WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[Julio]

Anyway, I would say that infrared spectra simply cannot "detect" elemental aluminum, only its compounds.

I wouldn't say "elemental", but "bulk" or crystal. In that sense, other tests like X-ray diffraction, or Electron Diffraction in TEM (like the SAED Millette conducted) could reveal the presence of Al crystals.

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer: As for your "It stinks to high heaven that they didn't release data that would conclusively and definitively prove exactly (using FTIR) what the binder material is in their samples when they actually utilised the best test method."
You are of course right...

But let me suppose that Harrit et al measured FTIR spectra of some red chips and identified epoxy resin (similarly as Jim Millette). (I have some doubts in this respect since no person in the Bentham team has the basic education in organic/polymer chemistry, but let say they identified epoxy binder using usual comparison with some infrared spectra database.) I think that it should not be the reason why they are not willing to show FTIR spectra, since even thermite can contain some minor amount of epoxy polymer binder.
It is perhaps more probable that Bentham team identified kaolinite in the red chips by infrared spectroscopy:o) And this can be the reason why their FTIR spectra are "Top Truthers Secret":cool:

[Sunstealer]

I wouldn't say "elemental", but "bulk" or crystal. In that sense, other tests like X-ray diffraction, or Electron Diffraction in TEM (like the SAED Millette conducted) could reveal the presence of Al crystals.Me too. I hate this "elemental" nonsense. Unfortunately if you don't use truther parlance then they have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to put "elemental" in quotes for this reason.

[Ivan Kminek]

Me too. I hate this "elemental" nonsense. Unfortunately if you don't use truther parlance then they have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to put "elemental" in quotes for this reason.

OK, guys:cool: In Czech technical/chemical language, the phrase "elemental... something" ("elementární...něco" in Czech) is frequently used in the sense "it is this element, not its compounds", there is no way how to misunderstood such wording. But I will try to remember how it is in correct English:rolleyes:.

[Julio]

OK, guys:cool: In Czech technical/chemical language, the phrase "elemental... something" ("elementární...něco" in Czech) is frequently used in the sense "it is this element, not its compounds", there is no way how to misunderstood such wording. But I will try to remember how it is in correct English:rolleyes:.

It's not about language (Hey! English is not my first language either!) When you speak about "elemental" you are referring to only a kind of atoms. I don't think any of us misunderstand you, but in this context we are speaking about a bunch of a atoms (of only one element) arranged in a crystal. So crystal is a better word to describe it. :)

[Ivan Kminek]

It's not about language (Hey! English is not my first language either!) When you speak about "elemental" you are referring to only a kind of atoms. I don't think any of us misunderstand you, but in this context we are speaking about a bunch of a atoms (of only one element) arranged in a crystal. So crystal is a better word to describe it. :)

OK:o) Lady from our department of vibrational spectroscopy (the boss of the department is somewhere abroad) told me that aluminium in bulk would basically reflect the light including IR, except UV (as you found).
FTIR can detect/measure silicon and other semiconductors, but it is not suitable for metals like aluminium because of the highly delocalized/mobile electrons responsible for conductivity....blahblahblah... it was rather over my head.
Anyway, FTIR is not able to "detect" aluminium:cool:

[Oystein]

Ok, so I learn:


FTIR is great to identify bindings (i.e. compounds); Millette identified Kaolin and epoxy with it. The Kaolin explains a lot, if not all, of the (little) Al there is.
But FTIR alone wouldn't be good to rule out elemental Al (crystalline or amorphous or whatever), as Al reflects IR
TEM would be the method of choice to detect crystals of Al

Am I close so far?

So how exactly does Millette rule out any unbound Al? :confused:

[Oystein]

By the way, i just wrote another Blog Post. This time prompted by Frank Legge's careless assertion that Millette says he found steel, and didn't say he found iron oxide, in the gray layers.

Comparison of Gray Layer XEDS by Harrit vs. Millette (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/comparison-of-gray-layer-xeds-by-harrit.html)

Of course, the shortest of glances at Millette's data reveals that all of his gray layers show significant oxidation. I set out to quantify this and compare with Harrit e.al. I had done this earlier, computing the ratio between the O-peak and the highest (K-alpha) Fe-Peak, and found that Millette's samples appear to have relatively less oxygen. However, upon closer examination, I found that in Millette's data, the K-alpha of iron is higher than the L-alpha of the same iron by a factor that is about twice the factor seen in Harrit's graphs. So there seems to be a systematic difference in the device, method, sample preparation or whatever that would make the higher energy levels appear larger in Millette's XEDS than in Harrit's.

If I compare the O-peak to the much closer (on the x-axis) L-alpha peak of Fe, I find that the ratio between those peaks is almost the same in both studies, differing by only about 20%, with Millette's appearing slightly more oxidized.

At the same time, there is more variation in Millette's C peaks, and he sometimes finds Al, but no Mn. I conclude that both Millette and Harrit are looking at oxidized steel, but Millette probably has different alloys.

Conclusions:

This finding

lends confidence to the belief that both Harrit an Millette looked at red-gray chips where the gray layer is oxidized structural steel and red the layer is mineral pigments in organic matrix
reinforces the suspicion that there are several different kinds of red-gray chips in WTC dust
highlights the need to carefully identify and distinguish these different kinds of red-gray chips before any particular conclusions or further study are contemplated.

[tsig]

Infact Fe2O3 and elemental Al is a bit irrelevant when it comes to FTIR. FTIR really shines when examining organic materials. This is why we asked for it (we also knew it would show kaolin). People forget that there is an enormous amount of organic binder material in Harrit, Millette and Basile's samples. eg.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4865

* Oystein - this spectrum has the tell tale flared or extended tail of the Si peak and matches very well your analysis. It shows that Millette, Harrit and Basile had identical chips amongst their samples.

How much aluminium and Fe2O3 is in this lot? 1.68% max Aluminium!! lol. No truther has managed to explain why there is next to no thermitic material in this spectra yet so much binder material.

Tillitson had approximately 10% organic material left over from the sol-gel process. The primer paint in all of the samples is closer to 90% as expected. There is no proper analysis of the binder material in the Harrit et al paper.

Identifying this binder is critical in understanding what the material is. Any chemist would know this. Any chemist worth his salt would either know of a test method or would find one in order to determine what the binder is. Harrit et al performed FTIR so I suspect someone knew.

Why did they not release the results when it is crucial to showing what the binder material is? Did they perform the test and see it was epoxy so omitted it? Was their test inconclusive, if so how?

It stinks to high heaven that they didn't release data that would conclusively and definitively prove exactly what the binder material is in their samples when they actually utilised the best test method

They went into the lab and did a lot of sciency tests then wrote up a sciency paper knowing full well that their followers wouldn't understand the paper and that most scientists wouldn't bother to read it to refute it.

Cargo cult science at it's finest.

[Ivan Kminek]

:cool:Oystein: Infrared spectroscopy is not good only for compounds, but also for atoms of elements bound e.g. in some crystal lattices (but not always). Each chemical bond (or group of bonds) has its characteristic vibration(s) and other motions (rotations, twisting etc.) which can be in resonance with incoming IR light of some frequency, therefore the energy of the light is absorbed by properly "tuned" bond(s) leading to some changes in the bond(s) motions.

I think that Jim Millette simply identified kaolinite by several independent methods. In fact, he experimentally proved what Sunstealer claimed already several days after Bentham "paper" publishing. He did not try to exclude the presence of aluminium as element, since it was not necessary. But perhaps I have overlooked something:cool:

[Sunstealer]

So how exactly does Millette rule out any unbound Al? :confused:TEM-SAED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selected_area_diffraction).

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

[Oystein]

TEM-SAED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selected_area_diffraction).

Ok, the TEM-EDS of all platelets he looked at is pretty clear: It's always very cleanly Al=Si + O + C. I see the TEM-SAED pattern of platelets, and should believe this is characteristic for kaolin. Can we find references on the internet of TEM-SAED patterns for
- Kaolin
- Alumina
- Silica
- Aluminium
to show me (or those truthers willing to learn) that indeed these patterns are different?

Basically, Millette has tested a number of different-looking particles in the ash and found none that is simply Al. This does not logically rule out any Al at all, just drives down drastically the maximum possible abundance, which already started out low.

Cool.

But why o why no SrCrO4? :(

[Sunstealer]

MM is missing several key points..

1. What part of 'No Thermitic Material' do you not understand? The chips contain no trace of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size. They are not thermite. Are you choosing to ignore this fact?

2. No one knows what material Harrit tested.

3. Harrit never released any other data to 'prove' his theory, even though he promised to, nor does it seem he is likely to do so.

4. DSC is not a good method of identifying anything, compared to the far advanced methods used by Millette.

5. Anyone who looks at the following table can clearly see the DSC test that was done DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCHING THE THERMITE LINE!

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/DSC-overlaid.png

Thermite shows endothermic reaction until 370C! It doesn't even become exothermic until JUST BEFORE THE TESTED MATERIAL IS HITTING IT'S PEAK!

Themite peaks OVER 100C HIGHER than the tested material.

This has been explained to you countless times.

Harrit's DSC only shows that what ever material they tested WAS NOT THERMITE. SO HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY IT IS THERMITE?

The test is irrelevant. It is not needed. You make yourself look dumber and dumber and more sheep like every time you bring it up.The DSC data from Harrit et al are slap bang in the range for the thermal decomposition of epoxy.

See Fig 1 b - page 146 (actually page 4 out of 9 in pdf)

http://144.206.159.178/ft/1034/62579/1060545.pdf

as well as the reduction of iron oxides Fig 5.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926860X07002062

I wish I could get hold of this too. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141391098002225 - it's bang on for an analysis of the thermal curves.

[Sunstealer]

Basically, Millette has tested a number of different-looking particles in the ash and found none that is simply Al. This does not logically rule out any Al at all, just drives down drastically the maximum possible abundance, which already started out low.

Cool.[truther mode on]Why didn't he test every single particle for Al!![truther mode off]

But why o why no SrCrO4? :(Remember that we had no idea that Sr was even present until we saw this

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=5169

Look at how small the registering of Sr is. We know it's masked at lower KeV be Si peak and we know the wider trailing edge of the Si peak at the base is likely to indicate that Sr is present. Strontium Chromate, according to Ivan will decompose during ashing. I've looked at the TEM photos and it's really difficult to see whether there are any particles other than Fe2O3 and kaolin (and soot). I think there are possible candidates, but it's really difficult to see if it's just particles that are viewed edge on.

Page 17 Fig 16c even shows TiO2 present. That's not even supposed to be present in LaClade or Tnemec.

People also have to realise that specifications change all the time. It's also very common for a customer to specify a certain coating or give the supplier a standard that the coating must meet. Doesn't mean they all have to have exactly the same materials in.

One thing is for sure. If you remove material from WTC dust using a magnet you separate chips of paint adhered to steel not thermite.

[Ivan Kminek]

Well, we still don't know what Jim's chips can be Laclede paint, Tnemec paint or some other paints...

Is there some other way how to distinguish between those paints using some additional methods?
Of course it is:cool:
Although most of us are "paint lovers", we still tend to forget that they are different paints, so they simply have different colors (absorption/reflectance spectra in visible region). E.g. because they can contain different iron oxide pigments...
All Jim's red chips look very similar in color, but only for our eyes unequipped with any spectrometer.

There is the whole field of material testing called paint colorimetry, see e.g. here (http://www.colorbasics.com/Colorimetry/). Quote: "There are four main classes of instruments used in colorimetry, the colorimeter, spectrophotometer, densitometer, and spectroradiometer."

I'm not saying that it makes some sense to pay for such measurements, but they can be indeed useful.
At present, the additional "testing" for the presence of strontium in some selected chips is much more important for us, I think.

[chrismohr]

I just talked with Jim Millette. In the next couple weeks he plans to write up a short followup on the progress of his research, with some of his thin section work expanded upon and the process of elimination he is going through as he tries to identify the specific source of the red-gray chips.

Then, in the end of April, he will give another progress report, this time on his research into the iron-rich microspheres.

He also said that this project is so big, it may end up being several peer-reviewed papers, not just one. And no, there is no set date for publication. A big project will take time.

[Ivan Kminek]

I just talked with Jim Millette. In the next couple weeks he plans to write up a short followup on the progress of his research, with some of his thin section work expanded upon and the process of elimination he is going through as he tries to identify the specific source of the red-gray chips.

Then, in the end of April, he will give another progress report, this time on his research into the iron-rich microspheres.

He also said that this project is so big, it may end up being several peer-reviewed papers, not just one. And no, there is no set date for publication. A big project will take time.

Thanks, Chris:cool: I wonder why Jim Millette is still so "cryptical"... Laclede primer paint is the clear candidate as for the material of the most of his red-gray chips.
I would bet my left nut on it and I do not believe that we may have overlooked some better "culprit" in this "criminal case":cool:

[chrismohr]

Thanks, Chris:cool: I wonder why Jim Millette is still so "cryptical"... Laclede primer paint is the clear candidate as for the material of the most of his red-gray chips.
I would bet my left nut on it and I do not believe that we may have overlooked some better "culprit" in this "criminal case":cool:
Me and my bad memory again... was there an issue about no strontium chromate in Millette's samples? At any rate, he has Oystein's white paper. Millette never says anything until he does his own experiments. He just told me today that when he finds a possible clue, he will track down a sample and test it before saying anything.

[Ivan Kminek]

Me and my bad memory again... was there an issue about no strontium chromate in Millette's samples? At any rate, he has Oystein's white paper. Millette never says anything until he does his own experiments. He just told me today that when he finds a possible clue, he will track down a sample and test it before saying anything.

Well, as you know, we expect some 1.2 wt% of strontium chromate in Laclede primer. XEDS is definitely not able to prove it, since strontium peak is inevitably in overlap with silicon peak and, moreover, the concentration of this compound is too low.
We perhaps hoped that Jim may find some needle-shape crystals of this compound by microscopy (namely microscopy using polarized light), but Jim has not confirmed such crystals.
Therefore, I am willling to pay some more money for the proof of strontium, using suitable method, like atomic absorption spectrometry. For such measurements, only red chips corresponding quite well or very well to Laclede paint (owing to their XEDS spectra) should be selected:cool:

[The Almond]

Well, as you know, we expect some 1.2 wt% of strontium chromate in Laclede primer. XEDS is definitely not able to prove it, since strontium peak is inevitably in overlap with silicon peak and, moreover, the concentration of this compound is too low.


Actually, XEDS is more than capable of resolving this overlap. One simply requires suitable standards (SiO2 and SrF2, for example). A multiple linear least squares fitting algorithm will readily deconvolve minor Sr L family lines from major Si lines.

[Ivan Kminek]

Actually, XEDS is more than capable of resolving this overlap. One simply requires suitable standards (SiO2 and SrF2, for example). A multiple linear least squares fitting algorithm will readily deconvolve minor Sr L family lines from major Si lines.

Aha, this is completely new for me. Could you explain it on some more understandable manner? And can it work even at this high Si/Sr ratio in samples? Could we expect some real, unambigous proof of strontium in this way in Laclede paint?
Thanks in advance for the answers, Almond:cool:

[ergo]

One thing is for sure. If you remove material from WTC dust using a magnet you separate chips of paint adhered to steel not thermite.

Unless, of course, it's thermite.

If it isn't, how do steel (as opposed to iron oxide) particles get separated from bulk steel?

[The Almond]

Aha, this is completely new for me. Could you explain it on some more understandable manner? And can it work even at this high Si/Sr ratio in samples? Could we expect some real, unambigous proof of strontium in this way in Laclede paint?
Thanks in advance for the answers, Almond:cool:

Ok, the extremely short answer is as follows:

Let's say you have two curves, F(x) and G(x), of which x is the independent variable. Now let's introduce a 3rd curve that is an equally weighted linear combination of F and G such that H(x) = F(x) + G(x). Let's say you can measure H(x) and G(x), but not F(x). Using very simple algebra, we can recover the function F(x) as long as we know G(x) and H(x).

Now let's make it more complicated. H(x) is now a weighted combination of F and G such that H(x) = a*F(x) + b*G(x). If we can only measure H(x) and G(x), we're sunk in the water. But, if we precisely know what F(x) and G(x) are ahead of time, and if we measure H(x), we can use linear algebra to determine the scaling factors a and b. The way we do that is to guess at the scaling factors for a and b, and then derive a new function H'(x). Obviously, our goal is to get H'(x) as close to H(x) as we possibly can. The way we test this closeness is to take the sum of the squares of the differences between H(x) and H'(x). When it's as low as we can go, we're done.

In x-ray microanalysis, we have lots of peak overlaps. Sr and Si are pretty common. The convolved peak of Sr and Si is H(x). We measure a Sr standard and an Si standard to make F(x) and G(x). After that, we iterate through to determine the scaling factors.

Research has shown this method to be incredibly effective in finding even very small peaks hidden under very large peaks. The one problem is that one requires a lot of count data. Generally speaking, you need at least one million counts in the peak of interest to do this correctly. So the likelihood of doing this well given the data presented is very small.

[chrismohr]

Well, as you know, we expect some 1.2 wt% of strontium chromate in Laclede primer. XEDS is definitely not able to prove it, since strontium peak is inevitably in overlap with silicon peak and, moreover, the concentration of this compound is too low.
We perhaps hoped that Jim may find some needle-shape crystals of this compound by microscopy (namely microscopy using polarized light), but Jim has not confirmed such crystals.
Therefore, I am willling to pay some more money for the proof of strontium, using suitable method, like atomic absorption spectrometry. For such measurements, only red chips corresponding quite well or very well to Laclede paint (owing to their XEDS spectra) should be selected:cool:
OK but Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE. It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede.

In the meantime, your frustration with this matter is good evidence that we are not influencing the course of Jim Millette's research. He's already said to the 9/11 truth side through me, if you want to do DSC testing here are some good people, I'm not interested. I got the same vibe about the strontium question. If you really want to pursue this we might be able to arrange a red-gray chip for you to play with, I don't know. We may be able to do the same for the DSC test. In the meantime, I am thrilled that both sides are getting nowhere trying to direct his research. In the long run, that's what we need!

[Miragememories]

OK but Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE. It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede...

So you are in agreement Chris, that Dr. Millette's current WTC Dust Study findings confirm that none of the red chips he tested contained LaClede primer paint?

MM

[chrismohr]

So you are in agreement Chris, that Dr. Millette's current WTC Dust Study findings confirm that none of the red chips he tested contained LaClede primer paint?

MM
Not at all. He has neither confirmed nor disproven that yet. In his preliminary report he said he couldn't ID the chips precisely. Now he is saying, "I have no opinion until I do the tests myself." He will look at promising possibilities, obtain samples, and do direct tests. Ivan is chomping at the bit but he'll just have to chomp a bit longer because Millette will say nothing until he does the experiments himself. He's not hiding anything, he's just not saying anything until he knows what he is saying. Jim's research will be carried out ndependently of Ivan or his left nut, which is now on the chopping block.

Also, if there is a version of LaClede that doesn't have strontium chromate, or if there is another test that shows strontium chromate, there is always the possibility Jim will look at that.

[Ivan Kminek]

Almond: Thanks. So, if I understand, a proof of strontium using available XEDS data is not really possible. Pity...

Chris: Considering that Jim Millette used only methods not well suitable for detection of strontium (or strontium chromate), I do not wonder that he did not detect this element (or strontium chromate). I was rather skeptical in advance (contrary to Oystein).
Now, it is a time to try better methods:cool:
I do not really understand your attitude here, Chris: you were even able to admit that red chips may by thermite (what is an apparent nonsense), but, on the other hand, you are still not able to admit that Laclede paint is indeed an excellent candidate as the material of the many/most chips (despite the current absence of proof of strontium chromate). There is simply no other red paint (except Tnemec for perimeter columns) which can be present in WTC dust in such abundance. And, results of analyses of Jim Millette are basically consistent with some red paints. Would you agree?
(Well, some red primer from WTC7 can not be ruled out, but then, it should have a composition close to Laclede paint; that is still possible)

Ergo: As for your "Unless, of course, it's thermite. If it isn't, how do steel (as opposed to iron oxide) particles get separated from bulk steel?"

Here I will make one single exception and I will respond to you.
Conclusion of Jim Millette is: "The red/gray chips... are consistent with a carbon steel coated with... etc." Although this is basically correct, I think that Jim Millette should change his wording in this way: "The red/gray chips... are consistent with an oxidized layer of carbon steel coated with... etc." It is absolutely clear from XEDS spectra that gray layer is a form of iron oxide and I believe that even you are able to understand this fact.
Otherwise, how the separation of steel together with red layers can be any evidence of thermite???:D

[moorea34]

Of course, as the scale of the spectra stops at 10 keV, the Strontium CANNOT be detected on this spectra (peaks around 14 and 16 kev)!

BUT, Strontium is BOUNDED with Chroma...


AND Chroma is several times detected in the chips candidates for Laclede primer paint (p26 p27 and p42)

Almond, tell me if I'm wrong....

[Ivan Kminek]

Of course, as the scale of the spectra stops at 10 keV, the Strontium CANNOT be detected on this spectra (peaks around 14 and 16 kev)!

BUT, Strontium is BOUNDED with Chroma...


AND Chroma is several times detected in the chips candidates for Laclede primer paint (p26 p27 and p42)

Almond, tell me if I'm wrong....

Problem is that chromium was present (as zinc chromate) also in Tnemec primer paint (and perhaps even in some other minor primers, unknown to us). So, clearly only strontium detection can be good enough as the "final" proof of Laclede paint.

[moorea34]

Problem is that chromium was present (as zinc chromate) also in Tnemec primer paint (and perhaps even in some other minor primers, unknown to us). So, clearly only strontium detection can be good enough as the "final" proof of Laclede paint.

Yes, but the peaks should be over 10 keV
http://csrri.iit.edu/cgi-bin/period-form?ener=&name=Sr
and the scale stops at 10 keV

[Julio]

Yes, but the peaks should be over 10 keV
http://csrri.iit.edu/cgi-bin/period-form?ener=&name=Sr
and the scale stops at 10 keV

Those are the K peaks of Sr. At 1.8 you have the L peaks of Sr, which may be masked by Si K peak. But as Oystein showed, there would be a visible broadening of Si peak.

A good fit could show the Sr L alpha peak presence.
- get the raw data
- correct the background signal
- Fit tghe Si peak to a gaussian
- If the right side tail is not fitted, then add the contribution of Sr L peaks, and check wheter the fit is right then.

Just cualitative. It's not a cuantitative fit, but would show the Sr L peak is there.

[Oystein]

Since I feel this focussing on conclusions about paint that are NOT yet there in Millette's study is better discussed in my "Origin of the paint" thread, I posted a reply there (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8138376&postcount=2183)

[chrismohr]

Hi Ivan and Oystein,

Since Jim Millette is looking for the source of the red-gray chips right now, I think this is a good place to keep the discussion, but if you want to move it back to Oystein's "Origin" thread, I'll follow there too.

Ivan, I haven't ruled out anything except thermitic material in the dust. I refused to completely rule out thermites in the dust until I got my own independent verification that it's not there. Jim Millette has done that, in spades. Now I can say with confidence: no thermitic material in the dust. And as you can see from Jim Millette's report, he's independent all right. He isn't taking your or anyone's word on the LaClede hypothesis and will make no statement until he gets his own sample and tests it himself.

In no way does that imply that I reject the LaClede hypothesis. But there is a problem with the strontium chromate issue. Interestingly though, Oystein's read on the Bentham paper is that those guys DID find trace amounts of strontium chromate, and Jim did not. Why is this?

[Oystein]

Chris, my case for strontium chromatre pigment specifically in Chip (a) is this (and it is all included in the paper draft that Millette already has):

A) Harrit's letter from May 2009, where he proved that chips (a)-(d) are not Tnemec (he made the mistake there first, equivocating "Tnemec" and "WTC primer").
Find it here: http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf

This letter contains the following XEDS spectrum of chip (a):

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/LaClede/Harrit_figure-5b.png

Again, this is Harrit's original data on chip (a). His software marked Sr and Cr.


B) My analysis of Fig. 10 in the Bentham paper:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig10a_inverted.jpghttp://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig10e_inverted.jpg
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig10b_inverted.jpghttp://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig10c_inverted.jpg

Fig 10 shows both the SEM image and XEDS-maps for the 5 most abundant elements. Using a common photo editing program, I first converted the sub-Figures to grayscale and made a negative image (such that features of interest are dark dots on brighter background). I adjusted contrast and brightness of the SEM image such that the organic matrix and the greyish kaulin plates "white out" and only the iron oxide grains remain visible (a). SEM shows heavier elements such Fe, Sr or Cr very bright, light elements such as C or O rather dark, and intermediate elements auch as Al and Si in shades of medium grey. In negative image, it's the other way round: Fe, Cr and Sr would appear dark, and the others lighter gray. So again, I increased brightness such that all the light and medium grays of areas where there are no pigments, or plate-like pigments, become white, and increased contrast such that the remaining dark areas with Fe2O3 pigments appear solidly dark.

The XEDS maps for Si, Al and Fe I adjusted such that the areas with little signal whiteout, and the areas with significant signal stand out nicely in a way that oout eyes and brains can discern more easily.

As you can see,
Al and Si signals match each other almost perfectly.
Fe-signal is more fuzzy than the visible grains in the SEM, but matches the grains nicely, too.
But the two needles that the blue arrows point to match neither the Al+Si maps, nor the Fe map. So there seems to be something with heavier elements that is not iron oxide.

Strontium Chromate is a candidate because

The XEDS spectrum of chip (a) matches the expected LaClede spectrum most perfectly
Strontium chromate pigments have this needle shape and size
I see no other candidate elements heavier than Si (ok, actually, there is calcium, but the needle isn't gypsum; could be Ca-chromate instead)






For disclosure's sake, here is the orginal Fig 10:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/ActiveThermiticMaterial/ActiveThermiticMaterial_Fig10.jpg

[pgimeno]

In light of the knowledge that Si and Sr are very close in the main XEDS peak, let me point out that indeed, the needles seem to show some Si which could be Sr instead. There is no correspondence between the needles and Al. It's a weak confirmation though, but it matches the interpretation that the needles are strontium chromate.

[Justin39640]

Unless, of course, it's thermite.

If it isn't, how do steel (as opposed to iron oxide) particles get separated from bulk steel?

Even more interesting a question (I think) on this line of thought is: how and why is un-reacted thermite bonded to steel? Can't be from heat, cause it would have reacted.

The chips are probably from collisions and grinding in the collapses. A paint's bond to steel makes sense when you think of it that way.

[chrismohr]

if its 300$ i could do that to clear this up!! if he accepts ill send 300$ STAT! same criteria millette used to seperate what he thought were particles of interest.....SEM, EDX.

hear that oystein. if he does it then im in.
Senenmut,

Do you want to go ahead and put $300 into a DSC test of a single chip? We may be able to get such a test in that price range, by a lab recommended by Millette.

[chrismohr]

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim

[Senenmut]

Senenmut,

Do you want to go ahead and put $300 into a DSC test of a single chip? We may be able to get such a test in that price range, by a lab recommended by Millette.

im in

[chrismohr]

Senenmut,

Do you want to go ahead and put $300 into a DSC test of a single chip? We may be able to get such a test in that price range, by a lab recommended by Millette.
Hi all,
Many will disagree (including possibly Jim Millette himself) but I want to take Senenmut up on his offer. The standard 9/11 Truth line is now, "Jim Millette didn't heat up the chips to 430 degrees C and do a DSC analysis like Harritt et al did, therefore the test is invalid." Millette's answer seems scientifically valid to me but will not satisfy the 9/11 Truth people who will say the Bentham paper's tests were never fully replicated.

So for starters I am going to get a quote from one of Millette's recommended labs. Then I will ask Millette if he can provide a single sample for a single DSC test that replicates what the Bentham people did. I predict we will get similar results and data. Millette, Sunstealer and others who know their stuff will say we now know what we always knew. The next step would be to analyze that data, and Jim Millette has been unable to find an expert willing to do this. If we can't find an expert willing to give an objective analysis, I think Senenmut will have wasted his money.

Senenmut, I'm starting the research here but will we come up with anything of value? Another option would be to try to find someone independent to analyze the tests already done in the Bentham paper. Might that be a better use of the $300? As you will see as I undertake this exercise, getting the right people to do this is a difficult and time consuming process.

There is also the issue of iron-rich microspheres which allegedly were a byproduct of the bentham people cooking the chips. I believe Millette is indeed studying this and will include his results in the final paper.

[chrismohr]

As it turns out, Jim Millette already got a quote of $1000 to do DSC testing on four individual chips from Particle Technology Labs. I will ask them if they will do one chip for $250.

[chrismohr]

Here is the email I just sent to Particle Technology Labs along with a copy of Millette's original quote request and their original quote:


Good morning,

I am a journalist working on the project Jim Millette asked you about a couple months ago. You gave him a quote of $1000 for DSC testing of four chip samples. How much would you charge to do this test on a single chip?

Once the testing is done, we will need to hire someone to analyze the results. Is there someone you can recommend for this work as well?

Thank you,
Chris Mohr

[chrismohr]

Hey, here is a question. People like Chris7 have said that heating the chips to 430 degrees C creates iron-rich microspheres, which can be created only at temperatures above the melting point of iron or steel. Did the Bentham DSC test specifically measure and record temperatures in the 2800 degree F range, or just an ignition that left behind these spheres? Did they measure energy release or temperature as well?

[Oystein]

...I will ask Millette if he can provide a single sample for a single DSC test that replicates what the Bentham people did. I predict we will get similar results and data. ...

Don't be too sure of this. We have not the slightest idea which kind or kinds of chips Farrer put in the DSC when he came up with his graph. Could be the kind that chips (a)-(d) are, could be the other kind that the MEK chip is of, or could be any of the at least four other types of chips that Harrit e.al. had in their study. What if the chips that Farrer subjected to DSC are not epoxy based but, say, acrylic based? Then you might get different peak temperatures, powers, energies or residues if Millette sends you the type (a)-(d). Then what?

That's what I have been asking all along: What would truthers conclude if the data is same or similar? What would they conclude if it was energetic but differently so? I really want to know this before any test is done. I want them to commit on the spin they'll put on the possible results before the results are in.


A third option is possible logically: What if Millette's chip isn't energetic at alll, but that logical possibility is not a factual possibilty, for the chemistry is already clear here: It's mostly epoxy, fresh cured epoxy has 25 kJ/g and will burn somewhere around 400°C. So while as sure as the blue sky I won't pay help for this nonsende test, I offer to reimburse those who do up to US$ 1000 IF a chip of type (a)-(c) (epoxy, hematite, kaolin) is measured in a DSC and its energy density does not exceed that of thermite, like Farrer's chips did.

That'd how certain I am of the outcome ;)

[Oystein]

Hey, here is a question. People like Chris7 have said that heating the chips to 430 degrees C creates iron-rich microspheres, which can be created only at temperatures above the melting point of iron or steel. Did the Bentham DSC test specifically measure and record temperatures in the 2800 degree F range, or just an ignition that left behind these spheres? Did they measure energy release or temperature as well?

The answer is easy and clear: NO, they did NOT measure any temperature except implicitly that of the DSC plate, which increased to a maximum of 700°C.

They only measured energy release, but that can by no means be computed to imply any particular temperature increase. The reaction of the red layers, which had a mass of only tens of micrograms, took place over the course of many minutes. They rested on a metal plate that probably had a massof at least tens of grams, so any heat released by the probe was quickly absorbed by the plate which had a million times the mass of the probe. I am convinced that even local temperature never exceeded 700°C.

I still don't understand how these spheres are created, but neither do Harrit e.al.
The experiment they did however strongly indicates the spheres were not the result of melting iron or iron oxide.

[pgimeno]

Hey, here is a question. People like Chris7 have said that heating the chips to 430 degrees C creates iron-rich microspheres, which can be created only at temperatures above the melting point of iron or steel.

The highlighted part is wrong. BasqueArch already gave this link:

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html

Quote:
For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron.

In a PM he pointed me to this article as the reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_point_depression

An interesting quote:

As described above, the electron beam of the transmission electron microscope (TEM) can be used to melt nanoparticles.

I'm wondering if they did the TEM tests on these chips before the DSC.


Did the Bentham DSC test specifically measure and record temperatures in the 2800 degree F range, or just an ignition that left behind these spheres? Did they measure energy release or temperature as well?

DSC doesn't measure or record temperatures. It's one of the reasons why it's useless for the task of identifying a thermitic reaction. DSC measures energy (heat) release or absorption.

We don't know if these spheres were left behind; Frédéric Henry-Couannier found them in the original dust without heating anything. There are too many unknowns in what the Bentham paper team did and in what they had at hand to start with, including whether there were microspheres to start with (as Henry said) and the nature and composition of the chips subject to DSC.

If I were a truther, I'd take the maximum infalsability route, namely: "ok, chips A-D are paint and the MEK chip is Tnemec, BUT the chips that burned in DSC *are* thermite". There's no way to prove otherwise since there's absolutely no data on them, thus the theory can't be refuted. That's what truthers and adherents to pseudocientific claims in general do: cling to the least falsable theories to protect their beliefs from refutation.

[ozeco41]

...If I were a truther, I'd take the maximum infalsability route, namely: "ok, chips A-D are paint and the MEK chip is Tnemec, BUT the chips that burned in DSC *are* thermite". There's no way to prove otherwise since there's absolutely no data on them, thus the theory can't be refuted. That's what truthers and adherents to pseudocientific claims in general do: cling to the least falsable theories to protect their beliefs from refutation.
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif

Which is one of the main reasons this continued chasing of truther claims is non-ending.

Folks by all means pursue your scientific interests BUT don't expect it to have any impact on the trolls around here. It could have some effect on a few of the rare remaining honest truthers but they are an insignificant minority of the truth movement AND the truth movement is a spent force anyway.

[tsig]

http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif

Which is one of the main reasons this continued chasing of truther claims is non-ending.

Folks by all means pursue your scientific interests BUT don't expect it to have any impact on the trolls around here. It could have some effect on a few of the rare remaining honest truthers but they are an insignificant minority of the truth movement AND the truth movement is a spent force anyway.

Truthers (and all woos) deal with data by ignoring it, handwaving it away, lying about it or attacking the messenger.

ETA: any one or all may be employed depending on the situation

[chrismohr]

Here's a summary of a 45 minute phone conversation I had with a tester at Particle Tech Labs. After I explained Jim Millette's study and the original Bentham paper to him about the thermites question, he pulled them up on his computer and gave them a quick look-see and said these things:

1.) I can do a DSC test but it will tell you nothing about the chemical composition of the materials in question. The chemical composition is much more important than a DSC test, which says nothing about what you have chemically.
2. You must know the chemistry of the sample first before you heat it. Then, a TGA (thermal gravitational analysis) can measure temperature of cooking vs mass loss. You have to have the right kind of test to get the proper combustion.
3. In a DSC analysis, you DON'T want to heat to combustion because at that point you lose your baseline. At that point in your DSC test "you throw everything to the wind." DSC is not the proper test for combustion of materials.
4. A DSC will measure the energy difference between a sample in a crucible and an empty crucible. The mass changes and that can be determined but again, not the chemical composition.
5. A bomb calorimetry test might be a little better for this, where you can measure the water temperature nearby as the material releases its energy. DSC is very limited in its usefulness for this purpose.
6. If argon or nitrogen is used in the testing atmosphere, and if there is no oxygen in the chips (as there would be in thermite), you could measure the gradual breakdown of the chemical structure as you heated it using different techniques than DSC.
7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic. The Netzsch 404-C DSC testing device they used can handle high temperatures, which is a good thing. Not only could my equipment not measure temperatures in the thermitic range, but it would destroy my stuff so no I won't test it because I can't take the chance.
8. Netzsch Application Lab has very high temperature analysis ability, and several of the lab guys there have PhD's in thermal analysis. We can also ask them if they can analyze the DSC tests in the Bentham paper.
9. Just glancing at the Bentham DSC information, this is not my specialty but it makes no sense. Figure 19 doesn't look like the kind of energy curve I would expect from thermite, the ranges from each other are off by a factor of over 2, and I don't think this is the ignition temperature of thermite anyway. It looks more like a melting point curve at first glance, than a thermite energy release. But I'm no expert so check this impression of mine out.
10. One possibility would be a Simultaneous Thermal Analysis (STA) which would tie together DSC, TGA (to measure mass loss better) and Mass Spec. Cook the chips in oxygen to replicate the Bentham paper then cook them again in argon or nitrogen to see if they ignite at all.

So that's what the lab guy said. My conclusion, Senenmut: it will cost a lot more than $300 to go ahead with this and do it right. I mentioned the possibility of simply hiring someone to analyze what the Bentham DSC tests showed, and he said we might find the experts to do this at Netzsch.

I don't want to waste your money. What would you like to do?

Chris

[chrismohr]

Pgmieno,
I know about iron-rich spheres being created at way less than the melting point of steel. I'm just paraphrasing Chris7, assertion. And yes, I also found out from my conversation (above) that DSC doesn't measure temperatures.
I'm glad that scientist talked with me. He was very gracious. Many scientists have thrown up their hands when I confront them with the Bentham paper and said this is not worth wasting my time on.

[pgimeno]

7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic.

And yet the Bentham paper team tested 4 chips without destroying the equipment. That should be telling. Add "temperature not enough to destroy a DSC test plate but enough to destroy steel" to the magic properties of nanothermite.

[DGM]

....................... deleted.

Sorry I miss-read..

:o

[chrismohr]

The testing device could measure very high temperatures, but the crucible (container) they tested the chips in could not handle thermitic-level temperatures; it would have melted.

By the way, the alumina crucible they used in the Bentham study is constructed of mostly aluminum oxide, which I believe is also the byproduct of thermitic reactions they were looking for. I forgot to mention that the scientist I was talking to wondered if the high temperatures of the burning may have leeched off a small amount of aluminum oxide into the test samples? Neither of us was sure about this though.

[chrismohr]

And yet the Bentham paper team tested 4 chips without destroying the equipment. That should be telling. Add "temperature not enough to destroy a DSC test plate but enough to destroy steel" to the magic properties of nanothermite.
PS I was hoping it would be a 9/11 Truth person who would have pointed this out first and said OMG what if the test crucible itself proves no thermitic material!?!?!? Sigh. Hope springs eternal!

[Senenmut]

PS I was hoping it would be a 9/11 Truth person who would have pointed this out first and said OMG what if the test crucible itself proves no thermitic material!?!?!? Sigh. Hope springs eternal!

send these links to the lab you are talking too.
ignition of a nanothermite chip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo&feature=related

and this one where we see the iron microspheres from the ignition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc

so what would you say to tillotson about him testing his thermitic material in a dsc? would you say "OMG what if the test crucible itself proves no thermitic material?"

[Senenmut]

mark basile heated his chip on a .002 inch thick stainless steel strip, 1 inch wide * .25 inch long. ignitions were done at 6.8 amps of current. that is what the video i linked states. mark 40:26 in the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc

[ergo]

7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic. The Netzsch 404-C DSC testing device they used can handle high temperatures, which is a good thing. Not only could my equipment not measure temperatures in the thermitic range, but it would destroy my stuff so no I won't test it because I can't take the chance.

I don't understand this. The chip ignited at 430o C, because, allegedly, that's the temperature that produced the thermitic reaction. Why does he need 4500 deg F? And as for the rest of his comments, why is he assuming nanothermite should behave like regular thermite?

[ergo]

nanothermite*

* Transl.: (for bedunkers and others who think "nano engineering" must have something to do with tropical fruit) Super-dooper-nano-bananamite!

[tsig]

I don't understand this. The chip ignited at 430o C, because, allegedly, that's the temperature that produced the thermitic reaction. Why does he need 4500 deg F? And as for the rest of his comments, why is he assuming nanothermite should behave like regular thermite?

The reaction burns hotter than ignition temperature.

[Senenmut]

For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron.


millette heated his chips to a temp of ________ and found _______ iron and silicon microspheres (micron size).

[ergo]

The reaction burns hotter than ignition temperature.

Thank you. Still don't see why he needs 4500o F. Regular thermite reacts at temperatures above 900o C

[beachnut]

Thank you. Still don't see why he needs 4500o F. Regular thermite reacts at temperatures above 900o C
Source?

Please

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Thank you. Still don't see why he needs 4500o F. Regular thermite reacts at temperatures above 900o C

For once, I agree - thermite goes at ~900 deg C.

Funny that Harrit et. al. make a big deal about their "thermite" being reactive at half that, a mere 430 deg C.

Source
(http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911f.htm)

:D

[chrismohr]

Yes but once ignited, thermite and nanothermite both go to about 4500 degrees, and thermate maybe even higher, yes? THAT'S where the problem lies. At that point you have to use special crucibles, like tungsten or whatever (don't remember what the guy said today). Hw wouldn't risk his testing equipment on something that could ignite at a reasonable temperature and then burn at a much higher temperature!

[pgimeno]

I don't understand this. The chip ignited at 430o C, because, allegedly, that's the temperature that produced the thermitic reaction. Why does he need 4500 deg F?

He doesn't "need" it. It's the temperature reached by the ignition of thermite. If he put the samples there and they ignited, the temperature they would produce would destroy the equipment, and he doesn't want to take that risk in case they *are* thermite.

Read again the part that says that DSC does not measure or control the temperature of the sample. It seems you missed it.

[Ivan Kminek]

Here's a summary of a 45 minute phone conversation I had with a tester at Particle Tech Labs. After I explained Jim Millette's study and the original Bentham paper to him about the thermites question, he pulled them up on his computer and gave them a quick look-see and said these things:

1.) I can do a DSC test but it will tell you nothing about the chemical composition of the materials in question. The chemical composition is much more important than a DSC test, which says nothing about what you have chemically.
2. You must know the chemistry of the sample first before you heat it. Then, a TGA (thermal gravitational analysis) can measure temperature of cooking vs mass loss. You have to have the right kind of test to get the proper combustion.
3. In a DSC analysis, you DON'T want to heat to combustion because at that point you lose your baseline. At that point in your DSC test "you throw everything to the wind." DSC is not the proper test for combustion of materials.
4. A DSC will measure the energy difference between a sample in a crucible and an empty crucible. The mass changes and that can be determined but again, not the chemical composition.
5. A bomb calorimetry test might be a little better for this, where you can measure the water temperature nearby as the material releases its energy. DSC is very limited in its usefulness for this purpose.
6. If argon or nitrogen is used in the testing atmosphere, and if there is no oxygen in the chips (as there would be in thermite), you could measure the gradual breakdown of the chemical structure as you heated it using different techniques than DSC.
7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic. The Netzsch 404-C DSC testing device they used can handle high temperatures, which is a good thing. Not only could my equipment not measure temperatures in the thermitic range, but it would destroy my stuff so no I won't test it because I can't take the chance.
8. Netzsch Application Lab has very high temperature analysis ability, and several of the lab guys there have PhD's in thermal analysis. We can also ask them if they can analyze the DSC tests in the Bentham paper.
9. Just glancing at the Bentham DSC information, this is not my specialty but it makes no sense. Figure 19 doesn't look like the kind of energy curve I would expect from thermite, the ranges from each other are off by a factor of over 2, and I don't think this is the ignition temperature of thermite anyway. It looks more like a melting point curve at first glance, than a thermite energy release. But I'm no expert so check this impression of mine out.
10. One possibility would be a Simultaneous Thermal Analysis (STA) which would tie together DSC, TGA (to measure mass loss better) and Mass Spec. Cook the chips in oxygen to replicate the Bentham paper then cook them again in argon or nitrogen to see if they ignite at all.

So that's what the lab guy said. My conclusion, Senenmut: it will cost a lot more than $300 to go ahead with this and do it right. I mentioned the possibility of simply hiring someone to analyze what the Bentham DSC tests showed, and he said we might find the experts to do this at Netzsch.

I don't want to waste your money. What would you like to do?

Chris

Hi, Chris, thanks for this post. Some remarks:

Your expert confirmed in other way what I have repeated here (in the Paint thread) several times: DSC is not suitable method for measuring the thermal behavior of samples which do loose a substantial portion of mass during heating. This is why it is not very suitable, e.g., for measuring the thermal degradation of polymers or other combustion processes.
On the other hand, thermitic reaction should not be regarded as a typical combustion, and it is not a reaction accompanied with such substantial loss of material - in the case of classical thermitic reaction between Fe2O3 and Al, there is no such loss (theoretically), since Al2O3 and Fe are only products and the final mass of sample should be the same as before reaction. This is probably why DSC is sometimes used in papers dealing with thermites as one of the (less important) characterization methods.

Your expert is right that if thermitic reaction takes place in a typical very rapid fashion (in seconds or portions of second), it would melt even DSC alumina crucible. But thermitic reactions usually proceed quite slowly in DSC machine, during some minutes, as is seen e.g. in "famous" Fig. 29 in Bentham paper. Here, Oystein is very probably right and a reacting tiny thermite (or paint) sample will not increase its temperature above the actual temperature of measurements.
To be honest, I still do not know exactly why thermitic reactions are usually so slow in DSC devices; I have just a feeling that the typical, very rapid thermitic reaction must be triggered by some external temperature shock/flame ignition (which is not the case of processes taking place in DSC machines).
Anyway (I have to repeat again and again), both curves depicted in mentioned Fig. 29 are by no means proofs of thermitic reaction, since (among others) the release of heat is very slow (during ca 5 to 20 minutes) in both cases!!! Do you understand this plain fact, Senenmut? Why to repeat DSC experiments which simply do not prove thermitic reaction?

[Oystein]

The testing device could measure very high temperatures, but the crucible (container) they tested the chips in could not handle thermitic-level temperatures; it would have melted.
I believe that guy was jumping the gun here. What I said earlier: you have a tiny sample against a crucible that has a million times its mass, and a slowly proceding reacion as a result of that. No, there would not have been serious destructive melting.

By the way, the alumina crucible they used in the Bentham study is constructed of mostly aluminum oxide, which I believe is also the byproduct of thermitic reactions they were looking for. I forgot to mention that the scientist I was talking to wondered if the high temperatures of the burning may have leeched off a small amount of aluminum oxide into the test samples? Neither of us was sure about this though.
Which high temperature of which burning? There almost certainly was no high temperature in the Farrer test. He simply burned epoxy or some other organic polymer.

Even if there was thermite in Farrer's samples: It was only a minor portion of the samples, embedded in organic matrix and in close contact with inert minerals. Even if the reaction of such tiny amounts of could be said to produce temps of 4500°F, that temp would get dampened and whisked away by the other materials in the sample before it could touch the crucible.

[Oystein]

...
7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic. The Netzsch 404-C DSC testing device they used can handle high temperatures, which is a good thing. Not only could my equipment not measure temperatures in the thermitic range, but it would destroy my stuff so no I won't test it because I can't take the chance.
...

No.

Temperature, in distinction from heat (energy) is an emergent property that arises as a dynamic equilibrium which depends on the immediate environment of the chemical reaction. So it is wrong to say that a certain reaction produces a certain temperature. Thermite produces temperatures in the range you mention only if is concentrated enough, and the heat is not promptly dissipated - which it would be if for example it was in contact with some organic material that it turns toi gas, or in contact with an inert layer of metal oxide.

[Oystein]

send these links to the lab you are talking too.
ignition of a nanothermite chip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo&feature=related

and this one where we see the iron microspheres from the ignition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc

so what would you say to tillotson about him testing his thermitic material in a dsc? would you say "OMG what if the test crucible itself proves no thermitic material?"

Chris, spare the lab the ordeal of wasting time on this moron Mark Basile.


Senemut, Basile has tried to quantify the chemical elements in the sample that you see burning there.

For details see my blog: How Mark Basile confirms that red-gray chips are not thermitic (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/how-mark-basile-confirms-that-red-gray.html)
Abstract
...Basile's favorite specimen is organic by nature, with at most 1.3%, but perhaps 0%, of the heat of reaction coming from a thermite reaction, the balacnce, 98.7%-100%, from ordinary organic hydrocarbon combustion.

If this result is a “confirmation” of Harrit e.al., as 9/11 Truthers like to point out, then clearly this puts in grave doubt the affirmation that Harrit's chips were of thermitic nature.

Why this video should be of any interest to any lab is beyond me. Basile shows burning of an unknown organic material.


Oh - well perhaps one good info: It shows that the crucible is NOT being damaged, because temperatures weren't nearly high enough.

[Oystein]

The reaction burns hotter than ignition temperature.

Not necessarily. It needs to burn hotter than ignition temperature to self-sustain, but that doesn't mean it always does. Basically, when you fail to ignite a candle or a piece of wood, part of the problem is that your are in conditions where heat of reaction gets so much dissipated so quickly that temperature turns out to be below ignition temperature, and flame goes out.

[Oystein]

Thank you. Still don't see why he needs 4500o F. Regular thermite reacts at temperatures above 900o C
Source?

Please

What's your problem? He is (about) right.
And some nano-thermite preparations have been measured to ignite around 550°C (e.g. Tillotson, Gash e.al.).

See, ergo has accepted that these chemical reactions don't require (bulk) temperatures above the (bulk) melting point of any of their reactants or products. I just wish he and all the other truthers would understand that which they already accept.

[Oystein]

Yes but once ignited, thermite and nanothermite both go to about 4500 degrees, and thermate maybe even higher, yes?
No. Not necessarily. This is usual for bulk amounts of sufficiently concentrated thermite, but may be, or probably is, wrong for micro-amounts and diluted preparations. All that's necessary for the burning to continue is that the reaction sustains a temperature significantly above the ignition point. If that ignition temperature is 900°C / 1650°F for regular thermite, then expect 1200°C / 2200°F to be a possible temperature of the burning stuff. If a given nano-thermite preparation ignited at 430°C/806°F (a hypothetical! We have no evidence of this!) then it could conceivably burn at 700°C/1300°F.






(I am simplifying things, of course. The thermodynamics of burning, particularly its spacial distribution, is difficult to model and even more difficult to measure. Perhaps a more useful remark would be to point out that the notion of temperature isn't very usefully applied to nano-scaled burning probes, as temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of molecules; if the probe is very small, with a large surface-to-mass ration, and bearing in mind that it's the surface where heat is lost the fastest, giving rise to serious gradients of heat density, then it becomes near impossible to find a volume inside the probe large enough to contain a statistically significant number of molecules whose average kinetic energy is high enough to be translated into the kind of extreme temperature that you mention. )

[pgimeno]

Thermite produces temperatures in the range you mention only if is concentrated enough, and the heat is not promptly dissipated - which it would be if for example it was in contact with some organic material that it turns toi gas, or in contact with an inert layer of metal oxide.

I stand corrected, thanks.

[Miragememories]

"Yes but once ignited, thermite and nanothermite both go to about 4500 degrees, and thermate maybe even higher, yes? THAT'S where the problem lies. At that point you have to use special crucibles, like tungsten or whatever (don't remember what the guy said today). Hw wouldn't risk his testing equipment on something that could ignite at a reasonable temperature and then burn at a much higher temperature!"

Hw is just betraying his ignorance of what is being requested.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4021/wtccipignitioncomp2ar1.jpg

The red chip clearly produces an exothermic reaction but it occurs for too short a duration to threaten its surroundings.

MM

[Ivan Kminek]

MM: here you are right: exothermic reactions are apparently taking place, since something is clearly burning for some seconds:) What about some organic polymer?

[Oystein]

Hw is just betraying his ignorance of what is being requested.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4021/wtccipignitioncomp2ar1.jpg

The red chip clearly produces an exothermic reaction but it occurs for too short a duration to threaten its surroundings.

MM

Correct.

By Mark Basile's OWN quantification, the red layer of this chip is AT MOST 4.74% thermite, but ca. 88% organic matrix. It follows that AT MOST 1.3% (but very possibly - no: certainly - 0%) of the heat of combustions could come from thermite, and 98.7% - 100% would come from organic combustion.

For details and proof see my blog: How Mark Basile confirms that red-gray chips are not thermitic (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/how-mark-basile-confirms-that-red-gray.html)

Please note that all my data are strictly taken from Mark Basile, and all my assumptions have a "thermite-friendly" bias. I make bo claims that I can't back up. If you disagree, show me what you think is wrong in my argument.



Then, when you have understood that Mark Basile's own analysis refutes the claim that the reaction seen in this video is themitic, try to think hard why you believed it was the thermite reaction. If you do this assessment honestly, you will find that you took it only on faith from charlatans, because you are a mere follower with no own capacity of critical and scientific thinking - a classical sheeple.

[ozeco41]

...Temperature, in distinction from heat (energy) is an emergent property that arises as a dynamic equilibrium which depends on the immediate environment of the chemical reaction. So it is wrong to say that a certain reaction produces a certain temperature.....
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif
It's just one of those bits of basic physics which many people don't understand.

the same sort of error but not analogous to the common misunderstanding of the relationships between acceleration and velocity.

[OCaptain]

Hw is just betraying his ignorance of what is being requested.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4021/wtccipignitioncomp2ar1.jpg

The red chip clearly produces an exothermic reaction but it occurs for too short a duration to threaten its surroundings.

MM
And yet we're supposed to believe that this stuff can bring down two tall, steel-frame buildings???

You just debunked yourself, MM.

[WTC Dust]

Is there a way to show that Jones is a liar? Something that can't be disputed?

Hi Jeff! Yes, it can be shown that Jones made false statements about the color of aluminum.

Jones said that aluminum is the color of silver at all temperatures. This is ridiculous. Aluminum glows the same color as every other metal if you heat it up enough. The thing about aluminum is that it melts at a much lower temperature than required to glow orange. But if you heat it up to the proper temperature after it melts, it does glow orange.

[chrismohr]

Hw is just betraying his ignorance of what is being requested.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4021/wtccipignitioncomp2ar1.jpg

The red chip clearly produces an exothermic reaction but it occurs for too short a duration to threaten its surroundings.

MM
Hi MM and Senenmut,
I'm not sure who Hw is, but I am certainly willing to admit that I am gnorant of the crucible issue. It first came up for me when talking to an actual scientist at a lab that does DSC testing. At this point though, it looks like you are right if indeed you are claiming that a tiny amount of thermitic material would not generate 4500 degree temperatures and therefore would not melt the alumina crucible which can withstand 3200 F degree temperatures. It's possible that the guy I was talking to was not aware of the small sample size I was asking him to heat up. However, it is still true that the tungsten (or whatever it was he said) material is used for crucibles holding materials that a tester thinks may produce extreme temperatures, and a special lab is needed to do such a test.

Which brings be to Senenmut's generous offer. We have the name of a lab that can do tests on materials that may be incendiaries and/or bombs. The cost of their tests will be considerably higher. The lab guy I talked to who recommended them has refused to risk his equipment to test the red-gray chips. There are also people at that lab who have the expertise to analyze the DSC tests already done by Jones et al in the Bentham paper. Personally, I believe that may yield more information. I would suggest there is a good chance that a replication of the DSC testing in the Bentham paper will yield a similar collection of four data sets of wildly ranging energy outputs that Jones et al study found. It would be helpful for a specialized expert to render a scientific opinion on the data we have.

Anyway, if you really want to go forward on this DSC analysis, I can ask. Generally I try not to say too much about my opinions on the matter, and I say that in in any event, I don't want my opinions to color your conclusions anyway. The less extraneous material they have, the better. In the case of James Millette, basically I told him about the Bentham paper, and asked if he could do an independent analysis of the WTC dust. I didn't tell him how to do his job, and as much as possible tried to take his lead about information I fed him ("Do you want this or that?"). Many of my questions were trying to get reassurance that he would give honest answers to my question about thermitics in the dust.

Similarly, with this new lab, whether we end up asking for a full set of tests again or just an analysis of what we already have in the Bentham paper, I would say, here's a paper with DSC analysis of the red-gray chips. We can provide the chips, can you either 1) do another DSC analysis and see if it matches the results of the Bentham study and/or or 2) look at the Bentham paper and analyze what they have done and give us any conclusions (or lack of conclusions) you can give based on this data?

[Redwood]

Chris Mohr, Oystein is right.

One mg. of actual, honest-to-god thermite will produce 4 joules of energy, approximately one calorie, the energy needed to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius. It wouldn't damage anything. (And we all know the WTC chips aren't thermite.):D Kevin Ryan's backyard-brew nanothermite did nothing to his beaker, other than making a hard-to-clean mess inside. (But it did singe the plastic lid.):D

The red WTC chips under an argon atmosphere won't produce any reaction of interest other than to leave behind some messy goo. In air, the combustion of the resin base will produce many times the energy of any hypothetical thermite.

In the spirit of fun, I'd like to see a DSC test of the WTC chips, done both under air and argon. Maybe Kevin Ryan would contribute some of his nanothermite.

I'd also like to see what something like Sherwin-Williams Alumabrite paint would do. Under argon, nothing of interest, but in air, the combustion of the aluminum will produce about 30 kJ/g, about the same as the combustion of the alkyd resin base. Jones, Harrit, et al will be suffering from a severe case of penis envy.

[WTC Dust]

I think the Millette study is fine. He concluded that thermite wasn't found, which is fine, if old news. He wasn't able to separate the layered chips. I found that interesting.

One thing I didn't like was the focus: debunking thermite. Thermite debunks itself, so the whole study was a bit of wasted effort in terms of finding out what produced the chips.

It's like almost all the other studies of the WTC dust. "Voila! We have WTC dust with iron chips. Now, let's study the chips." When I want to know about the parts between having a solid building standing there and ending up with this dust that contains all these chips.

[Oystein]

Chris Mohr, Oystein is right.

One mg. of actual, honest-to-god thermite will produce 4 joules of energy, approximately one calorie, the energy needed to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius. It wouldn't damage anything. (And we all know the WTC chips aren't thermite.):D Kevin Ryan's backyard-brew nanothermite did nothing to his beaker, other than making a hard-to-clean mess inside. (But it did singe the plastic lid.):D

The red WTC chips under an argon atmosphere won't produce any reaction of interest other than to leave behind some messy goo. In air, the combustion of the resin base will produce many times the energy of any hypothetical thermite.

In the spirit of fun, I'd like to see a DSC test of the WTC chips, done both under air and argon. Maybe Kevin Ryan would contribute some of his nanothermite.

I'd also like to see what something like Sherwin-Williams Alumabrite paint would do. Under argon, nothing of interest, but in air, the combustion of the aluminum will produce about 30 kJ/g, about the same as the combustion of the alkyd resin base. Jones, Harrit, et al will be suffering from a severe case of penis envy.

Hi Redwood, and welcome to the JREF forums! :)

Good, substantive first post!

You described the gruesome fierceness of 1mg of thermite.
If only the chips contained that much!

They are mostly organic matrix by volume and weight. Mark Basile has estimated that the red layer ist more than 72% by weight carbon; throw in oxygen and hydrogen to make this carbon into usual organic polymers, and it's 88% by weight organic matrix, and less than 5% by weight thermite.

Now even if we go with a paint formulation such as LaClede (71.5% by weight organic), the organic matrix easily dominates. Epoxy has a density of 1.2 g/cm3, so the red layer, with minerals embedded won't have much more than 1.6 g/cm3.

Nice chips have an area of roughly 1 mm2, or 0.01 cm2 and a red layer thickness of just 30 µm, or 0.03 mm, or 0.003 cm. So volume of the red layer is 0.0003 cm3. At the density given above, its mass is around 0.0005 g, or 0.5 mg.

Of this, 71.5 - 88% is matrix, and a good deal is useless silica, kaolin, or whatever. Basile would have only <5% thermite, or 0.025mg. Now I think his quantification is actually mistaken. The spectra of chips (a)-(d) would allow for 2.5% of the mass to be aluminium, which you mix 1:3 with iron oxide to get 10% by weight thermite, supposing the aluminium were honest-to-god elemental (which it isn't).
So we are talking about at most 0.05mg of thermite, releasing at most 0.2 Joules / 0.05 calories of energy. Enough to heat 1 mg of water by 50°C.

The thermite in this preparation couldn't even bring water close to boiling!

[Redwood]

Thanks, Oystein! I'm a retired chemist and a "skeptic", but I focussed mainly on Birther conspiracy fantasies until an acquaintance wide-eyedly told me how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by "nano-thermite". I tried explaining that thermite isn't an explosive, that using thermite to melt the columns would have been wildly impractical and would have left abundant evidence, and that reducing the size of the reacting particles in thermite can't possibly increase its energy, but merely speed up an already vigorous reaction, in the same way that fine-grained black powder for pistols burns more quickly than coarse-grained cannon powder. Alas, it went in one ear and out the other.

[LSSBB]

Thanks, Oystein! I'm a retired chemist and a "skeptic", but I focussed mainly on Birther conspiracy fantasies until an acquaintance wide-eyedly told me how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by "nano-thermite". I tried explaining that thermite isn't an explosive, that using thermite to melt the columns would have been wildly impractical and would have left abundant evidence, and that reducing the size of the reacting particles in thermite can't possibly increase its energy, but merely speed up an already vigorous reaction, in the same way that fine-grained black powder for pistols burns more quickly than coarse-grained cannon powder. Alas, it went in one ear and out the other.

Welcome aboard, Redwood! Round these parts, when you question the properties of therm*te, the Truthers often bring up magical properties for nanothermite in reply, stating we can't know what it does 'cuz it's Super Seekrit.

[ergo]

Welcome aboard, Redwood! Round these parts, when you question the properties of therm*te, the Truthers often bring up magical properties for nanothermite in reply, stating we can't know what it does 'cuz it's Super Seekrit.

Yes, Redwood, if you're confused about "nano-thermite" (your use of scare quotes around this suggests you doubt its reality) you can simply ask LSSBB, whose part-time position with the Navy gains him all kinds of top-secret access to the latest in weapons development, especially on the nano scale, which LSSBB had to ask us about (but which we now know was a ruse to throw us off his highly classified trail). He can verify for you that there is no military weapons development occurring using nanoenergetics. This is obvious by the fact that the Navy's weekly communiques to Popular Mechanics, Reader's Digest and People magazine to apprise the American public of the latest high tech weapons technologies contain no mention of nanoenergetics. Therefore, they really don't exist in any significant sense.

[cjnewson88]

Alternatively, you could ask ergo, whose full-time position internet trolling from the basement gains him all kinds of supa-seekrit inside knowledge of stupendous power and uses of hush-a-boom-nano-thermite incendiary/supa-high-explosive. As a full time internet dweller, ergo has access to all sorts of classified material none of us could even dream of, including how victims never existed, how the FDNY blew up the trade centers, and how the big bad gubment flew a missile into the pentagon and fooled 130 people to say it was an airliner..

Who needs experts, just ask ergo.

[Redwood]

Yes, Redwood, if you're confused about "nano-thermite" (your use of scare quotes around this suggests you doubt its reality) you can simply ask LSSBB, whose part-time position with the Navy gains him all kinds of top-secret access to the latest in weapons development, especially on the nano scale, which LSSBB had to ask us about (but which we now know was a ruse to throw us off his highly classified trail). He can verify for you that there is no military weapons development occurring using nanoenergetics. This is obvious by the fact that the Navy's weekly communiques to Popular Mechanics, Reader's Digest and People magazine to apprise the American public of the latest high tech weapons technologies contain no mention of nanoenergetics. Therefore, they really don't exist in any significant sense.

I used quotes around "nano-thermite", not because I doubt its existence (it's rather prosaic) but because it doesn't have any magic properties that distinguish it from "thermite". It merely reacts faster, and apparently at a lower temperature, but with a lower energy yield, than the coarser-grained variety. It hasn't rocked the military world, or the world outside the military.

[Ivan Kminek]

I used quotes around "nano-thermite", not because I doubt its existence (it's rather prosaic) but because it doesn't have any magic properties that distinguish it from "thermite". It merely reacts faster, and apparently at a lower temperature, but with a lower energy yield, than the coarser-grained variety. It hasn't rocked the military world, or the world outside the military.

Hi, Redwood:cool:
To be more specific, Ergo is an expert on very, very special nanothermites: those which were used in WTC disguised in red primer paints; e.g. the use of aluminium which looked exactly as kaolinite and had the same chemical composition as kaolinite was very tricky:cool: Also, the amount of polymer binder (roughly 70 %) was intentionally high: because of this, nanothermite looked and behaved like paint, but its layer 20-50 microns thick was still able to cut WTC steel columns, as we clearly judge from the spectacularly bright and dazzling flame clearly seen in the famous video of Mark Basile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo):o)

[grandmastershek]

Exactly, nanothermite is the "The Lord works in mysterious ways" of 9/11 Truth. Its been over 1/2 a decade since Jones first started running from scrutiny with his therm?te nonsense and all truthers have produced is thermite cutting steel nowhere near the specifications of the WTC with a sizable apparatus that no one saw at any time during the 8+ months of clean up.

Who knows, give them another decade and maybe they will unwittingly develop a practical CD process in their quest for the Holy Grail.

[ergo]

I used quotes around "nano-thermite", not because I doubt its existence (it's rather prosaic) but because it doesn't have any magic properties that distinguish it from "thermite". It merely reacts faster, and apparently at a lower temperature, but with a lower energy yield, than the coarser-grained variety. It hasn't rocked the military world, or the world outside the military.

This is incorrect. You don't appear to have even a wikipedia level of knowledge on the subject.

[phunk]

This is incorrect. You don't appear to have even a wikipedia level of knowledge on the subject.

Which part is incorrect?

[chrismohr]

This is incorrect. You don't appear to have even a wikipedia level of knowledge on the subject.
C'mon Ergo, take the high road. You in essence called him ignorant instead of explaining why you think he's wrong. I know you take a lot of hits here but rather than responding in kind you'd look a lot classier if you just explained why you disagree.

[Senenmut]

Hi MM and Senenmut,
I'm not sure who Hw is, but I am certainly willing to admit that I am gnorant of the crucible issue. It first came up for me when talking to an actual scientist at a lab that does DSC testing. At this point though, it looks like you are right if indeed you are claiming that a tiny amount of thermitic material would not generate 4500 degree temperatures and therefore would not melt the alumina crucible which can withstand 3200 F degree temperatures. It's possible that the guy I was talking to was not aware of the small sample size I was asking him to heat up. However, it is still true that the tungsten (or whatever it was he said) material is used for crucibles holding materials that a tester thinks may produce extreme temperatures, and a special lab is needed to do such a test.

Which brings be to Senenmut's generous offer. We have the name of a lab that can do tests on materials that may be incendiaries and/or bombs. The cost of their tests will be considerably higher. The lab guy I talked to who recommended them has refused to risk his equipment to test the red-gray chips. There are also people at that lab who have the expertise to analyze the DSC tests already done by Jones et al in the Bentham paper. Personally, I believe that may yield more information. I would suggest there is a good chance that a replication of the DSC testing in the Bentham paper will yield a similar collection of four data sets of wildly ranging energy outputs that Jones et al study found. It would be helpful for a specialized expert to render a scientific opinion on the data we have.

Anyway, if you really want to go forward on this DSC analysis, I can ask. Generally I try not to say too much about my opinions on the matter, and I say that in in any event, I don't want my opinions to color your conclusions anyway. The less extraneous material they have, the better. In the case of James Millette, basically I told him about the Bentham paper, and asked if he could do an independent analysis of the WTC dust. I didn't tell him how to do his job, and as much as possible tried to take his lead about information I fed him ("Do you want this or that?"). Many of my questions were trying to get reassurance that he would give honest answers to my question about thermitics in the dust.

Similarly, with this new lab, whether we end up asking for a full set of tests again or just an analysis of what we already have in the Bentham paper, I would say, here's a paper with DSC analysis of the red-gray chips. We can provide the chips, can you either 1) do another DSC analysis and see if it matches the results of the Bentham study and/or or 2) look at the Bentham paper and analyze what they have done and give us any conclusions (or lack of conclusions) you can give based on this data?
just let me know what the lab says and what options they give us.

[grandmastershek]

Everyone knows Redwood is wrong. He's contradicting Ergo's holy faith. Therefore, its incorrect.

[Redwood]

This is incorrect. You don't appear to have even a wikipedia level of knowledge on the subject.

Which part is incorrect? That it reacts faster? Or that it initiates at a lower temperature? Or that its actual energy yield is lower than standard thermite?

Modulating to the tonic key of this thread, if it's imperative that Dr. Millette conduct DSC on the red chips, don't you think it's at least as imperative that Jones and Harrit re-do their DSC tests, and DO IT RIGHT (under an inert atmosphere) this time? They failed to control their variables the first time. They didn't eliminate combustion of the organic matrix, which would not occur under an inert atmosphere, from their test.

They've had three years to correct what is, at best, a blockhead mistake. A proper re-do could could be done in a single day. I don't know if Jones is still welcome at BYU, but I can't see why Harrit couldn't get access to a DSC as part of his emeritus privileges.

Jones said on 12-15-07 in Boston that he had sent a dust sample to an independent lab for testing. (It's at the 50 minute mark of the Google video.) Don't you think it's time that he released the results of the independent lab? Almost 5 years have passed. What is he holding back?

[Oystein]

...Jones said on 12-15-07 in Boston that he had sent a dust sample to an independent lab for testing. ... What is he holding back?

Easy: All the data that would reveal him and his collaborators as frauds.

That's not the only data he is holding back. The Harrit e.al. paper states clearly that they HAVE done FTIR tests, and WILL publish them elsewhere. Nothing of the sort has happened.

Later in 2009, both Harrit and Jones have stated that Farrer HAS done TEM tests and that they WILL publish the results. Nothing of the sort has happened.

I have several times read that Basile WILL publish results of the "independet" tests in did in 2009 or 2010. Nothing of the sort has happened.


They all have their pants full of dung because they know they have their own refutations in their hands.

[chrismohr]

just let me know what the lab says and what options they give us.
Since it's your nickel, which interests you more at this time... specialized DSC testing or an independent analysis of the Harrit/Jones et al DSC tests?

[Senenmut]

Since it's your nickel, which interests you more at this time... specialized DSC testing or an independent analysis of the Harrit/Jones et al DSC tests?

give us a quote on both but i would like to proceed with the specialized dsc testing.

[beachnut]

Ironic you can debunk thermite on face value when everyone can debunk steel turning into dust and foam because it is a claim more insane than Jones can make.

I agree, no study was needed to know Jones made up thermite out of insanity or political bias, four years after 911. The paper is an attempt by Jones and other idiots to back in thermite. It has fooled a lot more people than your fantasy, steel turning to dust and foam.


I think the Millette study is fine. He concluded that thermite wasn't found, which is fine, if old news. He wasn't able to separate the layered chips. I found that interesting.

One thing I didn't like was the focus: debunking thermite. Thermite debunks itself, so the whole study was a bit of wasted effort in terms of finding out what produced the chips.

It's like almost all the other studies of the WTC dust. "Voila! We have WTC dust with iron chips. Now, let's study the chips." When I want to know about the parts between having a solid building standing there and ending up with this dust that contains all these chips.

[TruthersLie]

This is incorrect. You don't appear to have even a wikipedia level of knowledge on the subject.

[snort][snicker][lol]

This from someone who doesn't understand center of mass, a debris field the size of the moon, the difference between in and on, what simple a simple term like exponential means, and the list goes on and on...

really? You are calling someone else ignorant? W/out a'wikipedia level of knowledge on the subject.' Really?

I go away for about 8 months and I come back and we still have the typical ole ergo....

[ergo]

Which part is incorrect? That it reacts faster? Or that it initiates at a lower temperature? Or that its actual energy yield is lower than standard thermite?


I think you know which one. But the discussion is probably getting off topic here. You can defend your claim in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=232742).

[LSSBB]

I think you know which one. But the discussion is probably getting off topic here. You can defend your claim in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=232742).

Wow, you buy that one at Bob's Dodge in Peoria?

[Redwood]

I think you know which one. But the discussion is probably getting off topic here. You can defend your claim in {"Thermite Goes Bang and Fizzle"}.

That thread has gone dormant, and I see no need to revive it. I assume you dispute my claim that nano-thermite produces less energy than mundane thermite. Wrong! It's easily understood why: Aluminum is very reactive in air; a fresh scrubbed surface of aluminum will produce a surface layer of aluminum oxide, about 4 nm (nano!) thick, in less than 1 ns (nano!) of time.

In common use, this loss is inconsequential; a 40 micron (40,000nm) particle of aluminum, as might be found in common thermite, or aluminum paint, has lost only about 0.01% of its mass to oxidation. But for a 40 nm sphere (the most volumetrically efficient shape), the loss is about 50%! For microwelding (the most promising application for nanothermite, IMHO), this is immaterial; you're interested in producing iron, not a maximum energy yield. For producing energy, the loss is serious.

You can compensate by using a non-stoichiometric formula, doubling the amount of nano-aluminum. This would mean even more aluminum oxide product than is produced by common thermite, but Harrit, Jones, & Co. have failed to show any aluminum oxide product. A nanothermite formula optimized for energy production would produce about six times as much alumina, by volume, as iron! See the current discussion in the "Chris Mohr Rebuttal" thread.

[Redwood]

In reviewing my "back of the envelope" calculations, there may be a subtle error, and the loss of aluminum to oxidation of a 40nm sphere may be "only" 25% or so. I'll leave it as a classroom exercise to detect the possible error. But the fact remains, that as one goes more and more "nano", oxidation losses become more severe.

[Oystein]

In reviewing my "back of the envelope" calculations, there may be a subtle error, and the loss of aluminum to oxidation of a 40nm sphere may be "only" 25% or so. I'll leave it as a classroom exercise to detect the possible error. But the fact remains, that as one goes more and more "nano", oxidation losses become more severe.

Let's see.

The volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r3 = 4/3 Pi d3/8 = 1/6 Pi d3

With r, the radius, being half the diameter, d.

A sphere of diameter 40 nm thus has a volume of 33,493.33 nm3

If the top 5nm are oxidized, the radius of the inner, elemental sphere is less by 5 nm, and its diameter by 10 nm, so the diameter is 30 nm, and the volume 14,130 nm3, that's 42.2% of the 40 nm sphere. The remainder, 57.8% (by volume*), is then inert oxide.

For a 40,000 nm sphere with a 5 nm oxide layer, the elemental proportion is 39,9903/40,0003 = 99,925 %; conversely, oxide is only 0,075 of such a micro-sphere.



*) ETA: aluminium has a density of 2.70 g/cm3, alumina approx. 4.0 g/cm3. Let 1 cm3 worth of 40-nm-sized Al-spheres consist of Al and Al-oxide in the volume proportions given above, then this sphere has a mass of 2.7g*42.2% + 4.0g*57.8% = 3,4514 g: 1,1394 g Al (33%), 2,312 g Al2O3 (67%). Such Al nanospheres of 40 nm diameter have only one-third actual aluminum b weight!
Al2O3 is 53% by weight Al and 47% by weight O, so elemental composition of the spheres by weight is 31.5% O, 68.5% Al, and slightly less than half (48%) of the Al is elemental.

[Redwood]

Let's see.

The volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r3 = 4/3 Pi d3/8 = 1/6 Pi d3

With r, the radius, being half the diameter, d.

A sphere of diameter 40 nm thus has a volume of 33,493.33 nm3

If the top 5nm are oxidized, the radius of the inner, elemental sphere is less by 5 nm, and its diameter by 10 nm, so the diameter is 30 nm, and the volume 14,130 nm3, that's 42.2% of the 40 nm sphere. The remainder, 57.8% (by volume*), is then inert oxide.

For a 40,000 nm sphere with a 5 nm oxide layer, the elemental proportion is 39,9903/40,0003 = 99,925 %; conversely, oxide is only 0,075 of such a micro-sphere.



*) ETA: aluminium has a density of 2.70 g/cm3, alumina approx. 4.0 g/cm3. Let 1 cm3 worth of 40-nm-sized Al-spheres consist of Al and Al-oxide in the volume proportions given above, then this sphere has a mass of 2.7g*42.2% + 4.0g*57.8% = 3,4514 g: 1,1394 g Al (33%), 2,312 g Al2O3 (67%). Such Al nanospheres of 40 nm diameter have only one-third actual aluminum b weight!
Al2O3 is 53% by weight Al and 47% by weight O, so elemental composition of the spheres by weight is 31.5% O, 68.5% Al, and slightly less than half (48%) of the Al is elemental.

At nanometer scale, small differences in the size of aluminum spheres makes a big difference in the percentage lost to oxidation, and hence the actual energy produced in a reaction. Process control at the NWO's secret nanothermite production facility must be really tight! Imagine having to nanosieve tons and tons of the stuff.

[Sunstealer]

You may want to have a look at this paper. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/cejem/2-2010/full/klapotke.pdf

Page 6 (120) Table 4 and Page 10 (124) Table 6.

[Kent1]

Red Chips or Blue Pills: A Warning to AE911Truth

Its been since removed from the debunking the debunkers website
But here's a screen cap
http://www.imageupload.co.uk/files/mwzuiragenoikx80hkh1.png


Hat tip: Someone from Oystein's blog.

[Redwood]

You may want to have a look at this paper. http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/cejem/2-2010/full/klapotke.pdf

Page 6 (120) Table 4 and Page 10 (124) Table 6.

Yup. You surely do lose a lot to surface oxidation as you nano-size aluminum. The 70 nm aluminum gel combustion velocity of 895 m/sec isn't bad, about the velocity of a .30-06 bullet, but what is the velocity of the emitted vaporized gel?

Nanoscale aluminum might be useful in a substitute formula for lead ammunition primers, but IMHO not in a thermite formula, rather mixed with a good oxidizing agent. Problem is in finding an oxidizer that doesn't have the same problem of producing corrosive products, as the old chlorate primers did. They worked just fine and they were lead free, but immediate cleaning of the firearm was mandatory after use.

There's also the problem of any new formula having the right sensitivity.

[triforcharity]

Red Chips or Blue Pills: A Warning to AE911Truth

Its been since removed from the debunking the debunkers website
But here's a screen cap
http://www.imageupload.co.uk/files/mwzuiragenoikx80hkh1.png


Hat tip: Someone from Oystein's blog.

I tried to click a link on that damn page...:confused: then ..:mad:

:D

[A W Smith]

deleted

[chrismohr]

I tried to click a link on that damn page...:confused: then ..:mad:

:D
Tri,

Click the link, then hit the magnifying glass to see a pretty mind-boggling post from a 9/11 activist! I think it was a screen save thing.

[triforcharity]

Tri,

Click the link, then hit the magnifying glass to see a pretty mind-boggling post from a 9/11 activist! I think it was a screen save thing.

I did. Then I scrolled down and saw an article that caught my eye, and clicked on it, like it would do something.

[chrismohr]

If Tri still can't see this, can someone with better computer skills pitch in here? Again, I just clicked the link, hit the magnifying glass button, and read the article.

[MarkLindeman]

I did. Then I scrolled down and saw an article that caught my eye, and clicked on it, like it would do something.

If Tri still can't see this, can someone with better computer skills pitch in here? Again, I just clicked the link, hit the magnifying glass button, and read the article.

There seems to be some miscommunication here. If tri is going to the .png URL, then it is no wonder that clicking on a link in the .png wouldn't do anything, since it's just a graphic; we're trying to get him to read the text in the .png. If he isn't going to the .png URL, then it is no wonder that he can't see the .png. I think that one of those conditions must apply, but I really can't tell which one.

[MikeW]

I did. Then I scrolled down and saw an article that caught my eye, and clicked on it, like it would do something.
No, the link is only to an image.

As I think you saw, because it's a very lengthy image (the entire article) it may end up scrunched over on the left hand side (depending on the browser you're using), but if you hover your mouse cursor over it you'll see it turn into a magnifying glass icon. Left-click, the image should expand and you can read the article.

What you can't do, though, is click any of the links, because what you're looking at is still just an image, not the original web page. So if you click on something it'll revert to its original scrunched-down size over on the left (just click it again to bring it back, though).

[pgimeno]

I think tri was just narrating how he got fooled by a link in the image, trying to click on it to follow the link, which wasn't a link because it was just the picture of a link. I giggled :D

[alienentity]

Red Chips or Blue Pills: A Warning to AE911Truth

Its been since removed from the debunking the debunkers website
But here's a screen cap
http://www.imageupload.co.uk/files/mwzuiragenoikx80hkh1.png


Hat tip: Someone from Oystein's blog.

Thx, very interesting. I've been unable to post anything on some of those blogs, probably because I'm from the evil side...

[alienentity]

Let's see.

The volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r3 = 4/3 Pi d3/8 = 1/6 Pi d3

With r, the radius, being half the diameter, d.

A sphere of diameter 40 nm thus has a volume of 33,493.33 nm3

If the top 5nm are oxidized, the radius of the inner, elemental sphere is less by 5 nm, and its diameter by 10 nm, so the diameter is 30 nm, and the volume 14,130 nm3, that's 42.2% of the 40 nm sphere. The remainder, 57.8% (by volume*), is then inert oxide.

For a 40,000 nm sphere with a 5 nm oxide layer, the elemental proportion is 39,9903/40,0003 = 99,925 %; conversely, oxide is only 0,075 of such a micro-sphere.



*) ETA: aluminium has a density of 2.70 g/cm3, alumina approx. 4.0 g/cm3. Let 1 cm3 worth of 40-nm-sized Al-spheres consist of Al and Al-oxide in the volume proportions given above, then this sphere has a mass of 2.7g*42.2% + 4.0g*57.8% = 3,4514 g: 1,1394 g Al (33%), 2,312 g Al2O3 (67%). Such Al nanospheres of 40 nm diameter have only one-third actual aluminum b weight!
Al2O3 is 53% by weight Al and 47% by weight O, so elemental composition of the spheres by weight is 31.5% O, 68.5% Al, and slightly less than half (48%) of the Al is elemental.

Show off! :D

[triforcharity]

No, the link is only to an image.

As I think you saw, because it's a very lengthy image (the entire article) it may end up scrunched over on the left hand side (depending on the browser you're using), but if you hover your mouse cursor over it you'll see it turn into a magnifying glass icon. Left-click, the image should expand and you can read the article.

What you can't do, though, is click any of the links, because what you're looking at is still just an image, not the original web page. So if you click on something it'll revert to its original scrunched-down size over on the left (just click it again to bring it back, though).

Yes, this. I can open the .png file fine. No problem there.

My problem was, I forgot it was a screen grab, and tried to click a link, to no avail.

It's been a long week, what can I say.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, this. I can open the .png file fine. No problem there.

My problem was, I forgot it was a screen grab, and tried to click a link, to no avail.

It's been a long week, what can I say.

Sorry to derail, but I have to poke gentle fun at Tri here ;):p. That is exactly the joke we play on new hires where I work. We tell them their first task is to fill out some online "paperwork", but we hide all the desktop icons and leave nothing on the screen but a wallpaper screenshot of the HR website. It drives them nuts that they can't click on links or type in the text fields! :D

Then, because our team does technology support, we tell them that their new task is to "fix" the problem. :degrin:

[triforcharity]

Sorry to derail, but I have to poke gentle fun at Tri here ;):p. That is exactly the joke we play on new hires where I work. We tell them their first task is to fill out some online "paperwork", but we hide all the desktop icons and leave nothing on the screen but a wallpaper screenshot of the HR website. It drives them nuts that they can't click on links or type in the text fields! :D

Then, because our team does technology support, we tell them that their new task is to "fix" the problem. :degrin:

No problem. I'm working on about 10 hours sleep since Sunday between work, school, family health issues, family additions (YEY!!!) and the like, i've been stretched thinner than a truther's argument. Tonight I am trying to finish my design for our kitchen remodel, and I put the fridge right next to the stove.....Not a good place BTW. Ugg.....gotta be done tomorrow.

Oh, and I hate you for that prank. Gets me damn near every time!! :mad: :D

[Oystein]

...
Btw (frankly) I don’t really understand what I see in Appendix G in Jim Millette’s preliminary report (Statistical Phase X-ray Mapping). What is a “phase” here? Almond? Sunstealer? Oystein?

How is that hard to grasp? A "phase" is an area with a characteristic quantitative distribution of elements.

Due to the resolution of this scan, which is too low to pick up individual pigments, you see that all five "interesting" elements C, O, Al, Si and Fe appear pretty much everywhere (with the exception of the C-only phase, which is mostly outside of the chip and simply shows the carbon tape that the chip attached to; interesting in context of the most recent posts: Millette picks up the sample holder, but apparently sees no Al there...)

The five phases other than C-only are organized by the amounts of Al, Si and Fe relative to one another. 44% of the total area (Phases 1+6) shows Al and Si in about equal amounts (that's 66% of the area that's not primarily C). In 3.24% (4.8%), iron dominates. In 19.5% (29%, Phases 3+4), silicon dominates. But nowhere does aluminium dominate, so that's why Millette says there is "No aluminum-only phase detected".

But the fact that Si > Al in about a quarter of the chip tells me that this particular chip has significant SiO2, so it is not a LaClede chip.

[Ivan Kminek]

Aha, thanks, Oystein, I hope that I understand:o) This is not a trivial matter, I would say.

Anyway, this Jim Millette's mapping shows basically even distribution of phases (therefore pigments) throughout this swollen chip, which is in distinct contrast with mapping of swollen MEK chip in Bentham paper. We don't know what kind of paint is analyzed in Appendix G, so no comparison is possible, but such homogeneous/even "structure" of swollen paint chip seems to be more realistic.

Btw, isn't better to move any such debate to Paint thread or Millette study thread?

[Oystein]

Aha, thanks, Oystein, I hope that I understand:o) This is not a trivial matter, I would say.
I am sure you do understand.
Correct, it's not really trivial. There must be implicit threasholds that distinguish the phases: Where does "Al and Si about equal" end, and "Si > Al" begin? Etc. There could be some leeway to move such criteria around, even to the point of "creating" the sort of result you "want", but I'd think Millette uses some software that facilitates this kind of analysis and simply threw in some standard settings. Lazyness rules the day here. He basically had one question in mind: Is there any region where Al dominates to the point that there COULD be elemental Al, and I think there is no way you could tweak the levers such that any apparent Al comes out.

Anyway, this Jim Millette's mapping shows basically even distribution of phases (therefore pigments) throughout this swollen chip, which is in distinct contrast with mapping of swollen MEK chip in Bentham paper. We don't know what kind of paint is analyzed in Appendix G, so no comparison is possible, but such homogeneous/even "structure" of swollen paint chip seems to be more realistic.
Yes.

Btw, isn't better to move any such debate to Paint thread or Millette study thread?
Yes.
I had intended to post my previous reply in the other thread but then forgot to do it when I got around to actually replying (when I open JREF, I first read several threads so I can have a glimpse at those posters I have on ignore, in case an interesting debate ensues; then when I log in I return to the threads I am currently most interested in to post).

I'll report it ;)

[The Almond]

I am sure you do understand.
Correct, it's not really trivial. There must be implicit threasholds that distinguish the phases: Where does "Al and Si about equal" end, and "Si > Al" begin? Etc. There could be some leeway to move such criteria around, even to the point of "creating" the sort of result you "want", but I'd think Millette uses some software that facilitates this kind of analysis and simply threw in some standard settings. Lazyness rules the day here. He basically had one question in mind: Is there any region where Al dominates to the point that there COULD be elemental Al, and I think there is no way you could tweak the levers such that any apparent Al comes out.


Most of the vendors who do X-ray analysis software provide these phase identification protocols. They generally use multivariate statistics to sort and group the data. First step is principle component analysis, which identifies two or more vectors with the highest covariance. Then the data are transformed about the vectors. Then the transformed data is clustered using kmeans or some other algorithm.

The purpose of this process is to summarize the data in some simple, easy to understand way. Looking at half a dozen x-ray maps will make your eyes square over after a while, so this method makes it easier to group similar phases together and make a single color overlay that shows all of the important data.

[Ivan Kminek]

To Chris Mohr, Oystein and others who may be still interested:

If you have not noticed: in Oystein's blog (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.cz/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html), there is a discussion with two truthers.

One of them, Poseidon, is perhaps only "semi-truther", he is qualified and educated and a debate with him is basically fruitful and interesting. He accepted Laclede paint as the material of red-gray chips (a) to (d) and he has "only" problem to accept that no CD of WTC was performed at all.

The second truther is Anonym alias Ziggy (banned now in The911Forum), who is really very tough and devoted "nanotruther". After thorough "discussion" with him, it is again quite clear that microspheres visible on burned chips and shown in Fig. 20 (Bentham paper) are still the "weapons of the last resort" - and not only to him. And we should admit that the formation of these microspheres has not been fully explained by any debunker so far (although several hypotheses were proposed). Ziggy basically objects that no paper exists in which the formation of similar microspheres was described in similar paint or material after heating to 700 degrees C in air.

Here, only further experiments on genuine red-gray chips from WTC dust can be helpful, to convince some more (well… few) truthers. I know well that it is not necessary or so, but let me just think about it again.

Oystein has pointed many times (not only during discussion with Ziggy) that it does not make sense to replicate DSC measurement and to look for microspheres after heating, since Bentham team forgot to inform us what was the original composition/appearance of chips heated in DSC machine.

Still, I would say that if Laclede primer chips prevail among red-gray chips investigated by both Harrit and Millette (which we do not know but it can be reasonably expected) , basically all burned chips shown in Fig. 20 can be Laclede paint. In all of them, microspheres were formed, and it seems to be improbable that in several different primer paints, the same/very similar microspheres can be formed.

Therefore, I think that the “mystery” of spheres could be solved, if Jim Millette heats some chips with the composition/structure corresponding to Laclede primer and looks if some spheres are created. Here, I would choose some chips, for which XEDS indicating Laclede was measured on cross-sections. No DSC device is needed, just some oven and a good microscope. Such additional experiments would be simple and cheap.

Here I would like to repeat what I think about these spheres.
First of all, we have no real proof that they are really iron–rich in sense that they mostly contain significantly less of oxygen than iron oxides (except Fig. 21). They can be generally just spheres of iron oxides contaminated with several stuffs from the paint and/or chip surface contaminants.

Sunstealer thinks that they are not formed from the paint itself, but basically from the gray layers of attached rusted steel. And he can be easily right, since gray layers are “missing” in Fig. 20 and, instead, just those spheres are seen. Problem is that melting of iron oxides from gray layers is not really expected at such temperature (I think). At higher temperatures above 500 degrees C, iron oxides can form some lower-melting eutectics with paint pigments (in the case of Laclede with metakaolin formed from kaolinite), but frankly, I have not found any such eutectic in the literature so far. E.g. here (http://ia600507.us.archive.org/5/items/meltingtransform00krac/meltingtransform00krac.pdf), all eutectics of iron oxides and aluminosilicates seem to melt above ca 900 degrees. Of course, my literature search was far from completion and perhaps I simply do not understand how such mixtures of inorganics can behave on microscopic level. Moreover, according to Fig. 25, spheres contain additional elements /stuffs, which can further decrease the melting temperature. Also, we cannot exclude the possibility that spheres are formed from the paint itself.

Notably, Henryco did not find any new spheres in his chips heated up to 900 degrees C, but he found some objects with metallic shine (not really spheres) in unheated chips. They can be also just pieces of rust.

Anyway, for any meaningful heating experiments, only chips with distinct gray layers must be chosen.

What can be the results of such heating of chips corresponding to Laclede ?
1) Microspheres are clearly formed. Then, chips burned by Bentham team were mostly Laclede and our victory is complete and total:o)
2) Something like microspheres (similar rounded objects) is formed, but not everywhere and not in all chips. Still, this would be very good result.
3) No spheres are formed. Then, chips shown on Fig. 20 should not be Laclede primer chips.


Chris: What I’m trying to say: for such additional heating experiments, I’m willing to pay some additional bucks (although not very much:o).
But currently, I have still the same main message to Jim Millette: Jim, please, try to assign some particular chips, in which epoxy binder was proven by FTIR, to some chips, for which XEDS measured on cross-section basically corresponded to Laclede paint. This would be a key finding for us, “Laclede paint lovers”, who mostly paid for this study:o)

[LSSBB]

To Chris Mohr, Oystein and others who may be still interested:

If you have not noticed: in Oystein's blog (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.cz/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html), there is a discussion with two truthers.

One of them, Poseidon, is perhaps only "semi-truther", he is qualified and educated and a debate with him is basically fruitful and interesting. He accepted Laclede paint as the material of red-gray chips (a) to (d) and he has "only" problem to accept that no CD of WTC was performed at all.

The second truther is Anonym alias Ziggy (banned now in The911Forum), who is really very tough and devoted "nanotruther". After thorough "discussion" with him, it is again quite clear that microspheres visible on burned chips and shown in Fig. 20 (Bentham paper) are still the "weapons of the last resort" - and not only to him. And we should admit that the formation of these microspheres has not been fully explained by any debunker so far (although several hypotheses were proposed). Ziggy basically objects that no paper exists in which the formation of similar microspheres was described in similar paint or material after heating to 700 degrees C in air.

Here, only further experiments on genuine red-gray chips from WTC dust can be helpful, to convince some more (well… few) truthers. I know well that it is not necessary or so, but let me just think about it again.

Oystein has pointed many times (not only during discussion with Ziggy) that it does not make sense to replicate DSC measurement and to look for microspheres after heating, since Bentham team forgot to inform us what was the original composition/appearance of chips heated in DSC machine.

Still, I would say that if Laclede primer chips prevail among red-gray chips investigated by both Harrit and Millette (which we do not know but it can be reasonably expected) , basically all burned chips shown in Fig. 20 can be Laclede paint. In all of them, microspheres were formed, and it seems to be improbable that in several different primer paints, the same/very similar microspheres can be formed.

Therefore, I think that the “mystery” of spheres could be solved, if Jim Millette heats some chips with the composition/structure corresponding to Laclede primer and looks if some spheres are created. Here, I would choose some chips, for which XEDS indicating Laclede was measured on cross-sections. No DSC device is needed, just some oven and a good microscope. Such additional experiments would be simple and cheap.

Here I would like to repeat what I think about these spheres.
First of all, we have no real proof that they are really iron–rich in sense that they mostly contain significantly less of oxygen than iron oxides (except Fig. 21). They can be generally just spheres of iron oxides contaminated with several stuffs from the paint and/or chip surface contaminants.

Sunstealer thinks that they are not formed from the paint itself, but basically from the gray layers of attached rusted steel. And he can be easily right, since gray layers are “missing” in Fig. 20 and, instead, just those spheres are seen. Problem is that melting of iron oxides from gray layers is not really expected at such temperature (I think). At higher temperatures above 500 degrees C, iron oxides can form some lower-melting eutectics with paint pigments (in the case of Laclede with metakaolin formed from kaolinite), but frankly, I have not found any such eutectic in the literature so far. E.g. here (http://ia600507.us.archive.org/5/items/meltingtransform00krac/meltingtransform00krac.pdf), all eutectics of iron oxides and aluminosilicates seem to melt above ca 900 degrees. Of course, my literature search was far from completion and perhaps I simply do not understand how such mixtures of inorganics can behave on microscopic level. Moreover, according to Fig. 25, spheres contain additional elements /stuffs, which can further decrease the melting temperature. Also, we cannot exclude the possibility that spheres are formed from the paint itself.

Notably, Henryco did not find any new spheres in his chips heated up to 900 degrees C, but he found some objects with metallic shine (not really spheres) in unheated chips. They can be also just pieces of rust.

Anyway, for any meaningful heating experiments, only chips with distinct gray layers must be chosen.

What can be the results of such heating of chips corresponding to Laclede ?
1) Microspheres are clearly formed. Then, chips burned by Bentham team were mostly Laclede and our victory is complete and total:o)
2) Something like microspheres (similar rounded objects) is formed, but not everywhere and not in all chips. Still, this would be very good result.
3) No spheres are formed. Then, chips shown on Fig. 20 should not be Laclede primer chips.


Chris: What I’m trying to say: for such additional heating experiments, I’m willing to pay some additional bucks (although not very much:o).
But currently, I have still the same main message to Jim Millette: Jim, please, try to assign some particular chips, in which epoxy binder was proven by FTIR, to some chips, for which XEDS measured on cross-section basically corresponded to Laclede paint. This would be a key finding for us, “Laclede paint lovers”, who mostly paid for this study:o)
Are Laclede samples, painted on the same substrate, available from some non-WTC source, in order to demonstrate the sphere formation will happen regardless of origin?

[Ivan Kminek]

LSSBB: very probably yes, but such info can be available only from PPG Industries (probable manufacturer of this paint).
And if someone is willing to ask them, I would strongly recommend not to mention 911 events at all, and pretend (e.g.) some interest on technical details concerning old skyscrapers/buildings or so:cool:

[pgimeno]

I'd say probably not though.

The exact [LaClede primer] formulation could not be reproduced due to current environmental considerations.

NCSTAR 1-6B p.21 (57 of PDF)

[moorea34]

I'd say probably not though.

The exact [LaClede primer] formulation could not be reproduced due to current environmental considerations.

NCSTAR 1-6B p.21 (57 of PDF)

Yes, because the use of strontium chromate is now forbiden in paint.

;)

[chrismohr]

Ivan,
Post 628 above is now forwarded to Jim Millette. He just got back from a business trip this afternoon. I know he said he planned to look at the iron rich spheres and whether they are created by these chips. Your post may give him more ideas of how to carry forth with this.

[Miragememories]

It is most unfortunate that Dr. Millette chose to avoid subjecting his dust samples to temperatures above 400C.

http://www.wissenschaft-aktuell.de/artikel/Nano_Bomben_als_Satelliten_Antrieb1771015588124.ht ml

Google Translated Extracts

published December 7, 2011

"...These high-explosive structures responded to around 400 degrees and could pushbutton a drive to deliver satellites. About this unusual and diverse product energy source, the researchers report in the journal 'Advanced Functional Materials'...About this, the particles combined into highly explosive structures, the Nanothermite... the Séverac team was able to control the ignition temperature of their nano-bombs. Propelled at temperatures between 400C and 500C, the individual components react with each other and [unintelligible] abruptly released up to 1,800 joules per gram of thermal explosion... Because of their high energy density and low weight, the researchers now propose an application of their nano-bombs as auxiliary propulsion for spacecraft. A few hundred grams would be enough to move an artificial earth satellite on a different trajectory. But even on Earth, they have numerous applications possible, as little explosions could produce in a short time temperatures of up to 3,000 degrees. Toxic chemicals could be controlled burned it or refractory metal alloys welded together purposefully..."

MM

[DGM]

It is most unfortunate that Dr. Millette chose to avoid subjecting his dust samples to temperatures above 400C.

http://www.wissenschaft-aktuell.de/artikel/Nano_Bomben_als_Satelliten_Antrieb1771015588124.ht ml

Google Translated Extracts

published December 7, 2011



MM
Wow.................This is startling. Can you explain how this has anything to do with 9/11 (and the Harrit paper)?

(this is pathetic, even for you)

:rolleyes:

[Africanus]

Wow.................This is startling. Can you explain how this has anything to do with 9/11 (and the Harrit paper)?

(this is pathetic, even for you)

:rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with 9/11. The article is about a mixture of aluminum and copperoxide (CuO) linked to DNA-molecules. It seems that MM tries to fool us once again.

[LSSBB]

It has nothing to do with 9/11. The article is about a mixture of aluminum and copperoxide (CuO) linked to DNA-molecules. It seems that MM tries to fool us once again.

But, but, but... it says nano? Aren't all nano things the same???? It has some nano in it somewhere. Is it 10% Nano?:confused:

:D

[Ivan Kminek]

Ivan,
Post 628 above is now forwarded to Jim Millette. He just got back from a business trip this afternoon. I know he said he planned to look at the iron rich spheres and whether they are created by these chips. Your post may give him more ideas of how to carry forth with this.

OK, thanks, Chris:cool:

[Miragememories]

"It is most unfortunate that Dr. Millette chose to avoid subjecting his dust samples to temperatures above 400C."

http://www.wissenschaft-aktuell.de/artikel/Nano_Bomben_als_Satelliten_Antrieb1771015588124.ht ml

Google Translated Extracts

Recently published in December 7, 2011


"...These high-explosive structures responded to around 400 degrees and could pushbutton a drive to deliver satellites. About this unusual and diverse product energy source, the researchers report in the journal 'Advanced Functional Materials'...About this, the particles combined into highly explosive structures, the Nanothermite... the Séverac team was able to control the ignition temperature of their nano-bombs. Propelled at temperatures between 400C and 500C, the individual components react with each other and [unintelligible] abruptly released up to 1,800 joules per gram of thermal explosion... Because of their high energy density and low weight, the researchers now propose an application of their nano-bombs as auxiliary propulsion for spacecraft. A few hundred grams would be enough to move an artificial earth satellite on a different trajectory. But even on Earth, they have numerous applications possible, as little explosions could produce in a short time temperatures of up to 3,000 degrees. Toxic chemicals could be controlled burned it or refractory metal alloys welded together purposefully..."
"Wow.................This is startling. Can you explain how this has anything to do with 9/11 (and the Harrit paper)?

(this is pathetic, even for you)

:rolleyes:"

Yes it is startling, and it is not a study of DNA.

It does appear to use DNA-directed assembly to produce the 'high energy nanocomposites', also referred to as 'nanothermite' in the Report.

The Bentham 2009 Report that was authored by Dr. Harrit et al, describes the finding of a nanothermitic substance. in all their dust samples the nanothermite material they described had an ignition temperature always around 430C.

The Science Journal Report that I referred to described the testing of a nano material substance called nanothermite.

It also found that it was very modifiable between 400C and 500C, allowing for consistent, controllable ignition.

And it goes on to describe the energy spike and explosive potential of the substance.

Yes. I think it is quite related, and a very recent finding.

MM

[Oystein]

...
The Bentham 2009 Report that was authored by Dr. Harrit et al, describes the finding of a nanothermitic substance. in all their dust samples the nanothermite material they described had an ignition temperature always around 430C.
MM, the red-gray chips connsisted, according to Harrit e.al., of
gray layer:
- iron oxide bulk
red layer:
- organic matrix
- iron oxide particles
- particles with aluminium
- other stuff like silicon something

Can you estimate, in % by weight, the abundance of the three main constituents that Harrit e.al. claim? So if the chips are
x% gray layer
y% organic matrix
z% thermite
what are x, y and z? Very rough estimates will do.


The Science Journal Report that I referred to described the testing of a nano material substance called nanothermite.

It also found that it was very modifiable between 400C and 500C, allowing for consistent, controllable ignition.

And it goes on to describe the energy spike and explosive potential of the substance.

Yes. I think it is quite related, and a very recent finding.

MM
Was that the same kind of thermite as the one Harrit e.al. claim to have found? If not, care to tell us the differences?
Also, what energy density does this report find for this copper-thermite, and what energy density did Harrit e.al. find? Are they basically the same? If not, please explain the differences!

[ergo]

Thanks, MM. Very interesting indeed. Will link that post to the Nano-nanoo-bananamite (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=232742&page=9) thread.

[Africanus]

http://www.wissenschaft-aktuell.de/artikel/Nano_Bomben_als_Satelliten_Antrieb1771015588124.ht ml

Google Translated Extracts

Recently published in December 7, 2011




Yes it is startling, and it is not a study of DNA.

It does appear to use DNA-directed assembly to produce the 'high energy nanocomposites', also referred to as 'nanothermite' in the Report.

The Bentham 2009 Report that was authored by Dr. Harrit et al, describes the finding of a nanothermitic substance. in all their dust samples the nanothermite material they described had an ignition temperature always around 430C.

The Science Journal Report that I referred to described the testing of a nano material substance called nanothermite.

It also found that it was very modifiable between 400C and 500C, allowing for consistent, controllable ignition.

And it goes on to describe the energy spike and explosive potential of the substance.

Yes. I think it is quite related, and a very recent finding.

MM

Where did Harrit identify Copper in his article?

[ergo]

Where did Harrit identify Copper in his article?

He doesn't. Why do you ask? Were you not aware of the many different potentials for chemical compositions in nanothermites?

[Africanus]

He doesn't. Why do you ask? Were you not aware of the many different potentials for chemical compositions in nanothermites?

Harrit claims that his "thermite" is made up of iron oxide and aluminum, not of copper oxide. So there is no link between Harrit's and Severac's article.

[ergo]

The point you're probably trying to make is that some compositions are more powerful than others, in nanothermite formulations. Yes that's true. And?

[DGM]

The point you're probably trying to make is that some compositions are more powerful than others, in nanothermite formulations. Yes that's true. And?
Why don't you trust Harrits data?

[ergo]

I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.

That part isn't hard for me. ;)

Edited for Rule 10.

[DGM]

I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.

That part isn't hard for me. ;)
Moderated content removed.

Who would this be? Do you have a link to this verification?

BTW: Tony Szamboti knows my real name. I'm not really that anonymous if you spent a little time figuring out who I am.

[Sunstealer]

Love it. Either MM's google-fu is fubared or he's linked to something that has zero relevance to Harrit's thermite paper because he doesn't know what he's on about. Ergo's piled in because he doesn't understand the difference between Fe and Cu. Not surprising really, about par for the course for someone who doesn't understand

Fe2O3 + Al = Fe + Al2O3 (Ergo - can you balance that equation for us?)

A source of never ending amusement.

[Senenmut]

Love it. Either MM's google-fu is fubared or he's linked to something that has zero relevance to Harrit's thermite paper because he doesn't know what he's on about. Ergo's piled in because he doesn't understand the difference between Fe and Cu. Not surprising really, about par for the course for someone who doesn't understand

Fe2O3 + Al = Fe + Al2O3 (Ergo - can you balance that equation for us?)

A source of never ending amusement.

got a question for ya. some people think that laclede is the primer paint that jones and crew tested. how do you think those silicon rich microspheres were formed when they did the dsc test? millette heated his to 400C and in the ash found kaolin plates. if one does think that jones' chips are laclede, how does the silicon from the kaolin form into silicon rich microspheres which appeared "transparent or translucent when viewed with white light" according to the bentham paper????

[DGM]

Why don't you trust Harrits data?

I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.
Moderated content removed.
That part isn't hard for me. ;)

Who would this be? Do you have a link to this verification?


I'm shocked that ergo has yet to identify this "recognized expert in nanochemistry" that has verified Harrit's data.

(actually I'm not. I'm sure he hoped no one would question him and he would somehow score a point).

[Africanus]

got a question for ya. some people think that laclede is the primer paint that jones and crew tested. how do you think those silicon rich microspheres were formed when they did the dsc test?

There is no proof for this claim in Harrit's paper, only the assertion that such microspheres were built. The actual composition of these microspheres is unknown.

[Senenmut]

There is no proof for this claim in Harrit's paper, only the assertion that such microspheres were built. The actual composition of these microspheres is unknown.

fe -nope
al- nope
o- nope
c- maybe its a diamond!!!!!!
si- ? duh

[pgimeno]

I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.
Moderated content removed.

You're surely referring to Marie-Paule Pileni, the then editor-in-chief of Bentham's TOCPJ who resigned as a result of the publication, who was "puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal" and who said that it "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication".

You mean her, right? She's a recognized expert in nanochemistry at the University Pierre & Marie Curie.

[Oystein]

got a question for ya. some people think that laclede is the primer paint that jones and crew tested. how do you think those silicon rich microspheres were formed when they did the dsc test? millette heated his to 400C and in the ash found kaolin plates. if one does think that jones' chips are laclede, how does the silicon from the kaolin form into silicon rich microspheres which appeared "transparent or translucent when viewed with white light" according to the bentham paper????

Your premise is FALSE.

We don't claim that they tested LaClede primer in the DSC.
We claim that the material tested in the DSC is wholly unknown, because Harrit e.al. were so stupid as to not characterize the specimens or tell us about it. Consequently, we can't fully explain individual observations.

We know from Harrit e.al. that they had at least six different kinds of red-gray chips in their bags of dust (five characterized by different elemental compositions of the red layer, one characterized by a differing gray layer material). One of these six kinds is most likely LaClede primer, another is most likely Tnemec 99, and the others we can't know.

So which kind or kinds were tested in the DSC? Impossible to tell (except one kind that is neither LaClede nor Tnemec is characterized by its Ti-content in post-DSC analysis, Fig. 25; there's no Ti in LaClede (Fig 7) nor in Tnemec (Fig 14). But it is unclear whether this Ti-chip was one of the four plotted in Fig 19).

Please bug Jeff Farrer, who carried out these tests, if you want to go into detail.

[ergo]

You're surely referring to Marie-Paule Pileni, the then editor-in-chief of Bentham's TOCPJ who resigned as a result of the publication, who was "puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal" and who said that it "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication".

You mean her, right? She's a recognized expert in nanochemistry at the University Pierre & Marie Curie.

. .

Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized [the paper], but that would have been difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to acknowledge the soundness of our work and its conclusions. But this would have threatened her career...

Indeed, the very fact that she offered no criticisms of it provided, implicitly, a positive evaluation---an acknowledgment that its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged.

[Oystein]

ergo, you mis-attributed the second quote.

[ergo]

No, it's Harrit's response. I'm merely citing the title there so people can easily google it.

ETA: but I will correct it.

[pgimeno]

. .

So nothing to say about the comment of that nanotechnology expert that the article "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication" besides that false choice fallacy? Because given the numerous methodological errors that have been repeatedly exposed in the paper (even by Millette), it certainly isn't the case that "its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged". That Harrit sees no other option speaks very badly of him, his capacity for self-criticism and his arrogance.

[ergo]

So nothing to say about the comment of that nanotechnology expert that the article "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication" besides that false choice fallacy? Because given the numerous methodological errors that have been repeatedly exposed in the paper (even by Millette), it certainly isn't the case that "its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged".

I'd need to see the quote in full. And of course there's a political viewpoint behind its publication. Do you think research is a politically neutral activity? This research was undertaken at their own expense by concerned scientists.

No published chemist using their real name has identified methodological errors in that paper. But please provide a citation if I'm wrong.

[pgimeno]

I don't want to derail this thread any further. The full article about Marie-Paule Pileni is in this thread, we can continue there if you want: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353

[Africanus]

fe -nope
al- nope
o- nope
c- maybe its a diamond!!!!!!
si- ? duh

Just provide the data for this assertion!

[gabeygoat]

and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.



Is your name really "Ergo"?
Not that that would be bad. I actually kind of like it as a name. It could fit both a girl or a boy.

[Sunstealer]

got a question for ya. some people think that laclede is the primer paint that jones and crew tested. how do you think those silicon rich microspheres were formed when they did the dsc test? millette heated his to 400C and in the ash found kaolin plates. if one does think that jones' chips are laclede, how does the silicon from the kaolin form into silicon rich microspheres which appeared "transparent or translucent when viewed with white light" according to the bentham paper????Silicon rich means nothing. Iron rich means nothing. The word rich is stupid because it does not describe quantity nor does it allude to any other element in the composition. It's so ambiguous as to be meaningless, which is why you truthers love to jump all over it with silly iron-rich quotes when you could just as easily say oxygen rich and be more correct. See figs 25-27 in Harrit et al.

How do you know the silicon was from kaolin? We already know that the samples tested in the DSC where not characterised. Oystein showed this. There is no correlation between what was tested in the DSC and samples a)-d). We also know calcium silicates were present in the Tnemec paint.

To answer your question.

Dehydroxylation is a reaction of decomposition of
kaolinite crystals to a partially disordered structure.

http://www.szte.mtesz.hu/06journal/2007_1/pdf/epa_2007_1_2.pdf

A disordered structure is a glass.

You also think that anything spherical must have been produced by a melting process. This is incorrect. In fact there are many papers that describe the manufacture of iron-oxide nano-sized round particles from non-spherical material way below the melting point of iron oxide for example.

Millette did low temperature ashing with the express purpose of NOT destroying the hexagonal platelet particles. He didn't want to destroy them because he wanted to analyse their crystal structure in order to characterise them. A far more sensible method than DSC.

I have an idea with regard to the Harrit et al DSC curves and the formation of the spheres produced.

FeOOH undergoes calcination and subsequent mass loss upto 270°C due to removal of water which could explain the rise to around 270°C. The exothermic peak is likely to be burning of epoxy or other organic material. There's also an endotherm that starts at 520°C for two of the curves which is potentially a phase change. Phase changes will easily account for spheroidisation of particles below the melting point of the material. Annealing of FeOOH and the transformation to Fe2O3 is a mechanism that will produce spheres at temperatures observed in the DSC. If you couple that with the fact that these spherical particles contain large proportions of Si/Al/Ca and sometimes Ti/S/K along with their respective sizes then there is no way that anyone can say that to produce spheres you need temperatures of 1500°C plus.

You do not need to melt a sample to produce spheres.

If you look up powder metallurgy you can see that you can form nearly fully dense metals from powder without melting using a sintering process with temperatures well below the melting point of the material.

If the sample had experienced 1500°C then there wouldn't be any sample left. We can clearly see from the Harrit et al paper that large proportions of the red layer remain even after reaching 700°C. (but the gray layer doesn't) Not very efficient thermite if not all of it reacts at the claimed 430°C is it?

[Sunstealer]

fe -nope
al- nope
o- nope
c- maybe its a diamond!!!!!!
si- ? duhStop being so childish. It's pathetic and makes you look stupid.

4. Observation of Iron-Rich Sphere Formation Upon
Ignition of Chips in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter

In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope,
and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent
or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs
taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20).Again - silicon rich. It means nothing. So where is the analysis? Where are the figures for the composition of these translucent spheres? Oh that's right there isn't one.

So Africanus was correct and you were wrong - wrong as usual. Grow up.

[Oystein]

... We also know calcium silicates were present in the Tnemec paint ...

We also know silica proper (diatomaceous as well as amorphous) was present in Tnemec paint. Silica and silicates are both quite common in paints, so Tnemec is not the only candidate, just the only one we know of. It is a total certainty that many more red paints were present in the towers.

[Ivan Kminek]

Thank you, Sunstealer:cool: Still, only experiments could convince any truther.

And now for something completely different, (to Chris and especially to JREFres who undestand IR spectroscopy):

Poseidon pointed in Oystein's blog (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.cz/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html?showComment=1338724056364#c164448284 9177043766), that in epoxy resins cured with amines, no IR band of carbonyl groups (at ca 1670 to 1680 cm-1 should be present. He is right and it represents some problem for us, Laclede primer proponents, who claim that Bentham chips (a) to (d) are Laclede primer particles. The problem is that in both epoxy coating used in comparison and red chips in Millette's Appendix C, some bands corresponding to carbonyl groups are apparent (at wavenumbers ca 1706-1731 cm -1. And, Laclede primer was cured with some amines. Is there any explanation?

Let me repost my answer to Poseidon:

"Poseidon: you noted above that FTIR spectrum DGEBA-based epoxy resin cured with amine/polyamine should not contain band corresponding to carbonyl at ca 1670-1760 cm-1. You are right, in this range no other characteristic bands should appear (perhaps with the exception of weak/broad band “overtones”). Thanks again.

Since Jim Millette’s spectrum of epoxy coating shows a strong band at 1731 cm-1, this should be basically some epoxy cured with e.g. anhydride or other curing agent containing carbonyl groups (or leading to the formation of that groups).

I have just found this fine paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141391005004234 dealing with DGEBA-based epoxies cured with both amine and anhydride. As you can see in Fig. 1, FTIR spectra of freshly cured samples are very similar and they basically differ only in the carbonyl band (appearing at 1740 cm-1) for “anhydride epoxy”.
Otherwise, they both contain distinct bands (among others) at ca 1605, 1510, 1460, (ca 1350) 1250 and 1190 cm-1. I’m not qualified to decide if the spectra of Jim Millette indicate clearly epoxy resin, but let me consider just carbonyl bands again.

The mentioned paper studied thermal and photochemical aging of epoxy samples and in “amine-epoxy”, the carbonyl band is developed during aging. This is quite expected, since carbonyl compounds are normal products of polymer oxidation.

From this point of view, I would suggest the following hypothesis:

Epoxy coating measured by Jim Millette can be DGEBA epoxy resin cured with anhydride or other curing agent containing/leading to the formation of carbonyl groups."

Red-gray chips measured by Jim Millette can be strongly oxidized chips of epoxy resin in Laclede primer (cured with amines). Anyway, no wonder that they can be strongly oxidized after more than 40 years:o)


Well, in this way, carbonyl bands in red chips in Appendix C can be explained, even if they are Laclede primer.

Still, I would have some questions to Jim Millette (if you read it, Chris):

- Is a formulation (especially curing agent) of epoxy coating in Appendix C known?
- In which way Jim Millette identified epoxy in red chips? Using just this comparison of FTIR spectra, or using some additional info from some FTIR database?

[Oystein]

...
Poseidon pointed in Oystein's blog (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.cz/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html?showComment=1338724056364#c164448284 9177043766), that in epoxy resins cured with amines, no IR band of carbonyl groups (at ca 1670 to 1680 cm-1 should be present. ...
Thanks to you, Ivan, for engaging Poseidon on the FTIR issue in my blog, and for being open and honest about the possible problems for our theory that he raises.
I will respond to the XEDS arguments he has posted in recent days. Basically, I want to settle with admitting that Fig 17, which shows Al in abundance, has no definitive explanation within the framework of a "Tnemec" hypothesis for the MEK-chip; but that thermite is also not a valid explanation, because the chip as a whole contains much too little Al (Fig 14). I see four possibilities for the apparent presence of elemental Al in some undefined little spot of the MEK-chip in Fig 17:

Measurement error (incompetent handling of probe, wrong device parameters...))
Contamination of chip with actual Al from different source
Signal is picked up from sample holder (remember the apparent concentration of Al only at the steep edge of the chip, adjacent to an area where indeed Al-signal is shown outside of the chip, coming most likely from the sample holder))
That spectrum is not from that chip (mix-up or fraud)



Still, I would have some questions to Jim Millette (if you read it, Chris):

- Is a formulation (especially curing agent) of epoxy coating in Appendix C known?
- In which way Jim Millette identified epoxy in red chips? Using just this comparison of FTIR spectra, or using some additional info from some FTIR database?
About the second question "(how did) Jim Millette identified epoxy in red chips?" I'd propose that his equipment has software that does the matching with database. If so, I propose that such software not only provides the best match, but also provides some numerical/statistical measure of how good the match is. If this is so, details and a bit of explanation would be great (such as: "software identified epoxy plus kaolin with 94% confidence, second best match is X+Ywith 37% confidence" or "correlation coefficient from method Z is 0.71, generally a value above 0.50 is considered probable, above 0.6 good, above 0.75 definitive").

[chrismohr]

I just copied off Ivan and Oystein's posts to Jim. Jim was out of town most of last week so we haven't been in contact for awhile.

[chrismohr]

Sunstealer,

You wrote, "You also think that anything spherical must have been produced by a melting process. This is incorrect. In fact there are many papers that describe the manufacture of iron-oxide nano-sized round particles from non-spherical material way below the melting point of iron oxide for example."

I think you've linked us to these papers before, but can you give me a couple links to some good papers that show nano-particles of iron oxide being created at sub-melting temps? I want to post these on our Gage debate website. Richard Gage just told me personally last Friday that nano-sized iron oxide particles in the red-grey chips are strong evidence for thermite and very high temperatures.

[Oystein]

@ Chris Mohr:

Please forward the following to Jim:


In the Progress Report, under "Notes on the Source of the Red/Gray Chips", Jim writes, refering to [16] (a product sheet for Tnemec 69 and 99 column paints):
"small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula"
This "20% level in the primer formula" is not quite correct. According to the product sheet for Tnemec 69 and 99, zinc chromate is about 20% of the primer pigment. The formulation, as tabulated by Sramek, has four pigments, which add up to 100%, and 7 ingredients of the vehicle, which also add up to 100%. However, the pigments are only a certian proportion of the dry paint. Assuming that pigments are about 30% by weight of the dry paint (for comparison, the LaClede formula has 28.5% pigment), then zinc chomate is not 20%, but only about 6% of the "primer formula". By elemental composition then, zinc would be 2.4% by weight and chromium 1.9%.

(The Zn-peak in graphs like 9119-4795L1560-red(2) would still tend to be a little low, and there is always too little Cr, except in 9119-5230M3451B-red-gray(9), which however appears anomalous, with a very low C-peak. So I am not sure if any chip can reliably be identified as Tnemec 69/99, even if a lower Zn/Cr content is taken into account).

[Miragememories]

"... Iron rich means nothing. The word rich is stupid because it does not describe quantity nor does it allude to any other element in the composition. It's so ambiguous as to be meaningless, which is why you truthers love to jump all over it with silly iron-rich quotes when you could just as easily say oxygen rich and be more correct ..."

So if I am to understand your reasoning correctly, the word rich fails because it is too imprecise?

And that with that reasoning, iron poor would be understood as meaningless, stupid, needing quantification, incomplete, and ambiguous beyond meaningless?

Iron-rich conveys significant meaning.

The conditions necessary to form those high-purity iron microspheres, requires temperatures high enough to melt iron.

MM

[Oystein]

So if I am to understand your reasoning correctly, the word rich fails because it is too imprecise?
Yes. If you disagree, perhaps you could give us some quantitative idea of how precise that term is?

And that with that reasoning, iron poor would be understood as meaningless, stupid, needing quantification, incomplete, and ambiguous beyond meaningless?
Would be, yes, if anybody used the term. Does anybody? Where?

Iron-rich conveys significant meaning.
Care to explain what that meaning is?

The conditions necessary to form those high-purity iron microspheres,
Can you point out which "high-purity iron microspheres" you are talking about? Can't find any in the Harrit-paper.

requires temperatures high enough to melt iron.
No.

[Dave Rogers]

Iron-rich conveys significant meaning.

The problem with "Iron-rich" is that it conveys vague and imprecise meaning. In particular, it fools the gullible into believing that the microspheres in question are not some unknown mixture of chemical compounds which includes some or all which contain iron as a constituent, but rather that they are iron spheres containing some level of impurity...

The conditions necessary to form those high-purity iron microspheres...

...or, on occasion, the extremely gullible will jump to an even more bizarre conclusion.

Dave

[Senenmut]

Silicon rich means nothing. Iron rich means nothing. The word rich is stupid because it does not describe quantity nor does it allude to any other element in the composition. It's so ambiguous as to be meaningless, which is why you truthers love to jump all over it with silly iron-rich quotes when you could just as easily say oxygen rich and be more correct. See figs 25-27 in Harrit et al.

iron rich means iron rich and it does mean someting. for example when jones spoke with greening concerning the iron microspheres:
"Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper....."

"Look again at the data (fig 21) -- there is no Al in evidence. Furthermore, the amounts of Si and Ca and especially S here is trivial. The melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C, yet the DSC reached only 700 C, insufficient to cause melting of iron or iron oxide."


How do you know the silicon was from kaolin? We already know that the samples tested in the DSC where not characterised. Oystein showed this. There is no correlation between what was tested in the DSC and samples a)-d). We also know calcium silicates were present in the Tnemec paint.
i dont know that. as you and i and everyone knows, the chips vary from chip to chip and from site to site on the chips.you and oystein can say whatever you want but the point is they jones chips reacted around 430C and procuced iron and silicon rich microspheres. has he ever done a dsc and came up with NO iron and silicon microspheres???? i cant answer that question. jones chips might contain a silicon matrix whereas millettes contain kaolin. some belive jones chips are laclede, then those silicon rich spheres must have come from kaolin.

A disordered structure is a glass.

this sure looks like spheres and glass to me:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444fccc98889ee0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=26270)

You also think that anything spherical must have been produced by a melting process. This is incorrect. In fact there are many papers that describe the manufacture of iron-oxide nano-sized round particles from non-spherical material way below the melting point of iron oxide for example.
yeah, did millette find any at 400C. i know jones went up to 700C.
now do you think the kaolin plates that were around 40nm by 1 micron reacted to produce transparent and translucent microspheres that look to be around 10 microns? do the plates come together when they turn to metakaolin or would the plates independantly turn to metakaolin?
from the bentham paper: the line represents 50 microns. the microspheres in question are the ones at the bottom right.
[/url]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444fcccc08a5e9d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=26272)
Millette did low temperature ashing with the express purpose of NOT destroying the hexagonal platelet particles. He didn't want to destroy them because he wanted to analyse their crystal structure in order to characterise them. A far more sensible method than DSC.
sure..


I have an idea with regard to the Harrit et al DSC curves and the formation of the spheres produced.

FeOOH undergoes calcination and subsequent mass loss upto 270°C due to removal of water which could explain the rise to around 270°C. The exothermic peak is likely to be burning of epoxy or other organic material. There's also an endotherm that starts at 520°C for two of the curves which is potentially a phase change. Phase changes will easily account for spheroidisation of particles below the melting point of the material. Annealing of FeOOH and the transformation to Fe2O3 is a mechanism that will produce spheres at temperatures observed in the DSC. If you couple that with the fact that these spherical particles contain large proportions of Si/Al/Ca and sometimes Ti/S/K along with their respective sizes then there is no way that anyone can say that to produce spheres you need temperatures of 1500°C plus.
im confused? are you saying the chips contain feooh particles before reacting? oystein says they are hematite. fe2o3 not feooh? again note jones' email to greening above and see fig 21 in the bentam paper when you speak about the spheres contain large proportions of si/al/ca and sometimes ti/s/k.
You do not need to melt a sample to produce spheres.

If you look up powder metallurgy you can see that you can form nearly fully dense metals from powder without melting using a sintering process with temperatures well below the melting point of the material.

If the sample had experienced 1500°C then there wouldn't be any sample left. We can clearly see from the Harrit et al paper that large proportions of the red layer remain even after reaching 700°C. (but the gray layer doesn't) Not very efficient thermite if not all of it reacts at the claimed 430°C is it?


the dsc is NOTHING like the sintering process.....

[Senenmut]

Stop being so childish. It's pathetic and makes you look stupid.

Again - silicon rich. It means nothing. So where is the analysis? Where are the figures for the composition of these translucent spheres? Oh that's right there isn't one.

So Africanus was correct and you were wrong - wrong as usual. Grow up.

;)

what is the makeup of those chips.... predominately iron, carbon, aluminum, oxygen, and silicon. so what is the most likely candidtate for a translucent or transparent microsphere. you dont have to think too scientifically here. silicon rich does mean something. it means its silicon rich. your right, i would like to see a fig for the compostion of these spheres. jones thinks his chips contain a silicon matrix whereas millete's matrix is carbon and oxygen and is an epoxy resin. im not wrong, i just ruled out the obvious....

[Sunstealer]

So if I am to understand your reasoning correctly, the word rich fails because it is too imprecise?

And that with that reasoning, iron poor would be understood as meaningless, stupid, needing quantification, incomplete, and ambiguous beyond meaningless?

Iron-rich conveys significant meaning.

Here are some Oxygen rich spheres!

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=6187

Do you now see why calling these spheres "iron-rich" is misleading? Why iron rich and not oxygen rich? Hell you could even claim they are silicon rich with validity.

The conditions necessary to form those high-purity iron microspheres, requires temperatures high enough to melt iron.

MMSource? Citation? And no don't bother with any truther crap I want a proper source that says only melting causes spherical particles to form preferably from a scientific paper.

[Sunstealer]

;)

what is the makeup of those chips.... predominately iron, carbon, aluminum, oxygen, and silicon. so what is the most likely candidtate for a translucent or transparent microsphere. you dont have to think too scientifically here. silicon rich does mean something. it means its silicon rich. Which means what? 43% Silicon? 90% Bearing in mind how truthers wrongly refer to iron-rich spheres as I have proven using Harrit's own data (see above post) then claiming Silicon rich for another unknown particle with no data is silly.

Yes such a transparent particle is likely to contain silica but you've moved the goalposts because you know that Oystein has shown that no truther can show where that silicon comes from because no one including Farrer knew what material was tested in the DSC.

your right, i would like to see a fig for the compostion of these spheres. jones thinks his chips contain a silicon matrix whereas millete's matrix is carbon and oxygen and is an epoxy resin. im not wrong, i just ruled out the obvious....No he doesn't...

It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles
are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.Page 15

We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present
until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.Page 25.

...unless he's going against the paper he continually refers to.

Why do you spout such nonsense? Why don't you actually read Harrit et al before claiming such easily refuted rubbish. You look sloppy.

So yes Millette's findings correspond with the data in the Harrit et al paper and the authors of that paper state the material is organic.

Instead of posting nonsense here why don't you ask the paper's authors why they didn't characterize the organic material? Why don't they release the FTIR data which would characterize this material.

[Sunstealer]

iron rich means iron rich and it does mean someting. for example when jones spoke with greening concerning the iron microspheres:
"Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper....."

"Look again at the data (fig 21) -- there is no Al in evidence. Furthermore, the amounts of Si and Ca and especially S here is trivial. The melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C, yet the DSC reached only 700 C, insufficient to cause melting of iron or iron oxide."



i dont know that. as you and i and everyone knows, the chips vary from chip to chip and from site to site on the chips.you and oystein can say whatever you want but the point is they jones chips reacted around 430C and procuced iron and silicon rich microspheres. has he ever done a dsc and came up with NO iron and silicon microspheres???? i cant answer that question. jones chips might contain a silicon matrix whereas millettes contain kaolin. some belive jones chips are laclede, then those silicon rich spheres must have come from kaolin.



this sure looks like spheres and glass to me:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444fccc98889ee0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=26270)


yeah, did millette find any at 400C. i know jones went up to 700C.
now do you think the kaolin plates that were around 40nm by 1 micron reacted to produce transparent and translucent microspheres that look to be around 10 microns? do the plates come together when they turn to metakaolin or would the plates independantly turn to metakaolin?
from the bentham paper: the line represents 50 microns. the microspheres in question are the ones at the bottom right.
[/url]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444fcccc08a5e9d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=26272)

sure..



im confused? are you saying the chips contain feooh particles before reacting? oystein says they are hematite. fe2o3 not feooh? again note jones' email to greening above and see fig 21 in the bentam paper when you speak about the spheres contain large proportions of si/al/ca and sometimes ti/s/k.



the dsc is NOTHING like the sintering process.....I'm not even going to bother with this nonsense. You are all over the place. Your contradicting yourself in the same post regarding Millette's ashing at 400°C. Write coherent sentences.

[Senenmut]

Which means what? 43% Silicon? 90% Bearing in mind how truthers wrongly refer to iron-rich spheres as I have proven using Harrit's own data (see above post) then claiming Silicon rich for another unknown particle with no data is silly.

Yes such a transparent particle is likely to contain silica but you've moved the goalposts because you know that Oystein has shown that no truther can show where that silicon comes from because no one including Farrer knew what material was tested in the DSC.
you know exactly what was tested with small variation from chip to chip and from location to location on those chips. your just saying that to get out from trying to explain how kaolin transformed into those silicon rich microspheres if you believe it is laclede primer.

No he doesn't...
from the bentham paper:

"Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of
thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in
the surviving chips (see Results, section 1). The species are
small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across)
in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite
composite."

ok so carbon and silicon.......my bad, i didnt mean just silicon...sorry.
So yes Millette's findings correspond with the data in the Harrit et al paper and the authors of that paper state the material is organic.
jones is silicon with carbon and millette's is epoxy.

Instead of posting nonsense here why don't you ask the paper's authors why they didn't characterize the organic material? Why don't they release the FTIR data which would characterize this material.
that would be nice. what non sense are you referring too?

[Senenmut]

I'm not even going to bother with this nonsense. You are all over the place. Your contradicting yourself in the same post regarding Millette's ashing at 400°C. Write coherent sentences.

of coarse your not. with regards to millette's ashing, a "skeptic" posted a link speaking about melting of nanoparticles at low temps. well, at 400c, there was no microspheres formed from his fe2o3 particles. no contradiciton, just science from millette's study.

[Senenmut]

found the quote and link:
post 546
"For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron."

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html

thats why i brought up millette's ashing and the lack of iron microspere formation.

[Oystein]

...
as you and i and everyone knows, the chips vary from chip to chip and from site to site on the chips.
Exactly. So be careful, and don't lump them all together. Some chips contain kaolin, others don't. Some contain silica, others don't. Some contain titanium oxide, some don't. Some contain zinc chromate, others don't. Some contain calcium silicate, others don't. Some contain epoxies, some may not. Some may even contain aluminium or alumina (but neither has been shown by anyone at all), but most do not.

It is obvious that different types of chip will behave differently in different tests. If chip X shows behaviour x, you can't assume that chip Y would show the same behaviour, unless you first show that X and Y have the same composition.

Do you comprehend that, Senemut?

you and oystein can say whatever you want but the point is they jones chips reacted around 430C and procuced iron and silicon rich microspheres.
Senemut: Which of the at least six different kinds of chips reacted at 430°C? And which produced iron-rich microspheres? And which produced silicon-rich (glassy) microspheres?
(Answer: no one knows)

has he ever done a dsc and came up with NO iron and silicon microspheres????
What would you conclude if a Millette chip did produce this or that kind of spheres?
What would you conclude if a Millette chip did NOT produce this or that kind of spheres?

i cant answer that question. jones chips might contain a silicon matrix whereas millettes contain kaolin.
Nothing in Jones's data points to a silicon "matrix".
Everything in Jones's data on chips (a)-(d) points to kaolin in an organic matrix.

some belive jones chips are laclede, then those silicon rich spheres must have come from kaolin.
No.
Some believe that one of the at least six different kinds of red-gray chips are LaClede, and the other at least 5 are NOT LaClede.
It follows then that no one believes that silicon rich spheres must have come from kaolin when Jones e.al. heated some UNKNOWN kind of chip, because at least 5 of the different kinds of chips may not contain kaolin.

im confused? are you saying the chips contain feooh particles before reacting? oystein says they are hematite. fe2o3 not feooh?
Yes, you are confused.

Oystein says that the red matrix contains red hematite pigments, i.e. grains Fe2O3 that are about 100 nm small. Run-of-the-mill cheap red pignents.

Sunstealer says the chips contain FeO(OH) - but not as nano-sized pigments in the red matrix. Rather, such phases are normal constituents of mill-scale - i.e. the gray layer, wich is corroded steel surface.

There is no conflict between his and my claims.

You are just confused.

again note jones' email to greening above and see fig 21 in the bentam paper when you speak about the spheres contain large proportions of si/al/ca and sometimes ti/s/k.
Earlier, you spole about "high-purity iron".
Does Fig 21, or any other Jones data, show such a thing?

the dsc is NOTHING like the sintering process.....
Not? Why not? Please explain! (this shall be funny :D)

[Oystein]

you know exactly what was tested with small variation from chip to chip
You know this how? Where does "small" begin and end?

We know from the Harrit paper that they had at least six differend kinds of chips in their dust bags.
Only for two of these do they produce pre-ignition compositions: Chips (a)-(d), and the MEK-chip. I have shown in my blog (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html) that the difference between these two kinds are vast - 2/3 of the XEDS signal for the MEK-chip would have to get removed to make it look similar to chips (a)-(d). That variariation is not small, it is proof that we are dealing with two entirely different compositions, and that "contamination" is not an acceptable explanation.
As for the at least 4 other kinds of chips, we have no information at all to asses whether or not the variations are "small".

So how on earth do you know there was only "small variation from chip to chip"??

...if you believe it is laclede primer.
Sorry to rub this in, but:
We do NOT "believe" "it" is LaClede primer, with "it" being the substance from which any of the post-DSC spheres that they show were produced.
Rather, we KNOW that there were at least 5 different kinds of red-gray chips that were NOT LaClede primer, and no one knows which kind or kinds they DSCed. It follows that it is impossible to guess which base material gave rise to which spheres, and that LaClede / kaolin may very well not have been "it".

Do you understand by now that the variation between the chips is significant, because we know of only one that it did contain kaolin, but of five that may not have contained kaolin (one which we are pretty sure does not contain kaolin)?

from the bentham paper:

"Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of
thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in
the surviving chips (see Results, section 1). The species are
small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across)
in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite
composite."
They have not in fact shown any of this, least of all a matrix including Si.
They have not shown that all of the chips contain elemental Al, however they HAVE shown that chips a-d contain NO free Al.

[Oystein]

found the quote and link:
post 546
"For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron."

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html

thats why i brought up millette's ashing and the lack of iron microspere formation.

For the record: Some posters here think that melting point depression plays a significant role in our context, but I do not.

Melting point depression is significant only at particle sizes well below 100 nm, which is the smallest we see in Harrit e.al.'s samples.

I think Sunstealer's phase transitions within the gray layers are a better candidate especially since many of the spheric blobs that Harrit e.al. show appear to have originated from the gray layer, not the red layer; the gray layer is many microns thick, so melting point depression can't play a role.

[chrismohr]

For the record: Some posters here think that melting point depression plays a significant role in our context, but I do not.

Melting point depression is significant only at particle sizes well below 100 nm, which is the smallest we see in Harrit e.al.'s samples.

I think Sunstealer's phase transitions within the gray layers are a better candidate especially since many of the spheric blobs that Harrit e.al. show appear to have originated from the gray layer, not the red layer; the gray layer is many microns thick, so melting point depression can't play a role.
Oystein,
Last Friday Richard Gage told me personally that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the Bentham paper were only about 100 atoms across. Is this true? That would be ultra-nano if it were! He thinks Millette may not have looked at this closely enough.

[Senenmut]

Exactly. So be careful, and don't lump them all together. Some chips contain kaolin, others don't. Some contain silica, others don't. Some contain titanium oxide, some don't. Some contain zinc chromate, others don't. Some contain calcium silicate, others don't. Some contain epoxies, some may not. Some may even contain aluminium or alumina (but neither has been shown by anyone at all), but most do not.
i see that jones and crew has one type that varies from chip to chip and henryco and millette have another. remember henryco heated his to 900c i believe and no microspheres formed. so i still have my money for chris when he is ready for it concerning a dsc test of millette's chips.

It is obvious that different types of chip will behave differently in different tests. If chip X shows behaviour x, you can't assume that chip Y would show the same behaviour, unless you first show that X and Y have the same composition.

Do you comprehend that, Senemut?
that is soooo true. millette and jones' chips show similar sem and edx but will millttes react at around 430C and produce the iron and silicon rich microspheres!!


Senemut: Which of the at least six different kinds of chips reacted at 430°C? And which produced iron-rich microspheres? And which produced silicon-rich (glassy) microspheres?
(Answer: no one knows)
the chips that vary from chip to chip and spot to spot on the same chip that jones and crew have. :D


What would you conclude if a Millette chip did produce this or that kind of spheres?
if it took place in a dsc and it reacted around 430C and produced a similar spike and had similar edx data for the microspheres then i would conclude that that particular chip millette tested is similar if not equal to jones' chip makeup.
What would you conclude if a Millette chip did NOT produce this or that kind of spheres?
i think u know the answer to that.


Nothing in Jones's data points to a silicon "matrix".
Everything in Jones's data on chips (a)-(d) points to kaolin in an organic matrix.
ok, so you say. Jones says it does:
"The species are small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across)
in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite
composite."



Some believe that one of the at least six different kinds of red-gray chips are LaClede, and the other at least 5 are NOT LaClede.
It follows then that no one believes that silicon rich spheres must have come from kaolin when Jones e.al. heated some UNKNOWN kind of chip, because at least 5 of the different kinds of chips may not contain kaolin.
it was not an unknown kind of chip. we know what it consisted of. you say we dont know, the bentham paper says they do know.


Oystein says that the red matrix contains red hematite pigments, i.e. grains Fe2O3 that are about 100 nm small. Run-of-the-mill cheap red pignents.

Sunstealer says the chips contain FeO(OH) - but not as nano-sized pigments in the red matrix. Rather, such phases are normal constituents of mill-scale - i.e. the gray layer, wich is corroded steel surface.

There is no conflict between his and my claims.
he never mention that he was speaking of the gray layer. so what percentage of that corroded steel would contain feooh? sounds like a BIG strech to me!
You are just confused.
i dont think so, i believe you are!


Earlier, you spole about "high-purity iron".
Does Fig 21, or any other Jones data, show such a thing?


Not? Why not? Please explain! (this shall be funny :D)


look at the edx fig 21. if you dont think it is, why not?

[Sunstealer]

of coarse your not. with regards to millette's ashing, a "skeptic" posted a link speaking about melting of nanoparticles at low temps. well, at 400c, there was no microspheres formed from his fe2o3 particles. no contradiciton, just science from millette's study.Stop wibbling. Learn to write coherent sentences. You've been told why Millette used 400°C. He did not want to destroy the crystals. He simply wanted to remove the epoxy and separate the particles for further analysis. If you had read his report you would know this because he states it:

Low-temperature ashing (LTA) is an alternative to using solvents to extract inorganic constituents from an organic film or coating.6 LTA of the chips of interest was done using an SPI Plasma Prep II plasma asher. LTA was performed for time periods of 30 minutes to 1 hour depending on the size of the chip. The gray layer remained intact and the red layer residue was collected in clean water and drops of the suspension were placed on carbon-film TEM grids. After drying, the particulate was analyzed using a Philips CM120 TEM capable of SAED and equipped with an Oxford EDS system.

400°C over 30-60 mins is too lower temperature over too shorter time to produce spheres.

Again - far better not to destroy the sample and actually analyse what is there than do DSC which tells you nothing anyway.

You can cling to the DSC test and the spheres all you want, it still doesn't mean thermite is present.

[Oystein]

i see that jones and crew has one type that varies from chip to chip
Where do you see that?

...
if it took place in a dsc and it reacted around 430C and produced a similar spike and had similar edx data for the microspheres then i would conclude that that particular chip millette tested is similar if not equal to jones' chip makeup.
See, that would be an invalid conclusion.

i think u know the answer to that.
Tell me anyway :)


it was not an unknown kind of chip. we know what it consisted of. you say we dont know, the bentham paper says they do know.
Ok. Then quote the Bentham paper and tell us what the DSCed chips consisted of :)

[Sunstealer]

found the quote and link:
post 546
"For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron."

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html

thats why i brought up millette's ashing and the lack of iron microspere formation.A few nanometers now equals 100nm (for the rhombohedral Fe2O3 in the red layer) and 10 to 50 microns or 10000 to 50000nm (for the gray layer.)

So lets say a few equals 20, then at minimum you are out by a factor of 5 and at worst 2500.

Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick.

The gray layers were in the range of 10 to 50 micrometers thick (Appendix B).

From Millette.

You obviously have no concept of the scales in the Harrit paper and Millette's progress report. Secondly the reason why papers have been quoted showing lower than bulk melting temperatures for nano-scale materials is to show truthers that they are incorrect when they state bulk material properties for materials on the nano-scale.

[Sunstealer]

you know exactly what was tested with small variation from chip to chip and from location to location on those chips. your just saying that to get out from trying to explain how kaolin transformed into those silicon rich microspheres if you believe it is laclede primer.


from the bentham paper:

"Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of
thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in
the surviving chips (see Results, section 1). The species are
small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across)
in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite
composite."

ok so carbon and silicon.......my bad, i didnt mean just silicon...sorry.

jones is silicon with carbon and millette's is epoxy.


that would be nice. what non sense are you referring too?No it's not a silicon matrix because silicon is not observed in the matrix material.

The XEDS maps, several of which are shown in Fig. (10b-f),
indicate by color, the degree to which the particular element
is present at or near the surface from point to point across the
area. The results indicate that the smaller particles with very
bright BSE intensity are associated with the regions of high
Fe and O. The plate-like particles with intermediate BSE
intensity appear to be associated with the regions of high Al
and Si. The O map (d) also indicates oxygen present, to a
lesser degree, in the location of the Al and Si. However, it is
inconclusive from these data whether the O is associated
with Si or Al or both. The carbon map appears less definitive,
that is, it does not appear to be associated with a particular
particle or group of particles, but rather with the matrix
material.Fig 10 shows this and it's self evident.

There is no silicon matrix if matrix is used in the correct way. You can tell that the report was written by many people due to such inconsistencies. These would have been picked up had the paper gone through a proper and rigorous peer review.

[Sunstealer]

Yes, you are confused.

Oystein says that the red matrix contains red hematite pigments, i.e. grains Fe2O3 that are about 100 nm small. Run-of-the-mill cheap red pignents.

Sunstealer says the chips contain FeO(OH) - but not as nano-sized pigments in the red matrix. Rather, such phases are normal constituents of mill-scale - i.e. the gray layer, wich is corroded steel surface.

There is no conflict between his and my claims.

You are just confused.Exactly. The gray layer is consistent with rust from a low carbon steel. Rust contains different iron oxides. Some of these iron oxides exhibit different crystal structures/phases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide

FeOOH is one of them. The reason I'm looking at the iron oxides is because the gray layer disappears post DSC and small metallic looking spheres are formed. It therefore makes sense that the gray layer forms the majority of the constituents of these spheres. It therefore makes sense to look at phase transformations and other reactions involving potential oxides that make up the gray layer.

Infact in the DSC there are endothermic troughs above 550°C. That's a potential phase change or localised melting occurring.

[Oystein]

Oystein,
Last Friday Richard Gage told me personally that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the Bentham paper were only about 100 atoms across. Is this true? That would be ultra-nano if it were! He thinks Millette may not have looked at this closely enough.

Let's see...

Iron oxide, Fe2O3, has a density of about 5.2 g/cm3 and a molar mass of 159.7 g/mol. So one mol occupies a volume of (159.7/5.2) cm3 = 30.7 cm3 = 3.7*10-5 m3. The edges of cube of that volume are 0.031 m long (3.1 cm), that is 310,000,000 nm.

1 mole is about 6.0 ×1023. The cubic root of that number, 84,343,266, would be the number of molecules along the edge if you arrange 1 mole in a cube.

So if iron oxide molecules were in a cubic crystal structure, you'd find 84,343,266 molecules per 31,000,000 nm, or 0.37 nm per molecule, or 37 nm per 100 molecules.

The iron oxide pigments in the red paint are typically 100-150 nm across, that would be 270-405 molecules.

This would be somehat different for different materials, but I think we get an idea here of the orders of magnitude that we are talking about.
Iron: 23 nm / 100 atoms.
Silica: 34 nm / 100 atoms
etc.

So Gage is claiming that there are microspheres in the Bentham paper that are about 20-40 nm across? Let me check...

Nope, I see none post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron, all are larger than 1,000 nm, or more than 2500 atoms/molecules across.

However, as I said, the iron oxide pigments are close to that order of magnitude, they are only a few 100 molecules across. Perhaps he (or you?) mixed up pre-ignition grains and post-ignition spheres?

100 nm iron oxide pigments have been state of the art for 100 years and are easily and cheaply produced on large industrial scales by entirely conventional means: Chemical reaction, grinding and sieving, and are thus found in millions of mundane products.

[Senenmut]

Where do you see that?
as far as i know, his red gray chips react around 430C. i dont think that he has ever stated that he tested a chip that didnt react.

See, that would be an invalid conclusion.
or the right conclusion.

Ok. Then quote the Bentham paper and tell us what the DSCed chips consisted of :)

"...indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized
by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount
of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well"

i know your response will be blah..blah...blah..blah

[Senenmut]

A few nanometers now equals 100nm (for the rhombohedral Fe2O3 in the red layer) and 10 to 50 microns or 10000 to 50000nm (for the gray layer.)

So lets say a few equals 20, then at minimum you are out by a factor of 5 and at worst 2500.





From Millette.

You obviously have no concept of the scales in the Harrit paper and Millette's progress report. Secondly the reason why papers have been quoted showing lower than bulk melting temperatures for nano-scale materials is to show truthers that they are incorrect when they state bulk material properties for materials on the nano-scale.

you played the melting point depression angle for awile (yr or so ago). i remember getting a link awhile back from you when speaking about iron microspheres. i know the scales.

[Senenmut]

No it's not a silicon matrix because silicon is not observed in the matrix material.

Fig 10 shows this and it's self evident.

There is no silicon matrix if matrix is used in the correct way. You can tell that the report was written by many people due to such inconsistencies. These would have been picked up had the paper gone through a proper and rigorous peer review.
think what you want too.

it is interesting when mark basile talks of the matrix in this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1VmaCl4HwU

at 3950 he speaks of a matrix with silica and then at 46 30 (post reaction), he speaks about a silicate material shell that was left over from the original matrix. he speaks about a silicate material all coated inside with "iron films"......interesting stuff.

[Oystein]

as far as i know, his red gray chips react around 430C. i dont think that he has ever stated that he tested a chip that didnt react.
This does not mean that the chips were significantly different from each other.

Since it clearly was the organic matrix that ignited arounf 400°C, and since many different organic matrixed will ignite in thar area, and since most the minerals will not burn at all, any of the following might show these general characteristic of reacting around 430°C:
- Oil paint with organic pigments
- Epoxy paint with iron oxide, kaolin and strontium chromate
- Epoxy and linseed oil based paint with silica, talc, iron oxide, calcium aluiminate and zinc chromate
- thermite in an epoxy matrix
- acrylic coating with clay and cadmium sulfide pigment
- etc.

All these are very different where it matters, one would even contain thermite, but DSC is unable to tell these apart.

or the right conclusion.
No.


"...indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized
by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount
of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well"
THIS is blah blah blah.
"presence of Al" would be satisfied if you have aluminium, alumina, aluminium silicate or aluminates. All significantly different in context.
"presence of Al" would be satisfied if you have elemenal silicon, silica, silicates... All significantly different in context.
"presence of Fe" could be satisfied by elemental iron, various iron oxide and hydrocides, iron carbides, etc. All significantly different in context.
C and O are no brainers to start with, since we are obviously dealing with hydrocarbon matrixes, of which many are possible. All significantly different in context. And pretty much every compound in the context has oxygen.

i know your response will be blah..blah...blah..blah
It would be an appropriate response to your / Jones's blah..blah...blah..blah.

[Redwood]

We also know silica proper (diatomaceous as well as amorphous) was present in Tnemec paint. Silica and silicates are both quite common in paints, so Tnemec is not the only candidate, just the only one we know of. It is a total certainty that many more red paints were present in the towers.

Furthermore, industrial-grade bulk chemicals will commonly contain traces of other, similar materials. There's no point in refining them to something like analytical reagent purity so long as it doesn't affect its intended use. I should expect that commercial aluminum silicate will contain certain amounts of magnesium silicate, potassium aluminum silicate, silica, etc., and that this will vary from batch to batch. Paint isn't exactly a high-tech item.

[Oystein]

Furthermore, industrial-grade bulk chemicals will commonly contain traces of other, similar materials. There's no point in refining them to something like analytical reagent purity so long as it doesn't affect its intended use. I should expect that commercial aluminum silicate will contain certain amounts of magnesium silicate, potassium aluminum silicate, silica, etc., and that this will vary from batch to batch. Paint isn't exactly a high-tech item.

Correct. "Aluminium silicate" is simply clay. Most clays for such purposes come from natural deposits and contain several other silicates besides Al-silicate. Silicate clays from Georgia, for example, have mainly impurities from Ti, but also Mg, Ca, Nl and K, as well as some Fe2O3.

[Redwood]

Correct. "Aluminium silicate" is simply clay. Most clays for such purposes come from natural deposits and contain several other silicates besides Al-silicate. Silicate clays from Georgia, for example, have mainly impurities from Ti, but also Mg, Ca, Nl and K, as well as some Fe2O3.

One might even say that silicates in general are <ahem> as common as dirt!:):)

[ergo]

I don't want to derail this thread any further. The full article about Marie-Paule Pileni is in this thread, we can continue there if you want: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353

Not sure what the problem is. All the article says is that she felt a little snigløbet about it. I get those feelings sometimes too. I'm sure it's made me quit a job or two.

Seriously though, you're quoting from THAT article?? :D

[ergo]

Speaking of aluminosilicates, among other things:

From Steven Badger's dissertation:
WTC Dust Markers exhibit characteristics of particles that have undergone high stress and high temperature. Asbestos in the WTC Dust was reduced to thin bundles and fibrils as opposed to the complex particles found in a building having asbestos-containing surfacing materials. Gypsum in the WTC Dust is finely pulverized to a degree not seen in other building debris. Mineral wool fibers have a short and fractured nature that can be attributed to the catastrophic collapse. Lead was present as ultra fine spherical particles. Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates, and vesicular particles (round open porous structure as a result of boiling and evaporation). The presence of these particles, confirmed using conventional forensic and statistical methodology, in conjunction with one another, identifies the source as the WTC Event.

An additional characteristic of WTC Dust is the presence of coated particles and fibers. The coatings vary in thickness from monolayers to finely-dispersed sub-micron sized particles. The coated particles have been detected by low voltage back-scattered electron imaging, x-ray microprobe analysis, and high resolution x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The WTC Dust has also been shown to be corrosive to unprotected metal, to affect the conductivity of circuit boards in a manner that will cause intermittent failures, and to be severely abrasive when present in lubricants at only five percent of the volume.

[Senenmut]

- Oil paint with organic pigments
- Epoxy paint with iron oxide, kaolin and strontium chromate
- Epoxy and linseed oil based paint with silica, talc, iron oxide, calcium aluiminate and zinc chromate
- thermite in an epoxy matrix
- acrylic coating with clay and cadmium sulfide pigment
- etc.

All these are very different where it matters, one would even contain thermite, but DSC is unable to tell these apart.
and you have a dsc curve for all these?

[ergo]

Since it clearly was the organic matrix that ignited arounf 400°C, and since many different organic matrixed will ignite in thar area,

Which ones do so? What data are you referring to?


and since most the minerals will not burn at all,

But they'll boil?

any of the following might show these general characteristic of reacting around 430°C:
- Oil paint with organic pigments
- Epoxy paint with iron oxide, kaolin and strontium chromate
- Epoxy and linseed oil based paint with silica, talc, iron oxide, calcium aluiminate and zinc chromate
- thermite in an epoxy matrix
- acrylic coating with clay and cadmium sulfide pigment
- etc.

All these are very different where it matters, one would even contain thermite, but DSC is unable to tell these apart.

So paint that merely cracks at 600 - 800 C will ignite at 430 C somehow?

[Senenmut]

oystein-
have you and sunstealer tried to figure out the percentage of feooh contained in the 'corroded steel" or gray layer?

Originally Posted by Sunstealer:
"I have an idea with regard to the Harrit et al DSC curves and the formation of the spheres produced.

FeOOH undergoes calcination and subsequent mass loss upto 270°C due to removal of water which could explain the rise to around 270°C. The exothermic peak is likely to be burning of epoxy or other organic material. There's also an endotherm that starts at 520°C for two of the curves which is potentially a phase change. Phase changes will easily account for spheroidisation of particles below the melting point of the material. Annealing of FeOOH and the transformation to Fe2O3 is a mechanism that will produce spheres at temperatures observed in the DSC. If you couple that with the fact that these spherical particles contain large proportions of Si/Al/Ca and sometimes Ti/S/K along with their respective sizes then there is no way that anyone can say that to produce spheres you need temperatures of 1500°C plus."

[Oystein]

Speaking of aluminosilicates, among other things:

From Steven Badger's dissertation:

Thanks for the quote.
Don't see where Steven Badger talks about AlSilicates, but this certainly is reaffirming:
"Some particles show evidence of being exposed to a conflagration such as spherical metals and silicates"
Just as I thought: metal and silicate spheres are usual and excected results of - conflagration. ;)

[Oystein]

Which ones do so? What data are you referring to?
Google for yourself at what temperatures many organic substances will ignite ;)

But they'll boil?
No.

So paint that merely cracks at 600 - 800 C will ignite at 430 C somehow?
This "merely cracking" is the result of chemical reactions. I'll leave it to you to figure out what those could be.

[Oystein]

oystein-
have you and sunstealer tried to figure out the percentage of feooh contained in the 'corroded steel" or gray layer?
...

No. Too little data. Blame Harrit e.al. for mostly ignoring the gray layer and having no explanation for it.

However even they suspect it could be corroded steel.

Sunstealer is a metallurgist. He knows damned well that corroded steel surfaces usually have a FeO(OH) component.


But why should we?

[Sunstealer]

oystein-
have you and sunstealer tried to figure out the percentage of feooh contained in the 'corroded steel" or gray layer?Do you have a method to do this? I'd be damn impressed if anyone in the world does, damn impressed. The fact that you are even asking this question shows that you are completely out of your depth on the subject and have not the merest inkling as to the subject matter.

You would need the samples and secondly you would need to do an extensive study on the oxidised steel (gray layer) to find out.

That is why I called it an idea, I'm hypothesising regarding the transformation of the gray layer into spheres and tying that in with DSC curve as best I can.

You have also been shown numerous DSC curves of epoxies that have exothermic peaks around 430°C before. I know that because I provided them

Here's a novel idea - why don't you research your own questions for a change rather than having to be spoon fed the whole time?

[Senenmut]

You have also been shown numerous DSC curves of epoxies that have exothermic peaks around 430°C before. I know that because I provided them

Here's a novel idea - why don't you research your own questions for a change rather than having to be spoon fed the whole time?

i have a decent memory but i dont remember getting dsc curves from you...sorry.

[Senenmut]

looks like basile also found a multilayered chip 5 or 6 layers deep with an outer ceramic layer. i dont see how corroded steel could come into play with these multilayered chips. as we know, jones and crew also found multilayered chips.
start at 38 25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1VmaCl4HwU

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer: Well, in this case, I also don't remember DSC curves on epoxies you provided. I only remember some TGA curves.


Senenmut: As I have pointed out several times, DSC is not really common method for investigation of burning/thermal degradation of polymers.

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer: Well, in this case, I also don't remember DSC curves on epoxies you provided. I only remember some TGA curves.


Senenmut: As I have pointed out several times, DSC is not really common method for investigation of burning/thermal degradation of polymers.Yes I think they were TGAs.

BTW I've actually got TGAs of Al/Fe2O3 thermite embedded in an epoxy matrix. Want to see that? Of course you do. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=6192

Figure 4.19 DTA traces for epoxy-cast Al+Fe2O3 composites with a) 47, b) 60, c) 70,
d) 78 vol.% epoxy, e) pure epoxy, and f) nano-Al+Fe2O3+70 vol.% epoxy compositions.

[Oystein]

looks like basile also found a multilayered chip 5 or 6 layers deep with an outer ceramic layer. i dont see how corroded steel could come into play with these multilayered chips. as we know, jones and crew also found multilayered chips.
start at 38 25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1VmaCl4HwU

Alright, what facts do you have about this chip? Elemental composition perhaps? Does it burn or not? Please list all the facts you have!

And then answer a few simple questions:


Is this the same material as chips a-d, or a different one?
Is this the same material as the MEK-soaked chip, or a different one?
What elements did the multi-layered chip in the Bentham paper contain?
Is Basile's multi-layered chip the same material as Harrit's?
Is Harrit's multi-layered chip the same material as chips a-d?
Is Harrit's multi-layered chip the same material as the MEK-soaked chip?
Why the heck are you talking about this chip?

Please give reasons for your answers!

That should put you firmly into your place, if you have the balls to answer them honestly and with some effort.

I predict you won't have the balls, won't have the honesty, and won't put in a serious effort. Reason: You are a Twoofer.

[Oystein]

Yes I think they were TGAs.

BTW I've actually got TGAs of Al/Fe2O3 thermite embedded in an epoxy matrix. Want to see that? Of course you do. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=6192

Figure 4.19 DTA traces for epoxy-cast Al+Fe2O3 composites with a) 47, b) 60, c) 70,
d) 78 vol.% epoxy, e) pure epoxy, and f) nano-Al+Fe2O3+70 vol.% epoxy compositions.

Source?
What's the units on the y-axis?

[ergo]

Google for yourself at what temperatures many organic substances will ignite ;)

Actually, you're the one making the claim.


No.

Then you didn't, in fact, read the excerpt of Steven Badger's. Or even his paper, I'm guessing.


This "merely cracking" is the result of chemical reactions. I'll leave it to you to figure out what those could be.

The WTC evidence has shown that the paint survives temperatures above 600 C. You're claiming that this paint would ignite at 430 C - a claim which is contradicted by the physical evidence. You have done no tests yourself. Why would you make a claim that obviously contradicts the evidence?

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer:

The source? (Btw, you again mismatched TGA and DSC:cool:)
The conditions? (Under air or inert? Heating rate?)

At first glance, it looks very messy and only endotherms at 660 degrees C can be clearly attributed to the melting of aluminium. And a peak at ca 550 C for curve f can be attributed to the thermitic reaction in nanothermite, in which epoxy binder was already burned away. And of course a curve d seems to show rapid thermitic reaction, but this is a "regular" thermite (?), which should not be ignited at such low temp. ca 700 degrees.

If the black curve belongs to pure epoxy, it does not make really sense to me for measurements both under air and inert, since epoxy should be completely evaporized at temp. below ca 700 degrees C in both cases. I do not think that this curve reflects the thermal effects of epoxy degradation in realistic way.

As I wrote: a mess, which just shows how difficult is to measure reliably DSC in samples, which evaporate during heating (as in epoxy composites and other polymers).

Anyway, I am looking forward for the comments of the authors, since I may be wrong in several aspects:cool:

[Oystein]

Actually, you're the one making the claim.
It's a matter of common knowledge. I won't source that for you anymore than I will source that various meats will be cooked well when they reach 65-85°C.

Then you didn't, in fact, read the excerpt of Steven Badger's. Or even his paper, I'm guessing.
I read the excerpt - it doesn't mention boiling or anything to that effect. You didn't source or link the paper, so no, I didn't read it.

The WTC evidence has shown that the paint survives temperatures above 600 C. You're claiming that this paint would ignite at 430 C - a claim which is contradicted by the physical evidence. You have done no tests yourself. Why would you make a claim that obviously contradicts the evidence?
"The" paint, ergo? Do have to slap you over the head again for that STUPID blunder? Or are you just trying to pull my leg?
I am "claiming that this paint would ignite at 430 C"?? Where, ergo?

[ergo]

"The" paint, ergo? Do have to slap you over the head again for that STUPID blunder? Or are you just trying to pull my leg?
I am "claiming that this paint would ignite at 430 C"?? Where, ergo?

What paint?

Are you serious? You're saying that some paint will ignite at 430 C, but the rest of the WTC paint doesn't? But you haven't done any tests on this and have no data to back it up. Is this your argument? Please tell me this is not your argument.

[ergo]

And no, I'm not going to spoonfeed you the comments that Steven Baadger made about the boiling of aluminosilicates, especially when you know RJ Lee made the same observations.

[Oystein]

What paint?

Are you serious? You're saying that some paint will ignite at 430 C, but the rest of the WTC paint doesn't? But you haven't done any tests on this and have no data to back it up. Is this your argument? Please tell me this is not your argument.

Gladly: No, this is not my argument. The hilighted part has been added by you, wasn't said by me
(Even though of course it is likely that, while some paints will ignite around 430°C, others will ignite at other temperatures. D'uh)

[ergo]

But you acknowledge that the physical WTC evidence shows paint that was subjected to temperatures above 600 C and that had not ignited. Right? You acknowledge this? So help me out with where your logic leads you from there, and for which you feel no actual tests are necessary.

[Oystein]

But you acknowledge that the physical WTC evidence shows paint that was subjected to temperatures above 600 C and that had not ignited. Right? You acknowledge this? So help me out with where your logic leads you from there, and for which you feel no actual tests are necessary.

No.

It cracked, so obviously it changed physical state; if it also reacted chemically and exothermally with air I cannot say.

I am being pedantic here: I see and concede your point that Tnemec paint in its as-painted-on state, i.e. with a large heat sink underneath, would not burst into all-out flames when heated to well above 430°C. This by no means implies that the same would be true for the same paint when spalled off. Also, the post-DSC images in the Bentham paper clearly show that there still was a red, contiguous material. This proves two things:
a) The iron oxide did NOT red react - it was still there after heating to 700°C. Something else must have reacted.
b) This something else was NOT thermite, for they measured an energy density MUCH too high for thermite
c) The only candidate is organic combustion, so we know that the organic matrix reacted exothermally with ambient oxygen - it was oxidized
d) This oxidation of the organic matrix did not fully remove the matrix, for post-DSC, the red pigment was still embedded in some matrix.

[ergo]

No.

It cracked, so obviously it changed physical state; if it also reacted chemically and exothermally with air I cannot say.

I am being pedantic here: I see and concede your point that Tnemec paint in its as-painted-on state, i.e. with a large heat sink underneath, would not burst into all-out flames when heated to well above 430°C. This by no means implies that the same would be true for the same paint when spalled off.

But you're not going to test this at all, and you're going to base all the rest of your assumptions on this one amateur guess of yours.

Also, the post-DSC images in the Bentham paper clearly show that there still was a red, contiguous material. This proves two things:
a) The iron oxide did NOT red react - it was still there after heating to 700°C. Something else must have reacted.
b) This something else was NOT thermite, for they measured an energy density MUCH too high for thermite

And you're basing this on the comparison to Tillotson? Because there can't possibly be different curves for nanocompositions? Again, this brings us back to what the common literature on nanoenergetics describes, and what a handful of anonymous internet debunkers are trying to flat out deny.

Trying to deduce your conclusions from faulty assumptions could lead to many months and years of wasted time. This is not how you do science, Oystein.

[Oystein]

But you're not going to test this at all, and you're going to base all the rest of your assumptions on this one amateur guess of yours.
No, why should I? Nothing of interest would be learned from such a test. We could not compare the results to anything, because Farrer forgot to tell us what materials he put in the DSC.

So if some of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?
If none of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

Please be specific!

And you're basing this on the comparison to Tillotson? Because there can't possibly be different curves for nanocompositions?
No. I am basing this on the most basic laws of this universe: Energy is conserved, and entropy increased all the time. That's why Farrer's chip prove with utmost, 100.000% certainty, that something that is NOT thermite burned in his DSC: Because 2 chips released more energy than ideal, 100% concentrated, perfectly pure, perfectly reacting thermite could ever do anywhere in this universe. Do you understand that important point, ergo??
(The other two chips has an energy density lower than the theoretical maximum for pure, perfect thermite; however, Harrit e.al. concede that a significant portion of the mass of the chips was inert, and all their data shows clearly that all of the red layers and all of the residues they ever looked at were far from being pure themite, it follows that all four DSCed chips released much more energy than thermite ever could, according to the most basic Laws of our Universe. Tillotson and Gash merely showed experimentally that the bar in practice is even higher, by a factor of more than 2, than pure theory).

Again, this brings us back to what the common literature on nanoenergetics describes, and what a handful of anonymous internet debunkers are trying to flat out deny.
No. You don't understand nanothermite.

Trying to deduce your conclusions from faulty assumptions could lead to many months and years of wasted time. This is not how you do science, Oystein.
Don't tell me, tell Harrit e.al.




I see that you silently dropped a few lines:


c) The only candidate is organic combustion, so we know that the organic matrix reacted exothermally with ambient oxygen - it was oxidized
d) This oxidation of the organic matrix did not fully remove the matrix, for post-DSC, the red pigment was still embedded in some matrix.

[Ivan Kminek]

Yes I think they were TGAs.

BTW I've actually got TGAs of Al/Fe2O3 thermite embedded in an epoxy matrix. Want to see that? Of course you do. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=845&pictureid=6192

Figure 4.19 DTA traces for epoxy-cast Al+Fe2O3 composites with a) 47, b) 60, c) 70,
d) 78 vol.% epoxy, e) pure epoxy, and f) nano-Al+Fe2O3+70 vol.% epoxy compositions.

Aha, the source is here (http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/19722?show=full): (Thesis of L. Ferranti)

Again remark for the methods: in the Fig., DTA (differential thermal analysis) is used, not DSC, but the difference is not great: DTA measures the difference in the temperature of the sample and reference, DSC measures the changes in heat flow for maintaining the temperature of the sample the same as for reference.

What is crucial: as expected, the measurements were carried out under inert, so no comparison with Bentham DSC curves is possible.
I will read it later in detail, but just now two quotes:

"These experiments were repeated several times with excellent reproducibility and typically, included a total of 3 to 5 runs. (Funny, I would not expect that this mess is fully reproducible, I.K.:o) DTA results obtained for each composition appear to show similar exothermic and endothermic reaction peaks as expected for the Al+Fe2O3 thermite system. The addition of epoxy typically lowers the temperatures where the intermediate and main reactions take place and also contributes to the overall strength of the reaction."

"The crystallization peaks were followed immediately by an endoderm that ranged a decomposition temperature of 410.2 ± 0.7 °C, which is in fairly good agreement with many studies conducted for epoxy resin cured with numerous hardeners [172-174]. The thermal stability in cured-epoxy resin systems will depend, in part, on the chemical structure and bonds, as well as on the functionality and crosslinking density of the resin [171]. The volatile products evolving from the decomposition of epoxy typically include water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide [172], however, the specific makeup is primarily dictated by the resin and hardener composition."

Well, endotherms at ca 410 C are pretty weak, but I will try to remember, that under inert, the degradation of this epoxy resin (and many other resins) should be endothermic in this temperature region. Problem is that I found another paper (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Xh2x1-5OVeYC&lpg=PA224&ots=h-FxbEBS91&dq=%22derivative%20thermogravimetric%20curves%20in %20atmosphere%20of%20air%22&pg=PA224#v=onepage&q=%22derivative%20thermogravimetric%20curves%20in% 20atmosphere%20of%20air%22&f=false) in which this step of degradation is clearly exothermic (Fig. 8, p. 220):confused:

Otherwise, the behavior of the epoxy in those composites is not further commented in details, including curve f... I think that Ferranti considers this curve (as a whole) basically as a "distorted baseline".

[Oystein]

Aha, the source is here (http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/19722?show=full): (Thesis of L. Ferranti)
...

Ugh... Georgia Tech *wince* :covereyes





(I am a University of Georgia Bulldawg, whe hate them G.Tech Yellow Jackets :D)

[Ivan Kminek]

Anyway, we have here some thesis which deals with composites with ca 50-70 % of polymer (epoxy resin) with added typical thermite components (aluminum and iron oxide). i.e. with the composition close to the Bentham chips (a) to (d) (except one "tiny detail": here is Al, not aluminosilicate). So, such composites deserve some attention, perhaps mostly the attention of truthers:)

Frankly, after some quick reading, I do not understand what is the purpose of these composites. They are probably not intended to destroy, e.g., skyscrapers, but they undergo some mechanically induced reactions under high stress, that is all I know so far...

[Sunstealer]

Source?
What's the units on the y-axis?I'm reluctant to show the source because I can gaurantee that truthers will be all over it saying, "look! look! thermite and epoxy, see, see Jones was right, Harrit is right" etc, etc.

However, it's not fair to quote without a source so I will.

http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-10292007-182845/unrestricted/ferranti_louis_200712_phd.pdf

DTA starts at page 189. There are no units for y-axis - I did look in the rest of the thesis but couldn't see any. I wasn't too bothered because it's the shape of the curves that is of more interest.

[Oystein]

I'm reluctant to show the source because I can gaurantee that truthers will be all over it saying, "look! look! thermite and epoxy, see, see Jones was right, Harrit is right" etc, etc.
But - that's trivial! No one ever doubted you could mix thermite with epoxy, or with blackberry jam. D'uh.

However, it's not fair to quote without a source so I will.

http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-10292007-182845/unrestricted/ferranti_louis_200712_phd.pdf

DTA starts at page 189. There are no units for y-axis - I did look in the rest of the thesis but couldn't see any. I wasn't too bothered because it's the shape of the curves that is of more interest.
Ivan beat you to it ;)

[Sunstealer]

But you acknowledge that the physical WTC evidence shows paint that was subjected to temperatures above 600 C and that had not ignited. Right? You acknowledge this? So help me out with where your logic leads you from there, and for which you feel no actual tests are necessary.Did you know that there is only one red paint manufactured in the whole wide world? It's a massive conspiracy. See all those different shades of red in colour charts? Yep - all of them are exactly the same red made by one company.

Look around your house or go to a DIY store - see all of those paint tins claiming to be different reds. Well they are not, they are all exactly the same red, exactly the same formula, exactly the same product, it's just everyone has been brainwashed into believing that there are hundreds of different red paint formulations which will all behave in different ways when heated.

See the red fire trucks at GZ - yep that is the same red paint as any red paint you have in your home. Ever made an airfix model and painted it using red paint? Yep, you got it, that paint is exactly the same paint as used in the WTC to protect steel.

It's all the same. Massive conspiracy. Companies are ripping people off to enormous degrees with fancy sounding names for red paint claiming that masonry red paint is better for stone than children's paints. it's all a lie.

However, you are the only person I've found who knows this. All red paint is exactly the same - FACT. How did you find this out?

So the stuff NIST used in their heat test is exactly the same as Jones found and exactly the same as tested by Millette and exactly the same as the paint on the red fire-extinguishers and fire-trucks and children's paintings of strawberries. It's all the same and behaves exactly the same.

Why would anyone think there are different formulations of red paint? Crazy.

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer: You can't beat or hide the Truth (as for Ferranti's thesis). I read in the first pages that those composites (epoxy-Al-Fe2O3) can be somehow used in warheads, so, this is the solution of the 911 inside job: those composites were (among others) secretly placed on the planes attacking WTC, causing massive explosions and those total collapses (with some negligible delay):cool:

(I will add some more remarks after reading what is this thesis about)

[pgimeno]

So if some of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?
If none of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

I also want to see a reasoned answer to that question. Hopefully one that doesn't assume the nature of the chips put in DSC by Farrer, because we have no clue on that.

[chrismohr]

Sunstealer,
In post 664 you said, "You also think that anything spherical must have been produced by a melting process. This is incorrect. In fact there are many papers that describe the manufacture of iron-oxide nano-sized round particles from non-spherical material way below the melting point of iron oxide for example."
One more time: Can you give links to the best two or three papers that refer to this? It will be VERY helpful with my re-re-rebuttal website!!

[ergo]

Did you know that there is only one red paint manufactured in the whole wide world? It's a massive conspiracy. See all those different shades of red in colour charts? Yep - all of them are exactly the same red made by one company.


I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!

[DGM]

I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!

Why don't you trust Harrit et al own data? What chip would you like tested? Could you identify it for us?

[moorea34]

Sunstealer,
In post 664 you said, "You also think that anything spherical must have been produced by a melting process. This is incorrect. In fact there are many papers that describe the manufacture of iron-oxide nano-sized round particles from non-spherical material way below the melting point of iron oxide for example."
One more time: Can you give links to the best two or three papers that refer to this? It will be VERY helpful with my re-re-rebuttal website!!

For example, carbon monoxyde (CO) can reduce partially Fe3O4 oxyde at temperatures below 700 ° C (490 ° C and 650 ° C under the conditions) to give aggregates of wustite (FeO). Then these aggregates are decomposed into iron (Fe)-oxide (Fe3O4) when the temperature returns to ambient conditions. This phenomenon (related to Ellingham diagrams of iron, carbon, and their respective oxides), is documented in the books on the metallurgy of iron.
I don't have references... But may be Sunstealer?

[Oystein]

I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!

Sunstealer, read this!

ergo is smarter than even you! He knows that there is not only one paint in the entire world - there are exactly two!

:D

[A W Smith]

I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!
The effects of blistering on the ignition and flammability of paint
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire01/PDF/f01153.pdf
ABSTRACT
More than 300 gypsum wallboard samples coated with 0 to 8 layers of paint have been
subjected to flammability testing in the Cone Calorimeter. Testing has been conducted with samples
coated with either latex-based or oil-based interior paints and subjected to imposed heat fluxes
ranging from 25 to 75 kW/m2. During some of the tests, “blistering” of the painted surface has been
observed. This blistering phenomenon is most pronounced in samples coated with multiple layers of
oil-based paint. As the number of coats of paint increases, blistering is observed at lower imposed
heat fluxes. When blistering does occur, the time to ignition decreases significantly, typically by a
factor of 3 to 4, when compared with samples that do not blister, while the burning duration remains
approximately the same. The potential for upward flame spread on painted gypsum wallboard is
addressed in terms of a modified version of the Quintiere flame spread model. The concept of a
critical heat flux for upward flame spread is developed as a means to account for the race between
ignition and burnout.

Goalpost move in 10-9-8-7

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer, read this!

ergo is smarter than even you! He knows that there is not only one paint in the entire world - there are exactly two!

:DIt's quite funny really. Even the Harrit paper alludes to the red layers being different types of paint:

8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?

We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers.

Anyone with any sense can answer their question. You have got many different types of red paint.


What about those damn multiple red layers! How could multiple layers possibly occur? It's a complete mystery! :rolleyes:

It's obvious that people were painting over paint already applied, as you do, and these layers built up over time.

Truthers have never answered the question as to why you'd manufacture super-dooper seekrit nanothermite with Pb. And then in the same lab manufacture more without Pb. This lab isn't much good at quality control.

If you compare Millette's preliminary study with Harrit et al it's obvious who knows what he's doing. There is none of the rampant and crazy speculation, just hard data and conclusions based on the data.

[Sunstealer]

For example, carbon monoxyde (CO) can reduce partially Fe3O4 oxyde at temperatures below 700 ° C (490 ° C and 650 ° C under the conditions) to give aggregates of wustite (FeO). Then these aggregates are decomposed into iron (Fe)-oxide (Fe3O4) when the temperature returns to ambient conditions. This phenomenon (related to Ellingham diagrams of iron, carbon, and their respective oxides), is documented in the books on the metallurgy of iron.
I don't have references... But may be Sunstealer?Yes that was another potential mechanism.

Reduction of iron oxides using CO and CO2 is the basis for iron making. The fact is you don't need to actually melt anything for this process to occur. Early iron makers could never get the temperature high enough to do so.

This is the big problem with the DSC test in Harrit et al. You've got 2 materials - the red paint of unknown composition and the oxidised steel. Based on fig 20 and 23 it's obvious the gray layer has changed significantly and formed the spheres along with some of the paint's constituents. That's difficult to explain because we just don't have the data.

If Harrit and Jones thought the red layer was thermite then they should have separated that from the gray layer and only tested that in the DSC (in an inert atmosphere). Instead we have a hotch potch which we can't 100% correctly interpret.

I'm still surprised that there isn't a depression at 660°C in the curve corresponding to melting of unreacted aluminium. I think if bulk Al was present then this would be expected.

[Oystein]

I'm still surprised that there isn't a depression at 660°C in the curve corresponding to melting of unreacted aluminium. I think if bulk Al was present then this would be expected.

No, you're not :D

Twoofers ought to be. If they understood the first thing about DSC ;)

[ergo]

No, why should I? Nothing of interest would be learned from such a test. We could not compare the results to anything, because Farrer forgot to tell us what materials he put in the DSC.

He put red grey chips in there. You know they're not Tnemec, because Tnemec wouldn't ignite at 430C. So what do you think ignited? 　


So if some of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

I was actually suggesting you try igniting Laclede paint chips - or Tnemec for that matter. If you did and they ignited at 430C, that would bring you closer to a credible argument that the chips are paint.

If none of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

You would confirm that not all of the chips ignite, and you would probably want to test other chips.


No. I am basing this on the most basic laws of this universe: Energy is conserved, and entropy increased all the time. That's why Farrer's chip prove with utmost, 100.000% certainty, that something that is NOT thermite burned in his DSC: Because 2 chips released more energy than ideal, 100% concentrated, perfectly pure, perfectly reacting thermite could ever do anywhere in this universe.

Funny how this is exactly what the literature on nanothermites tells us it will do. The only people who seem to disagree with this are a handful of anonymous internet "debunkers".


The other two chips has an energy density lower than the theoretical maximum for pure, perfect thermite; however, Harrit e.al. concede that a significant portion of the mass of the chips was inert, and all their data shows clearly that all of the red layers and all of the residues they ever looked at were far from being pure themite, it follows that all four DSCed chips released much more energy than thermite ever could, according to the most basic Laws of our Universe.

I believe the limit you are imposing here is based on conventional thermite, not nanothermite, and it's also based on the Al - FeO2 combination. Particle size and chemical combinations all produce variations in reaction time and energy release.

Tillotson and Gash merely showed experimentally that the bar in practice is even higher, by a factor of more than 2, than pure theory).

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. What bar and higher than what?

c) The only candidate is organic combustion, so we know that the organic matrix reacted exothermally with ambient oxygen - it was oxidized

If you want to prove paint, you want to know what reacted here.

d) This oxidation of the organic matrix did not fully remove the matrix, for post-DSC, the red pigment was still embedded in some matrix.

I don't see why this poses a problem for the thermite theory.

[thedopefishlives]

Funny how this is exactly what the literature on nanothermites tells us it will do. The only people who seem to disagree with this are a handful of anonymous internet "debunkers".

I'm sorry, I'm calling you out on this lie because it is 100% pure USDA Grade A :rule10. Making something nano PHYSICALLY CANNOT increase the theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be released from the reaction. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to cross that theoretical threshold via ANY means of preparation. So the fact that Harrit et al.'s "thermite" chips released more total energy than the theoretical maximum of a thermite compound definitively proves that it is not thermite. You cannot get around this by arguing nano, because it is a chemical property of the compound that has nothing to do with the preparation.

[ergo]

I'm sorry, I'm calling you out on this lie because it is 100% pure USDA Grade A :rule10. Making something nano PHYSICALLY CANNOT increase the theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be released from the reaction. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to cross that theoretical threshold via ANY means of preparation. So the fact that Harrit et al.'s "thermite" chips released more total energy than the theoretical maximum of a thermite compound definitively proves that it is not thermite. You cannot get around this by arguing nano, because it is a chemical property of the compound that has nothing to do with the preparation.

Again, your theoretical maximum is for conventional thermite. Even different conventional thermites have different reactions and different energy releases. Nanothermites change the ball game considerably. Every source I've already quoted confirms this. You folks have produced zero confirmation of your claims.

[cjnewson88]

Do nanothermites work without elemental aluminum ergo? Guess what the red/gray chips didn't have..

[ergo]

Lots of thermites don't use aluminum, Newson. And it is Millette who claims no elemental aluminum.

[thedopefishlives]

Again, your theoretical maximum is for conventional thermite. Even different conventional thermites have different reactions and different energy releases. Nanothermites change the ball game considerably. Every source I've already quoted confirms this. You folks have produced zero confirmation of your claims.

No. Your sources claim that a nano preparation increases the rate of energy release. The use of the phrase "more energetic" does not mean that there is more total energy available. Different chemical reactions are expected to have different energy releases, but any preparation using the same chemical reaction has a theoretical maximum yield that cannot be worked around by any means of preparation. It's basic chemistry.

[cjnewson88]

Millette claims? No no no, Millettes testing methods proves there is not. These testing methods also prove the red layer is paint.

[ergo]

No. Your sources claim that a nano preparation increases the rate of energy release. The use of the phrase "more energetic" does not mean that there is more total energy available. Different chemical reactions are expected to have different energy releases, but any preparation using the same chemical reaction has a theoretical maximum yield that cannot be worked around by any means of preparation. It's basic chemistry.

Nobody is using the phrase "more energetic." Some thermites are more explosive than others. That's the simple fact. Using nano particles increases the energy output. If that is through an increased rate of energy release, then that is how it works. The end result is not the same as conventional thermite. That's the point.