Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram AI JERK OFF🫦 ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Where's the lead? (Patreon)

Published:
2018-05-05 19:19:14
Imported:

Content


Files

mine was I lied to?

Help me make videos by donating here: https://www.patreon.com/CodysLab Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/codydonreeder SubReddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/codyslab/

Comments

Anonymous

Wow! I've never seen an assay be /that/ wrong before! Crazy!

Anonymous

Always a good idea to quantify variance along with any value, sometimes you won't believe how big it can be.

Anonymous

If you set up a phosphorescent sheet behind it, could you take x-rays of things? Or does it not produce enough x-rays...

Anonymous

If I had that I couldn’t stop myself from testing myself. I would test everything and anything I came across.

Anonymous

Would you be willing to test your leg or something?

Anonymous

Contaminated sample?

Anonymous

Nice video. Would like to hear what the essey company would say if you confronted them. A build your own fallout shelter in a mine video series would be so rad. You could do donation thing for it.

Anonymous

Cody, where did this video go?

Anonymous

Perhaps there is a calibration problem? It doesn’t sound right that the tuna should be so very low for in phosphorous. After all it is fish muscle and as such I’d expect it to contain fairly high levels of ATP while alive, some of which would probably break down into free phosphorus. Or it may be a matter of chemistry, that tuna has a bunch of chemical bonds that fluoresce at similar energy transitions to pure elements

Anonymous

Cody build a tunnel boring machine, how hard can it be?

Anonymous

I'm really glad you got the XRF, very useful device indeed. I do, however, have a pretty big concern, since this does have the potential to affect your health quite substantially: Have you had it calibrated? At the very least, do you have the ability to spike a sample of crushed ore with ~50ppm lead and then run the test to confirm a ~50ppm increase? Similarly, that tuna result is really worrying. Please spike it with a little bit of soluble mercury so that it can equilibriate to the ~50ppm level and test it again.

Anonymous

Could it be that the mercury evaporated while the tuna was being dried?

Adric Menning

birds were no real bother. looking forward to your scans of all sorts of things. would also be neat to see what things like centrifuged pond skum reads as and, house dust, black sand from arroyo beds and the like. also ashes of things burned.

Anonymous

Wow Cody! That was amazing with the tuna. I wouldn't have thought silver & gold would have been in tuna! All these years, the government said mercury was the problem. But too me, it's these other metals.

Anonymous

Birds are fine, I see you get the fancy handheld spectrometer! I'm exited to see what you can analize with it. BEAM ALL THE THINGS!

Anonymous

Must've been silver-fin tuna. Or gold-fish?

Anonymous

Hmm, the Lead was low. The Arsenic was interesting and the calcium and iron was cool. Still I would not grow plants and eat them even at that level. The gamma ray MRN was cool too. That must of cost a lot of money plus the permit too. :).

Anonymous

What are you going to do ask for a Refund LOL.

Anonymous

So 10 percent Lead and Arsenic. Hmmm.

Anonymous

If i send you a sample of a metal i acquired i while back would you test it for me? ive no idea what metal(s) it is but it used to be a mug.

Anonymous

Is it possible to refine Ca from those rock in any way?

Anonymous
>>12106099

Mercury boils at around 350°C, I don't think he heated tuna over that temperature. At lower temperature it produces some vapors but not very much because it has a very low vapour pressure. If he heated a little bit, of course some of it evaporated but that doesn't explain the low reading. I think it all depends where the tuna was fished, and this factor can change the percentage of mercury from 0.40 parts per million to almost 0.

Anonymous

Cool! I wonder would the readings be different if each rock were crushed to a dust and then tested with the xrf analyzer. Could the bench top have been interfering too perhaps? Might be interesting to reanalyze with the sample in free space, suspended from a string perhaps.

Anonymous

Can you do like all the meats? Then a gold refining from that. That would be epic

iceowl

Hey Cody - does it make a difference if you orient the rocks differently to the face of the X-Ray? Seeing as how it's projection is a beam - could it be that if you scan a single rock multiple times, from multiple angles - you could get different readings? Obviously if the rock is completely homogeneous, you'll always get the same reading. I know nothing about geology, but those rocks look like they have striations and different aggregations of materials, and perhaps readings will be different if you take them multiple times from multiple angles, etc?? Thx. Love your work.

Anonymous

My friends from College ran a massive Mercury study on an AA. Tuna that was canned in a liquid had lower levels of Mercury than dry packed tuna. Also, interestingly, cigarettes with a gold ring by the filter had a measurably higher level of mercury than those without the ring (not entirely surprising as gold and mercury are best buddies, but still interesting)

Anonymous

Surprised aluminium didn’t crop up...

Brian Reddeman

I don't have a degree in chemistry or a formal degree in Geology (yet...it'll be a side product of my Paleontology degree)... BUT on my bookshelf are binders of ~400 XRF print outs. I've also chemically separated out the results for a few different metals;gold is my go to since I'm most familiar with it and Its easier than most to separate out. Hand held XRF is a great tool for rough estimates and I'm sure Cody knows this because he's spot checking best candidates. A few things stood out for me: 1. It's lake bed sedimentary rock; what setting detected the aluminum? 2. Did you check your XRF to make sure its reading correctly against ore you already quantified? 3. Take the same sample you sent off (I'm assuming you got your sample back) and compare your results. Unrelated: Good luck on your permit (that's not sarcasm); people don't like explosives. Try living in Southern California. Permit is the right way to go.

CodysLab
>>12123617

I didn't have it on the right mode for that, I'd need to lower the x-ray beam to 15KV to detect the lighter elements, incidentally this is probably why phosphorous was not showing up correctly.

Jasper
>>12125127

Could have it analyse a few different things, like the styrofoam, or wood. (Lower-density material stops it more slowly..) Wonder what the limitations are electrons jump up and fall down? Usual chemical bonds are like eV, x-ray is 100eV to 100keV. Of course, lower electron orbits have more energy than than the outer ones. By that logic, perhaps the device is not as good for smaller elements.

CodysLab

For anything lighter than magnesium you would need to use a helium atmosphere or even a vacuum.

Anonymous

I didn't know about methyl mercury since this video. But how can you extract mercury with such low concentration? You need at least 10kg of tuna for some μg with 100% yield. Maybe it can be distilled at 90°C since it boils at around 83°C leaving behind still edible coocked tuna. What do you think?

Brian Reddeman
>>12148747

Oh hey there's a video idea. Chrysoberyl isn't too hard to acquire. Pure helium might be a tad more expensive.

CodysLab
>>12152074

Lol yeah it won’t be easy and I would be very happy to get less than a milligram.

Anonymous

I can't wait to see that! Thanks for answering

Anonymous

What happened to the mouse you caught last year? lol

CodysLab
>>12155166

Oh they run on their wheel all night every night. Fortunately I found a grease they won’t lick off.

Anonymous
>>12155166

do a short Blab on them Maybe just a time capture of them with no edits. I would watch the crap out of that.

Anonymous

It may be worth putting in your ball mill and analysing it again. the XRF should also be able to do a running average of the readings (you analyse the sample 3 times from different angles and it gives an average of the 3). Pulverizing and doing an average should give you a better idea of whole rock chemistry.