JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[DavidJames]

Stundie.

No, it was a typo.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Considering an iron content of ~.5% to 5% for various dust samples, are these processes likely able to account for such percentages?

Also, considering H2 (gas) and reduction environments are needed, is it likely that this would have been possible in the pre-collapse fires, or would such conditions be lost to the environment? I can't help but to think about your comments about the likelihood of SO2 going through a reduction reaction in the fires.

I mean, it seems more likely that these things could have occurred in the rubble piles, but not so much in the pre-collapse office fires.

I may be pulling a stundie in a moment, but for lack of better words, I will do it anyway:

I have flour, sugar, yeast, water, etc in my apartment. If a plane crashed into my apartment and set it ablaze, theoretically, the ingredients and temps would exist to bake a cake; however, if investigators found such cake in my apartment, would they consider such natural causes plausible?

I can't help but to think of the above example when considering your comments about chemistry and temperatures in the WTC fires.

I can reasonably accept such an outcome for the rubble pile, but it is really hard for me to accept the likelihood of them occurring in the pre-collapse office fire. We can only consider the pre-collapse office fire because we know the dust was emitted well before the rubble pile would have time to brew.

Any comment about likelihood would be great.

Thanks CC.

Absolutely Hydrogen embrittlement would even create surface blisters at much lower temperatures, round hollow micro spheres of steel.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=684447

http://www.ias.ac.in/sadhana/Pdf2003JunAug/Pe1102.pdf

http://www.mtec.or.th/th/research/famd/corro/hic.htm

 

[Apollo20]

Hollow spheres and other stuff

A few points based on last night’s posts:

1. SJ has said that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust are hollow. This is very significant because it is a common observation in metallic spheres formed in so-called BOF dust produced by a Bessemer converter in a steelworks. In BOF dust it is generally found that small iron spheres are solid while large ones are hollow. This is explained as follows: Molten iron droplets that are expelled from a Bessemer converter are generally high in dissolved carbon that lowers the melting temperature of the material. For example, the iron-carbon phase diagram shows that iron with 4 % C melts at 1147 deg C, thus the presence of carbon helps to keep the droplets liquid. In this state, the droplets rapidly dissolve oxygen that reacts with the carbon to form carbon monoxide, CO. Nevertheless, small iron droplets have a relatively high surface/volume ratio leading to solidification that is so rapid that no gas can form inside the particle. On the other hand, for large droplets where the outer shell solidifies first, the concentration of dissolved carbon and oxygen in the liquid iron is such that carbon monoxide forms, causing the droplet to expand, and the gas to become trapped as the sphere solidifies. (Source: Prof. Neuschutz, RWTH Aachen, Germany)

2. On the question of fly ash in WTC concrete, it is interesting to look at the USGS Particle Atlas that has the EDX spectra for 16 concrete particles identified in WTC dust. Seven of the spectra have no iron at all, while another 4 show very low iron. I believe that the iron in WTC concrete is typically less than 2 wt %. This implies that iron from concrete is no more that 20 % of 2 % or 0.4 % while the USGS reports the total iron in WTC dust to average 1.6 %

3. On the question of sulfiding of steel, there appears to be the common misconception that this can only be caused by ELEMENTAL sulfur. This is simply not true! In fact, if you search the literature on sulfiding of steel you will find it is inevitably attributed to reactions of iron with SO2, SO3 or H2S. Even if we are talking about thermate, which has added sulfur, the violent OXIDIZING reaction on aluminum also oxidizes the sulfur to SO2 which then attacks any iron present forming an iron sulfide-iron oxide eutectic. (Source: Flatley and Birks, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, July 1971)

4. Finally, Jones’ new paper makes essentially only two points/observations:

(i) The jet fuel and subsequent office fires in the WTC would have generated temperatures that were generally below say 1100 deg C.

