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: 23
10
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jasonprice
reply to post by pteridine
 



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


Seriously, why the heck are you getting stars for this (pardon my French) piece-of-**** post? You said nothing, just sounding really stupid and really condescending. PUT SOME CONTENT INTO YOUR POSTS, YOU NINNIES!




posted on May, 7 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jasonprice
 


Actually, Jason, I wrote it. You read it, as have many others. I would be glad to explain it to you or debate it with you if you think you have the ability. From your post, it seems as though you may be too closed-minded to consider anything but the truther mantra of CD.
Check back on my earlier posts and you may find the analysis on ATS or another forum not long after the Jones paper was posted on the Bentham vanity site.
edit on 5/7/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

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.



Once again, right off the bat, it's another long-winded rant that fails to deliver any of the numerous sources I ask you for. You have a real knack for "explaining" things that no one is even talking about in the first place, to save yourself the embarrassment of having to actually respond to what is posted, let alone post a single source you are asked for.


This guys post...


Originally posted by Jasonprice
reply to post by pteridine
 

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



The only thing he got wrong is that there is no evidence you even read this stuff anywhere, pteridine. In your response to him I notice you even admit as much, and say you didn't read it, you "wrote" it.
Exactly. Anyone with fingers can do as much.

I just gave him another star.


Learn how to post a damned source instead of just making up whatever, if you want people to actually take you seriously (I'm not sure that you do). Maybe you think deliberately not posting sources time after time is impressive. Maybe it would be if this were the special olympics of "debate."

Actually it is very impressive that you are unable to document anything you post with sources, it just doesn't create the impression you're obviously aiming for.

edit on 7-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You still cannot reply to anything with substantive comments.

If it isn't whining about sources or complaining about logcal fallacies and ad hominem attacks, you are at a loss. Your fall back is calling everything "rants" in pointless rants of your own. I gave you the thermo and all you need to understand it is basic arithmetic skills. You still can't cope so you shift to the sources argument. The numbers are all in Jones paper which is the source.

If you think Jones conclusions are valid, defend them if you can.
edit on 5/7/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You still cannot reply to anything with substantive comments.


I'm doing the best that I can given that you're not giving me anything to work with. I can sit here and make stuff up out of nowhere and play pretend with people too, but don't you think that would be kind of a waste of your time?

At last count I had asked you for source for 4 or 5 different claims you had made, before moving on to anything else. Of course you ignored me and started ranting about other stuff anyway instead. This is why I put you on ignore.


Oh yeah, I almost forgot to tell you. Jones actually went back and did his experiment again without the presence of oxygen. He got the same results, same iron spheres, energy levels and everything.
edit on 8-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
You still cannot reply to anything with substantive comments.


I'm doing the best that I can given that you're not giving me anything to work with. I can sit here and make stuff up out of nowhere and play pretend with people too, but don't you think that would be kind of a waste of your time?

At last count I had asked you for source for 4 or 5 different claims you had made, before moving on to anything else. Of course you ignored me and started ranting about other stuff anyway instead. This is why I put you on ignore.


Oh yeah, I almost forgot to tell you. Jones actually went back and did his experiment again without the presence of oxygen. He got the same results, same iron spheres, energy levels and everything.


I am not "making stuff up." As I have said many times, I am using the data in Jones' paper in "The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31" and references within. It is web published by Bentham. The statement about the nanoparticulates producing LESS energy rather than more than plain old thermite is from the data in Jones reference 28; "Tillotson TM, Gash AE, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW, Satcher JH, Jr, Poco JF. Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies. J Non-Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345." Your cartoon showing enhanced energy output was just an ad by the contractor to continue the R&D and not backed up by data. The limit of 3.9 kJ/g is the limit that can't be exceeded by enhanced mixing or smaller particles. Jones greatly exceeded this in two of his samples and this can only be attributed to a combustion term.

Neither Jones nor anyone else has been able to explain the excess energy without accepting that combustion was occurring. This means that no one knows what the exothermic reactions were and that thermite cannot be claimed as the cause without more experiments. On page 27, Jones states "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." This statement means he does not know the source of all or part of the exotherm and with it he invalidates his own thermite conclusion.
edit on 5/8/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I've always liked this explanation why it must have been a thermite reaction rather than combustion:

forums.randi.org...




