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

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Joey, when you tell me the difference between the two tests that you think is so special, I will call and ask.

.......... and I'm not about to pick up a phone


You're missing the point here Tino.

I'm saying that there's zero reason for you to believe, nor act on anything I say regarding there being better methods of identifying what's in the dust.

You're arrogant enough to state that you know better than to agree that there may indeed be better methods. Not me. I say defer to a totally neutral third party with demonstrated experience, and see what they say. You refuse. For some strange reason, you require me to state what the difference will be between say, xrd and the conspiraloon methods used. IOW, tell you what THEY will tell you.

Rarely have I seen such a huge psychological barrier built by a truther - when asked to get a neutral opinion, you refuse.

Sane and rational readers will of course figure out your game real quick:
1- you asking me to provide this info is not a quest to be informed before you take any action.
2- it is a way for you to refuse to make a phone call and shatter your conspiracy delusions, for
3- after given what I have found out, you will say that there's no need, you are convinced of the loon's methods
4- IOW, you will not make the phone calls no matter what.

Will you make the pledge that once I give you a reason to make a few phone calls, will you then do it without argument, whether or not you agree? Will you just do it? Or will you require me to try and convince you before you do it?




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
It is apparent that turbofan is unable to explain the exotherm anomaly or show how much heat was due to combustion and how much was thermite.
This brings into question Jones' claims of thermite in the paint. Jones must do DSC under argon to show reaction other than combustion and confirm or refute Henryco's thermal analysis at thedarksideofgravity.com.

Jones failed to prove thermite.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


To curb your excuse that I abondoned this thread because "I'm a typical truther", I've decided to cut and paste
the info here as well. It would have been nice to start clean as you asked me to state my case, but if you're
going to complain about nonsense, we can continue to debate here.

The temperatures and all that you ask for are located in the LLNL and LANL documentation. I expect you to
source those papers for the information to prove you actually do know how to research.

Right now, the ball is in your court to find a paint that exhibits all of the criteria, or successfully disprove my
post using credible links.

YOUR OPINION DOES NOT MATTER AND DOES NOT EXCUSE YOUR IGNORANCE TO THE SCIENCE.

SHOW US CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC LINKS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

This is a follow up to the discussion between "Pteridine" and myself.

It appears that our debate has turned into anything but a debate. “Pteridine” has not given a definitive answer to any of my questions regarding DSC trace interpretation, definitions, or prior clarifications of previous claims.
Last and most important, “Pteridine” has not sourced any references for his claims. Therefore he is arguing from opinion and nothing more.

“Pteridine” has asked me to state my case to support my position that the chips in the WTC dust are indeed energetic. His three main contests for the dust analysis are as follows:
- 1a. Dr. Jones should have run the test in absence of air to prove a thermitic reaction.
- 1b. Iron-rich spheres are not pure iron, therefore it cannot be some sort of Thermite
- 2. Combustion occurred which contributed to the total heat which cannot be distinguished between an alumino-thermic reaction.

Claim #1a
The fact that Dr. Jones ran the test in air has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the test because heat from combustion, nor the thermal transition time is neither hot enough, or fast enough to produce molten iron.
Tillotson ran the test in air, and Dr. Jones duplicated the environment in order to compare data. Since the DSC cannot measure total reaction heat, Tillotson used the residue to prove a thermitic reaction occurred.

First of all, let’s define a thermitic reaction:


By definition a thermite reaction is a chemical reaction in which aluminum metal (Al) is oxidized by a different metal-oxide, most commonly iron-oxide (Fe2O3) [26]. As indicated by the Latin root "therm" meaning heat, the main contribution of a thermite reaction is the exothermic heat production.


As found in the LLNL documentation, Tillotson proved a thermitic reaction by finding iron-rich spheres in his test residue:


Did Dr. Jones find iron-rich spheres after the reaction of the chips? Yes, indeed.

Spheroids were iron-rich sphere formation so that the product must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 °C for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal residues in which the iron content exceeds the oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide.


