A Thermite/Thermate Question

[PhantomWolf]

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b310405b&JournalCode=CC

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/2005/127/i17/abs/ja050389w.html

"Mesoporous silicas such as SBA-15 and MCM-41 are being actively investigated for potential applications in catalysis, separations, and synthesis of nanostructured materials. A new method for functionalizing these mesoporous silicas with aromatic phenols is described. The resulting novel hybrid materials possess silyl aryl ether linkages to the silica surface that are thermally stable to ca. 550 °C, but can be easily cleaved at room temperature with aqueous base for quantitative recovery of the organic moieties. The materials have been characterized by nitrogen physisorption, FTIR, NMR, and quantitative analysis of surface coverages. The maximum densities of 1,3-diphenylpropane (DPP) molecules that could be grafted to the surface were less than those measured on a nonporous, fumed silica (Cabosil) and were also found to decrease as a function of decreasing pore size (5.6−1.7 nm). This is a consequence of steric congestion in the pores that is magnified at the smaller pore sizes, consistent with parallel studies conducted using a conventional silylating reagent, 1,1,3,3-tetramethyldisilazane. Pyrolysis of the silica-immobilized DPP revealed that pore confinement leads to enhanced rates and altered product selectivity for this free-radical reaction compared with the nonporous silica, and the rates and selectivities also depended on pore size. The influence of confinement is discussed in terms of enhanced encounter frequencies for bimolecular reaction steps and pore surface curvature that alters the accessibility and resultant selectivity for hydrogen transfer steps. "


https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf

Still going around in circles and clutching at straws GiE? You really should read your links, you might have discovered that what you link to isn't the production of a Sol-Gel using DDP, but rather using a Sol-Gel to act as a catalyst to aid in the pyrolysis of DDP. Perhaps you need to try again. I will give you a brownie point for finally getting the chemical right though.

 

[Sunstealer]

I think that's GiE's entire modus operandi - post google searches without reading them. It's a busted flush.

GiE - have you not got any of your own thoughts that you can show us in readable English?

 

[Evilgiraffe]

It's perfectly clear that GiE doesn't read the links he posts since this one,

ok
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CC/article.asp?doi=b310405b

and these two,

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=b310405b&JournalCode=CC

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/2005/127/i17/abs/ja050389w.html

All link to the same study by Kidder et al. It is, as PhantomWolf and I have pointed out, a study of the catalytic activity of mesoporous silicas. There is mention of 1,3-diphenylpropane in the papers but not in the way GiE intended.

This paper,

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf

on the other hand is about sol-gel pyrotechnics. However it utterly fails to mention 1,3-DPP. Posting these two sets of papers together in an attempt to link 1,3-DPP to the production of nanostructured thermites is brave yet ultimately doomed to fail.

Where's that picture of Captain Picard when you need it?

 

[GodisEnergy]

yes so mespourus silicias pyrolysis happens to form 1,3 diphenylpropane when you heat them
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/76501074/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

[Evilgiraffe]

I'm sorry, what?

Should we try reading and comprehending just the title of the Kidder et al paper?

"Pore size effects in the pyrolysis of 1,3-diphenylpropane confined in mesoporous silicas"

I think the key word here is pyrolysis. This comes from the greek pyr - fire, and lysis - to break or cleave. Put the two halves back together and you get "cleavage with fire", therefore pyrolysis means to break something up with heat. So we have the breaking up of 1,3-diphenylpropane, that has been confined inside mesoporous silica, when heated.

How it is broken up is affected by the pore size of the mesoporous silica. Therefore there are "Pore size effects" that are considered by this paper.

How's that chemistry knowledge coming along GiE?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

In all fairness to GiE, if it is on the internet, it HAS to be true, right?. We should cut him some slack.

That's how I learned there was an extremely attractive 19-year old on a webcam that wanted to talk to me. ME! Oddly enough all it did was link to a bunch of ads for ExTenze and some Nigerian dude that wanted to give me like a million bucks.

 

[GodisEnergy]

and nano thermite is contained in mesoporous silicas

 

[PhantomWolf]

This might help you GiE

 

[Sunstealer]

and nano thermite is contained in mesoporous silicas

Have you got some information on this please. I'm not familiar with this particular set up.

 

[Senenmut]

and nano thermite is contained in mesoporous silicas

is there any way for you or anyone else to recreate what jones found??

 

[Without Rights]

Dr. Sisson's result -- showing that the steel never exceeded 940^oC give or take a hair, rules out thermite. We didn't have to disprove thermite to come up with a better hypothesis, but we did anyway. Your hypothesis is DOA.

That's really all there is to say. I've given you the facts, it's up to you to learn.