(ii) The presence of spherical iron-rich METALLIC spheres in the size range 50 microns to 1.5 mm in the WTC dust shows that the dust contains particles that were formed at temperatures close to the melting point of iron or 1500 deg C, which is well ABOVE any temperature found in fires from the combustion of jet fuel or materials such as paper, wood, textiles or plastics.

If we accept the validity of both of these observations, the most logical conclusion, but one Jones is apparently loathe to make, is that the iron-rich particles were NOT produced in the WTC fires, (because the fires weren’t hot enough!), but were already present in these buildings prior to 9/11. Jones must therefore show that the WTC microspheres were NOT from a long list of possible candidates, (e,g. welding fumes, wear particles, etc), that were probably already in the towers pre-9/11 before he starts suggesting any nefarious source(s) of these spheres. (Which I admit he hasn't done in his new paper, but he did do in his Boston presentation).

This means Jones must provide QUANTITATIVE DATA on the % of microspheres in his samples as well as the total iron. Without this information we really don't have much to talk about on Jones' latest missive.

 

[BenBurch]

A20, neither point i nor point ii are proven by Jones. Again because he is not forthcoming with his data.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The one rather important omission from Jones et al, in my opinion, is any evidence that the particles under discussion could have been produced by a thermite reaction. Until he's demonstrated that, he hasn't addressed either side of the issue satisfactorily.

Dave

 

[BenBurch]

Dave,

I don't think he CAN demonstrate that, even supposing they were.

-Ben

 

[Myriad]

Does anyone know for sure whether the microspheres from the wtc dust are hollow?

No one has an answer? Is this unknown? (I've looked through the various papers, and haven't found any specific statement to the effect that they are hollow or solid.)

The microspheres in fly ash are hollow. Apparently the spheres Crazy Chainsaw has produced in his combustion experiments are hollow.

I've looked around at manufacturing processes for hollow microspheres of various types. I've found no evidence that hollow iron or other metal microspheres could be formed just by bashing up a puddle of melted metal.

If we're going to discuss mechanisms of formation, I think it might help if we knew some details about the objects whose formation we're talking about. If they're hollow, like the spheres that form in fly ash and like CC's products, it looks to me like we have to look at chemical processes, and rule out melted structural materials.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Apollo20]

Myriad:

Jones himself has told me that some of the WTC spheres are hollow.

I have provided a mechanism that applies to steel and I am familiar with the work on hollow fly ash particles carried out at the CEGB Labs in the UK.

For the steel mechanism see my post 403 above which is taken from several articles in the journal: Steel Research Volumes 64, and 72.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A few points based on last night’s posts:

1. SJ has said that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust are hollow. This is very significant because it is a common observation in metallic spheres formed in so-called BOF dust produced by a Bessemer converter in a steelworks. In BOF dust it is generally found that small iron spheres are solid while large ones are hollow. This is explained as follows: Molten iron droplets that are expelled from a Bessemer converter are generally high in dissolved carbon that lowers the melting temperature of the material. For example, the iron-carbon phase diagram shows that iron with 4 % C melts at 1147 deg C, thus the presence of carbon helps to keep the droplets liquid. In this state, the droplets rapidly dissolve oxygen that reacts with the carbon to form carbon monoxide, CO. Nevertheless, small iron droplets have a relatively high surface/volume ratio leading to solidification that is so rapid that no gas can form inside the particle. On the other hand, for large droplets where the outer shell solidifies first, the concentration of dissolved carbon and oxygen in the liquid iron is such that carbon monoxide forms, causing the droplet to expand, and the gas to become trapped as the sphere solidifies. (Source: Prof. Neuschutz, RWTH Aachen, Germany)

2. On the question of fly ash in WTC concrete, it is interesting to look at the USGS Particle Atlas that has the EDX spectra for 16 concrete particles identified in WTC dust. Seven of the spectra have no iron at all, while another 4 show very low iron. I believe that the iron in WTC concrete is typically less than 2 wt %. This implies that iron from concrete is no more that 20 % of 2 % or 0.4 % while the USGS reports the total iron in WTC dust to average 1.6 %

