It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 64
172
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Na, I haven't given up my stance. I'm just sick of debating the same
points over and over. You know, the ones you can't answer like:

- why do the chips produce iron spheres attached to them?

- find me a paint that produces iron spheres at an ignition temp of 430'C

I'm ignoring Trebor because like you, he does nothing but spew his
opinion while offering no substance to the material at hand.

For crying out loud, you still think the chips are paint! You are the only
one within this thread riding that dead horse.

I don't know how else to lay this out for basic people like yourself:

Jones takes a chip. Does a pre-ignition analysis.

Jones applies heat to this chip and does a post-ignition analysis.

An iron sphere is formed attached to the once 'red/gray' chip.

The exotherm shows a reaction at 430 'C which is nothing like the paint
tested by NIST.

The exotherm is more narrow, and more energetic than known nano-thermite
under the exact conditions.

The chemical signature is similar to the nano-thermite.

The backscattered images are similar to the control sample.

What more do you want "Mr. Expert"? You call that paint? You want
us to take you seriously with garbage like that?

Right


So you want me to waste more of my time responding to your paint,
and "greater than Ph.D." attitude, when you can't even provide a reasonable
alternative to thermite?

I'd bet all my money that if you met Jones face to face in a lab, you
would choke so fast, he wouldn't get time to slap you for being so ignorant.


[edit on 2-9-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The spheres are “iron containing.” That doesn’t mean they are all iron, it means they have iron as a component. You have no idea of the temperature at which they form. The temperature of the DSC when the reaction is intiated is not the flame temperature. They are not proof of thermite; the thermitic reaction is yet to be proved.
The DSC trace is quite unlike the nanothermite trace. To say they are similar is to deny the obvious. Shape, duration, and onset temperature are all different.
The fact that two of the samples are more energetic than the theoretical value for thermite proves the case for combustion. Jones claims a super-thermite with an energetic binder. Look at figure 30. Look at the energy per unit mass for HMX as an example of an “energetic binder.” HMX is an extremely energetic material. It is not present in the paint chips but is a good example of an energetic material. Now, compare its energy to chips 3 and 4. It is slightly less than the energy for chip 4 and much less than the energy for chip 3. If something as energetic as HMX were use as the binder for the purported nanothermite, and half the mass of the chip was binder, the maximum theoretical energy output would be about 4.7kJ, still well below chips 3 and 4. Think about it. The paint is putting out more energy per unit mass than super-thermite, HMX, TNT, TATB or any possible mixtures of them. The ONLY way that much energy per unit mass can come out of the chips is through combustion in air because in air, the combustion oxygen is not weighed--just the fuel is weighed. Jones and crew can hand wave and obfuscate all they want, they can’t ignore the math and their own data.

Combustion, Turbo, combustion.

What experiment do you think Jones should do now, Turbo? What do you think should be done to separate combustion from other reactions? Ask the Scholars and get back to us.

“I'd bet all my money that if you met Jones face to face in a lab, you would choke so fast, he wouldn't get time to slap you for being so ignorant.”
Don’t bet what you can’t afford to lose, Turbo. Jones needs to do better chemistry and he knows it even if you don't.

If ignorance brought slaps you'd be pulp by now.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Here's a link I'd like to throw into the mix.

www.navysbir.com...

Quote that's interesting to me: "Super-thermites with high energy content greater than TNT (4.5 kJ/g) are of interest. Thermite type compositions can have higher densities and energy content by volume than conventional organic explosives."

Doesn't exactly say how high the energy content could be, but it's an interesting statement by the Navy, telling me there's a problem with the theoretical number of 3.9 kJ/g.

Edited: spelling

[edit on 2-9-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Many are going over Jones data and coming up with the same unavoidable conclusions.


www.davidicke.com...

let's try to figure out what the alleged nano-thermite paint would do if it actually worked as speculated and you applied some to a steel column and managed to ignite it somehow.

Data. The paper gives a large range of values for available energy, but the highest is 7 kilojoules per gram. We'll use that one.

