The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can the charge from the front of a cathode ray tube power electrolysis?  (Read 11235 times)

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Cathode tube and charge movement

Experimental part
In a black and white TV or oscilloscope tube the electrons flow in the direction indicated in fig. 1. Cathode emits electrons, which are accelerated by multiple anodes. Electrons hit the phosphorescent screen and a spot of light appear. The electrons are recovered at anode and are re-injected in cathode circuit.


Figure 1. Electron circuit in a CRT

For the proposed experiment is necessary to modify a little bit the flow of electrons as indicate in fig 2.



Figure 2. Modified electron circuit for the proposed experiment

In order to obtain this modified electron flow, the high potential cable mounted on the neck of tube is removed and this potential is connected to a foil of aluminum; the aluminum foil is then fixed on the external part of the screen.
At the connection point situated on the neck of tube, an ammeter and an electrolytic cell are connected in series. The other connection of this circuit is to a null point (from heating home installation). The tube is started and the indication of ammeter and the phenomena from the electrolytic cells are observed.
In the experiment an old black and white TV set was used as is presented fig. 3



Figure 3 . TV set used in the experiment with modifications at electron circuit

The ,,electrical current measured” by the ammeter varied between 3.5 and 4 microA.
The circuit is leaved to work for 10 hours. For the experiment a small electrolytic cell (fig. 4) with a volume of approx 15 ml, filled with with NaCl solution was used. As indicator a small quantity of bromthymol blue is added.  During this period of 10 hours of no change of color is observed at electrodes as is presented in fig. 5. The experiment was repeated 4 times with the same result – no change of color at electrodes even after one day of continuous electricity flowing through the electrolytic cell.


Figure 4 The form of electrolysis cell used in experiment



Figure 5. Electrolysis cell and value of current through circuit at the end of experiment.

In order to have a comparison effect, a simple circuit formed by two alkaline batteries of 1,5 V, an ammeter and a electrolysis cell with the same concentration of NaCl is made. The current measured in experiment was 0.89 mA.
The visual effect after 25 seconds of electric current flowing is presented in fig. 6.


Figure 6. Electrolytic cell after 25 seconds

As it can be observed, at one electrode a blue color appear as a glove around electrode and it start to diffuse in entire volume.
After one minutes and half, when the batteries are disconnected, the appearance of electrolytic cell is as in fig. 7




Fig. 7 Electrolytic cell after 1,5 minutes.


Interpretation of experiments

The change of color at one electrode is due to the NaOH formation.
 I will start with second experiment because there is a positive result.
 In a time of 90 s and with an intensity of 0.89  mA, through circuit passes a charge equal with:
Q=I*t = 0.89*10(-3)*90 =0.0801 C
As is observed a charge of less then 0.1 C is more then enough to observe the effects of an electric current.
By comparison, in the first experiment with CRT electron source the total charge is:
Q=I*t= 3.5*10(-6)*10*3600=0.126 C

How is possible this?  A smaller charge in case of two batteries produce a greater effect (visual and chemical) the an greater charge in case of CRT ?
I leave to actual theoreticians the explanation for this simple experiment in the frame of actual physics.
In proposed theory a charge movement does not represent an electric current.
Even some effects of a charge movement are identical with the effects of an electric current, there are other effects which mark a clear difference.

Soon the same experiment using a VDG device will be posted.

« Last Edit: 18/10/2008 20:57:12 by chris »


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Diffusion of CO2 into the electrolytic cell is fast enough to neutralise the hydroxide formed by the low current, but not by the high current.

Repeat the  battery experiment with a high value resistor in circuit to limit the current to a few microamps and I suspect that you won't see a colour change.
Once again, there's nothing new here.
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
The use of a very high voltage source for a low voltage, low current electrolytic cell makes no sense at all and is dangerous.  I suggest you learn about basic elctricity. ..Ohms Law etc.    You need a bench power supply with digital readout of V and A and current limit for such experiments.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Diffusion of CO2 in the electrolytic cell will (if it exist!!!)  produce the folowing reaction:
NaOH +CO2  =  Na2CO3 +H2O
The sodium carbonate has a basic hydrolysis in water and for such solution a pH of about 9 is ordinary measured by any chemist in any low school laboratory.
The bromthymol blue change its colour at a pH equal with 7.5, so the experiment and the conclusions are valid even in this case.
The results of experiment, using batteries as source are the same, even the current is decreased to few microamp.
The high potential is not applied to the electrolytic cell. Please read again the experiment and revise your knowledge about base electricity.
The electrons are accelerated by the first anode in the CRT tube which have few hundreds of Volts. The second anode (high voltage ) is applied on the external part of the tube and the electrons inside the tube are not accelerated at this high voltage (the screen acts as a insulator). In fact,  the same results are obtained if you eliminate the foil and high potential applied on the external part of screen.

