I do not accept your generalized summary.
You are missing information.

If you truly have the test apparatus you claim to have,
it should be very easy to observe the mistakes in your theory.


If you need further clues:
Measure the voltage drop across a resistor placed externally to the electrolysis chamber.
You will see that a good deal of the power going into the system does not end up at ground.
This is much different than the solid conductor.

To sm0ky2.
=====================
No, I am not missing information. But it is more than evident for all honest members of good will of this forum that you keep constantly distorting my words, and you keep constantly imitating lack of understanding thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner. You are simply the next clumsy manipulator, who tries to make some money by serving the official science mafia. You are simply an unworthy person! Shame on you!
=====================
Asking my four questions for the 2nd time.
---------------------------------------
1) Do you accept the validity of the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor)? Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
2) Do you accept the validity of the first Faraday's law of electrolysis (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard electrolyte)? Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
3) Do you accept the validity of the value of the hydrogen's HHV (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years). Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
4) Do you accept the validity of the simple obvious fact that while electrolysis takes place "...constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively..."? Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
----------------------------------------
Looking forward to your four answers for the 2nd time.

To George1

You are  missing information also it is evident for all honest members of good will of this forum that you constantly distort other peoples words, and are trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillful manner.

You are nothing more than a troll presenting a false premise here, offering nothing and
having nothing to back your idiotic claim up with.
This is a stupid game you play.

Demand response to your stupid question forever more .

This is an interesting debate...

It looks like George is using the composition/division fallacy.  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

QuoteYou assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.
Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.

He is arguing that just because experiment 1 is true and experiment 2 is also true that experiment 1 + 2 must also be true. In another variation one could argue a cat is real and a dog is also real which must mean a Dog-Cat must also be real but obviously isn't.

Most new to electrodynamics often make similar composition mistakes. Many decades ago when I first started I once thought that if a current source A charged battery B then by placing a light bulb between (A and B) I could do more work. However this was not the case and the dissipation of energy in the bulb reduced the battery charge current by an equivalent amount. These two concepts are very similar and George would seem to have made a similar error in my opinion.

Regards
AC