High-frequency electrolyzers

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » High-frequency electrolyzers

Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Author

Message

Eeyore

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:21 am

Guest

Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Adsettwrote:
....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Adsett wrote:

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.

It's not a PEM (a.k.a fuel cell) you utter fuckwit.

That's right. Its an electrolyzer AS I SAID!

What *you said* is neither here nor there.

Yoiu were asked to provide evidence of an 80% efficient *FUEL CELL* (PEM) and failed to
do so.

The fact of the matter is that you're a total charlatan whose resort to sensible critical
questioning is to try to avoid the question.

Graham

Robert Adsett

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:59 pm

Guest

In article <1181376476.771491.24410@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
says...

Quote:

On Jun 8, 11:11 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181306147.880719.176...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
says...

On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181259760.318128.268...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...

But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel

More to the point it's an alkaline cell. In my experience with fuel
cells the alkaline units I saw were substantially more efficient than
the PEM units. Although to be fair they were not as far along the
commercialization route.

Quote:

My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.

You just did. You've yet to show a PEM unit that comes close to your
claim.

Quote:

it's not > 80% efficient

Yes it is. Its over 80% efficient electrolyzer and it talks about why

They claim 80%, you need quite a bit above that to meet your round trip
claim.

Quote:

They haven't done any measurements of how much hydrogen they actually
have. As opposed to say water vapour. I'd expect a fair amount of the
latter given the description. The also don't measure voltage drop to
see where it's occuring. They have made no attempt to determine leakage
current. Finally I believe they've used the wrong figures for
determining efficiency from voltage drop even if they did have proper
figures to start with.

Quote:

Giving a link to a site promoting > 100%
efficient electrolysis is a VERY bad start.

First off, I didn't say anything about the site, I referenced the
paper which was quite detailed. Please show me where anyone said
anything about >100% efficiency. They didn't. They spoke of APPARENT

http://waterfuelcell.org/Peoples%20Projects.html

Quote:

100% efficiency due to volume changes because they were not at STP
conditions. They explained why some people sometimes make such claims
and were careful to show how such bogus results are sometimes arrived
at.

I thought so too until I saw the rest of the site. The only apparent
way for the article to get on the site is by the authours contribution
which without at least some sort of disclaimer presents a somewaht tacit
endorsement of its representation. The disclaimer seems more of a nudge,
nudge, wink, wink effort given the context. I may be doing the author a
disservice but you should know better.

Quote:

I didn't mean to imply it had anything to do with efficiency. It does
have a great deal to say about the ready availability of such units
though.

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Robert Adsett

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:13 pm

Guest

In article <466A758E.AE151636@hotmail.com>, Eeyore says...

Quote:

Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Robert Adsettwrote:
...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Adsett wrote:

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.

It's not a PEM (a.k.a fuel cell) you utter fuckwit. It's an electrolyser. A completely
and utterly different thing altogether.

To the other poster, I understand that PEM fuel cells have not shown efficiency
50%.

The one's I've run across have been considerably less efficent than that
in practice.

We looked at them as an energy source(1) but found that besides price,
the volume taken up by the high pressure cylinders would take if a
substantial fraction of the space previously taken by lead-acid
batteries for rather less enery storage then the batteries provided and
you still needed room for the fuel cell assembly and supporting
elements.

Quote:

The other big problem with fuel cells it that it takes time for them to 'ramp up to
power'. You can't just draw power out of them willy-nilly 'on demand'. They have to be
'primed' if you like, with additional losses.

And their internal resistance is very high compared to batteries. They
don't handle large or surge loads very well at all.

(1) Don will likely (quite rightly) object to the use of 'energy
source' here. To be fair I would have used the same term when referring
to batteries. While both are ultimately carriers rather than sources in
the context of the application they provide, and are thus the source, of
electrical energy.

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:41 am

Guest

On Jun 9, 11:16 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Go buy a 2700mAh AA from Varta and test it if you don't believe their
claims. That's more meaningful than any damn 'peer-reviewed paper' > > > written by a
bunch of fuckwits.

So, that would be a no,

Because you think it's cleverer to deny reality ?

Reality is what I'm asking for.

Reality is the 2700mAh NiMH AA cell.

Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.

Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.

Buying the product is too much of a step too close to the real world for you ?

