Electrochemistry cut off experiments and absurdity of modern science….
sorin
Due to a lot of advantages, mainly the low cost of materials and
simplicity of design, electrochemistry is becoming a preferred field
for new proposed cut off experiments.
The first cut off experiment relates a battery for which both
electrodes (cathode and anode) undergo an oxidation reaction. It
consists simply in an electrode of Zn and an electrode of Fe dipped
into a solution of sulfuric acid. Both electrodes are oxidized and
bubbles of hydrogen are visible with naked eyes at both electrodes and
supplementary an analytical procedure can detect Fe and Zn species in
solution. For those specialists with ,,seeing problems” a detailed
photo with gas bubbling is provided. A common ammeter connected
between these electrodes is able to detect an electric current with a
size related to the area of electrodes immersed into solution. I think
it is the simplest experiment ever designed which rule out actual
modern science. The cost of experiment: about 1 euro. Of course, other
couple of reactive metals or other electrolytes can be used with the
same results.
The myth of simultaneously oxidation at one electrode and reduction
to opposite electrode fall down. The oxidation state is supplementary
ruled out as being useless and artificially introduced in science.
Second experiment reload the old Volta pile, the first battery ever
build. All ,,serious” scientific texts remind it only as a curiosity
without any detail for a very simple reason: there is no explanation
for it. It is not clear why salt brine increase the current furnished
by a couple of Zn and Cu electrodes, when no reaction takes place
between salt and these metals.
The link:
http://www.elkadot.com/en/physical-chemistry/electrochemistry cut off
experiments.htm
The site changed toward a multilanguage structure so the old links
will give some accessing errors. The site will be available in
Romanian and French in short time. The version in Romanian will be the
most trustfully because it will be verified by me personally. For
other translations some language errors are possible because the
translations are made by amateurs.
I am searching for persons willing to help me to translate the site
into German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, Hindi, etc.
Contact email: sorinc...@yahoo.com
Best regards,
Sorin Cosofret
eric gisse
[...]
One can't help but admire the vast lack of awareness which is required to
say modern science is 'absurd' while communicating the screed with
technology based entirely in - say it with me - 'modern science'.
Jerry
> Electrochemistry cut off experiments and absurdity of modern science….
>
> Due to a lot of advantages, mainly the low cost of materials and
> simplicity of design, electrochemistry is becoming a preferred field
> for new proposed cut off experiments.
> The first cut off experiment relates a battery for which both
> electrodes (cathode and anode) undergo an oxidation reaction. It
> consists simply in an electrode of Zn and an electrode of Fe dipped
> into a solution of sulfuric acid. Both electrodes are oxidized and
> bubbles of hydrogen are visible with naked eyes at both electrodes and
> supplementary an analytical procedure can detect Fe and Zn species in
> solution. For those specialists with ,,seeing problems” a detailed
> photo with gas bubbling is provided. A common ammeter connected
> between these electrodes is able to detect an electric current with a
> size related to the area of electrodes immersed into solution. I think
> it is the simplest experiment ever designed which rule out actual
> modern science. The cost of experiment: about 1 euro. Of course, other
> couple of reactive metals or other electrolytes can be used with the
> same results.
Omigod. Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid!!!
Iron and zinc both react STRONGLY with sulfuric acid to produce
the metal sulfate plus hydrogen gas. You think that just piping a
few electrons from one electrode to another is supposed to shut
off COMPLETELY these spontaneous reactions? So OF COURSE you will
see hydrogen bubbles at both electrodes!!!
An iron/zinc/sulfuric acid battery is an idiotic design. It has
zilch shelf life. Why do you suppose LEAD is used in lead-acid
batteries?
Jerry
bz
ec938f...@i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> Electrochemistry cut off experiments and absurdity of modern science….
>
> Due to a lot of advantages, mainly the low cost of materials and
> simplicity of design, electrochemistry is becoming a preferred field
> for new proposed cut off experiments.
> The first cut off experiment relates a battery for which both
> electrodes (cathode and anode) undergo an oxidation reaction. It
> consists simply in an electrode of Zn and an electrode of Fe dipped
> into a solution of sulfuric acid. Both electrodes are oxidized and
> bubbles of hydrogen are visible with naked eyes at both electrodes and
> supplementary an analytical procedure can detect Fe and Zn species in
> solution. For those specialists with ,,seeing problems” a detailed
> photo with gas bubbling is provided. A common ammeter connected
> between these electrodes is able to detect an electric current with a
> size related to the area of electrodes immersed into solution. I think
> it is the simplest experiment ever designed which rule out actual
> modern science. The cost of experiment: about 1 euro. Of course, other
> couple of reactive metals or other electrolytes can be used with the
> same results.
> The myth of simultaneously oxidation at one electrode and reduction
> to opposite electrode fall down. The oxidation state is supplementary
> ruled out as being useless and artificially introduced in science.
>
Ah... the 'advantage' of the usual battery construction is that the
electrodes are ONLY 'used up' when there is current flow through the
external circuit. In your 'cell', the electrodes go away quickly, even
without any useful work being done externally.
There ARE good reasons for the concepts of oxidation and reduction and the
use of 'oxidation state'.
Your simple 'experiment' is equivalent to 'measuring the gas mileage of
your car' by punching a hole in the bottom of the fuel tank.
Sure, you may still be able to drive a few miles after filling the tank,
but if you leave the car parked in the garage over-night, your house burns
down when the gas vapors reach the pilot light in the hot water heater.
Not the smartest approach to science that I have ever seen.
....
>
> Best regards,
> Sorin Cosofret
>
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
sorin
electrodes are ONLY 'used up' when there is current flow through the
external circuit. In your 'cell', the electrodes go away quickly,
even
without any useful work being done externally. }
The original Daneil cell and the first Volta cell are working similar
with proposed cell(Zn,Fe and sulfuric acid). In fact a variant of the
daniell cell was so sensible to displacement that only static use was
alowed ( in fact some phone companies used it up to 1950 in this kind
of static but continous aplications).
The problem of electrode consume only when an external resistor is
connected to it is a question of reaction type and the possibility to
drive it into a certain way.
Of course every time there are good reason for doing something... even
supporters of epicycles theory had good reasons to add a new
epicycle.
Sorin Cosofret
Jerry
> {Ah... the 'advantage' of the usual battery construction is that the
> electrodes are ONLY 'used up' when there is current flow through the
> external circuit. In your 'cell', the electrodes go away quickly,
> even
> without any useful work being done externally. }
>
> The original Daneil cell and the first Volta cell are working similar
> with proposed cell(Zn,Fe and sulfuric acid).
FALSE!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniell_cell
> In fact a variant of the
> daniell cell
I presume you mean the "gravity cell"
> was so sensible to displacement that only static use was
> alowed ( in fact some phone companies used it up to 1950 in this kind
> of static but continous aplications).
>
> The problem of electrode consume only when an external resistor is
> connected to it is a question of reaction type and the possibility to
> drive it into a certain way.
It's a question of SENSIBLE battery design versus STUPID design.
> Of course every time there are good reason for doing something... even
> supporters of epicycles theory had good reasons to add a new
> epicycle.
YOUR idiotic design continuously consumes both electrodes whether
or not a circuit exists. There are NO good reasons for designing
a battery your way.
Jerry
sorin
1. Every incipient battery ever designed (Volta or Daniell) were used
for occasionally researches or for continuously application, but in
this case there were persons trained to change the electrodes and the
solutions. Mainly, the employers of phone and telegraphy companies
were trained to ensure the functionality of Daniel cells every day.
2. The purpose of proposed experiment is not to make a commercial
battery; of course maybe in the future with other compounds this think
will be possible and it is not the case to discuss here this aspect.
