Author Topic: 102 plates drycell  (Read 23095 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hidden

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
Re: 102 plates drycell
« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2010, 05:01:13 am »
Steve, way to go with the efficiency you noted.
I have a feeling its even higher, the reason being how did you make the measurement (LPM)?
Guessing you have used water displacement method for the LPM measurement.
From tests done by another reliable source it shows that easily 35% to 50% more output with a mass flow measurement device like Coriolis.
Water displacement although good, you must overcome some grams of force up to many grams of opposing forces to make the displacement measurement.
 
For that reason if water displacement method was used your numbers are actually higher.
 
Anyways again real nice to hear good results.
 

Online Hidden

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3886
    • water structure and science
Re: 102 plates drycell
« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2010, 10:46:15 am »
Steve, way to go with the efficiency you noted.
I have a feeling its even higher, the reason being how did you make the measurement (LPM)?
Guessing you have used water displacement method for the LPM measurement.
From tests done by another reliable source it shows that easily 35% to 50% more output with a mass flow measurement device like Coriolis.
Water displacement although good, you must overcome some grams of force up to many grams of opposing forces to make the displacement measurement.
 
For that reason if water displacement method was used your numbers are actually higher.
 
Anyways again real nice to hear good results.

Hi Komtek,
 
I measured indead with the magic 1.5 litre bottle and a bucket of water.
Its sounds nice when you say that the reality might be even better   :)
 
What Sebos is telling about using 273 degree kelvin is i think also right.
But his calculation is not. The difference between 273 and 293K  makes on the totall calc a change of max 7%.
 
So, accoording to Haithar i do here a 109% minus 7 % = still 2 % better......
I dont have time to show the totall calc but maybe later i will publish that one.
 
But at this moment i do measure like the whole HHO community does and compared to them and compared to what the Anton group does, i do good here.
 
 
Steve
 
 
 
 

Offline Hidden

  • Mr. OUTLAWiSTiC
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: 102 plates drycell
« Reply #82 on: August 11, 2010, 18:51:07 pm »
congrats steve! im glad to see some awesome results!  lets  keep em coming :)  the day of true sovereignty is coming !!

Offline Hidden

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: 102 plates drycell
« Reply #83 on: August 12, 2010, 01:15:10 am »

 Great job, Steve.   Now, like everyone, I am waiting to see-hear results with the Generator.

Offline Hidden

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: 102 plates drycell
« Reply #84 on: August 12, 2010, 02:56:48 am »
Nice work, Steve!  Faraday never even had a chance  ;)

Offline Hidden

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: 102 plates drycell
« Reply #85 on: August 12, 2010, 16:46:43 pm »
Also how much electrolyte is in your cell? I have ~3% and i get 2A at 1.7V per single cell. It doesn't get warm under 1.85V / cell which is good, but i have to optimize far more to get my desired 150W/l/min
i bump my question. :)