metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
Electrolyzing CaCl2 with DC welder
I tried to electrolyze some CaCl2 'drying agent' in a steel crucible connected to the (-) so it acts as the cathode and a carbon rod connected to the
(+).
I used a 200 amp (set to 100 amp) DC welder as power supply. I started arcing to start the initial melt to get it conductive. Finally I saw a red hot
liquid bubbling, sometimes it arced underwater ('water' which is actually liquid CaCl2) due to the louder bubbling with the sound of a submerged arc.
Sometimes I saw orange blinks which are actually Ca metal which then immediately burned again.
I smelled a swimming pool smell, but I don't think considerable amounts of Cl2 gas are generated.
Here the video (I held the camera in my hand while my other hand was holding the anode.
http://www.metallab.net/jwplayer/video.php?f=/clips/CaCl2-el...
Did somebody else try this ?
|
|
|
MeshPL
Hazard to Others
Posts: 329
Registered: 20-4-2015
Location: Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You cannot produce big amounts of chlorine by electrolysis of chloride solution. You will produce some chlorine and calcium hydroxide, but after some
point all produced chlorine will react with calcium hydroxide (not super soluble, yet soluble enough) to form calcium hypochlorite and calcium
chloride. For such a process to work you need to use:
-molten chloride
-diaphragm/membrane cell
-mercury cell (works with NaCl, not sure about CaCl2)
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3246
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
MeshPL, obviously you did not read the original post carefully, this does appear to be molten and looking the video it is obvious.
@metalresearcher: Your setup might work for a proof of concept but it's not going to let you really make anything isolateable. You're using too
much current and shorting out your cell constantly (or so it seems), also your cell is much too small (i.e, no separation of products) and it looks
from the color that your setup is too hot, you're just burning off any calcium as you form it. You need to put some more care into this than tossing
some CaCl<sub>2</sub> into a crucible and hitting it with some amps.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Assuming the CaCl2 drying agent was relatively dry, he wasn't electrolysing a chloride solution. Small amount of water in the melt would be
electrolysed first, because of the relative Standard Reduction Potentials of H<sup>+</sup> and Ca<sup>2+</sup>.
Using some lower melting eutectic mixture could make things easier though.
[Edited on 17-5-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
byko3y
National Hazard
Posts: 721
Registered: 16-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: dooM
|
|
Let me remind you of an old method of calcium production using aluminium The Production of Metallic Calcium by Thermal Reduction
Also, I'd like to say few words bout sodium metal production, for which not a regular NaCl molt is used, but a mixture of NaCl+CaCl2 or stuff like
that (doesn't matter).
The starightforward method of CaCl2 electrolysis is complex and inefficient. There are many ways to improve the process, e.g. ELECTROLYTIC PRODUCTION OF CALCIUM METAL By J. J. Lukasko 1 and J. E. Murphl or US3226311
Also, you need to separate the chlorine from calcium metal, because those two react violently.
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
BromicAcid : you are right, this is indeed a raw test, for really isolating Ca metal more is needed. But why is the current too much ? For the small
size of the cell ?
Indeed a kind of a 'Downs cell' is needed and some fluxing to lower the mp. Pure CaCl2 melts at 772 C and I guessed by the color that the temperature
is not far above it. I forgot my infrared pyrometer to check.
blogfast25: Using some lower melting eutectic mixture could make things easier though.
But adding NaCl will isolate Na as Na has priority over Ca in a mixture. So what salt should I add to lower the mp ? A potassium salt ?
[Edited on 2015-5-17 by metalresearcher]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Aluminothermic calcium:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/mining/mine...
KCl is used.
[Edited on 17-5-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3246
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
Yes, I think the current is too much for such a small cell. I did electrolysis of LiCl/KCl eucetic in a similarly sized cell with a 10A power supply
and even that was too much, as material was reduced at the cathode, the metal formed would help to short out the cell as it approached the side walls.
For a cell that size it's just overkill. Of course I don't know what your current draw actually was, just what your supply was, if you only had the
very tip of the electrode touching your current would be much lower, right? But really, your crucible was tiny, at 100A and 100% efficiency (of
course neither happened in reality) you would be making 12.5g of calcium metal every 10 minutes, likely consuming all the electrolyte in that
container.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
Looks pretty in an evil, hell-is-hot-pink kind of a way.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid  | | Yes, I think the current is too much for such a small cell. I did electrolysis of LiCl/KCl eutectic in a similarly sized cell with a 10A power supply
and even that was too much, as material was reduced at the cathode, the metal formed would help to short out the cell as it approached the side walls.
For a cell that size it's just overkill. |
Did you use len1's cell, as described in his book? Just curious...
[Edited on 18-5-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
MeshPL
Hazard to Others
Posts: 329
Registered: 20-4-2015
Location: Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sorry for wrong reply I posted a while ago. 
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Three 'Hail Science!' and we'll say no more about it.
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3246
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
No, I don't think Len had his book out at that time. It was just a proof of concept (looking very similar to the opening post of this thread), you
can see the glow in the picture from the lithium metal shorting out the cell which is one of my worries with high current in such a small cell.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid | No, I don't think Len had his book out at that time. It was just a proof of concept (looking very similar to the opening post of this thread), you
can see the glow in the picture from the lithium metal shorting out the cell which is one of my worries with high current in such a small cell.
|
What were the electrodes and crucible used?
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3246
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
Cathode was nickel, anode was just the crucible (mild steel).
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I see. Thanks.
|
|
|
420MLGnOhEADsCOPEpro
Harmless
Posts: 27
Registered: 22-1-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
if we assume 100 amps at 100% efficiency then you were making 0.37 grams of chlorine per second = 22.2 grams per minute = 1,332 grams per hour
you definitely didn't get that much but a notable fraction of that is a reasonable guess
i would consider grams per minute of chlorine to be significant
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
I doubt whether the current was really 100A. I set the welder to 100A, which is a maximum rating and will be achieved when holding a welding stick for
drawing a welding arc. But when electrolyzing the resistance of the salt solution bath is leading which is much higher than steel.
| Quote: Originally posted by 420MLGnOhEADsCOPEpro | if we assume 100 amps at 100% efficiency then you were making 0.37 grams of chlorine per second = 22.2 grams per minute = 1,332 grams per hour
you definitely didn't get that much but a notable fraction of that is a reasonable guess
i would consider grams per minute of chlorine to be significant |
22.2kg / minute = 1.332kilograms per hour not grams.
22.2x60 =1332 not 1.332.
That is another hint that the 100 amps are not reached by far.
|
|
|
Marvin
National Hazard
Posts: 995
Registered: 13-10-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I make 100 Amps as producing 0.037g/s Chlorine. 133g/h.
metalresearcher, he used a comma, and you have an errent k on the left hand side yourself ;P
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Faraday constant = 9.64853399 x 10<sup>4</sup> C per mol of electrons. 2 mol of electrons per mol of chlorine generated.
Mol Cl2 generated per second = 100 C/s divided by 2 x 9.64853399 x 10<sup>4</sup> C/mol = 0.00052 mol Cl2/s = 0.037 g Cl2/s = 133 g/h.
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
Well, I did another try (proof of concept) and set the welder to 25A. I did not notich much difference but less shortings, more current through the
salt bath instead of shorting arcs. On the edge lots of yellow sparks appeard but the color was more sodium like yellow, which means that some NaCl is
in the solution, which does not surprise me as it is just commercial drying agent.
According to the color I guessed the temperature about 800C slightly above the mp of CaCl2 of 772C.
BTW I did this outdoors due to the Cl2 stench.
Now I try to find ways to isolate the Ca metal which is not easy as it floats on top of the solution. The only way is not to use the crucible as
cathode but a steel cylinder closed on top as cathode, completely immersed in the solution. After cooling and when the salt is frozen I have to dig
out the cylinder and to break out the Ca metal under the salt, as removing the cathode when the salt is still liquid, the still hot Ca metal will be
exposed to the air which burns immediately.
The clip again (refreshed tonight): http://www.metallab.net/jwplayer/video.php?f=/clips/CaCl2-el...
[Edited on 2015-5-20 by metalresearcher]
|
|
|
Marvin
National Hazard
Posts: 995
Registered: 13-10-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
My only try at calcium was an utter failure. I think the reason I couldn't get my CaCl2 molten was down to a large amount of oxide or
carbonate in the drying chips, but it might just be that a Bunsen and a metal container couldn't reach the temperature. I've since read about adding
hydrochloric acid to the CaCl2 and heating to fusion to get a good melt. You'd need a good draught for the fumes but then you do anyway.
One key to this seems to be getting the cell absolutely right for the current available and cooling the cathode enough to use a window between the
melting point of the chloride and the metal to pull a stick of metal (covered with a little chloride) out of the molten chloride as it forms. This
probably needs a lot of planning and experimentation as normally the cathode will be the hottest part of the cell.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by metalresearcher | Now I try to find ways to isolate the Ca metal which is not easy as it floats on top of the solution. The only way is not to use the crucible as
cathode but a steel cylinder closed on top as cathode, completely immersed in the solution. After cooling and when the salt is frozen I have to dig
out the cylinder and to break out the Ca metal under the salt, as removing the cathode when the salt is still liquid, the still hot Ca metal will be
exposed to the air which burns immediately.
The clip again (refreshed tonight): http://www.metallab.net/jwplayer/video.php?f=/clips/CaCl2-el...
|
Much better video, thanks.
In order for the closed cylinder cathode idea to work, the outside of the cathode would also have to be covered in some insulating material, as
current seeks the path of least resistance.
I've played with that idea in the past by covering the outside of such a 'cupola cathode' in annealed alumina, by using KClO3 + 2 Al === > Al2O3 +
KCl. Or KNO3 + 2 Al === > Al2O3 + 1/2 K + 1/2 N2.
A mixture of the ingredients could be made into a wet (water) paste, applied onto the cupola, dried and then lit with the resulting alumina covering
the cupola.
[Edited on 21-5-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 758
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
This will NEVER happen, particularly at those temperatures. Al powder will NEVER release elemental K from its salts.
But indeed, the exterior of a steel cylinder cathode should also be covered.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Oh but it does because Al reduces K<sub>2</sub>O easily, it also reduces KOH in a thermite-style reaction even. Of course the K
re-oxidises immediately in air.
I've used the KNO3 + 2 Al reaction many times to heat boost titanium (dioxide) thermites.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
