The Physics & the Possibility (long)
Ok, let's start with "the law of conservation of energy": short of a nuclear reaction, you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in. Xogen says there's no nuclear reaction, therefore this law holds.
Next let's look at the electrolysis of water. Here's how it works: You start with water. You spend some energy breaking it into 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. At some later point you "burn" the hydrogen - either in a flame, or in a fuel cell, the net effect is to oxidize the hydrogen back to water. That makes a round trip... net energy: zero.
The equation looks like this: 2H2O + ENERGY1 -> 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O + ENERGY2
In fact, unless you have a method that is 100% efficient at splitting the water into H2 and O2, then you end up LOSING energy (ENERGY1 > ENERGY2 - usually in the form of heat). That's the bad news. The good news is that another possibility exists.
THE ONLY WAY THIS COMPANY COULD POSSIBLY PRODUCE MORE COMMERCIAL ENERGY THAN WENT INTO PRODUCING THAT ENERGY, WOULD BE TO USE SOME FORM OF NON-COMMERCIAL ENERGY FOR THE INPUT ENERGY (ENERGY1). What I mean by this is instead of using electricity for ENERGY1 in the equation, they COULD use (at least partially) some other form of energy... the only even remotely feasible one I can think of is heat. So in the equation: ENERGY1 would be made of both electrical and thermal energy. If you could manage to get more usable energy out of ENERGY2 than you put in at ENERGY1, than you've effectively managed to turn heat into commercial energy, using the electrolysis of water as the intermediate step. So instead of a perpetual motion machine, you'd have one hulluva big air conditioner.
Is this possible? Do these guys thermally driven catalyst for the electrolysis of water? Sadly, I really really really doubt it (really). Although my reasons are many, my top 3 are: 1) I don't think such a catalyst is possible... however even if it somehow is, I do know it would require some serious material science research (research that this company simply does not have at its disposal) 2) they certainly would have mentioned the thermal bit (they wouldn't have to say HOW in order to protect patenting), 3) their design would have to be much different (in order to conduct the heat to the catalyst). My conclusion? One red herring here folks. Your chances of getting a 100% return by shorting this company are far better than their hydrogen/oxygen generator ever being economically feasible.
Perhaps someday the dream of clean, cheap, renewable energy will be a reality, but until that day...
Cheers,
Pin :)
PS: Their spark with a tank of gas analogy is hugely misleading. A tank of gas starts with hydrocarbons (ie: C8H16) and oxidizes it to carbon dioxide and water. This is a one way trip: you start with one large high energy molecule, and oxidize it to end up with several, smaller low energy molecules, plus some energy released in the process.
The equation looks like: C8H16 + 12O2 -> 8CO2 + 8H2O + ENERGY
This is in no way analagous to the electrolysis of water.