Miragememories
Banned
Just out of idle curiosity, is there some reason why you can't make your own little campfire Chris?
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
-
You may need to edit your signatures. When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.
One More Look at Iron-Rich Spheres
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
Just out of idle curiosity, is there some reason why you can't make your own little campfire Chris?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Better yet. Why don't you ship some to Dave, just so you know we're not up to some shenanigans?
Miragememories
Banned
27 May 2014
If you can bike up a nearby Colorado mountain surely a small campfire is no big challenge?
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
I guess if you are unable to make a simple campfire, maybe my assumption that Dr. Millette could easily capable of doing another heat test was also an over estimation?
By all appearances such a straight forward additional heat test would be easy for someone with his skills and private lab facility.
Given your statement that Dr. Millette was very interested in this research, it seems quite reasonable to assume that he likely took a moment to heat some of his no longer needed sample material another 30C.
Isn't that a logical step to take when a scientist is curious about something and has everything needed to satisfy that curiosity?
29 May 2014
29 May 2014
29 May 2014
1 June 2014
14 June 2014
18 June 2014
If you can bike up a nearby Colorado mountain surely a small campfire is no big challenge?
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
I guess if you are unable to make a simple campfire, maybe my assumption that Dr. Millette could easily capable of doing another heat test was also an over estimation?
By all appearances such a straight forward additional heat test would be easy for someone with his skills and private lab facility.
Given your statement that Dr. Millette was very interested in this research, it seems quite reasonable to assume that he likely took a moment to heat some of his no longer needed sample material another 30C.
Isn't that a logical step to take when a scientist is curious about something and has everything needed to satisfy that curiosity?
Edited by Locknar:
Images SNIPed, breach of rule 8.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jones and Harrit wave their hands and declare thermite. The steel at the WTC had no thermite damage. Jones and Harrit lied. Simple science uses evidence, Jones and Harrit found dust, not thermite.
The logical step for Jones and Harrit were to count on the ignorance of 911 truth followers, unable to comprehend the study they did, as Jones and Harrit made up the conclusion, thermite. You support liars out of ignorance of science, chemistry and physics. What is worse, there is no evidence of thermite being used at the WTC on any steel, and zero products of thermite were found at the WTC. A reminder for you, termite leaves behind iron, there was no iron found at the WTC from thermite.
You support a fraud paper, and think iron rich sphere, iron oxide spheres, are proof of your fantasy of thermite. Even the iron sphere from the real thermite was iron oxide, did some thermite spit out some iron oxide from the thermite?
Why can't you send in ashes, no wood, or what?
You have no evidence for your inside job fantasy. 13th year of nothing.
when will you prove iron rich spheres only come from thermite --- never
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Still accusing him of lying. Nice.
To perform a completely unnecessary test to complete the task he was asked? Millette is smart enough to know that organic compounds burn. What would he be looking for and what would this prove?
The "proof" of a "thermetic material" in the Harrit et al paper is that they think so. I know you don't like this but, it's true. You're belief is faith based.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Harrit. Make sure to not tell him where you got your samples.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
LOL. That's so cute.
To be fair.
Ergo, in science there is a thing called 'baselines'. It's where you actually show that what you claim your sample is not by doing actually experiments to show you have tried to falsify your results. You would almost think a group that claimed to have found something special in their samples, could show that they actually found the obvious also. They didn't, they copied out of a book. Strange how your heroes never bothered to try to find something other than what they were hoping for. They got lucky I guess, too bad no one else can duplicate their conclusions. Most of the time, people would question the paper, not you guys. You have faith.
Last edited:
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
You have to call the lab for their address. (516) 922-9463
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
I'm happy to report that I( have been in touch with two fire chemists who have answered some questions about iron-rich spheres, fire temperatures, etc. Their responses (with a couple good links to peer-reviewed papers) give a new perspective on this old question. Today or tomorrow I will summarize these.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Adibiatic Temperatures of hydrocarbon fires
I actually managed to find a professor of fire chemistry who agreed to talk with me about the question of the formation of iron-rich spheres in the WTC fires. And he even referred me to a SECOND fire chemist who had some more answers. This should lay to rest the question of whether iron-rich spheres can be created at ONLY the bulk melting point of iron.
He explained that a typical office fire might burn at, say, 1100-1800F bulk temperature. But, the adiabatic flame temperature, the theoretical upper limit of burning materials starting at room temperature, is much higher. For hydrocarbon fuels it is 3600-4500F, for wood it is almost 3500F. If you use laser to focus in on the flame temperature as they did in these published papers (below), observable local instantaneous temperatures can actually approach the adiabatic temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro near-adiabatic temperatures could easily hit the melting point of iron. We can expect huge blobs of melted iron when the bulk temperature exceeds its melting point, but only tiny iron micropsheres when small flakes of rust fly around in these smaller areas where the temperatures are much higher. And that is exactly what was found at the World Trade Center site!
Adiabatic flame temperature: for hydrocarbon fuels it is 3600-4500F, for wood it is almost 3500F. (Wikipedia) Laser focuses in on the flame temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro-scale near-adiabatic flame temperatures could surpass iron’s melting point.
http://www.sandia.gov/TNF/DataArch/FlameD/SandiaPilotDoc21.pdf (see figure 4)
Barlow, R. S. and Frank, J. H., Proc. Combust. Inst. 27:1087-1095 (1998)
Barlow, R. S., Frank, J. H., A. N. Karpetis, and Chen, J.-Y., "Piloted Methane/Air Jet Flames: Scalar Structure and Transport Effects," Combust. Flame 143:433-449 (2005).
Schneider, Ch., Dreizler, A., Janicka, J., "Flow Field Measurements of Stable and Locally Extinguishing Hydrocarbon-Fuelled Jet Flames," Combust. Flame 135:185-190 (2003).
You can also use as a reference showing temperatures in the vicinity of 2000C a paper out of Purdue:
Thariyan, MP, Ananthanarayanan, V. Bhuiyan, AH, Naik, SV, Gore, JP, and Lucht, RP, “Dual-pump CARS temperature and major species concentration measurements in counter-flow methane flames using narrowband pump and broadband Stokes lasers,” Combustion and Flame, 150, 1390-1399, (2010).
The second fire chemist said, "I am a physical chemist, and some of my recent research has focused on the reduction-oxidation properties of iron oxides at high temperature..."
"There are several oxides of iron, and each has a different melting point. The lowest of these is FeO (also called wüstite) at ~ 1377 C, i.e. lower than the melting point of Fe (~ 1535 C). Rust (Fe2O3, or hematite) decomposes/reduces around 1566 C in air, but under partially reducing atmosphere this can shift to much lower temperature. For instance, in an incompletely-burned fuel fire with hydrocarbons and CO, reduction of iron oxides to metallic iron can occur << 1000 C (I’ve seen it at 600 C under a dilute hydrogen stream). Stating from hematite the reduction sequence would be as follows: Fe2O3 – Fe3O4 – FeO – Fe, thus as rust is reduced it reaches FeO (lowest melting phase) before Fe. Could it be that the “iron rich” microspheres are FeO, or a mixture of Fe and Fe3O4 from the disproportionation reaction of FeO (4FeO = Fe + Fe3O4)?"
Other people I have talked with have been unable to provide proof of this, but collectively they have proposed other possible explanations and hypotheses about how iron-rich microspheres could be created at less-than-melting temps: There are processes by which rust flakes can be made to congeal into iron-rich microspheres at lower-than-melting temperatures in an office fire (such as with CO in an oxygen starved part of a fire, sintering, annealing, eutectic mix of aluminum and steel, other processes) that can cause these iron-rich microspheres to form. Myn concern is that some of these may have commercial or scientific applications that don't apply in regular office fires. But the near-adibiatic tempertures of highly localized parts of fires as measured by laser technology at Sandia National Lab (and the tiny rust flakes that turn into iron-rich spheres inside these areas) and for that matter, the micro-thermitic reaction that is created when rust and aluminum collide as they did in the 9/11 collapases, convinces med that thermite is NOT necessary to explain this phenomenon.
