Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Talk:Directory:MPK Co's Litroenergy

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:26 am.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:MPK Co's Litroenergy.

Image:MPKLitroenergyPowercell95x95 byKevn.jpg
Latest: Directory:BetaVoltaics / Directory:Batteries > Directory:MPK Co's Litroenergy LitroEnergy Power Cells Produce Continuous Output - By combining a non-stop luminescing technology that has a 20-year duration (12-year half-life), with thin film photovoltaics in a layered arrangement, MPK Co. has devised a portable, continuous generator that could change the planet. (PESN Oct. 22, 2008)


Comparison to Phosphorescence?

On Dec. 9, 2007, New Energy Congress member, Scott Cumberland wrote:

How is this different from typical phosphorescent materials? What is the intensity of the light irradiated? Regarding the claim of being able to use this to read, would it cause eye strain due to low intensity or emitted wavelength of light?


On Jan. 8, 2008, Buddha wrote:

Could Litroenergy be used with photovoltaics for around the clock power source? Litroenergy integrated directly into the manufacture of the solar cell could be the second Litroenergy revolution. Such Litroenergy solar cells could be pretty inefficient and still have the same energy output as non-Litroenergy solar cells because they would work 24 hours a day.

I Told You So!

On Oct. 23, 2008, Buddha wrote:

This is an awesome development! I've been waiting for this announcement.

Limited Feasible Applications

On Oct. 23, 2008 7:55 AM, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Adrian Akau wrote:

The Litroenergy Power Cell seems to be designed for night, for underground, for polar cap or for low power use. It does not seem to have a viable application where there is a strong source of photons: sunlight.

Math is not Favorable

On Oct. 23, 2008, New Energy Congress advisor, Directory:James Dunn wrote:

This is a combination of 2 incredibly low efficiency and expensive devices, with very little net value.

This makes no sense, as the math doesn’t work.

I would ask to see the independent test results.

For comparison – 1 Sq. Ft. of Sun power panels (the highest effic. Made @ 20%) would yield 16W of power in the brightest sunny cloud free day. With Konarka’s they might get 3W under same bright sunlight.

Their device emits far less than 10% of bright sunlight, thus the very best net power would be less than 1 W per sq.ft with Sunpower and less than 200 mw with Konarka.

Since space is as big as issue as cost, it would seem logical to use the best available cells, but still not as useful as using the cells on one’s roof!!!.

Advantage of layering, proximity, and mass production

On October 23, 2008 8:24 AM, Steve Stark of MPK wrote:

What seems to get lost in translation is our ability to layer the solar cells. We sandwich our material between the solar cells and can repeat this process for the desired electricity needed for the application. Important fact to remember is our light source will generate electricity reliably and constantly 24/7 over 20+ years. Our light source material is in direct contact with the cells which boost the electrical effect on the cells.

We are expecting the independent evaluation to be done with a few weeks, hopefully sooner. They are doing the most intense evaluation of our material and benefits. The results will be released, good or bad. There is a lot of interest in our material and power cells, so they will be done without bias.

The fact that people love to bring up is the cost ratio...and this is a game changer. We have the potential to create more solar cell production for devices than anything before it, the cost of solar cells is expected to dramatically drop with the demand of reliable, long-term electrical (Litroenergy Power Cells) solutions.

I hope this helps to put our technology in the right reference.

Can't Possibly be Cost Effective

On October 23, 2008 11:27 AM Mountain, New Energy Congress advisor, Directory:James Dunn wrote:

I don’t know of any applications where they are willing to pay $50/W [EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm not sure where he got this number: estimate?] for the PV energy device, or over $1/kWH.

Even one time (throwaway) primary batteries are cheaper than this.

The fact that the device produces power 24/7 does not override the incredibly low net power produced.

Although we don’t normally the use PV indoors, it would still be better (higher net energy) to just use the PV with internal office lighting, when on, than to directly couple it to a low output luminous tritium source 24/7.

The test data will show why this is not cost effective, at the end of the day.

Best to wait for some solid test data than to waste time arguing.

Not an

On Oct. 22, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Former Member:Daniel Bowers wrote:

Change the planet? I feel that the net energy output of this type of

technology is going to be quite negligible. This is essentially a

battery. There is no way this technology is going to get out more

energy than is put into it.

Tritium is produced in nuclear reactors by neutron activation of


This technology poses health risks to the employees manufacturing it.

It is NOT a primary energy source!

Silicon cells are already inefficient and I am quite certain that the

spectrum of light emitted from the Litrospheres will reduce these

numbers even more.

