View Single Post
Old 27th July 2014, 02:15 PM   #4671
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It might be easier to satisfy your question if you made it clearer that you understand what it is that you are asking.

The document you keep referring to without knowledgeable explanation shows no disagreement with the 2009 Bentham paper.

If you look at Table 3 for example, you will see all the different reaction products, which are most notably very diverse.

Of particular interest is that most often the intermetallic compound FeAl2O4 is there, so the aluminum does not necessarily have to end up as Al2O3.
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Where is the Al in the Bentham paper ?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Which part of where is the Al in the 2009 Bentham paper don't you understand ?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
I admit I am no expert in thermite (unlike yourself ) please school me with your expertise.
I make no claim regarding such expertise. If you can show me the error in my understanding, feel free to do so.

You can obtain a copy of the 2009 Bentham paper here;

http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Dr. Harritīs paper has been available for reading for more than five years now, and the numerous graphs and figures are quite easy to read and understand, for most people.

The aluminum in the chips before ignition can be seen seen in figure 7.

The finding of elemental aluminum is shown in figure 17.

The aluminum in the post ignition residue is quite clearly shown in figures 25 and 26.

I am really surprised that this "no aluminum" statement is being raised. Even Oystein and Sunstealer never attempted to pretend that no aluminum can be found in Harritīs paper.

What they did try and do was claim figure 17 showed aluminum in a chip that did not match the others, and, that Harrit did not prove a thermite reaction because he does not prove that the aluminum in figures 25 and 26 is in the form of Al2O3 aluminum oxide.

Your linked paper (http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf), provides an effective debunking of that argument by showing that the aluminum in the residue does NOT have to be in the form of Al2O3, because it can be found in aluminum-iron-oxygen compounds.

This bears particular consideration when you look at figures 25 and 26.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top