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: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
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.




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

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.


Are you saying that you can't point to a fact that convinced you ? You are just going with " turbofan said " ?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

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.


The chips that were tested in the DSC were free of spheres, and/or had more Iron Oxide and Aluminum elements
prior to ignition when compared to the post ignition analysis. Post ignition showed elemental iron and oxidized
aluminum in the spherical form.

This shows the redox reaction between the iron oxide and aluminum. It also shows the Iron and Aluminum
were in a molten state prior to surface tension pulling the material into a (ball) sphere.


(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 ?


Because the oxygen in air cannot react with the iron oxide and aluminum bond, we know that the spheres
were formed due to the energy exchange (redox) where iron oxide lost electrons to the aluminum. The aluminum
was oxidized by the iron oxide (< now elemental iron).

Also to note, I've been studying the DSC machines used in Tillotsons and Jones experiment, as well as most
lab grade DSC machines that I could search on Google. It turns out, the furnace temperature attained by these
machines is NOT enough to reach the ignition point of thermitic mixtures (such as thermite).

Therefore, Pteridine's request is not only invalid, it's impossible by a majority of machines available.

That means, most DSC machines cannot reach a hot enough temperature to start a thermitic reaction between
Iron Oxide and Aluminum.

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.

I'll be glad to view a paint study that exhibits such an exotherm at 430'C. The problem is, Pteridine is not
going to find a paint that reacts with such energy at 430'C! Paint cannot release all of its energy is a short
period of time like an explosive, or thermitic reaction.

Further to that point, developers of paint are going to ensure that their product is not highly reactive so when
the customer paints their building(s), the paint itself wont cause the building to explode, or accelerate the burn process!

edit on 26-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
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 ?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I am not an chemical engineer. If you can interpret all those nice grafs in the paper thats awesome for you Mr. expert. All I know is according to a peer reviewed paper an highly thermitic material has been found and that paper hasnt been debunked as far as I know. But i do understand if he says that according to tests the tested matter showed an behaviour consistent with an highly thermitic material and inconsistent with paint. If the tested material did something paint cant do, it aint paint, no?

Anyway I hope Pterdine is wrong and I do not run the risk to buy paint that will explode my house.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

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 ?


It depends on which sample you are viewing.

None of the unignited pre-DSC chips had spheres.

None of the unignited pre-DSC chips had oxidized aluminum , or elemental iron of a high enough ratio to
oxygen to indicate redox had occured.

The and/or refers to either of these points, or both.


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 ?


No, because the combustion of the organic material does not allow interaction with the reduction-oxidation of
the iron oxide and aluminum.

The DSC simply reached the ignition temperature of the organic component.

Once the organic component began to burn, the reaction temperature (much higher) started the thermitic reaction
between iron oxide and aluminum.

The proof of a thermitic reaction is the product of the redox reaction between iron oxide and aluminum
(turning to elemental iron and oxidized aluminum).

We don't care about the heat generated (for purpose of this debate). The heat is an issue only for the
structural steel; not for the proof of a thermitic reaction.

For what it's worth, the thermitic reaction temperature is much higher, faster (explosive) and more viloent
than the UFG matrix combustion.

Here is a link that might explain it furhter:
hubpages.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

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.


I've already linked several referneces to DSC traces of explosive materials that were tested at a 10'C/minute
heating rate.

I've also referenced Tillotson, and other scientific sources to show what a redox reaction is, and the defintion
of a thermitic reaction.

I've also pointed out five distinct errors with Pteridine's reasoning with links to science and physics websites.

I'd be happy to post them all again.

BTW: The DSC machines that can reach higher temps do exist. They have titanium chambers, or graphite
chamber to handle the extra heat without melting down themselves. I'll post up any info on the machines
used by Tillotson and Jones at some point this week.

Enjoy your holidays.
edit on 26-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


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? A source that specifically states "A DSC trace that shows a heat release of faster than x can not be combustion", or something along that line. Your current line of reasoning seems to be: A dog has four legs. This animal has for legs. This animal is a dog. That is a logical fallacy. The correct conclusion from those premises would be: this animal may be a dog. 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.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

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.


It has been addressed, you just fail to see the conclusion. We have a known sample of an explosive, as well
as several other known links to explosive DSC traces taken at 10'C/min heating rate. Combustion of a natural
source of any element found in the chip cannot release all of its heat faster than an explosive without being
explosive itself! We know that any organic in the chip was in "UFG" form meaning it will burn up faster due to
the ultra fine grain format.

This is FAR from natural.


Until now we only have heard your opinion about it. According to you, it could not be regular combustion.


It's not my opinion. It's a fact and I've proven it with linked sources from government studies. Three different
ones. Shall I link them again?


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.


No you have not. The trace you showed was much wider...I could fit about 10 of Jones and Tillotsons traces in
the span of your sample.

Peak does not campare to duration. Amplitude does not effect duration of combusition.

Your sample is nowhere close. It's quite obvious in the overlay.

Just remember, if an element is combusting equally as fast, or faster than a known explosive in the same
10'C/min heating rate, it too then must be in explosive form.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


That pretty much settles it then.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by turbofan
 


That pretty much settles it then.