The purpose of experiment was to demonstrate that an anode and cathode
oxidation generates an electric current.
3. For science it is very important when a ,,case “ does not fit with
entire edifice of an accepted theory. When more ,,cases” appear in a
theory, this is a sign that a change is necessary. Every time in
science an individual has an idea and the mass later or sooner accept
or deny that idea. The science is not made by persons who push a
button and hear the radio and they think they understand electricity
(as example). I make the activity of posting messages only for having
a proof that a new theory exists and it is not accepted. I have time
to wait that change …
sorin
> with proposed cell(Zn,Fe and sulfuric acid).
FALSE!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniell_cell
> In fact a variant of the
> daniell cell
I presume you mean the "gravity cell"
I think it's better for your practice to build a gravity cell, and to
leave it over the night without a consumer connected between anode and
cathode and try to measure in the second day the potential and current
into circuit...
You will see that your battery is gone...
So, the same mechanism governs the idiotic design of proposed battery
and daniell cell.
In one case there is a Zn metal consumption and Cu metal generation,
but in solution Zn species are increased and Cu is diminished.
In other case there is Zn and Fe consumption and increasing of both
species in solution.
Jerry
> I think it’s better to revise your definition for idiotic design.…
>
> 1. Every incipient battery ever designed (Volta or Daniell) were used
> for occasionally researches or for continuously application, but in
> this case there were persons trained to change the electrodes and the
> solutions. Mainly, the employers of phone and telegraphy companies
> were trained to ensure the functionality of Daniel cells every day.
> 2. The purpose of proposed experiment is not to make a commercial
> battery; of course maybe in the future with other compounds this think
> will be possible and it is not the case to discuss here this aspect.
> The purpose of experiment was to demonstrate that an anode and cathode
> oxidation generates an electric current.
Both electrodes experience continuous oxidation in strong sulfuric
acid in the complete absence of any current, as evidenced by the
continuous evolution of hydrogen bubbles from both plates even
while unconnected by a wire.
But by connecting the plates with a wire, you INCREASE the rate
of oxidation from the negative electrode (i.e. the electrode from
which you are withdrawing electrons) and DECREASE the rate of
oxidation from the positive electrode (i.e. the electrode to which
you are feeding electrons.)
So what happens in your so-called "experiment" is in complete
accord with standard theory.
> 3. For science it is very important when a ,,case “ does not fit with
> entire edifice of an accepted theory.
Your stupid experiment does no such thing.
All it does is show that iron and zinc dissolve in sulfuric acid.
> When more ,,cases” appear in a
> theory, this is a sign that a change is necessary. Every time in
> science an individual has an idea and the mass later or sooner accept
> or deny that idea. The science is not made by persons who push a
> button and hear the radio and they think they understand electricity
> (as example). I make the activity of posting messages only for having
> a proof that a new theory exists and it is not accepted. I have time
> to wait that change …
Jerry
Jerry
> > The original Daneil cell and the first Volta cell are working similar
> > with proposed cell(Zn,Fe and sulfuric acid).
>
>
> > In fact a variant of the
> > daniell cell
>
> I presume you mean the "gravity cell"
>
> I think it's better for your practice to build a gravity cell, and to
> leave it over the night without a consumer connected between anode and
> cathode and try to measure in the second day the potential and current
> into circuit...
> You will see that your battery is gone...
An unused Daniell cell gradually dies off over several days
because the gradient disappears, not because the electrodes are
consumed.
In the absence of use, the zinc electrode is STABLE in the zinc
sulfate, and the copper electrode is STABLE in the copper sulfate.
An unused Sorin cell dies off quickly because the zinc electrode
spontaneously dissolves in the strong sulfuric acid, and the iron
electode spontaneously dissolves in the strong sulfuric acid,
leaving you with no electrodes after a day or so, only an acidic
solution of copper and iron sulfate.
> So, the same mechanism governs the idiotic design of proposed battery
> and daniell cell.