The type of statement that this technology can change the world tells

me where the minds of the individuals promoting this technology are.

What is the process of recycling these non-generators, I mean

radioctive batteries?

This is a waste of resources and will never be widely accepted. Why

would I pay more money for cells so they can operate at inefficient


You would need 10X more solar cells to power your house than you

would if you were to simply install them on your roof. This is just a

ploy to promote an otherwise pretty much useless technology.

They should stick to optics, watches, and emergency exit signs!

Investors will see this as a business that does not have focus when

the truth comes out.

Phosphorus, tritium, and silicon, and copper all require energy to

extract/ produce. Then there is the amount of energy for production

of the cells themselves.

"Litroenergy Power Cells can provide electricity for toys, smoke

alarms, powering bright LED lighting/conventional lighting or the

much needed electric vehicle (no need to plug it in or re-charge) or

to power a home." B.S. People can not afford solar systems for their

homes as is.

Tritium is widely used in nuclear weapons for boosting a fission bomb

or the fission primary of a thermonuclear weapon.

Phosphorus compounds are also widely used in explosives and nerve


Add a couple of ingredients and somebody is going to have a serious

problem on their hands.

I can totally see the Iranians or North Koreans wanting to buy the

first couple hundred megawatts of LitroEnergy Power Cells. So yes in

a way this could be a world changing technology. Not in a good way!

I know I am exagerating on this one but to call this a GENERATOR or

Green Energy. Yea it may be green as in the spectrum of light but

that is all. What generated the energy here was the fission reaction

of Lithium 6 and the chemical reactions to stabilize the phosphorus.

There is nothing environmentally friendly or logical about this

technology that will enable it to fulfill the stated claims.

Evaluation Just Needs Data

--Penny Gruber 02:59, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

Steve Stark you can disperse all skepticism by presenting numbers. Just identify the incident luminous power density that your phosphorescent materials emit within the spectrum of a typical solar cell. Choose the cell to match a scenario of your choice.

My intuition is that the numbers come out in the uW to mW/square meter range which would make your cells useless for most practical purposes. But, I am happy to have you present verifiable data that is more favorable.

MPK is Committing Fraud

On February 05, 2009, [anonymous] wrote by email:

Dear Mr. Allan: I have to inform you that MPK's NASA TechBrief winning project of 2007 does not exist. It is theory at best, although a possibility. All the owners of MPK have done is acquire the expired Webb patent for "Litrospheres" from the late 80's involving the use of tritium gas. The handling of tritium must be done by an NRC licensed facility. They are not licensed and never have been. In your radio interview with them they claim that they have acheived a 20 watt capacity...absolutely not true. They have never manufactured one micro bead of "Litrosphere", they do not exist. I have third part verifiable information from someone who was working with them at the time of the award, and I have had interaction with them personally because I contacted them when I saw the award on the net and was planning to get involved and be their distributor in Canada. ALL of the claims they reference can be found in the Webb patent. The marine lifesaver ring pictured that these "inventors" are holding as pictured in the NASA tech Briefs web site is just a plastic material mixed with phosphors that have been charged with normal light. Not Litrospheres and totally misleading. THEY HAVE NO PROTOTYPES and are cash starved and looking for just

I'm all about new energy sources but I'm also about truth, and that is NOT evident here at all.

I also want to comment on the rights of these gentlemen to make a product of the stature that they are claiming fame to, or any other product for that matter. Arguably there is room for several companies to come out with applicable variations using tritium, that will prove to be extremely valuable to all members of society. Competition is a good thing. Its the old Pepsi-Coke question..."Which one would you like to own?" The answer..."I don't care."

Having said that, the rights of anyone to suggest or state that they can make or have made anything with such broad sweeping promotional claims that are totally misleading and fallacious at best, should be not only be forensically scrutinized, they should also be questioned and so should there rights to make such claims.

- - - -

Response :

: Steve Stark of MPK responded in part:

: "We are currently working with [name of govt. entities omitted until permission received] on the independent evaluation of our material and it's ability to create 24/7 light for 20+ years and it's ability to generate electricity. They have already confirmed it's ability to generate electricity off the record. We are waiting for the independent results. They thought we would get these results by mid December. We have been in contact with them about every two weeks since then. We are expecting these independent results any day.

: "We have multiple ways to create Litroenergy and have more patents pending than the one publicly disclosed. I would not count us out yet. We are very encouraged by resent events and the need for our material. There is a lot of focus at high levels on our materials. Our cash status currently should not be an issue. We are currently looking at being fully funded by the government at this time for production with positive results pending."