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.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Well whatever it was way esplosive, if it burned at an fast enough rate, or is something wrong with that conclusion?
reply to post by -PLB-
Originally posted by Alfie1
I know this is not directly related to the DSC data, but I have not been convinced by the debate on that, and there are wider issues that bother me.
(a) I thought it was a characteristic of a thermitic reaction that it could not be stopped. It would go on until everything was consumed. If that is so I wonder about all the unignited " nano-engineered thermitic material " as Turbofan describes it.
Well that could have been charges of the material that did not ignite to begin with. How should the speroids have made it into the sample if not as the result of a thermitic reaction?
edit on 29-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)edit on 29-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Alfie1
I know this is not directly related to the DSC data, but I have not been convinced by the debate on that, and there are wider issues that bother me.
(a) I thought it was a characteristic of a thermitic reaction that it could not be stopped. It would go on until everything was consumed. If that is so I wonder about all the unignited " nano-engineered thermitic material " as Turbofan describes it.
(b) If the thermitic material was used to demolish the Towers; how was it ignited in the first place ?
Originally posted by turbofan
The Aluminothermic reaction will take place no matter what.
No, not exactly.
Part of the proof (among other tests) of an aluminothermic reaction are the iron-rich spheres. This does not
prove "thermite", it proves an aluminothermic reaction took place.
See definition of Aluminothermic reaction (a redox reaction between two metals where aluminum is the reducing
agent).
No, not at all.
The shape of the traces doesn't prove "thermite". Wrong.
The shape of the trace proves the material is more explosive than a known explosive tested at the same
heating rate of 10'C/min.
Nope completely wrong.
Try:
The combustion of the organic material reached the activation temperature of the aluminothermic mixture.
The organic mixture burned rapidly because it's in UFG format (ultra fine grain format).
The DSC measures heat flow. Not sure why you continue talking about "burning itself in two minutes"?
For the billionth time, it's not about peak. It never was. I said, ignition slope, narrow exotherm (more narrow
when comprared to a known explosive), and a rapid drop in heat after peak.
All three are characteristics of explosives. All three were observed.
No, and no.
Combustion of some sort occured. Who cares how much. It is not required to show/produce the aluminothermic reaction.
No, no, no!
They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.
Heat density when proving an aluminothermic reaction is meaningless.
Got it?
No. Wrong. See clarifications and corrections to your interpretations above.
Already done in the paper by comparing pre-DSC chip with post-DSC chip analysis. Several tests were performed.
Wow, something we all agree on!
This is the only part of this post I didn't have to correct. This is the only part of what you understood about
my position as being correct.
We agree that since Jones' paper was not set out to prove thermite, that he did not prove thermite.
Agree. Wooo hooo!
What Jones' did prove: an energetic thermitic material that incorprates nano technology.
Originally posted by turbofan
They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by -PLB-
Turbofans theory is that the combustion was required to start the thermite reaction.
No, not really my theory. That's the conclusion based on the LLNL study of sol-gel.
The material can be tailor made to react at desired parameters.
The sample will do nothing in an inert environment, as it requires combustion.
No, not quite. The organic part of the mix will do nothing in an inert environment. The Aluminothermic
reaction will take place no matter what.
The proof of thermite are the iron-rich spheres and he doesn't care about the heat.
No, not exactly.
Part of the proof (among other tests) of an aluminothermic reaction are the iron-rich spheres. This does not
prove "thermite", it proves an aluminothermic reaction took place.
See definition of Aluminothermic reaction (a redox reaction between two metals where aluminum is the reducing
agent).
The heat doesn't prove thermite, yet the shape of the heat traces do.
No, not at all.
The shape of the traces doesn't prove "thermite". Wrong.
The shape of the trace proves the material is more explosive than a known explosive tested at the same
heating rate of 10'C/min.
A short summary, he thinks the combustion of organic material reached a temperature of over 1000 C, ignited the thermite, which in turn made the organic material burn much faster than possible in regular combustion.
Nope completely wrong.
Try:
The combustion of the organic material reached the activation temperature of the aluminothermic mixture.
The organic mixture burned rapidly because it's in UFG format (ultra fine grain format).
Although if the organic material reached such high temperatures it seems to me it could easily burn itself in 2 minutes.
The DSC measures heat flow. Not sure why you continue talking about "burning itself in two minutes"?
Still he insists an exotherm that peaks in a period of 2 minutes is proof of an explosive reaction.
For the billionth time, it's not about peak. It never was. I said, ignition slope, narrow exotherm (more narrow
when comprared to a known explosive), and a rapid drop in heat after peak.
All three are characteristics of explosives. All three were observed.
So, he does not only agree that combustion occurred, he claims it is required.
No, and no.
Combustion of some sort occured. Who cares how much. It is not required to show/produce the aluminothermic reaction.
He also agrees that the heat denisity figures are meaningless.
No, no, no!
They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.
Heat density when proving an aluminothermic reaction is meaningless.
Got it?
What we have left is the shape of the DSC trace and the iron-rich spheres.
Umm no!
You are forgetting the other tests in the paper. Can you name at least three more? I sure can.
For the DSC trace he needs to find a source that proves combustion can not take place in 2 minutes.
No. Wrong. See clarifications and corrections to your interpretations above.
For the iron spheres Jones need to prove they were not already there.
Already done in the paper by comparing pre-DSC chip with post-DSC chip analysis. Several tests were performed.
I think the bottom line is that we all agree on the topic of this thread, which is that the energy readings do not prove thermite.
Wow, something we all agree on!
This is the only part of this post I didn't have to correct. This is the only part of what you understood about
my position as being correct.
We agree that since Jones' paper was not set out to prove thermite, that he did not prove thermite.
Agree. Wooo hooo!
What Jones' did prove: an energetic thermitic material that incorprates nano technology.
In summary PLB, I hope you now understand my position and more about the science.
I'm glad you took the time to try to understand what you thought I was thinking all of this time so I could
set the record straight.
Maybe now, you can move forward with a better understanding.
Originally posted by pteridineActually, it shows combustion. That is all is shows. The self-extinguishing, more-powerful paint chips just burned a little. We have gone over this many times. Candle wax has a much higher exotherm in kJ/g than any of the explosives listed and the most energetic of Jones chips. Don't worry, it is safe to light candles for the death of this theory.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by turbofan
The Aluminothermic reaction will take place no matter what.
But not in a DSC as the required temperature is not reached.
No, not exactly.
Part of the proof (among other tests) of an aluminothermic reaction are the iron-rich spheres. This does not
prove "thermite", it proves an aluminothermic reaction took place.
See definition of Aluminothermic reaction (a redox reaction between two metals where aluminum is the reducing
agent).
Jones calls it a thermite reaction. I will go with Jones' terminology.
No, not at all.
The shape of the traces doesn't prove "thermite". Wrong.
The shape of the trace proves the material is more explosive than a known explosive tested at the same
heating rate of 10'C/min.
Where are your sources stating that an exotherm that rises 2 minutes and then drops 2 minutes proves an explosive?
Nope completely wrong.
Try:
The combustion of the organic material reached the activation temperature of the aluminothermic mixture.
The organic mixture burned rapidly because it's in UFG format (ultra fine grain format).
It does not, that is a conclusion you draw from it. The shape of the DSC depends on many factors, I already posted them many pages back.
The DSC measures heat flow. Not sure why you continue talking about "burning itself in two minutes"?
For the billionth time, it's not about peak. It never was. I said, ignition slope, narrow exotherm (more narrow
when comprared to a known explosive), and a rapid drop in heat after peak.
All three are characteristics of explosives. All three were observed.
Yes ignition slope, peak, whatever you call it, we have gone over this already. A peak has a slope, no? The slope took ~2 minutes to reach its maximal value. A lot of reactions can take place in 2 minutes. So no proof of thermite or explosives.
No, and no.
Combustion of some sort occured. Who cares how much. It is not required to show/produce the aluminothermic reaction.
But it is required to prove it. As it is now combustion could be the only reaction that took place.
No, no, no!
They simply do not related to Pt.'s argument, nor his approach. Heat density when compared to a known
explosive shows that Jones' chip is more powerful than any of those listed in his paper.
Heat density when proving an aluminothermic reaction is meaningless.
Got it?
It does prove that at least one reaction took place that was not a thermite reaction. Got it?
No. Wrong. See clarifications and corrections to your interpretations above.
Ditto
Already done in the paper by comparing pre-DSC chip with post-DSC chip analysis. Several tests were performed.
But not specifically to exclude iron spheres. No mentioning of it.
Wow, something we all agree on!
This is the only part of this post I didn't have to correct. This is the only part of what you understood about
my position as being correct.
We agree that since Jones' paper was not set out to prove thermite, that he did not prove thermite.
Agree. Wooo hooo!
What Jones' did prove: an energetic thermitic material that incorprates nano technology.
Right, your semantics game. Part of this energetic thermitic material is thermite. Jones was not out to prove the energetic combustion of some material, he was out to prove a thermite reaction.edit on 29-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite
These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere
The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide
there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study. Meanwhile,
we compare with products of commercially available (macro-) thermite. During ignition of thermite, we have observed
that many spheres and spheroids are formed as part of the molten product of the reaction is vigorously scattered.
possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated
by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of
thermite.
We have noted that ordinary thermite acts like an incendiary when ignited. However when the ingredients
are ultra-fine-grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly and explosively [20]
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the
WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic
or explosive material.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan
You are really trying to avoid the issue here, aren't you. The time it takes for the slope to reach its maximal value is about 2 minutes. So we can tell that within these 2 minutes some reaction took place. You claim this can't possibly be combustion, because the time frame is too small. Prove it. Show sources that support this claim.
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by pteridineActually, it shows combustion. That is all is shows. The self-extinguishing, more-powerful paint chips just burned a little. We have gone over this many times. Candle wax has a much higher exotherm in kJ/g than any of the explosives listed and the most energetic of Jones chips. Don't worry, it is safe to light candles for the death of this theory.
Yet another that doesn't understand how to read the exotherm!
Does anyone debating this topic understand that PEAK has NOTHING to do with rate of energy release?!
Do you understand that the WIDTH of the exotherm indicates duration of heat flow?
Yes, or no?
Originally posted by turbofanJust like I asked Pteridine, do you understand the the PEAK of the exotherm has NOTHING to do with rate of
release of energy?
Do you understand that you must observe the width of the exotherm to compare "time"/duration of heat flow?
Yes, or no?
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
Ummm no... you said candle wax has a higher peak than explosives. Do you see the underlined portion
of the quote?
Please tell me what the peak of candle wax has to do with the exotherm being more explosive than RDX, or PETN, or nano-thermite for instance.
Please...go ... ahead, I'd love to read this response.
Originally posted by turbofan
BY using remote RF triggering devices with microcircuits
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/806533f936d1.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a82a8457e20.jpg[/atsimg]
This may not be what was used, but it's a plausible explanation and existing technology.