A Fireplace made from Electroalysis of Water?

[treble_head]

The company I am a salesman for, Hearth and Home Technologies, has created a fireplace/ sculpture called the Aqueon. Apparently it uses electroalysis to seperate the hydrogen and oxygen of water to use the hydrogen as a fuel source for the flame.

It was unveiled at the HPA (Hearth Products Association) show in February.

My question is how can this work? My understanding is that hydrogen causes explosions, not flame, and that it is invisible.

I am not by any means, saying that this is impossible. HHT is a huge company. They are a division of HON Industries. (if you need to know who they are, take a look on your file cabinets at work). They have no reason to lie, but the whole idea seems a bit fantastical.

Any one of the more knowledgable types have any ideas or insight, please fill me in. Here's a bit from the press release:
To operate the Aqueon a homeowner must supply the unit with water and electricity. It produces hydrogen through a process called electrolysis which involves passing an electrical current through water to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. Upon separation, the two elements channel individually and the Aqueon instantly ignites the hydrogen to create the flame. Tom Bachinski, Vice President, Research & Development/Engineering, Heat & Glo, elaborates: "By instantly igniting the hydrogen, the Aqueon ensures a real time combustion process that removes any chance of hydrogen fuel build-up. The Aqueon either introduces the oxygen as a secondary source to add flame color and brightness or simply releases it into the room."

A link: http://www.heatnglo.com/news/pressrelease.asp?id=33

And a picture

How likely is this? Let me Know!

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by treble_head
My question is how can this work? My understanding is that hydrogen causes explosions, not flame, and that it is invisible.Hydrogen is indeed invisible, but if it burns, it gives off energy, including light. It's not really an explosive, except in the sense that any large amount of combustion occurring quickly in an enclosed space will cause an explosion.

The part that makes me question their accuracy is the suggestion that electrolysis separates hydrogen from oxygen. Electrolysis separates hydrogen from OH ions. Pulling the first hydrogen takes a lot less energy than pulling the second one off, so I don't see how one would get oxygen out of this.

[Dilb]

Electrolysis does separate hydrogen from oxygen. The nice diagram here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html) outlines where everything happens.

[treble_head]

Originally posted by Dilb
Electrolysis does separate hydrogen from oxygen. The nice diagram here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html) outlines where everything happens.
Ah crap. I was afraid this would happen. I know how elecrolysis works on water. I am skeptical on how this fireplace would produce actual, visual flame. More importantly, safely.

[davefoc]

This specification from the link about the product made me suspicious:Once the unit is fully operationally, the Aqueon produces a heat output of approximately 31,000 BTUs.

31,000 BTUs per hour is roughly equivalent to 9000 watts. Assuming that the electrolysis process is 50% efficient this means that 18,000 watts of power are required. This is about the total amount of power that it would be possible to draw through the master circuit breaker of a typical American home. It would cost something like $3.00 per hour to draw that much current.

This sentence was also suspicious:
Aqueon only burns hydrogen and oxygen, and not a carbon-based fossil fuel; therefore, it does not release any harmful by-products into the home such as carbon monoxide or nitrous oxide.

It is true that burning hydrogen will not produce CO or any hydrocarbons but it will produce nitrous oxide, I believe. The heat of combusion causes some of the nitrogen in the air to react with the oxygen to form nitrous oxide. Perhaps the product produces NOx type compounds at a rate which is perfectly safe but to say that it produces none sounds like somebody doesn't know what they are talking about, to me.

[MRC_Hans]

The heat produced will include the waste heat from the electrolysis. So, if the output is 9000W, the input will be too. Some of the heat comes directly from heat loss, the rest from energy first invested in producing hydrogen, then recovered by burning same hydrogen.

However, I notice that they do not say 31,000 BTU per hour, just 31,000 BTU. Since BTU is an energy unit, this could be the output during a day, or a week.

So what about this device? Well, it is not unlikely that it can produce a hydrogen flame. If it generates a considerable heat output, however, it will be electrolyzing a lot of water, and as this is tap water, the device will quickly be bogged down in chalk residues. So it is unlikely that it has any real use ad a heat source, whatever its output capacity. And whatever its usefulness, it has no environmental advantage over electric heating, since it is just an elaborate electric heater.

Looking at the picture, I suggest it is nothing but a gimmic, possibly, depending on taste :rolleyes:, with some decorative value. This implies that the BTU rating is dishonest, which raises suspicion that the whole thing is a sham, or at least a device that has no practical funtionality.

Hans

[davefoc]

MRC_Hans wrote:The heat produced will include the waste heat from the electrolysis. So, if the output is 9000W, the input will be too.

Right ye be.

[treble_head]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

However, I notice that they do not say 31,000 BTU per hour, just 31,000 BTU. Since BTU is an energy unit, this could be the output during a day, or a week.

In almost all literature for the hearth industry, they use the BTU rating, which does HAVE to mean per hour.

They curiously also, however, say that it could heat a 2500 + sqare foot area. At 31,000 BTUs (per hour), it would, to me, (as a salesperson whose job it is to link the ammount of room to the ammount of heat, or it's my ass when the return it), imply that it could heat about 1200 square feet to 70 degrees, (provided 8' ceilings and a relatively open area). (under typical basement circumstances). We actually have a formula to work it out, but you get good at guestimating...

*sigh*. Let's see what the others have to say...

[MRC_Hans]

Probably, BTU usually means BTU/hour, which turns it into a unit of power, like watts, however, they COULD say 31,000 BTU and mean per day, per week, or during the whole lifetime of the device, and they wouldn't actually be lying, since BTU is an energy unit.

However, if they do imply 31,000 BTU/hour, I have to say I am skeptical, to say the very least. To produce that much heat (unless it is virtually all derived as heat loss) by electrolyzing water and burning the resulting hydrogen would entail a host of nasty problems including, but not limited to:

- A very quick build-up of chalk residue.

- Production of other gasses due to the elctrolysis process splitting various mineral compounds found in tap water, for instance chlorine from common salt.

- Keeping the electrolysis process even reasonably stable with varying conductivity of water (the conductivity will increase as residues build up).

- Wear-out of electrodes, unless they are made of platinum, which would probably be prohibitively expensive.

I certainly would encourage anybody contemplating buying such a device to demand a thorough practical demonstration of it before paying as much as a penny.

Hans

[treble_head]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Probably, BTU usually means BTU/hour, which turns it into a unit of power, like watts, however, they COULD say 31,000 BTU and mean per day, per week, or during the whole lifetime of the device, and they wouldn't actually be lying, since BTU is an energy unit.

One thing I can assure you is that they do mean 31,000 BTU per hour. The other fireplace companies would kick their asses if they didn't mean per hour. (Again, this is the biggest (though I wish it wasn't true) maker of fireplaces in the country.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
However, if they do imply 31,000 BTU/hour, I have to say I am skeptical, to say the very least. To produce that much heat (unless it is virtually all derived as heat loss) by electrolyzing water and burning the resulting hydrogen would entail a host of nasty problems including, but not limited to:

- A very quick build-up of chalk residue.

- Production of other gasses due to the elctrolysis process splitting various mineral compounds found in tap water, for instance chlorine from common salt.

- Keeping the electrolysis process even reasonably stable with varying conductivity of water (the conductivity will increase as residues build up).

- Wear-out of electrodes, unless they are made of platinum, which would probably be prohibitively expensive.


Hans
Platinum wouldn't be a problem as far as expense. the fireplace/sculpture/trophy piece to show how rich you are, etc., starts at about $35,000.

My main problem (of this being a false claim), comes from the fact that nobody has even implied for us to try to sell it. The company (a fortune 500 company, mind you) would be put on a cross by everyone in the industry if they were shown to be lying.

And yet again, I become more skeptical, and I await further analysis.

Thank you Hans, for your expertise, and I will bring it up to the appropriate people. The plot thickens...

[MRC_Hans]

Looking closer, they give some more data here (http://www.heatnglo.com/products/fireplaces/aqueon/AqueonHighlights.asp). So it IS 31,000 BTU/hour, ...alrighty, then. It requires 220V/60Amp single phase :eek:, which certainly places it outside the scope of a normal household installation, but which gives it an available power of 13,200 W, which should certainly be ample. It uses ½ gallon of water, preferably de-ionized, per hour, so they do have problems with residues ;).

An overwiew of the whole site indicates that it is a serious company (although their taste in fireplaces stinks, IMHO).

They do try to ride on the environment issue (http://www.heatnglo.com/products/fireplaces/aqueon/AqueonHydrogen.asp), however, which is rather dishonest, considering it is simply a fancy electrical heater.

So, in view of the above, I'll change my conclusion to:

The device probably works as advertized, but the practical usefulness is limited. Again from the pictures of the device, the hydrogen flame looks quite small, so probably most of the heat output comes directly from heat losses. It is an electrical heater featuring a small hydrogen flame for novelty.

Hans

[treble_head]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

An overwiew of the whole site indicates that it is a serious company (although their taste in fireplaces stinks, IMHO).
Hans

Agreed. (Let's hope that they don't corolate my home posts to my work ones). This is a company that does not support Natural Gas vent-free, yet thinks that Hydrogen vent-free is a good idea. I am still in awe that they recommend direct vent gas appliances in basements over vent-free. (even if it means cutting through foundations of houses to do so (which is an EXTREME no-no).

I must state, at this point that Hans has brought up a valid point to me, which may not even be his original intent. Also, I did not post this thread to a self-serving end.

I still want to hear from others to see what they think/ know about the Hydrogen fireplace/ sculpture I originaly posted about.

[MRC_Hans]

About the venting issue: A gas fireplace (no matter which kind of gas) will consume oxygen from the room, and if it is any other gas than pure hydrogen, it will release carbon dioxide. Thus, if the burn products are not vented to the outside, the oxygen level in the room will be reduced and the carbon dioxide level will rise (how much depends on how well ventilated the room is, otherwise). In contrast, the hydrogen generating/burning device releases no carbon dioxide, and it does not consume more oxygen than it produces, so the only thing that it changes is the moisture (because it releases water vapor).

Thus, advocating venting gas stoves but not this device is not incongruent in itself.

Edited to add: And about the sculptural part of it: I think it is exquisitly ugly ;).
...OK, OK, I'll leave it to others, now :p.

Hans

[Ririon]

What about the fact that the hydrogen flame is invisible for all practical purposes? Doesn't that add to the overall stupidity of this product?

There is one good thing about it, though: If you buy it, you will be the only one to have it, because nobody else will buy one...

How about this for a variation:

Replace the stupid invisible flame with an electrical lightshow of some sort and lead the hydrogen into the storage tank you keep in the garage. Now you still have heat, and a very refreshing atmosphere in your living room (lots of oxygen, so beware of fire) and you can use the hydrogen for cooler stuff, like your fuel cell prototype car or your radio controlled scale model of the Hindenburg! After reading this forum there can be no doubt that there are thousands of people who would pay thousands of dollars for a device that would give them more oxygen...

Free business idea for anyone. Just keep enough engineers and lawyers at hand.

Ririon

[TjW]

Originally posted by Ririon
What about the fact that the hydrogen flame is invisible for all practical purposes? Doesn't that add to the overall stupidity of this product?

There is one good thing about it, though: If you buy it, you will be the only one to have it, because nobody else will buy one...

How about this for a variation:

Replace the stupid invisible flame with an electrical lightshow of some sort and lead the hydrogen into the storage tank you keep in the garage. Now you still have heat, and a very refreshing atmosphere in your living room (lots of oxygen, so beware of fire) and you can use the hydrogen for cooler stuff, like your fuel cell prototype car or your radio controlled scale model of the Hindenburg! After reading this forum there can be no doubt that there are thousands of people who would pay thousands of dollars for a device that would give them more oxygen...

Free business idea for anyone. Just keep enough engineers and lawyers at hand.

Ririon

Heh. This is a very bad idea. This thing is basically a resistance heater that gives off a little hydrogen and oxygen, which they very sensibly burn immediately so as not to pose a danger.
Messing with larger amounts of hydrogen is a very good way to qualify for the Darwin award.
There was a poster on sci.energy.hydrogen who narrowly missed nomination. He was messing with "Brown's Gas", which is a woo sort of name for the stoichiometric mixture of gases you get after electrolyzing water, but not separating the gases. He had a portable propane tank of a couple of gallons that he was using for storage. He was certain that he was safe, because after all, when it recombines, it's just water, and water is much denser than the two gases, and so it can't possibly explode... it has to implode, right?
So as he's playing with his "Brown's Gas torch", there's a flashback into the storage container, which, narrowly missing him, leaves through the garage door without bothering to open it first.
I may not remember it exactly right. You should search for "Hannon" or "OHannon" . I was amazed that he would admit it had exploded. Up to that time, he was adamant that it couldn't.

[Ririon]

That's where the lawyers come into the equation, TjW... ;)

Ririon

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Dilb
Electrolysis does separate hydrogen from oxygen. The nice diagram here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html) outlines where everything happens. Complete electrolysis separates oxygen from hydrogen. But in general, does electrolysis separate out oxygen? It seems to me that until you've already split off half the hydrogen atoms, you'll just create OH ions.

[Ririon]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Complete electrolysis separates oxygen from hydrogen. But in general, does electrolysis separate out oxygen? It seems to me that until you've already split off half the hydrogen atoms, you'll just create OH ions.

Without going into complex chemistry, how about an eyewitness account? I did this in chemistry class, and it worked. Hydrogen at one electrode and oxygen at the other. :)

Ririon

[CBL4]

From the website:
The Aqueon either introduces the oxygen as a secondary source to add flame color and brightness or simply releases it into the room.(emphasis added)I am not sure if this make sense or not. I know that changing the amount of oxygen in other flames can change the color of the flame. I have no idea about a hydrogen flame but it seems possible.

ETA: Its hard to tell from the picture but I think it might be kind of cool in the proper house. I like the minimalist metal stuff.

CBL

[davefoc]

I had never heard of this idea that electrolysis of water doesn't just result in oxygen and hydrogen. I thought in a normal electrolysis setup you ended up with twice as much hydrogen gas as oxygen gas.

Is this not true? Is there some higher effeciency method of electrolysis where one ends up with mostly hydrogen gas and water where the water has a surplus of OH's floating around in it?

I also have read many times that hydrogen burning is colorless. Is there some simple way to add color to a hydrogen flame? It doesn't seem right that varying the amount of oxygen available is going to chnage the visibility of the hydrogen flame. Does anybody have anything to say about this?

[epepke]

Originally posted by davefoc
I also have read many times that hydrogen burning is colorless. Is there some simple way to add color to a hydrogen flame? It doesn't seem right that varying the amount of oxygen available is going to chnage the visibility of the hydrogen flame. Does anybody have anything to say about this?

I've never understood this. They're probably the same people who say that ethanol is tasteless and odorless.

I made lots of hydrogen when I was a kid, using lye and aluminum rabbit. I filled balloons with it from a Coke bottle. When they were no fun any more as balloons, I set them on fire. Lost many an eyebrow that way. Definitely an orange/yellow fireball.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by TjW
He was messing with "Brown's Gas", which is a woo sort of name for the stoichiometric mixture of gases you get after electrolyzing water, but not separating the gases. By the way, this person might have liked to know that the Dutch term for this mixture translates fairly directly to "bang gas", which I think is an appropriate name.

[Ririon]

Originally posted by davefoc
I had never heard of this idea that electrolysis of water doesn't just result in oxygen and hydrogen. I thought in a normal electrolysis setup you ended up with twice as much hydrogen gas as oxygen gas.

Is this not true? Is there some higher effeciency method of electrolysis where one ends up with mostly hydrogen gas and water where the water has a surplus of OH's floating around in it?

I also have read many times that hydrogen burning is colorless. Is there some simple way to add color to a hydrogen flame? It doesn't seem right that varying the amount of oxygen available is going to chnage the visibility of the hydrogen flame. Does anybody have anything to say about this?

The OH-'s are negatively charged. If you remove the H+ ions, the whole setup would get a net negative electric charge. That would cost too much energy, so it doesn't happen. The OH- ions will drift to the positive electrode, give up a couple of electrons and end up as oxygen gas and H+ ions. (The H+ ions then drift to the negative electrode etc...)

As for the color: You can change the color of any flame by adding impurities. Regular salt will result in a bright yellow color from the sodium. Burning pure hydrogen, however, will mostly give UV light which is invisible.

Ririon