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

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

Pteridine continuously falls back to the 'excess energy' excuse even though I've highlighted the fact that an aluminothermic reaction creates more than enough heat to produce iron spheres.

I've proven that a thermitic reaction occurred by showing that Iron Oxide has been reduced to elemental iron, and that aluminum has been oxidized. This is a classic product of a thermitic reaction regardless of how much extra energy, or heat was produced by combustion.
The fact is, an aluminothermic reaction such as Al/Fe203 can produce 1500'C by itself. The additional heat by combustion is irrelevent.

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.


Pteridine has never once provided a source for his claims. He never conceded to the errors he made with respect to the term "Thermitic" and that the spheres not need to be 100%. Debating this guy is pointless. He is asking me to calculate an amount of energy from material without providing the necessary details. He knows this is impossible, yet het continues to resort to this excuse as a method to appear in control of the argument.

He has failed to provide an example. He continues to explain the same thing over and over and over. We know that some combustion took place.
Jones admitted that combustion took place. We do not care how much heat was produced by combustion in air because we know by science that 2Al+Fe203 > Al203+2Fe can provide enough heat to form the iron spheres.

Further to this, we know that carbon is present in a matrix form which was used as a gas producing agent for pressure volume work. This is the difference between an incendiary and an explosive. We know through LLNL and LANL that their organic elements are used to produce large amount of gas for explosive caracteristics. "Pteridine" would have known this had he read and studied
the available documentation.

THIS IS THE LIKELY SOURCE FOR THE ADDITOINAL HEAT IN THE EXOTHERM. NOTE: IT IS NOT COMBUSTION, IT IS EXPLOSIVE IN NATURE.

The definition of explosive is: a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction

Does the carbon require oxygen to react? Yes it does. Does carbon normally produce a sharp exotherm when igniting? No. When carbon burns normally, it produces a rather slow rising slope during the release of heat.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ecdeaac76a6.jpg[/atsimg]

You will note that Carbon ignites around 300'C. This is about the same point in the Jones and Tillotson
graph for temperature of ignition.

Wow, what a thought huh?!

Can this extra heat within the narrow exotherm be the explosive, gas production by carbon? Yes. Using UFG (Ultra fine grain) particles you can enable the carbon to consume itself more rapidly. This allows for more heat to be released in a shorter period of time. It's a similar result as grinding wood into 'saw dust' and lighting it on fire. So the questions back to Pteridine:

1. Why does the carbon exist in the chip in this form? Certainly you don't believe it's paint, or formed by
an aircraft smashing into a building?

2. If a narrow exotherm such as the ones shown in the Jones and LLNL documentation indicate an explosive
reaction, do you agree the any elements burning in air must be in the UFG format in order to release all of
their energy in such a short duration of time (regarless of combustion, or chemical reaction)?

3. Do you agree that the spheres are not supposed to be 100% iron to prove a thermitic reaction

I am happy to see that you now stand corrected regarding the erroneous figure you posted from LLNL. The labs are not infallible.
You also have not commented on the thermal output of the Tillotson nanothermite-- less than 40% of the theoretical maximum. Are you sure you still want to use this as your benchmark?

Excess energy is not an excuse, it is just another failing of Jones paper and another reason he is unable to claim thermite. I am taking you through this slowly because you don't understand the science. The temperature is not what we are looking at, so how hot a particular reaction gets is not what Jones is measuring. We are looking at total caloric output. A match is much hotter than 1000 gallons of room temperature water. Guess which has more heat. Your statement "The fact is, an aluminothermic reaction such as Al/Fe203 can produce 1500'C by itself. The additional heat by combustion is irrelevent." shows that you have temperature and heat hopelessly confused.

Your disjointed argument also seems to include the concept that the burning carbon accounts for almost half of the heat released because it is combusting as a gas generator, in air, for a thermite reaction. You then repeat the idea "We know that some combustion took place. Jones admitted that combustion took place. We do not care how much heat was produced by combustion in air because we know by science that 2Al+Fe203 > Al203+2Fe can provide enough heat to form the iron spheres."

