WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[Senenmut]

I see. Tell you what. we'll do the test. We can release it at a later date. I can tell you now though. It does not support the "truther" view.

Does that work for you?

ok but i dont understand? you state it "does not support the "truther" view"
from that context, it seems that you have already performed the test and just have not released the results yet?

am i right?

 

[DGM]

ok but i dont understand? you state it "does not support the "truther" view"
from that context, it seems that you have already performed the test and just have not released the results yet?

am i right?

Sure, we'll go with that.

(I was playing on the Jones FTIR tests).

 

[Oystein]

"truther" ups 300$ to finish the testing with a DSC test.

skeptics 0$???

It would be cheaper if you could talk Harrit, Jones and Farrer into releasing the FTIR and TEM data they already had in 2009.

 

[Sunstealer]

Jones et al. have the FTIR data that would conclusively prove what the material is, but they won't release it.

Absolutely. It's funny how truthers never hold their heroes to the same level of scrutiny they wish to impose on others.

And Senenmut is asking us to put money to do an unnecessary and inconclusive test, instead of asking Jones et al. to release the FTIR data which would be definitive??????

Senenmut knows full well that the release of FTIR data will put this all to rest. Instead he's trying to get the focus onto worthless DSC testing. Anything to keep the illusion from exploding.

He refuses to answer any technical questions (Oysteins asked dozens) because he knows it will pin his position down. Instead he's grand-standing over a worthless test because he's ignorant with regard to materials characterisation.

Far better to push the debate toward what Millette didn't do rather than what Harrit et didn't do and perhaps refuse to do (even though they have the data). Smells fishy to me.

No additional money needs to be spent - the question regarding whether the materials are the same can be answered by Harrit or Jones publishing their data.

So far most of the posts in this thread haven't been true to the OP. I think that's because the OP is so clear regarding the data provided.

It looks like Millette has two sets of red/gray chips that are akin to LaClade and Tnemec primer paint adhered to steel although we can't be absolutely sure that's exactly what he has. We know it's not thermite.

Of those two sets, the one that is closest to LaClade is the one that matches Harrit et al samples a-d. That set has been analysed and shown to contain Kaolin, iron oxide pigment and epoxy. It is that data set that he looks to have compared with Tnemec Red 99. I'm amazed he was not informed that LaClade exists. One of the sticking points is the lack of knowledge that this paint was used. Jones is still using the "it doesn't match Tnemec Red 99, therefore it's not primer paint!" canard. I'm yet to see any truther actually acknowledge that

1. More than one primer paint is possible.

2. More than one primer paint was actually used.

3. There are more than two red paints in the whole world.



I'd like to ask our resident truthers if they find the following statements as true.

1. The dust is composed of many different materials.

2. Thermite (nano, super, thermate whatever) is present in the dust.

3. Paint is present in the dust.

4. Thermite can be separated from the dust using a magnet.

5. Paint adhered to steel can be separated using a magnet.

6 Millette used exactly the same technique as Harrit et al to separate his red/gray chips from the dust.


I expect none of them to reply.

 

[chrismohr]

Though a little of topic from the thread I'd like to make a few more points. I mean fair is fair you made the first post in our exchange.

Chandler's "attack" was not mean "mean-spirited" it was factual. If reporting of facts, stating facts...etc makes you mean, I'd like to think I'm the meanest person around. I also find it funny how you saying you "won" the debate if off track, but me posting a rebuttal to that claim is "way off track" Something doesn't seem right with that. Chandler's video IS a response to what you said, is it necessary for me to re-write what is already in it?

I also find your little boast of "winning" the debate somewhat strange (for lack of a better word) For one thing debating isn't like a football game, who "wins" is somewhat subjective. It's a little odd you used that term, perhaps something like I handled myself well or something to that affect, would have sounded better. In my opinion, Gage did quite well, but it is my opinion.

Lastly, if you really do consider Chandler's video "nasty" (this is again subjective) try putting yourself in his situation. You associate yourself with people who do nothing but call him crazy, insult him and the whole movement. These insults are on a personal level. Now I have not seen you do that, but you certainly associate with people who do, one only has to look through threads on this board to see that. Would you be overly kind to someone who associates with people who do nothing but insult you, with some of the most vile things that can be said?

This conversation belongs on a different thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212725&page=88
I'm sorry I went off-track but discussions like yours belong there, not here.
Thank you.

 

[Senenmut]

Absolutely. It's funny how truthers never hold their heroes to the same level of scrutiny they wish to impose on others.

Senenmut knows full well that the release of FTIR data will put this all to rest. Instead he's trying to get the focus onto worthless DSC testing. Anything to keep the illusion from exploding.

He refuses to answer any technical questions (Oysteins asked dozens) because he knows it will pin his position down. Instead he's grand-standing over a worthless test because he's ignorant with regard to materials characterisation.

Far better to push the debate toward what Millette didn't do rather than what Harrit et didn't do and perhaps refuse to do (even though they have the data). Smells fishy to me.

No additional money needs to be spent - the question regarding whether the materials are the same can be answered by Harrit or Jones publishing their data.

So far most of the posts in this thread haven't been true to the OP. I think that's because the OP is so clear regarding the data provided.

It looks like Millette has two sets of red/gray chips that are akin to LaClade and Tnemec primer paint adhered to steel although we can't be absolutely sure that's exactly what he has. We know it's not thermite.

Of those two sets, the one that is closest to LaClade is the one that matches Harrit et al samples a-d. That set has been analysed and shown to contain Kaolin, iron oxide pigment and epoxy. It is that data set that he looks to have compared with Tnemec Red 99. I'm amazed he was not informed that LaClade exists. One of the sticking points is the lack of knowledge that this paint was used. Jones is still using the "it doesn't match Tnemec Red 99, therefore it's not primer paint!" canard. I'm yet to see any truther actually acknowledge that

1. More than one primer paint is possible.

2. More than one primer paint was actually used.

3. There are more than two red paints in the whole world.



I'd like to ask our resident truthers if they find the following statements as true.

1. The dust is composed of many different materials.

2. Thermite (nano, super, thermate whatever) is present in the dust.

3. Paint is present in the dust.

4. Thermite can be separated from the dust using a magnet.

5. Paint adhered to steel can be separated using a magnet.

6 Millette used exactly the same technique as Harrit et al to separate his red/gray chips from the dust.


I expect none of them to reply.

from henryco's website:
"I also observed in the WTC dust these, now famous, red-grey chips having all of the characteristics including the chemical composition of those described by the authors in their publication. But, even warmed far beyond 400°C, none of mine reacted by producing molten iron which would have been
the signature of a thermitic reaction."


well thats interesting. he even heated his far beyond 400C. so what do ya think if henryco had used a dsc to heat his chips? do you think it would show a similar spike like jones' even though they have the same chemical composition but did not react?

 

[Sunstealer]

from henryco's website:
"I also observed in the WTC dust these, now famous, red-grey chips having all of the characteristics including the chemical composition of those described by the authors in their publication. But, even warmed far beyond 400°C, none of mine reacted by producing molten iron which would have been
the signature of a thermitic reaction."


well thats interesting. he even heated his far beyond 400C. so what do ya think if henryco had used a dsc to heat his chips? do you think it would show a similar spike like jones' even though they have the same chemical composition but did not react?

I expect none of them to reply.

Yep I was right.

Why do truthers never address the questions in a post and just post random noise. Why are they so afraid of answering questions?

 

[Edx]

"truther" ups 300$ to finish the testing with a DSC test.

skeptics 0$???

I'll donate some money if Jones/Harrit et all release the FTIR data they said they said they conducted.

But oh wait they dont really need money to do that.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Btw, Peterene, who is by far the smartest Czech truther (I am Czech as well), without any problems accepted that the paper of Harrit et al was refuted by Millette study.
Google translation:
"Yes, the chips are evidently paint. Again, it was confirmed that Jones et al. are crooks. I think that even the collapse itself could be explained by the effects of aircraft impact and fire."

