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

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Ok whatever you want. Now lets get back to the subject and explain to us where the excess energy comes from.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
As a layman to all of this i'm going to try and simplify what this all means to me and maybe others trying to follow along. Please, turbofan, pteridine or anyone else following along who has a better grasp of this just give me a simple yes, no or totally ignore me, whatever and i will admit my total ignorance and stay out of this thread.

Okay, pteridine is saying the Jone's tests(plural, and this is very important to me) are ALL invalidated, because he did ONE test in the presence of air, even though he followed a known testing procedure for thermite, that also used air and was not done in a vacum. Because of this, in pteridine's opinion, there is no way to tell wether the reaction was an explosive or natural combustion of some other material fueled by oxygen in the air. Now, pteridine in so many words just said, that you can't test for any explosive in the presence of air because of this.

Alright, this is where i disagree with pteridine and maybe just don't get it. If i was to ignite dynamite, wether it be in a vacum or not, i'm sure you could still say it was dynamite because of the drastic signature of energy increase. It seems to me, that there must be some calculation that you could do that would show what increase oxygen would have on an explosive or just some other random material burning being fueled by oxygen without having to do this in a vacum.

Also, i read the Dutch debate between Jones and some other experts and Jones made a very good point that they, nor pteridine will address, and that's the nano properties of this stuff. This is the major problem i have with pteridine, he doesn't want to discuss any of the other tests that were ran on this material. He's saying that since this ONE test was not done in a vacum that all the other observation is invalid. I just don't buy that. Also, as a lurker i've noticed turbofan has made many attempts to set up a debate between him and Jones atleast on 2 occasions and pteridine has refused. I find it real troubling that pteridine will start a thread like this calling nonsense on Jones work, but wont debate him person to person.

I'm not totally siding with Jones either. I would like to know what led him to do a thermite test in particular on this dust material. What was the initial indication or observation that led him to do this test? Was it just the iron sphere's that were observed in the dust, was that it? Either way, i don't agree with all the Jones bashing either. FEMA suggested further investigation into the eutetic steel and noone from the Gov. has done so. I'm not saying Jones has proved what caused this, but this paper is atleast an attempt of some work at what FEMA suggested.

Anyhow, i'm not trying to argue with pteridine, or take a side, i just question what he's implying and i don't totally agree with Jones either. I admit, i could have taken more time to understand Jones's paper and the science involved. I'm just trying to post some common things that me or other layman might see when looking at this.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by curious_soul
 


Understandable where you ae coming from. However, look at it this way. Thermite has two properties that we can test, and both are known and must be tested. We know that thermite (and its derivatives or versions) can ignite in air (presence of external oxygen) and in zero, inert, air (zero external oxygen). Thermite produces its own oxygen source for the reaction. The reason why Jones' test is at best inconclusive, is because he failed to do this one critical test. Let's use your anaolgy for a second:

We all know dynamite explodes correct? So, we test its properties like make-up, chemicals, etc. It has the composition of dynamite, looks like it, smells like it, tastes like, whatever. Therefore you assume its dynamite. But you don't bother testing its most obvious ability: Will it explode? How can you be 100% sure its dynamite if you don't test its most obivous characteristic? What if you light it up and it doesn't explode? What then? You try all known ways to detonate it, and it doesn't explode. Then what? Is it still dynamite? Same situation here. Jones failed to test it under the most basic test, of burning it in absence of oxygen. It's not the most complicated test, but the simplest test really, and Jones failed to even do that. (If its dynamite, whats the best way to find out? Detonate it!)

If this paper was actually peer-reviewed by actual professionals, they would have also pointed this out immediately. Heck, even I thought, "where is the "inert-air" test?" when I first read the paper. I know thermtie burns in absence of external sources of oxygen. This is most crucial, and yet, most basic test to do to find out if it's thermite material. All he has proven so far, is combustion in air. Whoopdedoo! Now let's see it burn in argon. Then you will have 100% proof positive its something "thermitic", or not. Jones' lame excuses of why he didn't do that betray his inexperience and rush to judgement in the hopes of finding his pre-determinded conclusion. That is not how you do an impartial scientific experiment.

Unfortunately turbo does not think it is necessary to run this simple test that will be most decisive in unlocking the truth. How can one be taken seriously if they refuse to do the most basic test that will give us either a 100% "yes" or "no"? No amount of excuses will justify this willful ignorance of facts and truth. The truth is, Jones' paper is a joke, and would make a high school chemistry teacher cringe. I know if I wrote a paper that badly, I would have been given a big fat "F", for incomplete testing, sloppy execution of testing, jumping to predetermind conclusions, and ommiting the most important tests.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
If this paper was actually peer-reviewed by actual professionals, they would have also pointed this out immediately.


