DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Would you mind providing a link?I've already explained the first one. You can read the ATM paper to find out the other.
Would you mind providing a link?I've already explained the first one. You can read the ATM paper to find out the other.
I see. Can you send it to me (via-email)?I don't have one. I have my own copy on my hard drive.
Why not? Are you afraid I'll spam you to death or publish your email? You can ask Tony S if your information is safe with me, he'll vouch for me.Lol. No.
Forgive me if I'm slow but, by ATM, do you mean the Harrit et al paper? If so, it does not support your assertion.I've already explained the first one. You can read the ATM paper to find out the other.
Forgive me if I'm slow but, by ATM, do you mean the Harrit et al paper? If so, it does not support your assertion.
It does not show the chips were not paint. In fact, it does the opposite.Yes, I do mean Harrit et al. How does it not support my assertion?
Not only were paint chips ruled out by the DSC, but they were ruled out by the flame tests as well, lol. Had forgotten this.
It does not show the chips were not paint. In fact, it does the opposite.
I don't have to, The paper does it for me.Let me know when you're able to explain this.
I don't have to, The paper does it for me.
Cool! Let me know when anyone else in the academic world notices. Strange that paper has had no impact, huh?Okay then. I'll just simply say you're wrong, and that the paper shows that you're wrong.
Wow, "debunking" is easy!
Oystein, what is the relevance of energy density to the chips that were DSC-tested?
The DSC tests showed that the ignition point of the chips was ~ 430 C. This rules out primer paint.
(Page 19 of the Bentham paper)Harrit e.al. said:3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C. The energy release for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively.
You do understand that "energy in kg/J" refers to energy density, right?Harrit e.al. said:It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27].
I've alreadyexplainedasserted without argument the first one. You can read the ATM papertobut won't findoutthe other.
How is that an impact?Yeah, if you call Jim Millette's attempt to replicate it "no impact"!
"...You are dodging. You made a claim - back it up: What is the range of energy yield for thernites? I know, you don't."
Bentham Paper said:"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24]. 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."
What is that range? I expect numbers for a and z: "From a kJ/g to z kJ/g".ergo said:thermites display a range of energy yields.
The authors of the Bentham Paper provided this hypothesis;
MM
This:
(Page 19 of the Bentham paper)
You do understand that "energy release", "yields" and "kJ/g" all refer to energy density, right?