Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

[Farrah Day]

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!

[BALLSCREWPRO]

Take a look at 13 tube in tubes hydrogen reactor electrode video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cscJUwHIA10

[HeairBear]

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?

[WilbyInebriated]

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.

[newbie123]

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).

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?     

... 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?