efficiency details to be provided by newbie123 as volunteered here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7040.msg177971#msg177971
Ok, Lets start with Faraday Efficiency (from my understanding), and I'll get into the problems w/ measuring "Faraday" in series cells later....
Faraday electrolysis efficiency uses quantities of electrons (coulombs) and gas volume to determine the efficiency of an electrolytic cell.
According to Faraday law, 4 moles of electrons moving through a cell will create 2 moles of H2 gas, and 1 mole of O2 gas, at 100 percent Faraday Efficiency.
How to calculate 100 percent Faraday Efficiency:
First convert 4 moles of electrons into amps. (4 moles) * (avagadro's number) =
4 * 6.0221417e23 = 2.408856716e24 (electrons)
Then divide the total electrons by 1 Coulomb (quantity of electrons)
2.4088567e24 (electrons) / 6.24150947e18 (1 Coulomb) = 385941 Coulombs
Now calculate the Amp Hours:
Since (1 Amp) = (1 Coulomb * 1 Second)
(385941 C) / (3600 Seconds) = 107.205 Amp Hours (Ah)
Now figure out how much gas is in 2 moles of H2, and 1 mole of O2.
According to the ideal gas law, one mole of gas has a volume of 24.446 Liters at 25 C, 1 Atm. So:
(3 moles) * 24.446 L/mol = 73.338 Liters of HHO gas
So this is as exciting as Faraday Efficiency gets, it deals with Amps and Moles (quantities of electrons) only (not energy or voltage)....
So 107.205 Amps over one hour will generate 73.338 Liters of H2 O2 gas at 100 percent Faraday efficiency. That's it, 100 percent Faraday Efficiency.
Any problems with this, Wilby?
no problems, post whatever you want. i'll catch up when you start posting your measurements, those are what i am really interested in...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 12, 2009, 09:09:23 PM
no problems, post whatever you want. i'll catch up when you start posting your measurements, those are what i am really interested in...
Uh, well the above will be pretty important to understand ... And, I might have made a mistake.. I'll continue in a little bit.
"Until you can measure it, arguing about something can be many things.."
Newbie didnt even build the frikkin 101 cell .
Newbie123 why dont you stfu .When you actually build an 101 cell THEN you can come back and say how efficient it was AND COMPLAIN ABOUT IT .
Quote from: dankie on May 12, 2009, 09:22:15 PM
Newbie didnt even build the frikkin 101 cell .
Newbie123 why dont you stfu .When you actually build an 101 cell THEN you can come back and say how efficient it was .
really?
is this true newbie123? do you have a bob boyce 101 of your own or have access to one to take measurements or not?
I do actually.... Toroid as well. Lol. But what is with your attitudes, why do you guys need to be so rude (and act like little 12 year olds) ? Are the facts that painful for you guys to hear? I'm starting to feel like I'm debunking your religion... And if thats the case I'll just stop now..
Instead of wasting your time thinking you are smart with the multiplications and divsions and your little "skeptical smarty pants" attitude .
Why dont you watch this video and try to recreate these effects with everybody here . Get working on something , enough of this talk talk talk .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EVnyw7oEj8
Hey! I know that guy in that video! cool! I wondered where he went! Glad to see he is still experimenting. I wouldn't call it no amperage exactly though.
Naw, I used to talk to radiant_1 (aka.. your hero.. Zer0point unlimited) on skype and he does some pretty neat experiments... But, just like 99 percent of all the other experiments here.. They show nothing! Big surprise..."Effects" are usually nothing special.. But if you want to go replicate everything you see, go right ahead.
Amazing you fast you guys can hijack a thread!
How do you hijack a thread by willbe?
Bob Boyce is full of shit. His story is crap and all the designs come from others. That three frequency torroid is complete bullshit too. I dont care what you say, a series cell is shit. I have built many and they all did the same fuckin thing. each plate adds resistance resulting in each plate producing less on one side of the cell. Even if it did work, it's too fuckin expensive to be economical to the average person. Read all you want, believe what you want, It doesn't change the fact that I did the experiments and they are bogus by a HUGE margin. Stan Meyers setup is none the cheaper but it at least makes much more sense than Big Bob's bullshit.
Quote from: HeairBear on May 12, 2009, 10:39:49 PM
Bob Boyce is full of shit. His story is crap and all the designs come from others. That three frequency torroid is complete bullshit too. I dont care what you say, a series cell is shit. I have built many and they all did the same fuckin thing. each plate adds resistance resulting in each plate producing less on one side of the cell. Even if it did work, it's too fuckin expensive to be economical to the average person. Read all you want, believe what you want, It doesn't change the fact that I did the experiments and they are bogus by a HUGE margin. Stan Meyers setup is none the cheaper but it at least makes much more sense than Big Bob's bullshit.
Just curious. Did the cells leak? If each individual cell isn't totally 100 percent water tight (ie, electrolyte leaking between cells) ... You'll get current/ion leakage when you fire it up .. and It won't work for squat.
Some cells were perfectly sealed, some were not. They all exhibited the same results. It's not rocket science and any novice knows each cell in series adds resistance.
I have never seen one ounce of proof that the boyce cell with his magic toroid coil does what he says it does .....He does have a nice big cell , but I dont think it can do what he claims..
Newbie wrote:
QuoteBut what is with your attitudes, why do you guys need to be so rude (and act like little 12 year olds) ?
The point is Newbie that many of them are 12 year olds or thereabouts, or have a similar mental age. That's why most of them don't have a clue what they are talking about, don't understand what anyone else is talking about, and ultimately revert to the only thing they do know - foul language and stupidity!
And what are we supposed to make of that dark, shaky and blurred U-tube video? We did not even have any insight into his set up - what makes him think that no current was flowing? But hey, he's illuminated fairly lights but used no power - won't Santa be chuffed!
Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis are great and if you understand them fully you will see that every electron plays it's part. That's just how it works.
This works great in a standard electrolyser with electrodes giving up and taking on electrons from ions, as every electron is travelling through the cct from the power souce, and the gas evolved is obviously (it has to be) directly proportional to this current.
