Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[Feynman]

@EM

In answer to your question,
6.24150948?10^18 electrons/sec * (6mA / 1000mA) = 3.744905688*10^16 electrons per second.

But how can one calculate the energy of a cell which only evolves hydrogen? Something strange is going on here. What electrolysis experiment causes that massive activity in distilled de-ionized water off 6mA, on a single electrode? 

I agree , we need to rigorously measure energy to understand.  But to calculate electrolysis, you have to calculate the rate of evolution of gas, if you want to use Faraday's laws. . .

There are two efficiencies to be concerned with:
Current: If all the current goes to electrolysis of water, there are no side reactions, and no gas is lost, 4 moles of electrons will produce 2 moles of H2 gas and 1 mole of O2 gas. From the Faraday constant of 96485 C/mol, 4 moles of electrons is 385940 C of electricity 1 C = 1 A?s (this is 107.2 Ah to make 2 moles, 4.032 g, of H2). You can take product of current and time and compare your production to this figure.

Voltage: You can read about the thermodynamics here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../electrol.html

The Gibbs free energy of 237.1 kJ/mol of H2 can be expressed as a voltage by noting 2 mol of electrons are required to produce x 96485 C/mol, thus this is 237.1 kJ/193 kC = 1.23 V approximately. At negligible current, the reaction would proceed infinitely slowly in either direction at this voltage. The real world wants faster, so we force it with overvoltage in electrolysis, and settle for less when we operate it as a fuel cell, making electricity from H2 and O2.

Typically, we force the cell voltage in the range 1.5-2.0 V for electrolysis, and in fuel cell mode, load the cell down to about 0.7 V out. Most of the inefficiency relates to these voltage differences.

First, liters is not a great way to measure gases. You will have to correct the measured liters for actual temperature and pressure. Alternatively, you can calculate the molar volume at temperature and pressure. It is 22.414 L/mol at 0 ?C, and 1 atm. It is 24.46 L/mol at 25 ?C, 1 atm; I will use that figure. At other conditions, it is
22.414 L/mol x 101.325 kPa/P x (273.15 + T)/273.15 K, where P is pressure in kPa, and T is temperature in ?C.

To generate 1 mol/min of H2 at 100% efficiency, 237.1 kJ of electricity must be supplied in 1 minute (60s). 237.1 kJ/60 s = 3.95 kW.

At 3.95 kW and 100% efficiency, you should produce 1 mol/min, that's 2.016 g/min, or 24.46 L/min at 25 ?C (I can not over emphasize that the 24.46 L figure is temperature dependent). Because of that, I would encourage you to measure liters, correct for temperature and pressure, and convert to moles of production (or grams). It will greatly simplify comparison of performance at different conditions, although it obviously adds a layer of complexity.

If Molar Volume is MV,
(LPM/MV) x (3950 W?min/mol) / (WattsUsed) x100% = efficiency in %

The thread below has these calculation details for 'efficiency'  (more accurately referred to as COP) for electrolysis.

http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showthread.php?t=7218

Sincerely,
Feynman

[Loki67671]

Before you boys get too excited,  do you know how many electrons pass by in a current of 6mA, per second? 

As I see it,  people are skirting around calculating the output energy.   Just do it, or are you afraid the dream might come crashing down?   I know I am at times, so let's be real, calculate the output power and see if you have overunity, else we're just playing with oscillators and RF.

Motors spinning, LED lighting, neons burning, hydrogen bubbling is NOT a measure of OUTPUT ENERGY.  !!!

EM

SURE POST COMPARATIVE DATA FROM THE SAME INSTRUMENT! SIR! 

Best

Jim

[ramset]

Well  I guess thats one reason the Doc wants to standardize the  build everyone on the same page no variables    Chet

[amigo]

I fail to see what is the significance of overunity or striving for it. I guess it must be something that humans inherently desire.

Many people on this forum seem to be obsessed with the notion of overunity, but beside the name of the site I do not understand why are we stuck up on that term or what it represents.

As far as my limited knowledge of Nature goes, there's nothing natural that is in overunity, everything somehow balances itself out at the end to 1 (unity, the whole). The Nature does not "waste" energy by having 20x more of something than it's really needed, just as a backup. Nature does not try and fail, it simply does it the first time so there's no need for a safety margin or a backup.

But here we are trying to cheat the Nature itself and create some gain (more than unity or one whole) out of nowhere because our civilization is brought up on the idea of scarcity so we have to hoard the resources fearing they might run out any moment. It's typical primitive hunters and gatherers line of thinking and I can honestly say that we aren't even worth C out of Civilization yet, contrary to what many believe or say.

That's my freebie rambling for the night, thanks for listening.

[ramset]

Amigo  to me OU is pushing back the boundaries of what is possible  and around this Forum there's  a whole lot of pushing going on   Chet