Author Options:

The Only Idea I Have. Answered

Well, here's my only idea for the LED competition, seeing as I'm a complete noob at LEDs. LED illuminated Jello. It will be weak compared the other LED Instructables, so, I guess I'm asking for you're opinion on the idea. There could be a chance for the random prize. UPDATE prototype made, see picture.


Why not? Actually it could be pretty cool. Besides, it would give you experience for when you want to use LEDs for another competition.

It's essentially LED throwies suspended in layers of Jello. I need to get some batteries though, I just realized the ones I bought don't work.

if you were to put a nine volt in jello, would it create hydrogen and oxygen, and then lit it, would it blow up?

no. this is somthing a lot of people forget: 1) unless you were to somhow trap the h an o, they would bleed harmlessly to the surrounding air. 2) oxgene facilitates combustion, but does not expload 3)hydrogene, like gasoline, requires specific conditions to expload. gasoline must be exactly 15% concentration. hydrogen must be pressurised or better yet, liquified. you now what woul be cooler; instead of an led under a plate, several leds pulsating under the plate, so the jello is lit from all sides, but never 2 sides at the same time.

2) oxygen facilitates combustion, but does not explode

I just CAN'T get this one through my wife's sometimes thick skull. *sigh*

You still don't want to get something "flaming" near an O2 tank as the fire itself with flare up tremendously. But every time we walk pass a smoker, my wife walks on the other side of the road, saying she doesn't want to explode *sigh*.

She may be incorrect, but at least she's got a healthy respect for combustion.

Now tell her that oxygen is poisonous, that'll really mess with her...

So is dihydrous monoxide (H2O)

Name any news outlet, national, local or otherwise, and every one of them has fallen for this kind of joke, taking something seriously even if it was meant as funny in its original format. Check on how many news outlets and cities reacted to the dangers of “Dihydrous monoxide,” based on a science fair joke perpetrated at a junior high school in Idaho Falls (check it out on snopes (dot) com. If you think this stupidity is unique to FOX, you’ve not been watching or reading any news at all, have you?

it doesn't say much for our media for sure...

As a former member of the much maligned media (a photojournalist for 4 or 5 yrs after college)--I do agree, mostly.

For instance, have you ever seen a live feed of a NASA press conference? Some of those reporters couldn't change the batteries in a flashlight. And they are supposed to be the smart one's....

However, based on the grammar and sentence structure evident here on instructables, there is something to the right brain/left brain thing.

There's also an inherent snobbery to each archetype: both engineers and english majors wouldn't lower themselves to learn something about the other discipline. That doesn't excuse it, of course.

But today, there are growing movements merging art and science. Maybe that's a signal of better days ahead (wouldn't count on it, though, given what passes as media currently.)

(An aside: Journalists also have the most abominable taste in music...they're too easily confused by what's popular. Mmmm. shiny. mmmm.)

wouldn't lower themselves to learn something about the other discipline

Oh I don't know: I try to keep my diction as close to acceptble as possible without becoming fanatical about it (but then, maybe I am the weird one ?).

I understand that each "field" is going to be concentrated on more than others, when one is involved with just the one, it just seems to me that if someone is going to report on a chemical substance, they should have at least a 6th grade knowledge of chemistry concerning the subject. Not all are like that of course....but why do those types become the most popular a lot of times?

I pull the DHMO gag on my classes every year, as part of learning how compound names work. I give them the DHMO site address, then set them the task of finding out more about it. When I mention a few days later that there is DHMO in their lunch, and ask them what to do about it, they usually want to campaign to have it banned.

Isn't it odd that they would not come across Snopes or any of the others the mention the origin of the hoax? Or do they choose to ignore those sites? I remember having been given a paper on the aboriginal tribes of people between (I forget the city names, but one of them was in Canada) and just remember a bit about the oblations given to Porcelain gods, etc. and these "peoples" and their strange ways, were viewed as foreign to the writer, but after a lot of thought (especially of you recognized the city names) you realized it was US the paper was talking about. It is quite the exercise in altering one's point of view (and using a dictionary and atlas too :-)

Oh I know not to get a flame near oxygen. I just knew that it is not combustible. Its in my list of stuff that most people wouldn't believe. Just like pure distilled water acting as an electrical resistor.

:-) tell someone that an iron nail that is rusting is actually slowly "burning" and you get the weirdest looks LOL

It's burning? I guess with the oxidation... I like the expression on people's faces when you tell them glass is not a solid.

I wasn't sure I understood your reference to glass there. Enlighten me please?

This is what I knew:

Urban Legend

The legend usually appears in any of the following forms:

  • Antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time.
  • Glass has no crystalline structure, hence it is NOT a solid.
  • Glass is a supercooled liquid.
  • Glass is a liquid that flows very slowly.
  • Glass is a liquid.

Glass is an amorphous solid. A material is amorphous when it has no long-range order, that is, when there is no regularity in the arrangement of its molecular constituents on a scale larger than a few times the size of these groups.... A solid is a rigid material; it does not flow when it is subjected to moderate forces...Doremus, 1994

Glass includes all materials which are structurally similar to a liquid. However, under ambient temperature they react to the impact of force with elastic deformation and therefore have to be considered as solids. -Pfaender, 1996

A glassy (or synonymously, vitreous) material is an amorphous solid that exhibits a glass transition. (Thus, by definition, all glasses are amorphous, but not all amorphous solids are necessarily glassy.) The glass transition is marked (as a function of temperature) either by a change in slope of extensive thermodynamic quantities (e.g., volume or entropy) or, equivalently, as a discontinuity in derivative quantities (e.g., specific heat or thermal expansivity). - Elliott, 1994

An article on the solidity of glass points this out:
"What was the origin of an Urban Legend? How did the "glass is a supercooled liquid" urban legend originate? It is possible it began with an erroneous reading of an influential book by Gustav Tammann (1861-1938), a German physicist who was among the first to study glass as a thermodynamic system (Tammann, 1933). One or two papers I consulted attributed to Tammann the statement "Glass is a supercooled [or undercooled] liquid." Until about 20 years ago supercooling a glass melt was the only way to obtain glass, and the behavior of melts as they passed through the glass transition (i.e., solidified) was very different from crystallization. But solid-state physics was almost entirely based on the study of crystalline solids, which made the behavior of glass melts appear paradoxical. To emphasize this a professor would state "Glass is a liquid which has lost the ability to flow", and some undergraduate, with his mind more on the Friday night date than on the physics of glass, would remember only "glass is a liquid"... Perhaps now we can finally put this legend to its well-deserved rest."

I mean its not a "solid" in the sense that most people think of it. Its amorphous. I had to double check to make sure that I was not wrong. What you have is what I meant by it.

Someone may reply that that is a bit picky, since it is still referred to as an Glass is an amorphous solid. :-)

Thats true. It is picky, but I still like telling people that. Of course explaining to them what an amorphous solid is is much more difficult than just telling them its a liquid.

Burning = oxidation :-) It is slow, but the heat given off is the same (it just dissipates because of the length of time it takes :-)

Well, it depends on your definition of solid too. If solid is defined in terms relating to touch and observation, then it is a solid at room temperature.

But if you try to explain to the average person what plasma is, you can get some odd looks too.

Forget about a discussion in quantum physics LOL

And if you tell someone you can make water flow up hill under it's own volition, they tend to think you have lost a few marbles too. ;-)

i can sort of explain plasma to other tesla coiler wannabies and i can explain it to the electrical engineer at my parts supplier. to make water flow uphill, just boil it. try explaining how to cut water into a 3D shape...

Water flow uphill, by capillary action or "wicking" is what I referred to. It literally flows uphill (a ramjet can do this too, but it isn't really the "water" doing it but the force of the water flowing that does it). :-)

that works too. and to cut water, freeze it, then get out your dremel/angle grinder

Psst, someone might argue that, even though ice is frozen water, it is normally referred to as ice, so you are cutting ice, specifically....but I know what you mean (picayune Paul - me, at your service) LOL

One of my old science teachers was a smoker, and also had access to bottled oxygen.

One lesson, he lit a cigarette, took a deep lungful of pure oxygen, and then blew through the cigarette, which went up like a little flare.

Yes, in school (many moons ago ;-) I remember creating some "reaction" in a test tube that produced a goodly amount of oxygen, and we were to then take a large splinter of wood, light it, blow it out, then plunge the dying ember into the test tube. You would have thought the wood was gunpowder the way it took off.

Ah the good ole days, when we actually had hands on learning in science class *sigh*


10 years ago

See - that wasn't so hard. Good job! Just one nitpick: if you're going to make multiple, it would be far more efficient to wrap them in some plastic wrap (Saran Wrap etc.) Cutting off a corner of an otherwise perfectly good plastic bag just seems wasteful to me, even though it probably only cost a few cents....

Yea, I went through five bags. I only have Glad press and seal, which is opaqueish.

Tiny point - you forgot to capitalise LED in the last step.

What flavor is it?

Tropical Fusion
A blend of cherry, orange, and pineapple flavors.

Go for it! I'm unfortunately unable to enter, my LED ground effects for RC Car is currently in storage :'(

Darn, it says (removed by poster).

Mommy ! My jello is Winking at me !!!!!!


Sorry, I wasn't making fun of your idea......I was inspired by it and the imagined reaction of a youngin :-)

I knew you weren't making fun. Are there blinking LED's that don't need any fancy circuitry?

Make like a see through plate. With drilled holes. Add in LEDs, then you can put any Jello on it, and it would be lighted up. RGB LEDs would be cool.

Yeh, a flat dish with blinking FLEDs built into the surface, and a huge domed jelly (jello) on top. Or use UV LEDs and fluorescent food additives - ghost jelly.