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

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo,
This is the third time I have explained this to you. Once again, slow and easy.......
Get out your copy of the holy paper and look at figure 30. Now I will explain what you are looking at. Note the four compounds on the left. Three are high explosives and one is thermite. All react in the absence of air and their energies are calculated that way. The energies are shown per unit volume [red bars] and per unit weight [blue bars.] These are theoretical values. We will compare the energies per unit weight of these samples [blue bars] with those of the four chip samples [only blue bars.]
Note the energy values of the explosives. They range from about 5.5 to 4.0 kJ/g. The value for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g and this is the thermodynamic maximum energy for the reaction. Nano-sizing doesn't change this maximum value.
If the chips were 100% thermite, the most energy they could have would be 3.9 kJ/g. If the chips were 100% HMX, the most energy they could have would be 5.5 kJ/ gram. If we then combine the thermite with an energetic binder, we can calculate energies of various combinations; all would be between 3.9 and 5.5 kJ/g. A 50:50 mix would have about 4.7 kJ/g.
Now we look at the "highly engineered" chips. Two are well below the maxima but two are above the maxima. The binder in the chips has been shown to contain carbon and possibly oxygen and other heteroatoms. Even though we have allowed extremely energetic nitramine binders, no combination of highly energetic binder and thermite can reach those values.
What sort of binder would allow those energies to be reached? If we allowed combustion in air, any carbonaceous polymer. For example, polyethylene provides almost 48 kJ/g. It wouldn't take much burning PE to provide the measured energy if we permitted combustion in air. Without air, there is no way to provide such energy.
We have combustion but don't know how much of the energy is due to combustion and how much is due to anything else.

What should be done to determine how much is due to combustion, Turbo?

Pt.,

What does it say on Page 27, section 6, column 1 and column 2?

Read here:

"As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of
energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."

These scientists have already accounted for any combustion in air.
They are attributing any of this energy to the organic component of the chips.

As I've said many times - SO WHAT?

What does the combusiton in air have to do with the chemical reaction
between the Al and Fe? These elements do NOT burn, or begin to ignite
at 430'C!

There was an aluminothermic reaction as shown in Fig. 20 (and others).

Section 4, page 19:

"The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips
prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above
the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high"

you see, it's the chemical reaction that created the spheres; NOT the organic
combustion.

Ordinary combustion of the elements presented in air CANNOT reach temperatures
high enough to MELT iron and form spheres.

Combustion in air is TOO SLOW to produce a thermal transition/pressure
transition
REQUIRED to melt iron and have it form into into spheres.

What happens when you slowly heat iron (over 700'C) ? It MELTS. It
pools. It dries and forms BLOBS. It DOES NOT turn itself into a ball!

The exotherm produced is not indicative of combustion in air; it's too narrow
a peak to consider combustion in air.

You're not fooling anyone, and you're not putting up a reasonable theory
to counter the production of iron-rich spheres. There is enough iron
present in the spheres to conclude an aluminothermic reaction - you even
admitted this on Page 68!

For those that are reading that do not understand why/how the spheres form, or their significance:

We are trying to debate how a solid chip of Iron transforms itself into a ball.

It must go through a rapid transition from a solid state, to a liquid state
and back to a solid in a very short period of time.

If you were to heat up the iron slowly to its melting point, it would begin
to form a pool of iron (like melting ice slowly - you would get a pool of water).

If you were to allow the iron to cool slowly it would stay in a flat, solid
format (sort of like a flat poker chip). If you were to cool the pool of
iron quickly, it may start to curl up (like into a bowl shape, or curl ends like paper).

If you were to heat the iron up very fast - at an explosive rate, it would
transition from a solid to a liquid and break apart. the molten iron 'splatter'
would have less mass as individual drops and cool quickly forming balls
as they return to a solid state (due to surface tension).



If you could change the thermal state of the water droplets fast enough (freeze them), you would end up with spheres of ice.


If the water fell to the ground before freezing, the surface tension would break and cause the
droplet to puddle/pool. If it froze at this point, it would remain in a 'blob' shape.

Having said that, the iron spheres are formed just as quickly. they solidify
in mid-air and remain that way when they cool down.

Soooo...after that very basic explanation, I hope that some of you can
see the significance of the iron-rich spheres and why they prove a chemical
recation occured...and that combusition in 'air' does not matter as it's too
slow and not hot enough to form the spheres.

Thank you for those smart enough, honest enough to realize this.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by turbofan]

If you check my posts, I pointed out to you that the paper stated that combustion could account for some of the energy.
If combustion takes place, it takes place at 440*C doesn't it? That is the only exotherm. We want to determine how much of the exotherm is due to combustion. If it was all combustion we would want to know that, too. We don't even know if a thermitic reaction occurred and it would be nice to see that directly rather than guess.

What experiment should we do to determine that?

If combustion takes place, it takes place at 440*C doesn't it? That is the only exotherm

NO!

That is the ignition temperature!

You need to figure out the reaction temperature!

Where did the heat come from to melt the iron Pt.?