Comments anyone?
I actually managed to find a professor of fire chemistry who agreed to talk with me about the question of the formation of iron-rich spheres in the WTC fires. And he even referred me to a SECOND fire chemist who had some more answers. This should lay to rest the question of whether iron-rich spheres can be created at ONLY the bulk melting point of iron.
He explained that a typical office fire might burn at, say, 1100-1800F bulk temperature. But, the adiabatic flame temperature, the theoretical upper limit of burning materials starting at room temperature, is much higher. For hydrocarbon fuels it is 3600-4500F, for wood it is almost 3500F. If you use laser to focus in on the flame temperature as they did in these published papers (below), observable local instantaneous temperatures can actually approach the adiabatic temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro near-adiabatic temperatures could easily hit the melting point of iron. We can expect huge blobs of melted iron when the bulk temperature exceeds its melting point, but only tiny iron micropsheres when small flakes of rust fly around in these smaller areas where the temperatures are much higher. And that is exactly what was found at the World Trade Center site!
Adiabatic flame temperature: for hydrocarbon fuels it is 3600-4500F, for wood it is almost 3500F. (Wikipedia) Laser focuses in on the flame temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro-scale near-adiabatic flame temperatures could surpass iron’s melting point.
http://www.sandia.gov/TNF/DataArch/FlameD/SandiaPilotDoc21.pdf (see figure 4)
Barlow, R. S. and Frank, J. H., Proc. Combust. Inst. 27:1087-1095 (1998)
Barlow, R. S., Frank, J. H., A. N. Karpetis, and Chen, J.-Y., "Piloted Methane/Air Jet Flames: Scalar Structure and Transport Effects," Combust. Flame 143:433-449 (2005).
Schneider, Ch., Dreizler, A., Janicka, J., "Flow Field Measurements of Stable and Locally Extinguishing Hydrocarbon-Fuelled Jet Flames," Combust. Flame 135:185-190 (2003).
You can also use as a reference showing temperatures in the vicinity of 2000C a paper out of Purdue:
Thariyan, MP, Ananthanarayanan, V. Bhuiyan, AH, Naik, SV, Gore, JP, and Lucht, RP, “Dual-pump CARS temperature and major species concentration measurements in counter-flow methane flames using narrowband pump and broadband Stokes lasers,” Combustion and Flame, 150, 1390-1399, (2010).
The second fire chemist said, "I am a physical chemist, and some of my recent research has focused on the reduction-oxidation properties of iron oxides at high temperature..."
"There are several oxides of iron, and each has a different melting point. The lowest of these is FeO (also called wüstite) at ~ 1377 C, i.e. lower than the melting point of Fe (~ 1535 C). Rust (Fe2O3, or hematite) decomposes/reduces around 1566 C in air, but under partially reducing atmosphere this can shift to much lower temperature. For instance, in an incompletely-burned fuel fire with hydrocarbons and CO, reduction of iron oxides to metallic iron can occur << 1000 C (I’ve seen it at 600 C under a dilute hydrogen stream). Stating from hematite the reduction sequence would be as follows: Fe2O3 – Fe3O4 – FeO – Fe, thus as rust is reduced it reaches FeO (lowest melting phase) before Fe. Could it be that the “iron rich” microspheres are FeO, or a mixture of Fe and Fe3O4 from the disproportionation reaction of FeO (4FeO = Fe + Fe3O4)?"
Other people I have talked with have been unable to provide proof of this, but collectively they have proposed other possible explanations and hypotheses about how iron-rich microspheres could be created at less-than-melting temps: There are processes by which rust flakes can be made to congeal into iron-rich microspheres at lower-than-melting temperatures in an office fire (such as with CO in an oxygen starved part of a fire, sintering, annealing, eutectic mix of aluminum and steel, other processes) that can cause these iron-rich microspheres to form. Myn concern is that some of these may have commercial or scientific applications that don't apply in regular office fires. But the near-adibiatic tempertures of highly localized parts of fires as measured by laser technology at Sandia National Lab (and the tiny rust flakes that turn into iron-rich spheres inside these areas) and for that matter, the micro-thermitic reaction that is created when rust and aluminum collide as they did in the 9/11 collapases, convinces med that thermite is NOT necessary to explain this phenomenon.
Comments anyone?
Last edited:
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 303
Well done, sir.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Only that we need to remind ourselves that behavior on the macro level is not necessarily reflective of behavior on the micro level. And that's a mistake I think we all commonly make - myself so very included - even outside this issue. This post helps remind us of that.
Thank you for the info, Chris. Excellent contribution of information.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Thanks, Chris. I fully expect the Trust hers to focus on "Sandia National Labs" instead of the truth of what is being said.
MileHighMadness
Muse
In other words...AE Truth is full of it!
Adiabatic flame temperatures are theoretical. They depend on perfect stoichiometric combustion, zero heat loss, zero work being done and so on. I wouldn't toss such an obscure concept into the argument, personally. Frankly it just feeds the Truther fantasy as they'll throw back the sheer theoreticality (is that a word 
) of the concept right back in your face, muddying the waters nicely as they go.
) of the concept right back in your face, muddying the waters nicely as they go.Wow, iron spheres come from fire where iron is present in stuff. Not a surprise Steven Earl Jones spreads lies idiots like the Boston bombers believe. Steven Earl Jones peers, the Boston bombers, and a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Proof, RJ Lee, USGS, even Steven Earl Jones failed paper proves iron rich spheres occur in fire. Iron-y
Proof, RJ Lee, USGS, even Steven Earl Jones failed paper proves iron rich spheres occur in fire. Iron-y
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Glenn you're wrong. Adibiatic temps are indeed the theoretical limit and are WAY higher than the "bulk" temperatures of any given fire. However, the published papers give experimental proof that in using laser beams to measure highly localized areas of fires, they can and do attain near-adibiatic temperatures. When a tiny micro-rust flake flies into such an intensely heated highly localized area, it WILL melt and produce iron-rich micropsheres! Nothing theoretical about that. Both fire chemists I talked with personally assured me that these near-adibiatic temps do occur in fires..Adiabatic flame temperatures are theoretical. They depend on perfect stoichiometric combustion, zero heat loss, zero work being done and so on. I wouldn't toss such an obscure concept into the argument, personally. Frankly it just feeds the Truther fantasy as they'll throw back the sheer theoreticality (is that a word
No, I'm not wrong in my approach to this. Check the highlighted part.
Put that argument in the way of a Truther (MM, say) and they'll ask why all the Harrit chips exhibited the same behaviour and S. Manhattan was full of them and blah blah blah. The you go round in the same ol' arguments about Harrit's experimental protocol etc etc etbloodycetera.
Sorry Chris, but you're over-egging this pudding with technical detail in the hope you'll prove something to people who will use your detail against you. And mea culpa in that respect, of course
Miragememories
Banned
No, I'm not wrong in my approach to this. Check the highlighted part.
Put that argument in the way of a Truther (MM, say) and they'll ask why all the Harrit chips exhibited the same behaviour and S. Manhattan was full of them and blah blah blah. The you go round in the same ol' arguments about Harrit's experimental protocol etc etc etbloodycetera.
Sorry Chris, but you're over-egging this pudding with technical detail in the hope you'll prove something to people who will use your detail against you. And mea culpa in that respect, of course
I have to agree.
When Glenn claims Chris's pudding is over-egged--you really know it is over-egged.
ozeco41
Philosopher
There actually is no pudding.
It is a "Virtual Pudding" for moot discussion purposes.
Since there was no CD using any technology - i.e. including any variant of thermXte - the whole discussion is a sideline excursion into science which has no relevance to 9/11 WTC collapse debate. Absent any coherent plausible hypothesis in favour of CD it will remain irrelevant.
The topic is an artefact of following truthers arse about logic. Starting from a detail anomaly which lacks any valid hypothesised context. Whatever the outcome of this prolonged excursion the next question in a 9/11 context will be "So what?" And truthers have never answered that one.
It is a "Virtual Pudding" for moot discussion purposes.
Since there was no CD using any technology - i.e. including any variant of thermXte - the whole discussion is a sideline excursion into science which has no relevance to 9/11 WTC collapse debate. Absent any coherent plausible hypothesis in favour of CD it will remain irrelevant.
The topic is an artefact of following truthers arse about logic. Starting from a detail anomaly which lacks any valid hypothesised context. Whatever the outcome of this prolonged excursion the next question in a 9/11 context will be "So what?" And truthers have never answered that one.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
No more circling around with 9/11 truth people friends. No matter what anyone says (whether it be "so what?" or my pudding has too much egg or whatever), the truth is that I spent several months knocking on door after door and finally found two fire chemists who actually were willing to talk to me and know what they are talking about and provided me with peer-reviewed published papers to back up their claim (in their area of expertise) that in highly localized areas, fires with BULK temperatures in the 1100-1800F range (which can't melt steel in macro amounts) can nevertheless attain temperatures way, way above the melting point of steel in highly localized areas. This is PROVEN by laser technoloogy which can measure temperatures with incredible precision and focus.
So if a tiny flake of rust hits a micorscopic pocket of near adiabatic temperatures, iron-rich microspheres can indeed be created. That can happen in the WTC fires by the billions and in Harrit's lab. That's not some technical abstraction. Did you even read the papers? And since when did you care how 9/11 Truth people will "spin" what I said? Of course they will! Their spins have nothing to do with scientific truth. It either is or it ain't. There is one valid question here: does this explain the presence of iron-rich micropsheres without thermite or does it not? "So what there was no CD anyway" is not a valid response to THIS question. "Egg in pudding" is not only not a valid response, I don't even understand what you are talking about Glenn. Does what the two fire chemists are telling me explain how iron-rich microspheres can be formed or doesn't it? It even has the imprimatur of peer-reviewed publications. Why in God's name would the fact that it is a "technical detail" somehow invalidate it? The presence of microspheres in the first place is a "technical detail" and I answered the question of how could they possibly be formed without attaining the melting point of iron.
How can anyone say this is anything less than an important, new finding in this discussion? This is no minor technical abstraction, it's a level of understanding I never had before, have never seen before, and unless someone shows me I'm wrong, I consider it an absolutely central point. To 9/11 Truth people it is a serious, peer-reviewed piece of information that if correct, will DISPROVE their assertion that iron-rich microspheres require BULK temperatures of 2700F or so (and that is their secret assumption, that we don't know the difference... I sure didn't). I'd like to hear an intelligent rebuttal or response, not an incomprehensible egg-pudding metaphor, or insults, or so what, thank you very much.
I'm pretty disgusted. Good night all.
So if a tiny flake of rust hits a micorscopic pocket of near adiabatic temperatures, iron-rich microspheres can indeed be created. That can happen in the WTC fires by the billions and in Harrit's lab. That's not some technical abstraction. Did you even read the papers? And since when did you care how 9/11 Truth people will "spin" what I said? Of course they will! Their spins have nothing to do with scientific truth. It either is or it ain't. There is one valid question here: does this explain the presence of iron-rich micropsheres without thermite or does it not? "So what there was no CD anyway" is not a valid response to THIS question. "Egg in pudding" is not only not a valid response, I don't even understand what you are talking about Glenn. Does what the two fire chemists are telling me explain how iron-rich microspheres can be formed or doesn't it? It even has the imprimatur of peer-reviewed publications. Why in God's name would the fact that it is a "technical detail" somehow invalidate it? The presence of microspheres in the first place is a "technical detail" and I answered the question of how could they possibly be formed without attaining the melting point of iron.
How can anyone say this is anything less than an important, new finding in this discussion? This is no minor technical abstraction, it's a level of understanding I never had before, have never seen before, and unless someone shows me I'm wrong, I consider it an absolutely central point. To 9/11 Truth people it is a serious, peer-reviewed piece of information that if correct, will DISPROVE their assertion that iron-rich microspheres require BULK temperatures of 2700F or so (and that is their secret assumption, that we don't know the difference... I sure didn't). I'd like to hear an intelligent rebuttal or response, not an incomprehensible egg-pudding metaphor, or insults, or so what, thank you very much.
I'm pretty disgusted. Good night all.
Last edited:
There was no such situation in Harrit's lab. The 'bulk temperatures' were much lower (the temperature of the plate at ignition) and the heat losses from his chips rapid. You've just provided evidence in favour of the chips being thermitic [/truther mode]
p.s. I've seen no insults going in your direction.
Last edited:
Which will more than likely be ignored.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Glenn,
If you're right about Harrit's lab not possibly creating super-high temps on the micro level, so be it. We'd have to take one of Sandia's laser-beam thermometers and point it towards the hottest part of a very small flame for the instant that it ignites before it dissipates to know for sure. As Harrit has not measured the temperature generated by the ignition of his chips, we just don't know. I doubt the fire chemists are going to give me much more of their time, unfortunately. But I do know that the fire chemist said these super-hot temperatures are very localized (I would guess microscopic) and for very short periods of time, so I don't necessarily see a problem with Harrit's lab conditions on such a micro scale.
I still don't understand your egg/pudding metaphor and I certainly don't understand your objection to my giving a technically detailed answer to this question.
If you're right about Harrit's lab not possibly creating super-high temps on the micro level, so be it. We'd have to take one of Sandia's laser-beam thermometers and point it towards the hottest part of a very small flame for the instant that it ignites before it dissipates to know for sure. As Harrit has not measured the temperature generated by the ignition of his chips, we just don't know. I doubt the fire chemists are going to give me much more of their time, unfortunately. But I do know that the fire chemist said these super-hot temperatures are very localized (I would guess microscopic) and for very short periods of time, so I don't necessarily see a problem with Harrit's lab conditions on such a micro scale.
I still don't understand your egg/pudding metaphor and I certainly don't understand your objection to my giving a technically detailed answer to this question.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I'm British born Aussie. I'm familiar with the expression and took it for granted - hence my playing with the words. On the broader issues of discussion Chris is well aware of my position which has not changed from the earliest days of fund raising for the Millette studies viz:
1) I admire his efforts to meet truthers on their own ground; 2) I respect his right to pursue any scientific avenue of research he chooses; Whilst
3) The logical barrier facing relevance to WTC collapse is clear;
4) The chance of persuading truthers by rigorous science is IMO remote; AND
5) As predicted at the start - he will face difficulties knowing how and when to "draw the line in the sand" and say "enough!"
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Thanks for the explanation to this Yankee. And apologies about the use of the term "insult," I didn't mean to imply you had insulted me. That was anticipatory for any 9/11 Truth people who weigh in.
What's important to me here is that I asked two fire chemists how iron-rich microspheres could have been formed in an office fire (when the melting point of iron is AROUND 1510 c) and what about iron oxide reduction (which is normally around 1200 C I think). Both processes seem to involve temps in excess of office fires.
To boil down their answers, one of the fire chemists said that iron oxide reduction can take place at lower temps as a result of incomplete combustion in a fire; he has seen the CO "scoop up" oxygen atoms from iron oxide and cause iron oxide reduction in his opwn experiments (and of course this process is well-known in blast furnaces, but he has seen it in naturally occurring fores as well).
The other fire chemist explained the difference between bulk temperatures and observable local instantaneous temperatures. As I keep repeataing from conversations with this particular chemist, he said if you use laser to focus in on the flame temperature as they did in those published papers he cited, observable local instantaneous temperatures can actually approach the adiabatic temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro-sized instantaneous near-adiabatic temperatures could easily hit the melting point of iron.
Now that is the hard-won explanation I wrested from that fire chemist, and the other fire chemist did not disagree with that explanation either. He did emphasize that these are VERY localized (which I interpret to mean almost microscopic) phenomena and for only very short periods of time. In fact, the phenomenon of regular fires attaining near-adiabatic temperatures wasn't even known until they could use laser technology to do the temperature measuring (as far as I can see, in the late 1990s). It's important information because it explains a lot about what can be found in fire debris, including chemical reactions and phenomena that can't be explained by things attaining only bulk temperatures. And indeed, all natural fires which have these sudden microbursts of near-adiabatic temperatures will almost instantly dissipate the heat so things quickly return to the "bulk temperature." But in that tiny moment of time and space, miniscule rust flakes that happen to be at the right place at the right time can indeed melt and become iron-rich microspheres. The more intense the fires in general, the more common this phenomenon becomes.
These are two fire chemists who have actually done experimental work in these two areas (iron oxide reduction in naturally occurring fires and the phenomenon of near-adiabatic temperatures on the micro scale), and I believe they know what they are talking about. One even took the time to dig up the relevant peer-reviewed papers!
I put this information out with a high degree of confidence that I had found something substantial from real experts who knew their stuff. And they both knew what the other was saying and neither contradicted what the other said. Hence, my defensiveness. These are the most authoritative sources I can find, and to convince me I have false information at this point would require that someone show me why they are both wrong with some solid data and information. I have not seen that so far.
Glenn, my defensiveness at 1 am last night notwithstanding, I welcome critiques, but what I've put out here is backed by a pretty high standard of credibility. If these two fire chemists are wrong I need more proof from you before I reject their answers.
What's important to me here is that I asked two fire chemists how iron-rich microspheres could have been formed in an office fire (when the melting point of iron is AROUND 1510 c) and what about iron oxide reduction (which is normally around 1200 C I think). Both processes seem to involve temps in excess of office fires.
To boil down their answers, one of the fire chemists said that iron oxide reduction can take place at lower temps as a result of incomplete combustion in a fire; he has seen the CO "scoop up" oxygen atoms from iron oxide and cause iron oxide reduction in his opwn experiments (and of course this process is well-known in blast furnaces, but he has seen it in naturally occurring fores as well).
The other fire chemist explained the difference between bulk temperatures and observable local instantaneous temperatures. As I keep repeataing from conversations with this particular chemist, he said if you use laser to focus in on the flame temperature as they did in those published papers he cited, observable local instantaneous temperatures can actually approach the adiabatic temperature. Any tiny flake of rust exposed to such micro-sized instantaneous near-adiabatic temperatures could easily hit the melting point of iron.
Now that is the hard-won explanation I wrested from that fire chemist, and the other fire chemist did not disagree with that explanation either. He did emphasize that these are VERY localized (which I interpret to mean almost microscopic) phenomena and for only very short periods of time. In fact, the phenomenon of regular fires attaining near-adiabatic temperatures wasn't even known until they could use laser technology to do the temperature measuring (as far as I can see, in the late 1990s). It's important information because it explains a lot about what can be found in fire debris, including chemical reactions and phenomena that can't be explained by things attaining only bulk temperatures. And indeed, all natural fires which have these sudden microbursts of near-adiabatic temperatures will almost instantly dissipate the heat so things quickly return to the "bulk temperature." But in that tiny moment of time and space, miniscule rust flakes that happen to be at the right place at the right time can indeed melt and become iron-rich microspheres. The more intense the fires in general, the more common this phenomenon becomes.
These are two fire chemists who have actually done experimental work in these two areas (iron oxide reduction in naturally occurring fires and the phenomenon of near-adiabatic temperatures on the micro scale), and I believe they know what they are talking about. One even took the time to dig up the relevant peer-reviewed papers!
I put this information out with a high degree of confidence that I had found something substantial from real experts who knew their stuff. And they both knew what the other was saying and neither contradicted what the other said. Hence, my defensiveness. These are the most authoritative sources I can find, and to convince me I have false information at this point would require that someone show me why they are both wrong with some solid data and information. I have not seen that so far.
Glenn, my defensiveness at 1 am last night notwithstanding, I welcome critiques, but what I've put out here is backed by a pretty high standard of credibility. If these two fire chemists are wrong I need more proof from you before I reject their answers.
