Man you too started spamming everywhere

Hydraulic ***

@@kalyan6969 Not spamming mate, just expressing thanks to James for making the channel what it is now.

@@kalyan6969 What?

U deserve veteran discount

By ‘waste particles’ do you mean uranium?

@@andybaldman Mostly plastics

So by changing the electrical current in the magnetic system, you can change the buoyancy force of the carrier fluid on the waste particles and move the threshold of density at which they float or sink? So you could have a river where at one end the magnetic field is weak and only polystyrene can float so you skim it off to collect it, and the other end there is a stronger field and so aluminium can float and you can collect that. Is that the broad idea?

Have you guys made a video about it? 🙂

@@realvatican The bouyancy is proportional to the magnetic field strength. So different densities float at different heights when using a magnet system that makes a field with a strong enough gradient (i.e. how fast it decays). Then you simply make 'scoopes' at different heights inside the ferrofluid flow, corresponding to the density which 'floats' a specific type of particle.

IKR

*spider-Man 3 theme starts to fade in*

Lithium would’ve been crazier. You would need around 50 times the volume of the osmium bead in order to get a gram of lithium.

How can sodium even be kept solid like that at room temperature? Isn't it super reactive and can only be placed inside a non-reactive liquid?

@@nikhilkoganti It is, that sample was completely covered in an oxide layer. If you drop it in water it rapidly reacts/dissolves with this layer, then the actual metal producing a bunch of heat which only serves to heat and melt the metal and make the reaction even quicker. The reason why it isn't reacting in the video is that same oxide layer, which actually slows down the reaction via passivation.

try lithium!

@@Metal_Master_YT No, I don't think that would be very tasty.

Well yeah, you're using a magnet right now to listen to this. There's tons of uses for magnets that are pretty simple and cool. But we can usually improve that with time and money.

Right conclusion would be, we (as average person) only scratched the surface what we know compare to some expert in fields also u can extrapolate this even further :v EXPERT in field==>HUMANKIND collectivist knowledge ===> we don't know ANSWERS ===> we don't know even QUESTIONS xD

@@michaelamundson4715 exactly :]

@@michaelamundson4715 Yep. We used many magnets to be able to watch this video.

And magnetism is only one of the fundamental forces, the others we can only observe and barely understand

Imagine now, if you could slow down the electrons, then the size of the atom would increase.

@@rosieroti4063 Physicists can already sort of do this. They're called Rydberg Atoms, and can supposedly reach sizes larger than the width of a human hair. However, they are made by making the electrons more energetic. How exactly this works and differs from relativistic electrons is completely beyond my understanding.

@@rayxtime Wow, imagine an object you can hold and its only made of a few thousand atoms instead of trillions like normal

@@EPlTHANY That might be difficult given the extreme conditions needed for Rydberg atoms to exist. Your hand won't like being in a vacuum near absolute zero while being scorched by lasers. There is an element called Jumbonium if you need your giant atom fix.

@@rayxtime Hahahaha it appears I misunderstood the concept

Neutron stars come to mind.

I am thinking the core of the Earth. If the magnetic field is stronger in the core, that would mean that more dense non-magnetic fluids could float atop the less dense ferromagnetic fluids. I know iron usually looses its magnetic properties at higher temperatures, but at high enough pressures it tends to gain them back again. If the magnetic field is strong enough near the core, then things like uranium might be able to float on iron. This might even be able to make a convection system of sorts, where certain materials will begin to sink in the iron as the magnetic field weakens as you approach the poles. Once sunken they would disperse around the core and then reach a point near the equator where it would float back to the iron's surface.

@@CosmicWolf77 I'm not too knowledgeable but I heard that movement in the molten part of the core is what gives rise to our magnetic field and the stuff you described sounds like it's part of that process. I can't imagine how amazing it would be to be able to study things like that.

Salt of the sea, add mono-atomic gold particulate and lightning to the mixtures. The effect will cause turbulent seas, and false Magnetic signatures. Yucatan strike disturbed the Gold layer of the Earth's core system: spewing it back out. A sub-atomic particle is of the sixth domain of scale over gravity. The Atom is seventh domain, we are in the middle of the eighth between molecules and asteroids, Planets are of the ninth domain, and the core of the Earth is denser than any atom. The physics of the core of any continuum body of any domain will display such an effect of higher buoyancy. In all other cases: it is a time limited event: as precipitation will cause the magnetic elements to fall out faster. Thus in nature it is within the core of any true body defined by its internal gravitational form. What in scale between molecules and asteroids forms perfectly spherical..? The lack of the example is the issue with defining the eighth domain continuum body. Over a point or center of gravity, gravity^2, round stack of gravity squared, the first spin layer of the fourth, quarks of the fifth, sub-atomic particles is our Universe's limit being a twelfth domain continuum body, our pocket of space time is fifteenth domain of scale. The perfect example of the eighth domain, as with a sixteenth domain relativity scope: is a scale beyond most imagination, and so the eighth dimensional continuum body is erratic. It is the quest for the perfect pie, but when baked in outerspace: a pie would be spherical. Yes: I am waiting for little Elon's baked pies... Hoe much liquid helium can be put in one globual: and at what thickness does it gain a lower current or altered internal directional flow. The moment of a layer between is convective, unlike oil on water which remains at rest but for chemical reactivity. This point would present the perfect eighth dimensional body of helium as it approaches absolute zero. As the eighth domain is expansive of all those before it, as including the domains of the lesser dimensions of our 4th: the laws are deeply formed: but allow a large amount of possibility for measure in stated location, time, and gravitationally relative surroundings.

I would say I have a PhD as a Unified fieldist. But they do not offer the course, nor the respect to a likely posthumously Nobel prize laureate.

Yeah, your brain might instinctively think that Oganesson would be the densest element. The heaviest atom on the periodic table today, that gets named like a noble gas because it is directly below Radon on the periodic table. This atom is so large that scientists expect relativistic effects to govern its properties, and make it not behave like a noble gas if it could exist with enough stability for us to discover its chemical properties.

The same relativistic effects are why gold is so shiny, and mercury is a liquid

@@ibay7734 Could the softness of gold be related to the fact that it is only one proton away from a liquid metal?

Unfortunately, it is completely wrong. Electrons are quantum objects and they don't fly in orbits. They don't have any speed or trajectory. So you can not talk about atoms and electrons like this. If you want to learn more -- you can find the "Uncertainty principle" explanation.

​@@dmitrynuzhdin Then why is osmium's density so much larger than it should be for its atomic mass? You can't just say that something in science is wrong without proposing a new explanation.

@@nikkiofthevalley it is dense because it has both small radius and most dense crystal structure type. Why? These topics are both very complex and there is no simple and correct explanation for that. But I can guarantee you that both topics require understanding of quantum mechanics. And if you will spend just an hour on a very brief and high level introduction to QM (I am sure that there should be a decent video on YT) you will see that his explanation makes zero sense.

I thought Osmium's dream was to participate in a replica of the Cavendish experiment. That's what I'd use it for.

@@carultch lol

Ferrofluid is just oil and iron oxide. Very easy to clean as you only need some light hydrocarbons (toluene) to wash it from the surface following by distillation to recover the washing solvents.

Actually, it's not theoretical at all. They use magnetism to pull ferrous materials from mixed trash. Water to sort things that float. Columns of high velocity air to sort lighter materials and other physical, chemical processes.

@@danburch9989 Yes I agree it works well for mixed trash and for pulling ferrous from shredded cars and mixed scrap. I was thinking more about shredded circuit boards, electronics and the like. How do they separate lead, tin, solder, copper, gold, brass and aluminum? Even a small grain of copper could be made to 'float' more than a grain of lead solder or lead glass. I was imagining a fluid where the material was stirred into the ferro fluid and after the lightest materials floated up they were drawn off mechanically and the field increased to separate increasing dense solids or even liquids in a continuous process. The ideal would be to dump the stuff in one end and pull it out the other end of a machine all sorted by density. I'm just thinking out loud here, not saying a lot of ingenious things aren't already being done.

​@@pixelpatter01 Yes, sorting by density could work. Almost like separating trash to determine its DNA makeup.

Several techniques like panning can already be used to sort certain things by density with easier cleanup.

Get out your semiconductors for that hoverboard Cy!

How about Earnshaw’s Theorem?

tbh we kind of know all of them any new element to be found would be extremely radioactive and would disintegrate in nanoseconds unless there is a theoretical element yet to be found or synthesized in the periodic table (which there prob isn't) we even found oganesson which was called un un octium before we found it (they predicted its existence before creating it)

@@purplestarinferno5119 There's that theoretical "island of stability" much further down the periodic table, where superheavy elements might exist for useful amounts of time. Unfortunately scientists aren't even close to creating them. Current methods for element synthesis are at their limit.

@@rayxtime Are we speculating that they created in supernovae?

@@purplestarinferno5119 Not necessarily. Has anyone considered putting different elements in ferrofluid? Dr. Orgill just did that for osmium. Are there new alloys that we can create? Can we make alloys with alkali metals? Can you find a way to make sodium not react with water? Some substances are relatively stable but react with a shock wave. What if we pressurize them under hydrogen gas etc?

@@purplestarinferno5119 Here is an example, KNO3 is used for gunpowder, NaNO3 is not a perfect substitute because it is hygroscopic. K and Na are both alkali metals but why does sodium result in a more hygroscopic compound?

Third

@@sparkplayez Zeroth

@@desimujahid no I’m talking about him

Why not the Orgill effect?

Reminds me of how Thunderf00t got his PhD. He was messing around, and accidentally discovered why sodium explodes when submerged in water.

Tungsten is 1.7 times more dense then lead, and it is completely harmless. You can actually buy cubes of it online for the lolz…

I thought that makes heavy objects drop down through the sand and ping pong ball rise up

Cody doesn't have any science education, and is does lots of stupid things. He had a video where he tasted mercury, claiming it wouldn't hurt him (it is now taken down) and one where he nearly passed out while taking huge breaths from heavy gasses. He's irresponsible and inaccurate.

@@LeoStaley cody isn't wrong, metallic Mercury won't harm you if you touch it as long as it doesn't get into your blood.

@@croissantj9588 when you taste a metal, your taste buds absorb the metal, and send signals about it. If you've tasted it, you've absorbed some of it into your bloodstream.

​@@LeoStaley mercury is not easily converted into salt. they used to fill cavity in teeth with as an amalgam and amalgam contain mercurity, its still used to these day.

@@croissantj9588 organic mercury is the killer. Metallic mercury wont kill you as long as you dont drink enough to rupture your innards.

Gravity is a magnetic force

@@Alhabeeb43 Isn't Magnetic force part of the Electromagnetic force? Asking for a friend

@@Alhabeeb43 Gravity and magnetism are completely independent forces.

@@Alhabeeb43 gravity is not even a force 🤣

@@sourovpaul6081 try saying that while jumping from some stairs

Good question E!

I find them attractive, too

@@cslloyd1 That's a good one XD

If I added more I would polarize this post.

you're attracted to them

next time, spend more time thinking and Less time typing.!!!!

Im currently learning about pressure in my physics class but my teacher doesnt know to answer to my various relevant questions

He made a video of mixing oil with water in vaccum. Vaccum can be a simulation to space. About oil and atmospheric pressure, I think the atmospheric pressure and buoyant force from the water will cancel each other out resulting in floating oil drop.

amazing HOW is the 'idea' amazing.??? if you had said 'demonstration' instead of 'idea' i would not have felt compelled to say this.

like a small person among a crowd trying to leave through a door, or a ping-pong ball on a hairdryer's air current