Claim 1b
How did Jones ensure the results? He tested the chips before and after ignition noting several characteristics. That Iron Oxide existed prior to the DSC testing using high power image magnification, and elemental analysis (BSE, XEDS).
Chip surfaces featuring oxidizer (white dots)
Jones /Fournier


Jones Close Up

LLNL / LANL


Oxidizer Magnified
Jones

LLNL / LANL


It is clear there are similarities of elements, textures, structures between the known nano-energetic material from LLNL and Jones’ dust sample.

**note: LLNL has done studies with Fe203 and Mo03. The photos listed from LANL are obviously not Iron Oxide, however the sol-gel process and intimate mixtures are similar. View documentation for Tillotson to study the differences. Molybdenum is more powerful, but Iron is readily available and cheaper to use producing nearly equal results.
See chart:


Not only did Jones reference the LLNL documentation and compare the results, he also tested known thermite
along with the chips. Notice the striking comparison in the post ignition spectrums:

Chips in Dust

Known Thermite


Notice the ratio between oxygen and iron before and after ignition. The abundance of Iron vs. oxygen shows that a reduction took place. The Aluminum is now oxidized. Elemental Iron remains (FeIII) further proving a thermitic reaction took place.


Claim #2
It’s very easy to distinguish between combustion and an alumino – thermic reaction using the DSC trace.
Combustion is a slow process and creates a gradual rise in the exotherm, and a broad curve. An explosive reaction produces a sharp, near immediate increase, a narrow band followed by a sharp drop in heat because the fuel is consumed almost instantly. There are hundreds of examples to support this fact. Below is a known black power trace which exhibits all of the criteria outlined in this paragraph:

www.nrcan.gc.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.nrcan.gc.ca...


Tillotson LLNL


LANL


Jones


There is absolutely no reason to debate this fact any further. Jones exotherm trace flat out proves an explosive, chemical reaction – NOT COMBUSTION.

At this point, “Pteridine” must be able to provide a DSC trace for any of the elements found in Jones’ sample which might show a broad trace, slow exotherm, followed by a gradual decrease in heat. “Pteridine” must be able to show a credible source for his proof showing setup parameters for the DSC test as I have done.
Total heat required cannot be achieved by combustion. We know for a fact that there is not enough energy available from the organic materials to reach the melting point of iron.

LANL has specified a heat of reaction including combustion as 912’C (Mo03) which falls short by about 600’C. We know for a fact that conventional thermite can produce up to 2500’C which is more than 900’C over the temperature required to melt iron.

Source:
en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> en.wikipedia.org...
We also know that LLNL has produce mixtures of nano-thermite that can produce over 4000’C of reaction heat:

Tillotson, 2001


In Summary, “Pteridine” must acknowledge that he has accepted that iron-rich spheres exist in Jones’ post- ignition samples and that iron-rich not only means a thermitic reaction took place, it also means “Pteridine” was incorrect about the spheres needing to be 100% iron.

There is a mountain of proof in this post alone to show that the chips resemble nano-energetic materials produced by LLNL. The photos, and the science prove it. Backed with sources from government labs no less.
edit on 14-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Stop obfuscating, Turbo. Once again you try to shift the focus. This thread is about the DSC DATA in Jones paper. The figure you show comparing the heats of reaction of various thermites and conventional explosives is incorrect and not consistent with Jones figure.

Using Jones' data, explain the discrepancy in energy output. Try not to dance around and put in conflicting figures.
edit on 12/14/2010 by pteridine because: clarification



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Shift the focus? I really have no clue what you are asking of me? What figures are you talking about?



The DSC graph is limited in the amount of information required to calculate what I believe you are asking.
For the record, break down an example of what you would like me to specifically calculate.

I'd also like to know why YOU BELIEVE the LLNL and LANL graphs are not comparable? The DSC graphs
I'm posting are traces from nano-thermite tested by Tillotson and LANL. They use the SAME configuration as
Jones' enviornment. So why are they not comparable?

Here's another:


Further to your above request, let's get back to the fundamentals and root of this discussion. You have
incorrectlt stated that the spheres must be 100% iron to show a thermitic reaction. You ADMIT several
times that the spheres are iron containing:



Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


BOTH were done in air. The WTC dust is more potent and explosive
than a known nano-thermite. PERIOD.
www.youtube.com...


Output per unit mass of anything that burns will likely have more energy than any sort of thermite. Peanut butter has more energy per unit mass than thermite when burned in air. The WTC dust has a carbonaceous binder which burns over a four minute timeframe. Yes, burning paint has more energy than thermite.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So do chocolate chip cookies. I really do understand this stuff. It appears you don't.

If all of these substances have more energy than thermite and TNT, then why don't scientists use
chocolate to make explosives "Pteridine"?


I hope you have a good answer, because your analogy fails beyond all scientific reasoning.


Originally posted by pteridine

Ginny,
As I have explained many times, no iron spheres were formed. Iron containing spheres were formed. Their temperature of formation is not known.
Reaction under an inert gas is necessary to show the possibility of thermite. No reaction: No possibility of thermite. Reaction: May be thermite
This will allow differentiation between the combustion that we know is occurring and other reactions that don't need oxygen, such as thermite.



WRONG! THis is the hinge of your ignorance. Here you admit Jones found iron containing spheres.
Science tells us that a thermitic reaction produces spheres containing iron and aluminum as configured
by Iron Oxide and Aluminum...therefore they are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 100% iron. You are WRONG!

What Jones found is the classic signature of a thermite reaction. Period.

"Pteridine", do you know what temperature is required to reduce iron oxide?


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


Stop obfuscating, Turbo. Once again you try to shift the focus. This thread is about the DSC DATA in Jones paper. The figure you show comparing the heats of reaction of various thermites and conventional explosives is incorrect and not consistent with Jones figure.

Using Jones' data, explain the discrepancy in energy output. Try not to dance around and put in conflicting figures.
edit on 12/14/2010 by pteridine because: clarification
edit on 15-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Focus, Turbo, focus. This thread is about Jones DSC data and its analysis. We have not yet got to the composition of starting materials or products.

Using Jones data, we conclude that some, if not all of the exotherm is due to combustion. We know that not all of the red chips burned in the DSC and we know that once ignited some of the chips extinguished themselves. Using Jones data, we conclude that it is not possible to determine how much of the exotherm may be attributed to each. We know that we can eliminate combustion and deconvolute the data by running the DSC under argon or ntrogen. Until that is done, no conclusions about reactions other than combustion can be drawn from this paper.

As to your attempts to analyze the traces; Tillotson knew what he had and could rationalize after the fact. Jones has no idea what he has and cannot. The positions and shapes of DSC curves are not intrinsic and depend on the conditions of the analyses.

Note also that the figure shown in your post comparing energies of explosives and thermites is incorrect.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Gee, some debate this has turned out to be. You didn't answer anything from my previous post,
nor did you supply me with any information to clarify your earlier request...but I'm supposed to focus?



Using Jones data, we conclude that some, if not all of the exotherm is due to combustion.


No, WE don't. You might, but I certainly do not conclude that.

I've already explained countless times the exotherm is too narrow and too sharp of a slope to be combustion.

You have yet to provide an example of an exotherm of a DSC trace showing similar characteristics with any
of the elements listed in Jones' paper.

On the other hand, I have shown using three government publications that nano-thermite and explosives exhibit
all of the criteria. In summary, I have backed up my post with sourced information.

You have not. The ball is in your court to prove otherwise now.


We know that not all of the red chips burned in the DSC and we know that once ignited some of the chips extinguished themselves. Using Jones data, we conclude that it is not possible to determine how much of the exotherm may be attributed to each.


Ummm...so? What does this have to do with proving a thermitic reaction?

As I have proven in recent posts, you were wrong about the spheres needing to be 100% iron. The very definition
of a thermitic reaction has also been posted and the result is iron spheres containing aluminum. This is exactly
what Tillotson and Jones found post ignition to prove a thermitic reaction.

The chips produced an exotherm at 430'C which is 1000'C below the melting point of Iron.

Where did the heat come from?

You are asking me to provide you with calculations, yet you have not clarified what exactly you want me to
calculate.

As specified in the prior repsonse, give me an example to illustrate what you want from me because your
explanation isn't cutting it.



We know that we can eliminate combustion and deconvolute the data by running the DSC under argon or ntrogen. Until that is done, no conclusions about reactions other than combustion can be drawn from this paper.


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Combustion does not matter in this case. There is NOTHING in that sample that can produce enough heat
to reduce the iron oxide. NOTHING.

If you think otherwise, tell me which elements you believe are responsible for producing 1500'C of heat.



As to your attempts to analyze the traces; Tillotson knew what he had and could rationalize after the fact. Jones has no idea what he has and cannot.


THis is WRONG again.

1. The exotherm happened at 430'C. Iron cannot melt at this temperature.

2. The exotherm is too sharp and too narrow to be combustion. I've shown this using sourced examples of
explosives and thermite.

3. There is nothing present in the chip sample that can heat up the iron to 1500'C through COMBUSTION.



Note also that the figure shown in your post comparing energies of explosives and thermites is incorrect.


No they are not. Read the paper. It's all there. The figure is correct.

If you believe otherwise, explain why.
edit on 16-12-2010 by turbofan because: spl.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Combustion: Jones realizes his error on p. 27 "As this test was done in air it is possible that
some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."

Error in the figure: Key is reversed on the figure.

We are not yet discussing the shape of the DSC trace, the products, or the reactants. We are discussing the DSC DATA in Jones paper. See the thread topic. These numbers show excess heat that can only come from combustion. This is the output in kJ/g that is clearly shown in figure 30.

I claim that the heat is more than can possibly be generated by thermite or any combination of thermite and any high explosive, and that combustion must be occurring. If some combustion is occurring the amount of heat from other reactions is unknown.

Using Jones' kJ/g data in figure 30, show how you account for the excess heat or show that there is no excess heat.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineCombustion: Jones realizes his error on p. 27 "As this test was done in air it is possible that
some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."


No, it's NOT an error; it's an observation, and a well noted one. I can't believe you continue to harp on this
pointless topic. You obvisously DO NOT understand what you are looking at. The exotherm happened at
430'C!!!!

How many times do I have to explain the heat produced by organic combustion in air cannot achieve the melting
point of iron?

You should also notice Jones said, "SOME" , not "MOST", not "HALF", not "ALL". He said, "SOME". He also
said it was "POSSIBLE".

If the entire chip sample was Carbon, or whatever you believe is burning in air, it's still not enough to produce
1500'C!!! Try to find me any sort of carbon (or insert your organic in air) that can achieve 1500'C in air.

Please, I dare you. I beg you.

More to the point below.


Error in the figure: Key is reversed on the figure.


No, it's not. It's fine. What are you talking about? Nothing is reversed!


We are not yet discussing the shape of the DSC trace, the products, or the reactants.


Gee, no....why should we right? It's only part of the important information that you continue to dodge.



We are discussing the DSC DATA in Jones paper. See the thread topic. These numbers show excess heat that can only come from combustion. This is the output in kJ/g that is clearly shown in figure 30.

...

Using Jones' kJ/g data in figure 30, show how you account for the excess heat or show that there is no excess heat.

Big F deal! Really, what are you getting at?!!!

Dark cooking chocolate has 22 kJ/g of energy density.

What's your point? You STILL have not given me an example of what you want me to calculate.

Your equivilent to the question is: What shoe size does your TV wear?

Your question makes absolutely ZERO sense. I cannot even begin to imagine what you expect me to
produce.

Are you trying to tell me a chocolate chip cookie can produce more heat than TNT, and Thermite because it
has a higher energy density?


I claim that the heat is more than can possibly be generated by thermite or any combination of thermite and any high explosive, and that combustion must be occurring. If some combustion is occurring the amount of heat from other reactions is unknown.


I don't care what you "CLAIM" you haven't proven anything other than you have no idea what you're talking about.

You are trying to relate a graph of energy density to heat?


Is that what you think?

