 |
There are currently, 258 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Independent Testing Results for Xogen
Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 @ 13:15:06 UTC by vlad
|
|
Anonymous writes: www.xogen.ca/tests.php Technical Advisory panel statement as received by Xogen power Inc.
April 8th 2003
Following on its mandate, the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) has assessed data testing and analysis conducted relative to the basic science of the Xogen technology (hereafter 'the technology') and makes the following statements:
The technology is not conventional electrolysis as governed by the laws of electrolysis established by Michael Faraday in 1834, because:
The technology produces approximately 3 times more gas output for approximately 1/3rd the current required by conventional electrolysis;
The gas output in part (a) is achieved without special water (i.e. deionized, demineralized ) or catalyst (electrolyte). Only City of Calgary tap water was used;
As a minimum, with the same power input, the gas production that has been achieved with environmental streams tested is similar to what has been achieved with ordinary tap water;
The output gas is a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen containing less than 3% water vapour;
The electronic circuitry is digitally driven;
The gas output does not require drying or filtering prior to its use for combustion;
The technology is manufactured from off-the-shelf components.
In order to address issues of safety, the Xogen generator output was combusted as it was produced, without the requirement for gas storage.
The output gas has been used to operate a Briggs and Stratton engine and a 1kW Honda generator under 90% load conditions, with very minor modifications to both engines.
The TAP also provided an additional clarifying statement that read, "Faraday's Electrolysis Laws must not be confused with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Faradays Electrolysis Laws describe the maximum usable output obtainable using conventional electrolysis for a given quantity of input energy. The Laws of Thermodynamics clearly state that the energy available in a given system will never exceed the overall energy contained within the given system. The Xogen Technology does not under any circumstances violate this fundamental Law of Physics."
Technical Advisory Panel(TAP)
Keith Clayton holds a B.Sc. Chemical Engineering and is a Professional Engineer in the Province of Alberta. He joins the panel after retiring from Agrium Inc. with more than 35 years of service. His most recent position with Agrium was as Director of Technology. Mr. Clayton brings a great depth of knowledge on hydrogen generation technologies and techniques, hydrogen being a key input into the fertilizer manufacturing process.
Norm Bartley holds a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering, and is a Professional Engineer and Faculty Member at the University of Calgary. He specializes in electronic circuits and systems, and has provided expert opinions on the Xogen Technology in the past.
Amar Amarnath holds a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering, as well as a B.Tech (Honors) in Chemical Engineering, and is a Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario. Mr. Amarnath is an independent consultant, and has served as such for numerous companies, including Syncrude, Sherrit Inc. and Agrium. He has over 25 years of experience in broad based hydrogen generation techniques and chemistry related fields.
Technical Advisory Panel(TAP)
The Xogen technology performance as independently tested by the Alberta Research Council March 2001.
18 Amp hours of current flowing will liberate approximately 100.2 litres of hydrogen/oxygen gas of which 2/3rds (66.8 litres) is hydrogen and 1/3rd (33.4 litres) is oxygen.
Concerning the physics of the Xogen technology, all other disclosure about the technology that we can make at this time is contained in US patents 6,126,794 and 6,419,815.
How do we compare
Conventional Electrolysis of water
53.6 Amp hours of current flowing will liberate 22.414 litres of hydrogen gas at 0 degrees C, 1 atm.
Xogen Technology
18 Amp hours of current flowing will liberate approximately 100.2 litres of hydrogen/oxygen gas of which 2/3rds (66.8 litres) is hydrogen and 1/3rd (33.4 litres) is oxygen.
Tested by the Alberta Research Council March 2001.
The TAP has concluded that the technology is not conventional electrolysis as governed by the laws of electrolysis established by Michael Faraday in 1834, because the Xogen technology does not operate within the voltage parameters as defined by Faraday's Law. The Xogen technology produced approximately three (3) times more oxy-hydrogen gas output using approximately one third (1/3) the current used by conventional electrolysis. As a minimum, with the same power input, the gas production that has been achieved with environmental streams tested is similar to what has been achieved with ordinary tap water.
Conventional electrolysis of Water
Electrolysis of water is by definition the use of electrons via an applied current and voltage to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas. The chemistry of the process is determined by the following equations:
Positive electrode (anode):
Negative electrode (cathode):
Net reaction:
* - Potentials based on measurements made in 1 M sulfuric acid at 25 °C and 1 atm. Taken from p.D-121, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th Ed, CRC Press, 1974. This potential is the same whether the solution is acidic, basic, or neutral. However, it has been argued that added heat energy is needed to compensate for the change in entropy of the system. This added heat raises the minimum necessary potential of the system to 1.47 V ( J. MíO. Bockris, 1980).
The theoretical power efficiency for the electrolysis of water can be calculated in a number of ways. As long as the same conditions are applied to each case, the results give a relative comparison between the actual efficiencies of different electrolysis gas generators. The water electrolysis industry typically reports power efficiencies in kilowatt hours of power required to produce 1 m³ of pure hydrogen gas at 25 °C and 1 atmosphere pressure (101.325 kPa). Ideally, one mole of water plus two moles of electrons will produce one mole of hydrogen gas.
1 mole of H2 gas is equivalent to 22.414 L, or 0.022414 m³ of H2 gas.
2 moles of electrons are equivalent to 53.6 Ah [(2 mole)(96,485 C/mole)(1 A/Cs)(1 h/3600 s)].
Ideally, 1.47 V is needed, so the ideal power efficiency is:
= (53.6 Ah)(1.47 V)/(0.022414 m³) = 3.52 kWh/m³ of H2 gas at 25 °C, 1 atm (1.013 bar).
Simply put :
53.6 Amp hours of current flowing will liberate 22.414 litres of hydrogen gas at 0 degrees C, 1 atm.
Conventional electrolysis as governed by the laws of electrolysis established by Michael Faraday in 1834 will have the above performance.
Source Taken from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th Ed, CRC Press, 1974.
More independent laboratory test data will be posted shortly.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Independent Testing Results for Xogen (Score: 1)
by Technophile on Friday, January 02, 2004 @ 08:32:49 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | This looks promising. Nine times as much hydrogen out for the same energy. That should be enough to close the loop.
Their credibility in my mind is enhanced by similar results from pulsed electrolysis experiments by Kanarev in Russia. http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html
So when are we going to see products from them? |
Re: Independent Testing Results for Xogen (Score: 1)
by ryandinan on Friday, January 02, 2004 @ 08:49:27 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | So if they have US patents, could someone follow their plans and build a device to confirm? Supposedly it's from off-the-shelf parts...
-Ryan |
]
|
|
Where does the energy come from? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, January 02, 2004 @ 16:55:57 UTC | Their credibility is nil until they answer the simple question: Where does the energy come from? They have stated that their technology is consistent with the laws of thermodynaimics, so I assume they have an answer to this.
I am amazed that people are willing to believe Xogen's extraordinary claims without satisfactory proof or explanation. We need a big dollop of plain old common sense here. |
Re: Where does the energy come from? (Score: 1)
by ryandinan on Friday, January 02, 2004 @ 18:30:10 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Can't their claims still be valid even if they don't know 'exactly' where the energy comes from? Something can work without having complete knowledge of HOW it works. There are many things like this today - Many of the explainations (if any) are just theories based on "principles" that aren't fully understood...
If Xogen's tech is producing this much gas with that little electricity - and it's independently varified - then most likely it works.
-Ryan |
]
Re: Where does the energy come from? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, January 02, 2004 @ 20:32:01 UTC | | I'm pretty sure it works. You can't get a water treatmemt company involved in a limited partnership unless there's something to it. Also, less important but significant is that the celebrity spokesperson in their promo video is a well known and respected personality in Canada. I doubt he would have gotten involved unless he was adequately convinced. |
]
Amps not a unit of power (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Saturday, January 03, 2004 @ 07:49:21 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | | They don't say their process uses less energy or power than electrolysis. They say it uses less current at a different voltage. If the process used less energy, they would probably say so, but they don't. There are a lot of processes that could use less current and still be less efficient than electrolysis. |
]
Re: Amps not a unit of power (Score: 1)
by rycer on Saturday, January 03, 2004 @ 15:53:05 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Last I knew, power=energy/time. The technical advisory panel were using amp hours. This seems like a very valid use of measurement to compare usage of power and consumption in the electrolysis and xogen processes. And to say that it is 1/3 the power and 3 times the volumes of gas released is saying to me that there claiming the process uses less energy.
|
]
power=volts*amps (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Saturday, January 03, 2004 @ 19:31:58 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | | Amp hours is a measure of cumulative current, not work. You need to know the voltage to know the energy. The TAP hardly says anything about the Xogen process; it's almost all about electrolysis. They state explicitly that they use a different voltage in their process than in electrolysis. What they say about the Xogen process is goofy, but they clearly never claim it takes less energy than electrolysis. Electrolysis is a very direct process. I would be very surprised if the Xogen process or any other process that used more voltage than required by electrolysis were half as efficient. |
]
Re: power=volts*amps (Score: 1)
by Technophile on Sunday, January 04, 2004 @ 09:53:44 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Chip, I hate it that you are so negative all the time. After awhile it really starts to get old.
On the other hand, on this issue, you are absolutely correct. Damn. They were really slick on how they slipped that one by. On re-reading it, though, it is clear they are only talking about current, and say absolutely nothing about power.
Chalk one up for the Chipotle. |
]
Re: power=volts*amps (Score: 1)
by chrish64 on Sunday, January 04, 2004 @ 10:57:40 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpfsystems.com | | Yes, but it is stated that they are using 2 12V batteries. Therefore we know the power by simply multilying 24V * Current. If you look at the patent, this is clearly specified. Therefore I would not make the leap to compliment Chipotle. |
]
Re: power=volts*amps (Score: 1)
by rycer on Sunday, January 04, 2004 @ 15:21:56 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Chip, thanks for the education in calculating watts. Anyway you look at it amp hour is a quantified unit of power. Common for calculating potential use of power in situations where voltage is not necessarily always a constant and power is limited to production or storage, ie batteries. No Matter how much voltage large or small the end production is stated in both processes by the same quantified unit of power. Maybe I need more education in what efficiency means? |
]
Amp hours are uinits of charge (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Sunday, January 04, 2004 @ 21:11:22 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | | Unless you assume constant voltage, Amp hours are not a unit of energy (I am sure you meant energy, not power). Xogen's TAP doesn't compare the power requirement of their process to electrolysis for a similar flow. You ask if you need education on efficiency. Really, everyone ought to have a fundamental education in How to Lie With Statistics. |
]
Re: How to lie with statistics (Score: 1)
by rycer on Monday, January 05, 2004 @ 21:33:35 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Chip, have you in your investigations found that Stan Meyer is connected to xogen? Just curios, I noticed that there was reference to his patents on the xogen patent. |
]
]
Re: Stan Meyer (Score: 1)
by rycer on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 @ 22:12:27 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Thanks, for the reference. |
]
And what voltage does electrolysis require? (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Sunday, January 04, 2004 @ 15:22:07 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Less than 2 volts. Another factor of 10 creeping in. I wonder what that might explain.
Anyway, you can only tell what the engineer measured when he prepared the TAP if you look at his original report. Who knows exactly what setup he used. I'm sure he described it in complete detail. But Xogen isn't telling. |
]
Re: Amps not a unit of power (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, January 10, 2004 @ 08:22:26 UTC | Good point about current. Their past communiques, however, have clearly stated that you can get more energy out by burning the hydrogen then is input as electricity. So the question still stands -
Where does the extra energy come from?
Without an answer to this, it's impossible for someone with common sense to take their claims seriously. |
]
Thet used to say that (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Saturday, January 10, 2004 @ 23:01:27 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | | Now they have stopped. The Canadian regulators stopped the sales of Tathacus stock because of Xogen's unsubstantiated free energy claims, and forced an independent test. The independent test showed no free energy. It would be worthwhile to put together all the past statements by Xogen for comparison. I would encourage you to post those. |
]
Re: Where does the energy come from? (Score: 1)
by floyd on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 @ 12:23:09 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Are we not talking about liberating potential energy? A stick in the forest has potential energy stored there by the sun. It takes almost no energy to carry it to the campfire, and ignite it with a little cardboard match, yet it can cook your food. No energy input to speak of yet many thousands of calories of heat liberated from the chemical bonds in the wood. Isn't this process of breaking down water to gas the same thing? The energy comes from the potential energy in the water. |
]
|
|
Time for a last look at Xogen (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Sunday, July 18, 2004 @ 12:24:45 UTC | Since Xogen's gone bankrupt, the trail is going to go cold on figuring out what happened there. I've been digging into the old reports and I'll try to contact the people involved before it's all forgotten.
About the Alberta Research Council report showing that the Xogen process isn't electrolysis, people had questions, what was the Voltage and the efficiency of the Xogen process. Using their data, Efficiency of Xogen Process shows that the potential drop was about 24 V, and that the efficiency was about 50%.
The ARC conclusion that the Xogen process isn't conventional electrolysis was incorrect. There were 3 errors, a failure to apply the ideal gas law, a measurement error, and a circuit analysis error in the ARC report. I go through the numbers in Errors in ARC's report to Xogen and Earlier Xogen Publication of ARC Report. There could have been other errors as well. The ARC report was textbook sloppy lab work. What they should have done is run the Xogen cells using the Xogen process with a varying waveform and then as conventional electrolysis - the same electrodes and the same water but straight DC. Instead they just guessed what electrolysis would do, and were off by a little more than a factor or 8. There must be something in the water up there. |
|
|
|
|
