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

reply to post by pteridine

It would be interesting to hear your views on how combustion energy and other reaction energy can be discriminated.

Shouldn't this statement be conditional. As in, "It would be interesting to hear your views on how combustion energy and other reaction energy can be discriminated by the DSC data alone."? That seems to be your standard in this thread.

Note that he did not see elemental iron; it was always combined. My statement should have read "Jones did not measure elemental iron."

This is also an interesting standard. I'll have to remember it while I look at the other investigations on 911, i.e. FEMA, NIST and that Pentagon report. But that has nothing to do with the DSC data. Carry on.

But thermite has been found. Under the microscope. I really do not see where you are going with this. If you do not think thermite or thermate was involved then what was it doing there?

If there is fault with the Herrit paper, I am sure people better qualified than you and me will come forward. But as it is now I will trust somebody with experties on the field, over conspiracyguy on the ATS board.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by NIcon

 

You are correct, Jones did claim elemental iron. Jones deduced the presence of elemental iron because the measured oxygen was less than a stiochiometric amount and he didn't notice any other elements in the EDAX. XRD might have been helpful. Note that he did not see elemental iron; it was always combined. My statement should have read "Jones did not measure elemental iron."

It would be interesting to hear your views on how combustion energy and other reaction energy can be discriminated.

edit on 12/21/2010 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

As I mentioned time and time and time again. We don't care about excess heat from combustion.

We are here to prove the chip is thermitic.

Since air wont react with the iron oxide and aluminum, we don't care that the test was run in air.

The reaction temperature of iron oxide and aluminum when mixed properly is approximately 3000'C.

This is far over the melting point of iron and structural steel.

We have proven a thermitic reaction because the iron oxide was reduced and aluminum was oxidized.

This debate is over. You can talk about the price of tea in China all you like, but the fact is Jones proved
a thermitic reaction.

He therefore claimed the chip is:

"...unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology,..."

The extra heat from combustion is just icing on the cake.

Originally posted by turbofan

As I mentioned time and time and time again. We don't care about excess heat from combustion.

We are here to prove the chip is thermitic.

Since air wont react with the iron oxide and aluminum, we don't care that the test was run in air.

The reaction temperature of iron oxide and aluminum when mixed properly is approximately 3000'C.

This is far over the melting point of iron and structural steel.

We have proven a thermitic reaction because the iron oxide was reduced and aluminum was oxidized.

This debate is over. You can talk about the price of tea in China all you like, but the fact is Jones proved
a thermitic reaction.

He therefore claimed the chip is:

"...unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology,..."

The extra heat from combustion is just icing on the cake.

This debate is not over. You refuse to debate by not answering the question of how much energy was from combustion and how much was from other reactions, such as thermite. Based on the paper, you can't....which is why Jones can't claim thermite based on his experiments.
First, you don't care about the excess energy because you don't understand why the excess energy is important. I don't know how to restate it to you, yet again, so that you may see why nothing has been proved, other than the fact that the Jones team is short on competent analytical chemists.
Your second line shows that you don't understand the scientifc method. We are not here to prove that the chips are thermite, we are here to determine the composition of the chips. You do not start to "prove that the earth is round"; that would bias your experiment and conclusions. It might be a cube or a dodecahedron. You would set out to determine the shape of the earth.
Starting from not assuming that thermite is present, what experiments might we do to characterize the chips?
We might run an quick XRD, which would tell us all sorts of things about what is in the chips. We might have to dissolve the matrix of several chips and separate the contents first so we have a good sample. This would make eliminating the gray layer a little easier and allow us to see if any of the spheres were present when we started; always a possibility with a magnetic separation of dust that contains fly ash. We could ignite the whole chip and see what happened. We could then ignite the contents and see what happened. The DSC will provide more useful information than igniting an unknown in an oxytorch and admiring the sparks. That was a particularly pointless experiment which could definitely lead to iron spheres. Yes, carbon will readily reduce iron oxide at higher temperatures.
Ok, so then we run the DSC in air and get out far more energy than any thermite could ever produce. Now we run the DSC in argon and look at the difference to see how much energy can be accounted for by combustion. The difference is what doesn't need air to react. If it is zero, all the energy was from combustion. If not, then some other reaction is occurring. With this information, we can proceed as I outlined before.

Remember, a scientist would not set out to "prove thermite."

reply to post by NIcon


Yes. "...by Jones' DSC data as presented in the topic paper."

I think at least we can all agree now that the DSC traces do not provide evidence for a thermite reaction, which is the topic of this thread.

As for the iron-rich spheres, it seems to me the next step for Jones to do is explain how he made sure that the spheres were not already part of the sample pre-DSC. All his paper says about it is that he didn't find them. But it might be an idea to open a new topic about it.

Originally posted by pteridineThis debate is not over. You refuse to debate by not answering the question of how much energy was from combustion and how much was from other reactions, such as thermite.

The debate IS over.

Unless you want to try and disprove science and that redox between Iron Oxide and Aluminum does not
denote a classic thermitic reaction, then we're done.

I don't care how much heat was produced from organics, it TOTALLY misses the point of what Jones proved.

If/When you respond, be sure to address this fact and please source some scientific references as you
attempt to disprove the classic thermitic reaction.

Originally posted by turbofan
The debate IS over.

Unless you want to try and disprove science and that redox between Iron Oxide and Aluminum does not
denote a classic thermitic reaction, then we're done.

I don't care how much heat was produced from organics, it TOTALLY misses the point of what Jones proved.

If/When you respond, be sure to address this fact and please source some scientific references as you
attempt to disprove the classic thermitic reaction.

If the debate is over, you have conceded defeat as you are unable to respond to the topic of this thread.

You have totally missed the point of this thread, are unaware of the chemistry and thermodynamics of thermite, the limits of DSC analyses, and have ignored the fact that the red chips did not stay lit once ignited nor were they consumed in the reaction. You have no proof that there was any reaction between iron oxide and aluminum or that thermite was present. You have not discriminated between the heat of combustion and other reactions and have no evidence that any of it was due to thermite.

Until you respond to the thermodynamics of the DSC analyses in Jones' paper, consider your case lost and that Jones paper has proved only that paint burns.

Let him have whatever victory he thinks he has. Me I will wait and see what QUALIFIED people have to say about the published paper, his peers with the related education. Why are you even bothering with conspiracyguy?

You have been flapping your beak on this site for months about excess heat, and Jones' chip cannot be 'thermite'.
Well, news flash: JONES NEVER CLAIMED "THERMITE"!!! That's your problem. You think he claimed thermite,
and then go around saying there is too much heat to be thermite like you discovered something fabulous!

Wow, talk about mixed up.

Just keep reading this over and over until it clicks:

"...unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology,..."

We are done debating as I am done correcting you.

You are trying to single out one aspect of one test which is hardly the way to disprove an entire scientific
paper! Furthermore, you don't even understand that the extra heat from combustion has
absolutely NOTHING to do with proving an energetic, thermitic reaction.

I've posted several traces of explosives and thermitic reactions all showing a sharp ignition
slope, narrow exotherm and rapid decay of heat after peak, and you cannot provide one
example of a combustible element within the chip that can form a trace anywhere near
that duration at 10'C/min heating rate (non-UFG).

You cannot even concede the fact that ultra-fine grain particles, or a carbon matrix should
not be present in these chips!

I've corrected several of your mistakes and exposed your ignorance on at least five examples:

Your claim that thermitic means "thermite". FALSE

Comparing thermite and "energetic, nano-tech material". WRONG

Not knowing the term "UFG Matrix". POOR

Claiming the residue cannot be thermitic because they are iron containing, not 100% iron. WRONG

That the test must be run in absence of air to prove a thermitic reaction. FALSE


Yet, you still come back after all of this and want to talk about excess heat! I'm through
discussing science with someone that cannot even do proper research, or honestly review
a science report.


But you feel that I've "lost" this debate

I've done my job of exposing your ignorance here on ATS. Have fun waving your "excess heat"
flag while the iron spheres stare you in the face.

If nothing else, I hope that at least one person learned something from our thread enough to know
you are just blowing smoke with your cut and paste tactics.

reply to post by Cassius666


I agree. I'll wait for the day that anyone with a degree in science can successfully debate Jones.

Let's not hold our breath!

Well I guess I won't be getting what I'm looking for in this thread. I still don't understand the opponents to this paper's reasoning on how the iron got reduced? It shouldn't be that hard to describe or to point to a relevant experiment or paper. I've found many online but haven't found anything comparable to these chips.

Originally posted by NIcon
Well I guess I won't be getting what I'm looking for in this thread. I still don't understand the opponents to this paper's reasoning on how the iron got reduced?

That would be the point to disprove. Not 'excess heat'.

Star for you!

reply to post by turbofan


And would also /not be the issue being discussed here. The iron spheres have absolutely nothing to do with the DSC experiment, yet it is used as the argument in the thread. I think everyone is well aware of this, but its hard to admit that something you believe so strongly in may not be as perfect as you want it to be.

As for disproving Jones, he first has to prove the spheres were not already in the sample. "I didn't find any" isn't science. What method did he use to come to this conclusion?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan

 

And would also /not be the issue being discussed here. The iron spheres have absolutely nothing to do with the DSC experiment, yet it is used as the argument in the thread. I think everyone is well aware of this, but its hard to admit that something you believe so strongly in may not be as perfect as you want it to be.

As for disproving Jones, he first has to prove the spheres were not already in the sample. "I didn't find any" isn't science. What method did he use to come to this conclusion?

The only reason we're discussing heat is because Pteridine thought it would be more convenient to start
ANOTHER topic after I had issued my debate thread discussing the entire paper.

So ya dude, the spheres have everything to do with this deal.

You might want to re-read Jones paper to discover how he ruled out iron spheres pre and post DSC.

On second thought, don't bother. You wont understand it.

reply to post by turbofan


So why didn't you say so from the start, but instead came with all kind of irrelevant arguments and posts about DSC?

Anyway, I guess you don't want to discuss how Jones determined the spheres were not already there. Calling someone too stupid to understand is typical behavior to avoid discussion.

reply to post by -PLB-


Sorry, I thought you were aware as you followed the previous thread.

For the record, I'll apologize for my comments to you.

I'm just quite tired of the logic presented in this discussion and it appeared you were avoiding the evidence as
a whole.

reply to post by turbofan


Ok accepted.

So do you agree that the DSC experiment did not help much in determining if a thermit(e/ic) reaction took place, but instead the idea that iron-shperes were formed is the conclusive evidence? In fact, they could also just have heated the sample in an oven, then the spheres would also have been formed according to their hypothesis. The DSC traces aren't really of any importance to the spheres. Agreed?

Why I question how Jones determined the spheres were not already there is actually because his own paper states:

Previous studies discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by the RJ Lee Company [14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [15], McGee et al. [13] and Lioy et al. [16] Some of these studies confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres

So other studies report spheres were found in at least some of the dust, prior to any DSC experiment. Jones has to make pretty good effort to make sure that the sample he tested also didn't already contain these spheres. Maybe I am too stupid, but I can't find in the paper how Jones did this. All I found in his paper is that he didn't observe them. Maybe he just didn't look good enough? Bottom line is, we already know they were found in other dust samples, so why could they not have already been in the sample he tested?

Maybe he is right and iron-rich spheres did form. I hope you can at least understand why I question his findings.

Originally posted by -PLB-
So do you agree that the DSC experiment did not help much in determining if a thermit(e/ic) reaction took place,

Not entirely. I accept the fact that you cannot look at the exotherm and conclude, "hey that's xxx material".

You can however by comparing known substances determine whether the test sample is releasing energy
faster, or slower; whether is occuring over a broader range; the ignition temperature; and how rapidly the
enery is consumed.

Jones had a reference of a known energetic nano-material. He also knew the rate of heating, and all of the
environment parameters.

By setting up his DSC machine to those parameters and heating his test sample at the same rate of
heating, Jones was able to compare his data with Tillotsons.

What you and I see is that the exotherm produced under the same conditions reaches a higher peak
at a more rapid rate and consumes all of the fuel energy in a shorter amount of time.

Because of this we can observe that the WTC dust chip is more explosive (release all of it's energy in a short period
of time) than a known nano-thermite mixture.

This is a big red flag.

but instead the idea that iron-shperes were formed is the conclusive evidence?

The spheres are considered the smoking gun if you will. By itself the spheres are compelling; tied
together with the various other tests and results, the spheres are supporting the conclusion.

In fact, they could also just have heated the sample in an oven, then the spheres would also have been formed according to their hypothesis.

If the oven was hot enough, quite possibly. Afterall, the DSC is essentially an oven.

The DSC traces aren't really of any importance to the spheres. Agreed?

Not directly, however the trace supports the criteria needed to form the spheres.

Why I question how Jones determined the spheres were not already there is actually because his own paper states:
...
So other studies report spheres were found in at least some of the dust, prior to any DSC experiment.

That is just one reference. There are other examples of where he states the condition of pre DSC chips. There
are also various tests (BSE, XEDS, High Power Mag., etc.)

Jones has to make pretty good effort to make sure that the sample he tested also didn't already contain these spheres. Maybe I am too stupid, but I can't find in the paper how Jones did this. All I found in his paper is that he didn't observe them. Maybe he just didn't look good enough? Bottom line is, we already know they were found in other dust samples, so why could they not have already been in the sample he tested?

See prior reply. I'll also highlight pages in his paper at some point if you would like to discuss this. I'm not
able to at the moment.

Also take note, the spectal analysis shows pre and post DSC chip structure. Jones did find an abundance of
iron oxide and aluminum prior to DSC, and then elemental iron and oxidized aluminum after the DSC test.

This would be one example of observing the chips.

Originally posted by turbofan
That is just one reference. There are other examples of where he states the condition of pre DSC chips. There
are also various tests (BSE, XEDS, High Power Mag., etc.)

So your view on this is that he did address it indirectly, but not directly? As for the experiments you mention:

BSE: it seems to me that you can only conclude there are no spheres in the specific area you are observing. You can't conclusively determine they are not in other areas, or maybe even under the surface.

XEDS: It seems to me the XEDS of the entire sample pre-DSC should be about the same as post-DSC, with exception of the difference as result of combustion. The same elements are there, the important information would be how they are bonded. I don't think the XEDS tells much about bonds.

Note that I am not an expert, these are just my initial thoughts. A questions about the XEDS: What does the height of the peaks mean exactly? I did find a XEDS with an Y-axis description saying "intensity". Does it correlate to mass, amount of atoms, or something else?