Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
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 caracteristics. "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. 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
I am happy to see that you now stand corrected regarding the erroneous figure you posted from LLNL. The labs are not infallible.
You also have not commented on the thermal output of the Tillotson nanothermite-- less than 40% of the theoretical maximum. Are you sure you still
want to use this as your benchmark?
Excess energy is not an excuse, it is just another failing of Jones paper and another reason he is unable to claim thermite. I am taking you through
this slowly because you don't understand the science. The temperature is not what we are looking at, so how hot a particular reaction gets is not what
Jones is measuring. We are looking at total caloric output. A match is much hotter than 1000 gallons of room temperature water. Guess which has more
heat. Your statement "The fact is, an aluminothermic reaction such as Al/Fe203 can produce 1500'C by itself. The additional heat by combustion is
irrelevent." shows that you have temperature and heat hopelessly confused.
Your disjointed argument also seems to include the concept that the burning carbon accounts for almost half of the heat released because it is
combusting as a gas generator, in air, for a thermite reaction. You then repeat the idea "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."
You confirm that you do not know the difference between temperature and heat and then you assume a thermite reaction to prove a thermite reaction.
Jones' paper provides no evidence of any reaction other than combustion and no spheres of iron are shown. In fact, some material remains unreacted and
some products seem to contain little iron.
You then discuss a carbon matrix but also claim a finely divided carbon. Which is it?
You say it is explosive in nature, yet there is no disruption of the DSC trace due to outgassing or material loss and material that appears unreacted,
unexploded, and unburnt is recovered in the DSC boat. The excuse provided by Jones that the material was scattered and that is why it extinguished is
ridiculous. Scattered, it would still have been at temperature in a stream of air. This is some deadly demolition material, isn't it Turbo?
Jones has not proved a thermitic reaction nor has he shown elemental iron. You do not need to "prove" that the material is energetic by citing a DSC
exotherm. This is a pointless claim by you. What you need to explain is how the difference between combustion and a thermite reaction can be shown in
a DSC experiment.
Answers to your questions, by the numbers:
1. You are claiming ultrafine grained carbon based on what? If the carbon is present in ultrafine grains, what is holding everything together? I don't
believe that it is ultra-fine grained carbon, I think it is a polymeric hydrocarbon binder, much like that in paint.
2. Narrow exotherms in DSC are not diagnostic, only suggestive. DSC traces are extrinsic and greatly effected by conditions of analysis.
3. We are not discussing the products of reaction, we are discussing the thermodynamics. Please reread the thread title.
Now some questions for you:
1. What is the difference between temperature and heat?
2. What is the maximum theoretical exotherm from a thermite reaction in kJ/g as shown in Jones' fig 30?
3. In Fig 30, what samples exceeded that output?
4. What DSC experiment must Jones do to eliminate all heat generated from combustion?
edit on 12/18/2010 by pteridine because: removal of superfluous video