So, we can basically await some more such reactions from really educated truthers, which is in fact the best what we can expect As I understand, Peterene is highly respected among Czech truthers, so he can change the mind of other people as well.

 

[Oystein]

Steel or no steel?

Here is what Millette writes about the gray layer wrt steel:

Results
...
The SEM-EDS and backscattered electron (BE) analysis of the cross-sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chip showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel.

The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer.

In summary, ... The gray side is consistent with carbon steel.

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

Some additional quotes about the gray layer:

LTA was performed for time periods of 30 minutes to 1 hour depending on the size of the chip. The gray layer remained intact

The gray layers were in the range of 10 to 50 micrometers thick

A search for terms such as "spall", "rust" turns up empty.



I am questioning if the characterization of the gray layer suffices is indeed consistent with low-carbon steel. This would not only require that SEM-EDS and BE data be consistent with such steel, but also that the other properties mentioned are consistent with the behaviour of painted steel unter the stress of a collapse. In particular:

• Is it a typical behaviour of painted steek surface that the top steel layer spalls off with paint still attached?
• Is the observed gray layer thickness of 10-50µm (10-100µm according to Harrit e.al.) typical for the top oxide layer of structural steel when it spalls off?
• Is that spalled oxide layer expected to be magnetic, and if yes, why? (Is there experimental data that shows such spalls to be magnetic, or do we know that magnetic materials such as magnetite or elemental iron are usually part of such an oxide layer?)

Metallurgists to the front, please! I need references, not just assertions!

 

[chrismohr]

Multi-subject conversation with Jim Millette March 13

Here is a summary of today's conversation with Jim Millette:

1.) DSC Test. A lot is being made of the fact that Millette didn't feel the need to do a DSC test to burn the chips. He said he could do the tests for $250 or so per chip, but he would also need a real expert to analyze the results. The reason: a real analyst would have a large database of DSC results from various kinds of thermitic materials and paints to compare against, which he does not have.

I suggested an alternative: rather than burning the chips and doing another DSC test, first hire that independent analyst to take a careful look at the data in the Bentham paper. I told him that even I, an English major, can see the DSC curves don't look anything like the Tillotson DSC curves. He kind of corrected me and said a more thorough analysis with an expert and a larger database with epoxy resin, various thermitics, other paints, etc., to compare against. He prefers the idea of a thorough independent analysis of the DSC readings in the Bentham paper first.


2.) Iron microspheres in the cement? I asked if he had any unburned samples of small pieces of concrete from the WTC collapse. At first glance, he said no. The closest samples he has are from Cortland Street. He doesn't have any dust from Ground Zero, which would be where chunks might be findable. He is having an assistant look for a 1/4 inch piece to see if he can find iron microspheres inside the piece of unburned concrete from fly ash.

3.) Iron microspheres generally. He is looking into them, and going over the Bentham report in detail.

4.) Publicity. He feels it is too early to go on cable TV or in Skeptic Magazine or Skeptical Inquirer, since he is not done with his research.

5.) Washing the chips. I told him that some people think his washing the chips for preparation washed away the thermite. That was one of the only times I heard him laugh. "That's why both I and the Bentham people did a cross section, to try to eliminate contamination. If there's thermite it's in the chips, not on them!" After that, I didn't have the heart to tell him some of the other wild accusations I've read on blogs.

He's unclear about which samples were washed for the MEK samples.

6.) He's looking at the white paper given to him by Oystein and Ivan doing some detective work for him on what the chips may actually be. When he finds good leads he will get actual samples of the paint chips suggested and test them.

7.) I didn't take good notes on this, but Millette is also concerned about the presence and absence of silica in various iron microspheres (his samples and "Bentham" samples. Sorry, I wish I could explain this part better.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Here is a summary of today's conversation with Jim Millette:

1.) DSC Test. A lot is being made of the fact that Millette didn't feel the need to do a DSC test to burn the chips. He said he could do the tests for $250 or so per chip, but he would also need a real expert to analyze the results. The reason: a real analyst would have a large database of DSC results from various kinds of thermitic materials and paints to compare against, which he does not have.

