WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

What paint?

Are you serious? You're saying that some paint will ignite at 430 C, but the rest of the WTC paint doesn't? But you haven't done any tests on this and have no data to back it up. Is this your argument? Please tell me this is not your argument.

Gladly: No, this is not my argument. The hilighted part has been added by you, wasn't said by me
(Even though of course it is likely that, while some paints will ignite around 430°C, others will ignite at other temperatures. D'uh)

[ergo]

But you acknowledge that the physical WTC evidence shows paint that was subjected to temperatures above 600 C and that had not ignited. Right? You acknowledge this? So help me out with where your logic leads you from there, and for which you feel no actual tests are necessary.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

But you acknowledge that the physical WTC evidence shows paint that was subjected to temperatures above 600 C and that had not ignited. Right? You acknowledge this? So help me out with where your logic leads you from there, and for which you feel no actual tests are necessary.

No.

It cracked, so obviously it changed physical state; if it also reacted chemically and exothermally with air I cannot say.

I am being pedantic here: I see and concede your point that Tnemec paint in its as-painted-on state, i.e. with a large heat sink underneath, would not burst into all-out flames when heated to well above 430°C. This by no means implies that the same would be true for the same paint when spalled off. Also, the post-DSC images in the Bentham paper clearly show that there still was a red, contiguous material. This proves two things:
a) The iron oxide did NOT red react - it was still there after heating to 700°C. Something else must have reacted.
b) This something else was NOT thermite, for they measured an energy density MUCH too high for thermite
c) The only candidate is organic combustion, so we know that the organic matrix reacted exothermally with ambient oxygen - it was oxidized
d) This oxidation of the organic matrix did not fully remove the matrix, for post-DSC, the red pigment was still embedded in some matrix.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

No.

It cracked, so obviously it changed physical state; if it also reacted chemically and exothermally with air I cannot say.

I am being pedantic here: I see and concede your point that Tnemec paint in its as-painted-on state, i.e. with a large heat sink underneath, would not burst into all-out flames when heated to well above 430°C. This by no means implies that the same would be true for the same paint when spalled off.

But you're not going to test this at all, and you're going to base all the rest of your assumptions on this one amateur guess of yours.

Quote:

Also, the post-DSC images in the Bentham paper clearly show that there still was a red, contiguous material. This proves two things:
a) The iron oxide did NOT red react - it was still there after heating to 700°C. Something else must have reacted.
b) This something else was NOT thermite, for they measured an energy density MUCH too high for thermite

And you're basing this on the comparison to Tillotson? Because there can't possibly be different curves for nanocompositions? Again, this brings us back to what the common literature on nanoenergetics describes, and what a handful of anonymous internet debunkers are trying to flat out deny.

Trying to deduce your conclusions from faulty assumptions could lead to many months and years of wasted time. This is not how you do science, Oystein.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

But you're not going to test this at all, and you're going to base all the rest of your assumptions on this one amateur guess of yours.

No, why should I? Nothing of interest would be learned from such a test. We could not compare the results to anything, because Farrer forgot to tell us what materials he put in the DSC.

So if some of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?
If none of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

Please be specific!

Originally Posted by ergo

And you're basing this on the comparison to Tillotson? Because there can't possibly be different curves for nanocompositions?

No. I am basing this on the most basic laws of this universe: Energy is conserved, and entropy increased all the time. That's why Farrer's chip prove with utmost, 100.000% certainty, that something that is NOT thermite burned in his DSC: Because 2 chips released more energy than ideal, 100% concentrated, perfectly pure, perfectly reacting thermite could ever do anywhere in this universe. Do you understand that important point, ergo??
(The other two chips has an energy density lower than the theoretical maximum for pure, perfect thermite; however, Harrit e.al. concede that a significant portion of the mass of the chips was inert, and all their data shows clearly that all of the red layers and all of the residues they ever looked at were far from being pure themite, it follows that all four DSCed chips released much more energy than thermite ever could, according to the most basic Laws of our Universe. Tillotson and Gash merely showed experimentally that the bar in practice is even higher, by a factor of more than 2, than pure theory).

Originally Posted by ergo

Again, this brings us back to what the common literature on nanoenergetics describes, and what a handful of anonymous internet debunkers are trying to flat out deny.

No. You don't understand nanothermite.

Originally Posted by ergo

Trying to deduce your conclusions from faulty assumptions could lead to many months and years of wasted time. This is not how you do science, Oystein.

Don't tell me, tell Harrit e.al.




I see that you silently dropped a few lines:


c) The only candidate is organic combustion, so we know that the organic matrix reacted exothermally with ambient oxygen - it was oxidized
d) This oxidation of the organic matrix did not fully remove the matrix, for post-DSC, the red pigment was still embedded in some matrix.

[Ivan Kminek]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Yes I think they were TGAs.

BTW I've actually got TGAs of Al/Fe2O3 thermite embedded in an epoxy matrix. Want to see that? Of course you do.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=6192

Figure 4.19 DTA traces for epoxy-cast Al+Fe2O3 composites with a) 47, b) 60, c) 70,
d) 78 vol.% epoxy, e) pure epoxy, and f) nano-Al+Fe2O3+70 vol.% epoxy compositions.

Aha, the source is here: (Thesis of L. Ferranti)

Again remark for the methods: in the Fig., DTA (differential thermal analysis) is used, not DSC, but the difference is not great: DTA measures the difference in the temperature of the sample and reference, DSC measures the changes in heat flow for maintaining the temperature of the sample the same as for reference.

What is crucial: as expected, the measurements were carried out under inert, so no comparison with Bentham DSC curves is possible.
I will read it later in detail, but just now two quotes:

"These experiments were repeated several times with excellent reproducibility and typically, included a total of 3 to 5 runs. (Funny, I would not expect that this mess is fully reproducible, I.K.) DTA results obtained for each composition appear to show similar exothermic and endothermic reaction peaks as expected for the Al+Fe2O3 thermite system. The addition of epoxy typically lowers the temperatures where the intermediate and main reactions take place and also contributes to the overall strength of the reaction."

"The crystallization peaks were followed immediately by an endoderm that ranged a decomposition temperature of 410.2 ± 0.7 °C, which is in fairly good agreement with many studies conducted for epoxy resin cured with numerous hardeners [172-174]. The thermal stability in cured-epoxy resin systems will depend, in part, on the chemical structure and bonds, as well as on the functionality and crosslinking density of the resin [171]. The volatile products evolving from the decomposition of epoxy typically include water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide [172], however, the specific makeup is primarily dictated by the resin and hardener composition."

Well, endotherms at ca 410 C are pretty weak, but I will try to remember, that under inert, the degradation of this epoxy resin (and many other resins) should be endothermic in this temperature region. Problem is that I found another paper in which this step of degradation is clearly exothermic (Fig. 8, p. 220)

Otherwise, the behavior of the epoxy in those composites is not further commented in details, including curve f... I think that Ferranti considers this curve (as a whole) basically as a "distorted baseline".

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Aha, the source is here: (Thesis of L. Ferranti)
...

Ugh... Georgia Tech *wince*





(I am a University of Georgia Bulldawg, whe hate them G.Tech Yellow Jackets )

[Ivan Kminek]

Anyway, we have here some thesis which deals with composites with ca 50-70 % of polymer (epoxy resin) with added typical thermite components (aluminum and iron oxide). i.e. with the composition close to the Bentham chips (a) to (d) (except one "tiny detail": here is Al, not aluminosilicate). So, such composites deserve some attention, perhaps mostly the attention of truthers

Frankly, after some quick reading, I do not understand what is the purpose of these composites. They are probably not intended to destroy, e.g., skyscrapers, but they undergo some mechanically induced reactions under high stress, that is all I know so far...

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Source?
What's the units on the y-axis?

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.

However, it's not fair to quote without a source so I will.

http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/availab...200712_phd.pdf

DTA starts at page 189. There are no units for y-axis - I did look in the rest of the thesis but couldn't see any. I wasn't too bothered because it's the shape of the curves that is of more interest.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

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.

But - that's trivial! No one ever doubted you could mix thermite with epoxy, or with blackberry jam. D'uh.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

However, it's not fair to quote without a source so I will.

http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/availab...200712_phd.pdf

DTA starts at page 189. There are no units for y-axis - I did look in the rest of the thesis but couldn't see any. I wasn't too bothered because it's the shape of the curves that is of more interest.

Ivan beat you to it

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by ergo

But you acknowledge that the physical WTC evidence shows paint that was subjected to temperatures above 600 C and that had not ignited. Right? You acknowledge this? So help me out with where your logic leads you from there, and for which you feel no actual tests are necessary.

Did you know that there is only one red paint manufactured in the whole wide world? It's a massive conspiracy. See all those different shades of red in colour charts? Yep - all of them are exactly the same red made by one company.

Look around your house or go to a DIY store - see all of those paint tins claiming to be different reds. Well they are not, they are all exactly the same red, exactly the same formula, exactly the same product, it's just everyone has been brainwashed into believing that there are hundreds of different red paint formulations which will all behave in different ways when heated.

See the red fire trucks at GZ - yep that is the same red paint as any red paint you have in your home. Ever made an airfix model and painted it using red paint? Yep, you got it, that paint is exactly the same paint as used in the WTC to protect steel.

It's all the same. Massive conspiracy. Companies are ripping people off to enormous degrees with fancy sounding names for red paint claiming that masonry red paint is better for stone than children's paints. it's all a lie.

However, you are the only person I've found who knows this. All red paint is exactly the same - FACT. How did you find this out?

So the stuff NIST used in their heat test is exactly the same as Jones found and exactly the same as tested by Millette and exactly the same as the paint on the red fire-extinguishers and fire-trucks and children's paintings of strawberries. It's all the same and behaves exactly the same.

Why would anyone think there are different formulations of red paint? Crazy.

[Ivan Kminek]

Sunstealer: You can't beat or hide the Truth (as for Ferranti's thesis). I read in the first pages that those composites (epoxy-Al-Fe2O3) can be somehow used in warheads, so, this is the solution of the 911 inside job: those composites were (among others) secretly placed on the planes attacking WTC, causing massive explosions and those total collapses (with some negligible delay)

(I will add some more remarks after reading what is this thesis about)

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Oystein

So if some of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?
If none of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

I also want to see a reasoned answer to that question. Hopefully one that doesn't assume the nature of the chips put in DSC by Farrer, because we have no clue on that.

[chrismohr]

Sunstealer,
In post 664 you said, "You also think that anything spherical must have been produced by a melting process. This is incorrect. In fact there are many papers that describe the manufacture of iron-oxide nano-sized round particles from non-spherical material way below the melting point of iron oxide for example."
One more time: Can you give links to the best two or three papers that refer to this? It will be VERY helpful with my re-re-rebuttal website!!

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Did you know that there is only one red paint manufactured in the whole wide world? It's a massive conspiracy. See all those different shades of red in colour charts? Yep - all of them are exactly the same red made by one company.

I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ergo

I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!

Why don't you trust Harrit et al own data? What chip would you like tested? Could you identify it for us?

[moorea34]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Sunstealer,
In post 664 you said, "You also think that anything spherical must have been produced by a melting process. This is incorrect. In fact there are many papers that describe the manufacture of iron-oxide nano-sized round particles from non-spherical material way below the melting point of iron oxide for example."
One more time: Can you give links to the best two or three papers that refer to this? It will be VERY helpful with my re-re-rebuttal website!!

For example, carbon monoxyde (CO) can reduce partially Fe3O4 oxyde at temperatures below 700 ° C (490 ° C and 650 ° C under the conditions) to give aggregates of wustite (FeO). Then these aggregates are decomposed into iron (Fe)-oxide (Fe3O4) when the temperature returns to ambient conditions. This phenomenon (related to Ellingham diagrams of iron, carbon, and their respective oxides), is documented in the books on the metallurgy of iron.
I don't have references... But may be Sunstealer?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!

Sunstealer, read this!

ergo is smarter than even you! He knows that there is not only one paint in the entire world - there are exactly two!

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by ergo

I guess you need a big funny strawman to disguise the fact that your entire claim is based on some amateur guesstimates about the ignition points of two primers used in the WTC, one of which we already know.

Tnemec doesn't ignite at 430 C - or does it?? Who knows? You never will because you can't be bothered to test. But Laclede sure does - RIGHT? Laclede HAS to ignite at 430 C, otherwise you guys don't have a theory! Uh oh, better not test this if it's gonna prove you wrong!

The effects of blistering on the ignition and flammability of paint
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire01/PDF/f01153.pdf

Quote:

ABSTRACT
More than 300 gypsum wallboard samples coated with 0 to 8 layers of paint have been
subjected to flammability testing in the Cone Calorimeter. Testing has been conducted with samples
coated with either latex-based or oil-based interior paints and subjected to imposed heat fluxes
ranging from 25 to 75 kW/m2. During some of the tests, “blistering” of the painted surface has been
observed. This blistering phenomenon is most pronounced in samples coated with multiple layers of
oil-based paint. As the number of coats of paint increases, blistering is observed at lower imposed
heat fluxes. When blistering does occur, the time to ignition decreases significantly, typically by a
factor of 3 to 4, when compared with samples that do not blister, while the burning duration remains
approximately the same. The potential for upward flame spread on painted gypsum wallboard is
addressed in terms of a modified version of the Quintiere flame spread model. The concept of a
critical heat flux for upward flame spread is developed as a means to account for the race between
ignition and burnout.

Goalpost move in 10-9-8-7

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Sunstealer, read this!

ergo is smarter than even you! He knows that there is not only one paint in the entire world - there are exactly two!

It's quite funny really. Even the Harrit paper alludes to the red layers being different types of paint:

Quote:

8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?

We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers.

Anyone with any sense can answer their question. You have got many different types of red paint.


What about those damn multiple red layers! How could multiple layers possibly occur? It's a complete mystery!

It's obvious that people were painting over paint already applied, as you do, and these layers built up over time.

Truthers have never answered the question as to why you'd manufacture super-dooper seekrit nanothermite with Pb. And then in the same lab manufacture more without Pb. This lab isn't much good at quality control.

If you compare Millette's preliminary study with Harrit et al it's obvious who knows what he's doing. There is none of the rampant and crazy speculation, just hard data and conclusions based on the data.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by moorea34

For example, carbon monoxyde (CO) can reduce partially Fe3O4 oxyde at temperatures below 700 ° C (490 ° C and 650 ° C under the conditions) to give aggregates of wustite (FeO). Then these aggregates are decomposed into iron (Fe)-oxide (Fe3O4) when the temperature returns to ambient conditions. This phenomenon (related to Ellingham diagrams of iron, carbon, and their respective oxides), is documented in the books on the metallurgy of iron.
I don't have references... But may be Sunstealer?

Yes that was another potential mechanism.

Reduction of iron oxides using CO and CO₂ is the basis for iron making. The fact is you don't need to actually melt anything for this process to occur. Early iron makers could never get the temperature high enough to do so.

This is the big problem with the DSC test in Harrit et al. You've got 2 materials - the red paint of unknown composition and the oxidised steel. Based on fig 20 and 23 it's obvious the gray layer has changed significantly and formed the spheres along with some of the paint's constituents. That's difficult to explain because we just don't have the data.

If Harrit and Jones thought the red layer was thermite then they should have separated that from the gray layer and only tested that in the DSC (in an inert atmosphere). Instead we have a hotch potch which we can't 100% correctly interpret.

I'm still surprised that there isn't a depression at 660°C in the curve corresponding to melting of unreacted aluminium. I think if bulk Al was present then this would be expected.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

I'm still surprised that there isn't a depression at 660°C in the curve corresponding to melting of unreacted aluminium. I think if bulk Al was present then this would be expected.

No, you're not

Twoofers ought to be. If they understood the first thing about DSC

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

No, why should I? Nothing of interest would be learned from such a test. We could not compare the results to anything, because Farrer forgot to tell us what materials he put in the DSC.

He put red grey chips in there. You know they're not Tnemec, because Tnemec wouldn't ignite at 430C. So what do you think ignited? 　

Quote:

So if some of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

I was actually suggesting you try igniting Laclede paint chips - or Tnemec for that matter. If you did and they ignited at 430C, that would bring you closer to a credible argument that the chips are paint.

Quote:

If none of "my" chip exhibited the same behaviour as Farrer's - what new information would we gain from that?

You would confirm that not all of the chips ignite, and you would probably want to test other chips.

Quote:

No. I am basing this on the most basic laws of this universe: Energy is conserved, and entropy increased all the time. That's why Farrer's chip prove with utmost, 100.000% certainty, that something that is NOT thermite burned in his DSC: Because 2 chips released more energy than ideal, 100% concentrated, perfectly pure, perfectly reacting thermite could ever do anywhere in this universe.

Funny how this is exactly what the literature on nanothermites tells us it will do. The only people who seem to disagree with this are a handful of anonymous internet "debunkers".

Quote:

The other two chips has an energy density lower than the theoretical maximum for pure, perfect thermite; however, Harrit e.al. concede that a significant portion of the mass of the chips was inert, and all their data shows clearly that all of the red layers and all of the residues they ever looked at were far from being pure themite, it follows that all four DSCed chips released much more energy than thermite ever could, according to the most basic Laws of our Universe.

