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

[chrismohr]

As it turns out, Jim Millette already got a quote of $1000 to do DSC testing on four individual chips from Particle Technology Labs. I will ask them if they will do one chip for $250.

 

[chrismohr]

Here is the email I just sent to Particle Technology Labs along with a copy of Millette's original quote request and their original quote:


Good morning,

I am a journalist working on the project Jim Millette asked you about a couple months ago. You gave him a quote of $1000 for DSC testing of four chip samples. How much would you charge to do this test on a single chip?

Once the testing is done, we will need to hire someone to analyze the results. Is there someone you can recommend for this work as well?

Thank you,
Chris Mohr

 

[chrismohr]

Hey, here is a question. People like Chris7 have said that heating the chips to 430 degrees C creates iron-rich microspheres, which can be created only at temperatures above the melting point of iron or steel. Did the Bentham DSC test specifically measure and record temperatures in the 2800 degree F range, or just an ignition that left behind these spheres? Did they measure energy release or temperature as well?

 

[Oystein]

...I will ask Millette if he can provide a single sample for a single DSC test that replicates what the Bentham people did. I predict we will get similar results and data. ...

Don't be too sure of this. We have not the slightest idea which kind or kinds of chips Farrer put in the DSC when he came up with his graph. Could be the kind that chips (a)-(d) are, could be the other kind that the MEK chip is of, or could be any of the at least four other types of chips that Harrit e.al. had in their study. What if the chips that Farrer subjected to DSC are not epoxy based but, say, acrylic based? Then you might get different peak temperatures, powers, energies or residues if Millette sends you the type (a)-(d). Then what?

That's what I have been asking all along: What would truthers conclude if the data is same or similar? What would they conclude if it was energetic but differently so? I really want to know this before any test is done. I want them to commit on the spin they'll put on the possible results before the results are in.


A third option is possible logically: What if Millette's chip isn't energetic at alll, but that logical possibility is not a factual possibilty, for the chemistry is already clear here: It's mostly epoxy, fresh cured epoxy has 25 kJ/g and will burn somewhere around 400°C. So while as sure as the blue sky I won't pay help for this nonsende test, I offer to reimburse those who do up to US$ 1000 IF a chip of type (a)-(c) (epoxy, hematite, kaolin) is measured in a DSC and its energy density does not exceed that of thermite, like Farrer's chips did.

That'd how certain I am of the outcome

 

[Oystein]

Hey, here is a question. People like Chris7 have said that heating the chips to 430 degrees C creates iron-rich microspheres, which can be created only at temperatures above the melting point of iron or steel. Did the Bentham DSC test specifically measure and record temperatures in the 2800 degree F range, or just an ignition that left behind these spheres? Did they measure energy release or temperature as well?

The answer is easy and clear: NO, they did NOT measure any temperature except implicitly that of the DSC plate, which increased to a maximum of 700°C.

They only measured energy release, but that can by no means be computed to imply any particular temperature increase. The reaction of the red layers, which had a mass of only tens of micrograms, took place over the course of many minutes. They rested on a metal plate that probably had a massof at least tens of grams, so any heat released by the probe was quickly absorbed by the plate which had a million times the mass of the probe. I am convinced that even local temperature never exceeded 700°C.

I still don't understand how these spheres are created, but neither do Harrit e.al.
The experiment they did however strongly indicates the spheres were not the result of melting iron or iron oxide.

 

[pgimeno]

Hey, here is a question. People like Chris7 have said that heating the chips to 430 degrees C creates iron-rich microspheres, which can be created only at temperatures above the melting point of iron or steel.

The highlighted part is wrong. BasqueArch already gave this link:

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/pp/projects/laserprintforming.html

Quote:

For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron.​

In a PM he pointed me to this article as the reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_point_depression

An interesting quote:

As described above, the electron beam of the transmission electron microscope (TEM) can be used to melt nanoparticles.
​

I'm wondering if they did the TEM tests on these chips before the DSC.

Did the Bentham DSC test specifically measure and record temperatures in the 2800 degree F range, or just an ignition that left behind these spheres? Did they measure energy release or temperature as well?

