Merged: Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Tilorop

Greetings.

... Is there a way, chemically, to enhance the energyyeld of thermite/thermate/nanothermite in any way beyond 4 KJ/g?

In the minds of 911 truth followers. A chemical reaction, resulting in woo.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Tilorop

Greetings.

As a newcomer (ok, lurked here for years)on these forums, I would like to ask a simple question focusing entirely on the chemican reaction/burn regarding thermite. Is there a way, chemically, to enhance the energyyeld of thermite/thermate/nanothermite in any way beyond 4 KJ/g?

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

No. Period. That figure is dictated by the chemical bonds; it is the absolute maximum possible.

If you include some other substance that has its own chemical or physical reaction, you can get more energy out of the compound, but it's not the aluminum/iron oxide redox that's providing that additional energy.

Correct answer by EMH.

An analogy: Okra is a vegetable that has a nutritional value (energy) of 31 kcal per 100 g. Can you get overweight on a diet that consists solely of okra? No, because to gain weight, you'd have to ingest more than 2,000 kcal per day, or 14 pounds of okra, and trust me, you don't want to do that.

Your question would be like "can you increase the nutritional value of okra?", and the answer is "only by adding something that has more calories". For example, you could fry your okra in lard (900 kcal per 100 g). If your meal is hald okra, half lard by weight, then eating more than just one pound gets you over your limit of 2,000 kcal per day.

You could then say that "okra makes you overweight", but that would be highly misleading, if not outright false: It is the lard that makes you gain weight, not the okra.



Same with Harrit e.al.'s thermite theory: They say the chips are thermite, but really the energy comes from the organics, not the thermite. You can't get more than 31 kcal/100 g from okra, and you can't get more than 4 kJ/g from thermite.


Oh, by the way: 31 kcal/100 g = 0.31 kcal/g = 1.3 kJ/g. Okra is actually almost as energetic as the nano-thermite made by Tillotson and Gash (1.5 kJ/g).

[BenjaminTR]

Originally Posted by beachnut

In the minds of 911 truth followers. A chemical reaction, resulting in woo.

And the award for best Truther-themed haiku goes to...

beachnut!

(OK, it technically isn't a haiku, but it really sounds like one, doesn't it?)

[Tilorop]

Thanks, and great analogy by the way Oystein. In order for thermite(insert any version here, fictious or not) to heat steel enough for it to loose strength(3-400+c), you are bound to a certain amount(and I belive, substantial) for heavy/massive steel members. I'm no expert in any of the fields, but using thermite to demolish anything sounds terrible inefficient for not to mention very risky due to the chaotic nature of it.

Hypothetically, I would probably go for some good old high explosives primarily on the seatings of a single floor to drop it to the next in order to trigger a pancaking effect(and removing lateral support, hence colums would buckle bringing it all down). Rigging a single level could in theory trigger a global collapse, right? If so, why would anyone bother to rig the whole building?

By the way, nanothermite, will it always be exothermic, or can it in some cases (or always, if small enough) become endothermic?

Thanks.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Tilorop

Thanks, and great analogy by the way Oystein. In order for thermite(insert any version here, fictious or not) to heat steel enough for it to loose strength(3-400+c), you are bound to a certain amount(and I belive, substantial) for heavy/massive steel members. I'm no expert in any of the fields, but using thermite to demolish anything sounds terrible inefficient for not to mention very risky due to the chaotic nature of it.

From basic material properties and the reaction enthalpy of thermite it can be calculated that, in oder to melt 1 pound of steel, you need roughly a pound of thermite, or more.

Merely heating it to a temperature where steel becomes weak would not give you much control at all, and wouldn't heal the truthers' incredulity that a building supposedly could not collapse totally just from fires that merely weaken steel.

Originally Posted by Tilorop

Hypothetically, I would probably go for some good old high explosives primarily on the seatings of a single floor to drop it to the next in order to trigger a pancaking effect(and removing lateral support, hence colums would buckle bringing it all down). Rigging a single level could in theory trigger a global collapse, right? If so, why would anyone bother to rig the whole building?

Right. As the late Danny Jowenko, a leading European demolition expert, explained in a video that truthers know, but only partially acknowledge: The goal of any highrise demolition is to take out a strategic bit of the structure, and then to let gravity do the rest of the work.

Originally Posted by Tilorop

By the way, nanothermite, will it always be exothermic, or can it in some cases (or always, if small enough) become endothermic?

Thanks.

Whether a reaction is endothermic or exothermic depends on the "enthalpy of reaction". It's the differential between the "stored" chemical (inter-atom) energy of the reactants before and the products after the reaction - and that is a constant for any given chemical reaction. The thermite reaction

Fe₂O₃ + 2Al -> Al₂O₃ + 2Fe + delta-Energy

always releases just under 4 kJ of energy for every gram of a mix of (Fe₂O₃ + 2Al). So the reaction is always exotherm.

Now if you mix thermite with other substances, and measure the energy release of the mix, then the energy density might go up or down, depending on what you mix the thermite with, and with how much.
You could mix thermite with substances that undergo an endotherm reaction and might suck up the energy released by the thermite. But you can't get a negative energy release on aggregate, unless you add some external energy.
In any case, the thermite in the mix would still be exotherm, and release 4 kJ/g. If the mix is endotherm on aggregate, it wouldn't be because it contains thermite.


Any by the way: The energy released by chemical reactions is (almost^[1]) independent of particle size. Whether nano-, micro- or milli-thermite, the reaction always releases the same 4 kJ/g. The potential advantages of nano-sizing the stuff are
- reaction may run faster, thus with more power (energy release per time unit)
- reaction may run to a higher degree of completion, leaving relatively less (Fe₂O₃ + 2Al) unreacted
There are also potential disadvantages. Most notably, aluminium always oxidizes at its surface as soon as it is exposed to air. That oxide layer is very thin, measured in nanometers, and thus not very significant in larger particles, but can be very significant when your particles themselves are only tens of nanometers small - then a large proportion of your Al would already be oxidized, and that oxide is just dead weight in your thermite, lowering the average energy density. In fact, the scientists at LLNL that Harrit e.al. quote believe that this is the main reason why their nano-thermite was measured at only 1.5 kJ/g instead of close to 4 kJ/g.



[1] At nano-scales, some effects like van-der-Waals forces between particles may become significant, increasing or decreasing the energy in the mix.

[remo]

" as Mohr so succintly put it: "It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede."

I wouldn't bet my beached nuts on you guys ever having heard of the words 'false flag attack' either.

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

'While a particular embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, and specific materials, thicknesses, and processing procedures have been set forth to explain the principles of the invention, such are not intended to be limiting. Modifications and changes will became apparent to those skilled in the art, and it is intended that the invention be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.'

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5505799

[Africanus]

Originally Posted by remo

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

This claim is pure nonsense, as until today no FTIR spectra of Harrits chips are available! So there is nothing to compare Millette's chips to.

Quote:

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

This is another nonsensic claim! Millette built his refutation of the thermite hypothesis not solely on the presence of the epoxy, he also proved that no elemental aluminum was present, only chemical bound aluminum as kaolinite!

Conclusion: Another deceptive truther article. Shame on you, Mr. Talboo!

PS: It is interesting how right Sunstealer was:

Quote:

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.

Source: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=729

Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm

Hi Africanus

Thansk for a very precise and pedagogical answer.

Just to make sure I understand your point (and my own confusement) in question 3:

A DSC experiment measures the ignition temperature by gradually incresing temperature of the specimen until ignition sets in. It does not measure the temperature of the reaction itself thta follows (which might be much higher, e.g. the melting point of iron), is that correct?

Kindly,
Steen

Totally correct!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by remo

" as Mohr so succintly put it: "It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. ..."

Jones paper clearly shows no thermite, no need for another study. There is no steel which shows exposure to thermite. Zip. No big deal but Jones made up the thermite did it scenario out of political bias, or some mental problem. Good luck advancing an idea that is nuts.

Originally Posted by remo

... heard of the words 'false flag attack' either.

911 was not a false flag event, it was a terrorist attack promised by UBL. For some reason Jones made up the claim of thermite and has fooled a fringe few paranoid conspiracy theorists who see false flags in their heads.

Originally Posted by remo

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

Gee whiz, Jones paper rules out thermite. Evidence of not thermite damage to steel rules out thermite on 911. 11 plus years, Jones was debunked before he made up his fantasy of thermite. It is nonsense, and sad to see someone fired for going nuts like Jones did on 911 issues, due to his failed politics.
Truth is, his work on Christ visiting the New World is better than Jones disrespectful, anti-intellectual, treasonous work on 911.

Originally Posted by remo

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

??? There was no super-thermite painted on anything on 911 - this is a fantasy made up by mad men; like Jones.
Yes Virgina, there is iron oxide in paint, and yes there is Al in paint.

Originally Posted by remo

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

'While a particular embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, and specific materials, thicknesses, and processing procedures have been set forth to explain the principles of the invention, such are not intended to be limiting. Modifications and changes will became apparent to those skilled in the art, and it is intended that the invention be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.'

Seriously? How does producing gobs of nonsense debunk the fact no steel on 911 shows damage from thermite. Explain how you can back in thermite damage to steel which was not touched by thermite? Do you understand, no engineers found steel in the debris which was damaged by thermite. Better change from Jones' failed thermite to Judy's beam weapon, you can say the evidence evaporated.

Originally Posted by remo

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5505799

Referencing a patent to prove the existence of a substance not present to destroy the WTC complex on 911 is anti-intellectual nonsense. You have to show damage to steel at the WTC. You are left with zero evidence of thermite, save the delusions of a fallen PhD.

You can prove thermite exists, you can't prove it was used on 911; because the evidence proves there was no thermite used on 911. Jones' paper proves they did not find thermite. Please take the paper to chemical engineer and let him explain why you were fooled by Jones. How many Chem Engineers have you consulted?

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by remo

" as Mohr so succintly put it: "It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede."

I wouldn't bet my beached nuts on you guys ever having heard of the words 'false flag attack' either.

" Millette´s followers insist that his FTIR data confirms paint and rules out nanothermite, but they keep reaching conclusions without proper research. Since superthermite is available in fully organic forms, hybrid forms like Harrit´s chips with high organic content, and even mixed with paint epoxy, any competent researcher would have to compare the FTIR spectra of the red/gray chips to these hybrid forms of superthermite: Millette´s relevant FTIR data is not only flawed, it also lacks all the needed research and comparisons, so it is inconclusive, if not fully debunked."

"The final problem with Millette´s paint-hypothesis is that even if he proves that the chips contain paint-epoxy, that would not rule out thermitic materials, as JREF forum member "Sunstealer" discovered: He stumbled upon a paper dealing with thermitic materials that are diluted with standard epoxy, up to 50% by weight and 80% by volume, so there is actually such a thing as functional nano-thermite mixed with paint.This reference certainly refutes Millette's contention that finding normal epoxy mixed in with the chips would rule out superthermite."

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

'While a particular embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, and specific materials, thicknesses, and processing procedures have been set forth to explain the principles of the invention, such are not intended to be limiting. Modifications and changes will became apparent to those skilled in the art, and it is intended that the invention be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.'

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5505799

Merry Christmas, Remo
You truthers should celebrate incoming New Year by a special firework using a mixture of kaolinite and iron oxide in some 60 % (or more) of epoxy resin. This will be really spectacular fiery show, I would guess, fully corresponding to the importance/credibility of nanothermite "theory" Good luck

[Sunstealer]

What about the kaolin Remo? Millette's FTIR data clearly shows kaolin is present so why does your superduper nanothermite contain a common industrial filler? The Harrit et al paper shows kaolin to be present too as I showed 3 1/2 years ago.

You are desperately clutching at straws.

[remo]

Why did Dr. Millette find kaolin in his analysis? Because it was there in the material he examined. We know that Harrit and Jones found particles that ignited. ejecting molten hot iron spherules. Specifically linked in their paper to material known at LLNL. Not regarded as a common component of primer paint.
Why did Dr.Millette not find thermitic material ?
We await his paper being presented in a peer reviewed science journal laying out the argument.
As to the use in demolition sequence of these rare highly machined composits as found by Harrit/Jones? Go ask the special ops boys that did the business. Maybe they do a History channel tv special on it soon with Claire Danes as Amanda Keller. Know anyone chubby and European and blond to play Rudi Dekker?
In the meantime, we can read back on the known knowns. The FEMA study of eutectic attack on the steel.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=fem...ient=firefox-a
It is nonsense to argue these phenomena not related to use of energetics. It was 'evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion ATTACK on the steel..subsequent intergranular MELTING etc' .
As to 'no evidence'. " * Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
http://rememberbuilding7.org/destruction-of-evidence/
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”

* Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator:[iv]
“Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item – photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.”

* Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York:[iii]
“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.”

[Spanx]

Thanks for the first link remo, it brings up some fantastic search results

[chrismohr]

Hiya Remo,

I'm no expert, just an organizer of the Millette study. Millette did not find strontium chromate, which would have been a specific piece of evidence of the red-grey chips being LaClede paint primer. Since it is an easy thing to miss, his failure to find it leaves the question open until he is able to find a known chip of LaClede primer to compare the red-grey chips against. This is why I was unwilling to bet my leeft nut on the red-grey chips specifically being LaClede. We are looking for a LaClede primer sample, possibly off a truss from the WTC debris itself. Millette does hope to finish his study in 2013.

BTW I also personally asked Jonathan Barnett about the suflidized steel just last month and he specifically said that it could have been created due to battery acid, acid rain, or gypsum wallboard burning. He also absolutely rejects the idea that thermate could have been a cause of the sulfidized steel, and tells 9/11 Truth activists to relax and take it easy there is no evidence of CD. Thought you should know that the guy you and other 9/11 truth activists quote is unambiguously not in agreement with your central claim.

[Ape of Good Hope]

Further to Chris Mohr's comment above, here's a 2007 email correspondence between a conspiracy theorist and Dr Barnett:

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/inde...-events-of-911

Remo, I'd recommend you read this.

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, Chris
Just one reminder, as for strontium chromate, which represented some 4 % of pigments in Laclede paint: I found that this pigment is gradually depleted from paints for corrosion protection; this is in fact necessary for its proper function of anticorrosive agent. Hence, after 40 and more years after the paint job, original crystalline needles of this stuff could dissapear from the paint or could at least change their shape/size (chromate dissolved in water is expected to travel in the form of ions mostly to the steel in crevices or other damaged parts of the paint).
It would be of course great to compare red chips from the dust with authentic particles of Laclede paint - if there is no strontium chromate found in them as well, the "Laclede paint theory" would celebrate its victory.

Indeed, we can expect similar depletion of zinc chromate in Tnemec paint for perimeter columns, for the same reason (it has similar solubility in water). And there is a lot of zinc and chromium detected by XEDS, as was shown by S. Jones. But this pigment represented some 20 % of pigments in this paint, so its depletion was not probably so apparent/distinct in this case.

This is just my hypothesis, but I think that it should be taken into consideration by Jim Millette.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by remo

Why did Dr. Millette find kaolin in his analysis? Because it was there in the material he examined.

Exactly.

And the same material is present in Harrit's chips a-d - just look at Figures 8 (BSE-image of kaolin platelets), 9 (SE-image of kaolin platelets), 10 (XEDS-map showing that Si and Al are strongly associated with kaolin platelets and with each other) and 11a (XEDS spectrum with Al = Si < O, the elemetal signature of kaolin).

Add to this that Steven Jones recently revealed that Jeff Farrer found additional evidence, through unpublished TEM-studies, that there may well be a 1:1 ratio of Si and Al in these platelets - exactly what you expect for kaolin.

Jones, Farrer, Harrit have absolutely no explanation for the presence of Si and its consistent 1:1 ratio to Al.

We have the explanation: Kaolin. All the Al in chips a-d is bound as kaolin.

And that's exactly what Millette found too, in chips selected by doing exactly what Harrit e.al. in their paper, matching chips a-d to a t.

Originally Posted by remo

We know that Harrit and Jones found particles that ignited.

Big deal. With 70% epoxy, you fully epxect it to react exothermally: First anaerobe decomposition, then, around 425 °C, ignition in air. Common and well-known behaviour of epoxy

Originally Posted by remo

ejecting molten hot iron spherules.

Given that they were looking at a material that started out being mostly (>50%) corroded iron (the gray layer! What else do you think it is?), they found precious little evidence of actual elemental iron. I see one little sintered blob of 2 µm in the paper that may have some elemental iron mixed with the iron oxide.

Originally Posted by remo

Specifically linked in their paper to material known at LLNL.

No such link exists in the paper, except for bare-assed assertions.

Originally Posted by remo

Not regarded as a common component of primer paint.

As there is no such link, that sentence is moot.

Originally Posted by remo

Why did Dr.Millette not find thermitic material ?

Easy: There is none.

Originally Posted by remo

We await his paper being presented in a peer reviewed science journal laying out the argument.

Indeed. Don't put your hopes too high that he might not eventually submit this to a respected (as opposed to the disgraceful Bentham publishers crap) journal, might not survive peer-review and thus not have it published. And don't hope it won't smash Harrit e.al. to pieces.

Originally Posted by remo

As to the use in demolition sequence of these rare highly machined composits as found by Harrit/Jones? Go ask the special ops boys that did the business.

In other words: You have no *********** idea

Originally Posted by remo

Maybe they do a History channel tv special on it soon with Claire Danes as Amanda Keller. Know anyone chubby and European and blond to play Rudi Dekker?

Bringin actors to the scientific debate is what Da Twoof does. Ed Asner, Daniel Sunjata, Charlie Sheen, Roseanne Barr - ring a bell?

Originally Posted by remo

In the meantime, we can read back on the known knowns. The FEMA study of eutectic attack on the steel.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=fem...ient=firefox-a
It is nonsense to argue these phenomena not related to use of energetics. It was 'evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion ATTACK on the steel..subsequent intergranular MELTING etc'

Yes. So?
What "high temperature", remo? Put a number to it!
And exactly: INTERGRANUAL melting. Do you understand where that melting occurs? Do you think they places thermite there?
And exactly: CORROSION! That's a gradual process!

It is nonsense to argue these phenomena are related to use of energetics.
(What are "energetics", by the way? Can you define the term, such that is does not apply to epoxy based paint, or your own dried droppings?)

Originally Posted by remo

[snipped off topic crap]

You're off-topic. Again.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Hi, Chris
Just one reminder, as for strontium chromate, which represented some 4 % of pigments in Laclede paint: I found that this pigment is gradually depleted from paints for corrosion protection; this is in fact necessary for its proper function of anticorrosive agent. Hence, after 40 and more years after the paint job, original crystalline needles of this stuff could dissapear from the paint or could at least change their shape/size (chromate dissolved in water is expected to travel in the form of ions mostly to the steel in crevices or other damaged parts of the paint).
It would be of course great to compare red chips from the dust with authentic particles of Laclede paint - if there is no strontium chromate found in them as well, the "Laclede paint theory" would celebrate its victory.
...

But Jeff Farrer found strontium chromate

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by remo

Why did Dr. Millette find kaolin in his analysis? Because it was there in the material he examined.

Yep. Now would you do me the favour of answering the following question:

Below is Fig 7 of the Harrit et al paper



Do you agree with Harrit that the above 4 samples a,b,c and d are the same material?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it's off-topic drivel. If you wish to talk about the high temperature corrosion seen in some steel sections recovered then there are a dozen threads that already deal with that topic. I've also explained in detail in those threads as to what mechanisms explain that type and level of corrosion.

I suggest that you actually read my posts on this thread from 3 1/2 years ago. All is explained. Then move onto the high temperature corrosion threads.

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by Oystein

But Jeff Farrer found strontium chromate

Yes, but strontium peaks are marked (as barely visible) by the Farrer's XEDS device here:



These very weak signals are something which could be easily missed/"overlooked" by Millette's XEDS device. And minute chromium peaks are detected in some/many XEDS spectra of Jim Millette.
I/we don't know up to now what method Jim Millette used looking for strontium chromate (except XEDS, which is not suitable in this case); just electron microscopy? Probably. Then, it is still possible that originally present strontium chromate needles were transformed into different/smaller objects after more than 40 years and are not clearly visible in micrographs...

Btw, had been floor trusses painted with Laclede primer exposed to some constant "climate" and humidity in WTC, similar to the conditions in office spaces? I have no idea, to be honest.

[ergo]

With the last few posts by Oystein, it looks like 9/11 bedunkers have finally understood the difference between energy vs. power density. Yay.

It must have finally sunk in when their suggestions to various militaries about the nano applications of okra were continually ignored.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ergo

With the last few posts by Oystein, it looks like 9/11 bedunkers have finally understood the difference between energy vs. power density. Yay.

It must have finally sunk in when their suggestions to various militaries about the nano applications of okra were continually ignored.

We've understood it all along. Could you explain how this supports the conclusions in the paper? Bet you can't.

This is another "rubble" issue for you.

[Starving for Truth]

Wouldn't it have actually been better if the thermite shills claimed to have found ignited thermite, rather than unignited?

[Ivan Kminek]

...Again something on rather strange shiny microspheres formed very probably from the gray layers of red/gray chips during heating up to 700 degrees C under air(shown in Bentham paper).

It has been mentioned here that these spheres could be perhaps even hollow, could be "cenospheres".
Such cenospheres are common components of coal fly ashes, formed at very high temperatures, but could they be formed also at temperatures around 700 degrees C (final temperature reached during DCS measurements of Harrit et al)?

This thesis shows that cenospheres could be formed from milled pyrite (iron sulfide) already at 580 degrees C (pyrite is transformed to iron oxides at these temperatures and higher). The process is very quick, takes seconds.

Here are micrographs of well-developed cenospheres formed already at 600 degrees C:



(The whole cenospheres are on the left side, their crossections are shown on the right side)

Author basically writes that prior cenosphere formation, low-melting Fe-S-O system (droplet) is created, which is basically "inflated" by nitrogen and/or carbon oxide gas, forming cenosphere. "Our" system (WTC red/gray chips) is clearly different since it does not contain pyrite, but it is again some "hint" that cenospheres (or microspheres) can be created at pretty low temperatures. Here, gray layers (from which microspheres originated) can perhaps form some low melting Fe-C-O systems, because of attached paint layer with a lot of carbon-based binder.

[Oystein]

I just wrote a lengthy message to Myles Power, maker of this video on the Bentham paper, and since I put in some effort, I'll dump it here; something I had wanted to write for 9 months now...

Hey Myles,

I am "Oystein" at the JREF forum. Are you a member there, by any chance? If not, you can msg me back at xxx@xxxxxx.xxx
Just want to give you a bit of info on the Harrit nano-thermite paper and your coverage of it in Part 2 of your YT series - concerning peer-review:

Dr. David Griscom, a distinguished physicist and geologist, albeit himself a 9/11 truther, did in fact peer-review the Harrit paper. He outed himself in, I think, lkate december on his own blog. I have actually read the peer review (although not the draft the review was written about; they must have revised it extensively). This is how I came to read it:

One of Germany's (I am German) leading truthers is Dirk Gerhardt, aka sitting-bull. Dirk has translated a number of English truther texts and videos to German, for example for AE911Truth. When he learned that Griscom was a peer-reviewer, he contacted him, and Griscom agreed to let Dirk translate the peer-review, and sent it to Dirk. Later, Griscom had second thoughts, and told Dirk not to publish anything. However, Dirk offers anyone to see him and read a hard copy of the peer review. As Dirk lives just south of Hamburg, and my best friends live just west of Hamburg, I took up his offer last april when visiting my friends, we met at a nice restaurant in Hamburg over lunch, talked, an I got to read Griscom's critique.

It's 12 pages, and covers a lot of individual points, most of them rather briefly. One important bit is that it seemed to be addressed to the editor of a journal (I am not sure anymore if Bentham publishers is named explicitly, but the editor in chief at the time, Marie Pileni, wasn't mentioned, I am sure I'd rememember that; may have been addressed impersonally to the board of editors), and ends with a recommendation to publish if his criticisms are picked up in a revided final version. So, formally, it looks as if indeed an editor communicated with Griscom to solicit, and got, a peer-review.

Some key points Griscom addressed but Harrit e.al. did not were:

1. Griscom notes that the red layer is probably red because it contains hematite particles 100-200 nm in size - the bright faceted grains, and he adds that hematite grains in just that size are an ordinary industrial red pigment. At the time, Harrit e.al. apparently had not yet figured out with 100% certainty that these grains are indeed hematite (Fe2O3), as opposed to other iron oxides. So Griscom just suggested this - to use the very red colour for an argument.
Of course, it means immediately that such "nano-sized" grains are not proof we are dealing with nano-technology - they are low-tech, cheap, legacy technology, have been synthesized in that size and quality for almost a hundred years, and of course mined (in less uniform quality) for as pigments for art and other purposed since the old stone age.
it also means that, in the post-DSC residue for example shown in Fig 20, which still shows plenty of red material, that much of the iron oxide hasn't reacted in the DSC - a point Griscom failed to make.

2. He urges Harrit e.al. to offer explanations for the significant Si presence, and to find out what that Si is associated with. Harrit e.al. did not act on that recommendation.

Griscom recommended to shorten the paper and leave out many images, which Harrit e.al. did. I believe the draft had as many as 60 figures, which they cut down to 33. As a consequence, I could not relate many of the figures that Griscom discussed to figures in the published paper.

Griscom apparently agreed that the DSC results are significant and speak for nano-thermite - which makes me conclude that he really doesn't know **** about DSC and combustion.

Cheers
xxx

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Unfortunately you have forgotten about the Direct Reduction method for producing iron from iron oxides. The reason for looking at such a method is the reduction in temperature required to produce iron (sponge iron) in comparison with the blast furnace which produces pig iron.

A reduction in heat required means less money spent on fuel which is why the direct reduction method has been studied.

Incidentally it's the method that has been predominantly used in man's history - research "Bloomery". That process of producing iron does not require the temperatures used in a blast furnace, nor does it require the addition of slag forming additives.

The direct reduction method is only valid, however, if it is thermodynamically possible. The graph I posted gives you the information required to see the thermodynamics associated with the reduction of iron ores via the Boudouard Reaction.

I've coloured the graph so it's easier to see the phases:

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=7307

You will also note that I've drawn a line representing the lowest temperature that is thermodynamically possible for magnetite to reduce to iron which corresponds to 570°C - well below the 700°C obtained in the DSC. This figure is readily available in the literature.

Having looked at the literature you will also find that H₂ can also directly reduce iron oxides to iron below the temperatures experienced in a modern blast furnace process.

so, what percentage of CO is in "air".

[Senenmut]

jtl-

what do you think of the silicon rich microspheres?

from the thermitic paper:

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).

[jtl]

Quote:

Sunstealer: Unfortunately you have forgotten about the Direct Reduction method for producing iron from iron oxides. The reason for looking at such a method is the reduction in temperature required to produce iron (sponge iron) in comparison with the blast furnace which produces pig iron.

A reduction in heat required means less money spent on fuel which is why the direct reduction method has been studied.

Incidentally it's the method that has been predominantly used in man's history - research "Bloomery". That process of producing iron does not require the temperatures used in a blast furnace, nor does it require the addition of slag forming additives.

You still have nothing remotely like the DSC conditions and you don´t get the molten iron spheres.

"Bloomery" still needs about 1100 degrees air temp and prolonged exposure to carbon monoxide to work, all missing from the DSC.

Again it does NOT get you iron, you end up with "sponge iron" that is porous and filled with slag, prone to oxidation and ignition from air exposure. This is besides the fact that this "sponge iron" is not melted, so no spheres!

Quote:

Senenmut: so, what percentage of CO is in "air".

I think it is measured in parts per million not the 40 plus% Sunstealers graph requires, which by the way is for blast furnace not bloomery. Again nothing like the DSC conditions.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by jtl

Also, do you have any thoughts regarding XRD tests and vague results?

I do. Jones has shown very poor judgment abilities in interpreting data and results, so I say the announced results can't be trusted without looking at the XRD data. So, before admitting that the results are vague, let's push for him to publish them, shall we?

Originally Posted by Senenmut

so, what percentage of CO is in "air".

Wrong question. Let me ask you the right question: what percentage of CO results from the burning of epoxy?

[jtl]

Quote:

Senenmut: what do you think of the silicon rich microspheres

Interesting, have they been analyzed? Are these expected from burning paint?
What kinda temperature does it take?

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Wrong question. Let me ask you the right question: what percentage of CO results from the burning of epoxy?

your assuming jones chips are epoxy. the chart says at about 45-50% CO and it would have to be in about 0.25 atmospheres. good luck with that.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by jtl

Interesting, have they been analyzed? Are these expected from burning paint?
What kinda temperature does it take?

that is all the thermitic paper says about them. sunstealer thinks they are formed from the kaolin. i think that is completely false. all i can say about the temp is that they formed during the dsc experiment. that means up to 700C. millette thinks the matrix is epoxy while jones et al think the matrix is silicon and carbon. in millette's study, those spheres would have to form somehow from the kaolin. with jones' chips, i just wonder if there is a thermetic reaction with the silicon as well....the reason i say that is some indian head scientist have been coating AL with fluorine. i dont know if this can be done with silicon or not.

from indian heads research:
The self-assembled monolayer (SAM) coating serves two purposes 1) it passivates the Al and prevents oxidation of the particle in air and 2) it supplies an oxidizer, F, for the Al core. Interestingly, the material is insensitive to friction (BAM Friction: >360 N) impact, (ERL Impact: 320 cm) and only moderately ESD sensitive (ABL Electrostatic Discharge: 0.037 J). This is peculiar because nanoscale fuel/oxidizer combinations are typically extremely ESD sensitive.









i wonder is silicon is somehow passivating the al shell?? just something ive been thinking about.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Senenmut

that is all the thermitic paper says about them. sunstealer thinks they are formed from the kaolin. i think that is completely false. all i can say about the temp is that they formed during the dsc experiment. that means up to 700C. millette thinks the matrix is epoxy while jones et al think the matrix is silicon and carbon. in millette's study, those spheres would have to form somehow from the kaolin. with jones' chips, i just wonder if there is a thermetic reaction with the silicon as well....the reason i say that is some indian head scientist have been coating AL with fluorine. i dont know if this can be done with silicon or not.

from indian heads research:
The self-assembled monolayer (SAM) coating serves two purposes 1) it passivates the Al and prevents oxidation of the particle in air and 2) it supplies an oxidizer, F, for the Al core. Interestingly, the material is insensitive to friction (BAM Friction: >360 N) impact, (ERL Impact: 320 cm) and only moderately ESD sensitive (ABL Electrostatic Discharge: 0.037 J). This is peculiar because nanoscale fuel/oxidizer combinations are typically extremely ESD sensitive.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...5f2df6550f.jpg

i wonder is silicon is somehow passivating the al shell?? just something ive been thinking about.

Do the research. Why regurgitate nonsense from Jones' failed paper?

This is chemistry. Why do you ask questions you could look up on wiki? Silicon dioxide can be used as an oxidizer for the Al reaction. For 911 there was not thermite used to bring down the towers. I would be the dumbest substance to use, it leaves evidence. Evidence of thermite was not found after 911. Jones mentions thermite in 2005, and 911 truth is fooled by a delusional man.

Why does 911 truth apply Occam's razor back-wards?

We have office fires before the collapse, albeit inefficient, equal in heat energy to more than 2,500 tons of thermite. And we can ignore the heat energy in the jet fuel, it only comes to 630 tons of thermite in heat energy. Why can we ignore the jet fuel heat? Because the office fires are the bigger heat source. BINGO


Why does 911 truth accept a fantasy made up by Jones who is delusional on 911?

Thread topic, is Millette's paper which found no thermite. It is ironic the BS paper Jones did, has spectrum of elements that look like clay.

How do we get from no thermite, to discussing the process for some form of thermite which was not used on 911. Why do you fall for fantasy?

[Ivan Kminek]

Gyus: (In support of Sunstealer) As for potential low-temperature reduction of iron oxide, many months ago Morea inspired me to look at some possibilities as for reduction by carbon solid stuffs, not by gases like CO.
And I found so called carbothermic reductions, which are "introduced" in the Wiki by these words:

"Carbothermic reactions use carbon as reducing agent, usually for metal oxides. These chemical reactions are usually conducted at several hundreds of degree Celsius. Such processes are applied for production of the elemental forms of many elements.... Carbothermal reactions produce carbon monoxide and sometimes carbon dioxide....The most prominent example is that of iron ore smelting."

Although it does not mean some miraculous solution of our "matter" (formation of microspheres), we should not forget that when heating polymer binder, it is first transformed to graphitic soot/char, which has basically similar reduction properties as coal, coke, and similar forms of carbon.

We have anyway this image from Basile, which clearly shows that when the combustion of the chip is incomplete, dark/black soot/char is massively produced:



As I already wrote, I can easily imagine that in such system, some limited reduction or other transformation (some phase transitions) of iron oxide takes places basically in the absence (or partial absence) of air inside this dark object, especially at the boundary of red (now black) and gray layer. Processes inside the chip could be pretty complex in fact. In such a system with limited access of air, both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide can be formed by incomplete burning.

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by jtl

Ivan Kminek, please check out post 1649 which includes a link to my response to you that was moved, saying among other things:

Also, I would like you to respond to this comment from 1649:

Also, do you have any thoughts regarding XRD tests and vague results? Is it possible that those chips have a unusual or amorphous form of kaolin in case they are LaClede? What about Tnemec aluminum oxide, could it be an amorphous form? Could it have some sort of Si based coating, and could it be in the form of platelets? Can you think of anything to refute Jones´s idea of amorphous aluminum?

Jtl, after your post No 1637, I decided not to answer to you anymore. Why should I bother myself again with the another truther who e.g. wrote: „Harrit first uses DSC test to show that it is energetic because he replicates procedure by people that developed superthermite, so saying this is a useless test is absolute garbage.“?

This your sentence is the absolute garbage, according to me. Heating of chips under air would have some value, if it were accompanied by tests under inert. But heating test only under air is useless. Harrit et al knew very well (or they had to know) that carbon stuffs prevailed in their chips, therefore it was their scientific duty to perform tests also under inert, to rule out the e.g. paints as very apparent culprits. Their red/gray chips with prevailing organics were „miles away“ from quoted Tillotson „superthermite“, which contained only some traces (up to 10 %) of organics, formed during sol-gel proces. Moreover, these low molar mass organics had to quickly evaporate during heating of superthermite chips, leaving basically no organics at all.
Clearly, heating of WTC red/gray chips under air must be accompanied for sure by some exotherm of carbon stuff (polymer) burning, which part of this our claim you still do not understand?

But since you have asked me twice, I will repeat my asnwers from my previous posts, which you probably overlooked or did not understand or so.

„We are internet forum, not scientific commitee or so. I'm just trying to analyze available data, playing with them, having some rather strange fun with all this stuff, and learning some new things in material science, which is indeed good for my own carrier of polymer chemist.“
E.g., since Basile’s images are pretty messy, he did not really prove his claims by them, and I have indeed full right to have my own view. If Basile has some better data what exactly happened e.g. to gray layer in his chip Lucky Thirteen, he should provide us with them. Without them, no conclusion can be made.

As for Jones‘ chat about XRD, I already wrote you in my post 1563:
„I’m not sure if I understand. Jones ruled out kaolin for WHAT kind of chips? Do you know? If his chip for XRD measurements was Tnemec (or other paint… well, material different from Laclede), no wonder that Jones did not find kaolin(ite). Options are still the same (materials with kaolinite, and another materials without kaolinite.) No room for amorphous aluminium and other rather mystical stuffs."

Moreover, if Jones did not identified any aluminium stuff (including aluminium) in some (unknown) chip(s), isn’t it an evidence that such chip(s) cannot indeed be thermite (or at least aluminothermite)?

Anyway, Jones did not show us any real XRD, therefore this „info“ has zero value at present. There is no reason/way to analyze such data, since we do have any real data.

(Note: As for your sentence "What about Tnemec aluminum oxide, could it be an amorphous form", I already wrote you: there was no aluminum oxide in Tnemec, what are you talking about? Try to concentrate next time.)

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Not unspecified, just unavailable for free. From the paper

[...] paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 10¹⁰ ohm-m [31].

And reference [31] tells us what they compared it to:

[31] Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6): 381-8.
Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/1280440604.html

It costs $25 to download, which I didn't do. But the abstract mentions it refers to a zinc-ferrite pigment and:

The prepared pigment was incorporated in some paint formulations. Physical, chemical and mechanical properties of the formulated paint films were studied and also tested for corrosion resistance.

Alas, in order to know the details of what they compared the resistivity to, one needs to purchase the article. I, for one, am curious, but not $25-curious.

Pgimeno: Here at work this paper is available for me, but some tables are almost unreadable.

- There is anyway a (not well readable) Table V with specific electrical resistivities of composites made using two polymer binders: chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin.

- It is written that "The electrical resistivity was measured on a Keithley 617 electrometer at room temperature," i.e. by simple two probe method.

- The pigments to binder ratios were from 1:1 to 2:1.

- Pigments were China clay, iron oxide and the special pigment prepared by heating of ferrite and zinc oxide .

- Specific resistivities were from ca 10x10^-10 to 10x10^-14 Ohm/cm (probably), which is basically in accordance with the range of resistivities of pure insulating polymers.

Btw, I've just tried to measure the resistivity of my Laclede imitation chip, using simple two probe method (two strips of silver paste were first applied to make good contacts, their distance was ca 3 mm). But, for my multimeter Agilent U1242A, the resistance is too high (not measurable).

Anyway, my claim that Harrit et al did not refer to some specified materials when comparing the electrical resistivity was basically wrong, I repeat. Mea culpa

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Pgimeno: Here at work this paper is available for me, but some tables are almost unreadable.

Wow, thank you, Ivan.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

- Specific resistivities were from ca 10x10^-10 to 10x10^-14 Ohm/cm (probably), which is basically in accordance with the range of resistivities of pure insulating polymers.

Are you sure about the negative exponent? 10x10^-10 means 10^-9 ohm·cm i.e. 10^-7 ohm·m. That's very low resistivity, in the range of iron according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ious_materials.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Pgimeno: Here at work this paper is available for me, but some tables are almost unreadable.