It was, several times over. Welcome to reality. Please try to keep up with the research.



Unfortunately turbo does not think it is necessary to run this simple test that will be most decisive in unlocking the truth.


Unfortunately for you and few others you'll soon see why combustion in air is insignificant.

It might even be funnier than PLB and Pteridine making excuses for known nano-thermite and known crude
oil DSC traces! Maybe, maybe not.

We'll see after Pteridine acknowledges his most recent error and we can move forward. It wont be long now...
we just have to wait for certain people to understand the basics of reading DSC traces.

By the way, I hope you have all found and read the entire LLNL document as we'll be referring to several pages
in the forthcoming discussion!

P.S. No, I wont link it. I'll just cut and paste screen shots. We'll see which one of you can find it and provide
the link first.
edit on 6-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo,
Your fake incredulity is even more amusing than your pretend prosecutor questions. Let us get it on the record. This shouldn't stress your analytical capabilities.

1. Tillotson KNEW he had a nanothermitic material because he MADE it.
2. Jones DIDN'T KNOW what he had because he FOUND it.
3. Jones can't assume that he has thermite and test it like Tillotson. Jones doesn't know what he has, so he must analyze it to find out.
4. He has to eliminate possibilities as best he can. He didn't do XRD on it, which may have saved him a great deal of effort. He did decide to do DSC. While DSC can be useful, the correct experiment must be done. Jones didn't do it, so the results are equivocal.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Pteridine, I'm not fake at all. If I'm that fake, I wouldn't have been able to find three errors of yours thus
far and highlight the simple fact that you can't tell the difference from a known explosive DSC trace
and a known combustion DSC trace.

Please confirm whether you agree with the interpretation of the DSC traces so we can move forward.

If you do not agree with the fact that a sharp decay after the exotherm peak indicates all fuel is consumed
and heat has dissipated (indicating an explosive reaction), then please explain what that sharp, nearly straight line from peak to reference
temperature indicates.

Also source your claims and I will be sourcing mine.

We should be able to clear this point within one, or two replies from each of us.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Please address the large excesses in energy per gram that have no other explanation than combustion. Please discuss how Jones' data allows him to determine that a thermite reaction occurred in the presence of significant combustion.

Do not try to compare DSC's from completely different instruments and invoke slopes of peaks. Area under the peak is what Jones used in his paper and that should be your focus. If you believe that you have new insights that will allow you to discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reaction, please state your case without further pointless posturing, calling me a liar, telling me I don't understand how to read the DSC trace, or using any other low-level psychological ploy.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


Please address the large excesses in energy per gram that have no other explanation than combustion. Please discuss how Jones' data allows him to determine that a thermite reaction occurred in the presence of significant combustion.


That will be easy and if you were to read Tillotson's paper you would be ahead of the game.

I refuse to move forward until we can agree on the trace intrepretation as this is one of the crtieria which will
be used to define an explosive event.

There is NO point going forward just so that I can bring up the trace and have you deflect the importance of
the trace.

Therefore I will try once again to get you to agree, or explain your version of what the trace represents.


Do not try to compare DSC's from completely different instruments and invoke slopes of peaks.


Why not? They are calibrated to a standard. 1'C is 1'C no matter what machine you use. 10'C/minute is 10'C/ minute
no matter what machine you use.

Do you agree?


Area under the peak is what Jones used in his paper and that should be your focus.


Area under the curve (or peak) is exactly what we will be discussing as we analyze the trace. The point
of change of phase, to the peak of the exotherm to the dissipation of heat is what defines the area under
the peak
, or total heat generate over time (power).

For those following along, here is what we are looking at essentially. The DSC trace indicates the amount
of heat transferred back into the test platen over a period of time. Power is defined as energy over time.
An explosive has more power than combustion because it generates a great amount of heat by using all of
the available fuel near instantly.

Combustion on the other hand is much slower and will result in slower heat release over time making the
increase in temperature slower over time.

Much a like a thermometer measures heat, the DSC trace is a essentially a dynmaic graph of temperature over time.
Looking at one data point at one instance in time doesn't really tell us much. It just tells us the platen has
reached "X amount of termperature".
By looking at a thermometer and one instance in time, we cannot tell how long it took to reach that temperature,
or how long the temperature remained at the observed level.



By plotting temperature over time, we can monitor the amount of heat transferred back into the platen and the
rate of increase over time.



An increase in the exotherm trace indicates heat is moving from the DUT into the plate. A trace that is reducing
amplitude indicates heat is dissipating. A trace that dips indicates the DUT is absorbing heat.

Based on these SIMPLE FACTS we can distinguish which part of the trace is rising, or lowering due to combustion,
or rapid chemical reaction (explosion).

Combustion is slow. Heat is produced slowly, and heat dissipates slowly because oganics that burn do not
burn *almost instantly*



Chemical reactions such as thermitic reaction release heat rapidily and with near instant consumption of
fuel. When the available fuel is used up, heat is removed quickly. This is represented by a sharp drop in
the exotherm trace.



Pteridine, do you agree with all of these facts.

If not, which points would you like to clarify?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thank you for your explanations of DSC traces. I’m sure that they will be useful in our discussions. My position is that it is not desirable to compare details of DSC’s of different compounds from different instruments. Their appearance depends on the conditions of analysis much like retention times in a GC depend on conditions of analysis.
You may be surprised to learn that Jones’ DSC instrument is different than Tillotson’s. The response times and sensitivities of the instruments are not the same and curve shape is dependent on response time, among other things. Jones used an alumina boat; Tillotson used an aluminum boat. Tillotson’s sample was consumed; Jones’ sample was not. You claim combustion is “much slower” than thermite. How slow is the combustion of gasoline at its flash point? How about that gasoline in a stream of air? The air flow in Jones DSC was 55mL/minute for a small sample. A single specie could readily ignite and expend itself over five to seven minutes. If you want to argue that the trace means thermite, go ahead.
Note that the topic is about Jones’ data.
His data says that there is much more heat than possible with thermite or any combination of thermite and any of the high explosives he showed in his paper. This means that some or all of the heat is from combustion. Jones admitted that there was combustion. He can’t discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reactions and doesn’t know how much of the total energy was from combustion. All or only some of it could be from combustion.
Since you plan to interpret the DSC traces, why don’t you explain which parts correspond to combustion and which correspond to thermitic reactions.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Thank you for your explanations of DSC traces. I’m sure that they will be useful in our discussions.


You are welcome.


My position is that it is not desirable to compare details of DSC’s of different compounds from different instruments.


We will not be comparing traces between different machines. At the moment, we are looking at one trace
from one machine.

At most we may compare attributes of the traces between Tillotson and Jones, but I don't expect either
sample to exhibit exact, overlayed, mirror images of the trace. That is not realistic at all.


You may be surprised to learn that Jones’ DSC instrument is different than Tillotson’s. The response times and sensitivities of the instruments are not the same and curve shape is dependent on response time, among other things.


Not surprised at all; they both listed their equipment and model numbers. I'm full aware that different brands
of equipment have disimilar qualities and performance. This is not unlike any consumer product on the market
today.

There is however an acceptable tolerance for all test equipment and we can expect lab grade DSC machines
to operate within these tolerances especially when calibrated. Equipment in our lab goes on cal every 6 months,
or 12 months depending on the type, use and application. With every test set we must calibrate all sensors
and confirm the data before testing.

This is exactly what Jones and Tillotson did before starting their experiment. The calibration standards are listed
in both summaries as well. From memory (if I'm not mistaken) their machines were calibrated to the same standard. I will list that later perhaps.


You claim combustion is “much slower” than thermite.


That is not 'my' claim, that is a scientific fact.


How slow is the combustion of gasoline at its flash point? How about that gasoline in a stream of air?


I read this earlier today when searching for information. From memory, I believe it's 1100 ft./sec. If you want
a more accurate answer, I'll source one.

Do you happen to know the reaction rate of nano-thermite? I do, and it's much higher than 1100 ft./sec.


The air flow in Jones DSC was 55mL/minute for a small sample. A single specie could readily ignite and expend itself over five to seven minutes. If you want to argue that the trace means thermite, go ahead.


Please clarify. A single specie of what?



Note that the topic is about Jones’ data. His data says that there is much more heat than possible with thermite or any combination of thermite and any of the high explosives he showed in his paper.


I will comment on this following our clarification of points in this post.


This means that some or all of the heat is from combustion.


Yes, some of the heat was from combustion, definitely not all.


Jones admitted that there was combustion. He can’t discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reactions and doesn’t know how much of the total energy was from combustion. All or only some of it could be from combustion.


There are distinct characteristics and products of reactions that prove otherwise. We will elaborate and debate
these following the agreement of points in this post.


Since you plan to interpret the DSC traces, why don’t you explain which parts correspond to combustion and which correspond to thermitic reactions.




The remarks on the graph are self-explanitory. The phase-change is obvious, however I'm not familiar with
what elements are transitioning. I will re-read Tillotson's study and comment if you believe it is necessary.
The trace at this point reveals some sort of organic combustion and release of heat due to the slow rise of the exotherm.

From line 1 to line 2 is a thermitic reaction as shown by the sudden, and rapid increase in heat transfer to
the platen. Tillotson also supports this fact in his paper.

Line 2 to Line 3 indicates that the reaction has ended due to the sudden drop in heat.

Do you have issue with any of my comments, or trace interpretation in this post?
edit on 7-12-2010 by turbofan because: spl.
edit on 7-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Jones admitted that there was combustion. He can’t discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reactions and doesn’t know how much of the total energy was from combustion.



This is all that is necessary to prove that their work is inconclusive.

Anything else is just Tino's attempt to lend his opinion more weight, since his religious belief in nanu nanu thermitic material is 100%, and backed by nothing other than his own particular strain of Dunning-Krueger.

I asked him a couple weeks ago if he would call an analytical lab with demonstrated experience, and ask them what tests they would use. He totally refused to even make a phone call, and educate himself. This wasn't unexpected. In typical truther fashion, he believes that Google University has given him an equal/superior level of expertise in this.

Dunning-Krueger and total arrogance on display for all to see.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You are saying that you can tell the difference between rapid combustion and nanothermite combustion using only the slope of the DSC trace and that you understand that some, if not all of the exotherm is due to combustion.
OK, make your case.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by pteridine

Jones admitted that there was combustion. He can’t discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reactions and doesn’t know how much of the total energy was from combustion.



This is all that is necessary to prove that their work is inconclusive.

Anything else is just Tino's attempt to lend his opinion more weight, since his religious belief in nanu nanu thermitic material is 100%, and backed by nothing other than his own particular strain of Dunning-Krueger.

I asked him a couple weeks ago if he would call an analytical lab with demonstrated experience, and ask them what tests they would use. He totally refused to even make a phone call, and educate himself. This wasn't unexpected. In typical truther fashion, he believes that Google University has given him an equal/superior level of expertise in this.

Dunning-Krueger and total arrogance on display for all to see.



Actually, Joey is a liar.

I confronted him here and asked for his reason and that I would call the lab.


Originally posted by turbofan

Actually "Joey", I'm not scared...I simply know better.

I've called several places to confirm research, or learn certain aspects of my research. I have audio recordings
and e-mails to prove it.

Did you know Ive called L3 Communications; e-mailed and phoned L3 Comm as well as Rockwell Collins
and even a level D flight sim facility?

You really think I'm scared to call a lab about XRD? Care to put money where your mouth is...or shall I say,
internet text?

Tell you what, you tell me the difference of what XRD will show along with the reason Tillotson used XEDS
for his experiments and I promise to at least make a phone call (recorded for proof).


All he had to tell me was the difference between the test...but he can't do that obviously.
Not much of a surprise.

Funny that Joey never did respond back, but comes here to bug me!


www.abovetopsecret.com...

All that Joey does is follow me around thread and make annoying comments.

I'd be happy to start a thread with you Joey (just like this one) so you can stop ruining the continuity of
the discussion and allow us to debate your reasons.

Until then, act like an adult and stop spreading rumours.
edit on 7-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


You are saying that you can tell the difference between rapid combustion and nanothermite combustion using only the slope of the DSC trace and that you understand that some, if not all of the exotherm is due to combustion.
OK, make your case.


By using ignition temperatures, and slope of the curve as well as the duration of the 'burn' you can tell what sort
of elements within the sample are igniting.

The curve by itself cannot tell you that, however when couple with element analysis and known ignition points
and phase change properties of certain elements you can certainly distinguish the difference of when
hydrocarbons (in your example) and a thermitic reaction takes place.

No, you cannot tell how much heat is from combustion and how much is from a thermitic reaction, however
there are limits as to how much heat can be produced by hydrocarbons and the signature decay of organics
burning off.

If the exotherm exceeds the limits of heat of reaction for a known sample, then you can begin to find other
reasons for why there is additional heat. We will get into those bits of evidence as we debate the data.

Until then, do we agree with the analysis of the exotherm in my previous post and any/all comments made
otherwise?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Why do we need to agree about anything for you to simply state your case? Talk about rise time, differentials, integrals, elements, reaction rates, etc. all you want. You can even claim that such suggests that further analyses be done to determine to source of the energy output. I agree. Further analyses must be done if anyone is to claim thermite/thermitic composite, nano or otherwise. I hope he enlists the aid of a chemist to help him do this correctly.

