Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked

[paulheinze]

Suppose I were to take a sheet of aluminium foil and paint it with a material that uses iron oxide for red coloring. Then crush it up in a mortar and pestle and send it off to Harrit. Would he conclude that it is thermite?

Supposed you manage to grind it to 50nm particles. You should take some weeks off for grinding. I would be interested to hear from the results.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Supposed you manage to grind it to 50nm particles. You should take some weeks off for grinding. I would be interested to hear from the results.

Uhh, no. The chips Jones had were around 2mm in length. I could get that pretty darn easily. They would be free to tear it up into smaller pieces with magnets as was done in the Harrit et all paper afterwards. It'll make it sound more impressive to truthers like you.

 

[paulheinze]

Uhh, no. The chips Jones had were around 2mm in length. I could get that pretty darn easily. They would be free to tear it up into smaller pieces with magnets as was done in the Harrit et all paper afterwards. It'll make it sound more impressive to truthers like you.

The red layer consisted of 50-100nm size particles. Good luck in creating it. I am really interested to hear from your results. Certainly somebody here has access to XEDS and the other stuff to examine your product.

 

[metamars]

This is a lie.

Nanothermite has about 40% of the energy of ordinary thermite, as reported by Tillotsen et al. (2002). The reason, as reported by them, is because one of the ingredients is elemental aluminum. It is very difficult to keep elemental aluminum from oxidizing in ordinary use. Aluminum rapidly develops an oxide layer, and aluminum oxide is inert in the thermite reaction.

Now, in normal thermite, the thin coating of aluminum oxide is inconsequential. But as the particle size shrinks, as in nanothermite, the coating becomes a significant fraction of the total. As a result, in nanothermite, the energy density is quite a bit lower -- in order to introduce aluminum, you must carry with you a large fraction as aluminum oxide. So, therefore, nanothermite has a lower energy density than ordinary thermite. Normal thermite carries up to about 4.0 MJ/kg, whereas nanothermite is about 1.5 MJ/ kg. This is not an estimate! This is actual observation from Dr. Tillotsen's team. You'd know this if you had even attempted to learn about the stuff.

Yet you claim nanothermite has a higher energy density than normal thermite? Do you realize that this proves you have no clue what you're talking about? This is like saying a Twinkie has 150 calories, but if you grind that Twinkie up into little bits, it'll mysteriously have more than 150 calories. Utter madness.

Now then, Truther, I asked you some questions. You didn't answer. Here they are again:



It's pretty obvious why you won't answer. Give it a try, or be Ignored. This is your final offer.

I suggest cmatrix, et. al., read the previous posts on the Harrit paper. E.g., they can start here, where they can get a clue via my post #26, wherein I diplomatically ask

Isn't it true that the Al + O2 reaction creates about twice as much heat, per mole of Al, as the thermite reaction?

In fact, I already know the answer, which I have quoted elsewhere in JREF. The answer is "yes".

Say now, Mackey, do you think this fact would in any way have a bearing on the results of DSC tests done in air? You seem to think that

The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two

is a good argument for why the Harrit chips can't be some kind of nano-thermite, as opposed to a fair argument as to why their DSC test is ambiguous, in this regard.

Am I correct in that you don't have the slightest curiosity in knowing the exact composition and energetics of the organic component of the Harrit chips?

I don't anticipate participating in this thread much more, but if you ever come up with any primer paint chips that we can burn which yields microspheres, would you be kind enough to PM me? Thanks. The Harrit team is emphatic that no spheres were present in the the chips before igniting them. Your assuming otherwise amounts to saying that they are lying through their teeth. Maybe they will be proven wrong, and the chips will simply turn out to be fragments of electronic chips, but you implicit assumptions of bald-faced lying or bald-faced incompetence are not shared by people less desperate than yourself to demonize anything that could point to a 911 conspiracy.

I suggest that cmatrix, et. al., also read the active thermitic paper threads at the911forum.freeforums.org.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The red layer consisted of 50-100nm size particles. Good luck in creating it. I am really interested to hear from your results. Certainly somebody here has access to XEDS and the other stuff to examine your product.

They used magnets to pull chunks of iron oxide out of the paint. Those pieces were 50nm. It's not hard to do. You just need a magnet.

 

[funk de fino]

Prove Barry Jennings wasn't murdered. What was his cause of death? His death was very suspicious. He died shortly after Dylan Avery released an interview that told his story about hearing explosions In WTC7 before the two towers collapsed and about the dead bodies in WTC7 afterwards. He allegedly didn't want the interview in Loose Change because of threats to his job. A few days after he died NIST released their fraudulent WTC7 report. There are no details on his death or why his family vanished.

Kevin Ryan is a chemist and was a lab manager at Underwriters Laboratories. His letter to NIST's Frank Gayle stated that the temperatures were too low to cause the failure of the WTC structural steel. Merely writing this letter got him fired from his job. Yeah nothing suspicious about that.

The other people you mention are not key witnesses with damaging testimony to tell. Nor do they have syndicate jobs they can be fired from. Some may even be seen as "useful idiots" (not my term).

Wow, just WOW. No excuse for that in this day and age.

Hopefully it is ignorance and not lies that is the root cause.

 

[metamars]

This is a lie.

Nanothermite has about 40% of the energy of ordinary thermite, as reported by Tillotsen et al. (2002). The reason, as reported by them, is because one of the ingredients is elemental aluminum. It is very difficult to keep elemental aluminum from oxidizing in ordinary use. Aluminum rapidly develops an oxide layer, and aluminum oxide is inert in the thermite reaction.

Now, in normal thermite, the thin coating of aluminum oxide is inconsequential. But as the particle size shrinks, as in nanothermite, the coating becomes a significant fraction of the total. As a result, in nanothermite, the energy density is quite a bit lower -- in order to introduce aluminum, you must carry with you a large fraction as aluminum oxide. So, therefore, nanothermite has a lower energy density than ordinary thermite. Normal thermite carries up to about 4.0 MJ/kg, whereas nanothermite is about 1.5 MJ/ kg. This is not an estimate! This is actual observation from Dr. Tillotsen's team. You'd know this if you had even attempted to learn about the stuff.

Yet you claim nanothermite has a higher energy density than normal thermite?

nice job completely ignoring the platelet geometry of the Al particles.


A sphere, as you know, has a volume 4/3 * pi * r^3


A solid rectangle has a volum length * height * r (where I denote width by r)



Now, consider the difference in efficiency in packing elemental Al, in both geometries.


If r0 is the radius of the elemental Al sphere, and r1 is the thickness of the Al oxide spherical shell, then the ratio of Al to Al oxide is

ro^3 / {(r0 + r1)^3 - ro^3}

= ro^3 / {r1^3 + 3r0^3r1 + 3r0r1^3 } {r1^3 + 3r0^2r1 + 3r0r1^2 }


OTOH, if r0 is half the thickness of elemental Al in a solid rectangle, and r1 is the thickness of the Al oxide shell, then the ratio of Al to Al oxide is

ro / r1


Since r0 and r1 are positive, r1^3 + 3r0^3r1 + 3r0r1^3 + 3r0^2r1 + 3r0r1^2 is always greater than r1^3

hence spherical geometry ratio of Al to Al Oxide is always less than ro^3 / r1^3


Since r0 > r1 (at least in data I've seen), r0 / r1 < 1. (Oh, well, back to the drawing board. I'll have a look at this calc, later. Time for work, now.)

Hence (ro / r1)^3 < (r0 / r1)

IOW, there will always be a higher concentraction of Al in the solid rectangle structure.

Now, I ignored taking edges into consideration, and also the thickness of any Silicon substrate. This is basically a plausibility argument, which shows that your simple observation about energy density of nanothermites with spherical Al particles cannot be carried over into a serious analysis of nanothermite with Al particles having a planar geometry.

Again, to cmatrix, et. al., I have already done a similar type calculation (though it was less general). I don't have the time for this stuff, so you'll have to use the Search facility to help counteract the short memory of the debunkers.

Do you realize that this proves you have no clue what you're talking about?

Perhaps you wish to retract this?

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is basically a plausibility argument, which shows that your simple observation about energy density of nanothermites with spherical Al particles cannot be carried over into a serious analysis of nanothermite with Al particles having a planar geometry.

Whatever the geometry, it should be instantly obvious from considerations of simple geometry (once the significance of the aluminium oxide layer has been pointed out) that the energy density of nanothermite must inevitably be lower than that of larger grained thermite. This means that the energy discrepancy, while not necessarily as high as a factor of five, is still greater than the factor of two discrepancy were the thermite grain assumed to be much larger than the surface layer thickness. There is really no way of circumventing the fact that these particles contain too much energy to be produced by a thermite reaction, and that therefore we can be certain that combustion in ambient oxygen is taking place. Therefore, while this does not disprove the presence of a thermite reaction, it is fully consistent with no thermite reaction, and cannot therefore be taken as proof of one. Therefore, Harrit et al's claim, that their results prove that a thermite reaction has taken place, is simply wrong.

Dave

 

[paulheinze]

They used magnets to pull chunks of iron oxide out of the paint. Those pieces were 50nm. It's not hard to do. You just need a magnet.

You mix up the iron spheres and the red layer.
I would be interested if in the process of grinding al-foil and iron-oxide pigmented paint iron spheres are created. So I am really excited to hear your results.

 

[beachnut]

nice job completely ignoring the platelet geometry of the Al particles.


A sphere, as you know, has a volume 4/3 * pi * r^3


A solid rectangle has a volum length * height * r (where I denote width by r)



Now, consider the difference in efficiency in packing elemental Al, in both geometries.


If r0 is the radius of the elemental Al sphere, and r1 is the thickness of the Al oxide spherical shell, then the ratio of Al to Al oxide is

ro^3 / {(r0 + r1)^3 - ro^3}

= ro^3 / {r1^3 + 3r0^3r1 + 3r0r1^3 } {r1^3 + 3r0^2r1 + 3r0r1^2 }


OTOH, if r0 is half the thickness of elemental Al in a solid rectangle, and r1 is the thickness of the Al oxide shell, then the ratio of Al to Al oxide is

ro / r1


Since r0 and r1 are positive, r1^3 + 3r0^3r1 + 3r0r1^3 + 3r0^2r1 + 3r0r1^2 is always greater than r1^3

hence spherical geometry ratio of Al to Al Oxide is always less than ro^3 / r1^3


Since r0 > r1 (at least in data I've seen), r0 / r1 < 1. (Oh, well, back to the drawing board. I'll have a look at this calc, later. Time for work, now.)

Hence (ro / r1)^3 < (r0 / r1)

IOW, there will always be a higher concentraction of Al in the solid rectangle structure.

Now, I ignored taking edges into consideration, and also the thickness of any Silicon substrate. This is basically a plausibility argument, which shows that your simple observation about energy density of nanothermites with spherical Al particles cannot be carried over into a serious analysis of nanothermite with Al particles having a planar geometry.

Again, to cmatrix, et. al., I have already done a similar type calculation (though it was less general). I don't have the time for this stuff, so you'll have to use the Search facility to help counteract the short memory of the debunkers.



Perhaps you wish to retract this?

per pound - lol - your new nano-thermite has more energy per pound than it did before? Is this reaalleeeeee chemistry?

You are right, go to fantasy-land where your bs is standard material in a world which had to exist to spread lies and hearsay freely with less fear of being called on your moronic tripe.

I suggest that cmatrix, et. al., also read the active thermitic paper threads at the911forum.freeforums.org.

Go back to fantasy-land where gravity collapses are banned by Heiwa's axiom of stupid.

Go back to fantasyland so you can ignore rational thought and have rockets to discuss; just make up anything you want and feed your inside jobby job delusions.
When David Chandler discovers WTC "rocket" you play along.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this 'rocket' is that it supports the idea of a "slow explosive". I.e., presumably gas production creates momentum effects, but not so dramatic that you get the cracking sound associated with high explosives.

You play along with Jones' pure insanity on thermite with 1,000,000 ceiling tile laced with super-nano-thermite! This is pure delusion. You support idiotic delusions and you are at a skeptic web forum spewing failed analyze instead of rational discussion. So in your demented failed scenario did the Israels deliver the nano-thermite to the evil guys you want to blame but lack the evidence and the knowledge to make it happen. Who supplied the nano-thermite in your delusion?

You can't figure out impacts and fires destroyed the WTC. You have to add your own delusions and support the false evidence for thermite.