From this it is clear to see that only if there is another source of electrons (electrons not coming from our power supply) can there be any over-Faraday results - or perceived to be. I say perceived, because even then it would not be over-Faraday if you accounted for the current provided by the alternative source of electrons.
The big question is, are some circuits introducing an additional source of electrons that have not originated from our power source?
Even if, as I tend to think, Boyce's electrolyser was providing ultrasound cavitation to enhance ionisation, these ions would still need to exchange electrons to evolve as gas, so his electrolyser would still abide by Faraday's Laws.
On the other hand, the Kanzius discovery, is currently set apart from any process with submerged electrodes. And though, yes, there is a supply of energy to the electrolyte solution, there definately is no supply of electrons from the power source - which is what makes it so intriguing... but I'm repeating myself now.
Oh, just while I'm thinking about it, I once had heated (you can imagine) discussions with Boycie about leakage current. Boycie claimed that his electrolyser was more efficient when each cell was properly sealed as it prevented current leaking from around the edge of the electrodes. I could not understand why any ion current would take the long way around a plate, and not be attracted directly to it. It made no logical sense to me, and my not bowing to his greatness meant that we inevitably fell out!
Boycie was right about sealed cells being more efficient, but I don't believe it is for the reason he gave. I now have my own take on this.
That is: Any water molecule not dissociating into ions directly between the plates is very likely to recombine as a water molecule before it can exhange charges. And as ionisation is an endothermic reaction, so requiring energy, every time this happens energy is wasted - hence there is increased inefficiency.
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 13, 2009, 10:36:53 AM
That is: Any water molecule not dissociating into ions directly between the plates is very likely to recombine as a water molecule before it can exhange charges. And as ionisation is an endothermic reaction, so requiring energy, every time this happens energy is wasted - hence there is increased inefficiency.
That is what I figured as well. The the ions were recombining and releasing heat, instead of creating gas... I've even seen bright arcs around plates as well..
Quote from: jdcmusicman on May 13, 2009, 01:32:54 AM
I have never seen one ounce of proof that the boyce cell with his magic toroid coil does what he says it does .....He does have a nice big cell , but I dont think it can do what he claims..
Me neither, that's why it's feel it is perfectly fair to just write him off as a crank. All talk with absolutely nothing to show, but some plans that just don't work for anyone.
But even the claim that the 101 plate cell will produce over Faraday gas production, by itself .. Is just miss calculations. I've heard many people claim their series cell will achieve over 100 percent Faraday... 200 percent, and even 300 percent... BS!
Agreed Newbie
Caculating the gas output from a dc set up is quite straight forward, but once you start employing pulsing and various other waveforms, even the most sophisticated measuring equipment can provide inaccurate results.
People should also not confuse the gas output according to Faraday's Laws calculations with efficiency - they are two different things. Every standard electrolyser will only give the gas output proportional to the current through the cell, what ever that current may be. That cell can be made more or less efficient, but Faraday's laws always apply. People who can't see this have not read or do not understand Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis.
But I guess some folk will forever remain blind to the truth and always insist on seeing something that is not there!
It's like I mentioned somewhere else, Hartman has arouund $15000 up for grabs if someone can provide him with proof of OU. Yet none of these people claiming they have achieved OU seem interested in this sizeable pot of loot... why?
When it comes to proof, even patents are a complete waste of space, being proof of absolutely nothing - indeed most patents seem to be nothing more than concepts. Therefore, though patents might at first appear to give a design or a device - or indeed the designer or inventor - credibility, this is in fact far from the truth. It seems that anyone can patent anything irrelevant of whether or not the claims are met. If you search the patent databases, along with Meyer, you will find hundreds of electrolyser designs - the 'Hydrostar' people (I think Xogen) keep renewing their patent periodically, yet I know of no one to have replicated it - perhaps the gulible are still buying the construction manual.
In this field, like many others, you can not afford to take anyones word for anything. On these forums you need to be able to trust the person making that claim... and that trust needs to be earned.
QuoteIt's like I mentioned somewhere else, Hartman has arouund $15000 up for grabs if someone can provide him with proof of OU. Yet none of these people claiming they have achieved OU seem interested in this sizeable pot of loot... why?
The MIB! or no... the NWO! :o
The biggest suppressor of free energy development. Seems to be the answer to all these types of questions, but never ever, ever, ever.. ever..... "The inventor might be a crank". ...And the irony is you guys actually suppress yourselves!
Quote from: Farrah Day on May 13, 2009, 03:00:16 PM
In this field, like many others, you can not afford to take anyones word for anything. On these forums you need to be able to trust the person making that claim... and that trust needs to be earned.
yup, which is why i have asked newb a couple times now to give us some measurements from his cell... maybe he thinks i'm just gonna 'trust him' without him earning it. so, that's a real nice soliloquy you guys got going there, but the big question is, where's your real data?
Place a battery between your genset and your cell... this "should" help with current regulation and help smooth out any dips etc in power production.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 13, 2009, 08:09:18 PM
yup, which is why i have asked newb a couple times now to give us some measurements from his cell... maybe he thinks i'm just gonna 'trust him' without him earning it. so, that's a real nice soliloquy you guys got going there, but the big question is, where's your real data?
What's the point, Wilby? You clearly don't want to learn anything and just live in some fantasy world.. I said I would explain the problems with measuring Faraday efficiency in series cells not give you "measurements from my cell" as you're saying now. I'm not sure if you are just trolling or what.. But let me know if everything i have in the 2nd post is accurate, first, then I'll explain more.
Hi Loner
QuoteIf you run an IC engine (11HP) on a genset. 4KW generator for the "Output" of the unit. (Engine connected via 2 Belts, very old style.) If this IC engine is running off HHO generated in real time, and the HHO generator is powered from this genset, would this be considered OU? Would this be considered over 100% Faraday, in the general sense?
This is the first I've heard you mention this, so this info is new and interesting to me.
So let me just confirm this. You have a small ICE, running a generator via pulley's. And the power generated by the generator is then used to create hydroxy to fuel the ICE that is operating the genny.
Isn't this everyones dream?
This is currently what Woody is trying to achieve on the Drycell thread.
Are you just being coy about this as I well know that you must realise the implications of what you achieved.
Given the great losses and inefficiency of an ICE, we both know that this achievement would be something significant.
