Member Info for observer842

@Phimx. Thanks for your considered reply. Though I'm not suggesting the feedback is via water - it would be too cool a medium for that purpose <100C, I was thinking more along the lines that in a single cycle instead of going to warm up the water the very hot gas essentially has another go through the system to generate electricity, but at the expense of reducing thermal efficiency and consequently overall system efficiency, whilst still being within the theoretical limits of efficiency as defined by the Carnot cycle for the temperatures we are talking about. I doubt it though. 3.2 => 6.4 is too suspicious. Perhaps it's something much simpler...?

Perhaps someone should just ask JG? LoL. I would, but that would break my rules of existing outside of LSE! ;-)

@Phimx. I don't particularly want to go over this again, so I'll use my memory rather than links. I wouldn't trust what I am about to say if I were you. DYOR! :-) The patent is owned by Somemore Limited which is a 100% owned subsidiary of Inspirit Energy holdings, the company you don't hold shares in, and the one I may or may not hold shares in: INSP. The patent is active. It expires in 2023.

@Phimx. I'm fairly in agreement with your goal post changing statement as a result of the increase to 6.4kWe. I'm not sure if you fully understood what I was getting at earlier - and to be honest, I'm not even sure if it would be technically possible, but presumably you can imagine a system where there is 20kW of potential energy coming into it, and it is simultaneously producing 3.2kWe and 15kWt of useful power with 1.8kW waste leaving the system in warmish gas through the flue.

Now imagine you redirect some of that 15kWt back into the system. The 3.2kWe delivered would go up, and the 15kWt delivered would go down. If this is possible perhaps they have found a way to adjust the loop back from 0 (3.2kWe and 15kWt) to maximum which is 6.4kWe but perhaps resulting in producing thermal ridiculously low as a consequence, perhaps 0kWt even (I doubt it!). So it could be that the system is 90-92% efficient at 3.2kWe and 15kWt, but not quite as efficient at something like 6.4kWe and potentially 0. But it might be economically attractive to do this if there is zero demand for heat at the time, or the price of electricity was substantially higher than that of gas.

Can you see how that might work if it is possible? Personally I think the fact 6.4kWe is exactly double 3.2kWe suggests another mechanism was found to double the output - not that described above. Perhaps it's 6.4kWe and 7.5kWt off 20kW input at full electricity output configuration? i.e. the thermal halves from 15kWt? Would make sense I suppose.

Ob.

And another thing from the 2016 accounts I noted:

https://www.investegate.co.uk/inspirit-energy-hlds--insp-/rns/final-results/201612300700050320T/
===[
GIS holds a fixed and floating charge over all the assets of the Company.
]===

Presumably that charge is no more now the loan has been settled through exercised CLN's? But something to be aware of regardless. At the time I viewed it as "protection" for JG from hostiles coveting his baby. ;-)

I was reminded of something else you might be interested in whilst I was searching through my posts. I once believed that Synergis bonds (https://www.synergisbonds.com/) were going to be used to fund this to production. This is a GIS/OCT product that has yet to launch as far as I am aware, which might help explain the perceived stalling. They were to be "asset backed" which was inline with my thoughts at the time following the RNS on 3 May 2017, which didn't pan out. Of course this stalling might turn out to be a blessing in disguise if it allowed for further development to reduce costs and increase output.

@Phimx. My understanding was that for the 3.2kWe model, the 3.2kWe and 15kWt were indeed simultaneously produced. I think with the following statement, which I linked to earlier, a reasonable person would conclude that to be the case off of the stated 20kW input:

https://www.inspirit-energy.com/the-inspirit-charger/
===[
The appliance offers an overall efficiency of ~90%, divided between electrical efficiency (15%) and thermal efficiency (75%), and compares very favourably with conventional boilers, which typically run at lower efficiency in real world situations and deliver no electrical output at all.
]===

i.e. these figures imply it to be the case.

Greetings @crh1! And thanks for the offer of a private chat. I'm currently not declaring whether I am a shareholder of INSP and perhaps unfortunately for both of us, and everyone else who's contacted me for a private chat in the past, I only ever post publicly. Annoying eh? How about I make up for it with a link to what I believe is the central patent? If you've got the effort you could go back through all the posts on this board over the past few years to find the other ones, searching for "patent". I started posting on here 8 Jan '17, which is currently 52 pages back - 100 pages per view.

"Stirling engine having platelet heat exchanging elements" (2003-01-13 - filing date)
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2003076766A1/en

Here is a direct link which includes the images towards the end:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/76/da/fb/9bbe7f4fdf2340/WO2003076766A1.pdf

Good luck with what you are trying to achieve!

Ob.

LoL @oldblue - let it ride on the other share I comment on will you? Let 1 become 2, become 3 bottles ;-) That's a joke by the way - though I do believe it's possible! :-))) And for balance I believe a serious re-rate is possible here if we haven't all been taken for fools: though timescales feel a little further off, unless of course JG feels he needs to pacify the troops as a defence against CH's advances. LoL.

"Observer: in that case there should be a patent application for this stunning improvement. Patent or publish !"

Somethings are so obvious there not really patentable... Personally I think it will be obvious how they increased from 3.2kW to 6.4kW. Whether the how will be impressive or not remains to be seen! ;-)

Missed out the word simultaneous! "If these are simultaneous peak sustained outputs, then the 20kW input is greater than this sum of output powers. e.g. 23kW"

@Phimx: "Obviously they were not claiming perpetual energy but how come in thousands of hours of rigorous testing and also testing by independent testers no one spotted this glaring mistake."

I'm not sure what you mean? The ambiguity is in the RNS, presumably not the testing. We don't have access to the actual test results. I'd be very surprised if the unit wasn't able to produce peak 6.4kW, whether that is sustained or not is another question, and off what gas input I don't know. Too much sloppiness about to conclude with certainty IMHO. Perhaps it peaks at 6.4kW for a nano second? Seems unlikely doesn't it? I think a reasonable person would conclude that the unit is able to deliver peak 6.4kW of electrical power sustained *or* peak 15kW thermal power sustained off 20kW total. OR. If both of these are peak sustained outputs, then the 20kW input is greater than this sum of output powers. e.g. 23kW

@Phimx. "And what became of the 2 kW version another Inspirit fade away ?" My recollection of this was that it was exactly the same model as the 3 kW version, but capped for the consumer so they could make use of government intensives. So essentially the 2 was the 3; the 3 became the 3.2; then the 3.2 became the 6.4.

LoL. I forgot to add what I believe is the missing word to the ambiguous statement which may have led some to call perpetual machine! "whist maintaining 15kW thermal output" should probably have included the word "peak" here "whist maintaining 15kW peak thermal output", as it was only very loosely implied from: "peak electrical output in excess of 6.4kW of electricity", in fact not at all IMHO.

In other shares I'm in, shareholders are in communication with the BoD. It's a shame the same (apparently) isn't done here - I'm sure JG would clarify ;-)

And the height is wrong on that page! Probably best not to look... "Height 850mm" It's been reduced to below 800mm! Do all these little inconsistencies mean there isn't a product? Of course not, it's like discounting the Magna Carta because of a few typos. LoL. Well, not quite... But you get my drift. It's poor, but hardly unforgivable.

For instance - this is just wrong IMHO as it surely relates to the 3.2kW version:

https://www.inspirit-energy.com/the-inspirit-charger/
===[
The appliance offers an overall efficiency of ~90%, divided between electrical efficiency (15%) and thermal efficiency (75%), and compares very favourably with conventional boilers, which typically run at lower efficiency in real world situations and deliver no electrical output at all.
]===

In fact, in the Inspirit Charger 3.1 version I'm not putting full faith in that "Max Gas Heat Input (GCV) 20kW" - it's possible that should have been updated too? I should stress, we don't know what they have done to get to 6.4kW, and as far as I can tell they don't want to tell us - perhaps it's commercially sensitive? If it really is that obvious we wouldn't want our competitors getting a head start now would we? ;-)

Indeed @Phimx, that was a curious statement made on the *26th* LoL. ;-) Surely a reasonable person would conclude it was an ambiguous or incomplete statement made by the BoD rather than a claim of perpetual energy? Personally, unless it's PB writing it, I'd take what is written in RNS's and on the company website with a dose of salt. Sloppy in places, just plain wrong in others, attention to detail is a dying art...

@oldblue and @Phimx. I'm of the opinion that if a reasonable person reading what you have written takes it as fact when it is opinion, then you should indeed be clarifying it in some way. For instance when I wrote:

"I'll see it when I believe it! We've been pushing back the date incrementally for years! As well as testing the 6.4kW boiler we are developing a 300kW version, and other implementations. Covid will be the excuse for why we didn't launch this year."

I believe an unreasonable person could take my "Covid will be the excuse for why we didn't launch this year." as a statement of fact, where a reasonable person would see it as an opinion based on the "I'll see it when I believe it". Surely I shouldn't have added an IMHO to the end?

Personally, I tend to filter unreasonable people, and those who portray opinion as fact without supporting evidence, or at least heavily discount what they say.

That's my opinion, not a fact. ;-)

Indeed @Phimx, I think it is *very* unlikely we will sell a single product this year. Next year? Perhaps! Doesn't mean this share isn't capable of going ballistic on the right news...

LoL. @Phimx:

===[
1. A partnership is being developed is pure guesswork and hints at veering away from their stated aims of supplying the domestic and SME market after a decade of development. Would a car/marine engine manufacturer want to be involved - who knows.
]===

Who knows indeed - but it certainly looks that way to me!

===[
2. This is launch year ! Sales and marketing time not development is the main focus.
]===

I'll see it when I believe it! We've been pushing back the date incrementally for years! As well as testing the 6.4kW boiler we are developing a 300kW version, and other implementations. Covid will be the excuse for why we didn't launch this year.

===[
3. Paul Booker - mechanical engineer cum theoretical thermodynamics genius, I don't think so ! He was promoted into the job remember, from what/where ?
]===

You're forming an opinion of someone you've presumably never met and have no idea of their background or capability? OK....

===[
4. Eureka moment, always possible but exactly 100 % improvement -less possible
]===

When the details are revealed you'll no doubt blush, as will we all. That's the beauty of Eureka's - always obvious in hindsight, not so much in foresight! ;-)

===[
5. If you are making a placing, and the boys in the city always get first dibs, surely they will want the price low. If I'm convinced of your product, enough to hand over my cash, I want as many shares as I can get. Many ways to skin a cat though.
]===

The warrants (if they exist) are @0.07p. That is fixed in stone. If all are exercised they will raise half of the CLN value "£845k" / 2, for the company.

Ob.

Not a "Strong Buy" damn it! LoL. If anything, do you all mind selling until this is comfortably below 0.07p again? Thank you.