Reply #64: My friend responds...

[scott75]

I have now made contact with the man who I called an expert. He claims that he's not an expert, just someone trying to understand the science. Anyway, on to his comments:

I do not understand what Seger's point is. what point of yours is he addressing?
If you look at your post 36. Reread the Lobdill quote you used.
Lobdill is showing how thermite can explain the observations.
how is seger countering lobdill's explanation for the observations?
how is seger putting forward a different explanation for the observations?...

Lobdill is saying that as the hot molten thermite mixture cools, the concentration of sulphur increases in the mixture. this is because some of the iron crystalizes out of the mixture (the iron starts to freeze to a solid), iron freezing out of the mixture means the sulphur % in the molten mixture increases. as the sulphur % increases towards 31.4%, the mixture remains molten as it cools below 1500C towards 994C (see phase diagram in the paper). lobdill is saying you do not have to start with 31.4% sulphur. lobdill is saying that as the molten mixture cools it would likely form (naturally) a molten mix with 31.4% sulphur concentration.

Seger creates a misrepresentation that the mixture HAS TO to start with 31.4% sulphur, so any inference he draws from his own misrepresentation is bogus (bogus inferences - 31.4% sulphur would disrupt the reaction, why would you add 31.4% sulphur to the mixture, what reason is there to create a eutectic).
what Seger is trying to do is suggest that you are saying the mixture started with 31.4% sulphur...

if you want to know why sulphur is a good ingredient for thermite :
"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel" - barnett 2001.

...therefore, steel will weaken faster and further with a sulphur based thermite compared to a non-sulphur thermite.