Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

Originally posted by pteridine
Did you notice that all the explosives Jones showed are nitro compounds? Did you see any nitrogen in the EDAX analyses? Why do you think Jones made that sly little move?

Didn't they include that graph because it's in a paper by Tillotson who's work they based their experiments on and were comparing their samples with? They freely admit they based their testing on what Tillotson had done, and even one of their team contacted Tillotson for more information. Why do you think this was a sly move? It seems to me the "sly" thing to have done would have been to leave this information out of the paper altogether as they didn't use it to form their conclusion a thermite reaction occurred.

Originally posted by pteridine
How could Jones eliminate the possibility that it is not just burning binder in paint and that a reaction other than combustion occurred?

It seems that they only concluded a thermite reaction occurred based on the formation of the spheriods (number 8 in their conclusions on page 29). For the theoretical basis of this conclusion, I believe Henryco at JREF explained it well, which I included in my last post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For a more concise version here's the same guy again (forums.randi.org...)

The ability of the combustion of an organic material to reach the temperatures necessary to melt iron is even worse at the microscopic scale than at the macoscopic scale, simply because at such small scales the dissipative effects are huge especially for the reactions that take place at the surface of the sample such as combustion with Oxygen in the air. I'm really sorry but this is crucial point and for the time being the only feedback on this forum concerning that point sound like magical sentences.

So it seems they are basing their conclusion a thermite reaction took place because they believe combustion on this scale would not reduce the iron oxide and form the spheriods they found.

As I mentioned in my last post, I researched experiments of reducing iron on small scales like this and it seems their conclusion holds up. So when you say "It might be all combustion and no other reaction" logically this seems correct, but experientially it's not, based on Henryco's explanation and the experiments I've found. It seems we know what it takes to reduce iron oxide. So, I'm not convinced the "charred-porous material" alone could have caused this.

Originally posted by pteridine
Your logic and reading skills seem to be non-existent. No, iron oxide and aluminum were not the only compoments.

Alright, so stop right there. I'm not even going to read the rest of your rant, honestly. Two sentences in and you've already slung an insult, and then immediately showed that it better fits you.

"No, iron oxide and aluminum were not the only compoments (sic)", and yet you are citing a theoretical energy figure that assumes they were.

This is the kind of nonsense, plus never being able to provide a legitimate source for your claims (now we see this claim was also bogus and based on a straw-man), that made me put you on ignore before. As I have told you many times, the only reason you are not on ignore again now is because I know it actually makes you happy.

Get over yourself and stop lying through your teeth just to win an internet argument.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Get over yourself and stop lying through your teeth just to win an internet argument.

Written by someone losing said argument. The same old BS rant of "My sensitive feelings are hurt so I'm not reading your post" which you think has worked for you in the past when you couldn't muster an argument. Predictably, I also see that you are again claiming that I am "lying." This is a sure sign of your inability to counter argue. Next I expect a diatribe on "logical fallacies" along with the high school history exam results.

Get over yourself and admit that Jones can't logically claim thermite and, consequently, that Cole's demo was pointless.

reply to post by NIcon


One can question the origin of the few small, iron containing spheroids. Jones used a magnet to separate the red chips from the rest of the dust and the fact that he didn't notice any spheriods doesn't mean that their origin was as he claimed. He did nothing, experimentally, to reduce or eliminate their presence before combustion in the DSC. He should have run the DSC under Argon and eliminated the possibility of a combustion term but he didn't, or if he did, he didn't publish it.
What I find most telling is the presence of unreacted iron oxide after the claimed thermite reaction was to have occurred. The larger than theoretical energy release coupled with an incomplete thermite reaction doesn't give me confidence in his forced conclusions of "highly engineered" thermitic material. He needs to do a lot more experimental work and honest writing before this paper will get published in anything but a vanity journal.
Then, too, there is the matter if what 10 to 100 tons of unreacted paint-on thermite was doing in the dust and what it would have done on the building. This alone casts doubt on the entire theory and Jones didn't help his case with some of his off-the-cuff answers.

Originally posted by pteridine
One can question the origin of the few small, iron containing spheroids. Jones used a magnet to separate the red chips from the rest of the dust and the fact that he didn't notice any spheriods doesn't mean that their origin was as he claimed. He did nothing, experimentally, to reduce or eliminate their presence before combustion in the DSC.

