[Kryptid]

I gather you are talking about different experiments. Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.

Precision measurements of a thermometer in the Sun are missing from the literature too.

[The Spoon]

As @Kryptid and @Bored chemist have repeatedly pointed out this has already been well tested.

I gather you are talking about different experiments. Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.

You need to talk to CERN they regularly test conservation of mass, energy and momentum and will show you the conditions under which these are conserved.

I contacted CERN many times over the years and didn't get the results of the experiment.

You might also show them your model of particles and im sure that if they find it more accurate than the existing one they will adopt it.

I will be happy to show them my model of particles and gravity after the results of the experiment.

Why should they consider carrying out these experiments when you don't have a model to demonstrate how you propose this works? Without it is just he musings of a random looney.

Equally, using your logic, the NASA moon missions should have carried out tests to prove conclusive that the moon was not made of cheese.

Results required.

[Bored chemist]

It's your hypothesis.
How did you come to the conclusion that it was responsibility for the experiment to test your insane hypothesis rests with anyone but you?

This experiment is also designed to test conservation of mass.

Do you realise that your reply there doesn't actually answer my question which was

It's your hypothesis.
How did you come to the conclusion that it was responsibility for the experiment to test your insane hypothesis rests with anyone but you?

[Yaniv (OP)]

You’d better get busy then.
#ResultsRequired

The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?

[Colin2B]

The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?

Look for other sources of funding and support - research council, private donations etc.
The thing that marks out successful people is they don't give up.

[Bored chemist]

The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?

Look for other sources of funding and support - research council, private donations etc.
The thing that marks out successful people is they don't give up.

Actually, one of the things that marks out successful people is that they do give up- when they recognise that they are doing something pointless.

[Bored chemist]

You’d better get busy then.
#ResultsRequired

The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?

I gather you can crowdfund things that make no sense whatsoever...

[Colin2B]

Actually, one of the things that marks out successful people is that they do give up- when they recognise that they are doing something pointless.

Spoilsport

[Yaniv (OP)]

Look for other sources of funding and support - research council, private donations etc.
The thing that marks out successful people is they don't give up.

I already contacted thousands of scientists from all over the world to do the experiment. I also contacted many universities, journals and societies to do the experiment. Who else is left to conclude the experiment ?

[Colin2B]

You.
I was going to suggest crowdfunding but @Bored chemist beat me to it.

[alancalverd]

I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?

That figure will determine the cost of the investigation.Happy to help thereafter.

[Bored chemist]

I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?

That figure will determine the cost of the investigation.Happy to help thereafter.

That's an interesting point.
It seems that you have missed many people asking how big the change is, but you have not missed the OP answering it- because he hasn't.

[Yaniv (OP)]

I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?

My theory provides qualitative predictions. Glaser (1990) showed 20 gram metal heated by 5 degC in air lost 100 micrograms and 1 Kg metal heated in air lost 1 milligram (1993). The experiment should be carried out at highest precision measurable but I suspect a microgram balance could be sufficient to find the missing weight predicted by my theory.

[Bored chemist]

showed 20 gram metal heated by 5 degC in air lost 100 micrograms and 1 Kg metal heated in air lost 1 milligram (

Thanks for providing some actual numbers.
Now we can do science.
You say he measured changes in mass with temperature. The 1Kg lost a milligram.
Imagine that the 1Kg is split into 20 identical slices.
Each of them must have lost 1/20 of a milligram- that's the only way the maths can work. 1/20 mg is 50 micrograms
So we know that if the measurements are valid then  a 20 gram weight should lose 50 micrograms.

But when he measured the change of mass on a 20 gram weight he got the wrong answer.

So, the thing we conclude from this data is that his experiment was flawed.


You could have made that assessment of his data just as well as I did.
The basis of science is to try to prove that thugs awe wrong, but that's not what you did.
To summarise, we now know that
He is wrong and
you are not interested in doing science.

Incidentally, if the changes are really that big, it would be fairly easy to measure them- so much so that we would have noticed by now.We haven't.
A quick check on eBay  gave me this offer
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mettler-Toledo-XS205DU-Analytical-Balance/152787254644?epid=7009535412&hash=item2392d47d74:g:vQ0AAOSwHwZaCvWP

So your experiment would also be relatively cheap. You would need some other bits + pieces too,  but you don't need £120,000.

For what it's worth, my guess is that his mistake was not to take proper account of convection currents. It would have been much better to do the experiment in a vacuum chamber.
That's a very obvious flaw in his experimental design. You might wonder why he did it so badly.

[alancalverd]

50 microgram is a heck of a lot, if converted to energy. 4500 joules, to be precise. Now that amount of energy would raise 20 gram of metal by 50 degrees, which would promote the loss of another 500 microgram, and so ad infinitum until all the metal was vaporised, turned into plasma, and distributed to the far corners of the universe.

So where did the energy go?

[Yaniv (OP)]

You say he measured changes in mass with temperature. The 1Kg lost a milligram.
Imagine that the 1Kg is split into 20 identical slices.
Each of them must have lost 1/20 of a milligram- that's the only way the maths can work. 1/20 mg is 50 micrograms
So we know that if the measurements are valid then  a 20 gram weight should lose 50 micrograms.

Actually 20 gram weight should have lost 20 micrograms but this is beside the point. The point is metals heated in air lose weight and metals cooled in air gain weight (Glaser 1993). Air convection clearly has an effect on weight and different surface area to volume ratios could account for the results of his experiments. However, you can't be sure the entire change in weight is due to air convection without repeating the experiment in vacuum.

Incidentally, if the changes are really that big, it would be fairly easy to measure them- so much so that we would have noticed by now.We haven't.

I have not seen the results of the experiment in vacuum.

So your experiment would also be relatively cheap. You would need some other bits + pieces too,  but you don't need £120,000.

This figure was provided by an experimentalist at the University of Leeds. I suspect the experiment could be carried out at a fraction of the cost if you have free access to a vacuum chamber and a precision balance.

[Bored chemist]

Actually 20 gram weight should have lost 20 micrograms but this is beside the point.

Well spotted, I messed up the arithmetic.
The results are even more obviously wrong.


Why are you still pretending they are worthy of attention?

However, you can't be sure the entire change in weight is due to air convection without repeating the experiment in vacuum.

So get on with it.
Don't come back until you have results.

I suspect the experiment could be carried out at a fraction of the cost if you have free access to a vacuum chamber and a precision balance.

Obviously, so why did you quote the silly price?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Why are you still pretending they are worthy of attention?

Weighing heated metals in air is the closest experiment I found to weighing heated metals in vacuum.

So get on with it.
Don't come back until you have results.

I am not an experimentalist and posted this thread to find experimentalists to conclude the experiment.

Obviously, so why did you quote the silly price?

Maybe doing the experiment at higher precision is this expensive or maybe this is another obstacle placed between me and the results of the experiment.

[Bored chemist]

Weighing heated metals in air is the closest experiment I found to weighing heated metals in vacuum.

And it gave meaningless results because of some error or other.

Maybe doing the experiment at higher precision is this expensive

That's exactly why Alan said this

I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?

That figure will determine the cost of the investigation.Happy to help thereafter.

But if you are moving the goalposts...

For what it's worth, this is how I'd do it.
Put the balance in a vacuum chamber. You may need to wire up the controls so you can operate it from outside the chamber.
Get a block of copper (Copper is non-magnetic which avoids some potential problems and is a  good conductor of heat so it will tend to be the same temperature throughout) weighing about 79 grams (a bit less than the range of the balance).
I'd go for a cube with a small hole in one side.
Paint it black.
Put it on the balance on a piece of something like polythene sheeting to act as thermal insulation, and evacuate the chamber.
(The apparent weight of the block will increase slightly as the air is removed due to buoyancy effects. You could even use this as a rough check on the sensitivity of the balance.)
Wait for the reading to settle.
Aim a laser through the chamber wall (you will need a window for this if it isn't a glass chamber) into the hole in the copper block.
Most of the light will be absorbed, so the block will heat up.

You can use an infra red thermometer to measure the temperature of the copper block (the black paint will improve the accuracy of the measurements- you can do a separate calibration run if you want better precision.)

Either the reading on the balance will change, or it will not.

The biggest pitfall is that the heat from the block will also warm up the balance slightly. That will make bits of it expand and that will alter the reading- because the "lever lengths" change a bit.
A few carefully placed bits of aluminium foil and good lagging under the block would minimise that effect.

One other problem; the balance- like all electronics- will dissipate some heat.
In a vacuum (and thus without air cooling- it may overheat.
You might be able to address a lot of that problem by separating mot of the electronics from the bit that actually does the weighing- and only have the "weighing" bit in the vacuum chamber.
Modern balances are already designed so that the mechanical bits and the electronic bits are largely separate, so that's not as difficult as it sounds.

[alancalverd]

Full marks for a very slick experiment!

A class IV laser or even a focussed LED source will deliver several joules adiabatically so you should see a vertical deflection if you use a horizontal beam to heat the target (a vertical beam will deflect the target by virtue of Einstein radiation pressure, but this will cease when the beam is turned of, and the balance will oscillate - let's keep it simple.)

https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/scale.html describes a home-made microgram balance that can be built for around £50. But I suspect any university laboratory with a pulsed light source and a vacuum pump will probably have a commercial Cahn electrobalance on the shelf or in the rental catalog, so we are talking about a week's work to make the target and assemble the equipment.

The expenditure of £5 - 10,000 seems very reasonable if the result disproves all that we know about physics.Given the chance of a Nobel prize if he's right, Mr Yaniv should now put his money where his mouth is.  Happy to donate a week of my time at the Cavendish, Engineering or Chemistry labs near here, Leeds, Imperial, or wherever Yaniv can find a bench and some kit.

But don't use black paint. We'll spend the first day making a hollow shell target with a small entrance hole - no problem for any decent workshop.