An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 04:48 AM by -PLB-

reply to post by turbofan

Just hoping you are open to learn something, take a look at the following graph (just random from google):

On the left side you see Celsius, on the right side you see Fahrenheit. The curves are valid for both scales. Conclusion, the shape of the curve is independent of the used units, and only depends on the chosen range and aspect ratio.

I hope this will contribute to you understanding of reading graphs.

edit on 6-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 05:05 AM by turbofan

reply to post by -PLB-

Sorry to embarrass you like this. Here is your graph redrawn on a Celsius scale with
data points listed.

The exotherm centre is ~ 380 degrees C

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 05:28 AM by -PLB-

reply to post by turbofan

Sigh, ok I will try and hope I can explain this. In one figure the unit is mW, in the other figure the unit is W/g. Notice the absence of "g" in the first. These are to different units. To transform mW to W/g, you need to divide the heat flow by the weight of the test material. I already explained this some posts ago. The samples used in the document I posted are about 2 mg. This will result in a peak of 33.29mW/2mg=16.6W/g for the 10C/min curve. This is, as expected, higher than the peaks in your diagrams.

I just can't imagine you have any experience with any of this. I know I haven't, but it is not too hard to figure it out. Anyway, I guess the discussion has officially died. In order to prevent more pollution in this thread I will leave it at this.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 05:54 AM by turbofan

Even with the 5.29 mW/g differenital, the slope of the exotherm is nowhere close.

I have no idea what you're trying to relate between the two curves. The slope is not the same; the
energy potential is nowhere close, the change of phase is not the same.

To answer your question, yes I do have some experiece with this sort of thing. I"ll take a video of my testing
tomorrow and you can see how a TVAC or Hotplate test tracks thermal properties of devices experiencing
electron phenomenon like multipaction, passive intermodulation and so forth. Mind you it's not a DSC machine,
but the principle is the same with respect to thermal monitoring.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 06:26 AM by -PLB-

reply to post by turbofan

Try redrawing the graph in this post, but now do it correct using the right units. Then you will get my point.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 06:59 AM by turbofan

Wait a second...need to check your math for Watts/gram.

edit on 6-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 08:01 AM by budaruskie

Although, I believe turbofan handled it quite well I'd like to point out a classic diversion technique used in this thread that has been used countless times by one small group of people on this site. When certain people get asked direct questions that they don't want to answer they will first ignore it, then change the subject to argue about something less important and typically trivial, and finally have another screen-name (and member supposedly) attack their adversary with insults. The following statement is the last step of such a case.

I have to say my jaw kinda dropped from this statement. Do you have any technical education at all?

This is hilarious.

I guess the discussion has officially died

How can you end a discussion you were A) never invited to participate in B) not really contributing to C) have no authority whatsoever to use to do so? The truth is, as you must already know, your purpose is to end the discussion as quickly as possible or dilute the contents of it as much as possible...but step one in the handbook isn't working. Step two is obviously to declare yourself the winner and quit...while claiming the other side is incompetant or quit first.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 08:41 AM by turbofan

PLB, it appears your math is correct. I will redraw the graph using the corrected units.

When studying your graph initially, I was under the impression your sample was mW/g based on the
limited information given.

You will soon see that redrawing the graph has the reverse effect on Tillotson's trace making it appear even
more narrow and a greater slope when compared to the crude oil trace. Still nothing strikes me as being similar.

Drawing to come shortly.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 08:52 AM by turbofan

Originally posted by budaruskie Step two is obviously to declare yourself the winner and quit...while claiming the other side is incompetant or quit first.

It's especially annoying when you're trying to produce answers with limited information. "Here's a graph on page
X"...'Oh yeah, by the way, it's a 2 mg sample size".

Then you're stuck reading through a document to confirm the data (which isn't really even relevant) just to prove
a point.

All of this while you're at work concentrating on other things.

It's all good though, I don't mind keeping busy.

Here it is (not to scale, but you get the idea):

Comparing the slope of either trace immediately and clearly illustrates that one is explosive and one is combustion.

PLB, and Pteridine do you agree?

edit on 6-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 10:22 AM by -PLB-

reply to post by turbofan

No, thats not anything like it, when you do it properly you see that in some cases the curves of combusted material are steeper.

But lets follow your and budaruskie's advice and lets get back on topic again. How do you explain the excess energy?

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 10:33 AM by pteridine

reply to post by turbofan

It is difficult to compare results in such a manner. DSC of explosives are often small samples done in sealed sample containers. Heating rates are important in determining the shapes of the curves and different instruments have different sensitivities, which also affects curve shape. DSC of energetic materials in standard sample boats often show disruptions in the trace or electronic noise when they explode and scatter.
All of the contortions to show a thermite reaction by first or second derivatives of the trace are absolutely not how to do it. The excess energy is the result of combustion and becaues there was some combustion, there is no way to tell how much was combustion and how much was other reaction. Look at the DSC and show which part of the trace corresponds to combustion and which corresponds to reaction. The only way to discriminate between burning and other reactions is to eliminate one of them. The one that can be eliminated is combustion. It is eliminated by removing air. This is done by running the DSC under Argon or nitrogen. Now, if there is reaction, you can measure it and try to determine what it is. Assuming thermite before experiment and concluding such with virtually no evidence is flawed and not at all scientific. That is why this paper was not published elsewhere.

