Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Can a double oxidation phenomenon generate an elec

I do not have any information about the link (with google I found the site with the picture you put in the message). Even the company itself do not present any detalis about the battery.
In internet there is no ,,model description for the experiment proposed by me".
Even this battery was created and is used by someone, the situation is the same.
I did not claim that such battery do not exist... I claim we got a wrong interpretation for the explanation of charge movement.
From practical point of view such battery is not going to be used ...
As it can be seen hydrogen is produced at both electrodes and this means you cannot store it anywhere in a closed space...
In the same time once you consume the electrodes, it is very difficult to recharge it back ...

So by sure ( and I am 100 % sure) the advertised battery is completely different of the proposed experiment.

I do not have any information about the link you gave. even the company itself do not present any detalis about the battery.
In internet there is no ,,model description for the experiment proposed by me".
Even this battery was created and is used by someone, the situation is the same.
I did not claim that such battery do not exist... I claim we got a wrong interpretation for the explanation of charge movement.
From practical point of view such battery is not going to be used ...
As it can be seen hydrogen is produced at both electrodes and this means you cannot store it anywhere in a closed space...
In the same time once you consume the electrodes, it is very difficult to recharge it back ...

So by sure ( and I am 100 % sure) the advertised battery is completely different of the proposed experiment and it is only a question of name. Except combustion pile which use H and O, no otjer battery using gases was promoted in the market.
And by sure the one promoted there has another reaction background.

Did you try putting just each electrode in by itself and notice the gas still appears especially the zinc one

If you want to make the reaction really produce gas and bubble a lot heat the acid and try both electrodes by themselves.

Orac

I believe that sorincosofret is concerned about the charge
more than the amount of bubbles produced.

he cant find a way that the charge can go both directions.

perhaps you can tell him why there is a charge and why the charge goes in both directions at the same time.

that is what he is asking you.

BTW

I was pointing to your error in your tag line , Tesla and
Edison did not get a degree , therefore they were laymen , and they did change science , so your tag line is wrong.



in the context above "ever" means that a layman has never changed science.

its wrong so you should change it , unless you want to
misrepresent science in the normal fashion that science
misrepresents itself.

The charge has been answered it's a standard redox the good old lemon battery gives the answer ... not sure we can cover it more than that.

As to the other issue of my byline tag

You missed the point that I wouldn't consider either of those Layman .... both were extremely well versed in science and very familiar with scientific method .. enough that both were considered scientists by other scientists of the day. Layman does not have an exact definition

Dictonary => A layperson or layman is a person who is not an expert in a given field of knowledge.

I am sure there are people around today that are not formally recognized by science but science would not call a layman.

So it's probably the second bit that's wrong => get a degree before you try and fix or rewrite science please

I am not sure how to phrase that in such a short character allowance we have for tags.

Its something like:

get a degree or at least be recognized by other scientists as understanding scientific method and be considered and expert by them before you attempt to rewrite science.

Anyone with a degree we automatically recognize an expert so it was a reasonable approximation we will call it a classic physics byline

My English being what it is I will have to think how to express that all better in a short more sensible way.

I suppose that you could poke 2 electrodes into a lemon and
get a close approximation of his experiment.

and

using 2 electrodes with different metals you could get a closer approximation.

or 3 or 4 or 5

you should still get voltage out of each electrode and the
only difference would be that the acid is more rapidly transformed.

and BTW

just because someone has a degree does not mean that his ideas
should be automatically accepted as valid and normally they are not , peer review must validate ideas and
theories before they are accepted , even then there are
cliques that form with their own opinions about new ideas in science.

Getting a degree is not about being accepted that you know everything and yes someone with a degree can be wrong.

What it does show is that person understands science methodology and understands that there is a very big picture of connectedness of science and you can't just change one bit and ignore everything else.

That is what happened to you and poor old Newton when you try to change one area of physics it is connected to so many others that all you do is follow the proposed change out and you will find an immediate problem or falsification which you can show. It has to work that way or else the change is perfectly acceptable and they are probably correct.

