Patrick,
Whilst I continue to enjoy the theoretical banter which drew me here in the first place, it does seem a shame not to draw upon the group's collective expertise to attempt to produce something practical.
There have been some good practical ideas for improvement of the basic cell - already appearing in many of these posts, but often you have to "read between the lines," to move forward towards an actual design. Here is more specific detail from this one observer.
Of course, you might not get agreement on every detail from others on vortex, because many are looking at this from differing perspective - i.e. as being LENR or hydrino-based - and probably a few are still grasping at "orgone" ... but if one had the resources to mount an edisonian-type effort, then there are half a dozen fairly clear routes for improvement over what we have seen in the crude efforts online, based on what is known and suspected and covering all the possibilities.
Starting with the basic goal of an ultra-efficient, plain water, low voltage, common-manifold (Brown's gas) electrolysis cell - to be combined with an ICE such that the mixed-gas drawn from the cell will power the ICE with no other fuel, using only AC current from the alternator and rectified - and starting from the JoeCell and Brown's-gas cell designs, here are things which should be tried.
1) Far more electrode surface area to be provided in the cell, particularly the surface area of the "floating" (or unpowered) electrodes, and a far larger cell, relative to the engine to be powered. I have suggested two layers of nickel or stainless "foil" for this, wrapped like a jelly-roll with dielectric spacers, and giving 20-50 time more surface area than before. Fred thinks that an even better approach is using the metal in "powder" form, i.e nickel-black or equivalent. The problem with that is keeping the metal powder out of the engine and possibly too-fast recombination of the gases.
2) Maximize the amount of bubbling across the electrode surfaces and maximizing the airflow in general and get the cell as close to the intake manifold as possible to limit recombination. This needed micro-bubbling is another reason why foil, instead of powdered metal, for the unpowered electrodes, makes sense.
3) Use a hollow porous nickel cathode, kept at as high a vacuum as possible. This may provide possible hydrino or LENR effects, as well, to the H2 which is coming through the cathode. Mills has done this. This cathode could have its own dedicated vacuum pump, and feed into the manifold close to the valves. By reducing the amount of H2 in the anode-mix, which is mostly oxidizer, then some preignition fears can be eased.
4) The current drawn by the cell is approximate 2-10% of what would normally be necessary to get the energy-level following combustion which is being seen on occasion, in some of the anecdotal reports... that is- if these cells were "only" benefiting regular electrolysis, which it is not the case. Since the Helmholtz layer is the "free" active variable, it should receive the most attention. Thus the larger surface area. More current cannot be added since the present voltage should not be exceeded, without changing the conductivity of the liquid. This however ruins its dielectric properties. Finding the proper OU zone will be a delicate balance, since even stainless steel will oxidize gradually. Consequently, it might be expedient to add a strong AC ripple to the unpowered electrodes or to the anode only, or both, but not the cathode. The anode will be subject to oxidation and an AC ripple may serve to both reduce oxidation and also to enhance HO-OH production. The hydroxyl radical is resonant at 1665 MHz,and would be an interesting frequency to apply to the unpowered foil electrode jelly-roll.
5) For a small 4-cylinder engine - 1500 cc or less. I would shoot for a 5 gallon sized heavy plastic container, about 100,000 cm^2 of surface area for the twin unpowered electrodes using stainless or nickel foil rolled with a deep pattern and then possibly etched- then in the center a hollow porous nickel cathode, and at the container walls and anode wrapped on the inside of the periphery; and then power the thing with about one kw drawn and rectified from the alternator. In order to get the cell to draw 75 amps or so, it might require some electrolyte in the form of KOH - hopefully not. The incredible amount of unpowered electrode surface, at slightly less spacing then before, should provide the "free" Helmholtz boost. As Fred says, the current is only a "tickler" and not the totality or the active force.
I would add another 500 watts of AC to the unpowered electrodes, preferably RF at frequency harmonic of 1665 MHz. Another 50 watts can be used for a dedicated cathode vacuum pump. Total electrical input is now about 1.5 kW and the total heat content of the mixed-gas produced by this electrical input (in my dreams)is 10 kW for 3000 RPMs.
The difference of P-in and P-out comes courtesy of Dr. Casimir by way of Dr. Helmholtz, and many others (Dr. Puthoff et al.).
The simplest way to set-up an experiment is open-cycle, but a closed-cycle is preferred (eventually). With open cycle, you would use the maximum engine vacuum to draw air through the cell itself, across the massive are of electrodes, "wiping" them with the micro-bubbling of water, and using a porous baffle under the electrodes, so that air is drawn from bottom to top and then immediately into the intake to prevent recombination.
Now - if you are an AutoCad 'jockey' and want to draw that up for a visual appraisal and corrections, be my guest.
Jones
