科技论坛

 找回密码
 注册

扫一扫,访问微社区

查看: 8778|回复: 15

[技术] 并列6组电解槽的制作

[复制链接]
发表于 2010-8-18 05:08:10 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
根据金属不锈钢电解槽的制作过程,我们可以把金属不锈钢电解槽并列在一起使用以产生更多的氢气。


To keep things simple, the following are some terms that I'll be using throughout this project
Plate Assembly: The system of alternating + / - plates that I came up with several years ago and the specific way in which I have assembled them. It allows for clean and even distribution of power throughout the assembly. In this project there are 8 plates in each assembly measuring 1.5 x 6 inches each. Some of my older projects had 12 plates. These 8 give me a total of 4 (+) plates and 4 (-) plates.
Parallel Plates : This is explained quite well in the Electrolysis Basics guide found at: In short it just refers to the fact that all of the plates are fed power in parallel with each other rather then passing the current through the plates in a series format.
Submerged Cells: This refers to the fact that my cells have their plate assemblies completely submerged. This is one of the nice advantages of Parallel Plate designs. There is nothing at all from my reactive area that remains above the water line. In fact if the water should ever get so low as to reach the top of the reactive area, it would mean that I'm seriously neglecting the unit. With this design one would always want to ensure that their plate arrays were entirely submerged.
Reactive Area: This is the total surface area of each cell that can react to produce an electrolytic effect. It is NOT just a sum of surface area in the cell. That would be 144 sq. inches (1.5 x 6 x 16) in my case which is wrong. Your reactive area has to account for the outside of your 2 end plates since they really don't react with much. That subtracts 18 square inches there. Then the remaining area has to be divided by 2 since reactive area is comprised of a PAIR of surfaces. The (-) and the (+) surface together make a reactive area. So 63 sq. inches ((144-18 )/2) is my total Reactive Area per cell in this case.
Electrolyzer Array: This is the total number of individual electrolyzer cells (not plates) working together in series to produce gas. Each of my tubes (except the bubbler) in this case is a complete electrolyzer cell.
Please note that this unit was the very first prototype of its kind. I only had 5 plate assemblies since I had to sheer the plates and drill them by hand. The production units will have at least 6 cells (maybe 7) and 1 bubbler for a total of 7 or 8 tubes. That gap will not be there in the production units


People got mad at me last year saying things to the effect of: "WTF Chris... why are you changing designs so fast when you haven't even fully tested this one? How efficient is this design?" Well I changed designs without even bothering to test efficiency because I realized there was a better way to design the unit. Performing efficiency tests was just going to be a waste of time since efficiency would be the same no matter what the container was.
I am always building my designs with several things in mind:
1. Efficiency (maximum gas output with minimum wattage)
2. Safety (obvious need when dealing with a highly combustible gas)
3. Feasibility (how well will the unit work in various applications such as cars, trucks, stationary generators)
4. Reproducibility (how easily can others duplicate what Ive done and achieve similar results)
I'm trying to score HIGH in all of these categories, so if I change as soon as I start building something... it's because I immediately see that the design is lacking in one or more of these areas. Often it's in the Safety or Feasibility categories.
Efficiency is easy for the most part. I have said for years now that when you're talking about Brute Force Electrolysis, your efficiency is going to be similar no matter what your container is. If you have two identical electrode assemblies (plates or pipes) sitting in a 55 gallon drum or in a custom made polycarbonate box... it's not going to matter much at all for efficiency. The electrode assembly is determining your efficiency for the most part. The container does however play a HUGE role in the Safety, Feasibility & Reproducibility of a design. But when it comes to the efficiency of Brute Force Electrolysis all that the container can really do is help with heat transfer and electrolyte circulation.
You may recall my projects long ago switched to my alternating plate assembly in fully submerged cells. It's because I recognized the many advantages to this assembly design. I have kept with that basic plate assembly design ever since. Most all of my changes have centered on the container because of Safety & Feasibility issues.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:08:50 | 显示全部楼层

