Special battery

Can a double oxidation phenomenon generate an electric current?

This material was submitted for publication at the Royal Society of Chemistry - Chemical Communications.
After submitting the manuscript, I received an email and I was asked to justify why do I think the manuscript deserves to be published in Chemical Communications; furthermore my justification had to take into account the following aspects: the material must be concise and have an original character and on the other hand it has to be of wide interest to readers or exceptional interest to specialists.
How manuscript or manuscripts (because then I sent another three) met all these conditions, I made ​​a detailed justification and than waited their decision to publish ....
But as the saying goes -,,Old habits die hard", their decision is like a carbon copy of other decisions that I have received from 1995 to present.
Read part of the discussion, in original at the end of the article ...

Abstract

An unusual battery is proposed in the experiment below. The particularity of this cell is the fact that both electrodes (cathode and anode)  undergo oxidation phenomenon. In these conditions still an electric current is generated in an external circuit. In the frame of actual science, no possible explanation can be formulated for the experiment and a new frame for conversion of chemical energy in electrical energy have to be proposed.

Background and actual interpretation

Few hundreds of years ago, first successes were counted in electricity as result of galvanic elements and electrolysis explanation. The explanation formulated at those times, in principle, is the same like the one accepted in present days and is presented in any low level book of science (physic and chemistry).
Batteries (electrochemical cells) produce electricity by spontaneous chemical reactions. That is because batteries work by oxidation/reduction (redox) reactions, involving the transfer of electrons. For a battery to work, both an oxidation and a reduction must happen; one generates electrons at one electrode, and the other uses them up at the other electrode. Each of these is called a "half reaction". If the electrodes are connected outside the cell by a circuit, electrons flow and the full reaction is completed (fig. 1).

Figure 1 Electron flow in a circuit

 In a simplified way there a chemical source is made by:
Anode: The negative pole of the battery where oxidation occurs.
Cathode: The positive pole of the battery where reduction occurs.
Electrolyte: A solution that aids in the flow of energy.
To illustrate how a battery works and how the components interact, let's consider the simplified battery from fig. 1 and an external circuit made by a resistor (ammeter).
As result of anode reaction, electrons are free to move in the conductor, and an electric current is generated. When electrons arrive to cathode, they are used to complete the reduction step of reaction.
This flow of energy will continue until the anode can no longer give up electrons and the cathode can no longer receive electrons.

Experimental part

A strip of Zn and a strip of Fe are immersed into a  solution of sulphuric acid (in our experiments a 4M) and connected to an ammeter as indicated in fig. 2. And this is all the experiment ....

Figure 2 Experiment detail -The working battery

An electric current is measured by the ammeter. The size of measured electric current is dependent on the area of contact between electrodes and sulphuric acid solution. In our case with a contact area of about 1 cm² the measured current was 6,1 mA.
In the same time bubble of hydrogen are evolving simultaneously at both electrodes (see picture below taken with a photo device). A simple analytical procedure can evidence in solution both Fe and Zn beside sulphate species.

 Previously both metals were tested and when immersed individually into sulphuric acid, they react with that after well-known chemical equations.

Because now it's fashionable to have a video proof, a short film made on 07.oct. 2013 is shown below. In this case ammeter measuring current was 67 mA approx. The experiment was made in home existent conditions with a solution of sulfuric acid conc. approx. 4M, a pin of iron and a strip of zinc recovered from a used battery.

Experiment interpretation

It is difficult to believe that a simpler experiment able to demolish entire modern science will be ever performed.
As is observed there is an oxidation process at both electrodes and despite this fact, an electric current is running into the external circuit.

At both electrodes, simultaneously, complete and different redox reactions take place and both metal electrodes undergo an oxidation process. The movement of electrons into external circuit is completely inexplicable in actual science. If some electrons are generated at Fe electrode, and other electrons are generated at Zn electrode, it is completely absurd to think that these electrons are travelling in the external circuit only for the sake of travelling...meet each other, greet each other and continues on ...

At a first glance the intensity of electric current is dependent on sulfuric acid concentration and on area of contact betwen metals and solution.

The detailed interpretation of electrodes phenomenon  and the explanation for the ,,direction of this electric current" will be made in the book.

Conclusions

In a new and more reliable interpretation an electric current has nothing to do with an electric charge movement.

The concept of oxidation state is ruled out as being useless and the concept of oxidation and reduction are to  be refined.

Here is part of the discussion I had with ChemComm editors:

 from: "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:04 PM
Subject: ChemComm - CC-COM-05-2013-043664 - justification statement needed

16-May-2013

 Dear Dr Cosofret:

 Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Under voltage electrolysis and foundation of exact sciences" to ChemComm.

 According to our Guidelines for Authors at http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/guidelines/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/Journals/CC.asp we require a brief statement justifying why your article should be published in ChemComm. When preparing your letter please bear in mind the following criteria:

 Communications should be a concise preliminary account of original and significant research. Communications should appeal to either the wide general readership or be of exceptional interest to the specialist.

