George


Why are you seeking an objection?
And what is it that you wish to be objected against?


Objections to the amount of Hydrogen generated?
Objections to the electrical portion of the energy input?


Objections to the pretense under which it is presented?


Objections to the choice of acidic electrolyte?


Or are you explicitly seeking an explanation of the total energies
of the electrolysis reaction PH curve, with comprehensive data collected
for every known acid or base?
Perhaps with side by side experimental analysis of photolysis, sonic disintegration,
thermal decomposition, and magnetolysis under under comparable PH conditions?



How much time do you have to learn this field of research?
And if it were presented to you, would you even want to learn it?


————————————————————————————————————-


I don't have the patience to be your teacher. So to the above you are left
on your own...


But if you want the short answer, by dissolving the acid in water you are
forming hydronium and Hydrogen sulfide.
Released during electrolysis is Hydrogen, oxygen, and sulphur dioxide gas
Depleting the electrolyte which is pretty heavy given the low resistance per
electrode spacing in the book.
(By heavy I mean a very saturated aqueous solution)


As the electrolyte is depleted resistance increases, this is partially countered
by a decreasing volume of water. Circuit current is closely monitored, to keep
resistance constant throughout the experiment. Water and electrolyte must be
continuously added to sustain the reaction.


Other acids can be used, which are safer, more stable,
and have a lower decomposition rate.
If an organic acid is used, electrolyte cost becomes negligible.
Comparable Hydrogen production decreases because it is not as
large % of the decomposition byproducts.
But the reaction can be sustained for longer time without adding more acid.


HCL + salt can exceed production rates of H2SO4 with the cost of a faster
depleting electrolyte and a more dangerous chlorine gas byproduct.


The energy used in the formation of the acid and its compounds during the
reaction are easily calculated and play a major part in the breaking of ionic bonds.
depending on the temperature and particular conditions of electrolysis, recombination
energies may also need to be accounted for.
As new compounds are often formed during decomposition.
This also affects the stoichiometric balance of H2 : O.
Which will then require additional Oxygen input to reclaim the Hydrogen energy.

When comparing Hydrogen energy efficiency, there are apples, oranges, and bananas.


1) electrochemical energy: electrolysis : fuel cell recombination
2) electroreactive energy:  electrolysis : using reactants in subsequent chemical reactions
3) thermochemical energy:  electrolysis : heat of combustion


In the first scenario we compare apples to apples...
In the second we are using reactivity to save energy in another process.
In the 3rd, we are using the intense internal heat caused by recombination
   and this 3rd scenario is mathematically advantageous.
In an ICE, there are problems with the increasing temperatures.
  Making the implementation problematic.
However, in another Carnot cycle, similar to a steam cycle or sterling type
even at 50%, the thermal energy exceeds the electrical energy consumed.


I am not in a position to challenge the BTU equation, as my argument would
simultaneously negate the validity of every other constant I chose to use to
mathematically prove my theory.
But I believe what we consider "heat" is a local condition.
meaning one Kelvin here may not be 1 Kelvin elsewhere in the universe.


What we measure in "BTU" is a change in heat, from our perspective.
and the heat generated during combustion is based on the universal condition
not our local temperature measurement.
Resulting in a variance in our value of "energy".


This is further troubled by our choice of initial pressure before the combustion
event. Which greatly affects the temperature reached at the peak of the explosion.
Also, it is technically not an explosion, but an implosion.
The explosion we experience is the intense emission of heat in the form of a flamelike
plasma water vapor, that occurs moments after the implosion.
It is essentially "ionic-fusion".

Hi everyone,
Please have a look again at our post of January 04, 2020, 09:12:45 AM.
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's basic problem) and against (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' basic problem)? YES OR NO?

Deep silence again?
I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? YES OR NO?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Deep silence again? And still no answer within a period of two weeks?
1) I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? Yes or no?
2) In one word, it is obvious that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer can be considered as a heater, which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. Do you accept this simple fact? Yes or no?
Looking forward to your answers.
George