DISQUS

Jombi · 3 years ago

All that money for the clip and she still says 'adaped' instead of adapted at the 5 minute mark... tsk tsk.

Chase · 3 years ago

You're missing the point of there claim. While the process itself is nothing miraculous, electrolysis (which has been around for several hundred years), what is exciting is that the amount of energy input into the system is much less than the energy released when the "oxy-hydrogen" (i.e. oxygen and hydrogen) gas is combusted.

Tommy · 3 years ago

"what is exciting is that the amount of energy input into the system is much less than the energy released when the ?oxy-hydrogen? (i.e. oxygen and hydrogen) gas is combusted."

yeah... that's why we'd like to run cars on the stuff :-)

dponce80 · 3 years ago

um, guys, Chase and Tommy especially, I hate to break it to you, but you're the ones that are missing the point. It's physically impossible to get more out of a system, than what you put in. That sort of claim is called Free Energy, and it goes against the most fundamental laws of the universe.

HL · 9 months ago

Permanent Magnet Technology is a Free Energy Science, one that has purposely ignored by engineering schools for a whole century. Wonder why? Because it is free!

I am employing free hydrogen fuel assist to my Church van, a 95 Dodge Caravan. My highway mileage has jumped from 19 to 29 mpg. Free mileage!

Dponce80 take a "feel from the Sun"; more free energy.

Dan · 3 years ago

They're turning high quality electrical energy into low grade heat whilst creating a dangerously explosive stochiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen - ohmic heating is way better at for this.

The last bit about treating sewage by electrolysis is utterly ridiculous - thermodynamically and practically speaking - expensive distillation would be a better idea!

This has scam written all over it, I guess it's been produced to technobamboozle potential investors under the pretenses of being the next revolution in clean energy.

Mind you, they carefully avoided lying (except about being "novel", and that the "unique electronic signal causes the h2o to disassociate"), there were no claims about net energy gains. The Laws of thermodynamics can breathe easy again!! ;-)

Chase · 3 years ago

Dave,

Mind you I never said that more energy is "created in the system" than what is put in. This is the essence of Xogen's claim. However, they refuse to say how this is so.

Chase · 3 years ago

You misunderstand me. The first law of thermodynamics states that "energy is not created or destroyed but transformed." This system is NOT creating energy. Electrolysis is a notoriously energy consuming process. In other words, you put in a lot of energy to get a very low yield of "broken" water (i.e. H2 and O2 gas - what they refer to as "oxy-hydrogen gas"). The novel approach to the Xogen invention is that they are putting a small amount of energy into the system and liberating a larger quantity of energy (the oxidation of the "oxy-hydrogen gas"). This system is not creating energy but rather liberating energy already stored in the water.

This has nothing to do with the so-called "free-energy" hypothesis. "Free-energy" is the misguided concept that energy can be released from such forces as quantum perturbation etc. in order to achieve perpetual motion.

What is facinating about this invention is their claim that they have overcome the fact that electrolysis is an intensively energy consuming process.

Chris Taylor · 3 years ago

I am tired of people whining of free energy. explain how you get a car to move then ?? are you not getting more out than you put in ? yes you are cause the EARTH put in all the rest of the energy a long time ago your just now EXTRACTING IT from the gasoline.

I am not sure if these people are crocks but I AM fascinated by HOW MUCH gas they released IMMEDIATELY from the water when the switched it on !! the question is did that reaction come from JUST the batteries or is there a high power energy source hidden somewhere. If they are getting THAT much gas from just 2 car batteries then DEFINATELY you can make enough to run a car !!! I would gladly shove 12 $40 car batteries in my trunk to hook up to 3 of these gadgets. I only need enough gas to power the car and enough electricity to go for 1.5 hours. thats enough for my weekly driving anywhere I want to go charge it up each night.

Dave Sanford · 3 years ago

The transformation is do to Pulse width modulation PWM (see Joe cell). It not just hooking up a battery, it is also modulating the voltage and finding the resident frequency of water. If you think about it, LED lights can put out as much light as a standard light with less power just more efficient use of power (less heat loss). Oil refinery use energy to make gasoline, this is a transformation. The question is, is it more efficient transformation and better use of power?

