ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories , Bentham journals , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , steven jones , thermite

Reply
Old 23rd April 2009, 05:35 PM   #121
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Tons of molten metal at GZ! many evidences also from previous Jones studies
www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

F H-C
Did you know each jet aircraft had lots of these on it? These were all crammed into the corner in one of the WTC towers. They have caused jet aircraft to crash when shipped improperly. So there are possible source for making fires to make aluminum and office contents spew out the corner without thermite being planted to kill Americans.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Tons of molten metal? Where is it? Do you have pictures of tons of molten metal?
Quote:

Did high pressures (in the explosions) and temperatures trigger new physics phenomena ?

What does this mean with respect to what?
Do you really think a new physics phenomena was in action at the WTC?
Are you serious?

None of the steel holding up the WTC was touched or heated by thermite. There is zero evidence and the dust from the WTC is not evidence of thermite being planted at the WTC.

In your paper.
Quote:


Sol-gels method is not only a way to gain power but also enables an accurate control of the reaction power. The spray applying is a known technology ==> the nano-thermitic layer could heat the steel columns very efficiently. The reaction produced liquid iron. Explosions dispersed it producing myriad of these iron microspheres we observe in the WTC dust.


Why did this thermite fail to burn in the WTC? You know you are claiming this stuff is some nano-thermitic stuff and it has a propensity to burn to completion, not float away. Oh, the one of the thousands of remote triggers never found in the WTC failed?

How thick would it have to be?
How much thermite would be used?
Who did it and why?
Why where there 19 terrorists?

The office fires in the WTC were large and on multiple floors; how much heat energy was released by the WTC fires and how much thermite would it take to equal each fire?

How much thermite would be needed to equal the heat in 66,000 pounds of Jet fuel?

I need to know these things so I can see if your ideas on thermite pass the common sense test.

So the kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel injected by terrorist with a plane impact.

And the kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the office fires in the WTC towers.

Why did the 19 terrorist plant thermite when the aircraft impacts were enough to make their points? They painted the WTC steel? You implied it, now explain it?

Your study shows the dust was not thermite but you are willing to explain away all the contaminates and claim thermite? Why do you do this? What is the bias that makes you ignore your own findings of no thermite in the dust? You got some neat rust samples.

What did they treat the welds in the WTC steel with?
beachnut 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
Old 24th April 2009, 02:27 AM   #122
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post

Could you explain the term "projection" please. Is that a term meaning that the gray layer is there to stop material (of the red layer) from being ejected away from the steel surface during the thermite reaction? If that is the case then you are suggesting that the "gray layer" is the outside surface and the red layer is "sandwiched" between it and the steel?
Yes
The photo from the article with two red layers strongly suggest that it was applied in multilayers thus could reach millimeters in thickness
the ration between the inert and activ part allows to tune accurately the power of the reaction.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Can you comment on my post where I show that there is a high degree of correlation with this gray layer and a layer of oxidised steel as shown in the Limited Metallurgical Examination for FEMA? I am convinced that the gray layer is oxidised steel which has spalled (come away) from the steel's surface. See previous posts.
Yes but Possible only for the last gray layer of a multilayer. Certainly not possible for the gray layer found in between two red layers!
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Firstly we observe next to no Suphur in the red layers of samples a,b,c,d as evidenced by Fig 7. Has Jones not found thermate?

In Fig 14 we do observe Sulphur, which is dismissed as a possible contaminant too, but given that so many other elements are observed this cannot be dismissed.

In your own examination of the red layer you say that the S and Ca are contamination on pages 14 & 15 (and again in the gray layer pages 16,17 & 18). If one is expecting thermate to be (one of) the material(s) then why do you dismiss Sulphur as a contaminant?
I didnt mean that the thermate was the redchips. It would make no sense to apply thermate at the surface of a column since the melting effect would only be superficial. As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Dr Greening has performed calculations to show that steel would only be heated by 8C based on the thickness of the red layer observed. How can such a thin layer of thermite possibly contain enough energy to heat a steel section 5mm in thickness let alone more to it's melting point? (5000 times thicker than 10m)

Could you produce a calculation to show if it's possible or not? (He's a physicist so i think it is a reasonable question).
But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500C 8 times this thickness of steel) add this to the already hundred of degrees from the WTC fires, also take into account that the bigger columns were cutted by thermate charges so the remaning ones were overloaded and you can insure the failure!...as if it was natural...as if it were produced by the fires alone!
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Yes I understand. Have a quick look at the spectra produced from the FEMA report, notably the oxide layer and compare it with the gray layers in samples a,b,c,d. I've done that in post #92 above. This also highlights issues with the lack of Sulphur in Jones' samples and the often made claims that Sulphur in the Fe-O-S eutectic comes from the material Jones has found.
nothing to do with the redchips! no sulfur in them , i agree.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Thanks - this was brought to my attention by another member of JREF and the link was posted in the original 40+ page thread that got closed. My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)
Thanks.
This new link is an english version! aspirateur means vacuum cleaner in french
because some of our dust was collected in an appartment with a vacuum cleaner . But here the label is not meaningful since the redchip is not from this sample... i can recover the numbers but they will tell you nothing interesting!
henryco 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
Old 24th April 2009, 03:22 AM   #123
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.
This is a gross misrepresentation of an observation which has already been explained by other means. It's perfectly clear to anyone not playing semantic games with the words used in newspaper articles that (a) the material in which sulphur was detected were not "previously molten metal" but a slag containing iron sulphate and iron oxide, which would be expected to melt at a much lower temperature than steel, and that (b) thermal decomposition of the gypsum wallboard in the rubble pile was a much more likely source of sulphur than a thermite reaction. Even Steven Jones is now claiming that sulphur in his samples originates from wallboard rather than thermate.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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
Old 24th April 2009, 04:24 AM   #124
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,283
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500C 8 times this thickness of steel) ....
Then please present your calculations.
GlennB 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
Old 24th April 2009, 05:27 AM   #125
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This is a gross misrepresentation of an observation which has already been explained by other means. It's perfectly clear to anyone not playing semantic games with the words used in newspaper articles that (a) the material in which sulphur was detected were not "previously molten metal" but a slag containing iron sulphate and iron oxide, which would be expected to melt at a much lower temperature than steel, and that (b) thermal decomposition of the gypsum wallboard in the rubble pile was a much more likely source of sulphur than a thermite reaction. Even Steven Jones is now claiming that sulphur in his samples originates from wallboard rather than thermate.

Dave
Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

Fred
henryco 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
Old 24th April 2009, 05:47 AM   #126
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks
As an aside before you leave, what do you think is the reason that so many scientists take issue with Jones' findings?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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
Old 24th April 2009, 05:48 AM   #127
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.
That is not the conclusion of the experts who have studied this phenomenon. The statement "the rest was of course molten" is unfounded; the explanation offered is one of corrosion by sulphur-rich slag, which would mean that the missing material was dissolved rather than melted. What has also never been observed, it should also be pointed out, is a melting process which gives the results seen in these specific steel members; in particular, thinning of edges to near-razor sharpness is strong and almost incontravertible evidence against melting, which will tend to produce rounded edges through the action of surface tension. Therefore, there is no good reason to conclude that these steel members were subjected to temperatures above the melting point of steel.

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).
This is simply untrue. The object referred to as a meteorite has, clearly and visibly, undeformed reinforcement bars projecting from it, with the spiral ridges on their surface still intact. Again, this is clear and incontravertible evidence that they have not melted.

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post).
No evidence has been advanced that any such event occurred. The microspheres are described as iron-rich, but are clearly not iron, and from the analysis results have not been shown not to be iron oxide microspheres similar to a familiar and well-known by-product of hydrocarbon combustion.

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed.
If you choose to close the debate without having addressed these serious counter-arguments then you are in effect conceding.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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
Old 24th April 2009, 06:03 AM   #128
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

Fred
Please consider at least informing us how (or if) you plan to test the chips more thoroughly. While you, personally, may not have access to the proper facilities, surely if you make an effort you can find somebody who will have the requisite facilities and expertise. A closely related question is: "What (if anything) are you, the Harrit team, or any other group researching the chips doing to make your findings known to the relevant scientific communities?" I realize promoting one's research isn't the norm, but publishing in a journal (Bentham) which has been around less than 2 years is basically a guarantee that almost nobody in that field (Physical Chemistry) will see the Harrit paper, unless they're attention is directed to it. Would it not make sense for you to hand-deliver or snail-mail the paper to some physical chemists in France, and at least ask them for some private feedback?

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics. So, if you do not want to reply to this post at JREF, I completely understand, but please consider doing so at the911forum.freeforums.org.
metamars 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
Old 24th April 2009, 06:18 AM   #129
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Yes
The photo from the article with two red layers strongly suggest that it was applied in multilayers thus could reach millimeters in thickness
the ration between the inert and activ part allows to tune accurately the power of the reaction.
When? in 1971? or later UNDER the existing fireproofing which according to documents was never removed during the lifetime of the buildings.
Quote:

I didnt mean that the thermate was the redchips. It would make no sense to apply thermate at the surface of a column since the melting effect would only be superficial. As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.
thermate is NOT an explosive, therefore, cannot be used as a "cutter charge" unless you are claiming a melting charge on a vertical member. Such a device never existed. The reacting thermate cannot hold itself against the vertical member and remain in contact with the surface during the reaction.
Quote:

But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500C 8 times this thickness of steel) add this to the already hundred of degrees from the WTC fires, also take into account that the bigger columns were cutted by thermate charges so the remaning ones were overloaded and you can insure the failure!...as if it was natural...as if it were produced by the fires alone!
You are going to have to show your calculations. And also what "given thickness"??
Quote:

This new link is an english version! aspirateur means vacuum cleaner in french
because some of our dust was collected in an appartment with a vacuum cleaner
. But here the label is not meaningful since the redchip is not from this sample... i can recover the numbers but they will tell you nothing interesting!
Are you serious? A vacuum cleaner? Along with the cat hair? Soiled carpet? Pollen? And other possible contaminates from the atmosphere as well as carbon from the brushes of the vacuum motor itself? This method of collection does not concern you? Is this a joke? Why was this particular sample even mentioned? It should have been discarded and ignored along with all the other 5 year old samples.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Dont get me loln off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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
Old 24th April 2009, 06:22 AM   #130
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics.
There is nothing dishonest about the criticism many of us are levelling at Steven Jones's work. I suspect that, as long as he persists in drawing unwarranted conclusions from his findings, that his attitude will be the one that prevents any meeting of the minds.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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
Old 24th April 2009, 06:49 AM   #131
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)

Thanks.
As I demonstrated in that thread, that got closed. Put it through google translator.It works pretty darn good.
http://translate.google.com/
Dog Town 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
Old 24th April 2009, 07:25 AM   #132
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Please consider at least informing us how (or if) you plan to test the chips more thoroughly. While you, personally, may not have access to the proper facilities, surely if you make an effort you can find somebody who will have the requisite facilities and expertise. A closely related question is: "What (if anything) are you, the Harrit team, or any other group researching the chips doing to make your findings known to the relevant scientific communities?" I realize promoting one's research isn't the norm, but publishing in a journal (Bentham) which has been around less than 2 years is basically a guarantee that almost nobody in that field (Physical Chemistry) will see the Harrit paper, unless they're attention is directed to it. Would it not make sense for you to hand-deliver or snail-mail the paper to some physical chemists in France, and at least ask them for some private feedback?

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics. So, if you do not want to reply to this post at JREF, I completely understand, but please consider doing so at the911forum.freeforums.org.
You're kidding me. You received highly valid and legitimate criticisms about the paper, and your conclusion is that they're not "honest"?

Jesus.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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
Old 24th April 2009, 01:33 PM   #133
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects.
I fully understand. I very much appreciate (and I hope others do too) you posting here and answering questions in a different language to French. I hope you continue to read the thread and post especially seeing as you have directly examined a sample.

If I may ask just two more things concerning your SEM analysis at

The general SEM photos - page 13, have markers (aspiro 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33) identifying where each XEDS analysis was performed. However, the spectra do not have the corresponding identification, because the pdf file cuts them off - see red arrows - see below. Would you mind labelling the spectra if it wasn't much trouble? That would help hugely because I have a question about the layers.



In the photo below I see 3 different layers - marked 1,2,3. You mention the red (rouge) and dark (sombre) layers. Is layer 3 the same material as layer 2? Layer 3 looks more crystalline and metallic with a "fibrous" appearance as seen on the surface of a ductile fracture (the same as a "cup and cone" fracture of a ductile material) than layer 2.



Thanks very much for your help.
Sunstealer 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
Old 25th April 2009, 01:57 AM   #134
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
a very interesting paper :

Incorporation of kaolin fillers into an epoxy/polyamidoamine matrix for coatings
A. Astruca, E. Joliff a, J.-F. Chailana,∗, E. Aragona, C.O. Petterb, C.H. Sampaiob, Progress in Organic Coatings 65 (2009) 158168

Sory but I can't insert images (12 post only for me !!)
moorea34 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
Old 25th April 2009, 02:32 AM   #135
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
For all the DSC curves concerning Al-nano-thermite (not anly with Fe2O3 but also with Mo or Cu) we can note an endothermic peak at 660C, the melting of Al...

Where is this peak on Jones' graphs, fig 29 ?
Unfortunately (?) the red curve is cuted before, at 600C ....



Source...

Dependence of size and size distribution on reactivity of aluminum
nanoparticles in reactions with oxygen and MoO3 Juan Suna, Michelle L. Pantoya b, Sindee L. Simona,∗ Thermochimica Acta 444 (2006) 117–127


Thermite reactions of Al/Cu core-shell nanocomposites with WO3
Yi Wang a, Wei Jiang a, Zhipeng Chenga, Weifan Chenb, Chongwei Ana,
Xiaolan Songa, Fengsheng Li a,∗ Thermochimica Acta 463 (2007) 69–76


Characterizing Energy Transfer using an Infrared Camera from a Reacting Nano -Composite Thermite Embedded in a Steel Target by Charles Crane, B.S.M.E. A Thesis In MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Other very interessant paper : Metal-based reactive nanomaterials
Edward L. Dreizin*, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 35 (2009) 141–167
(For the pictures of nano-Al very diferent than 'red chips' ones)


The peak for red chips are not very powerfull... You have DSC curves for Coal and sludges here :
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 86 (2006) 2, 489–495
SIMULTANEOUS THERMOGRAVIMETRIC-MASS SPECTROMETRIC STUDY ON THE CO-COMBUSTION OF COAL AND SEWAGE SLUDGES M. Otero1, M. E. Snchez2, A. I. Garca2 and A. Morn2*


May be pictures later...
moorea34 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
Old 25th April 2009, 03:19 AM   #136
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
I have sent an e-mail to authors of Incorporation of kaolin fillers into an epoxy/polyamidoamine matrix for coatings (french researchers)

I'll give you the result
moorea34 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
Old 25th April 2009, 07:08 AM   #137
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
I've found the paper of Tillotsom (red curve on fig 29 of Jones' paper). The DSC curve realy stop at 600C.
moorea34 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
Old 25th April 2009, 10:42 AM   #138
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
For all the DSC curves concerning Al-nano-thermite (not anly with Fe2O3 but also with Mo or Cu) we can note an endothermic peak at 660C, the melting of Al...

Where is this peak on Jones' graphs, fig 29 ?
Unfortunately (?) the red curve is cuted before, at 600C ....
Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves, p. 199 (p. 220, total) in Granier's dissertation, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES, shows peaks from 511 C to 525 C (the green, 20 Kpm peak is off the chart), and onset from 419.4 C to 451 C.

I don't see any endotherms, at all.


Notice that Harrit's peak is at ~ 430 C - if their sample is, indeed, nanothermite, it appears that the morphology has made the oxide layer easier to crack, apparently at about the same temperature as what I'll presume are defective spherical oxide shells, would crack at.

I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?
metamars 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
Old 25th April 2009, 11:28 AM   #139
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
You will find some pictures here ...

http://www.bastison.net/ALCHIMIE/alchimie.html#B9



The text is in french but I've kept the legends...
moorea34 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
Old 26th April 2009, 02:00 AM   #140
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That is not the conclusion of the experts who have studied this phenomenon. The statement "the rest was of course molten" is unfounded; the explanation offered is one of corrosion by sulphur-rich slag, which would mean that the missing material was dissolved rather than melted. What has also never been observed, it should also be pointed out, is a melting process which gives the results seen in these specific steel members; in particular, thinning of edges to near-razor sharpness is strong and almost incontravertible evidence against melting, which will tend to produce rounded edges through the action of surface tension.
I am blessed with the ability to look at an object from several different perspectives at once. As a fire fighter, I saw nothing about the "Swiss cheese" steel to indicate that thermnite or explosives had been used.

As a construction worker (on rare enough occassion these day, as I approach 63) I fdind nothing at all surprising about the styeel's being scattered on the ground after such a fire.

As an artist, the surfaces exposed by the "melting" of the Swiss cheese looks like some of the metal over which I had poured fuming nitric acid to etch patterns into the surface.

Of course, on the pile, there would be little if any nitric acid, but, with all those computer banks, I anm sure there were great amounts of sulphuric acid. Sulphuric acid and steel are strange in that they reeact best when the acid is somewhat diluted.

Well, DUH!
leftysergeant 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
Old 26th April 2009, 02:59 AM   #141
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
I have a short question regarding Jones' paper:

He (they...) go on about how the samples were collected just after the attacks. However, none of the samples were handled by people who know how to handle samples until some five to seven years after the event:

  • Sample one was given to Jones november 15, 2007
  • Sample two february 2, 2008
  • Sample threee. also february 2, 2008
  • Sample flour, november 2006.
Now its been a few years since I did any paper-writing but to me this sounds like a serious breach of protocol. Plus the fact that since the samples were collected by individuals and sent to Jones, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of the composition of the entire complex. None the less, they find nanothermite in one hundred procent of the samples. What are the odds of that?
Panoply_Prefect 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
Old 26th April 2009, 09:33 AM   #142
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves, p. 199 (p. 220, total) in Granier's dissertation, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES, shows peaks from 511 C to 525 C (the green, 20 Kpm peak is off the chart), and onset from 419.4 C to 451 C.

I don't see any endotherms, at all.


Notice that Harrit's peak is at ~ 430 C - if their sample is, indeed, nanothermite, it appears that the morphology has made the oxide layer easier to crack, apparently at about the same temperature as what I'll presume are defective spherical oxide shells, would crack at.

I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?
What's this ?

Nouvelle image.jpg
moorea34 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
Old 26th April 2009, 11:07 AM   #143
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves, p. 199 (p. 220, total) in Granier's dissertation, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES, shows peaks from 511 C to 525 C (the green, 20 Kpm peak is off the chart), and onset from 419.4 C to 451 C.

I don't see any endotherms, at all.
I need to clarify or correct this. There are no peaks of negative magnitude (which are readily observable in other aluminothermic DSC's). However, there are dips approaching 660, such that the DSC plot is still positive in magnitude, which I can observe for 3 of the 5 readings (done at different Kelvins per minute). The data for the 20 Kpm plot terminates before 660, but it's magnitude is almost zero far from 660 - make of that what you will.

There's a very obvious dependence of existence/magnitude/sign of endotherms in Granier's DSC plots on Al size. Viz., the smaller the Al size, the less of an endotherm at 660, which can't even be seen for the case of 50 nm Al, 5 Kpm (though that may be because of obstruction by the other plots). This is to be expected, since the main reaction exotherm shifts from after the Al melting endotherm to before the Al melting endotherm. If you consume your Al at a temperature lower than it takes to melt it, it's simply not going to be there (in elemental form) to create an endotherm.

Also, for the smaller Al nanothermites, a dip at 660 C does not make the sample, as a whole, have a negative reading.

You can see this for yourself by studying the following in Granier:

p. 199 (220 total) has DSC for 50 nm Al + MoO3
p. 200 (221 total) has DSC for 80 nm Al + MoO3
p. 201 (222 total) has DSC for 120 nm Al + MoO3
p. 202 (223 total) has DSC for 1-3μm Al + MoO3
p. 204 (225 total) has DSC for 3-4μm Al + MoO3

It's certainly plausible that for 10 and 20μm-Al, which Granier worked with but doesn't show DSC's for, that the there is no noticeable dip at 660 C.

Quote:
I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?
This should have been:

I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?


===================

Figure E.1a 50nm Al + O2 DSC/TGA Curves (5Kpm), in Granier p. 174 (p 195, total) shows no exotherm at 660, at all. Apparently, gaseous O2 allows for a more thorough burning of Al. As the Harrit DSC was done in air, the oxygen present may have obliterated any chance to observe even a miniscule dip at 660 C.


===================

I hadn't noticed this, earlier, but Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves on p. 199 gives values for energy density for the same type of Al + MoO3 aluminothermic which varies by a factor of close to 2 - viz., 1885 J/g, 2016 J/g, 2354 J/g, and 3276 J/g. The only variable was temperature rate increase.
metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 02:39 AM   #144
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Figure E.1a 50nm Al + O2 DSC/TGA Curves (5Kpm), in Granier p. 174 (p 195, total) shows no exotherm at 660, at all. .
This should have been:

Figure E.1a 50nm Al + O2 DSC/TGA Curves (5Kpm), in Granier p. 174 (p 195, total) shows no endotherm at 660, at all.

metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 03:34 AM   #145
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by metamars View Post

There's a very obvious dependence of existence/magnitude/sign of endotherms in Granier's DSC plots on Al size. Viz., the smaller the Al size, the less of an endotherm at 660, which can't even be seen for the case of 50 nm Al, 5 Kpm (though that may be because of obstruction by the other plots). This is to be expected, since the main reaction exotherm shifts from after the Al melting endotherm to before the Al melting endotherm. If you consume your Al at a temperature lower than it takes to melt it, it's simply not going to be there (in elemental form) to create an endotherm.

Also, for the smaller Al nanothermites, a dip at 660 C does not make the sample, as a whole, have a negative reading.

You can see this for yourself by studying the following in Granier:

p. 199 (220 total) has DSC for 50 nm Al + MoO3
p. 200 (221 total) has DSC for 80 nm Al + MoO3
p. 201 (222 total) has DSC for 120 nm Al + MoO3
p. 202 (223 total) has DSC for 1-3μm Al + MoO3
p. 204 (225 total) has DSC for 3-4μm Al + MoO3

It's certainly plausible that for 10 and 20μm-Al, which Granier worked with but doesn't show DSC's for, that the there is no noticeable dip at 660 C.
Here are 3 of the 5 DSC plots that I referred to. Topmost is 50 nm Al, middle is 120 nm Al, bottom is 3-4μm Al. I have added a vertical bar at about 660 C to all of these plots. Does anybody seriously doubt that at 20 nm Al, no endotherm will be noticeable; and even if it were visible in a vaccuum or inert gas DSC, it would not be noticeable in a DSC test like that done be Harrit, et. al., with O2 gas present?

metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 04:17 AM   #146
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Metamars : does anybody seriously see 50 or 20 nm Al here ?



(from Harrit and al.)


and Figure 5.8 shows that endothermic peak is more important for 40 nm than 50 nm...

Last edited by moorea34; 27th April 2009 at 06:00 AM.
moorea34 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
Old 27th April 2009, 04:39 AM   #147
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
I understand that Iron can be melted in a furnace where the heat can accumulate and be concentrated but can a small piece of coal, dimension less than 100 microns melt a somewhat smaller piece of iron? i would say of course not since the dissipative process are much too effective at such small scales! So if you admit that some microspheres which are mostly iron (see Fig 21 and Fig 20) were produced from the chips in the DSC, what else than the reduction of Fe and oxydation of Al (released heat initially concentrated in the reactants ) could be responsible for that ? I can only explain this melted iron provided it participated in the reaction.
I have no sufficient chemical background to evaluate this, but I recall having seen that slight variations in the composition of a material (with respect to the total percentage of iron in it) can make broad differences in the melting point.

For example, structural steel is mostly iron, yet the melting point of steel can vary significantly depending on the type. In the "Structural steel" entry of Wikipedia there's a section called Thermal properties which explains how the melting point can vary from 1130C to about 1539C, depending apparently on the amount of carbon, if I interpret it correctly.

Isn't it the case, maybe, that some hint on the melting point of these spheres should be provided before taking the step of considering it anomalous?

It has already been pointed out by Dave Rogers that these iron- and oxygen-rich spheres can be produced by other reactions. Shouldn't this be ruled out before advancing in other hypotheses?
pgimeno 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
Old 27th April 2009, 06:50 AM   #148
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
a very interesting paper about thermite :

Texas Tech University, Charles Crane, May 2009 A Thesis In MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCES
v
Abstract
A method to study energy transfer from a reacted thermite placed on a steel target substrate was presented as a function of thermite composition. A high speed infrared camera captured a temporally evolving thermal distribution through the substrate, while the thermite, which was placed in a v-notch, self propagated. Two thermite compositions were studied: Boron with Iron (III) Oxide (B-Fe2O3) and Aluminum with Iron (III) Oxide (Al-Fe2O3). A numerical model was developed to predict temperatures near the v-notch in order to estimate the amount of energy transferred into the steel by using a control volume energy balance. Results quantified the percent of the overall energy available from the chemical reaction that was conducted through the substrate and was compared to energy lost. The B-Fe2O3 reaction was more efficient in transferring energy into the steel, 46% of its heat of reaction, than Al-Fe2O3, 10% of its heat of reaction, based largely on the lower contribution of losses by radiation and convection. The Al-Fe2O3 reaction produced more gas by chemistry, 10% by mass, which transported more energy away from the v-notch region as compared to the non gas producing B-Fe2O3. The reaction times for the Al-Fe2O3 propagation rate were roughly two to three times faster than the B-Fe2O3 which lowered the heating rate of the substrate. Much work had been performed that examined the combustion behaviors from a reacting thermite, but there are very few studies that attempt to quantify the energy transfer from a reacting thermite to a target. This diagnostic approach and numerical analysis was the first step towards quantifying energy transferred from a thermite into a target and lost to the environment.

Last edited by moorea34; 27th April 2009 at 07:31 AM.
moorea34 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
Old 27th April 2009, 08:46 AM   #149
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
[quote=moorea34;4658184]Metamars : does anybody seriously see 50 or 20 nm Al here ?

http://www.bastison.net/Graphique/Im...hips_Jones.jpg

(from Harrit and al.)

I see platelets 68 nm thick - with a lot of help from Paint Shop Pro.
In the image below, I put a black rectangle around a platelet which is close to on edge, rotated that selection, and lined it up with the 1 micron scale. I put yellow lines to demarcate the edges that I measured. I get 5 pixels / 73 pixels, or .068. That means 68 nm.



Of course, I should have done this before I started blabbering about 20 nm Al, even though in the specimen in question we are talking about platelet morphology instead of spherical morphology, Al/Fe2O3 instead of Al/MoO3, and DSC in air instead of in Argon.


Quote:
and Figure 5.8 shows that endothermic peak is more important for 40 nm than 50 nm...
Yes, you're correct, though in light of the last sentence that I wrote, it likely doesn't matter, or, if it does, and behavior is similar to Granier's Fig. 5.8, it's to make the Harrit samples less likely to show a noticeable endotherm at 660C. Correct?

Do tell us, won't you, what your best guess is for Al/MoO3 thermite DSC test in air, for the usual spherical Al particles? Would we see an endotherm in that case, or not? Did you look at the plot of DSC of Al particles in O2, that I show in post 144?
metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 08:55 AM   #150
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
The DSC experiment is worthless and there is absolutely no point in spending any time discussing it. It's a red herring. People can theorise and google for papers all they want, but it does not aid the discussion one bit because it's a distraction comparing chalk and cheese just because they both start "ch". Here are the reasons why.

1. No "elemental" aluminium (free aluminium) was found in the samples (a,b,c,d) that underwent the DSC test.

2. None of the particles in the samples a,b,c,d are below 100nm. As Moorea34 points out above.

3. None of the particles found in samples a,b,c,d are spherical.

4. The DSC experiment was performed in air.

All of those nano-thermites contain spherical particles far, far smaller than anything we see in the actual samples. Comparing Al + MoO to the material we have here is like comparing Mt Everest to an Elephant because they are both big. All that is happening is you are being distracted from the actual paper and the data that is in it.

Some people seem to be confusing microns (m) with nanometres (nm).

1mm = 1000m.
1m = 1000nm.
0.1m = 100nm.
0.05m = 50nm.

Incidentally most DSCs seem to have an upper limit well below 1000C.

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
For example, structural steel is mostly iron, yet the melting point of steel can vary significantly depending on the type. In the "Structural steel" entry of Wikipedia there's a section called Thermal properties which explains how the melting point can vary from 1130C to about 1539C, depending apparently on the amount of carbon, if I interpret it correctly.

Isn't it the case, maybe, that some hint on the melting point of these spheres should be provided before taking the step of considering it anomalous?
The problem is that materials on such as small scale do not share the same material properties as the bulk material (great big lump). So when people quote iron or steel melting they are quoting the bulk material property. This cannot be applied to the same material on a far, far smaller scale. Surface area (amongst others) becomes a more important factor at those sizes, such as the Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals, which look to have a minimum size of approximately 0.1m.

There has been research with regard to "melting point depression" for some years and we are seeing a drop when sizes are approximately 100nm across although it depends on the material.
Sunstealer 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
Old 27th April 2009, 10:18 AM   #151
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
a very interesting paper about thermite :
Thanks for digging this up. Yes, it does look interesting. I haven't studied it carefully, but I do see that Table 8, p. 51 (p. 62, total) shows Average Particle Size of 202 nm for Al, but < 5 m for B. The question this raises in my mind is "Would not comparing 202 nm and 5 m Al powders have shown a similar relationship?" We already know that peak exotherms are at very different temperatures from Al nanopowders compared to Al micron powders. Would not doubling the temperature at which most of the chemical reactions take place lead to much more energy going into adjacent steel? (Which raises the question of why you would want a nanopowder to begin with, of course. But this would ignore the constraint, in a slow CD scenario, of not melting off fireproofing. See below.)

Also, the author says that the main difference in energy loss is the Al nanopowder loses more energy through convection. However, in a "slow CD" scenario where you are merely weakening the steel, so that it fails gradually, one can envision putting a thin layer of nanothermite over a column segment (say 4 mm thick) and covering that over with fire proofing. Would the 13.5% energy loss to gas production (Table 6) be sufficient to make the gasses blow off the fireproofing? If not, would the remainder of the energy production not be so great that it quickly melted or burned the fireproofing? (I don't know the answer to these questions, but IMO these are the sorts of questions that need to be asked when considered a 'slow CD' scenario.) What temperature did WTC fireproofing melt at, anyway?

Speaking of a 'slow CD' scenario, I'm embarrassed to say that I hadn't thought through what may be the biggest problem for this, ito the Harrit chips. They may not burn hot enough! Well, maybe they do if you apply it unevenly (as I have previously suggested), and there are effects arising from the asymmetry of heating and expansion that would actually make a column more vulnerable, as compared to heating it more uniformly, to a temperature 170 C higher.
metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 10:24 AM   #152
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
1. No "elemental" aluminium (free aluminium) was found in the samples (a,b,c,d) that underwent the DSC test.
Unlike you, I am reserving judgement on this.

Quote:
2. None of the particles in the samples a,b,c,d are below 100nm. As Moorea34 points out above.
.068 * 1000 nm = 68 nm. I find the platelets to be 68 nm thick, give or take. How thick do you determine the platelets to be?
metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 10:28 AM   #153
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Metamars, if you want to compare the curves, it would be interesant to compare also the Al particule !

Platelets - Spheres ... Spheres - Platelets

That seems quite different to me....

I've read a lot of papers about nano-Al (15-20) but never platelets... May be have you some references ?

Last edited by moorea34; 27th April 2009 at 11:22 AM.
moorea34 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
Old 27th April 2009, 11:46 AM   #154
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
Metamars, if you want to compare the curves, it would be interesant to compare also the Al particule !

Platelets - Spheres ... Spheres - Platelets

That seems quite different to me....

I've read a lot of papers about nano-Al (15-20) but never platelets... May be have you some references ?
No, though I've posted references for nano-sized silicon platelets, and regarding the ability to sputter Al onto Si. I tend to think that, by now, if anybody had any public information on somebody creating Al/Si nano- particles, it would be known to us.

As for mass producing such puppies, I'm no chemical engineer, but I don't see why you can't make a tube out of tungsten, hang it vertically, fill it will Al vapor, tumble Si nano-particles (perhaps suitably chilled) into the top, and catch them at the bottom. I have no idea how quickly the Al would condense onto the chips, but I'll bet 50 virtual cents that some smart chemical engineers or material scientists could swing this.

You still haven't commented on whether or not you expect that Harrit's particles, if they are aluminothermics, would show a 660 C endotherm in air or not, in light of the DSC of Al + O2 that I have posted.
metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 12:32 PM   #155
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by metamars View Post

You still haven't commented on whether or not you expect that Harrit's particles, if they are aluminothermics, would show a 660 C endotherm in air or not, in light of the DSC of Al + O2 that I have posted.
So it's Al or Al-Si ??

Kinetic evaluation of combustion synthesis 3TiO2 + 7Al→3TiAl +
2Al2O3 using non-isothermal DSC method
Peaks endo

Thermite reactions of Al/Cu core-shell nanocomposites with WO3 Peaks endo

COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1
NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE
A1+MoO3 THERMITES

Peaks endo

Of course all with argon, so for Jones and al. it's a double mistake !!!
Very unlucky !


For the O2 atmosphere, we have again the peaks endo for other size (fig E2a... E2g micrometer size) (Granier)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Nouvelle image.jpg (37.9 KB, 8 views)

Last edited by moorea34; 27th April 2009 at 01:40 PM.
moorea34 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
Old 27th April 2009, 01:07 PM   #156
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
So it's Al or Al-Si ??
According to Harrit, et. al, it's elemental Al plus Silicon (not an Al/Si compound)

Quote:
Kinetic evaluation of combustion synthesis 3TiO2 + 7Al→3TiAl +
2Al2O3 using non-isothermal DSC method
Peaks endo

Thermite reactions of Al/Cu core-shell nanocomposites with WO3 Peaks endo

COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1
NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE
A1+MoO3 THERMITES

Peaks endo

Of course all with argon, so for Jones and al. it's a double mistake !!!
Very unlucky !
Would you be clearer, please? Links, pages, explanations, arguments, etc....

Quote:

For the O2 atmosphere, we have again the peaks endo for other size (fig E2a... E2g micrometer size) (Granier)

And here even for 40, 80 and 120 nanometers...

Attachment 13737

Where did you get this graph from? Granier? What page? What percentage of O2 is it?

Are you claiming that Harrit, et. al. cannot, under any circumstance have had an aluminothermic, based on lack of 660 endotherm, or are you willing to admit that that is not a solid argument against Harrit, et. al., having nanothermite.

If the latter is the case, are you going to admit so much on your web page?
metamars 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
Old 27th April 2009, 01:31 PM   #157
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Unlike you, I am reserving judgement on this.
OK peeps lets do some science. Lets first start by reading the paper and doing some analysis on the results specifically with regard to the aluminium.

The first thing is to look at Fig 10 because this Fig is an XEDS map of the various elements across an area of the sample. What this does is helps to visualise where the different elements are and whether there is any connection between them. Humans are good at spotting patterns and the best way is to slowly move your head back from the screen as you look at the graphic. Remember we are interested in Al so concentrate on the purple square. Now you are back a few feet look at the other squares and compare the intensity to the purple square. Notice anything?



You did didn't you? What you noticed was that the turquoise and purple squares correlate extremely well. Especially noticeable is the diagonal / in the centre. This means that whatever the turquoise square represents, in this case Silicon (Si), it is strongly connected with Aluminium. In the materials scientists head cogs are starting to turn, because this information pushes us into a certain direction.

So lets now compare the Al and Si maps with the other elements. Fe doesn't show any correlation, infact if anything it's the opposite. We are now thinking that whatever contains the Al and Si doesn't contain much Fe. Onto the O. Again we see correlation with the diagonal and some other points (including the dark vertical area to the left of the diagonal), but we don't see such a striking correlation as with Si and Al, however the correlation is there. Oxygen is found in lots of different compounds and will therefore be associated with parts where Al and Si aren't found in the map. What's important is that there is correlation. Finally Carbon (red square) doesn't match with Al or Si, it doesn't look like it tallies much with Fe, but there is correlation with O. This is quite expected. So now what do we do?

Well you can see the grey BSE image (a) above which is the region where the XEDS map was produced. Look at that image and then look at the Al and Si maps. What do you see? Yep, it's that diagonal again. This means that the Al, Si and O in that diagonal are all associated with that particle. Also not the particle that is just to the right and below the (a). Again that particle has similar associations.

We can also note that the clumps of white particles in that BSE image match that of the Fe map. It's safe to conclude that we have distinctly separate particles, one containing Fe and the other containing Al,Si and O.

So lets take a look at the SEM photo-micrographs.


In the middle of photo (a) we can clearly see these particles. Looking at the other photos it becomes self evident that these particles are thin sheet-like particles (platelets) and they have an hexagonal shape to them (d). There is also something else that is interesting about these platelets. Look at the arrow in photo (d). Look at the platelets. What's happened to them? They are all stacked up together. Why is that? What causes that?

So now we have established that the Aluminium and the Silicon as well as some of the Oxygen in the sample (of the red layer) is directly linked to these thin hexagonal platelets.

Has anyone ever had a grow your own crystal toy as a child? You get a tiny seed and place it in a solution and the seed grows and forms a shape. Different solutions give you different shapes. Well the exact same thing happens with platelets like these and also with the whitish grains you can see in the same SEM photos. These whitish crystals are rhomboidal (some say rhombohedral) in shape and because Fe and O are associated with them then we are sure that they are Fe2O3 - experience and reference shows us that this is correct.

Closer magnification as seen in Fig 9 - shows us to be correct.



We also notice that there is another material present, namely a Carbon matrix. So now we know that Al cannot be free or elemental, it is bound with Si and O in the crystal. If it wasn't bound in the crystal then we would expect to see another particle that was of a different morphology (structure).

So what are these hexagonal platelets that contain Al, Si and O. These elements point us in the direction of Aluminosilicates, which are minerals or clays, but which one?

Well we could be here for days trying to find the right one. But do you remember the strange stacking? The thin hexagonal platelet. Yep, they are odd aren't they? Kind of stick in the mind as a feature that if you ever came across it again you'd think, "hey, I've seen that!".

Does this remind you of anything?


Or this? (Below are Scanning Electron Microscope Pictures of Kaolinite Interstratified with Illite. Note the platelets of Kaolin are easily observed. )

http://www.smianalytical.com/clay-analysis.html
and how about this?



Remember the XEDS maps and how the Si is associated with Al, remember the identical peak ratios for the platelet



Kaolin (Kaolinite) Al2Si2O5(OH)4 will give identical Al and Si peaks, it also has the same shape (as proven above), it also stacks just like the platelets are stacked in Jones' samples. I don't know of any other aluminosilicate material that stacks or has this shape. Does anyone else? Metamars, can you find a material that has these characteristics, but isn't kaolin? Kaolin is a natural mineral. It's morphology is thin platelets. There is no man made engineering going on, just mother nature some physics and chemistry. Wow, how cool is that, material that are nanometres thin are found naturally occurring in minerals.

Kaolin is used in thousands of materials. There is nothing odd or strange about it (except perhaps it's shape and the natural way it's platelets stack - which gave the game away). And there is no elemental aluminium in Kaoulin.

So what happens to the thermite reaction if there is no aluminium free to oxidise? Yep, that's correct, the thermite reaction cannot take place. This proves that the samples are not thermite and did not undergo a thermite reaction in the DSC. Something else reacted and because air was present then combustion most likely took place.

And that folks is how science is done.

Note that no one complains about elemental Oxygen. No one tries to say that the Oxygen isn't part of a compound with the Iron. Yet that is exactly what they do when they talk about the Aluminium. The data in the paper proves Fe2O3 crystals are present and the same data proves that Aluminium is bound up in platelets of Kaolin, so why is no one having a go at elemental O? Why just the Aluminium?

The paper also specifies an MEK test on sample to free this elemental Al, but it isn't any of the samples a,b,c,d that had the full analysis and DSC tests conducted. Infact it's another material altogether.

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
.068 * 1000 nm = 68 nm. I find the platelets to be 68 nm thick, give or take. How thick do you determine the platelets to be?
Yes, that looks about right. No-one ever measures particle size via their thickness. It's always across the largest diameter.

Imaginary experiment - imagine we take a whole range of diameters of hexagonal platelets, but their thickness doesn't change at 68nm. Now if we pass them through a mesh what is the determining factor for whether they are trapped in the mesh or fall through assuming the mesh hole is round?

That's right it's the platelet's diameter that determines whether it's collected or not. So we characterise materials via their diameter. In any case natural materials produced in mother nature are formed as crystals and do form at very small scales as I have shown.
Sunstealer 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
Old 28th April 2009, 07:44 AM   #158
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Look at the arrow in photo (d). Look at the platelets.

Correction - it should read (c).
Sunstealer 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
Old 29th April 2009, 11:01 AM   #159
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I wanted to rebut Henryco's last post and ask him some questions, but he seems uninterested in the discussion so I left out the following from my last post to him in the hope he might answer.

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions
What he writes here isn't quite true. I agree that short term sulphidation (as expected if the sulphur was from thermate) alone won't produce the effect but this wasn't short term sulphidation and do not forget that oxidation is also occurring, which in itself is an exothermic reaction. This oxidation will cause a lattice incoherency between parent material (steel) and the oxide layer (rust) resulting in spallation (rust flakes off). Further corrosion will be exacerbated by the grain boundary attack which results in weakening the grain boundaries causing them to separate allowing a deeper and faster penetration of Oxygen. Decarburization is occurring at the surface of the steel as indicated by the lack of cementite (Fe3C) (in pearlite* lamellae) and the overwhelming presence of ferrite (predominantly white part) at the parent material's surface - see below.



If thermate where the process used then we wouldn't see the same extent of decarburization as we observe, nor would we see the same level of sulphidation, especially along grain boundaries, because both mechanisms are based on (solid state) diffusion and therefore time dependent. A short time won't produce such an effect but a longer time will. (Just look up carburisation - 100 hours @ 1000C, [and nitriding] of steels to see time periods required for similar diffusion ). It's for this reason that high temperature corrosion by sulphidation and oxidation is the reason for what is observed. This has occurred over a significant time period. See below - dark area is oxide, light area parent material (steel) - diffusion of species is occurring in the direction from the dark to the light.




Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).
I know this might be off-topic, but do you have a link to any data for this? The "meteorite" comes up in discussions now and then, but I'm not aware of any analysis and nor is anyone else. This above statement I don't think is true and no one has seen any evidence for this.

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

Fred
Yes I agree it is untenable. The samples Jones have can't melt steel of any appreciable thickness.

* I expect some of the terms aren't familiar so I'll add some links.

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans...ucture/SM.html - for general sample preparation for metallography and from the same site
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans...ucture/SM.html for explanation of steel microstructures.
Sunstealer 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
Old 29th April 2009, 11:42 AM   #160
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Yes, that looks about right. No-one ever measures particle size via their thickness. It's always across the largest diameter.
I'll have more of a response to the rest of your post, later, but for now:

Using your figure E (or is it R?), I measured 500 nm for the thickness of those platelets. (2 pixels wide / 40 pixels of the scale) * 10,000 nm.

Why don't you show us pictures of kaolinite with thickness around 70 nm?
metamars 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.