Talk:Nano-thermite

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914718303040 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.168.172 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Locked page

Why is this page and the thermite page locked? When will that be removed? 76.102.212.231 (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They have been the subject of inappropriate edits in connection with the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center. If you need to edit the article, please propose your changes here and we'll see if the article can be un-protected. Acroterion _(talk) 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you've posted at the WTC demolition article, I think it's safe to say that you wish to add an inappropriate tangential reference to the WTC here. This article is about the material, not about 9/11. Acroterion _(talk) 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the WTC demolition article and this article, and my additions to this article seem to have been found appropriate, as they have not been removed. 76.102.212.231, if you write down here what you like to be added or change, I'll check it and see if it can be added. (This is about nanothermite, not about where it has been found, however.)  Cs32en  19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The change I was thinking of was in the first line. It seems that rather than --

"Metastable intermolecular composites (MIC), also called super-thermites, or superthermites"

It should read --

"Metastable intermolecular composites (MIC), also called nanothermite, or superthermites"

The word "superthermite" is not more appropriate than "nanothermite", so it seems that both should appear in the first line. Thanks. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Today I noticed that "superthermite" has disappeared from the first line. In fact the term is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Shouldn't there be at least one mention, considering Superthermite redirects to this page? I was in fact looking for the meaning of that term. 77.248.117.45 (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed this to "Metastable intermolecular composites (MIC), also called nano-thermites or super-thermites, [...]". Actually, nano-thermitic materials are a only a sub-group of metastable intermolecular composites, but the whole article is about this sub-group, and we don't have content about other metastable intermolecular composites yet. I think the article should be move to nano-thermite, with the appropriate changes in the content. Don't know whether such a move is an urgent matter or not.  Cs32en  20:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with moving it to nano-thermite. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Metastable intermolecular composite can't be a simple redirect to nano-thermite, and there should be something in the article on Metastable intermolecular composite after the current content has moved to nano-thermite. It's probably better to first have a (large) section on "nano-thermite" here, and then make a sub-article on it later on.  Cs32en  14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw a documentory created by BBC in which Mark Loizeaux, Chief of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (in their own words - the greatest contr. demo. company worldwide) said: "Nanothermite does not exist. It's just a technology from 'phantasy land'. If it would exist - i would know it!" That's quite interesting - i think he should know. Of course he is wrong, but i found this extremely remarkable - shouldn't that be added to the article? (http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250 @ 36:25) --Shuun Lur (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In responce to the above comment on Mark Loizeaux saying nano-thermite does not exist.

1. It was still very new.

2. Thermite, thermate or nano thermite is not likely to be used in controlled demolitions so as he is a controlled demolitions expert he could also not have heard of it.

3. He might also not have heard about it because of myths associated to its properties. Nano thermite does not expload, nano thermite is not an explosive. Nano thermite's uses are as an incendiary or as some kind of match to trigger an actual explosive. Nothing about controlled demolition, nothing about as an explosive, nothing about its steel melting properties, nothing about using it in paint. User:Edx01

Thats probably why Loizeaux didn't know about it, because such a mythical substance really does not exist and therefore does not deserve to be in the WIKI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edx01 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above quote was from a BBC special about 9-11 Conspiracy Theories. This article about nano-thermite is not the appropriate place for such ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.153.35 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This page and the page on Thermite should be forever locked because of all of the assholes out there trying to claims that these substances were used to bring down the World Trade Center. These claims have been repeatedly debunked by numerous scientific groups including NIST, Popular Mechanics, and the 9/11 Commission.

Claims

While there is no evidence that thermite of any kind was used in the WTC collapse, it is certainly verifiable and notable that such claims have been made, and that such claims have brought thermite to the public attention. However distasteful and disreputable these claims may be, their existence in connection with this subject is sufficiently notable that mention of them should be made. Such inclusion should make clear that there is no evidence for such claims, and that such claims are a fringe viewpoint rejected by physical scientists who have studied the collapse. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether this should be mentioned at all would depend on the existence of coverage in reliable sources. __meco (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick look at some of the sources which I expect would be considered reliable . . . many more out there but I have a day job . . . 152.131.10.133 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Kevin Howley Notes

"Changing Journalistic Attitudes" Toward 9/11 Questions

March 8, 2010

"The journal article presents the findings of an examination of dust from the site of the World Trade Center. The dust sample revealed traces of nano-thermite, a highly explosive substance that has been linked to classified military research."

http://www.depauw.edu/news/?id=24962

Danish scientist: an explosive nano material found in dust from the World Trade Center

3. 3. april 2009

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_stovet_fra_world_trade_center&sl=da&tl=en

Explosive Theory

By Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html

"Apparently reinforcing this position, a team of three scientists working at technical laboratories in the United States and Denmark reported in April that analysis of dust that they say was gathered at the World Trade Center found evidence of the potent incendiary/explosive "super thermite," used by the military."

Niels Harrit on Norwegian State Television NRK 10th September 2009 1/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdjotWly-c8&feature=related

(The average number of viewers of this program is 487,000)

We All Fall Down

24 August 2009

By Eric S. Peterson

Utah Weekly

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-8858-we-all-fall-down.html

"Jones and his colleagues theorized that a military-grade explosive called nano-thermite sliced through the building supports and brought down the buildings. Recently, they bolstered their theory with analysis of a mysterious powder collected from around New York City, a powder they asserted in the April 2009 Open Chemical Physics Journal was nano-thermite."

Nano-thermite took down the WTC?

Russia Today

"Niels Harrit explains to Russia Today how evidence for nanothermite has been found in the WTC. He suggests it is possible that thermite variants may have been used as well as conventional explosives. He also refutes the “primer paint” claim."

(it's on youtube, just type it in . . .)

Germany’s gulli.com Interviews Dr. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite at the WTC

"Some time ago, gulli.com featured the news about the work of a team of independent scientists from Denmark, USA and Australia. claim to have found a substance called Nano Thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York City. Nano Thermite is an explosive, normally only used by the military, not available on the normal market. It is a relative to thermite, a substance used for welding."

http://go.gulli.com/gulli/url/Niels_Harrit_Interview-english_done_by_gulli.com.pdf

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say

By Elaine Jarvik

Deseret News

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705295677,00.html

"For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7. The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive."

"What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles."

How, exactly, are "nano-particles" different from a "fine powder"? Is it a matter of scale? This is not described, nor is a citation given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.143.214 (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hogwash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Nano-thermite article is complete hogwash, a fantasy creation, like the rest of their conspiracy theory, of the 9-11 truth movement. Having it appear WITHOUT MENTIONING ITS DISPUTED ORIGIN degrades the credibility of Wikipedia.

Certainly the term "super-thermite" is authentic, having been originated by the folks at Los Alamos National Labs -- citation number one in the article. Likewise the term MIC is valid and scientifically accepted. But using these terms to invent or attempt to legitimize the invention of fictional "nano-thermite" is not valid.

Yesterday, 1 March 2010, I attempted to correct this gross abuse of reality by editing the nano-thermite nonsense page and inserting the following:

Nano-thermite, is the term invented by the "9-11 Truth" movement and subsequently conflated with "super-thermite", a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. The discovery of aluminum oxide and iron in the WTC debris mixture, led the "Truthers" to claim, as part of their conspiracy theory, that thermite had been employed in the destruction of the twin towers. Aluminum and steel(iron) however, are so ubiquitous in modern culture that the presence of these substances in substantial quantities in the WTC debris is to be expected, and neither requires nor justifies the conclusion that these substances were produced as the result of a thermite reaction. Only a person lacking in technical expertise would conclude that aluminum oxide and iron in the debris of any burned and collapsed skyscraper would imply the presence of thermite or its use in the destruction of that structure. Adding the prefix "nano-" to fictional thermite is little more than a spicing up of the term -- a resort to "technological trendiness". "Nanotech" is the current trend in technology, and anything "nano" is all the rage. This explains the "Truthers" invention and use of the term "nanothermite".

Not surprisingly, my edit ran afoul of the "Truthers" who compiled the article, and one of them deleted my edit. I am not familiar with the politics or administrative procedures of Wikipedia and frankly not all that interested, particularly now that I've seen how whackos can stake out a territory and attempt to reinvent reality so that it conforms to their own eccentric notions. But if there is someone who reads this and cares to lend a hand, I would ask them to find a way to include my edit or its claim in the nano-thermite/nano-nonsense piece as an acknowledgment of the controversial nature of the information presented.

References

Jeff Davis, jrd1415@yahoo.com, 2 March 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.176.165.84 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term was used by an expert in the field of explosives, even though a Truther, and probably should remain in one of the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles, but not this one. Neither the claim nor the refutation should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While "nanoscale composites" or "nanoscale energetic materials" is used more widely, these names describe a larger class of substances that include nano-thermitic materials. Both "nano-thermite" and "super-thermite" are used in the scientific literature, and "nano-thermite" is probably the more prevalent term. It's also the more precise term, as "super-" can mean just about everything, while "nano-" refers to the size of the particles, which are indeed nano-scale particles. "Metastable intermolecular composites" also refers to a much wider class or substances, and does not specify the size of the particles.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

————

Quoting Jeff Davis: "Nano-thermite, is the term invented by the "9-11 Truth" movement"

The first public mention of this material by anyone within the 9/11 Truth movement was by Dr. Steven E. Jones at a conference in Boston on December 15, 2007.(ref) In his speech to the conference, Dr. Jones did not use the term "nano-thermite", but rather described his finding as a composite of "ultrafine aluminum and iron oxide". It is unlikely that anyone within the 9/11 Truth movement used the term "nano-thermite" prior to this date, as even those who were looking at the material were not yet publicly using the term. So was the term being used by anyone prior to December 2007? Here are some references:

• 2002 "Additional efforts should be undertaken to develop multifunctional missile bodies (energetic structural composites) and high-density fuels with focus on nano thermites" 2002 Assessment of the Office of Naval Research's Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program(ref, page 23)
• March 2005 "Reaction Kinetics and Thermodynamics of Nanothermite Propellants" University of Maryland(ref)
• March 2005 "Nano-thermite reactions, have shown unique properties in ignition sensitivity and deflagration" Texas Tech University(ref)
• Fall 2005 "The Effect of Nanopowder Attributes on Reaction Mechanism and Ignition Sensitivity of Nanothermites" Materials Research Society(ref)
• May 2006 "The nano-thermites initiate prior to reactant phase changes and at least 300°C below micron-thermites." Texas Tech University(ref)
• October 2007 "Development of Nanothermite Composites with Variable Electrostatic Discharge Ignition Thresholds" Timothy Foley, et al.(ref)
• July-August 2007 "Processing and Ignition Characteristics of Aluminum–Bismuth Trioxide Nanothermite System" Journal of Propulsion and Power(ref)
• Dec 2007 "Generation of fast propagating combustion and shock waves with copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite composites" University of Missouri(ref)

I stand by my assertion that the material that I reverted was "Unsourced, and almost entirely incorrect." Wildbear (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disingenuous

Since the vast majority of people stumbling across this page will be searching for information about nano-thermites in relation to the 9/11 conspiracy theories it seems disingenuous in the extreme to have no information about that topic here. I see that others have attempted to address this and their edits have been swiftly removed. Why is this? Msepryor (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Short version: because it is mi krop. Long version: Wikipedia does not care what people are searching for, but for what reliable sources tell us. Thus, you will find 9/11 conspiracy theories mentioned in its relevant article, but not here. You will find the edits removed were unsourced and the deletion in accordance with WP policies. Hope this helps. 77.10.178.55 (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably because for people in the industry who know more about these things than the average 9/11 conspiracy theorist, which is absolutely all of them, even acknowledging the suspicion is giving it undue creedence. Think of it, people scrape up some rubble from the wreckage of a pulverized bulding made of steel and aluminum (and painted with coating that had tiny particles of aluminum additive) and found small rust and aluminum particles- was that supposed to surprise them? Batvette (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you haven't read the paper, which is available here. If you have read it, please respond to its assertions on a scientific basis; not with unscientific, off-the-cuff remarks. Thank you. Wildbear (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I read it, once. I found a serious error on the first page, and didn't find it necessary to continue.

However, regardless of whether it's the paper has any validity, it's not in a peer-reviewed journal (or, in fact, a journal with a reputation for fact-checking), and so is not suitable for use in Wikipedia, unless (1) the scientists in question are recognized experts who have publications in relevant peer-reviewed journals, or (2) it is used only to support that the theory presented in the paper is, in fact, presented. This latter would require evidence that the theory is notable, for it to be mentioned in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Niels Harrit, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and lead author on the paper, has authored or co-authored more than 50 articles in peer-reviewed publications, going as far back as 1970. This list of articles can be found on this page. Steven Jones, retired professor of physics at BYU, has published over 50 peer-reviewed articles, including publications such as Nature and Scientific American. The list can be found here. I did not find references to peer-reviewed articles by Jeff Farrer; however, he appears well-qualified in his field of electron microscopy (including nanoparticle characterization), according to the reference here. These people appear to be well qualified and experienced in their respective fields, and bring a variety of appropriate skills to the task of analyzing dust for chemical composition, including the possible presence of nanoscale thermitic materials. Wildbear (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is that the paper is not a reliable source. I decline comment on Harrit's credentials, as it would require an expert in various fields of chemistry to determine whether his novel interpretations of thermate chemistry have scientific basis, but Jones's papers are not in a relevant field, unless you count 9/11 conspiracy theories as a relevant field. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; my initial statement was not for inclusion of the paper anyway. I was expressing my disapproval of Wikipedia editors making insulting and unsourced comments on scientific topics of which they appear to have little or no knowledge; which it appears they have not even attempted to review. (And no, I'm not referring to you, Arthur.) Wildbear (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

When Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theorists begin to approach the subject using science, your condescending tone will be less laughable. That paper is not peer reviewed, in fact several editors resigned in protest over its publication. Most of the people who worked on it had a pre-existing 9/11 conspiracy theory agenda. However my comment wasn't about the paper, and I stand by it. If I was in error it was for discussing the topic, not why it had no business being in this article. Batvette (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Unless the statement about nano-thermite is made in a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the article. That makes the discussion as to whether this self-published paper is a reliable source relevant. Even if it were properly sourced, it probably shouldn't be noted in this article, as WP:UNDUE weight, but the arguments are not as clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Batvette wrote:

• That paper is not peer reviewed. Please name your source for that assertion.
• in fact several editors resigned in protest over its publication. Please name these "several editors".
• painted with coating that had tiny particles of aluminum additive Please name your source for this assertion, and explain how it is relevant to the nanothermite issue.
• and found small rust and aluminum particles Please explain how this statement is relevant to the nanothermite issue.

Forgive me for demanding sourcing and explanation of relevance, but such is appropriate when discussing the content of Wikipedia articles.

Wildbear (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wildbear, that you don't recognize when someone is getting their information from RS shows your bias and ignorance. Batvette is slightly wrong on one point....it wasn't "several editors" who resigned, it was the managing editor herself who resigned her position in protest! She would not have approved its publication. It happened behind her back and she exploded very publically when she found out, and she resigned from the journal, because, as she said "No one reads it anyway". Now that's really a "fringe" journal!

That so-called "journal" is problematic in that it publishes stuff for money and you can send your "research" to them, pay them, and they'll publish it. That causes problems because peer-review isn't always done properly. There are a number of journals of that type, some are self-published or the scientists who publish are also on the board of editors, which is the case with Luc Montagnier and his scandalous pseudoscientific "research".