I suggested an alternative: rather than burning the chips and doing another DSC test, first hire that independent analyst to take a careful look at the data in the Bentham paper. I told him that even I, an English major, can see the DSC curves don't look anything like the Tillotson DSC curves. He kind of corrected me and said a more thorough analysis with an expert and a larger database with epoxy resin, various thermitics, other paints, etc., to compare against. He prefers the idea of a thorough independent analysis of the DSC readings in the Bentham paper first.


2.) Iron microspheres in the cement? I asked if he had any unburned samples of small pieces of concrete from the WTC collapse. At first glance, he said no. The closest samples he has are from Cortland Street. He doesn't have any dust from Ground Zero, which would be where chunks might be findable. He is having an assistant look for a 1/4 inch piece to see if he can find iron microspheres inside the piece of unburned concrete from fly ash.

3.) Iron microspheres generally. He is looking into them, and going over the Bentham report in detail.

4.) Publicity. He feels it is too early to go on cable TV or in Skeptic Magazine or Skeptical Inquirer, since he is not done with his research.

5.) Washing the chips. I told him that some people think his washing the chips for preparation washed away the thermite. That was one of the only times I heard him laugh. "That's why both I and the Bentham people did a cross section, to try to eliminate contamination. If there's thermite it's in the chips, not on them!" After that, I didn't have the heart to tell him some of the other wild accusations I've read on blogs.

He's unclear about which samples were washed for the MEK samples.

6.) He's looking at the white paper given to him by Oystein and Ivan doing some detective work for him on what the chips may actually be. When he finds good leads he will get actual samples of the paint chips suggested and test them.

7.) I didn't take good notes on this, but Millette is also concerned about the presence and absence of silica in various iron microspheres (his samples and "Bentham" samples. Sorry, I wish I could explain this part better.

Hi, Chris, thanks for the news

1) As for the DSC database of the heating/burning of various polymers, I wonder if such databases exist. In the scientific literature, DSC on polymers degradation are seldom measured (for the reasons I have mentioned several times here as a polymer chemist). There are probably some specialized "forensic databases", not publicly available. . But even so, I think that DSC of polymer thermal-oxidative degradation (de facto burning) can be different even for similar materials, e.g. two epoxy resins. I can be wrong (and I'd like to be wrong in this case) but I think that even DSC forensic specialist would not be able to clearly recognize which polymer was burned-off the paint(s) in the Bentham paper.

2) Since it was me who suggested these simple proofs of fly ash in WTC concrete in the "microsphere thread", I'm looking forward to any results. As someone pointed out, even finding of abundant microspheres in the concrete wouldn't stop the truthers' litanies about "extremely high temperatures" in WTC, but it would bring some new arguments.

4) From my point of view, it is definitely too early to go to some TV or so. I still think that the most of the chips studied by Jim are particles of Laclede paint, and therefore one of the main preliminary conclusion (the paint/material studied is unknown) should be changed, although with some necessary caution. Personally, I highly doubt that there could be another paint than Laclede, containing epoxy binder, kaolinite (or more generally some aluminosilicate) and iron oxide, abundant enough in WTC dust.

5) The truthers' suspicion that washing of red chips with water can "wash away" the thermite or can change the thermite into paint with kaolinite is clearly the Twoofers Idiocy of the Year so far Therefore, I honored this claim with three smileys in the corresponding thread, which is perhaps my record in JREF. What is really important (and this is again my question to Jim Millette): could the washing with water (without some additional means like the action of ultrasound and/or detergents) remove all surface contaminants?

6) OK, let's wait if Jim Millette accepts at least some conclusions and ideas of our white paper

7) I have no remarks.

