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

Originally posted by turbofan
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.

Right back at ya. The burden of proof it at your side. Show me a source that supports your claim that a peak like in Jones DSC can't possibly be combustion. Otherwise you have not proven anything. You are just showing your ignorance and wasting our time.

reply to post by -PLB-


Like I said, you wouldn't know it if the DSC trace came and slapped you in the face!

The elements are in Ultra Grain Format and are in EXPLOSIVE FORM

In order for the exotherm to be more narrow than a known explosive, the material must be in EXPLOSIVE FORM,
not normal combustion!

Once you learn the definition of explosive and how the DSC traces prove that Jones' chip is more explosive than
a known nano-thermite sample; a known black powder sample and a known thermitic Magnesium mixture, you
will apologize for wasting our time.

Until then, consider this debate over and the proof shown. Maybe you can take this back to your engineering
school and have them explain terms like, "duration", "explosive" and "scientific proof".

reply to post by turbofan


Show a source for your claims. You are not an authority.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Like I said, you wouldn't know it if the DSC trace came and slapped you in the face!

The elements are in Ultra Grain Format and are in EXPLOSIVE FORM

Until then, consider this debate over and the proof shown. Maybe you can take this back to your engineering
school and have them explain terms like, "duration", "explosive" and "scientific proof".

Ultra Grain Format? Do you mean Ultra Fine Grain? Your arrogance has no basis, turbo. You still haven't addressed the topic or the points I posted, last. You can't answer so you play irate and say the debate is over. This is a tactic of someone with a losing position.
Read carefully and see if the black powder sample was sealed in a capsule so that no air could reach it. It would seem that anything that could react in the absence of air would be examined that way. Why did Jones drop the ball on that point?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Like I said, you wouldn't know it if the DSC trace came and slapped you in the face!

The elements are in Ultra Grain Format and are in EXPLOSIVE FORM

Until then, consider this debate over and the proof shown. Maybe you can take this back to your engineering
school and have them explain terms like, "duration", "explosive" and "scientific proof".

Ultra Grain Format? Do you mean Ultra Fine Grain? Your arrogance has no basis, turbo. You still haven't addressed the topic or the points I posted, last. You can't answer so you play irate and say the debate is over. This is a tactic of someone with a losing position.
Read carefully and see if the black powder sample was sealed in a capsule so that no air could reach it. It would seem that anything that could react in the absence of air would be examined that way. Why did Jones drop the ball on that point?

You have been saying for the whole thread that the experiments performed by jones do not proof anything and are a waste of time. So you are basically saying, the person who engineered that machinery to run the related test and the chemical enginners who trust the results it produces are wrong. I have a hard time believing that paint would show the same reaction as an explosive material.

reply to post by pteridine


I'm done with you too Pteridine because you don't understand that 'excess heat' and presence of air has
absolutely zero bearing on the redox process between Iron oxide and Aluminum.

Your approach is poor at best. All this time you claim the experiment must be run in an inert environment
and I proved you wrong. You said Jones claimed "thermite" and I proved you wrong. You didn't know that
UFG (Ultra Fine Grain) matrix existed, so I showed you.

I've been holding your hand throughout this entire debate and you have nothing scientific to fire back. Nothing
execpt your opinion.

It's no wonder you wont accept the $1000 to debate Jones. He'd eat you alive with your non-scientific nonsense.
You can't even back up your theory with a scientific source, but I disproved your "excess heat" and "inert environment" approach with science.

I'm through debating you because you don't understand the links that I post to prove your method incorrect
just as much as PLB doesn't understand that an explosive creates a wider exotherm at 10'C/min heating
rate than Jones' sample. This must mean Jones' sample is more explosive!

Have fun trying to prove otherwise, and watch out for that explosive paint everyone! Pteridine said it could
outperform nano-energetic materials!

reply to post by turbofan


Ill never look at paint the same way again. Thanks for the warning pepe.

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo
Obviously, you are unable to answer the questions I posed so you are now in the 'Drama Queen' mode with righteous indignation telling everyone that you are through with this because some people won't accept your flawed arguments and you can't figure out how to weasel out of the situation. Jones has proved nothing. You know just enough to make you think you know what you are talking about. You even confused UFG with 'ultra grain format' showing that you are merely another cut-and-paste artist with only a shallow knowledge of this topic. If you have anything to rebut my claims , answer the questions. If you don't, admit that Jones has proved nothing and find another conspiracy.

reply to post by pteridine


What about the people who signed the paper? You are the one who keeps making the claim that burning paint can exhibit the same behaviour as an highly reactive material. You are the one who keeps making the claim, "it could have been paint, lol" when it is not the case. I am no expert, but I doubt paint can explode a house, even if you set it on fire. The point is, for your opinion that what jones tested could have been paint, you do not have a case, because jones papers shows it can not have been paint, unless you found fault with what turbo pointed out and so far you did not say you do find fault with the points turbo pointed out out of the paper. He said why it could not have been paint and must have been an highly reactive material and I did not see you attack any of his points, just repeating your opinion.

First of all.. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I applaude your indepth debate on such a serious topic that needs to be talked in depth about but turbo, in my opinion you really have nowhere to go..I stopped reading this after like 4 pages and skipped to the end to see you were still losing however many more pages.

It seems to my knowledge, Jones did not do the most basic test he should have done to find out if it was thermite or whatever or not.

And the fact someone pointed out earlier that the peers had already pointed this out?

The whole point is..HE DID NOT PROVE THERE WAS THERMITE IN THE DUST. Why can't you see that? I have an open mind to most things, and am generally, at the moment, under the belief that 9/11 was an inside job of some kind, but am currently on a hunt to either prove it or prove myself otherwise. If it wasn't an inside job, fine, but at the moment, the evidence I have seen points me to the conclusion that there's a good chance of it being an inside job.

ANYWAYS. Can't you see he didn't prove thermite to be there? Nevermind about anything else..Can you see he didn't prove thermite in the dust?

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine

 

What about the people who signed the paper? You are the one who keeps making the claim that burning paint can exhibit the same behaviour as an highly reactive material. You are the one who keeps making the claim, "it could have been paint, lol" when it is not the case. I am no expert, but I doubt paint can explode a house, even if you set it on fire. The point is, for your opinion that what jones tested could have been paint, you do not have a case, because jones papers shows it can not have been paint, unless you found fault with what turbo pointed out and so far you did not say you do find fault with the points turbo pointed out out of the paper. He said why it could not have been paint and must have been an highly reactive material and I did not see you attack any of his points, just repeating your opinion

I did not say "burning paint can exhibit the same behaviour as an highly reactive material." The point is that the material was not proved to be "highly reactive" and until it is, it is considered to be just the red paint that was coating the WTC steel. Dried paint cannot explode a house and, based on the evidence, neither can this dried paint.
Turbo has failed to address the thread or make a case. Based on Jones data, combustion occurred. Jones admits it. How much of the energy was from combustion and how much, if any, was from thermite? Jones can't tell because he didn't do the experiment that eliminates air from the DSC.That's what he needs to do to even show the POSSIBILITY of thermite. No reaction = no thermite; end of theory. Reaction = may be thermite. More experiments needed to show what the reaction is. More experiments needed to show that it could actually demolish anything. More experiments needed to show the possible sources.
If Jones is serious, he will do the necessary work and make a case. If he is just a dilettante, he will continue to play the suckers and make speaking engagements to the true believers and avoid facing the truth. Jones is, in my opinion, not serious. His best play is to do nothing so as not to burst any bubbles.

Originally posted by Baguette
The whole point is..HE DID NOT PROVE THERE WAS THERMITE IN THE DUST. Why can't you see that?

Wow, another bright bulb from the Pteridine pack?

Who said Jones was out to prove "thermite"? I guess you didn't read his conclusion in the science paper?

Well, here's a tip. He didn't prove 'thermite', he proved a nano-engineered thermitic material.

I hope you understand the difference.

Originally posted by pteridine
You even confused UFG with 'ultra grain format' showing that you are merely another cut-and-paste artist

Gee, I forget one word in the sentence and all of a sudden I'm confused!

How about this, "Ultra Fine Grain Format" Does that help you comprehend the rapid rate of heat production Pt.?!

The material burns faster when it's in tiny little nano sized pieces. I thought you would know that?

Newsflash Pt.: Extra heat from combustion has nothing to do with redox reaction between iron oxide and aluminum.

Iron was reduced. Al was oxidized.

Thanks for not learning this after 15 pages.



Material burning at a faster rate than an explosive is called explosive, not combustible.

Thanks for not knowing the difference after 15 pages.

Here's another link of proof you wont read:

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave. If the shock wave is a supersonic detonation, then the source of the blast is called a "high explosive".

The most common artificial explosives are chemical explosives, usually involving a rapid and violent oxidation reaction that produces large amounts of hot gas. Gunpowder was the first explosive to be discovered and put to use. Other notable early developments in chemical explosive technology were Frederick Augustus Abel's development of nitrocellulose in 1865 and Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite in 1866.

reply to post by pteridine


Turbofans theory is that the combustion was required to start the thermite reaction. The sample will do nothing in an inert environment, as it requires combustion. The proof of thermite are the iron-rich spheres and he doesn't care about the heat. The heat doesn't prove thermite, yet the shape of the heat traces do.
A short summary, he thinks the combustion of organic material reached a temperature of over 1000 C, ignited the thermite, which in turn made the organic material burn much faster than possible in regular combustion. Although if the organic material reached such high temperatures it seems to me it could easily burn itself in 2 minutes. Still he insists an exotherm that peaks in a period of 2 minutes is proof of an explosive reaction. The heat density figures are meaningless though.

So, he does not only agree that combustion occurred, he claims it is required. He also agrees that the heat denisity figures are meaningless. What we have left is the shape of the DSC trace and the iron-rich spheres. For the DSC trace he needs to find a source that proves combustion can not take place in 2 minutes. For the iron spheres Jones need to prove they were not already there.

I think the bottom line is that we all agree on the topic of this thread, which is that the energy readings do not prove thermite.

reply to post by -PLB-


What about that Iron was reduced and Aluminium oxidized, does that prove a thermitic reaction? You do not adress the points turbofan makes either, except that what he says aint so, when methods and experiments have been used that seem common in that field of science.

reply to post by Cassius666


What methods and experiments were used to determine the iron-rich spheres weren't already in the sample? What methods and experiments were used to determine that another reaction could not be responsible if iron-rich spheres were really formed?

See, I am directly addressing his points. You can't just observe iron-rich spheres and shout "thermite". Thats not science. You have to exclude every other possibility. Until then, Jones samples are an unknown material.

I know this is not directly related to the DSC data, but I have not been convinced by the debate on that, and there are wider issues that bother me.

(a) I thought it was a characteristic of a thermitic reaction that it could not be stopped. It would go on until everything was consumed. If that is so I wonder about all the unignited " nano-engineered thermitic material " as Turbofan describes it.

(b) If the thermitic material was used to demolish the Towers; how was it ignited in the first place ?

Well whatever it was way esplosive, if it burned at an fast enough rate, or is something wrong with that conclusion?

reply to post by -PLB-

Originally posted by Alfie1

I know this is not directly related to the DSC data, but I have not been convinced by the debate on that, and there are wider issues that bother me.

(a) I thought it was a characteristic of a thermitic reaction that it could not be stopped. It would go on until everything was consumed. If that is so I wonder about all the unignited " nano-engineered thermitic material " as Turbofan describes it.

Well that could have been charges of the material that did not ignite to begin with. How should the speroids have made it into the sample if not as the result of a thermitic reaction?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Turbofans theory is that the combustion was required to start the thermite reaction.

No, not really my theory. That's the conclusion based on the LLNL study of sol-gel.

The material can be tailor made to react at desired parameters.

The sample will do nothing in an inert environment, as it requires combustion.

No, not quite. The organic part of the mix will do nothing in an inert environment. The Aluminothermic
reaction will take place no matter what.

The proof of thermite are the iron-rich spheres and he doesn't care about the heat.

No, not exactly.

Part of the proof (among other tests) of an aluminothermic reaction are the iron-rich spheres. This does not
prove "thermite", it proves an aluminothermic reaction took place.

See definition of Aluminothermic reaction (a redox reaction between two metals where aluminum is the reducing
agent).

The heat doesn't prove thermite, yet the shape of the heat traces do.

No, not at all.

The shape of the traces doesn't prove "thermite". Wrong.

The shape of the trace proves the material is more explosive than a known explosive tested at the same
heating rate of 10'C/min.

A short summary, he thinks the combustion of organic material reached a temperature of over 1000 C, ignited the thermite, which in turn made the organic material burn much faster than possible in regular combustion.

Nope completely wrong.

Try:

The combustion of the organic material reached the activation temperature of the aluminothermic mixture.

The organic mixture burned rapidly because it's in UFG format (ultra fine grain format).

Although if the organic material reached such high temperatures it seems to me it could easily burn itself in 2 minutes.

The DSC measures heat flow. Not sure why you continue talking about "burning itself in two minutes"?

Still he insists an exotherm that peaks in a period of 2 minutes is proof of an explosive reaction.

For the billionth time, it's not about peak. It never was. I said, ignition slope, narrow exotherm (more narrow
when comprared to a known explosive), and a rapid drop in heat after peak.

All three are characteristics of explosives. All three were observed.

So, he does not only agree that combustion occurred, he claims it is required.

No, and no.

Combustion of some sort occured. Who cares how much. It is not required to show/produce the aluminothermic reaction.

He also agrees that the heat denisity figures are meaningless.

No, no, no!

They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.

Heat density when proving an aluminothermic reaction is meaningless.

Got it?

What we have left is the shape of the DSC trace and the iron-rich spheres.

Umm no!

You are forgetting the other tests in the paper. Can you name at least three more? I sure can.

For the DSC trace he needs to find a source that proves combustion can not take place in 2 minutes.

No. Wrong. See clarifications and corrections to your interpretations above.

For the iron spheres Jones need to prove they were not already there.

Already done in the paper by comparing pre-DSC chip with post-DSC chip analysis. Several tests were performed.

I think the bottom line is that we all agree on the topic of this thread, which is that the energy readings do not prove thermite.

Wow, something we all agree on!

This is the only part of this post I didn't have to correct. This is the only part of what you understood about
my position as being correct.

We agree that since Jones' paper was not set out to prove thermite, that he did not prove thermite.

Agree. Wooo hooo!

What Jones' did prove: an energetic thermitic material that incorprates nano technology.

In summary PLB, I hope you now understand my position and more about the science.

I'm glad you took the time to try to understand what you thought I was thinking all of this time so I could
set the record straight.

Maybe now, you can move forward with a better understanding.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well whatever it was way esplosive, if it burned at an fast enough rate, or is something wrong with that conclusion?

The thing wrong with this conclusion is that it isn't backed up by anything. It is just a claim in the wild. Nowhere a source is presented that claims that a peak like in Jones experiment could not be combustion. In a blog somewhere I have read exactly the opposite, supported with a source. Although I was unable to view it as I don't have access to it.

Originally posted by Cassius666
How should the speroids have made it into the sample if not as the result of a thermitic reaction?

1) They were already in the material itself. Iron-oxide spheres are a known ingredient in some paints.
2) Contamination from the dust. It is known they were present in the dust.
3) Combustion. Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion.

Just some possibilities. I am sure there are more.