Hi diamagnetic fans....ha

Bob Lamb has forwarded me copys of the Handbook
of Chemistry & Physics, relating to the magnetic
susceptibility of the elements and inorganic 
compounds; for the year 1988.  Eleven pages of
fine print, extensive list which also jumps into
various compounds/mixtures.

Most interesting besides the list; is where they
give more than one value for afew items.  Bismuth
is one of those, -10.5 (s)on one, and -280.1 (I)
on another.  The (s) and (I) is not defined. A
number of items on the list also exhibit a
variation of values.  Tin is another one, with
+3.1 (White tin)to -37.0 for (gray tin).

They do maintain the same value for carbon, but
that is obviously wrong as I've had paramagnetic
carbon samples more often than diamagnetic
samples.  I doubt there is any public reference
to any range of values, that represent the 
whole carbon spectrum; which encompasses samples
from a broad range of manufacturers, sources, etc.
I can't see any manufacturer striving for ultra
pure carbon (which doesn't guarantee diamagnetic
results) for whatever use it finds.

The normal eddy current materials like, copper,
silver, gold, are obviously useless for levitation;
although they make good dramatic demonstrations of
repulsion and eddy current combinations.
Tin, zinc, and lead is a unknown too me.

Another obvious problem is well known 
and that is temperature variations strongly affect
the floating neo magnet.  Even a sudden open door
and cooler air, can make the neo drop out of
suspension.  The larger the neo magnet the more
pronounced the effect becomes.  Whether other
strong magnets like samarium do the same is
unknown, and their samples are scarce on the
surplus scene I think. Too add to the complexity,
the magnet manufacturers also vary their 
formulas, methods, granularity etc., and this
too me, is just another sample of variations of
any material, depending on the "cook's" recipes.
....ha.  I've had a number of the same magnets,
and have had to adjust for variations on each
individual one...they all vary somewhat, 
especially on the diamagnetic levitation scene.

Bob reports testing some aluminum sulfate, but
while diamagnetic, it wasn't near as dramatic
as the listed value of -323.0, and, he says:
"but no obvious "strong" diamag apparent -
prob. less then Rochelle salt, quartz & few
others I tried."    Sodium cloride is listed at
-30.3 on the 1988 list, quartz is not listed.

Am getting to the point that I look upon each
element as having different personalities just
like humans...they are all different from one
sample to the next, especially in diamagnetics.

Purity also doesn't guarantee a uniformity in
diamagnetism.  I have some carbon rods with
statements of purity probably going beyond
99.999%, with impurity up to some 4 parts per
million, and yes, their diamagnetism varys
from one rod to the next....some obviously
weaker than another in diamagnetism "levels".
Still; these aren't really any better than
some 3 other levitation carbon brush assemblys
I have. 

Now...it sure would be nice if levitation
co-operated over the years; we might all be
running levitation seismometers now.... 

The mystery continues...

Cheers......ha.

Meredith Lamb




Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net

_____________________________________________________________________

Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)