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

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by turbofan
PLB, forget it dude. Do some research on DSC machines and what you are looking at before you
enter a debate. Jones' duplicated Tillotson's environment and all of your other concerns are covered
in the data.

I did some research, I read through some books. Maybe thats why you are now getting the hell out of here and refuse to reply: your nonsense it being exposed. Your reply is that of a bad loser, not of someone interested in an an open debate.

Is that so?

Would you like to debate me on the entire science paper as opposed to 'just the DSC Data"?

Say the word and I'll start the thread.

reply to post by turbofan


No, debating the entire paper at once is totally useless, as you will continuously jump from subject to subject, like you desperately try to do here when you are confronted with inconsistency in your arguments. We can move on to the next subject as soon as this one is handled to satisfaction.

reply to post by -PLB-


No, "we" are done debating because you and Pt. want to disprove an entire paper based on one test while disregarding other significant evidence like the Conventional Thermite chemical signature, and the iron spheres.

You can't even get past the utter basics that the chip released heat faster and within a shorter period of time
than nano-thermite. I'm tired of wasting time with people that don't comprehend the obvious, and then have
the nerve to ask for proof...after it has been linked.

Once you acknowledge that Jones' chip produced a faster release of heat shown by a greater ignition slope,
and more narrow width of the exotherm (over Tillotson's sample), we will move on.

Have a nice day. Hope you will continue to 'read' and 'learn' about DSC operation and function!

Originally posted by turbofanNo, "we" are done debating because you and Pt. want to disprove an entire paper based on one test while disregarding other significant evidence like the Conventional Thermite chemical signature, and the iron spheres.

No, I am not disregarding anything. The things you mention are simply not the subject. We can move to those as soon as this subject is finished.

You can't even get past the utter basics that the chip released heat faster and within a shorter period of time
than nano-thermite. I'm tired of wasting time with people that don't comprehend the obvious, and then have
the nerve to ask for proof...after it has been linked.

Once you acknowledge that Jones' chip produced a faster release of heat shown by a greater ignition slope,
and more narrow width of the exotherm (over Tillotson's sample), we will move on.

Have a nice day. Hope you will continue to 'read' and 'learn' about DSC operation and function!

edit on 4-1-2011 by turbofan because: spl; add exotherm Jones

At least you no longer call it "more explosive". What do you even mean by "faster release of heat"? Total time span of the exotherm? Amount of heat released per time unit?

Originally posted by -PLB-
No, I am not disregarding anything. The things you mention are simply not the subject. We can move to those as soon as this subject is finished.

Have fun debating yourself.

Even Pt. agrees with me...he just thinks the quick release of energy was from paint!

At least you no longer call it "more explosive". What do you even mean by "faster release of heat"? Total time span of the exotherm? Amount of heat released per time unit?

It's teach PLB time again! Yes, it's explosive. Why? Because it releases energy faster than a known explosive..

How do we know? Because the exotherm is more narrow than a benchmark explosive!

Yeah for simple logic and physics!

An explosive is a material, ether a pure single substance, or a mixture of substances, which is capable of producing an explosion by its own energy

The production of heat alone by the inherent energy of the substance which produces it will be enough to constitute the substance an explosive.

All explosive substances produce heat; nearly all of them produce gas. The change is invariably accompanied by the liberation of energy.

Let me know when you understand the term explosive too!

reply to post by turbofan


So only the width of the exotherm matters to determine if an material is more "explosive"? More narrow means more explosive? Wider means less explosive?

reply to post by -PLB-


Ummm nope. There are two other criteria that I've mentioned at least a dozen times. Please read back
within a few pages to find them!

Hint: one more on this very page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by turbofan


Yes, you are not very consistent, hence the question.

So how do you determine the heat release rate exactly? How do you know if one sample reacted faster than another? For example in that example graph you drew where I had to choose one (but you never even choose one yourself)? And why would a reaction that takes 10 seconds (non explosive) give an significant different DSC trace than a reaction of 10ms (explosive)? Or what would be the difference between a reaction of 10ms and 100ms? Maybe you can draw an estimate of how the traces would look to point out the difference.

I am really curious of how you do this. When you have done this, you of course have to support whatever you claim with sources. But that goes without saying.

reply to post by -PLB-


When you learn that reaction time of an explosive and the DSC trace showing heat flow are not to be confused,
I'll answer that for you.

Until then, you better get back to the books. YOu have lots of reading to do.

reply to post by turbofan


I am not confusing those, but you claim you can determine the reaction time from the DSC trace. So go ahead. Show how its done.

reply to post by -PLB-


I claim this huh? Please quote me.

reply to post by turbofan


That is pretty much the point an explosive, a very short reaction time.

So you can't discriminate between the DSC of a reaction that took place in 1ms or a reaction that took place in 10 seconds? If so, how can you determine if one is more explosive than the other? If you can, can you draw both curves to show the difference? You may assume the same amount of energy is released and the reaction start a the same temperature.

Show how you do this.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineIt is apparent that you have little knowledge of chemistry

Need I remind you , that I corrected at least five of your errors with scientific links.

You are the one trying to disprove an entire science paper by limiting the discussion to one particular
test...and even then you are incorrectly using 'excess heat' as your crutch.

When you're ready to debate the entire paper as a whole, come and find me.

Until then I'll wait for you to find a paint sample that was tested in a DSC machine that can release all of
its energy in less time than nano-thermite at an ignition temperature of 430'C!

PLB, forget it dude. Do some research on DSC machines and what you are looking at before you
enter a debate. Jones' duplicated Tillotson's environment and all of your other concerns are covered
in the data.

Tillotson knew what he had made; he was not attempting to determine if it was thermite. Further, Tillotson's material produced only 40% of the theoretical heat because one drawback of nano-particulates is their susceptibility to air oxidation before ignition.
Excess heat shows combustion. Jones failed to discriminate between combustion and thermite reactions and therefore does not know if a thermite reaction occurred.
Debating the entire paper with you is the intent but we should do one topic at a time. In the past you have shown that when you are pressed on one aspect that you cannot argue, you immediately jump to another. Staying on topic with the DSC until that is resolved will then allow moving to the next aspect in an orderly fashion.
If you would like to confirm that the DSC is inconclusive, we can discuss the spheres next.

Sooo can we obtain with protective paint a DSC reading that matches that in the paper of team jones, yes or no?

Originally posted by Cassius666
Sooo can we obtain with protective paint a DSC reading that matches that in the paper of team jones, yes or no?

Likely, the chips are the original paint covering the steel. Comparing samples of the original paint from the salvaged structures may be helpful because if the behaviors of both were the same, that would refute Jones' theory. It is better to properly characterize the existing material through a series of analyses.
An easy and inexpensive first analysis is powder diffraction X-ray [XRD]. It is likely that aluminosilicates are present as filler materials and XRD would show that along with any other mineral matter that might be present, such as iron oxide. It is not limited to elemental presence only like the EDAX but will show what minerals are present. For example, the gray iron oxide on the red paint would show separately from the red iron oxide in the paint. Aluminum metal would also show if it was present. Much better solvents than MEK can dissolve the organic matrix to allow other analyses, if needed.
With a proper series of analyses, the composition can be readily determined.

Well in that case, I would be curious what result we would obtain if the used protective paint was to be run through the DSC.

reply to post by Cassius666


Yes it is very strange that Jones himself didn't do this simple yet important experiment. Why do you think he didn't do it?

I am guessing given your bias the answer to your question is that he was afraid the protective paint will exhibit the exact same reading when run through a DSC machine.

However it is also possible that it its a common material. I am assuming a DSC graf of the protective paint has already been produced. I am no expert, but it sounds like one of the tests you would conduce, to see how the material reacts when exposed to rising heat before applying it as protective paint. So one can argue a graf of the protective paint that has been applied to the structure already exists and it looked nothing like the graf Jones obtained when he performed his tests. At any rate it would be easy to do for anyone who has access to such a machine. What results did either of you obtain?

Even if you guys think he is some kind of con artist, he surely wouldnt publish a graf that can be found on a related database and easily be refuted as protective paint by anybody who can reproduce the experiment. At least give him the credit of making data up :p . However I might be wrong. So the question again, does protective paint produce a DSC reading that matches the reading published in Jones paper?

reply to post by Cassius666


The dust samples he was given were all he had to use to show his theories were correct. There was nothing else for him to analyze to find thermite so he had to find it in what he had available. Given his intent, I believe that he had no desire to analyze other samples, if available, as they might cast doubt on his theory. All of his actions were to prove his predetermined conclusion and were biased to that end. This is why he has no credibility in the scientific community, as a whole.

reply to post by pteridine


Seen as his paper was published in a peer reviewed journal and it was not compased by him exclusively his credibility in the scientific community is at the very least open to debate. You have access to a DSC machine, why dont you run the protective paint used through it and see if the result is at least similiar to the graf published in the paper.