The sad case of Niels Harrit

[Oystein]

Thanks, ElMondoHummus,

you don't need to explain to me that Fig. 29 alone refutes Harrit and the bunch, as any child can see how unsimilar the graphs are, beyond having a peak somewhere. The peak temperature differs by 90K, the power output of the Mackinlay sample is nearly twice that of the Tillotson sample (and the other three red/grey chips have even higher peaks, see figure 19; Tillotson is at about 5.5 W/g; the Harrit samples are about 10, 15, 19 and 24 W/g).

I just wanted to make sure we don't use an argument ("there should be a second peak for the organic stuff") that we don't know to be valid.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Another way to look at it is that they've established that there is some energy E released by the reaction, comprising E_c + E_t, where E_c is the combustion and E_t the thermite energy. From the conservation of energy, we can be certain that E_c is non-zero; there isn't enough energy in a thermite reaction to supply all that's observed. However, it's easily possible for E_t to be zero, because combustion reactions release more energy. The heart of Harrit et al's argument is that E_t is non-zero, yet they have produced no evidence demonstrating that that is the case.

Dave

That's a very good way to put it.



... oh, wait, I'm supposed to be one of the smart-alecks of this forum . Scratch that. Instead:

Thanks, ElMondoHummus,

you don't need to explain to me that Fig. 29 alone refutes Harrit and the bunch, as any child can see how unsimilar the graphs are, beyond having a peak somewhere. The peak temperature differs by 90K, the power output of the Mackinlay sample is nearly twice that of the Tillotson sample (and the other three red/grey chips have even higher peaks, see figure 19; Tillotson is at about 5.5 W/g; the Harrit samples are about 10, 15, 19 and 24 W/g).

I just wanted to make sure we don't use an argument ("there should be a second peak for the organic stuff") that we don't know to be valid.

Yeah, that other stuff was for other people, really. That's often why I go pedantic in my posts; heaven knows who else is reading at the moment.

But, valid arguments for dual peaks: I have one in general for a calorimeter graph having that when more than one reaction can occur. But whether this applies to this specific case or not, I'll fully admit now that I was merely presuming. That's a valid criticism.

 

[alienentity]

How much time and money would be involved for them to do another DSC in Argon?

Anyone have a good idea?

 

[moorea34]

Niels Harrit: The DSC measurements were conducted with access of the atmosphere because these were the conditions for the only published comparable measurement by Tillotson. We contacted Dr. Tillotson personally on the phone, and he informed us of this detail. Furthermore, WTC was not demolished under argon.

It's a lie : Tillotson has used pure argon atmosphere for this article...

 

[Oystein]

Actually, I was working from Jones/Harrit's own DSC comparison, as well as the original Tillotson DSC graph. ...

EMH, do you have the original Tillotson paper available? What did he state about the atmosphere he worked in?

It's a lie : Tillotson has used pure argon atmosphere for this article...

moorea, do you have the original Tillotson paper available? Can you quote what he stated about the atmosphere he worked in?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

EMH, do you have the original Tillotson paper available? What did he state about the atmosphere he worked in?

Yeah, I downloaded it. I can get it to you if you PM me an email address (or have some other way of getting it to you).

And: The paper simply doesn't say. I've been over the DSC section twice now and I simply don't see any mention of it. But at the same time, I'm knocking these posts (and those readings) out between tasks here at work so I'm not about to pretend that I'm reading it closely.

If Moorea34's got a source for that, I'd dearly love to know it.

But to anyone else reading this (Oystein's already figured this out on his own), that's all irrelevant. The whole "inert atmosphere" criticism was directly due to Jones/Harrit's own claim that organic combustion was an additional reason for the energy figures they got from the DSC runs. Again, as Dave Rogers put it:

Another way to look at it is that they've established that there is some energy E released by the reaction, comprising E_c + E_t, where E_c is the combustion and E_t the thermite energy. From the conservation of energy, we can be certain that E_c is non-zero; there isn't enough energy in a thermite reaction to supply all that's observed. However, it's easily possible for E_t to be zero, because combustion reactions release more energy. The heart of Harrit et al's argument is that E_t is non-zero, yet they have produced no evidence demonstrating that that is the case.

Dave

Using the excuse that the WTC's didn't collapse in the presence of Argon is a stupid excuse. You're not trying to replicate the operative condition the thermite worked under; if that were the case, there are a thousand other objections to be noted about their methodology. What they were claiming was that a part of the energy exotherm was from thermite, and they never proved that. So running in inert atmosphere would eliminate the criticism about the energy coming solely from organic combustion. Which is why the Harrit excuse is so abysmally stupid.

 

[Sunstealer]

EMH, do you have the original Tillotson paper available? What did he state about the atmosphere he worked in?



moorea, do you have the original Tillotson paper available? Can you quote what he stated about the atmosphere he worked in?

Is it this one?

http://www.doeal.gov/FOIADOCS/DOC00329.pdf

If so there is no mention of the conditions under which DSC was performed although they acknowledge that 10% by mass was organic material. Page 343.

It really doesn't matter what Tillitson et al used. What's so significant is that Harrit is so ignorant of the way in which you'd want to characterise the thermite reaction by using an inert atmosphere. It's mind boggling how amateurish they were - it shows he wasn't thinking about the science involved, but merely wanted to copy Tillitson.

My jaw literally dropped when I read

Furthermore, WTC was not demolished under argon.

Thanks Meikel and welcome to the forum.

Bearing in mind the criticisms, I astonished they haven't repeated the DSC test using an inert atmosphere and released the results. It would take a couple of days to do. The paper was released in 2009, 2 years ago yet there has been no follow up.

 

[Oystein]

Is it this one?

http://www.doeal.gov/FOIADOCS/DOC00329.pdf

Yep, that's the one. Dang, I just payed money for it!

If so there is no mention of the conditions under which DSC was performed although they acknowledge that 10% by mass was organic material. Page 343.

Yeah, that caught my attention, too. And still the energy output was only 1.5 kJ/g.

It really doesn't matter what Tillitson et al used. What's so significant is that Harrit is so ignorant of the way in which you'd want to characterise the thermite reaction by using an inert atmosphere. It's mind boggling how amateurish they were - it shows he wasn't thinking about the science involved, but merely wanted to copy Tillitson.

If only they had faithfully copied Tillotson's methods! Tillotson analysed the reaction products using X-ray diffraction (PXRD) to figure out with confidence that they were Al2O3 and Fe (elemental).

My jaw literally dropped when I read Thanks Meikel and welcome to the forum.

Bearing in mind the criticisms, I astonished they haven't repeated the DSC test using an inert atmosphere and released the results. It would take a couple of days to do. The paper was released in 2009, 2 years ago yet there has been no follow up.

I am most astonished by Harrit's admission that they did not identify the hematite as such, but that this does not undermine his confidence in himself when he claims to have identified the much more exotic "nano-thermite".

 

[alienentity]

Well, as I mentioned over in Mackey's thread, it seems a tad difficult to believe that they haven't already retested a chip in inert gas.
The fact that there's been only silence on their part is not encouraging - either they're too chicken to do another test (afraid that it will invalidate their claim) or they've already discovered that their claim is invalid so are just quietly maintaining radio silence....hoping the question goes away?

The fact that Jones has apparently moved on somewhat to get involved with free energy implies the latter. I wouldn't expect him to blow the whistle on the scam, but I also wouldn't expect him to waste any more time on it. There's always a new scam to run, you see.

 

[alienentity]

Yep, that's the one. Dang, I just payed money for it!



Yeah, that caught my attention, too. And still the energy output was only 1.5 kJ/g.



If only they had faithfully copied Tillotson's methods! Tillotson analysed the reaction products using X-ray diffraction (PXRD) to figure out with confidence that they were Al2O3 and Fe (elemental).



I am most astonished by Harrit's admission that they did not identify the hematite as such, but that this does not undermine his confidence in himself when he claims to have identified the much more exotic "nano-thermite".

Harrit is clearly not thinking straight. He's made so many wild and unproven assertions over the last couple of years.... he seems to just say whatever comes into his head, like any other truther zealot - not critical thinking IMO.

 

[Sunstealer]

Yep, that's the one. Dang, I just payed money for it!

Rats. Wish I'd been faster.

I am most astonished by Harrit's admission that they did not identify the hematite as such, but that this does not undermine his confidence in himself when he claims to have identified the much more exotic "nano-thermite".

Actually that also caught my eye. A quick look on wiki for hematite would have told them because the rhombohedral nature of the particles they found indicates hematite. It's just so funny. I really don't think they had much of a clue what they were doing.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Sunstealer, can you tell me what the "P" in PXRD stands for?

 

[moorea34]

In their article, Tillotson and his co-authors does not precise the atmosphere....
But as there is some epoxyde or solvent residues in their samples (p343 of the article), we were very astonished that they used ambient air for their DSC...

So a friend has contacted two of the authors. And they have confirmed that they have used a pure argon atmosphere!

Other information, they have never spoken to any authors of the crap paper...

 

[Oystein]

In their article, Tillotson and his co-authors does not precise the atmosphere....
But as there is some epoxyde or solvent residues in their samples (p343 of the article), we were very astonished that they used ambient air for their DSC...

So a friend has contacted two of the authors. And they have confirmed that they have used a pure argon atmosphere!

Other information, they have never spoken to any authors of the crap paper...

This is now claim against claim...

 

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer, can you tell me what the "P" in PXRD stands for?

Powder. The sample to be analysed is a powder or the sample is ground to a powder using a pestle and mortar and put in the sample holder of the XRD machine. The reason for this is a powder will have it's atomic crystals orientated in every direction and this can then be used to produce an average on a 2D pattern.

First time I ever did it was about 1995 at university with the oxidation product of Silicon Nitride (SiAlON actually) sample that had been in a burner rig burning aircraft fuel. The oxidation product was a solid yttrium aluminosilicate glass (YAG) - it looked like the product of a small child with a cold including the snot bubbles!

It was very brittle - had to scrape it of the SiN and then grind it up. Back in those days we never had the computing power to compare data with other samples and it was an absolute nightmare looking through the various graphs trying to determine what was actually produced. Iirc I didn't get a full answer.

 

[Sunstealer]

This is now claim against claim...

Indeed - it would be nice to set the record straight once and for all.

 

[Oystein]

Indeed - it would be nice to set the record straight once and for all.

I just e-mailed Tillotson.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Powder. The sample to be analysed is a powder or the sample is ground to a powder using a pestle and mortar and put in the sample holder of the XRD machine. The reason for this is a powder will have it's atomic crystals orientated in every direction and this can then be used to produce an average on a 2D pattern.

First time I ever did it was about 1995 at university with the oxidation product of Silicon Nitride (SiAlON actually) sample that had been in a burner rig burning aircraft fuel. The oxidation product was a solid yttrium aluminosilicate glass (YAG) - it looked like the product of a small child with a cold including the snot bubbles!

It was very brittle - had to scrape it of the SiN and then grind it up. Back in those days we never had the computing power to compare data with other samples and it was an absolute nightmare looking through the various graphs trying to determine what was actually produced. Iirc I didn't get a full answer.

Thanks, Sunstealer.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, grinding the sample into a powder scatters the X-Ray beam considerably more than shooting an unpowdered sample and gives a better diffraction pattern? If I'm too far off, I'll go research it myself so as not to derail any further.

Oh, and when I saw YAG, I automatically thought of a Neodymium doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet laser - Nd:Y3Al5O12

 

[moorea34]

As you will see in the Tillotson's paper in page 343, the samples were not pure.



That's why they used ultra pure argon atmosphere...


And the heat of reaction is very low (1,5 kJ/g) compared to the maximum of the reaction (3,9 kJ/g)

 

[Meikel]

Hello and welcome to the forum, Meikel! Funny thing: Just last night I met a German by the name of Michael who calls and spells himself informally "Meikel", excatly as you do

No surprise. Meikel in German sounds like Michael in English. I'm German, my first name is Michael (German), my nickname is Mike (English).

Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to say here...

Nothing important. I saw some kaolinite micrographs. They show the mineral, not processed. In primer kaolinite is processed and mixed with other ingredients. I read something about suspensions and how kaolinite looks therein.

For example:

tuprints ulb tu-darmstadt.de/1038/2/Viel2008.pdf
Page 28, "In suspension you get flocked kaolinite which has a structure like a card house".

n1 slideserve com/PPTFiles/colloids_57810_63072.ppt
Slides 32/33.

So I guess (nothing more!) that micrographs from suspensions may be a little bit closer to what the Harrit paper shows. Some months ago I saw a real good matching micrograph, I think referenced from this forum, at a German university web side ... but I can not find it anymore.

I think such photos are much easier to understand than analyzing charts. For those people without expertise in the areas necessary.

Meikel aka Michael aka Mike.