As I have explained a few times now, the iron-rich spheres indicate the amount of heat that was achieved during
reaction (at least 1500'C) because we know the melting point of iron.

We know that Al/Fe02 can produce temps of 2500'C and above

The fact that iron-rich spheres are present (WHICH YOU ADMIT TO) proves a thermitic reaction.

We know that Carbon in air cannot reach 1500'C.

Your theory is done. I have exposed two huge errors in your reasoning and scientific understanding.
edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: spl.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Still dancing around the bush (pretending?) not understanding what the problem is.

What reaction is responsible for the excess energy that could not have possibly come from a thermite or explosive reaction? And how do you discriminate between a thermite or explosive reaction and this other reaction?

Why don't you answer the question? Why are you constantly changing the subject?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Already answered. Read back.

The slope of the exotherm and the duration (width) of the exotherm.

Thanks.

Also take note, we are dealing with a nano-engineered material which may have higher energy bonds
than Al/Fe203.

The bottom line is iron spheres containing elemental iron were produced. The definition of a thermitic
reactoin has also been posted on earlier pages and Tillotson and Jones found the residue post ignition.
edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Once again:


By definition a thermite reaction is a chemical reaction in which aluminum metal (Al) is oxidized by a different metal-oxide, most commonly iron-oxide (Fe2O3) [26]. As indicated by the Latin root "therm" meaning heat, the main contribution of a thermite reaction is the exothermic heat production.





The major constituents identified were metallic Fe and Al203 WHICH ARE THE EXPECTED PRODUCTS
IF THE THERMITE REACTION HAD OCCURRED
edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


That is not an answer to the question. Try to react like this:

The reaction (x) responsible for the excess energy is a reaction between compound y and compound z. In the DSC you can discriminate between this reaction and the thermite reaction by this and this method. Area a corresponds to reaction x and area b corresponds to the thermite reaction.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
That is the best answer possible based on the information given.

What you and Pteridine are asking is impossible to provide.

You cannot directly convert to heat by energy density alone.

To prove my point, please show how chocolate is able to produce more heat than TNT with the
values shown in Figure 30 as 4.1 kJ/g, compared to 22 kJ/g for chocolate.



Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan
 


That is not an answer to the question. Try to react like this:

The reaction (x) responsible for the excess energy is a reaction between compound y and compound z. In the DSC you can discriminate between this reaction and the thermite reaction by this and this method. Area a corresponds to reaction x and area b corresponds to the thermite reaction.


I've already described the areas which related to explosive reactions in the DSC trace. The range between
430'C and approximately 460'C [figure 29 of Jones' paper] is an example of such.

In order to produce to answers you seek you would have to know the mass of each element, the energy density
for each element, the enthalpy phases, and the bond energy.

This information is not available, but Jones did a before and after comparison of conventional thermite and also
compared his experiment results and observations with LLNL known nano-thermite sample.

A thermitic reaction was produced. Therefore heat was a minimum of 1500'C.

Nothing in that chip can produce that much heat in atmospheric conditions. Nothing. Not even close.
edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: spl.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
That is the best answer possible based on the information given.

What you and Pteridine are asking is impossible to provide.

You cannot directly convert to heat by energy density alone.

To prove my point, please show how chocolate is able to produce more heat than TNT with the
values shown in Figure 30 as 4.1 kJ/g, compared to 22 kJ/g for chocolate.

I've already described the areas which related to explosive reactions in the DSC trace. The range between
430'C and approximately 460'C [figure 29 of Jones' paper] is an example of such.

In order to produce to answers you seek you would have to know the mass of each element, the energy density
for each element, the enthalpy phases, and the bond energy.

This information is not available, but Jones did a before and after comparison of conventional thermite and also
compared his experiment results and observations with LLNL known nano-thermite sample.

A thermitic reaction was produced. Therefore heat was a minimum of 1500'C.

Nothing in that chip can produce that much heat in atmospheric conditions. Nothing. Not even close.
edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: spl.


