Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite results

[tfk]

Maybe you might like to explain how "burning" paint generates enough heat to produce iron microspheres?
MM

First, you missed (or chose to ignore) the clear purpose of the "burn in an anoxic atmosphere" test that people proposed: to demonstrate this known capability of thermite.

Second, you appear to not understand something as trivial as the difference between heat & temperature. Rendering your input on the matter irrelevant.

It is patently obvious how "burning paint" could produce enough heat to produce "iron microspheres". Simply burn sufficient paint, which happens to be a very tiny amount. They are, after all, microspheres.

It is not at all likely that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

But nobody (except you & other clueless truthers) has claimed that they produced "iron microspheres". They claim to have produce "iron-rich microspheres". And that is a horse of an entirely different color.

It is very likely that burning paint could produce both enough heat & sufficient temperatures to produce "iron-rich microspheres". (See, for example, Biederman, Barnett, Sisson re: the melting temps of various iron alloys.)

But, once again, you appear to not realize that you are reinforcing MY point.

You have pointed out two additional tests ("production of iron-rich microspheres at DSC & acetylene burning temperatures") that Jones et al have employed that are utterly inconclusive & incompetent to provide "proof of thermite".

When there are readily available conclusive tests.

And around & around we go...


tk

 

[Miragememories]

"Maybe you might like to explain how "burning" paint generates enough heat to produce iron microspheres?"

"It is patently obvious how "burning paint" could produce enough heat to produce "iron microspheres". Simply burn sufficient paint, which happens to be a very tiny amount. They are, after all, microspheres.

It is not at all likely that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

But nobody (except you & other clueless truthers) has claimed that they produced "iron microspheres". They claim to have produce "iron-rich microspheres". And that is a horse of an entirely different color.

It is very likely that burning paint could produce both enough heat & sufficient temperatures to produce "iron-rich microspheres". (See, for example, Biederman, Barnett, Sisson re: the melting temps of various iron alloys.)

But, once again, you appear to not realize that you are reinforcing MY point.

You have pointed out two additional tests ("production of iron-rich microspheres at DSC & acetylene burning temperatures") that Jones et al have employed that are utterly inconclusive & incompetent to provide "proof of thermite".

When there are readily available conclusive tests.

And around & around we go..."

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.

" I created an apparatus where I could basically control energy input to the chips. Heating them resistively on a stainless steel heater strip to an ignition temperature. Not over-heating them but just bringing them up to the ignition temperature and then analyzing the resultant products. And what I can confirm also is that these chips, the red layer is thermitic, it does produce molten iron and I've seen it with a number of chips that Jeanette McKinley supplied to me and I've also seen it in an independent sample which was also supplied to me from a museum in NYC which as asked to remain anonymous at this point in time. But I have independently seen thermitic activity within two separate independent samples of WTC dust."

MM

 

[beachnut]

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.



MM

With no evidence of thermite damage on WTC steel, if the dust has thermite in it, who planted it?

No steel has fused iron on it. Do you think Jones faked the dust to save his reputation? But why does Jones think the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti, is it a habit spewing idiotic lies? You sure picked a movement guaranteed to fail forever.

 

[Oystein]

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.



MM

No. Wrong.
Which iron? There is no iron in the samples.
Remember I told you about the iron-rich microspheres that form in wood fires? Do wood fires heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C? If you had attempted and succeeded in answering the question about how iron microspheres form in wood fires, you would by now be equipped to answer for yourself how such spheres might form in paint fires.
Hint: It doesn't involve temperature to melt iron.
Hint: Both wood and our paint chips contain iron compounds.
Hint: Both the thermite reaction and wood fires are redox-reactions.

Now either you have some basic education in chemistry, then with those hints, the answer to the above questions might occur to you in a snap.

If you don't have those basics, maybe you should not be debating here with such condescending assuredness.

 

[leftysergeant]

Okay, let's consider the combbustion of paint with an iron oxide pigment. In reducing the iron oxide, is any additional heat generated, or does the process of reduction absorb and exhaust heat energy?

 

[GlennB]

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

Your almost seamless segue from "iron rich" to "iron" nearly worked MM.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now you got me to thinking about mineral formation. I have seen a lot of petrified wood in my days, and the conditions under which it is formed. Seems to involve trees getting buried under hot lava with a lot of silca-rich water and mud. There seems to me to be a limit as to just how hot the silica jell would be under such conditions. Can iron form a silica mineral of some sort at temperatures below the normal melting point of iron. Given things like carbonless self-copying forms which contain a lot of fine iron particles and powdered kaolin, there might be the ingredients for little beads of something unique. Just off hand, does anyone know at what temperatures kaolin would become vitrified? This might also account for some of the glass sphereules in the dust.

