WTC dust

[Mikemcc]

Those things aren't built to the proper scale. Casimir effects are noticeable at the micrometer level, and not much beyond that.

Piezoelectric devices must account for the Casimir effect, you betcha.

So I couldn't possibly have used piezo-motors at DLS because it would have caused the instument stages to dissociate! I'll have to remember that in future!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say spontaneous. It would be anything but spontaneous. I'd call it "purposeful".

My point was that the phenomenon would appear spontaneous to anyone who created it unintentionally. But nobody has done so.

Dr. Mel Winfield has claimed to have patented a portable device that can do exactly this. Ask him questions about it. He lives in Ontario, Canada.

ETA: I shouldn't have said "patented" because I'm not sure he got a patent. I meant to say that Mel Winfield claims to have INVENTED a device that can do this.

I googled him. I found this page http://www.spacetelescopes.com/mel-winfield.html which says:
"Biography
Date of Birth: January 25, 1927, Alberta, Canada
Date of Death: June 29, 2010, British Columbia, Canada"

 

[Mikemcc]

Maybe you are right. Maybe it is iron filings. I don't know how they'd get there, but ok.

I used two different types of magnets. I used density matched control samples. I don't know why you are giving me a hassle about this.

If my samples can make magnets dance, they are magnetic. Please give me at least that much.

A 10 second search gives me this list of ferromagnetic materials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ferromagnetic_materials

So using magnets is here nor there, using a mass spectrometer or a SEM would be far more illuminating.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Those things aren't built to the proper scale. Casimir effects are noticeable at the micrometer level, and not much beyond that.

So, what about a couple of skyscrapers; were they built to the proper scale?

 

[leftysergeant]

If my samples can make magnets dance, they are magnetic. Please give me at least that much.

That still gives us no idea how much of the dust consists of iron derived from your theoreticly "dustified" steel, or wleding fume, or paint chips or fly ash or sand used in the concrete. These items need to be separated out from each other.

I spend a great deal of time at the sportsman's firing range on Ft Lewis. Because we are required to police up our expended cartridges, I usually bring a large magent on a stick to pick up my Russian casings. If the ground is dry, I usually pick up more sand than casings from a low pass.

Out of one cup of soil from most sandy locations, about 1/2 to 2/3 cup are magnetic.

You have some sorting to do.

 

[WTC Dust]

No, you don't. You need to take enough readings to be statistically certain that you have accounted for all the materials in your sample. It's really not as mystical and difficult as you're making it out to be.


Because that's how sane people do the analysis.


Yes, it would, that's the whole point.


Irrelevant


Yes, they are. You're not. You're purposely obfuscating.

We are having a scientific argument now, and I like it. (Except the clairvoyance on your part, but can't expect perfection.)

To quote Carl Sagan, "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together."

Something similar to this is true about my dust samples. The composition of the atoms that make up the dust is not the "beautiful" part of the discovery I've made. It's the arrangement of those atoms in the particular way that they are arranged that tells the jaw-dropping, world history-changing story that I'm trying to tell.

 

[WTC Dust]

My point was that the phenomenon would appear spontaneous to anyone who created it unintentionally. But nobody has done so.


I googled him. I found this page http://www.spacetelescopes.com/mel-winfield.html which says:
"Biography
Date of Birth: January 25, 1927, Alberta, Canada
Date of Death: June 29, 2010, British Columbia, Canada"

Wow. That was news to me. RIP Mel Winfield.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Just to tell some of my secrets because you actually hit the nail on the head, yes, some of the dust is magnetic (although that is not the only reason that I know it is metallic). I can make my magnet dance on a string, just by bringing the sample up close. Pretty nifty, huh?

Why would this be a secret? This a pretty simple qualitative test. You should have led with this rather than bare assertions.

In any event, it sounds like the dust is attracted to whatever container the dust is in. You should be able to pick up the dust with the magnet.

 

[WTC Dust]

A 10 second search gives me this list of ferromagnetic materials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ferromagnetic_materials

So using magnets is here nor there, using a mass spectrometer or a SEM would be far more illuminating.

Haven't done SEM. Plan to.

An ignorant, technician's application of mass spectroscopy to my samples would not reveal the full extent of the data. It would need to be a very highly knowledgeable technician, and there isn't anyone more knowledgeable about the dust than me (who isn't stuck in the publish or perish land).

 

[excaza]

We are having a scientific argument now, and I like it.

Hate to break it to you, but there is nothing scientific about anything you've said or done.