Yes they used a magnet to separate the chips. But then they soaked some chips. They split some chips in half. Took many photographs of the untouched surface along with the fresh surface where they split the chip in two. Took multiple BSE images and anyalized the TEM diffraction pattern of the iron oxide. Yes, one could question whether these magical spheres were able to conceal themselves among all that. But then one would have to answer how some of the spheriods are larger than the width of the layers.

Originally posted by pteridine
What I find most telling is the presence of unreacted iron oxide after the claimed thermite reaction was to have occurred. The larger than theoretical energy release coupled with an incomplete thermite reaction doesn't give me confidence in his forced conclusions of "highly engineered" thermitic material.

Why is unreacted iron oxide unusual? And why is his conclusions forced? I believe I explained their reasoning in my last two posts, yet you totally disregarded it.

Could combustion alone cause the iron oxide to be reduced? If you believe it can, please explain how.

reply to post by NIcon


The inability to discriminate between combustion and a thermite reaction is the failure of his experiment.
Jones is avoiding the simple experiment he needs. Eliminating combustion and seeing a reaction means that there is the possibility of thermite. Not seeing a reaction means no thermite and the theory is dead. All the rest of his analyses are just noise.

reply to post by pteridine


That was a pretty amusing outburst, copying my expressions and still dwelling on something I posted in a completely different forum, but this is the part of my post you should have paid attention to, but totally ignored instead:

"No, iron oxide and aluminum were not the only compoments (sic)", and yet you are citing a theoretical energy figure that assumes they were.

This is why your "it was too powerful to be thermite" argument is debunked. You ignored that part of my post now but I know you'll be posting your trash again later as if I had never said anything at all.

reply to post by pteridine


Aren't they discriminating between combustion and a thermite reaction through the results of the formation of the spheriods. I believe their argument is if combustion can not cause the formation of the spheres because of dissipation of the heat, they are then concluding it is a thermite reaction.

Is this not a form of discriminating between the two? Wouldn't a thermite reaction and simple combustion have different end results?

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by pteridine

 

Aren't they discriminating between combustion and a thermite reaction through the results of the formation of the spheriods. I believe their argument is if combustion can not cause the formation of the spheres because of dissipation of the heat, they are then concluding it is a thermite reaction.

Is this not a form of discriminating between the two? Wouldn't a thermite reaction and simple combustion have different end results?

That is what they are claiming but the origin of the spheres is questionable and their composition varies widely, given the "highly engineered" material. The quantity of spheres also seems sparse, considering the claims. There is unreacted "thermitic" material after the reaction in the DSC and the energy output of the chips also varies widely. They have not done the simple, critical experiment that will eliminate doubt. I would think that a rerun of the DSC under argon to prove their case would be what they would want. Apparently they do not want to do it or have done it and do not want to publish the results. They have not been enamored of the scientific method so far so we would expect that they will not suddenly become the disinterested seekers of truth that they claimm to be.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

That was a pretty amusing outburst, copying my expressions and still dwelling on something I posted in a completely different forum, but this is the part of my post you should have paid attention to, but totally ignored instead:

"No, iron oxide and aluminum were not the only compoments (sic)", and yet you are citing a theoretical energy figure that assumes they were.

This is why your "it was too powerful to be thermite" argument is debunked. You ignored that part of my post now but I know you'll be posting your trash again later as if I had never said anything at all.

I'm glad you enjoyed the humor. I liked it and knew you would too. I see you think my argument has been debunked. At least you are not calling me a liar.

I thought I gave your post its just due. I have explained this point many times. Jones claims that there is an energetic binder. Of course, he cannot say what the energetic binder is because he has fallen into the same habit as others who claim 'silent explosives' and 'super-secret' stuff to explain away inconveniences that would derail the conspiracy train.
Look at the energetic materials Jones showed. HMX is about as energetic as you can get, yet no combination of HMX and thermite will reach the energy output that Jones measured. The EDAX shows carbon and we will assume hydrogen. It is possible that some oxygen is also in the binder but no nitrogen. This eliminates the majority of explosives. There are some peroxides and ozonides that are peppy but they tend to fall apart at inconvenient times. Chlorates and perchlorates are possibilities but there isn't enough Cl or anything else to really do anything pyrotechnical.
That means that the excess energy must have come from combustion in air. Jones admits this possibility in his paper but doesn't realize that it cooks his faulty conclusions. When measuring the heat of combustion of a hydrocarbon in air, the oxygen is not weighed. With thermite and explosives, the oxidant is weighed. Further, the atomic masses of the reacting species are much lower with hydrocarbon combustion, relative to metal oxide reactions. This is why the kJ/g for combusting hydrocarbons is ten times greater than for thermite. If we would consider kJ/mol and weigh the oxygen, the energies would not be as disparate and might even reverse.

Combustion must be occurring but there is no unequivocal evidence that any other reaction is occurring. Because Jones cannot say how much energy is from combustion and how much is from some other reaction, he cannot claim that ANY of it is from another reaction. He can run the DSC under argon and determine if there is a reaction that does not need air. If he does find energy from another reaction, he will then have to determine what the reaction is. He is still several steps away from thermite. Once he finds a thermite reaction, he then has to show what effect it would have as a paint on before he can say that CD was a possibility.
A quick XRD would show the mineral components and could save rerunning the DSC if the Al was found to be tied up as an aluminosilicate instead of elemental Al. Then he would have discovered red paint.

reply to post by pteridine

It seems you are suggesting the spheres were all ready in the chips even though there is no evidence of them. That's interesting, considering things you've told me in the past. I think I've heard all I need to know about your speculative position.

Let me know when you have a more concrete position and then maybe this might be worth discussing.

reply to post by NIcon


I will reread the paper and see if there is a mass balance for spheres produced versus chips consumed. I don't remember that there were many spheres that had significant amounts of iron; it seemed as though they might have found one after much searching. Possibly it was from flyash in the dust.
I found the photographs of the red chips after reaction particularly telling. The unreacted iron oxide with blobs of melted mineral matter looked as though the highly engineered material had self extinguished after the binder combusted. It would seem that Jones' team would want to do the correct experiment....or maybe not. So far they have not shown a thermitic reaction or any reaction other than combustion. The CD train is far from any tracks it might ride on.

Originally posted by pteridine
I see you think my argument has been debunked. At least you are not calling me a liar.

Actually I still do believe you are fully aware that your "arguments" do not make sense. That's why sometimes you claim it was definitely paint, but when asked for proof you retreat to saying it was "probably" paint and making up all kinds of garbage that you can't back up with sources.

Again, I'm not reading the rest of your rant. Sorry dude. You were citing an energy figure that applies to aluminum and iron only by your own admission, not the substance Jones was analyzing, or even the substance Cole used. I know, I know, when you get called out like that, you write a book of convoluted rhetoric diverging onto a hundred other topics and hoping someone will forget the stupidity you just posted. That's why I'm not even reading it. I've wasted too many hours of my life reading hundreds of your rantings already.

reply to post by bsbray11


I see you have resorted, once again, to the "I'm not reading your posts because I can't argue Jones' paper either way." That is OK with me. I know you don't understand the chemistry and have now come to grips with that reality. Follow along as Nicon and I discuss this and you might learn something. If you decide to respond, see if you can actually contribute to the technical discussion.
Your takeaway for this thread is that 1. Jones only proved that carbonaceous binder combusts and 2. Cole's demo was pointless but entertaining.

Originally posted by pteridine
I see you have resorted, once again, to the "I'm not reading your posts because I can't argue Jones' paper either way."

Your argument ('the substance was too energetic to be thermite') has already been proven wrong above, because you are citing an irrelevant energy figure, and even you have already admitted that your figure assumes aluminum and iron oxide alone.

The only one here who "can't argue" is obviously you, because ever since then, you have only been trying to weasel onto a hundred other topics that are just as erroneous and based on nothing but your own ranting (ie, nonsense), and haven't even tried defending the point we were just arguing. I'm not playing circle jerk with you. That's why I don't even read your posts when you write a book after you get debunked. I've seen you do it a thousand times and I know your modus operandi. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest and lying on purpose, and this is why you consciously avoid going back to the points you have just been refuted on.

Your takeaway for this thread is that 1. Jones only proved that carbonaceous binder combusts and 2. Cole's demo was pointless but entertaining.

Case in point. You have just been refuted on your "it was too energetic claim" so now you retreat to your secondary nonsense. And when that's refuted, you retreat to tertiary nonsense. It's endless. And you never admit being wrong, ever, even though you obviously just were. This is why, again, I put you on ignore. When I say "grow up" I am being sincere. It would benefit us all to have a little more honesty from you.

reply to post by bsbray11


All you have shown is your inability to read and learn.

