[ExI] Satoshi Nakamoto

Tue Aug 11 19:43:44 UTC 2026

I know what you mean here. Some of the work Drexler and I did in the 70s
has not been implemented yet. Neither has mine on power satellites. Power
satellites were just too big a project, and it looks like SolarSyngas is
also in spite of being much smaller than powersats.

Keith

On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 12:34 PM Kelly Anderson via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Keith,
>
>   When I have an idea too big for me to process alone, I post it online so
> the AIs can pick it up. Eventually, they will act on those ideas if and
> when they are good enough. Be patient with the process, but don't let ideas
> die in your head when they can be out there to be worked on eventually.
> Michelangelo's notebooks have been richly mined now that technology has
> caught up with his visions. It probably won't take 400 years for this to be
> acted upon. In fact, one could argue that by posting it to this list,
> you've already done what you need to do.  If there are more details that
> aren't readily derivable from what you've posted, post those as well. Focus
> more on moving humanity forward than on getting the credit, and it will
> happen in good time.
>
>   As someone who did computer science work from the 90s through the
> 20-teens that is only recently being slowly rediscovered bit by bit, I get
> the pain that comes from the world ignoring your best work just because it
> is a couple of decades ahead of its time.
>
> -Kelly
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 10:41 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Taking this track would involve someone with a different set of skills
>> from the CEO/management team I have been looking for to tackle a full-scale
>> gasifier project.. I am not suitable to go after a DARPA grant any more
>> than I am to lead a huge business. Among other factors, I have no
>> credibility. So the first order of business might be to recruit someone
>> with those skills. You have more experience in that area than I do. Any
>> ideas?
>>
>> That might overlap with raising a small amount of money to do a video and
>> incorporating SolarSyngas. With modern tools like GoFundMe or Kickstarter,
>> that might or might not be within what I could do. I wrote the script and
>> produced a video, "Beamed Energy Bootstrapping," just before I gave up on
>> power satellites. And I wrote the fundraising letter that brought in about
>> $60k from the L5 Society membership for the opposition to the Moon Treaty.
>> I still remember the pain in my hand from signing 600 thank-you letters.
>>
>> That was both a long, long time ago and a very different situation where
>> I had a good pitch to a group of highly motivated people. This is
>> different. I have no connection to any of the groups that might be
>> interested in a project like this. Again, ideas are welcome.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 5:56 AM Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > What might be the biggest problem is if it is recognized at high
>>> levels as a renewable-related project. That's not a technical problem. I
>>> have no idea how to solve that, at least for the next two years, and
>>> perhaps well beyond. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> I have one.
>>>
>>> Pardon my language, but frack your fear and just apply.
>>>
>>> The worst they'll do is say no.  Applying doesn't take that much
>>> effort, and no money - so in the worst case you'll have wasted some
>>> time and that's it.  I have been down this path so I know exactly what
>>> I am talking about here.
>>>
>>> It really is that simple.
>>>
>>> Also, a detailed analysis of the evidence they have given as to how
>>> they think about it suggests they do NOT view this as renewables:
>>>
>>> They haven't released the full Phase I for this year yet.  They say
>>> they plan to later this year, so you may be waiting a few months
>>> (especially if the government does partially shut down in October
>>> again, but fortunately Congress appears to be on track - so far - to
>>> avert that this time).  The last SBIR funding was back in 2024.  But
>>> you can look at materials from back then to start getting a proposal
>>> together.
>>>
>>> Take a look at
>>> https://science.osti.gov/-/media/sbir/pdf/funding/2025/2025-Phase-I-Release-2-Topics-V8-01-14-2025.pdf
>>> .  I think your research may fall under the former topic C60-20/g:
>>> Carbon Capture, Conversion, and Storage/Other.  Maybe you'll find
>>> another topic that better fits.
>>>
>>> They have reorganized SBIRs, moving them to a different office.  See
>>>
>>> https://www.energy.gov/technologycommercialization/doe-small-business-innovation-research-sbir-and-small-business
>>> .  They've only released for updated Phase IIs (which applies to my
>>> work, and we have started preparing an application) so far - they've
>>> got Genesis mission Phase Is (which don't apply to you) out so far,
>>> with plans to release other Phase Is (which would apply to you) later.
>>>
>>> But looking at https://sbir-sttr.connectwerx.org/portfolio-items/598/
>>> - just to get the topic areas (that page lists the Phase IIs, which
>>> you don't yet qualify for but indicates their probable thinking about
>>> Phase Is) - it appears they are rebranding the group of things
>>> including everything under "Carbon Capture, Conversion, and Storage"
>>> into a new Topic Area 4.  (Don't worry about that page listing C58 vs.
>>> the above PDF listing C60.  The actual topic is what matters.)
>>>
>>> Notice that solar and wind - the traditional "renewables" - have been
>>> lumped into Topic Area 6.  If you'd be Topic Area 4, which they say
>>> "aims to unleash the full potential of America’s hydrocarbon and
>>> geothermal resources", then by their own bureaucratic logic, you're
>>> not renewables.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 4:22 AM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > You are probably right that a pilot could be scaled way down.
