Thursday, March 13, 2014

Chris Mohr: Matching DSC Peaks

Updated March 15, 2014. (As previously reviewed in Part One of our Harrit vs Millette essay, Chris Mohr originally offered the "the peaks don´t match" theory in his July 2011 YouTube video. NOTE: Rev. Mohr has retracted this theory, see the update at the end of this article.)

On February 9, 2014, Chris Mohr repeated his "the peaks don´t match" YouTube argument on the JREF 9/11 forum, stating that:
"We all know the DSC images comparing and superimposing known nanothermite to the red-grey chips, how they are off by over 100 degrees C and off by a factor of two to five re energy release."
JREF´s front-man is still arguing in the above quote that Dr. Harrit´s chips are not nano-thermite because their DSC peaks are not mirror-images of the DSC peak of the compared nano-thermite. This is peculiar since Mr. Talboo and I went over this topic especially for Rev. Mohr in the first part of our essay covering the Harrit vs. Millette debate, and he has confirmed that he has read it:
Rev. Mohr states on August 11, 2013: "Sunstealer you're mentioned extensively in this article. I'd be interested in any comments you may have about their comments on your assertions."
Again on August 18, 2013: "I'm going through the ANETA.ORG article, as you may guess.
 The article ( states that Chris Mohr:
"...assumes that Harrit´s samples cannot be super-thermite because the DSC curve is not identical to this one particular Tillotson sample. But Mohr does not understand that this figure is only meant to show that Harrit´s chips match the sharp DSC peak of a known super-thermite. And as Farrer emphasized in the interview, paint does not even come close to matching this performance. Mohr does not understand either that different compositions and size-variations of the ingredients alter the ignition sensitivity, the ignition-point, the energy density and the power of the product: Harrit´s chips are not the same variation as Tillotsons´s sample so they should not perform the same way"
Maybe we should have stated more clearly that Harrit et al. only meant to demonstrate that their chips match the sharpness of the peak given by the known super-thermite sample, meaning it is as narrow as that peak, which implies a rate of energy release that is at least as fast as Tillotson´s sample.

Harrit et al. never implied that Tillotson´s material represents all formulations of nano-thermite; in fact they take care to note that one of the known benefits of sol-gel nano-thermite (super-thermite) is that one can easily make different formulations to tailor the performance characteristics to suit different applications. The "different compositions" link directs the reader to a paper that explains how different formulations and particle sizes change the ignition temperature and energy release of the material. Smaller particles = lower ignition point and more power. Every variation yields a different DSC graph.

The chief difference of Harrit´s material compared to Tillotson´s is that it has a substantial organic matrix, which increases the energy and power - this is one of the optional benefits the sol-gel method provides. Harrit also tested his chips in air which will vastly increase the energy output. As we say in our article, Tillotson has confirmed this:
 "Oystein forgets that he has another article with a quote from one of the developers of these energetic sol-gel materials (co-author of the paper cited in figure 29 above) confirming that burning the organic matrix in air will "greatly add to the energy release.""
Bottom line: The large energy output/high power at a low ignition point is not mysterious. There are countless different variations of super-thermite and no two variations are expected to have matching DSC peaks. The "peaks don´t match" argument is non-sense.

March 15, 2014 Update: Rev. Mohr retracted the "peaks don´t match" theory today, in response to this article. Note that Mohr states that he continues to "shrug his shoulders" because the sharp DSC peak still does not identify the material as a nano-thermite, which is true. But as we explained in Part Two of the essay referred to in this article, it is actually the post-ignition residue that confirms the material is thermitic, because it leaves iron spheres, not iron-oxide spheres. The significance of this evidence is reviewed yet again in the following article which was written especially for Chris Mohr: