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 pteridineTurbofan, please stay focussed. We are discussing Jones' data, not the operation of the DSC. Heat flux is determined by relative temperatures. What is the point of your question?
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
Jones' excuse for running it in air was that Tillotson did it. The reference is Ref 28 in the paper.
No matter how you spin this, Jones' team erred by running this in air and Jones knows it.
He was trying to show a reaction that didn't need air in the presence of a combustion. He can't deconvolute the data from this experiment to determine what was combustion and what was something else.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by -PLB-
That is how science works. You don't alter a known procedure and expect to compare similar data
Originally posted by pteridineI don't agree that I "lied" about anything as you suggested previously. You are mistaken. I agree that Jones claimed nano-particulate thermite in a matrix of energetic material.
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.
The term nano-thermite may be a source of confusion. More accurately, the red layer is a thermitic nano-composite.
Dilution of the thermitic material with inert oxides such as Al203 (from
dissolved AlC13 salt) or Si02 (from added silicon alkoxide) leads to a pyrotechnic
material that is not as energetic as a pure iron(III)-oxide-aluminum mixture.
Now please explain the excess energy and how Jones can show what fraction of the energy came from any thermite and what fraction came from combustion.
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.
Originally posted by turbofan
Pteridine, do you agree that a more narrow exotherm indicates a reaction which is closer to that of an explosive
rather than combustion?
Do you also agree that a sharp slope (positive , or negative) indicates the speed of a reaction closer to that of
an explosive rather than combustion?
Originally posted by -PLB-
Although I am no expert so I can be wrong,
Originally posted by turbofan
Pteridine and I will discuss energy once we're on the same page about reading DSC curves.
Your comparison falls short unfortunately. The graph you are comparing has a horizontal scale measured
in Kelvin. You must first transpose the graph to be scaled at Celsius.
Second, you must also compare the trace which is ramped at the same control rate of 10'C/minute.
Lastly, the veritcal scale is mW increments. Tillotsons scale is Watts. 1000 mW = 1 Watt.
Neither of the curves you compare exhibit a sharp slope; certainly not the red trace [10'C/minute]
If you take the time to redraw those curves on a Celsius scale @ 10'C/minute, they will look nothing like
the traces in Tillotson, or Jones' paper...they don't even look close now.edit on 6-12-2010 by turbofan because: Watt scale.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by turbofan
Pteridine and I will discuss energy once we're on the same page about reading DSC curves.
Your comparison falls short unfortunately. The graph you are comparing has a horizontal scale measured
in Kelvin. You must first transpose the graph to be scaled at Celsius.
I have to say my jaw kinda dropped from this statement. Do you have any technical education at all? Anyone with just the slightest technical education knows that Kelvin and Celcius have exactly the same magnitude. The only difference is an offset.
Second, you must also compare the trace which is ramped at the same control rate of 10'C/minute.
You also need to learn how to read graphs. When you scale the 10C/min graph to full height, you get a similar spike again. Similarly, when you scale the graph you posted on page 1 to a lower height you get a less steep curve.
Lastly, the veritcal scale is mW increments. Tillotsons scale is Watts. 1000 mW = 1 Watt.
Neither of the curves you compare exhibit a sharp slope; certainly not the red trace [10'C/minute]
If you take the time to redraw those curves on a Celsius scale @ 10'C/minute, they will look nothing like
the traces in Tillotson, or Jones' paper...they don't even look close now.edit on 6-12-2010 by turbofan because: Watt scale.
The units have nothing to do with relative change, only with absolute change. This also holds for your temperature argument. One graph is in mW, the other in W/gram. To transfer mW to W/g, all you need to is devide the value by the weight of the tested material. The shape of the curve does not change whatsoever.
I think this will be my last reply, as you have shown you have no technical background at all, and you have no clue of how to read a graph. I don't see this going anywhere anytime soon.
Originally posted by turbofan
Really?
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by turbofan
Really?
Yes, really. Scaling of the X and Y axis is unit independent. You can interchange the units and values without making any modification to the curves, as long as the scale remains linear. This is fundamental basic knowledge, its just not funny anymore.edit on 6-12-2010 by -PLB- because: added bit of info