What is in Jones paper is just not conclusive regardless of how he dances around and wishes it to be.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

This is all that is necessary to prove that their work is inconclusive.

Anything else is just Tino's attempt to lend his opinion more weight, since his religious belief in nanu nanu thermitic material is 100%, and backed by nothing other than his own particular strain of Dunning-Krueger.

I asked him a couple weeks ago if he would call an analytical lab with demonstrated experience, and ask them what tests they would use. He totally refused to even make a phone call, and educate himself. This wasn't unexpected. In typical truther fashion, he believes that Google University has given him an equal/superior level of expertise in this.

Dunning-Krueger and total arrogance on display for all to see.



Actually, Joey is a liar.


You haven't called a lab yet. That means I have told the truth.

Your requirement for me to engage you is irrelevant.


I confronted him here and asked for his reason and that I would call the lab.

Actually "Joey", I'm not scared...I simply know better.


To educate yourself.

You say you know better.

Dunning-Krueger proven.


You really think I'm scared to call a lab about XRD? Care to put money where your mouth is...or shall I say,
internet text?


You still haven't, therefore, the obvious answer to any rational person is yes, you are scared to confront your own personal delusions that nanu nanu thermxtic material was found and proven by some conspiraloons.


Tell you what, you tell me the difference of what XRD will show along with the reason Tillotson used XEDS
for his experiments and I promise to at least make a phone call (recorded for proof).


You should ask the lab this, not me, for you will not read and believe anything written by me here.


All he had to tell me was the difference between the test...but he can't do that obviously.
Not much of a surprise.



Why would I engage? I'm asking you to make a simple phone call and find out. You are now erecting all sorts of psychological barriers that you can use as an excuse to NOT confront your delusions of knowledge.


I'd be happy to start a thread with you Joey (just like this one) so you can stop ruining the continuity of
the discussion and allow us to debate your reasons.



There's zero continuity here.

You are deflecting fatal questions and going off topic in a thread you started, all for the purpose of bamboozling the severely delusional truthers on ATS that you know what you're talking about.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Joey, when you tell me the difference between the two tests that you think is so special, I will call and ask.

I'm not your damn puppet and I'm not about to pick up a phone to please you. Why don't you "grow some" and
post up some evidence of your claim instead of playing grade 3 school games?

If I'm so wrong, you should have a reason to post up...or have evidence from a lab to provide to show that
Dr. Jones and me are soooooooo uneducated.


Would you like to compare e-mails and recorded phone calls of previous research Joey? I can take screen
shots of e-mails and post up links of audio to show my proof of research

Can you?


edit on 7-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


Why do we need to agree about anything for you to simply state your case?


Because that is how a debate works.

You make a claim.

I have issue with it.

We discuss it.

We come to a conclusion.

We move onto the next point.

Anything else would just be useless opinions slung back and forth without resolve.


What is in Jones paper is just not conclusive regardless of how he dances around and wishes it to be.


Well I hope you have some scientific sources to back up your claims.

I will be supplying links to various credible sources (most from government lab documentation), and scientific facts to support my
case.

Simply stating that "you don't think...'insert excuse here..." is not going to prove your stance at all.
edit on 7-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Simply state your case. Show the analyses of the DSC traces. Reference whatever you like. I expect that the Jones team is helping you with this and that is alright, too. This is really their issue so they have a vested interest in the outcome plus deniability, should they have cause to invoke it.
As an aside, when you speak to them next, ask them whatever became of their plans for a second paper that would answer all of these criticisms. You once provided a link to the transcript of Jones interview on Norwegian radio. At that time [June? 2009] Jones discussed a second paper. He said: "This paper is nearing completion and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. I am more involved in the TEM and XRD studies which are also being vigorously pursued."



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I have contacted Jones' team several times over the years to ask questions and get help with certain items.

My last e-mail to Jones was to send an audio interview which I found by Dr. Gash ( a second author of the
Tillotson study). That e-mail was sent about 3 weeks ago and there is a post in this forum of the date
I found the audio interview.

Anything I have typed in this discussion are my words unless otherwise quoted.

I will begin the first part of my case this evening and present it for discussion. It is my understanding that
you agree with all other points made in this thread up to this date.

Pteridine, you know it's very difficult to debate someone that doesn't state their position on certain items.
Hopefully I've been diligent in responding to all of your questions and stating my case thus far.

We really should define all differences before going forward to avoid circular argument in my opinion.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join