|
| |
Genesis World Energy Data Report Questioned
Company attempts to put on airs as a technologically
savvy outfit, yet their data report reads like a novice wrote it.
Responding to
- Test
Report Data - Original Prototype gCell - The Genesis Team has
released test report data to the public on the their original prototype
gCell technology, a pre-gCell gas production technology and information on
other technologies. (Jan. 21, 2005)
Replies
Bright 7th graders could do a better job of understanding their energy
device testing
From: [JD]
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: FW: Genesis World Energy test data
Where are the "team of [400] of the worlds best scientists"
[Genesis] claims to have?
I could recommend some local 7th graders that could do a better job of
understanding their energy device testing.
I asked one of the worlds top Electrolyzer experts to review their report to
be sure I wasnt losing it.
Here is his response:
Subject: RE: Genesis World Energy test data
[J]:
I'm reminded of William F. Buckley's button which said "Eschew
Obfuscation"...
They quote their results in terms of power, that is, watts. That's a bit like
asking the question, "Where am I?" and getting the answer, "40
mph".
They claim that they use 78.25W to produce 100 liter of hydrogen AND oxygen. If
they're mixing it, I would prefer to be not too close, but let's give them the
benefit of the doubt and say that they are producing 100 liter of hydrogen. That
works out to be 8.8 kW/kg...BUT THAT TELLS YOU ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! What you need
is not power (watts) but energy (watt-hrs) to understand whether the process has
any merit. (If it were 8.8 kW-hr/kg, that would be 27% of the energy
thermodynamically required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen).
In another place they note that they are operating at 0.25W/sq cm. If you
achieved a electrolyzer voltage of 1.5V (which would be extraordinary at any
meaningful current density), that would mean that their process was operating at
167 mA/sq cm. Our electrolyzers operate at about 10 times that current density.
Their space-time yield would seem to be rather low.
Your characterization of their test data as confusing is quite accurate. I am
rather dubious as to what they are really doing. Obfuscated data is either
deliberate or inadvertent. In the later case, I question the scientific
sophistication of the bearer, the former case is even more troubling.
Keep the faith.
[L.]
Dimensional analysis and significant figures off
From: john lichtenstein
To: FE_updates@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:13 AM
Subject: GWE "testing" drilldown
I drill down into the numbers a bit at:
http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com/2005/01/genesis-scientific-posts-test-results.html
I am able to figure out just what the arithmetic errors are by showing how the
numbers in the table are related.
* * * *
From: john lichtenstein
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: GWE "testing" drilldown
The arithmetic is OK. It's the dimensional analysis and the general sensibility
that are off. And the significant figures. Look at all those sig figs. Sometimes
3, sometimes 4, sometimes 5. A 90 minute test is compared to a 60 minute one
without correcting for the length of the test. And still with the confusion
between energy and power. No professional chemist or engineer is going to make
these mistakes. Really, no educated person is going to make all these mistakes
by accident. There was no independent test.
I like
"""
The test data reported reflects average performance during all phases of the
testing, not the optimum results achieved during the test session
"""
It's an average, reported to 5 sig figs.
See also
Page posted by SDA
Jan. 27, 2005
Last updated October 27, 2005
| |
|