No, Wildbear, you need to back off and stop badgering other editors. You need to study the sources, because it appears that you're behind the curve. You are a relative newbie compared to many of your fellow editors. You're in no position to lecture them or make demands of them. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on a principle that material should be reliably sourced. Anyone can challenge assertions, including someone who is on their very first day here. What appears on talk pages is of similar importance to what appears in articles, as it can affect what will ultimately appear in an article. I just read your user page, BullRangifer, and I consider it to be well written and pertinent. An excellent quote from your user page: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford. I challenge you and/or Batvette to show me evidence that the WTC paint had "tiny particles of aluminum additive". I do not recall seeing any source indicating that this was true, and an avowed skeptic such as yourself should similarly demand sourcing when such an assertion is made. As for the peer review issue: I am not asserting that the article is peer reviewed, but Batvette is asserting that it was not. As far as I can determine, the truth is that we don't have reliable confirmation as to whether it was peer reviewed or not, and if it was, we do not know the quality of the review. You yourself said (of Bentham): "peer-review isn't always done properly"; you did not say that it is never done properly. I am not aware of any mechanism in place at Bentham which would prevent a high-quality peer review from taking place. I stand by my position that Batvette's assertion that the "paper is not peer reviewed" is improper without sourcing. Batvette states that "small rust and aluminum particles" were found, but makes no explanation, and provides no source, as to how this is relevant to a discussion about nanothermite; a sophisticated engineered material. I stand by my request for sourcing on that issue. And finally, you yourself corrected Batvette on the "several editors" assertion. I like skeptics. I encourage you to show your skepticism on this and other topics. When dubious assertions are made, demand sourcing. Wildbear (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It's a dubious assertion that a Bentham Open journal is peer-reviewed.
2. It's not a dubious assertion that the editor of that journal resigned over the fact that that paper was published without her knowledge or consent.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is what the editor of the journal has said publicly. It may or may not be true. (That, of course, does not necessarily mean that there would be no reliable sources that may have reported this as a fact, not as a statement from the editor of that journal.)  Cs32en Talk to me  01:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. But, in the absence of convincing evidence, the editor's statement should be treated with equal WP:WEIGHT as the management's statement that it is peer-reviewed. In the absence of a reliable source saying it is or isn't peer reviewed, we should neither say nor imply an opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that I have never argued for stating in a Wikipedia article that the paper was peer-reviewed. I would be fine with stating multiple statement on this matter, but I'd say that the article can do just as well do without any statement about whether the paper is peer-reviewed or not. (By the way, I'm not sure whether this talk page is the appropriate venue to discuss this point.)  Cs32en Talk to me  02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify something I said, Aluminum was in the 60's and 70's one of the most common additives used in paint, it was in powdered form and used for pigment and for its thermal properties. Common knowledge. Your paper has scientists, many with a preexisting agenda, taking samples of dust with aluminum and iron oxide particles, and based on analysis of these substances concluding it is nanothermite, which as you imply is an exotic material. However the presence of its two predominant ingredients in particulate size consistent with its appearance in nanothermite should be expected to have been prolific in a building from that era after subjected to the pulverizing destructive forces of this event,(both from aluminum's use as a paint additive and the aerosolizing of the destroyed aluminum structures and iron beams with surface rust) while the paper attempts to draw conclusions that these ingredients must have been manufactured as nanothermite and should not have been the prolific individual elements, it all too easy to utilize laboratory processes to prove what you set out to prove and only that- proper peer review would dismiss or confirm such scientific fallacy. Given who the participants were it's hard to imagine they were looking to show it wasn't nanothermite.

In a simpler form all I was saying is that the main ingredients of thermite, aluminum and rust, should have been expected to be EVERYwhere- and if you scraped up what floated 10 blocks away, most the particles are going to be in the "nano" size range. Doesn't make it an exotic substance.

Again this is far too deep into the topic, the scope of discussion here should be that people coming to this page in search of validation of conspiracy theories are in the wrong place, the article is about nanothermite, not peoples' attempted use of its existence to fill a hole in allegations of a serious crime. Batvette (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your allegation that nanothermite in the WTC dust is a "conspiracy theory" is misplaced, if all you have are your own unsubstantiated allegations to support that contention. It's a scientific issue which can (and should) be resolved scientifically. Aluminum oxide may have been (and may continue to be) a common component in paints. It is white in color, non-flammable, and has good thermal conductivity. Aluminum oxide is not the metallic aluminum which is a component of thermitic materials, and a building collapse will not transform it into such. (Sourcing required if you wish to assert otherwise.) Metallic aluminum may be present in some specialty paints. I would not expect to find metallic aluminum in paint used in building construction, as it could present a significant fire hazard. Again, sourcing is needed if you want to assert otherwise. We know that there would be aluminum and rust present in the residue of the WTC buildings. Any assertion that this random debris could assemble into the material known as nanothermite needs to be scientifically justified and sourced. And similarly, any assertion that there is no nanothermite in the dust would also need to be scientifically justified and sourced. How and where nanothermite has been used is on-topic for this article, but as always, any material added to an article needs to be properly sourced. In participating in this discussion, I am not proposing any additions to the article. I am, however, contesting unsourced assertions and allegations made on this talk page, which may ultimately affect what goes into, or is kept out of, the article. This is a scientific issue; matters of criminal allegations are not relevant here. Wildbear (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh please spare me the pompousity of hiding behing a facade of science, the editor who resigned from that journal provided a statement saying she felt they could be promoting a political agenda and you revealed yours when you said my comment was insulting- thus you are a conspiracy theorist here to promote your conspiracy theory about nanothermite. If you think my original comment needs sourcing why don't you skip on over to the article on Aluminium where it clearly states Powdered aluminium is used in paint, and in pyrotechnics such as solid rocket fuels and thermite. and complain there. As for that paper it seems that in addition to Jones, the co-author is also a conspiracy theorist who completely rejects any possibility of the official story of the collapse of the towers and won't divulge the names of the so-called referees (peer review) calling them anonymous. In light of the fact you have been strongly pushing that as credible I reject your presumed authority over what appears on this talk page. Kindly get over yourself. Batvette (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply posted on Batvette's talk page. Wildbear (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Powder" is not equivalent to nanoscale particles. Please focus on discussions that are conducive to the improvement of this article, Nano-thermite.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that's exactly what I was doing when I asserted inclusion of 9/11 CT into this article was giving it undue creedence. Apparantly someone didn't like the comment I accompanied it with concerning experts. Anyone wishing to attack me further for stating what I did, please refer to this source- yes it's a blog, but look who the person I am quoting is- the owner of the company that trained many of the dog teams of the NYPA and FEMA rescue dogs that were on the scene, and himself an explosives expert who testified in the hearings. ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite Posting as wardogs-

Finding Iron oxide and aluminum in a tower built from steel with an aluminum facade is not unexpected.. On top of that, there's nothing in this paper that's not been restated before in previous articles. This is a total recycle. They found Iron oxide (rust, the “red chips”) and Aluminum. As already noted, all elements were present in large quantities in the WTC buildings.