>>> >
>>> > There are aspects that will not scale down very far, like one of the
>>> positive points is unsorted MSW. A queen-sized bed is not going to go into
>>> a relatively small diameter gasifier. In fact, the feed will likely need to
>>> be ground up. Making the feed representative of unsorted feed may be
>>> difficult. Minor drawback. The AI and I concluded that with an 8-meter
>>> shaft, we would not get bridging. That may be a problem in a scaled-down
>>> version. Not sure how or if there should be compensation for this.
>>> >
>>> > You obviously don't want to connect it to a turbine, so the reasonable
>>> way would be to burn the gas. But, due to the PVC in the representative
>>> feed, I think you would have to wash the gas before burning. Otherwise, you
>>> may get dioxins. Even if the chemistry is unfavorable to making dioxins
>>> (and it might be), the stack gas will still be acidic. People will complain
>>> unless the test is remote.
>>> >
>>> > I suspect the scaled-down version will not have enough area to make
>>> the steam it needs. The full-scale version needs a good model of
>>> superheated steam production, and we will need to consider how to
>>> compensate for a small version.
>>> >
>>> > The induction heater at the bottom might be adapted from a standard
>>> 200 kW melting furnace. This might save considerable money, but maybe not.
>>> Provisions to drain off slag and metals without tipping the melting pot
>>> will have to be designed. This is a relatively smaller problem at full
>>> scale.
>>> >
>>> > The airlock at the top of the gasifier needs to be considered as well.
>>> I don't know if blast furnace airlocks can be scaled down this far or if it
>>> is a concern for a small pilot.
>>> >
>>> > I added Jim Stonecipher to the list. He had a grim experience with
>>> scaling up a pilot plant. I don't know if he would be interested in doing
>>> it again, but knowing some of the pitfalls,I think he would be well-suited
>>> for this project. The initial stage of this project, where the syngas is
>>> used as a high-capacity, long-duration battery, is a lot less complicated
>>> than taking the syngas all the way to liquid fuel. The gas would still have
>>> to be cleaned to turbine specifications, whatever that is.
>>> >
>>> > What might be the biggest problem is if it is recognized at high
>>> levels as a renewable-related project. That's not a technical problem. I
>>> have no idea how to solve that, at least for the next two years, and
>>> perhaps well beyond. Any ideas?
>>> >
>>> > Take it away, folks.
>>> >
>>> > Keith
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 12:07 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 2:15 PM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 9:28 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 11:38 PM Keith Henson <
>>> hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > I don't have money or room to build one even that small.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Yes, but you can come up with a budget for one (including the
>>> >> >> estimated room), yes?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> > Think about this for a bit. The gasifier input falls 35 meters
>>> taking about an hour into a pool of liquid iron at 1600 deg C. The syngas
>>> flows upward through the falling MSW, cooling the gas and heating the waste
>>> along with heating water to superheated steam. Tell me now to scale this
>>> down to 1/100 size and get meaningful datas out of it?
>>> >>
>>> >> So...you remember how I said you're allowed to use AI for these
>>> projects?
>>> >>
>>> >> ChatGPT was able to answer that question in one prompt.  I literally
>>> >> quoted that line (from "The gasifier input..." to the end), pointed
>>> >> out that a colleague of mine asked that when I was encouraging him to
>>> >> find a way to scale down to something that DOE SBIR might fund, and it
>>> >> came up with the answer below.
>>> >>
>>> >> You don't need to wait for the Singularity to use this power.  It's
>>> >> there now - and, increasingly, becoming expected.  I'd advise hopping
>>> >> on some free AI client and bouncing your "but I can't" objections off
>>> >> it - ALWAYS phrase as "I don't think I can, but can you find a way?"
>>> >> and NEVER assert an assumption that you can't when talking to the AI -
>>> >>  until you have the basics of something you can submit.
>>> >>
>>> >> > The key misunderstanding seems to be this:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > He's trying to build a scaled-down commercial plant.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > DOE SBIR reviewers are usually asking a different question:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "Can this technology be shown to work, and have you retired enough
>>> technical risk to justify investing another $2 million?"
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Those are very different goals.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The first thing to recognize: don't scale the geometry
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If you literally reduced everything to 1/100 scale, a 35 m shaft
>>> becomes 35 cm.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The waste would fall through it in a fraction of a second instead
>>> of an hour. Residence time, heat transfer, gas velocities, radiation
>>> losses, Reynolds numbers, etc., would all change dramatically.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So he's right that a simple geometric scale model wouldn't produce
>>> meaningful engineering data.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But that's not how chemical engineers usually build pilot plants.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Instead, they preserve the important physical parameters.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > For example:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > residence time
>>> >> > gas composition
>>> >> > gas temperature
>>> >> > heat flux
>>> >> l> iquid iron chemistry
>>> >> > gas velocity
>>> >> > oxygen potential
>>> >> > feedstock characteristics
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Commercial throughput is not one of the critical similarity
>>> parameters.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Break the problem into separate technical risks
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Looking at his description:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > MSW falls 35 meters into molten iron at 1600°C.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There are actually several independent questions.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Risk 1
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Can MSW be converted efficiently in molten iron?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That can be answered with a reactor holding perhaps 20–100 kg of
>>> molten iron.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Not 200 tons.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Risk 2
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Does the counter-current heat exchanger concept work?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You don't need a 35-meter shaft.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You need to show that:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > incoming waste dries
>>> >> > pyrolyzes
>>> >> > preheats
>>> >> > outgoing gas cools as expected
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That could be done with an instrumented vertical column only a few
>>> meters tall.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Risk 3
>>> >> >
>>> >> > What is the syngas quality?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Measure
>>> >> >
>>> >> > H₂
>>> >> > CO
>>> >> > CO₂
>>> >> > CH₄
>>> >> > tar
>>> >> > particulates
>>> >> > sulfur
>>> >> > chlorine
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Again, that's independent of commercial scale.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Risk 4
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Can molten iron remain chemically stable?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Measure
>>> >> >
>>> >> > carbon pickup
>>> >> > slag formation
>>> >> > corrosion
>>> >> > refractory wear
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This absolutely does not require a billion-dollar plant.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > What would a Phase I actually look like?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > A DOE Phase I could plausibly consist of:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Task 1
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thermodynamic modeling.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Use Aspen Plus, FactSage, Cantera, etc.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Predict equilibrium chemistry.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Task 2
>>> >> >
>>> >> > CFD/heat transfer modeling.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Demonstrate expected residence time.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Optimize geometry.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Task 3
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Bench reactor.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Instead of municipal waste,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > start with
>>> >> >
>>> >> > wood chips
>>> >> > RDF pellets
>>> >> > paper
>>> >> > plastics
>>> >> >
>>> >> > All well-characterized.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Task 4
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Small molten metal reactor.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Perhaps
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 30–50 kg molten iron
>>> >> > induction heated
>>> >> > batch operation
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Run dozens of experiments.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Task 5
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Compare measured syngas against model predictions.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If they match within reasonable error,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > that's a successful Phase I.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Notice:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > None of this proves commercial economics.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That's okay.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Phase I usually isn't expected to.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Phase II
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Now spend the $2M building something much larger.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Instead of 50 kg molten iron...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > perhaps
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 2–5 tons.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Instead of
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 5 kg/hr feed...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > perhaps
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 100–500 kg/hr.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Now you're validating:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > continuous operation
>>> >> > automation
>>> >> > refractory life
>>> >> > maintenance
>>> >> > slag removal
>>> >> > gas cleanup
>>> >> > energy balance
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Still nowhere near commercial.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But now investors and DOE have confidence.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The 35-meter issue
>>> >> >
>>> >> > His biggest objection appears to be:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "My process depends on an hour of falling."
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That's actually testable.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If the important parameter is residence time, then there are
>>> multiple ways to achieve it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > For example:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > a shorter shaft with slower solids flow
>>> >> > staged hoppers
>>> >> > baffles
>>> >> > moving-bed reactor geometry
>>> >> > screw conveyors
>>> >> > oscillating shelves
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The demonstrator does not need to be geometrically identical.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It needs to produce the same thermal history for the feedstock.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Chemical engineering pilot plants do this all the time.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ________________________________
>>> >> >
>>> >> > What DOE reviewers are likely to care about
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Suppose his commercialization plan is:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "A $4B municipal waste gasification plant."
>>> >> >
>>> >> > DOE reviewers are unlikely to ask:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "Where's your $400M pilot?"
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Instead they'll ask questions such as:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Is the molten iron gasification concept technically sound?
>>> >> > Does the measured syngas match predictions?
>>> >> > Are tar levels acceptably low?
>>> >> > Is carbon conversion high?
>>> >> > Is refractory degradation manageable?
>>> >> > Does the energy balance close?
>>> >> > Can the process operate continuously?
>>> >> > What are the major scale-up risks?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If the Phase I demonstrates the concept and clearly identifies the
>>> remaining engineering risks, that's often exactly what an SBIR Phase I is
>>> intended to do.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > One additional suggestion
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Rather than trying to demonstrate the entire integrated process in
>>> Phase I, I'd encourage your colleague to identify the single highest-risk
>>> technical claim that makes his process different from existing gasifiers.
>>> For example:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > exceptionally high carbon conversion,
>>> >> > unusually clean syngas,
>>> >> > superior heat recovery,
>>> >> > or the ability of molten iron to eliminate tar formation.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If that claim can be validated with a relatively small,
>>> instrumented test article and supported by modeling that projects to
>>> commercial scale, the proposal becomes much stronger. DOE SBIR reviewers
>>> generally understand that a $200,000 Phase I cannot build a
>>> commercial-scale facility—they're looking for convincing evidence that the
>>> core innovation works and that the path to Phase II is technically credible.
>>> >>
>>> >> I pressed it on the budget, and it admitted that omitting task 4 might
>>> >> be necessary to squeeze into $200K - but the rest would still be more
>>> >> than legit.
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260811/9c28df62/attachment.htm>