Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

[WilbyInebriated]

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'...

[WilbyInebriated]

"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

[newbie123]

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.

[TheNOP]

  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...

[newbie123]

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.