An Efficiency Standard: Liters Per Minute Per Watt

[dennis13030]

I propose that whenever we discuss electrolyzer efficiency, we do so per the standard(Liters Per Minute Per Watt). This provides a good numerical and standard way to compare efficiency.

What do you guys think?

[Bigtoyota]

I like it :D

Although you can get a rough idea with the LPM per amperage too. If someone should decide to dabble with AC versions, however, watts become a must.

[daveczrn]

i agree.. where would you like voltage messurements taken? right at the cell generator i suppose.

watts=volts*amps for those who don't know.

[Bigtoyota]

Yes, the voltage at the generator is the best.

[dennis13030]

i agree.. where would you like voltage messurements taken? right at the cell generator i suppose.

watts=volts*amps for those who don't know.

Yes, voltage should alway be measured at the anode and cathode as close to these plates(or wires) as possible.

[dennis13030]

I like it :D

Although you can get a rough idea with the LPM per amperage too. If someone should decide to dabble with AC versions, however, watts become a must.

Using current would be fine if the voltage was always the same(12V). A more universal quantity and more useful quantity is Watts(Volts * Amps).

[RMForbes]

Automotive systems ussually vary somewhere between 12volts to 14.5volts depending on the system and condition of battery and altenator. A good fully charged battery should be around 12.6v and the altenator should put out between 13.5v and 14.5v. My system operates at 14.2v and your system may be different.

I think using watts (volts X amps) is a much more accurate way to measure.

[Smith03Jetta]

Hey, we can keep score this way!

[Jaxom]

Hey, we can keep score this way!


Looks like it's about to get competitive. As long as it's friendly competition I'm all for it. :D

L/m/W seems like a very good way to calculate efficiency to me too.

[ridelong]

Should we also standardize the volume? 1 liter, 1/2 liter, 1/4 ? I ask because I use a measuring cup @ .25 liters. Some people might think that at .25 liter, the margin of error is too big. This sounds like it might get interesting and or fun or frustrating, depending who has the bragging rights LOL.

[HomeGrown]

I've got 2 suggestions that may be helpful to keep the playing field level.

1) Run output tests with distilled water + the electrolyte additive of your choice. That way the results would be repeatable by others. If we're using our own local tap water, that adds too much of a variable that could drastically change the results.

2) The device used to measure LPM output: I've seen variations of simple measurement devices on Youtube, but if we used the same measurement method, that would also add to the accuracy and repeatability of our results. Anyone got pics of their LPM gauge?

Repeatability = accuracy, which = credibility of our tests.

[dennis13030]

If we are concentrating on efficiency, the efficiency values come first followed by design and other things.

So if I was shopping for an electrolyzer and my primary concern is efficiency, I would be comparing the efficiency numbers first before all other concerns.

[dennis13030]

Anyone got pics of their LPM gauge?

See this image below...............

[stickittoopec]

If we want people to take us seriously we will need to use recognized testing.
You can get a flow meter like this at most welding supply shops or online at McMaster-Carr. You will need to get the 0.4 to 5 SCFH meter, that will put you in the 0.188 to 2.36 liter per minute range. http://www.mcmaster.com/
http://www.mcmaster.com/catalog/114/gfx/small/5079kc1s.gif Their part number is 5079K24
Temperature is important and as mentioned before volts and amps. Watts in general doesn't tell a lot, 1000 watts can be 2 volts and 500 amps or 500 volts and 2 amps.
We also need to know what we are talking about. We need to know how traditional science expects this to work and how our process is different and why it is better. Learn the proper language that traditional science expects to hear in explaining this.
We need to be honest in reporting our findings and not fudge our numbers to look good. Reporting honest numbers is respected even when the numbers are not in our favor. When the numbers are in our favor they will be able to trust us.
We also need not to be offended when asked to prove our findings. This only tells them we either don't know what we talking about or have something to hide.

[dennis13030]

I would love to get a Rotameter. I have a source identified, it reads directly in LPM and it runs about $40.

I like the automation thing. For a lab setup, I would rather have a flow meter that can be read by a PC(USB).

[dennis13030]

If we want people to take us seriously we will need to use recognized testing.
You can get a flow meter like this at most welding supply shops or online at McMaster-Carr. You will need to get the 0.4 to 5 SCFH meter, that will put you in the 0.188 to 2.36 liter per minute range. http://www.mcmaster.com/
http://www.mcmaster.com/catalog/114/gfx/small/5079kc1s.gif Their part number is 5079K24
Temperature is important and as mentioned before volts and amps. Watts in general doesn't tell a lot, 1000 watts can be 2 volts and 500 amps or 500 volts and 2 amps.
We also need to know what we are talking about. We need to know how traditional science expects this to work and how our process is different and why it is better. Learn the proper language that traditional science expects to hear in explaining this.
We need to be honest in reporting our findings and not fudge our numbers to look good. Reporting honest numbers is respected even when the numbers are not in our favor. When the numbers are in our favor they will be able to trust us.
We also need not to be offended when asked to prove our findings. This only tells them we either don't know what we talking about or have something to hide.

Check it out.
http://www.emssales.net/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=496

[stickittoopec]

Any of these will work. At least it will be some sort of standard that is recognized . Its a lot more accurate than the upside down bottles. Like I said before if we don't adapt to traditional science testing standards than they will only laugh when we try to prove our devices.