3. On the question of sulfiding of steel, there appears to be the common misconception that this can only be caused by ELEMENTAL sulfur. This is simply not true! In fact, if you search the literature on sulfiding of steel you will find it is inevitably attributed to reactions of iron with SO2, SO3 or H2S. Even if we are talking about thermate, which has added sulfur, the violent OXIDIZING reaction on aluminum also oxidizes the sulfur to SO2 which then attacks any iron present forming an iron sulfide-iron oxide eutectic. (Source: Flatley and Birks, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, July 1971)

4. Finally, Jones’ new paper makes essentially only two points/observations:

(i) The jet fuel and subsequent office fires in the WTC would have generated temperatures that were generally below say 1100 deg C.

(ii) The presence of spherical iron-rich METALLIC spheres in the size range 50 microns to 1.5 mm in the WTC dust shows that the dust contains particles that were formed at temperatures close to the melting point of iron or 1500 deg C, which is well ABOVE any temperature found in fires from the combustion of jet fuel or materials such as paper, wood, textiles or plastics.

If we accept the validity of both of these observations, the most logical conclusion, but one Jones is apparently loathe to make, is that the iron-rich particles were NOT produced in the WTC fires, (because the fires weren’t hot enough!), but were already present in these buildings prior to 9/11. Jones must therefore show that the WTC microspheres were NOT from a long list of possible candidates, (e,g. welding fumes, wear particles, etc), that were probably already in the towers pre-9/11 before he starts suggesting any nefarious source(s) of these spheres. (Which I admit he hasn't done in his new paper, but he did do in his Boston presentation).

This means Jones must provide QUANTITATIVE DATA on the % of microspheres in his samples as well as the total iron. Without this information we really don't have much to talk about on Jones' latest missive.

Apollo20 there are a couple points I have to clear up, one gaseous infusion of steel can occur and lead to the formation of methane from Hydrogen and carbon, I agree the steel can be corroded by SO2 however it appears the formation of Pyrites requires S in elemental form, however that is not really a problem with carbon Monoxide and
H2S with iron oxide.

Also melting the steel is not necessary to form micro spheres at all, simply heating the steel to where the covalent bonding of the crystals is weakened will allow gasses in the steel to form hollow micro sphere, the crystals after all are what give steel its strength, just as they make aluminum oxide, 9 on the hardness scale, and diamond 10 on the hardness scale.

 

[DGM]

Myriad:

Jones himself has told me that some of the WTC spheres are hollow.

I have provided a mechanism that applies to steel and I am familiar with the work on hollow fly ash particles carried out at the CEGB Labs in the UK.

For the steel mechanism see my post 403 above which is taken from several articles in the journal: Steel Research Volumes 64, and 72.

The spheres all over the benches in my welding shop don't appear to be hollow. This weekend though I think I'll look more closely with my son's microscope. I can envision the floor pans of the towers covered in slag from welding prior to the concrete. We never bothered to clean this stuff up before it was poured under the rug so to speak.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No one has an answer? Is this unknown? (I've looked through the various papers, and haven't found any specific statement to the effect that they are hollow or solid.)

The microspheres in fly ash are hollow. Apparently the spheres Crazy Chainsaw has produced in his combustion experiments are hollow.

I've looked around at manufacturing processes for hollow microspheres of various types. I've found no evidence that hollow iron or other metal microspheres could be formed just by bashing up a puddle of melted metal.

If we're going to discuss mechanisms of formation, I think it might help if we knew some details about the objects whose formation we're talking about. If they're hollow, like the spheres that form in fly ash and like CC's products, it looks to me like we have to look at chemical processes, and rule out melted structural materials.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have produced both hollow and solid micro spheres, not a problem both metallic iron and iron oxide, I have Also produced micro spheres with small amounts of sulfur.
H2S actually reduces Iron oxide to metallic iron, with H2 that produces enough temperature to melt the iron form the decomposition of H with FeO. a reducing environment.
I could not however get large sulfur peaks as oridginally claimed by Dr. Jones because it is a low temperature reaction.

http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/techmanual/MetallurgicalProcess/metalprocess.htm

http://www.sulphuric-acid.com/techmanual/Corrosion/corrosion.htm

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6214311-claims.html

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200620/000020062006A0672379.php

I goofed and because of that goof I am two years ahead of Dr. Jones in actually doing experiments.

 

[BenBurch]

I goofed and because of that goof I am two years ahead of Dr. Jones in actually doing experiments.

We learn only from our failures. Remember that.

 

[StoneRook]

Sorry, I am "trying to wrap my head around this" as someone here would say, but is this paper actually comparing dust from the WTC collapse to regular dust in an office?

Dust from an office that wasn't hit by a jet, set ablaze, and collapse?


Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the sample, say, to a building that was set ablaze and collapsed?


Plus, wouldn't there be more evidence of thermite being used, beyond the "micro" scale that requires an electron microscope to observe?

 

[Apollo20]

StoneRook:

You have a valid point but dust from comparable building collapses might be hard to find because of the involvement of jet aircraft, the unique design and age of the WTC etc, etc.

One point to remember, though, is that a lot of research was carried out on WTC dust because of environmental and health concerns as well as the associated insurance claims. Thus many researchers have been looking for some distinctive characteristic of WTC dust that could serve to distinguish it from ordinary " NYC" dust. Iron-rich microspheres were actually on the short list of such characteristics but I believe slag wool was finally chosen by the EPA as the definitive WTC dust identifier.

 

[metamars]

This kind of statement exposes your gross incompetence to talk about explosives. I said nothing of the kind. Your retort doesn't even make sense.

The pressure depends on distance from the explosion

Gee whiz, ya think? Could that have something to do with the following, taken from the reference I just posted from?

For instance, a 20 KT Nuclear Bomb will product a blast level of 175 db at a distance of several kilometers. As will an empty, primed .38 Special cartridge case in a 2" Chief's Special if the muzzle is inserted directly into your ear.

A shaped charge can generate millions of PSI, but is highly anisotropic. 20,000 PSI or whatever at the surface of a hexolite charge is true no matter the size of the charge, but 10 PSI over the surface of an ordinary building -- enough to destroy ordinary structures -- requires a minimum amount of explosive for any particular value of surface area.

Heck, I don't have any special training in explosives, and even I know that.

Thanks for sharing!

The word "destroy" is nebulous. In fact, the point of the inquiry into thermobarics (for me) is to see if it can explain the particular types of destruction observed. 'Squib' velocity is just one aspect - I think of it as more of a constraint.

You're not qualified to talk about explosives.

What qualifications does one need to ask about explosives?

Your fantasies about thermobarics are totally meaningless.

Your lack of helpful information, couple with your self-assurance that you know all there is to know regarding the plausibility of thermobarics as an explanation for the explosive outbursts, is meaningful. What that meaning is, I leave for the reader to decide for him/herself.

They likewise have no place in a discussion about microspheres seen in the WTC collapses.

Ah-h-h-h, if it turns out that a sufficiently 'dialed down' thermobaric can indeed explain the videographic evidence, then, contrary to what you claim, the question of "what would be the after-effects of aluminum powder with Fe3O4 oxider" is the most natural question in the world, especially since the topic of discussion is the microspheres, and thermite has been proposed as an explanation. In spite of your bluster, you've only settled the matter in your own mind, plus the minds of 'the choir'.

Once again, the video,

The video is probably the main reason why most people believe in CD.....

the seismic record,

I'd ask you to expound on this, since it was relevant to a discussion on physorg re testing the Bazant Le Greening Benson paper, but since this is your last post to me, I won't.

the sounds,

What sound does a low intensity thermobaric make? By 'low intensity', I mean one with a blast front which never exceeds, let's say, 100 mph.

and the phenomenology of collapse proves no explosives. Thermobarics are not special. No explosives means, inclusively, no thermobaric explosives.

