Enough about "nano" being used as a crutch! How many times are we going to have to beat this into the ground?? Nanothermite
is thermite, it's just been processed to a finer degree! Nothing - I say again,
nothing - about processing changes the energetic property of the reactants!
Does "nano"wood ground to a sandlike state have any more joules/calories/BTU/whatever per gram than wood planks or logs? Does "nano"gasoline have any more heat per unit of mass because it's in smaller drops than gasoline in a cup? No! So why in God's name do we try to handwave the energy differences away with that stupid, ridiculous "It's
nanothermite" argument?
Once again: The energy available in a ferrous-oxide/aluminum reduction-oxidation reaction is the same
regardless of how fine the individual reactants are ground! What about the fact that this mysterious "nano" property is supposed to change the basic energy available in the redox reaction? And what about the fact that it's some "nano" material is supposed to change the
activation energy? Does anyone here advocating this paper even
know what "
activation energy" is without clicking on either of these links??
Waving the prefix "nano" around like a talisman does
not hide the fact that the substance Jones et. al. has tested is
not thermite. It's not "nano" thermite, it's not "super" thermite. He's
not seeing a rust-aluminum redox reaction! That's
basic! When a liquid freezes at some different temperature than 32
oF (0
oC), do we try to pass it off as "super-water"? Or do we do reach
basic intelligent conclusion and realize we're not dealing with water??
Gaaaaah... I can't
believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges,
NO. They are
NOT!