Had this paper been submitted to peer review for a primary journal, these flaws would have required more experimental work [DSC under inert, XRD, and IR for starters] and a rewrite before publication.

edit on 12/6/2010 by pteridine because: spelling correction

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 10:48 AM by ibiubu

reply to post by budaruskie

Maybe a U2U pertaining to scaling graph axes and basic functions of DSC was in order LOL! I keep reading hoping for some insight on the obtained values and whether or not the material can even be compared to conventional iron-oxide/aluminum thermite. As evidenced by the microstructures of the steel beams, thermate would be a likely candidate due to iron sulfide in the microstructure at the cut portions of the I-beams from WTC 1 and 2. Based on this analysis, comparing any unreacted, suspect incendiary device to thermite makes no sense.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 10:55 AM by pteridine

reply to post by ibiubu

The amount of sulfur in the drywall gypsum would swamp any thermate present and readily accounts for the sulfides in the beams. You would have to find evidence of thermate cuts and not general erosion. Jones does not claim thermite, per se, but a composite material that does not include sulfur or nitrate salts, which eliminates thermate.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 11:22 AM by turbofan

OMG! Are you guys SERIOUS!?

You are trying to compare a KNOWN CRUDE OIL COMBUSTION with a KNOWN NANO THERMITE EXPLOSION
and trying to claim they are SIMILAR!

The graph ONCE AGAIN is from TILLOTSON, LAWRANCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABS! It is a
KNOWN XEROGEL EXPLOSIVE.

The graph that PLB supplied is a KNOWN CRUDE OIL COMBUSTION TRACE!

Please tell me what is similar PTERIDINE, PLB and IBIUBU

Feel free to send U2U's amongst yourselves to figure out some kind of story to post first

Seriously, are we really having this discussion?

PLB YOU REDRAW THE DIAGRAM and show me how an explosive trace and combustion trace are supposed
to be similar.

edit on 6-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 11:28 AM by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridine The only way to discriminate between burning and other reactions is to eliminate one of them. The one that can be eliminated is combustion.

You are clearly kidding me right? Tillotson is wrong, and you are right? Is that what you're trying to state
Pteridine?

It is eliminated by removing air. This is done by running the DSC under Argon or nitrogen.

Wrong. Tillotson ran with air and can still tell you which part of the trace is from the aluminothermic reaction.
I can even tell you which part. I'll even supply a document to show you how to interpret the trace!

Had this paper been submitted to peer review for a primary journal, these flaws would have required more experimental work [DSC under inert, XRD, and IR for starters] and a rewrite before publication.
edit on 12/6/2010 by pteridine because: spelling correction

YOU HAVE CLEARLY NOT READ THE LLNL DOCUMENTATION!

YOU ARE LOOKING AT A TRACE FROM THAT DOCUMENT!!!

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 11:39 AM by turbofan

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan

No, thats not anything like it, when you do it properly you see that in some cases the curves of combusted material are steeper.

I DIDN'T EVEN REDRAW THE CRUDE OIL TRACE!

I SIMPLY ERASED THE 5'C/MIN and 15'C/MIN TRACES and ADDED Tillotson's trace!

THEREFORE YOUR CRUDE OIL CURVES ARE EXACT FROM THE DOCUMENT!!!

This has to be the funniest display of ignorance I have ever read within a 9/11 debate - bar none.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 11:45 AM by ibiubu

reply to post by pteridine

The sulfur in the gypsum drywall would not change the microstructure in the way shown in Appdx C of the WTC report. Sulfur is not soluble in steel below it's liquidus temperatures. The microstructure shows iron sulfide in an austenitic matrix. This would not result from diffusion of sulfur into steel after prolonged periods of time...nonetheless, sulfur is not soluble until the steel is molten, which refutes the official OS temperature regime.

This is why I feel Jones is suspect as a whole. His suggestion of nano-thermite is counter to the results of the metallurgical investigation findings. And using DSC to characterize the energy created by an oxidation-reduction reaction is poor science, for it is not the right tool.

edit on 6-12-2010 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 11:48 AM by NIcon

reply to post by turbofan

I agree. Let's see PLB's work as this is not all a complete diversion as it does pertain to interpreting the graph. But I will give PLB credit for finally supplying an outside source to his argument. Something that's not done much on opponent side.

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 12:32 PM by turbofan

reply to post by NIcon

There's no need. The trace in my diagram is a copy of the trace from his document; he thinks I redrew it.

There is absolutely no difference between my diagram and the diagram from his supplied source.

That is why his comment is extremely funny.

His comparison is a waste of time.

He would be better off trying to find a known explosive DSC trace that doesn't have a rapid decay after the
peak of the exotherm.

The sudden drop and decay of the trace is a signature of explosive character because the fuel source is
used up almost instantly and heat is removed almost instantly. Therefore temperature of the test platen drops
suddenly and produces a near straight line to the reference platen temperature.

edit on 6-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 01:05 PM by NIcon

reply to post by turbofan

I disagree Turbo, there is a need as he/she still believes you are wrong. People should take their arguments all the way to their logical end. They should try to prove they are right, rather than just "dropping" it. If it was important enough for him/her to bring it up, it should be important enough for him/her to try and prove his/her point. It may be a waste of time but it should be his/her time that is wasted.

And by the way, there was no need to erase the 5/c and 15/c traces from that graph, as all the separate traces are printed at the end of that document starting on page 135. Just thought you might like to know that.

edit on 6-12-2010 by NIcon because: changed a sexist he to a bisexual he/she