Wet Cells and Current Leakage

[Farrahday]

Hi Roland

Under normal conditions the chromium oxide coating on ss is relatively impervious and so protects the underlying metal, but when we are forcing a heavy current through it in an oxygen rich environment such as our electrolysers, then any weaknesses in the surface coating will be exposed and any underlying reactive metal such as iron will of course react.

It is more usual that the anode is attacked this way due to the oxygen being formed, whereas the cathode is often unaffected.

What conditioning does is, by running a steady low current through the cell, weaknesses in this coating are exposed and iron at or near the surface reacts to form rust, which will precipitate into the solution and eventually form a sludge. As there is a lot more chromium in ss that iron, once the iron (or other reactive metal) has reacted and fallen away as an oxide, then more chromuim is exposed and this instantly forms it's protective oxide layer and all is well again. By steadily upping the current through the cell eventually all the iron and any other reactive metals near the surface will have been leached away.

Furthermore, while you are getting the oxygen reacting with such as iron on the electrodes, you will be seeing less oxygen evolved from your cell as gas - it will be busy forming the iron oxide.

Also consider this. Oxide layers are what protect copper and aluminium amongst other metals, and though they are generally insulators, they form such a thin coating that they do not do much to impede current flow. So like our chromium oxide they are relatively porous to tiny electrons. But try forcing too much current through these pores and this is when we start to get trouble as the pores can become holes and, in the case of our ss, expose underlying metals such as iron. So it pays to condition your cells this way initially to avoid the brown sludge and crud you will otherwise get.

This is probably also the main argument for limiting the current density on any electrode - to prevent electrode corrosion.

For a long time people thought it was down to the water being used and inpurities in the water, but in my experience the crud comes primarily from the ss.

Dave Lawton went on to condition his cells further, not to protect them, but to form a mineral layer that upped electrolyser efficiency. He went on to determine efficiencies of 3-4x over-Faraday.

The mineral layer (formed from minerals in 'hard' tap water) forms a coating on the cathode, which I now know allows for plasma discharges within the pores of this mineral coating. Plasma discharges are known to produce more gas from water than Faraday Electrolysis from any given power, but Lawton was achieving this as a by-product of Faraday Electrolysis by pulsing dc.

I've attached a photo of one of my test cells that clearly shows a heavy white mineral coating on the centre ss nut and threaded bar (my cathode). I enhanced Lawtons mineral coating by doping my water with calcium carbonate.

[Roland Jacques]

Thanks Farrah,
Started a thread for conditioning, with your quote.
http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=6663

[Stevo]

Ahh, now i can't find the post. The info you shared on conditioning plates. The TWO reasons to do it, I thought where very valuable to many folks. It seems to be very overlooked and ignored by most of us. That post of yours made it clear to me that it is time will spent. I will be doing both types of conditioning you mentioned in the future . The Calcification build up by Dave Lawton was new to me.

Do you know where you mention it? I really think folks here would benefit from it.

I second that motion.

[myoldyourgold]

As voltage is raised, so is the potential energy of electrons as they leave cathode surfaces and become a part of the ionic process. If applied voltage is higher than that required to sustain an efficient ionic reaction state, excess electrons will actually play "bumper car" in the solution, bouncing around until sufficient energy is released for them to be absorbed and become an active part of the ionic process. This results in waste resistive heating of the solution due to friction. This occurs in all electrolysis system to some degree, and a goal should be to minimize waste heating, but not everyone agrees for various reasons. Some feel that the excess water vapor is a good thing, and in some cases this can be true. But there are way more efficient ways to introduce water vapor than cell heating.

Bob Boyce

Does this help Farrah?

[Farrahday]

Does this help Farrah?

As voltage is raised, so is the potential energy of electrons as they leave cathode surfaces and become a part of the ionic process. If applied voltage is higher than that required to sustain an efficient ionic reaction state, excess electrons will actually play "bumper car" in the solution, bouncing around until sufficient energy is released for them to be absorbed and become an active part of the ionic process. This results in waste resistive heating of the solution due to friction. This occurs in all electrolysis system to some degree, and a goal should be to minimize waste heating, but not everyone agrees for various reasons. Some feel that the excess water vapor is a good thing, and in some cases this can be true. But there are way more efficient ways to introduce water vapor than cell heating.

Bob Boyce

Ah, sadly no MOYG.

Myself and crazy Bob have quite a long history and most of that history involves us butting heads.

Boyce science tends to be science that conveniently 'fits' the bill rather than science fact - for the most part pure speculation, worst case utter nonsense! He has a devoted following of clueless supporters that have little or no knowledge or understanding of science and see him as some sort of legend in this field which affords him the reputation as some sort of electrolysis guru... but each to their own.

