Baghdad battery for light from Electrolysis..?

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by Bishadi, Apr 16, 2009.

  1. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    I tink i figured them out


    http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_11.htm

    please i ask for any additional opinions or even the curious ones to do the experiment.

    In observing these batteries and what they could have been used for, i tink i gotit.

    There were for lights.

    Since the tombs were so deep and bringing light down so far was not practical with standard flames (low oxygen down there) and the use of mirrors was impractical after a few corners it seems there is another option.

    Now i remember seeing a tomb carving showing a few jars lined in series and the leads going into a larger vase and light coming from it. (in another a lotus flower type carving showed a beam (maybe light) coming from it)


    So after thinking on it and not finding any links or research on how it works, i thought about it for a bit and believe i figured it out.

    They were providing basic electrolysis of water in the large vase. By lining up the batteries in series to increase the power they released H and O and to funnel it to a point, could have been ignited to provide continuous lighting.

    Any ideas on this from others as it is brand new since the weekend and i have yet to find the same idea on the net.

    Sure i can find the idea of electrolysis, the electroplating, the blue sparks, but i have yet to see the light from the H and O released........ and lit to provide light.

    Seeking the so called 'peer review'
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Maybe you should do a bit more checking before you start speculating...
    How much power did they actually produce?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    No one even knows if it was a battery or not, let alone what it might have been used for.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's easier to make hydrogen from a reaction between an acid and iron.
     
  8. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    but with water, the oxygen is provided to burn the fuel
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    My idea was that it was a party trick, like the early days of electricity. Maybe people got together and entertained each other with mild electric shocks. Or maybe it was a kind of torture device.

    Tombs that don't have good air wouldn't support human life in the first place. If you can breathe, you can burn something.
     
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Not to be a downer, but...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery#Interpretation_as_electrical_device
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Nasor: I was going to make the same point - that the Dead Sea Scrolls (well, some of them at least I think) had been found in contraptions similar to the Baghdad 'Batteries' so they may not have been galvanic cells at all.

    The most acidic things they had at that time (to my knowledge) were vinegar and grape juice, which won't produce a very substantial current at all.
     
  12. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    What about the embalming fluids they used?

    Formaldehyde, methanol, ethanol right?
     
  13. GxDESTROYxR Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    @ Nasor

    i have a query regarding the “storage vessels for sacred scrolls from nearby Seleucia on the Tigris” that was mentioned. were these vessels made of the same materials as found in the “Baghdad Battery”? ie. iron rod encompassed by a copper cylinder?

    i have tried web searching it but have found nothing. i assume they were as it is stated that they are virtually identically with the outer jar being the main difference however i would like explicit confirmation of this.

    thanks
     

Share This Page