Wet Cells and Current Leakage

[Farrahday]

While there would seem to be definite efficiency benefits of what is known as a Dry Cell when compared to that of a Wet Cell, it makes very little sense that this has anything whatsoever to do with current ‘leakage’.

I know that in this area of science and research, things often get said on a whim, without anything by way of substantiated proof, and then get picked upon by others and spread like the common cold. Eventually the original source is lost in the annals of time, and what was originally and idle, perhaps even thoughtless remark, can become accepted by many as a truth, a given, and indeed science fact, when in reality it is nothing of the sort.

Current leakage is one such thing that, if given some thought, makes no sense at all. It is said that Dry Cells are more efficient than Wet Cells, because they do not allow current to bypass the electrodes. But, think about it for a minute - this is never going to happen anyway.

Consider this. Two electrodes in a jar of water, a cathode and an anode. We apply a voltage of 12 volts across these electrodes and we get the cations in the water heading off to the cathode and the anions heading off towards the anode. Both only move because they are repelled from one electrode and attracted to the other electrode. No charged species is going to go off on a merry tour of the surroundings!

Now if we add a floating plate between the cathode and the anode, this floating plate will see a pd of 6 volts, and will be relatively more negative one side than the other side. Again the cations and anions within the water will be repelled by the like charged electrodes and attracted to the unlike charged electrodes. But, and here’s the thing, there is never any reason for the charge carriers to bypass electrodes. After all, why would they? They are being effectively pushed away from one electrode and pulled toward another. They will take the shortest route from one electrode to another. It makes no sense whatsoever that ionic current would circumnavigate around a charged electrode!

So if Dry Cells are indeed more efficient than Wet Cells, then there must be another explanation and perhaps this demands further investigation.

[jdcproducts]

I am just starting to experiment with HHO but the idea of "current" leakage with a wet cell to me means the following....

In a wet cell all "edges" of the plate are exposed to the electrolyte. From what I understand electrons try to flow to the path of least resistance, so they are all going to gather at the outer edges of the plate because its much easier to get to where they wanna be, in turn possibly causing a loss in hho production. I think of it like a pan with no lip to keep the "stew" from spilling out. Your not going to be very efficient making the stew if the ingredients needed to make it keeps spilling over the sides.

In a dry cell you have completely eliminated the outer edge of the cell from being exposed to the charged electrolyte solution. The reaction inside the cell is much more "focused" if you will because of that.

I do not know if their is any logic to that but it makes sense to me. Although I'm sure if you were to coat the outer edges of the plates in some sort of rubber or non conducting material, this would be the same thing as a dry cell.

I will be testing this theory in the months to come to see if their is any relevance to "current leakage". Good post and way to think outside the box.....

[Farrahday]

In a wet cell all "edges" of the plate are exposed to the electrolyte. From what I understand electrons try to flow to the path of least resistance, so they are all going to gather at the outer edges of the plate because its much easier to get to where they wanna be, in turn possibly causing a loss in hho production. I think of it like a pan with no lip to keep the "stew" from spilling out. Your not going to be very efficient making the stew if the ingredients needed to make it keeps spilling over the sides.


Don't really understand what your getting at here. Why would electrons gather at the edges of a plate? Why do you say there is less resistance at the edges of the plates? How is that easier for them to get where they wanna be? :confused:

Nevertheless, as I mentioned, from everything I've gleaned there does seem to be some tangible benefit from these dry cells in terms of efficiency, though I've never made a dry cell myself.

I just feel that current leakage is a wrong analysis and hence a wrong term, and that something else is occurring. I mean, current can't actually leak out of the electrolyser, and charges are only attracted and repelled from the charged plates, so they have no reason to take other than a direct path. It's not the same as your stew boiling over as nothing is lost or escapes the confines of the electrolyser.

I've seen people liken it to leaky capacitors in the past, but of course this is utter drivell as a leaky capacitor simply allows the charges to pass through the dielectric from one plate to another, which is effectively exactly what we want to happen in our electrolysers.

Very interesting, and not sure what it comes down to, but current leakage certainly would not be near the top of my list!

[Roland Jacques]

Farrah, you bring up a interesting point.

The way i understand current will seek the path of least resistant. So Some current leap frogs the some neutral plates in a wet cell. I suppose that the weaker concentration of Dope / electrolyte would result in a little less "leakage" (or bypassing). Or maybe less resistant neutral plate the same would be true. i believe it just means the current see less plate surface. What do you think ?

On a side note, i just found some of your research and posts. You are a awesome person to follow you. I really look forward to your conclusion on Mookie's exciter cell. It would be nice to see how good of a quality of gas it produces.

Ps. Your insight on the two different reasons for conditioning plates, explains a lot to me and makes a lot of sense. Maybe you could share that here or allow me to copy and paste what you side about it.

[Farrahday]

Hi Roland, feel free to copy and post anything of mine you feel relevant - I won't be filing copyright lawsuits, I'm strictly open-source. ;)

I have a work bench that I can moderate over on OverUnityResearch, so it's better for me to post my findings there as I can keep it uncluttered.


Farrah, you bring up a interesting point.

The way i understand current will seek the path of least resistant. So Some current leap frogs the some neutral plates in a wet cell. I suppose that the weaker concentration of Dope / electrolyte would result in a little less "leakage" (or bypassing). Or maybe less resistant neutral plate the same would be true. i believe it just means the current see less plate surface. What do you think ?



I think a big problem is what people term as 'neutral plates'. Of course, they are not neutral in any way. I prefer the term floating plates as this best describes them and does not infer that they do not see a pd - which they do. I hate the term 'neutral plates', but like the term HHO (which is also rather annoying AND incorrect), on these forums, it seems to have become the generally accepted and indeed the most commonly used term.

So, as these floating plates see a potential difference, the path of least resistance is from one plate to another, not around them!

Stick a floating plate in between a cathode and an anode at 12v pd, and the floating plate sees a 6 volt pd with respect from both the cathode and the anode. Any charge carriers have no reason to bypass this floating plate as they will be attracted or repelled by the pd on this plate. And the path of least resistance is the most direct path to the first plate that shows a pd and so attracts and repels.

[myoldyourgold]

I guess my electronic skills are lacking. I am more mechanical and know enough about electricity to sometimes be dangerous. Well not that bad maybe LOL. If you have 3 plates. Example: Plate 1 connected and plate 2 floating and plate 3 connected to a 12v power supply and if you measure voltage across 1 and 3 you see 12 volts. If you measure 1 and 2 you see 6 volts and the same for 2 and 3 the same. I take it that the pull/push of the two end plates is not greater but equal to the 6 volts read on 1,2 and 2,3. The distance between the facing plates makes it such that the current will travel to the the closest plate 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, off the face of the plates, but the edges charge the electrolyte and cause some current to go directly to the end plate through the conductor (charged electrolyte). I have read and have somewhere in my piling system some technical papers that when I put my hands on them I will post them. They will give you a much better scientific explanation of how this works. Just do not hold you breath. I am out of station or home base at the moment.

[Farrahday]

I guess my electronic skills are lacking. I am more mechanical and know enough about electricity to sometimes be dangerous. Well not that bad maybe LOL. If you have 3 plates. Example: Plate 1 connected and plate 2 floating and plate 3 connected to a 12v power supply and if you measure voltage across 1 and 3 you see 12 volts. If you measure 1 and 2 you see 6 volts and the same for 2 and 3 the same. I take it that the pull/push of the two 12v plates is greater than the 6 volts read on 1,2 and 2,3. The distance between the facing plates makes it such that the current will travel to the the closest plate 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, off the face of the plates, but the edges are attracted to the 12v plate. I have read and have somewhere in my piling system some technical papers that when I put my hands on them I will post them. They will give you a much better scientific explanation of how this works. Just do not hold you breath. I am out of station or home base at the moment.

I understand why you have said this, and indeed this is the common response as to why current can leak around plates. However, what you are interpreting as a greater 12 volt pull or repulsion when compared to the 6 volts of the floating plate is a common misconception.

Think about it for a minute, the potential difference seen by any charged species is dependent on its actual position within the cell - it's all relative. Assuming just an anode and a cathode and 12 volts, only a charged species at the 0 volt cathode will see 12 volts at the anode, once this charged species has moved to half distance between the two electrodes, it only sees +6 volt at the anode and -6 volt at the cathode. At this stage the effective attraction to one electrode is equal to the effective replusion at the other electrode, but at anything less than halfway between the two electrodes, the repulsion is a greater force than the attraction, likewise anything after halfway point and the attractive force begins to take precedence (but both forces always add up to the same). The inverse square law will come ito play too, that is, the closer the charged species gets to the attractive electrode, the greater the attraction becomes, and likewise the further it is away from the repelling electrode, the less the repulsion is felt.

Place a floating plate midway and the any -vely charged species approaching this plate will be highly attracted to the +6 volts on the plate, while to a lesser degree still being repelled by the 0 volt cathode. When this charged species arrives at the floating plate, the potential difference now between this plate and the 12 volt anode is only 6 volts, so it makes no sense whatsoever for this charged species, which has just arrived at a + 6V floating plate, to bypass it and head for the anode which itself is now relatively only +6 volts with respect to the floating plate. And to take this just a step further, any -vely charged species halway between the 12v anode and the central floating plate will only see and attraction of +3 volts at the anode! So you see the +12 volts is only relative to the 0 volt cathode.

Have you ever tried this:

Put two plates (anode and cathode) a fair distance apart in water, apply 12 volts (or whatever) and then attatch the -ve lead of a voltmeter to the cathode. Now put the +ve probe from the voltmeter in the water between the two plates and watch the voltage alter as you move it various distances between the two. At mid-way between the plates you will see that your voltmeter shows half the supply voltage. This is just to say that the voltage is spread equally through the liquid medium, and you don't need an electrode as such to see this.

[myoldyourgold]

Put two plates (anode and cathode) a fair distance apart in water, apply 12 volts (or whatever) and then attatch the -ve lead of a voltmeter to the cathode. Now put the +ve probe from the voltmeter in the water between the two plates and watch the voltage alter as you move it various distances between the two. At mid-way between the plates you will see that your voltmeter shows half the supply voltage. This is just to say that the voltage is spread equally through the liquid medium, and you don't need an electrode as such to see this.


Your explanation is exactly right how the voltage travels through the reactor and my attempt was feeble at best. After writing that I realized that it was lacking but let it go planning to come back and revise it. There is no greater pull that is true but some of the charged species do make it to the opposite side with out going through the floating plate.

Your above experiment is something close to solving the problem. The electrolyte being conductive is charged and no matter where you put your lead you will get a reading. There is no way to stop that except in a "dry cell" where there is no conductive material running around the out side of it. No matter how many plates etc. you have, some of the current from one side through the conductor (electrolyte) makes it to opposite connection with out touching the floater. You can put your lead anywhere in the electrolyte and get a reading so how do you stop that current from going straight to the other side. It is almost as good as a wire going from one side to the other. There just is nothing stopping the current in an open bath and forcing it only to go where you want it too. Most of it will but some will not. We are not talking about something other than a small leakage but it tends to turn into a supper highway in time.

I have edited my previous post to clear things up. You can read the original post in Farrahs quote.

[Farrahday]

but the edges charge the electrolyte and cause some current to go directly to the end plate through the conductor (charged electrolyte).

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.


The electrolyte being conductive is charged and no matter where you put your lead you will get a reading. There is no way to stop that except in a "dry cell" where there is no conductive material running around the out side of it. No matter how many plates etc. you have, some of the current from one side through the conductor (electrolyte) makes it to opposite connection with out touching the floater. You can put your lead anywhere in the electrolyte and get a reading so how do you stop that current from going straight to the other side.

Ok, we know from experience the dry cells are more efficient, but I see that we are still not on the same page regarding the apparent current leakage.

For a start, if we are talking about, say a anion bypassing the floating plate and heading off instead toward the anode, there is one major problem with this scenario. Apart from the fact that it is for some reason circumnavigating a +vely charged floating plate which is what should be attracting it, drawing it, inducing it to move, it then is faced with entering an effectively -ve, or like charge area on the other side of the plate, which by rights it should be repelled from. This is just another reason why this 'current leakage' argument is hard for me to come to terms with. I play this out in my mind and for the life of me I can see no reason why a charged species would bypass one unlike charged plate. Logic dictates that even a charged species that is not directly between the plates, should be drawn to the nearest attractive plate. I need to give this whole thing some real thought and make some tests.

This is not a priority of mine at present, but I'd love to do some indepth study and investigate what is really going on, why and under what conditions. Something is simply not adding up. :(

[Roland Jacques]

Hi Roland, feel free to copy and post anything of mine you feel relevant - I won't be filing copyright lawsuits, I'm strictly open-source. ;)


Ahh, :mad: 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.

[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, :mad: 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. :D 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.

[ydeardorff]

Has anyone thought about lowering the gauge of the neutral plates?
I mean these bi-polar (neutral) plates are like adding large resistors in between the main powered electrodes. Perhaps the voltage leakage is being caused by them being too thick (having too much resistance).
Possibly making the neutral plates be a much thinner gauge of metal might help? Like installing a smaller resistor in a circuit.

[Shane Jackson]

Has anyone thought about lowering the gauge of the neutral plates?
I mean these bi-polar (neutral) plates are like adding large resistors in between the main powered electrodes. Perhaps the voltage leakage is being caused by them being too thick (having too much resistance).
Possibly making the neutral plates be a much thinner gauge of metal might help? Like installing a smaller resistor in a circuit.

Yea but thinner wire cant carry as much current as a thicker wire....:D

[RustyLugNut]

Yea but thinner wire cant carry as much current as a thicker wire....:D

Wire gauge is not related to this. He is speaking of plate thickness and the high resistance the electromotive force sees in moving electrons and holes through the plates. It would only reason that the thinner the plates, the less resistance. It is something worth looking into.

[ydeardorff]

Rusty,
I have noted many people only use one contact point for their powered plates. This is something I don't do.
Given ohms law, having one contact point will due to resistance across the plate have the strongest reaction (electrolysis) near the contact point, and weaken significantly over the distance of the plate as you move to the opposite edge. This would lower the overall output on the plate, yes?
I use at least two contact points located on opposite sides (diagonally) on each powered plate, to reduce this possibility.
Wouldn't you agree this would be a better setup? Ideally having all the edges of the plate(s) fed electricity would be preferred. The difference may be minor, but the overall increase may be more significant on larger cells, or cell plates.