Other comments from deeply thinking physicists minds?
 
« Last Edit: 19/10/2008 17:56:36 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I'm familiar with acid base chemistry thank you.
I also know about bufferning capacity and a few other things; do you?
I take it you are scared to to do the experiment I sugested because it might show that you are wrong.
You also seem to think that insulators are "absolute" non conductors rather than just very poor conductors.

If there werwe nowhere for the electrons to go they would accumulate until the screen reached the such a potential as to repel any further electrons and then the CRT wouldn't work.
There is a deliberate mechanism for removing the electrons in a real tube.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
I don't loose my time with nonsense experiments. If you have some brilliant ideas ... please demonstrate ...
Your comments about CRT tube are without importance. The tube is working and a 3.5 microA is delivered in every second.

Instead of doing your proposed experiment, I think it's better to show another possibility to evidence the absence or presence of a chemical reaction of electrode.
It is known that chemical processes at electrode can produce gases, depending on the solution used.
Considering the water electrolysis ( a slight acidic solution) and with some simple modification of an electrolysis device the volume of gases obtained at electrodes can be measured.
For this, a pipettes on 1 ml is cut and a whole of the obtained tube is sealead in the flame as is presented in the fig. 1.



Figure 1.

The volume obtained is about 0,1 ml. The same result is obtained if some tubes used at NMR sampling are used (the inconvenient is the absence of gradation ).

A small electrolyse cell is necessary and the inox electrodes  with a diameter of 1-2 mm are gloved with this tubes. Previously these tubes are filled with liquid, so  before experiment starting, there is no air in the electrodes chambers.

The same circuits like in the upper text are used (one with a battery set and one with a electron gun source).

What are the expectations:
Let's suppose that for two days the electron gun is working at a current intensity of 3.5 microA.
The charge is :
Q = I*t = 3.5*10(-6) * 2* 24 *3600=0.6048 C
in the same time from Q = ne, the number of electrons passing through solutions are:
n = Q/e =  0.6048/1.6*10(-19) = 3.78*10(18)
The number of molecules of hydrogen are half from this number this means:

molecule hydrogen = 1.39*10(18)
But if a mole of hydrogen has a volume of 22.4 l and has a number of 6,023*10(23) molecules, the volume occupied as result of the up considered charge it should be:

x= 1.39*10(18) *22.4 /6,023*10(23) = 0.04 ml.
The volume of electrode chamber is 0.1 ml. So using a device which costs few Eur and a little bit more time it is possible to demonstrate the absurdity of actual physics fundamen ts.
In the experiments there is necessary supplementary  a thermostate ( in order to prevent bubling in the electrode chamber) which can bias the results and it is necessary to take in consideration the surface tension for water.
The whole experiment will be described in the book.
I present the experiment here, maybe someone is really interested in verifying my ,, theories".
When someone will give me a good idea for an experiment, I'm sure I will run like a desperate to check it. But for the moment ... I haven't seen such ideas...

« Last Edit: 19/10/2008 23:32:42 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
You will shortly demonstrate that gases are soluble in water. This isn't news.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
The gases are soluble in water in a certain amount. If there are so soluble and the rate of solubility is equal with rate of generation, you should repeat the experiment  in order to deny my results. In this case the gas disolving phenomena works for me. I have put the experiment here and of course it is in stage of working in order to have a second possibility to check the differences between theories.
Of course last experiment is less sensible but we are  not in 1900! It can be performed home (like in my case) or in any low level laboratory.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I don't loose my time with nonsense experiments.


Clearly a matter of opinion.

Does anyone remember Sorin's challenge to run a current through a gas filled tube?
He said it wouldn't affect a compass needle near the tube. I did the experiment and, in exactly the way real physics predicts, it did affect the needle.
 

Offline Pumblechook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Perhaps he/she is a reincarnation of Tesla....claims to be able to do things nobody else can?
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile

Does anyone remember Sorin's challenge to run a current through a gas filled tube?
He said it wouldn't affect a compass needle near the tube. I did the experiment and, in exactly the way real physics predicts, it did affect the needle.


