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.

 

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The internet is pretty broad. All I am saying is ATS might not be the best board for that. Why dont you try and send turbofan a pm, he seems to have the necessarry packground, you might have better luck elsewhere though. Why dont you submit your paper to the Open Chemical Physics Journal?
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I am not defending an official story, I am defending science. Whatever this science tell us, is what I "support". There are no widely accepted scientific publication in favor of explosives, not a single scientist comes with a coherent theory, so I do not support that theory. There are several widely accepted publications that support plane crashes as cause. So I support that theory.

You on the other hand claim you have no reason to believe Jones made a mistake, despite the huge piles of critique, and accept his conclusion face value, while you hand wave away any other publication that doesn't fit your world view without even giving a reason.

So show me a single occasion where I use a double standard. I have demonstrated you have.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No you are not defending science, you are defending an official story. You are the one who thinks that due to freak events something took place that has beaten all odds, ASSUMING it is possible to begin with. I never said I have no reason to believe jones, or one of the other chemists who claim there is Thermite made a mistake. I am just saying that I am not convinced by conspirayguy.

But why is that so important to you 2? Why do you care if you 2 managed to convince me or not? Do not take this personal if I call you conspiracyguy. You could have several noble prices for all I know, but you are on the ATS board, you could be 15 with an c in physics for all I know. I really have a hard time to understand your and pterdines obsession.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine
 


Why dont you submit your paper to the Open Chemical Physics Journal?


Because I have not written a paper; I have critiqued one.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



This is a typical example of confirmation bias. You interpret the data exactly as you see fit so it agrees with your predetermined position.


I find this funny, because you have just demonstrated the same thing that you are accusing others of doing.


I don't have a PhD and I can follow his reasoning perfectly. He makes very valid points. He is not the only one. It doesn't take too much work to find critique of other experts. But you will have to be open for it.


Pteridine has not made any valid points, perhaps you haven’t followed how I and others have caught Pteridine twisting Jones report and making up fallacies and that I and other posters were able to prove and confronted him.


Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips,


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read the thread and you will see the truth.

I would suggest you should find a better role model than someone who has to make up proven fallacies.


You did in no way address the post you replied to. Why doesn't Jones do the experiments the critics are asking for?


Who are all these critics?
Why haven’t you ask Jones?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
No you are not defending science, you are defending an official story. You are the one who thinks that due to freak events something took place that has beaten all odds, ASSUMING it is possible to begin with. I never said I have no reason to believe jones, or one of the other chemists who claim there is Thermite made a mistake. I am just saying that I am not convinced by conspirayguy.

But why is that so important to you 2? Why do you care if you 2 managed to convince me or not? Do not take this personal if I call you conspiracyguy. You could have several noble prices for all I know, but you are on the ATS board, you could be 15 with an c in physics for all I know. I really have a hard time to understand your and pterdines obsession.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


The problem is that you are convinced that Jones did good work, while for no reason at all you are convinced that all publications not in favor of your world view do not contain good work. That is where you use double standards, that is where you expose your confirmation bias.

As for my motives posting here on ATS, there are multiple motives for me posting here. One for example is because I find the subject interesting, another is that I find certain human behavior interesting. Why do people discuss at all? I guess its mostly entertainment.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I was talking about the points brought up in this thread. They are yet to be addressed. I am not responsible for that pteridine is posting elsewhere, nor do I claim to agree with it all.

If you feel the points made in this thread are already addressed elsewhere, you can copy paste. If not, feel free to address them.

Critics can be found all over the net, just search for them. I found a good source to be the randi forum.
edit on 23-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I was talking about the points brought up in this thread. They are yet to be addressed.


They have been address and confronted head on by me and others, this is old drivel, made up nonsense, bad excuses, twisted questions, and most of his questions were unproductive to Jones report. It certainly appears you do not understand the questions that pteridine brings forth. If you did you would have walked away as most people have on ATS.

You speak about randi forum, I have read many of their post in the past, however none of their posters have proven anything but given only their opinions nothing more. If opinions are what you seek for truth, then perhaps ignorance is something you might embrace.

Anyone can be a critic. However, we are looking for facts, facts supported by real science, and I haven’t seen any yet.


edit on 23-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


A statement like "Jones does not explain how he made sure there were no iron-rich spheres present in the sample before the DSC test" is not an opinion. It is either a true or it is not. If it is not true, you must be able to point out where it is explained. If it is true, it invalidates his conclusion based on the spheres he found. This is a perfectly logical line of reasoning, not an opinion.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineI conclude that you admit that Jones DSC experiment, in air, has not proved thermite.


I conclude that you don't understand the English language, nor do you understand science.

JONES DID NOT FIND THERMITE!!!! THEREFORE HE HAS NOT PROVEN THERMITE!!!!

Thermite is just Iron Oxide and a metal fuel (IE: Aluminum).

The chips contain more than just those elements. Jones' conclusion is not that he found "Thermite".

He said he found an energetic, thermitic material incorporating nano-technology!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone else here understand the difference? Should we draw pictures for Pteridine so he can
understand for the seventh time (or more) that Jones is not claiming thermite?!!!!?

I don't know how else to get it through his thick skull?

As for learning how to determine a thermitic reaction , look here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



A statement like "Jones does not explain how he made sure there were no iron-rich spheres present in the sample before the DSC test" is not an opinion.


Made sure?

It is a fact that Jones found iron-rich spheres in the DSC testing, either you don’t comprehend this science or you ignored the evidence in his report, perhaps it doesn’t support your OS beliefs.


It is either a true or it is not. If it is not true, you must be able to point out where it is explained.


It is true, about the discovery of iron-rich spheres and here is part of Jones Journal explaining it.


[color=gold]4. Observation of Iron-Rich Sphere Formation Upon
Ignition of Chips in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter

In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope,
and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent
or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs
taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20).
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 temperatures
indicate that a chemical reaction occurred.



If it is true, it invalidates his conclusion based on the spheres he found. This is a perfectly logical line of reasoning,an o not pinion.


How would Jones validate iron-rich spheres before doing the DSC testing?

What peer review scientist are making this ridiculous claim that the iron spheres could not be found in the DSC testing’s?

What scientific evidence do you have that proves without a shadow of doubt, that Jones and his team of scientist did all of their experiments wrong?

I don’t believe you understand the testing that Jones did in his Journal, this is not all opinions. Science supports these findings, unless you can prove it all wrong. I would like to see a peer review paper disputing his work and since you don’t have one to present, then all you and your debunking friends can do is give your bias opinions and nothing else at the moment.

At this time none of you have a leg to stand on, against Jones Journal.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan.

JONES DID NOT FIND THERMITE!!!! THEREFORE HE HAS NOT PROVEN THERMITE!!!!

He said he found an energetic, thermitic material incorporating nano-technology!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone else here understand the difference? Should we draw pictures for Pteridine so he can
understand for the seventh time (or more) that Jones is not claiming thermite?!!!!?

I don't know how else to get it through his thick skull?

As for learning how to determine a thermitic reaction , look here:



Don't get your exclamation points in a uproar. The basis of what he claims to have found is thermite. That is the key reactant and without it there is no energetic material other than simple combustion. It is easier to write 'thermite' than to keep writing 'energetic, thermitic material incorporating nano-technology.' To show that there is 'energetic, thermitic material incorporating nano-technology,' Jones must certainly show that the thermite reaction is occurring. Given the limited instrumental suite available, he should have shown the reaction occurred without allowing combustion to make the data equivocal. He didn't and his DSC experiments proved only that combustion was certainly occurring but that the thermite reaction is uncertain. The DSC did not prove thermite.
edit on 12/23/2010 by pteridine because: spelling correction



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine' To show that there is 'energetic, thermitic material incorporating nano-technology,' Jones must certainly show that the thermite reaction is occurring. Given the limited instrumental suite available, he should have shown the reaction occurred without allowing combustion to make the data equivocal.


I guess I will have to draw a picture.

No matter how many times I tell Pteridine.

No matter how many science links I provide.

No matter how many studies referenced...

Pteridine still does not understand. Pteridine still does not source his opinioins.

It is not a scientific debate if one person (*cough Pteridine) fails to supply scientific evidence.
Opinions mean squat in a science debate.

P.S. : "KUMBUST CHUN IN AYR MAYKE SNOW DIFFERUNCE" to the chemical reaction between iron oxide and aluminum (redox).

I'll take the time to draw this out after the holiday break.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridine' To show that there is 'energetic, thermitic material incorporating nano-technology,' Jones must certainly show that the thermite reaction is occurring. Given the limited instrumental suite available, he should have shown the reaction occurred without allowing combustion to make the data equivocal.


I guess I will have to draw a picture.

No matter how many times I tell Pteridine.

No matter how many science links I provide.

No matter how many studies referenced...

