![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Cosmo » Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:09 pm wrote:You're so right, I posted the same video twice, thanks!
As for "only" 10kV, that's the highest voltage I've seen in a portable generator. Most run 3kV - 7.5kV.
Here's the O2 link --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ECgwNnx4U
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Cosmo » Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:21 pm wrote:In a nutshell, what I'm wondering is if one of the following is true (as they seem like the two possibilities here):
1.) High concentrations of O2 (in this case nearly 100%) act as a barrier between the plates, decreasing the electrical current that can pass through.
2.) The energy of the arc is being absorbed in the O2 molecular fission process.
Whadaya think?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BioWizard » December 7th, 2014, 12:33 am wrote:Hey Cosmo
Quick question. How many times have your repeated the experiment with CO2 and O2? Is the difference in time for the return of the arc statistically significant? Because if it's not, this could simply mean that there is a component in the air other than CO2 or O2 that is mediating the arc (could simply be particulates). Have you tried switching the positions of the tanks?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BioWizard » December 7th, 2014, 12:38 am wrote:In other words, have you confirmed that your find is not an artifact of say the gauge for the O2 (or CO2) tank or the equipment etc? How confident are you that if someone else were to repeat this experiment in their own lab, they will get the same result? 100% Yes, 100% confident.
As professional scientists, we obsess about experimental design, because the difference between making a meaningful find and a misleading artifact always boils down to your design. You need to get your controls down and make sure you test the null hypothesis before you dive into mechanistic interpretation. Also, when you share data with others, you really need to present it in a comprehensible manner that allows them to assess not only the recordings you made, but also the experimental design. P.s schematics can work wonders where words fail. I have to say this was not extremely easy to follow from first read, so I sympathize with CP :] (and I'm still not 100% sure I got it right)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BioWizard » December 7th, 2014, 12:58 am wrote:By the way, I'm not theoretically opposed to the explanation regarding possible delay from residual O2 sucking up some of the current and delaying the return of the arc. You'll need to show 1) that the delay really is specific to O2 (relatively easy), and 2) that oxygen breakdown is necessary for it to happen (harder).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Cosmo » Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:58 am wrote:Again, I can't thank you guys enough for taking your time to kick this around with me.
What I really need is an ozone level monitor, am looking for one online, not finding an option jumping out at me... but there has to be something available.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BioWizard » December 7th, 2014, 9:54 am wrote:I think you misunderstood what I said about particulates. My suggestion was that they were in the surrounding air. but forget about that, I realize in hindsight it was probably a dull thought, and my mind is now going in the exact opposite direction, so... Tell me something. Does the mesh get hot when it runs? And when you turn it on (without additional gas flow), does it immediately light up purple? Or does it take some time to come up in brightness? If so, how much time exactly? have you tried passing regular air through it instead of just CO2 or O2? Or a mixture of CO2 and O2? Does that take a time that's somewhere between 1 and 10 seconds?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BioWizard » December 7th, 2014, 10:02 am wrote:My thought is that these things usually operate at a low pressure. The gas you're sending through it impedes the current. The question is why does O2 impede it longer than CO2, and I think your suggestion that O2 is somehow "absorbing" some of the current makes sense.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Cosmo wrote:The surrounding air is incapable of getting between the plates, as one side of the plate has the sealed gas feed, the two sides are sealed off, and the third side (180° from the feed side) is where the gas exhausts.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Cosmo » 07 Dec 2014 04:27 pm wrote:Bio, I'm aware of this.
My question is.
Is it the energy being used in the molecular fission that's causing the arc to be less intense?
I'll post what I obtain from my meeting with the prof.
I appreciate everybody's time.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests