[Merged] Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Oystein]

You provided a link but instead of informing readers that you made a mistake ...

It was a reply to Peter May. Peter May is an informed and competent man on the subject matter of EDS readings. He needs not be informed what the content of my link means. It's self-evident

The readers I write this for (Ivan Kminek, Sunstealer, ...) likewise are intelligent, well-informed and critical folks. They understand what Peter May wrote, and will have no difficulty what my linking to Harrit's answers means.


I apologize if any ill-informed and less intelligent readers fail to grasp the obvious.

 

[Oystein]

Strange, I see no acknowledgement of your "mistaken assumption" in that earlier post?

But, I do see you ignoring your erroneous oft repeated assumption about the aluminum sample holder while using that link to pursue a different tack.

MM

Tell you what:

Why don't you ask me a couple of yes/no-questions about that, and see how that works out?

 

[Peter May]

Strange, I see no acknowledgement of your "mistaken assumption" in that earlier post?

But, I do see you ignoring your erroneous oft repeated assumption about the aluminum sample holder while using that link to pursue a different tack.

MM

Orig. posted by Mr. Oystein.
(ETA: Two minor questions open in my mind:
a) Why doesn't the Al-map show Al everywhere outside of the chip? -> Perhaps the equipment, running in standard configuration, is smart enough to filter out most of the signal that's not from specimens - but obviously it records some of such signal - it's clearly there in the raw data, not very obtrusive, and available to be picked.


I am truly staggered and amazed by some of the comments of 911 truthers on this thread.
It’s perfectly plain to my mind, that Mr. Oystein asked the questions in the same spirit of all those who truly seek the truth, regardless of who that truth might serve. It would do you well to remember this.
Well done Oystein et al, keep up the good work.


It is very important to understand the nature of what we see, not what we want to see.

 

[Oystein]

Peter, and Sunstealer, and The Almond,

you know I am playing around with simulation software to get a feel for what the spectra presented by Harrit et al. could mean quantitatively.

There is one thing I frequently encounter that puzzles me, and that is the rerlative hights of the L-alpha and K-alpha peaks of Fe: In most simualtions I run, the L-alpha has somewhere between 25 and 35% of the height of the K-alpha. In some of Jones's and Farrer's spectra, it's much lower. For example in Fig 21:

It's only like 11% there. I can't replicate that in my simulations.

I use the free DTSA-II program. In all my sims, I either model the stuff as a "homogeneous bulk" or as a "sphere on a homogeneous substrate", where the substrate is "None", i.e. vacuum. (When I try to play with substrate, i.e. a hematite pigment on epoxy, the substrate dominates in ways that make me thing it's not helpful)

I find that the L:K ratio for Fe depends on sphere diameter: The smaller the sphere, the larger the L-alpha.
For example, simulating the above as a large 100 micron sphere (which gives almost the same result as bulk), with a molar Fe:O ratio close to 2:3 and an appropriate amount of C, gets me an L:K ratio of 25%:

versus a Fe3O4 mix and an appropriate amount of C as a 5 micron sphere - L:K is 38%:

What's making Jones's sphere - which looks more like a fuzzy snowball to me - have such a low L-alpha peak? Could it perhaps be that the surface isn't smooth and polished?

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein: I have indeed no idea why L-alpha peak of Fe is so low in Fig. 21.

But is it true that your simulations and their comparison with Fig. 21 indicate in this particular sphere the presence of Fe₂O₃ or Fe₃O₄ or something in between?

Then, the claim of Harrit et al that "substantial elemental iron must be present" is highly questionable (again).

Btw, I have just noticed this sentence in Bentham paper: "This result (shown in Fig. 17, I.K.) was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres."

This should mean that some "spots" (probably remains of gray layers?) were not transformed into microspheres. As I already pointed out, one such partially transformed gray layer is visible in Fig. 20, in the upper-right image in its lower-left corner.
In fact, even Harrit et al seem to say/admit by this sentence that microspheres were formed from gray layers. At least I think so

 

[Oystein]

I have thought about the DSC results once more, and specifically that one chip which was determined to have released 7.5 kJ/g of specific energy. You know, the old argument that thermite alone cannot release more than 3.96 kJ/g, and there is some inert mass on that chip (the gray layer), so there has to be some substance that releases significantly more than 7.5 kJ/g. Harrit et al. correctly suggest that the organic matrix must be "energetic", and of course it is.

Yesterday and the day before that, I took some time to consider the following details:

1. Where does the oxygen for the organic combustion come from? Either from air - in that case, this material would not exhibit all the great properties of "nanothermitic materials", for it would depend on ambient oxygen and could only burn its surface; both limit burn rate and achievable temperature. Or the organic contains its own oxidizer.

1.1 Combustion in air:
Tabulated values of specific energy for non-halogeneous flammable polymers range from 15 to 42 kJ/g. The max is for PP and PE. Most are in the 20-30 kJ/g range. The more energetic the polymer, the less you need to boost the chip from the <4 kJ/g to 7.5 kJ/g, i.e. the higher the thermite content could be.
The maximum, 42 kJ/g, is for polymers which only contain C and H, no O, and which burn to completion, releasing CO₂ and water. For example Polypropylene has the sum formula (C₃H₆)_n. No O means practically it fully unoxidized, ot´r caries no "dead load" in its structure.

