Ibpointless2 Crystal Cells

[Peanutbutter29]

@ Triffid.  Nice shots and updates with the cells!  I really like the "organic" concept in terms of electrolytes.  I've seen (somewhere) a list of acidic and alkaline edibles;  I'll see if I can find that again.   I'm not sure if I'd wanna try a Bile Pile though, lol.  Just.....ewwww.

@Phicell,   First, Nice shot running the LED!! (ya' need a JT);  sure it's not much, but far more than the results you had with Epsom.  Its' a forward movement and that is good.

I'll probably be scattered on some with things but we'll see.
First, I want to give a link for reference.  When we all talk of reactivity and electrode potentials, it can be confusing and its' not necessary to be.  For simple reference I would look at / use "activity series" charts as opposed to "electrode potential".  Now, if you want to get ideas of potential difference in terms of voltage (relative to H) then you would need the electrode chart;  otherwise activity is much easier to interpret and placement is the same.
http://www.grandinetti.org/Teaching/Chem121/Lectures/ActivitySeries
There is one, but you can find many images for activity series. 
**The higher  you go in the chart, the more easily an element can be oxidized (E.g. rust with iron).  Also, as you move up each element is more electrically negative to the one before it. 
**The lower you go in the chart, the more resistance the element has to oxidation (e.g gold bottom, doesn't rust).  Also, as you move down each element is more electrically positive than the one before it. 
**Since "electrode potentials" in volts are measured against Hydrogen, then everything above H will have a positive potential, BUT remember hydrogen is the reference;  nothing more.   
**Work is always performed from areas of excess electrons (-) moving to areas of electron holes (+), This difference that we measure in Volts will always resolve from most negative with most positive;  then next most negative with most positive etc.
**The greater this difference (in terms of chemistry) the faster a reaction, or rate of reaction can occur.  The greater the difference (in terms of electricity) the more volume of energy that can potentially be transferred based on the resistance of the circuit (inside battery, circuit, etc)
**Applying external potentials (e.g. electrons or lack thereof) directly to an element will change its' inherit charge relative other elements / molecules within BOTH conductive (ohms law) and electrostatic (Inverse square law) vicinity.

So, Phi;  compare the first scenario of Al with Mg on the link.  You can see, Mg being more negative (oxidative) is why no power would come out of the cells.  However, when a charge was applied (as tested);  we provided Aluminum with more potential electrons and added more potential "holes" to the carbon.  By doing this, we essentially shifted Al one position UP in that chart;  now then above magnesium, or more oxidative.  This is why a liquid solution could be "charged" by allowing Aluminum to be "temporarily" more negative than Magnesium;  and a reaction could and did occur.  When the external source was removed, now Al is again lower than Mg and the power that was outputted;  was from the magnesium being oxidized by the Aluminum sulfate back to the starting Magnesium sulfate. 
  When I gave some suggestions for other electrolytes, it was intended to avoid the necessity for charging;  in that, the assembled system, would already be in a state to oxidize the negative Metal (Al, Mg, Fe, etc).  E.G, on the chart;  the negative electrode is highest, the positive electrode is lowest and the electrolyte is somewhere in between.  This system will perform work based on above noted potential difference, conductivity and reaction rate relative to concentration.
For instance if we used Zinc sulfate as an electrolyte, you can see Al is more oxidize-able (negative) than the Zinc.  So, the aluminum will be oxidized by the zinc sulfate until one of the two run out. 
  When using, then, reactive configurations an external voltage would just make this reaction speed up.  This is since Aluminum is already the most negative and we supply more negative;  the reaction can increase from either direct conduction or electrostatic charge transfer.  In either case though, you are increasing the rate of exhaustion of the electrolyte.  Not necessarily what we want here.
   
  There is another reason, though, to have explained this scenario just above.   I stated, from a system perspective, that we made the Aluminum more negative.  if you were to look from the perspective of the aluminum itself, then from this perspective;  the electrolyte became more positive (e.g. alkaline).
Now, let's add in again that aluminum has an oxide coating that reduces its' "apparent" potential.  However, by adding an external potential (making the electrolyte more alkaline from Al perspective);  this oxide coating can now be oxidized.  This is why your cells show an "appropriate for placement" voltage;  when you disconnect them from a charger.  The oxide is off, some portions and pure Al is exposed.  The fast drop in voltage is how fast that coating completely re-forms back over the Aluminum.   Also, why I mentioned possibly using another negative electrode to avoid false "apparent" potentials;  however the oxide still does protect corrosion, of course for reduced current.

Pretty much all the cells we make will have low "shelf life's", in the sense that all of these are reacting whether connected or not.  The only reason modern batteries get a shelf life, is because the separator almost fully prevents both conduction and electrostatic movement.  These are all engineered for every battery to ONLY allow a specific Ion to penetrate.  Also, it takes a connection to a load to bridge the dielectric crossing of the separator and begin performing work.   This is not at all a bad thing however, since even at worst we could charge a modern cell that CAN store energy (lithium, nimh, lead acid etc).  I showed this in a video using a joule thief with a dc rectifier circuit.

Bit of a side track there, but it relates to why one of your cells was low volts and the other still high after a long connection.  Since we don't have Ion specific separators, current can flow in both directions.  At the midpoint there is a negative to positive connection between cells and the load connected to outer ends.  This midpoint connection, makes the load Aluminum electrode more negative than the midpoint Aluminum (from mid Al perspective);  to chemically resolve this you end up with one cell adding an oxide layer to Al and the other Removing it. 

Last, I assume that the cells that did harden had the lowest levels of borax, right?  If so, then being able to light the LED with a low concentration isn't too bad!.  For higher concentrations you'll probably have to mix plaster, water, and borax....heat at XX temperature and time (450 until golden brown, lol) until the moisture is removed.  Then if temp was hot enough, this mixture can be mixed with carbon and water;  and should harden.

ugh, sorry to ramble again, but I hope it helps
Thanks

[PhiChaser]

@PB: Your ramblings are quite informative, don't apologize! I will keep trying with the borax until I find the top of the bell (so to speak) and go from there. I haven't done any mixing for over a week, I'm out of Al. I see what you're getting at about the charging (you worded that very well BTW) about moving up and down the reactance chart. Made a lot of sense about the electrolyte too. Good brain food! Thanks again!
And yes, I totally need to build a JT (and a slayer exciter to go with it?).

I wish that LED had been full brightness... 
The cells seem to hold more voltage than the initial 'mix' does without charging. Longer 'hookups' seem to give more stable longer lasting vA too. Increased (hidden?) potential...
I will keep trying these charge experiments until I get more supplies, etc... (I'm totally out of Al.) Sucks being broke.

Happy experimenting,
PC

EDIT:

At the midpoint there is a negative to positive connection between cells and the load connected to outer ends.  This midpoint connection, makes the load Aluminum electrode more negative than the midpoint Aluminum (from mid Al perspective);  to chemically resolve this you end up with one cell adding an oxide layer to Al and the other Removing it.

This bears some thought too... Nice.

[triffid]

I have some great news!Even though all of my petro jelly protected magnesium strips have a little black corrosion color on them.They do not seem to be weakened by the oxalic acid in the dandelion leaf as the first batch of cells had been.With six cells hooked up in series.I got 7.25 volts and .26 mAs.Thats 1.88 milliwatts.These cells are not as powerful as the first batch.Maybe the petro jelly is a factor?


Question: Am I giving up power(amps) to inhibit the action of the oxalic acid on the magnesium metal strip?


In IB2s video where he showed that volts are not lost when he put petro jelly on the magnesium strip and therefore conductive.I don't recall that he checked the amps.He also showed that that the magnesium strip was protected from the acetic acid.


I had another question but lost that train of thought.
Thanks guys on the comments about the pictures.
triffid

[triffid]

Bile Pile,now thats an interesting name.Bile salts do contain about six more organic acids That I have not played with yet.I guess I will see if borax can protect my magnesium strips and work on my aluminum/copper wire 12 cell setup.I already have six of those cells made.




Some thoughts on petro jelly.It does repell water so maybe its slowing down the reaction rate?Of electron transfer according to PB.That could be happening?

[PhiChaser]

Howdy all,
I wanted to mix some cells last night so I tore the 'trodes out of the recent borax disasters and cleaned them up...
Went in for a 3:2:1 (durhams:epsom salt:alum) mix with 1/2 tsp of borax and 1/8 tsp of BKF (maybe 50% oxalic acid?). I mixed the borax and BKF in H2O (and tried to grind the grit up) before adding it to the the 3:2:1 mix. It didn't look like it was going to set up so I put the 4 cells in the freezer (heh heh, THAT will teach it to set up!). Popped the cells out and let them dry out overnight.I charged two of the four cells I made (series 6v paralleled to cells, about 10.25v heh) and kept two uncharged for a baseline... Regarding the charged cells: WOW did I see the current go UP! The uncharged cells had typical low readings (0.6v@under10uA)...
They are hard today but the Durham's gets harder over time. Some of the older cells I've made could be indented with a fingernail, now I can't do that with them at all, they are 'Rock Hard', just like the can says!
Nearly all of my meters are below 1mA so I'm having a tough time getting an accurate reading of the true amperage. More than 2mA for sure, but when I hook the 2mA meter in series with an LED and only one cell it drops pretty fast. The LED went out but it is back on again. I can't use the meter with both cells in series unless I use two LEDs, otherwise it pegs. I have to admit, I like to hear that little 'tink' noise! Yeah, I know it is bad for the meters...
The voltage seems to holding be at about 1.6v measured with the LED connected (WOOT!!!).
Took some pics: Check it out, I've got single cell lights!

Happy experimenting,
PC

EDIT: Heh heh, found out I can test LEDs with my VOM on the lower resistance settings as well as the diode test setting. Not sure why I never thought of that before...