Nanothermite vs. Thermite/Thermate for Cutting Thick Steel

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I was answering @BPD in this thread, where he posted a comment. And @BPD was replying to @Alienentity who was discussing beams being hurled 600 feet. And now @Mick West has also gone off topic.

Five off topic posts - but guess which of those posts will now be deleted.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was answering @BPD in this thread, where he posted a comment. And @BPD was replying to @Alienentity who was discussing beams being hurled 600 feet. And now @Mick West has also gone off topic.

Five off topic posts - but guess which of those posts will now be deleted.

This one, as I've no idea what you are talking about. If it's the falling steel, I redirected that to another thread.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
But thats the very point that has been made many times already.

You can.

Nanothermite can be made to be either an incendiary or a propellant or an explosive dependant upon the formulation. Check the wiki entry :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

You misinterprate me. I was trying to say that you can't have both at the same time. Do you think it was used on WTC as a kick ass explosive that sent steel 600 feet away or do you think it was used for cutting steel plus a small explosive charge placed nearby throwing the column to the side? Again, you can't have both.
 
You misinterprate me. I was trying to say that you can't have both at the same time. Do you think it was used on WTC as a kick ass explosive that sent stell 600 feet away or do you think it was used for cutting stell plus a small explosive charge placed nearby throwing the column to the side? Again, you can't have both.
Why can't you have both? The evidence suggests more than one type of thermite was used ranging from an incendiary to an 'explosive' or pulverising agent. You can change the particle size of reactants to control the speed.
What better way to pulverise the wtc without making too much of a bang eh?.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why can't you have both? The evidence suggests more than one type of thermite was used ranging from an incendiary to an 'explosive' or pulverising agent. You can change the particle size of reactants to control the speed.
What better way to pulverise the wtc without making too much of a bang eh?.


And are either of those better than regular thermate at cutting steel? Or better than C4 for blowing things up?

Have either of those ever been used, for anything?
 
If nanothermite produced by sol gel process is 40.5 m/s and nano particles without 8.8 m/s its highly likely therefore that thermite(normal) is much lower.Thermite as already shown if directed in a single direction can pulverise concrete vaporise metals.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
You misinterprate me. I was trying to say that you can't have both at the same time. Do you think it was used on WTC as a kick ass explosive that sent steel 600 feet away or do you think it was used for cutting steel plus a small explosive charge placed nearby throwing the column to the side? Again, you can't have both.

I have no idea what force was available to accelerate huge multi ton steel sections from rest to 70mph inside a yard or so, and then hurl them hundreds of feet sideways to embed them into adjacent buildings. I do know that gravity can't do that though. Similarly, I have no idea what caused the core of the building to suddenly lose all support, cause all the trusses to be pulled down centrally and thus pull the outer walls inwards.

But as I said before, it seems that its possible to engineer nano particles of energetic material to be either an explosive, propellant, or incendiary. You seem to hold the impression that only one type can possibly be utilised at any one time. And that is why we are challenging your statement that - " You can't have both" - because its clearly wrong.

I would suggest that if you don't believe this that you should open the link posted below, which reveals that a patent existed well before 2001 to manufacture a multilayered energetic material that can be engineered to provide almost any charactaristic required for any particular, and specific, task.

Incidentally, the photograph of the material shown in that patent description is remarkably similar to Harrit's 'chips'.

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-07-06/us-patent-5505799-looks-manual-911-explosive
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
And are either of those better than regular thermate at cutting steel? Or better than C4 for blowing things up? Have either of those ever been used, for anything?

As has been stated before, its a well known fact that the smaller the particle size used to manufacture a thermetic mix then the 'better' it performs. Of course if your aim is to slowly heat the work piece to its melting point, then ordinary thermite made with coarse grains would be 'better'. This highlights the need to specify what the objective is before deciding what would be 'best' to achieve that. Equally, if the objective is to 'blow things up' - but to do that without breaking every window within half a mile - then probably C4 would not be your first choice. A trade off to choose the 'best' for the desired objective decides which is 'best'.

As to your constant question about whether 'either has ever been used, for anything', my answer would have to be that its highly likely. Multi million dollars have been spent developing these materials and its inconcievable that they have never 'used them , for anything' during the testing and development period. Its also illogical to consider that they would have proceeded with the large development costs if the products being developed proved to be 'worse' than thermite that I can make in my garage.

As such, to address this thread title, if thermite can be persuaded to cut thick steel, and if nanothermite is a 'better' engineered product, then ergo it has to be also caapable of cutting the same steel that the ordinary thermite managed, possibly 'better'.
 
Only 2 things really matter when we are talking about explosives of any type, VOD and Brisance.

VOD is the Velocity of Detonation. The VOD is quiet simply how fast the material burns or more specifically how fast the detonation/combustion travels thru the source material. If we accept that NT is capable of producing VODs of 8.8 m/s to 40.5 m/s (though i am not sure where we got those numbers but more on that later) then we are not even discussing an explosive at all. High Explosives used in controled demolition start at about 2,000 m/s.

Brisance is the "shattering effect" of an explosive and is rated by the detonation pressure of an explosive. High Det Pressure is correlative of high detonation velocity. And since we are talking about VERY low VOD we are talking about negligible Det Pressure.

If nanothermite produced by sol gel process is 40.5 m/s and nano particles without 8.8 m/s its highly likely therefore that thermite(normal) is much lower.Thermite as already shown if directed in a single direction can pulverise concrete vaporise metals.

You can Not demonstrate the thermal ability of any material against metal by considering its effects on concrete because when of spalling (the tendency of concrete to break and shatter under thermal load)

For NT to to have been used it must have a high enough VOD in high enough quantity to increase the target material to either the failure point (in case of a target material under load) or to the melting point (the point in which the material changes from a solid to a liquid). If you are mearly bringing the target material to the melting point then in order to cut the material you still have to have a Brisance or Pressure Source to move the material from position.

Now lets look at the Actual VOD of NT:

Attached is the report on the propagation characteristics of Nano Thermite as we can see in the report the VOD (cited in the report as Velocity of Propagation ) is between 400 m/s and 1,000 m/s nd that report finds that the report finds that VOD decreases with density. The report also shows :

which precludes the addition of any carrier agent such as paint which would alter that ratio.

even further the report states:

This gives great implication in devices employed in such a fashion as plasma cutters where gas mixtures are utilized independently of solid source materials but lowers the productivity of a source material required to use solids.

It is my opinion that while there is future practical application for NT the very basis thats makes it what it is , is also self limiting in any large scale clandestine use or in any large scale overt use as a practical method of Structural controlled demolition or even the rapid failure of large dense metals.

(edited to include the report cited with apologies )
 

Attachments

  • NT Report.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 622
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
It is my opinion that while there is future practical application for NT the very basis thats makes it what it is , is also self limiting in any large scale clandestine use or in any large scale overt use as a practical method of Structural controlled demolition or even the rapid failure of large dense metals.

Thank you for that valued opinion. I'm sure that Livermore Labs will be devastated that they have spent all those years developing this material to learn that they have been largely wasting their time.
 
My apologies i bear the responsibility of forgetting the associated file with my statements. Attached now is the report I referenced .
"Thank you for that valued opinion. I'm sure that Livermore Labs will be devastated that they have spent all those years developing this material to learn that they have been largely wasting their time."
They havent wasted their time at all. NT can and will have some great and amazing uses , just not controlled demolition.

I'm not sure where you got your figures but the flame velocities vary from 10s to 1000s m/s, and the pressure between a few to 1000s of atmospheres.
These are highly tunable. Just change:
  • Method/uniformity of mixing
  • Particle size/distribution
  • Choice of materials/stoichiometry
  • Mixture density
  • Other techniques like electrostatic assembly
  • Custom core-shell oxidizers
http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdfs/2012_C&F_Reactive Sintering.pdf
Yes they are highly tunable and the study you posted is a wonderful study , however it bears little in the way of proof for NT as a cutting source material since this study is about Sintering also known as exsplosive welding. Sintering is a process used to join materials together not cut or rip them apart.
 

Attachments

  • NT Report.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 430

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Right. I referenced that article for the numbers and info on how nano thermite is tunable.

Reactive sintering occurs quickly and it seems it may be as important in determining reaction time as particle size itself, since sintering alters morphology of the oxidizer. The article seems to suggest there can be architectures designed to improve interfacial contact of the constituents during sintering to adjust reaction time further.
Anyway, all off topic, but interesting stuff to think about
 
Right. I referenced that article for the numbers and info on how nano thermite is tunable.

Reactive sintering occurs quickly and it seems it may be as important in determining reaction time as particle size itself, since sintering alters morphology of the oxidizer. The article seems to suggest there can be architectures designed to improve interfacial contact of the constituents during sintering to adjust reaction time further.
Anyway, all off topic, but interesting stuff to think about
I think it is quite on topic because you assisted me in showing that from 2 different reports we still see a max VOD of about 1,000 m/s and from your own source we see ther opinion as compared to Thermite :
I think you have very clearly answered the primary question that has been presented and repeated : No NT is not better as a cutting or demolition base substance than regular thermite.

To elaborate further the methodology involved in sintering requires very low Brisance to prevent damaging the Target Material. For a study to conclude that NT is a good candidate for sintering automatically removes it from the demolition game.

"I referenced that article for the numbers and info on how nano thermite is tunable."

It is tunable by variation of the oxidizer compound, but that is not rellevent because the NT movement claims that Iron Oxide was the oxidizer.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Right. I referenced that article for the numbers and info on how nano thermite is tunable.

Reactive sintering occurs quickly and it seems it may be as important in determining reaction time as particle size itself, since sintering alters morphology of the oxidizer. The article seems to suggest there can be architectures designed to improve interfacial contact of the constituents during sintering to adjust reaction time further.
Anyway, all off topic, but interesting stuff to think about

It's entirely on topic, as the nature of the reaction determines how useful it is for cutting steel.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As such, to address this thread title, if thermite can be persuaded to cut thick steel, and if nanothermite is a 'better' engineered product, then ergo it has to be also caapable of cutting the same steel that the ordinary thermite managed, possibly 'better'.

See, that's the logical fallacy underlying the entire argument. "Better" does not imply "better at all things".

I refer you back to the example of a .50 vs a 9mm. the .50 is better for long distance sniping and taking out light-armoured vehicles. It is NOT better for close quarters engagement, or shooting people underwater, or hunting small game.

Exactly in what way would the thermite need to be "better" in order to cut through thick steel?

What's the thickest steel ever cut through by thermite (not assisted with pressurized oxygen)? How would you improve upon that?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
"Better" does not imply "better at all things". Exactly in what way would the thermite need to be "better" in order to cut through thick steel?

You are just repeating what I already said. Its essential to specify the task before choosing the tool. And if the task is to penetrate a light armoured vehicle at a range of 300 metres then you would not choose a 9mm Beretta. We have already discussed the energy potential of various materials, weight for weight, and agreed that candlewax in that measure is 'better' than thermite. But candlewax would not be your choice if the task was to weld two railway lines together. A bank robber wishing to burn through a safe door covertly would not choose C4 but select a thermic lance for that task. Better depends on the task.

But, once the choice of 'tool' has been made you would then refine that choice by selecting the best version. If it involved manually sawing through some mild steel rod held in a vice the choice of saw would first be narrowed down to a hacksaw rather than a tenon saw. You spot two in your bag. One is a 6" handy saw and the other a full size job. Which to choose ? 6" or 12" ? -- Thermite or nanothermite ? Both will do the job but one will do it better.

To move to your question though. You are still fixated on the need to cut thick steel - as if it has to replicate C4 or RDX and instantaneously cut steel. You like to mention logical fallacies. You have decided that instantly cutting steel is the only way to cause it to fail in its job. And having decided that you now demand to be told how a 'tool' that isn't the best for that task can complete your own fixed idea on how that task must be done.

Many times you have now been told that if the task was to cause a column to fail rapidly, but to do that with minimal noise, then cutting instantly using RDX or C4 would not be 'best' way forward. A combination of thermetic action and a small concussive charge would have to be considered. And then, like the choosing of hacksaw process, the options of standard garage made thermite, or vastly superior nanthermite that can be specifically engineered for the particular task, would lead to the latter being selected as being 'better'.

The problem here is that the title of the thread makes an assumption, that forces a debate like angels dancing on pinheads.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
But as I said before, it seems that its possible to engineer nano particles of energetic material to be either an explosive, propellant, or incendiary. You seem to hold the impression that only one type can possibly be utilised at any one time. And that is why we are challenging your statement that - " You can't have both" - because its clearly wrong.
Why can't you have both? The evidence suggests more than one type of thermite was used ranging from an incendiary to an 'explosive' or pulverising agent. You can change the particle size of reactants to control the speed.
What better way to pulverise the wtc without making too much of a bang eh?.
You are just repeating what I already said. Its essential to specify the task before choosing the tool.
I agree with you both that we can have both and even use C4 or anything else at the same time, but I also agree that you need to specify the task before choosing the tool.

The task is to demolish three buildings, guaranteeing that debris of at least one of the first two hit the third one so that I have a good excuse to explode the charges for the last one.

The challenge is to use cutting NT to compromise the structure of the WTCs 1 and 2 and also use exploding NT to throw debris at WTC 7.

For WTC 7 I need to use only cutting NT, as there is no need to explode anything.

Are these the tasks and tools? Did I miss anything? I think those are the reasons to use both.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
When Jon Cole first produced his video of thermitic material cutting steel, the 911 debunking community didn't like it because they had long since maintained that such material had not been proven to have this capability (even though it had). Now, Mick and others are trying to say that the same type of thermitic material, made in a more precise way, does not have this capability. I have no doubt that if a video of this material was produced cutting steel, the goalposts would once again be moved.
@Mick West - just to be totally clear. Do you believe that nanothermite can or cannot cut steel?
 
You are just repeating what I already said. Its essential to specify the task before choosing the tool. And if the task is to penetrate a light armoured vehicle at a range of 300 metres then you would not choose a 9mm Beretta. We have already discussed the energy potential of various materials, weight for weight, and agreed that candlewax in that measure is 'better' than thermite. But candlewax would not be your choice if the task was to weld two railway lines together. A bank robber wishing to burn through a safe door covertly would not choose C4 but select a thermic lance for that task. Better depends on the task.

But, once the choice of 'tool' has been made you would then refine that choice by selecting the best version. If it involved manually sawing through some mild steel rod held in a vice the choice of saw would first be narrowed down to a hacksaw rather than a tenon saw. You spot two in your bag. One is a 6" handy saw and the other a full size job. Which to choose ? 6" or 12" ? -- Thermite or nanothermite ? Both will do the job but one will do it better.

To move to your question though. You are still fixated on the need to cut thick steel - as if it has to replicate C4 or RDX and instantaneously cut steel. You like to mention logical fallacies. You have decided that instantly cutting steel is the only way to cause it to fail in its job. And having decided that you now demand to be told how a 'tool' that isn't the best for that task can complete your own fixed idea on how that task must be done.

Many times you have now been told that if the task was to cause a column to fail rapidly, but to do that with minimal noise, then cutting instantly using RDX or C4 would not be 'best' way forward. A combination of thermetic action and a small concussive charge would have to be considered. And then, like the choosing of hacksaw process, the options of standard garage made thermite, or vastly superior nanthermite that can be specifically engineered for the particular task, would lead to the latter being selected as being 'better'.

The problem here is that the title of the thread makes an assumption, that forces a debate like angels dancing on pinheads.

Let me see if i understand you premiss correctly: Since Steel fails under heat the best method of clandestinely cuasing a building to fall is to use an experimental source material with no data functional to its use in the employed method, in a fashion contradictory to results acquired in the lab, engineered in one of the least reactive forms (iron oxide), and it must be considered for use because steel fails under heat ?

here is my premiss: Steel fails under heat. If that loaded steel has been predeformed by an impact there is no need for a concussive charge once that steel has been heated.

Rather than disprove the NIST assertations I personally feel that you have reinforced them.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
The task is to demolish three buildings, guaranteeing that debris of at least one of the first two hit the third one so that I have a good excuse to explode the charges for the last one. The challenge is to use cutting NT to compromise the structure of the WTCs 1 and 2 and also use exploding NT to throw debris at WTC 7. Are these the tasks and tools? Did I miss anything?

As you say, once the task has been defined the range of 'tools' to complete that can be selected. This thread is specifically about the many varieties of thermite being capable of cutting thick steel. As I personally don't subscribe to the theory, posed by the thread subject, that cutting thick steel was required to be achieved by thermetic action, I find it a bit academic to be discussing that possibility. I would find it much more plausible for thermetic action to be used to weaken connections, or even just destroy the bolts holding a connection together, and then a small concussive charge used to throw that connection apart.

At risk of going off topic, but as you have asked here, my own opinion is that you have defined the task incorrectly. What if the aim, apart from causing the USA to rise in anger and demand retribution, was to clear the WTC site completely ready for redevelopment. Seven buildings to be either destroyed or so badly damaged that they would be junked later. #1,#2 and #7 needed assistance beyond plane strikes. #6 is the subject of another thread but is mysterious. #3,#4,#5 would sustain debris damage and wern't a problem. My own opinion is that #7 was a F''k'p. I think that it was meant to be demolished under the cloud of #1 nearby so that when the dust settled it would be assumed that the collapse of #1 caused #7 to drop too. It would make no sense to me for a plan to be to bring #7 down in full view hours later. Barry Jennings testified that there were huge explosions inside #7 before either tower fell down.

So, whilst your overall summary about the use of a mixed bag of 'tools' to fit the task is accurate I would have to disagree with your task assessment.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
When Jon Cole first produced his video of thermitic material cutting steel, the 911 debunking community didn't like it because they had long since maintained that such material had not been proven to have this capability (even though it had). Now, Mick and others are trying to say that the same type of thermitic material, made in a more precise way, does not have this capability. I have no doubt that if a video of this material was produced cutting steel, the goalposts would once again be moved.
@Mick West - just to be totally clear. Do you believe that nanothermite can or cannot cut steel?