1.2 Polymer with embedded oxidizer
Much more difficult to find tabulated values, but one can envelop the maximum achievable specific energy:
Again, consider the most highly energetic polymer, PP, which is (C₃H₆)_n. To fully oxidize it and release all its energy, you need 0 oxygen atoms for each propylene group:
C₃H₆ + 4.5 O₂ -> c CO₂ + 3 H₂O
So any oxidizing agent that you could mix with PP to make it "thermitic" would have to have 9 O-atoms per P-group - plus whatever else that agent is made of. C₃H₆ has a molecular weight of 42, 9 O-atoms weigh 144, so 1 g of PP your mix would have to include > 144/42 g of oxidizer, for a combined weight of 186/42 g. These >186/42 g would still release no more than about 42 kJ - the specific energy of the composite (PP + oxidizer) is thus < (42 / (186/42)) kJ/g, or < 9.5 kJ/g.
This value is heuristically an upper limit to the energy density of any "thermitic" polymer composite.

2. All the EDS-spectra of bulk red layers and their residues presented by Harrit et al, Basile and Millette clearly suggest that there is always at least as much Si in them as Al, and often more. So for this 7.5 kJ/g chip from the DSC experiment, we may assume that it, too, had at least Si=Al by mass.

3. Fig. 16 suggests that the Si is oxidized as SiO₂. This will be my only assumption for which I don't already have Harrit's agreement or more solid data, but I think it is reasonable.

4. Numbers 2. and 3. together mean that for each Al-atom, I have one SiO₂ molecule. For each 2 elemental Al-atoms, I need 1 Fe₂O₃ molecule for a thermite reaction, and those come with 2 SiO₂ molecules. It can thus be easily computed from atomic weights that for each mass unit of ideal, stoichiometric thermite, our chip will have 0.541 mass units of inert SiO₂ in the red layer.

5. The gray layer consists mostly of iron oxide, density 5.2 kg/L, which Harrit et al. consider to be inert. I agree that it is inert in the sense that it doesn't burn. In reality, this layer also contains hydroxyls which are released as H₂O as the chip is heated, and that is mildly exotherm. But I will ignore thatm the contribution towards the 7.5 kJ/g is probably not great.
The red layer is assumed to consist of organic matrix, Al and silica, all of which have a much lower density, plus some iron oxide in the thermite. So the density of the red layer is considerably lower than that of the grey layer. Harrit et al. describe the layers as having about the same thickness, by order of magnitude, so usually the gray layer would have a larger mass than the red layer due to its higher density. On the other hand, the chip that released the most energy probably had the least amount of gray mass, so I will assume that both layers have the same mass. I will also do some calculations that ignore the gray layer (mass=0)



So, with all of those assumptions and limiting cases explained, I created a spreadsheet to figure out the maximum amount of thermite thermite and minimum amount of organic matrix to enable the chip to reach 7.5 kJ/g, for a variety of cases:
- With and without gray layer = red layer by mass
- Thermite with ideal (3.96 kJ/g) and realistic (3.0 kJ/g) energy density
- Polymers with 42 (PP in air), 30, 20.4 (epoxy) and 9.5 (PP with ideal oxidizer)


And got the following conclusions:


1. It's not practically possible that the chip was boosted by a "thermitic polymer" to its 7.5 kJ/g - the organic matrix must have burned on air
2. The organic matrix must have provided at least 10 times as much energy as the maximum possible amount of thermite
3. That chip therefore cannot have been thermitic in any sensible meaning of the word


Full discussion and math: 7.5 kJ/g disproves thermitic material

(Prediction: That blog post will not go viral on any social network! )

 

[beachnut]

...
Full discussion and math: 7.5 kJ/g disproves thermitic material

(Prediction: That blog post will not go viral on any social network! )

Where is jtl? He will not understand, he is stuck on his heroes Harrit and Jones, the thermite brothers in woo.

 

[ozeco41]

...Full discussion and math: 7.5 kJ/g disproves thermitic material

(Prediction: That blog post will not go viral on any social network! )

The insults and claimed rebuttals directed at you could......

 

[Redwood]

1.1 Combustion in air:
Tabulated values of specific energy for non-halogeneous flammable polymers range from 15 to 42 kJ/g. The max is for PP and PE. Most are in the 20-30 kJ/g range.

Polypropylene and polyethylene are everywhere in modern office buildings. This is one of Dr. Quintiere's reasons for believing that the fuel load in office fires is greatly underestimated.

1.2 Polymer with embedded oxidizer
Much more difficult to find tabulated values, but one can envelop the maximum achievable specific energy:
Again, consider the most highly energetic polymer, PP, which is (C₃H₆)_n. To fully oxidize it and release all its energy, you need 0 9 oxygen atoms for each propylene group:
C₃H₆ + 4.5 O₂ -> c CO₂ + 3 H₂O

Fixed typo.

1. It's not practically possible that the chip was boosted by a "thermitic polymer" to its 7.5 kJ/g - the organic matrix must have burned on air
2. The organic matrix must have provided at least 10 times as much energy as the maximum possible amount of thermite
3. That chip therefore cannot have been thermitic in any sensible meaning of the word

One of the reasons Harrit's paper is self-refuting. A half-competent chemist would never run his DSC test under air in the first place, and if this result were submitted to a competent chemist or referee, he would point out that it's thermodynamically impossible, without even knowing Harrit's procedure.

 

[tsig]

Polypropylene and polyethylene are everywhere in modern office buildings. This is one of Dr. Quintiere's reasons for believing that the fuel load in office fires is greatly underestimated.



Fixed typo.



One of the reasons Harrit's paper is self-refuting. A half-competent chemist would never run his DSC test under air in the first place, and if this result were submitted to a competent chemist or referee, he would point out that it's thermodynamically impossible, without even knowing Harrit's procedure.

Is that one of the reasons he disagreed with some of the recommendations of the committee?

 

[Redwood]

Is that one of the reasons he disagreed with some of the recommendations of the committee?

I'm pretty sure it is. Dr. Quintiere has been on a mission to upgrade fire protection in office buildings, and IMNSHO he has a good case. Offices once mostly had furniture made of metal or wood, which burns slowly, yielding about 4 kcal/g; and carpets made of wool or perhaps something like rayon, which also burn slowly at about 4 kcal/g.

As Oystein has pointed out, plastics burn with much more energy. They first liquify, then erupt into horrific fires. That acrylic or polypropylene rug you may be sitting on is a real bundle of energy!

 

[jtl]

Oystein: Harrit et al. describe the layers as having about the same thickness, by order of magnitude, so usually the gray layer would have a larger mass than the red layer due to its higher density. On the other hand, the chip that released the most energy probably had the least amount of gray mass, so I will assume that both layers have the same mass.

When you begin with distortions and by making silly assumptions you can pretty much get whatever result you want. Your claim that Harrit et al say the layers have "about the same thickness" is very deceptive, since they actually say that both layers vary from 10 to 100 microns. They explain the variation of output with different ratios of red to gray layer mass but you make the assumption of the same mass, apparently unaware of the contradiction.

The explanation for output beyond std thermite is so simple even a kid could understand, the thermitic ingredients are mixed with an organic material that will obviously vastly increase output, especially when ignited in air. As you say yourself:

Most are in the 20-30 kJ/g range. The more energetic the polymer, the less you need to boost the chip from the <4 kJ/g to 7.5 kJ/g, i.e. the higher the thermite content could be.

It really is that simple. But you try to make things complicated:

That chip therefore cannot have been thermitic in any sensible meaning of the word

The organic matrix is not the reason why Harrit et al call the chips "thermitic material", the reason is the aluminum+ironoxide embedded within the matrix, that ignites and leaves reduced iron according to them. If you want to prove them wrong then publish a paper that refutes their result of reduced iron.

You know, the old argument that thermite alone cannot release more than 3.96 kJ/g..

Prediction: That blog post will not go viral on any social network!

Your prediction is probably correct, but you never know, certain forums keep repeating "old arguments" no matter what. But you really should not worry about the latest gossip at some forums, if you think you really nailed them on this one, go publish. Prediction: You won´t.

 

[DGM]

The organic matrix is not the reason why Harrit et al call the chips "thermitic material", the reason is the aluminum+ironoxide embedded within the matrix, that ignites and leaves reduced iron according to them. If you want to prove them wrong then publish a paper that refutes their result of reduced iron.

I just figured I'd quote this so anyone that has you on ignore can get a good laugh too.

 

[Spanx]

The organic matrix is not the reason why Harrit et al call the chips "thermitic material", the reason is the aluminum+ironoxide embedded within the matrix, that ignites and leaves reduced iron according to them. If you want to prove them wrong then publish a paper that refutes their result of reduced iron.

:

@jtl, please can you tell me why the iron oxide embedded within the organic matrix is traceable yet the aluminium is not.

Can you also tell me if there is any traces of aluminuim left after DSC, if there are no traces please tell me where the aluminium goes.

 

[Oystein]

When you begin with distortions and by making silly assumptions you can pretty much get whatever result you want. Your claim that Harrit et al say the layers have "about the same thickness" is very deceptive, since they actually say that both layers vary from 10 to 100 microns. They explain the variation of output with different ratios of red to gray layer mass but you make the assumption of the same mass, apparently unaware of the contradiction.

The explanation for output beyond std thermite is so simple even a kid could understand, the thermitic ingredients are mixed with an organic material that will obviously vastly increase output, especially when ignited in air. As you say yourself:

It really is that simple. But you try to make things complicated:


The organic matrix is not the reason why Harrit et al call the chips "thermitic material", the reason is the aluminum+ironoxide embedded within the matrix, that ignites and leaves reduced iron according to them. If you want to prove them wrong then publish a paper that refutes their result of reduced iron.



Your prediction is probably correct, but you never know, certain forums keep repeating "old arguments" no matter what. But you really should not worry about the latest gossip at some forums, if you think you really nailed them on this one, go publish. Prediction: You won´t.

I respond to this, because you do one valuable and sensible thing there: You question the validity of my assumptions, specifically of the assumed mass ratio red:gray layer.

Now first of all, I must point out that the deceptive one here is you: You complain that 'Your claim that Harrit et al say the layers have "about the same thickness" is very deceptive' - but I don't claim that! I do not say that Harrit et al say the layers have "about the same thickness", I say they have "about the same thickness, by order of magnitude". Your deception lies in leaving out the hilited bit. My claim is correct, and YOU even present the evidence for why my claim is correct: "they actually say that both layers vary from 10 to 100 microns". This can be parsed as
- The red layer varies from 10 to 100 microns
- The gray layer varies from 10 to 100 microns
The "10 to 100 microns" is a metric for the order of magnitude of the thickness of either layer - and they are the same!


Now you say that my assumption that both layers have the same mass is "silly". What do you base this judgement on? Do you have a better, less silly assumption? Please give me a better assumption to work with - lower or upper bounds perhaps?
The problem is, that I have to make assumptions in the first place. The problem is not of my making - blame Jeff Farrer for it, because it was Farrer who failed completely to characterize the four specimens before wasting them in the DSC.


But, again, it's fair and valuable to question assumptions. It is certainly possible that the gray layer had less mass than the red layer, on that particular specimen.

Let me try to justify my assumption, or perhaps find reasons to adjust it!


We know that the gray layer was at least 10 microns thick and the red layer at most 100 microns. So a reasonable lower limit for the volume ratio of gray:red layer is 1:10.

To get from this to a mass ratio, we have to estimate the densities of both the gray and the red layer.
For the gray layer, that's pretty straightforward: It is known to be mostly iron oxides, and all the common iron oxides have densities of 5.2 kg/L or more.
For the red layer, it's a bit more complicated, as it is a composite material with (at least) 4 constituents. These are, in the model we are discussing here: Hematite, Al, silica and organic polymer. An upper limit for an envelope can be derived from the mix in my article with the highest thermite-content under ideal conditions (no gray layer at all, perfect energy yield of thermite, best available polymer). This mix, which is found in the last line of the first table in my blog post, is

Substance|wt-%=kg|density kg/L|volume L
Fe ₂ O ₃ |44.46%|5.242|0.08482
Al|15.06%|2.7|0.05577
SiO ₂ |28.23%|2.648|0.10663
Polymer|12.25%|0.959|0.12769
SUM, red layer|100% = 1 kg| 2.667 kg/L |0.37490 L

The density of polymer is for the polymer with the highest energy density expressed in kJ/L, which is PE-HD; it has a slightly lower specific energy than PP; and this case represents ideal, i.e. practically impossible conditions. So I take the liberty to round down: Density of the red layer is <= 2.6 kg/L

With those number, we can calculate the minimum ratio of gray:red layer as
(10x5.2)100x2.6) = 52:260 = 0.144:1

The problem now is of course that we arrived at this result of "gray layer has at least 14.4% the mass of the red layer" from a contradictory premise of "gray layer is 0%". With gray layer 14.4%, the maximum possible mass of thermite drops, with it the density of the red layer, and with that the minimum mass percentage of the gray layer increases!

Now I can use my spreadsheet, with a few formulas added on, to figure out the actual minimum mass of the gray layer such that premise and result don't contradict. This number is dependent on the actual energy yield of the thermite, and the yield of the organic matrix. At the ideal 3.96 kJ/g for thermite and 42 kJ/g for the polymer, it turns out that the gray layer has to have at least 21.09% of the mass of the red layer, at which point the red layer has a density of 2.466 kg/L, and the polymer releases 3 times as much energy as the thermite.

Now here is a table for varios values of specific energies of the two agents:

Thermite kJ/g|Polymer kJ/g|gray layer mass|yield Thermiteolymer
3.96|42|20.09%|1:3.04
3.96|30|24.26%|1:3.58
3.96|20.4|30.52|1:5.08
3.96|9,5|impossible|impossible
3.00|42|21.67|1:4.45
3.00|30|25.04|1:5.25
3.00|20.4|31.51|1:7,45
3.00|9,5|impossible|impossible

So we see: The gray layer cannot have less than 20.1 % of the mass of the red layer, AND the organic matrix cannot contribute less than 3x as much energy as the hypothetical thermite.

It is not possible, in any case, that the organic matrix is itself thermitic, as long as
- the gray layer has at least 10% of the volume of the red layer, as Harrit et al. imply
- the red layer contains as many mols of silica as Al, as Harrit et al's data imply

 

[jtl]

Oystein: "about the same thickness, by order of magnitude". Your deception lies in leaving out the hilited bit.

For crying out loud, do you ever read your own gibberish before you post it?
When someone says object X is 10 times as large as object Y, this person is not at all saying they are "about the same" size, just the OPPOSITE.

I don´t know if you did this because of your ignorance, or in an attempt to deceive, but these mistakes or silly assumptions you make are the reason why I am quite sure that you cannot ever publish any of your latest "research", as I said earlier:

But you really should not worry about the latest gossip at some forums, if you think you really nailed them on this one, go publish. Prediction: You won´t.

 

[LSSBB]

For crying out loud, do you ever read your own gibberish before you post it?
When someone says object X is 10 times as large as object Y, this person is not at all saying they are "about the same" size, just the OPPOSITE.

I don´t know if you did this because of your ignorance, or in an attempt to deceive, but these mistakes or silly assumptions you make are the reason why I am quite sure that you cannot ever publish any of your latest "research", as I said earlier:

Next time when you cry out loud about Oystein, don't forget he said by order of magnitude.

 

[Oystein]

When someone says object X is 10 times as large as object Y...

Who is saying that which object X is ten times as large as which object Y?

And did you read the rest of my post? Which proves that, when the gray layer is at least 10% the volume of the red layer, it has to have at least 20% of its mass, and then at least 75% of the energy must be provided by an organic matrix burning with ambient air to reach 7.5 kJ/g?

 

[jtl]

Oystein: Who is saying that which object X is ten times as large as which object Y?

Bottom line my dear, Harrit et al NEVER said the layers are "about the same", like you tried to say. Both Harrit and you imply that the ratio of gray-red varies by up to 10:1, you even repeat that in your very next sentence:

And did you read the rest of my post? Which proves that, when the gray layer is at least 10% the volume of the red layer, it has to have at least 20% of its mass, and then at least 75% of the energy must be provided by an organic matrix burning with ambient air to reach 7.5 kJ/g?

You keep making silly assumptions, even if you have a gray layer that is 10% the thickness of the red layer, that does not mean this gray layer covers the whole area of the red layer, it could be just a tiny gray layer covering 10% of the area, cutting down your assumption of mass by a factor of 10.

There is no point arguing about the 7.5kj/g as there is nothing peculiar about this energy given organic matrix and air ignition. And there is also no point arguing about whether the proposed embedded nanothermite provided 25% of the energy or some other number. As long as a thermite reaction provides some of the energy, the hypothesis of a "thermitic material" is valid.

 

[DGM]

As long as a thermite reaction provides some of the energy, the hypothesis of a "thermitic material" is valid.

Could you show where in the paper they show this? Page numbers will do.

 

[Oystein]

Bottom line my dear, Harrit et al NEVER said the layers are "about the same", like you tried to say.

Does he say any object is 10x larger than any other object? Did Harrit say it? Or did you make that up when you wrote "When someone says object X is 10 times as large as object Y... "?

...
You keep making silly assumptions, even if you have a gray layer that is 10% the thickness of the red layer, that does not mean this gray layer covers the whole area of the red layer, it could be just a tiny gray layer covering 10% of the area, cutting down your assumption of mass by a factor of 10.

Now you are making silly assumptions

There is nothing peculiar about this energy given organic matrix and air ignition. And there is also no point arguing about whether the proposed embedded nanothermite provided 25% of the energy or some other number. As long as a thermite reaction provides some of the energy, the hypothesis of a "thermitic material" is valid.

It's your prerogative to think such silly thoughts.

Except that doesn't coincide with what Harrit, Jones, Griscom... think. They think the large peaks in the DSC curves were made by thermite.
When thermite provides less than 25% of the energy - and it definitely does - then the peaks are made by mere organic combustion on air. Which isn't explosive, and which doesn't get very hot. And that little bit of hypothetical thermite heat also can't make the products particularly hot. Hence, this material cannot cut through steel.

 

[jtl]

Oystein: They think the large peaks in the DSC curves were made by thermite.

No they don´t, they actually go to considerable trouble to explain the difference between traditional thermite and these new hybrid materials or
"superthermites", but since you all have not understood in 4 years, you never will. But keep displaying your ignorance, it is amusing.

Over and out, this is pointless.

 

[LSSBB]

No they don´t, they actually go to considerable trouble to explain the difference between traditional thermite and these new hybrid materials or
"superthermites", but since you all have not understood in 4 years, you never will. But keep displaying your ignorance, it is amusing.

Over and out, this is pointless.

In respect to what Oystein is pointing out, what exact characteristics of this SuperThermite would lead it to "large peaks in the DSC curves" when tested in air?


I hear it was "military grade". Maybe you could check the MILSPEC on it. Good luck!

 

[Oystein]

jtl: Dids Harrit et al say any object is 10x larger than any other object? Or did you make that up when you wrote "When someone says object X is 10 times as large as object Y... "?

No they don´t, they actually go to considerable trouble to explain the difference between traditional thermite and these new hybrid materials or
"superthermites", but since you all have not understood in 4 years, you never will. But keep displaying your ignorance, it is amusing.

Over and out, this is pointless.

Do any of these new hybrid materials or "superthermites" derive 75% and more of their energy output from organic polymers burning on ambient air?

 

[beachnut]

No they don´t, they actually go to considerable trouble to explain the difference between traditional thermite and these new hybrid materials or
"superthermites", but since you all have not understood in 4 years, you never will. But keep displaying your ignorance, it is amusing.

Over and out, this is pointless.

6 2 and even, over and out?

Jones paper shows DSC for thermite and it does not match the DSC for the dust. The DSC for the dust in Jones paper looks like a DSC for soil, why? Discuss. The DSC for the dust in Jones paper looks like a DSC for carbonized wood, why? Discuss.

The spectrum found in the paper looks a lot like clay. Why? Discuss.

You can't, you have not presented any evidence, you repeat what you were fed by 911 truth and the failed paper which never will be on 60 Minutes to expose the big inside job that is a fantasy in Jones and Harrit's minds. Unless 60 minutes does a story on Crazy Claims about 911, Is It Insanity Or Fraud?, your claims, your fantasies no 911 will not make prime time.

It is funny watching Jones lie about 911. He first came up with thermite in Sept 2005, late to the crazy 911 truth movement. He was using his university to spread lies about 911, fired, he moved on to the paranoid conspiracy theory circuit. Then Gage saw the potential to skim the cream off top of the 911 truth followers and has taken in over a million dollars by plagiarizing the most cool sounding 911 truth lies. Lies so stupid, paranoid conspiracy theorists love it, send money to support Gage asking for more money.

Jones' paper is fodder for Gage to make money. Follow the money and you see 911 truth is a carnival side show selling fantasy to people who refuse to think for themselves. Followers, not doers, cult members repeating lies and not asking for evidence, believing the claims.

What did 60 Minutes tell you ? Have you tried to get the media to publish your inside job, your thermite is real efforts? When will you take action? Have you compared the DSCs yet? Notice they are not the same? How does Jones explain this?

Why did they fire Jones?

Jones was saying crazy stuff, and he never timed the collapse of the WTC.

My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) - Jones 2205

A simple CoM model give 12.08 seconds, which models the crush front closely, but he lies about it.

It looks like Jones does shallow analysis, shallow research.
On WTC7

the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. - Jones 2005

He ignores the fact the interior collapsed before the part he could see. Ignore reality to make up woo.

Then insanity. Broken windows are called squibs. Silent squibs?

Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7 - Jones 2005

A lie about WTC 7, not surprising he makes up the lie in his paper of thermite.

Then he goes bonkers, offer no math, just says so, made it up.

The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features.

No math, no physics, just talk. Oops, explosives, silent ones.
No Dr Jones, explosives would not do what you saw. The energy released during the collapse was more than enough to do what was seen; 130 TONS of TNT in kinetic energy because of the collapse. 130 2,000 pounds bombs, for each tower. Physics debunks the insane claims of Jones. No math at all, just talk.

Then more insanity, as a 1300 foot collapse with tons of steel is compared to a lone cinder block...

I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks.

Wow, 12 feet is to 1300 feet as...
You can't make up stuff this stupid, but Jones did.

Then he makes up thermite did it.

The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports. - Jones 2005

There was no melted steel. The metals melted would be those that melt in office fires. Jones lost touch with reality as he went crazy about some political bias. Later he implies the US caused the earthquake in Haiti. Jones was fired for going nuts on 911.

Like a decent into madness, Jones has to make up his conclusion, and the evidence does not support thermite, he claims it does, and he fools people who can't do research, fools people who are gullible.

 

[Sunstealer]

Do any of these new hybrid materials or "superthermites" derive 75% and more of their energy output from organic polymers burning on ambient air?

Do any of these super-thermites have less than 2% Al by weight? roflmao.

 

[DGM]

Do any of these super-thermites have less than 2% Al by weight? roflmao.

If memory serves, there are cosmetics that would fit jtls' definition of "superthermites".

 

[Stamuel]

I am not a chemist, so let me know if I go off the rails at any point.

I am confused about jtl's claims about superthermite. Thermite is a combination of iron oxide and aluminum, and the thermite reaction is a redox reaction between those two (apparently other combinations qualify as thermite, but the thermite truthers focus on the iron-aluminum one).

It appears jtl accepts that by energy, mass, and volume the organic matrix is much more abundant in the chips than thermite, by a large margin. It appears he accepts that the matrix releases energy through combustion in air. But he claims the matrix is energetic and makes the thermite super. I am confused by the proposed role of the matrix. How does it make thermite super? Am I correct that it would not do so by taking part in the thermite reaction? The thermite reaction remains iron oxide + aluminum to aluminum oxide + iron, there are no intermediate steps that include the matrix, the matrix does not catalyze the thermite reaction or anything. Then to me it seems like such a high ratio of matrix to thermite would hinder the thermite reaction by making it less likely that the thermite components come together and react.

If the role of the matrix is to burn or explode while the thermite is thermiting, would this mean that the energy from the thermite would actually be spent in igniting the matrix or would the two reactions go on "side by side" independently? If it is the former, that would imply that the mix is an explosive in which thermite plays a role, but is not in any sense a variety of thermite. In the latter case, I would suspect the matrix burning/exploding would prevent the thermite from heating and melting whatever the target was. Expanding gases fling the thermite away, so to speak.

Of course, not being a chemist, I cannot tell whether it is even possible that the matrix is an explosive, or anything that could play a major role in demolition.

At any rate, it seems to me that no matter how I try to understand the proposal, the properties of the matrix are the most significant. It cannot just be something more or less inert to hold the thermitic materials, since there is way too much and there is nothing super about that (though it could be nano). The matrix has to be some kind of explosive or magic slicing goo or something. Then the issue is not thermite but the magic slicing goo.

Again, this is mostly a request for clarification.

 

[DGM]

Again, this is mostly a request for clarification.

"Super thermite" filled a need not unlike "thermate was pushed once Jones found he had sulfur in his "thermite".

They "knew" they had some sort of "thermetic" material but could not explain the fact it was thermodynamically impossible to justify the data. They had to accept the fact this was an organic compound. In stepped a paper that mixed thermite with organic components that could tailor characteristic of thermite and wallah, they found what they were looking for "Super Thermite" . Better yet, it was new and experimental so they could claim whatever they wanted.

Give it time. I predict these chips will soon be linked to cold fusion and end all our fossil fuel energy needs. That's if the evil oil companies don't step in a squash their research.

 

[Stamuel]

"Super thermite" filled a need not unlike "thermate was pushed once Jones found he had sulfur in his "thermite".

They "knew" they had some sort of "thermetic" material but could not explain the fact it was thermodynamically impossible to justify the data. They had to accept the fact this was an organic compound. In stepped a paper that mixed thermite with organic components that could tailor characteristic of thermite and wallah, they found what they were looking for "Super Thermite" . Better yet, it was new and experimental so they could claim whatever they wanted.

The argument is then that we know superthermite exists, but we don't know its composition, so we can assume that the chips in the dust are superthermite because of iron spheres. Sounds like a bad argument. Is this really their argument?

If the composition of superthermite is known, presumably we could just compare the chips to it. If it is not known, is there any way to tell whether the organic matrix in the chips could make thermite super?

 

[Redwood]

Originally posted by BenjaminTR

I am not a chemist, so let me know if I go off the rails at any point.

I am confused about jtl's claims about superthermite. Thermite is a combination of iron oxide and aluminum, and the thermite reaction is a redox reaction between those two (apparently other combinations qualify as thermite, but the thermite truthers focus on the iron-aluminum one).

Correct.

I am confused by the proposed role of the matrix. How does it make thermite super?

It can't. The only "super" qualities come from the aluminum metal being of smaller size, making it easier to initiate and to react faster, at the cost of reduced energy output. This is analogous to different grades of traditional black powder. Powder for priming flintlock rifles is very fine-grained, initiates very readily, and burns quickly. Cannon powder is the opposite. (One difference between thermite and black powder is that black powder's energy is the same, regardless of granulation. Another is that black powder is a low explosive, while thermite isn't at all.)

Am I correct that it would not do so by taking part in the thermite reaction? The thermite reaction remains iron oxide + aluminum to aluminum oxide + iron, there are no intermediate steps that include the matrix, the matrix does not catalyze the thermite reaction or anything.

Correct

Then to me it seems like such a high ratio of matrix to thermite would hinder the thermite reaction by making it less likely that the thermite components come together and react.

If I were to formulate some nano-thermite, probably for purposes of micro-welding, (the only use that IMNSHO shows much promise), I would want only enough organic binder to hold the reactants, which would be aluminum spheres, not platelets, roughly in the 50nm range, and hematite. No silicon, silicates, or any other cr*p to get in the way.

If the role of the matrix is to burn or explode while the thermite is thermiting, would this mean that the energy from the thermite would actually be spent in igniting the matrix or would the two reactions go on "side by side" independently?

Heat generated by the thermite reaction would vaporize the matrix, which, if oxygen is present, would cause it to burn. This would make it, at most, a really pathetic and completely useless, expensive low explosive.

If it is the former, that would imply that the mix is an explosive in which thermite plays a role, but is not in any sense a variety of thermite. In the latter case, I would suspect the matrix burning/exploding would prevent the thermite from heating and melting whatever the target was. Expanding gases fling the thermite away, so to speak.

Yes, this would prevent it being used as was the 750 kg. or so of thermite that was used in 1937 to melt two columns of the Sky Ride tower after the Chicago Exposition closed. That involved massive containers built around the columns to hold the thermite.

Of course, not being a chemist, I cannot tell whether it is even possible that the matrix is an explosive, or anything that could play a major role in demolition.

At any rate, it seems to me that no matter how I try to understand the proposal, the properties of the matrix are the most significant. It cannot just be something more or less inert to hold the thermitic materials, since there is way too much and there is nothing super about that (though it could be nano). The matrix has to be some kind of explosive or magic slicing goo or something.

Well, one could add an oxidizing agent such as potassium chlorate to the matrix to make it into a low explosive like black powder, but the gases generated won't have the velocity necessary to cut steel like TNT or RDX or nitroglycerin can. The thermite would be irrelevant.

Again, this is mostly a request for clarification.

Hope this helps. In sum, any real-world nanothermite (never mind the paint of Harrit and Jones' fever dreams) would be useless as either an explosive, or as a melting agent.

 

[Stamuel]

Thanks.

 

[LSSBB]

If I were to formulate some nano-thermite, probably for purposes of micro-welding, (the only use that IMNSHO shows much promise), I would want only enough organic binder to hold the reactants, which would be aluminum spheres, not platelets, roughly in the 50nm range, and hematite. No silicon, silicates, or any other cr*p to get in the way.

I've also seen a listing for an Army project looking into it's use as a propellant, and last year I visited an AFRL lab that made a nifty fuel-cell type device. I'm not sure that the AFRL lab used the same formulation as being discussed.

 

[DGM]

The argument is then that we know superthermite exists, but we don't know its composition, so we can assume that the chips in the dust are superthermite because of iron spheres. Sounds like a bad argument. Is this really their argument?

They don't sell it that way. They are breaking new ground on something they are not supposed to know about but they stumbled upon. Remember, they are selling this to a group that wants this to be.

If the composition of superthermite is known, presumably we could just compare the chips to it. If it is not known, is there any way to tell whether the organic matrix in the chips could make thermite super?

Not with the super secret military grade. This stuff is super secret

Think of the intended market. They could show them dog crap and tell them it's some super secret form of c-4.

 

[Redwood]

I've also seen a listing for an Army project looking into it's use as a propellant, and last year I visited an AFRL lab that made a nifty fuel-cell type device. I'm not sure that the AFRL lab used the same formulation as being discussed.

Solid-fuel rockets typically use ammonium perchlorate in a sort of gel which can be cast into the rocket, the same as TNT can be melted in a hot-water bath and cast into munitions. No packing problems as with powders. (Ammonium perchlorate is actually more stable than ammonium chlorate, despite its higher oxidation state. Perchlorates are kinda funny.)

Aluminum granules are commonly added to generate extra energy. Smaller aluminum particles will burn more quickly, and this may be of use in some formulations. (I'm not a rocket engineer) N.B. Not thermite. Combusion of aluminum with oxygen and chlorine generated by the decomposition of NH₄Cl0₄ will generate MORE energy than reacting with Fe₂O₃. Ferric oxide (hematite) is a crummy oxidizing agent! I can't emphasize this enough: the purpose of thermite is to generate iron, not energy!

 

[Oystein]

Solid-fuel rockets typically use ammonium perchlorate in a sort of gel which can be cast into the rocket, the same as TNT can be melted in a hot-water bath and cast into munitions. No packing problems as with powders. (Ammonium perchlorate is actually more stable than ammonium chlorate, despite its higher oxidation state. Perchlorates are kinda funny.)

Aluminum granules are commonly added to generate extra energy. Smaller aluminum particles will burn more quickly, and this may be of use in some formulations. (I'm not a rocket engineer) N.B. Not thermite. Combusion of aluminum with oxygen and chlorine generated by the decomposition of NH₄Cl0₄ will generate MORE energy than reacting with Fe₂O₃. Ferric oxide (hematite) is a crummy oxidizing agent! I can't emphasize this enough: the purpose of thermite is to generate iron, not energy!

Rocket fuel composites with ammonium perchlorate (AP) typically contain 70+ wt-% AP and less than 30% fuel (organic binder and Al). This is the reason why the energy output is so limited, compared to fuels without on-board oxidizer. And that is why 7.5 kJ/g cannot be reached by a material that also contains excess (and thus inert) iron oxide and inert silicon compounds (silica or silicate). And anyway, Harrit et al have not observed any oxiduzer other than iron oxide - no chlorine for perchlorates, no manganese for permanganates, etc.

 

[pgimeno]

Do any of these new hybrid materials or "superthermites" derive 75% and more of their energy output from organic polymers burning on ambient air?

What temperature is reasonable for such a mix to reach?

I ask because IIRC the whole point of using thermite (alone) in the first place was the 2500+ °C it could reach, so it could melt steel, but it seems to me that that point becomes moot with this mix.

 

[Redwood]

Rocket fuel composites with ammonium perchlorate (AP) typically contain 70+ wt-% AP and less than 30% fuel (organic binder and Al). This is the reason why the energy output is so limited, compared to fuels without on-board oxidizer. And that is why 7.5 kJ/g cannot be reached by a material that also contains excess (and thus inert) iron oxide and inert silicon compounds (silica or silicate). And anyway, Harrit et al have not observed any oxiduzer other than iron oxide - no chlorine for perchlorates, no manganese for permanganates, etc.

And, rocket fuel isn't explosive! At least, it had better not be! You can use chlorates or perchlorates to make explosive mixtures - but they work more like black powder than TNT. You could use them to destroy structures, in the manner of the Battle of the Crater (1864) or the Siege of Kazan (1552), but that's very loud, very messy, very obvious, and leaves a big hole in the ground. Shape charges with high explosives are much more efficient, which is why they're used in CDs. But they're really loud, too! There's just no way to destroy a building with explosives, and cover up the evidence!

 

[Redwood]

What temperature is reasonable for such a mix to reach?

I ask because IIRC the whole point of using thermite (alone) in the first place was the 2500+ °C it could reach, so it could melt steel, but it seems to me that that point becomes moot with this mix.

Although thermite generates less energy than the combustion of organic materials, it doesn't lose any energy by having it carried away by the combustion products, which allows it to attain high temperatures. This, plus the greater efficiency of heat transfer by liquid than by gas, allows it to melt metals.

The "problem" with thermite gels, if you want to put them to nefarious use, is that the combustion/vaporization of the gel carries away much of the energy, and makes it difficult to confine a large quantity. (But it won't make it explosive!) Kevin Ryan's backyard-brewed nanothermite gel was able to lift the plastic lid off the reaction beaker, and scorch it, but the beaker itself was undamaged, and it doesn't appear that the iron generated was even liquid, just red-hot. Watching that video, all I can think is "Pariunt montes, nascitur mus ridiculus!"

 

[Oystein]

What temperature is reasonable for such a mix to reach?

I ask because IIRC the whole point of using thermite (alone) in the first place was the 2500+ °C it could reach, so it could melt steel, but it seems to me that that point becomes moot with this mix.

That's pretty difficult to predict, as you'd get a lot of reactions occurring concurrently. The first (after some low-impact things like crystallisation of the polymer or dehydration of the gray layer) would be decomposition of the polymer, often immediately followed by its ignition. If you have more than one organic substance, you get these spread out over time. At some later point, with increased temperature, the thermite reaction kicks in, but hard to predict how far organic decompoition and combustion have advanced by then, already carrying off some of that material. The nano-thermite would presumably be much faster than the polymer burns, but again it is nigh impossible to predict how fast, and what the polymer is doing in the meantime. As long as the thermite has a chance to impact the polymer, i.e. heat it, cause it to decompose, or heat its product gasses, its heat gets diluted and whisked away, limiting the maximum attainable temperature. If the thermite is spent before the polymer is, all of its heat will be absorbed by the matrix, and no large temperature increase can occur.

I have computed this with somewhat different starting assumptions: Taking Basile's value of 1.7% Al by weight, and >70% C, I found that the thermite couldn't even heat epoxy by more than 270 °C. That is for the hypothetical case that you could get the thermite to ignite without heating the epoxy first. But the argument wouldn't change very much for epoxy that is already decomposing: This little thermite could not heat that much polymer by much, and since it is in intimate contact with huge surface-to-volume ratiom, it would itself be very limited in temperature.

If you assume that the organic vaporizes on its own power before the thermite kicks in, then it might get the Al to melt and perhaps also lead to liquid iron micro-droplets - but it would still be so depleted, so diiluted, that it could not do much work at all on its environment. A 25-micron layer of that stuff could very probably not even melt one micron of steel that it is directly attached to.