The melting point of Iron is 1535 º C
www.noblemind.com...

reply to post by turbofan


There are other components to the spheres, not just iron. You do not know the sources of the spheres, molecular structure, or formation temperatures. The spheres are a distraction until the reaction is shown.

The 440*C peak in the DSC trace is the only exotherm and that is where all reactions must take place--combustion and thermitic. Flame temperatures are different as I have stated several times. Do you remember arguing against the possibility that combustion could form the spheres?
The reactions that occur can be combustion, thermitic, or both. Combustion is certainly occurring because of the energy balances that I have shown you. Thermite is not certain regardless of how much you wish it to be so. Other experiments have to be done before thermite is proved.

What experiment do we need to do next to show the possibility of an thermitic reaction, Turbo?

Originally posted by pteridine
The 440*C peak in the DSC trace is the only exotherm and that is where all reactions must take place--combustion and thermitic.

Are you really smarter than Jones? You can't even keep up with your
own logic.

88% Iron. Where did the heat come from Pt?

reply to post by turbofan


Perhaps you misunderstand. The 440*C exotherm must be where all reactions take place. The flame temperatures of said reactions are unknown. Combustion is a certain component of the reactions. Thermitic reaction is uncertain.
What is the next experiment we have to do, Turbo? Surely, you can ask the "scholars" if you don't know.

Originally posted by pteridine
Perhaps you misunderstand. ...The flame temperatures of said reactions are unknown. ...

Perhaps you are only fooling yourself at this point.

The flame temps can be approximated as we know the melting point of
steel.

So last time Pt., where did this additional heat come from? How did
this iron melt and form itself into a ball if these elements cannot 'combust'
at 440'C?

Any idea how this chemical reaction took place Pt.?

Any idea what the ignition temps of Al, and Fe might be? Anything else
in that mix that we should be concerned about?

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridine
Perhaps you misunderstand. ...The flame temperatures of said reactions are unknown. ...

Perhaps you are only fooling yourself at this point.

The flame temps can be approximated as we know the melting point of
steel.

So last time Pt., where did this additional heat come from? How did
this iron melt and form itself into a ball if these elements cannot 'combust'
at 440'C?

Any idea how this chemical reaction took place Pt.?

Any idea what the ignition temps of Al, and Fe might be? Anything else
in that mix that we should be concerned about?

The flame temperature was not 440*C. That was the temperature at which reaction occurred. The Jones paper shows analyses of "spheroids" that, for the most part, look like amorphous blobs. The sample run in the dsc shows Si, Ti, O, Al, and C, among others, in addition to iron. The m.p. of elemental iron has no bearing on the m.p. of the iron containing spheres and the spheres/blobs are not evidence of thermite.

What experiment do we need to do now, Turb? Have you thought of it yet?

Originally posted by pteridine
The flame temperature was not 440*C. That was the temperature at which reaction occurred.

OK, Now you're getting it. This is a good start!

The sample run in the dsc shows Si, Ti, O, Al, and C, among others, in addition to iron.

I'd say Carbon is the only element listed worth mentioning to react at
440'C. Agree?

What was the percentage of Carbon Pt.? How hot does the carbon get
(max)?

Bump for an answer Pt.

Have we finally nailed this down via my last question? Do you now see
what the problem is?

Originally posted by turbofan

OK, Now you're getting it. This is a good start!

The sample run in the dsc shows Si, Ti, O, Al, and C, among others, in addition to iron.

I'd say Carbon is the only element listed worth mentioning to react at
440'C. Agree?

What was the percentage of Carbon Pt.? How hot does the carbon get
(max)?

Unfortunately, Turbo, you are not getting it at all. The elements shown are most likely compounds. Aluminum is probably tied up as an aluminosilicate. Titanium is probably the dioxide, and so on. What possible compounds are in the blobs and where do they melt? No one knows so no one can predict where the blobs melt. Blobs are not evidence of thermite.
The carbon is also not there as elemental carbon. It is a binder which means that it is likely a functionalized hydrocarbon. It has hydrogen in it and probably oxygen. How hot does it get? That would depend on the amount of oxygen flowing over it.
Jones must show reaction in the absence of air as the first step to prove thermite. Everything else is guesswork.

It doesn't matter what purpose; what matters is none of those elements
can produce enough heat, FAST enough to produce the iron spheres at
440'C.

That means the reaction temps were MUCH HIGHER.

High enough to melt iron, and form spheres.

Aptitude. Logic.

Do you not get it? I thought you said you were smarter than Jones?

Where did the heat come from the melt the iron PT?!!!

PLEASE ANSWER

Don't tell me the spheres were not 100% iron. They were more than
80% iron (admitted by you) which serves to be a large majority of the
sphere and requires MUCH more than 440'C of temperature to produce
our end result.



[edit on 27-9-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
It doesn't matter what purpose; what matters is non of those elements
can produce enough heat, FAST enough to produce the iron spheres at
440'C.

That means the reaction temps were MUCH HIGHER.

High enough to melt iron, and form spheres.

Aptitude. Logic.

Do you not get it? I thought you said you were smarter than Jones?

Where did the heat come from the melt the iron PT?!!!

