View Single Post
Old 13th March 2012, 11:48 AM   #77
Penultimate Amazing
Oystein's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,715
Oh they are reading what we write hehehe

Hey, ScootleRoyale, I got some questions for you, Harrit, Jones:
  • The Bentham paper says they were doing FTIR analysis on the chips and would show the results elsewhere. Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
  • Harrit and Jones have said on several occasions that Farrer did TEM analysis on the particles in the red layer. They identified hematite (in particle sizes of 100-300nm a very common pignent, see McCrone, Delly: The Particle Atlas, Volume III, Edition Two, page 763, "Paint chips") Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
  • Aren't you a bit suspicious that they did those tests, but never showed any results? Would be so nice to compare them Millette's...

ETA Oh dear they ARE responding directly to this - and make fools of themselves:

Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
An XEDS spectrum was acquired prior to soaking (Figure 14), and the authors concluded based on that that it was a red/gray chip.
Alright, ScootleRoyale, let's compare the XEDS spectra.
Here's chips (a)-(d):

Please notice the similarities:
  • All are dominated by C (second highest peak is O at 13-35% of C, average 27%)
  • All have O as second highest peak (except (d), where O is barely beaten by Si)
  • Very important: All have nearly equal peaks for Al and Si (Si slightly higher in 3 of 4)
  • All have Fe at roughly 2/3 the peak hight of Si.
  • None contain Zn, none contain Mg, only one contains labeled traces of other elements (although more traces are actually there: Cr, Sr, Ti...)
In addition to all these similarities, Harrit show more proof that they are probably all the same material:
  • Fig. 2 shows photographs - color and finish appear the same on all four chips
  • Fig 5 shows BSE images of the red layers with scale bars of 5-10 Ám. All four chips appear to have the same kinds of particles in about the same density embedded into a similar looking kind of matrix
  • Fig 6 shows XEDS graphs for the four gray layers: They are all very similar in that they have large O- and Fe-peaks, small C-peaks (and also 3 of the 4 have a tiny, unlabeled signal for Mn))
  • Fig 8 shows higher magnification BSE images of all four chips - again we see the same kinds of whitish, rhombic grains and greyish platelets, which are sometimes stacked
So yes, indeed, these 4 chips have been shown by Harrit to very probably be the sane material.

Now on to Fig 14:

Let's see if we find the same similarities:
  • Dominated by C? No. O is the highest peak
  • O follows in second place? No. See above. O is 166% of instead of 27%, or ~6 times too high
  • Si and Al have about same peak hight? No. Si is nearly twice as high as Al
  • Fe has about 2/3 the peak height of Si (or Al)? No. Fe is higher than both Al and Si
  • Zn and Mg are absent? No. Both are present (Mg is the peak between the first Zn and Al. You might want to ask Harrit why he didn't label it, it is clearly there. Don't you suspect fraud?)
  • All other elements are traces at most? No. Ca is the second highest peak and very dominant.
So in fact this XEDS graph is different from the graphs of chips (a)-(d) in every single way!
And you say they concluded from THIS that it was the same??? Honestly??

But let's go on - what other data do we have to confirm that this MEK chip is the same as (a)-(d)?
  • Photograph: Fig 13 is totally out of focus. We see it's red, bit we can't assess finish or hue due to bad quality
  • BSE-images: None. No way to tell if the same grains and platelets are present. However, Fig 12b allows us to at least assess the thickness of the red layer: It is here some 300Ám thick - after swelling to about 5 times its former size due to MEK soaking. So that layer was initially about 60Ám. We can measure the thickness of the red layer for chips (a) and (b) in Fig. 5a+b, and for chip (d) in Fig. 2d: Betweem 15 and 30Ám. Much thinner.
  • XEDS-graph of gray layer: Missing

So my claim was correct: There is not a single measurement of the MEK chip that allows us to compare it to chips (a)-(d) and conclude it's the same material. The only two measurements that allow such a comparison, the XEDS spectrum and layer thickness, have results that significantly differ from each other.
Conclusion: The MEK chip is a different material.

Now some claim that perhaps the XEDS in Fig 14 is contaminated with gypsum, i.e. calcium sulfide. Problem with that: Gypsum has an S-peak that is equal to and sometimes higher than Ca-peak. In Fig 14 however, Ca is 3x S. So if you remove the S and say it's gypsum, then you are still left with 2/3 of the Ca, with no explanation! Ca peak is then still higher than Fe, higher than Al, higher than Si! What else do you want to remove then from the graph? Perhaps some clacium silicate? Let's try! Let's reduce the Si peak down to the hight of the Al peak, and pretend that this takes care of the rest of the Ca. Then your Fe-peak is suddenly quite dominant: 266% of the Al peak, instead of only 66%! So now you nee to take off 75% of all the iron to fix that problem. And you are still left with unwanted Zn and Mg.

Basically, to use "contamination" to explain why Fig 14 is so very different from Fig. 7, you need to remove
  • >80% of the oxygen (highest peak)
  • all of the major metal (calcium, 2nd highest peak)
  • 75% of the iron(4th highest peak)
  • 50% of the silicone (5th-highest peak)
  • all of the sulfur (6th-highest peak)
  • all of the Zn
  • all of the Mg
  • most of the Cr
In other words: With the exception of Al and C, you must declare more than 50% of everything in this chip to be "contamination".

Wow. What a handwave Harrit, Jones and Farrer tried there! And ScootleRoyale apparently fell for it!

Last edited by Oystein; 13th March 2012 at 12:51 PM.
Oystein 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