So where am I today? Well this latest Version 6 Electrolyzer makes quantum leaps in all of my design goals accept for Reproducibility. In striving to achieve high marks across the board I have been forced to let this one slide. That is NOT to say that others cant reproduce my design its just going to be more challenging for them. I would also like to note that I did NOT do this on purpose Reproducibility is just an unfortunate "victim" in this case.
OK let's start with safety since that's probably the most important thing here. Why is this design so much safer then other designs and more importantly why is it so much safer then many of the designs being sold on the market (EBay) today?
1. Nothing at all is coming through the top of the electrolyzers which is consequently where your explosive gas is going to be. There are no hot electrodes, no wires, no plates no sensors... nothing at all up top except for a PLASTIC cap and plastic fittings. That achievement alone is huge when it comes to safety.
2. The PVC tubing has in no way been compromised or drilled through. The entire tube is intact and therefore retains all of its original strength which is VERY substantial in this case.
3. The PVC tubing is schedule 40 - 2 inch ID. This means that we're talking about an extremely tough piece of tubing here. One that is able to withstand a huge amount of PSI if we should require such performance from it.
4. The tops of these electrolyzers are the natural weakest link in the assembly. That means if you ever did have a flashback into an electrolyzer, it would merely blow the top off of the tube and not blow you to kingdom come!
5. Built in high strength bubbler how about that for a warm fuzzy feeling!



Here we're looking at the top of the Electrolyzer Array. What you're seeing is each of the electrolyzer tops around the outside and the bubbler in the center. They each have a single tube coming out of their top to deliver the gas to the bottom of the bubbler. The tubes are fed down through the triangular gap between each of the outer cells and the inner bubbler. So the tube comes out and makes a U turn down through the gap to the underside of the array where you will see that it then enters the bubbler.
Production designs are probably going to have an additional hole in the top of each electrolyzer for filling. These caps were rounded so I could only drill and tap one hole into each of them, hence the use of "quick disconnect" fittings in this case. That allows me to easily remove the tube and fill right through the quick disconnect fitting if necessary. I found that I had to use a large bore hypodermic to fill these things because water would "get stuck" in the quick disconnect hole if I tried any other method of filling. The hypodermic was the fastest way of filling that I've found so far. I just attached one to the top of a soda bottle cap and then screw that onto a little 1 liter drinking bottle filled with distilled water. Invert and insert into the quick disconnect hole, then squeeze! -Pretty simple and it works for a prototype... but will need to be better for the production units.
Now thinking about this I may need to stick with the quick disconnects because even if there is a second hole for filling... you'll have the same problem. Trying to pour water into a small hole where the air is given no other exit, poses a significant problem. The quick disconnect would provide an alternate "escape" hole for the outgoing air while filling. Hmmmm again I'll play with this and see what I can come up with.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:15:47 | 显示全部楼层

Now you're looking at the bottom of the Electrolyzer Array. Here you see the individual tubes exiting the bottom of the triangular gaps that they were fed down through. They then make one more U Turn up and connect via a pressure fitting into the bottom of the bubbler. The bottom cap of the bubbler is drilled with 5 holes in this first prototype. The production bubblers will have either 6 or 7 holes in them to accommodate each of the tubes coming from the electrolyzer cells.
This is a very important safety feature. You see EACH ONE of the electrolyzer cells (each outer PVC tube) has its very own hydroxyl line connecting directly into the bottom of the bubbler. That means if there was every any sort of a flashback that somehow happened in one of the cells, it would have to travel through the WATER to actually reach another electrolyzer cell. Chances of that ever happening are little to none.
Bubblers are, in my opinion, the safest way to run any sort of setup like this because the flame propagation rate of a hydroxy flame is just so very fast, you can't be sure a flashback arrestor will stop it.
So click the picture and you'll see that each of the individual tubes are feeding up into the center bubbler. Pretty cool huh?