PLEASE ANSWER

Don't tell me the spheres were not 100% iron. They were more than
80% iron (admitted by you) which serves to be a large majority of the
sphere and requires MUCH more than 440'C of temperature to produce
our end result.

Let's review. 440*C is where ignition took place and is not necessarily the flame temperature. Focus on that point. We don't know the temperature of the flame we only know the temperature where the reaction started. Got it yet?
With that in mind, go to figure 25 of the Jones Bentham paper. Look at the caption. "Spheres formed during ignition of red/gray chip in DSC, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum (although spheres with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the post-ignition residue)."
Jones does two things here. He assumes that the spheres were formed in the DSC and doesn't show the spheres he claims were predominantly iron oxide. Had an actual chemist been on his team, a solvent capable of disrupting the matrix would have been used, the components separated, and any spheres or elemental aluminum would have been visible.
He doesn't know the origins of the spheres; he asssumes that they were formed in the DSC. He also claims some spheres were predominantly iron with some oxygen. Good evidence of something, right?

Where are they?

This is his most important finding and he doesn't show them. Why not? He shows us fly ash in the WTC dust but doesn't show us the mostly iron spheres, his major finding. "Trust me" says Jones "they are in there somewhere." If you believe this, I have a box of gold that I'd like to sell to you. The analysis shows brick dust but another analysis that you didn't see shows gold.

Now to the heat. You know that the integrated heat data shows that some combustion must have occurred. I have shown this to you several times. The thing that must happen next is to determine how much heat was from combustion. The way to do this is to run the experiment again so that combustion cannot take place. This will show how much heat was from combustion and how much was from other reactions. Do you have this concept yet? Is this too difficult for you to comprehend or are you still having trouble with the erroneous title of this thread?

Final review before the exam.
1. Jones has not yet proved anything because his team botched the analyses.
2. The origins of the spheres are not known because Jones' team botched the analyses. Spheres that are mostly iron are claimed but no evidence was provided.
3. To show a reaction other than combustion, Jones has to rerun the DSC in the absence of air.

Can you pass the test yet?

[edit on 9/27/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridineLet's review. 440*C is where ignition took place and is not necessarily the flame temperature. Focus on that point. We don't know the temperature of the flame we only know the temperature where the reaction started. Got it yet?

You want me to focus? I've been telling you 440'C is the ignition point
from DAY ONE.

Read back, it must be within this thread ummm 100 times?

Fly Ash? Come Pt! Use your head. remember Jones ignited some chips
and the spheres ATTACHED THEMSELVES TO PARTIALLY REACTED samples.

Geez, sorry to say but you really are not paying attention.

Futhermore, you're proving more and more to be some kid just copying
and pasting crap from god knows where...because you're overlooking
the simple facts I've pointed out above.

Somebody well versed in this field would not forget such basic items.

reply to post by turbofan


Your posts are taking on a desperate tone. I take it you aren't ready for the exam yet. You stated the ignition point was 440*C but then forgot your statement when it was convenient.
Explain again how there was no combustion.

You seem to be ignoring the more important discussion points of Jones' failed experiments. Why don't you rebut my post instead of deflecting? Where are the scholars, Turbo? Have they abandonded you?

Are you ready to concede that Jones has to run the DSC under inert or would you like to try to explain why he doesn't.

yawnn,,,

You're a waste of breath.

I will never concede anything to you, because you're not smart enough
to grasp the basics.

There is not enough heat from combustion alone to melt the iron and
form the spheres. Period. Done. It's over.

When you can figure out where the additional heat came from to produce
the spheres, I'll respond again.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Your feigned nonchalance notwithstanding, I see you have surrendered to the inevitable and concede the argument.

Jones completely screwed up the analyses and doesn't know how to extricate himself. He has been very quiet of late. Perhaps he has figured out the truth and doesn't like it. Your bombast about the scholars has also come to naught. I was hoping that they would show up and teach me a lesson. So were you but they abandonded you. You just can't trust those guys.

Originally posted by turbofan
There is not enough heat from combustion alone to melt the iron and
form the spheres. Period. Done. It's over.

When you can figure out where the additional heat came from to produce
the spheres, I'll respond again.

Can you actually answer the question, pteridine?

reply to post by bsbray11

BS,
I have answered the question if you follow back in this thread. Using Jones' data, I have shown Turbo that there is excess heat far above any aluminothermic reaction, which means combustion is taking place. Jones allows for this in his paper but tries to play it down. He has also claimed some spheres high in iron content but does not show them or their EDAX data. The spheres he does show [Fig 25]are under 10 microns in diameter and have many other elements in them. This means that their molecular composition is unknown as is their temperature of formation and origin. I stated that they could have been contained in the matrix and only exposed after combustion. Had Jones used a better solvent to disrupt the matrix, they might have been seen before combustion. Turbo is blind to the possibility that they were in the matrix before combustion because it is contraty to his predetermined conclusions.
Because combustion is taking place, the only way to discriminate between combustion and other reactions is to run the DSC under inert. The spheres will sort themselves out later after reaction has been determined to occur under inert. Turbo does not want to admit that this is the first step to proving thermitic reaction because then this thread topic is wrong.