Response to Pteridine: Formal debate for Harrit/Jones DSC Analysis

At long last, we have finally begun the formal debate of Jones' science paper. This discussion will be focussed
mainly around the claims made by member, "Pteridine" and his assumption that Jones should have performed
the DSC analysis in the absence of air to rule out heat from combustion.

My purpose will be proving that combustion due to the presence of air is insiginificant to the final result because
the temperatures produced by the aluminothermic reaction far exceed the temperatures requied to liquify Iron
by itself.

The additional heat from any combustible material is therefore insignificant. I'll begin by responding to some
ambigious areas of Pteridines reply and allow him to clarify before we move onto each point. I ask that we do
not use either of these threads to discuss our opinions, and keep comments related to the material.

This thread specifically will be used as a resource for those wanting to learn about some finer points of the
discussion as well as a reference for the debate.
The image below is a basic block diagram of what you might see in the typical DSC machine

I'll begin with the following points. Pteridine's explanation of the DSC function is fairly accurate until this line:

Originally posted by pteridine

Careful calibration of the instrument allows for the heat flows to be measured. If the weight of the sample is known, the energy per unit mass can be calculated.

This quote is very important as I'll demonstrate how the opposite is possible.

What the instrument does not do is measure the temperature of the reaction. The temperature shown on the x-axis is the furnace temperature, not the sample temperature, so there is no way of directly measuring flame temperature.

This is somewhat misleading. As I will explain below, the amount of heat transferred back into the DSC machine
can be determined using the exotherm trace.

Jones does not state if he used pans with lids or open pans [a peer review would have noted this and had him be specific].

I will explain how the use of lids is irrelevant to the experiment and the conclusions drawn.
The diagrams used in this thread are drawn by me and may be used as a reference when quoting my text within this summary.

The image below is a basic block diagram of what you might see in the typical DSC machine:
- A platen
- Some sort of heating element
- Sensitive temperature monitor

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ce289355343.jpg[/atsimg]

As you will see, there are two plates; one is empty and one holds the object to be tested. The empty chamber on the top left is used as the control plate. You can monitor the amount of heat sourced to the plate; the amount of heat stored in the plate; the amount of heat leaving the plate.

This is possible because you have a known temperature for the heating source as well as the ambient temperatures. Since heat cannot be created out of thin air, we can conclude that any heat leaving the control platen is released into the atmosphere.

In essence, you can subtract the platen temperature from the sourced heat and determine the rate at which the ambient air is cooling the platen, and also the degree of change (delta) between the two.
This is a typical function of Thermal Vacuum Chambers (TVAC) and Hotplates which I use daily in my lab at work. I’ll be happy to show pictures for those that would like to see one in action.

On the top right you see the exact same configuration, but this is where you place your sample to be tested. Normally, you start testing with a sample that is at room temperature along with the platen. Therefore there is very little heat transfer occurring at the beginning of the test.

As you heat up the platen, some heat will escape into the atmosphere, or inside of the chamber in the case with the DSC. If the lid is missing, or installed it wont matter because both sides will lose the same amount of heat at equal rates. This is why we don’t concern ourselves with this minor attribute. If it becomes a concern, I can e-mail Dr. Jones and ask whether he used the lids, or not. My estimate is that he setup the machine exactly as LLNL to produce the most accurate results.

Moving forward, I will now explain how the exotherm trace is produced and how we can interpret the basic dips and peaks.

On the bottom right, we have a platen which is heating up along with the device under test (D.U.T.). Just as with the control side, heat is leaving the plate into the atmosphere but it is also transferring into the D.U.T. Since the control side does not have a mass sitting on top, there will be no heat lost to a mass. This is where the “Differential” comes into play. The trace is drawn based on the differences between the control platen and the test platen.

If we were to pick up the DUT from the test side of the platen, it would feel warm (or hot) because the heat from the plate has transferred to the DUT. Since we know the rate of heating, and the amount of heat lost to the ambient environment, we can conclude that any dip in the trace is heat stored in the DUT, or additional heat radiated by surface area.

The TVAC and plates that I use at work can sense temperature stability and delta down to 0.00001 of a degree Celsius. This is extremely precise; about the resolution to measure the change in temperature of a pool if you were to spit in it. The DSC machines are probably more accurate, I would have to look up the specifications to know for sure.

Now we know how a dip in the trace is produced. So how about the peaks? Since heat cannot be created out of thin air, the peak shown in Jones’ graph must have been additional heat from the chip which began ignition around the 420’C point on the x-axis.

Pteridine contradicts himself when he says you can calculate the amount of energy per unit mass, but there is no way to tell how much temperature is created from the reaction. Really?
So if we know the rate of heating (10’C), and we know the specifications of the platen, and we know the control temperatures, can we not deduce the amount of heat put back into the plate by the energy release by the reaction of the chip?

Pteridine, are you stating for the record that the height of the peak, and the width of peak cannot display the amount of energy used to raise the temperature of the platen?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/71909561fe48.jpg[/atsimg]

The temperature shown on the x-axis is the furnace temperature, not the sample temperature, so there is no way of directly measuring flame temperature.

So, “Pteridine” if the x-axis is just the furnace temperature and not the sample temperature where did all of that extra heat come from in the exotherm trace? Watts/gram remains close to zero until 420'C; can you not convert
Watts/gram into heat?

It's becoming very apparent that those who critisize Harrit and Jones have not even reviewed the documentation,
or process upon which the experiment was based upon.

Furthermore, there appears to be some confusion about how a DSC machine functions and that heat does indeed
get transferred back into the test platen. This is the mechanics of how the machine produces the trace; it's
a differential measurement of the temperature between the two plates.

Another common excuse is that air was used and it's impossible to tell the difference between combustion and
a rapid aluminothermic reaction. That is yet another false claim.

Combustion exhibits a slow rising, and slow failing curve on the trace. The rate of combustion is slow compared
to that of an explosive event. The heat released is gradual and the fuel is not instantly (* near instantly) consumed like that of a rapid explosion.

The give-away for for an energetic material is not only the quick rise in the trace, but also the sharp drop in the
trace. This indicates the fuel has been used up and temperatures are dropping due to reduction of heat.

This image is from LLNL's document that Jones modelled the experiment against:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b71532097af4.jpg[/atsimg]

The authors of this document state that:

One can see that the DSC is essentially featureless at temperatures below 500'C. Above that temperature
is a large exothermic peak which dominates the trace.

If those anonymous experts are right, then Tillotson and Lawrence Livermore National Labs and their scientists
are wrong!

The energetic portion of that trace is 500'C and centered at 530'C. The peak terminates at approximately 560'C
(a very narrow exotherm proving an explosive event).

Some would have you believe the energetic portion starts around 400'C.

Futher to the above, most people who critisize Harrit and Jones seem to be confused about the difference between
temperature and heat.

The best analogy to explain the difference is to imagine a pot of boiling water vs. a swimming pool full of
boiling water.

Both the pot and swimming pool measure the same temperature, but the pool contains more heat compared
to the small pot.

Although the DSC cannot directly measure temperature of reaction, it certainly indicates the amount of heat
present (while knowing sample weights, test conditions, etc.).

I was looking forward to seeing responses here. Maybe it's easier to hide on the other thread?

Either way great post, and definitely deserving a thread to draw attention to it separately, but too bad no one apparently wants to engage it.

reply to post by turbofan


I agree BSBray, great post Turbofan. I'm confused though, I thought that it was already considered fact, regarding the Jone-Harritt paper, at least by any real "ists" that take the time to look at all of the evidence? I thought that they were now claiming that it's authenticity is now questionable. Implying that they planted this energetic material into the dust samples.

I also think it is no surprise that you get little to zero responses from the 9/11 Conspiracy debunkers. I expected to see a paper forth coming from them right after the Jones-Harrit paper, refuting what they alledged, after testing dust samples themselves. Yet to this day, nothing. This to me is quite telling, it tells me that the previously mentioned paper may have more to it than they want to admit. The fact that no one wants to refute it, while attaching their real name to the refutation, to me means that they can't refute it. That only leaves one other angle of attack: anonymous thread debunking on ATS.

In all fairness, I had started writing this post hours before Pteridine started his thread, but I wasn't about to toss
out all of my work.

You'll notice the time stamps are within minutes of posting, and this compliation was already hours in the
making. If nothing else, we can detail the finer points of the discussion here and use this thread as a reference.

Once the deabte is over, I plan to summarize our discussion here in a nice condensed fashion.

reply to post by turbofan


I don't see any debate here.

All I see is one thread that's not being touched by any "debunkers," and another that's sucking attention and energy through the typical argumentative bickering that has always characterized internet "debates" since the beginning of time.

That's about as much as you'll ever get anyway. Good job.

reply to post by turbofan


So , how is this supposed to work ? Do we have to read two threads just to follow this debate ? Are you replying to pteridine in this thread , and he is replying to you in his ? Is he even aware of this ?

Seems to me that it would be much simpler to keep the debate in one thread ? While I am interested in following this , I can assure you that I will not be bumping between two threads just to see how this develops .

Reply to Okbmd: We are using the other thread to debate. This is just for reference and will be used to summarize the discussion.

Originally posted by turbofan
In all fairness, I had started writing this post hours before Pteridine started his thread, but I wasn't about to toss
out all of my work.

You'll notice the time stamps are within minutes of posting, and this compliation was already hours in the
making. If nothing else, we can detail the finer points of the discussion here and use this thread as a reference.

Once the deabte is over, I plan to summarize our discussion here in a nice condensed fashion.

For those following along, here is what we are looking at essentially. The DSC trace indicates the amount
of heat transferred back into the test platen over a period of time. Power is defined as energy over time.
An explosive has more power than combustion because it generates a great amount of heat by using all of
the available fuel near instantly.

Combustion on the other hand is much slower and will result in slower heat release over time making the
increase in temperature slower over time.

Much a like a thermometer measures heat, the DSC trace is a essentially a dynmaic graph of temperature over time.
Looking at one data point at one instance in time doesn't really tell us much. It just tells us the platen has
reached "X amount of termperature".
By looking at a thermometer and one instance in time, we cannot tell how long it took to reach that temperature,
or how long the temperature remained at the observed level.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2de4d052fd88.jpg[/atsimg]

By plotting temperature over time, we can monitor the amount of heat transferred back into the platen and the
rate of increase over time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/998a64593a1d.jpg[/atsimg]

An increase in the exotherm trace indicates heat is moving from the DUT into the plate. A trace that is reducing
amplitude indicates heat is dissipating. A trace that dips indicates the DUT is absorbing heat.

Based on these SIMPLE FACTS we can distinguish which part of the trace is rising, or lowering due to combustion,
or rapid chemical reaction (explosion).

Combustion is slow. Heat is produced slowly, and heat dissipates slowly because oganics that burn do not
burn *almost instantly*



Chemical reactions such as thermitic reaction release heat rapidily and with near instant consumption of
fuel. When the available fuel is used up, heat is removed quickly. This is represented by a sharp drop in
the exotherm trace.