 I would be grateful if you would email your justification letter to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. as soon as possible. Please remember to quote your manuscript reference number CC-COM-05-2013-043664 in all correspondence.

 Yours sincerely,

 ChemComm Editorial Office
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

From: Sorin Cosofret <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
To: "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: ChemComm - CC-COM-05-2013-043664 - justification statement needed

Dear Sir,
Dear Madame,
I was asked to give a justification for a possible publication of a manuscript, reference number CC-COM-05-2013-043664, in ChemComm journal.
As far in the future, I have the intention to submit other manuscripts for publication, this letter will be a little bit longer and I will explain my main motivations.
I started the work to a new theory of science about 25 years ago, with a budget of about 200 euro per month (my entire earnings for living in that time were equivalent to 400 euro and from this amount half were dedicated for research). I know it seems crazy, but in those conditions I was able to formulate a new theory of gravitation and a new theory of atomic structure. Although I was trying to promote these theories in mainstream literature, no high IF journal was ever interested to publish articles out of these works. Later, I had the occasion to get a temporary but much better but job (sic!) in the EU and with a better budget, I was able to continue my works and propose a new theory of relativity, a new theory of chemistry and a corpuscular theory of light. By end of 2011, five books about these theories were already published with money coming from my pockets.
Now I am continuing expanding these theories although I earn few hundreds euro per month in unqualified jobs. I am working in parallel in the following directions:
Ø PRINCIPLES OF MAGNETISM AND ELECTRICITY
Ø BASICS OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY
Ø ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
Ø NUCLEAR AND ELEMENTARY PARTICLE PHYSICS
Ø Thermodynamics and statistics
The submitted article, reference number CC-COM-05-2013-043664, is already part of the published book ,,Concepts in chemistry´´. It is a simple cut off experiment which cannot find a consistent explanation in the frame of actual physics or chemistry.
I will be interested to submit about 20 cut off experiments in chemistry field and I will be glad if Royal Society of Chemistry dares to challenge for a revolution in exact sciences. By comparison with astronomy or atomic structure, the proposed cut off experiments in chemistry or electricity are low cost and easy to be replicated in any school laboratory.
As far I am sure about the results of experiments, a simple question remains: Do Royal Society of Chemistry want to make history? Or prefers to be reminded as an obstructionist for a history change....
Sincerely
Sorin Cosofret

From: "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:12 PM
Subject: ChemComm - Decision on Manuscripts ID CC-COM-05-2013-043664, 043842, 043956 and 043995

  29-May-2013

  Dear Dr Cosofret:

  MANUSCRIPT ID: CC-COM-05-2013-043664
TITLE: Under voltage electrolysis and foundation of exact sciences
AUTHORS: Cosofret, Sorin

  MANUSCRIPT ID: CC-COM-05-2013-043842
TITLE: Concentration cell and foundation of electrochemistry
AUTHORS: Cosofret, Sorin

  MANUSCRIPT ID: CC-COM-05-2013-043956
TITLE: Volta Battery and the basis of electricity
AUTHORS: Cosofret, Sorin

  MANUSCRIPT ID: CC-COM-05-2013-043995
TITLE: Can electrodes double oxidation phenomena generate an electric current?
AUTHORS: Cosofret, Sorin

  Thank you for your submissions to ChemComm, which I have read with interest. I regret to inform you however that this manuscript will not be considered further as a submission to the journal. All manuscripts submitted to ChemComm are initially evaluated by the Editors to ensure they meet the essential criteria for publication in the journal. I'm sorry to say that on this occasion your articles will undergo no further processing.

  In the justification accompanying manuscript CC-COM-05-2013-043664, you mention that the article is already part of a published book. As the content is already published and in the public domain, we cannot consider it for publication in ChemComm as it is a breach of the terms of our Licence to Publish, in particular Section 2, which states that:

  (c) the Work has not been and will not prior to publication by the RSC be published, with the sole exception of
deposition of the pre-submitted manuscript in non-commercial subject repository(ies).

  Furthermore, we do not feel that that a series of stand-alone experiments warrants publication as a series of communications.

  Papers published in ChemComm should report preliminary accounts of original and significant research that will appeal to a wide general readership or be of great interest to the specialist. The rejection rate for papers submitted to ChemComm is ~70%. Further information regarding our policy on the initial assessment of submissions can be found on our website at http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/guidelines/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/initialassessment/index.asp

  I am sorry not to have better news for you. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider this work; we wish you every success should you decide to submit the article elsewhere. Thank you for your interest in ChemComm.

  Yours sincerely,

  Ellie

  Dr Eleanor A. Merritt, MRSC
Publishing Editor, ChemComm and Chemical Science

  Royal Society of Chemistry, Thomas Graham House,
Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WF, UK
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.