You confirm that you do not know the difference between temperature and heat and then you assume a thermite reaction to prove a thermite reaction. Jones' paper provides no evidence of any reaction other than combustion and no spheres of iron are shown. In fact, some material remains unreacted and some products seem to contain little iron.

You then discuss a carbon matrix but also claim a finely divided carbon. Which is it?

You say it is explosive in nature, yet there is no disruption of the DSC trace due to outgassing or material loss and material that appears unreacted, unexploded, and unburnt is recovered in the DSC boat. The excuse provided by Jones that the material was scattered and that is why it extinguished is ridiculous. Scattered, it would still have been at temperature in a stream of air. This is some deadly demolition material, isn't it Turbo?

Jones has not proved a thermitic reaction nor has he shown elemental iron. You do not need to "prove" that the material is energetic by citing a DSC exotherm. This is a pointless claim by you. What you need to explain is how the difference between combustion and a thermite reaction can be shown in a DSC experiment.

Answers to your questions, by the numbers:
1. You are claiming ultrafine grained carbon based on what? If the carbon is present in ultrafine grains, what is holding everything together? I don't believe that it is ultra-fine grained carbon, I think it is a polymeric hydrocarbon binder, much like that in paint.
2. Narrow exotherms in DSC are not diagnostic, only suggestive. DSC traces are extrinsic and greatly effected by conditions of analysis.
3. We are not discussing the products of reaction, we are discussing the thermodynamics. Please reread the thread title.

Now some questions for you:
1. What is the difference between temperature and heat?
2. What is the maximum theoretical exotherm from a thermite reaction in kJ/g as shown in Jones' fig 30?
3. In Fig 30, what samples exceeded that output?
4. What DSC experiment must Jones do to eliminate all heat generated from combustion?

reply to post by -PLB-


Already done with government lab documentation. See page 4.

Originally posted by pteridine
I am happy to see that you now stand corrected regarding the erroneous figure you posted from LLNL. The labs are not infallible.

There is no correction. Your opinion is not a correction. Your opinion means nothing. If you would like
to disprove the LLNL data, feel free to provide some scientific sources. A debate requires that you
qualify your answers with proof, not dribble of text from your "thoughts".

Excess energy is not an excuse, it is just another failing of Jones paper and another reason he is unable to claim thermite.

He never claimed thermite. Get that out of your head. I already corrected you on the term "thermitic".
Thermitic does NOT mean thermite.

The products of elemental iron, and oxidized aluminium in spherical form however is the signature for an aluminothermic reaction. Please understand the difference. Jones proved an aluminothermic reaction, not thermite.

Got it after 6 pages?

We are looking at total caloric output. A match is much hotter than 1000 gallons of room temperature water. Guess which has more heat. Your statement "The fact is, an aluminothermic reaction such as Al/Fe203 can produce 1500'C by itself. The additional heat by combustion is irrelevent." shows that you have temperature and heat hopelessly confused.

Not at all. I've already linked you to an explantion of heat vs. temperature in a thread I posted weeks ago.
Proving once again, you don't read links. Energy release over time is what I meant by that comparison.
There is no confusion. Power is what this is all about.

You confirm that you do not know the difference between temperature and heat and then you assume a thermite reaction to prove a thermite reaction. Jones' paper provides no evidence of any reaction other than combustion and no spheres of iron are shown.

FOr the FOURTH TIME: The signature of thermitic reaction is not 100% iron.

A thermitic reactoin requires the reduction of a metal oxide and the oxidation of a fuel metal.

Do you understand this SIMPLE concept? This exactly why I wanted to step through these points before
engaging in a debate.

Now we must go backwards and do what should have been done first.

Pteridine, do you agree that the spheres are not supposed to 100% iron to show a thermitic reaction
as per any scientific reference, and Tillotson?

Gee Pteridine, I guess the scientists have temperature and heat confused too?

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_Reaction

A highly exothermic reaction between a metal and the oxide of another metal; for example, the reaction of molten or powdered magnesium with iron oxide to form magnesium oxide and molten iron. [Friedman 1989]
www.iprr.org/defs/DEFINSTU.html

Wow, look at that Pteridine. A classic thermitic reaction. First starting off with a metal oxide and fuel metal,
then turning into oxidized metal and reduced metal oxide to molten [elemental] form.

Do you agree, or would you like to dazzle us with more of your opinion?

Originally posted by pteridine
You then discuss a carbon matrix but also claim a finely divided carbon. Which is it?

Gee, this is easier than stealing candy from a baby

The capillary pressure curves and pore size data indicate ultra fine grained matrix with 100% microporosity
and with average pore throat diameters in the

reply to post by turbofan


In that case you completely failed to convince me. I see nothing on page 4 that supports your claim that combustion can never take place in a period of 2 minutes. In fact, I already pointed you to DSC results of combustion that do show a reaction that ended after a similar period. Those figures are still in plain sight, although for some reason you choose to ignore them or deliberately misinterpret them. I can point again to for example page 135 in the document I posted earlier that shows a DSC of the combustion of crude oil. It takes about 3 minutes for the peak to reach is maximal height, measured from the moment it starts to rise fast. I don't see why in a different test setup (different measurement device, different sample size and shape, different conditions) it could not possibly take 2 minutes for any material to be completely combusted.

Anyway, I don't think you are going to come with any convincing sources, and you will continue to ignore the fact that studies show that combustion can take place in similar time frames. So I guess everything has been said.

Originally posted by turbofan
He never claimed thermite. Get that out of your head. I already corrected you on the term "thermitic".
Thermitic does NOT mean thermite.

The products of elemental iron, and oxidized aluminium in spherical form however is the signature for an aluminothermic reaction. Please understand the difference. Jones proved an aluminothermic reaction, not thermite.

Got it after 6 pages?

So what aluminothermic reaction, that is not a thermite reaction, are you talking about exactly? It is not a reaction between Fe2O3 and Al nor a reaction between SiO2 and Al, as those would be thermite reactions.

Can you point out specifically what reaction took place that resulted in Al2O3?

reply to post by -PLB-


Quite simple if you read any of the documentation.

Jones does not claim thermite specifically.

Yes, it's a thermite reaction...but it may not by thermite specifically.

You see "Pteridine" has been spreading lies for months on this board claiming that the term thermitic means
thermite and that Jones must be claiming thermite. I corrected him by suppling quotes from at least three
published, public access science reports showing that thermitic can also mean thermate, nano-energetic
material (IE: nano-thermite).

It's all within this thread if you care to read.

In this case it's more likely, nano-thermite. It may even be a type known as 'thermate/nano-thermate'.

As for your previous post, if you don't understand the width of the exotherm indicates an explosive reaction,
then I can't help you.

If the constant proof by linking known explosives and thermitic DSC traces cannot illustrate the fact. I cannot
help you.

reply to post by turbofan


So why are you so upset when someone calls it a thermite reaction? Arn't you turning this into a game of semantics in order to avoid the hard questions?

As for you posting DSC traces of explosive reactions, I interpret your logic like this:

Trace A shows a thermitic reaction
Trace B shows similarities to trace A
Therefor, trace B shows a thermitic reaction.

This kind of logic is severely flawed. You will first have to rule out any other type of reaction in order to come to that conclusion. I have repeatedly showed that combustion can show similar shapes. It is interesting that you totally ignore that, as if it doesn't exist. You are Ignoring facts that do not fit your world view, yet those facts are physically there, and can be verified at any moment.

Are you really rejecting the fact that the graph I pointed you to shows a combustion trace that peaks in a time frame of about 3 minutes? Do you really reject that this time frame is in the same order of magnitude as Jones traces are (sharpest is about 2 minutes, softest is about 6)? And do you really reject the fact that the shape and size of the sample influences the shape of the peak? And do you really reject the fact that other conditions (type, material, shape, settings of equipment) influences the shape of the traces?

If so, suit yourself, don't let yourself bothered by facts. If not, then why exactly can't the trace possibly show combustion only, based on the DSC alone?

Originally posted by -PLB-So why are you so upset when someone calls it a thermite reaction? Arn't you turning this into a game of semantics in order to avoid the hard questions?

Nope, I've answered all of the questions with links and sources unlike anyone else. I've also found errors
in prior replies from both of you and corrected them using sourced information.

As for your question, if we knew that the chip was entirely and solely Al/Fe203, then we could call it a thermite
reaction...because that is what thermite is (Al/Fe203). Right now, the correct term is a thermitic reaction to
encompass the general metal oxide, metal fuel reaction.

I'm not the one that needs to avoid the questions. I'm quite comfortable correcting everyone; see the last
few in a row where I showed Pteridine that a UFG matrix really does exist.

As for you posting DSC traces of explosive reactions, I interpret your logic like this:
...
This kind of logic is severely flawed.

No, that's not what I'm saying...that's what you're interpretting.

More like:
- traces A, B, C, D, E, F, G are signature examples of explosive reactoins (IE: large amounts of energy
over short period of time)
- since Jones' trace is equal to, or more narrow exhitibting a greater slope, it too indicates an explosive
reaction
- Since nobody can supply a trace of combustion for any elements found in the chip which are equally as
narrow and have a sharp slope, nothing is really burning up...it's exploding (releasing large amounts of energy
in a short period of time).

In summary, neither of you can show combustion (note: combustion to burn off slowly in natural form) by way
of DSC data. Therefore anything combusting by help of oxygen has been modified to react quickly.

IE: UFG carbon matrix which isn othing you find in paint, or a plane crash into a building.

I have repeatedly showed that combustion can show similar shapes. It is interesting that you totally ignore that, as if it doesn't exist.

REALLY?

PLEASE SHOW ME THOSE DSC GRAPHS AGAIN! I MUST HAVE MISSED THEM!

quote by PLB

So you think that a slope that takes more than 2 minutes to rise to its maximal value is evidence of a fast reaction? And you think that complete combustion of a sample can not happen in a period of 2 minutes? Substantiate your claims. Show sources why this is so.

Turbo,

This is why I believe PLB should have shown why the graphs he/she introduced into this thread are "similar peaks" He/she is now trying to put it on you to make the distinction, while he/she never had to argue for the similarity.

I, for one, am still waiting for PLB's work on this point.

Originally posted by turbofan
REALLY?

PLEASE SHOW ME THOSE DSC GRAPHS AGAIN! I MUST HAVE MISSED THEM!

Take a look at page 135 in the document I posted earlier, and tell me the time frame in which the sharp slope rises from its initial rising point to its maximal value. Do or do you not agree it is about 3 minutes? If not, how much minutes do you agree to?

reply to post by -PLB-


So that's your whole argument for the similarity? All that matters is the time to reach it's peak? and we disregard the rest?

Originally posted by -PLB-Take a look at page 135 in the document I posted earlier

Sorry, I don't see a link? Please provide the link again.

reply to post by NIcon


It is turbofans argument, not mine. He claims that the sharpness of the peak is proof of an thermitic or explosive reaction.

reply to post by turbofan


etd.lib.metu.edu.tr...

Note that this was the first document I found showing DSC's of combustion. I find it very strange you need to ask the link again, as it can be easily found on page 2 or using Google. Anyway, do you agree that the sharp curve rises in a time frame of 3 minutes? If not, how much minutes do you agree to?

reply to post by -PLB-

It seems to me Turbo is arguing about the whole slope, whereas your content with cutting it in half and forgetting the rest, as if the material will release its peak heat indefinitely through eternity.

Seriously, you need to stay out of this debate. For two reasons:

- It's not directed to you

- You're not able to grasp the concepts

Originally posted by -PLB-

It is turbofans argument, not mine. He claims that the sharpness of the peak is proof of an thermitic or explosive reaction.

WRONG!

I said, slope and width several times.

I also said there is a sharp drop in heat directly after the peak which meets the criteria for an explosive reaction.

Stop misquoting me.

Note that this was the first document I found showing DSC's of combustion. I find it very strange you need to ask the link again, as it can be easily found on page 2 or using Google.

I find it very strange that you are referring to a graph that I already redrew to scale to show your errors and
dimiss any sort of fantasy that your DSC curves bears a hint of resemblance to JOnes'.

I asked you to link it again because I thought you were talking about a reference on this page, not something
that was discussed and rejected pages ago!

Here it is again since you missed it the first time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/86df3d55ec26.jpg[/atsimg]

Anyway, do you agree that the sharp curve rises in a time frame of 3 minutes? If not, how much minutes do you agree to?

