Advice on making a fuel cell

I'd go with the direct carbon cell IMO. Seems like the simplest one, and if you can get it working efficiently and sell it to coal companies you'll be a millionaire.

As far as I know no one has made a working (energy positive) prototype of a direct carbon cell. SARA's prototype has a working temperature of 300 to 700c and maxed out at 12 watts output. Last I heard LLNL had given up on their version.

The second cell you listed claimed to have a working prototype capable of 2+kw output that no one has ever seen. The now defunked business was founded in '98, when through multiple rounds trying to raise venture capital in 2000 then never was heard from again. The three man company don't have a PhD to their names. Draw your own conclusions.

Platinum is used in an alkaline fuel cell because it is one of the least reactive metals to exists. I don't really see how nickel would help. Can you explain your reasoning a bit more on how nickel would negate the potassium hydroxide carbon dioxide reaction in the electrolyte?

>>1128665
>Seems like the simplest one
Thanks, that's my intuition too. However I don't expect anything I build to have an efficiency approaching a modern steam turbine.

>>1128674
>As far as I know no one has made a working (energy positive) prototype of a direct carbon cell.
As far as I've read, it's debated whether or not Jacques' cell was ultimately a net source of energy if you factor in overhead. Simply operating it on its own apparently delivered quite a lot of power, but preparing the graphite rods and constantly replenishing AND maintaining the furnace for keeping the electrolyte molten would have taken a bite out of that for sure.

>Draw your own conclusions.
Fair points. I guess the tin anode scam is dropped from my candidate list then.

>Can you explain your reasoning a bit more on how nickel would negate the potassium hydroxide carbon dioxide reaction in the electrolyte?
The purpose of platinum is to catalyze the ionization of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms. I read that a metal from the same group such as nickel serve the same purpose, albeit at much higher temperatures.

>>1128683
Just ran a google search. Seems possible to use nickle with some special membrane. The benefit is not having to use costly platinum. Drawback is less power. Nothing about it stopping salt formation within the cell. Wouldn't it be easier to scrub the co2?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/411382/platinum-free-fuel-cell/

how in fucks name are you running on wood?

>>1128683
>Simply operating it on its own apparently delivered quite a lot of power, but preparing the graphite rods and constantly replenishing AND maintaining the furnace for keeping the electrolyte molten would have taken a bite out of that for sure.

Maybe you could rearrange the cell so that it doesn't need a carbon rod? You could have the crucible be the anode, and just pour coal/charcoal in from the top. And since with either fuel source you'd need to burn off the volatiles first (so you don't blow up the cell), you could use that as your heat source to keep the thing going. Maybe some sort of conveyor system so that the whole thing could be continuous.

>>1128656
100 watts is big for a diy fuel cell. Especially an unconventional one. You should drop the requirement to run on wood or make a very tiny demonstration cell.

So first one doesn't run on wood, it runs on graphite.

Second uses an electrolyte made of an exotic ceramic.

Third has been demonstrated to run directly on cellulose:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775313018399

.... with a very low power density. They achieved 450 mW/m^2. This is VERY low compared to DMFCs which obtain power densities on the order of 7,000,000 mW/m^2. Generating 100 watts would require a HUGE fuel cell.

Start out modelling heat and mass transfer if you make a fuel cell.

>>1128656
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/fuel-cell-stacks/medium-power-fuel-cell-stacks/horizon-100watt-fuel-cell-h-100

Good luck, cause 100w is a lot.

All of the designs that require molten anything will be horribly inconvenient. All of these designs will likely also be heavier than building a small wood gas powered generator. The CO that is made in wood gas would poison the catalytic activity of any platinum based designs. best bet would be to distill wood into methanol and use that or make wood gas then use the water gas shift to make hydrogen and use that in a platinum based cell. Also the carbon monoxide(primary fuel used by wood gas generators) makes horribly toxic carboyls of nickel and would corrode it.

Stop unless you want black limos with Big Oil agents pull up on your driveway and make you disappear.

All those saying it won't work are Big Oil shills.

>>1129852
idk about the shill part, diy seems to lack perspective on a lot of things and seem to be very simple minded. but def. agree with the first part. Do not write down your progress electronically and keep this to yourself. If you succeed, make a dead-man's switch, so you will release all of your information to every news source and to scholars incase something happens. That is the only way to stay safe. you may be opening a can of worms that you wish you had never wanted to open, just keep that in mind.

google wood gassifier

>>1128775

Electrochemistry grad student here, I concur w this guy


Honestly Op, since you're using carbon fuels anyway, just make a diy steam turbine. Probably simpler and more efficient, Carnot be damned.

>>1132817
>just make a diy steam turbine
not OP, but how would someone go about doing this?