The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III  (Read 21749 times)

blakestyger

  • Guest
Re: Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #25 on: 13/08/2008 16:09:07 »
A philosophical and extended discussion means to loose the purpose of the experiment and its new ideas.

No, it means no such thing. Some discussions may do so but not necessarily.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #26 on: 13/08/2008 17:52:02 »
rosy,

Spot on.

Alan
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #27 on: 13/08/2008 19:21:22 »
Sorin,
Weigh the electrodes in your magic battery, connect it to a load (an LED might be a good choice, though it would work better with 2 batteries in series), measure the current and the voltage. Leave it for a year re-weigh the electrodes, re- measure the voltage and the current, then come back to us.
If the results don't tally up roughly with what Rosy said then we might believe you are on to something.

Up to now you have presented some results that are absolutely in line with what modern science would expect.
It's good to see people doing experiments, but unfortunate when they misinterpret the results.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #28 on: 14/08/2008 08:02:47 »
Rosy,
First time when I read your math description, the first instinctive reaction was to give you and to other commentators a lesson of chemical and physical reasoning and what does it mean to give advice when you are not able to see at least the difference between two different chemical compounds.
But as was late in the evening, and I was tired, this morning my thought changes, and I consider it is worth to try (at least from my part) to improve the quality of discussion. I think this will not be interpreted as a weakness sign. As far as I know me, I support the adversity (in language or other kind) but when I pay, I pay for all. The adversity does not mean contradiction and dispute between opposite ideas... at least for me...


So, the first error is represented by the confusion between Cu2SO4 and CuSO4. For a chemist this is an insult; it is like you are confusing your mother with your ant.
As result of this confusion the quantity of Cu ion in solution is doubled; in solution there are 0,2 mol of Cu2+.
I haven't made a detailed verification of rest of your maths, but as results it seems quite consistent and being close of my estimation it is not worth to enter into details.
It is important to highlight from you the next idea:
 


The salt bridge will not be "exhausted" because the ions diffuse through it and will be replaced from either end as they do.



If the ions (Cu and SO4) from bakers diffuse through the bridge in order to keep the neutrality of their compartments, this is very easy to be observed.
Cu2+ is a colored ion, so it is necessary to appear a moving front (like in a colored chromatogram) of this ions with a blue colour from a part of bridge to another. After months of working into shortcircuit, the bridge should become at the same colour as Cu2+ solution.
In the chemistry does not exist all kind of strange effects (like tunnel effects, spatio temporal modifications etc) so a chemist in order to see if the bridge contain Cu and SO4, will decompose the cell, will remove the first 2-3 cm from both parts of the bridge (due to its contamination with solutions) and after that the internal contents of cell is chemical analysed using advanced methods (and not visual one).
And we've arrived at the starting point from the posted material and I ask again... Does the science assumes the consequences of the ions moving from one baker to another using the salt bridge as intermediate ?
Being two possible answers, it is very easy to see the consequences.
If no, in this case the home made Daniel cell should cease to work when the limiting quantity of ions from the bridge are consumed.
If yes, in this case, it should be found a ,,contamination of salt bridge" with foreign ions coming from solution. This contamination is very easy to be checked in various way.
Supplementary there is the problem of ions moving inside a consistent gel. Again chemistry can prove if a compound can move freely in a gel as is required by cell functioning.

As I said, the cell was tested to work only for a month, because the focus was to the movement of Calcium and chloride which are very easy to be put in evidence.
Now there is a cell working from more then 10 days (even after the 7 days it should be ceased to work due to the bridge consume). I can deliver a photo in order to see the absence of blue (Cu ion) front movement.
Why you don't try to form a cell ... is so funny ...and costs few euro.

As curiosity, do you know a scientific text where the movement of ions between solutions in a cell is admitted as ,,de facto" reality?
There are other smaller or greater  errors in your post which I think is not worth to be reminded here, because are not helping in the up presented problem.
Sincerely, I congratulate  for your effort, and I hope you will find the practical part at least of the same importance as theoretical one.

« Last Edit: 14/08/2008 08:13:45 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Re: Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #29 on: 14/08/2008 08:32:48 »
Ok.. let's modify a little bit the title  too
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Daniel cell and the absurdity of modern physics - part III
« Reply #30 on: 14/08/2008 08:39:26 »
Ok Rosy has made a stupid mistake on Cu2SO4 versus CuSO4, however it makes no material difference to the argument as there is a huge excess of Cu2+ ions versus Zinc ions.

No there will not be a coloured front moving along the salt bridge, the colour is coming from the Cu2+ ions. These are positive and are moving towards the negative copper electrode not over the bridge! It is SO42- ions, which are uncoloured, moving over the bridge towards the negatively charged Zinc electrode.

If you don't believe me try a daniel cell will copper sulphate on one side and and an Fe2+ compound on the other. The Fe2+ ions will move over the bridge and being coloured you will be able to see it. Go on it will only cost a few euro.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #31 on: 14/08/2008 09:05:47 »
Yeah, so I made a stupid mistake. That's what proof readers are for.... The concentration of copper is completely irrelevant anyway because it's in vast excess over the zinc.

The copper ions don't move in the salt bridge because the copper plates onto the copper electrode and the sulphate from that side moves into the bridge. The zinc ions will however move into the bridge. How on earth do you think the salt bridge conducts electricity if the ions don't move (if the zinc an sulphate ions can't move in why should the calcium and chloride be able to move out)?.  Actually, that's a very important question and I can't work out from your earlier posts what you think is going on.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #32 on: 14/08/2008 10:43:11 »
Dave,
Let's analyze the folowing pictures. There are simple because I have only paint on this computer.
The first two picture figure out what is described in actual texts of chemistry and physics. More precisely a compensation of ions due to the bridge salt.
There are 4 molecules of KCl in the bridge.
Even I don't respect the stoechiometry of reactions after a first step there are remaining only 3 molecules. A chloride ion compensate the Zn cation (in fact there are necessary two chloride, but it doesn't matter for understanding the phenomena). Another potassium ion compensate a sulphate anion in the other compartment. After a time it should exist a depletion of KCl in the bridge (in the picture are remaining 3 molecule instead of 4).




Starting from the same number of molecules (4 ) as is represented in first picture, let's analyse your affirmation, more precisely only the sulphate is moving.

As is presented in the picture, Zn react with a chloride coming from the salt bridge.
Another sulphate take place of chloride and a sulphate is going up in the bridge.
At Cu electrode, a atom of copper is deposited (not figured in the picture). IN solution a SO4 anion remain free. Potassium go down from the salt bridge and compensate the charge of the sulphate.
Who is going up to compensate the charge of chloride?
Is copper dissolved again from the electrode?
Please answer me ....
In the same time this kind of movement does not work properly because a layer of K2So4 is formed and it blocks the flow of chloride. If a chloride anion from inside the bridge must remove another hundreds of sulphate ions in order to arrive at the baker solution... there is no energy to remain for having an electrical current.

 
« Last Edit: 14/08/2008 10:44:58 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #33 on: 14/08/2008 12:14:41 »
Arrrrghhh! This really isn't very difficult.

OK:

Copper plates onto the electrodes.
This requires that the electrodes have some electrons to neutralise the Cu2+ are moved through the circuit from the Zinc electrode. The half equations for this are:
Cu2+ + 2 e- reversible arrow Cu
Zn2+ + 2 e- reversible arrow Zn

There are two ways in which this could balance out, and I have no idea (I suspect it depends on your salt bridge) which will happen in this case).

One involves the positive ions moving...
The CuSO4 side would now be depleted of positive ions by the reduction of the Cu2+ ions, except that some of the potassium can diffuse out of the salt bridge to replace it.
At the same time, there is more Zn2+ on the ZnSO4 side, which means there is an excess of positive ions, so some of them move into the salt bridge.
This gives a general diffusion along the bridge...

More-or-less equivalently, the negative ions could move...
As the copper is used up, the sulphate ions can move into the bridge as the chloride ions move out the other end to balance the zinc ions.

It's quite likely the real effect is some combination of these two.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #34 on: 14/08/2008 13:49:29 »
rosy,


This is not a repetition of a learned lesson. A person can be original when he knows everything or when he knows nothing. I'm living in the 2007 and I haven't the possibility to be original if I'm completely stupid, at least in science.

Believe me, the posted materials are very tricky, and I have worked years at a ,,normal explanation" in frame of actual physics. If I have started to conceive a new theory, this is not because I want to loose my time and others persons time.

I admire your enthusiasm, but this materials are for old fox, which are knowing the tricks of physics (eventually chemistry). I think I'm older like you so my advice is to think a little bit before posts a comment.
From your first post I have deduced that you are a beginner in both physics and chemistry or you have a theoretical preparation. So it is better to try to repeat the proposed experiments (for all experiments the investments are about 50 Eur) and after that maybe your perception about electrochemistry and a part of physics will change.

I'm not considering this a offense to your address but there are a lot of inexactities in your previous message and in the last.

If you're using very impure zinc you might see some residue under the electrode but if it was nice and clean to start with you won't. The copper will be plated with clean copper.

I'm working from 15 years in the chemistry research and you have read in a book that impure zinc can leave residue. I don't think it is written in the book the folowing result:
 the residue of Zn is double then it's original mass (see the second post about Daniel cell with atached pictures).

Copper is plated with clean copper - this happened only in a electrolysis process. In any other process (implicit in a  cell) there is no deposition of clean copper on the copper electrode. If you don't believe me ask a prof of experimental physics.

In the last message you have affirmed that Zn is going through the salt bridge. This can be tested very easily .. but first convince me about the general circulation of elements into the cell.
Please indicate on picture how are the species moving and if is feasible a test can be made.
The same thing is valid for Dave in case he convince me that Fe2+ change something in the ion circulation. For me changing Cu with Fe means only a label change in the entire process.


 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #35 on: 14/08/2008 14:38:51 »
Quote
From your first post I have deduced that you are a beginner in both physics and chemistry or you have a theoretical preparation.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Sorry. Comes of typing up back-of-the-envelope calculations without proof reading.