I believe the limit you are imposing here is based on conventional thermite, not nanothermite, and it's also based on the Al - FeO2 combination. Particle size and chemical combinations all produce variations in reaction time and energy release.

Quote:

Tillotson and Gash merely showed experimentally that the bar in practice is even higher, by a factor of more than 2, than pure theory).

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. What bar and higher than what?

Quote:

c) The only candidate is organic combustion, so we know that the organic matrix reacted exothermally with ambient oxygen - it was oxidized

If you want to prove paint, you want to know what reacted here.

Quote:

d) This oxidation of the organic matrix did not fully remove the matrix, for post-DSC, the red pigment was still embedded in some matrix.

I don't see why this poses a problem for the thermite theory.

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by ergo

Funny how this is exactly what the literature on nanothermites tells us it will do. The only people who seem to disagree with this are a handful of anonymous internet "debunkers".

I'm sorry, I'm calling you out on this lie because it is 100% pure USDA Grade A . Making something nano PHYSICALLY CANNOT increase the theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be released from the reaction. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to cross that theoretical threshold via ANY means of preparation. So the fact that Harrit et al.'s "thermite" chips released more total energy than the theoretical maximum of a thermite compound definitively proves that it is not thermite. You cannot get around this by arguing nano, because it is a chemical property of the compound that has nothing to do with the preparation.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

I'm sorry, I'm calling you out on this lie because it is 100% pure USDA Grade A . Making something nano PHYSICALLY CANNOT increase the theoretical maximum amount of energy that can be released from the reaction. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to cross that theoretical threshold via ANY means of preparation. So the fact that Harrit et al.'s "thermite" chips released more total energy than the theoretical maximum of a thermite compound definitively proves that it is not thermite. You cannot get around this by arguing nano, because it is a chemical property of the compound that has nothing to do with the preparation.

Again, your theoretical maximum is for conventional thermite. Even different conventional thermites have different reactions and different energy releases. Nanothermites change the ball game considerably. Every source I've already quoted confirms this. You folks have produced zero confirmation of your claims.

[cjnewson88]

Do nanothermites work without elemental aluminum ergo? Guess what the red/gray chips didn't have..

[ergo]

Lots of thermites don't use aluminum, Newson. And it is Millette who claims no elemental aluminum.

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by ergo

Again, your theoretical maximum is for conventional thermite. Even different conventional thermites have different reactions and different energy releases. Nanothermites change the ball game considerably. Every source I've already quoted confirms this. You folks have produced zero confirmation of your claims.

No. Your sources claim that a nano preparation increases the rate of energy release. The use of the phrase "more energetic" does not mean that there is more total energy available. Different chemical reactions are expected to have different energy releases, but any preparation using the same chemical reaction has a theoretical maximum yield that cannot be worked around by any means of preparation. It's basic chemistry.

[cjnewson88]

Millette claims? No no no, Millettes testing methods proves there is not. These testing methods also prove the red layer is paint.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

No. Your sources claim that a nano preparation increases the rate of energy release. The use of the phrase "more energetic" does not mean that there is more total energy available. Different chemical reactions are expected to have different energy releases, but any preparation using the same chemical reaction has a theoretical maximum yield that cannot be worked around by any means of preparation. It's basic chemistry.

Nobody is using the phrase "more energetic." Some thermites are more explosive than others. That's the simple fact. Using nano particles increases the energy output. If that is through an increased rate of energy release, then that is how it works. The end result is not the same as conventional thermite. That's the point.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

Millette claims? No no no, Millettes testing methods proves there is not. These testing methods also prove the red layer is paint.

You don't understand what proof is.

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by ergo

Nobody is using the phrase "more energetic." Some thermites are more explosive than others. That's the simple fact. Using nano particles increases the energy output. If that is through an increased rate of energy release, then that is how it works. The end result is not the same as conventional thermite. That's the point.

In a practical sense, the highlighted is both true and false. Nano-sized preparations may get closer to the theoretical maximum, but they cannot surpass it. This is why it is important to understand the theoretical maximum energy output of a thermite reaction, and how the fact that Harrit et al.'s chips exceeding that maximum proves that the chips are not thermite.

[Senenmut]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Alright, what facts do you have about this chip? Elemental composition perhaps? Does it burn or not? Please list all the facts you have!

And then answer a few simple questions:

1. Is this the same material as chips a-d, or a different one?
2. Is this the same material as the MEK-soaked chip, or a different one?
3. What elements did the multi-layered chip in the Bentham paper contain?
4. Is Basile's multi-layered chip the same material as Harrit's?
5. Is Harrit's multi-layered chip the same material as chips a-d?
6. Is Harrit's multi-layered chip the same material as the MEK-soaked chip?
7. Why the heck are you talking about this chip?

Please give reasons for your answers!

That should put you firmly into your place, if you have the balls to answer them honestly and with some effort.

I predict you won't have the balls, won't have the honesty, and won't put in a serious effort. Reason: You are a Twoofer.

they have found red gray chips that react. as far as i know, all the chips they have seperated that are in question have reacted to produce iron and silicon microspheres. basile shows us one that he has seperated from the dust that is multilayerd and says he wants to save it for an experiment. i see no reason to doubt the reactivity of that chip b/c his chips have a history of reacting to produce iron and silicon microspheres.

i hope he will test that chip soon. dont you?

[cjnewson88]

Originally Posted by ergo

You don't understand what proof is.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

He put red grey chips in there. You know they're not Tnemec, because Tnemec wouldn't ignite at 430C. So what do you think ignited? 　

I already answered this - in fact, the answer is at the very start and core of this argument:

WE! DON'T! ***********! KNOW!!!

Because Farrer didn't show, describe characterize what he put in the DSC. Some of the many different types of red-gray chips I suppose.

Originally Posted by ergo

I was actually suggesting you try igniting Laclede paint chips - or Tnemec for that matter. If you did and they ignited at 430C, that would bring you closer to a credible argument that the chips are paint.

No, it wouldn't. DSC can't distinguish betweem paint and non-paint. The DSC curve of LaClede will be dominated by the epoxy matrix. Suppose Farrer's chips really were a formulation of thermite, in an epoxy matrix, then the 430°C peak likewise would be dominated by the epoxy matrix, and my curve would look very similar to his, and you couldn't conclude paint from the result. That's because DSC is not a competent or useful method to ID unknown materials.

[quote=ergo;8346265]You would confirm that not all of the chips ignite, and you would probably want to test other chips.
Gosh, this is so stupid.

NO, ergo. "not exhibit the same behaviour" <> "doesn't ignite".
Of course all chips will "ignite" (react exothermally with air), provided they have an organic matrix. Yes, that includes Tnemec.

Originally Posted by ergo

Funny how this is exactly what the literature on nanothermites tells us it will do.

This is getting stupider by the sentence.

NO, ergo, none of the literature on nanothermites tells us this. You make that up.

If you want to maintain your position, please provide a citation that any of the literature on nanothermites tells us that nano-thermite can release more energy per mass unit than the theoretical maximum for thermite (just under 4.0 kJ/g for Al+Fe2O3).

If this were possible, the energy and climate problems of this planet were close to being solved, it would be MAJOR news.

Originally Posted by ergo

The only people who seem to disagree with this are a handful of anonymous internet "debunkers".

Well, these, and the entire freaking science community of the world.

Originally Posted by ergo

I believe the limit you are imposing here is based on conventional thermite, not nanothermite, and it's also based on the Al - FeO2 combination. Particle size and chemical combinations all produce variations in reaction time and energy release.

You obviously don't understand what you are writing.

Let me get this clear: Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g? That's a YES or NO question, ergo. Please answer it with a YES or a NO. Then explain your answer!

Originally Posted by ergo

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. What bar and higher than what?

Yes, that is obvious. You don't understand at all.

Originally Posted by ergo

If you want to prove paint, you want to know what reacted here.

No. I want to use competent methods like Millette did. Burning stuff isn't a competent method.

Originally Posted by ergo

I don't see why this poses a problem for the thermite theory.

It wasn't about the thermite theory. Please pay attention to context! It was about your claim that Tnemec, and perhaps other paints, would withstand temperatures far beyond 430°C. They don't, they do get oxidized in an exotherm reaction; they matrix just doesn't go away into thin air.

The "mud-cracking" that NIST observed for heated Tnemec is indicative of a loss of volume and mass of the paint matrix. That is because it reacts chemically.

Same with the red layer matrix in Farrer's experiments: Even though it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that it must have been the organic matrix that exhibited the bulk of the exotherm reaction, it didn't go away completely.

The problem to your thermite theory lies in the fact that the iron oxide in the red layer doesn't go away - the red layer is still red after the reaction, that means the 100 nm iron oxide pigments are still there!

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

Again, your theoretical maximum is for conventional thermite. ...

No. The theoretical enthalpy of a chemical reaction is totally unrelated to particle size. None of your sources shows anything to the contrary.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

Lots of thermites don't use aluminum, Newson. And it is Millette who claims no elemental aluminum.

a) It's Harrit e.al. who do claim aluminium, so that is the stuff to look for

b) Which other metal fuel(s) is (are) a candidate(s) in this context of red-gray chips, and is there any proof of it (them)?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

... Using nano particles increases the energy output. If that is through an increased rate of energy release, then that is how it works.

"Energy output" and "rate of energy release" are two different concepts. If you run twice as fast as I do, that doesn't mean you can run farther than I do. In fact, it is often the opposite: the slower you run, the farther you can go.
Why does this comparison apply? Because speed is the first derivative in time of distance, and rate of energy release is the first derivative in time of energy output. Yes, nanothermite may react faster than conventional thermite, but its energy output is often lower than that of conventional thermite, it is always lower than the theoretical maximum of 4.0 kJ/g, and it is much lower than the energy output of Farrer's 4 chips.

Originally Posted by ergo

The end result is not the same as conventional thermite. That's the point.

No, that is not the point in our current context. Try not to lose focus. No one measured any rate of energy release. Farrer measured energy output. Two different things, just as running speed and running distance are two different things. His measured energy output, which significantly exceeded the theoretical maximum for thermite in this universe, and which greatly exceeded the practical and experimental energy output of nanothermites, proves 100.000% that mostly (if not entirely) the exotherm peaks were caused by stuff that is NOT thermite.

That is the point.

[Ivan Kminek]

Something for Ferranti’s thesis on aluminium-iron oxide-epoxy composites, which are pretty close to the composition of Laclede primer paint, but contain Al instead of aluminosilicate.

One quote from the chapter Research Motivation: „Conventional warhead designs typically constitute a high explosive encompassed in a steel casing. Under the pressure of the rapidly expanding gases generated from the explosive detonation, the casing expands and breaks into fragments, with approximately 30 % of the explosive energy released [2] being dissipated in fragmenting the case. A structural energetic material (like mentioned composites, I.K.) has the potential to allow improved efficiency with the coupling of chemical and kinetic energies.“

So if I understood, mentioned composites should increase the overall effect of detonation/impact, here (among others) by possible thermitic reaction triggered by really extreme mechanical (thermomechanical) stress. And epoxy “binder” basically “holds thermite components together” and simultaneously “transfers” mechanical stress to thermite components.

Sorry if this is not really good explanation, but it seems to be clear, that without such extreme stress, these composites with high content of epoxy binder 50-80 %) cannot behave like ordinary thermites/nanothermites, i.e. cannot give rapid thermitic reaction just by plain “ignition” or so. In other words: it is very non-efficient thermite mixture for conventional purposes. At least I think so (I have read just a small part of the thesis). But, if the content of epoxy would be (let’s say) mere 10 %, such a composite should already behave like conventional thermite.

I understand Fig. 4.19 (DTA curves, heating rate 10 degrees/min) linked by Sunstealer basically in this way: under inert atmosphere, epoxy resin is massively degraded/evaporated around 410 degrees C (and above) and remaining components undergo thermitic reaction at ca 700 degrees C for micron-sized aluminium and at ca 520 degrees C for nanosized aluminium.

It is a pitty that Ferranti did not present also DTA curves under air, since they could show us if such thermitic composite with nanosized aluminium would have two exothermic peaks (one for burning of epoxy, second one for thermitic reaction), or just one peak (perhaps broad) for both exothermic processes occurring simultaneously.

And finally some remark for the “energetic content” of thermites: whereas pure mixture of Al and iron oxide indeed cannot give more energy than theory in any way, when some organic polymer is present (like in these composites), the overall energy output during heating in air can be of course higher than in pure thermite. As for “Bentham chips”, we cannot really say: energy released in DSC device was higher than belongs to thermite, therefore it cannot be thermite. It only means that it cannot be pure thermite, without added organics/polymers.
Indeed, Bentham chips contained A LOT OF organic polymer(s) (according to XEDS spectra), therefore they cannot be efficient conventional thermites anyway and by no means, even if the all aluminium was present as a metal.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

...
And finally some remark for the “energetic content” of thermites: whereas pure mixture of Al and iron oxide indeed cannot give more energy than theory in any way, when some organic polymer is present (like in these composites), the overall energy output during heating in air can be of course higher than in pure thermite. As for “Bentham chips”, we cannot really say: energy released in DSC device was higher than belongs to thermite, therefore it cannot be thermite. It only means that it cannot be pure thermite, without added organics/polymers.
Indeed, Bentham chips contained A LOT OF organic polymer(s) (according to XEDS spectra), therefore they cannot be efficient conventional thermites anyway and by no means, even if the all aluminium was present as a metal.

Highlighted bit: Yes, because something (organic polymer...) is burning there that is NOT thermite.

Thermite = Al+Fe2O3
Organic polymer <> thermite
Organic polymer + thermite = thermite???

You are helping ergo to confuse himself.

Of course

Organic polymer + thermite <> thermite!!!

All of the confusion that ergo is suffering from comes from equivovating thermite and thermite preparations.

If you put a lot of sugar in your coffee, the mix is not sugar! And if you put a lot of water into your cat, the composite is not water! So if you put a lot of thermite into an organic binder, the mix is not thermite!


Remember:

Thermite = Al+Fe2O3 (and nothing else)
Energy density of thermite - theoretical maximum: 3.96 kJ/g
Energy density of conventional thermite in practice: < 3 kJ/g
Energy density of nano-thermite in practice: < 2 kJ/g
Energy density of organic polymer: somewhere between 15 and 35 kJ/g; for example epoxy: 25 kJ/g

If you mix, say, 30% (by weight) nanothermite with 70% epoxy, the resulting energy density is (2 kJ/g * 30%) + (25 kJ/g * 70%) = (0.6 + 17.5) kJ/g = 18.1 kJ/g

Yep, that's a lot more than the theoretical max for thermite, BUT 96.7% of it comes from epoxy, and only 3.3% from nanothermite! You could replace the entire 30% nanothermite with inert sand, and the energy content wouldn't change significantly!

Saying that you increase the energy content of thermite by making it nano-sized and mixing it with organics is like saying you increase the toxicity of spaghetti by crumbling them into very fine powder and mixing them with arsenic. ergo would then claim that it's the powedering that made the spaghetti toxic. No, it isn't. Spaghetti don't become toxic by crumbling them, it's the arsenic that's toxic! Similarly, thermite doesn't acquire a higher energy density by grinding it really finely. It's the organic binder that's providing more energy.


Suppose you have two preparations (you already know their chemical composition EXACTLY):

A) 30% (by weight) nanothermite with 70% epoxy
B) 30% (by weight) inert sand with 70% epoxy

You randomly sample 4 probes from the two preparations, put them into the DSC - oh! and also throw in varying unknown amounts of inert gray iron ixide! - and measure the following energy densities:
- 1.5 kJ/g
- 3 kJ/g
- 6 kJ/g
- 7.5 kJ/g
(And also you get Farrer's 4 curves)
Which of the 4 results came from the nanothermite mix, and which from the sand mix?

Answer: It is impossible to tell from the curves or the measured energy densities whether any thermite at all reacted or not^*). However, given what we know about all of the probes (that they contain a lot of organix matrix) we can say with 100.000% certainty that the organic substance (or substances) provided almost all (>95%) of the energy. It is possible that the organic matrix provided 100% of the exotherm output (although, to be pedantic, a small fraction may come from phase transitions of the minerals). It is impossible that the DSC curve or energy output come mainly from thermite.


And that is why we need to make a very sharp distinction between the terms "thermite" (Al+Fe2O3) and "thermite preparation" when talking with incompetent and stubborn Twoofies.





*) That is not quite right. If thermite reacted, there could be a small peak somewhere to the right of the main peak for the burning epoxy. Three of the four Farrer-curves show no further peaks, so these definitely have no discernible thermite reaction. The red curve (MacKinlay 2) has a small peak at 450, 455°C. Is this proof of a thermite reaction? No. Obviously, in an unknown sample, we could witness all sorts of unknown reactions. Of these, nano-thermite is a logical possibility, but only one out of literally thousands. Harrit e.al.'s own reference and point of comparison, Tillotson and Gash, would make us expect this peak to come at a much higher temperature, namely 530°C. So if Harrit e.al.'s reference means anything at all, then it means that there is NO nano-thermite reaction in any of the four samples.