So you say. Unfortunately, my questions meant to tease out the plausibility of thermobarics have not been answered by you. It's obvious you're hand-waving, although you may have over-reacted to your presumptions about my ignorance of explosives and thermobarics.

Just for the record, I (like most people, I'm sure) was aware that the intensity of explosions vary with distance, long before I read the post on stun grenades. One would have hoped you would have realized I ultimately want to compare some sort of average of peak pressure over a surface, especially since I wrote

(which will be a function of time and space, of course)

and furthermore, I'm particularly interested in the question of whether you can have such an average which is low enough to allow a blast front of only ~80 mph, but still prolonged enough to create pulverization.

The dependence on distance, in the context of a detonation within a WTC storey, will be much less a factor with a thermobaric than it would be with a non-dispersed explosive, such as TNT. (I assume either dispersal through most of a storey's office space). I don't have a reference for that, but it certainly seems intuitively obvious, even if concentrations at the respective moments of deflagration vary a few fold.

That's all I have to say to you. I encourage you to carry this on with physics professors, mining professors, demolition engineers, military engineers, or whomever you want. Learn. Please.

Well, this is the nicest thing in your whole post! Your advice to "Learn" is good, especially since I in no way consider myself knowledgeable on the subject. Certainly, not to the extent that I can answer my own questions.

If somebody else can answer my questions, feel free. I don't think my solid state professor is going to know....

 

[BenBurch]

Steel mill scale is also often in the form of hollow powders; http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=24915fa84c13b672dbaf1c7620a8cf6d

And I KNOW I have seen beams and plates with a fair amount of mill scale still on them being used to erect buildings.

I thought of this because I worked automating the USX 84" Hot Strip Mill in Gary, where scale was all over the slabs as they came out of the reheat furnace, and was beaten off with special knobby rollers on its way to the coarse part of the mill.

 

[The Almond]

2. On the question of fly ash in WTC concrete, it is interesting to look at the USGS Particle Atlas that has the EDX spectra for 16 concrete particles identified in WTC dust. Seven of the spectra have no iron at all, while another 4 show very low iron. I believe that the iron in WTC concrete is typically less than 2 wt %. This implies that iron from concrete is no more that 20 % of 2 % or 0.4 % while the USGS reports the total iron in WTC dust to average 1.6 %

The iron in concrete comes from the Alumino-ferrite phase of clinker. Theoretically, the composition of that phase is:
4*CaO + Al2O3 + Fe2O3

Most clinkers have iron contents on the order of 3 to 5% Fe2O3. Iron is added to cause the raw cement ingredients to clinker at a lower temperature. The iron is reactive in concrete, and can become part of numerous phases.

By my own calculations, iron makes up somewhere between 1% and 2.5% of any concrete mixture, but it is largely not in the form of spheres. Iron added in through fly ash, however, is commonly spherical and non-reactive. In fact, some research shows that the only truly reactive particles in fly ash are glassy alumino-silicates, with all other forms acting as dead weight.

If we accept the validity of both of these observations, the most logical conclusion, but one Jones is apparently loathe to make, is that the iron-rich particles were NOT produced in the WTC fires, (because the fires weren’t hot enough!), but were already present in these buildings prior to 9/11. Jones must therefore show that the WTC microspheres were NOT from a long list of possible candidates, (e,g. welding fumes, wear particles, etc), that were probably already in the towers pre-9/11 before he starts suggesting any nefarious source(s) of these spheres. (Which I admit he hasn't done in his new paper, but he did do in his Boston presentation).

Should we also consider the possibility of contamination on site? Is he picking up something that was already in the apartment?

 

[Apollo20]

The Almond:

Thanks for that information!

Well of course some "contamination" of any WTC dust sample is possible, but in the context of the 9/11 devastation to that area of New York City, what does the word "contamination" mean?

I am prepared to give SJ and his WTC dust sample the benefit of the doubt on that one!

 

[Sizzler]

A few points based on last night’s posts:

1. SJ has said that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust are hollow. This is very significant because it is a common observation in metallic spheres formed in so-called BOF dust produced by a Bessemer converter in a steelworks. In BOF dust it is generally found that small iron spheres are solid while large ones are hollow. This is explained as follows: Molten iron droplets that are expelled from a Bessemer converter are generally high in dissolved carbon that lowers the melting temperature of the material. For example, the iron-carbon phase diagram shows that iron with 4 % C melts at 1147 deg C, thus the presence of carbon helps to keep the droplets liquid. In this state, the droplets rapidly dissolve oxygen that reacts with the carbon to form carbon monoxide, CO. Nevertheless, small iron droplets have a relatively high surface/volume ratio leading to solidification that is so rapid that no gas can form inside the particle. On the other hand, for large droplets where the outer shell solidifies first, the concentration of dissolved carbon and oxygen in the liquid iron is such that carbon monoxide forms, causing the droplet to expand, and the gas to become trapped as the sphere solidifies. (Source: Prof. Neuschutz, RWTH Aachen, Germany)

2. On the question of fly ash in WTC concrete, it is interesting to look at the USGS Particle Atlas that has the EDX spectra for 16 concrete particles identified in WTC dust. Seven of the spectra have no iron at all, while another 4 show very low iron. I believe that the iron in WTC concrete is typically less than 2 wt %. This implies that iron from concrete is no more that 20 % of 2 % or 0.4 % while the USGS reports the total iron in WTC dust to average 1.6 %

3. On the question of sulfiding of steel, there appears to be the common misconception that this can only be caused by ELEMENTAL sulfur. This is simply not true! In fact, if you search the literature on sulfiding of steel you will find it is inevitably attributed to reactions of iron with SO2, SO3 or H2S. Even if we are talking about thermate, which has added sulfur, the violent OXIDIZING reaction on aluminum also oxidizes the sulfur to SO2 which then attacks any iron present forming an iron sulfide-iron oxide eutectic. (Source: Flatley and Birks, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, July 1971)

4. Finally, Jones’ new paper makes essentially only two points/observations:

(i) The jet fuel and subsequent office fires in the WTC would have generated temperatures that were generally below say 1100 deg C.

(ii) The presence of spherical iron-rich METALLIC spheres in the size range 50 microns to 1.5 mm in the WTC dust shows that the dust contains particles that were formed at temperatures close to the melting point of iron or 1500 deg C, which is well ABOVE any temperature found in fires from the combustion of jet fuel or materials such as paper, wood, textiles or plastics.

If we accept the validity of both of these observations, the most logical conclusion, but one Jones is apparently loathe to make, is that the iron-rich particles were NOT produced in the WTC fires, (because the fires weren’t hot enough!), but were already present in these buildings prior to 9/11. Jones must therefore show that the WTC microspheres were NOT from a long list of possible candidates, (e,g. welding fumes, wear particles, etc), that were probably already in the towers pre-9/11 before he starts suggesting any nefarious source(s) of these spheres. (Which I admit he hasn't done in his new paper, but he did do in his Boston presentation).

This means Jones must provide QUANTITATIVE DATA on the % of microspheres in his samples as well as the total iron. Without this information we really don't have much to talk about on Jones' latest missive.

I'm with you on this analysis for sure.

Are you able to post a few comments on 911blogger? I think Jones is responding to comment there.

I'd be very interested in his responses to your thoughts on his paper.


Mackey:

Great find. I am unable to link to the paper. Could you post a link to it please. I am quite curious as to why Jones didn't mention this in his paper. He really should have....

edit:you already did, missed it, thanks.

 

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

No, I am unable to post on 911Blogger. I have tried posting on forums like LetsRoll and LC... those sites are not particularly open to debate any more than JREF is.

It's too bad we live in a world of opposing "camps".

What we have here is a failure to communicate.........