- There is anyway a (not well readable) Table V with specific electrical resistivities of composites made using two polymer binders: chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin.

- It is written that "The electrical resistivity was measured on a Keithley 617 electrometer at room temperature," i.e. by simple two probe method.

- The pigments to binder ratios were from 1:1 to 2:1.

- Pigments were China clay, iron oxide and the special pigment prepared by heating of ferrite and zinc oxide .

- Specific resistivities were from ca 10x10^-10 to 10x10^-14 Ohm/cm (probably), which is basically in accordance with the range of resistivities of pure insulating polymers.

Btw, I've just tried to measure the resistivity of my Laclede imitation chip, using simple two probe method (two strips of silver paste were first applied to make good contacts, their distance was ca 3 mm). But, for my multimeter Agilent U1242A, the resistance is too high (not measurable).

Anyway, my claim that Harrit et al did not refer to some specified materials when comparing the electrical resistivity was basically wrong, I repeat. Mea culpa

I suggest that we move a lot of the recent discussion to a thread specifically on the Harrit/Jones paper, as many of the issues just don't apply to Millette's study (and should not).

However, some ad-hoc comments:

• Just so I understand you correctly: Did they measure a composite made of chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin, and separately measure a paint with 2:1-1:1 pigments and (unnamed) binder? Or was that a paint with 50-67% pigments and 33-50% chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin?
• China clay is kaolin, so they happen to have LaClede's main pigments, plus their special pigment. Any proportions of these pigments given?

It's all rather pointless of course, in the Jones paper, as he has not characterized the chip they tested in any way beyond saying it's mostly red layer and little gray layer, and (presumably) attracted by a magnet. We don't know if it's a LaClede chip, a Tnemec chip, some other paint, or even some non-paint material (Frank Greening, in a mail to me about a year ago, suggested some material used on the contacts of electric engines, such as are used to spin hard drives).

Also, that chip he measured was possibly unwashed - on page 9, they write (in the context of SEM studies) that "samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified". Since in the paragraphs on resistivity measurement, page 27, there is no mention of washing of any kind, it stands to reason that this chip, too, may have been left unwashed. Not sure how surface contamination might influence resistivity, but the potential is there.

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Wow, thank you, Ivan.

Are you sure about the negative exponent? 10x10^-10 means 10^-9 ohm·cm i.e. 10^-7 ohm·m. That's very low resistivity, in the range of iron according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ious_materials.

Sorry for the mistake, pgimeno, the exponents should be indeed positive

Anyway, it seems that measured difference between resistivities of some red/gray chips and some formulations close to paints in the paper (they were not commercial paints) is really very high, many orders of magnitude, (10 Ohms/m for chips vs ca 10¹⁰ Ohm/m).

Here, we have basically two possibilities:
1) Chips contained some really highly conductive stuff, e.g. aluminum. Its specific resistivity is ca 3x10^-8 (minus is OK here), so almost about twenty orders higher than that of usual polymer binders!

2) Measurements in Bentham paper were not correct. Authors wrote "We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side)", so there is some possibility that this gray layer contributed substantially to the conductivity. E.g., magnetite has specific resistance ca 1-3x10^-4 Ohm/m, which is pretty high conductivity.

And now: we know from XEDS spectra that chips contained only little of some Al stuffs, so it is really difficult to predict if such hypothetical chips (with metallic aluminum instead of kaolinite) could have such a high conductivity/low resistivity like those described in Bentham paper. The resistivity would depend on many factors, starting with the exact concentration of Al and the shape of its particles (which should be mutually in some contact to conduct electricity).

Paints with powdered/flaked metallic aluminum are pretty common on the market (they are used as "metallic paints" in many branches, namely in car industry), so it would be good to find some data on their resistivities.
I've tried to find some data, with no success so far...

Anyway, this is also an issue which had not been solved yet. But, if Harrit et al measured just only one chip, the second possibility I mentioned above is very probable. I think.

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein, pgimeno:
I've finally succeeded in opening much better pdf file and here are relevant tables IV and V. (The preparation of their special pigment made of ferrite and zinc oxide is roughly described in the abstract):

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I suggest that we move a lot of the recent discussion to a thread specifically on the Harrit/Jones paper, as many of the issues just don't apply to Millette's study (and should not).

Seconded.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

2) Measurements in Bentham paper were not correct. Authors wrote "We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side)", so there is some possibility that this gray layer contributed substantially to the conductivity.

Indeed. Only by testing a red layer completely free of gray layer can the measurements be taken seriously. Another inconclusive test (not to mention the failure to present any analysis of the tested chip).

If the gray layer is scarce but there is enough as to be roughly connected, then what they would be measuring is the resistance between each of the probes and the gray layer (given by the thickness of the red layer), plus the resistivity of the gray layer. The current always finds its way through the path of least resistance (something the truthers are very familiar with )

The distance between the probes and the gray layer is likely diminished by making pressure with the probe, especially if it has a sharp tip, which it probably has in order to measure such a tiny chip. It's probably in the micrometers or nanometers range, if not contacting it directly, thus invalidating any measurement of distance between the probes. Yes, quite possibly up to 10 orders of magnitude.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Oystein, pgimeno:
I've finally succeeded in opening much better pdf file and here are relevant tables IV and V. (The preparation of their special pigment made of ferrite and zinc oxide is roughly described in the abstract):

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=7309

Than you very much, Ivan. The pigments might make a difference, who knows; anyway it seems they might not be comparing apples to pears in this instance. However, not having any analysis of the measured chip makes this impossible to determine.