Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Steven Jones and Jeff Farrer confirm four of my claims concerning red-gray chips

Summary

Steven E. Jones and Jeff Farrer, both among the authors of the 2009 paper "Active Thermitic Material..." (ATM, [1]) by Harrit e.al., have now confirmed four claims I have made about that paper and the red-gray chips discussed therein:

  1. The chips contain traces of strontium and chromium, corroborating my claim that some chips may be LaClede steel primer, which contains ca. 1% by weight Strontium Chromate pigments [2]
  2. Their XEDS data of chips a-d is consistent with kaolin as the sole ingredient that contains Al
  3. They concede that a DSC experiment, done by LLNL scientists Tom Tillotson and Alex Gash and refered to in ATM, may have been performed under inert atmosphere and not, as they previously believed, under air
  4. Red-gray chips found in WTC are not all the same material, they represent at least two different materials

Jones and Farrer speak

A few days ago, on september 8th, Steven Jones posted recommendations to an unnamed scientist who wants to do a replication of the Harrit e.al. experiments on red-gray chips at 911Blogger [3]. A day later, he appended comments (or paraphrases thereof) that he had received from Jeff Farrer. Please find the bulk of his post quoted below.

I will now show how Jones and Farrer confirm four claims I have made about their experiments on red-gray all along.

Discussion

1. Farrer corroborates Strontium Chromate from LaClede primer paint

As I have previously shown [2], the four red-gray chips labeled "a-d" in Figures 2 - 11 of ATM [1] are consistent with what one would expect from chips of LaClede Standard Primer - a red paint that, according to NIST documentation, was painted on the floor joists of the WTC twin towers. These floor joists probably had more painted surface than the perimeter columns (painted with Tnemec 69 or 99) and the core columns (painted with unknown primer(s)) and can thus be expected to be abundant in WTC dust.

To recap: LaClede standard primer was a paint that, per specification, consisted of 71.5% by weight epoxy (organic matrix) and 28.5% mineral pigments. Of the pigments, 55% by weight was red iron oxide (i.e. hematite = Fe2O3 with a size most likely in the range 100-300 nanometers), 41% aluminium silicates (with kaolin, a naturally mined clay silcate, chemical sum formula Al2Si2O9H5, being the most mundane candidate) and 4% Strontium Chromate (SrCrO4). This would be equivalent to there being approximately 0.5% Strontium and 0.3% Chromium in the ready paint, along with 11% iron and 2.5% and 2.4% silicon and aluminium. I have further shown that an XEDS spectrum of this paint at 20 keV (the electron energy used by Harrit e.al. for their Fig. 7) would show a small signal for Cr, but that Sr would quite likely be missed due to its small signal being right underneath the much larger Si-signel. I have pointed to a letter by Niels Harrit [4] in which Harrit documented that small signals for both Cr and Sr were detectable at least in their chip a.

We learn via Steven Jones now that Jeff Farrer has done further TEM-studies on red-gray chips, and has confirmed the presence of both Strontium and Chromium:

6. Jeff notes that in his TEM analyses he observed “very small (nanometer-scale) Pb particles in the TEM samples” as well as strontium and chromium in small amounts. (Much of the TEM analysis was performed at higher magnification than used in the SEM analysis done in the paper.) Thus, red/gray chips which match ours will show these same elements under TEM analysis.

TEM is "Transmission electron microscopy". The XEDS spectra shown in ATM[1] were all derived from "SEM" equipment, that is "Scanning electron microscope". Jones is clear that Farrer did identify Sr and Cr with the TEM.

This would corroborate the result from [4], that some red-gray chips contain particles (pigments) with Strontium and Chromium - a result clearly consistent with my assertion that some chips are LaClede primer.

It is true that Dr. Millette [8] did not show any Sr in his TEM data. I submit that this could possibly result from Sr-chromate making up only 4% of the LaClede pigment - one part in 25. It isn't totally unlikely that a microscopic LaClede sample with countably few pigments by chance simply contains no Sr-chromate pigment. I wish though Dr. Millette would go back to the lab and specifically search for such pigments (they should be recognizable by their probable shape, which is typically acicular, i.e. needle-shaped, with length in the range of 1-4 micrometers)

It would be interesting to know how Farrer identified elements on the TEM, and see his actual results (images, spectra...). One technique available on TEM to identify not elements as such but crystal structures and thus, potentially, the minerals in question, is TEM-SAED ("Selected area electron diffraction"). I wonder if Farrer has specifically identified Strontium Chromate. I call upon Drs Farrer and Jones to publish their TEM data as soon as possible!

2. Farrer confirms Al and Si consistent with kaolin

In his own initial post, Jones makes the following assertion:

... looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4

An Al:Si ratio of 0.92 would mean there is more silicon than aluminium in those "aluminum-containing platelets" - a strange finding for one who claims to have a formulation of Fe-Al-thermite in which the Al is found in said platelets. Note that Jones fails to mention that the same platelets also contain a very significant amount of oxigen, as can be seen in Fig. 11a of [1]. It would be interesting to get a value for the Al:O ratio there!

However, Jones's claim that the measured ratio of 0.92 disproves kaolinite, is FALSE, as Farrer has pointed out. Jones added the following remark a day later:

5. With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity. The interested scientist is encouraged to use standards for the TEM/XEDS so this ratio can be pinned down definitively.

Kudos to Farrer for pointing this out, and to Jones for faithfully forwarding that comment. So it seems Farrer's TEM-data on those platelets is consistent with kaolin after all!

(To wrap up my argument: Fig. 7 (XEDS spectra for bulk or red layers) shows that chips a-d all have Al:Si ratios near unity. The only constituent of chips a-d identified by the Jones team as containing Al are these platelets, which means that all, or almost all, the Al in the chips is actually contained in the platelets. The elemental composition as well as the morphology of these platelets is entirely consistent with kaolin clay, a common paint ingredient. It is indeed the best explanation for ALL the data Harrit e.al. have presented on chips a-d. So if the Al in the platelets is present in a stoichiometric proportion to Si to form kaolin, or even sllightly too little Al, then there is no Al left - neither in the platelets nor elsewhere in the chip - to account for a hypothetical presence of elemental Al.)

3. Farrer concedes he may have done DSC-test the wrong way

The context for that topic is this: In ATM [1], Harrit e.al. present, in Fig. 19, DSC traces for four (unknown, uncharacterised) chips. They compare one of these with a DSC trace taken from a paper by LLNL scientists Tom Tillotson and Alex Gash [5], which was from a sample of experimental nano-thermite. Harrot e.al. claim that the DSC traces basically have the same characteristics (while in fact it can be clearly seen that they are quite different in many respects), and take this as one of their best pieces of evidence that the red-gray chips are not thermitic. The DSC test on the red-gray chips was done by Jeff Farrer, and it was done under an atmosphere of normal air, i.e. in the presence of ca. 21% oxygen. In Tillotson e.al., no indication is given if the test was done under air or inert gas.

Steven Jones and Niels Harrit have claimed on several occasions that Jeff Farrer contacted Tillotson and Gash before doing his DSC test and learned from them that they used air. I have called this a lie. It is patently obvious why doing the experiment under air would be a fool's errand when you know (as both Tillotson e.al. and Harrit e.al. did) that your sample contains organic material which is likely to combust under air when heated. I just didn't know if the lie orignated with Farrer, who is alleged to have called the LLNL scientists, or with Jones or Harrit, who may have invented that bit of information about Farrer. I know however of two emails that Gash and Tillotson wrote on the matter and that prove Jones and Harrit wrong [6]. First from Gash's email:

[...] As you correctly point out DSC in an O2 atmosphere will combust the organic impurities and greatly add to the energy release. However the DSC in question was done in ultra pure nitrogen. [...]

Alex

Then Tillotson:

The experiment was performed as Alex described...in ultra pure nitrogen as is standard technique here at LLNL. If Mr. Farrer did contact me I can guarantee you that I did not respond to his questions.

Tom Tillotson

Now, Jeff Farrer has advised Jones to backpaddle from the earlier claims. Jones appends Farrer's comment (my emphasize):

1. Dr. Farrer contacted Dr. Tillotson of LLNL regarding the LLNL production and ignition of nano-thermite; Dr Tillotson said the experiments were likely done in atmosphere. After publication of our paper, others have suggested that the experiments in the LLNL publication were performed in an inert atmosphere; so the picture is not clear to us at this time and further contact with the LLNL scientists is advised. It would be best to run studies in both atmosphere and in an inert gas.

Good to see that all of a sudden they really don't know. It must be pointed out that Tillotson has expressedly denied the claim that he replied to a question by Farrer, if ever he received one.

Obviously, it should be assumed at this time that

  1. Tillotson and Gash did their experiment under inert gas
  2. Farrer did his test under 21% oxygen
  3. The results of both teams can thus not be compared
  4. No DSC test will yield any useful results with regard to identifying or excluding thermite if done under air
  5. A replication of the DSC is thus not desirable and should be advised against

To pile up, Alex Gash today believes DSC is not a good method at all to characterize a (nano-)thermite reaction. In his email, he continues:

While that may or may not be the case over the years we have come to rely less and less on the enthalpy from DSC for irreversible reactions as an absolutely accurate value.

In irreversible high energy processes the solid is undergoing many changes that may lead to inefficient heat transfer tot he DSC sensor and thus an inaccurate heat flow measurement. At the time of publication, we had more faith in the absolute value of these measurements. That is not to say DSC is not useful, quite the contrary. It gives us a reasonable idea how energetic a composition may be, it identifies decomposition temperatures, and is very accurate for determining the enthalpy of reversible heat flow (e.g., phase transitions, melting etc..). Since the publication of that paper we have found that combustion calorimetry is a far more accurate way to determine reaction enthalpy.

Gash confirms what any person experienced with and knowledgable about DSC could have told you: DSC is very good for physical processes, good for decomposition, but not good for vigorous chemical reactions. Another excellent reason why replication of Farrer's DSC-expermient is not a good idea.

4. Jones admits that red-gray chips may be from different materials

In a previous post, I have already explained why red-gray chips aren't all the same [7]: Harrit e.al. themselves point out how different chips are characterized by different significant elements. It really is quite obvious.

Yet, Jones and Harrit go on and pretend like all chips are basically the same material. In particular, their MEK-soaked chip (Fig. 12-18) is obviously quite different from chips a-d (Fig. 2-11, which are much more likely all the same stuff) in several respects, yet they pretend that a result found on that MEK-soaked chip (apparent trace occurance of elemental Al) can be extrapolated to chips a-d. Further on, no spectra or images are provided for the four chips burned in the DSC (Fig. 19), so their identity and characteristics remain unknown - it is simply assumed, without argument, that they are the same material.

It can't be stressed enough that all conclusions of ATM [1] are fundamentally dependent on the unproven, and actually refuted, assumption that all red-gray chips in WTC dust that are attrected to a magnet are basically the same (thermitic) material because they lump together results gained from different specimens and form a conclusion that is assumed to be valid for all of them.

With his new statement, Steven Jones now implies that red-gray chips extracted from WTC dust by magnet are from different materials. He writes:

I (Dr. Jones) have searched Millette's plots and see no indication of strontium (Sr) or lead (Pb) in his samples, but he does report titanium (Ti) which we do not see. Thus, his samples do not appear to be the same material as what we reported on.

Please keep in mind that Millette used the very same method to gather red-gray chips that Jones did. Thus, if Millette can extract a different material, so can Jones, and with that reasoning, he has to consider the possibility that, for example, the MEK-soaked chip wasn't the same material as chips a-d, or that the chips Farrer wasted in the DSC were different from each other, from chips a-d, and / or different from the MEK-soaked chip.

Also, note how Jones determines that "his [Millette's] samples do not appear to be the same material": he notes that some of Millettes chips, according to SEM-XEDS spectra, contain element X and not Y, while some of Jones's chips contain Y and not X. The same argument can be applied to Jones's own chips:

  1. The MEK-soaked chip contains Zn and Mg but no Na or K; Chip (c) on the other hand contains neither Zn nor Mg, but does show Na and K.
  2. The DSC-residue of a chip shown in Fig. 25 shows Ti; Neither chips a-d nor the MEK-soaked chip have Ti.
  3. The chip in Fig. 31 contains Pb. No other chip shown in [1] contains Pb
  4. The gray layer of the chip in Fig. 33 contains no Fe; all gray layers in Fig 6 are dominated by Fe

I call on Steven Jones to puclicly acknowledge that obviously the red-gray chips are of different materials, rendering the conclusions of Harrit e.al. invalid!

There's even more: Jones rejects Millette's samples on the ground that Millette reports no Pb, Sr and Cr. By the same reasoning, Jones ought to have rejected ALL specimens presented in his own paper, ATM, on the grounds that none are shown to contain Pb, Sr and Cr!

He alleges that Millette's finding of Ti is grounds to exclude the specimen from the study, yet included a specimen with Ti in ATM.

The explanations for these discrepancies are obvious:

  1. As the chips are obviously from different materials, some are bound to contain Pb, others not; some are bound to contain Sr and Cr, others not; some are bound to contain Ti, others not; some are bound to contain Zn or Mg, others not; etc.
  2. On each specimen, it would be possible and easy to miss a small trace of an element when scanning the bulk of a particle with SEM-EDS, but finding small particles containing that element within the specimen when focussing the much hiigher resolution of TEM-EDS on select pigments

Farrer's finding of particles containing Pb, Sr and Cr is very interesting, but near useless without having the actual data for reference. I call upon Dr. Farrer to publish his TEM-data fully and as soon as possible!

Conclusions

Steven Jones did not intend this, isn't perhaps aware of it and would probably deny it, but his latest comments have strengthened the hypothesis that some of the red-gray chips were corroded steel chipped off the WTC floor joists, which were painted by LaClede Steel Company with a primer containing pigments of Iron Oxide and Kaolin along with traces of Strontium Chromate, by confirming that

  1. some chips contain particles with strontium and chromium
  2. the Al:Si ratio observed in many of the chips is consistent with Kaolin

Further, he has retracted the claim that DSC tests ought to be done under air to compare the results with actual nano-thermite. This puts into further doubt the validity and usefulness of doing DSC tests on the red-gray chips and speaks against repeating such tests.

Lastly, Jones has admitted, by implication, that the WTC dust contains several different materials that form red-gray, magnetically attracted chips. He has provided criteria for when to doubt that two chips are of the same material. Applying the same criteria to ATM (Harrit e.al., [1]) invalidates at once all major conclusions of that paper and resets the status of the debate to "there is no evidence that any red-gray chips contain aluminothermic material".

The Source: Recent remarks by Steven Jones at 911Blogger

Quoting at length from the post for posterity - first what Jones originally posted (I left out parts that bring up other issues than the four I discuss here):

Dear [Interested Scientist],

Yes, I would encourage you to do a follow-up study on the World Trade Center dust, after you have carefully read our “Active Thermitic Materials...” paper. [Niels Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, et al. "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", THE OPEN CHEMICAL PHYSICS JOURNAL, April 2009.]

Among the most salient observations in that paper are these:

1. the observation of elemental-iron-rich spheres in the ash following ignition of the red/gray chips in the Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC),
2. the sharp peaking of the heat-traces in each case for the ignition of red/gray chips in the DSC (Figure 19).

Therefore, I am pleased that you propose to do DSC analyses along the lines that we preformed; as you noted, James Millette did NOT do DSC analyses at all for his report MVA9119. What a shame, really, and I hope you will do better as you propose.
[...]
When Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peak in our Fig 19. This is one of the many tests he did to check things.

[...]

You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats. Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air; which is why we did our tests in air also. Thus, we could make direct comparisons with the LLNL data on nano-thermite fabricated at the LLNL laboratory.

Later, we mixed up some ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide powders thus making a type of nano-thermite (but with no organic matrix). This was run in the DSC at BYU in an inert atmosphere up to 700C – and it did not ignite! We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.

You say that the exothermic peaks we observed in the DSC (our Figure 19) could be due to burning of epoxy paint. Not according to our experiments -- that is, when Dr Farrer burned epoxy paint in the DSC, it gave a very broad thermal trace, NOT at all like the spiked exothermic DSC peaks in Fig 19. Igniting paint in the same DSC is one of many tests performed to double-check our experiments, and I urge you to do similar tests.

Please keep these facts in mind as you undertake DSC studies – which I welcome! Yes, I was surprised that James Millette did not even perform DSC studies.

[...]

Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .

The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio.

I encourage you to do TEM analysis as we have done. Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0203/perepezko-0203.html . I'll leave it at that for now. I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings. Did Millette see an electron diffraction pattern demonstrating that aluminum occurs in the form of kaolinite? His report does state: Millette report: "TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 20 and 21). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).” We did TEM analysis also, years ago now, but we did not see any titanium in the red/gray chips! (Referring specifically to the clean-surface chips; see Figs. 6 and 7 in our published paper.) More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied. Why would he not measure the electrical resistivity of his red material (discussed in our paper) right off? That's what gets me – he could have saved himself a lot of time. Finally he gets to TEM analysis, and finds that he has titanium oxide! How can he claim its the same material? What a waste of time. I hope you will not make the same mistake. Sincerely, Steven E. Jones

A day later, SE Jones had received feed-back from his collaborater at BYU, Jeff Farrer (manager of the BYU TEM-lab), and appended his blog post with the following clarifications (again, only showing the parts that are of interest here):

Note added, based on comments received 9-9-12 from Dr. Jeffrey Farrer.
1. Dr. Farrer contacted Dr. Tillotson of LLNL regarding the LLNL production and ignition of nano-thermite; Dr Tillotson said the experiments were likely done in atmosphere. After publication of our paper, others have suggested that the experiments in the LLNL publication were performed in an inert atmosphere; so the picture is not clear to us at this time and further contact with the LLNL scientists is advised. It would be best to run studies in both atmosphere and in an inert gas. 2. The DSC run with the ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide (which did not ignite in atmosphere) may have been heated to approximately 800 degrees centigrade. Jeff will check his notes.
[...]
5. With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity. The interested scientist is encouraged to use standards for the TEM/XEDS so this ratio can be pinned down definitively.
6. Jeff notes that in his TEM analyses he observed “very small (nanometer-scale) Pb particles in the TEM samples” as well as strontium and chromium in small amounts. (Much of the TEM analysis was performed at higher magnification than used in the SEM analysis done in the paper.) Thus, red/gray chips which match ours will show these same elements under TEM analysis.
I (Dr. Jones) have searched Millette's plots and see no indication of strontium (Sr) or lead (Pb) in his samples, but he does report titanium (Ti) which we do not see. Thus, his samples do not appear to be the same material as what we reported on.

References

[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31

[2] Oystein: Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer. 2012/03/16

[3] Steven E. Jones: Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses. Blog post at 911Blogger, 2012/09/08. Last retrieved 2012/09/12.

[4] Niels H. Harrit: Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint. Open Letter, May 2009

[5] T.M. Tillotson et al: Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 285 (2001) 338-345

[6] T.M. Tillotson and Alexander Gash: E-Mails. As quoted by "Moorea" at the JREF forum on 2012/09/09. Original mails probably written on or shortly before either 2010/07/12 or 2010/12/07.

[7] Oystein: Why red-gray chips aren't all the same. 2012/03/14

[8] James R. Millette: Revised Report of Results: MVA9119. Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC dust. Prepared for Classical Guide, Denver, 01 March 2012.

43 comments:

  1. Oystein, since you are spending so much time on this subject, you should consider a more serious approach to your little essays, and stop writing for a JREF-type audience, if you want to be taken seriously.

    If you want serious people to respond to your essays, especially scientists in the know, start writing for a audience that is familiar with the subject, and able to discern facts from hype.

    As it is, any serious person that starts reading this essay will spot your errors and misleading arguments right away, and most likely give up on reading it...

    and either not respond, or respond and insult you.

    So revise, you can do better than this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ups I am sorry, I haven't checked Comments on my blog in a couple of weeks.

      I am not getting this - which "scientists in the know" are you talking about? Can you be specific?

      And since you imply that there are errors in my post (that "any serious person" would spot), why don't you simply point them out? But if you can't point out any errors, how would you know there are any? Are you a serious person? Why should anyone take YOU serious, as you only bark the bark, but don't bite the bite?

      I have written this more for the 911Blogger kind of of audience, as well es the very scientists that I am talking about, Jones, Farrer, Harrit. I guess those are "in the know", not?

      Delete
  2. Listen carefully Oystein, and choose the option to take the higher road, because I am sure you can. A serious person in this respect is anyone with the ability and patience to do the research, and those "in the know" are such persons who have done so. At the professional end of that spectrum are scientists and, yes, those scientists that have written the papers, and may be working on more - but you are kidding yourself if you think they won´t spot the hype.

    I am not going to spend the time to go over every single point in your essay, but I will leave a couple of examples, that anyone "serious" will spot right away, and proceed to put the essay in the proverbial trash-bin:

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. The TEM as is, does not show unity, but Farrer points out that further tests might..somehow you conclude that this has confirmed unity. What´s more you claim this supports XEDS conclusions of kaolin, when those tests actually ruled out si/al compound after the MEK.

    Also, in another comment at that blog you refer to, Jones said "But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results."

    So, actually the 3 tests by Jones, that you are commenting on, all seem to rule out si/al compounds, and therefore kaolin. A nice hand-wave by the way, to forget about this little TEM/XRD comment by Jones.

    Your way of presenting your case seems disingenuous, at best. This issue of aluminum
    in the chips may need more tests to resolve it
    once and for all, but you are not helping anyone.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonym,
      it seems you have trouble understanding the precise meaning if some English words in a scientigic debate.
      a) Saying that data, for example the 0.92 ratio, is "consistent with" kaolin is not the same as "is" kaolin. Rather it means that it "could very well be". And this would translate to "could very well be (almost, since kaolin, being a natural mineral, is never exactly) unity". This refuted Jones's earlier claim that it is NOT unity and NOT kaolin - a claim Jones has thankfully retracted.
      I cited, in addition to the TEM-XEDS data point of 0.92 ratio additional data points published by Farrer and Jones, namely Figures 7 and 11 of the Bentham paper, which all have Al and Si closet to unity than 0.92, and are totally consistent, almost a perfect proof, for kaolin.
      You cherry-pick your evidence and misrepresent that which you cherry-pick.

      b) "no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound" is not the same as "no aluminum-bearing compound" and cannot be construed as "no kaolin". It merely states an absence of evidence. Which, as I hope you understand, is never evidence of absence.

      c) You confuse test results gained from different specimens. Chips a-d, which are characterized by almost Si:Al unity and the presence of platelets that look and behave just like kaolin, have - almost Si:Al unity. There is no proof whatsoever that the MEK-soaked specimen is of the same material: It comes in a greater layer thickness, has additional elements not found in a-d, has very different Si-Al ratio, etc. You are assmung that it's the same material, but it most certainly isn't.

      Delete
    2. Oystein, the only one picking cherries is you: even if you had your si/al unity, it would be meaningless if they are not bound together in a compound; and you have 3 tests, XEDS with MEK, XRD and TEM, which all rule against your wish of a compound..so please give up the hype. You are deluding yourself if you think "serious people" won´t see through such shenanigans.

      Delete
    3. "XEDS with MEK": Again, that one specimen is a different material, it is different from the kaolin-containg chips 1-d in every single measure that Jones has taken.

      "XRD": Please show me the data :)

      "TEM": Please show me the data :)

      Delete
    4. more papers on the way

      Delete
    5. Oh, so the XRD and TEM evidence that you talked about and that you think "all rule against your wish of a compound" doesn't exist yet?

      Way cool.

      The data supposedly has already been generated in 2009. Why hold it back? I may know a little more about it that you, though.

      Delete
    6. - Yes, it exists, it just hasn´t been published yet. Just like Millette data exists even though it has not been published.

      - No, some of that data was available in 2009, but most of it was generated after that.

      - The data is most likely not out yet because it was inconclusive, for it rules out kaolin but doesnt identify conventional aluminum. Possible solution is amorphous al but don´t know if that is confirmed...i think there is at least one paper on this data on the way.

      - You don´t know shit

      Delete
    7. "- Yes, it exists, it just hasn´t been published yet."
      Where? Can you show it? Have you actually seen it?

      "Just like Millette data exists even though it has not been published."
      Incorrect. Here, I can show it:
      http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

      "- No, some of that data was available in 2009, but most of it was generated after that."
      Show it, or shut up!

      "- The data is most likely not out yet because it was inconclusive, for it rules out kaolin but doesnt identify conventional aluminum. Possible solution is amorphous al but don´t know if that is confirmed...i think there is at least one paper on this data on the way."
      It should have been published even though inconclusive. What I have seen said about it does NOT rule out kaolin. If they could rule out kaolin, they'd say so explicitly, but Farrer corrected Jones on that! Farrer does not rule out kaolin, he has just not been able to get a positive ID.

      "- You don´t know shit"
      We'll see.

      Delete
    8. "What I have seen said about it does NOT rule out kaolin"

      Thats coming from the man who can´t tell the difference between washed and contaminated chips.
      U better stick to your peers at JREF, they can´t see anything either.

      "Farrer corrected Jones on that"

      No, he corrected him on the possibility of unity, but unity alone is meaningless if there is no compound..

      So far all tests by Harrit et al rule against compound which is inconsistent with kaolin.
      - Sharp readers may have noticed that you claim in your essay just the opposite, that the results are consistent with kaolin, so you better stick to JREF forum.

      Delete
    9. "Here, I can show it"

      Oh, it´s been "published", what happened to the demand for peer-reviewed journals?

      "Show it, or shut up!"

      Ah, funny. You mean like truthers have been trying to get you "debunkers" to "put up or shut up" for more than 3 years, with a published paper replicating Harrit ignition tests and molten spheres with paint??? Them apples?

      How about you clowns shut up about exploding paint and Millette until you deliver?

      Delete
  4. 2. You state that the ATM paper is based on the assumption that all chips in the dust are the same, but anyone who reads the whole paper will notice that this is utter non-sense, as the authors clearly state that there are different types of chips, and even show examples of them in the discussion section, EVEN THOUGH they focus on and test only one general type of thermitic chips, per fig 7.

    You can pretend all you want not to understand this, but realize that the only one you "debunk" is yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "they focus on and test only one general type of thermitic chips, per fig 7"

      No, they most definitely do not focus on that one type per fig 7.

      But it is good that YOU admit that there are different kinds of chips. So if you want to focus on just one kind of chip, you have to have criteria by which to determine whether the next chip is this one kind, or another kind, right?
      The "one general type of thermitic chips, per fig 7" is characterized by
      - Al:Si almost unity
      - Fe dominating metal species
      - C and O only other major element
      - At most traces of Cr, Sr, S, Na, K, Ca
      - Layer thickness around 20-30 microns
      - Visible faceted hematite grains (100-200 nm)
      - Platelets, sometimes stacked, rich in O, Si and Al (Al:Si near unity), some 30 nm thin and 1-4 microns large

      There is zero, absolutely no evidence at all, that the MEK-soaked chip conforms to that one general type of Fig 7:
      - Al:Si very different from unity
      - Ca, not Fe, dominating
      - Several other significant elements, such as Ca, Zn, - Layer thickness aboout twice that of chips a-d
      - No hematite grains shown
      - No platetlets with O and Si=Al shown

      But this obviously different chip, which is the only one where at least a trace of elemental Al is shown, plays a significant role in the conclusions: The assertions that the chips are thermitic rests in large part on the implied claim that they all contain elemental Al.
      They do not.

      Delete
    2. Oh please Oystein, if you want to keep pretending that you don´t know the difference between clean and contaminated chips, then that´s your choice, but don´t expect to impress anyone outside the JREF crowd.

      The paper only tests one type of chips, represented by a-d in fig7, and the assertion that they are thermitic is based on the ignition tests, which demonstrate fast energy release and molten spheres
      like superthermite, as is made clear in the text and in several graphs and figures:

      "Fig. (23). Silvery-gray spheroids (left) are seen after the ignition test of red/gray chip from sample 1"

      Delete
    3. Contamination is a claimed explanation, but there is no proof that contaminaton is actually the culprit, and Jones now admit that he has treated the MEK-soaked chip incompetently.

      Fact remains:
      - No proof exists that it is the same material
      - All data points to significant differences

      Delete
    4. "..don´t expect to impress anyone outside the JREF crowd."

      Delete
    5. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps those members of the fringe of the fringe who have already falllen for this madness won't be impressed by facts and reason - ever. If they could, they wouldn't be so deluded in the first place ;)

      Delete
  5. 3. You say ".. and with that reasoning, he has to consider the possibility that, for example, the MEK-soaked chip wasn't the same material as chips a-d, or..."

    This is bunk, as stated in the ATM paper: "These four cross sections are representative of all
    the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples."
    Also all specimens "are left unwashed.. uncoated ..unfractured" UNLESS otherwise specified..

    in other words

    - Your argument about Millette is bunk because it is not about them using same method to attract chips from dust with magnet, the issue is isolating a particular type OF THOSE chips like Harrit et al, and testing them

    - the MEK chip in ATM paper belongs to that one group of chips as depicted in fig 7

    - ignited chips belong to same group

    - there was no titanium in any of the CLEAN chips, so any residual titanium in the ashes of an ignited chip are from contaminants on the surface

    So, notice that

    - You just look silly with you hand-wave arguments about MEK and ignition chips being unspecified and not belonging to the tested group of chips

    - Jones is absolutely correct about the titanium and other anomalies; their chips are most likely not being the same as Millette´s



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This is bunk, as stated in the ATM paper: 'These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples.'"

      Urr wait - in your # 2. you stated "anyone who reads the whole paper will notice that this is utter non-sense, as the authors clearly state that there are different types of chips". But here, the authors state that ALL the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples have the same elemental composition as these four cross-sections (i.e. chips a-d). This is self-debunking. They either studied chips that are different, and concluded there are different kinds of chips, or they claim that all the chips are the same. What you claim however cannot be read from the paper.

      Delete
    2. Please Oystein, notice carefully KEY words:

      Everyone agrees that there are many kinds of chips in the dust, but some don´t understand that the authors ISOLATED one type and TESTED that type ONLY..

      NOTICE; "the red/gray chips STUDIED..have the same composition"

      it does NOT say all the chips in the dust are the same, ONLY that the chips ACTUALLY TESTED are the same..and those chips are represented by fig7.

      Delete
    3. This is an assertion without evidence.

      The only evidence we have about the composition of the MEK-soaked chip indicates it is a different material.

      This is so obvious, I struggle to understand what psychological condition keeps you so locked into almost religious belief of every lie Jones tells you.

      Delete
    4. some grasp key words; others not.

      big words about lies from you..

      Delete
  6. 4. One more thing: you keep claiming that DSC is not useful and cite Gash to support your conclusion, even though Gash specifically notes, in that email, that DSC in indeed useful to determine how energetic the material is, at what temp - at the same time confirming that said material is indeed energetic, which is exactly WHY Harrit et al used DSC!

    This is the type of stuff "serious people" notice Oystein.

    Gash also confirms what Harrit et al indicated in their paper: combustion in air is one explanation for energy density above std thermite.(besides the organic matrix)

    - DSC is not used to "identify" thermite as you say, it identifies an energetic material - important difference.

    Performing DSC in inert atmosphere might rule out normal thermite, but you can´t use it to rule out superthermite which contains the metals within an organic matrix, unless you also test and compare such known superthermite, and confirm that it operates in inert atmosphere - for such materials it may required to first burn through some organic matrix(which needs oxygen) to get to the metal and initiate the thermitic reaction.

    Also, the DSC in air does still differentiate between paint and superthermite, because as Jones noted the paint is not an energetic material and thus has a much broader signal than superthermite. If you want to refute Jones, do experiments and publish. Please.

    PS. As for Tillotson claiming not to have spoken to Farrer, he and his team have refused to co-operate with Harrit et al, refused samples etc, so his claims/possible lapses in memory should be taken with a grain of salt. His lab is after all one the developers of the suspected superthermite found in the WTC dust. Be a skeptic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment of yours reveals a lot of confused thinking. Could you please clarify things by answering as precisely as you can the following questions:

      A. What is the meaning of the word "energetic", when you use it in this context? Your definition should contain a metric which can be used to objectively determine if sonething is energetic or not, or to say of X is more or less energetic than Y

      B. Do you agree that competent scientists design experiments such that the results are likely to answer a specific question?

      C. What was the specific question that Tillotson and Gash wanted to answer when they did their DSC experiment, and how did that experiment answer the question?

      D. Is Gash of the opinion still today (or as of the date of his email) that DSC was a good, competent experiment to answer the specific question they wanted to answer?

      E. What was the question that Farrer wanted to answer when he did his DSC test, and how did the results answer that question?

      Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Both Harrit et al and Tillotson et al used the DSC for the same objective; confirm that they are dealing with an energetic material. Like Harrit et al say in the paper, more or less, "we have the ingredients but does it work?"

      Both teams used this method to confirm oxidation-reduction; ignition temp; speed of energy release; energy density.

      And yes, Gash confirms in the email you refer to that DSC can answer those questions, even though another method provides more accurate numbers: "That is not to say DSC is not useful, quite the contrary. It gives us a reasonable idea how energetic a composition may be.."

      Harrit´s team confirmed that their chips match the performance of superthermites by Gash et al, hence the obvious conclusion.


      Delete
    3. First of all, I asked you to DEFINE the word "energetic", so I know what it means, and what it doesn't mean, when you use it!


      Then you write a lot a FALSE things:

      "Both Harrit et al and Tillotson et al used the DSC for the same objective; confirm that they are dealing with an energetic material."
      This is FALSE. Tillotson et.al. knew already that their stuff was "energetic" (i.e. released energy when ignited), so they did NOT do DSC to "confirm" this. Instead, they did it to measure the energy density of the nano-thermite, the existence of which they already knew. They also knew before the experiment that the caq. 10% ORGANIC material in their preparation was ALSO energetic - that's why they, competently, did their test under inert atmosphere.

      Now, Farrer also knew already that he has organic material in the chips. In fact, he ought to have known that he had even much more organic material than Tillotson, and he ought to have known that an organic material is energetic, so asking "is this material" energetic would have been a relatively stupid question to begin with.

      The sentiment that Harrit expresses, "we have the ingredients but does it work?" is the question "doesa THERMITE reaction occur when we ignite the chips?". This question CANNOT ne answered with DSC. In fact, Tillotson e.al., after they had the DSC result, still weren't sure if the results came from a thermite reaction. What they did to answer Harrit's question was: Do PXRD on the post-DSC residue and identify Al-oxide. This on top of their already knowing that they had 90% Fe2O3+Al in their preparation - because they made it. Farrer did NOT do this - there is no evidence anywhere that there was Al-oxide post DSC, and zero evidence that he had pure Al pre-DSC.


      "Both teams used this method to confirm oxidation-reduction; ignition temp; speed of energy release; energy density."
      This is FALSE.
      Tillotson e.al. did NOT do it to confirm redox.
      Tillotson e.al. did NOT do it to measzure the speed of energy release. In fact, they very explicitly point oiut that DSC is NOT a competent method to measure the speed of reaction, that OTHER tests would be needed for that.
      The only true thing is that Tillotson e.al. did it to measure energy density. The result was 1.5 kJ/g - a plausible result for a thermite reaction. Again, they point out that this result does NOT confirm that any specific reaction has taken place. Instead, to confirm that Al was oxidiezed to Al-oxide, they followed up with PXRD - which Farrer didn't.
      Now Farrer measured 4.5 kJ/g and 7.5 kJ/g - a result that is IMPOSSIBLE for thermite alone (in fact, the other two results if 1.5 and 3 kJ/g are also impossible given the low mass proportion of potential thermite ingredients), so what the DSC test has confirmed that an exothermic reaction took place that is NOT the thermite reaction, and they even come to the right conclusion: That the organic matrix must have burnt. This is confirmed post-DSC by the reduction of overall C in the residue.

      So yes, Farrer's DSC confirmed the chips are energetic, by proving that ORGANIC matrix burned. He even found the approximate ignition temperature: Around 400-420 °C.

      He did NOT present proof of a thermite reaction. In fact, the DSC curves presented by Farrer differ greatly from the curve presented by Tillotson. Again, the difference is so striking, so obvious, that I marvel at the level of delusion that these people, you included, are displaying.

      Delete
    4. Stop the non-sense. Density above 3.9 is nothing special for organic NT and hybrids, especially not in air - you know this already.

      Ref. 21 in the ATM paper, Gash et al: "To determine whether the material was energetic differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was performed."

      Maybe u want to write big JREF essay about honesty and delusions?

      LOL

      Delete
    5. Ref. 21 in the ATM paper is:

      Gash AE, Satcher JH, Simpson RL, Clapsaddle BJ. Nanostructured energetic materials with sol-gel methods. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 2004; 800:
      55-66. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2642&DID=115856&action=detail

      I have a deja-vue my friend:
      http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ziggi-message-to-oystein-split-from-active-thermitic-material-t656-75.html#p19982

      Someone who identified himself as "Ziggy" had written there:

      "Gash et al aka source 21 in Harrit et al paper:

      To determine whether the material was energetic differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) was performed. DSC plots for a RF-AP nanocomposite and neat ammonium perchlorate are compared in Figure 8. The trace for the RF-AP nanocomposite on the right showed an exotherm at about 250°C, indicating that it is indeed energetic.
      "

      To this I had replied - back in May, mind you:

      "What a most curious thing to write, Ziggy! What you are quoting there does not refer to thermite at all! What Gash, Satcher, Randall and Clapsaddle tested and described there is a mix of resorcinol-formaldehyde (just CxOyHz) matrix with nanosized ammonium perchlorate (NH4ClO4). No metal or metal oxide involved. This resembles in no way the red layers that Harrit e.al. describe. Why are you bringing this up??"

      Let's look at it in detail - first, here is the PDF that is Ref 21:
      https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/302999.pdf

      Your quote "To determine whether the material was energetic..." is found on page 12. Which "the material" is he talking about? Is it one of the kind that Harrit e.al. claim to have found? I.e. a thermite composition of iron oxide as oxidizer, aluminium as metal fuel, with organic stuff to give the thermite additional properties?

      The quote continues:

      "DSC plots for a RF-AP nanocomposite and neat ammonium perchlorate are compared in Figure 8."

      "RF-AP nanocomposite" is shorthand for "resorcinol with formaldehyde (RF)" (as fuel) plus "oxidizer, ammonium perchlorate (AP)". "Neat ammonium perchlorate" simply means "pure AP" (all quotes on the same page).

      So first this material contains neither a metal oxide as oxidizer nor a metal as fuel.
      Secondly, even though they write "To determine whether the material was energetic...", what they really do is a comparison of this composite material with one of its constituents. So the method and the question which the method is designed to answer isn't the same that Farrer wanted to have answered. Farrer did NOT compare the DSC output of his composite chips with that of one of its constituents!

      Delete
    6. I suggest you try to read Ref. 21 completely, and try to look up all the words you encounter, so you underestand better why it doesn't support your argument.

      ATM refers to [21] several times.
      The first reference is on page 25 of ATM: "Now we compare a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).
      Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature (about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader trace than super-thermite [21]."

      The corresponding parts of [21] are on pages 9 and 10 of Gash e.al. - where they don't do a DSC test, but a DTA (differential thermal analysis) of ordinary and nanothermite! A different method! DTA giving such a narrow peak does not mean that DSC would, too! Harrit e.al. are misleading there! But anyway, Farrer's DSC traces aren't really narrow - not nearly as narrow as the DTA trace of Gash's nanothermite.
      Plus, the Gash material, with particle sizes (FE2O3 and Al) much smaller, and surface-to-volume ratio much larger than the particles that Harrit e.al. see, have an ignition point of 590°C - far above that of Farrer's material! It really should be the other way round, if the reaction that Farrer observed was the thermite reaction, as claimed.


      The second mention of [21] in ATM is on page 27, and in the caption to Fig. 30 (which is a copy of fig. 1 in [21]) - but only makes the trivial point that thermite has an energy density far below that which Farrer observed. From which Harrit e.al. conclude, correctly, that the reaction that the DSC traces described must have been a reaction that is NOT the thermite reaction, i.e. that the organic matrix reacted. I never say anything different. What Harrit e.al. get wrong though is their unfounded belief that the thermite reaction ALSO took place - and there really is no evidence for that ANYWHERE.

      Delete
    7. The context for Farrer's DSC test however wasn't Ref. 21, it was Ref. [28] (see caption to ATM fig. 29), as Farrer has said in an AE911T interview. But Tillotson and Gash, who did a DSC trace on a nanothermite preparation with ca. 10% organic residue, didn't do DSC to determine IF the material was energetic - they did it to measure HOW energetic it was. They clearly imply that having some energetic spike on the DSC trace does NOT prove that a thermite reaction took place, even though they already know as a definite fact that ca. 90% of their probe was thermite! Instead, they analysed the post-DSC residue with PXRD, and identfied both Al-oxide and elemental iron in it, a test that Farrer failed to so.


      So again, the DSC proves that the organic matrix reacted.
      The DSC does not prove at all that a thermite reaction took place.
      It gives no indication that the reaction proceded fast - in fact, the DSC traces document reactions taking place over the course of many minutes
      The DSC test contains no indication that the organic matrix reacted with anything except ambient air. In particular, the fact that red iron oxide was still visible and plenty after the reaction shows that the iron oxide played at most a small role on anything.


      Ziggy, this is all a total failure! And we have been through this, haven't we?

      Delete
    8. Stop the BS

      Gash et al used DSC in ref 21 to check for energetic material with their organic nanocomposite - which goes through the same oxidation/reduction reaction as conventional thermite. Whether or not YOU agree if that should be called "thermitic" is besides the point.

      Like I said in previous comment: "DSC is not used to "identify" thermite as you say, it identifies an energetic material - important difference."

      Gash et al used the same DSC method again to confirm energetic metallic material in ref 28 "Analysis of the DSC trace shown in fig 3 indicates that the composites made here are indeed energetic"

      - With this metallic composite, they confirmed thermitic reaction by confirming molten iron after ignition.

      So even with all your sophistry you cannot argue with the simple facts that

      A. Gash et al used DSC to confirm energetic composites - for both organic and metallic versions.

      B. Gash confirmed thermitic reaction of the metallic compsite by confirming molten iron after ignition

      C. Harrit used the same methods to confirm energetic chips and thermitic reaction - only difference is he used XEDS to confirm iron after ignition while Gash used PXRD, which doesnt matter.

      Harrit et al also invite the reader to compare their sphere-spectrum to known spent thermite spheres, so
      THERE CAN BE NO CONFUSION

      At least for normal people, but who knows, maybe you can confuse JREF-ers with another delusional 1000 word sophistry paper...I don´t care.


      Delete
    9. "ATM refers to [21] several times.
      The first reference is on page 25 of ATM: "Now we compare a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29))"

      Wow Oystein, this is low: I thought you were at least one grade above the avarage JREF´er but you are resorting to the same desperate tricks - and on par with the worst trolls there. This is not at all a reference to ref 21, instead it refers to ref 28.

      "A different method! DTA giving such a narrow peak does not mean that DSC would, too! Harrit e.al. are misleading there.

      No, you are the one misleading here, and the level you have sunken down to is disgusting. Fig 29 compares Harrit DSC to Gash DSC from ref 28. Same method.

      What´s more, I can´t believe this was a simple error on your part. This sort of cut and paste and putting quotes out of context is not acceptable, so an apology is in order.

      You really ought to take a good look at yourself, and rethink the JREF-Path you have chosen, Erich.



      Delete
    10. ""ATM refers to [21] several times.
      The first reference is on page 25 of ATM: "Now we compare a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29))"

      Wow Oystein, this is low: I thought you were at least one grade above the avarage JREF´er but you are resorting to the same desperate tricks - and on par with the worst trolls there. This is not at all a reference to ref 21, instead it refers to ref 28.
      "

      Un-fucking-believable.

      Ziggy, the quote continues! Here is what you cut off from the quote: "Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature (about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader trace than super-thermite [21]." There! See that [21]? I was talking about where [21] appears in ATM, and there it is! I included the sentence before that for context, to show how Harrit e.al. were talking about DSC testing, and then reference [21], talking about a trace, but failing to mention its DTA, not DSC!


      "an apology is in order"
      If anyone needs to apologize, it's you! You chopped off half the quote to make it appear as if I have lied, when I did not!
      But it will suffice of you are merely embarrassed.

      Delete
    11. "Un-fucking-believable. Ziggy, the quote continues! Here is what you cut off"

      No, I did not cut off anything - the quote does not continue Monsieur JREF, the reference to fig 29 and ref 28 ends - And a new sentence begins with a new quote to a new reference, namely ref 21.

      The quote referring to Fig 29 has absolutely nothing to do with DTA and ref 21, it compares Harrit chip´s DSC to another DSC from ref 28!

      Time to sober up Oystein..

      Delete
  7. "The context for Farrer's DSC test however wasn't Ref. 21, it was Ref. [28]"

    Wrong again, the context for DSC is multiple references including at least 2 by Gash et al..
    Ref 28 applies to fig 29 only.

    By the way, ref 25 Gash et al confirms that they did ignition tests in air..specifically they tested hybrid metal/organic composites in air..so again Harrit et al where following Gash et al with their hybrid chips

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "ref 25 Gash et al confirms that they did ignition tests in air."
      To be exact: They did a DTA test under air on a composition of Fe2O3/Al/Viton. Here is why they chose Viton: "Viton is a highly fluorinated polymer ... Viton has excellent heat and chemical resistance ... It is also highly fluorinated (6049% F by mass), which makes it a strong oxidizer under high temperature and pressure conditions. At high temperatures the fluoroelastomer decomposes to gaseous byproducts." (From [25] https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf page 7).
      The difference again is that Gash e.al. already knew what they used, and knew already that it should be heat resistant, as many fluor-carbon-polymers are. Harrit e.al. on the other hand did not know what organic polymer they were dealing with, but they knew, from XEDS, it wasn't anything fluorinated, so heat resistance cannot be expected.

      Also, don't run away from the fact that Farrer's DSC results were directly compaered to those from [28] - which was done under nitrogen!

      Also, Gash's sample had only 11% Viton but almost 40% UFG Al, while Harrit e.al. had anywhere between 50% and 80% unknown organic but less than 5% Al.

      Now Millette has determined that at least some of the chips had an epoxy matrix. Epoxy is known to decompose and ignite in the range where Farrer's DSC traces observed most of the action.

      Also, Gash observed a thermal main event at 590°C both in [21] and [25], while Tillotson and Gash's [28] DSC peaked at 535°C. This is all far above what Farrer observed, even though Farrer never demonstrated particles of Fe2O3 and Al as small as Gash and Tillotson did.

      Also, again, the question which Gash [25] sought to answer was still different from the question Farrer wanted to answer.

      (Interestingly, while Gash observed no ignition under 590°C in the DTA test when the sample was slowly heated under air, he did observe autoignition at around 100°C when he removed a sample from pure nitrogen atmosphere to air. This was dependent on sample size. They had no ready explanation for this. But it is known that Viton's autoignition temperature varies with sample size - it's higher for smaller samples...)



      This is a pretty useless debate. You don't think systematically. You quote-mine.

      Delete
    2. "To be exact: They did a DTA test under air on a composition of Fe2O3/Al/Viton."

      Gash et al ignited hybrid chips in air, and so did Harrit et al.

      "those from [28] - which was done under nitrogen!"

      That´s claim without evidence, remember you refuse to take a scientist´s word in an email...
      it doesn´t matter anyway, the peak is as sharp as Gash nanothermite, and no-one has demonstrated that paint can match this, even in air.

      Delete
    3. "This is all far above what Farrer observed, even though Farrer never demonstrated particles of Fe2O3 and Al as small as Gash and Tillotson did."

      To be expected, there is another difference besides particle size, that is content, especially high organic content, which means lower ignition temp. A JREF member noted a paper showing NT mixed with organic epoxy igniting at or below 400, and ref 21 shows fully organic composite igniting at ca 300

      - Not surprising at all that Harrit chips ignite at 420 with organic content at or above 50% as you suggest. The developers noted especially that one of the main benefits of "superhtermites" is countless variations and ability to tailor characteristics...

      "This is a pretty useless debate. You don't think systematically. You quote-mine."

      Thats funny coming from you..

      Delete
  8. "This is all far above what Farrer observed, even though Farrer never demonstrated particles of Fe2O3 and Al as small as Gash and Tillotson did."

    To be expected, there is another difference besides particle size, that is content, especially high organic content, which means lower ignition temp. A JREF member noted a paper showing NT mixed with organic epoxy igniting at or below 400, and ref 21 shows fully organic composite igniting at ca 300

    - Not surprising at all that Harrit chips ignite at 420 with organic content at or 50% as you suggest. The developers noted especially that one of the main benefits of "superhtermites" is countless variations and ability to tailor characteristics...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have just revealed and read this discussion.

    You have not brought anything new, Anonym (Ziggy), and you are of course wrong in everything (as explained by Oystein again in detail):o)

    Red/gray chips are indeed some paints, as was quite clear already few days after publishing of Bentham paper (thanks to Sunstealer and Dr. Greening) and as has been clearer and clearer in the course of time (thanks e.g. to me, Oystein, Almond and other guys from JREF). Millette proved it and e.g. Poseidon (as a truther) already acknowledged it.

    I am sure that with such an overwhelming amount of indirect and direct evidences and clues, we could easily vindicate our "paint hypothesis" even at bar (hypothetically):o)

    ReplyDelete