JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Apollo20]

Microsphere Issues for Steven Jones to Ponder

As I said earlier, the abundance of the iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust is a CRITICAL piece of information! It’s too bad Jones does not come up with his own estimate for this. Instead he quotes RJ Lee’s number of 5.87 %. Now this looks to be very high and I doubt, as does Mackey, that it could be representative of the majority of the WTC dust. Indeed, if it is correct, I have estimated that it implies there was about 13 tonnes of iron-rich spheres on every floor of the Twin Towers. Surely this cannot be correct! I suspect the real number is probably at least ten times smaller – let’s say ~ 1 tonne.

Is there any way to confirm such a number? Well let’s try:

The USGS estimate that there was an average of 1.63 % Fe in the WTC dust - already well below R.J. Lee's number. Anyway, the USGS also give data for Ca in WTC dust which allow us to estimate how much iron particulate there was per floor:

First let’s calculate the amount of calcium in the dust from 1 WTC floor:

650 tonnes of concrete + 50 tonnes of gypsum = 700 tonnes of material containing ~ 25 % Ca = 175 tonnes of calcium per floor.

Let’s assume, as a first guess, that 10 % of the concrete/gypsum material was pulverized to “dust” (particulate less than say 100 microns). This implies there was about 18 tonnes of calcium dust per floor.

Now, looking at the US EPA data for airborne dust at Ground Zero about 1 week after 9/11, we find:

Calcium = 44 micrograms/m^3
Iron = 4.4 micrograms/m^3

This implies that there was about 1.8 tonnes of iron “dust” per floor. If ½ of this was iron microspheres we have 0.9 tonnes per floor which is very close to my guess of ~ 1 tonne.

Now if Jones would only do a “total iron” analysis (say by chemical digestion of a sample followed by AA spectrometry) and also estimate the wt % of iron-rich microspheres in the same material, (say by magnetic separation followed by gravimetric analysis), we would have something to talk about, namely the mass of microspheres per floor.

We need this information to assess possible sources of the iron-rich spheres. For example, it has been claimed that iron microspheres are found in ink toner cartridges and these would have been present in the WTC offices. Let’s say each cartridge contains ~ 1 kg of iron microspheres. Then, if there were 50 ink cartridges per floor, we would have 50 kg of microspheres from this source or 5 % of my estimate, i.e. not enough!

On the question of temperatures to form iron-rich microspheres, again there is not a lot to say without more details on the TYPES and RELATIVE AMOUNTS of microspheres that were found in the dust. For example, some of the spheres appear to be iron-alumino-silicates while others look more like metallic iron. The formation temperature of some alumino-silicates particles could be below 1000 deg C. On the other hand, iron spheres ~ 1 mm in diameter or larger suggest molten iron was the precursor in which case temperatures ~ 1500 deg C are implied.

 

[Furcifer]

On the question of temperatures to form iron-rich microspheres, again there is not a lot to say without more details on the TYPES and RELATIVE AMOUNTS of microspheres that were found in the dust. For example, some of the spheres appear to be iron-alumino-silicates while others look more like metallic iron. The formation temperature of some alumino-silicates particles could be below 1000 deg C. On the other hand, iron spheres ~ 1 mm in diameter or larger suggest molten iron was the precursor in which case temperatures ~ 1500 deg C are implied.

I'd just like to point out for those a little less scientifically inclined that spheres 1mm in diameter are commonly referred to as "spatter" and not "dust". "Spatter" being a common and inconvient byproduct of Mig welding, arc welding etc.

 

[DGM]

As I said earlier, the abundance of the iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust is a CRITICAL piece of information! It’s too bad Jones does not come up with his own estimate for this. Instead he quotes RJ Lee’s number of 5.87 %. Now this looks to be very high and I doubt, as does Mackey, that it could be representative of the majority of the WTC dust. Indeed, if it is correct, I have estimated that it implies there was about 13 tonnes of iron-rich spheres on every floor of the Twin Towers. Surely this cannot be correct! I suspect the real number is probably at least ten times smaller – let’s say ~ 1 tonne.

Is there any way to confirm such a number? Well let’s try:

The USGS estimate that there was an average of 1.63 % Fe in the WTC dust - already well below R.J. Lee's number. Anyway, the USGS also give data for Ca in WTC dust which allow us to estimate how much iron particulate there was per floor:

First let’s calculate the amount of calcium in the dust from 1 WTC floor:

650 tonnes of concrete + 50 tonnes of gypsum = 700 tonnes of material containing ~ 25 % Ca = 175 tonnes of calcium per floor.