Graham

No, but buying a product weighing it accurately, and then testing it
to determine the power it produces over its useful life is. Jesus,
Graham, that's why we have testing laboratories and peer reviewed
literature so every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't have to go to all that
freaking trouble of checking out the claims of manufacturers. What
you are claiming is rather revolutionary! I'd like to see a pointer -
just a stinking little pointer - to an independently arrived at figure
that backs what you say - in a peer reviewed document. Is *that*
asking too much? HELL NO! So, do it or quite your blathering!

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:45 am

Guest

On Jun 9, 11:18 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.

Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.

Why would Varta want to give away their trade secrets ?

You 'believe' only in what you want to believe.

No, that would be you Graham. I asked for evidence.

The evidence is in the High Street you damn idiot - where you can BUY ONE ! How much
more 'evidence' do you need ?

Graham

Um, I'm not doubting I can buy one. But why the hell should I go to
the trouble and take my equipment and lab space to do a measurement
that you'll just tell me I did wrong anyway? GIVE ME A FREAKING
POINTER TO A PEER REVIEWED PAPER DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT LAB OR CUT
YOUR BLATHER! haha.. You talked big about secrets. Hell, Graham, it
doesn't reveal any secrets to measure the power output of a AA cell
and compare it to its weight! SHeez. But you can't point to one
consumer report or one independent lab that verifies what you claim?
Something this revolutionary would have been all over the battery
press. And it would be patented anyway. So, there'd be plenty of
information on it. If it exists. So, WHERE IS IT? That's all I'm
asking. I am making no judgments. I am merely asking for solid
verifiable data to back up what you claim about a fundamental
improvement in bonding energy for NiMH batteries.

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:49 am

Guest

On Jun 9, 11:21 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Adsettwrote:
....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Adsett wrote:

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.

It's not a PEM (a.k.a fuel cell) you utter fuckwit.

That's right. Its an electrolyzer AS I SAID!

What *you said* is neither here nor there.

Yoiu were asked to provide evidence of an 80% efficient *FUEL CELL* (PEM) and failed to
do so.

The fact of the matter is that you're a total charlatan whose resort to sensible critical
questioning is to try to avoid the question.

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Graham, I shouldn't tell you this but I will since I've filed the
application already. I run a polymer based alkaline exchange membrane
(OH-) ionomer that uses Nickel and Tin catalysts - NOT platinum - and
costs about 1/2% the cost of Nafion and in electrolysis mode -
operates at 82% efficiency.

Eeyore

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:52 am

Guest

Williamknowsbest wrote:

Quote:

Eeyore wrote:

Reality is the 2700mAh NiMH AA cell.

Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.

Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.

Buying the product is too much of a step too close to the real world for you ?

No, but buying a product weighing it accurately, and then testing it
to determine the power it produces over its useful life is.

Is SIMPLE. You can do it with about $5 worth of kit you can also buy on ebay. You could have
done it already and had you been right that it was a fraud could have posted that claim with
some evidence to back it up.

Quote:

Jesus, Graham, that's why we have testing laboratories and peer reviewed
literature so every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't have to go to all that
freaking trouble of checking out the claims of manufacturers.

No it isn't.

You're claiming that a 2700 mAh NiMH AA cell doesn't exist on the basis of the alleged
absence of 'peer reviewed studies'.

Have you ANY IDEA how stupid that position is ?

You haven't even the tiniest idea about how commercial companies work do you ?

Graham

Eeyore

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:59 am

Guest

Williamknowsbest wrote:

Quote:

Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.

Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.

Why would Varta want to give away their trade secrets ?

You 'believe' only in what you want to believe.

No, that would be you Graham. I asked for evidence.

The evidence is in the High Street you damn idiot - where you can BUY ONE > ! How much
more 'evidence' do you need ?

Um, I'm not doubting I can buy one.

Well, damn well buy one and test it !

Quote:

But why the hell should I go to the trouble and take my equipment and lab space to do a
measurement that you'll just tell me I did wrong anyway?

It would only be wrong if you did it wrong.

Quote:

GIVE ME A FREAKING POINTER TO A PEER REVIEWED PAPER DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT LAB OR CUT
YOUR BLATHER!

Since when did a commercial product require some stupid academic 'peer rreviweed study' to
prove it worked ?

You just don't get it do you ? Commerce isn't about stupid 'peer reviewing' by a bunch of
out-of-touch academics.

The *MARKET* is the ULTIMATE TEST.

Fuck your worthless 'peer reviewed studies' by a bunch of old farts who are out of touch
with reality and damn well buy a 2700 mAh cell and see if it's a lie or not ! You can do
it all for yourself

Graham

Eeyore

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:03 am

Guest

Williamknowsbest wrote:

Quote:

Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Adsettwrote:
....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Adsett wrote:

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.

It's not a PEM (a.k.a fuel cell) you utter fuckwit.

That's right. Its an electrolyzer AS I SAID!

What *you said* is neither here nor there.

Yoiu were asked to provide evidence of an 80% efficient *FUEL CELL* > (PEM) and failed to
do so.

The fact of the matter is that you're a total charlatan whose resort to sensible > critical
questioning is to try to avoid the question.

Graham, I shouldn't tell you this but I will since I've filed the
application already. I run a polymer based alkaline exchange membrane
(OH-) ionomer that uses Nickel and Tin catalysts - NOT platinum - and
costs about 1/2% the cost of Nafion and in electrolysis mode -
operates at 82% efficiency.

If it's for real,

I CONGRATULATE YOU !

You seriously need to get in touch with the idea of 'real products' instead of academic
fantasies.

The use of more mundane catalyst materials is very important. Pt was always going to make PEM a
'technology too far'.

So, what the patent application number ?

Graham

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:06 am

Guest

On Jun 9, 5:59 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:

Quote:

In article <1181376476.771491.24...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
says...

On Jun 8, 11:11 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181306147.880719.176...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
says...

On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181259760.318128.268...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...

But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel

More to the point it's an alkaline cell. In my experience with fuel
cells the alkaline units I saw were substantially more efficient than
the PEM units. Although to be fair they were not as far along the
commercialization route.

Yes.

Quote:

Well, there are Alkaline Units, Polymer PEM, and Solid Oxide Ceramic
Exchange Membrane - it seems pretty straightforward to go look up the
best available in each of these classes wouldn't you say?

Quote:

it's not > 80% efficient

Yes it is. Its over 80% efficient electrolyzer and it talks about why

They claim 80%, you need quite a bit above that to meet your round trip
claim.

Yes you do - you need 90% each way to get to 81% round trip

Quote:

the shape of the power is important - it quite specifically talks
about actually building stuff and explains things in gory detail -
specifically answering the original poster's questions and supporting
nearly everything I said in response to it.

(and I don't trust the
figures they do give).

Why is that exactly? They go into detail relating the volume of gas
at STP to precise measurement of power they give. They lay everything
out in a lot of detail. What details did they get wrong?

They haven't done any measurements of how much hydrogen they actually
have. As opposed to say water vapour. I'd expect a fair amount of the
latter given the description. The also don't measure voltage drop to
see where it's occuring. They have made no attempt to determine leakage
current.

These are good points. Any idea how much these are likely to change
their efficiency estimates? PLUS or minus 2% perhaps?

Quote:

Finally I believe they've used the wrong figures for
determining efficiency from voltage drop even if they did have proper
figures to start with.

Please explain that. What did they get wrong specifically? Its all
there, if they made a mistake you should be able to tell me
specificially what the mistake is. I'm the one that scanned it and I
admit they may have made one I didn't see. But if you saw a specific
mistake, then it should be easy for you to say what it was shouldn't
it? But you didn't say. So, I'm asking you.

Quote:

This isn't the paper I cited is it? haha.. NO!

Quote:

I didn't see the rest of the site. So, I don't know specifically what
you're talking about. I just saw the paper and thought, that looks a
heck of a lot like what I've done, and a quick scan shows they did
their maths right - with some adjustments for the figures you
mentioned it gives a pretty clear idea to a newbie what's involved.
It even went into variation of current and voltage and why that's
important on alkaline type fuel cells - so, that was relevant to the
original question of this thread.
..

Quote:

The only apparent
way for the article to get on the site is by the authours contribution
which without at least some sort of disclaimer presents a somewaht tacit
endorsement of its representation.

Now you're grasping at straws. If they made a mistake in calculating
something it would be far easier just to say what the mistake was.
Assuming you are being fair about not being sure they're right.