Pteridine still does not understand. Pteridine still does not source his opinioins.

It is not a scientific debate if one person (*cough Pteridine) fails to supply scientific evidence.
Opinions mean squat in a science debate.

P.S. : "KUMBUST CHUN IN AYR MAYKE SNOW DIFFERUNCE" to the chemical reaction between iron oxide and aluminum (redox).

I'll take the time to draw this out after the holiday break.


When you respond to me, why does it sound like you are whining to your audience. Of course combustion makes no difference to the thermite reaction; it's the energy measurements that it affects. The thermite reaction does not need air.I have told you this time and again. When Jones ran the DSC in air and the carbonaceous matrix combusted, it masked any other reactions, including any thing like thermite. With all that burning there is no way to tell if thermite was present. Consequently, the DSC in air proved nothing except that paint burns. Jones needs to repeat the DSC experiment under argon to see if there is a reaction that might be thermite. If there is no reaction, there is no thermite. Showing a magic iron-rich sphere of unknown origin in a super demolition material that won't stay lit [and looks surprisingly like paint that has chipped off the structural steel ] just doesn't cut it. My reference is the Jones paper and the data within it. I understand that many may say I am not sourcing anything scientific when I source his paper but it is what we are discussing. Your science links are very nice but really don't do anything. You seem to like Tillotson's paper, but I pointed out where his super thermite only produced 1.5kJ/g and how his DSC trace differed from Jones' DSC trace. These were early batches of super thermites and quality control wasn't up to production standards. I know that you'd like me to spend my days searching for information on the web for you to ponder but I really have better things to do, so I just use the Jones paper and references contained within. I did send you to darksideofgravity.com so that you could see Henryco's inabilty to reproduce Jones results. Henryco was convinced that someone had sabotaged his chips so he couldn't discover thermite, too. If you'd like, I could give you some book references but it is unlikely that you would find them in your library and the lack of instant web gratification may dissuade you from looking them up.

I am glad to see that you are improving your spelling. Maybe Santa will bring you a speak-and-spell. Ho Ho Ho.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



When Jones ran the DSC in air and the carbonaceous matrix combusted, it masked any other reactions, including any thing like thermite. With all that burning there is no way to tell if thermite was present. Consequently, the DSC in air proved nothing except that paint burns.


Really, and you are basing your opinion on what science? What are you comparing these allegations to?
Can you prove what you are saying?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


If Jones does not explain how he made sure there were no spheres in the sample prior to the DSC, therefor he failed to prove they were formed during the DSC. And thus he failed to prove a thermite reaction. This is pure logic. How do you know for certain the spheres weren't already in the sample prior to the DSC?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



If Jones does not explain how he made sure there were no spheres in the sample prior to the DSC, therefor he failed to prove they were formed during the DSC. And thus he failed to prove a thermite reaction. This is pure logic. How do you know for certain the spheres weren't already in the sample prior to the DSC?



Parroting pteridine will only get you in trouble?


How do you know for certain the spheres weren't already in the sample prior to the DSC?



How do you know for certain they were? How does that work for you?


How would Jones validate iron-rich spheres before doing the DSC testing?

What scientific evidence do you have that proves without a shadow of doubt, that Jones and his team of scientist did all of their experiments wrong?




What peer review scientist are making this ridiculous claim that the iron spheres could not be found in the DSC testing’s?


Hmmm, avoiding my questions I see.
I suppose I am having this discussion with a brick wall?


edit on 24-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Jones himself admits it in his paper:


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.


More proof are the energy readings that are higher than possible from a thermite reaction. This is an undeniable fact, which is also in Jones paper:


The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g


and:


Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be ap- proximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively.


6 and 7.5 are larger than 3.9, as he himself claims is the theoretical maximum. Irrefutable conclusion: At least one non-thermite reaction took place.

If you disagree, you disagree with Jones' paper



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




At least one non-thermite reaction took place


According to who’s claims?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme Parroting pteridine will only get you in trouble?


To my knowledge I came with that argument before pterdine did, although it is not really hard to figure it out.


How do you know for certain they were? How does that work for you?


I don't, so I can not for certain say there was no thermite reaction. Just like you can not for certain say there was a thermite reaction. We are in the same situation, we both don't know what happened, as there is not enough information.


How would Jones validate iron-rich spheres before doing the DSC testing?


That is up to the scientist who is doing the tests to decide.


What peer review scientist are making this ridiculous claim that the iron spheres could not be found in the DSC testing’s?


None that I know of. Relevance?




top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join