Ozzie is correct... the truthers are not interested in the truth... it would bust their bubble... and so it is beyond useless to try to make scientific, engineering or any manner of reasoned arguments. None of them will do a thing to move them from their church pew. And Gage et al know this.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
That contradicts my experience. Remember, twice as many people changed their minds my direction as changed their minds Gage's direction in my 2011 debate. And you have CERTAINLY changed!
Ozzie is certainly right in general about all his points, including about me.
Now about the actual research I uncovered... is it true and useful information or is it a bogus explanation for the iron-rich sphere phenomenon, and why?
Thanks for this excellent work, Chris. I do think it is a very important contribution.
So extremely high microtemperatures are not extraordinary at all.
Truthers have been touting the presence of "extraordinarily high temperatures" at the WTC since the early days. This is not just about nanothermite.
Do you think this could also explain the famous molybdenum spherule from the USGS scans?
So extremely high microtemperatures are not extraordinary at all.
Truthers have been touting the presence of "extraordinarily high temperatures" at the WTC since the early days. This is not just about nanothermite.
Do you think this could also explain the famous molybdenum spherule from the USGS scans?
Chris,
My mind (opinion) is fluid. I was really never fully embracing the truther arguments. At best it could be described as I got close to the center of the truth movement to see if there was any there there. There wasn't and after confirming that I departed. I find many of the jrefers pretty dogmatic and I pretty much am not part of either camp.... definitely not in the truther one and have found NIST's explanations pretty shabby though the attempt to make sense was acceptable... to most... not me however.
There will never be any proofs about 9/11 because we simply don't have all the data nor the computer / modeling power to simulate it to satisfy anyone. I can't even conceive a credible simulation of the collapses coming out of a computer.
The discussions are interesting though and there's lots to learn. Thanks for your contribution to that!
What's the thermal capacity of the amount of ultra-hot gas in those microscopic locations? What happens if a paint/rust chip floats in there? We'd need to know the numbers to determine whether it might cause iron microspheres or whether the chip would just reduce the temperature of the gas. What would happen to the organic components of the paint?
Are such flaming fires likely in the debris pile so as to affect the paint chips dislodged during collapse?
And so on.
And the word 'useful' needs interpretation. Useful for what? To deter Truthers from expounding their theories about thin thermitic coatings on the WTC steel? That's hardly likely is it, given that the theory is nuts from the outset. I'm totally with ozeco & co on this - science at the level of microscopic detail such as this will not convince anybody whose theory is based on utterly grotesque misunderstandings of basic science at the macro level. And not even materials 'science' pretty often, as usually the science theory only needs to be considered when stuff likemotive, means and opportunity have been settled.
Last edited:
I'd say the main problem is that there is no audience apart from ergo and MM both of which blatantly ignore any evidence presented to them. It's unlikely Harrit or Jones will see it or respond if they do. Truthers have slowly slunk off into the dark hoping that they will never have to admit they are wrong. High profile truthers are in to deep to get out, where will they get there income ? The dumbest of the dumb will always be there.
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Thanks for the effort, Chris; I think it's useful. Although there were several other possible sources already known, it blows another hole in the argument that iron microspheres in the dust are a "signature" of thermite, and it highlights Harrit's failure to consider (much less compare to) other sources. The burden of proof is on him, not you, but you're provided another reason why that's so.
I really wouldn't worry about changing "truther" minds, though. That does seem to happen occasionally, but I think it's better to set realistic goals, e.g. helping others avoid the delusional spiral of conspiracism and grand hoaxes in the first place. The best way to do that, IMO, is to continue exposing "truther" claims and arguments as bogus. Rational people will begin to see the pattern and become properly suspicious of those claims, while those already bitten by the "truther" vampire will simply look for other justifications (and other victims).
I actually expect a long post by Ziggy talking **** about Chris and giving hundreds of irrelevant references that prove in his mind that Chris is wrong.
Not that it will matter. Or Chris' effort, anyway, sadly.