You say you built a WFC that fell somewhere between Meyer and Boyce, can you - will you - provide a little more detail... before the MIB are hammering at your front door ;)!
OK Loner, as I see it the real problem you have is that you - clearly being at the higher end of experience, knowledge and intelligence when compared to most others here - probably have more insight than anyone else in the first place. So personally I doubt that you will get appropriate answers to your questions.
Don't you think this might be like Einstein asking his postman for advice on relativity?
A few years ago I was in regular contact with Dr Rhodes - you probably know who I'm talking about.
I had a few questions and he was very forthcoming and communicative and we had regular email communications for quite some time after that.
Now, one thing that had always bothered me was the term 'Browns Gas'. How could anyone put their name to the hydrogen and oxygen produced by a common duct electrolyser? It seemed ridiculous, after all it was just oxygen and hydrogen in stoichiometric amounts.
There was then some issue about 'Brown' not being the discoverer of this gas - enter Dr Rhodes.
This is when I found out that it is not the discovery of oxygen and hydrogen from a common duct electrolyser (how can that be a discovery), but rather the discovery of the properties of the resulting common duct electrolysed gases that was the issue.
Long before Yull Brown was on the scene, Dr William Rhodes had experimented, researched and recorded the results of common duct electrolyser gases, discovering that there was something different about the energy released by igniting these gases, when compared to igniting the same gases from storage tanks kept under pressure.
The electrolyser gases provided much more energy than predicted and much more than the equivalent amount of tank gases.
I have Dr Rhodes paper somewhere, if you have not already have seen it I'll dig it out. I'm not sure if it available openly on the internet somewhere, but I think I may still have it on an email attachment from him.
But basically, he discovered that the resulting gases from a common duct electrolyser did not all form molecules, but also contained atomic gas, which is considered the reason for the energy anomaly when compared to tank gases. It was Dr William Rhodes work on this subject that highlighted the anomaly, Rhodes who first discovered it's properties, not Yull Brown. Hence the term 'Browns Gas' is inappropriate and just plain wrong. And although it is mainly called HHO (I hate that) or hydroxy (much better), credit where credit is deserved, I'm quite happy with 'Rhodes Gas'.
Anyway, it all comes down to the fact that there seems to be more energy contained in common duct electrolyser gases than we might expect.
From this one can surmise that there might well be ways of increasing the proportion of atomic hydrogen and oxygen within the molecular gas by employing various techniques... and that you may unwittingly have been doing just that!
Now Loner, will you at least provide some details of your wfc set up.... pleeeeasse!
Take a look at 13 tube in tubes hydrogen reactor electrode video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cscJUwHIA10
Quote from: BALLSCREWPRO on May 14, 2009, 11:22:35 AM
Take a look at 13 tube in tubes hydrogen reactor electrode video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cscJUwHIA10
Nice work! Reminiscent of the Joe cell. Although, the Joe cell is the same as a series plate system, but, I see you discovered also that it doesn't work well in series. I'm assuming the tabs are for connecting the tubes in a parallel setup. I think Farrah Day had something similar but I never stuck around to see what he did with it. Will your setup run a genset like the Loner?
Quote from: newbie123 on May 14, 2009, 12:14:28 AM
What's the point, Wilby? You clearly don't want to learn anything and just live in some fantasy world.. I said I would explain the problems with measuring Faraday efficiency in series cells not give you "measurements from my cell" as you're saying now. I'm not sure if you are just trolling or what.. But let me know if everything i have in the 2nd post is accurate, first, then I'll explain more.
what's the point of earning someones trust? hrmmm, ask your 'ladies aid chit chat' buddy farrahday...
i suppose repeatedly asking for your data (of which you obviously have none) could be considered living in a fantasy world...
no no, you're not paying attention again... want me to QUOTE you again so you don't forget what you said? the point is you made some claims and now you got cold feet when someone called you out on it. the point is... quit talking and show us your data.
explaining measurement efficiency with out demonstrating how and where you took said measurements is idiotic.
listen, no i am NOT interested 'learning something from you'. what i AM interested in is learning from YOUR DATA.
as i have said, i don't think you have any said data. which is why you keep beating around the bush.
so again, are you, or are you not going to 'get into those details' in this thread?
if all you have is some 'pet' theory... then shut up. if you have some real data for us to learn from then post it.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 14, 2009, 07:59:23 PM
what's the point of earning someones trust? hrmmm, ask your 'ladies aid chit chat' buddy farrahday...
You don't have to trust me... Everything I said about Faraday efficiency, is
proven in labs by scientists, daily... And is common (science) knowledge... But I wanted you to double check those calculations, so you could actually "Trust" them... But now know you're still interested, I'll continue. Loner already checked the math for you anyway (Thanks Loner).
Quote
i suppose repeatedly asking for your data (of which you obviously have none) could be considered living in a fantasy world...
My data? Like measurement from my cell (data)? How about I just show you the math, and misunderstandings that people have (which I already did, so you should have a clue), then find an example online?
Quote
... quit talking and show us your data. explaining measurement efficiency with out demonstrating how and where you took said measurements is idiotic.
Uh... what? Does this even make sense?
Quote from: newbie123 on May 14, 2009, 09:31:38 PM
You don't have to trust me... Everything I said about Faraday efficiency, is proven in labs by scientists, daily... And is common (science) knowledge... But I wanted you to double check those calculations, so you could actually "Trust" them... But now know you're still interested, I'll continue. Loner already checked the math for you anyway (Thanks Loner).
i don't, i thought that was obvious... great, grand, wonderful. where's the meat n potatoes? you know, the proof that's in the pudding? anyone can sit in an ivory tower of knowledge gleaned from wikipedia, just look at farrahday...
YOUR CALCULATIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN CALCULATIONS and a weak substitute to actually doing a test run with a physical experiment.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 14, 2009, 09:31:38 PM
My data? Like measurement from my cell (data)? How about I just show you the math, and misunderstandings that people have (which I already did, so you should have a clue), then find an example online?
so that's a no then. you don't have a cell. you don't have any measurements of your own bob boyce101 to demonstrate the "problems' with efficiency calculations and the bob boyce cell... that's what this was all about if you remember... you probably don't.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 14, 2009, 09:31:38 PM
Uh... what? Does this even make sense?
so that's a no then, you don't have a cell or data.
look newb, you need to show us your cell, demonstrate with a DMM or your tool of choice that there is no 'leakage' as you so astutely noted before... along with a few other measurements before you go on about what calculations you are using.
don't go putting the cart before the horse...
Wilby, before I go on (and waste my time most likely) .. Let me ask you this.. Do you believe in science? Or even think Faraday's discoveries are useful with regard to electrolysis?
Quote from: newbie123 on May 14, 2009, 10:19:06 PM
Wilby, before I go on (and waste my time most likely) .. Let me ask you this.. Do you believe in science? Or even think Faraday's discoveries are useful with regard to electrolysis?
i sure do... do you? how do you say it? "Until
you can measure it, arguing about something can be many things.. But science is not one of them."
you need an experiment to take measurements no?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 14, 2009, 11:15:54 PM
i sure do... do you?
how do you say it? "Until you can measure it, arguing about something can be many things.. But science is not one of them."
you need an experiment to take measurements no?
This is the type of ignorant response I expected from you. Electrolysis efficiency has been calculated correctly 1000s of times... Do I need to measure it correctly to confirm that it actually works? (..which I have) Hell no! It's been done many, many, many, times already... If you knew how science worked,
AND REALLY BELIEVED IN IT, you would understand that.. So don't start in with 10-year-old responses like the one above .. FFS.
But, lets back up a few posts...
The topic and original 'challenge' wasn't to take measurements of my own cell (which you keep bringing up)... Then make a video, showing the measurements, or whatever it is you have in your head that I should do to prove 100+ percent Faraday calculations are flawed...
The problem is many people aren't considering how series cells work while
CALCULATING Faraday efficiency.... Or using a "MMW" calculation that is supposedly 100 percent efficiency (But, it's not)... Their
MEASUREMENTS are fine (It's not hard to measure volts, amps, temperature, and gas volume)... But their CALCULATIONS are flawed.. Which I told you I'd explain. ¿Comprende?
Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 12:34:51 AM
This is the type of ignorant response I expected from you. Electrolysis efficiency has been calculated correctly 1000s of times... Do I need to measure it correctly to confirm that it actually works? (..which I have) Hell no! It's been done many, many, many, times already... If you knew how science worked, AND REALLY BELIEVED IN IT, you would understand that.. So don't start in with 10-year-old responses like the one above .. FFS.
But, lets back up a few posts...
The topic and original 'challenge' wasn't to take measurements of my own cell (which you keep bringing up)... Then make video, showing the measurements, or whatever it is you have in your head that I should do to prove 100+ percent Faraday calculations are flawed...
The problem is many people aren't considering how series cells work while CALCULATING Faraday efficiency.... Or using a "MMW" calculation that is supposedly 100 percent efficiency (But, it's not)... Their MEASUREMENTS are fine (It's not hard to measure volts, amps, temperature, and gas volume)... But their CALCULATIONS are flawed.. Which I told you I'd explain. ¿Comprende?
yes, let's back up a few, you seem to be getting confused.
the original challenge was:
"will you get into the details in a new thread? i can start one for you if you don't know how. i would love to hear these details, i would like to see your math on the calculation errors too. "
you made some statements that inferred you had done some measurements on a bob boyce cell. ie: "Over Faraday gas measurements are just calculation errors (Every one I've seen, at least) ..
I've actually looked into this... And the series cells, i.e. Bob Boyce 101, will appear to get more gas out per current, when they're really not (it's sort of an illusion)..."
see that part that's bold? that's you inferring that you had made a replication and had measurements from your experiment and the math to back it up. 'it' being your claim that "Over Faraday gas measurements are just calculation errors". or by "actually looked into this..." did you mean you read a high school chemistry book and a wiki page and tossed out some calculations?
so that's fine if that's what you're telling us your details are. just a 'pet hypothesis' about how "The problem is many people aren't considering how series cells work while
CALCULATING Faraday efficiency....". a pet hypothesis with no empirical data to back it up no less. ::) that probably deserves a thread in its own right...
i thought you had a cell and some actual data, i thought here might be the guy who built the 101, designed a correct and proper experiment and could tell bob to stuff it, my bad. here i find out you're just a talking head. still waiting for your math on those 'calculation errors' by the way. you know, the ones you 'looked into'...
"The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion"
so far you are up to hypothesis, which seems to be: many people aren't considering how series cells work while CALCULATING Faraday efficiency.
next you need a prediction.
"PREDICTION
The hypothesis is your general statement of how you think the scientific phenomenon in question works. Your prediction lets you get specific -- how will you demonstrate that your hypothesis is true? The experiment that you will design is done to test the prediction.
An important thing to remember during this stage of the scientific method is that once you develop a hypothesis and a prediction, you shouldn't change it, even if the results of your experiment show that you were wrong. An incorrect prediction doesn't mean that you "failed." It just means that the experiment brought some new facts to light that maybe you hadn't thought about before."
then you need your experiment.
"EXPERIMENT
This is the part of the scientific method that tests your hypothesis. An experiment is a tool that you design to find out if your ideas about your topic are right or wrong. It is absolutely necessary to design a experiment that will accurately test your hypothesis. The experiment is the most important part of the scientific method. It's the logical process that lets scientists learn about the world."
and finally your conclusion...
"CONCLUSION
The final step in the scientific method is the conclusion. This is a summary of the experiment's results, and how those results match up to your hypothesis.
You have two options for your conclusions: based on your results, either you can reject the hypothesis, or you can not reject the hypothesis. This is an important point. You can not PROVE the hypothesis with a single experiment, because there is a chance that you made an error somewhere along the way. What you can say is that your results SUPPORT the original hypothesis.
If your original hypothesis didn't match up with the final results of your experiment, don't change the hypothesis. Instead, try to explain what might have been wrong with your original hypothesis. What information did you not have originally that caused you to be wrong in your prediction? What are the reasons that the hypothesis and experimental results didn't match up?"
so, that's the scientific method newb. check out this link.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scientific+method
what you are doing can be construed as many things, but science is not one of them.
lets us know when you get around to actually doing the experiment, maybe you can start a new thread?
all quotes in this post taken from
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Wilby, you're last two responses (or arguments) are so irrelevant, and childish , that I'm not even going to respond....
