Alexein

Sorry everyone, I'm going to deprecate this experiment and do the more advanced one as instructed. Therefore: DO NOT FOLLOW THE EXPERIMENT IN THE FIRST POST The experiment is wrong and not of the quality expected in this forum as pointed out in the discussion. The absolute last thing i want is to be posting sub-standard videos seemingly done by a high-school moron showing the wrong techniques. I'm currently working on the correct video demonstrating the creation of actual gelatin film with real chemicals and machinery as well the use of actual developer solutions and processes. So once again DO NOT FOLLOW THE EXPERIMENT IN THE FIRST POST!!! Hopefully a mod will come along and delete it. (the first post, not the whole thread, there is good info in the rest of the thread)

I looked it and my reason doesn't violate the rules, it's not spam, advertising or violation. So i probably can't get it deleted. Sorry for the trouble. I'll just put an addendum on the thread asking people to ignore it. Thanks.

Is there a way to delete your own thread? I realize one that I posted was rather childish and I would like to remove it to keep the high standard of the forum.

I am fully aware of those methods (i even say in the video that "modern photography is better and faster"). But i needed to find a balance between making it easy to understand and follow, and doing it right. I choose the former. The point of the video was just to show the basic idea in the simplest way i could think of. It was NOT my intention to do it the best/cheapest way. Not everyone has a darkroom or the patience to attempt this. My intention is something that even a high school or a grade-school science teacher could demonstrate, or some kid for his/her science fair project. So I needed a way to demonstrate photochemistry in a dramatic, but extremely simple way. Handling multiple steps of chemicals and worrying about premature exposure to light would add unneccessary complications to a simple experiment. I think using the silver chloride as-is without additional developing/fixing steps really emphasizes to the kids that it's the sillver chloride that does all the magic of photography, the rest of the chemicals are just improvements. making the silver chloride seperately and putting it ontop of the paper, rather than making it part of the paper itself, emphasizes once again that it's the silver chloride that does the magic. Before, when i did it part of the paper I once had someone ask me how the silver chloride alters the paper... They didn't realize it wasn't the paper that was taking the photograph, it was the silver chloride, the paper was just support. By simply using a powerful lamp, the darkroom is less of a requirement and allows a teacher (or a resourceful kid) to demonstrate the whole experiment on the tabletop. I am planning on making a more advanced photography experiment using the proper chemicals and techniques. Kind of like a "part 2" video for more advanced individuals. But if ya think i'm bastardizing the field i'll remove the current video. Last thing i want is to offend the experts.

Defer to post below

Silver chloride is photosensitive, it will darken when exposed to light. This serves as the basis for photography and has only recently been replaced by the digital age. The concept can be demonstrated by making silver chloride from silver nitrate and table salt. Then spreading it out and exposing it to light while placing something to be "photographed" over it.

I made some of my glow stick experimenst into videos: <--- Simple reaction in a vial <--- Scaled up to two LITERS <--- Complete assembly of a glow stick

most dialkyl phthalates (of which diethyl phthalate is a member) will work. ethyl acetate also works. but that glow lasts for about 2-10 minutes. If you can't get your hands on a dialkyl phthalate i don't reccomend expending the effort on getting the other materials. TCPO is expensive, even if you make it yourself, and not using a good solvent is like buying a sports car and never driving it.

Yes it is. And i highly reccomend getting it if you want a nice long-lasting glow.

What he said

flamming jelly from vinegar, calcium carbonate, and rubbing alcohol. Not exactly Napalm but tad more interesting than just burning liquid alcohol: Somewhat dangerous because it produces small amounts of chlorine gas, but making chemiluminescence from pool chlorine and hydrogen peroxide: Sodium acetate, (yea it's been done to death but might as well jump on the bandwagon...) And polishing silver using electrochemistry (nothing special, just the classic silver reduction by aluminum foil) EDIT: CR*P! I just realized this was an Organic chemistry forum, if the inorganic reactions are too off topic i'll chuck em.

a gas washing bottle? http://www.chemglass.com/search_category.asp?category=C04&subcategory=S084 Or a gas dispersion tube? http://www.prismresearchglass.com/product.aspx?productID=600&gas-dispersion-tube

Gotta click the "more info" link in the box on the right side of the video. Just under the date and name and just to the right of the "NURD RAGE" icon. As for the color, i'm not quite certain how to clear it up. slow recrystalization might give you highly pure crystals that you can filter off to leave behind the yellow crud. If you're going to go as far as use activated charcoal, i think you might be better off just buying the pure sodium acetate from ebay. you can get it by the bucketload there.

This video might help ya: Read the info bar at the side. It goes into much more detail and gives exact measurements of baking soda for the various percentages of vinegar. You'll need a scale though.

dude, read the topic. He's asking about CARBON. not carbon dioxide.

Camping supplies, magnesium is sold as a "firestarter" aid in block form. Just grind off the amount you need. costs about $9 here in canada. if you want it for free then put it in your pocket and make sure the cameras don't see you.

exactly how are you measuring the change in redox potential of the water? Specialized equipment like that (a Cyclic voltametry system) costs several thousand dollars. The platinum electrode alone will be more expensive then buying zinc off ebay. If you really need hydrogen you can just put a few strips of aluminum foil into a solution of hydroxide based drain cleaner. Very easy to obtain both. But unless you're using a very exotic measuring system you won't be able to observe how hydrogen affects the electrochemistry of a solution with just stuff you find around the home.

I reject Science_nerd's spam and substitute my *own* hehehe. but back on topic. The "rubbing alcohol" smell of the clear liquid in a glowstick is T-butanol. It's added to the peroxide to help stabilize and dissolve it. So be careful working with your newfound source of concentrated peroxide, if you use it as-is then be aware the t-butanol might affect your experiments. In addition to the t-butanol the clear fluid in a glowstick usually contains a pthalate ester, usually di(ethylhexyl)phthalate. This is added to dilute the peroxide down to the strength they want.

The vials at the beginning of the post give a week of useful light and another two to three weeks of detectable light (depends on the initial quality of the reagents). The dish in the video gives only about 10 minutes of light. The huge difference arises from the solvents. The TCPO is not very stable in ethyl acetate. But has excellent stability in diethyl phthalate which is what the vials used. Yeah, if you're going to stealth-spam at least spam with useful info.

yeah, gives a nice blue glow for about 30 seconds. In my opinion it doesn't last long enough to be a worthwhile light source. luminol is more useful for forensics. Personally, i think you're better off using Peroxylate chemiluminescence. The website is outdated, glowsticks exclusively use peroxylates.

post pictures when you can.

Here is a video of the actual TCPO crystals and their use. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVQ9jjdU0l8

The trick is actually to cheat.... instead fill the container FULL of another fluid that the ferrofluid is immiscible in but "stains" the container better than the ferrorfluid. If your ferrofluid doesn't dissolve in water, because it has an organic carrier fluid, you could try filling your container with water and ferrofluid and maybe you'll get the effect you want. other solvents might include alcohols, phthalate esters or fluorinated organics.

i guess we can agree: the water balls are a hoax

i haven't tried it myself. But a friend told me he replicated the same hoax by using toy "marbles" that expand when added to water. I never asked him the name but he said the toys consisted of some kind of polymer that absorbed alot of water and thus had the very similar density and refractive index of water when fully hydrated. While i didn't test it myself, i have other reasons for disbelieving the video. It's pretty clear the balls in the video had to be pre-made in some way.... Why are all the balls the same size? if the effect is truly just between air and water with no other forces then there should be randomness to the size of the balls. just like there is a randomness to the size of soap bubbles when you shake a bottle of soapy water. While one may argue all the little balls fell to the bottom.... where are the great big giant balls? Found it: http://www.watergelball.com/ http://www.crystalsoil.co.nz/Information.htm It's called "crystal soil" the gel beads can absorb 100 times their own weight in water. They feel like gel and because they're 99% water they appear to dissappear in water when you put it in. They expand to quite a large size from dry form. In fact, a simpler form is closer than you think: diapers Diapers have the same absorbent polymer. Tear open a diaper (a NEW one, not a used one...) and you'll find powder inside that absorbs water in the same way. It won't give you the big marbles you see in the vids because its finely crushed powder but it will expand and appear invisible in water. The "crystal soil" is basically larger beads of the same stuff.