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 GenRadek
If this paper was actually peer-reviewed by actual professionals, they would have also pointed this out immediately.
Unfortunately turbo does not think it is necessary to run this simple test that will be most decisive in unlocking the truth.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
Please address the large excesses in energy per gram that have no other explanation than combustion. Please discuss how Jones' data allows him to determine that a thermite reaction occurred in the presence of significant combustion.
Do not try to compare DSC's from completely different instruments and invoke slopes of peaks.
Area under the peak is what Jones used in his paper and that should be your focus.
Originally posted by pteridine
Thank you for your explanations of DSC traces. I’m sure that they will be useful in our discussions.
My position is that it is not desirable to compare details of DSC’s of different compounds from different instruments.
You may be surprised to learn that Jones’ DSC instrument is different than Tillotson’s. The response times and sensitivities of the instruments are not the same and curve shape is dependent on response time, among other things.
You claim combustion is “much slower” than thermite.
How slow is the combustion of gasoline at its flash point? How about that gasoline in a stream of air?
The air flow in Jones DSC was 55mL/minute for a small sample. A single specie could readily ignite and expend itself over five to seven minutes. If you want to argue that the trace means thermite, go ahead.
Note that the topic is about Jones’ data. His data says that there is much more heat than possible with thermite or any combination of thermite and any of the high explosives he showed in his paper.
This means that some or all of the heat is from combustion.
Jones admitted that there was combustion. He can’t discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reactions and doesn’t know how much of the total energy was from combustion. All or only some of it could be from combustion.
Since you plan to interpret the DSC traces, why don’t you explain which parts correspond to combustion and which correspond to thermitic reactions.
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones admitted that there was combustion. He can’t discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reactions and doesn’t know how much of the total energy was from combustion.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones admitted that there was combustion. He can’t discriminate between combustion and other exothermic reactions and doesn’t know how much of the total energy was from combustion.
This is all that is necessary to prove that their work is inconclusive.
Anything else is just Tino's attempt to lend his opinion more weight, since his religious belief in nanu nanu thermitic material is 100%, and backed by nothing other than his own particular strain of Dunning-Krueger.
I asked him a couple weeks ago if he would call an analytical lab with demonstrated experience, and ask them what tests they would use. He totally refused to even make a phone call, and educate himself. This wasn't unexpected. In typical truther fashion, he believes that Google University has given him an equal/superior level of expertise in this.
Dunning-Krueger and total arrogance on display for all to see.
Originally posted by turbofan
Actually "Joey", I'm not scared...I simply know better.
I've called several places to confirm research, or learn certain aspects of my research. I have audio recordings
and e-mails to prove it.
Did you know Ive called L3 Communications; e-mailed and phoned L3 Comm as well as Rockwell Collins
and even a level D flight sim facility?
You really think I'm scared to call a lab about XRD? Care to put money where your mouth is...or shall I say,
internet text?
Tell you what, you tell me the difference of what XRD will show along with the reason Tillotson used XEDS
for his experiments and I promise to at least make a phone call (recorded for proof).
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
You are saying that you can tell the difference between rapid combustion and nanothermite combustion using only the slope of the DSC trace and that you understand that some, if not all of the exotherm is due to combustion.
OK, make your case.
Originally posted by turbofan
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This is all that is necessary to prove that their work is inconclusive.
Anything else is just Tino's attempt to lend his opinion more weight, since his religious belief in nanu nanu thermitic material is 100%, and backed by nothing other than his own particular strain of Dunning-Krueger.
I asked him a couple weeks ago if he would call an analytical lab with demonstrated experience, and ask them what tests they would use. He totally refused to even make a phone call, and educate himself. This wasn't unexpected. In typical truther fashion, he believes that Google University has given him an equal/superior level of expertise in this.
Dunning-Krueger and total arrogance on display for all to see.
Actually, Joey is a liar.
I confronted him here and asked for his reason and that I would call the lab.
Actually "Joey", I'm not scared...I simply know better.
You really think I'm scared to call a lab about XRD? Care to put money where your mouth is...or shall I say,
internet text?
Tell you what, you tell me the difference of what XRD will show along with the reason Tillotson used XEDS
for his experiments and I promise to at least make a phone call (recorded for proof).
All he had to tell me was the difference between the test...but he can't do that obviously.
Not much of a surprise.
Why would I engage? I'm asking you to make a simple phone call and find out. You are now erecting all sorts of psychological barriers that you can use as an excuse to NOT confront your delusions of knowledge.
I'd be happy to start a thread with you Joey (just like this one) so you can stop ruining the continuity of
the discussion and allow us to debate your reasons.
There's zero continuity here.
You are deflecting fatal questions and going off topic in a thread you started, all for the purpose of bamboozling the severely delusional truthers on ATS that you know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
Why do we need to agree about anything for you to simply state your case?
What is in Jones paper is just not conclusive regardless of how he dances around and wishes it to be.