To prove my point, I have photos of the magnet picking up several heavy sections of rail road track, but it has no effect whatsoever, on the 304 grade stainless.Originally Posted by DaneDHorstead
see: http://shuttermotor.tripod.com/id10.html
Senior Member
To prove my point, I have photos of the magnet picking up several heavy sections of rail road track, but it has no effect whatsoever, on the 304 grade stainless.
see: http://shuttermotor.tripod.com/id10.html
I agree, and I think what we are really missing here is that when we think our plates are being "conditioned" it's actually the pH of the liquid changing, no matter if you start from straight water or water with electrolyte. The pH will change. A digital pH meter will be my next purchase.
Senior Member
The problem with that train of thought, is that the imputiries fron the plates (and there are many) still reside in the water afterwards, which can dampen the effects of catalyst.I disagree with some of the above recommended processes and here's why.
First, I have also read about the recommended quick, fine cross hatch sanding, out there on the net. But, there is both correct, and incorrect information out there about this technology. I found that out during the weeks of bench testing I did personally!
I've taken plain 316L plates with oil still on them from the drilling. Put 'em together, drop it in the electrolyte bath, and hook up the power. Did this in a transparent container to visually observe production, plus used a digital EXTECH clamp meter to measure the amps.
It really doesn't take but a couple of minutes for the electrolyte, plus the electricity, plus the water molecules exploding into HHO gas on the surfaces of the plates, to clean those plates pretty damn good. After a couple, maybe a few minutes, all of the plates are makin' plenty of gas.
I don't like the idea of sanding this material, which really ain't cheap. Maybe just a really fast and quick hit with fine grade if you must.
Cross sanding, does (to some minute degree) increase surface area, but the actual difference is almost immeasurable.
The basic advantage to sanding is neither of the above, but instead, to break the perfectly flat surface area, so the microscopicly small hydrogens bubbles are easier to disslodge from the negative plates. They hold to these plates much like a suction cup, and need all the help possible to break them loose.
While the positively charged oxygen bubbles scurrey to exit the entire positively charged soup (likes repell), the two to one "electron ratio" of the now positive hydrogen atoms are attracted to the negative pole (unlikes attract).
It is only the boiling action of the much larger oxygen bubbles, that causes the hydrogen atoms to come away from the negative poles.
Cross sanding helps to break the surface bond of the hydrogen, causing them to be pulled away, and upwards, to the vapors above the hydro-soup.
Oxygen does not need the bond to be broken, as it is repulsive to the surface areas, and to the hydrogen (which is also now a positve charge).
But hydrogen, without the boiling action of the larger oxygen bubbles, would never leave the negative pole, or negative sides of the inducted plates (which are generally considered to be neutral) I say never, but refer that only as to a timeframe, when the current is turned on.
In truth, once power is input, no plate, is neutral. Induction causes each plate to be positive on one side, and negative on the other, just like an induction magnet (or in this case, a series of induction magnets)
While the middle plates are not connected to a power source, induction polarizes both sides of each plate, just as the experiment with wrapping a nail, with insullated wire, from a dry cell battery did, when you were in the fifth grade.
Sanding plays a very important role, in the production of hydrogen (but does not help the production of oxygen).
Senior Member
Following the link provided by: Boynton Stu
See http: //www.ssina.com/faq/index.html
I copy some of the information provided within that website, as it concerns the make up of stainless steel, and its relation to magnetic forces........
While an angel hair finish holds no particular interest to me, the report of stainless steel containing 65% iron, does!
I am the first to admit that I am not a metalurgist, but common sense says a magnet would react to any percentage of iron, unless it were so minute, it was almost non existant.
The following bears me out..........
_____________________________________
4. What is the difference between 304 and 316 stainless steel?
Answer: 304 contains 18% chromium and 8% nickel. 316 contains 16% chromium, 10% nickel and 2% molybdenum. The "moly" is added to help resist corrosion to chlorides (like sea water and de-icing salts) See "Stainless Steel for Coastal and Salt Corrosion Applications" for more information. (note that there is absolutely no mention of iron)
5. Is stainless steel magnetic?
Answer: There are several "types" of stainless steel. The 300 series (which contains nickel) is NOT magnetic. The 400 series (which just contains chromium and no nickel) ARE magnetic.
_____________________________
I should note that none of us, have any use for 400 grade types of stainless (relevant to our singular quest), so that part, is of little to no consequence.
Senior Member
I should add that in order to have rust you must have iron!
That is not to say that other types of corrosion, can not exist such as is seen when salt water reacts to aluminum (only an example), but again, we are not working with aluminum either.
However, we should note that some people have a tendency to use copper wires, with a HHO generator (which is inviting a very dangerous situation, as copper will corrode, end eventually arc).
Note that building a HHO generator, should employ only 304 grade, or the more expensive 316 grade of stainless, in every internal "current carrying" device.
That does not include, spacers, and nylon bolts, which are intentionally used as nonconductive materials.
Thanks Stu, for the info.
Senior Member
Taken from Wikopedia - Stainless steel.........
[edit] Types of stainless steel
There are different types of stainless steels: when nickel is added, for instance, the austenite structure of iron is stabilized. This crystal structure makes such steels non-magnetic and less brittle at low temperatures. For greater hardness and strength, carbon is added. When subjected to adequate heat treatment, these steels are used as razor blades, cutlery, tools, etc.
Significant quantities of manganese have been used in many stainless steel compositions. Manganese preserves an austenitic structure in the steel as does nickel, but at a lower cost.
Stainless steels are also classified by their crystalline structure:
Austenitic, or 300 series, stainless steels comprise over 70% of total stainless steel production. They contain a maximum of 0.15% carbon, a minimum of 16% chromium and sufficient nickel and/or manganese to retain an austenitic structure at all temperatures from the cryogenic region to the melting point of the alloy. A typical composition of 18% chromium and 10% nickel, commonly known as 18/10 stainless, is often used in flatware. Similarly, 18/0 and 18/8 are also available. Superaustenitic stainless steels, such as alloy AL-6XN and 254SMO, exhibit great resistance to chloride pitting and crevice corrosion due to high molybdenum content (>6%) and nitrogen additions, and the higher nickel content ensures better resistance to stress-corrosion cracking vice the 300 series. The higher alloy content of superaustenitic steels makes them more expensive. Other steels can offer similar performance at lower cost and are preferred in certain applications.[citation needed]
The low carbon version of the Austenitic Stainless Steel, for example 316L or 304L, are used to avoid corrosion problem caused by welding. The "L" means that the carbon content of the Stainless Steel is below 0.03%, this will reduce the sensitization effect, precipitation of Chromium Carbides, due to the high temperature produced by welding operation.
____________________________
If I read that correctly, carbon can be added, for greater strength (?), but in 300 series grades of stainless a maximum 0.15% carbon is added!
In a decimal, that percentage is propperly shown as .0015 as compared to the whole.
That is just over one tenth of a single percent!
And if carbon is added (for strength), then it was not there, in the first place.
All this collegiate textbook theory is very grand indeed.
But what really matters here?
Real results that you can see with your eyes, measure with a simple ammeter or flow-meter, and actually understand and put to use, that's what matters.
Furthermore, discoveries are still being made, we don't know everything yet. And sometimes these lofty theories are disproven by actual, real world tests.
Regarding impurities, we always clean the plates and all the internals with IPA (Isopropyl Alcohol) before final assmebly.
I do agree about using ONLY 316 L stainless on ALL current carrying internals, that's all we use for that, without exception.
I also agree about the middle plates each having a positive, and a negative side to them, and the above example given. Thus they are really middle plates, and only called "neutral plates" within OUR context, because a more accurate name wasn't given to them back when that discussion was young.
Hydrogen leaves a smooth, unsanded plate and rises in the electrolyzer. I've seen it dozens of times while doing tests. Does it leave a sanded plate more easily? If there IS a difference, is it worth it? How many grains of sand are there in a pound?
Amen, to the part concerning real world experimentation
All this collegiate textbook theory is very grand indeed.
But what really matters here?
Real results that you can see with your eyes, measure with a simple ammeter or flow-meter, and actually understand and put to use, that's what matters.
Furthermore, discoveries are still being made, we don't know everything yet. And sometimes these lofty theories are disproven by actual, real world tests.
Regarding impurities, we always clean the plates and all the internals with IPA (Isopropyl Alcohol) before final assmebly.
I do agree about using ONLY 316 L stainless on ALL current carrying internals, that's all we use for that, without exception.
I also agree about the middle plates each having a positive, and a negative side to them, and the above example given. Thus they are really middle plates, and only called "neutral plates" within OUR context, because a more accurate name wasn't given to them back when that discussion was young.
Hydrogen leaves a smooth, unsanded plate and rises in the electrolyzer. I've seen it dozens of times while doing tests. Does it leave a sanded plate more easily? If there IS a difference, is it worth it? How many grains of sand are there in a pound?
Concerning 316L, I must disagree somewhat, The fact of the matter is, SS is a very bad conductor, yet it is very durable. So it is a trade off. There are amny materials we could use and new technology is coming out everyday. I think more is mis-understood about electrolosis than what is understood. I do agree 316L is a good choice for anything which will remain under solution, but it causes resistence and thusly creates heat. That is the reason many of you are having trouble with your terminals getting hot, which are out of solution when your unit is turned on.(as well as loose connections)
Concerning sanding the plates, I have to agree with you, from what I can tell it is a waste of time for the difference. For those of you who want to try it, knock yourself out. I find it funny, so many people concerning the electrolosis process, seem to know with certainty what is going on inside their cells, which either are completely sealed or have such small spacing they could not possibly see if the sanding process has created more hho. I have checked the output of sanded-vs-unsanded, and it was not 1 second quicker in producing one liter. I do agree with the premise, more surface area is need for more hho, now "holes" in your electrodes will produce more hho.
I say this with all respect, but gentlemen, many in this forum try to impress with the amount of research they have done or education they have. Show me the numbers, the production, the mpg, the things which did'nt work, the things which did work, or even new ideas. (obviously, none have us have nailed this thing yet, so some new ideas would be welcome)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