But I will show more about common efficiency calculation errors..
In post #2 I showed, according to Faraday law (law, meaning proven over and over again in labs).....
107.205 amps into a cell ... Over a period of one hour will generate 73.338 Liters of H2 O2 gas (aka HHO) at 100 percent efficiency. Voltage measurements aren't required for this, and it shows how electrons are required to break H-O-H bonds..
But if you're still skeptical about Faraday efficiency.... I'll attempt to show another method for measuring efficiency .. A measurement known as Î"G, or the change in Gibbs energy of formation can show electrolysis energy efficiency in a different way (+ as a function of temperature and pressure)
At 25C and 101.325 kPa the change in Gibbs Free Energy of formation is determined to be 237.18 kilojoules / mol (at 100 percent efficiency) ... Which means 237.18 (kJ / mol) of electrical input energy is required to convert 1 mole of H2O into 1 mole of H2 gas and a 1/2 mole of O2 gas (at 25C and 101.325 kPa).
You can see this here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/electrol.html
From the above Faraday calculations we know: 107.205 Amps continuous for 1 Hour will create 3 moles of H2/O2 gas, which has a volume of 73.338 Liters.
If we multiply the change in Gibbs Free Energy of formation (energy used to create 1.5 moles of gas) by 2, we should have the actual energy required for 3 moles of gas (at 100 percent efficiency, in the above conditions).
237.18 kJ * 2 = 474.36 kJ
Convert 474.36 kJ to Watts:
474360 Joules / 3600 seconds = 131.7666 Watts
Now put everything together (amps + voltage)
Since: Watts = Amps * Volts
131.7666 Watts = 107.204 Amp * Volts
So, V = (131.7666 W) / (107.204 A)
V = 1.23 Volts
Which is known to be the minimum voltage for electrolysis at 25C, 101.325 kPa. Which is also 100 percent Faraday, and "Gibbs" Efficiency.
Here's how you'd calculate "Ideal" W/LPM (Watts per LPM) at 25C and 101.325 kPa.
73.338 L/Hr / 60 Minutes = 1.223 LPM
Requires 131.76 Watts.
So,
1 LPM / 1.223 LPM = .81766
.81766 * 131.76 Watts = 107.73
At 25C/101.325 kPa it takes 107.73 Watts to generate 1 liter per minute at 100 percent efficiency.
And the MMW (the standard HHO measurement method) would be:
1000/131.76
9.282 MMW, at 25C 101.325 kPa.
WARNING: I did these calculations myself quite a while ago, and I haven't had them confirmed by a real chemist (or even have them reviewed by other amateurs) .. But the seem pretty accurate still.. Let me know if you find any miscalculations or inaccuracies.
So, one problem I've noticed many people I have incorrect MMWs and W/LPM calculations (IF mine are correct, which I feel they are) ..
Then the next problem is ... The HOTTER your cells get, the more these 100 percent efficiency calculations go up. I can show the math for this as well.. If anyone is interested.
These are just the basic efficiency measurement problems, that I've noticed. I'll get into the "series cell" specifically next.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 04:52:51 PM
I'll get into the "series cell" specifically next.
what you have calculated also apply to the series cell.
series or parallel, it does not really make a big difference in efficiency
the cells configuration will,
the exposed surfaces area and voltage per cell,
not the fact they are is series or parallel.
1.5 Volts at 100 Amps = 150 Watts
if you have 10 cells in parallel, the current to each cell will be 10 amps.
resistance in parallel are current divider.
100 Amps / 10 cells = 10 Amps each.
15 Volts at 10 Amp = 150 Watts
if you have 10 cells in series, the current passing through
all cells will be...,
10 Amps.resistance in series are voltage divider.
15 Volts / 10 cells = 1.5 Volts
suprise, suprise, both are using 150 Watts for the same amount of current per cell...
Quote from: TheNOP on May 15, 2009, 09:22:30 PM
series or parallel, it does not really make a big difference in efficiency
the cells configuration will,
Exactly. The parallel cells will perform the same as a 'series' cell... But current leakage around the cells can a problem in either design.
The problem with series cells, is the Faraday efficiency is harder to calculate.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 10:44:46 PM
The problem with series cells, is the Faraday efficiency is harder to calculate.
not really.
amps are amps after all, and still apply individualy to each cells.
the problem with most of the OU claims are :
-current not measured properly. <--this can become a real headake when pulsed currents is used.
-output gases that include something else. Ex: water steam.
one must compaire against Faraday calculted 100% efficiency.
not from the difference between cell configuration.
a U shaped tube with 2 electrodes, in a configuration to separate the H from the O gases, is far from being Faraday's 100% efficiency.
if compairing against other configurated cells, you will only get the effeciency difference between the two,
not if the output is greater then Faraday's 100% efficiency.
a side note about current measurement problems :
in some ravi's and Meyer's replication video, i could clearly see the experimenters using a clamp meter the wrong way to get the amps reading.
they were not measuring the real drain, they were measuring the waisted energy of there cells.
try this:
measure a stove's heating element amperage draw with a clamp meter while putting more then one of the wires inside the clamp.
what will you get ? :D
Quote from: TheNOP on May 16, 2009, 02:46:43 PM
try this:
measure a stove's heating element amperage draw with a clamp meter while putting more then one of the wires inside the clamp.
what will you get ? :D
Yep.. Lots of room for measurement error. I've seen digital amp and volt giving all sorts of weird readings.. And with pulsed circuits it can be even more difficult.
newb, are you saying the scientific method is irrelevant and childish?
again you're just giving us calculations... which most of us learned long ago in high school chemistry. misquoting a scientific experiment (ie:faraday) is not "doing science"... that would only qualify as a lame hypothesis, maybe.
what you are doing can be construed as many things, but science is not one of them.
try the scientific method i outlined for you in my last post and don't forget it requires some actual effort on your part, beyond parroting some wiki page, an hhoforums.com post http://www.hhoforums.com/showpost.php?s=ac9700662d8cbac1f944833775da4513&p=28439&postcount=9 or whatever.
by the way is that your post over on hhoforums.com? or are you just plagiarizing someone?
"...multiply the change in Gibbs Free Energy of formation..."
::) how does that go again? gibbs free energy is the math behind the thermal reaction as a chemical reaction takes place. blah blah blah
where's your cell? what have you got that 50 other armchair theorists like yourself don't have?
@WilbyInebriated
please, can you point me to the same datas, from Mr.Boyce, that you are asking newbie ?
i would like to compaire them.
if newbie ever post them that is.
Quote from: TheNOP on May 20, 2009, 07:48:59 PM
@WilbyInebriated
please, can you point me to the same datas, from Mr.Boyce, that you are asking newbie ?
i would like to compaire them.
if newbie ever post them that is.
sorry NOP, that's what i have been after the whole time... pages now. ::)
he has nothing, no data from boyce for a baseline even. just this hypothesis of his that he has absolutely no data to back up either. he is still hung up on thinking that i disagree with faraday (which i don't) and not seeing that all we want is some substance from HIM. good luck with it if you try to get anything out of him. all i got was him parroting and possibly plagiarizing others words.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 20, 2009, 03:33:59 PM
newb, are you saying the scientific method is irrelevant and childish?
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?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 12, 2009, 08:12:54 PM
will you get into the details in a new thread? i can start one for you if you don't know how. i would love to hear these details, i would like to see your math on the calculation errors too. ;)
And now you don't want to see the math/calculations....
Quote
again you're just giving us calculations... which most of us learned long ago in high school chemistry. misquoting a scientific experiment (ie:faraday) is not "doing science"... that would only qualify as a lame hypothesis, maybe.
The calculations errors are the problem. Most people think a MMW of 7.35 is 100 percent efficiency, and this doesn't seem correct. And this is just one of the problems!
Quote
try the scientific method i outlined for you in my last post and don't forget it requires some actual effort on your part, beyond parroting some wiki page, an hhoforums.com post http://www.hhoforums.com/showpost.php?s=ac9700662d8cbac1f944833775da4513&p=28439&postcount=9 or whatever.
by the way is that your post over on hhoforums.com? or are you just plagiarizing someone?
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...........
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.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 20, 2009, 07:55:33 PM
sorry NOP, that's what i have been after the whole time... pages now. ::)
he has nothing, no data from boyce for a baseline even. just this hypothesis of his that he has absolutely no data to back up either. he is still hung up on thinking that i disagree with faraday (which i don't) and not seeing that all we want is some substance from HIM. good luck with it if you try to get anything out of him. all i got was him parroting and possibly plagiarizing others words.
don't worry, i won't wait for anyone to post datas they don't want, or can't, provide in this or any other forums.
btw
about the Scientific Method, the text itself is not childish.
being irrelevent, in the context of this tread, is for every one to decide, alone.
but i find the way you have highlighted parts of the text to be childish tho.
do not take the above out of context please.
read the remaining of my post to understand what i mean by that.
you seem not see all the implications of some of the phrases in that text.
QuoteThe experiment is the most important part of the scientific method.
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.
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.
i sometime come to false conclusions about the measurements i get from my experiments.(not only in the hho field)
and sometime it is hard to find the proper method(s) to make shure they hold or not.
Ex:
i did stumble on cells that
seem to produce more gas. more then once.
i
can't say they were over 100% efficient as i have no way to make shure without isolating those cells.
and when i try to isolate the cells, it kill the "over" production.
together the cells are not over 68% efficiency, compaired to Faraday.
give or take a ~10% error margin, mainly from the gases output that i can't analyse, the method use to collect the gases and the timing method.
while i could probably fix the timing method issue fairly easily, the other 2 need tools that i can't make nor buy.
in this, this is what i think need to be highlighted:
QuoteYou can not PROVE the hypothesis with a single experiment, because there is a chance that you made an error somewhere along the way. What you can say is that your results SUPPORT the original hypothesis.
not just one part because they go together, the possible errors
can not be excluded.
and to me, the last phrase is just a rehash of the "You can not PROVE" statement.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 20, 2009, 09:32:53 PM
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.
hehe
you are saying it even better then the highlighted parts in my previous post examples.
Quote from: TheNOP on May 15, 2009, 09:22:30 PM
if you have 10 cells in series, the current passing through all cells will be..., 10 Amps.
resistance in series are voltage divider.
15 Volts / 10 cells = 1.5 Volts
The bottom line is if you have over 100 percent "Faraday efficiency" you're screwing up your maths somewhere..
Quote from: TheNOP on May 20, 2009, 09:48:37 PM
don't worry, i won't wait for anyone to post datas they don't want, or can't, provide in this or any other forums.
btw
about the Scientific Method, the text itself is not childish.
being irrelevent, in the context of this tread, is for every one to decide, alone.
but i find the way you have highlighted parts of the text to be childish tho.
do not take the above out of context please.
read the remaining of my post to understand what i mean by that.
the highlighted text was highlighted in the source article, except for the line about the experiment. i highlighted that.
Quote from: TheNOP on May 20, 2009, 09:48:37 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...
Quote from: TheNOP on May 20, 2009, 09:48:37 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...
Quote from: TheNOP on May 20, 2009, 09:48:37 PM
i sometime come to false conclusions about the measurements i get from my experiments.(not only in the hho field)
and sometime it is hard to find the proper method(s) to make shure they hold or not.
Ex:
i did stumble on cells that seem to produce more gas. more then once.
i can't say they were over 100% efficient as i have no way to make shure without isolating those cells.
and when i try to isolate the cells, it kill the "over" production.
together the cells are not over 68% efficiency, compaired to Faraday.
give or take a ~10% error margin, mainly from the gases output that i can't analyse, the method use to collect the gases and the timing method.
while i could probably fix the timing method issue fairly easily, the other 2 need tools that i can't make nor buy.
in this, this is what i think need to be highlighted:not just one part because they go together, the possible errors can not be excluded.
and to me, the last phrase is just a rehash of the "You can not PROVE" statement.
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...
by the way, don't change my posts. it reflects badly on you.
your quote of me
QuoteYou can not PROVE the hypothesis with a single experiment, because there is a chance that you made an error somewhere along the way. What you can say is that your results SUPPORT the original hypothesis.
my actual words in which i was quoting another website.
QuoteYou can not PROVE the hypothesis with a single experiment, because there is a chance that you made an error somewhere along the way.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 20, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
the highlighted text was highlighted in the source article, except for the line about the experiment. i highlighted that.
Quotefrom 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.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 20, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
Quotefrom 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.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 20, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
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.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 20, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: TheNOP on May 21, 2009, 06:07:10 PM
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...
Quote from: TheNOP on May 21, 2009, 06:07:10 PM
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 ::)
Quote from: TheNOP on May 21, 2009, 06:07:10 PM
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.
Quote from: TheNOP on May 21, 2009, 06:07:10 PM
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.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 20, 2009, 09:32:53 PM
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.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 20, 2009, 09:32:53 PM
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.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 20, 2009, 09:32:53 PM
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
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 21, 2009, 09:38:56 PM
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?
Quote from: d3adp00l on May 21, 2009, 08:52:54 PM
so what is the details of the cell eff.
- 96 cells, wet stack
- 3 independant power supply fully isolated from each other.
a steady current one(0 - 300 volts, 0 - 30 amps) and 2 pulsed DC circuit(fully controlable, can also be mixed) on their own supply
Quote
i did stumble on cells that seem to produce more gas. more then once.
i can't say they were over 100% efficient as i have no way to make shure without isolating those cells.
and when i try to isolate the cells, it kill the "over" production.
together the cells are not over 68% efficiency, compaired to Faraday.
give or take a ~10% error margin, mainly from the gases output that i can't analyse, the method use to collect the gases and the timing method.
while i could probably fix the timing method issue fairly easily, the other 2 need tools that i can't make nor buy.
what else do you want to know ?
but maybe you are not interested in my cells stack since i am not claiming OU.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 22, 2009, 12:37:52 PM
TheNOP, It's pointless to argue with this guy... everything he says is pretty much irrelevant to what he's responding.
i agree, but i have put it on "language barrier" fault.
english is not my primary language, not even my second one.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 20, 2009, 09:32:53 PM
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.
i find this very on topic and is the true way to calculate series cells.
for those who might be confuse by the 24 amps value while only 4 are said to pass through all the cells, here an other way to see it.
12 volts * 4 amps = 48 watts
2 volts * 4 amps = 8 watts * 6 cells = 48 watts
2 volts * 24 amps = 48 watts
soliloquy
1 : the act of talking to oneself
2 : a dramatic monologue that represents a series of unspoken reflections
regardless of what WilbyInebriated might think, you are not alone to be interested in that kind of informations.
so whats the alleged power consumption on all three power supplies, and what is its output, and in addition what is your proof of this output.
Quote from: d3adp00l on May 23, 2009, 03:00:19 AM
so whats the alleged power consumption on all three power supplies, and what is its output, and in addition what is your proof of this output.
i assume you want to see for yourself if i did'nt made errors while calculating.
for a not ou cells stack... ?
you will have no proof from me as i have nothing to prove to anyone, except to myself.
do your own experiments.
and, if you think you have something, and want your peers to review it, post your own data.
as for me, i have nothing interesting to post about my stack else then what i already posted.
68% was the highest result i ever had, with so few gases output that it is not usefull for most applications.
i love it how everyone quotes faradays numbers as flawed but still is used as a referal to how to measure overunity. Faradays number refers to ampere you all know this right. You want to build a device to kill faradays law? you need to use the same voltage he did. its not watts nor does he state watt or joule or anything like that, its AMPERE. Also faraday's law only applies to those using his voltage. Otherwise it can only be used as a guide. And production of only 1 or 2 % overunity is of no use to us. As we cannot use this sustainably right now. You need to look at approx 400% overunity for use in a ICE, YES 400% (ICE are about 30% efficient and then the alternator at about 80%) so argue all you want over the clause of a few mild percentage points.
Quote from: CrazyEwok on May 25, 2009, 01:15:53 AM
you need to use the same voltage he did.
This isn't accurate... As you just said, Faraday's law has nothing to do with watts/voltage... just amps. (Btw, Faraday never accomplished 100 percent "Faraday" Efficiency, he just calculated it)
Quoteits not watts nor does he state watt or joule or anything like that, its AMPERE.
Right. Did you read any of my posts? :P
QuoteAlso faraday's law only applies to those using his voltage.
The "100 percent efficiency voltage" will actually change with temperature and pressure... But 100 percent current (Faraday) efficiency will remain the same regardless.
Quote from: CrazyEwok on May 25, 2009, 01:15:53 AM
its not watts nor does he state watt or joule or anything like that, its AMPERE.
if you can't see the relations between those units you should go back to school.
yes, Faraday's law require amperes unit for electrolisis efficiency calculations.
but that does not mean you can't calculate the amps from the watts or the amps from the joules.
in fact, you can convert any units to any other quantifier units, if you have the values you need to do the convertion.
Quote from: newbie123 on May 25, 2009, 09:42:33 AM
The "100 percent efficiency voltage" will actually change with temperature and pressure... But 100 percent current (Faraday) efficiency will remain the same regardless.
in other words.
Faraday's law of electrolysis is using
mol in its formula.
a
mol is not a unit of volume, it is a unit of amount of substance.(atoms, molecules, etc...)
this mean, you have to compensate for temperature and pressure when you measure your gases output by volume.
but Faraday's law does not require to be compensate.
Quote from: TheNOP on May 25, 2009, 04:02:40 PM
if you can't see the relations between those units you should go back to school.
yes, Faraday's law require amperes unit for electrolisis efficiency calculations.
but that does not mean you can't calculate the amps from the watts or the amps from the joules.
in fact, you can convert any units to any other quantifier units, if you have the values you need to do the convertion.
Really you can calculate the amps from simply having the watts can you??? i have 4watts of power being produced how many amp am i outputting???
Oh wait you can't tell me the amp because you are missing some information... the voltage produced!!!
and all conversions of power have relevant losses so no you can't do a simple converstion, because this would involve having to calculate your losses... Also in order to measure your amps there needs to be a voltage as your electrical charge won't move without a voltage difference between 2 points. And your saying i need to go to school... for the perdantic or those not quite understanding.
Watts = Volts x Amps
Faraday states that it takes X amps to breakdown the bonds of water.
he doesn't state what voltage you use. i bet i can get crap loads more gas out of 10amps at 2kv then i can out of 10amps at 12v. same ampere different voltage.
So no unless you go back and look at how many volts he used in his calculations you or anyone else quoting his work is wasting their and everyone elses time. If you find the voltage then that can in turn be converted into Watts, this is a calculation that can be used by everyone... so off you go convert your little calculation or stick to your "amps = Gas" notation....
Quote from: CrazyEwok on May 26, 2009, 12:40:04 AM
i bet i can get crap loads more gas out of 10amps at 2kv then i can out of 10amps at 12v. same ampere different voltage.
Wrong.... If you ran a cell at 2kv 10amps, you'd probably get crap loads more heat and steam (w/ a very low production efficiency), but the hydroxy gas would be the same as 12V 10A..
Quote
So no unless you go back and look at how many volts he used in his calculations you or anyone else quoting his work is wasting their and everyone elses time. If you find the voltage then that can in turn be converted into Watts, this is a calculation that can be used by everyone... so off you go convert your little calculation or stick to your "amps = Gas" notation....
Again, Faraday efficiency has NOTHING to do with volts or even energy, his "volts" are totally irrelevant!
really newbie... so if i had the relevant plate count in a series cell to divide the incoming voltage down to 1.2v per plate pair then that would not produce more gas??? same if not less gas per watt but more gas per applied amp... Volts are 100 percent relevant. Being your Volts control alot of things that happen in a cell. Just of the top of my head your Volts ,by them selves, can help you overcome the resistance of water... oh wait you don't understand how that would possibly work??? Or that your voltage can be increased to overcome larger plate gaps... oh wait forest that wasn't in D14.pdf was it so how can i possibly know that. Or that your pulsing you blessed amps into your cell only increases the efficientcy due to colapsing magnetic fields and the latent lag of them being created. (that one i will give you for free, if you don't believe me that there is an effect on water due to magnetic fields you should look into it). ALSO another monkey wrench that is well known, is that all laws of physics and science have exceptions at which these exceptions are only seen 99.9999% of the time and only in extreme micro scale circumstances. so no you blantant blind following that volts only equals heat and steam is far from accurate...
Quote from: CrazyEwok on May 26, 2009, 01:32:08 AM
really newbie... so if i had the relevant plate count in a series cell to divide the incoming voltage down to 1.2v per plate pair then that would not produce more gas???
Of course, In a series cell with "chopped down" voltage you will produce much more gas.... But in the context you used, and since you didn't talk about neutral plates... I thought were implying 6k watts is a lot more energy, therefore it will produce much more gas regardless of the plate configuration...
Quote
same if not less gas per watt but more gas per applied amp... Volts are 100 percent relevant. Being your Volts control alot of things that happen in a cell. Just of the top of my head your Volts ,by them selves, can help you overcome the resistance of water... oh wait you don't understand how that would possibly work??? Or that your voltage can be increased to overcome larger plate gaps... oh wait forest that wasn't in D14.pdf was it so how can i possibly know that.
You're trying to change the subject now....... And everything you just said is irrelevant to Faraday efficiency. Go read up on it and explain to me why "his voltage" is significant... Since you think it is. Amps doing work is significant... that is it wrt Faraday efficiency! Of course you need voltage for amps.. But this still has nothing to do with Faraday efficiency.
Quote
Or that your pulsing you blessed amps into your cell only increases the efficientcy due to colapsing magnetic fields and the latent lag of them being created. (that one i will give you for free, if you don't believe me that there is an effect on water due to magnetic fields you should look into it)
I already have... And pulsing does nothing for a cells efficiency, but you're right that electric/magnetic fields will affect water molecules (decrease dielectric constant, etc) .. Read all about it here. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic.html
QuoteALSO another monkey wrench that is well known, is that all laws of physics and science have exceptions at which these exceptions are only seen 99.9999% of the time and only in extreme micro scale circumstances
Really? Do you have a reference?
Quoteso no you blantant blind following that volts only equals heat and steam is far from accurate...
Again, did you even read any of my previous posts?
Quote from: CrazyEwok on May 26, 2009, 12:40:04 AM
Really you can calculate the amps from simply having the watts can you??? i have 4watts of power being produced how many amp am i outputting???
Oh wait you can't tell me the amp because you are missing some information... the voltage produced!!!
Quotein fact, you can convert any units to any other quantifier units, if you have the values you need to do the convertion.
Quote from: CrazyEwok on May 26, 2009, 12:40:04 AM
and all conversions of power have relevant losses so no you can't do a simple converstion, because this would involve having to calculate your losses...
::)
can't you make the difference between physicaly converting power using a device and units convertions ?
ex: 1 Farad = 1 Ampere = 1 Coulomb/sec = 1 Farad/1 Volt = 6.241506 × 10
18 electrons , etc...
there are no power losses in those units conversions.
Faraday's law is not dependant on the voltage it is dependent on the current.
Faraday's law formula is using atoms charges to calculate the max effeciency that is theoricaly possible.
can you count the electrons you are using in your cell ?
if not, then trying to further explain Faraday's formula to you is hopeless.
is the current efficiency unit, mmw i think, the one commonly accepted in this forum i mean, use electrons and mol in it formula ?
if you don't know how to get the actual current per cell values, then it is not my problem, it is yours.
my point was that
you can use Ohm's law to calculate it.
if you are comparing apples with bananas because you don't know how to convert units then it is not my problem, it is yours.
you can't measure your gases output by mol but...
mol=number of atoms
the number of atoms can be calculated given that you have the gases volume, the temperature and the pressure values of that gas volume.
but i guess peoples are so lasy that those calculations mean nothing to them.
at least that seem to be the excuse they give to hide the fact that they are lasy.
it is easyer to say, some of my cell give me more bubbles, so, it must be OU... ::)
i am not saying it is not, and i am not saying it is either.
what i said is, regardless of having some cells giving me more output then the others, i never had OU.