Author Topic: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details (Read 39216 times)

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #30 on:** May 15, 2009, 03:43:47 AM »

Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 03:31:38 AM

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 15, 2009, 03:31:38 AM

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 15, 2009, 03:31:38 AM

Uh... what? Does this even make sense?

so that's a no then, you don't have a cell or data.

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #31 on:** May 15, 2009, 04:00:00 AM »

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...

newbie123 · « **Reply #32 on:** May 15, 2009, 04:19:06 AM »

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?

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #33 on:** May 15, 2009, 05:15:54 AM »

Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 04:19:06 AM

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?

newbie123 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2009, 06:34:51 AM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 15, 2009, 05:15:54 AM

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. Â¿Comprende?

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2009, 07:44:46 AM »

Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 06:34:51 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. Â¿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 · « **Reply #36 on:** May 15, 2009, 10:03:13 AM »

"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 · « **Reply #37 on:** May 15, 2009, 10:52:51 PM »

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 · « **Reply #38 on:** May 16, 2009, 03:22:30 AM »

Quote from: newbie123 on May 15, 2009, 10:52:51 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...

newbie123 · « **Reply #39 on:** May 16, 2009, 04:44:46 AM »

Quote from: TheNOP on May 16, 2009, 03:22:30 AM

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.

TheNOP · « **Reply #40 on:** May 16, 2009, 08:46:43 PM »

Quote from: newbie123 on May 16, 2009, 04:44:46 AM

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** May 16, 2009, 10:12:21 PM »

Quote from: TheNOP on May 16, 2009, 08:46:43 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 ?

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 · « **Reply #42 on:** May 20, 2009, 09:33:59 PM »

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 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 21, 2009, 01:48:59 AM »

@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 · « **Reply #44 on:** May 21, 2009, 01:55:33 AM »

Quote from: TheNOP on May 21, 2009, 01:48:59 AM

@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.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details (Read 39216 times)

WilbyInebriated

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

WilbyInebriated

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

newbie123

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

WilbyInebriated

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

newbie123

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

WilbyInebriated

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

WilbyInebriated

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

newbie123

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

TheNOP

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

newbie123

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

TheNOP

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

newbie123

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

WilbyInebriated

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

TheNOP

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details

WilbyInebriated

Re: Bob Boyce 101 efficiency details