+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: joe cell v.s. dry cell

  1. #11


    Quote Originally Posted by crestind View Post
    Supposedly cylindrical designs produce better gas than flat plates. I assume this means that new spherical HHO generator would produce better gas than cylindrical.
    I agree 100% with you!!

  2. #12


    Quote Originally Posted by Weapon_R View Post
    Interesting! I do not think that its the hydrogen at work here but I could be wrong.
    Weapon_R, it is more than that, could be H+ N2, unfortunately we gonna have to waith to find out

  3. #13


    Quote Originally Posted by acalister View Post
    Weapon_R, it is more than that, could be H+ N2, unfortunately we gonna have to waith to find out
    please have a look at device ( hydrogen generation from air)


    another video of Bill Wylie instaling the EPEC CELL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duczCrBqK2U

  4. Default

    I have to agree with warrior. Charging the coolant?......

    1 coolant doesnt go into the combustion chamber
    2 the distributor send spark thats it.
    disconnecting the wires will just have the distributor sparking at the engine block or path of least resistance. Then the powers grounded since a cars body is direct ground. the claims from these joe cells are rubbish. pure bs

    theres no such research needed to make sure his claims are false. Its just plain common sense that the joe cell is bs.

    I do agree that tubes produce a lot more gas tho.

  5. Default

    I quote my prior post:

    I suggest you post your test procedures and results before you call it BS. Keep the discussion to facts that you have tested and not what you think is BS. This is not a confirmation of the Joe Cell and its technology or a denial of it but unless you have tested it and can publish your finding for others to test I would refrain from calling it BS. There is more to all of this than most understand!! There is a lot of junk science also so one must test it before making statements that can be taken as fact. Have an open mind and do the work and then post the results and the procedures you used.
    If you are talking about electrolysis plain and simple there is no way that a tube reactor can be better than a plate reactor. One can not exceed 100% Faraday!! Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis take into account every ion/electron reaction at the electrodes, which is why the electroplating industry can accurately determine exactly how much current will have to pass through an electrolytic solution for any given amount of deposited product.

    Do the work and post your results.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

    ONE Liter per minute per 10 amps which just isn't possible Ha Ha .

  6. Default

    its been said by many that tubes produce more gas. I will do the test soon as Im able as of now I only have a dry cell.

    And the joe cells claims of charging the coolant and all that stupid jazz. Was my main argument.

  7. #17


    i have personally made both types and the the tubes took far less amps to produce more hho than plates did. i am talking about wet cell designs though. i stand by my statement of the joe cell being BS, sure if you hook up a multimeter to the leads after "chargeing" the cell it does store a small ammount of electricity like a battery, but its the same deal with a plate setup and no where near enough electricity to run anything. the joe cell is nothing special, just a different style of hho generator. i like the idea of tubes because you can fit more "metal" in a round container than you can with plates, so its more compact.
    Last edited by toyotawarrior; 02-10-2013 at 07:07 AM.

  8. Default

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am not here to explain how a Joe cell works or dose not work. I can say that there is science behind the real facts in regards to the Joe cell but it has been distorted by those who really have no idea how it is supposed to work. It has nothing to do with HHO.

    I have already stated that the tube type open bath reactor looks like it produces more HHO in some cases but if you use a gas spectrometer you will find it is just more moisture in almost all cases. This is also the same with most plate type open bath reactors or any reactor. Electrolysis is a simple fact and for x amount of watts there is x amount of gas possible. Make the reactor any way you want. The difference will be efficiency and quality of gas. Efficiency is related to heat. More heat less efficient is your reactor. Sure you can build radiators, heat sinks etc but that is only masking the problem. Quality of gas will determine how much gas it will take to make reasonable gains when used in an internal combustion engine. Keep experimenting and you will end up with something that works for you or you will give up like so many others have. Just making HHO is only the beginning. How to use it is much more complex and important to see real gains. When you get a vehicle to give you 35% gains across all demand then you know you are on the right track. The simple flow thorough sealed series plate reactor has proven to be one that anyone can build and even though there is a range of efficiency it has the potential of being very efficient. Some of the latest testing by the California Research Board (CARB) has verified this.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

    ONE Liter per minute per 10 amps which just isn't possible Ha Ha .

  9. Default

    Once again fully agree with warrior. Theres science behind it sure. Theres science behind every cell. Didnt you know your basically making a car battery....car batterys produce hydrogen. I'm doing my research and have been a in the trades since i was 13. I know electronics and I know cars even more. Some of what the guy said in his video is probable. But he doesnt sound like he knows what hes doing, he sounds like bs. He unable to explain or answer the simplest of questions.

  10. Default

    The whole world has made huge changes from 2006 to 2013. I suggest you do more research into things instead of bringing up this old junk. There has been many new discoveries in the field in more recent years. In 2006 HHO was claimed to be just plain snake oil. Things have finally started to change around and main stream science is backing up a lot of claims. Labs all over the world are now realizing that there is more to a lot of what was snake oil and science can explain a lot of it. Still lots more to be discovered.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

    ONE Liter per minute per 10 amps which just isn't possible Ha Ha .

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts