During my research into hydrogen production using a distilled water^{1} electrolyte, I noted something I considered strange during a series of tests covering the point in time at when H₂ gas first started forming on the cathode. I was not interested in the voltage or current at which formation began, rather I wanted to know if the gas formation started uniformly over the entire electrode or if it started at a specific location or locations alone the length of electrode. I had noted for some time that initial production was not uniform, although at first my assumption was the observation was possibly due to surface imperfections of the electrode itself. I must note that I was indeed taking into consideration the potential effect of V/cm, which appeared inadequate in explaining the time lag involved for the entire electrode to become part of the overall gas production.

Once gas production was fully involved on an electrode, it became extremely difficult to determine if symmetry of release existed. My objective in looking closer was to determine if the electrode geometry could in some way affect the overall gas production and efficiency. In short would a specific electrode shape allow for an increase in overall production efficiency?

My first observation was made using a Carbon (Graphite)^{11} rod for the cathode and a Copper circular screen for the anode. It should be noted that my interest was not in the impact of using Copper in the test cell (Cu is not recommended because of chemical reactions it takes part in during electrolysis). This arrangement was used primarily for convenience and did not affect my conclusion. The test cell is shown in the following photo, the cell consisted of a 150 mL lab beaker filled with ordinary tap water (not my normal distilled electrolyte) and electrodes as described above.

The beaker was filled to just 2 mm below the top of the carbon^{11} electrode. Once filled the beaker was allowed to sit without a cover for 30 minutes before testing, allowing for the contents to temperature stabilize and some degassing.

The test was quite simple in nature, start applying voltage in discreet steps while observing the carbon cathode with a 4X magnifier for the first sign of gas formation. The setup is shown in the following photo.

The following conditions were not taken into consideration during my tests because they would not have a direct impact on the results, primarily because any contribution from these factors would be easily observable; ambient temperature, cells temperature, offset if any in the distances between the anode and cathode.

The period of each test was short enough that temperature layers did not form. Repeated tests were conducted with a new liquid sample and new electrodes.

The following photo (plus simulated gas bubbles, as the initial bubbles were to small to be photographed) shows the location on the carbon rod where gas formation first begins. The initial bubbles are small and start spreading rapidly up the rod as the process continues.

A model we developed attempting to explaining our first observations..

First consider the carbon rod from an electrical resistance point of view in free space, if we started measuring the rods resistance from point *a (our reference point) checking at evenly spaced points (*b,*c,*d) and ending at *e, we would see an increasing resistance over the rod length and point *E, the end of the rod, we would measure the highest resistance. Using this view and considering only resistance, one might think that the top most point of the rod or point *A would be the most vigorous point for gas production if the rod were considered an infinite number of resistors in parallel.

The resistance at point *e on the rod now becomes R_t = 1/(1/R_(A) + 1/R_(n)... ). What has happened is we now see a total reversal in resistance, point *E is now the lowest and point *A is the highest. Therefore under this set of conditions we would have the highest available current at point *e (very tip of the rod) and the least available current at point *a.

With this view in mind the question raised is; Could increased gas production and or efficiency (while holding cell input constant) be obtained by proper selection of different electrode geometries? Currently plates, disks and rods are standard shapes used for electrolyzing electrodes, but are these efficient designs? We think not and have experimentally demonstrated that different electrode geometries do indeed have significant effect on gas production efficiency.

After testing with rods, plates and disks it did not take long to envision what would be the most efficient electrode shape, a solid conductive sphere.

To confirm this I performed a test with a steel ball bearing fastened with epoxy into a plastic syringe so that approximately one half of the bearing surface was exposed to the electrolyte. A pressure connection was made inside of the syringe so that only the steel was exposed. The following photo shows the test configuration.

The same test procedure was used where the voltage was increased in steps from zero until the first indication of gas formation. We were able to capture this event as shown in the following photo, because the bubbles were much larger and almost covered the entire area of the exposed steel bearing instantaneously. Granted, the surface (exposed area) of the steel ball is much smaller than the total surface area of the initial carbon rods, therefore the voltage potential per centimeter is indeed higher, yet we later confirmed that the shape was indeed advantageous over different shapes containing similar exposed surface area.

The theoretical optimum electrode would be a solid conductive sphere^{2} where the driving voltage could be supplied at the exact center (core) of the sphere. The following graphic shows why this is the ideal shape when looking at resistance distribution.

The ideal sphere would consist of an infinite number of resistances in parallel from the center where the voltage is applied. This would mean that every external point on the sphere would present the same potential pressure as every other point. This concept is very much different from what is seen with rods, plates and disks.

Electrode geometry and material composition additionally impacts gas bubble retention on electrode surfaces and overall current density resulting from the insulated surface area. When gas bubbles are retained (built up) on the surface of an electrode, that surface area is temporarily removed (until bubbles are released) from contributing to continued electrolysis because the gas bubble is isolating that portion of the surface from exposure to the surrounding H₂O. This is observed when input current is monitored and found to gradually build until the surface of an electrode starts losing surface area from retained gas bubbles, at which point the input current will be observed to begin to decreasing and continue to decrease as additional surface area is removed from participation in the reaction.

One might think of a number of ways in which to dislodge these retained gas bubbles, although the more common and easily implemented methods do present a down side to what should be beneficial. Two possible methods (stirring & re-circulating) the H₂O electrolyte.

Indeed, stirring the H₂O around the area of the electrode does aid in the removal of gas bubbles from the electrode surface and additionally breaks up the various thermal layers built up within the cell, yet it also disrupts the ion distribution around the electrode. Disruption of the ion density around the electrode while knocking gas bubbles free will temporarily cause a small spike in gas output and a decrease in input current resulting from the disruption of the surrounding ion density. Testing over a period of time has indicated that the energy utilized in the stirring process when considered with overall cell output actually causes a decrease in overall cell efficiency rather than an expected increase.

