The Dangling Carrot

[1973dodger]

Stevo,

I agree with you about the conductivity and and potential hazards involved with that kind of concentrations. I just in the back of my mind have to think there is a better way than brute force electrolosis. It has been stated in so many words, that if it is good enough for NASA we should take that as an absolute fact and look no further. I think NASA may not be telling all there secrets other than what is commonly accepted knowlege.

As I have previously stated in this thread, I think that water can be broken down into it's basic elements with only so much efficiency, using brute force electrolosis. One has to wonder, how much is water impressed by our different electrolosis designs. I believe we have to break this problem down to it's basic elements, meaning we have to study the nature of water. We need to find out what weakens the water molecule, so the hho is more easily harvested. We know or have heard, the covalent bonds of H2O are weakened by various conditions. Whether it be temperature, vibrations, chemically, or maybe a combination of all the above. It is my opinion, the answer lies beyond simple electrolsis. I do think electrolosis will be used in the end to do the harvesting, but we need to prepare the H2O for harvesting. I read many other forums, though this is my favorite, we need to start looking beyond electrolosis. I think we are concentrating to much of our efforts on cell design. You've heard the old saying "There is no replacement for displacement". From what extensive experimenting I have done with cell design, there is no replacement for amperage in simple electrolosis. I do understand, some designs are more efficient than others, but usually the difference is no more than 10 to 15 amps used per liter of gas produced.

I know most of us think we lack the knowledge to take this any further and nothing could be more true with what I personally bring to the table. The only thing I bring to the table is a little "horse sense". With that said, I believe the answer will be found by accident by some unsuspecting soul. Sorry Stevo, I did not mean to sound "preachy", just thinking out loud.

1973dodger

[Stevo]

Sorry Stevo, I did not mean to sound "preachy", just thinking out loud.

1973dodger

Nah, you don't sound preachy. I totally agree with you on this whole topic including the harsh chemical ratios.

[Riddler250]

Copper is the best conductor there is, but it will corrode very fast, especialy in a caustic bath. Gold is the second best conductor but will eventually corrode. Im not sure where stainless would be. Too bad gold is WAY to expensive, or it could solve the heat problems

[Stevo]

There has been some talk around on the web about electrically conductive plastic polymers. If this was widely available in the form of sheets, you would be able to encase the copper anodes and cathodes and build your generator that way.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...p-electrically

[1973dodger]

You guys are certainly on the right path here, in a search for a more conductive material. It is my contention, though, the caustic bath is not the corrosive factor for our electrodes. It is the effects of oxygen, natures little scavenger and cleaner-upper. Concerning to conductivity of elements go; silver, then copper, then gold, then aluminum are the rankings according to www.enviromentalchemistry.com. But I think you will find regardless of current you will draw, the output will be directly related to current draw, in other words you will produce the same lpm per amp used.

1973dodger

[Cadillac]

I just in the back of my mind have to think there is a better way than brute force electrolosis. It has been stated in so many words, that if it is good enough for NASA we should take that as an absolute fact and look no further. I think NASA may not be telling all there secrets other than what is commonly accepted knowlege.

NASA did not use water electrolysis. They used straight hydrogen or hydrogen from methanol steam reformation in thier experiments. They consider water electrolysis to be to inefficent.

The drawback in the methanol steam reformation was the heat. It effectively reduced volumetric efficiency in the engine by heating the intake air temperature. They consider this to be an adverse reaction, although, in some car situations this could make the (gas) car lean itself out. Say like a Cadillac 4.1, 4.5 or 4.9 with the IAT actually mounted in the intake manifold.

In a later paper discussing methanol electrolysis they state they use platinum-ruthenium (for electrolysis, might also add a piss poor conductor). They also went on to support methanol/water electrolysis over just straight water. It only requires 0.2-0.4 volts to break the bond and has better ending by products. 3H2 and carbon dioxide. Co2 can easily be blocked out using a Peolite molecular sieve (they left out to use grade 4A sieve). This will effectively block out water vapors and methanol steam on top of the CO2.

The use of a molecular sieve of this grade would be helpful in just HHO systems as well. Rogue electroylites are not going to get past it, neither is water.

The best conducting metal I can think of would be silver.