Dr Sisson does not say steel did not exceed 940C, he says the steel reached "at least" 940C.

From his paper;

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC"



From the Abstract of another of his papers on the subject;

"Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940 °C were experienced in localized regions."

 

[beachnut]

Dr Sisson does not say steel did not exceed 940C, he says the steel reached "at least" 940C.

From his paper;

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC"



From the Abstract of another of his papers on the subject;

"Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940 °C were experienced in localized regions."

So what?
You understand 940 C is ~1000 C? Does this mean you support the idiot idea of thermite by Jones; Jones who made up thermite with nothing?

suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC

solid stuff

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So what?
You understand 940 C is ~1000 C? Does this mean you support the idiot idea of thermite by Jones; Jones who made up thermite with nothing?

solid stuff

reminds me of my little sister, she used to argue that shes not 6 years old, she 6 years and 2 months

 

[Evilgiraffe]

and nano thermite is contained in mesoporous silicas

What would be the point? How does this help the nanothermite do its thing?

 

[twinstead]

All it should take is for Jones to put this smoking-gun evidence into a legitimately peer-reviewed scientific paper and convinced the scientific community if it is so 'obvious' that it proves it was CD, right? I mean, what's up with his psuedo journals and internet debate?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Dr Sisson does not say steel did not exceed 940C, he says the steel reached "at least" 940C.

From his paper;

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC"



From the Abstract of another of his papers on the subject;

"Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940 °C were experienced in localized regions."

That is true. They do indeed state that 940^o was not the top end boundary. Problem is, that still doesn't help the thermite fantasy, because the authors do give a possible high temperature achieved:

The microstructural changes in the steel must have occurred at temperatures between 550 and 850 °C. These changes would require times on the order of hours.

The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram^[4]...

... However, preliminary experiments^[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble.

4. P. Asanti and E. Kohlmeyer: Z. Anorg. Chem., 1951, 265(94).

5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler:
“Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7,
1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,” private communication.

Source: "Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the Steel from Building 7 of the World Trade Center— Some Observations" R.D. Sisson, Jr., and R.R. Biederman, Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Volume 6(5) October 2006 (Submitted August 25, 2006; in revised form September 7, 2006)

Note, too that they make another argument that negates the thermite hypothesis, and that is speed of reaction. "(P)reliminary experiments... indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble..." Given that thermite's reaction time is on the order of seconds to single-digit minutes, that is yet another point in this work arguing against the thermite hypothesis.

At any rate, 1000^oC, 1100^oC... Whatever the top end is that the authors believe was achieved, their analysis still indicates that it's far under the temperature that thermite reacts at. At most, Ryan Mackey erred in taking the central figure and mistaking it for the top end. That's a mistake of detail, not of concept. The general thrust of his statements, - that Sisson and Biederman's work negates the thermite hypothesis - is still correct.​

 

[bio]

That is true. They do indeed state that 940^o was not the top end boundary. Problem is, that still doesn't help the thermite fantasy, because the authors do give a possible high temperature achieved:



Source: "Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the Steel from Building 7 of the World Trade Center— Some Observations" R.D. Sisson, Jr., and R.R. Biederman, Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Volume 6(5) October 2006 (Submitted August 25, 2006; in revised form September 7, 2006)

Note, too that they make another argument that negates the thermite hypothesis, and that is speed of reaction. "(P)reliminary experiments... indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble..." Given that thermite's reaction time is on the order of seconds to single-digit minutes, that is yet another point in this work arguing against the thermite hypothesis.

At any rate, 1000^oC, 1100^oC... Whatever the top end is that the authors believe was achieved, their analysis still indicates that it's far under the temperature that thermite reacts at. At most, Ryan Mackey erred in taking the central figure and mistaking it for the top end. That's a mistake of detail, not of concept. The general thrust of his statements, - that Sisson and Biederman's work negates the thermite hypothesis - is still correct.​

... therefore, they neglect send a small piece of the steel to Prof. Jones.

 

[dtugg]

Jones has zero right to any access to the steel.

Even if Jones were right, it is not as if a small piece of steel sent to him would prove anything. Not unless they were stupid enough to actually send him one that has evidence of thermite on it.

 

[twinstead]

Jones has zero right to any access to the steel.

Even if Jones were right, it is not as if a small piece of steel sent to him would prove anything. Not unless they were stupid enough to actually send him one that has evidence of thermite on it.

Maybe they might accidentally send him the thermite receipts too...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... therefore, they neglect send a small piece of the steel to Prof. Jones.

Why? Biederman, Sisson, and Barrett's initial study was done in 2001, and published by December of that year. Steven Jones didn't get involved in conspiracy peddling until 2005. If they had sent him the sample when they had it, Jones wouldn't have known what it was all about.