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.
Hi Tino,
Thank-you for what you are doing in this important public education work. I hope we can recruit some help on that thread. For now, I just wanted to offer my understanding of XEDS as it relates to multiple peaks, of, for example iron.
When a portion of a sample is bombarded by the electron beam, it excites the electrons of atoms in that portion, and when those electrons shed their energy by dropping down to a lower energy level, they emit X-rays with a frequencies characteristic of their changes in energy levels. Since an iron atom has electrons with different energy levels that can change state, it has several characteristic peaks with different frequencies and different magnitudes. Simpler elements have fewer peaks because of their simpler electron orbital structure.
Originally posted by turbofan
On another note:
If the presence of air was such a factor, why/how did the oxide from iron
get used up?
Originally posted by turbofan
If the presence of air was such a factor, why/how did the oxide from iron
get used up?
I've identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. [link below]
Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.
Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.
A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.
www.cmmp-france.com...
IRONOR is a natural Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO). Its excellent platelet structure and high chemical resistance make it an ideal pigment in many anticorrosion paint formulations. IRONOR paints provide longlife corrosion protection for metallic structures in touch with very aggressive environments, such as marine and industrial ones.
When an IRONOR based paint is applied to a surface, the flaky pigment particles orientate themselves in multiple layers roughly parallel to the substrate in such a way that interleaving and overlapping take place. This barrier effect will reduce the diffusion of moisture and pollutants such as NaCl and SO2 through the medium, thus decreasing the chances of corrosion and blistering
Originally posted by turbofan
Come on Pt, the oxide from the iron oxide was used up.
Does this not indicate an aluminothermic reaction?
Once again, if air was so readily available, why did the reaction need to
use energy to take from iron oxide?
Answer that, and then I'll post the reply I received from Scholars.
We'll see how well you know your stuff.
Hint: Keep in mind all of the other tests which support each other before
responding. IE: DSC, XEDS, Backscatter, etc.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by turbofan
Oxygen being stripped from the iron is exactly what creates the energy and melts the iron/steel in the first place. This is exactly a eutectic reaction. Just like the one described in the FEMA report. It boggles my mind how allergic people are to making this simple and obvious connection.
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by turbofan
Come on Pt, the oxide from the iron oxide was used up.
Does this not indicate an aluminothermic reaction?
Once again, if air was so readily available, why did the reaction need to
use energy to take from iron oxide?
Answer that, and then I'll post the reply I received from Scholars.
We'll see how well you know your stuff.
Hint: Keep in mind all of the other tests which support each other before
responding. IE: DSC, XEDS, Backscatter, etc.
Reduction of iron oxide does not require aluminum. The production of energy in excess of the theoretical maximum for thermite indicates combustion. The DSC in air was an error by the experimenters as was choice of solvent.
I think yours is an excellent list of points to address the argument that air could have contaminated the DSC results. Another point you might add is that the narrowness of the exotherm is not indicative of an air-oxidized reaction.
Perhaps oxygen in the air could have participated in some reactions and contributed to the energy density measurements, but, based on your arguments, any such effect would be slight, and none of the paper's conclusions hinge on whether that occurred.
One point I like to make that's slightly off the immediate subject is that the reaction of the material seen in the DSC and when heated by a torch is likely one of two or more reaction modes, where another, yet-to-be-verified mode in which the material detonates requires very specific conditions to be triggered. In either case, the very high temperatures producing iron- and silicon-rich spheroids are reached.
Originally posted by pteridinehe understands that nanosizing anything cannot result in reactions exceeding the energy of reaction
and that nano only changes the kinetics of the reaction.
Then explain to him that a carbonaceous binder burns in air and regardless of how narrow a peak you think it exhibits, it is the only explanation for the excess energy in the air which you erroneously used in your DSC.
If you still believe this stuff you are spouting, explain how nanothermite shows almost twice the energy that it should. Explain that had you run the DSC under inert, a thermitic reaction would have been seen, had it occurred, and confess that you completely screwed up the analysis.