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
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.
Wichita, KS USA
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.
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.
Wichita, KS USA
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.
I'm not on either side here, but to help increase the knowledge of the
chemistry of electrolysis, this might help:
They 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?
Wichita, KS USA
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.
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
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.
OTOH, I can fart considerably louder.
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.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.