[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Carbo Plus
Paul Sears wrote:
> The voltage is a _lot_ higher than one would expect for electrolysis
Maybe that's how they get the carbon involved :).
> > At 20V working potential, the device would be using 14 watts of power.
> > Compared to the rated maximum power consumption of 22.5 watts, that
> > would indicate an efficiency of 62%. In my experience, 62% is pretty
> > good efficiency for a small electrical device.
> Yes, but the _current_ efficiency of electrolysis devices is usually
> close to 100%. One loses on the overvoltages.
I assumed that the rated power was the power draw at the wall. It would
include the power used by the controller as well as any losses in
electrolysis. If that power rating includes only the power used in
electrolysis then there might be another explanation. I calculated the
efficiency based on CO2 output; any oxygen produced off the anode would
lower the efficiency.
> I suspect if either of us had one in our hands we would get to
>the bottom of this reasonably quickly, but I'm not going to buy one.
I think so too. I tried to take Ellen O'Connell up on her offer, but I
was too late. Neil Frank beat me to it. Maybe Neil will run the tests.
> > If the device is working right then it should generate CO2 off the
> > carbon block.
> How about running one in a solution of (say) sodium sulphate?
> Neither ion will be discharged, and it should still make CO2, which
> could be measured.
I considered testing one in a sodium bicarb solution. Without calcium
or magnesium in the solution there would be no precipitation of CaCO3.
The CO3-- and CO2 produced from the reactions with bicarbonate should
neutralize each other. Any net CO2 production would be from the carbon
block. The CO2 could be measured with the usual pH/KH/CO2 relationship.
Maybe the most direct test would be to weigh the carbon block, run the
device for a while, then weigh the carbon block again. The block should
lose weight. Dealing with water in the carbon block could be a problem,
but if that were solved then carbon loss from the block should support
the manufacturers claim.
For that matter, if anyone running one can say for sure that the carbon
block is consumed in use then that would also support the manufacturer's
> The other think I would like to know is the resistance of the device
> _before_ it goes into the water.
Shouldn't it be an open circuit?