variation on a common theme. from spot to spot on the chips vary slightly but when heated in a dsc they react at about 430C
Is it a slight variation from chip to chip if one chip has all its Al bound to Si in kaolin, and another chip has no kaolin at all?
Is it a slight variation if one chip contains significant Mg and and Zn but no Ti, while another contains significant Ti but no Mg or Zn?
Senemut, you MUST answer this:
Do you realize that Harrit's chips are not all the same, that some are very different from each other? Yes or No?
which goes back to the variation of ingredients but when placed in a dsc at about 430 they react and produce iron and silicon rich microspheres.
You keep saying this, but - how do you know?
Can you please point out which of the four chips that gave rise to Fig. 19 produced which kind of sphere in the residue? Be specific, and make reference to a page number or figure number in Harrit e.al.!
but the material is consistant in that it reacts at about 430C and produces the corresponding dsc spike
Which material, Senemut? There are at least six to chose from! The kaolin-type (a-d) that Millette also focussed on when he proved that they don't contain any elemental Al whatsoever? Or the Mg- and Zn-rich chips Jones foolishly bathed in MEK? Or some other kind?
along with the iron and silicon rich microspheres.
Where is the aluminium in these chips?
now if millette dosent understand this, he is either ignorant of the fact or intentionally not producing these results by not testing his red gray chips in a dsc.
You continue to prove to all the world that you are stupid wrt DSC, very very stupid. Millette is not stupid. Millette is a million times smarter than you are wrt DSC. That's why he spared us the depressingly stupid things that Farrer did, when Farrer through something in the DSC that he forgot to characterize beforehand. Well, I can forgive Farrer, he was a bloody stupid inexperienced greenhorn with the DSC. He was simply too stuopid to start with, and too stupid to ask someone more intelligent than he is why what he did was so incredibly stupid. But you, Senemut, don't have that excuse. At some point you should show signs that you are slowly learning.
Please understand:
- Farrer proved his material is not thermite of any kind
- Farrer has no idea which material he put in the DSC
- Because Farrer forgot to figure out and tell us what he put in the DSC, it is totally useless to waste time and money on a DSC test to compare something to Farrer's unknown stuff, especially since farrer proved that his something wasn't thermite.
- We know already that Millette's chips are not thermite. It would cost time and money to repeat Farrer's stupidity, but if we did it, it too would only prove the chips are not thermite, just as Farrer proved his chips are not thermite
he has to show that his material is in fact the material jones has.
I agree with that. The problem is that Jones and Harrit and Farrer totally forgot in their limitless stupidity that their materials are all the same. In fact, they showed that they had at least six or seven different materials. They are aall just too very stupid to notice even three years later.
Are you, too, this incredibly stupid, Senemut? Or can YOU see that there are several different kinds of chips in Jones's dust?
If you don't see that, then yes, you ARE stupid.
But if you see that, then please tell us which chips of Jones's Millette should compare his chips too? Which kind did dumbhead Farrer put in his DSC? (I told you the answer already: Farrer forgot to look which kind he put in the DSC, or forgot to tell us. That's why the entire section about DSC in "Active Thermitic Matrerial" is stupid and devoid of any usefulness)
it dosent matter if its thermitic or not. he has to show that his material is the same as jones' in that when placed in a dsc it produces a spike at about 430C.
No he dosn't. Because Jones has no clue what material dumbhead Farrer burned. Farrer forgot to look or forgot to tell. Jones should have said "get thee outta here, Farrer, I can't stand your stupid face!", but he didn't. I guess Jones is stupid then, too.
now if his produces iron and silicon microspheres will be the interesting part!
Ah there is another thing you don't know about DSC: With samples so small, temperature never exceeded 700°C, the max temperature to which the samples were heated. Whatever spheres they produced, they never saw a temperature above 700°C. And anyway, there wasn't a thermite reaction, because there wasn't thermite. Farrer proved it (he is just too stupid to understand DSC and interprete the data properly), and Millette proved it, too (Millette is smarter than Farrer, Jones, Harrit, Ryan, Gourley, Larsen, Farnsworth, Roberts, Senemut, Griscom and Basile combined when it comes to all methods professional forensic experts use when doing a forensic study of dust from a crime scene - that's why Millette is a professional forensic scientist who presents his stuff to peers at real professional conferences, whereas the stupid people above all do not know how to do DSC and send dumbhead Farrer, the wet-behind-the-ear beginner, to do tests with a methid he knows crap about).
he probably knows that if he places his "paint" in the dsc, then it will not show a similar spike.
If it doesn't, then it would be because Farrer, the stupid know-nothing, burned the wrong stuff in the DSC.
But why do you assert without evidence that the result would be different?
The paint is epoxy-based. Epoxy is an organic polimer, organized in large molecules. If you heat it, it will first degrade (split into smaller molecules without absorbing oxygen) slowly and slightly exothermically beyond 200 or 250°C, before starting to burn with atmospheric oxygene at maybe 380°C. Incidentally, that is exactly what Farrers chips did: They are all exotherm above roughly 200°C, and they start burning in earnest somewhere between 370 and 420°C. Since pretty much all organic substances have an energy density that is much higher than that of termite, these samples all DO show energy densities above that of real nanothermite. Farrer of course, being the stupid know-nothing that he is, forgot to separate the "highly energetic" red layer from the inert gray layer and has to admit that his measured energy densities are so different from one another because of his stupid omission. If he had removed the inert layer, all chips would have released more than 7.5 kJ/g. Farrer also was stupid when he forgot to ask Tillotson if he should do the DSC test under air, or under an inert gas. Had he asked, then he would have known that Tillotson did his test under inert nitrogen. Unfortunately, Farrer didn't ask, and made the stupid decision to run his tests under air. Stupid, really. Later he lied and claimed he had called Tillotson. Well, Harrit and Jones, and Ryan and Senemut and all the others, made the stupid decision to believe liar Farrer, when instead they should have realized that Tillotson would not be so stupid as Farrer to do their test under air when they knew that 10% of their nanothermite preparation was organic residue. Jones and Harrit are even to stupid to notice that their chips are all mostly organic and that burninng them under air only proves that epoxy or linseed oil can burn. D'uh.
if it is a different material then he confirmed what he has, not what jones has.
That's because Jones was to stupid to confirm what he had. Different kinds of paint, and possibly othger stuff that is not thermite.
You can't blame the stupidity of Jones, Harrit, Farrer on Millette.
millette's chemistry? even if it is a different material?
Different from WHAT material, Senemut? I asked you too many times, you need to answer this sometime. Remember Jones had at least six or seven DIFFERENT materials in his study? Remember that,
Senemut?
its not a moot point. its the most important point IMO. different materials have different dsc spikes. i know your smarter than that.
Yes. Just like Farrer's unknown non-thermite has a different spike than Tillotson's thermite.
Yes, alienentity is smarter than "that", with "that" being the combined DSC understanding of Farrer, Jones, Harrit, Ryan, Farnsworth, Legge, Larsen, Gourley, Basile, Griscom and Senemut. All these men understand nothing about DSC.
IF it doesnt look like thermite, it just means its a super dupa special kind of thermite that - duh - would look different.
Remember - who makes the claim has burden of proof. And not the troll/truthers version which is "Whatever claim I make it is up to the debunkers to disprove." That is a mix of "reverse burden of proof" AND "prove a negative". )