My steel box column will measure 14 inches by 14 inches by 11 feet 6 inches (0.36 meters by 0.36 meters by 3.5 meters). I'll have the thickness of the steel be 1/4 inch (0.64 centimeters).

The density of steel is 7900 kilograms per cubic meter.

The box column has a volume (minus the empty space inside) of 0.032 cubic meters. That means that the beam is comprised of about 250 kilograms of steel.

The surface area of the four outer faces of the beam is about 50 square feet. One gallon of paint covers about 400 square feet -- at least according to the label of a can of house paint I just checked. So the total paint on the beam will be about 0.12 gallons, or 466 grams' worth. Let's round that up to 500 grams.

We have 7,000 joules per gram of paint, and 500 grams of paint. The total available energy is 3,500,000 joules.

The question before us is, how much will that amount of energy raise the temperature of the steel due to combustion of the "nano-thermite" paint?

If you'll kindly consult your physics books, you'll find that the increase in temperature of a material equals the energy input, divided by the mass of the material multiplied by the material's specific heat capacity:

Delta-T = E / cm

Where Delta-T is the temperature change, E is the energy input, m is the mass of the material, and c is the material's specific heat capacity.

The specific heat capacity for steel is 460 joules per kilogram-Celsius (from table 17-1 of my copy of Schaum's 3000 Solved Problems in Physics).

We now have all three values needed to solve our equation:

Delta-T = 3,500,000 J/ (250 kg * 460 J/kg*C)

Delta-T = temperature of steel increases by 30 degrees celsius.

Yeah, that's going to do a lot.

M



[edit on 2-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Look up Molybdenum trioxide and copper oxide thermites. These are really energetic for a thermite but because of their masses, don't provide much more energy than iron based thermite. Hydrocarbons are an order of magnitude higher.

Edit to add: Note that the energy per unit volume is what is desired by the military and what they refer to. The change in volume per unit time relates to the power and brisance of an explosive. The DSC uses energy per unit mass for its output for many reasons, including the fact that it is easier to weigh a small sample than to measure its volume.

[edit on 9/2/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Doesn't exactly say how high the energy content could be, but it's an interesting statement by the Navy, telling me there's a problem with the theoretical number of 3.9 kJ/g.


Thanks for the link NIcon.

The theoretical number is based on the mass of the element(s), their potential energy, and any oxidizer available.

With respect to the thermite paper, the scientists used 55 mL/min. of
air flow which is not very much at all. Any additional thermal energy
from air flow would be quite insignificant compared to the aluminothermic
reaction.

Coincidently, Scholars wrote back and said they are still trying to have
someone visit us here to explain these points further, however most
are busy on speaking engagements and performing tests with other
researchers.

I had a chance to fire off the question about the maximum temperature
change possible with 55 mL/min of air flow. I'll be looking forward to that
answer and so will a certain anonymous "expert" within this thread.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
With respect to the thermite paper, the scientists used 55 mL/min. of
air flow which is not very much at all. Any additional thermal energy
from air flow would be quite insignificant compared to the aluminothermic
reaction.

Coincidently, Scholars wrote back and said they are still trying to have
someone visit us here to explain these points further, however most
are busy on speaking engagements and performing tests with other
researchers.

I had a chance to fire off the question about the maximum temperature
change possible with 55 mL/min of air flow. I'll be looking forward to that
answer and so will a certain anonymous "expert" within this thread.


Because we don't know the amount of combustible carbon in the sample, we don't know what airflow is significant and what isn't. Further, there is no combination of thermite and binder that can provide the energies measured without combustion, so a large fraction of the energy must be from combustion.
Of course, running the DSC without the air solves all of these problems, doesn't it Turbo?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


1+1 = 2

Spheres attached to partially ignited chips = nano-thermite found by the scientists.

Have you found a paint that can do this yet?


Hey Pt., can you explain aluminothermic reaction for me please? I'm at a loss for how/why this happened within the elements found in the CHIPS.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Spheres attached to partially ignited chips = nano-thermite found by the scientists.