Let’s assume, as a first guess, that 10 % of the concrete/gypsum material was pulverized to “dust” (particulate less than say 100 microns). This implies there was about 18 tonnes of calcium dust per floor.

Now, looking at the US EPA data for airborne dust at Ground Zero about 1 week after 9/11, we find:

Calcium = 44 micrograms/m^3
Iron = 4.4 micrograms/m^3

This implies that there was about 1.8 tonnes of iron “dust” per floor. If ½ of this was iron microspheres we have 0.9 tonnes per floor which is very close to my guess of ~ 1 tonne.

Now if Jones would only do a “total iron” analysis (say by chemical digestion of a sample followed by AA spectrometry) and also estimate the wt % of iron-rich microspheres in the same material, (say by magnetic separation followed by gravimetric analysis), we would have something to talk about, namely the mass of microspheres per floor.

We need this information to assess possible sources of the iron-rich spheres. For example, it has been claimed that iron microspheres are found in ink toner cartridges and these would have been present in the WTC offices. Let’s say each cartridge contains ~ 1 kg of iron microspheres. Then, if there were 50 ink cartridges per floor, we would have 50 kg of microspheres from this source or 5 % of my estimate, i.e. not enough!

On the question of temperatures to form iron-rich microspheres, again there is not a lot to say without more details on the TYPES and RELATIVE AMOUNTS of microspheres that were found in the dust. For example, some of the spheres appear to be iron-alumino-silicates while others look more like metallic iron. The formation temperature of some alumino-silicates particles could be below 1000 deg C. On the other hand, iron spheres ~ 1 mm in diameter or larger suggest molten iron was the precursor in which case temperatures ~ 1500 deg C are implied.

To me this result leads to the concrete accounting for the vast majority due to the sheer volume.

Am I on the right track?

 

[beachnut]

Some have suggested that the source of the particles could be flyash. If that is the case should the XEDS detect Sulfur trioxide (SO3) or O3S-2in the sample?
I found no evidence in the paper or from the government report of SO3 in the sample unless I'm overlooking it. I believe this would rule out flyash. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well Swing; you are wrong.
You failed to read all the papers that Jones used. In the very paper Jones uses so freely to talk of melted lead and more. Lead, where do they use all that lead? Oh, in computers and monitors and all around us. Darn, what temperature does lead melt at; who cares.

But the fly ash was more than background. You have to read and understand; remember they taught you that in 1st grade. So you are wrong.

There is a lot of S, and O, I think you are missing another point! You are so easy to teach tons of stuff.

The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into
spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular
silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some
plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form
residual spherical particles.

Fly ash, your job is to find the source material buried in Jones own paper where Jones debunks himself if you follow his own references. This is how it works; these want to be published in real journal guys, and Jones, use real references that DEBUNK them! It is funny I laugh most the day thinking how any lay person can debunk PhDs easy as pie by their own references. So easy a grade school kid could do it! Can you? lol

 

[Apollo20]

DGM:

Yes!

But it's really important to know if Jones used magnetic separation to extract his microspheres. I believe he did, but he doesn't tell us!

Also, let's not jump to too many conclusions about fly ash in WTC concrete. First, I'm wondering: does anyone have any information/data on this?

 

[DGM]

DGM:

Yes!

But it's really important to know if Jones used magnetic separation to extract his microspheres. I believe he did, but he doesn't tell us!

Also, let's not jump to too many conclusions about fly ash in WTC concrete. First, I'm wondering: does anyone have any information/data on this?

So Dr. Jones really should eliminate the spheres that are known (or could be from) to come from the most abundant source (concrete and components of) before he jumps to his assertions of temperature at the towers themself.

I read the paper and being a nonscientist I still get the feeling this paper is more of a "give them something to chew on" then science. Is my feeling correct?

 

[bofors]

Sizzler, for the hundredth time, iron microspheres do not necessarily imply temperatures of > 1500 ^oC. Sulfur-laden chemical fires, e.g. diesel fuel and gasoline fires, can catalyze this at much lower temperatures. Steel degrades at its surface at much lower temperatures even in the absence of sulfur.

Really? Please explain how any such chemical reactions could result in physical structure evident in the microspheres observed.

 

[beachnut]

DGM:

Yes!

But it's really important to know if Jones used magnetic separation to extract his microspheres. I believe he did, but he doesn't tell us!

