[Bored chemist]

#ResultsRequired

It's true that the ultimate arbiter is the experimental result.
Without that, any hypothesis can be discarded without a moment's thought.

And you have no experimental data.

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.

I think you better read my theory.

As I explained, you don't have a theory.
You barely have a hypothesis.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

You may wish to visit this link http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/

[Bored chemist]

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.

You may wish to visit this link http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/

OK, I did.
I found this
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htm
and 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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

OK, I did.
I found this
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htm
and 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

[Bored chemist]

OK, I did.
I found this
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htm
and 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?

[Yaniv (OP)]

"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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

And, once again; it has been- many times..
No such link was found.
Nobody is going to waste time looking carefully because there is no reason to expect that they would find anything.
Your posts are just rambling nonsense as Kryptid has pointed out..

[Yaniv (OP)]

Nobody 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.
 

[Bored chemist]

Nobody 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.
 

Did you read the second half?
It doesn't take "the most ruthless sceptical scrutiny" of your ideas to show that they are wrong.

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.


You quoted Larwence Kraus, yet you are failing to to any of the three things he said are important.
You are not following the evidence- you are persistently ignoring it.
You are not just failing to try to prove your idea wrong, you are ignoring the fact that others have already proved that you are wrong, and you are ignoring the experimental evidence which shows that your idea is wrong. (and failing to provide any supporting evidence).

Do you actually believe that's how you should do science?
If you actually want someone to do the experiment for you,
you will need to change all of those.
You will need to follow the evidence,
explain the failings of your idea and revise it
Get at least some evidence that it might be correct.

You will fail on all of those tests, so nobody will squander resources on your fool's errand; why would they?

[evan_au]

I had never heard of a TGV machine (apart from the French train...)

These instruments can quantify loss of water, loss of solvent, loss of plasticizer,
decarboxylation, pyrolysis, oxidation, decomposition, weight % filler, amount of
metallic catalytic residue remaining on carbon nanotubes, and weight % ash.

You expect that the weight of a substance could change on heating, especially if it is in a reactive atmosphere.
- Sometimes the weight will decrease due to evaporation at the higher temperature, with the vapor carried away out the chimney. But this weight doesn't come back when you reduce the temperature again.
- Sometimes the weight will increase due to reacting with the oxygen in the air at the higher temperature. And this weight does not disappear when you reduce the temperature again.

The increase or decrease is not proportional to temperature:
- You can hold the sample at a constant elevated temperature, and the liquid will continue to evaporate, and the oxygen will continue to react. The weight changes without a change in temperature.
- Once all the liquid has evaporated, or the oxygen has reacted with all of the substance, increasing the temperature again will not cause more liquid to evaporate, or more oxygen to react. The weight does not change despite a change in temperature.

So I think this myth is BUSTED (I hope that phrase is not copyright...)

[Yaniv (OP)]

The flat bit of the graph on page 4
http://www.perkinelmer.co.uk/CMSResources/Images/44-74556GDE_TGABeginnersGuide.pdf

Or, of course, all the other flat bits of all the other graphs.

The flat bits on the graphs are not true weight measurements but corrections - baseline corrections. These flat lines therefore cannot be used as final proof weight does not change at increasing temperature. Check this video. Only experts in the field should know precisely which other modifications are introduced to the final form of a graph. I suspect other undesirable changes in weight such as Glaser heat convection effects and a reduction in weight predicted by my theory are also removed in the final form of a graph. The experiment I proposed specifically designed to test a link between weight and temperature. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

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.

Yes, I saw that.
But it is nonsense.
Weak or strong, positive things repel.

It's also simply observably false.
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?

[Yaniv (OP)]

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 with a spherical negative shell. When this atoms is in close proximity to another positively charged atom, the negative shell shifts towards the other atom creating a weak pole. The other side of the atom simultaneously becomes a strong pole.

[Bored chemist]

Imagine a positively charged atom

Atoms have no net charge.
It's like asking me to imagine a circular square.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Atoms 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

[Bored chemist]

Atoms 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

How many times?
YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY RESULTS.
The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.

[Yaniv (OP)]

The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.

Are you talking about the flat baselines on thermogravimetric graphs ?

[Bored chemist]

The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.

Are you talking about the flat baselines on thermogravimetric graphs ?

Yes.
They are not great, but they are the only data you have, and they don't support your assertion.

Come back when you have better data.