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: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


According to Jones data and his acknowledgement that air oxidation of the organic component (aka combustion) probably took place.




posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



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


Really, we all were under the impression that only pterdine came up with this argument. Perhaps if he and some of you desperate debunkers wouldn’t copy and past from other people opinions from “randi forum” this was debated endlessly on that forum and all the debunkers could not produce any science to support their opinions. Nice try.


None that I know of. Relevance?


You’re not in a court room.

So in essence you are debunking nothing? You have nothing but an “opinion” based on what science?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



According to Jones data and his acknowledgement that air oxidation of the organic component (aka combustion) probably took place.


Probably took place?
Either it did or it didn’t which is it?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I am nowhere making the claim that "iron spheres could not be found in the DSC testing", so why should I defend it? Where did you get the idea from that this is what I am claiming?

Why did you conveniently avoid responding to the part where you have to admit that you do not know for certain that a thermite reaction took place? That is the only thing I am claiming. Jones his results are inconclusive.


Originally posted by impressme
Probably took place?
Either it did or it didn’t which is it?


You should address this to Jones, I am quoting his words. He is indeed rather vague.
edit on 24-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



Originally posted by impressme
Probably took place?
Either it did or it didn’t which is it?


You should address this to Jones, I am quoting his words. He is indeed rather vague.

No you made the claim pteridine. You still have not addressed my question; I am asking you, not professor Jones. Jones is not here to debate the topic. It appears you are assuming what test results are, by stating “probably took place?”


I am claiming. Jones his results are inconclusive.


Based on what science that proves Jones work is inconclusive?
Besides your opinion pteridine, do you have anything else?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Its christmas soon, leave him his happy thoughts



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
No you made the claim pteridine. You still have not addressed my question; I am asking you, not professor Jones. Jones is not here to debate the topic. It appears you are assuming what test results are, by stating “probably took place?”


I am not pteridine. I already pointed out why a non-thermite reaction took place. Maximal possible theoretical energy reading: 3.9kJ/g. Actual energy reading: 7.5kJ/g. More that theoretically possible by thermite, even according to Jones paper. If it was only a thermite reaction, Jones would have broken the laws of physics, also according to Jones himself. What more proof do you need?


Based on what science that proves Jones work is inconclusive?
Besides your opinion pteridine, do you have anything else?


It is based purely on logic. If a proves b, but a is not proven, then b is also not proven. This is not an opinion.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Fine you tell us then what liquified all that steele.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



I already pointed out why a non-thermite reaction took place


By given pteridine opinion, however you have not proved anything.

Don’t you just love this game of semantics?


Maximal possible theoretical energy reading: 3.9kJ/g. Actual energy reading: 7.5kJ/g. More that theoretically possible by thermite,


Possible theoretical?


A theory is not a proven fact, do you think everyone on here is an idiot?


If it was only a thermite reaction


If it was, if it was, if it was, was it?
Can you prove it was? Can you prove it wasn’t? Looks to me making “assumptions” are your facts, but not a proven scientific fact. Nice try.


Jones would have broken the laws of physics, also according to Jones himself. What more proof do you need?


Would have?
Again you are assuming what would break the laws of physics and I don’t recall Jones stating that comment? Could you please post the source to Jones making that statement?


It is based purely on logic.


Really, so no science is needed to prove your allegation and assumptions.
You and pteridine assumptions have not been proven by science yet. So until then, you and pteridine have failed miserable in debunking Jones scientific Journal.

Given your opinions are not debunking science.


If a proves b, but a is not proven, then b is also not proven. This is not an opinion.


If?
I don’t think you know the different between opinions, and proven scientific evidence? Fact is, you are only given your opinion and nothing more.





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



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You reaction isn't making any sense to me. I don't think it will be usefull to continue to communicate. We just think way too differently. Happy holidays.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




You reaction isn't making any sense to me.


You mean confronting your opinions and assumptions is what doesn’t make any sense to you?


I don't think it will be usefull to continue to communicate. We just think way too differently. Happy holidays.



You’re absolutely correct, we think differently, I like proven science, and you like opinions.
I completely agree with you in discontinuing this discussion, for me it is talking to a brick wall. Happy holidays.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


What liquefied steel? Molten metal was the result of underground fires. What else would stay hot for so long?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I somehow strongly doubt you have an academic education. But if that is what you like to think, is ok with me. Do realize you are attacking Jones paper itself as "unscientific", not my opinion, as I only repeat what is in it. But I don't think you will.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Actual energy reading: 7.5kJ/g. More that theoretically possible by thermite, even according to Jones paper. If it was only a thermite reaction, Jones would have broken the laws of physics, also according to Jones himself. What more proof do you need?


This is a correct statement.

The only thing "they" need to figure out is how that organic material consumed itself so rapidly compared to
a known source of nano-energetic material.

IE: How is this chip able to combust the organic material faster than a known explosive?

Jones' DSC trace is more narrow than Tillotsons calibrated at the same heating rate. This is what "they" cannot
explain...even after we tell them the Carbon matrix is "UFG" (allows it to combust ultra-rapidly).

Maybe if "they" read summaries from LLNL, and LANL about sol-gel technology, and UFG matrix structures
"they" would understand more.

At some point you have to say..."well, the Ferrari finished the 1/4 mile in 11.8 seconds @ 125 MPH....and this unknown
car finished the 1/4 mile in 11.2 seconds @ 129 MPH"

The unknown car couldn't have been a factory stock Honda Civic! It must have been more powerful than a Ferrari to achieve
that elapsed time and speed!

What kind of car what is? We don't know exactly. All we know for sure it that it WAS a car and it WAS more
powerful than the test benchmark. There are only a few cars off the showroom floor that are faster, and only a
certain few companies that make such a car. Only a few can afford to make it!

At least PLB isn't complaining about 'extra heat'. He knows it's there, but he isn't asking Jones to run the
test without air...because as I explained to Pteridine, the thermitic reaction will take place and the oxygen
in air wont react with the Aluminum.

Since the iron oxide reduced to elemental iron, and the aluminum received oxygen, we know it was a redox
reaction between iron oxide and aluminum. Pteridine doesn't get this...I'll be drawing some diagrams to help
him understand this week.

Merry Christmas all.
edit on 25-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


If the UFG matrix combusted so rapidly, why didn't all the material burn? Everything was inside the furnace at ignition temperature, so there was no reason for it to go out.

How do you know how much heat came from UFG matrix combustion?

How are 10-100 tons of unburned material explained?

None of Jones' sycophants wants to answer these questions. Turbofan has continually avoided them because they point away from CD and directly toward red paint.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
As a layman I have tried to follow this thread throughout. I have been reluctant to post before because I have no expertise in this area.

However, I suppose the thread and debate has been, in part at least, to persuade onlookers like me. So perhaps I can interject my observations here :-

(a) I am puzzled by the " iron spheres ". Were they there before the test or were they a product of the test ? I haven't seen any evidence of that either way.

(b) It seems to be common ground that the energy release from the test was in excess of what could have been expected from a thermitic reaction. The test was in air so combustion was involved. If it is not possible to differentiate between a thermitic reaction and combustion what proof is there that any of it was thermitic ?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


So according to you it was the red paint that showed an reaction as depicted in Jones paper? Some red paint that is
.Turbofan pointed out, that the reaction depicted in Jones paper is consistent with an highly thermitic material and therefore can not be red paint, because it is something that red paint cant do. At this point either the grafs are fudged or whatever it was is consistent with what many whitnesses described.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine
 


So according to you it was the red paint that showed an reaction as depicted in Jones paper? Some red paint that is
.Turbofan pointed out, that the reaction depicted in Jones paper is consistent with an highly thermitic material and therefore can not be red paint, because it is something that red paint cant do. At this point either the grafs are fudged or whatever it was is consistent with what many whitnesses described.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


As a layman trying to understand this. Can you please point out what exactly precludes combustion of red paint, and maybe primer, thanks ?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Sorry you are out of luck. I am a layman myself, but that is what i got out of the discussion. I tried before to convince one of them that he wont achieve a whole lot trying to have that kind of discussion here, unless he is happy to converse with one of the posters. But from what I got out of this, the reaction of the tested material cant be red paint, because it is something paint cant do.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Sorry you are out of luck. I am a layman myself, but that is what i got out of the discussion. I tried before to convince one of them that he wont achieve a whole lot trying to have that kind of discussion here, unless he is happy to converse with one of the posters. But from what I got out of this, the reaction of the tested material cant be red paint, because it is something paint cant do.


If you have got out of the debate that paint could not have been responsible for the reaction then something must have convinced you of that. Can you share that reason please ?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join