Dry Cell pre-build questions (?)

[bigjim56]

I'm am very close to building my first dry cells(2), :cool: but I have some questions before taking the final dive. I have decided on the +NNNNN-NNNNN+NNNNN-
plate configuration that daddymikey suggested on an earlier thread I posted. The reason being is I want excess capacity to fit both my car and #2 my truck. Any overkill by oversize for my car (4cylinder/5speed) -will be offset by the map sensor setting being cut back, resulting in more mpg's. Anyone see a problem w/that logic?

Second, what is the most popular plate size, both in H X W and thickness (gauge)? Is there any advantage in square vs. octagon? Square would give more surface area obviously, but electrolite supply could suffer. Anyone ever try multiple electrolite supply on square cells... 2 or 3 supply holes vs. just 1.?

Thirdly, I've seen some "foaming" issues on some videos :eek:, I would assume this is caused by gasket malfunction/heat/electrolite concentration. I want to avoid this, any suggestions other than what I suggested?

Fourthly, anyone have any luck or suggestions on the HHO effluent plate seal (cell leakage)between plates such as H2OPWR has logged on video? I've seen
his bear claw idea and another that suggested using oversize nylon tubing that is then melted (soldering iron) to a tight seal overlap :confused:. I would hate to have this material break free and clog/degrade unit.

Lastly, I've got a problem w/crosssanding the plates. I believe the best bet would be to go bottom to top versus "X" style. The best output/production in my lifetime has shown to me that going with the flow is more productive than steering left or right...go right for it. A straight line is more direct than a warped line. Either way you sand it, scarred material remains, the encouraged directional flow only encourages directional flow.
( A periodic backflow pressure flush suggested)

Kudos to H2OPWR/Daddymikey1975 & Youtube for all of the informational content.

bigjim56

[daddymikey1975]

bigjim kudos to you for taking the dry dive :D

what size motor is in your car? 4cyl but how large a motor??

the configuration that you want to use (setup like mine) might be a bit much for a smaller 4 cyl. that setup (for me) is going into my dodge van with a 3.3L V6. I think i might drop off the last part of the stack for my toyota (1.6L 4cyl)

Also, you want to check your alternator's voltage on both vehicles with it running at idle AND at aroun 2K RPM's..

that configuration would get a little warm if you have a 14+ volt alternator voltage.

My van is just above 13 so that one would work OK for me.

If your voltage is below about 13.5 then you're OK.. anything more than that and you'd want to add 1 neutral plate to each array to keep the volts per plate gap down (heat)

as far as H2OPWR's bear claw design DO IT.. definitely helps with current leakage.

I also like his plate design and gasket shape. Definitely conducive to efficient electrolyte flow through the cell

for sanding, my preference would be verticle as opposed to cross hatched. It makes logical sense to help production move upward but this theory hasn't been tested that I'm aware of.

as far as the tool dip coming off, I don't think it would be a problem as long as you do the bear claw it should stay. Larry's test was pretty solid for my satisfaction. I don't think it would come off. but don't UPS me some plates in several months to prove me wrong HAHA..

shouldn't matter whether the plates are square, rectangle, triangle, or circular. surface area is all that we're concerned with. MY particular plate measurement is 5x7 with one entry hole at the bottom and one exit hole at the top.

also pay particular attention to H20PWR (larry)'s video where he describes the bear claw.. not his gasket placement with respect to his entry/exit holes and the bear claw/tool dip. if you're mindful enough to see what I mean, you'll have no problems with the tool dip (in my opinion)

I hope this helps
mike

[H2OPWR]

I'm am very close to building my first dry cells(2), :cool: but I have some questions before taking the final dive. I have decided on the +NNNNN-NNNNN+NNNNN-
plate configuration that daddymikey suggested on an earlier thread I posted. The reason being is I want excess capacity to fit both my car and #2 my truck. Any overkill by oversize for my car (4cylinder/5speed) -will be offset by the map sensor setting being cut back, resulting in more mpg's. Anyone see a problem w/that logic?

Second, what is the most popular plate size, both in H X W and thickness (gauge)? Is there any advantage in square vs. octagon? Square would give more surface area obviously, but electrolite supply could suffer. Anyone ever try multiple electrolite supply on square cells... 2 or 3 supply holes vs. just 1.?

Thirdly, I've seen some "foaming" issues on some videos :eek:, I would assume this is caused by gasket malfunction/heat/electrolite concentration. I want to avoid this, any suggestions other than what I suggested?

Fourthly, anyone have any luck or suggestions on the HHO effluent plate seal (cell leakage)between plates such as H2OPWR has logged on video? I've seen
his bear claw idea and another that suggested using oversize nylon tubing that is then melted (soldering iron) to a tight seal overlap :confused:. I would hate to have this material break free and clog/degrade unit.

Lastly, I've got a problem w/crosssanding the plates. I believe the best bet would be to go bottom to top versus "X" style. The best output/production in my lifetime has shown to me that going with the flow is more productive than steering left or right...go right for it. A straight line is more direct than a warped line. Either way you sand it, scarred material remains, the encouraged directional flow only encourages directional flow.
( A periodic backflow pressure flush suggested)

Kudos to H2OPWR/Daddymikey1975 & Youtube for all of the informational content.

bigjim56

BigJim,
I am still waiting for the plastic welder. I expected it late last week but it has yet to show. I am convinced of two things. 1) Sealing the holes is well worth the time and effort. It has an undeniable positive effect on effeciency. My next project is putting together the large cell for instillation in my Nissan Frontier. Yesterday in preparation for the plastic welder and putting HDPE in place if the Plasti Dip I took apart my test cell (Running two straight weeks 24 7) to remove the Plasti Dip. 2) the second thing I am convinced of is that the Plasti Dip will work if used with the Bear Claw design. The Plasti Dip on the plates that I removed was completely unaffected by the electrolosis or the KOH. Plasti Dip when not used with the extra holes as I did will peal right off the plate. If your gasket is not going to compress part if the Plasti Dip the extra holes would need to completely surroung the main hole. Now I feel that the money I spent on the plastic welder was wasted. I had to use an exacto knife to get the Plasti Dip off the plates. Not even one speck of the black Plasti Dip was in the electrolite solution. To answer your other question about plate size. There is some debate as to smaller or latger plates. I went a little larger than some. There is an inneffeciency with electricity that is called "Edge Effect". It is similar to the current leakage we are battling with our holes but there is nothing you can do about Edge Effect. It is where the edges of the plates make a magnetic field outside the cell through the air. With electricity NOTHING IS FREE including the edge effect. It does use current to make. Although not alot of current it uses some. The only way to battle edge effect is with the ratio of square inches of plate surface exposed to electrolite vs non exposed plate area. As the ratio of exposed area grows the percentage of electrical loss due to edge effect decreases. This is how it was explained to me by someone I know that is an electrical engineer and probably the smartest man I know.

Larry

[bigjim56]

H2OPWR/Daddymikey1975,

Thanks for your inputs! I've been meaning to get back to post, but its been busy around my house and work.

The test of the alternator should be performed at the dry cell feed vs. the alternator output correct? There should be very little difference between the two.

My car is a 1.6L also, to scale back on the original cell build of
+NNNNN-NNNNN+NNNNN-, what would the configuration look like?
Maybe +NNNN-NNNN+NNNN-? Still confused on the plate configurations. I realize w/the original +NNNNN-NNNNN+NNNNN- configuration that the inner -/+ plates are used on both sides...like you mentioned, 3 cells in 1.

Thanks for the "edge effect" theory, (H2OPWR). To battle edge effect, it would be wise to keep the exposed (to electrolite) areas at a maximum, while keeping unexposed areas to a minimum. In otherwords, keep the sides area to a minimum.

Thanks for the input and help.

bigjim56

Glad to see you got your plastic welder H2OPWR, however not glad to hear it did not work. David7900 on youtube has a video titled "Dry Cell No More Leakage Current" that shows how he sliced nylon tubing and used a soldering iron to melt the sides to the plate. He did have a problem with "cycling" though...the ring would twirl in the hole, sometimes even w/the sides melted to the plate. Additional holes (bearclaw) do seem to be in order. I'm getting a good supply of new tools also, it kind of lessens the fall.

[H2OPWR]

H2OPWR/Daddymikey1975,

Thanks for your inputs! I've been meaning to get back to post, but its been busy around my house and work.

The test of the alternator should be performed at the dry cell feed vs. the alternator output correct? There should be very little difference between the two.

My car is a 1.6L also, to scale back on the original cell build of
+NNNNN-NNNNN+NNNNN-, what would the configuration look like?
Maybe +NNNN-NNNN+NNNN-? Still confused on the plate configurations. I realize w/the original +NNNNN-NNNNN+NNNNN- configuration that the inner -/+ plates are used on both sides...like you mentioned, 3 cells in 1.

Thanks for the "edge effect" theory, (H2OPWR). To battle edge effect, it would be wise to keep the exposed (to electrolite) areas at a maximum, while keeping unexposed areas to a minimum. In otherwords, keep the sides area to a minimum.

Thanks for the input and help.

bigjim56

Glad to see you got your plastic welder H2OPWR, however not glad to hear it did not work. David7900 on youtube has a video titled "Dry Cell No More Leakage Current" that shows how he sliced nylon tubing and used a soldering iron to melt the sides to the plate. He did have a problem with "cycling" though...the ring would twirl in the hole, sometimes even w/the sides melted to the plate. Additional holes (bearclaw) do seem to be in order. I'm getting a good supply of new tools also, it kind of lessens the fall.

Your alternator should have voltage between 13.7 and 14.2 but no less than 13.7 so there will be enough volts to drive electricity back into the battery as it is re-charging. 5 n plates should be best IMO. 4 n plates is less effecient than 5. 6 n plates is most effecient but will require a much larger gen. Maybe double the size to get the same amp draw.

[daddymikey1975]

bigjim what i was referring to by dropping a stack was -NNNNN+NNNNN- just remove the last part.

bench test to see how much HHO your getting (LPM) for your car you should be good with 1LPM to see gains.

if not, you can add the last stack :D

use the larger setup for your truck.

i hope this helps
mike

[bigjim56]

Daddymikey1975,

Thanks for the clarification, that's what I was looking for. Those plate configurations still confuse me. I see from the downsized configuration you show that the one + is shared by both ends, I was unaware that was possible, I assumed you had to have matching numbers of + and -'s. Both sides share 6 gaps which amount to 2-2.25 volts /gap, assuming a 12-13.5 volt alternator output.

I will try the smaller configuration for the car and use the larger for the truck.
(After bench tests to confirm at least 1LPM) I'm kinda waiting to see how the 3M experiment is working out for H2OPWR, otherwise it'll be the bear claw design for the HHO effluent. Great work H2OPWR!

One last question, I was watching more videos on youtube concerning flash back arrestors. I assume using a bubbler, or better yet, a double bubbler eliminates the need for a spark arrestor. Am I correct? It looks like those spark arrestors, with their HEAVILY PACKED tubes would cut the HHO flow. I'd like to stay away from them if possible. I've printed a copy of the cleansing bubbler MK2 for implementation in my vehicles, unless there is a better one out there.

Thank you,

bigjim56

[H2OPWR]

Daddymikey1975,

Thanks for the clarification, that's what I was looking for. Those plate configurations still confuse me. I see from the downsized configuration you show that the one + is shared by both ends, I was unaware that was possible, I assumed you had to have matching numbers of + and -'s. Both sides share 6 gaps which amount to 2-2.25 volts /gap, assuming a 12-13.5 volt alternator output.

I will try the smaller configuration for the car and use the larger for the truck.
(After bench tests to confirm at least 1LPM) I'm kinda waiting to see how the 3M experiment is working out for H2OPWR, otherwise it'll be the bear claw design for the HHO effluent. Great work H2OPWR!

One last question, I was watching more videos on youtube concerning flash back arrestors. I assume using a bubbler, or better yet, a double bubbler eliminates the need for a spark arrestor. Am I correct? It looks like those spark arrestors, with their HEAVILY PACKED tubes would cut the HHO flow. I'd like to stay away from them if possible. I've printed a copy of the cleansing bubbler MK2 for implementation in my vehicles, unless there is a better one out there.

Thank you,

bigjim56

You seem to be going about this in the right way. Gathering all the info then jumping. You will save hundreds of dollars.

Larry

[SmartScarecrow]

Daddymikey1975,

Thanks for the clarification, that's what I was looking for. Those plate configurations still confuse me. I see from the downsized configuration you show that the one + is shared by both ends, I was unaware that was possible, I assumed you had to have matching numbers of + and -'s. Both sides share 6 gaps which amount to 2-2.25 volts /gap, assuming a 12-13.5 volt alternator output.

I will try the smaller configuration for the car and use the larger for the truck.
(After bench tests to confirm at least 1LPM) I'm kinda waiting to see how the 3M experiment is working out for H2OPWR, otherwise it'll be the bear claw design for the HHO effluent. Great work H2OPWR!

One last question, I was watching more videos on youtube concerning flash back arrestors. I assume using a bubbler, or better yet, a double bubbler eliminates the need for a spark arrestor. Am I correct? It looks like those spark arrestors, with their HEAVILY PACKED tubes would cut the HHO flow. I'd like to stay away from them if possible. I've printed a copy of the cleansing bubbler MK2 for implementation in my vehicles, unless there is a better one out there.

Thank you,

bigjim56



Concerning flash back suppression ...

Assume that at some point you will get a flash back. Its going to happen so its best to plan for it. I have seen fellow stuff fine bronze wool in a tube and I guess for some, it has worked. But its not been effective for me. And the stuffed tube restricts flow to such a degree that it creates back pressure and lowers the fluid level in my electrolyzer.

What I have found that works and works very well is to use the ball on a spring type pressure relief on my bubbler/reservoir. These can be constructed from the ball out of an old ball mouse or you can order balls made of nylon or other materials. Get one about 1" in diameter and fit it into a metal or plastic tube. Compress the ball against a nipple using a spring. Drill vent holes to relieve pressure. There are many examples of these things shown in videos on YouTube and some fellows have even started making them for sale to those who do not have time to hunt down the parts and make one themselves.