Low energy Input, mass hydrogen output methods in use.

[thrival]

[Orange_Crusader]

[Bob Boyce]

[BEMET]

[thrival]

BEMET:

We only want sulfate ions to pass, not colloids, which would eventually
short out the cell, stop it from working. On the other hand one might
purposely mix the two materials and zap it with microwaves from a
coil inside the bucket, but I sure won't make any promises. It would work
for a while until the chemicals reach equilibrium, but how to regenerate?
Keeping the chemicals separate (or experimenting with one at a time)
makes the most sense for now until we understand more what we're doing
and what's happening, in a methodical way. Seems that's the only way
what AlaskaStar was talking about will ever make sense.


Bob:

Well by all means, please drag out your old notes for us

Orange:

My only concern is recycling the gases through the soup might just make
water again. I don't understand how the H can contribute to reformulating
the acid without losing the H we made, back to acid, but then you
know more chemistry than me. When water splits we get H2 so we're not
stealing any H from the acid, are we? If we use two chemical
compartments, wouldn't the respective gases be confined to each one?
(Until we reverse polarities of course.) Hey, I'd be happy burning
oxyhydro together.

AlaskaStar mentioned microwaves at low power, to vibrate the bubbles
off. I was thinking about a typical oven magnetron with it's

business end poking center into a short waveguide. Each end of the
waveguide could be capped with copper plates, insulated wire connected
to ss electrodes inside our cells, the other leads connected to the copper
plates. So whatever signal occurs in the waveguide is transferred to the
copper plates, wires and then the electrodes. Maybe diode/capacitors for
clamped DC, circuit able to switch directions when gas production starts to
fall off.

Problem is I don't know what minimum power levels are required to get
a magnetron to even operate. Typical oven input seems way over-kill for
what we need.

[B0rriska]

Sounds awesome, this is it! I've been on the PMM thread for a bit but I'm glad to see this evolving.My heroes. Hydrogen is coming from the water in the cell aswell as from the acid, right? We will have to add water still. I'm still working on the chemistry of the reaction. Have we decided that dissimilar metals are needed for the increased "recharging" effect.This is an off-gassing battery in essence, isn't it.

BTW Can we get a honda generator to run on what we currently have for gas production, either brute force, pulsed or electro chemical.I think the forum could use a nice running generator to give us a small term attainable success.That should invite some more hands on participation. I'm so excited.We are the only hope for humanity.
So vain yet so true. LOL

[Mako]

Hi guys,
My first post after perusing this topic with great interest.

The bridge between the 2 cells can be salvaged from a lead acid battery plate pouch and film or microporous separator.
reference: http://www.cyb.com.au/automotive/batt_f ... nstuct.htm and http://www.uuhome.de/william.darden/

In the coming fortnight I will be building the "basic" Cao+H2SO4 and FeO +H2SO4 cells using this film/pouch as seperator and seeing what that arrangement does first after putting an electrode in each(316 SS) and shorting them out or placing resistor/variable resistor(reaction control) and taking some readings - first things first

Note- the cathode and anode in this arrangement is the Ca and Fe referring back to Edison's cell, the SS is a connection method. Warning for anone wanting to use any chloride - it is best to steer clear because it is extremely deadly.

[owl]

All,

I have been searching for stainless steel shim stock. There is a lot of 302 and 304 grades, but the 316 grade is hard to come by and expensive. In doing research, the main difference between the 302/304 and 316 is the amoung of Molybdeium (spelling?) added (greater than 2% in 316). My question is:
How important is it to have 316 vs. 302/304 stainless steel for the electrodes?

Thanks in advance,

[thrival]

Mako:

Many thanks for the batteries link. Lack of an affordable separator has
been keeping some of us from moving ahead. You've helped to solve a big
problem.

I did some further searching and found the companies who actually make
the separators. See:

http://www.entek-international.com/Prod ... trial.html

I spoke to a battery maker and he said the thinner materials pass the
most the fastest while the thicker materials are most durable (makes
sense.)

Owl:

Depends on what kind of cell you're trying to build; will you be using KOH
or H2SO4? if the latter, 310 and ZeCor are what trucks are built from,
used to transport sulfuric acid in high concentrations. Bob Boyce knows
what works for KOH.

[pertyfly]

Personally, I would go with the SS304. For all my stainless so far, I have used nothing but 304. I know a lot of others here are using 304 as well. As you said, there is a huge difference in price, and if needed it is worth it (for not having to replace things). But basically, from my experiences so far it is unnecessary. I have run both high currents (extremely high, accidentally) and low currents for a LONG period of time and they have no problems as of yet. I also know that Bob uses SS304 sometimes as well, as you will see if you look in his projects folder. This is of course regarding standard electrolysis.

For this sort of idea, using different chemicals, etc a lot were mentioned in this thread. You will have to find a chemical compatibility list for SS304 and 316 to see what grade you're going to need based on the chemicals you're using. The 316 is a lot more chemical resistant, so for some it may be necessary, however, I know that a lot of industrial places around here just use 304 bins, etc to contain their chemicals. But definitely, check into it

[pertyfly]

Sorry, didn't see your reply before I posted thrival

[owl]

All,
Thanks for your replies. Some searching on the internet gave me this info on stainless steel...

There are four major classes of stainless steels. These are:
1) Austenitic stainless steels, these are essentially non-magnetic and cannot be hardened by heat treatment. They are hardenable only by cold-working. As a group, these stainless steels have greater corrosion resistance than the other three groups. At the same time there is a wide range in the corrosion resistance among the austenitic types. Most of these steels contain nickel as the principal austenite former, and some contain substantial amounts, 2-4%, of manganese and less nickel. These steels possess better corrosion resistance than the straight chromium steels. Chromium content is generally between 16-26%, with the nickel content generally between 4-22%. The 300 series represents by far the largest category of stainless steels produced in the United States. For the sake of discussion, the austenitic alloys can be divided into four subclasses.

Class A: AISI types 301, 302, 303, 304, 304L, 304N, 321, 347, and 348 are all contained within class A. Each of the types in this group can be considered an 18-8 stainless steel (i.e., 18% chromium content and 8% nickel content). Within this class, there is no great difference in the general corrosion resistance of the individual types. Those that have a higher alloy content are slightly more corrosion resistant than those with a lower alloy content. Types 321, 347, and 348 are carbide stabilized with titanium and/or niobium. Although their general corrosion resistance may be no higher than types 302 or 304, they are essentially immune to sensitization and the possible attendant intergranular corrosion under specific conditions.

Class B: Only types 305 and 384 are contained within class B. These have relatively high nickel contents (12.0% and 15.0%) nominally and respectively. While they both have greater corrosion resistance than the 18-8 steels, they were principally designed for extra-deep drawing and cold heading operations, as allowed by the higher nickel content

Class C: AISI types 302B, 308, 309, 309S, 310, 310S, and 314 are examples of the class C group. Type 302B is a modified 18-8 and has a silicon addition (2.5%) that increases oxidation resistance at elevated temperatures. Type 314 represents a higher alloy version (25% chromium-20% nickel) of an 18-8 steel. It has a silicon addition that is more corrosion resistant, especially to sulfuric acid, than type 302B and also has a high resistance to scaling at elevated temperatures. Types 308, 309, 309S, 310, and 310S are all higher in chromium and nickel and are commonly called 20-11 (20% chromium-11% nickel, type 308), 24-12 (24% chromium-12% nickel, types 309 and 309S) and 25-
20 (25% chromium-20% nickel, types 310 and 310S). They have a very high resistance to corrosion and oxidation at elevated temperatures.