 

[Oystein]

Okay, let's consider the combbustion of paint with an iron oxide pigment. In reducing the iron oxide, is any additional heat generated, or does the process of reduction absorb and exhaust heat energy?

Exact solution at http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/index.html
Under Comments:

The standard enthalpy of Fe2O3 is -822.2 kJ/mol
Notice the sign: That is a negative value.
This means: In order to crack one mol (about 159.7g) this form of iron oxide into its Elements, Fe and O, you need to expend (absorb, exhaust...) -822.2kJ


A reaction that reduces iron oxide to iron can still be exothermic (release net heat) if the reaction products have a lower total enthalpy than the reactants. One such example is the thermite reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2Fe
As the enthalpy of elements is defined as 0, and the enthalpy of Al2O3 is -1669.8kJ/mol and thus lower (more negative) than the enthalpy of rust, net heat will be released: -822.2kJ/mol -(-1669.8kJ/mol) = +847.6kJ/mol (that is per mol of Fe2O3, resulting in 2 mols of Fe).

Are exothermic reactions of Fe2O3 with carbon compounds possible? You betcha! Let's take an easy case and reduce Fe2O3 with CO (carbon monoxide) which has a standard enthalpy of -110.6 kJ/mol. The products are Fe and CO2 with enthalpies of 0 and -393.8 kJ/mol, respectively. The chemical formula is

Fe2O3 + 3CO -> 2Fe + 3CO2

Let's insert the enthalpies, and we get a balance of:

((-822.2) + 3*(-110.6)) - (0 - 3*(-393.8)) kJ/mol =
= (-882,2 + 1181,4)kJ/mol =
= +299,2 kL/mol


I am not claiming that this is the reaction that took place in Farrer's DSC.
Most likely, it was some organic matrix that burned in the DSC experiments. If, for example, the matrix consisted of epoxy resins, that would be complex compounds with many benzene (C6H6) rings. To keep things reasonably simple, let's look at a hypothetical reaction between Benzene and Rust:

C6H6 + 3 Fe2O3 -> 6 CO2 + 3 H2O + 6 Fe
Here are the standard enthalpies of formation of these materials:
C6H6: +49 kJ/mol (liquid)
Fe2O3: -822 kJ/mol
CO2: -394 kJ/mol
H2O: -242 kJ/mol (gaseous)
Fe: 0

Let's substitute those in the chemical formula:
(+49 +3*(-822)) kJ/mol -> (6*(-394) + 3*(-242) + 6*0)kJ/mol <=>
<=> -2417 kJ/mol -> -3090 kJ/mol

So this reaction would give us a net heat of +673 kJ per mol of benzene, or 224 kJ per mol of Fe2O3.

Benzene theoretically could reduce Fe2O3 to elemental Fe!



It is quite a step to deduce from here that old epoxy resin could and would reduce Fe2O3, and I am not claiming that. My calculations above involve a number of simplifications and would probably make any good chemist cringe in pain. I am just pointing out that metals are not the only materials capable of reducing iron oxide to iron. When that happens, iron atoms are freed from chemical bonds and momentarily exist as individual atoms, much like a gas, without having previously melted or vaporized. They will quickly condense into - what? If you guessed "microspheres", you are correct!

 

[leftysergeant]

I think you answered my question quite well, Oystein. My math kind of sucks, but it does seem clear that it would produce the sphereules. And, if it happened in the presence of kaolin or diatomaceous earth, I would sort of expect it to include a bit of silicon into the sphereules. I'm still looking for the temperatures at which kaolin or silica would become vitrified, but it can't be too terribly high, given what I know about glass and ceramic manufacturing.

 

[Oystein]

I think you answered my question quite well, Oystein. My math kind of sucks, but it does seem clear that it would produce the sphereules....

Actually, I answered your post only very briefly, and then went on with a different, though related, approach.

You asked if the reduction of iron oxide absorps heat energy, and the answer is actually a (qualified) no: In practice, it doesn't absorb heat as such. Though you probably could, in theory, reduce iron oxide by merely applying heat (for example the heat of other combustibles), that would probably need prohibitively high temperatures, way out of range of what we can expect from any fires (even thermite).

Instead, you reduce iron oxide by letting it react with other materials (such as Al, CO or benzene), and it will "suck off" some of their chemical energy. The energy that is expended to sever the chemical bonds within the Fe2O3 molecule is then not available to be converted into heat, and in this indirect way, the reduction "absorbs" heat, by allowing less heat to be released.



Again, I need to stress that the chemistry dicussion in my previous post is probably pretty bad: I can't say if, or under what conditions, benzene would really react with iron oxide. Also, my calculations of the change of enthalpy has not taken into account several factors, such as the extra amounts of enthalpy to the left and right of my formulas associated with heating, melting, vaporising, solidifying or condensing of the chemicals. And lastly, we cannot infere that what ends with a positive heat balance for benzene would also end with a positive balance for the more complex, but unidentifyed, organics that are present in the red-grey chips.

I am merely pointing out that it is at least conceivable, if not likely, that some organic substances, when burning, would reduce some of the present iron oxide to elemental iron, or to iron oxides with less oxygene in them. If this happens, the solid reaction products will condense into iron-rich microspheres.

MirageMemories apparently never considered this possibilty. Maybe he didn't know about it. If he reads this, and my previous, post, he will know. And should consider.


In addition, there may be more processes by which iron-rich microspheres form from material mixes containing organic compounds, iron oxides, and other materials, that don't require temperatures near the melting point of bulk iron.

...if it happened in the presence of kaolin or diatomaceous earth, I would sort of expect it to include a bit of silicon into the sphereules. I'm still looking for the temperatures at which kaolin or silica would become vitrified, but it can't be too terribly high, given what I know about glass and ceramic manufacturing.

I don't know about that. The silicon doesn't have to be part of the chemical reaction described above, and would not condense along with the iron if it doesn't. I also have no clear idea about the dynamics of spherule formation. Would they tend to form around existing nuclei, such as snippets of silica? I don't know.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I can burn wire wool with a match, it leaves behind iron rich microspheres. My match isn't hot enough to heat iron to 1500 degrees.

 

[Miragememories]

"Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C."

"I created an apparatus where I could basically control energy input to the chips. Heating them resistively on a stainless steel heater strip to an ignition temperature. Not over-heating them but just bringing them up to the ignition temperature and then analyzing the resultant products. And what I can confirm also is that these chips, the red layer is thermitic, it does produce molten iron and I've seen it with a number of chips that Jeanette McKinley supplied to me and I've also seen it in an independent sample which was also supplied to me from a museum in NYC which as asked to remain anonymous at this point in time. But I have independently seen thermitic activity within two separate independent samples of WTC dust."

"No. Wrong.
Which iron? There is no iron in the samples.
Remember I told you about the iron-rich microspheres that form in wood fires? Do wood fires heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C? If you had attempted and succeeded in answering the question about how iron microspheres form in wood fires, you would by now be equipped to answer for yourself how such spheres might form in paint fires.
Hint: It doesn't involve temperature to melt iron.
Hint: Both wood and our paint chips contain iron compounds.
Hint: Both the thermite reaction and wood fires are redox-reactions.

Now either you have some basic education in chemistry, then with those hints, the answer to the above questions might occur to you in a snap.

If you don't have those basics, maybe you should not be debating here with such condescending assuredness."

A chemical redux rather than an exothermic reaction?

Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?

"This is a material that is made up of nano-sized particles that are all very uniform, very symmetrical. It is in a silica-based matrix that holds the whole thing together, and when they are ignited, these iron droplets that are formed, basically eat through the silica matrix and form both droplets and actually creates these large relative voids within the residue of the chip that are all coated with iron films inside. If you take these chips and section them, and look at them before you ignite them, there are no iron micro-spheres, there are no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips. It is only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction, that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released. These chips are not naturally occurring. They are not going to form because some materials fall down in a building and touch each other and get compressed together. That is just not what this material is and again I would say, that anyone who thinks that, should get some, should look at them, should analyze them, and come to their own conclusions after actually doing some work vs. simply guessing that something happened. That is why I did it. I did it because I had questions. I said the only way that I am really going to know is if I get a sample and I do it myself and that is what I did, and I would confirm that this material is thermitic, and it should not be there."

Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as;

"My calculations above involve a number of simplifications and would probably make any good chemist cringe in pain."

If I get your drift, you are trying to argue that there was never any molten iron produced?

Now that is a creative dodge.

MM

 

[Oystein]

A chemical redux rather than an exothermic reaction?

Stundie (And you probably don't even know why ^^)

Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?

Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as;

Chemical engineer?
Unfortunately, AE911T is currently revamping their petitioner list. They only show the architects and engineers, not the "others". Last time I checked, Basile was listed with a B.S. in chemistry, IIRC. He is not listed among the engineers. I am pretty sure he embellishes his credentials.

Now let's see just ho incompetent he is:
- He did not think to find a lab that has specialized and conclusive tests for thermite
- His only experiment was to just heat the chips till it ignited. At what temperature? We are not told. Under normal air? Probably, but we are not told. So it burned. We knew that already. That's what most organic compounds do if heated under air.
- He didn't even have access to a DSC (which, although incompetent as well, would be a minor improvement to his merely qualitative observations)
- How can he tell by sight if a reaction is "thermitic"? It just burned!
- I doubt that he really so iron in its molten state. Molten microspheres would cool very quickly (I am talking milli- or microseconds). Unfortunately, Basile fails to actually describe his methods and his data.
- He reports iron "films" on silica after the burning, which is much more indicative of the condensation that I described in my previous post than it is of melting.
- Much of his talk is fighting against strawman. No one here claimes the chips are "naturally occurring" or "form during the collapse" (other than crumbling to, well, chips)
- Nano-aluminium? Basile unfortunately fails to tell us why he thinks his chips contained nAl. I am pretty shure he just believes Jones and co.
- He, too, totally misrepresents the Fema 403 App. C, and the patents for "thermitic building demolition". Just repeats the lies he has been fed by the smarter liars at AE911T.

Do you think Basile did a competent analysis of the chips? Can you explain, in your own words, what he did, and what he measured, and how he formed his conclusions from his experiments?

If I get your drift, you are trying to argue that there was never any molten iron produced?

Now that is a creative dodge...

That's right. Almost certainly never any molten iron produced.
Your appeal to mediocre authority nonwithstanding.

 

[tfk]

Well don't get too dizzy with all that "spinning" you are doing.

You admit that it is unlikely "that burning paint could produce sufficient temperatures to produce "iron microspheres".

The reason of course being that any paint acting as fuel, would have to heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C.

MM

You appear to lack the ability to focus on the task at hand.

The task of the Farrer, Harrit, Jones et al paper was to prove the existence or non-existence of thermite. It was not to explain the presence or source of microspheres.

The production of microspheres is merely ANOTHER incompetent test for the presence of thermite. Since all of the principle sources of iron-rich microspheres (coal fired power plants, forest fires, etc.) do NOT involve thermite.

Thank you for spending all this time pointing out just one more example of utter incompetence by Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et al.

Too bad they didn't, won't, will not run a definitive test, such as XRD, eh? And leave you looking like a fool, trying to clean up after their abysmal mess.

Something on the order of $1000 & 3 weeks for a definitive answer...

Do you think - in your wildest delusions - that they are the slightest bit interested in a definitive answer?


tk

 

[Miragememories]

"Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?"

"This is a material that is made up of nano-sized particles that are all very uniform, very symmetrical. It is in a silica-based matrix that holds the whole thing together, and when they are ignited, these iron droplets that are formed, basically eat through the silica matrix and form both droplets and actually creates these large relative voids within the residue of the chip that are all coated with iron films inside. If you take these chips and section them, and look at them before you ignite them, there are no iron micro-spheres, there are no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips. It is only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction, that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released. These chips are not naturally occurring. They are not going to form because some materials fall down in a building and touch each other and get compressed together. That is just not what this material is and again I would say, that anyone who thinks that, should get some, should look at them, should analyze them, and come to their own conclusions after actually doing some work vs. simply guessing that something happened. That is why I did it. I did it because I had questions. I said the only way that I am really going to know is if I get a sample and I do it myself and that is what I did, and I would confirm that this material is thermitic, and it should not be there."

"Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as; "

"My calculations above involve a number of simplifications and would probably make any good chemist cringe in pain."

Following that not so telling revelation above, you fallback on a favorite JREFian tactic, calling the man a liar.

"Chemical engineer?
Unfortunately, AE911T is currently revamping their petitioner list. They only show the architects and engineers, not the "others". Last time I checked, Basile was listed with a B.S. in chemistry, IIRC. He is not listed among the engineers. I am pretty sure he embellishes his credentials.

...Just repeats the lies he has been fed by the smarter liars at AE911T..."

"My name is Mark Basile. I am a chemical engineer. I have a BSc in Chemical Engineering from Whistler Polytechnic Institute.

I've worked for about 25 years in industry and the majority of what I do is analytical work and figuring out what materials are composed of, why they are, why they do what they do. It is basically a lot of material science is what I do."

Extract from an interview that the AE911 Truth site is using in their soon to be released documentary;
"911:Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out"

Apparently Mark Basile and AE911 Truth are calling you a liar!

You are way too prejudiced to carry on what is commonly referred to as a mature discussion.

MM

 

[W.D.Clinger]

"No. Wrong.
Which iron? There is no iron in the samples.
Remember I told you about the iron-rich microspheres that form in wood fires? Do wood fires heat the iron to its melting point temperature, ~1500 C? If you had attempted and succeeded in answering the question about how iron microspheres form in wood fires, you would by now be equipped to answer for yourself how such spheres might form in paint fires.
Hint: It doesn't involve temperature to melt iron.
Hint: Both wood and our paint chips contain iron compounds.
Hint: Both the thermite reaction and wood fires are redox-reactions.

Now either you have some basic education in chemistry, then with those hints, the answer to the above questions might occur to you in a snap.

If you don't have those basics, maybe you should not be debating here with such condescending assuredness."

A chemical redux rather than an exothermic reaction?

So you truly don't know what Oystein meant by a redox reaction, and you can't even spell it correctly. Maybe you should not be debating chemistry with such condescending assuredness.

Is that why you dropped the quote from Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile when you quoted my response in your reply?

Without any understanding of chemistry, you have to fall back on your argument from authority.

Note, however, that "Chemical Engineer, Mark Basile" is referring to a "thermitic reaction" that was refuted by Harrit et al's calorimetry: We know their flakes weren't thermite, because two of their four flakes released more energy than the theoretical maximum for thermite.

Given his superior credentials as a chemical engineer, I defer to Mark Basile's findings over that of some anonymous person who characterizes their chemistry calculations as;

Why are you trusting a person whose biases prevent him from seeing the obvious problems with Harrit et al's conclusions? If Mr Basile really does have a degree of some kind in chemical engineering, then he should be aware that Harrit et al's speculation about double top secret nano-thermite was nothing but speculation flying in the face of their own measurements.

In science, we defer to anonymous referees who raise valid points over named "authorities" who fail to address those points. It's called peer review.

 

[Oystein]

Following that not so telling revelation above, you fallback on a favorite JREFian tactic, calling the man a liar.

Extract from an interview that the AE911 Truth site is using in their soon to be released documentary;
"911:Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out"

[qimg]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/300/mbinterview2.jpg[/qimg]

Apparently Mark Basile and AE911 Truth are calling you a liar!

You are way too prejudiced to carry on what is commonly referred to as a mature discussion.

MM

Please go check the list of 1300+ architects and engineers on AE911T.org

Search for "Basile": He is not there.
Search for "chemical engineer": You will find 23

Basile either did not sign the Petition, or AE911T does not consider him an engineer. There is no third option.
We shall see when they bring the "supporters" list back.



(By the way: I checked the list on archive.org, where the latest version unfortunately dates back to 2008. Steven E. Jones back then was listed under "Supporters and A&E Students" as "Retired Professor of Physics". Today, they have promoted him to "Prof. of Physics Emeritus, Senior Engineer" and listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)". Interesting, huh?)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

sunstealer quote from another thread:
"Nanothermite is only using a smaller particle size. Nano does not mean magic or super-duper mmmkay.

Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + heat

The waste product is Fe and Al2O3 - I suggest you learn some basic chemistry."



thanks for showing everyone that this iron microsphere was made from a thermitic reaction!!

you are confusing "could be" with "was".........

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Following that not so telling revelation above, you fallback on a favorite JREFian tactic, calling the man a liar.





Extract from an interview that the AE911 Truth site is using in their soon to be released documentary;
"911:Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out"

[qimg]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/300/mbinterview2.jpg[/qimg]

Apparently Mark Basile and AE911 Truth are calling you a liar!

You are way too prejudiced to carry on what is commonly referred to as a mature discussion.

MM

LOL what do I care if insane fools call me a liar

And how are we any more prejudiced than, say, you are? We are going with the evidence, you are going with an incompetent lie.

 

[Oystein]

MM again failed to address a question directed at him. I wonder why. So here it is, bumped for MM:

...
Do you think Basile did a competent analysis of the chips? Can you explain, in your own words, what he did, and what he measured, and how he formed his conclusions from his experiments?
...

Do you think Basile did a competent analysis of the chips? Can you explain, in your own words, what he did, and what he measured, and how he formed his conclusions from his experiments?