It's the arrangement of those atoms in the particular way that they are arranged that tells the jaw-dropping, world history-changing story that I'm trying to tell.

And yet, you can't even remotely come close to quantifying it. No mass composition, no focused pictures, no macroscopic pictures, no microscopic pictures, no crystallography, no SEM images, etc.

Nothing but your babbling.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Haven't done SEM. Plan to.

An ignorant, technician's application of mass spectroscopy to my samples would not reveal the full extent of the data. It would need to be a very highly knowledgeable technician, and there isn't anyone more knowledgeable about the dust than me (who isn't stuck in the publish or perish land).

An ignorant technician who follows SOP will get the exact same results as everyone else. Data is data.

You're not a real research scientist. You're just winging it. As far as I can tell, your only purpose in joining this forum and creating this thread is to garner information to help you research, since you're not sure what methods should be used.

 

[WTC Dust]

So, what about a couple of skyscrapers; were they built to the proper scale?

If I'm right, manipulation of the Casimir effect also destroyed several thousand toilets, too. It's not the scale I'm talking about.

Does it matter if a molecule of steel in a 1368 foot steel beam is one micrometer out of whack? No. It does matter to nanoscale devices.

 

[WTC Dust]

That still gives us no idea how much of the dust consists of iron derived from your theoreticly "dustified" steel, or wleding fume, or paint chips or fly ash or sand used in the concrete. These items need to be separated out from each other.

I spend a great deal of time at the sportsman's firing range on Ft Lewis. Because we are required to police up our expended cartridges, I usually bring a large magent on a stick to pick up my Russian casings. If the ground is dry, I usually pick up more sand than casings from a low pass.

Out of one cup of soil from most sandy locations, about 1/2 to 2/3 cup are magnetic.

You have some sorting to do.

Again, the physical arrangement of the material in my sample is important here. I have been describing it as a dust, and it certainly is very, very dusty. But a more perfect description of the dust would be to call it a "foam".

The metallic dust (and not the lighter colored dust) has a foamy appearance and a certain strength and physical consistency that allows you to actually pick it up and hold largish chunks of it (~a few grams). But any slight scratch or scrape causes the chunks to fall apart into this incredibly fine dust.

It's a metallic foam, is what it is. I was sorta planning to save this for the seminar, but whatevs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Thanks for your support, Captain Swoop. A bit of sensibility creeping into this thread.

Specifically: I will never prove a scientific theory in my lifetime. No one else will either. I can just present my data and argue my case. It's up to you all and the rest who see it to evaluate it.

Please, don't take my commenting on the use of the word 'proof' in scientific discussion as any kind of support for your ideas.

 

[excaza]

The metallic dust (and not the lighter colored dust) has a foamy appearance and a certain strength and physical consistency that allows you to actually pick it up and hold largish chunks of it (~a few grams). But any slight scratch or scrape causes the chunks to fall apart into this incredibly fine dust.

And? Ash from my fireplace does the same thing.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why would this be a secret? This a pretty simple qualitative test. You should have led with this rather than bare assertions.

In any event, it sounds like the dust is attracted to whatever container the dust is in. You should be able to pick up the dust with the magnet.

The experiment I performed is a classic one, and I plan to repeat it at the seminar. You put a magnet on a string and still it from swinging and make sure no air flow is causing it to swing. Then you very delicately hold the chunk close to the magnet, and it pushes the magnet away.

Push and pull the chunk close to the magnet, and the magnet dances in time. Pretty sweet, huh?

 

[WTC Dust]

An ignorant technician who follows SOP will get the exact same results as everyone else. Data is data.

You're not a real research scientist. You're just winging it. As far as I can tell, your only purpose in joining this forum and creating this thread is to garner information to help you research, since you're not sure what methods should be used.

I joined this forum because I KNEW I would be criticized as soon as I came out with the results, and I wanted to be more prepared.

Why would you say I'm not a real research scientist? Should I take it off my resume? <cry>

 

[WTC Dust]

And? Ash from my fireplace does the same thing.

And your fireplace dust can make magnets dance?

 

[dtugg]

Still no evidence whatsoever to support your insane fantasy. And you've been working on this for nine years. lol

 

[WTC Dust]

Still no evidence whatsoever to support your insane fantasy. And you've been working on this for nine years. lol

I've been studying the dust for nine years, but I obtained my first sample of the dust within the past year.

I hope you can forgive the tardiness of my report. I hope you can wait until December 1.