Chris, perhaps this my post sounds rather "big-headed" or even biased (in favor of my beloved Laclede paint) or so. Then, I'm sorry. Anyway, thank you again for your effort, which has lead to the real "new investigation" of 911 events

 

[Oystein]

Triggered by ergo's not quite so stupid post over in "Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper" thread, I looked closer at Appendix G, and this raised a few questions.


The base problem is again that the chips in the Bentham paper are not all the same, and that in particular the chip they soaked in MEK is different from the chips a-d that contain kaolin.

In post #77 I showed that the XEDS spectrum for Jones's MEK-chip is so vastly different from the four spectra 7(a)-(d) that more than half of it would have to be removed as contamination, if you want to claim the additional calcium, zinc, magnesium, sulfur, and excess amounts of iron and silicone are contamination. A ridiculous and preposterous handwave.

So I wonder how and why he chose the chip that Millette treated with MEK: In Appendix G, I see no Zn, no S, very little Ca. It would be foolish to take one of the kaolin-chips, even though, well, truthers probably need to be shown that MEK doesn't have the magic property of being able to pull Al-atoms out of a silicate. To simply repeat the test one would want to look for a chip that has the following elements, ordered by peak height (elements in parentheses could be exchanged):
(C, O), Ca, (Fe, Si), (Al, S, Zn), (Mg, Cr)
Unfortunately, I see no good canditate chip for that profile. perhaps
9119-4795L1560-red(2): O, C, Si, (Al, Ca, Fe), (Zn, Mg, S, Ca, P)
9119-5230M3451B-re-gray(3): (C, O), Si, (Al, Fe, Ca), (Zn, Mg, S, Cr)
9119-5230M3451B-re-gray(9): O, Si, (Ca, Fe), (Al, S), (Zn, Mg, Cr)
9119-5230M3451B-re-gray(10): O, C, Si, (Al, Ca, Fe), (S, Zn, Mg, Cr)
9119X9135-red(5): (C,O), Si, (Fe, Al, Ca), (S, Mg, Zn, Cr, Na, Cl)
9119X9135-red(6): (C,O), (Si, Fe), (Al, Ca), (S, Mg, Zn, Cr)

Generally, all these chips have not enough Ca and Zn for my taste.

And anyway, data on Harrit's MEK-chip is pretty strange. They didn't show any detailed BSE images, so we really only have the bulk XEDS to go by. According to their Fig. 16, there is silica in it (SiO2). Fig 17 with mainly just Al is weird. Fig 18 shows, beside iron oxide, a little Cl, Na and P that are missing from the bulk at fig. 14.

But a mere repetition of what they did with their MEK-chip would of course be as stupid as what they did in the first place. To show that MEK-treatment separated Al from Si would require that they weren't separated before! But this separation isn't at all necessary. The only interesting question is: Does the red layer swell to 5 times its original size? Then it might well be not epoxy-based (crosslinked, difficult to dissolve) but a binder perhaps based on linseed oil.


Sooo to finish this confusing post ... I have no idea what useful stuff Millette could have done to repeat and clarify the MEK soaking experiment. ALl I know is: The chip that Jones put in MEK is different from the chip that Millette put in MEK, and both are different from chips (a)-(d) (Millette Appendix G, Phase 3: Has high Si, very low Al, can't be kaolin, must be SiO2). As it is, this Appendix G helps not one bit towards resolving anything about the Bentam paper. Wrong material.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: Do not forget that both epoxy (in Laclede) and alkyd-linseed (in Tnemec) resins are crosslinked polymeric three-dimensional networks after curing. They are both thermosets or reactoplasts (according to the new terminology). They are basically insoluble in anything, since chemical crosslinks in the three-dimensional network can not be disrupted by solvent.

The extent to which reactoplasts are swelling (the relative increase of volume) in good solvents like ketones, tetrahydrofuran, chlorinated benzenes, dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide and others is mostly dependent on the number of crosslinking sites. The less of crosslinks means the higher swelling, since network is less dense and has a more "free space" which can be filled with the solvent. So, we can not easily say that this is epoxy since it swell in this way and this is alkyd-linseed (or polyurethane or whatever else reactoplast) since it swells in this way.

If the number of crosslinking sites is low, the reactoplast can be partially dissolved in good solvents, since some polymer branched chains can be "free" (not bound to the network). The action of "epoxy removers" is based on the fact that swollen epoxy has a much lower mechanical coherence and can be therefore mechanically removed from the substrate

Here can be found some basic info on thermosets/reactoplasts

 

[Oystein]

O...okay, I was out on a limb there then. Thanks for pulling me back!

(if only truthers could ever understand that correcting each other is a sign of good partnership, not of hostility...)

 

[ozeco41]

Oystein: Do not forget that both epoxy (in Laclede) and alkyd-linseed (in Tnemec) resins are crosslinked polymeric three-dimensional networks after curing. They are both thermosets or reactoplasts (according to the new terminology). They are basically insoluble in anything, since chemical crosslinks in the three-dimensional network can not be disrupted by solvent.

The extent to which reactoplasts are swelling (the relative increase of volume) in good solvents like ketones, tetrahydrofuran, chlorinated benzenes, dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide and others is mostly dependent on the number of crosslinking sites. The less of crosslinks means the higher swelling, since network is less dense and has a more "free space" which can be filled with the solvent. So, we can not easily say that this is epoxy since it swell in this way and this is alkyd-linseed (or polyurethane or whatever else reactoplast) since it swells in this way.

If the number of crosslinking sites is low, the reactoplast can be partially dissolved in good solvents, since some polymer branched chains can be "free" (not bound to the network). The action of "epoxy removers" is based on the fact that swollen epoxy has a much lower mechanical coherence and can be therefore mechanically removed from the substrate

Here can be found some basic info on thermosets/reactoplasts

Now I know I was right to stick with civil engineering. If it don't work add more concrete.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Ivan and Oystein,

I passed some of your comments on to Jim this morning.

Ivan you wrote,

"What is really important (and this is again my question to Jim Millette): could the washing with water (without some additional means like the action of ultrasound and/or detergents) remove all surface contaminants? " I asked Jim this just now. Also, as for your comments on the DSC database, Jim is looking for a forensic expert's database on explosives, arson materials, etc. to compare DSC readings from the Bentham paper against known thermitic materials. He would not presume to be able to ID a paint chip based on DSC readings in any event. The forensic analysis would simply be to answer the question, "do the bentham DSC tests show evidence of thermitic material?"

And yes, Ivan, your suggestion to find concrete from WTC has been taken up by Millette in his iron microsphere research. A pat on the back to you!

 

[Oystein]

Chris, Ivan,

I wrote up a nice lengthy blog post to explain why the chip that Harrit e.al. soaked in MEK isn't the same as chips (a)-(d):

Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Bottom line is: Relative to Al, there is too much Si. Relative to Si, there is too much Fe and O. And all the Ca (2nd highest peak) and S (6th highest peak, more prominent than Al alone!) have to go, along with the Zn and Mg.

Quantitatively: At least two thirds (on average) of the 6 most abundant elements^(*) must be removed as "contamination" before Fig 14 resembles Fig 7. If you have twice as much (and more) "contamination" as substance, your graph is worth crap, and your material is not what you think it is.

ETA: A professional with real XEDS experience would certainly have a few things to criticize - interpretation of peak heights can be a tricky thing I should maybe have added a few more calls for caution. But that's not really the point. Certainly, Harrit e.al. didn't look at that graph with any subtlety. They just saw "C? check. O? check. Fe? check. Si? check. Al? check". Of course many many many types of dust particles, including many kinds of red paint, but also concrete, many rocks and minerals, ashes, many catalysts, etc. will contain these five elements. You can't just say "it's red, it contains 5 of the most ubiquitious elements, it must be the same weird, secret high tech military magic stuff". Doesn't work that way.
My essay isn't meant to be an accurate XEDS interpretation, but analyses quantitatively how different the graphs are, and contrasts this with how similar 7(a)-(d) are to each other.



