Backyard Nanothermite
Mostly interesting for that little auto-stirring doohickey, which is pretty cool. Obvious question for the Waterboy: Did the nanothermite burn for weeks, creating large pools of molten iron?
posted by Pat @ 10:16 PM
40 comments
40 Comments:
They hav been telling us for years that this was high tech super powerful explosives made in some secret lab. Now it turns out any idiot can make out in the parking lot of their apartment building.
Ever notice that the Truthers insist that there was "molten steel" but then show us pictures of microscopic samples under a microscope?
If you have to use a microscope to prove something, usually it means there wasn't a "large pond of molten steel" present.
"Typical solvents"
And how does he know this is the case?
Anybody remember "Backyard Wrestling"? When I saw Backyard Nanothermite, that was the first thing that came to mind: untrained idiots imitating something they saw on TV and distributing homemade videos of it.
Preer reviewed my ass.
All this video proves is how unreasonable thermite would be to used in a super-secret demolition jobby job.
But blew the lid off!
Then again he could have done that with hot chocolate mix like we did in boy scouts...
Does this mean we need to look for chocolate microspheres now?
In other news, Wired has a great article about the FBI's Power Point presentation on understanding Islam used as late as 2009:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/fbi-islam-101-guide/#more-53126
Before you can say conspiracy you have to prove a level of competence of the FBI to understand the threat/non-threat.
I wonder: why didn't the cup melt?
I haven't watched the video yet, but I'll guess that the cup didn't melt because heat goes where ΔT is the greatest. That's why Jonathan Cole's steel-jacketed thermate cartridges are able to concentrate their destructive power to a narrow slot.
I'd like to see how copper-jacketed thermate cartridges work out.
So you haven't seen the video, but you guess the cup didn't melt because the heat went the wrong way?
I guess without looking that heat goes where ΔT is the greatest.
That's kind of how the laws of thermodydamics work.
Shut up, goat fucker. Always remember that in your case, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
The beaker didn't "melt" because Ryan only made a few grams of "nanothermite," so it's not surprising that the beaker suffered little or no damage. To give some perspective, "nanothermite"'s energy change is very large, e.g., ΔH f = -847.6 kJ/mol, (1600°C, 2900°F). On the other hand, methane's ΔH f = -818 kJ/mol. Additionally, Ryan performed the reaction in a low form, Griffin-type quartz beaker. Quartz (SiO2, silicon dioxide) has a high melting point (1670 °C [3038 °F] to 1713 °C [3115.4 °F], ΔH f = -910.86 kcal/mole) and is virtually insoluble (only HF- [hydrogen fluoride] can attack silicon dioxide's crystal structure).
Stick to pseudo-science, Captain Crackpot.
UtterFail lards on sciency windowdressing again. I bet he puts on a labcoat and goggles when he copies and pastes just for the frisson of it all.
So do you dispute the fact that heat goes where ΔT is the greatest?
And have you figured out yet why NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?
Translation from GoatFuckerSpeak:
"...I'm such an idiot that I don't understand a word GB wrote. So in order to save face, I'll feign righteous indignation, pretend that I know what I'm talking about, and bash one of my idiotic and irrelevant straw men because when you're exposed as an idiot, it's a good idea to CHANGE THE SUBJECT."
Pathetic.
The goat fucker squeals, "...So do you dispute the fact that heat goes where ΔT is the greatest?"
No, I'm saying your explanation is idiotic, and, as per your standard operating procedure, typically erroneous.
The beaker didn't "melt" or suffer damage because the melting point of quartz (silicon dioxide) (1670 °C [3038 °F] to 1713 °C [3115.4 °F]) is higher than the reaction temperature of thermite (1600°C [2900°F]).
Learn to read, cretin.
I haven't...
I'll guess...
I'd like to see...
I guess...
I bet...
To understand Brian, read between the lines.
wow...thats one of the most pathetic dodges i've seen in a while brian.
UtterFail, I was responding to the assertion that the reaction was in a "cup".
Your pedantic treatise on the melting point of SiO2 was not needed, given that you don't dispute the fact that heat goes where ΔT is the greatest.
Haven't you figured out yet why NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?
Translation from GoatFuckerSpeak:
"...I don't understand thermodynamics or general chemistry, so I'll pretend that I know what I'm talking about, feign righteous indignation, and bash one of my idiotic and irrelevant straw men because when you're exposed as an idiot, it's a good idea to CHANGE THE SUBJECT."
Actually douche-bag, the reaction was performed in a Griffin-type quartz beaker, not a "cup." And the quartz beaker sank the lion's share of the heat produced by the thermitic reaction. After all, the molten iron and solid aluminum oxide are resting in the bottom of the quartz beaker. Glass and Pyrex can't survive 1600 °C, only quartz has a sufficiently high boiling point to stand up to a thermitic reaction. Thus, your "heat goes where ΔT is the greatest" malarkey is just a lot of misleading, irrelevant claptrap, and does NOT explain why the beaker survived the reaction intact.
Did you ever wonder what your life would have been like if you had actually had enough oxygen at birth and finished college?
Pathetic.
UtterFail, I was responding to the assertion that the reaction was in a "cup".
As I made clear, I haven't watched the video.
Why don't you write me a treatise about the melting point of copper to prove that copper-jacketed shaped charges won't work?
But first please explain why NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?
Translation from GoatFuckerSpeak:
"...I just had my ass handed to me because I'm an ignorant, lying douche-bag who doesn't know the difference between an Erlenmeyer flask and a beaker--to say nothing of the difference between Pyrex and quartz. In fact, I'm such an incompetent, lying shit stain, that it's a good thing I failed general chemistry or I may have injured or killed myself in the lab. And since my "heat goes where ΔT is the greatest" assertion was exposed by GB as idiotic claptrap, I'll feign righteous indignation, pretend that I know what I'm talking about, and bash one of my idiotic and irrelevant straw men because when you're exposed as an idiot, it's a good idea to CHANGE THE SUBJECT."
Pathetic.
Yo goat fucker!
Here's your chance to redeem yourself (never mind that you're beyond redemption). After all, a guy with your stellar "academic background" and "research skills" should have no problem explaining Ryan's thought process.
Ryan's "nanothermite" demonstration requires a fluoroelastomer. As Ryan points out in the video, "nanothermite" from the Lawrence-Livermore laboratory employs fluorinated silane (FH3Si) as a fluoroelastomer. Ryan, however, substituted VITON for the fluorinated silane (FH3Si).
Question: Why did Ryan substitute VITON for fluorinated silane (FH3Si)?
I don't know. I haven't watched the video. And unlike you, I have no need to try to impress people with pointless invocation of arcane language. Only the feeble-minded will be impressed.
Excuse me, you're giving me a headache. I'm going to go take some acetylsalicylic acid. And then I'm going down to the grocery store to get some C2H5OH and engage in a bit of antidiuretic hormone suppression.
The video doesn't explain why Ryan substituted VITON for fluorinated silane (FH3Si)--you idiot. But the answer is obvious enough for anyone with a background in undergraduate chemistry--which explains why you can't answer the question. After all, you're a college dropout who wears women's underwear.
Since you're obviously clueless, I'll give you a hint: Silane is the silicone analogue of methane.
(And no, drinking alcohol [ethanol] and popping aspirin won't help you, goat trucker.)
So one more time: Why did Ryan substitute VITON for fluorinated silane (FH3Si)?
I don't know. I haven't watched the video. It looks to me as if you are trying to create a phony contradiction and raise doubts about a meaningless issue.
Your chemi-babble impresses only the feeble-minded, like WAQo.
Translation from GoatFuckerSpeak:
"...I have no idea why Ryan substituted VITON for fluorinated silane, and watching Ryan's video doesn't provide the answer to GB's question. Therefore, it's time to employ my tried-and-tested misdirection and obfuscation tactics. After all, I'm an uneducated fraud and a charlatan who pollutes SLC with insane lies and troofer propaganda, not someone who's expected to be competent in the physical sciences. As a result, I'll feign righteous indignation, pretend that I know what I'm talking about, insult my intellectual superior without justification, and bash one of my idiotic and irrelevant straw men. Because when you're exposed as an incompetent fool and a gasbag, it's a good idea to CHANGE THE SUBJECT."
