Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

[TheNOP]

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 ? 

[newbie123]

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 ? 

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.

[WilbyInebriated]

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?

[TheNOP]

@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.

[WilbyInebriated]

@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.