If this is indeed a classic Boyce quote, let me just add credence to what I have just said by saying that electrons are not the charge carriers in a liquid, and as such do not actually enter the solution. Electrons don't leave the cathode to become part of the ionic process, they leave to join with a +ve hydrogen ion (or proton) which then becomes a hydrogen atom and evolves as a gas.

In a liquid the charge carriers are ions alone - this is basic first year science. Voltage will add potential energy to both electrons in the metal wiring and plates and indeed the ions in the solution, but the rest is sheer fantasy.

[wazza129]

we had HHO fueled automobile as our project....but our faculty members are bent upon us requiring an engineering model which will eventually provide basis for the fabrication of an electrolyzer/hydrolyzer...we told them again and agaain that nothing definite can be said about the variables involved and their inter-depency,as we do not aim to show a laboratory electrolysis process but to haave a system dat has an engineering and a commercial bearing....i.e substantial amount of HHO.......

the only thing we have with us is those filthy faraday's laws ..all theoretical ...and heavily defying the practicall arena...

research journals also sugest that this thing is purely experimental and hit and trial....

can someone cum up wth a full design model for a hydrolyzer dat satisfactorily determines all the dimensions and variables ,,followiing which one can fabricate a hydrolyzer....can some one?......bubble resistance,,,transport resistance ..etc etc etc....

[firefighterivchrist]

Farrahday,

Please accept my thanks that you are attempting to help the community understand what is actually going on physically in these cells (I hesitate to use "science" for several reasons); I hope we'll have an opportunity to work together in the future.

I do, however, want to clarify something that everyone is completely overlooking (empahsis mine):

Nothing charges the electrolyte, the charged species already exist within the solution. It is simply the influence of applying a voltage that sets them into motion by attraction and repulsion. The charged species are what make up the current, and this current only exists due to the voltages on the electrodes/plates.

This isn't correct. You can have a system where the voltage potential difference exists and no current flows. What this means is there will not be any gas production. I challenge anyone to put a variable ammeter on their cells and turn it to 0 and see what they get. (This has to be connected in serial for it to work.) You should be able to measure a voltage potential difference without producing gas. (This is a simple circuit with a battery and a really big (charged) capacitor; once the capacitor is charged, you have a voltage difference and no current. In the case of an HHO cell, the water+plates are your capacitor.)

Basically, if there is no electron transfer occuring, there is no current (and vice versa). You can't produce the gasses if you don't add an electron from the plates to the H+ ion (which allows 2H+ ions to become H2, or hydrogen gas); since this is not a voltage issue but a current issue, you do not produce the current in the cell just by applying voltage (at least not in standard Faraday Electrolysis). I've also visually observed that in a wet cell, the "neutral" or "floating" plates do not produce gas. Why not? You need to have an electron transfer to produce both the ions in the solution as well as the gas that comes out of the solution. The electrolyte is what produces the ions in the solution (electron transfer between existing H and O), but the electron transfer at the plates is what produces the gas; without the plate electron transfer, you have no current and no gas production on that plate.

Another way to look at it is the fact that everyone can report the amount of energy (MMW, which is really just mL/Joule or mL/kWh) it takes to produce the gas; remember, kWh = 1000 Watts consumed in 1 hour, and Watts = Amperage X Voltage. Since we know that 0 times anything = 0, Amperage must be greater than 0 to get an MMW reading, hence current is present in the circuit and electrons are being transfered from the plates to the electrolyte (or, a 0 Amperage = 0 MMW, so no gas production without current!). Another way to think about it, you don't simply produce gas by dumping in the electrolyte, so there's still something else that has to be added to make the gas: electrons. This means that the majority of everyone's surface area calculations are incorrect for dry cells, but they don't know that because they can't visually observe the productive surface area. (Again, another challenge: make a dry cell where you can observe every chamber between each set of plates and see which ones produce gas.)

I now understand what is being referred to as "voltage leaks", but what it should really be called is "current". What is being observed is what the electricity (and therefore the ions) naturally wants to do. Think of it this way: the ions are trying to get from wherever they are in the solution to the plate with the opposite charge (and pick up the missing electron), but when they hit a "n" plate, they are stopped. Since there is no electric current on these "n" plates, the ions do not become gas, and have to travel elsewhere as they "pile up" on the "n" plate. Where do they go? The edges of the plate (dump enough peas on a plate, and the pile will eventually spill over the edge), which then frees the ions to immediately travel to where they want to go to begin with, the plate with the opposite charge.

I also have much to say about data collection for the purposes of understanding what is going on, but that needs another thread. Until the community starts recording data about every aspect of their cells, we will not be able to understand the process we are dealing with, and thus not be able to improve the effeciency of the cells, let alone hope to approach what Stanley Meyer is reported to have acheived: significant over-unity. That understanding only comes by having enough data to see the paterns. More on that later.

