstantine to agree to do the timed 2-liter bottle test. It seemed to me that he might be in denial, not wanting to have the high performance figures shown to be in drastic error.

I hadn't yet done that level of comparison prior to my visit to see Symphony 7, but I was envisioning something that was going to at least be making sound due to the rate of volume flow, and that expectation is justified according the simple explanation I just gave.

You could see the gas escaping, due to water vapor or something, but it made no sound whatsoever as it passed through either a ~1Ό -inch opening, nor through a ½-inch opening. 

Anemometer Data
Though I couldn't talk Konstantine into doing the timed 2-liter bottle test, we do have a piece of data that can give us a rough idea of the rate of hydrogen gas flow emerging from Symphony 7 with an input of 389 watts.

I took a 5/8" tube and blew at a rate matching the rate we saw when we put the anemometer in front of the
½-inch opening until my lungs were empty. I didn't take a full breath prior to that, so the volume I dispersed was probably around 5 liters. It took 24 seconds. So 5 L/24 sec x 60 sec/minute = 12.5 liters per minute -- of air. We need to multiply that by 14 to adjust for the difference of density between hydrogen and air, so that brings the number to 175 liters per minute of hydrogen gas.

12.5 liters per minute represents would be 5.2x overunity (2040 watts/389 watts). 

12.5 L/m x 0.913 (%) H2/gas x 60 min/hr x 0.0893 g H2/liter H2 x kg/1000 g x 33.4 kW-h/kg H2 = 2.04 kW

But we're not dealing with air, we're dealing with hydrogen. 175 L/m represents 9.3x overunity (3600 watts/389 watts)

175 L/m x 0.913 (%) H2/gas x 60 min/hr x 0.0893 g H2/liter H2 x kg/1000 g x 33.4 kW-h/kg H2 = 3.60 kW

Yes, that's far less than the 577 times overunity that the AirKinetics results provide, but it's still certainly in the region of breakthrough energy technology -- game-changing, disruptive.


In a spirit of jest, but still being serious, I struck up a wager with Konstantine. Based on what I saw, I was certain that they are nowhere near the 1000 liters/minute that he thought they were getting. He was sure they were. So we agreed that a follow-up test would be done by a qualified third party entity that has a methodology that both of us agree will be accurate. If they measure 1300 L/m or greater, with an input of 510 Watts, then I pay for the test and for my travel expenses to come witness the test. But if it is less than that, then he pays for the test and for my travel expenses.

I was confident making that wager because if he truly does produce 1300 L/m with an input of 510 Watts (76 times overunity), then it will not be hard finding a lot of people interested in taking his technology forward, and I'll be able to come up with that money to pay the wager.

I thought it would be fun to open this wager up to others, and make it a betting matter -- free energy racetrack.

However, given my argument above about the volume of the lungs and the sound that 1000 L/m should make -- not to mention how rapidly that would spin the anemometer -- I doubt that there will be many people who will enter the wager on Konstantine's side. In fact, given my articulation of the point above, I doubt even he will continue questioning my assertion that he was nowhere near 1000 L/m on Friday.

Rebuttal from AirKinetics

Here is an email from Shen in response to what I have written in this report. It came with three attachments:

From: Shen Chen
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: draft story link: I'm Questioning EPA-Certified Lab Test Results that Concluded Massive (e.g. 577x) Overunity on SHT Technology

Hi Sterling,

Couple comments:

1.       We are also a source test company that is California Air Resource Board (CARB)- and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-certified (please see attached files).  We are also a company that is accredited by Stack Testing Accreditation Council (STAC) (please see attached file and the link,  We are the only few STAC accredited companies (as you can see on their web site) among hundreds if not thousands of source testing companies in the US.  The EPA test methods we used are actually Code of Federal (CFR) promulgated test methods (  Our company is well respected in the industry and we have excellent reputation for the work we have done throughout the US.  We know what we are doing, and we do things by the book.  So, please reconsider when you are trying to make an argument of the test we done is “certainly not as accurate as the 2-liter bottle timed test method” in your article.  I don’t know how well your theory will quantify the gas production rate, and I’ve never once said your theory might be wrong.  Because I just simply don’t know and therefore I will not make any assumption or conclusion until I see the proof that convinces me.

2.       As for the other analytical lab that you are referring in the article, we have worked with them for long time.  During the test in January, we, Airkinetics, not only performed the flow rate testing but also canister sampling.  Then, we subcontracted the lab to perform the gas composition analysis (based on EPA Method 3C) on the gas sample we collected in 3 canisters.  In your article, while you question our flow rate test procedures, you tend to trust the gas composition results from which the sampling procedure was also performed by Airkinetics.  It almost made me feel like again you made assumptions based on what you chose to believe but not from the evidences (you weren’t there during the testing and neither do you know AirKinetics or the other analytical lab well enough; “Airkinetics and a very large, well-respected testing company that doesn't wish to be named”).  And yet, you support your argument in the article with another guess (“they are probably far more well-equipped to make this evaluation than they are to make the flow rate evaluation”). 

I have no problem with you saying whatever you want to say in your article, but please do it based on the facts, and please don’t denounce us based on your preferences or assumptions.

Shen F. Chen
Project Manager
AirKinetics, Inc.
1308 S. Allec Street
Anaheim, CA 92805
714-254-1945 Phone

In response, I said:

Hi Shen,

Thanks. Bear in mind that I am not basing my statements on preferences or assumptions. I'm basing it on hard data (blowing through tubes, comparing it to the anemometer) -- limited as it is because I was restrained from doing the most obvious test that could have easily settled the matter.

I would love nothing more than to accept the AirKinetics flow rate data as factual, but it does not seem to correspond to a reality check of what we saw.

I must say, too, that I find it not insignificantly ironic that I would be arguing with an EPA/CARB-certified lab that their results are like 50 times higher than what reality is when it comes to an exotic free energy technology -- something I've been promoting for a dozen years, which has been ignored by mainstream everything for as long.

Love it. Glad you're playing nice and being a gentleman about this.


Dropping in Top 5

While I still see SHT as a leading exotic free energy technology company, there are a few reasons why I am going to be removing them from #1 position.

  • It seems to me that the tank heating up profoundly is going to be a very significant challenge to deal with. It might be addressed through a co-generation scenario, putting the heat to use. In situations where no heat is desired, that is going to present a requirement of using part of the output energy to cool down the reactor chamber.

  • It doesn't seem to me like they are taking proper care to measure and analyze potential nuclear radiation emitting from their device. They just assume that because they're all still healthy that it must be okay. They haven't even taken any radiation measurements -- ever. Konstantine's theory might be right, that they're only dealing only with low-level beta decay, which will be shielded primarily by the water, and anything that might be radiating beyond that would be easy to shield against. But it doesn't seem they have properly evaluated this very significant potential health factor of the device -- not to mention the regulations it could invoke.

  • They're probably at least a year from market, and there are several Top 5 contenders that are much closer than that.

  • I'm not satisfied with Konstantine's assurance that the atomic balance ends up with as much oxygen at the end of the cycle as at the beginning. If oxygen is being transmuted to hydrogen, it is being removed from the planet as an oxygen atom. The oxygen that reacts with the hydrogen to create water is not magically reappearing, but is being taken from the vast sea of oxygen in which we presently reside. If this technology were to be adopted on a large scale, that would pose a significant threat to life on Earth. The only thing that could counteract that is if a supplemental technology were to replace oxygen in equal proportion.


Here's a poll so you can weigh in on the matter.

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world's leading questionnaire tool.

See Poll Results.


Compilation video:

Here are some video excerpts from what I used to make the compilation video.

While we were chatting, Jack showed me several videos from previous tests they did. The video of gas flow measurement equipment data was jumping all over the place: 95, 340, 157, 25, 460, 505, 354. The average might be 250 +/- 250. That's not data I could put any weight in. It was that data that Jack showed to a Berkely professor, who recommended that they hire third-party gas analysis companies, which they did.

What impressed me the most were some videos of some earlier prototypes they had built to put in cars to improve their mileage -- 42 percent in a trip from LA to Vegas. They were putting off copious amounts of bubbles from their electrolysis chambers. And Symphony 7 is "much better" than those. I shot a video of their video:

An earlier prototype with co-centric cylinders, produced large bubbles, and there was no soap present in the water.


Here are a few miscellaneous photos I shot. CLICK ON IMAGES FOR ENLARGEMENT.

Test equipment: anemometer (PMA82 by PYLE, with 186 cfm lower limit), multimeter, and two fittings: one for 1 1/4 inch opening, and the other, with a 1/2 inch opening, to supply gas to the vacuumed qualitative analysis tank.

Hy-ALERTA, H2Scan, brought by Kennedyesque team.

Gas vacuum tanks provided by large third party testing agency for qualitative analysis of the gas produced. Will be delivered Monday.

The tanks were at vacuum of -14.3 lbs, and 29.42 Hg.

used tap water

filled tank with about 24 gallons of tap water


Lid off, only team members can look inside. The circuitry is behind the power supply, with plastic bags over them to protect from any water spillage.

Closing lid.

3.5 V, 100 Amps. The power was turned on at around 3 pm EST.

3.5 volts; name of power supply

gas sample connection

voltage measured by multimeter

gas sample collection fitting, with ~1/2 inch bypass pipe

Suren M. is a PhD electrical engineer who does the circuitry. Ashot A. is a Ph.D. mechanical engineer.

Michael A., Jack's brother, and their mother.

Vagarshak P., M.D., and his wife; Silvia, Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry

Arsen A.; PhD Physics, Electronics specialist

Chris Munch, a filmmaker friend of mine, was present to get acquainted with the team for possible documentary filming in the future.

likely manufacturing plant for future production; where Symphony 7 was built

A funny sign at the Denver airport: "Passengers Only beyond this point"

Water Tank Became Very Hot

One thing that it seems they are in denial about is that their water tank is getting very hot. 

In front of us, they filled it with tap water, which is going to be cool to the touch at most. I noticed as I touched the tank, that it was getting hot. By the end of the approximate 1.5 hours that they ran the device, it was so hot as to almost give a burning sensation to touch it. 

They said the heat was due to it sitting out in the sun. I don't buy that at all. Water has a lot of caloric value and would not heat that fast from the California sun on the 97ΊF day. It might raise 1ΊF per half hour, but not ~40-60ΊF in 1.5 hours. (No one was taking temperature readings on the tank.)


In addition to more third-party qualitative and quantitative analysis, I suggested that a good fool-proof demonstration would be to power a 2kW genset with the hydrogen gas, and run the power supply from that genset. One of the down-sides to that is that there can't be any impedance to the emerging gas. If the 2 kW genset doesn't consume all the incoming gas, how do you vent off the excess? From what I witnessed Friday, I know that the system can withstand at least low pressure build-up. There were several times when they blocked the emerging gas for short periods of time, less than 30 seconds, and you could see the metal tank bulging. So if you just had a pressure relief valve, what is not consumed by the genet could just vent off -- perhaps to a second genset, or a third, etc.

They would have to be careful to have adequate backflash protection.

They've thought about doing this, and actually ordered a 50 kW genset that runs on hydrogen, but didn't have the funds to purchase it. I would encourage them to go simple with just a 2 kW genset, which would be within their budget, or could be donated or loaned from someone in the LA area.

Another test that Fred Robinson (Tai's dad, who also works on the same hydrogen conversion process) recommended, is to fill a balloon with a small amount of the gas and take a match to it. HHO gas explodes, but pure hydrogen just burns (not having the proper Oxygen mixture for explosion in that context). This would be a simple way to demonstrate that the emitting gas is indeed close to pure hydrogen.

Speaking of follow-up, I should also mention that they said, "Symphony 9A is much better." So I guess they have one in the oven.


Contact them directly by email: 

- - - -

And, as usual, we're still getting by on donations, so your chipping in is what is keeping us going as a news organization.

# # #

What You Can Do

  1. See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy 
  2. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
  3. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
  4. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
  5. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology. 

See also

Resources at

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan
Last updated July 31, 2015




"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

Submit • Privacy • About • Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest • News •XMLFeed • Directory • Congress • Top 5 • Open Sourcing
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.