Its energy per second not total energy that make a explosive ,explosive...

Originally posted by starchildtesla
Its energy per second not total energy that make a explosive ,explosive...

That is what I told you not many posts ago.

The DSC trace has no units of time shown. It is heat flow versus temperature. The only time units are in the temperature ramp, i.e., how fast the temperature is being changed on the x-axis.

Originally posted by pteridine

The DSC trace has no units of time shown. ...

The only time units are in the temperature ramp, i.e., how fast the temperature is being changed on the x-axis.

So paint has the same energy release over time as thermite?

the temperature program for a DSC analysis is designed such that the sample holder temperature increases linearly as a function of time

the nanothermite showed very narrow exotherms.

Originally posted by turbofan


So paint has the same energy release over time as thermite?

This may shock you since you haven't been following the posts. Polymers have more energy release over time than thermite.

You completely miss the concept of energy per unit mass.

Originally posted by billybob
iron oxide is also half of thermite, the other half being elemental aluminum, which is also in the "paint"/"nanothermite". so, are you saying there is a paint out there that is 'accidentally' thermitic in nature?

Wasn't there sulfidation, too? And all of this in nano-particles that were responsible for how far it was able to actually eat into the molecular structure of the steel.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by turbofan


So paint has the same energy release over time as thermite?

This may shock you since you haven't been following the posts. Polymers have more energy release over time than thermite.

You completely miss the concept of energy per unit mass.

Over long period of time maybe, but thermite especially nanothermite has more energy release per second than polymers.

Originally posted by starchildtesla
the temperature program for a DSC analysis is designed such that the sample holder temperature increases linearly as a function of time

the nanothermite showed very narrow exotherms.

Usually, the temperature range and ramp can be specified by the user. Note that the nanothermite and the red chip combustion in air are completely different.

Now with the technical spin. A glacier has more heat in it than a lighter flame, too, but you're never going to light anything with a glacier.

Eutectic mixtures can melt through steel, especially eutectic mixtures that are highly engineered military products. Plastic can't. All you have to do is look at the numbers the right way, and not some distorted way, and physics doesn't contradict this fact.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now with the technical spin. A glacier has more heat in it than a lighter flame, too, but you're never going to light anything with a glacier.

Eutectic mixtures can melt through steel, especially eutectic mixtures that are highly engineered military products. Plastic can't. All you have to do is look at the numbers the right way, and not some distorted way, and physics doesn't contradict this fact.

The discussion was centered on combustion. Glaciers are difficult to combust.
Jones' error was to combust the chip rather than to allow the chip to react. This combustion, likely the carbonaceous matrix, occurred at a lower temperature and over a narrower temperature range than the nano-thermite.
Based on your statement about eutectic mixtures, are you saying that the eroded steel beams are the result of a sulfur containing thermite of some sort?

The red chips displayed very narrow exotherms,once again ill spell it out to you the stuff exploded rapidly, The dsc showed nothing like the combustion of organic materials or any other paint which would be a almost like a flat line not a sudden explosion.

The smaller the nanoparticles in nanothermite the faster the reaction....
and the lower the temperature required to ignite it....

This is why All thermites/thermates are variable,you add elements you change particle size to get the desired effect.
1.The explosion rate is tunable
2.Can act as a incendary
3.Can react underwater.
4.The speed of the 'explosion' can be altered.
5. Adding different elements give different effects like sulphur causing a eutetic mixture in steel.

Thats why its considered 'the explosive of the future' DOD.

Many types of thermite were used on sep 11,some being nanothermite for explosive effect.
The others being halfway explosive/incendery
Then some were used as incendery like the south tower thermite flow.

The thermite has sulpur,the nanothermite doesnt always have.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by starchildtesla]

Originally posted by starchildtesla
The red chips displayed very narrow exotherms,once again ill spell it out to you the stuff exploded rapidly, The dsc showed nothing like the combustion of organic materials or any other paint which would be a almost like a flat line not a sudden explosion.

The smaller the nanoparticles in nanothermite the faster the reaction....
and the lower the temperature required to ignite it....

Many types of thermite were used on sep 11,some being nanothermite for explosive effect.
The others being halfway explosive/incendery
Then some were used as incendery like the south tower thermite flow.

The thermite has sulpur,the nanothermite doesnt always have.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by starchildtesla]

Thanks for spelling it out. The exotherm from the red chips occurred over a 40 C range which, at a standard ramp of 10 C/Minute amounts to a four minute period. The thermite exotherm occurred over a 140 C range which, at 10 C/Minute is about a 14 minute time. The thermite was likely scanned under an inert gas, so it was evidence of a redox reaction. The Jones team fumbled the analysis and ran the chip under a flow of air. Consequently, the results show that something reacts in air, likely combustion of the organic matrix. Not proof of thermite.
Thermite, per se, contains only aluminum and black iron oxide. Sulfur is another thermite variation as are those that contain additional oxidizers and aluminum to boost reaction temperatures.
Heat flow is much slower than kinetic energy transfer and demolitions with thermites cannot be timed precisely. There is no evidence for thermite of any kind during the events of 911.

No at 470c the nanothermite reacted.Thus when you look at the dsc it reacts all at 470c indicating it was a very fast reaction.
Explosion.

This is impossible from combustion.



Heat flow ,speed of reaction are controlled by particle size.Yes its impossible to time perfectly with commercial thermite.
But with particle size you custom build your thermite.You can change front velocity of the explosion.Therefore you can measure the time.



[edit on 15-5-2009 by starchildtesla]

Originally posted by starchildtesla
No at 470c the nanothermite reacted.Thus when you look at the dsc it reacts all at 470c indicating it was a very fast reaction.
Explosion.

This is impossible from combustion.

The red-gray chip peaked at 440 C and had about a 40 degree range which means about 4 minutes at 10 C/minute. The authentc sample of microthermite peaked at about 530 C and had a 140 C degree range; about 14 minutes at 10 C/Minute. The leading shoulder says that some reacted at a lower temperature than the rest.

22 watts/gram 22 joules per second per gram.

The flaws in Ferrar, Harrit, Jones et al are too numerous to mention. So I won't bother. At the end of this post, I'll put a knife thru the heart of this worthless "paper".

They've found paint & convinced themselves it's thermite. Complete, utter, amateurish buffoonery.

Which is not surprising for everyone except Harrit. Because all of those other guys are abject amateurs.

Harrit doesn't have this excuse. He DOES have a background in chemistry. He is the ONLY one that has a background in chemstry. Harrit's "excuse" is that he is a politically motivated, irrational truther who chooses to ignore & dismiss anything that doesn't jibe with his personal politics. In other words, WILLFUL self-delusion.

The knife thru the heart that I promised above is simple. I presented it to Harrit in exchanged emails. He recognized it's value, and promptly dismissed everything by flying into a not-very-well-acted rage & political polemic.

The "study" by Ferrar et al reinvented a wheel that did not need reinventing. They ran a series of tests, NOT ONE of which is decisive. They are all, in their interpretation, "suggestive" of thermite.

This is for one specific reason: they look at elements and not compounds. They look at the elements iron, oxygen, and aluminum. They do NOT look for the COMPOUNDS aluminum oxide, iron oxide along with the unbound iron & aluminum.

If you look for all these species, then you can say - decisively - whether or not these samples were thermite. And these tests are readily available, and are frequently run if someone is investigating a suspected thermite based arson.

I called around to several forensic qualified laboratories, and found that they would run standard tests for you for about $135 per sample if you prepared the specimens yourself, or about $155/sample if they prepared them for you. 5 grams per sample.

100 samples. $20,000 tops. Charlie Sheen? Loose Change? Alex Jones?

And you do NOT "pick up dust from around NYC in order to collect your samples. How monumentally stupid is that? It's comparable to trying to pin a pollution case on one particular company by analyzing 2 samples taken from the surrounding 50 mile radius. When there are 100 other possible polluters.

The correct way to gather your samples would be to go directly to the single highest suspected concentration of your "pollutant". Hopefully one that eliminates other sources of the contaminant. This would be the chimney exit, in the case of air pollutants. In the case of 9/11 & "thermite", this would be the very ends of any columns that looked even remotely like they had been cut with thermite.

[Of course, this is complicated by the problem that there are no columns or beams that have the unmistakable signature of thermite cutting. Just a teeeeensy detail...]

Take your scrapings here, and the concentration of thermite (if used) would be hundreds of millions times higher than some random sampling of dust on some bridge or in someone's apartment.

But Ferrar, Harrit, Jones, et al chose to not run those definitive tests. Or gather their samples in this sensible manner. They chose to run a bunch of tests on 2 random, remote samplings that left everyone free to provide their own personal speculation about the results.

How incompetent is that??

Anyone care to answer?

Tom

Originally posted by thomk
In the case of 9/11 & "thermite", this would be the very ends of any columns that looked even remotely like they had been cut with thermite.

Would you care to explain where they can obtain such "evidence"? Or admit that they had to work with what they could obtain?

Unless you think Dr. Jones was allowed into the hanger at JFK while even NIST admits to not having a single piece of WTC 7 to study?

[Of course, this is complicated by the problem that there are no columns or beams that have the unmistakable signature of thermite cutting. Just a teeeeensy detail...]

It is also complicated by the fact that no one is allowed to study the evidence.