Xogen-phoenix or failure ?

[Seeker]

Those of you who have followed TIQ discussions for quite some time, may recall that at one point there was some back and forth about 'Hydrogen on Demand' technology.

I believe that Lawrence had been the first to bring to our attention a company called 'Xogen'. This company claimed to have developped a technology that could produce hydrogen in such a way that it would be delivered directly to the burner tip of a furnace or engine (hence the name given to this process : "Hydrogen...on demand")

For some time now, I've assumed that Xogen, which is funded by Tathacus Resources, was a story with a simple ending - another fly by night company, making grand claims about a secret, energy producing process... with nothing to back up their assertions.

In fact, as far as I know, there's nothing solid, to say that this won't be the epitaph that will be written about Xogen.

Afterall, they had their research evaluated by the Alberta Research Council, and the main conclusion of the report produced, was that 'modest amounts of hydrogen' could be produced by the process. Nothing was, and ever has been said, about energy efficiencies or cost efficiencies, of the hydrogen conversion.

Still, I find it intriguing, that after all this time, Xogen and their finacier Tathacus, are still touting the technology as a viable one...even now.

What do you make of this saga...Science or Snake oil ?

Click here to go to the Tathacus website, and see their Lastest News release :

www.tathacus.ca


Seeker

[hodgepoj]

quote:Originally posted by Seeker


What do you make of this saga...Science or Snake oil ?

Click here to go to the Tathacus website, and see their Lastest News release :



Their latest news release (29 Nov) contains no technical information. The 26 Nov release describes an oxy-hydrogen gas liberated from tap water by passing a DC current through it.

I learned in high school chemistry and have believed it in close to 50 years as a professional physicist, including many water dissociation lab experiments while teaching physical science, that a DC current in water liberates pure hydrogen at the negative electrode and pure oxygen at the positive electrode.

I don't know what oxy-hydrogen is.

Dr. Paul O. Johnson
Senior Exhibit Developer
The Science Place
Dallas, Texas 75210

[don c.]

I began a thread on Millenium Cell several months back on TIQ. They are calling their technology "Hydrogen on Demand". They have tested their product with Daimler Chrysler (http://www.millenniumcell.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?function=detail&id=12122001), one of the more forward-looking auto companies with regard to alternative energy.

http://www.millenniumcell.com/news/hod.html

Hydrogen on Demand; Overview:

Millennium Cell has invented, patented, and developed a proprietary process called Hydrogen on Demand; that safely generates pure hydrogen from environmentally friendly raw materials. The hydrogen is stored on-board at ambient conditions in a liquid "fuel"; an aqueous (water-based) solution of sodium borohydride, NaBH4. Sodium borohydride is made from borax, a material that is found in substantial natural reserves globally. The process supplies pure hydrogen for energy applications without the need (and associated energy penalties) for compression or liquefaction. Hydrogen produced by this system can be used for numerous applications, addressing a wide range of power requirements.

[Seeker]

quote:Originally posted by don c.

I began a thread on Millenium Cell several months back on TIQ. They are calling their technology "Hydrogen on Demand". They have tested their product with Daimler Chrysler (http://www.millenniumcell.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?function=detail&id=12122001), one of the more forward-looking auto companies with regard to alternative energy.

http://www.millenniumcell.com/news/hod.html

Hydrogen on Demand; Overview:

Millennium Cell has invented, patented, and developed a proprietary process called Hydrogen on Demand; that safely generates pure hydrogen from environmentally friendly raw materials. The hydrogen is stored on-board at ambient conditions in a liquid "fuel"; an aqueous (water-based) solution of sodium borohydride, NaBH4. Sodium borohydride is made from borax, a material that is found in substantial natural reserves globally. The process supplies pure hydrogen for energy applications without the need (and associated energy penalties) for compression or liquefaction. Hydrogen produced by this system can be used for numerous applications, addressing a wide range of power requirements.





To me, the Millennium Cell technology sounds like the most promising brand of 'hydrogen on demand' system.

The fact that companies like Daimler Chrysler, and Peugot, have engaged in joint projects with Millennium Cell, gives good reason to believe that they're on to something.

The impression I have, is that the Millennium Cell hydrogen on demand system would be both efficient and safe. At this point it would be costly to implement though. However, if the technology was introduced on a large scale, I'm sure the costs would come down. I think the sodium borohydride was the main cost element in this system.

Seeker

[Seeker]

quote:

I don't know what oxy-hydrogen is.




Hi Dr. J,

I agree, the info provided on the Tathacus website about this process , is short on details. I don't exactly know what this ortho & para hydrogen are either.

Here's a link you can go to, to check out a patent by Xogen, which uses the terms 'ortho' and 'para' hydrogen, in the body of the patent :


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft00&s1=xogen&OS=xogen&RS=xogen

Have you ever heard of Stanley Meier ? He was an inventor who has sort of ‘cult’ following, who believe that he came up with some sort of amazing electroylsis device a few decades back .I've heard that the Xogen patents are similar to his electrolysis patents.

It sounds like this brand of electrolysis is claimed to be superior because it uses a "pulsed current". After reading through some information relating to it, the impression I got was that the pulsed current was supposed to cause the water molecules to be aligned within the electrolysis device in a particular way, so that it would require less energy to break their chemical bonds, or something along those lines. The other impression I had come away with, was that a common problem associated with the production of hydrogen via electrolysis, was that the hydrogen molecules have a tendancy to stick to the electrodes, thus reducing the yield of hydrogen gas. I seem to recall that this method was claiming to liberate hydrogen from the electrodes more easily, so that the hydrogen yield would be greater.

My understanding is incomplete, concerning the scientific rationale which this technique is supposed to rely upon. But If there was anything to this whole process...which in all likelihood there isn't...

it might be that the process was harnessing electric current in a more productive way than most electrolysis methods do.

I’ve wondered if maybe a pulsed current could set up some sort of a ‘resonance frequency’ within a water molecule, which would have the result that you would be using the same amount of electrical energy as most electrolysis methods...but putting that energy to better use.

Here's an analogy :

Fred & Joe both push against a fridge. Fred pushes against the fridge 5 times with a force of 1000N each time (arbitrary figure)

Joe pushes only 1 time with a force of 5000N.

Only Joe is able to move the fridge ( do useful work)...though they both use the same amount of force in total.

Just wondering if a pulsed current could be something like Joe, in terms of being better able to decompose a water molecule. Another comparison could be to the way in which wind, pushing on a bridge in typical fashion, may have a minimal effect on the integrity of the bridg. But if a resonance frequency is established in the timed force of the wind coming against the bridge, then the bridge may start swaying violently, and eventuallly be destroyed.

It's fun to speculate, but I'm sure this theory has some flaws in it !

Seeker

[yop]

Sodium borohydride is a hydrogen storage strategy. It's a safer alternative to transporting hydrogen under pressure in a cylinder. Unlike compressed hydrogen gas, sodium borohydride won't explode on you. The drawbacks are cost and the fact that sodium borohydride is a solid, which makes it harder to handle. For example, you can't pump it from place to place, like gasoline or hydrogen gas. Note that sodium borohydride has nothing to do with the original hydrogen generation. You still have to generate hydrogen somehow so that you can then synthesize sodium borohydride from borax and hydrogen.

Xogen's patent describes a hydrogen production strategy, generating hydrogen gas from water using electricity. Short powerful pulses of electricity should be more efficient than a continuous lower level of power. First, the periods when there is no electricity flowing gives the evolved gases a chance to get away from the electrodes, so you don't waste power by putting it into the hydrogen or oxygen gas bubbles that collect on the electrodes. You want the energy to go into water molecules to generate more hydrogen gas, instead of going towards heating up the hydrogen gas that you generated earlier. Second, a short powerful burst of electricity helps to minimize losses to the bulk water in the vessel. Ideally, you would put all of your energy into one O-H bond at the electrode until it broke, then move on to the next, etc. In reality, however, the energy that you put into the system at the electrodes is constantly bleeding away into the bulk water, heating it up. Eventually, that will give you steam, instead of the hydrogen gas that you want. Short powerful pulses help push the kinetics towards hydrogen gas instead of steam.

All that being said, I think that much of the Xogen patent is a load of BS. It talks about "ortho" and "para" hydrogen, which supposedly differ in their chemical properties because their nuclei have different spins. But nuclear spin has next to zero effect on chemical activity, as far as I know. Electron spins can have major effects, but not nuclear spins. My guess is that this ortho and para hydrogen junk is just a smokescreen to help them get around an existing patent.

[Seeker]

quote:Originally posted by yop

Sodium borohydride is a hydrogen storage strategy. It's a safer alternative to transporting hydrogen under pressure in a cylinder. Unlike compressed hydrogen gas, sodium borohydride won't explode on you. The drawbacks are cost and the fact that sodium borohydride is a solid, which makes it harder to handle. For example, you can't pump it from place to place, like gasoline or hydrogen gas. Note that sodium borohydride has nothing to do with the original hydrogen generation. You still have to generate hydrogen somehow so that you can then synthesize sodium borohydride from borax and hydrogen.

Xogen's patent describes a hydrogen production strategy, generating hydrogen gas from water using electricity. Short powerful pulses of electricity should be more efficient than a continuous lower level of power. First, the periods when there is no electricity flowing gives the evolved gases a chance to get away from the electrodes, so you don't waste power by putting it into the hydrogen or oxygen gas bubbles that collect on the electrodes. You want the energy to go into water molecules to generate more hydrogen gas, instead of going towards heating up the hydrogen gas that you generated earlier. Second, a short powerful burst of electricity helps to minimize losses to the bulk water in the vessel. Ideally, you would put all of your energy into one O-H bond at the electrode until it broke, then move on to the next, etc. In reality, however, the energy that you put into the system at the electrodes is constantly bleeding away into the bulk water, heating it up. Eventually, that will give you steam, instead of the hydrogen gas that you want. Short powerful pulses help push the kinetics towards hydrogen gas instead of steam.

All that being said, I think that much of the Xogen patent is a load of BS. It talks about "ortho" and "para" hydrogen, which supposedly differ in their chemical properties because their nuclei have different spins. But nuclear spin has next to zero effect on chemical activity, as far as I know. Electron spins can have major effects, but not nuclear spins. My guess is that this ortho and para hydrogen junk is just a smokescreen to help them get around an existing patent.


Hi yop,

Thanks for these good insights. With the sodium borohydride, as I'm understanding it, this would be dissolved in water, and the solution could be used in much the same way as gasoline.Am I wrong about this ? As far as the ortho and para hydrogen goes, it sounds like these 2 forms have different physical properties, such as stability,boiling point,and thermal conductivity, however, their chemical properties are the same. I seem to recall that the Xogen people were claiming that one form of hydrogen was slow burning ,while the other was explosive... Hmmm?

Seeker

[yop]

An aqueous NaBH4 solution is easier to handle than powder, but it has an important drawback: NaBH4 decomposes in water. The reaction is slow, but over time, some of your fuel will just disappear as a puff of invisible gas, unless you make provisions for capturing the hydrogen gas (complicated, expensive, heavy). According to the Merck Index, aqueous NaBH4 solutions "can be kept for several days." The decomposition reaction is temperature sensitive, so don't park your car in the sun.

Regarding the two forms of hydrogen: it sounds like they are talking about different electronic structures. One of the forms of hydrogen they are talking about must be an excited state. This excited state hydrogen will react much more quickly than normal hydrogen due to energy or symmetry considerations. However, excited state hydrogen probably has a halflife of only a fraction of a second before it reverts to the ground state, i.e. until it becomes normal hydrogen. For practical purposes of hydrogen generation, transport, and storage, excited state hydrogen gains you nothing. If anything, it represents an energy loss, since the energy difference between the excited state and the ground state will be lost as heat.

[hodgepoj]

quote:Originally posted by Seeker

Hi Dr. J, I don't exactly know what this ortho & para hydrogen are.


I can help you there, Seeker. A hydorgen molecule in which the two electron spin vectors are parallel is called orthohydrogen. If the electron spin vectors are antiparallel, it is parahydrogen.

quote:
Have you ever heard of Stanley Meier ? He was an inventor who has sort of ‘cult’ following, who believe that he came up with some sort of amazing electroylsis device a few decades back .I've heard that the Xogen patents are similar to his electrolysis patents.


Nope. I've never heard of him or his device.

quote:
It sounds like this brand of electrolysis is claimed to be superior because it uses a "pulsed current". After reading through some information relating to it, the impression I got was that the pulsed current was supposed to cause the water molecules to be aligned within the electrolysis device in a particular way, so that it would require less energy to break their chemical bonds, or something along those lines.


The water molecule is polar, that is, it has a permanent dipole moment because its centers of positive and negative charge don't coincide. Unlike carbon dioxide, in which the two O atoms are opposite each other around the C atom, the two H atoms around the O atom in water are only 105 degrees apart.

The molecule looks like a Mickey Mouse head, with the two H atoms being the ears.

So a water molecule's positive end (the H end)is attracted to a negative charge and its negative end (the O end) is attracted to a positive charge.

Therefore, polar molecules such as water attract one another and are relatively difficult to separate. H2O has a boiling point of 100 degrees C whereas CO2's boiling point is only minus 79 degrees C. This is a dramatic difference in molecular stability considering that the two molecules differ by only type of atom.

So water molecules are, indeed, aligned with the electric field created in an electrolysis device, but that doesn't make their chemical bonds any easier to break.

quote:
The other impression I had come away with, was that a common problem associated with the production of hydrogen via electrolysis, was that the hydrogen molecules have a tendancy to stick to the electrodes, thus reducing the yield of hydrogen gas.


Having a dipole moment, a water molecule would stick to any charged object such as an electrode. But H and O molecules are both non-polar so they would not be attracted to the electrode. So I'm afraid your impression is erroneous.

quote:
I’ve wondered if maybe a pulsed current could set up some sort of a ‘resonance frequency’ within a water molecule, which would have the result that you would be using the same amount of electrical energy as most electrolysis methods.


Chemical bonds behave like tuning forks. They vibrate, twist, and oscillate in response to an energy input. The resonant frequency of a chemical bond depends on the masses of the bonded atoms and the strength of the bond. The H20 dipole molecule has a resonant frequency in the range 10^9 to 10^11 hertz.

This is far greater than any pulsed current could achieve but is smack dab in the middle of the microwave range. You cook food in a microwave oven by heating the water in the food. The flipping H2O molecules slam into and warm the food molecules from within.

quote:
Another comparison could be to the way in which wind, pushing on a bridge in typical fashion, may have a minimal effect on the integrity of the bridg. But if a resonance frequency is established in the timed force of the wind coming against the bridge, then the bridge may start swaying violently, and eventuallly be destroyed.


I don't know what you mean by "timed force of the wind," Seeker. A steady wind blowing on it can cause a bridge to oscillate due to a phenomenon called vortex shedding. A DC wind blowing across an obstacle creates vortexes (curling winds) at the trailing edge. These vortexes flip between CW and CCW at a frequency that depends on the wind speed and the shape and size of the obstacle. If the vottex flipping frequency approaches the resonant frequency of the obstacle, the magnitude of obstacle oscillation increases.

The most spectacular example of this was the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in 1940. See
http://www.nwrain.net/~newtsuit/recoveries/narrows/narrows.htm

The vortex shedding phenomenon was first discovered and understood as a result of the post-collapse analysis done at CalTech.

I enjoyed reading your message.

Dr. Paul O. Johnson
Senior Exhibit Developer
The Science Place
Dallas, Texas 75210

[Seeker]

Hi Dr J,

Thanks for shedding some more light on this electrolysis question. What you wrote about using a pulsed current, makes me remember some comments I've come across somewhere, to the effect that the value of a pulsed current would be in preventing heat from building up in the electrolysis solution. The build up of heat, does seem to be a problem with common electrolysis approaches.

As far as the hydrogen bubbles sticking to the electrodes, maybe what I had gotten this confused with, was the fact that hydrogen bubbles are near the electrodes.

This quote seems to suggest that hydrogen bubbles in an electrolysis solution, present a resistance to the flow of electrical current:


"The evolution of gas bubbles at the electrodes is often exploited to drive the electrolyte through the electrolyser. But a large volume fraction of bubbles increases the electrical resistance of the electrolyte, which increases the loss of energy. The consumption of energy is perhaps the most critical problem in the electrochemical process industry."

http://www2.mech.kth.se/faxenlab/elekt-en.html

So possibly there would be a rationale for an electrolysis approach which could remove the bubbles from the solution as quickly as possible (maybe especially the ones which are near the electrodes)

Seeker

[Seeker]

quote: What you wrote about using a pulsed current, makes me remember some comments I've come across somewhere, to the effect that the value of a pulsed current would be in preventing heat from building up in the electrolysis solution.



I don't usually reply to my own posts,but I just realized that where I got this info about a pulsed current being used for the purpose of reducing heat in the electrolysis solution...was from yop (just a few messages up). Thanks yop :)

Seeker

[hodgepoj]

quote:Originally posted by Seeker


Hi Dr J,

Thanks for shedding some more light on this electrolysis question. What you wrote about using a pulsed current, makes me remember some comments I've come across somewhere, to the effect that the value of a pulsed current would be in preventing heat from building up in the electrolysis solution. The build up of heat, does seem to be a problem with common electrolysis approaches.


The rate of heat buildup in the solution is the difference between the rate of heat creation and the rate of heat dissipation by convection. The rate of heat creation is the power drawn from the current source minus the rate of molecular dissociation (the power expended in breaking up water molecules into gas molecules). The power drawn from the current source is the steady DC voltage between the electrodes times the steady DC current.

If the current is not steady DC (if it is pulsed), the power drawn from the source would be the product of the voltage and the "effective" current (the square root of the average of the square of the current pulses).

The only way, then, that a pulsed current would reduce the rate of heat buildup is if it expended less power than a steady DC current would. This not only decreases the rate of heat creation but provides more time for the heat to be convected away.

quote:
As far as the hydrogen bubbles sticking to the electrodes, maybe what I had gotten this confused with, was the fact that hydrogen bubbles are near the electrodes.

The following quote seems to suggest that hydrogen bubbles in an electrolysis solution present a resistance to the flow of electrical current:

"The evolution of gas bubbles at the electrodes is often exploited to drive the electrolyte through the electrolyser. But a large volume fraction of bubbles increases the electrical resistance of the electrolyte, which increases the loss of energy. The consumption of energy is perhaps the most critical problem in the electrochemical process industry."

So possibly there would be a rationale for an electrolysis approach which could remove the bubbles from the solution as quickly as possible (maybe especially the ones which are near the electrodes)


An accumulation of gas bubbles around the electrodes does, indeed, increase the resistance of the electrolyte. But rather than pulsing the current to attempt to decrease the bubble density, it would be more effective (generate gas at a greater rate) to draw off the gas as fast as it is generated. For example, make the electrodes hollow pourus cylinders and use a pump to reduce the pressure inside the cylinders.

I'm not trying to shoot down your good ideas, Seeker. I think you have a remarkably good understanding of the process of acquiring hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis. I'm simply trying to show you that there are parameters and considerations other than those you see.

Dr. Paul O. Johnson
Senior Exhibit Developer
The Science Place
Dallas, Texas 75210

[yop]

Bubbles in solution like this are interesting. Have you ever noticed that the bubbles in a glass of champagne are all roughly the same size? That's because of the interplay of forces affecting bubble behavior. On the one hand, you have the uplift force due to the density difference between bubble and champagne. On the other hand, you also have the hydrophobic effect which tries to pin the bubbles to the glass. Once a bubble reaches a certain size, the uplift force overcomes the hydrophobic effect, and the bubble will escape the glass surface and rise upwards. So all the bubbles in a glass of champagne are just slightly larger than the size where these two forces balance out.

Some other points of interest:
Vortex shedding: We're all familiar with this phenomenon, but we may not be aware of it. Vortex shedding is what makes a flag flap in the wind. Higher wind speeds cause faster flapping. If this flapping rate resonates with a bridge, you get Tacoma Narrows. Modern bridges avoid this by being designed to be very stiff, so that it would take an extremely strong wind, with a velocity of hundreds of miles an hour, to cause resonance.

Hydrogen generation: Hydrogen is exactly like electricity in that it is only as environmentally friendly as its source. If you generate your hydrogen by: Solar=>Electricity=>Hydrogen (from electrolysis of water), then the process is completely clean. Currently, hydrogen is not a completely clean fuel. The most common process for hydrogen generation today is the following: fossil fuel + water => carbon monoxide + hydrogen. The carbon monoxide can be used as a feedstock to produce chemicals, or it can be used as a source of energy and burned to carbon dioxide. The fossil fuel can be anything, usually coal or natural gas because they are abundant and cheap. So in order for hydrogen to be a truly clean technology, independent of fossil fuels, we still need to develop alternative energy sources.

[hodgepoj]

quote:Originally posted by yop

Bubbles in solution like this are interesting.

Vortex shedding: We're all familiar with this phenomenon, but we may not be aware of it. Vortex shedding is what makes a flag flap in the wind.

Hydrogen generation: Hydrogen is exactly like electricity in that it is only as environmentally friendly as its source. If you generate your hydrogen by: Solar=>Electricity=>Hydrogen (from electrolysis of water), then the process is completely clean. Currently, hydrogen is not a completely clean fuel. The most common process for hydrogen generation today is the following: fossil fuel + water => carbon monoxide + hydrogen. The carbon monoxide can be used as a feedstock to produce chemicals, or it can be used as a source of energy and burned to carbon dioxide. The fossil fuel can be anything, usually coal or natural gas because they are abundant and cheap. So in order for hydrogen to be a truly clean technology, independent of fossil fuels, we still need to develop alternative energy sources.


A very interesting message, yop. Another source of info on hydrogen as a fuel is at http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/a109.html

Dr. Paul O. Johnson
Senior Exhibit Developer
The Science Place
Dallas, Texas 75210

[don c.]

An examination of some of the issues pertinent to the Hydrogen Economy can be found at:

The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak? (http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/hotline/pdf/hydrogen_economy.pdf)

Also check out http://www.tinaja.com/glib/resbn88.pdf