Merged Molten metal observations

Justin39640 said:
He was goin' a tad deeper than that to prove thermXte corrodes a beam rather than melts it. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7107739&postcount=809
Click to expand...

Buh?? What in God's name were those?? Not a single one of those talk about thermite at all. They do nothing but reference iron sulfides, and one of them discusses a unique ionic species of it. All 3 are talking about what happens to iron-sulfide in planetary cores. What the :talk034: does any of that have to do with sulfidation corrosion?? Not a single one of them implies that such high pressures are necessary for the formation of iron sulfides; on the contrary, the implication in each is "what's the difference between what we're studying and normal conditions outside planetary cores.

Plus, iron sulfide species just sitting in the ground is not the same thing as carbon steel getting corroded. That's an incredibly stupid association to make. Just plain stupid.

That response is as useless as it gets. It doesn't answer the challenge in any aspect. Not the least of which is that none of the linked papers talk about thermite whatsoever.

Jesus. "Reach" doesn't even begin to describe that.
 
Java Man said:
It's coming along a lot better than you acid calculations. That's for sure.
Click to expand...
Goddamn, what is so hard about a comparison.

IT WAS A COMPARISON!!!! Do you not understand that Java?

Chris asked if it was the same TYPE of attack, and I confirmed with a cavet, that it was a CORROSIVE attack, not simply an ACID attack.

Goddamn truthers and their red herrings and strawmen. FFS.

You lecturing ANYONE about a math problem that is a red herring is INCREDIBLY ironic, considering YOU haven't even STARTED your own complete theory!! So, why don't you focus on that, instead of acting like you know jack **** about what is being discussed.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
************. IT WAS A COMPARISON!!!! Do you not understand that Java?

Chris asked if it was the same TYPE of attack, and I confirmed with a cavet, that it was a CORROSIVE attack, not simply an ACID attack.

Goddamn truthers and their red herrings and strawmen. FFS.
Click to expand...

Ok, so what reaction was it? How was it corroded in that way? What chemical caused that corrosion? And why are some here proposing it as an alternative?
 
Go read the paper by the guys at WPI. It explains it in quite detail. Sunsteeler can help you with the big words.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Buh?? What in God's name were those?? Not a single one of those talk about thermite at all. They do nothing but reference iron sulfides, and one of them discusses a unique ionic species of it. All 3 are talking about what happens to iron-sulfide in planetary cores. What the :talk034: does any of that have to do with sulfidation corrosion?? Not a single one of them implies that such high pressures are necessary for the formation of iron sulfides; on the contrary, the implication in each is "what's the difference between what we're studying and normal conditions outside planetary cores.

Plus, iron sulfide species just sitting in the ground is not the same thing as carbon steel getting corroded. That's an incredibly stupid association to make. Just plain stupid.

That response is as useless as it gets. It doesn't answer the challenge in any aspect. Not the least of which is that none of the linked papers talk about thermite whatsoever.

Jesus. "Reach" doesn't even begin to describe that.
Click to expand...

I think you're giving him too much credit lol.

I just think he forgot about Google-fu rule number 7:
"A link that contains all of your keywords is useless if it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand" (bows)
 
Java Man said:
How is the math coming along for the amount of acid required to affect the beam coming along?
Click to expand...
burdenofproof.jpg


Yet you keep trying...
 
 
Java Man said:
LOL well you keep dodging.
Click to expand...
I'm far more concerned with seeing your proof that thermite has a compelling case to stand on. If you think eutectic corrosion is somehow absurd then stop beating around the bush and make your point clear. I will listen to any alternative you have, however thermite evidence is non-existent, and the features you continue to point out as the result of thermite suggests that you either don't know what corrosion looks like, what thermite actually does, or both.
 
Java Man said:
How's the math for the volume of acid coming along?
Click to expand...
Impossible to calculate on the basis of lack of data. We would need to know where in the pile it was and for how long.

Suffice it to say that the intergranular copper is entirely consistant with its having been exposed to sulphuric acid in the presence of copper, but not with any form of thermite damage that comes to mind.
 
leftysergeant said:
Impossible to calculate on the basis of lack of data. We would need to know where in the pile it was and for how long.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty easy. You have a certain mass of steel and you need to make it react with X amount of acid to corrode it away. One SO4 per Fe. Do the math. Not all that hard. Battery acid is 5 mol/L
 
Grizzly Bear said:
If you think eutectic corrosion is somehow absurd then stop beating around the bush and make your point clear.
Click to expand...

Well you just keep dodging. I mean not YOU, YOU, but your camp YOU.

Why do you ask me for absurd documents on eutectic reactions and then say something like this? It seems you're trying to position me as both supporter and not supporter of eutectic corrosion. Which one is it? I think you're just trying to spin this so we never get around to looking at the numbers and volumes of material required. AKA, moving from the theoretical "this reaction happened" to the practical real world analysis of "was there enough stuff in the right spot" for it to happen.

Are you scared to bring the number out?
 
Java Man said:
Well you just keep dodging. I mean not YOU, YOU, but your camp YOU.

Why do you ask me for absurd documents on eutectic reactions and then say something like this? ...

Are you scared to bring the number out?
Click to expand...
Dodging your post. Please explain how your post supports your claims. Did this post ruin your credibility with respect to understanding science.
Java Man said:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5306/1621.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6S-3WDC4CB-9&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1996&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1726876783&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a79ff03b520df13d26d667d87a86c021&searchtype=a

[URL="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S"]http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S[/URL]
Click to expand...
Explain in detail how your post relates to 911. You posted it, why? Tie it to your claims, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom