Not hardly.
You came in SCREAMING about the FEMA FAIRY TALE and that the GOVERNMENT MADE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE.
In your FIRST TWO POSTS, over 2 years ago, you've already CONCLUDED that it is AN INSIDE JOB, because of THIS SILLY BS:
Specific Heat of steel
0.438 Jg-1K-1
or 438 Joules/kg K
According to FEMA, 350,000 tons of steel removed from ground zero (WTC 1 & 2)
which is 317,450,000 KG
so 158,725,000 kg of steel for just WTC 1
let's call it 1.5 x 10^8 kg
So, need 438 x 1.5 x 10^8 Joules to raise the temperature of the steel in WTC 1 by 1 degree K
= 6.57 x 10^10 Joules to raise the temperature of the WTC steel by 1 degree K
(some specific heats are at;
http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/labs/223/spheat/)from
http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xcomworkenergy.html=======================================================
132,500 BTU in 1 gallon of kerosene
1 BTU = 1055.06 joule
so 10,000 gallons kerosene =
1,397,954,500,000 Joules
= 1.40 x 10 ^ 12 Joules
SO, IGNORING DAMAGE, KINETIC ENERGY OF PLANE, AND SECONDARY FIRES, IF WE ASK THE SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW HOT COULD THE FUEL IN 10,000 GALLONS OF KEROSENE HEAT THE STEEL IN WTC 1 IF ALL OF THE HEAT ENERGY WENT INTO THE STEEL AND THE TEMPERATURE WAS UNIFORM, WE SEE THAT THE WTC STEEL WOULD HAVE INCREASED IN TEMPERATURE BY ABOUT 20.3 DEGREES K
(20.3 = 1.40 x 10 ^ 12 / 438 x 1.5 x 10^8 )
TO WEAKEN STEEL BY 40%, YOU HAVE TO INCREASE IT'S TEMPERATURE TO ABOUT 550 DEGREES KELVIN
(
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm )
68 DEG FARENHEIT = 20 CELCIUS = 293 KELVIN
SO, IN THIS SCENARIO, TO FURTHER INCREASE THE TEMPERATURE OF WTC1 TO 550 KELVIN, AND THUS WEAKEN THE STRENGTH BY 40%, YOU WOULD NEED THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF ALMOST 12 ADDITIONAL JETLINERS WORTH OF FUEL TO BE ADDED TO THE SYSTEM, EACH CARRYING 10,000 GALLONS OF KEROSENE
[ ( (550-293) / 20.3 ) = 12.7 ]
N.B. We know that the collapse occurred over about an 11 second period, which is almost free fall speed, so, making up plausible but possibly very goofy numbers, if you assume that the buildings' steel must decrease in strength by 80% before collapse ensues, and therefore that this implies that you need a additional factor of 1.5 in your heat source, and furthermore consider that the buildings are over engineered to the tune of a factor of 5, you would end up needing something like 12 x (1.5 - 1) x (5 - 1) = 24 additional planes worth of fuel. Mr. FEMA, got any clue where this amount of energy would come from?
Your SECOND POST,
QUOTE (metamars+ Oct 13, 2005)
Once you realize that that the FEMA/US Gov't. versions of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is a Fairy Tale, (because it's energetically impossible), you then have to ask yourself who could have supplied this source of energy.
The figures I've seen indicate you'd need at least the energy equivalent of 14 tons of explosives. "
That tells you immediately that this was an inside job, since Osama Bin Laden could not have supplied this much of an energy source.
Which means that agencies within your own government not only countenanced this murder of American citizens, it means that they essentially Made It Happen On Purpose. (MIHOP)
Not a pleasant thought....
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29943So while the preceding is clearly bogus (as well as your subsequent discussions of Pyroclastic flows), but STILL, years later, you remain wedded to the CONCLUSION you drew from these INCREDIBLY STUPID CALCULATIONS.
Why?
Why do you STILL believe you were RIGHT even though these posts clearly indicate you had NO FRIGGIN CLUE about the physics behind the WTC event?