The main reason that the energy density of chocolate is higher than that of TNT is because all reactive compounds of TNT are included in the weight, while chocolate reacts with an external oxygen source which is not included the weight. The fact that the DSC data shows that the energy density of at least one of Jones samples is higher than theoretically possible for a thermite reaction alone proves there has to be another reaction. This is likely a reaction with external oxygen (combustion).

From what I have read about measuring the energy density of a material (remeber, I am no expert), it can be obtained by taking the integral of the DSC. This is quite reasonable, as a DSC is in fact a measurement of power over time. This means that in the DSC of at least one of Jones samples, the area of the thermite reaction must be about equal to the area of the unknown reaction. (remember, maximal energy density thermite: 3.9kJ/g, Jones sample: 7.5kJ/g, unaccounted for: 3.6 kJ/g).

It could be possible to identify these two different reactions in the DSC if they take place at a different temperature. If you can't, you can also not discriminate between this unknown reaction and the presumed thermite reaction. As consequence, you can not claim the DSC shows a thermite reaction. It could as well be for 100% this other unknown reaction, which is for 100% certainty there, unlike the thermite reaction.

In summery, the DSC is inconclusive, and does not give us much information about the material other than a exothermic reaction took place. Your argument about iron spheres has nothing to do with the DSC, and is a different subject altogether, that should be discussed separately.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB- The fact that the DSC data shows that the energy density of at least one of Jones samples is higher than theoretically possible for a thermite reaction alone proves there has to be another reaction. This is likely a reaction with external oxygen (combustion).


Sure. That's reasonable, admitted by Jones and expected.


From what I have read about measuring the energy density of a material (remeber, I am no expert), it can be obtained by taking the integral of the DSC. This is quite reasonable, as a DSC is in fact a measurement of power over time.


Well, the measurement would be:power = energy release over time...not power over time.


This means that in the DSC of at least one of Jones samples, the area of the thermite reaction must be about equal to the area of the unknown reaction.


Please clarify.


(remember, maximal energy density thermite: 3.9kJ/g, Jones sample: 7.5kJ/g, unaccounted for: 3.6 kJ/g).


Sure, but what is the point? What does this have in common with the production of elemental iron in the spheres
along with oxidized aluminum?


It could be possible to identify these two different reactions in the DSC if they take place at a different temperature.


Half true.

YOu can also distinguish if another reaction is happening by the change in slope at the ignition temperature.

IE: A piece of wood is not suddenly going to explode and cause a sharp exotherm after it starts burning.
The wood will release energy slowly over time showing a gradual increase in the exotherm trace. It may even
appear flat at times and then dip down as heat is lost.


As consequence, you can not claim the DSC shows a thermite reaction.


By itself, not entirely. You can however show that something is energetic and by using known signature
traces to compare element phase changes, it is not far off.

**Coupled with the fact below (answering the last quote)**


Your argument about iron spheres has nothing to do with the DSC, and is a different subject altogether, that should be discussed separately.


YOu cannot discount all of the known data. It's like saying:

"Well we found a wallet with ID in the jeans left in the room"

"No sir, we can't allow the ID as evidence, we can only discuss the jeans. Therefore, you cannot prove those
pants belong to the killer."

Then when it's time to discuss the wallet, you'll say:

"But how do you know the wallet was in the jeans. We can't talk about the jeans and the wallet together.
Now you can only talk about the wallet therefore you can't prove the ID was in jeans."

You need to consider all of the data and how it supports all of the other results of test.
edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Well, the measurement would be:power = energy release over time...not power over time.


What I meant is that they measure difference in instantaneous power and integrate it over the time of the experiment in order to obtain the total amount of energy released or absorbed. At least, that is what I understand from what I read, and it makes sense.


Originally posted by turbofan
Please clarify.


The integral is the area between the curve and the X axis in the DSC. The size of the area determines the total energy difference. So if two reactions take place that have about an equal contribution to the total energy, the area's of the resulting DSC's of these reactions must be about equal in size.


Originally posted by turbofan
Sure, but what is the point? What does this have in common with the production of elemental iron in the spheres
along with oxidized aluminum?


Not much. So I wonder why you keep bringing it up. Iron spheres are not the subject. The excess energy is. What reaction is responsible for the excess energy, and how do you identify it in the DSC?



Half true.

YOu can also distinguish if another reaction is happening by the change in slope at the ignition temperature.

IE: A piece of wood is not suddenly going to explode and cause a sharp exotherm after it starts burning.
The wood will release energy slowly over time showing a gradual increase in the exotherm trace. It may even
appear flat at times and then dip down as heat is lost.


Agreed. So are you able to discriminate between the two reactions using Jones DSC's? If so, please show me.



By itself, not entirely. You can however show that something is energetic and by using known signature
traces to compare element phase changes, it is not far off.

**Coupled with the fact below (answering the last quote)**


But there is absolutely no reason to assume this energetic reaction is from thermite. At least not from the DSC.


YOu cannot discount all of the known data. It's like saying:

"Well we found a wallet with ID in the jeans left in the room"

"No sir, we can't allow the ID as evidence, we can only discuss the jeans. Therefore, you cannot prove those
pants belong to the killer."

Then when it's time to discuss the wallet, you'll say:

"But how do you know the wallet was in the jeans. We can't talk about the jeans and the wallet together.
Now you can only talk about the wallet therefore you can't prove the ID was in jeans."

You need to consider all of the data and how it supports all of the other results of test.


Your metal sphere argument in no way relies on the DSC results, or vica versa. Except maybe for the fact that an exothermic reaction took place. That is all the DSC tell us. It in no way tells us what kind of reaction it is.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Once again you fail to understand the argument. It is apparent that you are confusing heat with temperature. Further, you confuse the melting point of elemental iron with the unknown melting point of “iron containing” material. You should stop making the leap from “iron containing” to the melting point of iron. This is an oft repeated argument of those that want a specific conclusion and is completely fallacious. Unless the composition of the material is known, arguments cannot be based on its purported melting point. This thread is not about the temperatures of reaction but about the total energy output that shows combustion was a large component of the energy released.
The key in the figure you posted is reversed. Please practice your reading comprehension and note that the title of the figure says one thing [correctly] and the key in the figure says the opposite [incorrectly].….so much for the touted infallibility of the National Labs. As we are discussing Jones’ paper, we will continue to use his figure 30 for energetics, so we don’t get confused by an erroneous figure.
Dark Chocolate, when combusted, does have a higher energy per unit mass than thermite or any high explosive. I have explained why this is true with combustion countless times and PLB has just done it again. You seem to have a definite mental block to understanding things that conflict with your predetermined notions.
Simply, there is too much energy coming out of the reaction not to have combustion involved. When we do science, we like to do experiments that are conclusive. Jones failed to do that because he has no way of discriminating how much combustion occurred. To conclusively show that there is a reaction other than combustion, Jones must eliminate combustion. He can do this by eliminating air in the experiment so things don’t burn. He can do this by running the DSC under argon or nitrogen. If there is an exotherm under inert, we would know that something else is reacting and then experiments must be done to determine what it is. Until this pathway is followed, it cannot be concluded that the red chips are anything but combustible paint on an oxide coating of structural steel.
You try to analyze the peak shapes of the DSC trace and compare it to the Tillotson trace. I must tell you that many DSC traces of widely different materials in air bear a similarity to one another and shapes and slopes are dependent on conditions of analysis. Tillotson’s trace is not the same as that of the red chips. Note a long baseline endotherm on Tillotson’s DSC, missing on Jones DSC, the different onsets and different maxima. Note also the thermal output of Tillotson’s material is much less than the theoretical value of thermite. Analysis of DSC peak shapes of unknowns is inconclusive, at best, and is unacceptable as conclusive evidence.

I have no theory to be “done,” per se. I have merely shown the many errors of Jones, et al., and you apparently don’t like it. I admit that I have no vested interest in the outcome of Jones experiments and only do this to show the untrained readers, like you, that Jones is not doing science in his publication and that the conclusion he reaches based on his work is not valid. If he wishes to continue along this path, he should consider assembling a team that has a better understanding of the scientific method and analytical chemistry.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I'm at a loss. I am debating someone that doesn't understand when they have been corrected, nor do they understand the weakness
of their own argument.