chasing cars i · 2 years ago

chasing cars clothes cars chasing snow

mathew berga · 2 years ago

Water has etheral energy saved in it's own existance! Energy "in" and energy "out" ratios is idiotic. That is like saying gasoline spark engines wont work. Gasoline by itself is useless! I only put a few milliamps thru a high voltage coil zap it across a gap with gasoline, in a contained area and voila "WAY MORE POWER OUT THEN POWER IN" idiots. Water has universal power, the building blocks of all life.......start thinking outside of your narrow views folks and maybe we'd have a better chance moving forward and fixing planet earth.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Mathew Berga:
You are misunderstanding the molecular nature of water, hydrogen and oxygen. Water does not "contain" energy like gasoline. Instead, it is the PRODUCT of combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. When hydrogen burns in the presence of oxygen, it releases energy, and water is the product. In the same way, when gasoline is burned in the presence of oxygen, carbon dioxide is produced. When wood is burned, carbon dioxide and ash is produced. The water that is produced when hydrogen is burned is like "ash". It is the product of burning. It is a a lower energy potential than the hydrogen. To break water down into hydrogen and oxygen again, you must PUT IN energy. Gasoline contains MORE ENERGY than its products. That is why we can use it to run cars. Water contains LESS energy than hydrogen. Using water to run a car makes as much sense as using ash to heat your home. I hope this helps you.

Anonymous · 2 years ago

Oh, and by the way:
Xogen has been gone for a number of years now. It disappeared when it's fundraising arm (Tathacus) went down the tubes after it could not raise any more money from gullible investors. Interestingly, the "process" was always just a few months away from completion, and then completely vanished after the money dried up.........

Tom · 1 year ago

As a layman I won’t try to impress you with my knowledge of physics and whether or not a particular electrolysis application works efficiently. However, I would like to impress on everyone to keep trying and working on this process until we have perfected it. As you will recall, there was a time in our history when no one had been able to split the atom. When that goal was eventually achieved the world was immediately changed forever.

Unfortunately, our nation’s societies have become slaves to the great oil brokers of the world. With their tremendous wealth and power they are able to dictate to our everyday lives. Even now we have nations at war (including ours) where oil is at the center. Instead of splitting atoms to make war, it is time to harness the energy sources available to us through applied science and free our nations from the control of the petroleum power lords.

While in attendance at a conference in Washington D.C. at the Brookings Institute I learned a very shocking fact. The Middle East is in possession and control of over 80% of the world’s oil reserves and that should scare all of us. The U.S., on the other hand, is in possession and control of over 90% of the world’s coal reserves which we use to make electricity to power our nation’s electrical grid. As you can see we as a nation face a serious dilemma. Regardless of the efficiency factor of the hydrogen fuel cells, we still need to pursue this technology at all costs. We have the electricity available to produce this form of fuel. We have to buy the oil at whatever cost is demanded.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he placed an entire mechanized division within 100 miles of the largest producing oil wells in the region supplying the U.S. If he had been successful at gaining control of all of them, our nation would have came to a crawl within a matter of months and the rest is history.

If you are an engineer or a company working on developing this process, you need to be ever conscious of your security concerns. Our world corporations and even our politicians are heavily invested in the oil companies and they don’t want this technology to succeed. The overseas power brokers are at risk of losing their empires if this technology is successfully developed, so they will stop at nothing to defeat this technology. Obviously, you have much at risk, but if you are successful you will have split a new proverbial atom and will once again change the world forever.

Don’t let misinformation and propaganda sneak into your group and destroy all of the positive sharing of information and the positive accomplishments of your collaborative efforts.

Remember the saying, There are three types of people in this world: (1) Those who watch things happen. (2) Those who make things happen. (3) And those who wonder what happened.

Richard · 1 year ago

Tom, There is no vast conspiricy to make this crap fail, it was an invention that created a way to seperate fools from money. it did that far better then seprating oxygen from hydrogen.

I got a bufoon like you shilling this crap to me daily via Yahoo Messanger, another couple of days and I will add him to my ignore list.

What is it with you lib-treehugging idiots? Look at the spew you have wriiten Tommy, you have the most text and said the least. Please tell me your not a U.S. Citizen. If you tell me you are we will deny it.

Wolf · 1 year ago

Uh Rich, Perhaps YOU are the one with green card, because if you could understand English you would have been able to read the meaningful text Tom wrote. He was only encouraging those that are experimenting to keep it up. It's a good thing. Many believed that the helicopter would never work because it goes against the laws of physics. The narrow minded idiots never realized it actually followed a different set of physical laws than they were hung up on. You seem to be one of these narrow minded people with no vision or ability to think outside the box. You should consider another forum for your comments, try the 'I need to learn how to spell "WRIITEN" because I'm a Zoloft consuming PILL of a human being' Website.

Omar · 1 year ago

google "stanley myers and water power"

Besworks · 1 year ago

It most certainly does work. I have built a similar device myself and have seen the combustion happening. The technology is not designed as a replacement for petroleum fuel but as an enhancement to existing combustion engines.

The Oxyhydrogen (read wikipedia) is a very fast and clean burning fuel. In large enough quantities it could power a car on it's own but you run into corrosion and seizing issues after some time. In smaller quantities it can be used to offset the amount of petroleum fuel being used. By leaning out the fuel mixture (more air vs liquid fuel) and injecting the oxyhydrogen into the air intake of the engine you can use less liquid fuel and get the same amount of power to drive the vehicle.

Oxyhydrogen burns at a rate of 2000 feet per second (much faster than gasoline). When mixed with gasoline it acts as a catalyst causing more of the liquid fuel to be consumed rather than expelled as exhaust or clinging to the inside of the cylinders. Since the byproduct of combustion is pure water you are also cleaning and cooling the engine at the same time.

For those of you who still believe this is a scam you should read up on the catalytic converter. That is one scam of a device if I ever saw one. They tell you it lowers emissions but what they don't tell you is that to do so they simply burn up the excess fuel from the engine strokes and waste it as heat. And these devices are mandatory on ALL vehicles (at least in North America, I don't know about elsewhere).

I'll leave you all with a link to a commercial product that uses the same technology. It's a hydrogen powered hobby rocket. I personally own one of these units so can vouch for the authenticity of it.

http://www.estesrockets.com/products.php?number...

george · 1 year ago

Some of you guys just dont get it. this is not conventional electrolysis, which is very inefficient, creates heat, and uses lots of amps. Xogen was formed from Stan Meyers invention. The Meyer’s fuel cell uses water as a dielectric material to create a capacitor. The voltage is multiplied by a transformer circuit, which lowers the amperage, which is then used to charge the cap. The charging is done in pulsed stages so as not to short itself out prematurely. Putting inductors and capacitors together creates a band pass filter. In other words, only a limited range of frequencies passes through the circuit (the resonant frequency of water). Therefore, 12 volts go in, which is multiplied to up to 40,000 volts which reduces the amps to as little as one half. All this voltage enters the negative side of the capacitor, which is one plate and charges that plate to 40,000 volts. A capacitor is two metal plates separated by a dielectric material (low conductivity, high resistance). In this design, the dielectric material is water, which is not a good conductor as illustrated by the fact that you need a catalyst in conventional electrolysis. The design is intended to fail or short itself out (All the voltage stored in the capacitor is converted to amps) when it reaches critical voltage, which ultimately destroys the hydrogen bonds. It draws less power to charge the cap and the cap is used to convert all that voltage back to amps. So you see its not electrolysis. So, you pulse charge a capacitor, in this case two metal plates separated by water. The cap reaches critical voltage and shorts its self out destroying the hydrogen bonds in the process. The process begins all over again. This occurs many times a second as illustrated by the video.

dan · 1 year ago

the guy that wrote this article is obviously scared about what he doesn't know. Fact is a oil company invested 2 million in Xogen and they continue to progress despite ignorance from people like you calling there work a scam. Fact is several people have done what Xogen does for example Yull Brown, Stanley Meyer and Daniel Dingle -John Kansus. So jack ass educate yourself before you make yourself look even dumber. by the way i've made my own hydrogen on demand system that fuels my chevy tbi v8 conversion van. so bite me David Ponce this simple technology works.

Myles · 1 year ago

What if when burning the HHO, one produces a neutron stream in the flame? Think about the expansion of monatomic hydrogen.. the proton and electron move away from eachother.. What's the first thing that proton's gonna bump? an electron.. what does that make it? a Neutron.. this is not about 'free' energy, its about mass to energy.. a very small part of the HHO dissapears into neutrons.. Which is why the High volatge, pulsed DC "electrolysis" produces more energy, it's because it doesn't just make 2H2 and O2, it makes 2H1 and O1.. which burns differently.. Somoe of it burns, some of it fuses.. Not cold fusion, micro fusion. The law of conservation stands.. but this is using some of the mass (one single hydrogen atom per neutron created) of water and converting it to energy. That's how it melts tungsten. most of the hydrogen burns, most of the hydrogen is H2, but some of it, while the rest is burning, fuses into neutrons. Ta da. :)

kaosad · 1 year ago

PMW? 40kV? That are a bunch of craps. You can release hydrogen+oxygen even with an ordinary electrolysis process. I bet you can't easily attain 40kV before breakdown which happens at much lower voltage.

