Skip to Main Content

Hydrogen RET?

Via one of the blogs I read, I found a couple of videos about
"Radiant Energy Transfer", a supposedly super-efficient
way to produce hydrogen from water. The fellow behind RET,
Ronny Bar-Gada, has a company and Web site,

Anyone know about this technology? Is it legitimate?
I hadn't heard of it before. If you believe the videos,
the world's energy problems have been solved. :-)

-- Paul

Re: Hydrogen RET?

I have never heard of this either, but like every technology that promises to be ground breaking, if you can't understand the language and they can't communicate how it works in a simple to understand way, then it doesn't work.

Example from the video:

"RET (Radiant Energy Transfer) works by matching the energy distribution from the source with the energy spectrum of the dissociation of water. "


They also don't know the proper notation of a H2 and O2 molecule (they use H 2 instead of H 2). This is perhaps nitpicking but it's a huge mistake to make in a promotional video like this. Nobody who has studied chemistry (which would be required for this invention) would ever make this sort of mistake.

The wording is ALL wrong...they break the 2nd law of thermodynamics by claiming no energy loss even after saying their process is 95% theoretical efficiency.

I call BS.

Re: Hydrogen RET?

Thank you catching the typo. I will fix.
— The Video Editor

Re: Hydrogen RET?

"RET (Radiant Energy Transfer) works by matching the energy distribution from the source with the energy
spectrum of the dissociation of water. "

I understood that to mean that water molecules dissociate if provided energy at specific
frequencies, and they tune the input energy to those frequencies. Not being a chemist or
molecular physicist, I don't know if that's really plausible.

I think the bit about "no energy loss" was about the more efficient use of energy than is
typical in an electrical power plant. I think the wording there was advertising, rather than
rigorous scientific explanation.

Still, I'd like to know if this is a viable technology. One would think that the world would
be beating a path to the door of the company, if so.

-- Paul

Re: Hydrogen RET?

Yes, Paul, this is a viable technology. The patent was just issued. We will be posting the link to it on the Genesys site as soon as it is posted on the government patent web site. A press release about the patent award will come out later this year. Is is expected to be an eventful year for Genesys in light of the peak oil and energy issues. I reccomend signing up for the e-lert on the site so you can be notified of news and developments.

It sounds like you have a good grasp on basics of the technology. Thank you for your interest and support.

Ms Green

Re: Hydrogen RET?

Still, I'd like to know if this is a viable technology. One would think that the world would be beating a path to the door of the company, if so.
Why do I get the feeling that Paul works for this company? My prediction is that Genesys will be looking for investors soon.

Until Genesys explains exactly what is inside their RET black box, I consider this to be highly sketchy. The closest I've been able to come to find out what's inside the black box is the title of one of their patents which mentions plasma. I have heard of hydrogen production from plasma and have been to conferences where it has been explained. It is not efficient though.

Re: Hydrogen RET?


I don't work for Genesys. In fact, I'm unemployed. :-)

I'm a computer scientist in Portland, Oregon, and if you know of
openings in Kingston, I'd be happy to relocate!

I'm just a follower of and energy issues in general.

-- Paul

Re: Hydrogen RET?

Sorry then Paul....I take it you're not the same Paul who we should contact at Genesys then (near the end of the article). My mistake.

It just seemed highly unlikely that you would post this message and then almost immediately we'd get a reply from somebody who claims to work at/with the company. Google's web crawler hasn't even had time to pick up the post yet...I wonder how they found it?

I tend to get extremely skeptical with anything/anybody promoting a single technology (which is apparently "proprietary information") that claims the following:
Eliminate global warming
Provides energy security for everyone
Supply abundant energy at reasonable cost
Can supply all our energy needs for the future
Actually, it's laughable and not even worth spending any more time on.

Re: Hydrogen RET?


Nope, not me. I hadn't heard of this company or technology until just before
I posted here. I'm the same fellow who asked for a podcast on Google's
energy initiative, in the "Upcoming podcasts" thread. I don't work for Google,
either -- they turned me down for a job a few weeks ago!

My guess is that the company is polling for posts at energy-related Web sites.

-- Paul

Re: Hydrogen RET?

"contact at Genesys... (near the end of the article)"

The Paul mentioned as a contact no longer works for the company. Any contact with Genesys should go through the contact link on the web site.

"I wonder how they found it?"

Very low tech. We installed a free program on the web site that tells who is visiting us. Welcome to the information age.

I also need to move on to other things. I enjoyed the dialogue. I hope my next project will be editing the video of the RET prototype. I encourage you and anyone to sign up for e-lerts on the web site to be notified if this news becomes available.

Be well.

Re: Hydrogen RET?

The contents of the RET chamber is proprietary information at this time. The important issue is whether it can produce hydrogen cheaply, with no carbon emmissions, from renewable resouces using waste water or sea water. If it is doing that, does it matter how it works? We are trying to offer hope for planet in crisis. Watch for us in the news.


Re: Hydrogen RET?

Water molecules have a number of different modes of vibration. Think of the oxygen with two hydrogen as a Mickey Mouse face and ears. The ears (hydrogen atoms) can move towards and away from the face (oxygen). The ears can stay the same distance from the face, but vibrate towards and away from one another. The whole thing can spin like a top, along three different axes.