Have you found a paint that can do this yet?



You don't read what's posted on this thread do you turbo? Twice a link has been posted to a red oxide fire retardant primer that conforms exactly to the mysterious chips. It's been in wide use for decades.

Outside comments on the presence of iron were posted weeks ago. Here they are again. Read and comment, please.



www.sciforums.com...

Harrit doesn't prove that the Spheres are Iron, he assumes they're Iron, just like he assumed that the Kaolinite was aluminium.

He describes metallic spheres, and translucent blue spheres.

He then examines the metallic spheres, predetermining that they're Iron, while completely ignoring the translucent blue spheres - once again, he's examining the evidence in accordance with his beliefs.

Hematite is also metallic and forms spheres:

According to

geography.lancs.ac.uk...

We have, according to the page:


“Magnetite spherule (m) which contains hematite lamellae (brighter). This is welded to an unidentified iron oxide phases, one having metallographic skeletal textures (s) and the other containing small (~2mm) spheres that consist of metallic iron [SEM-EDS]. XRD also indicates wustite (spherule diameter 60mm). [RL optical, oil immersion]”

And take a look at the category that the photo occurs under:


“Anthropogeneic Magnetic Minerals"

fly-ash (combustion products), ferrous contamination “

Get it? We can expect metallic iron rich spheres to form when we burn hydrocarbons that are contaminated with iron.

Also note that this explanation has the advantage of being able to naturally explain the varying ratios of Iron:Oxygen found in the spheres that Harrit examined (their composition was highly variable, and only one or two of them came close to resembling the ratios of Fe:O found in the byproducts of the Thermite he examined.

Also, may I recommend you take note of the following chemistry:

3 Fe2 O3 + C > 2 Fe3 O4 + CO
Fe3 O4 + C > 3 Fe O + CO

(or Carbon Monoxide can substitute for Carbon)

The production of Iron doesn't necessarily require high temperatures, it can be done naturally, it requires a strongly reducing environment.

Veins of native Iron, although unusual to be found, because of how quickly Iron oxidizes, can be desposited hydrothermally.

So no, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the Linseed oil ignited and caused molten Iron to form.

I am, however, suggesting that the Linseed oil did play a role in setting the conditions necessary, and played a role in the production of the of the spheres, which Harrit failed to demonstrate were anything more than spheres of Iron Oxide produced as a combustion by-product.

[...]

Harrit did mess up his investigation, he himself admits he messed up in some areas.

I've outlined some other short comings in his paper.

Being Iron rich doesn't contradict anything that I've said.

I haven't said that the spheres were exclusively Iron Oxide, in fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that the fly ash ESM that I posted earlier contains Iron particles in it (in it's metallic form). In fact a 2:1 ratio of Fe:O can be trivially accounted for by the formula Fe.FeO

The closest I've come is stating that Iron Rich does not automatically imply metallic Iron. I've also said that high temperatures are not the only way of producing Iron, all that is required is a sufficiently reducing environment.

Well, here's a patent issued in 2000

www.patentstorm.us...

that uses additives to create a strongly reducing environment that enables the extraction of Iron from Iron oxides with an optimal operating range of temperatures 650-790°C easily within the range of hydrocarbons.

Flames can be a strongly reducing environment, they tend to produce lots of thick, black smoke, which is primarily carbon.

Hmm, and what's one of the reactions listed on the patent?

FeO + C > Fe + CO

... looks like I forgot to list that reaction in my list of reactions



Iron rich nutrients for the scientifically-minded.

M


[edit on 7-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


1+1 = 2

Spheres attached to partially ignited chips = nano-thermite found by the scientists.

Have you found a paint that can do this yet?


Hey Pt., can you explain aluminothermic reaction for me please? I'm at a loss for how/why this happened within the elements found in the CHIPS.


Now that you have displayed the limits of your mathematical skills for all to admire, see if you can explain the additional energy that proves combustion in the DSC. No combination of binder and thermite can provide such energy and the only conclusion is that combustion is occurring.
It is not surprising that you can't explain how aluminothermic reactions happened in the chips; so far there is no evidence that it did. I wouldn't expect paint to show such a reaction.

