Questions about nano-thermite

[NagP]

I ran a search at Google Scholar with key words "Energetic Nanocomposite thermite".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=ja&lr=&q=Energetic+Nanocomposite+thermite&btnG=検索&lr=

From the articles found in this search, I think you can get a good idea of what nano-thermite is, how it is different from ordinary thermite, how it is made, and you can see some pictures of nano-thermite.

However, most of the articles found here is dated after 2004.
Is there any article published before 2001?
I think it is still under basic research and not ready for any real application.

 

[Klimax]

I ran a search at Google Scholar with key words "Energetic Nanocomposite thermite".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=ja&lr=&q=Energetic+Nanocomposite+thermite&btnG=検索&lr=

From the articles found in this search, I think you can get a good idea of what nano-thermite is, how it is different from ordinary thermite, how it is made, and you can see some pictures of nano-thermite.

However, most of the articles found here is dated after 2004.
Is there any article published before 2001?
I think it is still under basic research and not ready for any real application.

Expectaion is:none

 

[Edx]

Someone just told me this:

paint remnants does not burn at a temperatures over 1500 celcius, which the chips does, which is quite incredicble

huh?

 

[NagP]

I've watched the video of Niels Harrit, the first author of the nano-thermite paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KFHIq6KZM
Around 5 min. 14 sec., he is talking about the quantities of nano-T planted in WTC,
and he says, "Over 10 tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes" according to the English translation.
This is a huge amount of explosives.

According to the original Jones paper,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
it says in p.31

Scaling to the 110-story WTC Towers, roughly 1300 pounds [590 kg] of explosives per Tower
would suffice. Scaling to the size of WTC 7, 570 pounds [260 kg] would be indicated. The
videos referenced above show WTC 7 falling top-down, in conventional controlled demolition
fashion.

So, originally Jones estimated total of ~1.4 tons of explosives.

However, according to Dr. Harrit,
you need 10-100 times more nanoT than ordinary explosives.
What's the benefit of nanoT?

 

[Klimax]

I've watched the video of Niels Harrit, the first author of the nano-thermite paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KFHIq6KZM
Around 5 min. 14 sec., he is talking about the quantities of nano-T planted in WTC,
and he says, "Over 10 tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes" according to the English translation.
This is a huge amount of explosives.

According to the original Jones paper,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
it says in p.31

So, originally Jones estimated total of ~1.4 tons of explosives.

However, according to Dr. Harrit,
you need 10-100 times more nanoT than ordinary explosives.
What's the benefit of nanoT?

IIRC,having smaller size of particles it would be releasing energy faster.

 

[NagP]

IIRC,having smaller size of particles it would be releasing energy faster.

Yes, but if that's true, you just need smaller quantity.
Isn't this a paradox?

 

[beachnut]

I've watched the video of Niels Harrit, the first author of the nano-thermite paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KFHIq6KZM
Around 5 min. 14 sec., he is talking about the quantities of nano-T planted in WTC,
and he says, "Over 10 tonnes, possibly 100 tonnes" according to the English translation.
This is a huge amount of explosives.

According to the original Jones paper,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
it says in p.31

So, originally Jones estimated total of ~1.4 tons of explosives.

However, according to Dr. Harrit,
you need 10-100 times more nanoT than ordinary explosives.
What's the benefit of nanoT?

It is a fantasy; explosives in the WTC is a lie. So they can make up anything they want.

Back to reality; a faster reaction is not more heat/not more energy.

 

[Klimax]

Yes, but if that's true, you just need smaller quantity.
Isn't this a paradox?

If what I recalled is true,it does not change needed amount as it affects only speed not amount of energy released.
So, so far NO paradox.

And IIRC proposed amount of thermite (coating of 100nm thick layer) would heat steel by some degrees.(2-8°C) Not enough...

 

[NagP]

It is a fantasy; explosives in the WTC is a lie. So they can make up anything they want.

OK.
So, there is no benefit of using nanoT at all.

 

[Edx]

paint remnants does not burn at a temperatures over 1500 celcius, which the chips does, which is quite incredicble

^^^^ sorry, anyone?

 

[Edx]

ping

 

[CORed]

Even assuming that the schemers wanted to make extra-triple sure the jet fuel would ignite right away and so planted an additional ignition source in the buildings, therm*te as that ignition source makes no sense.

The reason is that whatever was supposedly used to ignite the therm*te would be sufficient to ignite the jet fuel all by itself. There's no reason to add the therm*te part.

As for the hypothesized (and unsupported by evidence) percussive ignition of nanothermite, percussive ignition has been a working technology since the early 1800's. No need to apply cutting-edge nanotechnology to do something that could easily be done with the contents of a 1950's chemistry set.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Candles would have probably worked better than thermite to make sure the jet fuel ignited. Assuming, of course that the perps were dumb enough to think they needed anything to make sure the jet fuel caught fire.

 

[cev08241971]

flash point of jet fuel is quite low

Assuming, of course that the perps were dumb enough to think they needed anything to make sure the jet fuel caught fire.

Jet fuel starts to vaporize at about 100F, at that point any ignition source is a hazard, and I'm sure everyone can think of several ignition sources present when an aircraft smashes into a steel framed skyscraper. A fireball is almost certain under such circumstances.

 

[cev08241971]

benefits of "nano" thermite

OK.
So, there is no benefit of using nanoT at all.

I'm not entirely sure what your question was, but there are of course many benefits to using nanothermite over "ordinary" thermite. There are also many formulas for thermite, not all of them use iron, but they all use some element like aluminum that's really good at scavenging electrons from other metals. You can make thermite with lead, chromium, titanium, etcetera: Amazing Rust

One benefit of "nanothermite" over "ordinary" thermite is it can be explosive, instead of just deflagrating (burning). It can also be tailored to deflagrate at one temperature threshold and explode at a higher threshold. A benefit over other explosives is that it has a very high energy density, both in terms of mass and volume. It can be used to deflagrate metal and it can be used to cut metal explosively. These benefits really can't be matched by very many explosives, and there are other benefits as well.

 

[cev08241971]

"painted on" thermite

And IIRC proposed amount of thermite (coating of 100nm thick layer) would heat steel by some degrees.(2-8°C) Not enough...

Some of this material could have been used as "fuse" to control the detonation sequence to a certain extent. It's suitable for a "cascading" explosion, where one explosion ignites the fuse that triggers the next explosion almost immediately and so on. This is not rocket surgery, it's a common practice to use this sort of material as an ignition source. Hobbyists do something similar when they use magnesium ribbons (or binary chemicals) to ignite their home-brewed thermite.

The ratio of this material in the World Trade Center dust samples examined suggest on the order of 10 tons of this stuff all throughout the buildings. For 220 stories that's what, 90lbs per floor? Here's something most people can relate to, a 40lbs bag of concrete mix:

http://http.cdnlayer.com/ec1images/raw/products/5/5202411.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5.

So a couple of bags of this stuff per floor. Load up the base, spray it on, load up the thermite while it's drying and spray that on. Would two bags of this stuff be enough to "spray on" fuse up and down the length of several columns on every floor? What if you also used it to weaken steel beams at 30 foot intervals, so that subsequent explosions split the steel where you weakened it into 30 foot sections that fit perfectly on your trucks? Is two bags per floor enough?

 

[cev08241971]

nanothermites are boutique explosives that are readily tailored

However, according to Dr. Harrit,
you need 10-100 times more nanoT than ordinary explosives.

I don't know if this Dr. Harrit said this or if you are just inventing it, but it's not true. The energy density of nanothermite is comparable to that of other explosives used in demolition, both in terms of weight and in particular in terms of volume. These materials are very dense so they take up less volume than other explosives, and they are EXTREMELY energetic for their mass when well-designed. They are the cutting edge of demolition explosives, particularly when you consider the range of properties that can be customized, as I've mentioned in another post, they can have different temperature thresholds for deflagration (subsonic burning) and explosion, so, for example, a jet fuel fire might ignite it, but a high explosive detonating nearby might cause it to burn explosively.

 

[cev08241971]

the World Trade Center was demolished by explosives inside it

It is a fantasy; explosives in the WTC is a lie.

The World Trade Center was demolished by explosives inside it. How anyone can still be in denial about that is beyond me.

 

[332nd]

Nanothermite isn't an explosive. It's an incendiary.

 

[cev08241971]

paint chips don't explode, was the point

huh?

I think what the poster was getting at is these chips, when heated, burn explosively, paint chips don't. They also don't break down in methyl ethyl ketone, which paint does. They also don't have the same chemical signature as "kaolinite", despite many strenuous claims to the contrary. These chips are not paint, they are highly energetic aluminothermic compounds with very specific properties, properties which are obscenely consistent in all the samples.

 

[cev08241971]

nanothermite can deflagrate or explode or both

Nanothermite isn't an explosive. It's an incendiary.

Actually the whole point of "nano" thermite is to produce explosives. As I've stated previously (multiple times now), nano thermite can also be tailored so it will deflagrate (burn) at one temperature threshold and explode at a higher threshold. It can then be used as an incendiary or an explosive. These chips, when heated abruptly, explode, resulting in spherules of elemental iron. They have also been shown to deflagrate at lower temperatures, leaving behind similar spherules. Clearly it's not overstating it to say this stuff is nano thermite.