I don't agree to anything. There is NOTHING similar about that curve you provided. As NICON correctly states,
the time to max. peak alone is not the proper way to compare data.

Originally posted by turbofan
Seriously, you need to stay out of this debate. For two reasons:

- It's not directed to you

- You're not able to grasp the concepts

Or maybe you are unable to explain them properly. As for "it is not directed to you", get a private room and stop discussing it in public forums. Or just don't react, not that hard.

WRONG!

I said, slope and width several times.

I also said there is a sharp drop in heat directly after the peak which meets the criteria for an explosive reaction.

Stop misquoting me.

The sharpness of the peak,in combination with the height, unavoidably also determined the width. Sharp peaks = small width, soft peak = large width. Your argument has constantly been that the reaction rate is of importance.

I find it very strange that you are referring to a graph that I already redrew to scale to show your errors and
dimiss any sort of fantasy that your DSC curves bears a hint of resemblance to JOnes'.

I asked you to link it again because I thought you were talking about a reference on this page, not something
that was discussed and rejected pages ago!

Here it is again since you missed it the first time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/86df3d55ec26.jpg[/atsimg]

I already pointed out that this graph is utterly wrong. The scale of the X axis of the curve you drew in (the blue one) is totally wrong. In the original the peak spans about 60 degrees, in your totally incorrectly edited graph it spans about 5 degrees. No wonder its width is much smaller. You are a complete order of magnitude wrong. Did you really fail tot notice this capital error, or are you doing this on purpose?

I don't agree to anything. There is NOTHING similar about that curve you provided. As NICON correctly states,
the time to max. peak alone is not the proper way to compare data.

So if you do not agree with the 3 minutes rise time, what time do you agree to?

Originally posted by -PLB-- You're not able to grasp the concepts
Or maybe you are unable to explain them properly.

You didn't know the difference between thermitic reaction, or a thermite reaction, nor how to use them
in context.

You used "Power over time" to explain your position...yet you didn't know Power includes a reference of time.

You tried to relate the peak of the DSC curve with the width of the exotherm (see below).

It's a constant correction and moving backward when you enter the debate. Please stay out of it, you're
not helping.

If you're here to learn and ask questions, that's fine but don't act as if you have discovered something unique
to bring to the table. Several posts have gone by since Pteridine has responded and I'm SURE we will have to
repost our part of the debate for effect.

The sharpness of the peak

The peak is the maximum heat flow achieved. It is not 'sharp' with respect to the analysis.

Sharp would be related to the slope. IE: The change in heat over time.

The sharpness of the peak,in combination with the height, unavoidably also determined the width.

Wrong again. The angle of the slope along with the onset of ignition to the peak of the curve...back down
to the reference ambient temperature (after heat of reaction has been removed) determine the width.

The peak has absolutely NOTHING to do with the width of the exotherm!

Sharp peaks = small width, soft peak = large width. Your argument has constantly been that the reaction rate is of importance.

See above. Not peak, but rather onset of ignition back to reference ambient temperature. That's how a DSC
displays the trace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I already pointed out that this graph is utterly wrong. The scale of the X axis of the curve you drew in (the blue one) is totally wrong. In the original the peak spans about 60 degrees, in your totally incorrectly edited graph it spans about 5 degrees. No wonder its width is much smaller. You are a complete order of magnitude wrong. Did you really fail tot notice this capital error, or are you doing this on purpose?

Ha, that's quite funny. YOu know your X-axis is Kelvin right?

You know that Jone's curve ends at 460'C

You know that 460'C = 733.25 K, correct?

YOu know that each increment marker on your X-axis is 50 degrees right?

Well then... if YOU KNOW all of that, HOW is my drawing wrong?

My blue superimposed trace ends before 750 K and starts ~ 720 K

Jones graph starts the exotherm at 430'C and ends the exotherm at 460'C

PLEASE redraw it correclty!

So if you do not agree with the 3 minutes rise time, what time do you agree to?

It's clearly at least 5 minutes if I'm being generous and starting at the second phase change.

After the peak, there is a long gradual, decay in heat.

Once again, nothing like an explosive reaction.

edit on 19-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)