Each of these modes will have a natural frequency (actually frequencies, I think these come from getting the associated electrons into various energy states). The molecule will typically be vibrating and spinning in every possible way at the same time, and also zooming through space (and generally bouncing off other molecules) as well. The velocity with which all this happens is a measure of the temperature of the gas.

The energy in any given vibrational mode will leak into the other modes over time, and the time over which this happens is short, on the order of one millisecond. Also, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are charged because of the way the bonds redistribute their electrons. When these charged particles vibrate, they emit photons with their characteristic frequency. The molecule, as well as having a tendency to emit photons of those colors, is also better at absorbing photons of those colors.

One way to seperate hydrogen and oxygen would be to heat water to many thousands of degrees K, at which point the vibrational energy in the bonds would be sufficient to break those bonds. This is a very inefficient way to make hydrogen and oxygen. Also, your hydrogen and oxygen are now in a plasma, and you'll have to seperate them before you cool it down. If this is the Genesys idea, it's a joke.

However, just because energy tends to redistribute over all the bonds doesn't mean you always have evenly distributed energy. A laser is a specific example of a system in which you use photons to deliberately pump energy into particular modes and not others. A blue laser, for instance, comes from stuff at room temperature rather than blue-hot.

If you could hit the water molecules with photons tuned to one of the bonds, with intense enough light, you could pump enough energy in to break the bond before the energy had redistributed enough to become temperature. Now you would have seperated hydrogen and atomic oxygen at low temperature. Atomic oxygen is incredibly reactive, and you would somehow have to seperate the hydrogen from the atomic oxygen without it recombining into water, maybe with an electric field. This is essentially electrolysis. Maybe they have some way of making electrolysis more efficient by stimulating the reaction with tuned lasers.

Not that it matters. Ballard long ago coined the term "hydricity" to capture his fantasy that fuel cells would be so efficient at converting between hydrogen chemical energy and electricity that the two would be interchangable. And, at fabulous cost due to the use of exotic metals and ultraclean operating environments, efficiency can be had.

But hydrogen is a terrible energy carrier regardless of the efficiency of conversion. Consider just one of many problems: the cost of capital for a steel pressure vessel containing hydrogen at room temperature, for just one day, is a little more than the value of the hydrogen contained. So assuming you could get hydrogen for free and sell it at current market prices, you could only afford to contain it for a day. That means, no hydrogen equivalents of LNG tankers. That means, no long hydrogen pipelines (those are pressure vessels too). It basically puts the kibosh on any hydrogen infrastructure.

Re: Hydrogen RET?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I got an email this morning from Genesys
indicating that they've received a patent for their process.

Here's a link to the patent:

-- Paul

RET, i.e. plasma conversion of water to hydrogen and oxygen

The many methods of making a plasma (the "4th state of matter") such at the surface of the sun, here on the Earth's surface, are well known (a Google search will find many of them). Plasmas have been used for semiconductor (Integrated Circuit) processing for more than 30 years. The latest and greatest of those methods may be "Electron Cyclotron Resonance" (ECR) plasmas which are often used to break apart molecules to make them into more reactive species (atomic or molecular fragments) which then can remove areas on a semiconductor chip much more effectively (and quickly). However, large amounts of electrical power are required to operate a plasma reactor (and considerable capital costs is required to build one, although they are cheaper ways of making a plasma, including a simple inductive coil). The key question for RET is whether or not this electrical power requirement is less than electrolysis (the other way to make hydrogen from water).

The inventor went to great lengths to stress the need for steam (the energy conversion "cost" to make steam is very high and is a significant contributor to the electrical energy required for electrolysis of liquid water), for his RET (plasma conversion of water to hydrogen and oxygen) process. So it is certainly reasonable that his suggestion that RET (plasma separation of water) could be more efficient than electrolysis. It is also true that hydrogen is MUCH smaller, more mobile and separable from oxygen with relatively simple membranes. So the other key to whether or not this technology is viable is the relative separation efficiency of the resulting hydrogen and oxygen in or very close to the plasma. Given the huge advances in membrane technology in the last few decades (e.g. they use membranes to separate pure water from sea water - "reverse osmosis"), and the fact that hydrogen can penetrate THROUGH solid materials (making it difficult to store), I would be inclined to believe that hydrogen separation could be practical for this application.

Hydrogen has MANY applications other as a fuel for vehicles. It main use today is in the upgrading of heavy oils into the light crude oils that are necessary for refineries (among other myriad petrochemical uses). A cheaper method of making hydrogen from waste heat and a plasma reactor would be a HUGE breakthrough. Of course, plasma chemistry and physics are at least 50 years old and this inventor is building upon the breakthroughs of the past. That doesn't invalidate the importance of this however, it just makes it more likely that it will be successful. ON balance, I suspect that the hype that he is using has made the acceptance of his work less likely but he HAS gained more attention this way. Is this the only way that he CAN get attention (hope not, but worry that it is true).

I say "Good LUCK and keep up the work!!"