0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Really?
List a few experiments that disagree with weight reduction at increasing temperature ?
Why bother?You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.Why should I bother to put forward any others?
How about this?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.
OK, here it is againhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
The link you provided says thermogravimetric plots are often smoothed.Click on smoothed and you get to this page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmoothingAre you sure your flat bits evidence are not smoothed ?
The manufacturers/ developers of the equipment will look at the unprocessed data- and they will be looking for trends of exactly the sort you are suggesting.If they find it they get a Nobel prize, and international recognition (as well as being able to make their kit a bit better.They haven't found it.
Nor have the people looking at trajectories of satellites (which heat and cool as they pas through the Earth's shadow).
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate. We have been here before.
ignores my references measuring weight reduction at increasing temperature (Glaser reply #19, Chinese team reply #370, Dmitriev reply #375).
He is reported as saying this "AbstractThe change of the apparent mass of 20-g masses and tubes that are not in thermal equilibrium with ambient air has been observed. Buoyancy, adsorption and convection influences are discussed. Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass." herehttp://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdfI underlined the bit you seem to have missed which says the apparent effect is actually due to convection.I pointed that out in reply number 40.So it's clear that you lied when you said I ignored your references, You just ignored the responses, possibly because they would shatter your delusion.
Chinese team reduced convection
Reduced does not mean eliminated.
They could have eliminated it- by using a vacuum chamber- but they didn't.
What does that tell you about the quality of their work?
#ResultsRequired
Get back to us when something changes
Do you think predicting the results of an experiment is a substitute for doing an experiment ?
Do you think the results of Glaser, Dmitriev and the Chinese team showing W decreases at increasing T should not be investigated further ?
Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?
Do you have to drop an apple every morning to check that gravity is still working?
Glaser showed that the effect was down to convection.Most people would have guessed that. No point to any further investigation.
However, as I said, there are other things that would "go wrong" if you were right, and we would have noticed.
Also as I said, the manufacturers and developers of TGA equipment would have noticed the anomaly.
Back then we showed that your idea that you can change mass, but not change gravitational forces doesn't work.
Only in your theory.
You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/03/2018 22:12:35You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.Like what ?
Quote from: Yaniv on 23/03/2018 00:39:27Really?Yes.Quote from: Yaniv on 23/03/2018 00:39:27List a few experiments that disagree with weight reduction at increasing temperature ?Why bother?You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.Why should I bother to put forward any others?What would be the point?Mere evidence doesn't change your viewpoint.
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.Why should I bother to put forward any others?
Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?Not on their own.