 

[paulheinze]

Whatever the geometry, it should be instantly obvious from considerations of simple geometry (once the significance of the aluminium oxide layer has been pointed out) that the energy density of nanothermite must inevitably be lower than that of larger grained thermite. This means that the energy discrepancy, while not necessarily as high as a factor of five, is still greater than the factor of two discrepancy were the thermite grain assumed to be much larger than the surface layer thickness. There is really no way of circumventing the fact that these particles contain too much energy to be produced by a thermite reaction, and that therefore we can be certain that combustion in ambient oxygen is taking place. Therefore, while this does not disprove the presence of a thermite reaction, it is fully consistent with no thermite reaction, and cannot therefore be taken as proof of one. Therefore, Harrit et al's claim, that their results prove that a thermite reaction has taken place, is simply wrong.

Dave

How do you explain a combustion that creates iron microshperes?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You mix up the iron spheres and the red layer.
I would be interested if in the process of grinding al-foil and iron-oxide pigmented paint iron spheres are created. So I am really excited to hear your results.

Read. The. Paper.

They started off with 2mm long chips. They then used magnets to get smaller pieces.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How do you explain a combustion that creates iron microshperes?

Iron-rich microspheres, wasn't it? They're a well-known component of fly ash, which is a product of combustion. It's purely an invention of Steven Jones that there is anything unexpected about finding iron-rich microspheres in combustion products.

Dave

 

[tsig]

Some kid on the interwebs.

Who seems to enjoy feeding on death.

 

[tsig]

Whatever the geometry, it should be instantly obvious from considerations of simple geometry (once the significance of the aluminium oxide layer has been pointed out) that the energy density of nanothermite must inevitably be lower than that of larger grained thermite. This means that the energy discrepancy, while not necessarily as high as a factor of five, is still greater than the factor of two discrepancy were the thermite grain assumed to be much larger than the surface layer thickness. There is really no way of circumventing the fact that these particles contain too much energy to be produced by a thermite reaction, and that therefore we can be certain that combustion in ambient oxygen is taking place. Therefore, while this does not disprove the presence of a thermite reaction, it is fully consistent with no thermite reaction, and cannot therefore be taken as proof of one. Therefore, Harrit et al's claim, that their results prove that a thermite reaction has taken place, is simply wrong.

Dave

It looks like we are experiencing nanostupid.

 

[tsig]

How do you explain a combustion that creates iron microshperes?

oxy-acetylene cutters and welders.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There is a severe problem with trying to claim that the microspheres were generated by combustion the chip samples (as opposed to being liberated from them) during calorimeter combustion, and that's that Lioy et. al. demonstrates that iron microspheres already existed in the Twin Towers dust. The Jones/Harrit paper doesn't describe how they determined that the spheres were not already embedded in the samples; they merely assert that "none were observed... prior to DSC-heating". The declaration of absence prior to combustion needs real support; the declaration is insufficient.

ETA: Yes, this is a question of trust. And yes, I'm holding them to a higher standard that I otherwise would for any other researcher. And that's because Jones has already abused trust and ran out of leeway a long time ago. In the very same paper, he and the others attempt to make a "Supercup: Holds more than a cup" argument by claiming that thermite produces more energy release than the theoretical chemical maximum. So yes, this is a stricter standard. Jones, as well as Kevin Ryan's prior dishonesties fully justifies this.

 

[T.A.M.]

Paul and other truthers:

Two words - INDEPENDENT (Truly) REPEATABILITY!

Jones has not displayed that his results can be INDEPENDENTLY repeated. I have seen not one bit of evidence that he submitted his samples to a TRULY independent (meaning he or the TM had no contact or relationship with the lab prior to submission) Lab for analysis.

When I see that he has done so (and I mean with VERIFICATION that the lab had no contact or affiliation with him or other members of the truth movement), and they have come back with PUBLISHED (not an email from a S. Jones post...that won't do) confirmation of his results, and their interpretation of such, then I will take him and his "science" seriously.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

ETA: Yes, this is a question of trust. And yes, I'm holding them to a higher standard that I otherwise would for any other researcher. And that's because Jones has already abused trust and ran out of leeway a long time ago. In the very same paper, he and the others attempt to make a "Supercup: Holds more than a cup" argument by claiming that thermite produces more energy release than the theoretical chemical maximum. So yes, this is a stricter standard. Jones, as well as Kevin Ryan's prior dishonesties fully justifies this.

Quoted For Truth!

TAM

 

[WildCat]

Are you expecting that to mean anything to the man on the street, whether they are above average intelligence, or not?

The "man on the street" points at the man in the sandwich board screaming "inside job" on the off-ramp and laughs.