DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
We've understood it all along. Could you explain how this supports the conclusions in the paper? Bet you can't.
This is another "rubble" issue for you.
Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper
- Thread starter The Big Dog
- Start date
We've understood it all along. Could you explain how this supports the conclusions in the paper? Bet you can't.
This is another "rubble" issue for you.
Starving for Truth
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 194
Wouldn't it have actually been better if the thermite shills claimed to have found ignited thermite, rather than unignited?
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
...Again something on rather strange shiny microspheres formed very probably from the gray layers of red/gray chips during heating up to 700 degrees C under air(shown in Bentham paper).
It has been mentioned here that these spheres could be perhaps even hollow, could be "cenospheres".
Such cenospheres are common components of coal fly ashes, formed at very high temperatures, but could they be formed also at temperatures around 700 degrees C (final temperature reached during DCS measurements of Harrit et al)?
This thesis shows that cenospheres could be formed from milled pyrite (iron sulfide) already at 580 degrees C (pyrite is transformed to iron oxides at these temperatures and higher). The process is very quick, takes seconds.
Here are micrographs of well-developed cenospheres formed already at 600 degrees C:
(The whole cenospheres are on the left side, their crossections are shown on the right side)
Author basically writes that prior cenosphere formation, low-melting Fe-S-O system (droplet) is created, which is basically "inflated" by nitrogen and/or carbon oxide gas, forming cenosphere. "Our" system (WTC red/gray chips) is clearly different since it does not contain pyrite, but it is again some "hint" that cenospheres (or microspheres) can be created at pretty low temperatures. Here, gray layers (from which microspheres originated) can perhaps form some low melting Fe-C-O systems, because of attached paint layer with a lot of carbon-based binder.
It has been mentioned here that these spheres could be perhaps even hollow, could be "cenospheres".
Such cenospheres are common components of coal fly ashes, formed at very high temperatures, but could they be formed also at temperatures around 700 degrees C (final temperature reached during DCS measurements of Harrit et al)?
This thesis shows that cenospheres could be formed from milled pyrite (iron sulfide) already at 580 degrees C (pyrite is transformed to iron oxides at these temperatures and higher). The process is very quick, takes seconds.
Here are micrographs of well-developed cenospheres formed already at 600 degrees C:
(The whole cenospheres are on the left side, their crossections are shown on the right side)
Author basically writes that prior cenosphere formation, low-melting Fe-S-O system (droplet) is created, which is basically "inflated" by nitrogen and/or carbon oxide gas, forming cenosphere. "Our" system (WTC red/gray chips) is clearly different since it does not contain pyrite, but it is again some "hint" that cenospheres (or microspheres) can be created at pretty low temperatures. Here, gray layers (from which microspheres originated) can perhaps form some low melting Fe-C-O systems, because of attached paint layer with a lot of carbon-based binder.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I just wrote a lengthy message to Myles Power, maker of this video on the Bentham paper, and since I put in some effort, I'll dump it here; something I had wanted to write for 9 months now...
Hey Myles,
I am "Oystein" at the JREF forum. Are you a member there, by any chance? If not, you can msg me back at xxx@xxxxxx.xxx
Just want to give you a bit of info on the Harrit nano-thermite paper and your coverage of it in Part 2 of your YT series - concerning peer-review:
Dr. David Griscom, a distinguished physicist and geologist, albeit himself a 9/11 truther, did in fact peer-review the Harrit paper. He outed himself in, I think, lkate december on his own blog. I have actually read the peer review (although not the draft the review was written about; they must have revised it extensively). This is how I came to read it:
One of Germany's (I am German) leading truthers is Dirk Gerhardt, aka sitting-bull. Dirk has translated a number of English truther texts and videos to German, for example for AE911Truth. When he learned that Griscom was a peer-reviewer, he contacted him, and Griscom agreed to let Dirk translate the peer-review, and sent it to Dirk. Later, Griscom had second thoughts, and told Dirk not to publish anything. However, Dirk offers anyone to see him and read a hard copy of the peer review. As Dirk lives just south of Hamburg, and my best friends live just west of Hamburg, I took up his offer last april when visiting my friends, we met at a nice restaurant in Hamburg over lunch, talked, an I got to read Griscom's critique.
It's 12 pages, and covers a lot of individual points, most of them rather briefly. One important bit is that it seemed to be addressed to the editor of a journal (I am not sure anymore if Bentham publishers is named explicitly, but the editor in chief at the time, Marie Pileni, wasn't mentioned, I am sure I'd rememember that; may have been addressed impersonally to the board of editors), and ends with a recommendation to publish if his criticisms are picked up in a revided final version. So, formally, it looks as if indeed an editor communicated with Griscom to solicit, and got, a peer-review.
Some key points Griscom addressed but Harrit e.al. did not were:
1. Griscom notes that the red layer is probably red because it contains hematite particles 100-200 nm in size - the bright faceted grains, and he adds that hematite grains in just that size are an ordinary industrial red pigment. At the time, Harrit e.al. apparently had not yet figured out with 100% certainty that these grains are indeed hematite (Fe2O3), as opposed to other iron oxides. So Griscom just suggested this - to use the very red colour for an argument.
Of course, it means immediately that such "nano-sized" grains are not proof we are dealing with nano-technology - they are low-tech, cheap, legacy technology, have been synthesized in that size and quality for almost a hundred years, and of course mined (in less uniform quality) for as pigments for art and other purposed since the old stone age.
it also means that, in the post-DSC residue for example shown in Fig 20, which still shows plenty of red material, that much of the iron oxide hasn't reacted in the DSC - a point Griscom failed to make.
2. He urges Harrit e.al. to offer explanations for the significant Si presence, and to find out what that Si is associated with. Harrit e.al. did not act on that recommendation.
Griscom recommended to shorten the paper and leave out many images, which Harrit e.al. did. I believe the draft had as many as 60 figures, which they cut down to 33. As a consequence, I could not relate many of the figures that Griscom discussed to figures in the published paper.
Griscom apparently agreed that the DSC results are significant and speak for nano-thermite - which makes me conclude that he really doesn't know **** about DSC and combustion.
Cheers
xxx
I am "Oystein" at the JREF forum. Are you a member there, by any chance? If not, you can msg me back at xxx@xxxxxx.xxx
Just want to give you a bit of info on the Harrit nano-thermite paper and your coverage of it in Part 2 of your YT series - concerning peer-review:
Dr. David Griscom, a distinguished physicist and geologist, albeit himself a 9/11 truther, did in fact peer-review the Harrit paper. He outed himself in, I think, lkate december on his own blog. I have actually read the peer review (although not the draft the review was written about; they must have revised it extensively). This is how I came to read it:
One of Germany's (I am German) leading truthers is Dirk Gerhardt, aka sitting-bull. Dirk has translated a number of English truther texts and videos to German, for example for AE911Truth. When he learned that Griscom was a peer-reviewer, he contacted him, and Griscom agreed to let Dirk translate the peer-review, and sent it to Dirk. Later, Griscom had second thoughts, and told Dirk not to publish anything. However, Dirk offers anyone to see him and read a hard copy of the peer review. As Dirk lives just south of Hamburg, and my best friends live just west of Hamburg, I took up his offer last april when visiting my friends, we met at a nice restaurant in Hamburg over lunch, talked, an I got to read Griscom's critique.
It's 12 pages, and covers a lot of individual points, most of them rather briefly. One important bit is that it seemed to be addressed to the editor of a journal (I am not sure anymore if Bentham publishers is named explicitly, but the editor in chief at the time, Marie Pileni, wasn't mentioned, I am sure I'd rememember that; may have been addressed impersonally to the board of editors), and ends with a recommendation to publish if his criticisms are picked up in a revided final version. So, formally, it looks as if indeed an editor communicated with Griscom to solicit, and got, a peer-review.
Some key points Griscom addressed but Harrit e.al. did not were:
1. Griscom notes that the red layer is probably red because it contains hematite particles 100-200 nm in size - the bright faceted grains, and he adds that hematite grains in just that size are an ordinary industrial red pigment. At the time, Harrit e.al. apparently had not yet figured out with 100% certainty that these grains are indeed hematite (Fe2O3), as opposed to other iron oxides. So Griscom just suggested this - to use the very red colour for an argument.
Of course, it means immediately that such "nano-sized" grains are not proof we are dealing with nano-technology - they are low-tech, cheap, legacy technology, have been synthesized in that size and quality for almost a hundred years, and of course mined (in less uniform quality) for as pigments for art and other purposed since the old stone age.
it also means that, in the post-DSC residue for example shown in Fig 20, which still shows plenty of red material, that much of the iron oxide hasn't reacted in the DSC - a point Griscom failed to make.
2. He urges Harrit e.al. to offer explanations for the significant Si presence, and to find out what that Si is associated with. Harrit e.al. did not act on that recommendation.
Griscom recommended to shorten the paper and leave out many images, which Harrit e.al. did. I believe the draft had as many as 60 figures, which they cut down to 33. As a consequence, I could not relate many of the figures that Griscom discussed to figures in the published paper.
Griscom apparently agreed that the DSC results are significant and speak for nano-thermite - which makes me conclude that he really doesn't know **** about DSC and combustion.
Cheers
xxx
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
so, what percentage of CO is in "air".
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
jtl-
what do you think of the silicon rich microspheres?
from the thermitic paper:
In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope,
and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent
or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs
taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20).
what do you think of the silicon rich microspheres?
from the thermitic paper:
In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope,
and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent
or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs
taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20).
You still have nothing remotely like the DSC conditions and you don´t get the molten iron spheres.
"Bloomery" still needs about 1100 degrees air temp and prolonged exposure to carbon monoxide to work, all missing from the DSC.
Again it does NOT get you iron, you end up with "sponge iron" that is porous and filled with slag, prone to oxidation and ignition from air exposure. This is besides the fact that this "sponge iron" is not melted, so no spheres!
I think it is measured in parts per million not the 40 plus% Sunstealers graph requires, which by the way is for blast furnace not bloomery. Again nothing like the DSC conditions.
Last edited:
I do. Jones has shown very poor judgment abilities in interpreting data and results, so I say the announced results can't be trusted without looking at the XRD data. So, before admitting that the results are vague, let's push for him to publish them, shall we?
Wrong question. Let me ask you the right question: what percentage of CO results from the burning of epoxy?
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
your assuming jones chips are epoxy. the chart says at about 45-50% CO and it would have to be in about 0.25 atmospheres. good luck with that.Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
that is all the thermitic paper says about them. sunstealer thinks they are formed from the kaolin. i think that is completely false. all i can say about the temp is that they formed during the dsc experiment. that means up to 700C. millette thinks the matrix is epoxy while jones et al think the matrix is silicon and carbon. in millette's study, those spheres would have to form somehow from the kaolin. with jones' chips, i just wonder if there is a thermetic reaction with the silicon as well....the reason i say that is some indian head scientist have been coating AL with fluorine. i dont know if this can be done with silicon or not.
from indian heads research:
The self-assembled monolayer (SAM) coating serves two purposes 1) it passivates the Al and prevents oxidation of the particle in air and 2) it supplies an oxidizer, F, for the Al core. Interestingly, the material is insensitive to friction (BAM Friction: >360 N) impact, (ERL Impact: 320 cm) and only moderately ESD sensitive (ABL Electrostatic Discharge: 0.037 J). This is peculiar because nanoscale fuel/oxidizer combinations are typically extremely ESD sensitive.
i wonder is silicon is somehow passivating the al shell?? just something ive been thinking about.
Last edited:
Do the research. Why regurgitate nonsense from Jones' failed paper?
This is chemistry. Why do you ask questions you could look up on wiki? Silicon dioxide can be used as an oxidizer for the Al reaction. For 911 there was not thermite used to bring down the towers. I would be the dumbest substance to use, it leaves evidence. Evidence of thermite was not found after 911. Jones mentions thermite in 2005, and 911 truth is fooled by a delusional man.
Why does 911 truth apply Occam's razor back-wards?
We have office fires before the collapse, albeit inefficient, equal in heat energy to more than 2,500 tons of thermite. And we can ignore the heat energy in the jet fuel, it only comes to 630 tons of thermite in heat energy. Why can we ignore the jet fuel heat? Because the office fires are the bigger heat source. BINGO
Why does 911 truth accept a fantasy made up by Jones who is delusional on 911?
Thread topic, is Millette's paper which found no thermite. It is ironic the BS paper Jones did, has spectrum of elements that look like clay.
How do we get from no thermite, to discussing the process for some form of thermite which was not used on 911. Why do you fall for fantasy?
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Gyus: (In support of Sunstealer) As for potential low-temperature reduction of iron oxide, many months ago Morea inspired me to look at some possibilities as for reduction by carbon solid stuffs, not by gases like CO.
And I found so called carbothermic reductions, which are "introduced" in the Wiki by these words:
"Carbothermic reactions use carbon as reducing agent, usually for metal oxides. These chemical reactions are usually conducted at several hundreds of degree Celsius. Such processes are applied for production of the elemental forms of many elements.... Carbothermal reactions produce carbon monoxide and sometimes carbon dioxide....The most prominent example is that of iron ore smelting."
Although it does not mean some miraculous solution of our "matter" (formation of microspheres), we should not forget that when heating polymer binder, it is first transformed to graphitic soot/char, which has basically similar reduction properties as coal, coke, and similar forms of carbon.
We have anyway this image from Basile, which clearly shows that when the combustion of the chip is incomplete, dark/black soot/char is massively produced:
As I already wrote, I can easily imagine that in such system, some limited reduction or other transformation (some phase transitions) of iron oxide takes places basically in the absence (or partial absence) of air inside this dark object, especially at the boundary of red (now black) and gray layer. Processes inside the chip could be pretty complex in fact. In such a system with limited access of air, both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide can be formed by incomplete burning.
And I found so called carbothermic reductions, which are "introduced" in the Wiki by these words:
"Carbothermic reactions use carbon as reducing agent, usually for metal oxides. These chemical reactions are usually conducted at several hundreds of degree Celsius. Such processes are applied for production of the elemental forms of many elements.... Carbothermal reactions produce carbon monoxide and sometimes carbon dioxide....The most prominent example is that of iron ore smelting."
Although it does not mean some miraculous solution of our "matter" (formation of microspheres), we should not forget that when heating polymer binder, it is first transformed to graphitic soot/char, which has basically similar reduction properties as coal, coke, and similar forms of carbon.
We have anyway this image from Basile, which clearly shows that when the combustion of the chip is incomplete, dark/black soot/char is massively produced:
As I already wrote, I can easily imagine that in such system, some limited reduction or other transformation (some phase transitions) of iron oxide takes places basically in the absence (or partial absence) of air inside this dark object, especially at the boundary of red (now black) and gray layer. Processes inside the chip could be pretty complex in fact. In such a system with limited access of air, both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide can be formed by incomplete burning.
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Jtl, after your post No 1637, I decided not to answer to you anymore. Why should I bother myself again with the another truther who e.g. wrote: „Harrit first uses DSC test to show that it is energetic because he replicates procedure by people that developed superthermite, so saying this is a useless test is absolute garbage.“?
This your sentence is the absolute garbage, according to me. Heating of chips under air would have some value, if it were accompanied by tests under inert. But heating test only under air is useless. Harrit et al knew very well (or they had to know) that carbon stuffs prevailed in their chips, therefore it was their scientific duty to perform tests also under inert, to rule out the e.g. paints as very apparent culprits. Their red/gray chips with prevailing organics were „miles away“ from quoted Tillotson „superthermite“, which contained only some traces (up to 10 %) of organics, formed during sol-gel proces. Moreover, these low molar mass organics had to quickly evaporate during heating of superthermite chips, leaving basically no organics at all.
Clearly, heating of WTC red/gray chips under air must be accompanied for sure by some exotherm of carbon stuff (polymer) burning, which part of this our claim you still do not understand?
But since you have asked me twice, I will repeat my asnwers from my previous posts, which you probably overlooked or did not understand or so.
„We are internet forum, not scientific commitee or so. I'm just trying to analyze available data, playing with them, having some rather strange fun with all this stuff, and learning some new things in material science, which is indeed good for my own carrier of polymer chemist.“
E.g., since Basile’s images are pretty messy, he did not really prove his claims by them, and I have indeed full right to have my own view. If Basile has some better data what exactly happened e.g. to gray layer in his chip Lucky Thirteen, he should provide us with them. Without them, no conclusion can be made.
As for Jones‘ chat about XRD, I already wrote you in my post 1563:
„I’m not sure if I understand. Jones ruled out kaolin for WHAT kind of chips? Do you know? If his chip for XRD measurements was Tnemec (or other paint… well, material different from Laclede), no wonder that Jones did not find kaolin(ite). Options are still the same (materials with kaolinite, and another materials without kaolinite.) No room for amorphous aluminium and other rather mystical stuffs."
Moreover, if Jones did not identified any aluminium stuff (including aluminium) in some (unknown) chip(s), isn’t it an evidence that such chip(s) cannot indeed be thermite (or at least aluminothermite)?
Anyway, Jones did not show us any real XRD, therefore this „info“ has zero value at present. There is no reason/way to analyze such data, since we do have any real data.
(Note: As for your sentence "What about Tnemec aluminum oxide, could it be an amorphous form", I already wrote you: there was no aluminum oxide in Tnemec, what are you talking about? Try to concentrate next time
.)
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Pgimeno: Here at work this paper is available for me, but some tables are almost unreadable.
- There is anyway a (not well readable) Table V with specific electrical resistivities of composites made using two polymer binders: chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin.
- It is written that "The electrical resistivity was measured on a Keithley 617 electrometer at room temperature," i.e. by simple two probe method.
- The pigments to binder ratios were from 1:1 to 2:1.
- Pigments were China clay, iron oxide and the special pigment prepared by heating of ferrite and zinc oxide .
- Specific resistivities were from ca 10x10-10 to 10x10-14 Ohm/cm (probably), which is basically in accordance with the range of resistivities of pure insulating polymers.
Btw, I've just tried to measure the resistivity of my Laclede imitation chip, using simple two probe method (two strips of silver paste were first applied to make good contacts, their distance was ca 3 mm). But, for my multimeter Agilent U1242A, the resistance is too high (not measurable).
Anyway, my claim that Harrit et al did not refer to some specified materials when comparing the electrical resistivity was basically wrong, I repeat. Mea culpa
Last edited:
Wow, thank you, Ivan.
Are you sure about the negative exponent? 10x10-10 means 10-9 ohm·cm i.e. 10-7 ohm·m. That's very low resistivity, in the range of iron according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...conductivity#Resistivity_of_various_materials.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Pgimeno: Here at work this paper is available for me, but some tables are almost unreadable.
- There is anyway a (not well readable) Table V with specific electrical resistivities of composites made using two polymer binders: chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin.
- It is written that "The electrical resistivity was measured on a Keithley 617 electrometer at room temperature," i.e. by simple two probe method.
- The pigments to binder ratios were from 1:1 to 2:1.
- Pigments were China clay, iron oxide and the special pigment prepared by heating of ferrite and zinc oxide .
- Specific resistivities were from ca 10x10-10 to 10x10-14 Ohm/cm (probably), which is basically in accordance with the range of resistivities of pure insulating polymers.
Btw, I've just tried to measure the resistivity of my Laclede imitation chip, using simple two probe method (two strips of silver paste were first applied to make good contacts, their distance was ca 3 mm). But, for my multimeter Agilent U1242A, the resistance is too high (not measurable).
Anyway, my claim that Harrit et al did not refer to some specified materials when comparing the electrical resistivity was basically wrong, I repeat. Mea culpa
I suggest that we move a lot of the recent discussion to a thread specifically on the Harrit/Jones paper, as many of the issues just don't apply to Millette's study (and should not).
However, some ad-hoc comments:
- Just so I understand you correctly: Did they measure a composite made of chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin, and separately measure a paint with 2:1-1:1 pigments and (unnamed) binder? Or was that a paint with 50-67% pigments and 33-50% chlorinated rubber and alkyd resin?
- China clay is kaolin, so they happen to have LaClede's main pigments, plus their special pigment. Any proportions of these pigments given?
It's all rather pointless of course, in the Jones paper, as he has not characterized the chip they tested in any way beyond saying it's mostly red layer and little gray layer, and (presumably) attracted by a magnet. We don't know if it's a LaClede chip, a Tnemec chip, some other paint, or even some non-paint material (Frank Greening, in a mail to me about a year ago, suggested some material used on the contacts of electric engines, such as are used to spin hard drives).
Also, that chip he measured was possibly unwashed - on page 9, they write (in the context of SEM studies) that "samples were left unwashed and uncoated unless otherwise specified". Since in the paragraphs on resistivity measurement, page 27, there is no mention of washing of any kind, it stands to reason that this chip, too, may have been left unwashed. Not sure how surface contamination might influence resistivity, but the potential is there.
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Sorry for the mistake, pgimeno, the exponents should be indeed positive
Anyway, it seems that measured difference between resistivities of some red/gray chips and some formulations close to paints in the paper (they were not commercial paints) is really very high, many orders of magnitude, (10 Ohms/m for chips vs ca 1010 Ohm/m).
Here, we have basically two possibilities:
1) Chips contained some really highly conductive stuff, e.g. aluminum. Its specific resistivity is ca 3x10-8 (minus is OK here
), so almost about twenty orders higher than that of usual polymer binders!2) Measurements in Bentham paper were not correct. Authors wrote "We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side)", so there is some possibility that this gray layer contributed substantially to the conductivity. E.g., magnetite has specific resistance ca 1-3x10-4 Ohm/m, which is pretty high conductivity.
And now: we know from XEDS spectra that chips contained only little of some Al stuffs, so it is really difficult to predict if such hypothetical chips (with metallic aluminum instead of kaolinite) could have such a high conductivity/low resistivity like those described in Bentham paper. The resistivity would depend on many factors, starting with the exact concentration of Al and the shape of its particles (which should be mutually in some contact to conduct electricity).
Paints with powdered/flaked metallic aluminum are pretty common on the market (they are used as "metallic paints" in many branches, namely in car industry), so it would be good to find some data on their resistivities.
I've tried to find some data, with no success so far...
Anyway, this is also an issue which had not been solved yet. But, if Harrit et al measured just only one chip, the second possibility I mentioned above is very probable. I think.
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Oystein, pgimeno:
I've finally succeeded in opening much better pdf file and here are relevant tables IV and V. (The preparation of their special pigment made of ferrite and zinc oxide is roughly described in the abstract):
I've finally succeeded in opening much better pdf file and here are relevant tables IV and V. (The preparation of their special pigment made of ferrite and zinc oxide is roughly described in the abstract):
Seconded.
Indeed. Only by testing a red layer completely free of gray layer can the measurements be taken seriously. Another inconclusive test (not to mention the failure to present any analysis of the tested chip).
If the gray layer is scarce but there is enough as to be roughly connected, then what they would be measuring is the resistance between each of the probes and the gray layer (given by the thickness of the red layer), plus the resistivity of the gray layer. The current always finds its way through the path of least resistance (something the truthers are very familiar with
)The distance between the probes and the gray layer is likely diminished by making pressure with the probe, especially if it has a sharp tip, which it probably has in order to measure such a tiny chip. It's probably in the micrometers or nanometers range, if not contacting it directly, thus invalidating any measurement of distance between the probes. Yes, quite possibly up to 10 orders of magnitude.
Than you very much, Ivan. The pigments might make a difference, who knows; anyway it seems they might not be comparing apples to pears in this instance. However, not having any analysis of the measured chip makes this impossible to determine.
Last edited: