You guys are talking about Joe Cells as if they worked, do they in your own experience? Last news we had from your experiment 1800 miles away wasn't encouraging IIRC was it Fred? Something about energy out being only a quarter of energy in, which I don't quite understand how it is possible BTW.
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 1:23 AM Subject: RE: Helmholtz Layer electrode > 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 >> >> > > >