If I'm not interested in repeating a experiment without sense ( to modify a resistance ) in order to observe a smaller current, when the purpose of the experiment was to decide between the existence or nonexistence of a current, your ,,experiment" with gases interested me.
I want all details for the experiment in order to repeat it in the same conditions.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Then you should have paid attention at the time.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
You have not presented any experimental proof up to date (at least in my posts). In fact I'm convinced you are an theoretician and when you enter in a laboratory all instruments stop to work.
You will need at least 1 week to find someone able to make the experiment with the electric current passing through gas.
If you have made the experiment give the details and leave the results to talk. 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Some of us with long memories will remember me posting the details in a thread that included the line "does anyone want a second-hand fluorescent tube, now as dead as Sorin's theory?".
(incidentally, I still have the dead tube if anyone wants it)
Your assertion that it would take me a week to get a light bulb shows that you have no idea about practical life, never mind practical science.

(and, BTW I have made a perfectly satisfactory living out of being a practical scientist for 20 years- have you?)

OOh! I found the original.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=14900.15;wap2
« Last Edit: 21/10/2008 19:17:47 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
I haven't seen any data. What was the current through gas?
Please give the details about the source, etc. I don't think you can consider a true experiment  a simple conclusion.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The cocnclusion didn't just happen; it was based on an experiment.
The point is that yoour "theory" was proved wrong. I only need to do that once, with whatever conditions and equipment I like to kill the theory.
I did
Mourn your "theory"- don't dig it up and show it to people, because they will not be impressed.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
One operator should move this post to ,,new theory" section. I have tried to do myself, but It seems I don't have this right.
All experiments regarding electrostatic need reinterpretation. The concept of ,,charge" is taken into discussion.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
No new theory has been put forward. No evidence of a problem with the current theory has been produced.
 

Offline PlayStationX

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Bored chemist,

why don't you just go away if his theories do not interest you? what in the world do you imagine you are doing?

i noticed you and couple of others are actually following this sorincosofret guy and talking rubbish with only one pathetic purpose - to put him down. interestingly, most of the messages posted by sorincosofret are locked, funny.


anyhow,
i just wanted to confirm that some of the sorincosofret theories are correct.

by some chance i made couple of "discoveries" which i tested via simulation. then, i went to search WWW and compare my results to current scientific dogma. after quite some search i did not find much but this forum and this sorincosofret guy and his theories that match mine. how wonderful, we shall share the Nobel prize!



 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The reason I reply to Sorrin's stuff is that I don't want this site cluttered with un-answered rubbish.
If we let his comments stand then people might think they were valid but the purpose of this site is to provide real information.
You say "i just wanted to confirm that some of the sorincosofret theories are correct."
Feel free to provide some evidence for that claim. Sorrin never could, and that's what he got banned for.

On the other hand, since you seem ot have started here with an ad hom attack I don't think it will be long before you get banned too.
Perhaps you would like to justify this assertion "i noticed you and couple of others are actually following this sorincosofret guy and talking rubbish with only one pathetic purpose ", if not then you should apologise for it.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2009 13:41:23 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline PlayStationX

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Quote
The reason I reply to Sorrin's stuff is that I don't want this site cluttered with un-answered rubbish.
If we let his comments stand then people might think they were valid but the purpose of this site is to provide real information.

who do you imagine you are to police information and pose yourself as authority, even suggesting others are stupid, so you will do the thinking for everyone?

you really are just very, very bored. let people think for themselves.


science is not about witch-hunt and inquisition. there is no harm even if his theories were wrong, any information is good information. every single theory in quantum chemistry and nuclear physics is wrong at some point, that is no reason to get angry at someones opinion, even less ban them for expressing it, unless of course this is some gestapo business and your job is to control the information.


Quote
Feel free to provide some evidence for that claim. Sorrin never could, and that's what he got banned for.

sorrin did provide evidence, it is not his fault that you were unable to understand.

i could probably provide even better evidence since i have it working modeled in a real-time simulation with 3D visualization, but would you accept it as proof?

you seem to be very confused about basic high-school physics, i have no reason to think you will be able to understand.

so, how about i prove your theory wrong then you ban yourself out from here, hows that?




Quote
Perhaps you would like to justify this assertion "i noticed you and couple of others are actually following this sorincosofret guy and talking rubbish with only one pathetic purpose ", if not then you should apologise for it.

yes, search for Sorrin's messages and you will see yourself there putting a lot of energy into provoking argument with a consequence of thread being closed.

which is funny, since you refused to accept basic knowledge about electromagnetic forces.


you are real hero of stupid and confused,
what would they do without you? let them pray you are not completely wrong about everything, amen.

« Last Edit: 11/01/2009 20:48:07 by PlayStationX »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Once again.
"sorrin did provide evidence, it is not his fault that you were unable to understand."
Cite some.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote
there is no harm even if his theories were wrong, any information is good information.
He doesn't have theories. All he has is half thought out hypotheses.

And "any information" is not 'good information". Wrong information can cause untold harm to people who don't recognise it as such.
'Any opinion' is not valid, either. It needs justification
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length