Also, let's not jump to too many conclusions about fly ash in WTC concrete. First, I'm wondering: does anyone have any information/data on this?

Fly ash can come from a lot of sources on 9/11. Even Jones' references show sources.

The concrete; light weight concrete uses fly ash (Romans used something like fly ash but from volcanoes, and fly ash as you know has been used most of last century for special properties of concrete and light weight concrete); but you are right, the WTC light weight concrete 4 inch floors could be Portland or some other combination. However, there is Fe and other things found in fly ash, also in most the concrete samples of the WTC, and I guess in regular concrete anyway. USGS, has the concrete with many of the trace elements Jones is squalling about.

The lead in the rock wool, before 1970 would be common; not sure what they used over all. There would still be traces possible.

 

[beachnut]

Really? Please explain how any such chemical reactions could result in physical structure evident in the microspheres observed.

You have not paid attention. The things were already there and can form at temperatures below what the false information expert says! You have been feed the cherry picking bs from the thermite man.

 

[DGM]

Fly ash can come from a lot of sources on 9/11. Even Jones' references show sources.

The concrete; light weight concrete uses fly ash (Romans used something like fly ash but from volcanoes, and fly ash as you know has been used most of last century for special properties of concrete and light weight concrete); but you are right, the WTC light weight concrete 4 inch floors could be Portland or some other combination. However, there is Fe and other things found in fly ash, also in most the concrete samples of the WTC, and I guess in regular concrete anyway. USGS, has the concrete with many of the trace elements Jones is squalling about.

The lead in the rock wool, before 1970 would be common; not sure what they used over all. There would still be traces possible.

Bottom line. Dr.Jones does not address the multitude of sources and makes assertions based on his own bias.

 

[bofors]

DGM:
Also, let's not jump to too many conclusions about fly ash in WTC concrete. First, I'm wondering: does anyone have any information/data on this?

Exactly, where is it documented that fly ash contains iron-rich microspheres, as opposed to iron-oxide particles?

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/cfa51.htm

 

[The Almond]

Can someone please link me to an explanation as to how iron microspheres can be formed (during pre-collapse fire) with out actually reaching the temperature needed to melt iron.

Thanks.

ps. the search function for this site is bunk.

Iron microspheres form as a normal part of any combustion process. They are a common component in ashes such as fly ash and rice husk ash. Exhaust from diesel fuel vehicles also contains microspheres of heavier metals.

 

[The Almond]

Exactly, where is it documented that fly ash contains iron-rich microspheres, as opposed to iron-oxide particles?

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3715/flyashdd7.png

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/cfa51.htm

This article should show you what you're interested in. In fact, fly ashes are extremely well characterized on a particle by particle basis, and iron rich spheres are well known to be common components.

 

[bofors]

Iron microspheres form as a normal part of any combustion process. They are a common component in ashes such as fly ash and rice husk ash. Exhaust from diesel fuel vehicles also contains microspheres of heavier metals.

Really?

Can you show us some photomicrographs of these common iron microspheres?

Please explain chemically why these are not iron-oxide particles?

 

[The Almond]

DGM:

Yes!

But it's really important to know if Jones used magnetic separation to extract his microspheres. I believe he did, but he doesn't tell us!

Also, let's not jump to too many conclusions about fly ash in WTC concrete. First, I'm wondering: does anyone have any information/data on this?

Speaking as a practicing concrete designer, I think it would be incredible to find concrete for a high rise structure that did not contain at least some fly ash. Normally, fly ash is done as a replacement of Portland cement. So, of the 11% of cementitious materials making concrete, about 20% of that is fly ash, slag, silica fume or a mix of all three.

Now here's the trick, the iron rich spheres present in fly ash do not react with the concrete. You can actually see them in concrete as bright white spheres when analyzing polished sections in backscatter mode on the SEM.

 

[CHF]

And how do I go about getting the e-mail address of these experts?

Perhaps by looking them up.

Ever used google?

Funny how twoofers always accuse everyone else of not doing research and yet we have to basically tell them how to find the info they claim to seek.

 

[bofors]

This article should show you what you're interested in. In fact, fly ashes are extremely well characterized on a particle by particle basis, and iron rich spheres are well known to be common components.

