Lack of electrical connections Though the iron rod did project outside of the asphalt plug, the copper tube did not, making it impossible to connect a wire to this to complete a circuit.
Expected residues A 2002 article in
Plating & Surface Finishing addressed the expected results of the jar being used for electroplating. If used as an electrical cell, copper would have gone into solution in the liquid and copious amounts of copper salts would have been seen in the ceramic vessel and copper metal on the iron parts. This jar was theorised to be the battery but to effect electroplating another cell would be needed. Nothing resembling an electroplating cell with the associated gold or silver traces has been reported. David A. Scott, senior scientist at the
Getty Conservation Institute and head of its Museum Research Laboratory, writes: "There is a natural tendency for writers dealing with chemical technology to envisage these unique ancient objects of two thousand years ago as electroplating accessories (Foley 1977), but this is clearly untenable, for there is absolutely no evidence for electroplating in this region at the time". Paul T. Keyser of the University of Alberta noted that using only vinegar, or other electrolytes available at the time the jar was made, the battery would be very feeble. For that and other reasons, Keyser concluded that even if this was in fact a battery, it could not have been used for electroplating. However, Keyser still supported the battery theory, but believed it was used for some kind of mild
electrotherapy such as pain relief, possibly through
electroacupuncture.
Oxygen needed to function Tests run by Emmerich Paszthory showed that oxygen was a limiting factor for the cell to function when the electrolyte was water with salt and acetic or citric acids. Sealing the copper cylinders in the way seen in the archaeological finds brought electricity production to a stop at once. == See also ==