Merged So there was melted steel

[Dave Rogers]

Without knowing the specific construction (dimensions) and mix of the Tillotson configured nano-thermite compared to that tested by Dr. Harrit et al, your statement is reduced to nothing more than arguing the efficiencies implicit in spherical surfaces. You have not proven there is less reactive surface area.

Since you clearly have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, this may be futile, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is nonsense. The amount of heat produced by a thermite reaction depends, primarily, not on the surface area of the aluminium, but on the mass of elemental aluminium present. The point of the surface area argument is that the aluminium particles have a surface film of aluminium oxide, and that this film does not react; in a smaller particle, this surface film, which is of roughly constant thickness, becomes a greater proportion of the mass, reducing the mass of aluminium available to react. Therefore, nanothermite can only produce less energy than a coarser-grained thermite, because a larger proportion of the mix is material that doesn't react. So we know that, whatever the specific dimensions of the particles in any particular sample of thermite, it can never release more than 4kJ/g. And, allowing for the low concentration stated by Harrit et al in their paper, their supposed thermite reaction is releasing more like 150kJ/g, meaning it cannot possibly be a thermite reaction.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Without knowing the specific construction (dimensions) and mix of the Tillotson configured nano-thermite compared to that tested by Dr. Harrit et al, your statement is reduced to nothing more than arguing the efficiencies implicit in spherical surfaces. You have not proven there is less reactive surface area.

MM

For a given volume a sphere presents the least surface area possible of any shape. But, in any event, none of this affects the energy output per unit weight, except - as mentioned a number of times - that the sphere wastes less Al when the surface becomes oxidised.

You seem to be confusing rate of heat output with total heat output, apparently figuring that "special" thermite would have the latter elevated. They (correctly) measured the latter, rather niftily demonstrating the chips were not thermite.

While you're here - any thoughts yet on their other monumental blunder in not igniting this stuff in an inert atmoshpere? Could it just be that they felt able to waffle away the inconsistency in total energy release, but plain failure to ignite at all in argon would be a bit of a show-stopper?

 

[Sunstealer]

For a given volume a sphere presents the least surface area possible of any shape. But, in any event, none of this affects the energy output per unit weight, except - as mentioned a number of times - that the sphere wastes less Al when the surface becomes oxidised.

You seem to be confusing rate of heat output with total heat output, apparently figuring that "special" thermite would have the latter elevated. They (correctly) measured the latter, rather niftily demonstrating the chips were not thermite.

This is one of the reasons why I have MM on ignore. He doesn't understand the chemistry when everyone else gets it, as shown by yourself, Dave and Mr Skinny and he hasn't shown any willingness to learn.

Lets try another analogy because not everyone here has done loads of chemistry.

Imagine a set of stairs that lead to nowhere. Just some stair with a maximum height h. The maximum potential energy at the top of those stairs for me if I go up them is equal to mgh where m is my mass, h is the height of the stairs and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

Now I'm going to do 2 experiments.

1. Walk up the stairs taking 2 minute to reach the top.
2. Run up the stairs taking 1 minute to reach the top.

In which experiment do I have the most potential energy at the top of the stairs?

Well the answer is both. PE = mgh.

PE is not related to time t or how fast I reach the top. So what's the deal? Something has changed because I'm out of breath when I ran up the second time!

What has changed is the rate at which I have reached my maximum potential energy. Rate is time dependent. I have done the same amount of work but in two different times. The rate at which work is done or energy transferred is called power.

So where's the analogy?

Well the height of the stairs which is a maximum and fixed is the maximum theoretical heat output from the thermite reaction. You can't go any higher. There is no extra step, if there were then the height would change.

The rate of work or power is the rate at which the energy in the thermite is used to generate heat. The smaller the particle size the greater the rate of work. I've shown that rate of work does not change the maximum energy available so it doesn't matter how fast the reaction progresses it cannot ever go higher than the maximum. Doesn't matter how fast you run up those stairs the top is the top and you can't go any further.

I'll leave it there for now because this is off topic.

 

[kmortis]

Do not personalize the argument

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[phunk]

But for the same volume of reactive Al, reducing its particle size as well, will also increase its available surface area, thus negating your point.

The surface of aluminum particles isn't reactive, it's oxidized when exposed to air, that's the whole point. With nanothermite, as the particles get smaller, the overall energy of the reaction decreases.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The surface of aluminum particles isn't reactive, it's oxidized when exposed to air, that's the whole point. With nanothermite, as the particles get smaller, the overall energy of the reaction decreases.

In case anyone's still confused, here's a simple diagram.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=24399

The thickness of the surface oxide layer is independent of the particle size; it depends only on the aluminium oxide interatomic spacing. As the particle size gets smaller, the surface layer of non-reactive aluminium oxide becomes a greater proportion of the whole, leading to there being less and less free aluminium to react. Ultimately, a particle so small that its radius is equal to the oxide layer thickness will contain no free aluminium at all.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Did you ever figure out why thermite can melt steel while containing less energy density than mere paper?

Yeah I'm pretty sure I know why thermite can melt steel, I was making a point that Oystein was giving meaningless facts in an attempt (at least I believe so) to minimize how powerful thermite can be.

In other words, no, you don't know why paper, with a greater energy density, does not melt steel while thermite does.

 

[jaydeehess]

If you watch the Toronto hearings MM addressed this with a question to Harritt. You only have to watch the video, or read some of MM's post. In fact I would recommend that, it would be a good learning experience for you. Also if you watch his presentation you'd see why it also it almost assuredly not paint.
.

I asked YOU why they did not attempt to prove that this was a self oxidizing material by igniting it in an inert atmosphere. Is that answered in the video or any of MMs posts? Perhaps you'd like to just inform me of the reason?

Perhaps if MM reads this he might do so?

 

[jaydeehess]

But for the same volume of reactive Al, reducing its particle size as well, will also increase its available surface area, thus negating your point.
MM

The surface of aluminum particles isn't reactive, it's oxidized when exposed to air, that's the whole point. With nanothermite, as the particles get smaller, the overall energy of the reaction decreases.

What would increase with smaller particle size, if I am not mistaken, is the rate of reaction.

The thickness of the AL oxide layer is independant of the diameter of the particle so the time to vapourize this layer reamins the same. That being done the reactive portion of the particle, the elemental aluminum is now exposed. In a larger particle the surface of the elemental AL must react before the Al below it can. That takes time. The smaller diameter of the elemental portion of the particle also increases the surface area under the oxidized layer. Reducing the particle size increases the speed at which elemental AL is available to react. You get less energy per Kg (or for that matter cm³) because of the increase in the ratio of oxidized AL (to elemental AL) in the material , but you get a quicker release of the energy because of the reduced time for the available elemental AL to be present for reaction.

You need more nano-thermite than ordinary thermite to deliver a set amount of energy but it can do so in a shorter time period

THUS nano-thermitic material is used in actual explosives as a way of increasing the rate of expansion. Ordinary thermite is too slow.

Odd though that tmd is argueing for slow reacting thermite and MM wants it to be faster reacting thermite.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The "slow-burn thermite idea tmd is passing around is his way of trying to explain the length of time that any thermite would have been required to burn to sustain the temperatures he claims are proof. Traditionally, the truth movement argues instead that unreacted thermite is somehow ignited later in time allowing the observations of melted steel months after the fact. In either case the argument's a non-sequitor however...

 

[ozeco41]

In either case the argument's a non-sequitor however...

The whole topic of thermXte is a red-herring since there is no reasoned hypothesis or evidence that there was CD. (I prefer to say "there was no CD" but that is not legit "scientific method" and I get my wrist slapped for saying it that way )

So discussing thermXte can be an interesting technical side track BUT it has no effect on the main findings that the collapses at WTC were the result of impact and fire damage.

 

[Miragememories]

"The "slow-burn thermite idea tmd is passing around is his way of trying to explain the length of time that any thermite would have been required to burn to sustain the temperatures he claims are proof. Traditionally, the truth movement argues instead that unreacted thermite is somehow ignited later in time allowing the observations of melted steel months after the fact. In either case the argument's a non-sequitor however..."

Slow burn?

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Please read the thread before you flap your jaws.

The activity of initially unspent thermitic material has been previously explained.