Characterization and analysis of individual fly ash particles from coal fired power stations by a combination of optical microscopy, electron microscopy and quantitative electron microprobe analysis.
Ramsden, A R; Shibaoka, M
Atmospheric Environment. Vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 2191-2206. 1982

Quantitative electron microprobe analysis has been used to determine the inorganic chemical composition of individual fly-ash particles previously categorized on the basis of properties recognizable by light and scanning electron microscopy. Seven categories may be recognized: (1) unfused detrital minerals, (2) irregular-spongy particles derived from partly-fused clay minerals, (3) vesicular colorless glass derived from viscous melts, (4) solid glass derived from fluid metls, (5) dendritic iron oxide particles containing variable amounts of glass matrix, (6) crystalline iron oxide particles containing minimal amounts of glass and (7) unburnt char particles. The use of computerized energy dispersive X-ray analysis on the electron microprobe enables an analysis for all the inorganic elements present in a particle to be carried out simultaneously in about 60 s. The rapidity and comprehensive nature of the procedure makes it possible to determine the composition of a large number of individual fly-ash particles in a relatively short time, and thereby characterize the types and compositions that comprise the population.

Again, where are the iron-rich microspheres in fly ash? Iron-oxide particles are not the same material.

 

[The Almond]

Really?

Can you show us some photomicrographs of these common iron microspheres?

Please explain chemically why these are not iron-oxide particles?

First, Jones's data show exclusively iron oxide particles. I didn't see any pure iron particles. Second, iron will oxidize at high temperatures, even if only the surface oxidizes completely. I can show you particles and micrographs from my master's thesis showing particles that are only surface oxidized.

 

[beachnut]

Really?

Can you show us some photomicrographs of these common iron microspheres?

Please explain chemically why these are not iron-oxide particles?

go look it up yourself

Jones' ideas are made up; this time he made zero conclusions. Why? Not at thing he implies is true, unless his violent chemical reaction is FIRE, then he is correct, fire did cause the WTC to fail. Sorry, it is simple fire, excuses me, complex fire. I still do not understand the magic of fire, as ionized gas puts on a show of ghost figures dancing to the exhaust shut down to a trickle. The WTC was destroyed by terrorist; the dust has stuff in it. Bad stuff. You failed to pay attention and now are quibbling over an idiot work on 9/11 that does not say anything.

Please get back when you look it up; go burn some wood and office stuff and see what you get.

 

[The Almond]

1. We are talking about microscopic particles here. I have to reject your first point. The weight of which is going to have little to no bearing on the sample in question.

Fantasy.

Unless there has been a study done to determine the average airborne distances an iron-rich microsphere particle travels in an open air environment, this point is moot.

This article is an excellent example of particle transport over distance.

2. Although a valid criticism to a point, one could use that line of reasoning to conclude that any and all dust no matter the distance from the sight could be contaminated, and therefore invalid.

If you're interested, there are numerous references and procedures for collection of representative dust samples from a site. Responders tend to select from samples in the middle of a layer. They don't scrape surfaces, and they collect from surfaces they know to be minimally contaminated such as windshields, the tops of mail boxes and so on. What I'm trying to express here is that there is no evidence that Jones accounted for any contamination issues. Rather, he wants us to believe that, because the collector had a PhD, he was an ideal candidate to collect a representative dust sample.

This of course negates the USGS report as being useless and pointless allowing one to conclude that first responders all suffer from a virus in the lungs and not from contamination.

I do not see how anyone would come up with this non-sequitor.

This negates any scientific study of any material in an open air environment. I think we can all agree that is ludicrous.

Again, only if we take a small amount of data to ludicrous extremes.

3. The chain of custody was established as displayed in the appendix. His inferences were also based upon the government study as well.

Jones doesn't get to piggyback on data collected by other people, change the conclusion and then write his name on the top. His chain of custody is bad, and the government's data largely do not support his hypothesis.

Some have suggested that the source of the particles could be flyash. If that is the case should the XEDS detect Sulfur trioxide (SO3) or O3S-2in the sample?
I found no evidence in the paper or from the government report of SO3 in the sample unless I'm overlooking it. I believe this would rule out flyash. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is incorrect. First, Jones did not sample a large enough group of particles to say, with any certainty, that there were no sulfides (SO2) in the mix. Second, you are mixing bulk X-ray fluorescence data with particle analysis data. In bulk XRF, the fly ash is actually melted to form a glass, and that glass is analyzed and quantified based on oxide concentrations. Sulfur's most common oxidation state is +6, so the composition in the glass accounts for oxygen by calculating the sulfur as SO3. In fact, at least in the analyses I've done on fly ash, the sulfur comes from calcium and iron sulfate particles, not from elemental sulfur.