thomas malloy wrote:
I share your enthusiasm Jones. Ever since I read the article about the Boyce electrolyzer, I've gotten the itch to find out if it works. BTW, the efficiency claimed is 1000 times the Faradaic efficiency, more than enough to close the loop.
Ten times is easily enough to close the loop. The problem with wildly excessive claims like Boyce's, are that it is a definite turn-off to any serious experimenter who has done this kind of work. He produces plenty of hot air, but no supporting data.
And even though almost every inventor, who goes to the trouble of putting up information on the net - does have something valid to offer/share, a new wrinkle or whatever - and should be given to get a fair hearing in the court of future-funding - I do not find Boyce credible at all. This is for reasons which are too numerous to get into now. It is somewhat the same situation with Kanarev and Chukanov. These guys like to toot their own horn, but when it comes down to presenting real data, they are usually heading out the back door instead.
There are certain "tells" which can distinguish real inventors from the BS artists - but no one can agree on this - and that is why we have horse races and high stakes poker games, so to speak (and lawsuits). One "tell" which is almost an admission that the inventor is counterfeit - is the old "chip on the shoulder" routine (Chukanov) - or the "MIB are out to get me" routine (Meyer).
If you have 10 times Faradaic - how hard is it to connect you cell to a small ICE genset? Anyone can rent these cheaply if that is the problem.
However, having said that - the main reason that I jumped on the Aarons technique, when he has no real data yet either, is this - and it is rather confusing unless you have followed Ken Shoulders EVO work and other related things on Vortex. Aarons is hooking up (4) 12-volt batteries, in such a way that there is a series linkage but with the load (the electrolysis cell) placed in an asymmetrical gap in that linkage on the negative side. In order not to stress any battery too much, he plans to make this into a shifting, or "musical chairs" type of load-gap, with intermittent recharging.
The bottom line, if you have followed the Heffner/Jullian debate on absolute/relative potential, is that electrolysis cell sits in an unusual place where the positive electrode is itself negatively charged, and in a well, so to speak, which is below ground (or above, from the POV of the electron) but not relative to the real negative. For instance, the "positive" side of the cell could be at -24 v. (wrt ground) and the "negative" would sit at -36 v. (wrt ground).
The advantage of this in an electrolysis cell with battery swap is hard to state verbally - as you can see from the fact that Horace and Michel are both arguing for basically the same thing but in differing ways.
And to understand where an "excess" could materialize, one needs to add in the EVO = which is another subject altogether.
Perhaps the presence of same-polarity but relative potential (in a multi-plate cell where the voltage drop from plate to plate is still about 2 v. but where the electrons themselves are all higher potential (wrt ground) does make a significant difference and does allow a partial recharging of the batteries. Time will tell.
If so - obviously there is no reason to be limited to 4 batteries and 48 volts in a series circuit. There is evidence that the electron at around 1000 volts, or between 1-2 kv potential does act very differently.
IMHO this is where the Aaron's (possible) breakthrough is heading. Although I doubt seriously that even he realizes this yet.
Jones
