Theoretical efficiency of electrolysis

[forumblog]

My apologies, I am  guest1289  using another account for something

In the two posts on this page I typed -

( This is a topic I know almost nothing about,  so I don't know the correct units for measuring electricity and hydrogen in this topic  )

I know very little about electrolysis and chemistry .

I made an understatement,  I know almost nothing about measuring electricity, and even less about chemistry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency   says
"Efficiency of modern hydrogen generators is measured by power consumed per standard volume of hydrogen (MJ/m3), assuming standard temperature and pressure of the H2."   
   
    In the idea I posted,  I just assumed I was describing the idea ,  "per standard volume of hydrogen", "assuming standard temperature and pressure of the H2",  to correctly compare inputs and outputs( performance ).  I was thinking in terms of inputs and outputs, being measured in the correct ways, for  comparison .

You typed

The wikipedia article quotes the efficiency as MJ per cubic metre of HYDROGEN ,not the volume of the evolved gases

Then I will try and think of the idea I posted in terms of   "MJ per cubic metre of HYDROGEN" .

But now,  that reminds me of an even more basic question related to this,  that I am not completely sure about, that is the following  :

Is it totally 100% accurate to say that  -
[ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

Here is  one  reason I question that -
    -  Imagine you have 2 magnets floating nearby each other,  and then you give one magnet the slightest-push( using the absolute minimum energy ) required for the 2 magnets to join together
    -  Now, using the absolute minimum energy,  separate those two magnets to the distance they were before
          I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.
       
    Yes,   I know the process by which atoms join together,  and separate,  must be very different to permanent-magnets,      maybe they are more similar to the types of buttons on jackets that snap-together,  but even in that type of idea,  I am still not totally convinced that it is absolutely 100% accurate to state that :
[ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

[LibreEnergia]

Is it totally 100% accurate to say that  -
[ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

Here is  one  reason I question that -
    -  Imagine you have 2 magnets floating nearby each other,  and then you give one magnet the slightest-push( using the absolute minimum energy ) required for the 2 magnets to join together
    -  Now, using the absolute minimum energy,  separate those two magnets to the distance they were before
          I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.
       
    Yes,   I know the process by which atoms join together,  and separate,  must be very different to permanent-magnets,      maybe they are more similar to the types of buttons on jackets that snap-together,  but even in that type of idea,  I am still not totally convinced that it is absolutely 100% accurate to state that :
[ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

The analogy you give with the magnets is erroneous. It takes no energy to hold two magnets apart for any length of time. You cannot make a comparison between the energy required to 'unlock' the holding mechanism to start the magnet moving and then compare that to the energy required to separate them again and come to any meaningful conclusion.

A meaningful analogy would be to measure the work done to separate two magnets by a certain distance then measure the work that can be recovered by allowing them to move back to the original displacements. In all cases you will discover that the amount of energy recoverable is the same or less than the amount of energy required to separate them.

Exactly the same situation occurs in chemical reactions such as hydrolysis.

[forumblog]

A meaningful analogy would be to measure the work done to separate two magnets by a certain distance then measure the work that can be recovered by allowing them to move back to the original displacements. In all cases you will discover that the amount of energy recoverable is the same or less than the amount of energy required to separate them.

Exactly the same situation occurs in chemical reactions such as hydrolysis.

    Yes,  the reason  that the  'energy recoverable from joining the magnets, could be less,  than the energy it took to separate them' ,  is because of losses in the process.   
    So if you just ignite the entire amount of hydrogen in the device in one go,  some of that energy will escape outside of the device in various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation .

   At first,  I thought that what you have typed proves the comparison example that  I made  with the magnets,  I typed 

I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.

,   but I forgot about losses in the system .

    But, in the example I made with the magnets,  I am referring to a purely hypothetical device,  with no losses in the system,   

I doubt that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.

    In a  'purely-hypothetical'  device,  with  'no losses'  in the system,
       -  use 100-Mj to create 100-ml of hydrogen, 
       -  then use .01-Mj to spark the hydrogen,    would it be  100% accurate to say that the maximum energy you could recover is 100-mj,   and also,   since there are  'no-losses'  in this hypothetical device,  could or would your recover less than  100-Mj .

     It's exactly that type of possible inequality,  that I was thinking could be exploited to try and design an overunity device,   basically,  I'm wondering if you could gain that  overunity-energy  by  igniting the full amount of  separated  hydrogen all  in one go,  using the tiniest spark possible .
    I'm wondering if that  single combustion of the full amount of hydrogen,   could produce more energy,  than it took to produce that very same amount of hydrogen .

    I think the concept I am trying to put forward, will become a bit too confusing for me, and there was another way that of was thinking of explaining it,  that I can't remember now .

   But you have answered the question anyway, especially since a totally-loss-less device cannot actually exist

[GeorgeWiseman]

As far as browns gas being special, don't believe it. Monoatomic oxygen and hydrogen are unstable. They would quickly recombine to form diatomic molecules especially on metallic surface spontaneously. In doing so a large amount of heat would be given out. This has not been shown to occur.

It is true that mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen normally devolve into their diatomic forms quickly and spontaneously (not requiring a catalyst like hydrogen peroxide would). 
That's WHY Brown's Gas is special because it DOES contain a measurable and stable volume of mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen.  I have spectrographic charts (independently tested) to show this.  I'm putting together a document to share all this data.
I do not know exactly why the mon-atomic gasses are stable, but suspect it is because of the electrically expanded water (ExW) that is generated in BG electrolyzers.  ExW is NOT generated in 'normal' electrolyzers that separate the oxygen and hydrogen.  ExW seems to hold the mon-atomic constituents in a 'matrix' so that do not touch each other and combine into their di-atomic forms.

[guest1289]

( I know nothing about chemistry,  and very little about electricity )

   In my idea,  of a  'purely-hypothetical'  device,  with  'no energy losses in the system( no energy leaving the device )'

       -  First,  use  100-Mj  to create 100-ml of hydrogen, 
       -  Then,  use .001-Mj to spark the 100-ml of hydrogen,

    My idea is to either : 
       -  use the energy recovered from the combustion of the 100-ml of hydrogen( maximum recovery of energy ),
       -  or,  use the burning cloud of the 100-ml-of-hydrogen( maybe rising up through another level of water )
            To  'Create'  'More Than'  100-ml-of-hydrogen.

            So, obviously, repeating that in each cycle,  would mean that you would be constantly creating more and more  hydrogen,  in each cycle.

    (  I know nothing about what is created by a burning cloud of hydrogen,  rising up through water , it's just a random idea )

    (  The idea that you are constantly creating more and more hydrogen,  would overcome any energy-losses  in a real device  )

        (  I assume people almost 200 years ago,  probably had the same idea as me,  indicating it is not possible  )