Once again you fail to understand the argument. It is apparent that you are confusing heat with temperature.


Sorry buddy, you are wrong. Don't try your tricks here, I've already nailed this down weeks before you could use that weak attempt:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pteridine continuously falls back to the 'excess energy' excuse even though I've highlighted the fact that an aluminothermic reaction
creates more than enough heat to produce iron spheres.

I've proven that a thermitic reaction occurred by showing that Iron Oxide has been reduced to elemental iron, and that aluminum has
been oxidized. This is a classic product of a thermitic reaction regardless of how much extra energy, or heat was produced by combustion.
The fact is, an aluminothermic reaction such as Al/Fe203 can produce 1500'C by itself. The additional heat by combustion is irrelevent.

I've proven that the material is energetic by the exotherm produced at 430'C. The exotherm is sharp in slope, and narrow which indicates
an explosive reaction, not combustion. I've provided links to support this fact using government lab results for known explosives and thermite.


Pteridine has never once provided a source for his claims. He never conceded to the errors he made with respect to the term "Thermitic" and
that the spheres not need to be 100%. Debating this guy is pointless. He is asking me to calculate an amount of energy from material without
providing the necessary details. He knows this is impossible, yet het continues to resort to this excuse as a method to appear in control of
the argument.

He has failed to provide an example. He continues to explain the same thing over and over and over. We know that some combustion took place.
Jones admitted that combustion took place. We do not care how much heat was produced by combustion in air because we know by science
that 2Al+Fe203 > Al203+2Fe can provide enough heat to form the iron spheres.

Further to this, we know that carbon is present in a matrix form which was used as a gas producing agent for pressure volume work. This is
the difference between an incendiary and an explosive. We know through LLNL and LANL that their organic elements are used to produce
large amount of gas for explosive characteristics. "Pteridine" would have known this had he read and studied
the available documentation.

THIS IS THE LIKELY SOURCE FOR THE ADDITOINAL HEAT IN THE EXOTHERM. NOTE: IT IS NOT COMBUSTION, IT IS EXPLOSIVE IN NATURE.

The definition of explosive is: a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction

Does the carbon require oxygen to react? Yes it does. Does carbon normally produce a sharp exotherm when igniting? No.
When carbon burns normally, it produces a rather slow rising slope during the release of heat.



You will note that Carbon ignites around 300'C. This is about the same point in the Jones and Tillotson
graph for temperature of ignition.

Wow, what a thought huh?!

Can this extra heat within the narrow exotherm be the explosive, gas production by carbon? Yes. Using UFG (Ultra fine grain) particles
you can enable the carbon to consume itself more rapidly. This allows for more heat to be released in a shorter period of time. It's a similar
result as grinding wood into 'saw dust' and lighting it on fire. By taking a large piece of wood and grinding it into small shavings, you get this
reaction:


www.youtube.com...

So the questions back to Pteridine:

1. Why does the carbon exist in the chip in this form? Certainly you don't believe it's paint, or formed by
an aircraft smashing into a building?


2. If a narrow exotherm such as the ones shown in the Jones and LLNL documentation indicate an explosive
reaction, do you agree the any elements burning in air must be in the UFG format in order to release all of
their energy in such a short duration of time (regarless of combustion, or chemical reaction)?

3. Do you agree that the spheres are not supposed to be 100% iron to prove a thermitic reaction?
edit on 18-12-2010 by turbofan because: spl.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I've proven that the material is energetic by the exotherm produced at 430'C. The exotherm is sharp in slope, and narrow which indicates
an explosive reaction, not combustion. I've provided links to support this fact using government lab results for known explosives and thermite.


So you think that a slope that takes more than 2 minutes to rise to its maximal value is evidence of a fast reaction? And you think that complete combustion of a sample can not happen in a period of 2 minutes? Substantiate your claims. Show sources why this is so.





top topics
 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join