[RustyLugNut]

If you place a power connector in the middle of a large plate, the edge of the plate does not participate significantly in the evolution of gasses as most of the electrons and holes are used up near the power connection. I have tested this on plates as large as 30x30 inches.

An Italian industrial manufacturer uses multiple power connections for their power plates as they have plates 4 feet by 4 feet.

It may not matter at low amperage, but at high amperage, the erosion around the power connector is notable. By using multi connectors, the amperage flux is reduced at the connectors and so is the erosion. You can go above the .5 amp per square cm rule by this technique and others.

[Shane Jackson]

Wire gauge is not related to this. He is speaking of plate thickness and the high resistance the electromotive force sees in moving electrons and holes through the plates. It would only reason that the thinner the plates, the less resistance. It is something worth looking into.
Sorry just trying to be funny... I guess no one got it.

You want to reduce resistance, go to Ni200. Nuff said.

[ydeardorff]

Iver tried that stuff. Maybe I got a bad plate. Because in the wrong side of the cell it produce disgustingly horrible blue foam. I talked to the hazmat recycler and told him about it. He said its a poisonous by product of nickel. I forget now what he called it.
So I typically use titanium now instead.

[myoldyourgold]

Multiple connections are not something new. I have been using them for years. There are some very interesting things that happen though. The current density pattern on the plate changes totally and port location has to be considered when doing this on the unipolar/power plates. Also if you have two connections half the amperage goes in one and half in the other. This helps reduce or eliminate erosion at the connector. Now for bipolar plates when reducing gauge to reduce resistance it does make a slight difference. In a normal bipolar plate flow through series reactor there is a slight difference that is just measurable in a well built reactor by using 20 or 21 gauge for the bipolar plates. Stick with 18 gauge for the Unipolar / power plates where the current is on the out side and does not have to go through it.

[Shane Jackson]

Iver tried that stuff. Maybe I got a bad plate. Because in the wrong side of the cell it produce disgustingly horrible blue foam. I talked to the hazmat recycler and told him about it. He said its a poisonous by product of nickel. I forget now what he called it.
So I typically use titanium now instead.

Are you sure you had Ni200 (pure nickel)? I have NEVER seen any color from Ni200 and I have beat the hell out of it amp wise.

Nickel is what gives SS it's corrosion resistive property. Also Nickel is more conductive than SS or titanium. The only negative for Ni200 is the price.

[BDawson1234]

Ok wait for the new guy to catch up. Concerning flow of charged particles and path of least resistance: I was seeing in my little head a magnetic field shape pushing and pulling our charged particles throughout our solution. Do we assume path of least resistance is liniar or account for the presence of the field shape altering the path? Also, is the viscosity of said solution such that we could use the flow of the stew to stirr the stew so as to presipate neucleation and thereby keep a higher percentage of plate surface area in direct contact with said stew?

[BDawson1234]

Ok wait for the new guy to catch up. Concerning flow of charged particles and path of least resistance: I was seeing in my little head a magnetic field shape pushing and pulling our charged particles throughout our solution. Do we assume path of least resistance is liniar or account for the presence of the field shape altering the path? Also, is the viscosity of said solution such that we could use the flow of the stew to stirr the stew so as to presipate neucleation and thereby keep a higher percentage of plate surface area in direct contact with said stew?

[myoldyourgold]

There is more than one force involved here. One is the skin effect which effects unipolar plates much more then bipolar plates and another is how the plate is saturated. Also one has to consider the bubbles themself, because they can work as insulators, reducing surface area, and creating hot spots in the form of rings, if the bubbles have enough time to join together making a big bubble and plugging things up. Frequency of the power source is another thing that comes into play. This is just to name a few. There is more like port location, plate material, plate preparation, fields generated by the canton and anion movement and on and on. The answers are not all known yet. Fine tuning and research is on going.

[BDawson1234]

Hey thanks that was perfect. I know old questions get tiresome but studying this reminds me of fishing. It's a big lake an one can waste alot of time catching the wrong fish untill we learn where the good stuff is. I have more questions with every answer I find and when I acheeve 1lpm/10amp l'll name the patent after you.

[Akito]

hold on a second there =D

Current leakage makes perfect sense to me.
Electricity follows the path of lease resistance.
so the edges of the hole in your cell will be where a lot of
your current is drawn to. Instead of being distributed through the whole plate.

there for creating current leakage in the cell.
fixing the problem could help or it may not. But all small things can
make a difference. Question is does it help by having more surface area on the edges to produce more hho or do you get more production from even current being applied to the plate.