just recently one of our top ranking hho experimenters made the statement:
"after so much testing, my conclusion is surface area determines output",,,,,,,,,or to that effect
fair enough-i can agree with that
my idea is that the surface area of a wire is great
compared to plate or tube it has far more surface area (im thinking)
i want to get back to this guy and challenge him that plates and tubes are not the way to go
well i have some education in psychology philosophy etc no training in maths
i cannot work out surface area
i feel that considering the amount of material your putting energy into--wire is most efficient
im talking 0.5mm wire
any of you math guys help me on this?
thankyou in advance
Take a plate or tube, and cut it into wire like peeling an apple. You create new surface area on both sides of every cut.
Cheers,
Mr. Entropy
c'mon man im serious
**** Post Deleted *****
Quote from: jikwan on February 22, 2008, 01:59:46 PM
c'mon man im serious
Me too. I've proven that wire has more surface area per amount of material than bulkier tubes or plates, in a way that anyone can understand. It's appropriate for someone without math training, is it not?
It you really want to know, the surface area of a cylinder or wire (not counting the ends) is pi*D*L, where D is the diameter and L is the length. The volume is pi*D*D*L/4. Area/volume is 4/D, so the smaller the diameter, the more area you have per unit volume.
The surface area of a tube (not counting the ends) is that of the outer cylinder plus the inner cylinder. The volume is that of the outer cylinder minus that of the inner cylinder.
RR2
got to thank you for imput
i did view your calculations before delete
i felt i was defeated
they were pretty logical.........
MRE
my intuition tells me very well theres more surface area
if i get math backup i got something more concrete
yes understood thankyou
Sorry about the previous deletion, I found an error in my calculation. Fixed now.
Here's how I see it:
Formulas obtained from : http://www.math.com/tables/geometry/surfareas.htm
Surface Area of a rectangle: 2ab + 2bc + 2ac
If a and b are 0.5mm let?s assume the rectangle is 1 mm long.
Total surface area is 2(0.5)(0.5) + 2(0.5)(1) + 2(0.5)(1) = 2.5 mm3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Area of a cylinder: 2Ãâ,¬r2 + 2Ãâ,¬rh
If r is 0.25mm (0.5 mm diameter) and h is assumed to be 1mm long then:
Total Surface Area is 2Ãâ,¬(0.25)2 + 2Ãâ,¬(0.25)(1) = 1.96 mm3.
--------------------------------------------------
At this point it looks like the plate has the advantage, but now lets line up three plates together so they are touching and make one plate. This leaves us with a rectangle with the following dimentions:
0.5 mm x 1.5 mm x 1 mm. This gives a total surface area of:
2(0.5)(1.5) + 2(1.5)(1) + 2(1)(0.5) = 5.5 mm3.
Notice that four areas would be covered over where the plates are now touching each other. This area is now lost once melded into the shape of a single plate.
What happens when we line up three cylinders side by side?
Since only a small amount of surface area would be lost at the points where the three cylinders are touching each other, we could almost say a negligible amount of surface area would be lost. So we would have the previous area we calculated for one cylinder, multiplied by three, or simply:
1.95mm3 x 3 = 5.88 mm3 with only a small amount of area lost.
This would indicate that the greater the length of the plate, the more of an advantage in surface area would be gained using the ?wires? or cylinder shape.
So your idea appears to be correct, the use of the wires would give a greater surface area if the wires are joined together, side by side, in a continuous line to make a ?sheet? made of cylinders.
I guess a picture shows it better.
Which would have the greater exposure of surface area? The plate or the cylinders (wires)?
The calculations in the previous post indicate the advantage goes to the configuration using wires.
Good stuff.
Informative post RR2
RR2
thankyou for your time and effort on this
your 2nd drawing i calculate aprox
tubes--70mm
thick plate--24mm surface area
wire, then has max surface area
tubes and lastly plate
so then the most efficient use of the material being used is wire
my intuition, at this point tells me theres a lot more advantages in using wire
high output for low amperage
im about to order a few hundred metres of the stuff and make a 7 "plate" cell
_______________
I I
I I
I I
I I
________________
some kind of plastic frame like this
wound horizontaly and vertically makes one "plate"
pos-neu-neu-neg-neu-neu-pos
aprox 200metres should be enough
the two end plates can be solid plates
jhon aarons points out that the negative charged electrode produces hydrogen
Hi Jikwan,
Actually, I am glad you brought this up. It made me think on the best way to even do my project. It makes me want to investigate the possibility of tungsten/carbide wire as an alternative to the electrodes. The idea of winding around a plastic frame is also a great idea. I could picture it in my mind having great cross connections and maximum surface area. No tap welds needed. Lighter with lower theoretical electrical resistance. One continuous wire would give a better overall connection throughout the entire "plate" formation.
No, THANK YOU for thinking outside the box.
If anybody finds a flaw in my calculations then please bring it up. I would appreciate that.
This is why I don't like to work on research alone. Other heads bring up other ideas that I would never think of myself.
Thanks again,
RR2
glad to hear it
wishing you success in your work
the current madness in rising prices of oil gas elec will turn our bunch of alternative techs
into desperados
RR2, just a few considerations.
The wire coils will obviously not provide a uniform distance between electrodes as would plates or tubes, ie there will effectively be hills and troughs as your diagram shows. I'm also wondering if the troughs might give the gases a place to clog and hence create more of a barrier effect.
however, it may be that the increased surface area more than compensates for the unequal distance and so becomes irrelevant - just thought it worth a mention.
if the 2 vertical plastic rails were 3mm thick
and the 2 horizontals were 5mm thick
and not too much overlapping when making the coil or even no overlapping
there should be a very straight surface and 1mm gap for avoiding congestion
just had an idea
a serious consideration regarding fine wire coils is the higher possibility of explosion
with plates and tubes properly bolted one would not have the slightest doubt about anything
coming loose
many times theres rocking and bumping in engine compartment
one might always have an unsure,uneasy feeling about frail wires
the idea is where the wire rounds the end and sides of the plastic rail it is burned into the
material or else covered over with some adhesive-filler
nothing is going to come loose
tight, straight,well "ventilated" and safe
After some internet searching I don't think it would be practical in my project. Finding tungsten/carbide wire seems to be like locating the Loch Ness Monster; and getting enough to do the job seems that it would be expensive regardless. The other concern is if it would be flexible. The tungsten rods do not bend.
It was an interesting thought experiment though. Oh well, I guess I will stick with the electrodes I have.