-
Periodic Videos actually made a video dismissing Mason's claims during the early stages of his research, and the clips shown are from that video and I believe an earlier one.
Do you have a link for that? I have watched all of the Periodic Videos and I don't recall such a video. The Periodic Videos team is very professional, and Prof. Poliakoff in particular is very open to saying "I don't know" if something is not well understood. -
I don't watch tf00ts feminist videos; they just don't really interest me.
That's the beauty of Youtube. You can like and subscribe to and even financially support a channel without liking all of their content.
Yet many people seem to be under the impression that content producers must make all their videos appeal to them
What if you find them nasty and hateful and think it's irresponsible to support them even indirectly, lest you contribute to spreading his awful vitriol? -
Periodic Videos actually made a video dismissing Mason's claims during the early stages of his research, and the clips shown are from that video and I believe an earlier one. So I consider it fair for him to take a shot at someone who dismissed him early on. I like Prof. Poliakoff, and Periodic Videos, but in this case they were quite publicly wrong.
Ok, i missed that. Then his response is perfectly understandably. -
Impressive work by Thunderf00t, takes both insight and balls to say: hey, this is not right, when everyone else says: it's a well known reaction.
Good to see someone getting more than "Internet welfare" out of Patreon donations.
His other videos are both entertaining and well documented.
-
If such a video exists. So far no link has been posted and is not likely to be posted. It is not their style to make a video with such a tone.Periodic Videos actually made a video dismissing Mason's claims during the early stages of his research, and the clips shown are from that video and I believe an earlier one. So I consider it fair for him to take a shot at someone who dismissed him early on. I like Prof. Poliakoff, and Periodic Videos, but in this case they were quite publicly wrong.
Ok, i missed that. Then his response is perfectly understandably. -
If such a video exists. So far no link has been posted and is not likely to be posted. It is not their style to make a video with such a tone.Periodic Videos actually made a video dismissing Mason's claims during the early stages of his research, and the clips shown are from that video and I believe an earlier one. So I consider it fair for him to take a shot at someone who dismissed him early on. I like Prof. Poliakoff, and Periodic Videos, but in this case they were quite publicly wrong.
Ok, i missed that. Then his response is perfectly understandably.
I have a tendency to agree, Also the quotes in the video stated the the word "MAY" or "MAYBE" in Periodical Videos shown. This suggest a lack of understanding on the Na discoverers understanding of the disputes anyway. MAY or MAYBE suggest not fully understand the concept but instead a theoretical stand point. In all it could mean I maybe wrong so proof would be good to dispute it. Well the evidence is out so it is now time for other scientist to disprove it or accept it's findings.
The word may or maybe has stuck in my mind since Cochlear Implant first come out promising that it WILL improve your hearing. After a complaint or lawsuit later Cochlear changed the wording from WILL to MAY. To many years ago to confirm this but as my wife has a profound hearing loss, I got to understand the issue over the years. -
Oh this is cool!
Sometime in my early highschool I saw a sodium-water reaction demonstrated, and the resulting explosion. Then and up till now the the explanation given for the explosion has been "hydrogen going bang in air'. But that always seemed somehow wrong to me. There are little spits of flaming stuff right from the start, so how come the hydrogen can build up enough to suddenly go bang?
It's really wonderful to finally learn the real cause. That it's another demonstration of how electrostatic effects can be massively powerful, is icing on the cake.
Ha ha... and finding that the guy who started that process of revelation has similar opinions to mine regarding the poisonous nature of radical feminism... it's a chocolate cake, with candles. Channel, subscribed!
Now, how to control the paths of charge movement during the process, to form a current loop rather than a homogenous cancellation? Because there's possibly an EMP weapon in there somewhere.
-
What if you find them nasty and hateful and think it's irresponsible to support them even indirectly, lest you contribute to spreading his awful vitriol?
I don't find Thunderf00t nasty and hateful, I think he simply calls out BS whenever he sees it, much like I do, and I like that.
Be careful you don't confuse outspokenness and lack of tact for being nasty and hateful.
I don't care what you think of him or what or how he says things, that's got nothing to do with me, you get absolutely no say in who I support or why. -
I don't care what you think of him or what or how he says things, that's got nothing to do with me, you get absolutely no say in who I support or why.
Did I ever give the impression that I thought otherwise? -
I don't care what you think of him or what or how he says things, that's got nothing to do with me, you get absolutely no say in who I support or why.
Did I ever give the impression that I thought otherwise?
Yes. You expressed clearly what you think of the guy and his content, and by responding to me about my support of him you were not so subtly trying to imply that it might be irresponsible of me to support him. You were clearly trying to at least get me to re-think my support for him.
-
There is thinking I have a "say" in whom you support - as in, thinking I actually have some modicum of control over it. I don't think that because I'm not stupid. There is also trying to get you to re-think something, which we normal people call "talking about things".
Your defensive conflation of the two is kind of hilarious. -
There is also trying to get you to re-think something, which we normal people call "talking about things".
Nothing to talk about. I like the guy, you hate him, the end. Continue trying if you must, I don't mind, but I won't bother responding again.QuoteYour defensive conflation of the two is kind of hilarious.
Glad I could amuse.
I likewise found it very assuming that you thought you could insinuate that it was irresponsible of me to support someone because of what you think of them. -
So I am pondering how to make a test setup that would have the charge in "the right direction".
If you use a semi permeable membrane, and dampen it, apply it to a hunk of sodium, could you get most of your reaction going "one direction" so you could measure the charge? Though, being the nerd I am, I'd just go with trying a slightly damp paper towel. :-) That would allow us to control the amount of moisture, and hopefully just get a controlled reaction, instead of boom.
Alternatively, would something like a MRI be able to pick up on the magnetic fields generated? -
Quote
takes both insight and balls to say: hey, this is not right, when everyone else says: it's a well known reaction.
Agreed and I think his highspeed camera work is quite convincing.
Having said that, I don't think the conventional wisdom is definitively wrong. His explanation as to why the conventional wisdom is wrong is not entirely convincing to me.
The fact that a layer of hydrogen gas surrounding the medal will inhibit further reaction is correct. But in reality, you don't have a steady layer of hydrogen gas fully covering the medal -> in fact the hydrogen gassing is so violent that one can easily make a case that as long as the gassing is sufficiently strong, the conventional wisdom is likely right, or is part of the explanation.
One way to test this is to use medal chunks of differing surface area. If one solid piece of medal generates less gas than multiple medal pieces with the same surface area, thunderfoot would have a better argument against the conventional wisdom.
Without that, all he has shown is that his electron charge theory is at least one of many possible causes. ie. he has not conclusively ruled out the conventional wisdom. -
I quickly read through the 6 pages of this so my response is quick and not well formed. (It is too bad that so many comments were off topic)(..and I don't blame Dave for having to respond). Anyway, maybe measurement of the "signal" could be done in a way similar to a FID in chromatography; burning hydrocarbons in a flame and measuring the ions emitted with an electrometer? Without putting any thought into how large the signal would be, maybe this is a way to measure (if it could be figured out). FIDs easily measure current in femtoamps. Then again this is probably "noisy" as hell (and wet).
Just tossing out an off the wall guess as to how one might quantify the current in order to figure out if there is any "usefulness". -
Without that, all he has shown is that his electron charge theory is at least one of many possible causes. ie. he has not conclusively ruled out the conventional wisdom.
Considering the amount of high profile regular press this got, I can't imagine how ape all the chemists are going right now. I expect a lot of follow-up research by other teams trying to either prove or disprove Thunderf00t's hypothesis on this. That makes for great science! -
Quote
FIDs easily measure current in femtoamps.
I think he has conclusively proved his case (of electron transfers) - it is tough to envision a plausible explanation for that under the conventional wisdom.
The discussion now is about whether he has conclusively disapproved the conventional wisdom - I don't think he has.
So now there are (at least) two competing theories. The more interesting work lays ahead as to which of the two is correct, or more correct as it is quite possible and even likely that both can be correct.
In his video, he set out to "disapprove" the conventional wisdom and in my view he failed to do that. -
In his video, he set out to "disapprove" the conventional wisdom and in my view he failed to do that.
When you have a PhD in chemistry or physics, come back and let us know. -
One possible way to show high current flow might be to do the reaction in the presence of a strong magnetic field - current flow in the liquid metal should produce reaction forces that make the shape change, or affect the physical dynamics.
-
One possible way to show high current flow might be to do the reaction in the presence of a strong magnetic field - current flow in the liquid metal should produce reaction forces that make the shape change, or affect the physical dynamics.
I like this idea. Use a magnetic field to align the currents. :-) -
Considering the amount of high profile regular press this got, I can't imagine how ape all the chemists are going right now. I expect a lot of follow-up research by other teams trying to either prove or disprove Thunderf00t's hypothesis on this. That makes for great science!
I don't think the majority will go ape, as it is a peer reviewed publication meaning that many chemists on the review board would have already approved it before opening to publication.
I think it is well thought out, although I am doing only and electronic engineer degree at 51yrs, I did attempt to do a physics double degree, but my age and commitments restricted how much I could do. In the small amount of physics that I learn plus the review process I think the process is well though out.
I think there is more to be done, but I believe this was mentioned in the final part of the video. He has only just touch the surface for more exploration. I also think that the electrical energy can be measure, Lightning energy can be measured using RF reception spectrum analysis and also due to the random energy output from the explosion, I perceive there is a enough to make a measurement of it energy output. It haven't seen it tried so it is just another experiment. Random energy output is highly likely not to cause cancellation but without trying it you would never know.
I also imagine IF electrical energy can be measured experimentally it would be great to get to the next level of harnessing the energy. Speculating too far at this point though but the mind and even the imagination can create many things. -
Periodic Videos actually made a video dismissing Mason's claims during the early stages of his research, and the clips shown are from that video and I believe an earlier one.
Do you have a link for that? I have watched all of the Periodic Videos and I don't recall such a video. The Periodic Videos team is very professional, and Prof. Poliakoff in particular is very open to saying "I don't know" if something is not well understood.
There's a bit more to it than that, even. Thunderf00t emailed Periodic Videos early on saying that the "conventional explanation maybe isn't quite right" and pointed out many discrepancies to them. Not too long after Periodic Videos references a "viewer question/comment (very likely that email)" about the sodium + water reaction in one of their videos, and Poliakoff dismisses this comment as if it was a perpetual motion machine that was proposed. (It really was a rude/arrogant dismissal).
I do study chemistry (biotechnology) myself, and I've been a follower of Thunderf00t pretty much from the beginning. The explanation for this reaction given in all textbooks, and taught by all chemistry teachers and professors alike, is that Na + H2O -> H2 + NaOH. Reaction is exothermic, Na melts, heats up and H2 + O2 ignites into a small boom.
Thunderf00t noticed that:
1. Reaction is just as explosive without oxygen in the air (No H2 + O2 boom).
2. Drop dropping the Na in water the explosion would happen within a few millisecond (not enough time for the reaction to produce the amount of H2 for the the size of the bang it creates).
3. While filming it in high speed he detected secondary flames 'poofs' after the initial explosion, this could only be explained by the H2 burning (and much more consistent with burning H2).
4. Under certain circumstances the sodium would release green vapour as it reacted (just unexpected, and possibly a clue to electron conduction bands and solvation stuff happening).
5. H2 only burns explosively in very specific ratios with oxygen (1:2 molar), otherwise it burns rather slow (the 'foof' kind of burn).
etc etc.
-
Not too long after Periodic Videos references a "viewer question/comment (very likely that email)" about the sodium + water reaction in one of their videos, and Poliakoff dismisses this comment as if it was a perpetual motion machine that was proposed. (It really was a rude/arrogant dismissal).
I really would like to find that video, if you can remember which one it was? (It doesn't seem to be the sodium one, but maybe potassium or caesium? I'll look through them later.)
As to the original question about the explosion, it really seems to me that nobody ever thought it was remarkable, and therefore nobody tried to look any closer. This is one of the biggest mistakes to make in science and engineering, to assume there is nothing more to investigate and therefore to put an observation to one side without considering its significance. -
That's the video I remember too, but I can't find it. Maybe they took it down? I definitely remember Poliakoff dismissing any alternative hypothesis to the "fuel-coolant" reaction and hydrogen gas explosion as nonsense. It was right after Thunderf00t published a video on the subject. It actually really hurt the professor's credibility in my eyes, as Thunderf00t's high speed footage was quite compelling, and it led to me watching Periodic Videos less often.
-
The archetypal nutty prof is not infallible, and admits he makes mistakes.