No "Scholar" has shown up to provide the help you so desperately need; they are too busy making money on the lecture circuit. Is that evident of their true motivations?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


How do you know the max. temp if you don't know the MASS!!!!?


Move along Pt.

Please see the paper for proof of reaction.

Please come back when you can find a paint that can produce iron spheres
attached to paint chips.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


How do you know the max. temp if you don't know the MASS!!!!?


Move along Pt.

Please see the paper for proof of reaction.

Please come back when you can find a paint that can produce iron spheres
attached to paint chips.


[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]

Explain what you think the mass of the sample would have to do with the maximum temperature? Does that mean that the more of something I have, the hotter it gets?

Do you think the "Scholars" are ignoring you because they are busy lecturing or because they can't explain the excess energy either. I think that these questions have caused them to schedule as many paying performances as possible before the truth comes out.

It would seem that the crucial experiment would be to run the DSC under an inert atmosphere. While we are waiting, explain how the DSC traces of the samples and the nano-thermite are similar. You made the claim earlier but never explained it. It must have slipped your mind.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
You know what has slipped your mind? The iron spheres explanation ( you
know...how they attach themselves to paint?).

When are you going to put forth a paint which exhibits all of which Harrit/Jones found?


What's this about quantity and heat Pt.? What are you trying to say?

1 pound of thermite cannot produce more heat than 1 gram of thermite?


EDIT: Once again I'll answer YOUR quesitons as you avoid mine!

Similar -

Narrow exotherm on both. Same test environments (IE: temp. ramp,
air flow). Both have low ignition points (unlike paint).

[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
You know what has slipped your mind? The iron spheres explanation ( you
know...how they attach themselves to paint?).

When are you going to put forth a paint which exhibits all of which Harrit/Jones found?


What's this about quantity and heat Pt.? What are you trying to say?

1 pound of thermite cannot produce more heat than 1 gram of thermite?


You are terribly confused by all of this technical stuff, aren't you Turbo. Look at your quote; "How do you know the max. temp if you don't know the MASS!!!!?" You are confusing temperature in degrees with thermal output in joules. Silly Turbo. When you study engineering, you will learn all about this distinction.

I will explain to you, again, what the Jones paper says. It says that the total heat out of the chips in kilojoules/gram is up to about twice what could be expected if the chips were all thermite.
This means that no combination of binder and thermite could produce this output, even if the binder had the energy content of a high explosive.
The only way this amount of heat could have been produced is by combustion of the carbonaceous binder. I know that your advisors have told you about how the DSC trace says it could not have been combustion, but they are wrong, and their own data confirms their error.

The spheres have been addressed very well by mmiichael, in his post above. They are not proof of a thermitic reaction.

What experiment would you propose to show the difference between combustion and thermitic reaction, Turbo?

Please send in the Scholars to teach me a lesson. I'm sure that they'll do a fine job telling me about this chemistry stuff.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I will ignore your insult because you are frustrated due to your lack of technical knowledge. You are in way over your head and the "Scholars" have abandoned you. I have explained to you, and I will explain to Jones should he ask, that nano doesn't change the theoretical output.

If the sample was completely nano-thermite, even with a 2% binder, it would max out at about 3.9 kJ/g. Any combination of thermite and a high energy binder could not meet the outputs of the two most energetic chips. Binders that contain oxidizing functionalities have the same problem as thermite because the oxygen is weighed. Look at the data in Jones paper for the energy per gram of high explosives. There is no combination of those energetic materials and thermite that can approach the output of the chips.

Any extra energy above 3.9 kJ/g has to come from combustion and, in fact, the entire output may be from combustion. For reference, hydrocarbon combustion releases about ten times the energy per gram than thermite does.

In order to determine how much of the energy is from combustion, air has to be eliminated from the DSC reaction. Now do you understand the gross error in the Jones paper? Now do you understand that Jones has not proved thermite? Now do you understand that you were wrong and the "oxygen excuse" statement was incorrect?
Silly Turbo.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
ATS is not the place to insult anyone, never has been, never will be..

This forum is a hot bed of controversy and it is incumbent upon all that wish to engage here, to act in a mature and intelligent manner.

Semper



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Don't ignore it, because it's true and once again highlighted by your response!

Ptridine needs to explain the following to prove he is correct and Jones is a fool. These questions will continue to reappear until Pt. understands:

- How do the iron spheres form if not by extreme temps of a quick thermal
transition caused by an aluminothermic reaction

- The spheres are attached to partially reacted chips which occured during
chemical reaction. If not by this method, Pt. needs to explain what heat
source was available to:

a. form the spheres

b. mechanically attach them to the chips

- Since air cannot produce a narrow exotherm as seen in the DSC trace,
Pt. will need to explain how combustion could cause such a narrow
exotherm.

After these questions are answered, Pt. or any one else in his crew need
to come up with a reasonable alternative to explain elements, backscatter,
pre/post ignition analysis of the chips which point to a nano-thermite
(or at least incendiary).

[edit on 7-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Don't ignore it, because it's true and once again highlighted by your response!

Ptridine needs to explain the following to prove he is correct and Jones is a fool. These questions will continue to reappear until Pt. understands:

- How do the iron spheres form if not by extreme temps of a quick thermal
transition caused by an aluminothermic reaction

- The spheres are attached to partially reacted chips which occured during
chemical reaction. If not by this method, Pt. needs to explain what heat
source was available to:

a. form the spheres

b. mechanically attach them to the chips

- Since air cannot produce a narrow exotherm as seen in the DSC trace,
Pt. will need to explain how combustion could cause such a narrow
exotherm.

After these questions are answered, Pt. or any one else in his crew need
to come up with a reasonable alternative to explain elements, backscatter,
pre/post ignition analysis of the chips which point to a nano-thermite
(or at least incendiary).


I do ignore your insults. *Snip* and have been abandoned by the so-called "Scholars" after you talked yourself out on a limb using their scripts. Send them around, sometime.
As I have explained to you several times, the total energy output says that there must be combustion involved regardless of the narrow exotherm. Any rules of thumb from your handlers must still be consistent with their data. Combustion is occurring, narrow exotherm or not. Yep, they are wrong.
Jones is no fool. He has an agenda and a goal and is working toward that goal. His science is suspect and his interpretation of chemistry is faulty, maybe purposely. I didn't intend to prove him a fool, I intended to show that his paper does not show what he says it does and I have. He is counting on snookering people like you, but he hasn't snookered most scientists.
The spheres are of mixed, unknown compositions and are not evidence of thermitic reaction. They are attached to the remains of the chips because as the chips burn, they likely melt. Sphere formation is not diagnostic of anything but heat and we don't know if that heat arises from thermitic reaction or combustion. Thermitic reaction is the first thing that must be shown.
I note that you are now allowing that the chips may be a "a nano-thermite (or at least incendiary)." This seems to be a change in your position. Do you have an idea of what incendiary it might be? Maybe Jones' evidence is even weaker than I suspected or he already tried the DSC under inert and saw no reaction.
Before I go to the trouble of explaining analyses, Jones will have to show some evidence of thermitic reaction.

Guess what experiment he must do? Yep, its paint until he does the DSC under inert. Thermitic reactions don't need air and combustions do. I have already instructed you in this. Remember?
Are you ready to confess the errors of your ways and admit that Jones hasn't yet proved anything or do you plan to be stubborn and go down swinging? I'd bet on stubborn but you could always prove me wrong on that account.
If you really believe that there is any chance of anyone proving anything at all about 911 conspiracies through a reinvestigation, answer my latest thread and I'll include your ideas in the compendium.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Next snide comment, gets a warning

[edit on 9/7/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
please not Pt. did not address any of the questions, but rather than re-post
the questions refer to my prior post.

P.S. he still thinks it's paint but can't produce an example of paint that
creates iron spheres at 430'C ignition temps!



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join