Therefore when a very small organic or pure carbon particle burns in the air, its energy is released very fast (because it is very small i.e big S/V ratio ) but this energy is released in a huge volume ~ 20000 V so a tiny iron particle (volume V also) around can only get ~1/20000 of this total energy. So it cannot reach the temps able to melt it (see above) . Thus for quite obvious reasons coal or any organic stuff that needs the air oxygen can only melt iron when the heat is accumulated in time and concentrated in space as in a blast furnace.



From other papers I've found on alternative methods of reducing iron at small scales it seems to hold up.

I now must go and find my mother. Happy Mother's Day.
edit on 8-5-2011 by NIcon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I am not "making stuff up." As I have said many times, I am using the data in Jones' paper in "The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31" and references within.


No, you were (and still are) making all kinds of claims above and beyond what Jones himself says in his own paper. Some pages back there were a few different claims like this I asked to see sources for, and you were never able to give them. One was you telling me to go look up the combustion energy of a completely different material. In another failed attempt to provide a source, you linked to a page that mentioned nothing about what I asked. In other words it has been so embarrassing for you every time I have asked for a real source for so much of what you say, you must be suppressing the fact that all of this just happened in this thread alone.

It's all there for anyone to go back and read, and as long as you keep saying the same crap, I can only assume the "sources" for your "information" are still no better than what I just described. The only thing you have ever proven here is that the internet takes all kinds.
edit on 8-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
I am not "making stuff up." As I have said many times, I am using the data in Jones' paper in "The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31" and references within.


No, you were (and still are) making all kinds of claims above and beyond what Jones himself says in his own paper. Some pages back there were a few different claims like this I asked to see sources for, and you were never able to give them. One was you telling me to go look up the combustion energy of a completely different material. In another failed attempt to provide a source, you linked to a page that mentioned nothing about what I asked. In other words it has been so embarrassing for you every time I have asked for a real source for so much of what you say, you must be suppressing the fact that all of this just happened in this thread alone.

It's all there for anyone to go back and read, and as long as you keep saying the same crap, I can only assume the "sources" for your "information" are still no better than what I just described. The only thing you have ever proven here is that the internet takes all kinds.


The issue is the false claim of Jones which drives the thermite demonstrations which only show that thermite behaves as expected. If your understanding of thermodynamics is such that you are unable to look up heats of combustion of hydrocarbons, you don't belong in this discussion.
The embarassment is your complete lack of understanding of this issue no matter how many tmes it is explained. Based on previous discussions, I must conclude that you have not read Jones paper. You asked for the DSC, in air, of similar vintage paint that had been cured for 30 years. It isn't out there but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has. We know that the theoretical limit of thermite is 3.9 kJ/g and we know that the chips exceeded that limit. The only explanation is combustion. If combustion provides heat then some or all of the release must be from combustion. If this is the case, then there is no conclusive evdence of thermite.
If you have any evidence for why Jones is correct or can make a logical argument for such, have at it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
It isn't out there but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has.


Source?


We know that the theoretical limit of thermite is 3.9 kJ/g


Source?



and we know that the chips exceeded that limit. The only explanation is combustion.


All I see is you making stuff up, never providing a source, and then being left with nothing but your immature pompousness to fall back on. There is nothing, anywhere, at all, that suggests nano-thermite like the DoD's has any theoretical limit of 3.9 kJ/g. You even stupidly denied earlier that decreasing particle size had anything to do with total energy release, and then had to back track and lie about your own words to add in this garbage about the theoretical energy limit, which you also have not provided any sources for, and are just making up. Replacing one lie with another, and never being capable of posting a source for any of it.


Now comes another totally irrelevant rant from you, which I promise you I will ignore to ask the following two questions again:


Originally posted by pteridine
It isn't out there but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has.


Source?


We know that the theoretical limit of thermite is 3.9 kJ/g


Source??? It's been pages and pages now, and no source. At this point you are lying.


I'm getting good at predicting what you robots will do next. So go ahead, don't post the sources, like I know you won't, and I'll just have to remind you once again that you are making all of this up. I'm not even going to include as many "explanatory notes" in my next response; just simply, "Source?"... and "Source?", so you can already start thinking about how you're going to spin off of that with your deluded, manipulative rhetoric.

edit on 10-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
It isn't out there but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has.


Source?


We know that the theoretical limit of thermite is 3.9 kJ/g


Source?



and we know that the chips exceeded that limit. The only explanation is combustion.


All I see is you making stuff up, never providing a source, and then being left with nothing but your immature pompousness to fall back on. There is nothing, anywhere, at all, that suggests nano-thermite like the DoD's has any theoretical limit of 3.9 kJ/g. You even stupidly denied earlier that decreasing particle size had anything to do with total energy release, and then had to back track and lie about your own words to add in this garbage about the theoretical energy limit, which you also have not provided any sources for, and are just making up. Replacing one lie with another, and never being capable of posting a source for any of it.


Now comes another totally irrelevant rant from you, which I promise you I will ignore to ask the following two questions again:


Originally posted by pteridine
It isn't out there but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has.


Source?


We know that the theoretical limit of thermite is 3.9 kJ/g


Source??? It's been pages and pages now, and no source. At this point you are lying.

I'm getting good at predicting what you robots will do next. So go ahead, don't post the sources, like I know you won't, and I'll just have to remind you once again that you are making all of this up. I'm not even going to include as many "explanatory notes" in my next response; just simply, "Source?"... and "Source?", so you can already start thinking about how you're going to spin off of that with your deluded, manipulative rhetoric.


How many times have I told you that Jones referenced the 3.9 kJ/g thermite energy in his paper? Here it is again: "The number is from Jones paper." Perhaps you still haven't read Jones paper or are unable to understand what he wrote.
Your comment "There is nothing, anywhere, at all, that suggests nano-thermite like the DoD's has any theoretical limit of 3.9 kJ/g" exposes your lack of understanding of chemical thermodynamics and your inability to read. If it is iron oxide and aluminum, it has a limit of 3.9 kJ/g regardless of the size of the particles. I have already instructed you about the cartoon you posted and the actual data that proved your cartoon wrong. You didn't like it and are a bit testy about it.

Values for combustion of hydrocarbons are readily available. Find your favorite search engine and type in "Heat of Combustion." If that requires too much effort, use this wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org...

I note with amusement that you claim that I am lying and that I am pompous. You, famous for pomposity and self righteousness, now have to resort to the truther fall back of personal attacks.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Cole used thermate, designed to cut steel, not thermite. None of this was found at the WTC site.

He could have demonstrated other things used to cut steel such as hacksaws or files. Given his inside-the-beam demo, he could have shown how a socket set could have stealthily unbolted the column connections with no evidence whatsoever. I like this idea and plan to write a book or two on it to make a little extra cash. I'm thinking of calling it "Unscrewing Loose Change" or "Loose Nuts."

edit on 12-5-2011 by rbya911 because: U clearly R "????"..



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
It isn't out there but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has.


Source?


We know that the theoretical limit of thermite is 3.9 kJ/g


Source?



Originally posted by pteridine
How many times have I told you that Jones referenced the 3.9 kJ/g thermite energy in his paper?


Jones does not claim that this is the theoretical maximum for all forms of thermite, and he obviously does not support your lie anywhere in his paper, since it concludes in complete disagreement with you.


Here it is again: "The number is from Jones paper." Perhaps you still haven't read Jones paper or are unable to understand what he wrote.


Post the excerpt. We'll compare to what you posted. And you'll have to back-track. Again.
edit on 13-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Sources are in my previous post. Jones paper and references therein.

Jones stated "The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g" page 27, and see also figure 30 page 27. This is just simple thermodynamics. You should read the paper before you try to discuss the details.

On page 27 he also wrote "We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure." The problem with this statement is that there is no evidence that there is any gas generation capability in the binder. The elemental analyses shows no nitrogen, even though Jones shows HE values in figure 30. If volatilization of a hydrocarbon was used to generate gas pressure, it would reduce the energy output by the energy required to volatilize the material. Jones is at a loss to postulate such a highly energetic material that is consistent with the analyses. Consider the values in kJ/g for the explosives. The highest value is for HMX at about 5.5 kJ/g. Even if an error in the elemental analyses had been made and HMX was present, no combination of HMX and thermite could reach the values of the red chips.

Jones conclusions are not valid and he has provided no evidence for "thermitic material." He is unable to discriminate between combustion and thermite exotherms. Extant red chips after reaction in the DSC show that any thermitic reaction was incomplete, further skewing the energy output.
Cole merely showed that thermate would do what it was designed to do but there is no connection to the WTC as thermate was also not discovered in the rubble.
edit on 5/13/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones stated "The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g" page 27, and see also figure 30 page 27. This is just simple thermodynamics. You should read the paper before you try to discuss the details.


This is not the theoretical maximum for any possible form of thermite. So your argument that it can't be thermite because it produces more energy, is misconstruing the paper, and if you actually read it you would see that Jones obviously does not arrive at the same conclusion you do.


Also for the same reason, this statement is obviously wrong:


Originally posted by pteridine
but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has.


You are not citing a relevant figure for the substance in question.
edit on 13-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones stated "The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g" page 27, and see also figure 30 page 27. This is just simple thermodynamics. You should read the paper before you try to discuss the details.


This is not the theoretical maximum for any possible form of thermite. So your argument that it can't be thermite because it produces more energy, is misconstruing the paper, and if you actually read it you would see that Jones obviously does not arrive at the same conclusion you do.


Also for the same reason, this statement is obviously wrong:


Originally posted by pteridine
but we know that hydrocarbons burn in air and have 10 times the energy per unit mass that thermite has.


You are not citing a relevant figure for the substance in question


The possible forms of thermite are limited by the elemental analysis done with the EDAX. There is a binder present or the material would be a powder. There is no nitrogen. There is hydrogen but the EDAX will not show it as the Z is too low.
Given the excess energy shown in the DSC, at least some of the energy must be from combustion. If some of the energy was from combustion, there is no way to determine using Jones' data how much was from combustion and how much from another reaction. It might be all combustion and no other reaction.
This means that the conclusion of thermite is not valid. Cole's thermate demonstrations are entertaining but pointless because there is no evidence of thermite, much less thermate.

Jones should run the DSC in the absence of air to eliminate the combustion term. If he still gets reaction, he may then proceed to determine what the reaction is. He can show the components of the paint by XRD analysis. This is easily done and will readily discriminate between elemental aluminum and aluminosilicate fillers.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The possible forms of thermite are limited by the elemental analysis done with the EDAX.


No, the possible forms of thermite are limited only by how much money is poured into nano-energetics research. Jone Cole showed you a form of thermite himself that is not compatible with the maximum energy figure you are citing, and that Jones never considered in his paper either. You are ignoring this.

Yet you continue to parade an energy figure that is erroneous, and claim that it's not possible for any form of thermite to react with more energy than this. Either you are way out of your league and have some kind of inferiority complex, or you are intentionally misleading people with irrelevant information. Lately I have began thinking more and more of the latter.

There is no evidence for your claims that the substance was too powerful to be thermite, just like there is no evidence for any of the other excuses you constantly try to weasel to whenever your other claims are shot down.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The possible forms of thermite are limited by the elemental analysis done with the EDAX.


No, the possible forms of thermite are limited only by how much money is poured into nano-energetics research. Jone Cole showed you a form of thermite himself that is not compatible with the maximum energy figure you are citing, and that Jones never considered in his paper either. You are ignoring this.

Yet you continue to parade an energy figure that is erroneous, and claim that it's not possible for any form of thermite to react with more energy than this. Either you are way out of your league and have some kind of inferiority complex, or you are intentionally misleading people with irrelevant information. Lately I have began thinking more and more of the latter.

There is no evidence for your claims that the substance was too powerful to be thermite, just like there is no evidence for any of the other excuses you constantly try to weasel to whenever your other claims are shot down.


You are incorrect. Cole used thermate which also contains Barium Nitrate and Sulfur. Jones only claimed iron oxide, aluminum, and an undefined, carbonaceous "energetic" additive of some sort. Chemistry counts, BS, and you still don't understand this concept. Cole's demo was merely entertainment. Consider taking a basic chemistry course before you argue this again.

Your second paragraph also faulty. I did not make that claim. Note that I do not immediately call you a liar. I don't believe you are a liar, I believe that you display selective reading. You and your fellow travellers should take note of this and refrain from resorting to calling people liars whenever you disagree with them or are on the losing side of an argument.
You may easily find many combinations of aluminum and oxides that show different energies on reaction. Jones didn't claim to find any thermite components but iron oxide and alumimun. If the reactants are iron oxide and aluminum, that reaction is limited to 3.9 kJ/g. You can't change it or invoke magic by pouring any amount of money into it; that is the thermodynamic limit regardless of particle size
.
Consider the energetic binder. What could it be? None of the explosives Jones shows could be in the binder because he doesn't see nitrogen but he does see carbon, an element with a lower Z. If he sees carbon he will also see nitrogen if it is present. He finds carbon and we know that there must also be hydrogen present. Jones doesn't say what the energetic binder is; he really hasn't a clue what it could be and just lets people imagine that it exists by showing a figure that includes high explosives. If is just a material to volatilize to cause explosive pressure, that would reduce the energy of the thermite, not increase it, unless it combusted.