That's what happened to you when you tried to do it was laser cooling I could immediately run you out to a problem that is clearly false all I did was follow the explaination out. I did exactly the same with poor old Newton his atoms won't hold together and the whole universe would simple collapse in on itself.

Getting a degree shows you realize that everything is connected and you pass exams in which we give you only part of the answer and you have to run thru the science to come to a way that it can be explained logically and consistently WITH ALL KNOWN DATA AND EXPERIMENTS.

So the key point any scientists realizes is you can't just ignore data which doesn't agree with your view and hence yes we are often shown to be wrong but when we are wrong the replacement is consistent with that whole big picture of known results.

So a scientists does not mind being wrong so long as the replacement idea is CONSISTENT WITH ALL KNOWN DATA AND EXPERIMENTS. I have no problem with being wrong so long as the replacement makes sense and that is how I function as a scientist. Most scientists including I wouldn't care if QM and relativity were both wrong but whatever replaces them needs to be consistent with all known data of the universe and that's the test crackpot layman fail at most don't even see the connections.

You get a lot of layman who don't like relativity because it is hard to understand and seems obtuse and they think they can fix it. What they don't understand is it is connected to the atom (which is why Einstein was working with it), Quantum Mechanics and most of the theories in electromagnetics via Schrodinger and Maxwell theories. Any attempt to "fix it" will almost immediately be falsifiable as it heads out to the connections to those fields.

As for cliques forming within science, who cares it only takes one observation or experiment that can falsify a cliques views and it all comes apart they can't simply ignore it. That's why science is free of politics and religion there is no authority you can appeal to or they enforce a view it's a discipline of logic and what can be falsified and what can't. I will say don't get me started on Climate Science I think they are walking on dangerous ground with consensus views, I won't even participate in the area because of the politics which has no place in science.

Anyhow enough of this we have poluted this thread enough we are way off post topic.

Im not sure what you said in the above , but its most likely
not relevant to this topic , and I think it would be a good
time for us to stop having our little pissing contest so
that the threads topic can be discussed.

agreed

Cool I am happy with that as I have said before I bear you no malice and on some things we will never agree.


Now back to this post which sorincosofret will need to explain his views.


This is my take on his view:

He was equating the production of the hydrogen gas to a charge production it wasn't clear to me whether it was supposed to be positive or negative.

The same gas on each plate meant the same charge but we have current flow which we can measure. Electricity can't flow if both processes are producing the same charge an electrical law.

Ergo he thinks chemistry is wrong by putting electrical science against chemistry science.


What I can show is with only one plate in the solution the gas still bubbles and clearly we have no charge flow because nothing is connected we have an open circuit.

So I can show that gas production has nothing to do with charge electricity production and hence the clash he sees with electricity laws versus chemistry doesn't exist ... in science terms it's a direct falsification of his idea.

The reality is the charge production is a totally different not visible process and we play with it in lemon batteries etc.

I am not sure where he wants to go from there or what he thinks now?

I dont have a meter that will measure the tiny currents
but I have one that does show low voltage.

Im getting .6 on the 2 volt range = 1.2 volts @ 84 F

using tap water and table salt and Aluminium Foil in a ceramic crucible.

when heated to 120 F Im getting 1.8 volts

a definite increase in voltage , I need to order a amp meter
that measures low amperage to really tell what is happening.

ie... the increase in voltage may be accompanied by a drop
in current that I cant measure at this time.

I may be wrong but Im thinking that by using a vacuum I might be able to maintain
the higher voltage by removing some of the air above the solution and sealing the unit after the water has expanded.

Im not seeing any deformation of the Aluminium strips.
So the acid must be depleting in the crucible.

my temperature measurements were taken on the Aluminium strip
@ apx 1/4 inch above the solution with a laser.

I assume you are using aluminium and copper from your voltages

The chemistry goes like this

Al3+(aq) + 3e Al(s)
Eo = -1.66 V
Cu2+(aq) + 2e Cu(s)
Eo = +0.34 V

So you should be able to get 2.00 Volts

Here is a cheat sheet
http://www.doctortang.com/Honour%20Chemistry%20(Old)/Lab%2010%20Electrochemical%20Cells.pdf

To get more current increase the acid strength or really heat it to almost boiling.

