scp.pdf zip file
analysis by Victor Kerlins. ARCHAEUS 2, 1 (Summer 1984)
CHANGE DURING WARM-FORMING
During 1981, I conducted 12 "PK Parties" in which approximately
85% of the attendees experienced metal-bending with apparent ease.
In general, the participants described a short period, typically
5 to 20 seconds, in which the metal felt warm and was extremely
pliable. After this period the metal would again become impossible
to bend, as in its normal state. We have named this phenomenon "warm-forming"
and have attempted to compile data that helps explain what occurs
inside the metal. During the PK Party held April 20, 1981, a steel
rod of 0.63 cm diameter appeared to change dramatically in surface
color when "warm-formed" by Tim. This rod was submitted
to a metallurgical laboratory for analysis. The results are contained
in this report.
As of this writing, I have accumulated 9 other specimens that also
appear to manifest dramatic surface change when compared with their
control rods. These have been warm-formed by 6 different individuals.
In all cases, the rods and one bolt are low-carbon steel, coated
with zinc. (Steel rods purchased in a hardware store are usually
coated with zinc so that they will not rust.) The surface change
does not occur on all the steel rods warm-formed at these PK Parties.
Those rods that do manifest the surface change have it occur during
the 10 to 15 minute period when it was being handled by the individual
who warmformed it. Most of the surface change usually occurs near
the bend; in a few cases, however, the entire rod surface changed,
as did the rod analyzed in this report.
The results of this metallurgical analysis indicate that the surface
change effect is limited to the surface of the rod. When magnified,
the surface of the warm-formed rod appears much like the surface
of volcanic rock, which diffuses light. It appears dull in comparison
with the shiny surface of the control rod. A spectral analysis of
the surface indicated the presence of chlorine on the warm-formed
rod and none on the control rod, even though both rods were handled
approximately the same amount. (The warm-formed rod was handled
by Tim, and I handled the control rod.)
The best estimate of what happened to the warm-formed rod is that
a chemical reaction occurred during the time when Tim was warm-forming
it. This chemical reaction could either have resulted from the salt
(NaCl) in his perspiration forming zinc chloride or from hydrochloric
acid in his perspiration forming zinc chloride. Further analysis
is required to determine if either of these chemical reactions will
cause this surface appearance and, if so, under what conditions
(e.g., temperature, pressure, amount of perspiration, etc.). Let
me point out again that this surface change does not always occur
when these zinc coated steel rods are handled, or even warm-formed,
by many individuals. Does the rod become exceptionally hot for some
people, facilitating the chemical reaction? This question has led
to the desire to instrument some rods during the warm-forming process
to determine the temperatures involved. Or do a few people have
a very high Ph factor in their perspiration?
During the December 16, 1981, PK Party, several rods were bent by
warm-forming and manifested the surface change. On each of the rods
I attached an identification tag with clear tape. These tags allowed
correct identification of the control rod. On several of the specimens,
the surface change did appear on the part of the rod that also included
the tape. When I peeled back the tape, however, I found that the
surface underneath was still shiny and that no change had occurred
there. This reinforces the idea that the change results from a chemical
reaction between the rod surface and something in the perspiration
of the hands of the person doing the warm-forming.
At the April 20, 1981, PK Party, a change in one of the rods seemed
to offer clear evidence that something had happened to the rod that
could not be explained by physical force. Prior to the party, I
prepared a number of steel rods to be warm-formed by participants.
The rod discussed here is 30.5 cm long and 0.63 cm in diameter,
made of 1018 steel, coated with zinc. It was purchased at a local
hardware store. Masking tape, which held the price sticker on the
rod at the time of purchase, left a sticky gum, which I removed
by applying gasoline to the entire rod. Then I rubbed the rod with
0000 steel wool to make it shiny and clean. I cut the rod into three
sections; one was kept in another room as a control rod, and the
other two were available for warm-forming at the party. The ends
were filed so that nobody would be cut. Tim took one of these rods
and warm-formed it during a period of approximately 15 min. He noted
that when the rod became warm and was easily malleable, a permanent
color change occurred over the entire surface of the rod (not just
where the bend occurred). This could not be explained as the effects
of physical force.
The warm-formed rod and its control rod were submitted to a metallurgical
laboratory for a scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis of
the surfaces of both specimens. A small section was cut off the
end of the straight (control) rod in order to fit it into the SEM.
Fig. 1 shows both the straight and the warm-formed rods.
Fig. 1. Apparent surface color
difference between control and warm-formed rods
Fig. 2 shows the surface of the straight rod magnified 15 times
(15X). Two areas were selected for further magnification. These
areas are marked 1 and 2. Figs. 3 and 4 show Area 1 of the straight
rod magnified 1.15KX and 7.8KX, respectively. The scratches were
caused by the steel wool, and some typical surface pitting can be
observed. The high magnification was difficult to obtain, and some
gold coating was required to achieve sufficient electron densities.
Similarly, Figs. 5 and 6 show Area 2 of the straight rod magnified
1.16KX and 7.9KX, respectively. The surface at Area 2 is very similar
to that of Area 1. Nothing is unusual about the surface of the straight
Fig. 2. Surface of control rod at bend (15X). Number definitions
indicated by arrows
Fig. 3. Surface of control rod at Area 1 (1.15KX)
Fig. 4. Surface of control rod at Area 1 (7.8KX
Fig. 5. Surface of control rod at Area 2 (1.16KX)
Fig. 6. Surface of control rod at Area 2 (7.9KX)
Fig. 7 shows the surface of the warm-formed rod, magnified 23.7X,
looking directly at the end (outside region of maximum curvature).
Two areas were again selected for further magnification; they are
marked 1 and 2.
Fig. 7. Surface of warm-formed rod at bend (23.7X)
Figs. 8 and 9 show Area 1 of the warm-formed rod magnified 1.18KX
and 8.1KX, respectively. The surface appears dramatically different
from that of the straight rod. These pictures are the result of
patterns established by the surface reflection of the electrons
in the SEM. Because the surface appears to have been drastically
altered (compare Figs. 3 and 4 with Figs. 8 and 9), one would suspect
that it looks dull to the naked eye, because the light scatters
and is diffused by this highly irregular surface. Also note that
extremely high magnifications were obtained with no difficulty,
suggesting that the electrical conductivity of the surface is very
high. Figs. 10 and 11 show Area 2 of the warm-formed rod magnified
1.2KX and 12KX, respectively, which is very similar to the surface
in Area 1.
Fig. 8. Surface of warm-formed rod at Area 1 on bend (1.18KX)
Fig. 9. Surface of warm-formed rod at Area 1 on bend (8.1KX)
Fig. 10. Surface of warm-formed rod Area 2 on bend (1.2KX)
Fig. 11. Surface of warm-formed rod at Area 2 on bend (12KX)
The results of this testing prompted many questions. One question
was: Does a straight section of the warm-formed rod illustrate the
same apparent change on the surface as the bent section? To the
naked eye, the straight section of the warm-formed rod appeares
to have the same type of dull surface as was apparent on the bent
portion of the rod. To answer this question, however, a section
of the straight portion of the warm-formed rod was cut and examined
with another section of the straight control rod. Fig. 12 shows
the point where the straight section was taken from the warm-formed
rod. (The PHOTO_graph was taken prior to the section's being removed.)
Fig. 13 shows the surface of the control rod section magnified 14.3X.
Fig. 14 shows the same section magnified 98X. Further magnification
(520X) of that same section is shown in Fig. 15. Points A and B
are defined in Fig. 15 by the arrows in the margin. Magnification
of Point A to 2.76KX is shown in Fig. 16. Similarly, magnification
of Point B to 2.78KX is shown in Fig. 17. These PHOTO_graphs of
another portion of the control rod surface are essentially identical
to those previously shown in Figs. 2 through 6. The surface of the
straight section removed from the warm-formed rod, magnified 14.3X,
is shown in Fig. 18. Fig. 19 shows that same section magnified 97X.
Further magnification (520X) is shown in Fig. 20. New points A and
B are defined by the arrows in the margin on Fig. 20. Further magnification
of Point A is shown in Fig. 21, magnified 2.78KX. Similarly, a magnification
of 2.78KX of Point B is shown in Fig. 22. It can be seen that the
surface of the straight portion of the warm-formed rod is very similar
to the surface of the bent portion, shown in Figs. 7 through 11.
Thus, the SEM shows that the same type of surface pitting occurred
over the entire warm-formed rod.
Fig. 12. Section cut for analysis from warm-formed rod.