What is settled is that Jones has yet to prove thermite. His experiments are inconclusive as has been pointed out time and again and his theory of the paint chips, as he has extended it, is so untenable as to be disinformation. If that is the case, Jones has effectively kept the rabble roused and on the wrong path. Turbo still doesn't understand any of this and so desperately wants to believe in CD, he couldn't possiby open his mind to the possibility that Jones is wrong. Turbo's explanations and obfuscations are a short course in misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
I will say that, if nothing else, all of the Jones supporters are most entertaining, especially when they blather on about "denying ignorance" while drowning in it.

If you still believe Jones baseless theory, I recommend that the two of you celebrate finding your truth by "painting the town red."



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


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". That is what you make from it. You are the only one claiming it so far in this thread, none of your sources do. Even Jones is not claiming it. Of course you will get people like Cassius666 convinced, as he will accept anything that confirms his predetermined conclusion, but for anyone who isn't already convinced its just not good enough.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Actually my predertmined conclusion was that the towers fell because of fire and and damage because of an action taken by a terrorist group inspired or led by osama bin laden. That was the predetermined conclusion of most people in 2001 and 2002 and there was little reason to doubt it, the way it was presented by the goverment through the media.

Like I said this might not be the best forum for this kind of discussion, but I am still pretty convinced that they dont sell paint that explodes houses. If something heats up fast enough, it would have an effect that can be referred to as explosive, no? If no known paint is capable of behaving the way it did in the test, it can not be paint.
edit on 27-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


THis coming from a guy that made five errors in this debate, and has not issued ONE link to a scientific
source to support his opinion.

You have not offered a scientific debate, all you do is come back with opinions. We don't care about your
opinions.

You have made several logical and scientific errors and I proved them wrong using sourced links.

Nobody here really believes what you have to say, and I'm happy I had the chance to expose your weaknesses.

We wont hold our breath for you to find a DSC trace of a paint sample that can expell its energy in equal or less
time than a known sample of nano-thermite.



For you to even suggest the chip is paint and that paint would set of such a narrow exotherm at 430'C is nothing
short of stupidity.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

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".


I'm starting to lose my patience with you PLB.

YOu saw Tillotson's sample. It's a known nano-thermite.

I've linked three government summaries with DSC traces of explosives heated at 10'C/minute.

That is FOUR, plus Jones' DSC graph.

All of them exhibit a narrow exotherm.

Now if you're ignorant enough to think that paint can release all of its energy in equal, or shorter time than
known explosives, or nano-energetic material....


PLEASE FIND ME A PAINT SAMPLE THAT CAN EXPLODE LIKE A KNOWN EXPLOSIVE!!!!!!!

If something uses energy in equal, or less time as shown by the DSC trace at 10'C/min when compared to
a known explosive, IT TOO MUST BE AN EXPLOSIVE.

GOT IT?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Theremite has a narrow peak.
Dogs have 4 legs.

This sample has a narrow peak.
This animal has 4 legs.

This sample must be thermite.
This animal must be a dog.

It is a logical fallacy. You will have to prove that regular combustion can not take place in a time period of 2 minutes. A thousand DSCs of explosives or thermite isn't going to prove that.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Why are you accepting the opinion of "conspiracy guy on a forum" at face value. Why don't you require sources that agree with the claims turbofan is making? I haven't seen a single source claiming that a "narrow peak" (duration of 2 minutes) can not be combustion, not even Jones is making that claim. The only person making this claim is turbofan. That is our only source.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


As my debate was based entirely on Jones' paper, I can see why you claim it is not "scientific." You completely misunderstand the arguments against Jones' so-called proof. Without resorting to your desperate analysis of DSC peak shapes, address the following, if you dare:

1. Explain why the super material did not completely burn in the DSC .
2. Explain how the material produced more heat than theoretically possible for thermite or any thermite containing material, without a significant combustion.
3. Explain how you determined how much of the heat was from the thermite reaction.
4. Explain how Jones prepared the material to eliminate any microscopic, iron-rich spheres before analysis.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Unbelievable. Incredible.


I don't know how much more BASIC I can make this explanation, and yet you still cannot get it? You cannot
be an engineer and have this information fly over your head this easily?

I've shown you FOUR examples of KNOWN EXPLOSIVES all using a DSC heat rate of 10'C/minute.

That means all of these graphs are in the SAME UNITS

All of these exotherms have a sharp ignition slope, short exotherm duration and rapid drop of heat after peak.

Black Powder - CDN Government study


LANL study - US Government


LLNL study - US Government


Jones


You see that? Jones' sample used up all of the energy in LESS TIME than a KNOWN EXPLOSIVE
with the SAME RATE OF HEATING. The scaling IS THE SAME!!!

Then, I provided another study for Carbon in its natural state to PROVE THAT IT TAKES LONGER
than a KNOWN EXPLOSIVE

Carbon


Holy cow, this trace doesn't even reach zero and goes off the graph! You see there is NO RAPID DROP
of heat after peak. It continues to supply heat - this is NOT EXPLOSIVE. It's still producing heat!!!!!

THERE YOU GO! Proof!!! LINKS!!! SCIENCE!!!

PLB thought he could compare his hydrocarbon sample with a known nano-thermite:



PLB claims this slow decay of heat and EXTREMELY WIDE exotherm can compare to known explosives
shown in my graphs above!?


How do you remain calm and serious with a guy that has been shown by example, links, science and logic
that HE IS WRONG!?

This debate is over until PLB and/or Pteridine can supply A LINK to a CREDIBLE SOURCE for their
OPINIONS. Otherwise you have not proven anything. YOu are just showing your ignorance and wasting
our time.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join