Can /sci/ explain why does this piece of paper gain mass after being burned?
>>16542705>gain mass??
>>16542705You don't see the negative sign, OP?We do.
>>16542705>-retard
>>16542705>Can /sci/ explain whyhuman error, lack of instrument calibration
>>16542714the absolute value of its mass has increasedyou can't explain this
>>16542749Yeah anon, explain that impossibility
>>16542749jews
>>16542705I think twitter community notes said it wasn't regular paper Some kind of metal?
>>16542749And you didn't tare the scale properly either.Do this, post a video where you zero the scale, place the paper on the scale, burn the paper, and let the ash settle.Otherwise, STFU.
>>16542718That "instrument" has 0.1g accuracy and is self calibrating, I own exactly the same one, the video looks edited.
>>16542806Do you not know what the "TARE" button does, retard?
>>16542820something not relevant here, half a paper burns up before weight starts dropping, kill yourself
>>16542826that's because the flame and the smoke has mass
>>16542833not any mass that would push down on the scale, moron
>>16542839Of course it pushes down the scale moron. Do you know what conservation of momentum is? Go back to 5th grade physics class.
>>16542853>conservation of momentumyeah, hot air moves up and cold goes down, resulting in 0 force down onto the scale
>>16542826>half a paper burns up before weight starts dropping
>>16542868would like to see the research paper that made you this delusional
>>16542869All I posted was a gif. Not sure why you're so mad. I'm not who you were talking to.
>>16542705Either it is a tricks with a fake modified display (I can make it write Spook and Boobs if I have root control) made for click bait on Tik Toks retarded brother. OR the heat fucks with the way it measures. Do that with one of the old time mechanical scales fagot!>>16542714Oh I noticed it.Is that negative? Dam what a shit font they did chose for this thing!
>>16542868Gravity how does that even work!
>>16543031>i use wingdings exclusively for all chem lab write-ups
>>16542705smartest /sci/ user
>>16542868But if you burned the slinky would it weigh more though?
>>16542705I'm positive there's a material out there that gains mass after burning it by absorbing more oxygen atoms than the atoms it spits out as gas. Not sure what it is though.But yes, op tarded in paper's case.edit: its steel wooledit:we did it reddit!
>>16543067>I'm positive there's a material out there that gains mass after burning it by absorbing more oxygen atoms than the atoms it spits out as gas. Not sure what it is though.Hydrogen. You're thinking of hydrogen.
I think it's because the flame deformed the metal somehow and put pressure onto the sensor. Notice the video cuts off before the reading returns to 0, nor do we even see the zeroed scale before the paper is placed on it. The video seems like the kind of thing brazilians or indians do when they get tech: use it to tell lies for attention.
>>16543093>Hydrogen. You're thinking of hydrogen.Dang, I wrote "What is carbon? Hi, Mom!" and wagered everything.
>>16542758Gee anon, you really think some normalfag pulling shit off instagram is going to bother?
>>16542714>Negative mass
>>16543093Steel wool. There are no organics to gas out.
>>16543317>normalfags troll /sci/Kek.
>>16543067>I'm positive there's a material out there that gains mass after burning it by absorbing more oxygen atoms than the atoms it spits out as gas. Not sure what it is though.Steel wool.
>>16543323This is just what nu-/sci/ is
>>16542705go ahead and crumble the paper up into a condensed ball, measure it, then weigh the burnt aftermath of that
>>16543322>Steel wool. There are no organics>Steel wool>no organics>Steel>no organicsAh yes, famously carbon free steel.
>>16543043Yes, actually.
>>16542749?
>>16542705Everything gains mass when burned.
>>165433310.05% is trace-negligible you pedantic mongoloid
>>16543331carbon and organic aren't the same retard, CO2 is inorganic.
>>16542705Let me take a whack at it, the sheet is probably a treated baking parchment or cellulose-based material with a metallic or mineral coating. The fast 18-second burn time rules out thin metal sheets like aluminum. The slight weight gain is probably due to oxidation during combustion, where metal oxides or oxygen-rich compounds form in the ash.
>>16543043What parts of the slinky would turn into gas?
>>16543043Yes, because you'd be converting a metal into an oxide of said metal
>>165434302.1% isn't. Also, that's by weight, not atoms, which would skew shit much further in carbon's favor what with iron being 5 times heavier. You very quickly get into non-negligible territory.>>16543431>carbon and organic aren't the same retard, CO2 is inorganic.Depends on the definition you're going off of. My school textbooks defined organic as containing carbon. Period. Other definitions include carbon in covalent bonds or carbon bonded with other carbon/hydrogen.By 2/3 of those definitions, CO2 is organic.
>>16542705Mechanical hysteresis. Or the scale was not zeroed to begin with. Any other answer is wrong.
>>16542714>You don't see the negative sign, OP?If it were negative mass it would be floating retard.
>>16543331Diamond and graphite are inorganic despite being entirely carbon. Why do you think that is, dingus?
>>16543479>My school textbooks defined organic as containing carbon. Period.Your memory is faulty lmfao. No textbooks defined organic compounds that way.
>>16542749A scale doesn't measure mass, it measures force (or, more accurately, it measures voltage in response to a changing electrical resistance based on the compression of a spring in reaction to a force), which requires that the initial state is properly calibrated for. If you set the wrong calibration state, it'll register a negative "mass" when already present forces are removed.
>>16543700>Even after reading the multiple valid explanations of the video in the thread, I still don't understand what's going on.Kek.
>>16543706>Diamond and graphite are inorganic despite being entirely carbon. Why do you think that is, dingus?Because they are organic.>Your memory is faulty lmfaoNo. It isn't. 5 seconds in google would have saved you looking like a fucking idiot.>https://www.studypool.com/documents/17028698/introduction-to-organic-molecules-organic-chemistry-simplified-notes
>>16543879>Walter Sisulu University>South africaI see....................................................
>>16542705Who was the nigger who designed a screen with black font in dark blue background?
>>16543897I'm from Indiana. That was literally just the first result I saw with a google. The definition of organic varies plenty and is not just a South Africa thing.
>>16542705two things>get a more precise scale>control for air currentsbest thing would be to do it in a vacuum but hey
>>16542705>someone records a shitty chinese scale working as intended>absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happens>/sci/ loses their mindscan /sci/ explain this?
>>16545214>do it in a vacuumYeah burn the paper in vacuum that won't be annoying at all. Why is the thread still going btw? Correct answer was given as early as post number 3. Haven't you used an electronic scale in your life?
>>16546118>op posts an obvious Iow quality IG bait that should have been removed long ago.
>>16546132>Yeah burn the paper in vacuum that won't be annoying at all.My man, I am LMFAO. I owe you a drink.
