0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
#ResultsRequired
You may wish to look at papers (M. Glaser, Metrologia 1990 & Dmitriev et al, Measurements Techniques 2003) showing W of heated metals decreases at increasing T in air.
I think you better read my theory.
You may wish to look at papers (M. Glaser, Metrologia 1990 & Dmitriev et al, Measurements Techniques 2003) showing W of heated metals decreases at increasing T in air.I did, and I read the follow-up which says "Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."So, to clarify, there is nothing to explain.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/11/2017 21:37:47You may wish to look at papers (M. Glaser, Metrologia 1990 & Dmitriev et al, Measurements Techniques 2003) showing W of heated metals decreases at increasing T in air.I did, and I read the follow-up which says "Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."So, to clarify, there is nothing to explain.You may wish to visit this link http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/
OK, I did.I found thishttp://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htmand I saw that he has claimed a change in mass of an object set to vibrate.But he didn't show how he excluded the effects of non-linearity in the bearings of the balance he used to make the measurement.Any competent balance supplier will tell you that balances don't work when shaken.So, by the simple trick of ignoring the most basic instructions for using the equipment, he got an anomalous result.So what?Since he's clearly not competent (and possibly dishonest) I didn't bother to look at any of his other stuff.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 12:58:39OK, I did.I found thishttp://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htmand I saw that he has claimed a change in mass of an object set to vibrate.But he didn't show how he excluded the effects of non-linearity in the bearings of the balance he used to make the measurement.Any competent balance supplier will tell you that balances don't work when shaken.So, by the simple trick of ignoring the most basic instructions for using the equipment, he got an anomalous result.So what?Since he's clearly not competent (and possibly dishonest) I didn't bother to look at any of his other stuff.Seems not definitive. #ResultsRequired
"Results required" is right, and so far you have posted none.Have you got any?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 13:57:55"Results required" is right, and so far you have posted none.Have you got any?No, I don't have the skills to do the experiment on my own. I think this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists to test possible link between weight and temperature.
Nobody is going to waste time looking carefully because there is no reason to expect that they would find anything.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 17:59:51Nobody is going to waste time looking carefully because there is no reason to expect that they would find anything.This lazy attitude falls short of the vigor expected from the scientific method.
These instruments can quantify loss of water, loss of solvent, loss of plasticizer,decarboxylation, pyrolysis, oxidation, decomposition, weight % filler, amount ofmetallic catalytic residue remaining on carbon nanotubes, and weight % ash.
The flat bit of the graph on page 4http://www.perkinelmer.co.uk/CMSResources/Images/44-74556GDE_TGABeginnersGuide.pdfOr, of course, all the other flat bits of all the other graphs.
You really don't seem to be getting this.YOU need to provide results or a plausible theory.YOu can't expect others to waste resources on something known not to make sense.Among other things Kryptid pointed out in post 31 that your idea is impossible when he said "If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge."That's it.Once someone points out the first tiny hole in an idea (never mind the gaping rift torn in yours) that idea is dead.You need to forget it or revise it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 20:30:11You really don't seem to be getting this.YOU need to provide results or a plausible theory.YOu can't expect others to waste resources on something known not to make sense.Among other things Kryptid pointed out in post 31 that your idea is impossible when he said "If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge."That's it.Once someone points out the first tiny hole in an idea (never mind the gaping rift torn in yours) that idea is dead.You need to forget it or revise it.I briefly addressed this question in post 36. Here it is again. Two atoms at close proximity to each other become polarized with weak positive poles facing each other and strong positive poles facing away from each other. The weak positive poles decrease the repulsive force between the atoms and the strong positive poles increase the external repulsive forces pushing the atoms together.
And this " Two atoms at close proximity to each other become polarized with weak positive poles facing each other and strong positive poles facing away from each other."Well... why would they?
Imagine a positively charged atom
Atoms have no net charge.It's like asking me to imagine a circular square.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 22:00:58Atoms have no net charge.It's like asking me to imagine a circular square.I guess we have to stick to the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired
The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 22:22:49The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.Are you talking about the flat baselines on thermogravimetric graphs ?