Arthur
Chainsaw,
22nd February 2008 - 06:34 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 22 2008, 01:41 AM)
I don't think this is correct. The way a nanoparticle combusts has a lot to do with the oxide shell bursting due to internal pressure from molten Al, as well as collisions from Al oxide shell fragments that have already burst. The Al is typically under considerable pressure before 'bursting out'. Once the liquid Al bursts out, it can and will combust with whatever oxidizer it encounters.
I don't know the particulars of Al pressure and temperature within the nano and micro particles, off the top of my head, but I think it's discussed in the Kyle Watson thesis.
In any event, if it's at all close to an STP melt temperature of Al at 660 deg C, then obviously that's a lot closer to 500 deg C than 250 deg C.
"Greatly" is not a very precise term.
The first reference is to an abstract of a scientific paper that you have to pay to see. I see nothing in the abstract that tells us what ignition temperature to expect, from any particular Al nanopowder. If you have access to the paper, please quote exactly from it, to support your claim.
I just skimmed the second paper, and searched on "ignition" and "250", and came up with bupkis. Again, if you want to support your claim, please quote exactly. However, in this case, as I can see the paper, I'm pretty sure that there's nothing there to support your claim.
I ask again, where did you get the 250 deg C claim from?
If you have money to burn, or access at a university, you will probably be better off checking out
Ignition of Aluminum Powders Under Different Experimental Conditions at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0I haven't seen the actual paper, or else I would have quoted from it.
metamars
I thought you could read.
QUOTE
This study is the first reported self-deflagration on nAl and liquid water without the use of any additional gelling agent. Steady-state burning rates were obtained at room temperature (25 °C)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...a26784ea04cd650 The oxide layer is the most important factor in the reactivity of nano particles, thermal expansion breaking the oxide layer ignites the particle before the particles actually melt, allowing a quick oxidation reaction. 473K is about, 199.85c that means that a 2nm aluminum micro particle will self ignite in oxygen well below 200c.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This study is the first reported self-deflagration on nAl and liquid water without the use of any additional gelling agent. Steady-state burning rates were obtained at room temperature (25 °C) |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...a26784ea04cd650 The oxide layer is the most important factor in the reactivity of nano particles, thermal expansion breaking the oxide layer ignites the particle before the particles actually melt, allowing a quick oxidation reaction. 473K is about, 199.85c that means that a 2nm aluminum micro particle will self ignite in oxygen well below 200c.
Both bulk and particle melting are considered. The former features sharp changes in structural and thermodynamic properties across the melting point, as opposed to the smooth variations seen in particle melting in which surface premelting plays an important role. The melting temperature of a nanoparticle increases monotonically with increasing size, from 473 K at 2 nm to a bulk value of 937 K at approximately 8 nm. Two-body potentials like the Lennard-Jones potential fail to predict the thermodynamic melting phenomenon. The Sutton-Chen potential, fitted to match structural properties, also fails to capture the size dependence of particle melting. The many-body glue and Streitz-Mintmire potentials accurately predict melting temperature as a function of particle size. The effect of surface charges on melting is found to be insignificant for nanosized aluminum particles.
http
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/j.../jp0724774.htmlhttp://www.nsf.gov/eng/cbet/nuggets/1407/1407_pantoya.htmAs I said the temperature of ignition of thermite and nano thermite is highly variable dependent on the Chemistry and size of the particles involved, at the particle size your referring to that is about 250c.
metamars
22nd February 2008 - 10:43 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2008, 03:50 AM)
What a scream! A post of mine that clearly shows I'm amenable to correction, and have been wrong, is misinterpreted to read that I am trying to prove CD (presumably, regardless of what facts and analyses appear.)
You
know perfectly well that I have, for
years now, called for a thorough and (politically) independent investigation. [/QUOTE]
Oh really?
You think you started out asking for an independent investigation???
Not hardly.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, realizing that the problem is far more complex that I originally imagined may have predisposed me to supporting a serious investigation?
What would be the point of a serious investigation if a simple analysis would do?
adoucette
22nd February 2008 - 11:25 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Feb 22 2008, 05:43 PM)
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, realizing that the problem is far more complex that I originally imagined may have predisposed me to supporting a serious investigation?
What would be the
point of a serious investigation if a simple analysis would do?
That's a load of Self-Serving crap.
You were CONVINCED it was an INSIDE JOB based on DATA that was TOTALLY WRONG.
So even NOW, when you KNOW that why you thought it was an INSIDE JOB was TOTALLY WRONG, you STILL THINK that you were RIGHT and another "independent" investigation is needed.
While in actuallity, in ALL THIS FRIGGIN TIME, you have admitted you have NEVER really studied the NIST report and have absolutely NO CLUE about how "serious" it was.
Which means you are really about as ignorant today as when you wrote your very first post on this forum:
QUOTE (metamars+)
I haven't studied the NIST document, but certainly the FEMA "explanation" is a Fairy Tale.
Arthur
metamars
22nd February 2008 - 11:44 PM
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Feb 22 2008, 06:34 PM)
metamars
I thought you could read.
This study is the first reported self-deflagration on nAl and liquid water without the use of any additional gelling agent. Steady-state burning rates were obtained at room temperature (25 °C)
Self-deflagration needs to supply it's own oxidizer. I assume, then, this occurs from dissolved O2 in the water, or possibly from the water molecule itself. Is this correct? And how does the Al contact the O? What kind of thermal expansion would occur at 25 C??? Do you mean that such powders are prepared under cold conditions, and must be kept refrigerated? After all, there's certainly O2 in the air. If the thermal expansion at 25 C is enough to crack the oxide layer, it's hard to see how this could possibly be handled, except in a refrigerator, or a vaccuum.
What was the oxide shell thickness of the nAl in the self-deflagrating nAl/water mixture?
QUOTE
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...a26784ea04cd650 The oxide layer is the most important factor in the reactivity of nano particles, thermal expansion breaking the oxide layer ignites the particle before the particles actually melt, allowing a quick oxidation reaction. 473K is about, 199.85c that means that a 2nm aluminum micro particle will self ignite in oxygen well below 200c.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...a26784ea04cd650
The oxide layer is the most important factor in the reactivity of nano particles, thermal expansion breaking the oxide layer ignites the particle before the particles actually melt, allowing a quick oxidation reaction. 473K is about, 199.85c that means that a 2nm aluminum micro particle will self ignite in oxygen well below 200c.
The melting temperature of a nanoparticle increases monotonically with increasing size, from 473 K at 2 nm to a bulk value of 937 K at approximately 8 nm.
|
Ah-h-h-h, your same quote states that for an 8nm shell, the melting point is almost 500 C higher! (And you're still in the nm range).
Please tell us how an Al nanopowder with 8nm thick oxide shell, properly sealed with something that wouldn't melt and would be water-proof, would hold up in a WTC scenario.
metamars
22nd February 2008 - 11:56 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 22 2008, 11:25 PM)
That's a load of Self-Serving crap.
You were CONVINCED it was an INSIDE JOB based on DATA that was TOTALLY WRONG.
So even NOW, when you KNOW that why you thought it was an INSIDE JOB was TOTALLY WRONG, you STILL THINK that you were RIGHT and another "independent" investigation is needed.
While in actuallity, in ALL THIS FRIGGIN TIME, you have admitted you have NEVER really studied the NIST report and have absolutely NO CLUE about how "serious" it was.
Which means you are really about as ignorant today as when you wrote your very first post on this forum:
QUOTE (metamars+)
I haven't studied the NIST document, but certainly the FEMA "explanation" is a Fairy Tale.
Arthur
Actually, I've read about 300 pp. of the NIST report. You should know that I've read
some of it, since I complained about specific aspects of it. Remember my complaints about the lack of validation of the shell elements? Does that ring a bell?
So, how can you explain this great mystery, adoucette? On the one hand, I have read some of the NIST report, and 'debated' it, with you (unfortunately). Anybody who searches through my posts at physorg can confirm this.
And yet you say
QUOTE
While in actuallity, in ALL THIS FRIGGIN TIME, you have admitted you have NEVER really studied the NIST report and have absolutely NO CLUE about how "serious" it was.
So, your fallacious statement is easily shown to baloney.
Why would you discredit yourself like that?
I'm beginning to wonder if you're losing it. That you're dishonest is already well known. I'm afraid you may have additional problems, though.
Have you considered taking a vacation? Prayer? Meditation? A retreat? There's more to life than this thread, you know.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
