Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

[TheNOP]

the highlighted text was highlighted in the source article, except for the line about the experiment. i highlighted that.

from TheNOP on May 20, 2009, 10:48:37 PM
you seem not see all the implications of some of the phrases in that text.this is so true.
but, in your quest for newbie's cells datas, you seem to see only what you want to see in this phrase.

assumption...

yes, assumption, but a pertinent one.
you have put the emphasis on that phrase, in a way to tell newbie that he must do experiments on Mr. Boyce cells stack or his knowledge of electrolysis will wort nothing.

from TheNOP on May 20, 2009, 10:48:37 PM
that phrase mean more then just "you must do experiments"
it is so important as it also imply to have the proper tools, and most of all, the methods, to ensure the exactitude of the measurements taken in the experiments.

obviously...

by saying "obviously..." you are showing that you are somewhat agreeing on the explanation i have gave of it.
yet, you are using it for an other purpose in your original post.
that is the reason of my assumption.

that's nice. maybe next time you can be a bit quicker with being pedantic about what you 'think' should or shouldn't be highlighted and make the post yourself...

sorry if i am annoying you.
but the day i will stop being meticulous and stop looking at the small details, i will also stop doing experiments.
stoping to look at the small details would render them useless.

by the way, don't change my posts. it reflects badly on you.

your quote of me
my actual words in which i was quoting another website.

your remark does not bother me at all.
quoting someone that quoted someone else does not automaticaly make him looking bad at all.

if i was to change your post to make it say what i want, to make a fool of you by changing your words, to twist your words to make them say what you did not said, that would be bad.

but that is not what i did.
i have not hided the fact that i changed the highlighting either.

concider this as the end of this discution.
i won't post anymore on this subject, it is way off topic.
elaborating more on it in private would do nothing good either.

you have your ways of expressing yourself and you did.
and this forum being public, we have our rights to express our opignions and we did.[/]

have a good day sir.

[d3adp00l]

so what is the details of the cell eff.


And as far as faraday goes, just as soon as you can tell me what volts he was imagining to push those electrons. Other than that faraday is boring.

put faraday aside for a while, and tell us what you know on the cell.

[WilbyInebriated]

assumption...

yes, assumption, but a pertinent one.
you have put the emphasis on that phrase, in a way to tell newbie that he must do experiments on Mr. Boyce cells stack or his knowledge of electrolysis will wort nothing.

more assumption...

by saying "obviously..." you are showing that you are somewhat agreeing on the explanation i have gave of it.
yet, you are using it for an other purpose in your original post.
that is the reason of my assumption.

no, by saying obviously i am saying obviously. as in, it goes without saying... which, if you had read and comprehended my other posts to newb you would see that. like the one where i said something along the lines of and here i thought you were the guy that a built a boyce 101, DESIGNED A CORRECT AND PROPER EXPERIMENT...
i capitalized and emphasized that so you don't miss it twice. ( and i seems i must give pedants explanations for what i choose to emphasize along with a full disclosure of why ) correct and proper infers the right tools and methods pretty clearly i thought, i'll try and be more pedantic to please you 

sorry if i am annoying you.
but the day i will stop being meticulous and stop looking at the small details, i will also stop doing experiments.
stoping to look at the small details would render them useless.
your remark does not bother me at all.

you're not.
"stoping to look at the small details would render them useless."  this makes no sense and is a direct contradiction to the previous line of your post.

quoting someone that quoted someone else does not automaticaly make him looking bad at all.

if i was to change your post to make it say what i want, to make a fool of you by changing your words, to twist your words to make them say what you did not said, that would be bad.

but that is not what i did.
i have not hided the fact that i changed the highlighting either.

concider this as the end of this discution.
i won't post anymore on this subject, it is way off topic.
elaborating more on it in private would do nothing good either.

you have your ways of expressing yourself and you did.
and this forum being public, we have our rights to express our opignions and we did.[/]

have a good day sir.

no, what you did was wrong. plain and simple. if you want to 'correct', and i'm using that term in the loosest sense, you should have posted what i said, VERBATIM, in the quote box. then, on a new line of your own describe how you, in your infinite wisdom think it should be, in your own words, and not in the box that you are using to quote me with. regardless of the fact that you described what it was that you were doing, you did it wrong. you can't change someones quote... that's why it's called a quote.   
furthermore, the emphasis that you took such umbrage to and felt the unstoppable urge to to 'correct' (again, i am using this word very, very loosely here) wasn't even my emphasis to begin with, it was on the page i quoted, which makes you look ridiculous and your argument moot.

[WilbyInebriated]

Let me spell it out for one last time...

Yes, the scientific method is irrelevant here since we are dealing with ERRORS in CALCULATIONS... NOT ERRORS IN MEASUREMENT (or DATA).


I'm calling you childish because you're just trying to argue about  ANYTHING you can think of, even when it isn't related....  And now you making fun of my calculations which you wanted to see in the first place.. LOL.

Remember this?

And now you don't want to see the math/calculations....

yeah see that winking smiley? that's there for a reason... mainly being, i already knew you were nothing more than a talking head before i started this thread.

No I'm not  plagiarizing  anyone.. .. Did you even look at the post dates? The one in this thread is from 5/13 .. that one is from 5/15.. Anyway...........

of course i did. actually you posted here at May 15, 2009, 03:52:51 PM. the hhoforums.com thread was at 05-16-2009, 10:21 PM. since it is damn near word for word with your post here, something shady is going on.
the server can be on the other side of the world from stephans and what does that do to the dates? anyways, you're avoiding the question again. is that or is it not your post over at hhoforums? cause i'm gonna go talk to that guy over at hhoforums about this and see who's plagiarizing.

Here's the  problem with  measuring Faraday efficiency in series cells.

In a series cell:                    + N N N N  N -            for example.. Running at 12V, at 4A.

If you use  4A to calculate Faraday efficiency,  I think that would give you an inaccurate Faraday efficiency number because, there are more than 4 Amps doing work in the cell...

Here's why....     Each cell is running at about 2 V, and has a current of 4 A running through it... So if you add up all the AMPS performing work in the whole cell, you have 6 * 4 A .. Which is 24 Amps doing work at 2V at any time.   Using  4A might give you 300 percent Faraday, etc.

another soliloquy of calculations?  LOL

[newbie123]

the server can be on the other side of the world from stephans and what does that do to the dates? anyways, you're avoiding the question again. is that or is it not your post over at hhoforums? cause i'm gonna go talk to that guy over at hhoforums about this and see who's plagiarizing.

Wilby, you do that and let me know what you find out...


TheNOP,  It's pointless to argue with this guy... everything he says is pretty much irrelevant to what he's responding.


Deadpool, What information do you want to talk about?