I am stunned by the profound depth of C7's ... urrrrr ... "alternative perception of reality".
We have recently expanded this epoxide addition method to the synthesis of Fe2O3-SiO2 nanocomposites containing up to 60 wt% SiO2.
[FONT="]https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf[/FONT]
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
This is really funny! Thanks for linking that paper: It proves exactly what I said in the post you replied to, where I said:
"silicon dioxide ... has properties that run counter to what Harrit e.al. needs to be, or is, achieved by nano-thermite: ... it is very hard to ignite, it slows other thermite reaction down when mixed ..."
The proof is in Figure 2 of the linked paper, which clearly shows two things:
- Combustion velocity decreases dramatically the more SiO2 you mix in (note the logarithmic scale! On a linear scale, you'd see much more clearly just HOW extreme the decrease is. For example, going from "ordinary" Fe2O3-only nanothermite to a mix with 20% SiO2 to 80%Fe2O3 decreases reaction velocity by a factor of more than 200! Going from 20% to 40% decreases it by a further factor of roughly 10. It appears that a nanothermite with more than 60% silica oxidizer does not react at all!)
- The velocity depression is more pronounced for the nano-material than for the regular micro-material: all nano-mixes with SiO2 react slower than the corresponding mico-mixes
You see, adding SiO2 really only hinders the thermite reaction. I now learned why:
This trend is not surprising because the thermal properties of SiO2 are more insulative than the highly conductive thermal properties of Fe2O3. For example, the thermal conductivity for Fe2O3 is 20.0 W/m K and for SiO2 is 1.38 W/m K [12]. The presence of SiO2 hinders flame propagation by behaving as a thermal heat sink and resisting the transport of heat through the mixture, thereby reducing the velocity. Although SiO2 contributes to the chemical energy generated, adding SiO2 reduces the overall speed of the reaction by inhibiting thermal transport and reducing the combustion temperature.
The most important piece of data is however found on the front page:
The method he used did not separate the Al and the Si. That does not prove they are chemically bound, it only proves that method did not separate them. Harrit got them to separate proving they were not chemically bound.
When I first read this, I was flabbergasted, mouth literally dropped open, then I burst in loud laughter.
Could this be true? It reads not so much as if you
don't understand chemistry and more like you
don't even know what chemistry is!
But perhaps you simply did not read and understand, or remember, what Millette wrote in his preliminary report.
To remind you: He found kaolin (aluminium silicate) using unequivocal and competent methods, namely FTIR and TEM-SAED in conjunction with SEM and TEM microscopy and XEDS spectroscopy. He found no traces of elemental Al with these methods.
Kaolin is a mineral of a
chemical compound with the sum formula Al
2Si
2(OH)
5O
4.
A
chemical compound. If you don't know what a chemical compound is, please look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound
Wikipedia said:
A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms[3] that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
(my bolding and italics)
When Farrer or Jones (not Harrit) "separated" Al in one sample, they didn't do so by chemical reaction. They tried a physical reaction (solution), but tried it on a completely different kind of material than that which we are talking about:
The MEK-soaked chip in the Harrit paper is very different from chips (a)-(d): The latter clearly contain kaolin, the former quite apparently does not. The former clearly contains calcium, zinc, magnesium and sulfur, the latter clearly does not.
The former very likely is Tnemec red,
the latter quite likely is LaClede primer.
Please follow the links and acknowledge verbosely that you have now learned that
A) There were several different kinds of chips in Jones's samples
B) There were several different kinds of primer paints on WTC steels
so that next time you try to pass off a suggestion that chips (a)-(d) and the MEK-soaked chip are the same can clearly be recognized as a bold-faced lie.
Alternatively, acknowldge that you do not understand this lesson I am giving you, and stop participating in this debate until you do.
To directly address the bizarrely stupid comment you made: Millette did not separate Al from Si because he already had proven that they are part of chemical compound that, by definition, cannot be separated by non-chemical processes such as soaking. Al and Si have been PROVEN to be chemically bound when Millette named the chemical compound (kaolin) that they are bound in.
Please return your accusation of lying to that dark recess from whence it came.
The March 2012 AE911Truth newsletter clearly lies about Millette's conclusions. This is a clear as day.
As for anyone going along with these lies, there are only two possibilities: They are intellectually incapable of understanding why these lies are wrong (deluded or too stupid), or they consciously perpetuate the lie.
Your choice then: Do you want me to assume you are a liar, a lunatic, or an idiot? There is no other possibility. Except to admit that Millette clearly showed there is no aluminium in these chips of type "(a)-(d)", and hence zero thermite.
I can see that they are similar but different.
[qimg]http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9655/fig10alandsi.jpg[/qimg]
One purple, the other blue. The Si-map is slightly noisier, otherwise the correlation is PERFECT, and it takes an astounding level of self-delusion or dishonesty not to see that extremely obvious fact.
Do you believe that clay ignites at 430oC, produces an energy release spike and produces iron spheres?
[qimg]http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3113/fig20.jpg[/qimg]
Don't play that STUPID or DISHONEST game with us!
You KNOW very well that NOBODY thinks clay ignites anywhere! You KNOW very well that the red layer is MOSTLY organic matrix., You SHOULD know very well that solid organic substances are prone to ignite at such temperatures. And surely you KNOW very well that every SANE and HONEST person claims that it is the ORGANIC matrix that must be burning there, NOT the minerals?
So why do you ask such a CRAP question?? Are you consciously trying to give the Twoof Movement an even worse reputation than it already has by playing such dumb-dirty tricks? Are you a disinfo shill?