Class D: AISI types 316, 316L, 316F, 316N, 317 and 317L are part of this class. They contain at a minimum 16% chromium and at least 2% molybdenum. The ferrite-forming influence of the molybdenum requires an increase in nickel, as an austenite former, to at least 10%. The presence of molybdenum specifically enhances corrosion resistance to chloride pitting and crevice corrosion and also increases general resistance to specific chemicals (e.g., organic acids, amines, phosphoric acid, dilute sulfuric acid).

Other Links:
http://www.alleghenyrodney.com/pages/pr ... F/al20.pdf
http://www.ccsi-inc.com/t-stainlesss.htm
http://www.sppusa.com/reference/white_paper/wp_ss.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/allo ... report.pdf

It looks like for low concentrations of sulfuric acids, 302 and 304 will be sufficient, but 316 will be more resistant. None of the articles specify how much more resistant the two are. For our case, will 316 last 1, 2, 4, 1000 times longer.
For experimenting, I think I will just go with the 302 or 304.

Thanks,

[Orange_Crusader]

If the chems mix, we'll lose the battery effect of the cell. It's still make H2 just fine, though, but we won't be able to gather any electricity.

Adding CaO to acid, and ending up with Ca2+ and HSO4(1-) is very different from adding CaSO4, which will dissolve into Ca2+ and SO4(2-)(key here is the lack of an H on the sulfate, and exposing it to H2 to make acid. As long as we can keep making loose Ca2+ and SO4(2-) ions we're fine. Having HSO4(1-) made will lesses our gas production, and the more is used up, the less it can react, since HSO4(1-) is a buffer to reactions.

Thrival, that's a relly good point. Bubbling the hydroxy through with rapidly pulsing electricity being applied will make water, but just bubbling H2 through shouldn't do so, but we will lose some. We need a way to expose the sulfate ions to hydrogen without sapping our production. It won't simply react with water, and splitting the water will also make CaO as well as acid, which, when it reacts, will make water. Bah.

Bob, I'm very curious to see anything you have on the work you've done similar to this.

Thrival, both compartments (Fe and Ca) will make H2, and as long as the electricity applied isn't too high, there will be no oxygen produced, this is a simply hydrogen system. Splitting the water to regenerate it as planned is the kicker for me, we don't want the oxygen, since that will cause water to be made (CaO formed), yet we need the hydrogen. Anyone have any ideas?

[thrival]

Orange:

So from what you're saying, the Ca-Fe cell won't work if oxygen
is produced on one side or the other? Bummer! How can water be
split without releasing both gases together? How much is "too much"
electricity and why is that? Or we use up our acid? Double-crap. I
thought we were actually getting somewhere here.

[thrival]

Orange:

Please let's put bubbling gases made, back up through our brew, on the
back burner for a while.

Help me understand something. I'm thinking a lot might depend upon the
acid saturation of both our chemicals when we start, i.e. CaSO4, and
FeSO4. If the Fe is fully saturated, it can accept no more acid, so only can
be driven into solution from, and recouped by the Ca. Does that release
H2 or O? Or just make CaO and acid water that recombine again?

Or assuming only one side is saturated (CaSO4) and one side not (Fe)
we drive the sulfate ion to the iron and make hydrogen, doesn't that
force O to be made at the other Ca side? If yes, does the Ca claim it or is
it released as gas? If the latter, great. If not, the cell only works in one
direction, because driving the sulfate back restores the iron but only
makes water with CaO. Maybe the cell needs to be driven further.
Beyond the point of restoration, iron would become oxide, and the
calcium would make H2.

It seems we need to start with just one side saturated. We know the other
side is hungry for acid and will make H2 as it gets it, O at the other
terminal releasing the acid, and electricity as both sides approach
equilibrium. It seems at equilibrium we need both sides to be half
saturated, and half-hungry for acid. That way there would be a buffer
zone for the reaction to happen. Otherwise we're just making O and strong
acid-water.

There seem to be some unknowns. Not ready to give up just yet.