Re: More anatase myth killing. Re: More anatase

I.E_Johansson wrote:
Someone tried to say that I abuse myself

Yes. You've done it again, below. When the question is quantitative, you really have to read the number thingies.

Kjetil read more than the abstract you linked to (and apparently was the only bit you read). The article is referring to amounts of anatase of less than 1% of the sample size. Total TiO2 was a *high* value of 1.4%.

The second article you link to says nothing whatsoever about the amount of anatase present; and notes that it is present with other major main components. The article might help you if it gave the percentages of the constituents; but it does not.

You seem to be googling for anything that mentions anatase, and then presenting what you find as evidence that anatase of the proper size occurs in nature in concentrations higher than Ken has *given us evidence for*. So far, you have failed your duty to present evidence to support your claim; but have done yeoman work in proving Ken right.

- well little did he know that he
and all the rest who maintain that Kaolins never contain more than 1-5 %
anatase before he as usual when he seen himself loosing in a debate started
to write personal-abuse attacks....

"The Raman spectra of many kaolins are dominated by bands from ancillary
anatase. "
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cms/ccm/2003/00000051/00000006/art0001
3

then I guess some missed reading:
http://www.karst.edu.cn/igcp/igcp448/2001/part3-5.htm

Inger E 

	This is useless. Stop abusing yourself in this way.

--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.

Loading