Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Ytterbium 59% lighter then it should be
D4RR3N
National Hazard
****




Posts: 253
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 06:04
Ytterbium 59% lighter then it should be


Ytterbium is apparently 59% lighter then its calculated weight.
I guess the way you would work this out would be for example to calculate the weight a 10mm cubed piece of ytterbium should weigh and then compare it to the weight registered on a scale. In any case that's very interesting because it shows us different materials interact with gravity differently.

"The rare earth elements --- most of the lanthanides are interesting possibilities. In the gravitational periodic table (prepared by the Townsend Brown Foundation) the rare earth elements have strangely low specific gravities, indicating gravitic excitation. These materials should be studied intensively for retardation of g and spontaneous evolution of heat.

It is interesting to point out in this connection that the lanthanide series of elements is homologous with the actinide series of radioactive elements.

Is it possible that the actinides are "radioactive" and (similarly) the lanthanides are "thermoactive", (?) both giving off energy!

The element tantalum (atomic No. 73) is also anomalously light (sp gr 16.6) and may likewise be interesting to investigate. It is 15% lighter than (I believe) it should be.

Aluminum is 30% lighter and silicon is 31% lighter. The compounds such as aluminum silicate (clay) and silicon dioxide (sand) are the materials Brush studied.

Phosphorus is 21% lighter, Sulfur 14% lighter, and Chlorine 13%.

Ytterbium has the greatest anomaly of all, 59% lighter than normal, according to the table. "

[Edited on 30-1-2016 by D4RR3N]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10334
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 06:53


Reference PLEASE!!!

Who the hell is 'Brush'?




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
The_Davster
A pnictogen
*******




Posts: 2859
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 07:04


Going to need to see a reference on this.

It seems to me that before assuming "retardation of gravity" that one should consider that the method of calculation of what the densities "should be" was done poorly, and it is a case of a theoreticians attempt to make reality fit their mistake :D
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pok
potassium Prometheus
***




Posts: 155
Registered: 5-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 08:49


reference: http://rexresearch.com/brown2/brown2.htm
It's bullshit.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10334
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 09:00


Quote: Originally posted by Pok  
reference: http://rexresearch.com/brown2/brown2.htm
It's bullshit.


Yeah, so you say but now I've finally got that recipe for anti-gravity paint! ;)

DETRITUS please!

[Edited on 30-1-2016 by blogfast25]




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
D4RR3N
National Hazard
****




Posts: 253
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 10:09


It is an entry in the Scientific diary of TT Brown who worked on classified air force projects.

How do you know this is fake, you don't. I see no reason why he would make this up out of thin air.

And no you couldn't use it to make your anti-gravity paint because you would need a substance of negative mass not a 59% reduction.

I am going to to get some ytterbium and have it machined into a 10mm cube.

I guess I can melt the ytterbium under argon and cast it in a cube mold before having it milled.

What is the cheapest crucible that can be used to melt the yb ?

[Edited on 30-1-2016 by D4RR3N]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10334
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 10:38


Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  
It is an entry in the Scientific diary of TT Brown who worked on classified air force projects.

How do you know this is fake, you don't. I see no reason why he would make this up out of thin air.

And no you couldn't use it to make your anti-gravity paint because you would need a substance of negative mass not a 59% reduction.

I am going to to get some ytterbium and have it machined into a 10mm cube.

I guess I can melt the ytterbium under argon and cast it in a cube mold before having it milled.

What is the cheapest crucible that can be used to melt the yb ?



You're totally wasting your time with this pink elephant.

You also don't need to machine Yb into a cube to determine its density accurately, just use the immersion method and make sure there are no adhering air bubbles.




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3906
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 10:39


If you are determined to waste your time and money on this I think an alumina crucible would work.
You will presumably find that it weighs about 6.9 grams per cc.

How do you propose to do the difficult bit of the comparison?
i.e. how are you going to work out what it "should" weigh?

[Edited on 30-1-16 by unionised]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10334
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 10:49


Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  
It is an entry in the Scientific diary of TT Brown who worked on classified air force projects.

How do you know this is fake, you don't. I see no reason why he would make this up out of thin air.



Yeah, that MUST make it true then! :D

It's an error of measurement or he was seeking attention, hardly unusual in these crank circles, you know?




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
softbeard
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 69
Registered: 23-7-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: moody

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 11:04


Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  
...it shows us different materials interact with gravity differently...


On earth, all materials are subjected to an acceleration vector roughly g=9.81 m/sec^2 pointing towards the earth's center, period. The force with which a material is pulled (weight) is directly proportional to its mass. There is no "interact with gravity differently". This is basic physics.

You're apparently confusing a difference in the theoretically calculated density, based on atomic volumes and crystal geometry vs. actual densities. It has nothing to do with the gravity acting differently.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Polverone
Now celebrating 15 years of madness
*********




Posts: 3144
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 11:06


Yes, this appears to be nonsense, but I'm not going to lock a thread wherein you attempt to investigate someone else's weird claims via the scientific method. Heed unionised's advice/remarks. In particular, it is worthless expending experimental effort on measuring densities if the theory of how they "should" be calculated is also worthless.



PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
D4RR3N
National Hazard
****




Posts: 253
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 11:57


Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  
It is an entry in the Scientific diary of TT Brown who worked on classified air force projects.

How do you know this is fake, you don't. I see no reason why he would make this up out of thin air.



Yeah, that MUST make it true then! :D

It's an error of measurement or he was seeking attention, hardly unusual in these crank circles, you know?


It was an entry in his private diary and only became available after his death so clearly he did not do this for seeking attention. He never knew anyone other then himself would ever read those diary's
View user's profile View All Posts By User
D4RR3N
National Hazard
****




Posts: 253
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 12:12


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
If you are determined to waste your time and money on this I think an alumina crucible would work.
You will presumably find that it weighs about 6.9 grams per cc.

How do you propose to do the difficult bit of the comparison?
i.e. how are you going to work out what it "should" weigh?

[Edited on 30-1-16 by unionised]


I thought it would react by heating it in anything but an acid washed metal crucible like lanthanum would?

How much it should weigh, I guess he worked this out by calculating the sum of the masses of the subatomic particles.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-victorious.

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 12:12


Well, let's see....webelements says that ytterbium forms a cubic close-packed unit cell which is a cube 548.5 pm on a side, so there's four ytterbium atoms in this cube.

(4 x 173.55 g/mol / 6.022 x 10 ^23 atoms/mol)/(5.485 x 10^-8 cm)^3 = 6.986 g/cm^3

Experimentally determined density of ytterbium is 6.57 g/cm^3 (also from webelements).

Okay...so it is a bit different...I wonder why....




Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10334
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 12:21


Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  

How much it should weigh, I guess he worked this out by calculating the sum of the masses of the subatomic particles.


Huh? Metallic elements are made of atoms.




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
D4RR3N
National Hazard
****




Posts: 253
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 12:28


Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  

How much it should weigh, I guess he worked this out by calculating the sum of the masses of the subatomic particles.


Huh? Metallic elements are made of atoms.


Yes I know they are, I meant he probably first calculated the mass of an atom of Yb based on the sum of the masses of its subatomic particles.

He would then have to calculate how many atoms should occupy a given volume.

With this information in hand he would then weigh the sample to look for discrepancys
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2879
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-victorious.

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 12:47


Quote: Originally posted by D4RR3N  

Yes I know they are, I meant he probably first calculated the mass of an atom of Yb based on the sum of the masses of its subatomic particles.


You can't do that, based on the nuclear binding energy. Otherwise an atom of helium-4 would have a mass of exactly one-third that of carbon-12. It doesn't.




Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
D4RR3N
National Hazard
****




Posts: 253
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 12:52


Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
Well, let's see....webelements says that ytterbium forms a cubic close-packed unit cell which is a cube 548.5 pm on a side, so there's four ytterbium atoms in this cube.

(4 x 173.55 g/mol / 6.022 x 10 ^23 atoms/mol)/(5.485 x 10^-8 cm)^3 = 6.986 g/cm^3

Experimentally determined density of ytterbium is 6.57 g/cm^3 (also from webelements).

Okay...so it is a bit different...I wonder why....


Okay so looks like I wont have to purchase any Yb since we know the experimentally measured density. We can use the measured density to calculate the mass of a Yb atom.

Then compare with calculated weight of Yb atom based on sum of subatomic particles.

Edit: I looked at web elements and could not see where it stated that the density given for yb was based on measurements taken.

[Edited on 30-1-2016 by D4RR3N]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3906
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 13:17


If there was anything like a 59% difference from what it should be, someone would have noticed by now.There would be acres of research papers about it.
There aren't- because the density (6.9 g/ml) is pretty much what you would expect. It's distinctly lower than the elements on either side of it, but that's due to electronic effects.

View user's profile View All Posts By User
D4RR3N
National Hazard
****




Posts: 253
Registered: 9-1-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 13:35


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
If there was anything like a 59% difference from what it should be, someone would have noticed by now.There would be acres of research papers about it.
There aren't- because the density (6.9 g/ml) is pretty much what you would expect. It's distinctly lower than the elements on either side of it, but that's due to electronic effects.



I'm wondering how he came to the figure of 59% lighter then it should be. Could it be by comparing it with elements on both sides?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pok
potassium Prometheus
***




Posts: 155
Registered: 5-12-2010
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 30-1-2016 at 14:04


He? Who? "Charles Thomas Brush" seems to have never existed. You are referring to a website of stupidity. What dou you expect? 59 % wouldn't be the answer. Ever heard of wikipedia? You will find there all the info needed to answer your question.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Bert
Super Administrator
Thread Moved
30-1-2016 at 14:08

  Go To Top