chiuso il 3d aperto dai "tecnici" di JREF:

"This thread is no longer on topic, and has attracted a large amount of mod attention. Therefore I am closing it."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293&page=46

...aperto un 3d da Henry62 su JREF:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140115

Metamars scrive:


Originally Posted by Henry62 View Post
Hi friends,
here is avaiable an English article about the last prof. Jones' paper:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html

ciao
Henry


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

Visit the English section in my blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...h-section.html
While I'm glad that somebody is thinking about the reliability of MEK treatment as a precursor of judging elemental Al content, you have looked at this in just the opposite way that I have. You write

Quote:
If the intention of the researchers was to break up the carbon matrix of the red layer to allow analysis of the nanoparticles embedded in it, the result regarding the presence of aluminum does not appear to be compatible with this goal, since it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum.
In "normal" nano-aluminothermics, the elemental Al is encased in Al-oxide. Therefore, if the MEK cannot get past the Al oxide, it cannot do anything to the Al. So, the first question is "can MEK dissolve Al oxide"? If it cannot, we do not expect it to react with elemental Al protected behind the Al oxide encasing.

Now, let's say that Jones, et. al., are mistaken, and the Al is really in the form of Al-oxide, entirely. In this case, if the MEK can strip away the oxide, leaving elemental Al, and when the MEK is withdrawn, an oxide layer can form without igniting all of the Al, then it would be unsurprising if Jones measured elemental Al, but it was not there, to begin with.

This is why I have questioned whether or not the MEK method empoyed by Jones is foolproof, or not.

If what you say is true, however, about it being "well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum", then this is an argument for why this second option is forbidden. Thus, this would constitute an argument for why Jones, et. al., are correct. (For which they are likely thankful for your input. )


Quote:
The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive.
In light of the above, this statement is false, as written. The Al oxide forms a protective layer around the Al, in the normal spherical Al nano-aluminothermics. You are implying, I believe, that it not only protects the Al from reacting at room temperature, from it's oxidizer neighbors, but that it can also protect it from MEK. Thus, you have arrived at exactly the wrong conclusion, for the case of spherical nano-aluminothermics.

It remains to be seen what the situation is for Jones' platelets.


Quote:
This appears to be a rather important methodological error by the researchers, since such a test might yield inconsistent results depending on whether the temperatures are suitable for the triggering of chemical reactions.
Well, in light of the above, it doesn't look like an "important methodological error" to me. However, since the second scenario, for a chemistry ignoramus like myself, is not a sure thing, one does have to wonder whether or not the Jones team even thought this through. Do they even know that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum? Because it's obviously an important point, though not for the reason you are indicating. It's important because it makes their case stronger if the Al is protected by Al oxide, as it is in "normal" nano aluminothermics, and the MEK will not dissolve the Al oxide.

But, let's say that the platelets found by Jones have Silicon or SO2 as protection on one of their sides (I doubt this, but I'm not a chemist. I'm just guessing - reasonably, I hope - that silicon nano-platelets were used to deposit Al, on both sides of it, and an oxide layer formed over that. So, just like the normal, spherical Al particles in nano-aluminothermics, the Al is protected exclusively by Al oxide.) If the MEK can dissolve the SO2, then it can react with the Al.

So, this is something that needs to be checked for. In this scenario, your observation would also be important, however it would cast doubt on Jones' argument, not buttress it.


...un altro 3d aperto su JREF:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017