While you are at it, unlike the legions of obedient followers here in JREF, try and keep in mind that the 9/11 Truth Movement is largely composed of individuals who do not necessarily agree with anything more than a need for a proper 9/11 investigation.

Carry on.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Slow burn?

yes

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

no

Please read the thread before you flap your jaws.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7630630&postcount=775
tmd: "Perhaps there are some ways the reaction can be slowed down"

- in addition to the "unignited thermite"

The activity of initially unspent thermitic material has been previously explained.

Thermite requires a magnesium strip burning at extremely high temperatures just to ignite, and the mixture has to be done right to react at all. Even if it were present in any form you have the mixture compromised by a collapsed building, you have no ignition source, and no temperatures high enough to ignite the products. Not a single paper you can cite addresses this, period.

 

[tmd2_1]

In other words, no, you don't know why paper, with a greater energy density, does not melt steel while thermite does.

I know the answer, I didn't ask the question because I didn't know the answer, I asked it the way I did to show Oystein was just throwing around meaningless facts, trying to make it seem like thermite is insignificant.

 

[tmd2_1]

I asked YOU why they did not attempt to prove that this was a self oxidizing material by igniting it in an inert atmosphere. Is that answered in the video or any of MMs posts? Perhaps you'd like to just inform me of the reason?

Perhaps if MM reads this he might do so?

Go here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4 go to about the 1 hour and 43 minute 15 second mark Harritt explains it.

 

[Edx]

Thermite requires a magnesium strip burning at extremely high temperatures just to ignite, and the mixture has to be done right to react at all.

But not SUPER NANO FANTASTIC AWESOME THERMITES!!!

 

[beachnut]

I know the answer, I didn't ask the question because I didn't know the answer, I asked it the way I did to show Oystein was just throwing around meaningless facts, trying to make it seem like thermite is insignificant.

How much thermite was used? If it is less than 1,000 tons it is insignificant. The jet fuel, which has the heat energy of over 315 tons of thermite was deemed insignificant by NIST, because the office fires were an order of magnitude more heat than the jet fuel. When you destroy steel buildings it is the heat that does it. Plus, gravity is the primary source of energy (as in E=mgh) for CD, which is why CD looks like a gravity collapse as seen on 911. You support liars, and you do it poorly.

 

[tmd2_1]

What would increase with smaller particle size, if I am not mistaken, is the rate of reaction.

The thickness of the AL oxide layer is independant of the diameter of the particle so the time to vapourize this layer reamins the same. That being done the reactive portion of the particle, the elemental aluminum is now exposed. In a larger particle the surface of the elemental AL must react before the Al below it can. That takes time. The smaller diameter of the elemental portion of the particle also increases the surface area under the oxidized layer. Reducing the particle size increases the speed at which elemental AL is available to react. You get less energy per Kg (or for that matter cm³) because of the increase in the ratio of oxidized AL (to elemental AL) in the material , but you get a quicker release of the energy because of the reduced time for the available elemental AL to be present for reaction.

You need more nano-thermite than ordinary thermite to deliver a set amount of energy but it can do so in a shorter time period

THUS nano-thermitic material is used in actual explosives as a way of increasing the rate of expansion. Ordinary thermite is too slow.

Odd though that tmd is argueing for slow reacting thermite and MM wants it to be faster reacting thermite.

If you watch the Toronto hearing harritt explains, and in fact I also mentioned it earlier there would have been several kinds of thermetic reactions. Also keep in mind I am saying slower reacting thermite could have been the result of material mixing with the unspent thermite. Not necessarily that it was purposely made slow burning from the beginning. It is only a hypothesis...which would need to be tested.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But not SUPER NANO FANTASTIC AWESOME THERMITES!!!

Ah touche'

I forgot they also believe a paint layer is going to melt through 4 inches of structural steel before the fuel source is exhausted... good times, good times...

 

[Miragememories]

Thermite requires a magnesium strip burning at extremely high temperatures just to ignite, and the mixture has to be done right to react at all. Even if it were present in any form you have the mixture compromised by a collapsed building, you have no ignition source, and no temperatures high enough to ignite the products. Not a single paper you can cite addresses this, period.

Nano-thermite does not require the temperatures you argue.

Obviously you have not been following this thread.

MM