DSC doesn't measure or record temperatures. It's one of the reasons why it's useless for the task of identifying a thermitic reaction. DSC measures energy (heat) release or absorption.

We don't know if these spheres were left behind; Frédéric Henry-Couannier found them in the original dust without heating anything. There are too many unknowns in what the Bentham paper team did and in what they had at hand to start with, including whether there were microspheres to start with (as Henry said) and the nature and composition of the chips subject to DSC.

If I were a truther, I'd take the maximum infalsability route, namely: "ok, chips A-D are paint and the MEK chip is Tnemec, BUT the chips that burned in DSC *are* thermite". There's no way to prove otherwise since there's absolutely no data on them, thus the theory can't be refuted. That's what truthers and adherents to pseudocientific claims in general do: cling to the least falsable theories to protect their beliefs from refutation.

 

[ozeco41]

...If I were a truther, I'd take the maximum infalsability route, namely: "ok, chips A-D are paint and the MEK chip is Tnemec, BUT the chips that burned in DSC *are* thermite". There's no way to prove otherwise since there's absolutely no data on them, thus the theory can't be refuted. That's what truthers and adherents to pseudocientific claims in general do: cling to the least falsable theories to protect their beliefs from refutation.

Which is one of the main reasons this continued chasing of truther claims is non-ending.

Folks by all means pursue your scientific interests BUT don't expect it to have any impact on the trolls around here. It could have some effect on a few of the rare remaining honest truthers but they are an insignificant minority of the truth movement AND the truth movement is a spent force anyway.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]

Which is one of the main reasons this continued chasing of truther claims is non-ending.

Folks by all means pursue your scientific interests BUT don't expect it to have any impact on the trolls around here. It could have some effect on a few of the rare remaining honest truthers but they are an insignificant minority of the truth movement AND the truth movement is a spent force anyway.

Truthers (and all woos) deal with data by ignoring it, handwaving it away, lying about it or attacking the messenger.

ETA: any one or all may be employed depending on the situation

 

[chrismohr]

Here's a summary of a 45 minute phone conversation I had with a tester at Particle Tech Labs. After I explained Jim Millette's study and the original Bentham paper to him about the thermites question, he pulled them up on his computer and gave them a quick look-see and said these things:

1.) I can do a DSC test but it will tell you nothing about the chemical composition of the materials in question. The chemical composition is much more important than a DSC test, which says nothing about what you have chemically.
2. You must know the chemistry of the sample first before you heat it. Then, a TGA (thermal gravitational analysis) can measure temperature of cooking vs mass loss. You have to have the right kind of test to get the proper combustion.
3. In a DSC analysis, you DON'T want to heat to combustion because at that point you lose your baseline. At that point in your DSC test "you throw everything to the wind." DSC is not the proper test for combustion of materials.
4. A DSC will measure the energy difference between a sample in a crucible and an empty crucible. The mass changes and that can be determined but again, not the chemical composition.
5. A bomb calorimetry test might be a little better for this, where you can measure the water temperature nearby as the material releases its energy. DSC is very limited in its usefulness for this purpose.
6. If argon or nitrogen is used in the testing atmosphere, and if there is no oxygen in the chips (as there would be in thermite), you could measure the gradual breakdown of the chemical structure as you heated it using different techniques than DSC.
7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic. The Netzsch 404-C DSC testing device they used can handle high temperatures, which is a good thing. Not only could my equipment not measure temperatures in the thermitic range, but it would destroy my stuff so no I won't test it because I can't take the chance.
8. Netzsch Application Lab has very high temperature analysis ability, and several of the lab guys there have PhD's in thermal analysis. We can also ask them if they can analyze the DSC tests in the Bentham paper.
9. Just glancing at the Bentham DSC information, this is not my specialty but it makes no sense. Figure 19 doesn't look like the kind of energy curve I would expect from thermite, the ranges from each other are off by a factor of over 2, and I don't think this is the ignition temperature of thermite anyway. It looks more like a melting point curve at first glance, than a thermite energy release. But I'm no expert so check this impression of mine out.
10. One possibility would be a Simultaneous Thermal Analysis (STA) which would tie together DSC, TGA (to measure mass loss better) and Mass Spec. Cook the chips in oxygen to replicate the Bentham paper then cook them again in argon or nitrogen to see if they ignite at all.

So that's what the lab guy said. My conclusion, Senenmut: it will cost a lot more than $300 to go ahead with this and do it right. I mentioned the possibility of simply hiring someone to analyze what the Bentham DSC tests showed, and he said we might find the experts to do this at Netzsch.

I don't want to waste your money. What would you like to do?

Chris

 

[chrismohr]

Pgmieno,
I know about iron-rich spheres being created at way less than the melting point of steel. I'm just paraphrasing Chris7, assertion. And yes, I also found out from my conversation (above) that DSC doesn't measure temperatures.
I'm glad that scientist talked with me. He was very gracious. Many scientists have thrown up their hands when I confront them with the Bentham paper and said this is not worth wasting my time on.

 

[pgimeno]

7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic.

And yet the Bentham paper team tested 4 chips without destroying the equipment. That should be telling. Add "temperature not enough to destroy a DSC test plate but enough to destroy steel" to the magic properties of nanothermite.

 

[DGM]

...

.................... deleted.

Sorry I miss-read..

 

[chrismohr]

The testing device could measure very high temperatures, but the crucible (container) they tested the chips in could not handle thermitic-level temperatures; it would have melted.

By the way, the alumina crucible they used in the Bentham study is constructed of mostly aluminum oxide, which I believe is also the byproduct of thermitic reactions they were looking for. I forgot to mention that the scientist I was talking to wondered if the high temperatures of the burning may have leeched off a small amount of aluminum oxide into the test samples? Neither of us was sure about this though.

 

[chrismohr]

And yet the Bentham paper team tested 4 chips without destroying the equipment. That should be telling. Add "temperature not enough to destroy a DSC test plate but enough to destroy steel" to the magic properties of nanothermite.

PS I was hoping it would be a 9/11 Truth person who would have pointed this out first and said OMG what if the test crucible itself proves no thermitic material!?!?!? Sigh. Hope springs eternal!

 

[Senenmut]

PS I was hoping it would be a 9/11 Truth person who would have pointed this out first and said OMG what if the test crucible itself proves no thermitic material!?!?!? Sigh. Hope springs eternal!

send these links to the lab you are talking too.
ignition of a nanothermite chip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo&feature=related

and this one where we see the iron microspheres from the ignition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc

so what would you say to tillotson about him testing his thermitic material in a dsc? would you say "OMG what if the test crucible itself proves no thermitic material?"

 

[Senenmut]

mark basile heated his chip on a .002 inch thick stainless steel strip, 1 inch wide * .25 inch long. ignitions were done at 6.8 amps of current. that is what the video i linked states. mark 40:26 in the vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc

 

[ergo]

7. WAIT A MINUTE! I couldn't test for thermitic materials! If they were there it would destroy my instruments! The alumina crucible used to hold the samples in the Bentham study can withstand temperatures of only 3200 degrees F, vs 4500 degrees for a thermitic reaction, so the crucible is not design to withstand the testing procedure if it IS thermitic. The Netzsch 404-C DSC testing device they used can handle high temperatures, which is a good thing. Not only could my equipment not measure temperatures in the thermitic range, but it would destroy my stuff so no I won't test it because I can't take the chance.

I don't understand this. The chip ignited at 430^o C, because, allegedly, that's the temperature that produced the thermitic reaction. Why does he need 4500 deg F? And as for the rest of his comments, why is he assuming nanothermite should behave like regular thermite?

 

[ergo]

nanothermite*

* Transl.: (for bedunkers and others who think "nano engineering" must have something to do with tropical fruit) Super-dooper-nano-bananamite!

 

[tsig]

I don't understand this. The chip ignited at 430^o C, because, allegedly, that's the temperature that produced the thermitic reaction. Why does he need 4500 deg F? And as for the rest of his comments, why is he assuming nanothermite should behave like regular thermite?

The reaction burns hotter than ignition temperature.

 

[Senenmut]

For example, the melting temperature of iron particles in the range of a few nanometers lies approximately between 200~400°C compared to 1538°C for bulk iron.​

millette heated his chips to a temp of ________ and found _______ iron and silicon microspheres (micron size).