I tried
Copper = .1
Stainless Steel = .54
Silver = 0.0
and Aluminium .54

I did try a combination of copper and aluminium and I
got .64 volts I think , I didnt write down my results.

and my meters probes are copper tipped I presume and I
did dip one into the solution when taking the measurements.

so I suppose it was a copper and Aluminium test.

the voltages I posted were from Aluminium only , no copper.

the silver was an old plated creamer.

also , I read the meter wrong , I was reading the voltage
@ .6 volts then multiplying the .6 x the 2 volt range.
which gave me the higher voltage.

LOL

live and learn , Im used to the old meters that use 1 volt
10 volts , 100 volts 1000 volts etc...

this one uses 2,20,200,2000 etc...

but anyway what do you think will happen when I put a vacuum on the solution without heating the solution?

will the voltages increase , decrease or stay the same?

Should stay the same .... I can't think of any good reason it will change.

Heating the acid or intensifying the solution or even roughening up the electrode surfaces so more metal surface is available should all change things.

You will see lead acid battery plates are sort of a honeycomb and it's one of the trick with better lead acid batteries



They are the obvious changes I can think of besides getting into a bit of tricky chemistry and adding a catalyst but that sort of wrecks the experiment because you need to understand why the catalysts change things.

OK, I decided to do a quick retest on the measurements
I am writing them down as I go.

Aluminium = 0.65 volts
Copper = 0.05 steady increasing copper submerged in solution
Stainless Steel wool = 0.07
Stainless Steel Welding Rod = 0.15

tap water , 1 tbs salt , ceramic crucible.

temp of test sample at 1/4 inch from solution = 72 F

Copper and Aluminium 0.57 volts

Im just curious about it , because a vacuum causes more
hho production in a separator cell with the same voltage.

but on the other hand a vacuum will lower the water temperature
and too much vacuum and it freezes solid.

perhaps adding pressure would be better than a vacuum.

I didnt get any increase of voltage with a larger surface area
I tried it but the voltage stayed the same.

Try going the other way and pressurizing it may change the salt solvency point ... I see you thought same thing

Sorry it has been way too many years ago I did actual real chemistry which is sort of funny if you were talking to me about more advanced condensed matter physics I would know it off the top of my head

You might try searches on "advanced" lead acid batteries because they will have spent millions of dollars playing around to try and get a commercial edge over other companies see what they claim they do improve things.

As I said some metals have catalysts .. for example if you were using zinc a small amount of copper sulphate in the solution makes an incredible difference.

I was looking around for a reference for you to work out how long the cell will run for that is layman friendly this one wasn't too bad and gives you the history of it's discovery by Michael Faraday in 1833

PDF: http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Electrolytic-Cells.pdf

I will also give you a list of common solutions to test

Fruit and vegetables(Citric Acid)
Washing Soda (Caustic soda)
Sodium Chloride (Salt)
Ammonia Solution (Household bleach)
Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Powder).
Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom salts)
Hydrogen Peroxide (Ladies hair bleach get from chemist)

If you want to see a catalyst at work setup Aluminium/Hydrogen peroxide measure it and the drop a small pinch of salt in and watch what happens.


When you are ready to step it up a notch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-air_battery

It's not rechargeable but wouldn't it be cool to be able to drop waste aluminum in and use it as a fuel. The idea was picked up in the "movie back to the future" if I recall.

You should also see the big item on the page
=> Aluminium-chlorine battery was patented by United States Air Force in the 1970s and designed mostly for military applications

Im thinking about empty food cans ! (Tin, 50, Sn)

and Aluminium coke cans , beer cans , pie plates etc...

a container that converts the waste metals into hydrogen and
the container has a built in fuel cell like a car battery has.

the electricity from the fuel cell in the container charges
a battery stack.

everything we toss in the trash can has loads of hydrogen in it , even what we flush down the toilet has loads of hydrogen
in it , so theres plenty of hydrogen fuel available at no cost.

in fact we are all a good source of hydrogen you might say.

because we consume so many products that are delivered to us
in packaging that is filled with hydrogen.