[NewCandle] crystallization weight change transients

[Nick Reiter]

Hi all,

This morning, I ran another test using the hypo-P, but
with about 2/3 more of the supersaturated solution
added.  My weight limit on the balance is
unfortunately 200grams, so I was not able to
completely fill the volumetric portion of the flask. 
Nevertheless, when I triggered the crystallization, I
got a little over 2mg of loss.  So it seemed generally
proportional to total amount of the crystallizing
compound.  It did not, though, explain why last week I
got about 2 milligrams with a lot less material that
was not as supersaturated.  Hmmmm, oh wait.  I used
the ground glass stopper on the first round.  hm.

Anyway, I then decanted about 2/3 of the solution, and
added as much volume as I could to the flask with 6mm
alumina beads, to take up space like a brick in a
toilet tank.  Triggered that one, and got slightly
over a milligram of loss, with close to the same
temperature rise at T+9 minutes.

With both of these, though - even with the beads -
there is no trapping of minor air pockets, as the
crystallization does not break the meniscus.  The only
air pocket within the flask is the open volume over
the solution.

That being noted, I'm inclined to actually make a
smaller vessel that could be like 99% filled with
little or no open volume remaining (yet still fall
under the 200 grams weight limit).  Maybe I can
scrounge up like a tiny 60ml flask, or just make one
out of a pyrex test tube.  That would eliminate
interior air pocket concerns, leaving only external
warmed air convection forces to deal with.

Wee hours this morning, I woke up with a dreadful
thought.  Let's pretend (since we don't know) that at
least some of these milligram level weight transients
in excited materials, crystals, etc are truly
something new.  Yet try as one might, they just don't
ever quite seem to break a "ceiling" of a few
milligrams per tens of grams of whatever "thing" is
being tested.  A skeptical mind would rightfully argue
that this could just be the hallmark of a particular
family of artifact.  But what if it has to do with the
part of matter that is actually losing the apparent
weight?  That was the scary thought.  What if one can
disrupt the coupling of gravitons or whatever, and
cause a loss of apparent weight...but only in the
electrons!  If anomalous weight transients continue to
baffle and defy artifact pinpointing, yet at the same
time never exceed 1/1846 of the total sample weight...
sheesh.  It would be an ultimate good news bad news
thing - "Hey Keith, the good news is that we have
demonstrated antigravity.  The bad news is it only
works on the leptons!

But lets set all that aside, eh;)

I think I am going to see how good old NaOH acts
next...

N



--- Keith Nagel <NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com> wrote:

> Hey John,
> 
> Tricky stuff, given the tiny weight variations we're
> talking about.
> Do you think Nick's sealing both the active tube and
> the hot null
> would be sufficient to correct for the problem? I do
> worry that
> the trapped air pockets would tend to heat more than
> the free
> ones.
> 
> K.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com
> [mailto:newcandle-bounces at ipdiscover.com]On Behalf
> Of John Steck
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:17 PM
> To: New energy for the new world.
> Subject: Re: [NewCandle] crystallization weight
> change transients
> 
> 
> Nick,
> Estimate the possible trapped air volume (one way ->
> crystallize, apply
> vacuum, de-crystallize, measure vacuum loss, repeat
> 30+ to get a decent
> confidence interval) calculate the maximum buoyancy
> potential and
> incorporate it as an error factor on the measured
> result.  If buoyancy
> potential is not statistically significantly
> different than the
> observed/measured effect, you fail to reject.  I
> suspect the volume will not
> be of any significance however (but always a good
> idea to eliminate possible
> variables whenever possible).
> 
> Just some thoughts.
> 
> -john
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com