Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[moorea34]

In the jones' paper, if we look at fig 15 (after MEK sample), we clearly see a correlation between Si and O...

Is it silica (SiO2) ???

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I know this might be off-topic, but do you have a link to any data for this? The "meteorite" comes up in discussions now and then, but I'm not aware of any analysis and nor is anyone else. This above statement I don't think is true and no one has seen any evidence for this.

There is no evidence of this at all. The meteorites have unmelted rebar and other flammables - such as paper - embedded into them. They give every indication of having been formed by compression and other mechanical forces, and zero indication of having had any component originate from molten steel.

Here are a couple of quick links to a post and a thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4455112#post4455112

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106240

Best thing to do is to hit up the search and combine the word "meteorite" with "Gravy" (yes, Mark Robert's handle). That'll turn up decent threads and posts.

 

[moorea34]

I'll have more of a response to the rest of your post, later, but for now:

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

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

Like this...


or this ?



The Makoro kaolin deposit, southeastern Botswana:
its genesis and possible industrial applications
Georges Ekosse Applied Clay Science 16 2000.

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF KGa-1 B WELL-CRYSTALLIZED
KAOLIN SOURCE CLAY
ROBERT J. PRUETT 1 AND HAROLD L. WEBB 2
Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 41, No. 4, 514-519, 1993

 

[metamars]

In the middle of photo (a) we can clearly see these particles. Looking at the other photos it becomes self evident that these particles are thin sheet-like particles (platelets) and they have an hexagonal shape to them (c).

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.

Edited by chillzero: 

I am sorry to remove this section of content, but unfortunately, posts in moderated threads must be strictly on topic, and this was off topic in a manner that would generate a derail.

Having said all that, some of the platelets in Fig. 8 (c) are indeed stacked, many deep. At a larger scale, that would imply artificiality. At such a small scale, in light of the kaolinite picture, and the fact that I can't think of any counter-examples, I would tend to think the opposite. I've only seen 4 photos of Si platelets (in the page I link to above), but I don't see any stacking.

Nevertheless, I will also reserve judgement on what to make of the fact that we can find lots of stacked platelets in the Harrit samples. I just don't know enough about this stuff, and you certainly haven't convinced me that the platelets are kaolinite, either - which is the only type of stacked platelet that I (now) know of.

Perhaps somebody can chime in with insights into what bulk powders of silicon nanopowders with platelet morphology look like? Do we see stacking, or not? Somehow, I don't think anybody can answer that question besides a very few people in the entire world - I'll guess 200.

 

[Sunstealer]

In the jones' paper, if we look at fig 15 (after MEK sample), we clearly see a correlation between Si and O...

Is it silica (SiO2) ???

There is correlation between the two and the most likely compound is SiO₂, but there is also a degree of Carbon associated too, not just with the Si and O, but also with Al.

I don't know what their eyes are telling them, but when they say,

Furthermore, the data indicate that wherever silicon or iron is concentrated, oxygen is also concentrated. On the other hand, there also exist regions where the aluminum is concentrated but where the oxygen may not accompany it commensurately.

yet they don't mention Carbon when there is far more correlation between Carbon and Oxygen (and Aluminium) in the sample. (In Fig 15 there are two distinct "holes" in the maps.) This is ambiguous, but instead of presenting data on that sample with higher SEM magnification, redoing an XEDS map as they did before (Fig 10) as well as showing distinctly, which elements belong to which particle, they decide to do XEDS on areas of high concentration of Si, Al and Fe of their sample at a much lower magnification. This is worthless without closer inspection, because you cannot say exactly what is present and what particle it's present in. After MEK then we would expect a much "cleaner" sample. Why are they not providing us with evidence showing that the Zinc and Chromium in the pre MEK soaked sample was a contaminant?

Note that this XEDS map is taken at 50µm and the other at 1µm. I don't understand the difference if the idea was separation of aluminium particles. They don't even show any consistency and and have different magnifications in post-MEK - Fig 15 (a) and Fig 12 (b) and pre MEK - Fig 12 (a). If they claim Al separation then they should show the particles!

