View Single Post
Old 14th March 2012, 10:39 AM   #403
Penultimate Amazing
Oystein's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by shure View Post
I would like to know about this...
SnowCrash, SnowCrash...tsk tsk tsk

Originally Posted by SnowCrash
I do think Oystein asked for a DSC, too. In fact, he was jerking Millette's sleeve every step of the way, which I think was a breach of ethical conduct.
Not at all, if I had made any request concerning DSC, I would have asked Drl. Millette NOT to do such a stupid thing, because both Farrer's DSC test and Farrer's DSC results are totally meaningless, except that they prove that whatever it is Farrer put in his DSC (and that's really the crux: He gave us no indication as to what he put in the DSC. Remember, Harrit and Jones have found at least six different kinds of red-gray chips in their samples!) cannot possibly thermitic in nature and is very different from what Tillotson tested.

Besides, Farrer (or Harrit and Jones) lies: He did NOT call Gash or Tillotson to ask how they did their DSC test. Because contrary to what the ATM authots claim, Tillotson and Gash used nitrogen atmosphere, not air!

Originally Posted by SnowCrash
DSC, however, was conducted by Tillotson, Jones and not by Millette. I consider that a hiatus, because DSC yields additional, important information.
No, it doesn't. Garbage in, garbage out.

Originally Posted by SnowCrash
I suggest you read up on DSC to understand this better; and I also suggest you read the Tillotson paper, if you haven't already. I can send it to you if you like.
Yes, please. If you do that, and compare Tillotson's and FarrerÄs graphsm, you'll see that they are fundamentally different in several ways. They have to be: Both experiment measured different reactions occurring on differen materials under different atmosphere. The results of Farrer are meaningless.

Originally Posted by SnowCrash
DSC and TEM are two completely different things. Since conducting a DSC test would have been peanuts for Millette, I don't understand why he didn't. If his argument is that it's irrelevant I would call him a liar.
Yes, DSC and TEM are two completely different things. The former is a nonsense and incompetent thing to do, especially when a greenhorn amateur like farrer does it with unknown material, from which he forgot to cut off the inert mass, under the wrong atmosphere. The latter is competent test in the hands of an experienced professional, yielding definite an unambiguous result.

SnowCrash, I would call Millette an "experienced professional with the relevant education making a wise and economic call". I would call you a "fool", on the other hand, for making such uninformed accusations.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top