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.
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Alfie1
Like I said, because apparently turbofan said that paint can not react the way it is depicted in Joneses paper.
Originally posted by Alfie1(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 ?
Originally posted by turbofan
Lastly Alfie, it's not what "Turbofan said". It's what Turbofan has researched and what many scientists have
proven via science.
More to the point, nobody on the other side of this debate (IE: Pteridine) has been able to provide a scientific source for their claims. We're
still waiting for links, research papers, or ANYTHING that can backup Pteridine's assumptions and opinions.
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by turbofan
Thanks for your response. I note that, with regard to the iron spheres pre-ignition , you propose an and/or scenario. Does that mean you don't actually know whether they were there to start with ?
I am very surprised that you say most DSC machines cannot reach the ignition point of thermitic mixtures.
Forgive my layman's ignorance, but doesn't that pull the rug out under the whole debate ?
Originally posted by -PLB-But where are your links, research papers, or anything that backups up your claim that the DSC could not possibly show regular combustion? That is what I am missing in your whole argument.
Originally posted by -PLB-
But in everything you have posted that critical point is not addressed. Where is the source to support your claim that regular combustion can not take place the way it did in Jones DSC trace? ... In other words, it is inconclusive.
Until now we only have heard your opinion about it. According to you, it could not be regular combustion.
In my opinion it can be regular combustion. I have shown you combustion with equally fast heat release. I even found a DSC of a primer that looks very similar to Jones results (I can post it if you like). So if you want to convince me, you will need to come with specific sources explaining why it can not be regular combustion.
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by turbofan
That pretty much settles it then.
Originally posted by -PLB-What you come with is not proof. Nowhere anything you come with says something like "a reaction rate faster than x is impossible with combustion".