Of course it can. Scissors can cut steel. The question is how much "better" it is.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do you think it would be any less effective?

It depends which parameters are "improved". If you make it react 1000x as fast, then it will just vanish in a flash.

Is a plane flying at 500mph better than one at 300mph? Only if you can control it, it does not shake the passengers to death, and the fuel usage is comparable. "better" is a very vague term.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It depends which parameters are "improved". If you make it react 1000x as fast, then it will just vanish in a flash.

Is a plane flying at 500mph better than one at 300mph? Only if you can control it, it does not shake the passengers to death, and the fuel usage is comparable. "better" is a very vague term.
So it could be "improved" in order to be more effective? Straight question there btw.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So do you agree that nanothermite can be improved in order to be more effective at cutting steel than standard themate. Another straight question btw.

I don't know. It depends on what parameters differ between the thermate and the nano-thermite.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I don't know. It depends on what parameters differ between the thermate and the nano-thermite.
So, do you agree that if the correct parameters are differed, nanothermite can indeed be more effective at cutting steel than regular thermate? Yet another straight question btw.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Its a long time since I saw such evasion and denial over a simple question. @gerry - I would suggest that getting @Mick West to admit that a hightech material developed at enormous cost can possible be an improvement on a product I can make in my garage, will not be possible.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Its a long time since I saw such evasion and denial over a simple question. @gerry - I would suggest that getting @Mick West to admit that a hightech material developed at enormous cost can possible be an improvement on a product I can make in my garage, will not be possible.
I agree. Debate over Mick. Your inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer is very telling.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
What is "not straight" about "I don't know"?

IMO it is a completely honest answer where it is true, and should be used more often rather than inviting stories to make up a gap in knowledge such as many seem wont to do!
 

Vec

New Member
I agree the debate is over because all we have is a claim that nano thermite is better at cutting steel and there is zero evidence presented here that it is, in fact, better at cutting steel.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I asked "So do you agree that nanothermite can be improved in order to be more effective at cutting steel than standard themate."
I don't know.
THAT is the closest to a straight answer that has been given. However, @Mick West felt a need to try to qualify that for some reason by adding.........

It depends on what parameters differ between the thermate and the nano-thermite.
This addition is an admission that Mick accepts that there are indeed parameters that can be differed between the two. And depending on which ones are differed, the properties of the substance will be changed. There is therefor an admission there that nanothermite can indeed be 'tuned' to be made more effective at performing a particular task. What will now follow is merely semantics and back tracking.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It is no such admission - that is you "putting words into his mouth".

It is nothing more than what it states - yes there are things that can be changed, whether nanothermite can be "tuned" for the purpose you propose depends upon what parameters there are available.

Unless you can identify such parameters what Mick has said amounts to nothing more than "I don't know - maybe, depends what can be changed"

You saying it means anything else is wishful thinking on your part.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
[quote="gerrycan, post: 84549, member: 2536"This addition is an admission that Mick accepts that there are indeed parameters that can be differed between the two. And depending on which ones are differed, the properties of the substance will be changed. There is therefor an admission there that nanothermite can indeed be 'tuned' to be made more effective at performing a particular task. What will now follow is merely semantics and back tracking.[/quote]

Erm, what?

Go back to the very first post in the thread. Read the entire thread.

Obviously nano-thermite is different to thermate and thermite.

Some known aspects of it (burning faster, and at higher temperatures, it's stability) could make it actually better at certain things, like being used in a fuse or detonator.

However it's not at all clear if the various parameters that can be tweaked with nanothermite include making it significantly better than thermate for melting thick steel.

It can be "tuned", of course. It can be tuned to be better for one task or another compared to different formulations of nanothermite.

But can it be tuned to be significantly better than thermate at cutting thick steel. That's the question.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Some known aspects of it (burning faster, and at higher temperatures, it's stability) could make it actually better at certain things, like being used in a fuse or detonator.
Or a synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN. (which is from the same article you are quoting) What might these be used for? Not airbag ignition or welding.

However it's not at all clear if the various parameters that can be tweaked with nanothermite include making it significantly better than thermate for melting thick steel.
Seems pretty clear to me that mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules can give the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well.

It can be "tuned", of course. It can be tuned to be better for one task or another compared to different formulations of nanothermite.
AND REGULAR THERMATE. I think we all know what sulphor does to steel Mick, or do you want to do the semantic back tracking thing some more?

But can it be tuned to be significantly better than thermate at cutting thick steel. That's the question.
Well, given that someone just said that it could be "tuned to be better for one task or another" I would have thought the answer would be obvious to anyone who is unbiased and openly debating the issue.
 

Related Articles

Top