thomas malloy said; >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.
Of course 1000% would be world shattering, but one must ask of him some of the same questions that have been put to some of my devices. Lets look at the formula Lgas = R*I*T*t/F*p*z, simple but effective way to ask questions. >From the stand point of the cell, Boyce states voltage is evil after reaching the thermal neutral point, yet voltage can be used to increase I in the formula and at the same time increase T, yet getting T to high will add to vapor content 'which to an extent is good and bad' as auto efficiency can be improved by the addition of the proper amounts of water vapor alone. Now p or pressure (atm) has a big impact as seen in the formula, if you run at 1 atm versus 4 atm you get more gas. The big evil here is just what are you getting and how are you measuring it? I would have to go back in the archives to find it and I think it was leakingpen that posted some (.pdf) links to this Boyce cell and I ran the figures stated in that pdf through the above formulation and it came to 101.65%, so how is he figuring the eff%? Her is how we do it; +by the way we hate single duct cells+ never the less the procedure is similar. 1) Using DC input, monitor V & I 2) Measure the cell temperature 3) Measure the exit port pressure 4) Pass the gas through (2) dryers into a calibrated measuring tank (small < 1.5L)while timing until full 5) "Assume you have left only H2 and O2", which may not be so, depending on electrodes, cell case and gas conduits and fittings. Now at least you can get a good guess on evolved gas, you can not go by how much water leaves the cell because you can not be sure that some was not vapor or steam if the cell is hot enough. So lets see if we get ~2.7 to 3.0 watts per liter from the H2 (if we assume a perfect cell and heat is taken from the environment and not cell generation) then we can see numbers of 85% to 93% as compared from energy from evolved gas to input. Okay with a mole being text book number of 22.4L then 22.4 * 3.0 = 67.2W per what, minute, hour? Need a lot of gas to even get close to gasoline. My CRE can reach 180%, but this is a cell production figure, not 180% more produced energy than input to get it. You can see the CRE at my site and see just how it is figured and stated clearly it is not OU. I think the Boyce cell needs some additional quantitative figures to really show what is the output and content. -----Original Message----- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 12:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: High efficiency electrolysis Jones Beene wrote: > for storing or using electricity (the advanced battery)- than splitting > water, unless you can produce H2 at about double the normal Faradaic > rate. > > More later, but if anyone is interested, Harti has started a thread on > his forum: > 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. > > > > > --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