Finding iron oxide and aluminum from the Twin Towers is like finding water in the ocean i.e. fully expected.

While this is the first I have seen of this expert he is saying virtually the same thing regarding the paper and goes into some sad details about just how bogus that "scientific report" has been revealed to be. Attack me as you like, it does little to support putting 9/11 conspiracy theory fodder into this article. I do thank the original critic for although the researching of a a pissing contest has as usual been a colossol time sink, it did expand my knowledge and provide reinforcement to talking points I can use against post pubescent know it alls posting comments in youtube 9/11 CT videos. Oh joy. A final reference, hardly to wiki ARTICLE standards but I did find where I'd read that disputed talking point so you know I didn't make it up myself- caloriecount.about.com/nano-thermite-dust

Free aluminum (elemental) is a very common paint additive. It was probably even more commonly in use at the time the building was put together. The size of the particles found in the "nano-thermite" weren't really all that small. You can buy free aluminum in smaller particle sizes than the 90 nanometers that they found. So this stuff wasn't some extra special super secret military grade powder. Iron oxide is also a very common paint additive. The towers were stuffed to the gills in asbestos. They didn't bother trying to remove that proven dangerous stuff. Maybe the same can be said of the highly flammable paints they used. As I recall this comment sounded well informed at the time, so... sue me. Everyone happy now?Batvette (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing which discredits Batvette's arguments almost more than anything else here is his/her ignorant attempt to slander Bentham's Open Access journals. He/she uses many of the tropes used by what I call swallowers of the NIST fiction about 9/11. The fact that the Open Access model requires that the authors pay a fee for publication does not discredit the quality of the paper any more than paying fees to go to university discredits the degree at the end. There is no evidence at all that the articles are not peer-reviewed. Also the attempt to use the Editor's resignation is put into sharp relief when one looks at her claims. She didn't actually comment on the quality of the paper because, she said, it was outside her area of expertise [1]. However if one examines her CV one sees that this is simply not true. Her background in nano-materials and nano-science is stellar, and her CV notes that "According to Science Watch (July-August 2003) she is the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology with 9.64 citation per paper.". She clearly did not want to go on record attacking the quality of the paper - which tends to suggest that it was very much up to scratch- but given her background and the likely customers for her consultancy services, it is not at all surprising that she felt she had to distance herself from the publication. And it is equally not at all surprising if she was kept out of the pre-publication loop.Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the established fact that many of Betham's "peer reviewers" have no expertise in the field in question makes it clear that, although the journals may be "peer reviewed", there is no attempt at quality control. I agree that the fee for publication is not a problem. One possibility about the resigning editor's comments may be that, although she is an expert in nano-materials, the paper is actually not about real nano-materials. Another possibility is that her contract with Betham may prohibit her from commenting on the content of the papers, while allowing her to comment on the process. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to your evidence of "the established fact that many of Bentham's "peer reviewers have no expertise in the field in question". I expect you to reference the sting that was perpetrated on them. Of course we don't know how many attempts to get them to accept hoax papers it took for one to succeed. No peer-review process is impregnable. As regards your ignorant comment on quality control, it is quite possible that somebody simply accidentally indicated "accepted" instead of "rejected" in the appropriate database field entry. That is far more likely than there being no peer-review. If there was no peer-review, one would expect rather more stories of manifestly rubbish papers being published by Bentham.

As regards Pileni. She flat out lied about her expertise. Given the fact of that expertise, isn't it odd that she didn't say that nano-thermite was not a real nano-material as you ignorantly suggest? As indicated, the reason why she couldn't is that it clearly is and she has a stellar professional reputation to uphold. I can cite many peer-reviewed papers as well as articles from well before referencing nano-thermite and nano-structures as explosives in general. Particularly from the [ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. For instance, from the end of the financial year report of the laboratory from 1999 - Nanostructure High Explosives using sol-gel chemistry (page 181). That would be the name of an ongoing program during the 90s. You really think she didn't know about nano-thermite? As for your last bit. That just shows your desperation. Why would her contract forbid her from criticising the contents of papers, but not the process? Seems to me that they amount to the same thing, except the latter casts doubt on every paper they publish.Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this is rather beside the point. It's not just the formality affiliation or qualification that makes this a bad paper; it's that they failed to do basic things which people are taught to do back in middle and elementary school science classes. They failed to deal with either control issue: they didn't test the composition of real nano-thermite, and they failed to account for the possibility that other substances at the site might produce the analysis they obtained. Other people, people with more formal qualifications (but again, really getting decent grades in primary school science is enough) have pointed out these problems. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing amuses me so much as evidence that swallowers of the NIST fiction clearly have not read the paper that they are attacking so vehemently, but are regurgitating claims that the so-called debunking sites have made in the security that their audience aren't actually interested enough to verify what they say. Anyone actually reading the paper will see that the scientists compared the results they obtained with the published results found in various papers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for nano-composites which of course they cited. A perfectly reasonable approach. Note they didn't claim it was specifically nano-thermite, but that it was a "thermitic substance". As regards possible alternatives, they made detailed comparisons with paint, which it clearly wasn't. Of course,it could all be a pack of lies, but there is one thing. The case of the sceptics needs to withstand examination to get the full impartial investigation they want. All the debunkers have to do is try to persuade people not to look. Lies help them, not the sceptics.Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I have read the report, and I see that, while they discuss the possibility of paint, they didn't actually analyze any paint, much less address the issue of the specs for the paint that was used in the WTC. The same goes for their discussion of nano-thermite or for that matter thermitic material in general. And all the NIST paper says (yes, I read those too, there are a couple of them in fact) is that they did not analyze the material because they could not be assured of its provenance, with a little sides discussion of the unlikeliness of such an attempt anyway. Personally I look at the pictures they supply, and they clearly do show paint chips. But at any rate, regardless of whether one could find material in the dust that had some thermitic behavior, that still gets us nowhere near the thesis that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC, or (as you say) whether such material was even present. One heavily criticized study does not evidence make. Mangoe (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It is apparent that you hadn't read the paper, or you simply would not have claimed that they didn't consider alternatives. You may have skimmed it since I provided it to you. But frankly, given your statement that you looked at the pictures and they "clearly show paint chips", I don't think you have the juice to begin to understand the paper. They did perform tests on paint, but more to the point, the behaviour of the chips under the various tests rules out paint, because, if paint ignited at around 500C and resulted in a chemical reaction hot enough to produce molten iron (1400C) it could not be used anywhere where people could be which could catch fire. Not homes. Not offices. So yes, the presence of nano-scale thermitic substances does suggest something sinister. There isn't an innocent explanation for its presence. As regards your "heavily criticised study", criticism by people who haven't read it don't count. Feel free to produce a critique by someone actually qualified to do so and one might be more impressed. Pileni would have been very good, but as has already been discussed, she lied about her expertise to avoid discussing the merits of the paper. As regards your claims about NIST, as they explained in their FAQ, they didn't investigate whether there was any evidence of explosives because, paraphrasing, "there was no evidence of explosives". Besides the obvious logic issues, they were obliged by law to investigate the presence of explosives in any unexplained fire. The obvious explanation, at least to me, was that they knew that nothing would stop a positive result identifying the presence of the residues of explosives leaking out Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand my criticism, and given that I've repeated it twice now and you've misconstrued it both times, I'm unwilling to go around for another pass. Your statement about paints is untrue; in fact you can see a explosion of paint dust here. I've read the NIST FAQ again and it still doesn't say what you claim; but I've also been over the high points of the actual reports. There is another reason to favor the paint hypothesis which I haven't brought up but which should come to you if you think it through. I've spent enough time on this and don't care to spend any more. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the only evidence that I have "misconstrued" your criticism is your claim which you are very conveniently unwilling to substantiate. I didn't say that paint dust can't be made to explode. What I said is that it can't be ignited by a temperature within the reach of domestic/office fires, initiating a chemical reaction which itself generates temperatures sufficient to melt steel (1538C). The material they said they found could and therefore they simply were not talking about any sort of paint likely to be permitted for use in any domestic/office situation. Section 7 of the paper is devoted to a comparison with the properties of paint. And the NIST FAQ bears out exactly as I summarised. In answering the direct question in q12

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST responds:

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

In q2, it states

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

In other words, my paraphrase was perfectly accurate. They didn't test for residues of explosives because they "knew" there weren't any. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They didn't test for explosives or thermites because (a) there's no need to appeal to these materials to explain what happened, (b) there's no real secondary evidence of use of these materials, (c) putting sufficient quantities in the building was extremely unlikely to be successfully concealed, and (d) there's nothing that can be conclusively tested in any case. That burning paint on walls couldn't have brought down the towers is irrelevant since nobody claims that it did; that powdered paint is extremely inflammable is highly relevant to the testing of a substance which had to have contained such material if it is what it was claimed to be. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

a) You gather the available evidence before you decide what it shows. The fact is that they have been utterly unable to credibly explain what happened. Hence the continued scepticism b) You only rely on secondary evidence when primary evidence is unobtainable. c) A favourite of those who don't really want to talk about the science. Here is a hypothetical scenario showing how it could have been done with only a few people being aware exactly what was going on. Presumably, bright people who are that way inclined can think of other ways. d) Of course there is something that could be tested. The scientists who wrote the "Active Thermitic material" paper have proved it. They could have also tested the steel. You keep going on about paint as if there is any evidence that it was paint. You can't paint steel if a hydrocarbon based fire will cause it to initiate a chemical reaction n that will melt the steel. Nano-thermites and similar can be applied like paint if so rendered by the sol-gel process but it isn't paint.Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the so-called scientists making posts here on wikipedia seeking to decide for the public what is and isn't correct, the fact remains that a simple google search of "nanothermite" brings up the 9/11 demolition hypothesis. Even if this were claims that UFOs dropped nanothermite on the planet earth, if the most popular searches by far came up about the "UFO controversy", this should not be scrubbed from wikipedia. It's a fact of public awareness that one group has put a spotlight on nanothermite and that it was essentially unknown to the publc -- as well as many scientists -- before this, and that many many people are learning about it for the first time because of this public controversy. GreenIn2010 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Google is not what guides content on Wikipedia: the article should not be a coatrack for conspiracy theorists, obscuring the material's actual and documented usage. No "so-called scientist" has produced peer-reviewed research substantiating the conspiracy theory. We have an article that discusses this in context, as you know; that's where the material belongs.

Not true. Anders Bjorkman took part in a , peer-reviewed exchange in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no link to that "context" yet, so scrubbing it from here amounts to attempts to censor information that particular editors don't agree with. GreenIn2010 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Then deal with it in its appropriate place, and please stop using an article on a material to advance a fringe theory. Acroterion (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion. We already have ample coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories in their relevant articles. This is unambiguous coatracking. Also, some sock checking might be in order here if edit warring continues. causa sui (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A new study - verification of findings in "WTC nanothermite" paper of Harrit et al

Hi, as regards the "nanothermite paper" of Harrit et al, I would like to add info you have perhaps missed. In autumn 2011, debaters on a skeptical web JREF (including me) arranged a new study, conducted by an American forensic expert James Millette, in which new analyses of these red/gray chips from WTC dust were performed. And in February 2012, the most of the results were published here:

In short: in his samples of WTC dust, James Millette found (among others) the same kind of bilayered red/gray chips as chips (a) to (d) described in the paper of Harrit et al. He analyzed them by several methods including SEM-EDS, TEM, FTIR and others and found that stacking hexagonal platelets ca 1 micron in size, which were declared to be elemental aluminum by Harrit et al, are particles of kaolinite (as was expected in JREF already four years ago).

The main conclusion of James Millette was: "The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."

These chips are simply layers of WTC red epoxy primer paint, containing iron oxide and kaolinite, which are attached to rusted steel flakes. More specifically, we in JREF are pretty sure that they are particles of red primer employed on WTC1/WTC2 floor trusses, since its composition, found in NIST report NCSTAR 1-6b, Appendix B, p. 155, corresponds very well to the analyses both of Harrit et al and Millette. But, this is just my remark, since James Millette himself did not mention this very plausible hypothesis in his report.Ivan Kminek (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The James Millette study seems to have pretty well laid the nanothermite hypothesis to rest among those researching 9/11. I haven't seen much talk about it in a long time, although there are still a very small number of stragglers reluctant to let go and accept the Millette findings. Which is okay, in science you can never conduct too much examination of something; although the chances of proving Millette wrong and the chips to be nanothermite appear to be very low at this time. Wildbear (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Title of "Uses" section

As I understand it, nano-thermite is being studied in labs right now, and it is not currently marketed for any purpose, so has no actual use at this time. It is clear that there are potential uses once it moves out of the lab and into the marketplace. I therefore propose, in order to avoid misleading readers, that this section be renamed "Potential Uses" or "Uses under Investigation" or the like. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Measuring with two measures?

In addition to the above discussion: I stumbled on this page after reading about Mythbusters and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite. There the hypothesis concerning a possible contribution of the paint on the Hindenburg to its destruction is discussed, despite a lack of a scientific article on it (although a test by Mythbusters did give support). Apparently this was mentioned without any problems or discussions. I missed mention about a similar hypothesis concerning the Twin towers but then I found the link to this article, and so I clicked on the linked to see it.

However, the similar hypothesis concerning a possible contribution by the paint on the Twin towers is conspicuously absent in both articles, despite scientific articles on it. Arguably, also mention about the paint of the Hindenburg is most appropriate for this article, because also the Hindenburg paint contained nano particles. The fact that the paint hypothesis is used for conspiracy theories cannot be an excuse for not mentioning it at all in the "hazards" section; only emotions can hinder us from reporting it. It even gives food to conspiracy theorists if we do not at least briefly report it here (a one-liner with a link to one of the papers would be sufficient). But perhaps people have to wait half a century before making mention of that hypothesis? Harald88 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with conspiracy theorists: they are so deeply convinced that their tenuous theories are true that any opposition to them must be part of the conspiracy. I don't think that ought to be given weight when we consider what to do with the articles since everything that happens is just another confirmation. The point about the Hindenburg is more interesting. causa sui (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that the paint on the Hindenburg is more interesting than the paint (and whatever) on the twin towers? Usually the more recent event is considered more interesting. The main issue that I perceive is the emotional aspect - the Hindenburg doesn't cause emotion-based reactions anymore. Harald88 (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Up until recently it was not possible to create nanoparticles nor to verify them nor any reason to create them as we didn't understand the way that nano-sized particles behaved differently from standard micro sized particles. There is no reason to believe that paint on the Hindenberg was nano-formulated. Also with respect to WTC, if by "scientific articles" you mean the one by Jones (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf) -- it is not considered a reliable source, even by Wikipedia, much less by the scientific community. Bad "science." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Bentham_Open — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Hindenburg paint hypothesis considered to stem from a more reliable source? And sorry, you're misinformed: though lack of citation is a bad sign, there is no reliable opinion poll about what "the scientific community" thinks (there even isn't a single scientific community!), and the way certain ancient paints look is nowadays explained by the presence of nanoparticles. The fact that the people who made those paints didn't know it doesn't matter. See for example: http://www.news.qut.edu.au/cgi-bin/WebObjects/News.woa/wa/goNewsPage?newsEventID=19841 Harald88 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

PS thanks for the links, I now notice that that "Wikipedia" has no definite opinion about that article other than that it apparently doesn't reflect mainstream opinion; moreover it contains pertinent evidence of peer review: "Received: August 12, 2008 Revised: February 10, 2009 Accepted: February 13, 2009". Harald88 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I read you to be making two arguments in your original comments: (1) You made a point about double-standards, that we include speculation about paint on the Hindenburg, but not speculation about thermite in the WTC collapses, and (2) you made an argument that we should include conspiracy theory coatracking because excluding it "feeds" the paranoia of conspiracy theorists. I am saying that #1 is more worthy of intellectual investigation than #2. causa sui (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The hypotheses are very similar, related to this same topic; even so much that the one logically follows from the other. The hypothesis that the Hindenburg's paint acted like thermite is thought to be worth mentioning, while the similar hypothesis that the WTC also contained stuff (paint and who knows what) that acted like thermite is thought not to be worth mentioning. A reasonable mention of something so obvious and straightforward (which is not conspiracy theory) does not advance conspiracy theories; to the contrary it's the hiding of the obvious that incites conspiracy suspicions ("Why do people want to shovel it under the carpet? It must be a conspiracy!"). Anyway, I'm confident that it will be mentioned (under Hazards might be appropriate) when the emotional load has faded; we'll see when. ;-)

Harald88 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

MIC .not. = nano-thermite

It's been mentioned above: the article, as it is, mixes talk of nano-thermite with talk of MIC. While nano-thermite may be a MIC (I am not even sure that this is always the case), there certainly are MICs that are not nano-thermites. This article needs a serious clean-up. Several statements are irrelevant, several are plain wrong with regard to the lemma. --Emaraite (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Energy density

Whenever Al is the fuel of nano-thermite, the energy density is seriously reduced compared to conventional thermite on account of Al particles forming an oxide layer several nano-meters thick. With Al-particles being themselves down in the nano-range, this means that a significant percentage of the Al is passivated and only dead weight. That in turn reduces the maximum attainable energy density. For example: In theory, ideal stoichiometric Fe2O3-Al thermite has an energy density of 3.9 kJ/g. Conventional thermite in practice may have 2-3 kJ/g. Tillotson and LLNL, who prepared nano-thermite by sol-gel methods, reported measured energy density for his nano-thermite of only 1.5 kJ/g. (T.M. Tillotson, Gash, Simpson, Hrubesh, Satcher, Poco: "Nanostructured Energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies". Journal of non-crystalline solids 285 (2001) pp. 338-345) --Emaraite (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a reliable source reference handy, but I was under the impression that for a practical nano-thermite, it is necessary to coat the aluminum with a thin layer of a passivating material, such as silicon dioxide, in order to preserve the aluminum's energy density. Otherwise, it would be as you say; a significant portion of the aluminum would oxidize and become dead weight. Silicon dioxide may make a favorable passivating material, as it has a lower melting point, boiling point, and density than aluminum oxide; giving it better properties for energy release and energy density than oxidized aluminum. XEDS images of a material alleged to be nano-thermite here (page 16, pdf) show an exact correspondence of the locations of aluminum platelets and silicon; supporting the notion that the aluminum is passivated with silicon. If I can find the time I'll try to dig for further references; others may want to do the same. Wildbear (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Followup: a search with the terms "nanothermite" and "passivation" quickly reveals that passivation is a topic widely discussed in association with nanothermite. A paper which describes the topic well can be found here (J. Puszynski: "Processing and characterization of aluminum-based nanothermites", Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2009, Volume 96, Number 3, pp. 677-685). The document states that aluminum nanoparticles will react rapidly with water in the environment (i.e. atmospheric humidity). The document describes the use of silane Z-6124 to coat the aluminum nanoparticles. Silane Z-6124 is a hydrophobic liquid silicon compound, (CH3O)3Si (ref). The document provides graphs indicating the longevity of the coated and uncoated metallic aluminum under conditions of high humidity. Wildbear (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if such a coating were applied, it would still reduce the theoretical maximum possible energy density of thermite. So, for example a Al+Fe2O3, with a theoretic maximum density of just under 4 kJ/g, will alway have an actual energy density lower than that value, which renders it far from being "highly energetical". I changed the first sentence of the article accordingly: n-t is NOT "characterized" by being highly energetic. It is characterized by consisting of small particles and interesting reaction kinetics. Yes, one could add other substances that increase the energy density, but that is not a characteristic of n-t, you could do the same with any kind of thermite or indeed with any kind of powder at all. --Emaraite (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The claim that nanoenergetic materials are more energetic seems baseless to me. The energy would seem clearly a function of mass- decreased size could increase the reaction rate and thus power of reactions, but not energy. If anything, the energy would be less due to less change in entropy during the reaction, i.e. the lattice/bond energy of the compounds would be much less per mass and hence less change in entropy and less energetic. At minimum, there seems no source for such claim so it should be removed in my opinion. Δζ (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

page name

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914718303040 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.168.172 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC) "Nano-thermite" doesn't seem to be the best name for this article.

• not used in the full text of this ref current ref #1 - doesn't use any general term (discusses "nano-AL" and the like)
• not used in this ref (current ref #2) - it uses "nanoenergetic composites" and "nanoscale energetic materials" and "nanostructured composite energetic materials"
• not used in MIT Tech Review ref (current ref #3) -it discusses "nanoenergentics" and "Nano-Al" and "nanometals"
• noted used in [ Market report] (current ref #4), which uses "Nano-structured and engineered materials" and "nanoscale energetic materials" and "Nanoenergetic materials"
• "nano thermite" is used in the 2002 Navy assessment (current ref #5)
• "nano thermite" is used in the title of the conference abstract (current ref #6); body of the abstract uses "Nanocomposite energetic materials", "nano-based thermites"
• not used in [http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007im_em/ABriefs/Schaefer.pdf presentation (current ref #7); it uses "nano-AL"
• not used in MIC paper (current ref #8), it mentions "The novel properties associated with nanostructure materials have resulted in the development of thermite-like formulations of energetic materials" and that is as general as it gets
• not used in burn rate paper (current ref #9); it mentions "Reactive Nanocomposite Powders", "reactive nanocomposites ", etc
• not used in survey article from 1996 (current ref #10) - doesn't mention "nano" at all
• don't know what is in chem world ref (current #11) as there is nothing there....

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sentence in Ignition heading is ambiguous and wrong in either case.

"...MICs can be also added to high explosives including aluminium powders to increase overall combustion rate, acting as a burn rate modifier.[9]...' . This sentence is ambiguous: 'aluminum powders' might be included as 'MICs' or 'high explosives'. . In either interpretation, the sentence is wrong. The linked article does not support either interpretation.

Aluminum powder is neither a 'metastable intermolecular composite' (as it is only one element) nor is it a high explosive (it does not detonate, it burns at less than the speed of sound in the material). Furthermore, if the sentence were intended to suggest adding aluminum to high explosives might increase the combustion rate, the exact opposite is the case. . BGriffin (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)BGriffin

@BGriffin: I've reworded to better reflect the source.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)