Quote:

The disclaimer seems more of a nudge,
nudge, wink, wink effort given the context.

Oh for heavens sake, I don't get that at all. If anything they were
arguing with the enthusaists in their own camp explaining (likely YET
AGAIN) why things look like they're greater than 100% when they're
really NOT! So, I see it just the opposite way. Some practical
engineering types who have befriended some enthusiasts and are trying
to nudge them toward sanity. That was one of the things I liked best
about the paper. (See I actually looked at the paper, and didn't take
the time as you did, to look at the site it came from - funny you had
time to do that, but didn't have time to figure out specifically what
was wrong in their maths)

Quote:

I may be doing the author a
disservice

??? Yes, especially if you've misread their pleas that you can't go
over 100% efficiency as hints that you might. Sheez.

Quote:

but you should know better.

About what precisely? These vauge dismissive comments with no
referent.

Quote:

It's also not commercially
available which would seem to be a minimum requirement to meet your
claims(1).

??? Since when was it impossible for a company to manufacture
stainless steel products ??? And what does this have to do with
efficiency claims ???

I didn't mean to imply it had anything to do with efficiency. It does
have a great deal to say about the ready availability of such units
though.

Yes. Most fuel cells and electrolyzers are limited production items
at best. Producing 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 units will dramatically
affect cost. Also, setting up a production plant to do millions of
units per month would drive costs down to material costs alone - which
means getting rid of Pt! lol.

Quote:

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Robert Adsett

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Guest

In article <1181545591.201413.56700@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Williamknowsbest says...

Quote:

On Jun 9, 5:59 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181376476.771491.24...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
says...

On Jun 8, 11:11 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181306147.880719.176...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
says...

On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181259760.318128.268...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...

But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel

More to the point it's an alkaline cell. In my experience with fuel
cells the alkaline units I saw were substantially more efficient than
the PEM units. Although to be fair they were not as far along the
commercialization route.

Yes.

My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.

You just did. You've yet to show a PEM unit that comes close to your
claim.

Well, there are Alkaline Units, Polymer PEM, and Solid Oxide Ceramic
Exchange Membrane - it seems pretty straightforward to go look up the
best available in each of these classes wouldn't you say?

Hey, you are the one who claimed the existance of > 80% PEM cells. All
I was asking for was an example, I've not seen one. I've seen fuzzy
references to 60% for a bare stack, but that becomes considerably less
when balance of plant etc... is taken into account. However, I've not
seen a pointer even to that.

The best actual PEM cell I've actually seen was considerably less than
50%, although getting efficiency figures out of manufacturers data
sheets can be quite an excercise. I'm not actively searching for a cell
at the moment so I'm not inclined to do the excercise for many
manufacturers out there, even the few you can get data sheets from. If,
however, there was an 80% cell I would be interested in it.

Quote:

it's not > 80% efficient

Yes it is. Its over 80% efficient electrolyzer and it talks about why

They claim 80%, you need quite a bit above that to meet your round trip
claim.

Yes you do - you need 90% each way to get to 81% round trip

Maybe even higher than that, I thing mentioned in my wanderings is that
convetionally Fuel cells use the lower heating value when calculating
efficiency and electrolyzers use the higher heating value. If that
holds ther's an additional nearly 15% to account for leading to a need
for on the order of 97% efficiency for each.

Quote:

At a guess 50% wouldn't surprise me.

Quote:

Finally I believe they've used the wrong figures for
determining efficiency from voltage drop even if they did have proper
figures to start with.

Please explain that. What did they get wrong specifically? Its all
there, if they made a mistake you should be able to tell me
specificially what the mistake is. I'm the one that scanned it and I
admit they may have made one I didn't see. But if you saw a specific
mistake, then it should be easy for you to say what it was shouldn't
it? But you didn't say. So, I'm asking you.

Specifically I'm concerned about their use of 1.48V for their
electrolyzing efficiency in the calculations. I think they are
including voltages other than those contributing to electrolysis and
getting artificially high efficiency figures as a result.

Quote:

It's the site you cited. Any post on a perpetual motion site will be
heavily discounted. Period.

Quote:

but you should know better.

About what precisely? These vauge dismissive comments with no
referent.

That references are judged partially on the company they keep. I
wouldn't expect references to papers on flight that lead to a UFO site
to be taken highly seriously either.

Robert

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:16 am

Guest

On Jun 9, 11:14 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

You're suggesting that world-reknowned brands Varta and Sony are lying > about the capacity of their batteries ?

I am suggesting that any real progress would be reported in the
literature

Whose literature ? Have you never heard of commercial secrecy ?

Improvements as fundamental as the type you are suggesting would be
haralded in the literature.

They didn't bother with 'the literature'. They just got on and DID IT !

Only halfwits like you demand involving ivory tower, superannuated, brain-dead out-of-touch, academic know-nothing
fuckwits in everything.

Does that mean the product doesn't exist in your mind ?

Are you going to continue to *disbelieve* in 2700mAh NiMH AA cells ?

Graham

I am going to continue to ask for a quality reference that supports
YOUR statements. And continue to point out that you cannot provide
one.

It reveals no secret to have consumer reports (which I checked to no
avail) or another independent laboratory to rate a product like a
battery for energy storage capacity. So, you made a statement about
this battery. It would not be possible for me to easily or
conveneintly take up lab space to rig it for testing. And my tests
wouldn't hold any water with you anyway.

Fact is,you are creating and promoting this fight. I have merely
asked you for a quality reference to back up your claim, you have
consistently failed to provide one, and use my request as an excuse to
rail and rant against me personally.

I'll leave it up to any disinterested reader to conclude who is the
more reasonable person. Haha..

It ain't you dude.

lol.
..

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:29 am

Guest

On Jun 11, 2:52 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Williamknowsbest wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Reality is the 2700mAh NiMH AA cell.

Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.

Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.

Buying the product is too much of a step too close to the real world for you ?

No, but buying a product weighing it accurately, and then testing it
to determine the power it produces over its useful life is.

Is SIMPLE. You can do it with about $5 worth of kit you can also buy on ebay. You could have
done it already and had you been right that it was a fraud could have posted that claim with
some evidence to back it up.

Jesus, Graham, that's why we have testing laboratories and peer reviewed
literature so every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't have to go to all that
freaking trouble of checking out the claims of manufacturers.

No it isn't.

Yes it is especially in light of the fact that

a) any test Iwould do wouldn't be acceptable to you and
b) such a test is easy for those set up to do it, and involves
nothing
more than buying a battery and putting it in the test rig.
c) Consumer product labs routinely test claims of advertisers and
publish the results.
d) A quick perusal of these sources indicate a total lack of
support
of your position.
e) Your consistent lack of providing even the tiniest support of
your
position from ANY independent source combined with your blather
about how you don't need it makes me believe that you're full
of it.
f) But I'm open minded enough to ask you for it anyway
g) And you are idiot enough to continue arguing about it rather
than
go out and find support for your position that NiMH is 3x more
energy
dense today than it was a year ago - and what the references
site.

Quote:

You're claiming that a 2700 mAh NiMH AA cell doesn't exist on the basis of the alleged
absence of 'peer reviewed studies'.

No I'm not. I'm saying I would accept peer reviewed stuff certainly,
I would also accept independent laboratory data. Having your energy
density number listed on the major sites that talk about batteries
would also help - if you could point to one.

Quote:

Have you ANY IDEA how stupid that position is ?

My position is perfectly legit. Its your position, ranting about me
personally rather than answering the damn question that's stupid. And
most people can see through all your blather.

I'm asking you for some independent reference so I can read it. You
apparently don't have such a reference so you're creating a huge shit
storm out of nothing to hide that fact. Who's the stupid one here?
haha. That would be you old son.

Quote:

You haven't even the tiniest idea about how commercial companies work do you ?

Why yes I do since I own many large and rather successful commercial
companies. Companies thathave brand new consumer products that are
leagues ahead of the competition typically have these products
independently tested and then have those tests results advertised to
show just how good the product is.

Apparently you cannot find ONE of these references to point me to.
That's a serious failing on your part. But I continue to ask.. not
wanting to embarass you too badly.

In the case of a battery it would be simplicity itself to put a load
on the battery and measure the total energy coming out. It would
reveal nothing of the nature of how the battery operates but prove its
worth as a consumer product.

To suggest such testing couldn't be done is really quite childish.
Anyone can buy a consumer product and take it to a lab to have it
tested. Sheez. So, why haven't any of the consumer product labs that
routinely publish their results produced any testing that supports
your claims?

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:02 am

Guest

On Jun 11, 2:59 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Williamknowsbest wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.

Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.

Why would Varta want to give away their trade secrets ?

You 'believe' only in what you want to believe.

No, that would be you Graham. I asked for evidence.

The evidence is in the High Street you damn idiot - where you can BUY ONE > ! How much
more 'evidence' do you need ?

Um, I'm not doubting I can buy one.

Well, damn well buy one and test it !

Someone already has that's my point. Its so freaking easy for an
independent lab to do the sort of test we're talking about, the test
results are likely already done and available somewhere on the
internet.

Fact is, I can't find any result that supports your statement of 3x
increase in energy density from the published figures for NiMH. So,
I'm asking you for a pointer nothing more.

That fact you aren't pointing to a clear independently arrived at
result that proves your statements of a 3 fold increase in energy
density for these batteries suggests that you can't find one either.

But I'm still asking you for it. That's all.

In response you're ranting and blathering about me personally. Not a
very smart thing to do given the circumstance.

Clearly, its far far easier for you to point to ANY independently
arrived at result and for me to read it than for me to get up from my
desk and actually have to DO something like go to the store.

Anything I did wouldn't be accepted by you anyway if it didn't support
your contention so it wouldn't resolve the issue as easily or simply
as YOU providing independent confirmation of your claims of a 3 fold
improvement in the energy density of NiMH batteries.

Quote:

But why the hell should I go to the trouble and take my equipment and lab space to do a
measurement that you'll just tell me I did wrong anyway?

It would only be wrong if you did it wrong.

Nonsense. Say I did it right and it did not support your outlandish
claims you would still say I did it wrong, so the whole procedure is a
waste of time. Especially in light of the fact that there are
consumer product labs aplenty out there that routinely test batteries
and publish the results. A quick perusal of recent tests DO NOT SHOW
ANY TESTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. However, you would claim such a
survey by me is incomplete and flawed. So, I ask you, PLEASE PROVIDE
A POINTER TO ANY INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVED AT TEST THAT BACKS UP YOUR
CLAIMS THAT NiMH BATTERIES TODAY ARE 3 TIMES AS ENERGY DENSE THAN THEY
ARE REPORTED IN THE HONDA EV WEB SITE.

That's all I'm asking. For the record, you have failed to provide ANY
substantive proof of your claims from independent sources..

Quote:

GIVE ME A FREAKING POINTER TO A PEER REVIEWED PAPER DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT LAB OR CUT
YOUR BLATHER!

Since when did a commercial product require some stupid academic 'peer rreviweed study' to
prove it worked ?

Since when do people believe the bullshit advertisers say about a
product that wasn't tested and supported by an independent consumer
products company?

Jesus Graham, consumer product labs ROUTINELY buy and test things like
batteries. I couldn't find any supporting literature of your claims
of a 3 times increase in energy density for NiMH over the energy
density levels reported by the Honda EV website. So, I wonder what is
going on. So, I ask you where you get your data. You have failed
miserably to provide any independent confirmation of your claims.
Please provide it or admit you are yet again wrong about energy
densities, like you were wrong about the energy density of hydrogen.

Quote:

You just don't get it do you ?

Oh, I get it perfectly. You can't provide an independent confirmation
of the energy density of NiMH batteries that are 3x the energy density
reported on the Honda EV website. So, you launch into a personal
attack hoping that will deflect the issue away from you and on to me.
That sort of bullshit might serve you well where you work or in your
family relations, it won't cut the mustard here with me, or any person
who has taken the trouble to read these exchanges this far. haha..

Quote:

Commerce isn't about stupid 'peer reviewing' by a bunch of
out-of-touch academics.

Peer review is an important feature in maintaining honesty and clarity
in scientific and technical information.

Also supporting honesty and clarity, consumer product testing by
independent labs forms an important foundation in creating and
building and maintaining a high degree of public trust in the claims
of advertisers and manufacturers.

Without independent confirmation of outlandish claims for consumer
products - such as a 3 fold improvement in energy densities - , the
public is rightfully suspicious and discounts such claims.

Your failure to provide even one pointer to an independent test that
backs up your claims of an increase of energy density to 3 times that
published on the Honda EV website makes your claims suspect of not
being right.