And I haven't asserted that Zn is going into the salt bridge, I've said it's possible. I've also said that it's possible that zinc is not going into the salt bridge... in which case the sulphate must be going into the salt bridge.
All I've actually said is that the copper is not going to be going into the salt bridge (or not at any rate to allow the driven current to flow.

Look, I'm well aware that electrochemistry is highly complex, certainly more so than we learn in high school... systems of ions in aqueous solution are always going to be. I'm mildly intrigued by your reported residue beneath the zinc electrode... have you investigated what it might be?

But the basic point I'm trying to make is this:
Whilst I and other posters may not have perfect explanations for every tiny bit of your observations, we can none the less explain a number of the things you express yourself to be astonished by without even beginning to stretch the watered down version of this stuff they taught us in high school. As a result, I am not inclined in the least to take your explanations seriously (I would expect to be able to explain the rest of your observations if I were doing the experiments myself, but to be honest I have other things to do).

When you're a multi-millionaire and have solved the world's energy problems, I'll send you a congratulations card and buy a copy of your book... because you see, I don't particularly want you to be wrong, I don't have any emotional investment in the version of electrochemistry I've been taught being correct, and of course if you can generate energy from nowhere that's brilliant and maybe the world's less screwed than we think it is at present.
I just think on the balance of probabilities, having read what you've written on this and (cursorily) other topics, that you are more likely to be a crank than an undiscovered genius.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #36 on: 15/08/2008 20:38:57 »
Rosy,

As I said, I supposed and I made your characterisation based on a limited set of data.
This not means my characterisation is true....
This not means my scientific observations are not true....
It's up to you to take this observation into account.
Regarding the perpetual mobile and the production of energy from nothing is only a misunderstanding. I don't dream of this and the posts are only a new description of the same and unique experimental reality. There are some new prediction of new phenomena, but these are not for discussion forums.
The deposit is formed by copper. It is, as you see, a new prediction. Both phenomena are taken place at the same electrode and a potential difference is measured - a thing unacceptably in actual science.


« Last Edit: 15/08/2008 20:46:54 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #37 on: 16/08/2008 20:41:40 »
Am I the only one to spot the irony in this "So, the first error is represented by the confusion between Cu2SO4 and CuSO4. For a chemist this is an insult; it is like you are confusing your mother with your ant."?

Re the nature of the ions that carry the current through the salt bridge As Sophie said "It's quite likely the real effect is some combination of these two." The fraction of the current carried by an ion is called the transport number.


"Copper is plated with clean copper - this happened only in a electrolysis process. In any other process (implicit in a  cell) there is no deposition of clean copper on the copper electrode. If you don't believe me ask a prof of experimental physics."

As so often the case with Sorin's writings, this is just plain wrong. To my mind this swings the odds even further towards crank rather than genius.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #38 on: 16/08/2008 23:56:01 »
My entire genius consists in the fact that I've learned to count up to four and to distinguish the colours.
Can you help me to repeat the calculation on the last schemes with bullets and colours (MessageID: 1906070 ) ? IT SEEMS THAT A BULLET OF A SPECIFIC COLOUR IS MISSING IN ACTUAL THEORY.
« Last Edit: 16/08/2008 23:58:35 by sorincosofret »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #39 on: 17/08/2008 00:26:57 »
There seems to be one person in this world who recognises your 'genius'! I think it's a different kind of genius that most of us would define as such. But if you are happy, that's fine.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #40 on: 17/08/2008 01:43:30 »
Instead of chalange me to stupid discussions, without any scientific fundament, maybe it's better for you to form a team with BC;
In this case your chance to defeat me in scientific field will increase.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 01:50:05 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #41 on: 17/08/2008 13:44:31 »
The word "seems" in this quote "IT SEEMS THAT A BULLET OF A SPECIFIC COLOUR IS MISSING IN ACTUAL THEORY." is the very important one.
In fact, since ions are mobile they are very good at drifting under the influence of an electric field in order to remove any imbalance in charge. As I pointed out, exactly how much contribution is made by each ion depends on the circumstances. The idea that your simplistic diagram counting them has any bearing on reallity is foolish in the extreme.

I really don't think thst Sophie and I need to team up to show that you are wrong. You seem to do that perfectly well on your own.
It's in the nature of science to be self correcting; invalid theories fail and are discarded. On this basis I say that the probalility of your defeat is essentially 100% and there's no way that it can increase.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #42 on: 17/08/2008 17:24:10 »
I don't think there is necessary a commentary. For some of us the science is still in the XVII century when some phenomena are observed and the researcher were searching for a explanation.
It is the first time when a scientist consider the physics a science of circumstances. This worth to be write even in the lowlevel books. In this case any solution is given to a problem is correct ..  because it depend on circumstances.
Please detail for all reader of the forum ,, the circumstances " necessary for a Daniel cell with a salt bridge incorporated into it to work.
 I think there are a lot of people interested in these ,,circumstances"...
 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Daniel cell and the problems rised in physics- part III
« Reply #42 on: 17/08/2008 17:24:10 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums