Page 25 of 31 FirstFirst ... 151819202122232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 313 to 325 of 396
  1. #313
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    All you want to know about explosives

    What a high order explosive is and what a low order explosive is. Note that low order explosives can still create a substantial amount of energy, but it does not create the shock wave that a high order explosive would.

    Low order explosives COULD conceivably be used in certain demo situations where the material isn't too hard or is porous, such as a mining company wishing to split or crumble rocks in order to reach a more valuable material inside or further in or down.

    Hardened steel would require high order explosives.

    Low-order explosives (LE) create a subsonic explosion [below 3,300 feet per second] and lack HE's over-pressurization wave. Examples of LE include pipe bombs, gunpowder, and most pure petroleum-based bombs such as Molotov cocktails or aircraft improvised as guided missiles.

    A High Explosive (HE) is a compound or mixture which, when initiated, is capable of sustaining a detonation shockwave to produce a powerful blast effect. A detonation is the powerful explosive effect caused by the propagation of a high-speed shockwave through a high explosive compound or mixture. During the process of detonation, the high explosive is largely decomposed into hot, rapidly expanding gas.

    The most important single property in rating an explosive is detonation velocity, which may be expressed for either confined or un-confined conditions. It is the speed at which the detonation wave travels through the explosive. Since explosives in boreholes are confined to some degree, the confined value is the more significant. Most manufacturers, however, measure the detonation velocity in an unconfined column of explosive 1- i/4 in. in diameter. The detonation velocity of an explosive is dependent on the density, ingredients, particle size, charge diameter, and degree of confinement. Decreased particle size, increased charge diameter, and increased confinement all tend to increase the detonation velocity. Unconfined velocities are generally 70 to 80 percent of confined velocities.

    The confined detonation velocity of commercial explosives varies from 4,000 to 25,000 fps. With cartridge explosives the confined velocity is seldom attained. Some explosives and blasting agents are sensitive to diameter changes. As diameter is reduced, the velocity is reduced until at some critical diameter, propagation is no longer assured and misfires are likely.

    Relative effectiveness factor (R.E. factor) is a measurement of an explosive's power for military demolitions purposes. It measures the detonating velocity relative to that of TNT, which has an R.E. factor of 1.00. TNT equivalent is a measure of the energy released from the detonation of a nuclear weapon, or from the explosion of a given quantity of fissionable material, in terms of the amount of TNT (trinitrotoluene) which could release the same amount of energy when exploded. The twelve-kiloton Hiroshima atomic bomb had had a blast effect alone equivalent to some twenty-five million pounds of TNT-that's million.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  2. #314
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE? & THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

    T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

    INTRODUCTION

    This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

    Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)

    Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. "It's not the "nano" that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive."

    Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

    EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

    Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

    "Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail."

    "I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." (2)

    Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

    Later in the paper Jones says

    ""Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust." (2)

    And further down he says

    "Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data." (2)

    From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says

    "Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: "High energy density and extremely powerful" and "can be cast to shape" http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore NatT Lab, 2000)"

    I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the "thermitic nanocomposite energetic material" referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive.

    In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.

    COMPARING NANOTHERMITE REACTION VELOCITIES TO EXPLOSIVE VELOCITIES

    The explanation given for claiming that nanothermite is an explosive goes something like this. The thermite reaction is

    Fe203 + 2A1 — > 2Fe + Al203

    By making the particle sizes of the reactants smaller, down to the nanosize (approximately 30 nm to 60 nm) and mixing them well, the reaction takes place so fast that it becomes explosive. Let's look at some data from technical papers where the reaction velocity of nanothermites were measured and compare these values with the reaction velocities of explosives to see if it seems reasonable to call nanothermite an explosive.

    A paper by Spitzer et al. published in the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 2010 presents a variety of research on energetic nano-materials. (5) In one section they deal with nano-thermites made with tungsten trioxide (W03) and aluminum nano-particles. They experimented with different particle sizes, but they highlight the mixture made with the smallest nano-particles of both W03 and Al for its impressive performance.

    "W03/A1 nano-thermites, which contain only nano-particles have an impressive reactivity. The fireball generated by the deflagration is so hot that a slamming due to overpressure is heard. The combustion rate can reach 7.3 m/s. This value is extremely high compared to classical energetic materials." (5)

    A paper by Clapsaddle et al. published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2005 also contains some reaction rate data for nanothermite composed of nano-particles of Fe203 and aluminum. (6) In Figure 2. in the paper the combustion velocity is plotted versus percent Si02 content. The highest values were obtained at zero percent Si02, so those are the only values I am going to cite. The nanothermite produced by a sol gel process had the highest velocity of 40.5 m/s, compared to the one produced by a simple mixing of the nano-particles with a combustion velocity of 8.8 m/s. (6)

    Compare the above combustion velocities of nanothermite with the detonation velocities of high explosives HMX and RDX of 9,100 m/s and 8,750 m/s, respectively, and they are dwarfed by the velocities of the conventional high explosives. Steven Jones appears to be calling the nanothermite reaction explosive only in the sense that it is reacting much faster than regular thermite, but not in the sense that it is anywhere near as explosive as a conventional high explosive. By failing to make this distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911 truth movement into believing that nanothermite is a super explosive, possibly even more powerful than conventional high explosives.

    From the above, it is quite clear that the "nano" in nanothermite does not make the thermite explosive anywhere near the degree of a high explosive like RDX.

    In addition to saying that nano-izing thermite makes it explosive, I have heard Jones say that adding organics to nanothermite also makes it explosive. This issue is explored in the next section.

    CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO MAKE A NANOTHERMITE EXPLOSIVE?

    First I would like to quote an entire two paragraph section, with its title, from the LLNL paper. (6)

    "Gas generating Al-Fe203-Si03/2-R (R = -(CH2)2(CF2)7CF3) nanocomposites. "

    "One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects. Typically, work can be done by a rapidly produced gas that is released during the energetic reaction. Towards this end, the silica phase of sol-gel prepared oxidizers, in addition to modifying the burning velocities, has also been used to incorporate organic functionality that will decompose and generate gas upon ignition of the energetic composite [3-4,7]. Phenomenological burn observations of these materials indicate that the Al-Fe203-Si03/2-R nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant amounts of gas. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the ignition of an energetic nanocomposite oxidizer mixed with 2 urn aluminum metal without (left) and with (middle) organic functionalization. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite without organic functionalization exhibits rapid ignition and emission of light and heat. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite with organic functionalization also exhibits these characteristics, but it also exhibits hot particle ejection due to the production of gas upon ignition. This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties."

    "These materials were also mixed with nanometer aluminum. Figure 5 (right) shows a still image of the ignition of the Al-Fe203-Si03/2-R nanocomposite mixed with 40 nm aluminum. This composite is much more reactive than the same oxidizing phase mixed with 2 urn aluminum metal; the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle ejection. This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and the size scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nanoscale, the material is observed to react much more quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of the reactants, as discussed above." (6)

    Note that in the title of the section quoted above, the symbol R is used to represent the organic functionality added to the nanothermite. In this case it is a 10 carbon atom straight chain functional group fully saturated, with hydrogen atoms on the first two carbon atoms of the chain and fluorine atoms on all the rest. I have not explored the precise energy level of this functional group, but I can tell by just looking at it that it will consume energy (from the thermite reaction) in order to break it down into multiple smaller molecules in order to get the expanding gases necessary to make it behave as explained. This is not an efficient way to make an explosive. I wouldn't expect the explosiveness to be anywhere near that of a conventional high explosive, and the qualitative description given in the paper certainly does not seem to support it being a true explosive, but unfortunately the paper does not give data on what its reaction rate would be. Wouldn't it be better if the organic added to the nanothermite was a molecule that, instead of consuming energy to drive its decomposition, actually produces energy as it decomposes? Such a molecule could be the RDX molecule. This leads to the quoted two-paragraph section below from the Spitzer et al. paper. (5)

    "3. Gas generating nano-thermites "

    "Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties. The idea developed at ISL is to solidify explosives in porous inorganic matrixes described previously. Gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) are prepared by mixing Cr203/RDX and Mn02/RDX materials with aluminium nano-particles. The combustion mechanisms of these nano-thermites were investigated by DSC and high-speed video. In the case of Cr203-based GGNT, the decomposition of RDX induces the expansion and the fragmentation of the oxide matrix. The resulting Cr203 nano-particles, which are preheated by the combustion of the explosive, react violently with aluminium nano-particles. In the case of Mn02-based GGNT, the mechanism of combustion is somewhat different because the decomposition of RDX induces the melting of oxide particles. The droplets of molten Mn02 react with aluminium nano-particles."

    "The non-confined combustion of GGNT is rather slow (1-11 cm/s) in comparison with other nano-thermites presented here. However, in a confined environment their combustion rate is expected to be significantly higher. Indeed, the thermal decomposition of GGNT produces gaseous species, which contribute to increase the pressure and the combustion rate in accordance with the Vieille's law. The thermal decomposition of miscellaneous GGNT compositions was studied in a closed vessel equipped with a pressure gauge. The GGNT were fired with a laser beam through a quartz window. The pressure signal was recorded along time for each material (Fig. 7). The pressure released by the combustion of a GGNT is directly linked to the RDX content of the nano-composite used to elaborate it. Depending on its formulation, a GGNT can provide a pressure ranging from a few bars to nearly three thousand bars." (5)

    I am surprised by the low number given for the reaction velocity, only 1-11 cm/s. Also, it does not say what percent RDX resulted in this low velocity. Maybe it was a very low content of RDX. But the main point I want to make about the above quoted section does not depend on this velocity anyway. The key point is that you have to blend explosives (like RDX) into nanothermite to make it an explosive ("give them blasting properties").

    WHAT NANOTHERMITE ADVOCATES NEED TO DO TO CLARIFY THEIR THEORY

    Steven E. Jones and other nanothermite theory advocates should be upfront and truthful about these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory that need further fleshing out. It is not good enough to just say "explosive nanothermite" over and over again without explaining exactly what is meant by the term. If they think that incendiary thermite or incendiary nanothermite or low explosive nanothermite or high explosive nanothermite were used in cutter-charges, or some combination, then they should say so. The lack of or degree of explosiveness claimed, whether incendiary, low explosive, or high explosive, is key, because the type of cutter-charge used would depend on this. Once they clarify what they mean by their use of the term "nanothermite", then they should start describing the quantities of thermite that would have been necessary for the destruction. Only by adding these details to their theory can it be fairly evaluated against alternative theories of the destruction of the buildings of the World Trade Center for the benefit of the wider 9/11 truth community.

    THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

    Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe203) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $ 100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented, then the donation amount will be $550. Only one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911 Truth, and it will be awarded based upon the highest detonation velocity that can be documented. Those submitting entries grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no longer than one page) write-up, with the peer reviewed research cited, and at least scanned copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s) and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to DetonationVelocity@att.net by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011.

    1 May 2011

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR: T. Mark Hightower began his awakening in January 2004 after having stumbled upon the Serendipity web site and learning that the explosive demolition theory for WTC destruction was a more probable explanation than was the official story.

    http://www.serendipity.li/

    He has worked as an engineer for nearly 30 years, initially in the chemical industry, then in the space program, and currently in the environmental field. He is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). His research on 9/11 is an exercise of his Constitutional rights as a private citizen and in no way represents his employer or the professional societies of which he is a member.

    ----------------------------------

    I await your bullet point refutation. *snicker*

    A pity none of your experts accepted the nano-thermite challenge! Why is that?
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  3. #315
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,433
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyTree View Post
    Yes I did you damned moron. Look at post #264, many of the claims in the video were proven wrong on film to see with your own eyes and clearly listed in my post yet you ignored it because you got your a$$ kicked for the upteenth time. If thermite doesn't explode what is happening at 10:48 in the video? What happens when you take combustible material and put it into a sealed container and ignite it? Where does the energy go? I guess with thermite it goes away to the magic place where your idiot logic works. Some pundit told you that thermite doesn't explode and you ate it right up like a good little boy, so much so that you can see it explode and still say its impossible LOL. The sky is blue no matter how many times you say its red. By the way, would you like to talk chemistry??? I wouldn't mind destroying you on some more topics
    Liberty Tree,

    Check your PM box please.

  4. #316
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,651
    Lot of apple pie loving chevrolet driving all american union labor in those towers...... Im surpirised the wind hadnt blown them over before they crumbled.

    Frozen pizza is ready.....I may be back to add more to this later.
    As Seen On You Tube (usually under someone elses name)

  5. #317
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,651
    Im back, but I have nothing more to add to my above statement at this time.

    thank you
    As Seen On You Tube (usually under someone elses name)

  6. #318
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Yeah don't get banned now, Liberty ... this is just getting good!

    You wanted chemistry you got it, sonny!

    Let's have at it!

    Watson, the game is afoot!

  7. #319
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,004
    Quote Originally Posted by corny View Post
    Im back, but I have nothing more to add to my above statement at this time.

    thank you
    Yeah corny, that is great, your a real hoot. Didn't realize you have ever added anything to this forum anyhow. Good man come back anytime for some spam filler here. Just kidding couldn't resist. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them."
    Barry Goldwater

  8. #320
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Now, now Glenn. Let us not forget the fact that Corny was the first among us to suggest that Liberty must have taken a massive head injury.

    We've got to give him credit for that, at least!

  9. #321
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,004
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Now, now Glenn. Let us not forget the fact that Corny was the first among us to suggest that Liberty must have taken a massive head injury.

    We've got to give him credit for that, at least!
    True there scrooge, got to cut him some slack for that. I did say he was a "good man". Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them."
    Barry Goldwater

  10. #322
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,147
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Didn't realize you have ever added anything to this forum anyhow.
    Wow. That's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Maybe you could point to a post where you added something to this thread?

  11. #323
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Wow. That's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Maybe you could point to a post where you added something to this thread?
    Well well we now have a 911 truther (ie. space cadet) who believes Al Qaeda was not responsible for 911 but it was an inside job casting aspersions on my posts on this thread. I believe you are in a different league here.

    I would classify your posts on this thread as boarding on absurdity and you are critiquing by posts. This is comical to the extreme IMO. Corny's posts criticized them as I have are far more relevant than yours here. My apologies to corny for jumping him when you and Liberty have your posts on this forum. Gees. Give me a break. Thank you, thank you very much
    "I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."
    "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them."
    Barry Goldwater

  12. #324
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,147
    Quote Originally Posted by glennac View Post
    Well well we now have a 911 truther (ie. space cadet) who believes Al Qaeda was not responsible for 911 but it was an inside job casting aspersions on my posts on this thread. I believe you are in a different league here.

    I would classify your posts on this thread as boarding on absurdity and you are critiquing by posts. This is comical to the extreme IMO. Corny's posts criticized them as I have are far more relevant than yours here. My apologies to corny for jumping him when you and Liberty have your posts on this forum. Gees. Give me a break. Thank you, thank you very much
    Thanks for telling me what I believe… another insightful post.

    For the record, Al Qaeda did the legwork. That is obvious. What is also obvious is we will never get a full investigation of this event or of others who knew and were possibly involved. Throwing Al Qaeda to the American public is all they need to feed their appetite. Case closed for the Kool-Aid Drinkers.

  13. #325
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Well you could start with an investigation of all the false presentations I spoke of earlier.

    Again, when you present plainly doctored evidence like a photoshopped photo, doesn't that mean you are doing the same thing as those you warn us to fear?
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

Page 25 of 31 FirstFirst ... 151819202122232425262728293031 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event