/sci/ - Science & Math

It's your mom's dildo

That is a plutonium rod
Probably not a good idea to be around it, especially hold it.

>>5362831
Looks a bit like depleted uranium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:30mm_DU_slug.jpg

It's clearly a solid piece of some metal with some carved shapes.
By the hand tingling, one could expect the object to be either:
a) Electrically charged
b) Radioactive
c) Coated or made out of a toxic substance

As for purpose, those dents could mean it's either a gear, or something people needed to grab. Or they've been recycling metal cylinders.

Given the volume of the object and it's weight, we could determine what it's made of.
To determine the volume, you can just use a bucket of water full to the top and collect the displaced fluid in a correctly measured cup.

>>5362884

that seemed to be the prevailing theory last night but we had no way to confirm it

>>5362887

>
Given the volume of the object and it's weight, we could determine what it's made of.
To determine the volume, you can just use a bucket of water full to the top and collect the displaced fluid in a correctly measured cup.

good ol archimedes

>>5362887
if it is radioactive enough to cause feelings.. you are going to die.

>>5362887
not sure what use a space company would have for DU. it's depleted ie inert so cant be used for powerplants. rockets are all about lightweight materials, DU is used in projectiles for its density (inertia).

Some guy who claimed to be an aerospace engineer said it was part of a shaft for a turbopump for a rocket engine

btw there is another picture of it that shows the end and it appears to have been cut with a cutoff wheel

the only thing that OP said about the weight was that it was much much denser than steel

>>5362901

i was doing some research last night and it said that the aerospace industry uses DU for counterweights to balance things out, this thing doesnt really look like a counter weight though

>>5362905
Was there ever an official measurement of the object? Volume, length, width, circumference, etc?

>>5362895
Probably. That's why the /g/ OP never posted again. DUN DUN DUN

>>5362888
Get a cheap Geiger counter, like one that comes with one of those testing kits for radon.

That being said I highly doubt an aerospace company would leave radioactive shit just lying in the middle of a road. Looks more like a component to some machine, I doubt it's radioactive at all.

>>5362831
>What we know so far:
>>Makes the guys hand tingle when held
>>very heavy
No, you don't know either of these things. The guy was almost certainly trolling. Any details that aren't directly from the picture should be treated as bogus.

Try putting it on your penis.

>>5362924
Er, the OP said it was about the weight of 50 pennies.
That's all we got.

it looks like someone sawed off the grip to a set of weights or something

it's got mechanical wear so it's probably a ferrous alloy

any solid piece of ferrous metal would feel very heavy to someone who has no idea how much iron really weighs

i doubt it tingles in his hand, the guy who said that is probably one of those spirit science fucktards

>>5362962
>the guy who said that is probably one of those spirit science fucktards
Nail on the head

>>5362831

Instead of it just being used as one solid unit, it could be multiple's of the same thing just attached to each other? Kind of like those pre made cookie dough tubes.

>>5362968
>I feel like this piece of something came to me...

crackpot dismissed
lol

>>5362973
But he's being really scientific about it at least

>>5362979

Oh, that is gold.

>>5362979
>most people believe in god... I believe in energy.

10/10 best new quote

its molded plutonium you stupid fuck.
hope you make it a few more days.

>>5362890
Yeah, except to find the volume you need to do triple integration! Fuck that

>>5363046
>implying OP is in this thread, or even still alive

>>5363085
Nahh, you just measure the displace liquid, and that is your volume. That's like 5th grade science.

>>5363087
i highly doubt it. i dont know survival times after exposure to radiation, but i know nuclear uranium and plutonium exponentially decrease your life span.

>>5362979
fucking saved

Um, radiation does not make your hand tingle. That's... that's ridiculous.

I would say that /sci/ should know better, but I know better.

He is back on /g/ atm

>>5363092
yeah, but then the water has a different density than the metal, so you have to do some kind of ratio right?

the way I see it...you want to see how much water spills out and weigh that water, then do some ratio of the water weight vs the metal weight. but then how do you know the exact level to fill up the glass with water before adding the metal? for example, I fill the glass and think that it's full, but really theres surface tension which makes the water rise a little bit more than I thought it could do. this would be "lost" volume when you later weight the water.

you could add soap cause that gets rid of the surface tension, but overall I don't think your experiment is gonna work. I don't know how to do triple integration though

>>5363124
Over complicated. You fill a graduated cylinder to like 10ml, then drop the object in it, and then measure the amount in the graduated cylinder and subtract. That will yield your volume. Or, if you really wanted to get technical, you can measure all the measurements on the object and, since it is cylindrical, integrate a graph with the same dimensions around, say, the x-axis to get a precise volume.

The thing is, you don't know what the metal is or if the thing is hollow or not, or how much it is hollow. So you couldn't find what metal it is or whatver by these methods. You could, however, find it's density by measuring it's mass and calculating that along with its volume to find it.

But I don't know what you are saying exactly.

>>5363124
It's volume. It's fucking volume, the displaced water is the same volume. You don't need to convert shit. You don't weight the water, you put it in a measurement cup. Do you understand what a fucking volume is?
Also the error from the surface is so small if done properly we ignore it.

Then once you have the volume, you get the density by doing weight/volume.

Can you really not grasp 5th grade ideas?

>>5363141
oh ok, that seems to make sense now. that other guys response wasn't very helpful

Please god let >>5363124
be a troll
>yeah, but then the water has a different density than the metal, so you have to do some kind of ratio right?
It's Volume, you are measuring volume by displacement what does that have to do with differing densities?
>the way I see it...you want to see how much water spills out and weigh that water, then do some ratio of the water weight vs the metal weight. but then how do you know the exact level to fill up the glass with water before adding the metal? for example, I fill the glass and think that it's full, but really theres surface tension which makes the water rise a little bit more than I thought it could do. this would be "lost" volume when you later weight the water.
You only need to measure the amount of spillover if you go with that method, you don't need to know the exact value of the volume before. The slight difference due to surface tension is minimal and can be ignored