I know, I know... my bubbler was low on water. I was only firing it up for the pictures so don't panic!
Here you can see the electrolyzer array in operation. The bubbler in this case is in the center but in production units I believe that I'll move it to the outside so that you can see it bubbling away. It will make the tubing runs more difficult and they won't be as elegant ...in fact they may be downright nasty come to think of it... but I will cross that bridge when I come to it. For now I do plan on moving the bubbler to the outside.
I guess the only other thing I could do is keep the bubbler in the center but then raise it up above the rest of the tubes. This would allow you to monitor the water level since you would not be able to do this if it were at the same height as the other tubes. The other PVC tubes would obscure the view.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:16:27 | 显示全部楼层

Doesn't it look cool to see all of those bubbles coming up?  That will be the one disappointing part of putting the bubbler in the middle even if I raise it up above the other cells to allow for better monitoring of the bubbler's water level.
Keep in mind that this was only running on 10 amps with 5 cells. With a 6th and maybe even a 7th cell at 20 or 30 amps you would have so many large bubbles in there it would be amazing!
There are several reasons for the low amperage in this case.
1. I didn't have the plates as close as they could have been.
2. The array has not been "exercised" very much. I should run it for a couple of days to properly break it in. Proper AC driven power supply in this case is a must which is my hold-up at this point.
3. Smooth plate surfaces. I have been told by Bob that heavily sanding my plate surfaces in a "cross hatch" pattern will really help to improve amperage flow tremendously. I will report my findings after I do some testing on that.


Here I was performing a production test just to see what my efficiency was. I never put a volt meter on my setup out here so I can only assume that my voltage (with the car running) was 14.4v. We know my amperage was 10 from viewing the other photos.
That means I was using 144 watts to power this unit. Not bad at all! -Just a bit more then a 100w light bulb.
I filled the 2 liter bottle with water and put the cap on. Then I filled a 5 gallon bucket with some water. I turned the bottle upside down and put the neck under the bucket's water line. I then removed the cap under the water and inserted the output line from the electrolyzer.
You want to do this test while your electrolyzer is warmed up and RUNNING already. I timed how long it took to fill the bottle up with gas which displaces the water inside of the bottle.
NOTE: At this point I realized just how dangerous this test was. I was holding in my bare hands, 2 full liters of HIGHLY Explosive gas by the time that puppy had filled the entire way!?!!?!?
I'm going to have to come up with a much "safer" way of testing my gas production. I guess a 1 liter bottle would at least be better since it's a lot less gas, but still dangerous.
At any rate, the bottle took 3 minutes 18 seconds to fill. That's 198 seconds per 2 liters of gas at 144 watts.
The liters per-minute calc is 2 / 198 * 60 = .61 liters per minute
The efficiency rating according to my spreadsheet that I made quite some time ago is 144 / .61 = 237.6
That spreadsheet again is:
So a rating of 237 is terrible. Something else is going on here. I didn't expect amazing efficiency but that is utterly terrible.
I may have had a number of things going wrong here:
1. I worked my ass off putting that syringe onto the end of the tubing so I didn't want to pull it off for this test. By leaving the syringe on I was increasing the gas flow resistance (due to the small syringe orifice) which raised the overall pressure on the system. This may have had a large impact on perceived gas production.
2. I may have had a leak somewhere. I need to do a pressure test to see if I'm getting leaking somewhere as that would also have a large impact on perceived gas production.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:16:50 | 显示全部楼层

Here I am starting to fill the 2 liter bottle with gas. -Like I said I need a much safer way of testing this.
This method is GREAT for accuracy and it's free, but it's rather bad in the safety department!
If this is your only choice I recommend some things:
1. Never ever use glass as your container that you're filling
2. Use a smaller bottle. -It's not as accurate but it's safer!
3. Be sure that you have all electronics and flames (heat sources) far away from you.
4. Ground yourself before starting since static discharge from your skin or clothing is enough to ignite the gas.
5. Once you've filled the bottle up and taken note of your fill time, don't let go of what you're doing to write things down. Just gently remove your tube from the bottle and then slowly squeeze the bottle to remove the stored gas. This should let you squeeze out at least 1/2 of the gas in the bottle before you have to flip the bottle over to remove the rest of the gas.
6. Use a large bucket that will let you (if possible) flip the bottle over completely while under the water. Doing this would let you evacuate the entire contents of stored gas while under the water line in a controlled manner.


Yes I made absolutely certain that my bottle was fully cleared of explosive gasses before I ignited my torch tip. But for extra safety, I should have had the bottle further away.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:17:23 | 显示全部楼层

Just trying to get a better picture of the flame for everyone


If you have any doubt in the v6 electrolyzer quality, click this picture to see the large version. These are laser cut pieces made to very exacting specifications. All 100% stainless steel #316.


Look at the perfectly parallel plates. That's about .050" spacing there boys held to nearly perfect tolerance due to the way there were manufactured and assembled.


My cross hatch sanding jig. I came up with this little jig idea to help automate and speed the process of all the cross hatch sanding that I would be doing.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:17:38 | 显示全部楼层

Look at those beauties. Only 1 tiny 1/4" nylon bolt through the centers so you get maximum surface area. 1.5 x 6" plates ...8 total in each cell.
In each v6 electrolyzer you will get 5 of these bad boys. Look all over e-bay and see what kind of junk you're getting there. I have spent literally 6 years developing my brute force electrolyzers and these represent the fruits of that labour to date.



Another shot of the jig assembly. The hard drive magnets are holding the #316 plates down until the goop glue dries. Yes good ole' goop glue. I use it constantly. I swear by the stuff!


Still concerned about the quality? Try e-bay I'm sure you'll find something to your liking there.

I want people to know what they are buying when they purchase one of my units. There will be evasive double-talk and half answered questions.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:17:56 | 显示全部楼层

6 units now in their tubes awaiting final assembly.


After final assembly these are ALL pressure tested up to 60 psi. -Show me where on e-bay you can find a unit that someone will  do that for you?
It took me 2 years to develop a proper method for bringing a 3/8" stainless steel #316 bolt through schedule 40 PVC without having any leaking. Units are filled with water and pressurized to 60 psi overnight. Any leaking will show up the next morning.
Hell most of the ya-hoo's on e-bay develop their cell in 2 weeks and start selling it the very next week on e-bay. They don't have a clue what they are doing in most cases (yes there are some exceptions). Many of them have very dangerous designs that could absolutely cause explosions or damage to your vehicle.
I spent 6 years developing these cells. Am I done tweaking and improving ...hell no! -But you can be assured they are solid and very safe.


Gluing the unit together so that it can stand on its own. I like my hexagonal setup... it looks rather interesting when complete!



Another angle for you. Those tubes are all coming out of the bottom of the bubbler.


Top view before I installed the hose fittings.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:18:10 | 显示全部楼层

Working on final assembly...


Almost done...


The middle tube (bubbler) is up higher so I can easily see the water level. It is one of the very crucial parts of proper operation, that the bubbler always have a nearly full column of water. You don't want it so high that water "belches" into the output tube, but you don't want any large amounts of hydroxy in the top of the unit either. I like to keep my bubbler filled almost up to the white cap. When the unit is running the bubbles displace some water so the level is up higher than when the unit is at rest.
Further design considerations would be to install an automatic fill capability, but that has a number of design considerations to take into account and expense would likely be quite high.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-8-18 05:18:25 | 显示全部楼层

Ready to fill after it's all dry tomorrow...


This picture was taken in my old Dodge Shadow. I ran my electrolyzer in this vehicle for about 3.5 months. Nearly 2 months with my old prototype that I built back in 2006 and then nearly another 2 months with my new "production grade" unit that I built in May 2008. Because of a faulty odometer I could not even speculate on how many MPG I was getting. I have very recently now purchased a new vehicle: a 2001 Buick Century and I plan on installing my new unit in there this evening ( 7/11/2008 ). I would like to have everything hooked up by tonight so that I can fill up one more time and start getting some good numbers finally. I have run 3 tanks of gasoline through my new car and each of the 3 fill-ups was nearly identical MPG. The car is getting currently 23.3 to 23.6 MPG under normal driving conditions back and forth from work each day. This gives me a very consistent and reliable baseline to start from. I should know in short order if my new v6 electrolyzer is making a difference. I will get some new pics and keep you posted. Heading out to start my work now!
Update 9pm ...ok I got the electrolyzer out of the old car but when I was ready to install it into the new vehicle I was not 100% sure where I wanted to tap  into the air intake manifold. I took some pictures and will post them so that I can get feedback from those of you who are better with car mechanics than I am. I can make one hell of a good electrolyzer, but when it comes to the end of my hydroxy tube going into the car; that's where my knowledge is lacking.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

无图浏览|手机版|辽公网安备 21100402204006号|科技论坛 ( 辽ICP备07501385号-1 )  

GMT+8, 2017-7-23 06:42

Powered by Discuz! X3.2 Licensed

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表