• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

superlogicalthinker said:
Since when is paint magnetic. This is getting funny.
Click to expand...
Funnier than you know.

http://www.amazon.com/Magnamagic-Magnetic-Receptive-Wall-Paint/dp/B0007KRDK8

http://www.homedepot.com/buy/paint/primers/rust-oleum/magnetic-latex-primer-67783.html

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/good-questions-670-16118

"magnetic paint" >300,000 google hits!!! BINGO

Since when is paint magnetic?



superlogicalthinker said:
...
Someone please post a video of an explosion that occuered with no ignition or spark to set it off please. I want to see that.
Click to expand...

Diesel engine.
 
As we speculated for years now, the magnetic nature of the chips is probably due to bits of spalled steel that are still stuck to the paint. There's no reason to assume it flaked completely free.

Hematite is another option. However, recall that in all of Dr. Jones's writings, only a small fraction of the chips were magnetic. Obviously this isn't a feature of the paint -er, "nanothermite" itself, or else all of them should have been magnetic.

I'll be interested to see if our experimenter can make this determination, and to find out what fraction of his flakes are magnetic.
 
R.Mackey said:
Hematite is another option. However, recall that in all of Dr. Jones's writings, only a small fraction of the chips were magnetic. Obviously this isn't a feature of the paint -er, "nanothermite" itself, or else all of them should have been magnetic.

I'll be interested to see if our experimenter can make this determination, and to find out what fraction of his flakes are magnetic.
Click to expand...
There are other red pigments that are not iron compounds. Beta-Napthol is one that comes to mind. There are analline dyes that are used in numerous glossy paints. These would come from furnishings and such.

Hematite is widely used because it is cheap and easy to make and does not fade. It would just about always be magnetic.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Since when is paint magnetic. This is getting funny.
Click to expand...
Most red paints have been since the last Ice Age in Africa and Europe. Chinese red is not magnetic, because the pigment is mercury oxide (Cinnibar.) In South American, ground cochineal insects provided carmine pigment, but red ocher, a form of hematite was also widely used.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Thats a legitimate question. What? Your not gonna answer that one bud. Where do you have the proof that Leclade paint was used in the WTC?
Click to expand...

Your question is legitimate, but rather silly, after many hundreds of posts here, Superlogicalthinker:cool: I simply found proofs that this paint was applied on WTC1 and WTC2 floor trusses in NIST report NCSTAR 1-6B, Appendix B. p. 155. See my post No 104 here and following posts. Just for you again, the composition of this epoxy paint applied to the steel joists by anodic electrocoating was:

Pigment
Iron oxide 55 % (probably wt%)
Aluminum Silicate 41 %
Strontium Chromate 4 %
Total Pigment 100 %

Vehicle
Unmodified Epoxy Amine 45 %
Deionized Water and Amine 55 %
Total Vehicle 100 %

Oystein: I have already mentioned Wiki (again working hopefully), which says that some forms of iron(III) oxide can be ferromagnetic. It's quite complex matter.
Anyway, I have just tried if "my" powdered Fe2O3, used for Laclede paint imitation is attracted by magnet. It IS attracted by permanent magnet, I can link the photo from my mobile later (now I have no cable for connection to my PC).
I'd like also to remind, that in Henryco's experiments, not only red-gray chips but also purely red chips were attracted/separated from the dust by magnet. It follows from this that also red layer is magnetic, at least to some extent and in some cases (kinds of red chips).

(Hey, addendum: I have just found the cable and the photo of permanent magnet with sticked iron oxide can be seen here: http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/LI1epoxid#FE2O3onmagnet.jpg . Picture is taken "from the bottom", sorry for my English)
 
Last edited:
Reading Wikipedia, I find that hematite as such is described as "antiferromagnetic" or (above 250K) "a canted antiferromagnet or weakly ferromagnetic".
The "hematite" healing stones that lefty shows are not actually pure hematite but a mineral (well-known deposits in Brasil, for example) that contains significant magnetite (Fe3O4). This strong permanent is quite the exception, not the rule, among natural hematite deposits.

I do realize that some oxides of iron have more or less magnetic properties. But I am quite specifically talking about the stuff that spalls of the surface of steel. The presence of alloying partners such as Mn can for example disturb (inhibit) magnetic properties, or so I read somewhere. Ideally, we can document an experiment with magnets on spalled oxidized steel surface. It isn't fully satisfying to me to know that iroin oxides can be magnetic, I want to know that spalled steel typically is magnetic.

Ryan, it is my understanding that Jones, Basile and K. Ryan generally pulled these chips from the dust using magnets. From ATM:
Harrit e.al. said:
The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples.
Click to expand...
You on the other hand claim "in all of Dr. Jones's writings, only a small fraction of the chips were magnetic". I doubt this. Citation?
 
Last edited:
Oystein: Since we both already know that Jim Millette was able to separate some red-gray chips (similar to chips from Bentham paper) from WTC dust samples, isn't it more relevant just to ask Jim Millette (through Chris) how he separated his first chips?
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Oystein: Since we both already know that Jim Millette was able to separate some red-gray chips (similar to chips from Bentham paper) from WTC dust samples, isn't it more relevant just to ask Jim Millette (through Chris) how he separated his first chips?
Click to expand...

Good idea :D

But that's putting the cart before the horse. I want to prove that (some of) the chips are LaClede primer on LaClede steel that spalled off the floor joists. When I learn from Jim that the chips are magnetic, I know that the chips are magnetic, not that spalled-off LaClede steel is magnetic - unless I take my conclusion as premise, namely that the gray layer is LaClede steel.
 
Couldn't it just be that not all of the gray layer is oxidized, but only the exposed surface, and that the remaining unoxidized steel is what remains magnetic?
 
Oystein said:
Good idea :D

But that's putting the cart before the horse. I want to prove that (some of) the chips are LaClede primer on LaClede steel that spalled off the floor joists. When I learn from Jim that the chips are magnetic, I know that the chips are magnetic, not that spalled-off LaClede steel is magnetic - unless I take my conclusion as premise, namely that the gray layer is LaClede steel.
Click to expand...

OK:o) Let me remind that Sunstealer thinks that gray layers are basically "micaceous iron oxide" and this stuff can be magnetic, see here or here (micaceous iron oxide seems to be obtained by "magnetic separation" in the second link). But I am fully aware that no generalizations or "cherry-picking" of links could be recommended in this "metallurgic matter".
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
Couldn't it just be that not all of the gray layer is oxidized, but only the exposed surface, and that the remaining unoxidized steel is what remains magnetic?
Click to expand...

I think that you can be right:cool: And composition/structure of gray layers can differ for various chips.
 
...I also think that static electricity can play some role when separating very tiny chips using permanent magnet wrapped in plastic (probably polyethylene or polypropylene) bag like in Bentham paper. Remember that there is a lot of polymer binder - which can be charged by static electricity when moving magnet in its bag through the dust - in the red layers. It is in fact a quite complex situation:cool:
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
I think that you can be right:cool: And composition/structure of gray layers can differ for various chips.
Click to expand...
The steel in the truss units was not all worked in the same way. The chords were simply rolled flat but the web was in the form of a round bar or tube, which would be worked in a totally different manner, which, I would expect, would cause it to form either a different or no surface oxidized layer. Thus, we are likely to see chips with different undersides from the same assembly.
 
leftysergeant said:
The steel in the truss units was not all worked in the same way. The chords were simply rolled flat but the web was in the form of a round bar or tube, which would be worked in a totally different manner, which, I would expect, would cause it to form either a different or no surface oxidized layer. Thus, we are likely to see chips with different undersides from the same assembly.
Click to expand...

Good point, Lefty:cool:
 
Ivan Kminek said:
...Btw, there is an entry "Grind: #4 Hegman gauge" in the specification of Laclede paint. If I understand, this should mean (http://www.byk.com/en/instruments/p...ion/fineness-of-grind-gages-hegman-gages.html) that pigment particles up to 50 μm could be present in that paint, but as the biggest ones - the most of pigment particles could be much, much smaller...

Another entry in Laclede specification: "Gloss: 30-50". This should mean that paint has "semi-gloss" or "egg-shell" surface. Up to now, I have found no correlation of the paint gloss (usually measured by some reflectance method) with the paint surface smoothness... Anyway, we cannot be sure that surface of the red layer of chips (a) to (d) was not affected/changed, e.g., during collapses...
Click to expand...

Just a reminder to myself:
Yep. I found the same info: "Grind: #4 Hegman Gauge" in the LaClede primer spec means "coarsest pigments are up to 50µm"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegman_gauge (explains that coarsest pigments count)
http://www.gardco.com/pages/dispersion/fg/finenessofgrind.cfm (has a scale to transkate from Hegman to mils and µm)
http://www.elektrophysikusa.com/files//501fog.pdf (describes in detail how it's measured)

Note however: At a film thickness of only 25µm, particle size of 50µm seems odd, to put it mildly. I would expect that max. particle size should be at most film thickness, and typical particle size maybe an order of magnitude less.


The best explanation of "Gloss" I found here - albeit without any hints about what it means for paint properties at the mikron-level: http://www.gloss-meters.com/GlossIntro.html#1 (several pages).
Note that one important property of paint on steel beams is a coarse surface that allows construction workers to step on them without slipping even when wet.

# oysteinbookmark
 
What exactly is it that is claimed to be so exotic about the material, looking up iron oxide paint pigment I've found that the pigments can range in size down to 1nm spherical particles, with 1-50nm being transparent and giving a gloss finish and 100nm-1um being opaque.
What makes Jones and Harrits 100nm iron oxide spheres military grade and special?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom