It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by iSunTzu
You obviously do not understand chemistry yourself.
The idea that nanoparticles create a more energetic reaction is NOT something Prof. Jones just made up, it's a basic and obvious fact for anyone who understands chemistry. It's not related to a chemical equation, either, but because of the fact that decreasing the particle size increases the amount of actual surface area that makes contact between the particles.
From a DoD-sponsored magazine:
ammtiac.alionscience.com...
Learn chemistry yourself before you accuse Ph.D. physicists of not knowing it.
Originally posted by iSunTzu
The energy per pound does not change
“Nanostructured composites are multicomponent materials in which at least one of the component phases has one or more dimensions (length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm. Energetic nanocomposites are a class of material that have both a fuel and oxidizer component intimately mixed and where at least one of the component phases meets the size definition. A sol-gel derived pyrotechnic is an example of an energetic nanocomposite, in which metal-oxide nanoparticles react with metals or other fuels in very exothermic reactions. The fuel resides within the pores of the solid matrix while the oxidizer comprises at least a portion of the skeletal matrix.” “As an example, energetic nanocomposites of Fex0y and metallic aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be readily ignited”[ [19]
“This sol-gel method allows for the addition of insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before gelation, to producea uniformly distributed and energetic nanocompositeupon gelation. Al metal (as a fine powder,~6μm diameter) was added to some FexOygel syntheses just before gelation to produceFexOy /Al(s) pyrotechnic nanocomposites….These nanocomposites were subsequently processed to make both a xerogel and aerogel of the material…. The pyrotechnic nanocomposite can be ignited using a propane torch” [19].
[19]Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: www.osti.gov...
posted by SPreston
But allegedly fine particle nano-thermite creates far more energy than ordinary thermite, ...
posted by iSunTzu
Please show us the chemistry equation showing more energy for a chemical reaction because you say it has more energy. You can't change chemistry with nano-thermite mubo jumbo talk. It is thermite or it is not thermite and you can't change chemistry because you say there is more heat per pound because you wish it to be so because you think a failed paper of Jones says so.
I will wait for you to post the formula and how you got more energy from a reaction. How do you and Jones change reality to get more energy out of a pound of thermite? This will be good.
posted by bsbray11
reply to post by iSunTzu
You obviously do not understand chemistry yourself.
The idea that nanoparticles create a more energetic reaction is NOT something Prof. Jones just made up, it's a basic and obvious fact for anyone who understands chemistry. It's not related to a chemical equation, either, but because of the fact that decreasing the particle size increases the amount of actual surface area that makes contact between the particles.
From a DoD-sponsored magazine:
ammtiac.alionscience.com...
Learn chemistry yourself before you accuse Ph.D. physicists of not knowing it.
Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by pteridine
Oh? So you are guaranteeing that the US Military Weaponry Division is full of it and knows nothing while you know everything?
Originally posted by pteridine
Actually, I was clarifying what was written in the posted link for people who are not technically minded.
Are you still confused about all the science stuff?
Originally posted by shanerz
Originally posted by pteridine
Actually, I was clarifying what was written in the posted link for people who are not technically minded.
Are you still confused about all the science stuff?
I am. Pretty sure the second law of thermodynamics says that energy will be transferred from one body to another in a system where equilibrium is not achieved. And something, somewhere, tells me that a more energetic body will transfer more energy to the same body?
Doesn't more reactions lead to more energy transferred? I mean, the colder body is getting hit with more heat/energy (greater total amount of reactions) faster (less time to conduct heat out of the specified area). More energy transferred and higher chance of disintegration of certain bodies.
In other words, individual reactions are the same, yet more individual reactions are going off in nano-thermite reactions. The higher frequency of reations means the body won't be able to conduct as much heat out of the specific location at the same rate as a less frequent energy transferring reaction. Higher disintegration potential? I think so.
In other words, just what the professional weapon makers say.
[edit on 6-6-2009 by shanerz]
Originally posted by Skyline666
When you say " there is no physical evidence of thermite"
Explain to me how the large steel beams hit and wedged into other buildings, and were hurled 500 ft in most directions from a building collapse without using any type of explosives? How about the Pulverised concrete?
Have you ruled out any other known types of Military explosive?
From what I have seen and read in the last 7+ years, Fire, and the amount of damage caused by the planes can not cause free fall speed collapses in any buildings like these.
Do you think The WTC 7 OS has more holes in it than most people remember?
I am still leaning towards thermite, if in FACT it turns out not to be thermite, there is still sufficient evidence to support a controlled demolition.
I will be emailing Prof. Jones soon, and will post my questions and his answers about the thermite.
Cheers.
Originally posted by pteridine
Yes, but the total heat released is about the same for nano and non-nano. The only difference is the inefficiency in the reactions with larger particles. There is no magic to the thermodynamics. If you would like to melt beams, a thin coating of paint won't do it. You still need the joules produced by the reaction.
In any case, there is no physical evidence of thermite.