Member Info for Phimx

All the circumstantial evidence, on all fronts, leads me to conclude there is no viable product after 40 years of development. That's not to say there is no product, simply it's never been worth spending the money to actually launch the thing. I hope to know the truth - before I die.

Observer: so you are implying that when the improvement to 6.4 kW occurred goal post were moved. Either the outputs quoted were no longer simultaneous or the gas input increased. I'll agree with that, again it just indicates what a amateurish or evasive development this is.

Oldblue: " is a kwt 'keep wales tidy?' "

I've stopped laughing ! but now a rather personal question from me, for a change!
" do you drink excessively ?"

I like to think I write fairly clearly. Another personal question
" is it more than 5 bottles of whiskey a day by chance ?"

I do jest

Observer: that fact it may be obvious has no bearing on whether or not it's patentable. But I understand you mean it's something that may not be patented. Many things are obvious after the event. The charger in its previous life was the PHP by Disenco and before that something else in Sweden seems a lot of smart people missed the obvious. The chances of them all missing the obvious are slim.

You can add in as many words as you want to the RNS but they are one of the few things we have to go on. Those statements are what people invest in, people should be able to have faith in what a company states otherwise chaos rules. I take what the company writes as being well edited and proof read. Once you start editing their words then all bets are off. You say the ambiguity is in the RNS that's simply your opinion. The real answer to this riddle is very simple, if I remember correctly Disenco introduced the statement containing the ' simulataneous' wording and Inspirit simply copied their words. It was ambiguously worded, they were attempting to say the PHP Was capable of producing both heat and electricity sumtaneously up to 15 kWt and up to 3 kWe but not together in those quantities. Not being a linguist nor polished writer, It is difficult to write the correct meaning with panache!

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

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.

And what became of the 2 kW version another Inspirit fade away ?

Additional note: in the RNS of April 2019 Inspirit forgot they had previously stated that the Charger output had increased to 3.2 kW. They didn't seem to keep track of what was going on. That is why I said they had improved the output by exactly 100 % . Somewhere there is a RNS stating that but it is a minor point, nevertheless it does illustrate the lack of quality and rigor the company produces. Along with the cut and paste errors I have previously highlighted.

Observer: I have always tried to reference Inspirit facts with a RNS date e.g. For Oldblue

27 April 2019:
The above improvements and efficiencies have provided the Charger with peak electrical output in excess of 6.4kW of electricity during a running cycle of 2,000 hours against the unit's previous output of 3.0kW, whist maintaining 15kW thermal output and a 20% reduction in the size of the appliance to below 800mm.

Whilst Maintaining 15 kW + 6.4 kW = 21.4 kW

Oldblue: check the law ? You are joking, it's more complex than thermodynamics. I'm certainly not adding DYOR and IMHO to my posts. What I write is obviously my opinion and I have always advised investors read what they can. Is that advise going to end me in court ? Are you qualified to tell people to DYOR ?

Observer: "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."

So you don't believe also, welcome to the club

Oldblue: give what up - discussion ? Discussion and particularly other people's viewpoint is very thought provoking. I work from the maxim " only the mediocre are at their best all the time"

And while I'm here. I don't think a man in the pub telling you to buy a share would be construed as illegal. A man that tries to pass himself off as a financial advisor and be paid for his work is another matter.

Observer: vague information can be interpreted in many ways as you have demonstrated but to suggest:

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.

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

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

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

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.

I do find it fascinating and if CH finds nothing to interest him then the price will fade away. Better than watching tele !

Oldblue: I don't give away personal details if I can help it. They will come back to haunt you. My unpaid work is trying to stop the naive, and I include myself, being fleeced by the grubby conmen of London. Mr. Joe Public is a lemming, rushing towards the fabled riches, all common sense vanishes as the lure of untold wealth is dangled before their nose. If you are lucky enough to hit the big time then you're hooked until it's all returned to the city boys eventually.

Observer: they have never explained why all their statements have come to nought. Trials, testing, verification boilers, qualificatio nor production. To quote John G " we are now producing our first units" 2016. Never to be heard of again. The only statements ever released are self- congratulatory. The sudden 100 % increase in output recently, this from a supposedly world leading product that had undergone thousands of hours rigorous testing. The departure of key staff, silently slipping away into pastures new and on the eve of the great launch. On NDA, they are quick to say they have developed schematics for the new applications, exactly what that means is anyone's guess. Schematics for me would be detailed drawings but why would you invest time and effort without announcing a significant contract and who pays for the work and in the middle of launching a world beating product. Why announce anything until you have something to crow about ? If it comes to nothing you failed but if you have a contract then you are a true business guru. They have sown the seed that it could be Volvo, why even sow that seed if NDA is active.
Nice Deceptive Activity !

Observer: my reply was cordial. It is obvious that one day we will have carbon free electricity generators that meet all of our needs. Most of the devices and systems are still under research, consuming grant and investor money in vast quantities. Is Inspirit in the mix and do they have something the customer needs ? I think not. They have had a decade to make the break through and that's all investors here are really interested in. If I'm wrong it will still take them years, at the present rate of progress, to produce a suitable product. A sea change is required in this company's philosophy, Possible CH and other investors could bring this about but it would seem not without a fight from the BOD. Why are they anti, apparently moving the company forward yet quick to promote a tie up with a unamed shipping company.

Observer: A link to turning chicken poo into gas seems quite irrelevant, unless you are subtly suggesting an offshore wind farm could harvest seagull poo and gasify that. The heat recovery field has some way to go before mature technology emerges and Inspirit won't be leading the way with its back street garage mentality and evasiveness. This piece sums the difference between Rankine and Sterling
------------------///------------------
On the other hand, the Stirling cycle is an area of on-going fascination and research. The ideal Stirling cycle is noted for having the perfect efficiency of the Carnot limit, but real Stirling engines do not operate accordingly; previous works carried out have shown that real engines can achieve about 50% of the ideal efficiency. And it generally requires high temperature and pressure to obtain an acceptable specific power output and efficiency. Prodesser developed and operated a prototype at 1000°C and 33 bar, the engine achieved a thermal efficiency of 25%, and the power output was 3.2 kW. Sripakagorn and Srikam developed and operated a prototype at 500°C and 7 bar, the engine achieved a thermal efficiency of 9.35% and a maximum power output of 100 W, but this is low compared with the reported 1 kW power output from an ORC engine operated at 101°C and 5.5 bar [12]. Hence, it can be seen that the adoption of Stirling engine for low-temperature application is mired by significantly lower power output than a comparable Rankine cycle.
----------///------------
No doubt development will continue apace but Inspirit have proved over many years they don't have what it takes to produce. Even ardent rampers know they don't have the wherewithal to make it happen. But, it's good for spikes and making a few bob if you want to take a punt.

If you find a decent link to Stirling engines being used to produce significant electrical output from wind generator waste heat please post.

Observer: that's all well and good, so are you saying Inspirit need to switch their research from the Stirling engine cycle to the organic Rankine cycle - a totally different product. That will take another 40 years !

Look up the Rankine cycle versus the Stirling cycle. Stirling likes it hot hot hot

Observer: you seem to be advocating perpetual energy, passing the hot gases through the engine a second time ? If the X amount of gas imparts 15 % of its heat to provide electricity then only another X amount will provide another 15 % it's difficult enough designing the heater element, some energy will be available from the exhaust gas but less than the first pass. The heat needs to find its way to the Helium.

Observer: Patents have been bandied about by Inspirit so the technology should be visible somewhere to view.

Observer: I used the finger-in-the-air value of 10% to accommodate lower input temperature. For 30% efficiency input temperatures need to be closer to 750c because the engine is burning gas. More research could come up with a more exact figure. Something does have to cool the generator but it isn't a Stirling engine, probably water and heated water is what will be fed to the Stirling at considerably lower heat levels than the gas fed versions. Economics/profit will drive the generator development, my point is - is it worth adding a Stirling engine ? That is a complex question, but for a 1MW generator there is only a very small gain to be made, thus I'm not convinced. Offshore farms would seem to be the preferred option at the moment and soon 10 MW will be the norm; then perhaps it's worth the additional cost and weight to reap an extra 50 kW. Greenspurs technology doesn't appear to be game changing just one of the many ongoing developments in a fast moving industry. We will end up with smaller, lighter and more efficient generators; will Greenspur be a Delorean or Betamax? To be certain the tax payer will be footing the bill !

Oldblue: still here been reading up on wind generators. From what I've read so far and from the comments here I'm not convinced there is a great synergy between wind generators and Stirling engines. Greenspur are busy testing a 250 kW generator using ferrite magnets which they claim is comparable in weight to a rare earth magnet device. The industry itself is moving away from rare earth elements and the there are many variations in generator topologies all with their own pros and cons, so Greenspur has a tough job to break into the market. Bear in mind there are a lot of generators out there already. One of the fundamental issues appears to be the low grade heat generated from the wind generators, whilst it would be nice to harvest that heat it may only be good for local heating. Stirling engines derive their POTENTIAL greater efficiencies from the difference between their hot and cold working temperatures. Cool the cold end with ambient and the hotter you can run the hot end the more efficient is your engine. Whilst I'm sure a Stirling engine could run on 200 C, it won't produce much. Let's say Greenspur produce 1 MW generator, not that big in the grand scheme of things, then assuming 5% heat is also generated and harvested! that gives 50 kW. Assuming Stirling efficiency of 10% then you generate 5 kW of additional electricity. I think that would be a very best finger in the air estimate but it only represents O.5% increase in electrical output of the wind generator. Whether or not that's worth it or not I have no idea. For a 10 MW generator you'd get an extra 50 kW, that might be worth it. That then leads to the basic problem - Insp don't have a 50 kW unit, real or imaginary. By the time Insp ever produce anything the wind generator industry will have moved on to something bigger and better, superconducting generators, rare earth free. Does Greenspur really need to extract an extra 0.5% to be competitive ???

Of course that doesn't stop companies continuing to suck up investors money chasing their receding dream !