(*): That's if you include C, of which you don't have to remove anything. If you only look at five of the six most abundant elements, Ca, O, Fe, Si and S, you'd have to remove, on average, 78% of these five.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Now I know I was right to stick with civil engineering. If it don't work add more concrete.

There is nothing so difficult to understand.
Let me try to describe the dissolution of polymers using some illustrative analogy:

Imagine a dense coil of many mutually entagled snakes lying on the bottom of some well – like in Indiana Jones movies) Snakes here represent the entangled molecular chains of linear polymers or so called thermoplastics (like polystyrene, PVC or polyvinylacetate etc).

Now add some water as a “solvent” to the well. Since snakes do not like water, they try to escape. They are furiously moving and twisting, but escape from the coil is not so easy. Anyway, after some time, the coil of snakes becomes to be less tight and it is bigger with some water in it – this roughly corresponds to the formation of polymer gel. Eventually, each snake (polymer chain) succeeds to escape and we have a “mixture” of individual snakes freely swimming in the water pool – analogy of polymer solution.

Now imagine the same coil of snakes, but here each snake is somehow firmly bound to some neighbor, let say with one “crosslink”. This corresponds to the crosslinked polymers or thermostets (like epoxy or alkyd resin). When adding water, snakes again try to escape, the coil starts to be less dense (swollen with water), but there is no way for snakes to definitely escape the swollen coil , since they are mutually bound together. The most they can do is just to form network of snake bodies elongated to the maximum (filled with water as solvent).

When each snake is bound with other snakes with more than one “crosslink”, the initial “snake network” is denser. Therefore, the final "swollen snake network" is also denser and it occupies lower volume.

In some senses, this analogy is not really good, e.g. since here our snakes do not like water, whereas polymer chains/networks in contact with their good solvent in fact “like” this solvent, they "like" to be in contact with solvent molecules, since they are chemically similar (according to the well-known chemical rule “similia similibus solvuntur”).
But this is not so important. This was simply my attempt to explain why polymer binders in both Laclede and Tnemec cannot be dissolved in anything and why they can only swell (as was proven both by Harrit and Millette at least for some red chips).

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris, Ivan,

I wrote up a nice lengthy blog post to explain why the chip that Harrit e.al. soaked in MEK isn't the same as chips (a)-(d):

Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Bottom line is: Relative to Al, there is too much Si. Relative to Si, there is too much Fe and O. And all the Ca (2nd highest peak) and S (6th highest peak, more prominent than Al alone!) have to go, along with the Zn and Mg.

Quantitatively: At least two thirds (on average) of the 6 most abundant elements^(*) must be removed as "contamination" before Fig 14 resembles Fig 7. If you have twice as much (and more) "contamination" as substance, your graph is worth crap, and your material is not what you think it is.

ETA: A professional with real XEDS experience would certainly have a few things to criticize - interpretation of peak heights can be a tricky thing I should maybe have added a few more calls for caution. But that's not really the point. Certainly, Harrit e.al. didn't look at that graph with any subtlety. They just saw "C? check. O? check. Fe? check. Si? check. Al? check". Of course many many many types of dust particles, including many kinds of red paint, but also concrete, many rocks and minerals, ashes, many catalysts, etc. will contain these five elements. You can't just say "it's red, it contains 5 of the most ubiquitious elements, it must be the same weird, secret high tech military magic stuff". Doesn't work that way.
My essay isn't meant to be an accurate XEDS interpretation, but analyses quantitatively how different the graphs are, and contrasts this with how similar 7(a)-(d) are to each other.



(*): That's if you include C, of which you don't have to remove anything. If you only look at five of the six most abundant elements, Ca, O, Fe, Si and S, you'd have to remove, on average, 78% of these five.

Thanks, Oystein, I will read it as my homework)

(Well, I have read it and have tried to add some remark, but the post was not published for some reason. Anyway, a fine blog contribution - and my remark was not important anyway)