Graham, you've clamoured on and on and on and on about all manner of
things. If only 10% of that energy were directed toward finding an
online source from an independent laboratory that supported your
claims, you would find it - IF IT EXISTED. I must believe that you've
tried to find such a source and that you have failed - and for that
reason you are taking the tack of personally attacking me for asking
you for data you cannot produce. Admit that at least. That you
looked and couldn't find any supporting literature from an independent
source.

Quote:

The *MARKET* is the ULTIMATE TEST.

Of what? Of RELATIVE VALUE. Not of absolute performance. For
example, claims of 3 fold increases in energy density isn't something
the market is equipped to test. So, plainly, you're not thinking too
clearly about this.

The market only cares about relative value. So, only slight
improvements in energy density at slightly reduced cost for a product
are needed for it to come to dominate. But even so. Are you claiming
this new NiMH battery has come to dominate the market and it has done
so because it has 3x the energy density of earlier brands? Do you
have any independent analyses of the facts to support THAT claim?
haha..

Quote:

Fuck your worthless 'peer reviewed studies'

Spoken like a true moron. YOU made the claim dude. YOU are the one
designing an EV around your claim. Don't you think it might behoove
you to take the trouble to make sure your got your figures right
before you spent time and money actually building the EV around this
battery? Are you going to fill it with AA batteries anyway? haha..
The Buckeye bullet did that just to get the voltage where they wanted
it. But what I recollect is they didn't get anything near the energy
density you're claiming. SO, I ASK AGAIN. WHERE IS THERE ANY
INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION THAT NiMH BATTERIES TODAY ARE 3X THE ENERGY
DENSITY REPORTED IN THE HONDA EV WEBSITE?

Quote:

by a bunch of old farts who are out of touch
with reality

Laboratories Graham put you in touch with reality.

Quote:

and damn well buy a 2700 mAh cell

Several points here Graham. Please read carefully;

Professional consumer product labs routinely buy batteries and test
them and then publish the results. Those results get reported in the
press and elsewhere. So, this has already been done. It has already
been done and the results are out there somewhere. I looked Graham,
to see if your claim that NiMH batteries today are 3x more energy
dense than reported on the Honda EV website. I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING
TO SUPPORT THAT. So, what did I do? I ASKED YOU. And what did you
do? You have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy ATTACKING
ME - when 10% or less of that energy if directed toward actually
finding out the TRUTH - woudl reveal whether your claims have any
merit whatever.

Quote:

and see if it's a lie or not ! You can do
it all for yourself

Why shoudl I take the trouble to do something that's already been done
and reported dozens of times by professional independent labs? I'm
not doubting the results of those labs Graham. I'm doubting your
claims that NiMH batteries today are 3x as energy dense as the NiMH
batteries reported on the Honda EV website.

Fact is, all the laboratory results I could dig up supports my
position. So, if you can find ANYONE ANYWHERE that INDEPENDENTLY
supports YOUR claims - I'm willing to look at it.

Williamknowsbest

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:04 am

Guest

On Jun 11, 3:03 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Quote:

Williamknowsbest wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Adsettwrote:
....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Adsett wrote:

Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?

http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf

Well it's not PEM,

That's true its just plain old stainless steel My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.

It's not a PEM (a.k.a fuel cell) you utter fuckwit.

That's right. Its an electrolyzer AS I SAID!

What *you said* is neither here nor there.

Yoiu were asked to provide evidence of an 80% efficient *FUEL CELL* > (PEM) and failed to
do so.

The fact of the matter is that you're a total charlatan whose resort to sensible > critical
questioning is to try to avoid the question.

Graham, I shouldn't tell you this but I will since I've filed the
application already. I run a polymer based alkaline exchange membrane
(OH-) ionomer that uses Nickel and Tin catalysts - NOT platinum - and
costs about 1/2% the cost of Nafion and in electrolysis mode -
operates at 82% efficiency.

If it's for real,

I CONGRATULATE YOU !

You seriously need to get in touch with the idea of 'real products' instead of academic
fantasies.

The use of more mundane catalyst materials is very important. Pt was always going to make PEM a
'technology too far'.

So, what the patent application number ?

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well at least you didn't say this is a hydroxyl ion exchange membrane
- haha.. that's progress.

Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:18 pm Science Forum Index