Remember that we don't have any idea what particles where present before or after the soaking in MEK, because none has been presented, all we have is Fig 15 (a) and 12 (a). We don't have the before XEDS map of this sample either so we can't say if anything has been separated.

Bearing in mind the massive discrepancy between the red layers of samples a,b,c,d and the sample that was soaked in MEK, then we can't say that the two are the same material. This is a huge inconsistency. So a test on one cannot be cross-read to the other.

I think that the MEK test is very dodgy, not only because of all of the above, but also the fact that they performed the same test on a paint sample yet didn't include details (or pictures for comparison) of that sample in the paper. I still cannot understand why anyone would want to try to separate out particles of Al when they have the very tool infront of them to see Aluminium particles. Doesn't make sense.

Why didn't they perform a proper characterisation of the samples they had? I'm of the opinion that they think that anything separated from the dust by magnet which has a "red layer" is thermite, irrespective of whether the material shows different compositions for different layers; red as well as grey.

Ooops - sorry Moorea34 - got carried away.

 

[moorea34]

I think also that this paper coulds be interesting...

http://www.rsc.org/ej/CC/2008/b810994j.pdf

Fe203 + carbon , 600 °C ....

 

[moorea34]

For the carbon matrix I've found that :

Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society
versionPrint ISSN 0103-5053
Mesoporous carbons prepared by nano-casting with meso- or non-porous silica nanoparticles
J. Braz. Chem. Soc. vol.17 no.6 São Paulo Sept./Oct. 2006

(fig10a)

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-50532006000600015&script=sci_arttext#fg10a



(may be my precedent post was not so interesting.... sorry)

 

[moorea34]

And for the DSC tests on coatings :

DSC evaluation of binder content in latex paints, C. Pagella*, D.M. De Faveri, Progress in Organic Coatings 33 (1998) 211–217



(3,5 kJ/g here)

 

[Redford]

Nice one. My first thought was "damn it's a match". But then after comparing with the same x scale :

w w w .ruppert-lesite.com/img/compare-1.jpg

(remove spaces)

... it appears we're still not there

 

[240-185]

I'd like to add henryco's answer regarding the DSC performed in air:

Les tests ont été réalisés à l'air car la courbe de référence de nanothermite avait aussi été réalisée à l'air. Il importait donc de procéder dans les mêmes conditions pour comparer. Donc pas d'erreur de méthodologie. Pour des gens qui comprennent les DSCs apparemment le fait d'imaginer qu'un constituant organique puisse générer des pics aussi étroits relève de la pure incompétence [...]

which means:

Tests have been performed in air because the reference curve of the nanothermite was performed in air. So, it was important that we had to proceed under the same conditions in order to make a comparison. So, no methodological error. For people who understand DSCs, the fact that some people may imagine that an organic constituent may generate so narrow peaks reveals pure incompetence [...]

Looks like a stundie.

 

[Julio]

Jones paper refers to this other paper (Tillotson et al.) for the DSC plot of nanothermite they are comparing with.

In that paper should be written whether the test was done in air, or using an inert gas.

anyone has access to the paper?

 

[Redford]

Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.

 

[Sunstealer]

Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.

Be careful with comparisons because the material in this paper is of a different nature to that in samples, a,b,c,d. The particles are much smaller and the Aluminium particles are high purity.

From the abstract -

Nanocomposites of Fe2O3/Al(s), are readily produced from a solution of Fe(III) salt by adding an organic epoxide and a powder of the fuel metal. These materials can be processed to aerogel or xerogel monolithic composite solids. High resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) of the dried energetic nanocomposites reveal that the metal oxide component consists of small (3–10 nm) clusters of Fe2O3 that are in intimate contact with ultra fine grain (UFG) ~25 nm diameter Al metal particles. HRTEM results also indicate that the Al particles have an oxide coating ~5 nm thick.

In the Harrit et Al paper the Fe₂0₃ particles (let alone clusters) are a minimum of 100nm in diameter, so atleast 10 times larger. The Platelet particles are approximately 1µm (1000nm) in diameter and therefore 40 times larger than the Al particles. Those Al particles have an oxide layer of 5nm. They also state

We believe that the sol–gel method will at the very least provide processing advantages over conventional methods in the areas of cost, purity, homogeneity,

and are therefore unlikely to contain any significant amount of Silicon or Oxygen or other element as opposed to the Jones' samples as evidence by this XEDS spectra.

I shall get to Metamar's comments about hexagons in good time. Once I've taken a few deep breaths and decided how I shall respond to his outrageous question on my professionalism and scientific integrity, not only in post #164, but also on another forum, whereby the comments weren't as well moderated, and try to respond within the spirit of the OP and continue as before.

 

[Sunstealer]

Moorea states somewhere that the paper doesn't tell, and wonder if it's why Harrit et al tested in air.

OTOH henryco said here they did it this way because their DSC for Xerogel ( the reference nano thermite they've chosen) was done in air.

The pre-print of that document is available here https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/242925.pdf. (5.05mb pdf) It doesn't contain any calorimeter data DSC or otherwise so I don't know if that data made it to print. They ignite their sample with a propane torch.

 

[Redford]

Be careful with comparisons because the material in this paper is of a different nature to that in samples, a,b,c,d. The particles are much smaller and the Aluminium particles are high purity.

I am not sure I am getting this. Harrit et al are making the comparison at a point where they consider the thermitic nature of the material to be proven. From that point they're using the graph to show the ignition starts even lower than a reference nano thermite which ignites already at lower temperature than thermite. Thus concluding the material is rather nano thermite than thermite.

(of course, if you consider the thermitic nature of the material *not* proven at that point, Fig 29 is just something asking a question : "what ignites @ 435°C ? Kaoline ?")

Now if I get you right the reference nano thermite (red curve) is made of a smaller, purest mix. So I understand (as the layman i am ) than it would then be expected to actually react faster. If so, I suppose (nearly blind guess) that it will make the trace thiner, won't it ?

And if that so, the fact that the blue curve is even thiner is even more puzzling to me.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.

Perhaps a little enlargement and histogram adjustment will help:

 

[metamars]

I must say that, with few exceptions, your ability to detect hexagons in the Harrit SEM photo seems like a manifestation of a strong, wish-fullfilling imagination.

Here are two pictures of Harrit Figure 9, which have been processed for edge detection, in Paint Shop Pro.

The one on the left was processed via:

Effects | Edge | Enhance More

The one on the right was processed via:

Effects | Edge |Find All


Even considering that this has Fe2O3 crystals mixed in with the platelets, it's pretty obvious that anything even suggesting a hexagon is rather rare.

Now, contrast these with the silicon nano-platelets in the center of the following photo:

 

[R.Mackey]

The pre-print of that document is available here https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/242925.pdf. (5.05mb pdf) It doesn't contain any calorimeter data DSC or otherwise so I don't know if that data made it to print. They ignite their sample with a propane torch.

I have the full paper, and I don't see where they specify DSC in a neutral atmosphere or not. I would also speculate this is why Dr. Jones did it in oxygen -- he simply didn't know any better, and was cribbing off this paper to make his own work seem as similar as possible, in search of a similar result.

 

[moorea34]

I have the full paper, and I don't see where they specify DSC in a neutral atmosphere or not. I would also speculate this is why Dr. Jones did it in oxygen -- he simply didn't know any better, and was cribbing off this paper to make his own work seem as similar as possible, in search of a similar result.

I had the full paper so and it was the same conclusion for me... Jones speak about thermite since 3 years but doesn't know anythng about it !

 

[Dog Town]

...Jones speak about thermite since 3 years but doesn't know anythng about it !

No truer words have been spoken! Bravo!