Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

The (or steel) indicates they think the iron spheres are a product of steel melting.
If they meant something other than "bulk' iron (or steel) they would have said so.

Incorrect. RJLee did say so:

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. ... The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust
Rust and iron flakes, not bulk iron or steel.
RJLee will be misinterpreted by conspiracists because he works for a living in the real world of results and is not versed in the marginal mined-parsed not-the-truth conspiracy lingo.

What we know so far:
1. The Bentham chips are paint, not thermxte. Therefore the discovered spheres/vapor were caused by the fires and/or were preexisting.

2, Evidence from MSW incinerators show ferrosperes and lead vapor created at substantially lower than the melting temperature of bulk steel/iron and substantially lower than bulk lead vaporizing temperature. Temperatures achieved at the TT and subsequent pile fires.

3. Evidence from the printer's link quoted before shows ferrospheres produced at between 200C-400C. Research in nano-materials show substantially lower temperatures than bulk metals, in the hundreds of degreesC, for the melting of metals in relation to their particle size.

This scientific evidence will not convince the conspiracists strong Believer faith because not-the-truth epistemology is Metaphysical/Political.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8069529#post8069529
 
Last edited:
Once again you have not answered the question.
Do you believe that RJ lee believes that thermite caused super high temperatures in the towers?
I don't know.

If they really believe that impossibly high temperatures existed in the towers fires without thermite, then you cannot use them as an expert in anything
As I said, that was not their concern.

I take their statements that iron melted and lead vaporized at face value and I don't need to know their reason for not getting into the source of those temperatures.

You have a problem with it because you cannot accept the implications.
 
You have a problem with it because you cannot accept the implications.

No sir, you are the one that cant accept that RJ Lee doesnt really agree with you.

If and when he comes back and says flat out he doesn't believe thermite did it, that they expected to find iron microspheres in the jet fuel ignited office fires of the towers and that it didnt require impossibly high temperatures you claim was necessary to create, then you will have to rationalise this as one of the following.

  • RJ Lee is lying because he is scared
  • RJ Lee is lying because he is in on it
  • RJ Lee is lying for some other reason and doesnt care.
  • RJ Lee is stupid
  • RJ Lee is incompetent
  • RJ Lee is crazy
  • RJ Lee is brainwashed

Let me be clear, unless RJ Lee comes back and says he believes thermite did it OR that he doesnt know how it happened but that these temperatures and/or conditions required are impossible in jet fuel ignited office fires, these are your only options that I can see.

What we do know is that nowhere in the paper do they bat an eye about these iron microspheres as being unusual, or strange, let alone suspicious. RJ Lee have not followed this up in any way since and no one has commented in the scientific community about it despite what you claim is clear evidence there was impossibly high temperatures in the towers and that all these experts know it. So we already know it has to be one of the above, how else can you explain the complete lack of interest from any of these experts any other way?
 
Last edited:

Basque,
Nice find..!
Learn something new every day.
Thanks.
Tom
Thanks Tom. I didn't know this either (Sunstealer and TheAlmond did)
until I got side-tracked into this wickety-wack conspiracy rabbit hole. Other studies show similar results.
Gold nanoparticles melt at much lower temperatures (~300 °C for 2.5 nm size) than the gold slabs (1064 °C)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle
It has long been known that the melting point of a nanoscale
particle decreases with a decrease in size ~called ‘‘thermodynamic
size-effect’’. Under our experimental conditions we conclude that the temperature can reach about 900 °C
at the surface of the film. At this temperature polycrystalline iron particles melt
also www.mcrel.org/nanoleap/chemistry/Unit_2/PPT2_Lesson2.3.ppt
FIG. 2. Dense iron nanocluster film at 500 °C and 650 °C. At the latter temperature, nanocluster fusion takes place.
http://oaresearch.co.uk/oaresearch/brochures/Palasanzas-Feclusters.pdf
 
I take their statements that iron melted and lead vaporized at face value and I don't need to know their reason for not getting into the source of those temperatures.

You have a problem with it because you cannot accept the implications.

So how do you address the issue that the lead could have been from MoPbO3 from lead slag used to make the rock wool?
 
At 430oC the oxygen was stripped from the iron oxide in a thermetic reaction, leaving elemental iron spheres like the ones Harrit el al photographed in partially ignited red/grey chips.

Failure to replicate this critical part of the analysis and study the results means that Millette did not replicate the Harrit et al study.

And yet, the chips contained exactly 0% elemental aluminum, which COMPLETELY eliminates Thermite of any kind.

Fatal flaw there C7.
 
I know that, and the spheres in the RJ Lee study were probably from multiple sources, not counting thermite.

But could the specific chips create these spheres or similar in a thermitic reaction?

The reason why I am asking is that I belive that they can, and that it is completely normal under the given surcumstances.


Can you tell us what you mean by a "Thermitic" reaction?
 
Can you tell us what you mean by a "Thermitic" reaction?

I actually don't mean much by it. The reason why I asked was because Harrit apparently could get the chips to create these spheres in what he called a thermitic reaction.

The answers from Sunstealer and Oystein clear that up for me and my initial questions was incorrectly formulated.

What I was searching for was answer to how the chips could create spheres, not necessarily in a themitic reaction.
 
You have a problem with it because you cannot accept the implications.

No, the problem is that you are demonstrably incompetent to state what the implications are.....and just make them up to suit yourself. We have no problem agreeing with RJ Lee, just a problem agreeing with what YOU say he implies.
 
Basque,

Thanks Tom. I didn't know this either (Sunstealer and TheAlmond did) until I got side-tracked into this wickety-wack conspiracy rabbit hole. Other studies show similar results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle

also www.mcrel.org/nanoleap/chemistry/Unit_2/PPT2_Lesson2.3.ppt

http://oaresearch.co.uk/oaresearch/brochures/Palasanzas-Feclusters.pdf

There is a rich load of experimental & theoretical data in this field, including the following:

Comparellitesi said:
From: http://www.ba.ipcf.cnr.it/pdf/Comparellitesidoc.pdf

1.3 Size-Dependent Properties of Nanocrystals

The properties of crystalline solids are ordinarily catalogued without reference to their size. It is only in the regime below 10 nm where this variable comes into play. In the past decade, tailoring of materials characteristics by size control has been demonstrated in many inorganic solids belonging to one of the most technologically important classes of materials: semiconductors.

There are two major effects which are responsible for these size variations in nanocrystal properties. First, in nanocrystals the number of surface atoms is a large fraction of the total. Second, the intrinsic properties of the interior of nanocrystals are transformed by quantum size effects. In any material, surface atoms make a distinct contribution to the free energy, and the large changes in thermodynamic properties of nanocrystals (melting temperature depression, solid-solid phase transition elevation) can ultimately be traced to this. The surfaces of nanocrystals have until recently been thought of as largely disordered, yielding spherical or ellipsoidal shapes [16]. More recent work shows that nanocrystals assume regular shapes, with the same well-defined facets as are present in extended crystals [17, 18]. This opens up the possibility of manipulating the surface energy of nanocrystals in a controlled manner. The ability to manipulate the energy of nanocrystal surfaces will have practical consequences.

Independent of the large number of surface atoms, semiconductor nanocrystals with the same interior bonding geometry as a known bulk phase often exhibit strong variations in their optical and electrical properties with size [19, 20]. These changes arise through systematic transformations in the density of electronic energy levels as a function of the size of the interior, known as quantum size effects.
Herewith we report a briefly description of the most striking size-dependent properties of semiconductors and metal nanocrystals.

Melting temperature depression.

In a wide variety of materials ranging from metals to semiconductors to insulators, a decrease in solid to liquid transition temperature has been observed with decreasing nanocrystal size [21-25]. An understanding of this depression can be obtained by considering the factors that contribute to the total energy of a nanocrystal: in a system containing only a few hundred atoms, a large fraction of these atoms will be located on the surface. As surface atoms tend to be coordinatively unsaturated, there is a large energy associated with this surface. The key to understanding this melting point depression is the fact that the surface energy is always lower in the liquid phase compared to the solid phase. In the dynamic fluid phase, surface atoms move to minimize surface area and unfavourable surface interactions. In the solid phase, rigid bonding geometries cause stepped surfaces with high-energy edge and corner atoms. By melting, the total surface energy is thus reduced. The smaller the nanocrystal, the larger the contribution made by the surface energy to the overall energy of the system and thus the more dramatic the melting temperature depression. As melting is believed to start on the surface of a nanocrystal, this surface stabilization is an intrinsic and immediate part of the melting process [26, 27]

[21] Coombes, C. J. J. Phys. 2 (1972) 441.
[22] Buffat, P.; Borel, J.-P. Phys. Rev. A 13 (1976) 2287.
[23] Castro, T.; Reifenberger, R.; Choi, E.; Andres, R. P. Phys. ReV. B:Condens. Matter 42 (1990) 8548.
[24] Beck, R. D.; St. John, P.; Homer, M. L.; Whetten, R. L. Science 253 (1991) 879.
[25] Martin, T. P.; Naher, U.; Schaber, H.; Zimmermann, U. J. Chem.Phys. 100 (1994) 2322.

Also:
Size dependent melting mechanisms of iron nanoclusters
http://www.mems.rice.edu/~jiaokun/fengding/Publications/Chem-Phys.pdf


Melting and nucleation of iron nanoparticles: A molecular dynamics study
http://144.206.159.178/ft/162/586421/12075084.pdf

___

I think that you guys have stumbled onto exactly the source of the "iron-rich microspheres" here.

Answer: no mystery at all.

I am surprised that I haven't seen it emphasized previously.

Tom
 
Basque,



There is a rich load of experimental & theoretical data in this field, including the following:



Also:
Size dependent melting mechanisms of iron nanoclusters
http://www.mems.rice.edu/~jiaokun/fengding/Publications/Chem-Phys.pdf


Melting and nucleation of iron nanoparticles: A molecular dynamics study
http://144.206.159.178/ft/162/586421/12075084.pdf

___

I think that you guys have stumbled onto exactly the source of the "iron-rich microspheres" here.

Answer: no mystery at all.

I am surprised that I haven't seen it emphasized previously.

Tom

like.jpg


:D
 
Basque,

There is a rich load of experimental & theoretical data in this field, including the following:

Also:
Size dependent melting mechanisms of iron nanoclusters
http://www.mems.rice.edu/~jiaokun/fengding/Publications/Chem-Phys.pdf


Melting and nucleation of iron nanoparticles: A molecular dynamics study
http://144.206.159.178/ft/162/586421/12075084.pdf

___

I think that you guys have stumbled onto exactly the source of the "iron-rich microspheres" here.

Answer: no mystery at all.

I am surprised that I haven't seen it emphasized previously.

Tom

I first mentioned "melting point depression" about a month ago and a few times thereafter answering C7. Oystein noticed but it didn't seem to catch on fire. C7's Metaphysical/Political Epistemology glasses blinded him, no answer, yet kept on repeating the "iron spheres are impossible, iron melts at 2800F!"

......
Metals have a lower melting point as their particle size becomes smaller.

.....
Melting-point depression
is a term referring to the phenomenon of reduction of the melting point of a material with reduction of its size. This phenomenon is very prominent in nanoscale materials which melt at temperatures hundreds of degrees lower than bulk materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting-point_depression

I'm meeting a physicist friend of mine tomorrow. He's bringing a paper on nano-iron information.
 
Last edited:
The information about melting point suppression in small particles completes the explanation of how ferromagnetic microspheres could form in a wood fire in my fireplace, which I presented on page one of this thread.

My explanation was that the iron condensed from smaller clusters of iron compounds (ferrihydrites) that are contained in ferritin proteins in all kinds of plant tissue including wood (and therefore also paper). Note that R.J. Lee agrees with the general idea of formation of microspheres via condensation, in this part which has gone mostly unnoticed:

R.J. Lee said:
What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.
(emphasis added)

What I couldn't be certain of is why iron and iron oxides in the fume would condense into spheres, at temperatures below the melting point of bulk iron. One might expect instead the formation of regular crystals, as with ice crystals condensing in air below the freezing point, or of jagged irregular shapes. That also led to uncertainty about how common sphere formation is compared with formation of other kinds of iron-rich granules, and therefore, whether or not the magnetite traces that are used in archaeology as evidence of wood fires would commonly take the form of microspheres. (The archaeologists don't seem to care; they just use the magnetic detection method to determine where fireplaces and structure fires were located in ancient sites.)

I did have a few hypotheses to explain the spherical shape of the condensed particles:

- The condensation takes place in a portion of the flame that is hotter than the melting point of iron. When we talk of the temperatures reached in a fire (as in "office fires reach temperatures of X degrees") we're usually talking about the gas temperature in the immediate surroundings of the fire. This makes sense, because that's what determines what other effects the heat has, e.g. heating and weakening of adjacent structural metal. However, temperatures within the flame can be much higher. Even a candle flame has portions where the temperature is well above the melting point of bulk iron.

- The condensation is exothermic, so the forming condensate microsphere actually heats up above the surrounding temperature.

- Reduction reactions such as FeO + CO -> Fe + CO2 are taking place in the flame along with the condensation and are exothermic, again heating the forming condensate.

These hypotheses have various weaknesses (though none is entirely ruled out in all cases), so melting-point depression appears to be the answer.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I have a slightly different take on the RJ Lee comments about iron microspheres.

"Melting point depression in nanoparticles" is arcane info, unique to nanofabrication. I'd never heard about melting point depression before. I don't believe that many mechanical or materials engineers who work in any field except nanofabrication have heard of it either. Especially not structural engineers who design skyscrapers.

Further I believe that it is a surprise to RJ Lee as well, because nowhere in their reports do I see the very simple explanation that "nano-particles melt at dramatically lower temperatures".

They merely suggest that they expect to find nanoparticles, which seems to be completely true.

It seems to me that RJ Lee knows that nano-particles of iron are fairly common byproduct of massive fires, in spite of not knowing exactly how & why they form.
___

This leads back to a question that I asked months ago: "Iron microspheres were found in the WTC dust. You can't look at this data in isolation. How different are these samples compared to similar samples taken in Detroit & Boston & Chicago, etc.?

How about after one of those cities has had a large fire?"

Bringing up some observation, without putting into a comparative context, allows all kinds of wild speculation.

This whole, multi-year clusterfork is a prime example.


tom
 

Back
Top Bottom