Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis

[GeorgeWiseman]

Please see the wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

I see in that article that the theoretical 100% efficiency is 11.7MJ/m3
= 3250 watthours/1000 liters or 3.25 watthours per liter of gas produced. 

Thus, any electrolyzer that is producing gas at LESS than 3.25 watthours per liter is over 100% efficient by 'accepted' electrolysis laws. 

So an electrolyzer operating at 2.7 watthours per liter of gas would be 120% efficient.  This test was done decades ago on Yull Brown's Australian technology.

My ER 1200 WaterTorches have been independently tested to produce gas at 1.9 watthour per liter of gas, or over 170% efficient. 
My current technology (2015) can produce gas at 0.9 watthour per liter of gas, or over 360% efficient. 

How can that be true?

It can be true because Brown's Gas is NOT straight diatomic hydrogen and oxygen.  An important ADDITIONAL gas is formed in Brown's Gas electrolyzers that is NOT formed in traditional electrolyzers.  I call this gas Electrically Expanded Water (ExW).

ExW is the reason for all of BG's anomalies.  ExW explains the apparent over-unity (more gas being produced than Faraday Laws predict) and both how and why mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen can exist in BG.

[TinselKoala]

Please show us how you are drying the water vapor out of the gas stream before your volume measurements. Also please show us your input power measurement setup.

ExW might "explain" things as you suggest, but what is the actual independent evidence for the production of monoatomic H and O in your electrolysis scheme, and why does _your_ system produce these things when other electrolysis systems do not?

[GeorgeWiseman]

Please show us how you are drying the water vapor out of the gas stream before your volume measurements. Also please show us your input power measurement setup.

I don't remove the water vapor for two reasons. 
First, because the actual water vapor is an important and useful constituent of Brown's Gas.  It enhances the gas effects. 
Second, because the ExW shows up on spectrographs as water vapor.  The difference is that if you cool the gas, the ExW doesn't condense. 
So I measure the total volume of gas coming out of the electrolyzer, cooled to ambient temperature (25°C) for SATP volume and measured using water displacement method (keeping all pressures ambient).

ExW might "explain" things as you suggest, but what is the actual independent evidence for the production of monoatomic H and O in your electrolysis scheme, and why does _your_ system produce these things when other electrolysis systems do not?

Every spectrographic test of BG (aka HHO) shows the H and O.  These values aren't high (maybe 3% at best) but they are there... and ignored. 
All electrolyzers make H & O as the water is initially split, but traditional designs 'allow' the H & O to 're-form' into H2 and O2. 
Electrolyzers designed to produce Brown's Gas make the ExW, which allows some of the H & O to remain 'trapped' and stable in the mon-atomic state. 

However, don't get caught up in the mon-atomic H & O debate, it is a side effect of what's really happening. 

I THINK the BG electrolyzers can make the ExW because of the lack of a partition or membrane that traditional electrolyzers use to separate the H2 and O2.  The ExW is formed, in the liquid, exactly in the center between the cell electrodes; I have video of this happening.

There is not enough H & O (or water vapor for that matter) to account for the gas volume being produced by efficient Brown's Gas electrolyzers.  In my opinion, the only thing that can explain the anomalous volume is my theoretical ExW. 

Electrically Expanded Water is water that has expanded into a gaseous form WITHOUT splitting into H & O.  This is then an implosive gas, because it simply reverts to liquid water as it gives up it's electrostatic energy.

[verpies]

How does the efficiency of H2O electrolysis depend on pressure?

[GeorgeWiseman]

Pressure generally increases the efficiency of electrolysis by keeping the bubbles smaller, thus bubbles offer less resistance to ion flow through the fluid and take up less 'active' surface area on the electrode surfaces, again reducing resistance (also lowering overall cell voltage which increases wattage efficiency). 

However, increasing pressure in a Brown's Gas electrolyzer is dangerous because it is (overall) an explosive gas that can be ignited by static electricity, temperature and pressure.  As pressure rises, the explosive pressure spike rises exponentially... So it is much safer to keep the temperature and pressure low. 
I have video (see my YouTube channel) showing a pop bottle will contain an ambient pressure BG explosion.  I don't have video of my 70 psi test but assure you that it was one of the loudest bangs I've ever heard and I have blasting certification (I've heard a lot of loud bangs).

Another, safer, way to make BG electrolyzers efficient is to pulse the electricity.  This allows the bubbles to clear the plates and offers fresh plate surface for the next pulse.  Plate design also matters, plates that are wide and short clear their bubbles faster than plates that are narrow and tall.  The bubbles formed at the bottom of tall narrow plates interfere with plate function all the way up (stick to the plates for a much longer time).

In conclusion, as many experiments have shown, pressure is not needed to make the BG electrolyzers efficient and having high pressure is dangerous (we do NOT store the gas in cylinders, it's produced on-demand).