I did explain this in the post you said you didn't read. Pick an actual energetic material and allow it to be the binder for thermite in any proportions. I used HMX as an example because it is the most energetic of those listed in Jones' paper. Do you see a limit to the energy? Now allow a hydrocarbon binder to merely burn. Does it exceed the energy of the thermite plus the highly energetic material? This has been explained to you many times. What is causing the exotherm? Certainly, combustion is occurring and that is all that is certain. There is no way to determine if a thermite reaction is going on, too, and he certainly can't claim such based on his evidence.

reply to post by pteridine


We know, we know, you have an argument based on faith. The material was more energetic than conventional thermite, ie aluminum and iron oxide, so rather than considering all possibilities, considering all the iron spheroids which combustion can't produce, etc., you automatically claim it was all combustion. Yes, you are a brilliant, brilliant internet scientist, pteridine. I hope that makes your ego feel good enough that you can stop posting nonsense now.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

We know, we know, you have an argument based on faith. The material was more energetic than conventional thermite, ie aluminum and iron oxide, so rather than considering all possibilities, considering all the iron spheroids which combustion can't produce, etc., you automatically claim it was all combustion. Yes, you are a brilliant, brilliant internet scientist, pteridine. I hope that makes your ego feel good enough that you can stop posting nonsense now.

"We" know? Do you have a tapeworm?
My argument is based on thermodynamics, which seems to elude you. Can you postulate an energetic binder that is more energetic than HMX? How many "iron" spheroids were there? Does the weight of the spheroids correspond with the iron oxide reacted? Jones completely screwed up the analyses and you don't want to admit it.
Your inability to read is also showing again. I said that Jones can only be sure of combustion and cannot determine how much, if any of the energy is from other reactions. If that is the case, he cannot claim thermite.

Originally posted by pteridine
"We" know? Do you have a tapeworm?

We:

Originally posted by NIcon
It seems you are suggesting the spheres were all ready in the chips even though there is no evidence of them. That's interesting, considering things you've told me in the past. I think I've heard all I need to know about your speculative position.

Let me know when you have a more concrete position and then maybe this might be worth discussing.

Again you resort to claiming you're just smarter than me. Right. That's why you're the one who can't even reason without committing a hundred fallacies and having to weasel back and forth between them while ignoring the iron spheres and forms of thermite more advanced than aluminum and iron oxide.

You can go ahead and get the last word in. I've repeated myself enough for this encounter. You can keep the circle jerk going without me, I know, just like a mouthy kid.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
"We" know? Do you have a tapeworm?

We:

Originally posted by NIcon
It seems you are suggesting the spheres were all ready in the chips even though there is no evidence of them. That's interesting, considering things you've told me in the past. I think I've heard all I need to know about your speculative position.

Let me know when you have a more concrete position and then maybe this might be worth discussing.

Again you resort to claiming you're just smarter than me. Right. That's why you're the one who can't even reason without committing a hundred fallacies and having to weasel back and forth between them while ignoring the iron spheres and forms of thermite more advanced than aluminum and iron oxide.

You can go ahead and get the last word in. I've repeated myself enough for this encounter. You can keep the circle jerk going without me, I know, just like a mouthy kid.

So you speak for Nicon, also. Does Nicon know?
I didn't resort to claiming I'm "smarter than you." I said you didn't learn and didn't read. I also told you that you were in over your head and went to the trouble of explaining things several times. You concluded what you wanted to conclude.
You said that you didn't read those posts and called them rants in your rants. Forms of thermite more advanced than iron and aluminum exist, but you showed no evidence that any have the energy measured in the DSC or that Jones had discovered such. Are you claiming magic material like your fellow travellers? Tillotson's advanced iron oxide-aluminum composite material had much less energy than the theoretical maximum of 3.9 kJ/g. Did you do the math and discover that I was correct, after all?
You've repeated yourself with empty arguments and have not provided any rebuttals of my position. You have not said how many iron spheres were found and if they accounted for any quantity of the thermal output. You have not explained why there was unreacted iron oxide in the DSC residue.
As predicted, you again retreat without any technical discussion and can only resort to your favorite 'logical fallacies' claims and pretend to be incensed because you cannot argue for Jones paper.
Run for it, BS.