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 turbofan
Joey, when you tell me the difference between the two tests that you think is so special, I will call and ask.
.......... and I'm not about to pick up a phone
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
BOTH were done in air. The WTC dust is more potent and explosive
than a known nano-thermite. PERIOD.
www.youtube.com...
Output per unit mass of anything that burns will likely have more energy than any sort of thermite. Peanut butter has more energy per unit mass than thermite when burned in air. The WTC dust has a carbonaceous binder which burns over a four minute timeframe. Yes, burning paint has more energy than thermite.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you.
Originally posted by pteridine
Ginny,
As I have explained many times, no iron spheres were formed. Iron containing spheres were formed. Their temperature of formation is not known.
Reaction under an inert gas is necessary to show the possibility of thermite. No reaction: No possibility of thermite. Reaction: May be thermite
This will allow differentiation between the combustion that we know is occurring and other reactions that don't need oxygen, such as thermite.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
Stop obfuscating, Turbo. Once again you try to shift the focus. This thread is about the DSC DATA in Jones paper. The figure you show comparing the heats of reaction of various thermites and conventional explosives is incorrect and not consistent with Jones figure.
Using Jones' data, explain the discrepancy in energy output. Try not to dance around and put in conflicting figures.edit on 12/14/2010 by pteridine because: clarification
Using Jones data, we conclude that some, if not all of the exotherm is due to combustion.
We know that not all of the red chips burned in the DSC and we know that once ignited some of the chips extinguished themselves. Using Jones data, we conclude that it is not possible to determine how much of the exotherm may be attributed to each.
We know that we can eliminate combustion and deconvolute the data by running the DSC under argon or ntrogen. Until that is done, no conclusions about reactions other than combustion can be drawn from this paper.
As to your attempts to analyze the traces; Tillotson knew what he had and could rationalize after the fact. Jones has no idea what he has and cannot.
Note also that the figure shown in your post comparing energies of explosives and thermites is incorrect.
Originally posted by pteridineCombustion: Jones realizes his error on p. 27 "As this test was done in air it is possible that
some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."
Error in the figure: Key is reversed on the figure.
We are not yet discussing the shape of the DSC trace, the products, or the reactants.
We are discussing the DSC DATA in Jones paper. See the thread topic. These numbers show excess heat that can only come from combustion. This is the output in kJ/g that is clearly shown in figure 30.
...
Using Jones' kJ/g data in figure 30, show how you account for the excess heat or show that there is no excess heat.
I claim that the heat is more than can possibly be generated by thermite or any combination of thermite and any high explosive, and that combustion must be occurring. If some combustion is occurring the amount of heat from other reactions is unknown.
By definition a thermite reaction is a chemical reaction in which aluminum metal (Al) is oxidized by a different metal-oxide, most commonly iron-oxide (Fe2O3) [26]. As indicated by the Latin root "therm" meaning heat, the main contribution of a thermite reaction is the exothermic heat production.
The major constituents identified were metallic Fe and Al203 WHICH ARE THE EXPECTED PRODUCTS
IF THE THERMITE REACTION HAD OCCURRED
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan
That is not an answer to the question. Try to react like this:
The reaction (x) responsible for the excess energy is a reaction between compound y and compound z. In the DSC you can discriminate between this reaction and the thermite reaction by this and this method. Area a corresponds to reaction x and area b corresponds to the thermite reaction.
Originally posted by turbofan
That is the best answer possible based on the information given.
What you and Pteridine are asking is impossible to provide.
You cannot directly convert to heat by energy density alone.
To prove my point, please show how chocolate is able to produce more heat than TNT with the
values shown in Figure 30 as 4.1 kJ/g, compared to 22 kJ/g for chocolate.
I've already described the areas which related to explosive reactions in the DSC trace. The range between
430'C and approximately 460'C [figure 29 of Jones' paper] is an example of such.
In order to produce to answers you seek you would have to know the mass of each element, the energy density
for each element, the enthalpy phases, and the bond energy.
This information is not available, but Jones did a before and after comparison of conventional thermite and also
compared his experiment results and observations with LLNL known nano-thermite sample.
A thermitic reaction was produced. Therefore heat was a minimum of 1500'C.
Nothing in that chip can produce that much heat in atmospheric conditions. Nothing. Not even close.edit on 17-12-2010 by turbofan because: spl.
Originally posted by -PLB- The fact that the DSC data shows that the energy density of at least one of Jones samples is higher than theoretically possible for a thermite reaction alone proves there has to be another reaction. This is likely a reaction with external oxygen (combustion).
From what I have read about measuring the energy density of a material (remeber, I am no expert), it can be obtained by taking the integral of the DSC. This is quite reasonable, as a DSC is in fact a measurement of power over time.
This means that in the DSC of at least one of Jones samples, the area of the thermite reaction must be about equal to the area of the unknown reaction.
(remember, maximal energy density thermite: 3.9kJ/g, Jones sample: 7.5kJ/g, unaccounted for: 3.6 kJ/g).
It could be possible to identify these two different reactions in the DSC if they take place at a different temperature.
As consequence, you can not claim the DSC shows a thermite reaction.
Your argument about iron spheres has nothing to do with the DSC, and is a different subject altogether, that should be discussed separately.
Originally posted by turbofan
Well, the measurement would be:power = energy release over time...not power over time.
Originally posted by turbofan
Please clarify.
Originally posted by turbofan
Sure, but what is the point? What does this have in common with the production of elemental iron in the spheres
along with oxidized aluminum?
Half true.
YOu can also distinguish if another reaction is happening by the change in slope at the ignition temperature.
IE: A piece of wood is not suddenly going to explode and cause a sharp exotherm after it starts burning.
The wood will release energy slowly over time showing a gradual increase in the exotherm trace. It may even
appear flat at times and then dip down as heat is lost.
By itself, not entirely. You can however show that something is energetic and by using known signature
traces to compare element phase changes, it is not far off.
**Coupled with the fact below (answering the last quote)**
YOu cannot discount all of the known data. It's like saying:
"Well we found a wallet with ID in the jeans left in the room"
"No sir, we can't allow the ID as evidence, we can only discuss the jeans. Therefore, you cannot prove those
pants belong to the killer."
Then when it's time to discuss the wallet, you'll say:
"But how do you know the wallet was in the jeans. We can't talk about the jeans and the wallet together.
Now you can only talk about the wallet therefore you can't prove the ID was in jeans."
You need to consider all of the data and how it supports all of the other results of test.
Once again you fail to understand the argument. It is apparent that you are confusing heat with temperature.
Originally posted by turbofan
I've proven that the material is energetic by the exotherm produced at 430'C. The exotherm is sharp in slope, and narrow which indicates
an explosive reaction, not combustion. I've provided links to support this fact using government lab results for known explosives and thermite.