Fig. 13. Surface of control rod (14.3X)
Fig. 14. Surface of control rod (98X)
Fig. 15. Surface of control rod (520X)
Fig. 16. Surface of control rod, Area A (2.76KX)
Fig. 17. Surface of control rod, Area B (2.78KX)
Fi . 18. Surface of warm-formed rod in straight section (14.3X)
Fig. 19. Surface of warm-formed rod in straight section (97X)
Fig. 20. Surface of warm-formed rod in straight section (520X)
Fig. 21. Surface of warm-formed rod in straight section, Area A
Fig. 22. Surface of warm-formed rod in straight section, Area B
In an attempt to understand further what happened to the surface
of this rod when warm-formed, an energy-dispersive X-ray diffraction
analysis was performed. Figs. 23 and 24 show the spectral lines
resulting from that analysis for the control and warm-formed rod,
respectively. The peaks are predominantly three zinc (Zn) lines,
an iron (Fe) line, and a chlorine (Cl) line. The zinc and iron lines
are essentially identical on both spectra. A strong chlorine occurred
on the spectrum of the warm-formed rod, however. It is postulated
that the source of the chlorine might be the salt (NaCl) contained
in perspiration from the hands during warm-forming. The sodium (Na)
line would have occurred at 1.04A and would essentially be swamped
by the smallest zinc line, which occurs at 1.1A. As indicated earlier,
Tim handled the warm-formed rod for only approximately 15 min, and
I do not know if his hands were perspiring. The total amount of
handling of both rods by human hands is probably nearly identical,
however, because I carried both rods around the country prior to
the analysis and often handled the control rod. My hands were probably
not perspiring when I handled the rod. Another possibility to explain
the chlorine line is that zinc chloride (ZnC12) may have
been formed if hydrochloric acid (HCl) was contained in the sweat
of Tim's hands. This is not common, however.
Fig. 23. Spectral lines of control rod surface
Fig. 24. Spectral lines of warm-formed rod surface, straight section
Zn + 2HCl = ZnCl2 + H2+
Next, a cross section was taken from both the control and the warm-formed
rods and mounted for an X-ray map examination. These sections were
polished and mildly etched, using a 2% NITAL solution, which rapidly
affects the zinc. The control and warm-formed cross sections are
shown magnified 250X in Figs. 25 and 26, respectively. These PHOTO_graphs
were taken looking directly down at the cross section. They clearly
show the zinc coating over the steel rod. The steel rod is at the
bottom of both PHOTO_graphs, and the mounting material is at the
top of both PHOTO_graphs. There is a small gap between the mounting
material and the zinc coating. If one were to look across the edges
of the specimens, the view would appear like that shown in Fig.
27. The etching removed a bit of the zinc coating, causing the slight
step as shown in Fig. 27. The purpose of the X-ray map examination
was to determine if any zinc had penetrated into the steel case
of the rod. Figs. 28 and 29 show the optical picture, magnified
1000X, for the control and warm-formed rods, respectively. It can
be seen that zinc did not penetrate into the steel (bottom) on either
specimen. Figs. 30 and 31 are the zinc X-ray maps of the control
and warm-formed specimens, respectively. The very dense band (top
left to bottom right) shows the concentration of zinc in the zinc
coating. The less dense band, directly above, results from reflections
in the mounting space. It can be seen that these X-ray maps are
essentially identical, further indicating no penetration of the
zinc along the grain boundaries of the steel rod.
Fig. 25. Cross section of control sample (250X)
Fig. 26. Cross section of warm-formed sample (250X)
Fig. 27. Side view of mounting
Fig. 28. SEM micrograph of cross section of control rod (1000X)
Fig. 29. SEM micrograph of cross section of warm-formed rod (1000X)
Fig. 30. SEM-X zinc X-ray map of control cross section (1000X)
Fig. 31. SEM-X zinc X-ray map of warm-formed cross section (1000X)
In Figs. 32 through 35, the zinc coating was viewed looking toward
the steel rod (see Fig. 27 for perspective). Figs. 32 and 33 show
this view magnified 248X for both the control and warm-formed samples,
respectively. This same view, magnified 2.49KX, is shown in Figs.
34 and 35 for the control and warm-formed samples, respectively.
A thin coating on the surface of the zinc plate can be seen clearly.
The surface change seems to be only on the immediate surface of
the warm-formed rod. This may be a thin layer of zinc chloride on
the surface, which appears to have increased or been modified by
the warm-forming process.
Fig. 32. Alternate view of control cross section (248X)
Fig. 33. Alternate view of warm-formed cross section (248X)
Fig. 34. Alternate view of control cross section (2.49KX)
Fig. 35. Alternate view of warm-formed cross section (2.49KX)
report contains some raw data. Many questions still exist as to
how the warm-forming process works. It is hoped that the data
presented here may be useful in further research.