The evidence for too much energy is in the paper. Jones even states that the excess could be coming from combustion, so even he knows that there is too much energy. It is here that he invalidates his own results because he has no way of knowing how much was from combustion and how much was from something else. This is actually true whether there is too much energy or not because he didn't run the DSC in the absence of air. Silly physicist. He counts on people who read the paper to miss this point. Any competent chemist would see it, so either his chemists are incompetent, haven't read their own paper, or are intentionally misleading the readers to advance their own agendas.

I think that you are not intentionally misleading people because you truly believe that you understand the chemistry, having attended Chem 101 during your scholastic career. As to my inferiority complex, whenever I read your posts it seems to disappear. [That's a bit of humor for you.]



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You may easily find many combinations of aluminum and oxides that show different energies on reaction. Jones didn't claim to find any thermite components but iron oxide and alumimun. If the reactants are iron oxide and aluminum, that reaction is limited to 3.9 kJ/g. You can't change it or invoke magic by pouring any amount of money into it; that is the thermodynamic limit regardless of particle size


It's when you post things like this that I can't honestly believe you are dumb to what you are saying. Here you admit that the figure you cite is for pure aluminum and iron oxide alone.

Who is arguing that pure aluminum and iron oxide were used, and that it could have been nothing else? This is a straw-man.

And yet you keep making this same stupid argument repeatedly, that it could not have been thermite because it was too powerful, even while fully aware of the fact above, you are making me see that you are intentionally being misleading. There is no way you acknowledge the above, and still think your argument makes any sense at all.

All the appeals to education can stop, because you can't even handle basic reasoning. I've seen this time after time, let alone the fact that you refuse to comment on whether or not you've even graduated from high school, but that's neither here nor there. This is the inferiority complex surfacing again and even if you were a PhD from Harvard, what you are saying is still just as stupid.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
You may easily find many combinations of aluminum and oxides that show different energies on reaction. Jones didn't claim to find any thermite components but iron oxide and alumimun. If the reactants are iron oxide and aluminum, that reaction is limited to 3.9 kJ/g. You can't change it or invoke magic by pouring any amount of money into it; that is the thermodynamic limit regardless of particle size


It's when you post things like this that I can't honestly believe you are dumb to what you are saying. Here you admit that the figure you cite is for pure aluminum and iron oxide alone.

Who is arguing that pure aluminum and iron oxide were used, and that it could have been nothing else? This is a straw-man.

And yet you keep making this same stupid argument repeatedly, that it could not have been thermite because it was too powerful, even while fully aware of the fact above, you are making me see that you are intentionally being misleading. There is no way you acknowledge the above, and still think your argument makes any sense at all.

All the appeals to education can stop, because you can't even handle basic reasoning. I've seen this time after time, let alone the fact that you refuse to comment on whether or not you've even graduated from high school, but that's neither here nor there. This is the inferiority complex surfacing again and even if you were a PhD from Harvard, what you are saying is still just as stupid.


Your logic and reading skills seem to be non-existent. No, iron oxide and aluminum were not the only compoments. There is a "magic" component that is purportedly energetic but it is limited to a component that contains C and H and possibly O. Did you notice that all the explosives Jones showed are nitro compounds? Did you see any nitrogen in the EDAX analyses? Why do you think Jones made that sly little move? Do you think he was trying to influence the gullible true believers when he had proved nothing? Jones has no clue what that energetic binder could be and dances around quite a bit. That is because without combustion he can't account for the heat.
How could Jones eliminate the possibility that it is not just burning binder in paint and that a reaction other than combustion occurred? He must run the DSC in the absence of air. Thermite reacts in the absence of air and combustion needs air. So easy. Until he does, he has no idea how much of the energy released was from combustion and how much was from some other reaction. If he doesn't know this he doesn't know the source of the heat and can't claim thermite.
As you claim I can't handle basic reasoning, use your expert reasoning skills to show how much of the exotherm of each chip was due to thermite and how much was due to combustion. I think you can't do it and are just talk. I predict more whining and complaining but little substance from you. I think that secretly you know that Jones' paper is a red herring and disinformation. Of course, if you do manage to stumble through, you'll be able to explain how Jones reached a logical conclusion based on his data. His claim defies logic but maybe your kundalini can rise to the occasion and help you do it.




top topics



 
10
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join