Pathetic.
Another epic FAIL.
I haven't watched the video. Is there any reason I should?
if you don't want to watch the video snug bug, then why do you even bother to post comments?
I guess without looking
You are remarkably willing to offer opinions on something you've never seen, Good.
I was trying to offer some general insight related to your your question.
Jonn Wood hasn't asked you or anyone else a question in this thread, snug.
Typical shit job of trying to spin a cover for your idiocy.
I was talking to TH, obviously.
Do YOU dispute the proposition that heat goes where ΔT is the greatest?
James B, you've found a false contradiction. Yes, any idiot can make thermite in his garage, and there are any number of youtubes showing people grinding up beercans in blenders as evidence of that.
The red/gray chips Dr. Harrit studied seem to show a sophisticated nanoscale structure. The rhomboidal iron crystals may be hematite of geological origin but the stereotyped platelets of aluminum are more difficult to explain.
You can make a rocket in your backyard, and you can even make a big model rocket in your backyard. But a NASA rocket is a different animal.
Your chemi-babble impresses only the feeble-minded, like WAQo.
LOL, so says the one without a shred of evidnce for anything he says.
Whenever a debunker says "not one shred of evidence" he's always lying.
Whenever a debunker says "not one shred of evidence" he's always lying.
Hey, i can't help it that you idiot Truthers can't stand the words: Not one shred of evidence.
If you're too scared of those words, then it's the truth that you don't have one single solitary shred of evidence to prove that 9/11 was an "Inside Job".
WAQo, demanding proof before there's even been an investigation is disingenuous.
Imagine a child custody case. One of the children disappears, the husband claims that his crazy wife has kidnapped her and taken her out of the state. The crazy wife responds: "Leave me alone. You have not a shred of proof that I killed our daughter."
You're that crazy wife. You want to sidestep issues of accountability, transparency, and legal process by demanding unrealistic proofs of stupid propositions. The "inside job" goalpost is your own unrealistic standard. I'm not out to prove inside job. I'm out to get an honest investigation to try to help restore transparency in government and integrity in media.
WAQo, demanding proof before there's even been an investigation is disingenuous.
Brian, obviously you've never been to court where the preciding judge has asked either side of the arguement to show him and the jury evidence. Without evidence you have no proof of anything. But I know you like to come here daily for your dose of reality, though you deny reailty altogether.
Imagine a child custody case. One of the children disappears, the husband claims that his crazy wife has kidnapped her and taken her out of the state. The crazy wife responds: "Leave me alone. You have not a shred of proof that I killed our daughter."
Ahhh the old "innocent until proven guilty" concept. You just think people are "guilty" whether or not there's evidence to find them innocent.
You're that crazy wife. You want to sidestep issues of accountability, transparency, and legal process by demanding unrealistic proofs of stupid propositions. The "inside job" goalpost is your own unrealistic standard. I'm not out to prove inside job. I'm out to get an honest investigation to try to help restore transparency in government and integrity in media.
Here we go with you squealing! Don't you have a life outside cyberspace?
WAQo, you have to have an investigation before you can go to court. You are demanding proof before there's even been a proper investigation. If you were a police detective you'd walk into a murder crime scene and in two minutes you'd say: "Well, we can't prove it was a murder. Occam's razor says he killed himself. Case closed."
You're not getting the point with the analogy. When the issue is child custody you're arguing on behalf of the suspected kidnapper "Prove she murdered the child or go away".
The "squealing" argument is just a rehash of the tired old "whine" argument and just as dumb.
WAQo, you have to have an investigation before you can go to court.
And you have to have evidence in order to go to court.
You are demanding proof before there's even been a proper investigation.
Like I said, you need evidnce first you dimwit.
If you were a police detective you'd walk into a murder crime scene and in two minutes you'd say: "Well, we can't prove it was a murder. Occam's razor says he killed himself. Case closed."
Squeal!
You're not getting the point with the analogy.
You're not getting the point either shit 4 brains.
The "squealing" argument is just a rehash of the tired old "whine" argument and just as dumb.
Squeal!
Post a Comment
<< Home