Some more remarks on Harrit's reply:
1. XEDS equipment:
Harrit said:
...About half of the discussion in the essay refers directly and indirectly to the ability of an X-ray detector to record radiation with energies below 1 keV. The background is, that X-ray detectors are commonly equipped with a beryllium window, which does not transmit below this threshold.
...
I can inform about the following:
The X-ray detector used in our measurements is NOT equipped with a Be window. It is NOT windowless. It is equipped with a SUTW (super-ultra thin window) capable of detecting down to at least 110 eV.
We already discussed Ries' problem with supposed Be-windows, and rejected them.
Harrit's clarification is helpful, and shows that we (in this case: The Almond, iirc) were right, Ries wrong.
2.
Harrit said:
Another main claim by Dr. Ries is that the Al-Si-O rich particles are some alumino-silicate clay mineral.
...
Interesting. It would become Dr. Ries well to provide a reference for a swelling reaction by a clay particle with MEK comparable to that observed by the red/grey chips. If – at the same time – Dr. Ries could provide a reference to a chemical reaction by a clay mineral, which provides elemental iron. It would be sensational.
This rebuttal is pretty weak. The primary data - XEDS and SEM - make a very strong case for kaolinite. While it is true that Ries has not provided any reference to experiment, I am not sure he has the burden of proof here. Harrit has failed to rule out an obvious candidate, and that leaves us with reasonable doubt.
Asking for a clay reaction that yields elemental iron is silly on several levels: a) We are unconvinced by claims of elemental iron; b) there were admittedly iron pigments in the sample, and no reason to assume that the Al-Si-O compound played any role in the reaction; c) there is still that unidentified carbon matrix, the invisible elephant in the room, that must have provided most of the energy, as the paper itself hints.
3.
Ries said:
Leider wurden vor der MEK-Behandlung keine Elementverteilungsbilder und nach der MEK-Behandlung keine Elementspektren (von der selben Stelle) aufgezeichnet. (Translation: Unfortunately, before the MEK treatment no images of the distribution of elements was done, and after MEK treatment, no spectra of elements were recorded (from the same location).)
Harrit said:
All XEDS maps in the paper – exept one(!) - were done on broken chips. That is, just before measurement a chip was broken and the measurement carried out on a freshly exposed, uncontaminated surface. This also true of figure 6 in Dr. Ries’ assay (Fig. 10 in Harrit et al.), which must do as an account for the elemntal distribution in the red layer before MEK soaking. Obviously, it was not possible to follow the same procedure on the chip, which were used for MEK soaking.
Harrit is confused. Fig. 10 in Harrit et. al. shows a cross section with element distribution of one of the chips that were NOT treated with MEK. The problem were have with the MEK-treated chip is that there is strong evidence it is a
different material.
It is not obvious to me at all why it wasn't possible to treat the MEK-soaked chip just like the others and break it and measure uncontaminated surfaces. Maybe I am missing something here, but that is precisely the kin of sloppy work that the paper has become so infamous for.
4.
Harrit said:
In this case, the XEDS was taken from the ”raw” surface (Fig. 7 in Ries’ essay), and the signals from calcium and sulfur is most probably from calcium sulfate (as both parties agree upon).
Maybe Ries agrees, but we don't. That MEK chip is just too good a match with WTC primer paint presented by Steven Jones in a subsequent lecture to be dismissed as merely contaminated. See my blog post on this, with the usual thanks to Sunstealer:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
5.
Harrit said:
This paint contained ca. 30 % ZnCrO4 which is one reason why the red/grey chips are not primer paint. Another major difference between the chips and the primer paint is the thermal stability, which went to 650 °C in case of the primer paint.
Harrit is correct here. The red-grey chips that they incinerated are not WTC primer paint. They are paint still, but an, as yet, unidentified kind. The MEK soaked chip however is very likely WTC primer (Tnemec), but that piece wasn't subjected to heating. That chip has signals for Zn and Cr, which shouldn't be hand-waved as contaminations, since they did not do a proper "after" XEDS of the same location.
6.
Ries said:
Tonminerale, mit ihrer teilweise extrem hohen Kationen-Austauschkapazität können ohne Probleme Elemente an ihre Umgebung abgeben, vorausgesetzt, Tauschpartner und entsprechende Lösungsmittel stehen zur Verfügung. (Translation: Clay minerals, with their sometimes high capacity to exchange cations, can release elements to their environment without problem, provided that exchange partners and suitable solvents are available.)
Harrit said:
Interesting. It would become Dr. Ries well to provide a reference for an cation-exchange reaction under comparable circumstances which could remove aluminum from a clay mineral.
And where is the cation being substituted for aluminum in figure 9 (Ries’ numbering)?
Can anybody comment on this?
7.
Harrit said:
Some have suggested, that the nanothermitic material could be formed from the ingredients in the fires is WTC. This is total nonsense from a chemical point of view.
I agree with Harrit. These chips did not mix and form as a result of collapse and fires. They are some well-formulated paint.
8.
Harrit said:
If Dr. Ries can come up with a coherent, comprehensive model to explain all the evidence including this, I will be happy to consider it.
Dr. Harrit has no comprehensive model that would explain his data:
- The energy release that exceeds that of thermite
- The differences to Tillotson's data
- What the heck Si is doing in a thermitic formulation
- etc.