Hope this gets the creative juices flowing for everyone. I realize some of what I've said really goes against some current ideas about these cells, but I think better progress will be made by looking into ways to control the amperage in the circuit rather than the voltage. If I'm right, we'll be better able to predict results, and the cost of the cells should drop (less SS needed if you can control the amperage, since you would no longer need "n" plates).

[firefighterivchrist]

Something else that should help people in thinking about their cells is the following:

Voltage and Amperage can be thought of as water in a hose.

Voltage = Water Pressure or "Speed", how fast molecules get there
Amperage = Water Volume, or how many molecules arrive at a given point in time.

You can change the volume without changing the pressure (ie: low-flow shower heads), and vice versa (seen in pipes of different diameters, espcially when you go from a smaller pipe to a larger one). The same holds true for electric circuits.

[Farrahday]

Read your post FF and I do have some misgivings about it, but firstly this:

I do, however, want to clarify something that everyone is completely overlooking (empahsis mine):


Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrahday
Nothing charges the electrolyte, the charged species already exist within the solution. It is simply the influence of applying a voltage that sets them into motion by attraction and repulsion. The charged species are what make up the current, and this current only exists due to the voltages on the electrodes/plates.

End quote.

This isn't correct. You can have a system where the voltage potential difference exists and no current flows. What this means is there will not be any gas production. I challenge anyone to put a variable ammeter on their cells and turn it to 0 and see what they get. (This has to be connected in serial for it to work.) You should be able to measure a voltage potential difference without producing gas. (This is a simple circuit with a battery and a really big (charged) capacitor; once the capacitor is charged, you have a voltage difference and no current. In the case of an HHO cell, the water+plates are your capacitor.)

All that I stated was in terms of current flow through an electrolyser and hence is indeed correct, and I see nothing at all wrong with my statement, nor do I see how your following comments in anyway emphasise that what I said was wrong. I know that there are conditions whereby you can have a potential difference without a current flow, and indeed that even in an electrolyser a certain over-voltage potential needs to be achieved before electrolysis will initiate, but this has no reflection on my statement in this instance. I think you have taken it out of context.

But something you alluded to later is what I'm really struggling to come to terms with. And that is this statement:

I've also visually observed that in a wet cell, the "neutral" or "floating" plates do not produce gas. Why not? You need to have an electron transfer to produce both the ions in the solution as well as the gas that comes out of the solution. The electrolyte is what produces the ions in the solution (electron transfer between existing H and O), but the electron transfer at the plates is what produces the gas; without the plate electron transfer, you have no current and no gas production on that plate.

Floating plates certainly DO evolve gases, so how you have come to this conclusion I cannot imagine. They evolve gas precisely because they are NOT neutral plates, but indeed show a potential difference relative to neighbouring plates. The only time you will see a floating plate not evolve gas is in an ill-conceived electrolyser design whereby there is less than around 1.5 volts of potential difference between it and a neighbouring plate.

I'm also not entirely sure that you have got to grips with the ionisation of the water molecule. You talk about electron transfer between H and O, but I'm really not sure what to make of this.

The water molecule ionises into H+ and OH- when it undergoes an increase in energy, when it dissociates the hydroxyl molecule simply holds on to the hydrogens electron, leaving just a proton.

I now understand what is being referred to as "voltage leaks", but what it should really be called is "current".

The term 'current leakage' abounds, but rather curiously I've never seen mention of 'voltage leaks'!

[Healicoil]

Hi everyone. I've been up all night reading up on HHO. I like the idea of using it as a fuel source for glass and metalwork. I'll keep this brief as I literally can't keep my eyes open any longer but just thought I'd offer a thought or two up which may be responsible or contribute in part to 'leakage'.
It's conceivable that on a micro scale you could get different concentrations of electrolyte due to the oxygen and hydrogen bubbles accumulating in certain areas. Someone mentioned earlier higher cation and anion activity around the edges of plates in wet cells, well I would imagine liberation of gases would happen more readily around the edges of plates rather than in between. Bubbles stuck to plates would have the effect of reducing the exposed surface area of the plate, as well as there would be higher concentrations of anions in solution near cathodes and vica versa. So while it may seem like the path of least resistance is a straight line, if you are an anion and the path ahead is saturated with anions, but to there is a path to the left or right that is not then the tendency would be to flow that way. I hope I've gotten the polarities around the right way, nonetheless I'm sure you understand what I am saying.
I've read about harmonic frequencies and pulsing voltages at certain frequencies being useful for increasing production. I wonder whether simply vibrating the plates to assist liberating the bubbles off the plates and out of the electrolyte would assist overall production in both wet & dry cells and possibly help reduce current leakage. The effect in dry cells might be that they experience lower amperage or require higher voltage than is optimal.

Well that was longer than intended :-) it's just gone 6am here. I'll see you all again.