Jones Beene wrote:
>
> --- Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> > > Given that this kind of efficient electrolysis you
> > > have been talking about is a surface effect - why
> > > would you not maximize the surface area? such as
> > > by switching to a stainless steel foil, instead of
> tubes
> > > or plates -
>
> > Sure thing Jones. But the spacing may be a
> significant factor
>
> Yes, precisely. In fact the small size (volume) of the
> current Joe-Cell is fairly ridiculous, given that the
> Helmholtz parameters can only get better by going
> larger. For even a small ICE, it would seem that a
> 10-20 gallon shallow container - minimum- with maybe
> 100,000 cm^2 of SS foil electrodes might show clearer
> results, whereas the much smaller size of Joe is only
> working "on occasion" which appears to be the case.
>
You're pitting your recent experience against years of experience
gained by trial and error and "80 cars running on the Joe Cell"
when less than a month ago you said it was crap?
The shallow depth concentric cylinder Capacitance-Resisistance Divider in
the Joe Cell can
only be duplicated by using shallow series Capacitance-Resistance Divider
stacked plates
even if you have to roll thin concentric barrel hoops and place them in
circular Anode pans stacked with adequate
vapor space on a Cathode pole in vapor chimney.
Fred
Snip the Sidewalk Superintendent lecture. :-)
>
> Jones
>
>