Picking the proper feed point for rod electrodes can produce a measurable difference in gas production. Observing the direction of current flow may explain this difference. Two rod electrodes fed from the same end, produce a smaller amount of gas per reference input than two rods fed from opposite ends.

New Electrode design reduces cell heating caused by ion collisions.

A new Barber Pole electrode design coupled with CRE has moved On Demand H₂+0₂ (Single Duct, OxyHydrogen) another step closer to reality. The preceding picture show Series one experiments that use copper as the electrode material, while later versions moved into Stainless Steel, Carbon and Nickel for the active electrode surfaces.

The following image shows the new electrode design operating with DET (our proprietary additive) and the vigorous gas release.

Electrode feed point is critical for optimum operation.

My experiment involved a cell composed of two carbon rod electrodes. The anode rod was fed from the top end, which was out of the cell electrolyte and the cathode rod was fed from its center (within the electrolyte). The following pictures explain the obvious, all the gas conversion for the cathode is below the feed point, while the end fed anode produces gas over its entire length.

The preceding picture shows the two rods and the yellow wire running down to the center feed point of the cathode. The bubble action is indicated and can be seen better in the following images.

This next image shows the anode on the left and cathode on the right. It is easy to see the O₂ bubbles on the anode as well as the yellow feed wire to the center of the cathode. Note that there are no H₂ bubbles on the cathode above the feed point.

The following image shows the anode and cathode below the feed point of the cathode. The bubbles are indicated and the respective electrodes are marked.

Fully one half of the cathode rod is useless as it does not produce gas while the entire end fed anode is producing O₂. Without a doubt the way the electrodes are fed is critical in the operation of the electrolyzer.

The following image shows a depiction of charge distribution around three different shapes. The circle is considered to be a sphere.

The following image shows a 1L beaker with a Stainless Steel sphere for the cathode and anode of anodized tin. In this series we measured H₂ and O₂ production at a rate of 2.13E-2 M/Hr with a pulsed input of 12.9 volt peak at a 50% duty cycle driven by a CRE switche.

*Note It was found through many hours of experimentation that there is one and only one way to determine cell efficiency and that is to measure the actual production gas volume. It does not suffice to measure consumed power withing the cell. The consumed power is a valid parameter in overall efficiency, yet you need to measure gas output as you vary test parameters. When you find a maximum point of gas production, then compare cell power (input) with output. This is a critical fact when you are working with pulsed cells. Measuring gas volume is not an easy task and requires the storage of a quantity of gas for a period of time, which presents a dangerous set of conditions. A limitation on the measurement of evolved gas it that it does indeed contain water vapor. In order to obtain fairly accurate measurement, it is recommended that a Dryer be used, in this way a significant amount of water vapor can be pulled from the gas mixture. Saving or storage of gas is not recommended unless you have the proper equipment and follow strict safety procedure.

C2E2 - 'Charge Cascading Excitation Electrolysis' using Inductive Coupled Excitation

Having received a number of inquires regarding the electrolyte used in our various tests, the following is an enhanced explanation.

I normally use a distilled water^{1} which is further processed by 'Ozonation', a process that exposes the water to Ozone to aid in bacterial elimination. This process is not required by our testing, yet is a process that is automatically done by our water supplier. We do not produce in lab distilled water for our testing because we have always felt it necessary to use water that could be readily available to the general public for a reasonable price of less than $1.00/gallon.

All water used in our tests (the distilled, treated water) is degassed for a period of twenty four hours at 500 mmHg.

We do from time to time use a 'Wetting' chemical, a chemical which aids in the management of water tension. Surface tension is not of concern, yet the clumping of or large clumped water molecules will evolve higher gas volumes if they are broken down to smaller molecule structures. Our primary chemical used for this purpose is 'Proprietary', although a small amount of standard dish washing detergent can be used in low level experiments. For the testing with detergent we recommend that you use no more than 1.5 mL/L of water.

During our continued testing of electrode geometry, we found a unique method for viewing the ion impact on various electrode configurations under different polarity connections. Because of photographic limitations we are only able to show images captured from electrodes in free air. The images are faint, yet clear enough to see the actions taking place.

The following images were captured using a 1cm x 1cm Cu plate and a short, smoothed tip #26 gauge Cu wire. The ion patterns were displayed by using a special material that fluoresces upon ion impact.

This is a view of the preceding image, looking down over the point electrode at a slight angle so as to include the pattern on the target plate. The image does not show well the pyramid shaped emission from the point to the plate, yet it spreads from the point towards the plate, creating the pattern shown.

What should be observed as very interesting is what happens when only the polarity of the electrodes is changed. In the following image the point electrode is Positive and the plate is Ground.

No pattern on the plate electrode is observed. The ion flow is a direct straight line between the two electrodes.

The next image is photo enhanced to allow the view of the ion cloud present, just off of the tip of the wire electrode. The wire electrode is at the bottom of the image and the dot present at the top is the point where the ion current enters the Cu plate electrode. It appears that ionization is greatest just off of the wire tip, yet declines as it moves towards the plate electrode.

^{1}All examples and tests covered in this text were conducted using an electrolyte of Distilled H₂0 with an adjusted pH of 7.00, +/- 0.1. Typical brand was Ozarka (Distilled Water), Purified by Steam Distillation, Carbon Filtration, Microfiltration and Ozonation.

^{2}The spherical “inverse-square” vector field. Valadimir Rojansky, “Electromagnetic Fields and Waves”; ISBN: 0-486-63834-0

^{11}  Purchased from 'The Graphite Store', http://www.graphitestore.com. Sizes from 0,25" OD to 0.5" OD were used.