> In one case there is a Zn metal consumption and Cu metal generation,
> but in solution Zn species are increased and Cu is diminished.
> In other case there is Zn and Fe consumption and increasing of both
> species in solution.
In your case, there is an INCREASE in Zn consumption from the
basal level, and a DECREASE in Fe consumption from the basal
level, IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD THEORY.
Jerry
sorin
Both electrodes experience continuous oxidation in strong sulfuric
acid in the complete absence of any current, as evidenced by the
continuous evolution of hydrogen bubbles from both plates even
while unconnected by a wire.
But by connecting the plates with a wire, you INCREASE the rate
of oxidation from the negative electrode (i.e. the electrode from
which you are withdrawing electrons) and DECREASE the rate of
oxidation from the positive electrode (i.e. the electrode to which
you are feeding electrons.)
So what happens in your so-called "experiment" is in complete
accord with standard theory.
If you convince all the authors of scientific books to mention in
their books, that in some cases, a continuous oxidation takes place at
both anode and cathode of a battery, I agree with you that STANDARD
THEORY is able to explain my first experiment.
So I repeat what you have expressed: BOTH ELECTRODES EXPERIENCE
OXIDATION in absence or in presence of a wire between them. For the
experiment it is not important the reaction acceleration or the
measured current.
Related to Volta battery, you leave the subject aside.
Can you explain me the mechanism of current increasing when a salt is
thrown into water?
how a salt into solution push the electrons from one electrode through
metallic wire toward opposite electrode:
how this current remain constant in time for hours?
There is a hidden circuit of electrons through solution in order to
assure this flux of electrons?
Jerry
> As you say:
>
> Both electrodes experience continuous oxidation in strong sulfuric
> acid in the complete absence of any current, as evidenced by the
> continuous evolution of hydrogen bubbles from both plates even
> while unconnected by a wire.
> But by connecting the plates with a wire, you INCREASE the rate
> of oxidation from the negative electrode (i.e. the electrode from
> which you are withdrawing electrons) and DECREASE the rate of
> oxidation from the positive electrode (i.e. the electrode to which
> you are feeding electrons.)
> So what happens in your so-called "experiment" is in complete
> accord with standard theory.
>
> If you convince all the authors of scientific books to mention in
> their books, that in some cases, a continuous oxidation takes place at
> both anode and cathode of a battery, I agree with you that STANDARD
> THEORY is able to explain my first experiment.
Why should authors give coverage to a stupid setup?
> So I repeat what you have expressed: BOTH ELECTRODES EXPERIENCE
> OXIDATION in absence or in presence of a wire between them.
Why do you consider that UTTERLY TRIVIAL observation to be a
challenge to conventional electrochemical theory?
? For the
> experiment it is not important the reaction acceleration or the
> measured current.
>
> Related to Volta battery, you leave the subject aside.
> Can you explain me the mechanism of current increasing when a salt is
> thrown into water?
Yes.
> how a salt into solution push the electrons from one electrode through
> metallic wire toward opposite electrode:
> how this current remain constant in time for hours?
> There is a hidden circuit of electrons through solution in order to
> assure this flux of electrons?
How absurd. You "challenge" me with simple questions whose
answers may be found in any introductory text on the subject.
Jerry
sorin
me even by dilute ) sulfuric acid in the absence of a wire which
connect Fe and Zn pieces.
When a wire connect both electrodes actual science and you as
defenders must specify what is the anode and what is the cathode, more
precisely what electrodes oxidizes and what electrodes reduces.
From experimental point of view it is obvious that both electrodes are
oxidizing when a metallic wire is between them.
Please indicate the introductory chemistry book where the Volta
battery and the importance of salt brine are analyzed. In all
scientific book read by me there is sometimes a sentence about this in
the introductory part without any detail.
Sorin
eric gisse
...why not post this to sci.chem, which gives a shit about such things?