It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 22
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
"Debunkers" are simply pointing out the flaws in many of the conspiracy theories and collapse theories that Truthers churn out repetitively.


And how is that working for you?

Not very well is it?



The problem is that when a flaw is pointed out, the debunker then gets shunned and called an evil government agent out to get the Truthers...


The reason people support the OS (given the benefit of doubt that they're genuine posters) is that they fail to understand the physics involved in collapses. Just read some posts, oh wait that won't work...


Apparently the average Joe who notices issues in a Truther theory has to prove conclusively, mathematically, and with repeatable models that the OS is completely 100% true in order to be listened to when pointing out that certain Truther theories don't make complete sense.


No, the issue is you can make stuff up all day to make a hypothesis work, but if you then claim that your hypothesis is truth I am going to ask for your EVIDENCE. You can't claim something to be truth, and unquestionable, when it is based on unprovable assumptions. If something is possible, a theory, then it should be testable, if it isn't then you can not claim it as evidence of anything. Take away all the unprovable assumptions of the OS and there is nothing left.

You notice no flaws, only products of your own misunderstandings. Why can not one of you describe the equal opposite reactions, and momentum conservation, in the collapses? Because you don't have the education to even understand why it's important. You may be an expert on what the NIST report claims, but that doesn't mean you really understand if it's right or not, you just assume it is. It's easy to tell when the discussion goes outside of what the NIST reported on, and you all start attempting to sound like you know physics, but then prove you have no idea with some stupid comment like the laws of motion are only one part of the physics. (BTW I'm generalizing OSers like you were generalizing 'truthers').


Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

The Laws of Motion are one part of physics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh yes, KE and gravity are the other parts, right?



My word... this is a strange place.


You should see it from my perspective mate.


edit on 4/26/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So Truthers aren't trying to find an explanation... they're trying to debunk explanations? Doesn't that make Truthers debunkers? I mean, you aren't trying to find out what really happened. You're just going on and on about how the OS is false and how the government is evil.

Well, I've yet to see a better explanation than the physics of the OS. It makes sense to me (however much you use rhetoric to make it sound like it shouldn't). You guys keep saying that all you want is a new investigation, yet you throw around crap like thermite and silent, invisible explosions which can be mistaken for collapsing building and won't register as loud enough to be bombs.

If you want a new investigation, then stop throwing theories around that are worse than the OS. It's like saying "I don't believe that's a duck. I've seen so many chickens and it's definitely not a duck, but I'm not trying to prove that it's a chicken, just that it's not a duck. If you think it's a duck then you're an idiot, and no I can't prove that it's a chicken. It's your job to prove that it's a duck. Stop asking me for the proof I'm asking you for!"

Apparently we will argue for an eternity over whether it is a duck or a chicken. In the background people will pop up and say "No, it's an eagle. No, it's a beaver. No, it's a wolf in a duck disguise." I firmly believe that it is impossible to get anywhere with anyone on this site after all the time I've been here now. You guys can keep being rude, illogical sounding people. I'm just not going to try anymore to work hard for this. I'm not making any money, and it's simply not an enjoyable past-time anymore, trying to see what happened. Every time I find something that goes against your views, you act like ignorant a-holes about everything. Honestly, this is a crappy place for good debate (though I'll admit it's better than letting some crazy Truthers be free. I've tried arguing with people in other locations and they end up spamming my Youtube and sending me threatening hate mail. I'm not going to risk my damn life for this crap)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine
 


I understand more than you think I do. Like that you believe the analysis was of paint, but can't prove it, so you dance around the claim and sometimes make it explicitly only to have to back-peddle when you're called on it. How is that different from faith? Really, tell me how it is different. I know you well enough that your first impulse is to ignore the question and turn it back around on me without a second thought. Try to resist that urge.


It is different from faith in that the evidence is not there for thermite. You can't get past the concept that not everything is on the web and expect a direct reference which shows a DSC, in air, of oil based paint cured for 30 years.
I believe the chips are paint because all evidence points in that direction. It is a red film like the paint covering the steel structure of the WTC. It contains the elements of paint. It does not behave like thermite. The thermodynamics are not consistent with thermite. Thermite in thin layers does not have sufficient energy to accomplish anything destructive. Finally, Jones fails to show it was thermite, even if you don't understand the failings of his analysis.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
It is different from faith in that the evidence is not there for thermite.


Your criticism of the Jones et al paper was that they didn't see if the reaction still occurred without oxygen. And then you take this single technical criticism, regardless of its relevance, and turn it into positive claims that it was paint, that there is no evidence of it being thermite, etc. etc.


You can't get past the concept that not everything is on the web and expect a direct reference which shows a DSC, in air, of oil based paint cured for 30 years.


No, you can't get past the fact that you actually have no sources or other data that supports your assertions. It isn't a matter of it not being on the internet. Proof of it being paint is nowhere. Your standard for proving that it's thermite is obviously not the same as your standard for proving it to be paint. In one case you are always raising the bar, in the other case there is no "bar" to even speak of.


I believe the chips are paint because all evidence points in that direction.


Except for the composition of the material, anything close to a DSC comparison, etc.


It does not behave like thermite. The thermodynamics are not consistent with thermite.


Right, because it is more energetic than thermite. That's what happens when you reduce the reacting particles to nano scale. This has always been totally lost on you.

Can you show a single example of paint that contains nano-sized particles of iron and all the rest? No. You can't show any kind of paint that even comes close to being the same as this stuff, and you never have been, and you never will be able to.
edit on 26-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, because it is more energetic than thermite. That's what happens when you reduce the reacting particles to nano scale. This has always been totally lost on you.

Can you show a single example of paint that contains nano-sized particles of iron and all the rest? No. You can't show any kind of paint that even comes close to being the same as this stuff, and you never have been, and you never will be able to.


You are displaying your chemical ignorance, again, BS. The size of the particles only affects the RATE of reaction, not the total ENERGY of reaction. This has always been totally lost on you. Exceeding the energy of thermite means that another reaction is occurring.

Paint does not generally contain iron. The pigment is iron oxide and the size distribution of the particles includes some nano-particles. www.kemcointernational.com... has many nanoparticles; most iron oxide pigments are in the100 nm range.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are displaying your chemical ignorance, again, BS. The size of the particles only affects the RATE of reaction, not the total ENERGY of reaction.


The chemical ignorance is all yours.

What's especially sad about this, is that I have personally showed you that you are wrong numerous times, and you ignore me and continue to blissfully believe your own unsupported nonsense.

This explanatory diagram comes straight from the DoD:



www.p2pays.org...

"Higher total energy." Because the increased surface area contact between particles allows a fuller reaction than with larger particles, in which more mass is contained inside the particles and thus is not contacting other reactants.

Straight from the DoD, and they even drew you a pretty picture. And after seeing this numerous times, you have learned nothing. You never learn. That is why you are still arguing with us here at all.



Paint does not generally contain iron.


I guess this is just more evidence that the iron-rich material Jones analyzed must have been paint.



The pigment is iron oxide and the size distribution of the particles includes some nano-particles. www.kemcointernational.com... has many nanoparticles; most iron oxide pigments are in the100 nm range.


The page you just linked to is from a company that specifically engineers these nano-sized particles for other commercial purposes. I notice nowhere on the page does it say anything about paint. How about a source that says paint contains nano-sized particles of iron? Can you Google one of those real quick?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


So Truthers aren't trying to find an explanation... they're trying to debunk explanations?


That is not what I said. That is what you said about OSers lol.


Well, I've yet to see a better explanation than the physics of the OS. It makes sense to me (however much you use rhetoric to make it sound like it shouldn't). You guys keep saying that all you want is a new investigation, yet you throw around crap like thermite and silent


What physics? NIST did not explain the collapses, so what physics?

I never mentioned a new investigation, and what is wrong with talking about thermite? Your own ignorance is the problem mate. All you do is twist what people say in order to create doubt in the claims.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The chemical ignorance is all yours.

What's especially sad about this, is that I have personally showed you that you are wrong numerous times, and you ignore me and continue to blissfully believe your own unsupported nonsense.

This explanatory diagram comes straight from the DoD:



www.p2pays.org...

"Higher total energy." Because the increased surface area contact between particles allows a fuller reaction than with larger particles, in which more mass is contained inside the particles and thus is not contacting other reactants.

Straight from the DoD, and they even drew you a pretty picture. And after seeing this numerous times, you have learned nothing. You never learn. That is why you are still arguing with us here at all.


You are in over your head again. The value of 3.9 kJ/g is the thermodynamic limit and is not influenced by the size of the particles. I have told you about this before and you apparently didn't understand it then, either. In practice, the energy is always somewhat less than the theoretical, but no matter what the particle size, the total energy cannot exceed 3.9kJ/g.

The picture you referenced has to do with how close the reaction approaches the 3.9kJ/g limit and the people who drew it are promoting their work. In actuality, it may not be true. While it is claimed that a few percent more energy is released by nanothermites, approaching the 3.9 kJ/g theoretical limits, it is also true that the increased surface area of aluminum nanoparticles increases the amount of oxide formed during aging and actually reduces thermal output while the thicker oxide layer reduces reaction rate becase of mass transfer limitations. The Tillotson paper, referenced by Jones, states that the energy output is only 1.5 kJ/g vice 3.9 kJ/g, and their material actually is "highly engineered." Much more enginering needed to be done as of the 2001 publication date.


edit on 4/28/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You are in over your head again.


Let's stop with the insults and break this down into baby steps.

You just claimed that decreasing particle size doesn't increase the total energy release of the reaction. You did not say anything about theoretical energetic limits of reactions. You said, very simply:


Originally posted by pteridine
The size of the particles only affects the RATE of reaction, not the total ENERGY of reaction.


Do you see anything in that sentence about theoretical energetic limits of a reaction? No. Because that is not what you said.

No amount of insulting my intelligence is going to change the fact that you just posted something that is factually incorrect.



The picture you referenced has to do with how close the reaction approaches the 3.9kJ/g limit and the people who drew it are promoting their work.


So now you're scrambling to invent agendas for these people who are simply stating a chemical fact.


And no, like you in your post above, they mention nothing about approaching any theoretical limit. It is in very plain terms. "Higher total energy." Period. Their words, not mine. You are inventing things that aren't there to backpeddle.

Maybe this is just a sad attempt at deflecting from your blatant error above? Maybe.



In actuality, it may not be true. While it is claimed that a few percent more energy is released by nanothermites


Can you provide a source for this "it is claimed that a few percent more energy is released by nanothermites" please?

It is not in the pdf I just linked to, so I would like to see where you are getting this information from.

Here is what the pdf actually says:


Overall though, certain key MIC
characteristics are very attractive and quite promising for practical
applications. These include energy output that is 2x that
of typical high explosives, the ability to tune the reactive power
(10 KW/cc to 10 GW/cc), tunable reaction front velocities of
0.1-1500 meters/sec, and reaction zone temperature exceeding
3000K.


The material Jones et. al. analyzed was also more energetic than either conventional thermite or explosives, and you actually think that this is somehow evidence of the substance being paint, without any references whatsoever (closest you came was telling me to "look up" something about wax, what a great "source"
) when here in black and white the DoD is telling you that these nanocomposites also have greater energy release than explosives (or conventional thermite, obviously).


It gets old enough responding to you as it is without all the petty insults. If putting you on ignore didn't make you feel so good about yourself, and in turn make me want to throw up in my mouth, I wouldn't even be responding to you at all. When are you finally going to post some kind of source, any relevant source, to show an actual comparison of the substance Jones analyzed, to a known form of paint? Is that really too much to ask? If so, then what in the hell is your "argument" even based on in the first place?
edit on 28-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The material Jones et. al. analyzed was also more energetic than either conventional thermite or explosives, and you actually think that this is somehow evidence of the substance being paint, without any references whatsoever (closest you came was telling me to "look up" something about wax, what a great "source"
) when here in black and white the DoD is telling you that these nanocomposites also have greater energy release than explosives (or conventional thermite, obviously).


I will again explain why Jones can't claim thermite. Cole's demo was entertaining but, without any basis, is just entertainment.
The 3.9 kJ/g energy of thermite was exceeded by two of the chips. No combination of thermite or high explosive can account for this energy. Nano, femto, atto thermite can't do it. Differences due to particle size cut both ways; note that the nano-thermite in Tillotson's paper produced only 1.5 kJ/g which is much less than 3.9kJ/g and also less than conventional thermite. The claim in your reference of more energy because of smaller particle size is not substantiated by the evidence. The claim says that theoretically they should work better because of a more complete reaction but reality always gets in the way. Note also that the limit of energy is 3.9 kJ/g. This is the benchmark value that we judge Jones by; we assume that he gets the maximum amount of energy possible from his thermite reaction but he can't get more than the 3.9 kJ/g limit.
Why is the value so low for thermite relative to hydrocarbon combustion? The oxidants in thermite and explosives are weighed and combustion air is not. The atomic masses of iron and aluminum are much greater than hydrogen and carbon. With a measure of kJ/g, much greater atomic masses and inclusion of the weight of the oxidant work against thermite in energy per gram. That is why heats of combustion of hydrocarbons are about ten times the energy we can possibly get from any thermite or mixture of thermite and high explosive.

The EDAX analysis showed carbon was in the chips. Hydrogen was also in there but EDAX doesn't see hydrogen. This is from the binder that keeps everything together. There was no nitrogen and the inclusion of high explosives in Jones bar graph is unexplained. It is also inconsequential.
Jones ran the DSC in air. The photos of the red chips after the DSC show red chips. This means that the iron oxide didn't react completely, if at all. What could cause this energy release with such an incomplete reaction?
The only explanation for the excess energy is combustion of the carbonaceous binder. A small amout of binder has a great effect on the exotherm. Jones has no way of knowing how much of the energy he measured was due to combustion. My bet is all of it, given Henryco's results, but the bottom line is that Jones can't claim thermite based on his analyses. He has to show reaction under an inert gas, like Ar, before he can even suggest thermite.

Two years ago, Jones said he understood the criticisms and was preparing a new paper to address the critics. One of the things he was to do was to run the DSC under an inert gas. He may be too busy on the lecture circuit.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The material Jones et. al. analyzed was also more energetic than either conventional thermite or explosives, and you actually think that this is somehow evidence of the substance being paint, without any references whatsoever (closest you came was telling me to "look up" something about wax, what a great "source"
) when here in black and white the DoD is telling you that these nanocomposites also have greater energy release than explosives (or conventional thermite, obviously).


I'm coming into the middle of this discussion so I muct have missed something...just WHERE does Jones ever show that the materials he found were "more energetic than conventional thermite or explosives"? I read the report and he takes great care to avoid coming out and saying what he found was actually thermite. He said it "suggested" it has the same properties of thermite, which is a meaningless claim because although thermite is essentially aluminum and rust, not all aluminum and rust are thermite.

It's like saying that water and vinegar make for an excellent sanitary douche for women, therefore it must mean the waiter at the restaurant must be pouring sanitary douche on my dinner salad. I'll need to have a word with the health inspector on that.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It isnt just Jones that says the only explanation is controlled demolition, it is every architect or engineer you talk to, among which at least one noble price winner. And frankly Dave, unless you are educated on the subject yourself, it isnt a discussion you can partecipate in. At best you can reproduce what experts on the field said.

And lastly how much longer do we want to discuss the cause? The people who treat the official conspiracy theory will keep believing in it no matter what scientists say, akin to the people who believe in divin creation. We now know why the towers collapsed. Now its about who did it and what to do about it.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It isnt just Jones that says the only explanation is controlled demolition, it is every architect or engineer you talk to, among which at least one noble price winner. And frankly Dave, unless you are educated on the subject yourself, it isnt a discussion you can partecipate in. At best you can reproduce what experts on the field said.

And lastly how much longer do we want to discuss the cause? The people who treat the official conspiracy theory will keep believing in it no matter what scientists say, akin to the people who believe in divin creation. We now know why the towers collapsed. Now its about who did it and what to do about it.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Well you can't have talked to too many architects and engineers then. Apart from the handful on AE9/11t, which includes electrical engineers, landscape gardeners and such, the rest of the worlds architects and engineers seem satisfied with NIST's findings.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


No they are not, far from it. No Architect or engineer I know outside of that small group defended the report in any shape or form. So far it has been nothing but criticism about the methods used and results produced wether they are American, Norwegian Italian etc. .

But they do not have to convince everybody. Some people do not want to be convinced. That is fine. But there is nothing to gain by debating who is not going to submit his conviction on the matter to reason or logic. All it will do is stall somebody in a fruitless endless debate going over the same details over and over, while those who dont need any more convincing could go on debating things like who has done it, what does it mean for us and what to do about it.
edit on 28-4-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I will again explain why Jones can't claim thermite.


I understand what you think you are explaining.

You just showed a perfect example of how, when one of your points is beaten down, you just retreat to other arguments and pretend nothing happened.

You just claimed above that particle size has nothing to do with the amount of energy released by a reaction. Your exact quote, for the 3rd time:


Originally posted by pteridine
The size of the particles only affects the RATE of reaction, not the total ENERGY of reaction.


After being shown that this is factually incorrect, you tried to retroactively change your words to something about hypothetical limits of reactions and etc., which neither you nor the DoD source made any mention of in the first place. Now in this new response you drop any mention of it whatsoever. This is the kind of blatant dishonesty that makes me face-palm at myself for even wasting time responding to you.



The 3.9 kJ/g energy of thermite was exceeded by two of the chips.


There is absolutely no reason to believe the material Jones was analyzing is equivalent to conventional thermite. No one is making that claim, and you are posting a straw-man. You also have not provided a source for your figure of 3.9kJ/g and what substance this figure is actually based on, if any. You should know by now that I don't consider you a credible source, and that I will always want to see real sources for your claims.


I also asked you for a couple of sources for other claims you made, for which you still have not provided sources. We're not going to move on until this is addressed.

Until you actually put some effort into trying to support the garbage you have already posted, posting an even longer rant of an even larger variety of garbage does not even warrant a response. You do this time and time again. Back up what you have already posted, or else I may as well be chasing a dangling carrot on a treadmill. You post completely baseless claims and then when called on it simply move on to other completely baseless claims. I will now remind you of what I have just asked you for, that you failed to deliver. I will carry this on to infinity, until you either give a source or admit you have no idea what you are saying.



Originally posted by pteridine
In actuality, it may not be true. While it is claimed that a few percent more energy is released by nanothermites


I asked to see who is claiming that nano-composite thermite only provides "a few percent more energy" release. I want to know where you are getting this information and what exactly it's based on.


I also asked for a source that showed that nano-particles of iron are in paint. You just posted a source talking about commercial production of nano-particles, but which made no mention of paint whatsoever. Then I mentioned this to you in my last response, and again, you blatantly ignored me in another trolling fit of dishonesty. No doubt you will repeat the same nonsense later as if you were never contradicted. Yes, I know various people make nano-sized particles of iron for various purposes. I wanted a source to show these particles are in paint.
edit on 28-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm coming into the middle of this discussion so I muct have missed something...just WHERE does Jones ever show that the materials he found were "more energetic than conventional thermite or explosives"?


This is a question you should direct at pteridine. I have personally not seen the data in this regard, and am not sure where he is getting it. He seems very averse, or mentally unable, to post sources. His arguments appear to include an argument that, since the substance Jones tested reacted with more energy than conventional thermite or conventional explosives, it must therefore be paint. Obviously this makes absolutely no sense to me.



I read the report and he takes great care to avoid coming out and saying what he found was actually thermite. He said it "suggested" it has the same properties of thermite, which is a meaningless claim because although thermite is essentially aluminum and rust, not all aluminum and rust are thermite.


Thermite is only "aluminum and rust" in the crudest form possible. When you have the DoD talking about nano-thermites, they are not talking about aluminum and rust. So the hilarious metaphor you used is also completely irrelevant.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Apart from the handful on AE9/11t, which includes electrical engineers, landscape gardeners and such, the rest of the worlds architects and engineers seem satisfied with NIST's findings.


Do you have a source for this?


I'm guessing that you assume "the rest of the worlds architects and engineers seem satisfied with NIST's findings" based on your own bias, and nothing else. I know a number of engineers myself, and I think the more accurate statement would be "most of the world's architects and engineers are completely uninformed of NIST's WTC hypothesis." For example I know a physics professor with a degree in engineering who still believes the "pancake collapse" theory, which completely contradicts NIST's work, even according to NIST themselves.


Though if you have actual sources to settle all of this, again, I would love to see it.
edit on 28-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


FYI...


Other, more exotic forms of thermite can also be produced. Using other metal Oxides, one can produce other, sometimes more powerful, blends of thermite. For instance, substituting Copper(II) Oxide for Iron Oxide in a thermite mixture can produce a very brightly burning reaction which yields Copper metal as a result. Although Copper Oxide thermite is probably the most common of the exotic thermites, one could also use other metal Oxides such as Tin Oxide, Lead Oxide, or any other metal Oxide which could be reacted with a reducing metal (such as Aluminum or Magnesium). They key is that the reducing metal must be sufficiently higher on the activity series than the metal Oxide in order to support the single replacement reaction...

Thermite Types (by metal Oxide):

Iron(III) Oxide - Fe2O3
Iron(II, III) Oxide - Fe3O4
Copper(II) Oxide - CuO
Copper(I) Oxide - Cu2O
Tin(IV) Oxide - SnO2
Titanium(IV) Oxide - TiO2
Manganese(IV) Oxide - MnO2
Manganese(III) Oxide - Mn2O3
Chromium(III) Oxide - Cr2O3
Cobalt(II) Oxide - CoO
Silicon Dioxide - SiO2
Nickel(II) Oxide - NiO
Vanadium(V) Oxide - V2O5
Silver(I) Oxide - Ag2O


www.amazingrust.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


The 3.9 kJ/g energy of thermite was exceeded by two of the chips.


There is absolutely no reason to believe the material Jones was analyzing is equivalent to conventional thermite. No one is making that claim, and you are posting a straw-man. You also have not provided a source for your figure of 3.9kJ/g and what substance this figure is actually based on, if any. You should know by now that I don't consider you a credible source, and that I will always want to see real sources for your claims.


Jones found iron oxide and what he believes is elemental aluminum. The redox reaction between these has a thermodynamic maximum of 3.9 kJ/g. This is well known and referenced in Jones paper which you apparently have not read. This may be why you are so confused. You may calculate it yourself with the difference of heat of formations of iron oxide and aluminum oxide in a balanced equation. Those ignorant of chemical principles seem to think that some unconventionally sized material will allow a greater energy output than 3.9 kJ/g. It will not. The analyses also show carbon but do not show the hydrogen associated with it because of limitations in the EDAX. Burning of this material is the only explanation for the exotherms in excess of 3.9kJ/g. If some combustion took place, there is no way to know how much of the exotherm is from combustion and how much from other reactions. Hence, no proof of thermite. No proof of thermite means that Cole's demo is just entertainment.
I am not worried about whether you consider me a credible source just as I am sure you aren't worried that I consider you to be generally unaware of your technical ignorance.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



and how do you know of this? ohh you read it? oh ok.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join