MR NOCHE · 1 year ago

The press did not pay attention to the Wright Brothers for over 1 year before they
saw them fly over their heads and then believe man could fly. Before then when the locomotive train was still in concept, they thought if you went faster than 25 mph, you would suffocate due to oxygen starvation. The technology of the Atom as stated before. Tachyons on paper bends Einstein’s fixed speed of light. The one fact that remains is economics and status quo base don Oil. What would happen to many world economies if you came with a proven working technology that would pretty much replace Oil as the primary energy source? The movie Syriana scratches the surface of the tree huggers angle of the oil powers desire to remain on top. I don’t hate tree huggers, I don’t hate skeptics who hang on concrete facts and dispel unproven theories. I know one thing for a fact, anyone (anyone) who comes close to getting this working to a point where it commercially viable will have visitors knocking at their doors. Not because you have proven that Faradays, Newton’s or Einstein’s theories can bend, but you are a threat to an economic way of life. This is not a conspiracy nut speaking, its just business. Our saving grace is the internet, our Pandora’s box.. For those who are working on this (me for one) don’t think you will get a patent and retire on a beach while your invention technology is released to betterment of man. I am not a tree hugger I hate Al Gore, biggest hypocrite to taunt the “green” label. This needs to be distributed freely for any change to occur. I for one and my geek friends have decided to see if this is a doable concept and if applicable to use in a car where it would do the most good in this country and elsewhere put it out for all to use and maybe improve upon. Running a car is laot harder than producing enough to drive it, you have to think about regulating it and take into considerations all the electronics regulating on gas not hydrogen. (IE. Map Sensors and Oxygen Sensors, ect ect). So even if you can produce enough you have to adapt the car. Now for some facts. :

Some hydrogen/gasoline facts:

The available chemical energy when Hydrogen burns is 143 megaJoules per kilogram
This is 39.7kWHr/kg
Standard gasoline has 13kWHr/kg which is 35.944 kWHr/gal
If I have a car that burns 1 gal per hour (which is typical for SUVs on the highway or smaller cars in city traffic), (most cars getting 20 mpg @ 60 mph equal 3 gallon ok.. so this is one gallon for math’s sake)
Then the equivalent hydrogen is 0.905 kg which at 2 grams per mole yields 453 moles.
And each mole at STP (standard temperature and pressure) takes up 22.7 liters,
Thus our gallon of gas equivalent hydrogen has a volume (@STP) of 10300 liters.
This equates to approximately 363 cubic feet. If this is stored at high pressure in standard sized scuba tanks you would need about 4.5 tanks to hold a gallon equivalent of gasoline. Think about what you need for 10 gallons, 25gallons? And I have assumed no loss of energy.
Theoretically the best electrolytic cells can have 94% efficiency. But real world cells only achieve 70%.
Now our gallon of gasoline equivalent of hydrogen contains 35.944 kWHr – that’s 35944 watts times hours. If we plan to extract hydrogen using electricity, and if we wish to extract the gallon equivalent in just one hour, we then need 35944 watts of power for the whole hour. Recall a watt is a volt times an amp. The minimum voltage electrolysis needs is 1.23 volts. Thus 36000 watts equates to about 30000 amps. Do you see a problem with practicality? So this is why Meyers
Concept must work in order to circumvent this.






Now do you see why my diatribe could be a real long read? I think this is possible , but not based on current facts and laws of physics, thus the need for abstract thinking. So Meyers Cell does work, but can it make that much to power a car and what changes will have to be made to the car for long term safe use. So Skeptics have grounds and the
Theorist have a lot of work to do. Let the games begin.

jay_1_2_3 · 1 month ago

You guys are missing it! The main difference between Xogen and a Faraday style of electrolysis is how the power is utilized. Xogen is using something similar to a high voltage step system to polarize and separate electrons as opposed to a sustained high amperage current. Xogen is using Stan Meyer's patents for the invention he called a "water fuel cell".
The idea people should demand is there has got to be a better way to split water. Look at a fish it separates oxygen from water just by flapping its gills! Water passes though a thin membrane in the gill and with a flapping motion it separates oxygen from water at greater than 80% efficiency!
When focused we can do the unthinkable like man traveling to the moon. We pool all the best scientists just to build incredibly advanced weapons of mass destruction and not machines of over unity. You are a moron if you think we could not have figured out free energy and clean water by now!