Author Topic: Which Type Stainless is Best  (Read 7573 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
Which Type Stainless is Best
« on: June 18, 2008, 07:33:51 am »

Just a question that I would like to pose to see what everyone thinks.....

The type of stainless you use may also depend on which method you are pursuing. Bob Boyce says 316L is what he uses and Stanley Meyer used 304. There are differences between the two type of stainless and from my viewpoint Bob's method of HHO generation uses KOH in his electrolytic bath thus he uses a type of stainless that is much higher in corrosion resistance. Perhaps this level of corrosion resistance is not needed if using the Meyer method, or just plain water without any additives.

Does 316/316L conduct electricity better or worse than 304/304L?

If cost is a factor then 304 is more economical.

What is your opinion and what facts can back it up?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4705
    • water structure and science
Re: Which Type Stainless is Best
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2008, 12:29:44 pm »

my 2 cents on this is that you can use 304 for yr wfc.
Its cheaper and it works for me a little bit better.
My best Tube is a 304 one.
The reason can be that the 304 contains more nickel/chromium and those metals are better for electrolysis.
But again, these are just my thoughts on this.

Type Analysis of Stainless Type  304
Carbon 0.08% max. Silicon  1.00% max.
Manganese 2.00% max. Chromium  18.00-20.00%
Phosphorus 0.045% max. Nickel  8.00-10.50%
Sulfur  0.030% max.   
Type Analysis of Stainless Type 316:
Carbon 0.08% max. Silicon  1.00% max.
Manganese  2.00% max. Chromium  16.00-18.00%
Phosphorus  0.045% max. Nickel  10.00-14.00%
Sulfur  0.030% max. Molybdenum  2.00-3.00%


Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • OO-Rah!
Re: Which Type Stainless is Best
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2008, 14:28:05 pm »
In my cells, up till now. I have only used 316L. And I was going to use it in my new one I'm building now. But after talking to a few people, Who use 304L. I am using 304L in this cell. The cost difference was about 35% less. And Steve , I'm glad to hear you best cell was 304. It's kind of reassuring, That I made the right choice.



  • Guest
Re: Which Type Stainless is Best
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2008, 17:42:43 pm »
I'm still in research on the entire electrolysis subject. What happens if plain cold rolled mild steel is used. It is really easy to work with and relatively cheap. Exactly what are the drawbacks?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Pochin Hydrogen
  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Hydrogen to Drive
    • PochinTwin Hydrogen
Re: Which Type Stainless is Best
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2008, 17:44:54 pm »
using steel as and anode will rust real quick because of the oxygen its nasty...


  • Guest
Re: Which Type Stainless is Best
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2008, 17:56:32 pm »
Yes, I figured it would oxidize but will it affect output in any way.


Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
    • dudleys basement
Re: Which Type Stainless is Best
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2008, 01:43:22 am »
i used 316l seamless it still got some serious pits in the bottom mounting area nothing in the work zone thou

my big cell im going to make is going to be 304 seamless

during building my cell i bought high grade ss from reputable supplier  if you spec out your material you will find out the outside diameter is almost perfectly round and to size cause it is ground that way     if you use a bore gauge and check the inside of the  tubing  it is highly inaccurate cause the id is not a machined surface it is extruded that way  i had to hone my tubes  to make a concentric gap  the difference in height from the high spots to the low spots was about  25 thousandths  which is considerable if  a 1.5 mm gap is  62 thousanths


  • Guest
Re: Which Type Stainless is Best
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2008, 04:47:47 am »
I am about to build a Bob Boyce type cell and am trying to see what differences people have experienced. Prior to this I have only worked 304 both with additives in water and without, and both seem to have little effect on the SS, but if in long term use there might be a noticeable difference.

Because of cost I am looking for modifications in the Boyce cell that will not effect output from the norm. One thing is that Bob uses a 6 by 6 by 1/8 plate but only half is submerged - OK - what are your thoughts on making the plates 6 by 3 by 1/8 and sealing the remaining 3 inch top of the plate to make a water tight seal with a piece of the same material that  is used for the slots on the sides. The material is high density plastic called UHMW. This would put the same Sq Inch below and into the bath, and it would effectively cut cost by 50% - all these plates are neutral plates so I am curious as to operational opinions.

Hate to waste the money on this idea unless there is a strong opinion that it may work. If you think so then why and if you think not then please explain.

As always I appreciate your comments.