Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

[newbie123]

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?

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....

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!

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.

[TheNOP]

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.

The 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:

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.

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.

[TheNOP]

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.

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

[newbie123]

The bottom line is   if you have over 100 percent "Faraday efficiency"  you're screwing up your maths somewhere..   
 

[WilbyInebriated]

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.

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...

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...

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

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.

my actual words in which i was quoting another website.

You can not PROVE the hypothesis with a single experiment, because there is a chance that you made an error somewhere along the way.