On The Production of Hydrogen Gas By The
Electrolysis of Water
By
Michael S. Johnston
Copyright 2000
I have, for the past year and a half, been involved in a personal
research project which was initially aimed solely at improving my own
understanding of the process by which hydrogen gas may be produced,
from water, by electrolysis, for use as a fuel. This project was
undertaken simply because it caught my interest and has been
conducted and financed totally by me. Therefore the data that I
intend to present in this series of papers, which is the result of
this research, is not the exclusive property (intellectual or
otherwise) of anyone but myself and, as such, I have decided to
publish and distribute it freely in the hope that it may, in some
small way, prove beneficial to others.
I am not a credentialed scientist nor do I hold any kind of degree
which might lend any immediate perception of implied validity to the
data which I intend to present here and yet, I believe that said data
is of such a fundamentally accurate nature and can so easily be
confirmed from the proper application of facts which are accepted and
commonly available from the body of existent literature pertaining to
this subject, that it will be able to stand on it's own against
whatever test may be employed to validate it.
The main obstacle to the use of hydrogen (from water) as a fuel
has always been the large expenditure of energy and associated costs
that have been perceived to be required to produce it and are
required when the total process of electrolysis is not properly
understood. But I intend to show here how that hurdle can be
overcome. The purpose of this paper then is to prove, by the use of
known laws and principles, within the accepted paradigm of scientific
knowledge, that the production of hydrogen gas, by the electrolysis
of water, is a viable source of cheap and, under the right
conditions, "free" energy.
First let's consider what electrolysis is; "Electrolysis is the
process of using electrical energy to produce chemical
change"(1)(paraphrased,p;279). Seems simple enough doesn't it?
The chemical formula which is usually used to illustrate the
electrolysis of water is;
2H2O----------------->2H2(g) + O2(g) -135 kcal
electrolysis
This is, of course, the simplified version of the formula which
doesn't show the fact that there was an electrolyte present in the
water which was electrolyzed or what energy was contributed to the
overall reaction by the electrolyte and also dosen't illustrate
properly Faraday's law of electrolysis, which states (in his own
words);"Electrochemical decomposition is well known to depend
essentially upon the current (amperage, mj) of electricity. I have
shown in certain cases (375) the decomposition is proportionate to
the quantity of electricity passing, whatever may be it's intensity
(voltage,mj) or it's source, and that the same is probably true for
all cases (377) even when the utmost generality is taken on the one
hand, and great precision of expression on the other (505)."
(2)(. Series V, Paragraph 510)
From another source Faraday's two laws of electrolysis are stated
in the following way;
"Faraday established by experiment the following two laws of
electrolysis:
First Law: The mass of a substance separated in electrolysis is
proportional to the quantity of electricity that passes."
"Second Law: The mass of a substance deposited is proportional
to the chemical equivalent of the ion, that is, to the atomic mass of
the ion divided by it's valence."
(4)(Section 28-12, Page 309)
The fact that the electric current which enters the cell is not
"used" in the sense that it is not necessary to convert that current
into a release of heat, light or chemical energy to achieve the
production of h2(g), along with the fact that no electricity actually
passes through the cell are of utmost importance. Or perhaps it would
be better to say that how it is used and how it passes (enters) one
side of the cell and exits the other are of utmost importance. Yet it
is the most misunderstood piece of accepted scientific knowledge that
I have ever encountered. It is this very reason that compels me to
give such a long and detailed presentation in order to validate a few
simple facts which, when understood by the reader, will seem so
obvious so as to hardly deserve this necessary level of
notoriety.
Perhaps this is because the inherent misconception in the above
formula is taught so early in a student's academic career. So it is
just accepted it as fact without question. Or maybe it is because,
since chemistry loves equilibrium in it's formulas, that the one that
illustrates the combination of H2 and O2 gasses by combustion is
usually presented as being the "other half" of a complete, balanced
chemical reaction which seems to show that just as much energy is
required to produce a given quantity of H2 gas by electrolysis as is
released by the subsequent combustion of those same gasses together.
The set of two "half reactions" are usually presented together like
this:
2H2O(l)------------------>2H2(g) + O2(g) -135 kcal
electrolysis
And then;
2H2(g) + O2(g)-------------------->2H2O(l) +135 kcal
combustion
Are these two reactions individually accurate? Yes. Are these two
reactions completely, utterly, misleading when presented together?
Yes. Ah, a paradox. How can something be at the same time both the
truth and a lie? Consider: "I did NOT have sex with that woman" -
Bill Clinton. That statement was true in the context that HE meant it
and yet, without understanding that context, the listener might
easily take it to mean something entirely different. The same is true
of the above set of equations. They are very literally a
"half-truth". They seem to show that during electrolysis you must
"use up" as much electricity to produce hydrogen gas as you can later
get back out of the hydrogen gas by combustion (with the oxygen gas
from the anode). "Use up" in the previous sentence to be taken as
meaning the kind of "used up" you have when you operate something
like an electric resistance heater, where x amount of energy in the
form of electric current enters the device and some is converted into
heat/work energy and the rest exits as electricity, which then either
does more work or returns to it's source.
This state of affairs is most agreeable to scientists because it
satisfies both "The Law of Conservation of Energy", which
states;"Energy is given to a body when work is done upon it. In this
process there is merely a transfer of energy from one body to
another. In such transfer no energy is created or destroyed; it
merely changes from one form to another." (4)(Section 8-4, p.76)
And Carnot's First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which state;
First Law "When heat is transformed into any other form of energy
the total amount of energy is constant." and the Second Law;
"A heat engine cannot cannot transfer heat from a body to another
at higher temperature unless external energy is applied to the
engine." (4)(Section 22-11, Summary, p.231)
From these laws a more general concept has arisen, that being
;"You can't get any more energy out of something than what you put
into it"(which is erroneous as stated, it should say; "You can't get
any more energy out of something than is AVAILABLE"). I don't intend
to dispute the above laws and fully believe them to be accurate, as
they are intended to be understood and applied, and I will wait till
later to more fully develop the part of the paper which specifically
addresses particular points which relate to those laws. At this point
though, to insure that everyone reading this can easily understand
what I am talking about, it will be necessary for me to present a
brief review of the fundamentals of electrochemistry as they relate
to this topic (I have kids from K-12 schools visiting my
website).
Let me start with a look at Faraday's equipment. I will spend as
much time explaining each component as is pertinent to the purposes
of this paper. As his source of electricity Faraday usually used
Voltaic cells (primary wet cells). These are batteries which operate
on the oxidation/reduction principle to convert the energy of
chemical combination/metallic decomposition directly into electrical
energy.
Figure :1