Cell Balancing (algerbra rears its ugly head)

[ydeardorff]

Hello all,
Ive been playing with HHO, or playing with the concept since the mid 90's. After several discussion with my local universities electro-chemistry professors, as well as my Algebra professors, I have come up with a theory regarding cell balancing.
First of all as we all(or most of us know) Hydrogen is the smallest element on the periodic table, and Oxygen is just over twice its size.
In our HHO cell we liberate 1 oxygen, and 2 hydrogen atoms, eventually resulting in them coalescing to the point of becoming gas bubbles.
Due to surface tension and bubble sizes needed for these bubbles to release from the electrodes and float up to be released I have a theory on cell balancing that I think has merit.
If bubble size needed to release from the electrode is relative regardless to the H or O sides then it would stand to reason that the Cathode would need twice as much surface area as compared to the Anode. Since two bubbles would be forming in the Cathode versus one at the Anode.
This imbalance mathematically would (theoretically) create heat. Which of course we want to avoid up to a point.

So, I am building a new cell (completely new design). What I will do is the following to test this theory.

First, assemble unsanded or bead blasted plates and run the cell.
Take the LPM, and MMW readings off of it. (Base Line)

Then, Sand or bead blast only the Cathodes side of each plate to include the Bi-polar AKA neutral plates. Again test the LPM and MMW readings.

Finally, sand and bead blast all sides of all plates. Again test the LPM and MMW readings.

Results: Now if the MMW and or LPM readings show a percentage increase that is higher than proportional to the other two readings then this would support my theory.

If this happens then alternating the type of surface prep per electrode side may result in higher efficiency, or possibly lower heat, or both.

I have talked to a few people on this whom have quickly dismissed the idea without any real evidence as to why. Algebraically, the equation must balance out.

If we are trying to force hydrogen production out of the same surface area as the anode but the cathode must produce twice as much gas, then we are forcing an imbalance, and losing efficiency, and increasing heat as a waste byproduct.

[Darrell]

How do you plan to balance each cell? D

[ydeardorff]

Well, if my theory is supported by my results in testing, then there would have to be larger surface area on every cathode, and every cathode side of each neutral plate, than the anodes.

The Anodes would still get surface treatment but it would be different than that of the Cathode. This could be different sized shot used in the bead blaster, or only hand sanding of the anodes, while bead blasting the cathodes.

Anything that would make the cathodes have more surface area than the anodes. At least until a method could be developed to get it perfected.

I recently noted a huge difference in production based upon two things in a 3 plate - 2 gap wet cell.

1.) If the anode was a 50% smaller plate, than the cathode, the bubbles were larger and the flow was more energetic than if configured oppositely.

2.) It made a noticeable difference which way each powered plate faced the neutral plate. If the anode was facing a neutral against face 1, the bubbles were larger in the gap of the neutral/cathode. If the anode was flipped to face two (opposite side) the bubbles were uniform on each side of the neutral plate.

Still haven't figured that one out yet. Would this imply plate polarity? So does this mean each plate pairing across a gap within a cell must be tested and oriented for it best production, rather than just stacking them together and firing it up?

Why would simply flipping the anode from side 1, to side 2 change the production? In essence balance it out. Both plates were naked and bare SS.

Side one had large pencil eraser sized bubbles on the gap of the cathode, while normal small bubbles coming from the anode's side of the neutral plate. When the anode was flipped over the bubbles became even on both sides of the neutral plate.

All plates were arranged according to their grain, and cut from the same parent sheet. So why the change? Hmmm.

I guess I better call the university again.

Thoughts

On a side note: I am finally seeking my first ever patent! WOOT!
AND,...Im half way through my engineering degree! WOOT!

[myoldyourgold]

Did you magnetically align the plates before you did this test?

[Shane Jackson]

I would love to see a video of this.... It would go a LONG way to figuring out what is going on.

Well, if my theory is supported by my results in testing, then there would have to be larger surface area on every cathode, and every cathode side of each neutral plate, than the anodes.

The Anodes would still get surface treatment but it would be different than that of the Cathode. This could be different sized shot used in the bead blaster, or only hand sanding of the anodes, while bead blasting the cathodes.

Anything that would make the cathodes have more surface area than the anodes. At least until a method could be developed to get it perfected.

I recently noted a huge difference in production based upon two things in a 3 plate - 2 gap wet cell.

1.) If the anode was a 50% smaller plate, than the cathode, the bubbles were larger and the flow was more energetic than if configured oppositely.

2.) It made a noticeable difference which way each powered plate faced the neutral plate. If the anode was facing a neutral against face 1, the bubbles were larger in the gap of the neutral/cathode. If the anode was flipped to face two (opposite side) the bubbles were uniform on each side of the neutral plate.

Still haven't figured that one out yet. Would this imply plate polarity? So does this mean each plate pairing across a gap within a cell must be tested and oriented for it best production, rather than just stacking them together and firing it up?

Why would simply flipping the anode from side 1, to side 2 change the production? In essence balance it out. Both plates were naked and bare SS.

Side one had large pencil eraser sized bubbles on the gap of the cathode, while normal small bubbles coming from the anode's side of the neutral plate. When the anode was flipped over the bubbles became even on both sides of the neutral plate.

All plates were arranged according to their grain, and cut from the same parent sheet. So why the change? Hmmm.

I guess I better call the university again.

Thoughts

On a side note: I am finally seeking my first ever patent! WOOT!
AND,...Im half way through my engineering degree! WOOT!

[ydeardorff]

Did you magnetically align the plates before you did this test?

I would presume so as they were re-aligned per the metal grain. They were also all from the exact same parent sheet.

Ive never messed with the magnetic alignment. Nor seen it make any difference in production.

Ill make some videos when I get the new cell built.