Almost set to go to give it a try.Have a steel chain to attach the victim to, it runs down thru a 2X3 set over the top of the bucket. 4 pieces of re-bar in each corner of the bucket. My question is, when using a bolt to attach the chain to the victim, is an ordinary bolt ok? Seems the bolts I have are the ordinary type,zinc bolts that you get at the Borg. Have read where you shouldn't use stainless steel in this set up so wondering about other types of bolts other than just steel. Will post a pic of my set up on abpw. Thanks.
Au Contraire - I don't know where the suggestion against stainless steel came from, but that is THE thing to use for your anodes (positive terminal, red clamp). You will find that the rebar will be quickly eaten away and make a whale of a mess while being digested. I got a length of thin stainless steel shim stock several inches wide and lined the perimeter of the tank, extending below the water level, with that. Works great, outlasts carbon steel many times over, and reduces the amount of residue that collects in the bottom and the amount of scum that collects on the top.
For the connection to the "victim" ordinary bolts should work fine. I generally connect the battery charger clamp (negative terminal, black clamp) directly to the victim. Haven't noticed any adverse effects either to the victim or to the clamp, even when the clamp is immersed. However, if you allow the positive clamp, or any portion thereof, to be immersed in the solution, be prepared to replace the clamp at frequent intervals. It WILL be eaten away. Also, be VERY, VERY careful NOT to connect the (Positive, Red) terminal to the "victim" or you will learn what the word victim really means. DAMHIKT.
What happens as a result of the ERR process using stainless as contacts/ electrodes down in the electrolyte is the release of chromium content from* the stainless steel into the electrolyte liquid, entirely poisonous and cancer causing it is hence illegal to dump it anywhere.
After reading the information on the pages, which lack any authoritative references, and assuming the chromate cautions to be of approximately the same validity and weight as the hydrogen/oxygen cautions, I'll stick with using the stainless anodes.
Thanks for the links, Alex. After reading the information on the pages, which lack any authoritative references, and assuming the chromate cautions to be of approximately the same validity and weight as the hydrogen/oxygen cautions, I'll stick with using the stainless anodes.
Well ... enjoy yourself then... I really don't think the man would be crocking the public to tell you the truth, he has indicated something of significant importance that is illegal and of poisonous danger to the public and yourself if you go dumping that shit in the sewers. Now I know I havn't done it myself but I think if you carry such an easy and fast attitude about such a warning it would then also be easy enough to merit just a shot of research to find out, and possibly avoid causing yourself cancer and poisoning the environment, as well as breaking the law, even if it seems minute to you.
problem, and there will be chrome salts in the waste from long-term electrolysis baths that use stainless anodes, it's false (and deceptively so) to start shouting about hexavalent chromium.
I'm not on either side here, but to help increase the knowledge of the chemistry of electrolysis, this might help:
formatting link
don't say anything bad about using Stainless. They actually use it in their experiment. This is *NOT* to say the other guy is wrong, just offering up another paper.
Alex, all I can say is that the author of that site pretty much destroyed his credibility with me in his discussion/cautions about the hydrogen/oxygen hazard. For example, reference to the Hindenburg disaster in this context is laughable.
Yes, a hydrogen/oxygen mixture can be dangerous. As I have some experience with design and testing hydrogen fueled rocket engines, I was concerned about the release of hydrogen gas before beginning use of this process. In a large scale process, his cautions would certainly be appropriate. On the scale of a 5 gal bucket and a 12 volt battery charger that rarely exceeds 2 to 3 amperes during the process, his/her cautions border on hysteria. The rate of hydrogen gas production is so low that it almost immediately disperses to a concentration that will not support combustion. In fact, I have been unable to ignite the hydrogen at the point it escapes from the fluid surface. After dispersion, it is even less likely to ignite.
Well, what about the hydrogen concentration over time in a closed room? Couldn't that build up to an explosive mixture? Hydrogen gas is devilishly difficult to confine. It will leak though any but the most carefully designed and constructed seals. It will dissipate from any area normally designed for human occupation as fast is it is formed.
Yes, chromates do constitute a health hazard. Warfarin (rat poison) ingestion also constitutes a health hazard. Yet, Warfarin is commonly prescribed for persons recovering from a heart attack. No, I'm not trying to say that chromates could or should be ingested. What I am saying is that by ignoring scale, the author is "crying 'WOLF'". It is (or appears to be) the same hysteria as that attached to the danger of airborne dust particles exploding in a woodshop. You'll die of lung cancer long before the dust explodes. However, the operators of a grain elevator had better be well aware of and take active precautions against the danger.
Why should I believe his cautions about chromates are any less hysterical than his cautions about hydrogen?
I'd say just be careful about selectively trapping the hydrogen. I remember in high school we generated hydrogen by electrolysis, capturing it in a flask. Every once in a while one went "bang" quite spectacularly--the teacher made us wrap them in towels to capture the shards (and a few _did_ go "bang"--one kid didn't have a towel so he used a sweatshirt that he found under an unoccupied desk--turned out when he unfolded it and got a look at it that it belonged to the school bully--after the bang he carefully folded it and returned it to where he found it, shards of flask and all). I don't think that's a real danger unless you've managed to contrive a geometry that makes the hydrogen go into one vessel that already contains air and the oxygen into another, but if you manage to screw things up just right it _can_ happen.
I went through this whole thing some time ago. Do an advanced search using my name and "electrolysis" in the subject line. The best group to talk to about this is the chemists, not the woodworkers (though we have a few chemists among the group).
See, e.g.,
formatting link
for wordwrap]
Most all the chemists say the hexavalent chromium scare from the movie was a bunch of crap, and that electrolysis output of it is negligible.
But I'm no chemist, so you should read more on your own (from chemists, not WWers) and decide yourself.
I've managed to do it. If you put greasy metal into the tank and there's plenty of washing soda in there, then you can build up a pretty stable foamy scum layer on the surface. If you stick a match into it, it will ignite with the usual hydrogen pop.
Gee, with the hydrogen being compared to the Hindenberg disaster, I'm glad I'm not around you. So tell the truth---beens or beer? :-)
As a side question, if your using stainless anodes which produce deadly chromium and the process produces massive amounts of hydrogen gas....would this be a weapon of mass destruction or a dirty bomb?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.