Could somebody give me evidence that friction causes molten metal? [Archive]

Crazy Chainsaw

17th October 2006, 04:58 PM

I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.

I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.

This is a genuine request for info.

Although it is theoretically possible, I doubt that friction alone could cause molten metal, but high speed impacts, fires, and metal Oxidation reactions could, depending on the metals involved.
Friction can actually cause Aluminum and other reactive metals to Oxidize under the right conditions.

Dog Town

17th October 2006, 04:58 PM

I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.

Yes, a source would be in order. I believe, I have seen people, tell him it is possible. Not that it is certain, to have happened.

T.A.M.

17th October 2006, 04:59 PM

Re-entry into the atmosphere at the wrong angle, I believe will cause enough friction to make a molten goop of any satellite or spaceship that has the misfortune...am I not correct.

TAM

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 05:01 PM

gravy my source is www.debunking911.com (http://www.debunking911.com) which claims it was friction. also another thread in this forum claims it

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 05:03 PM

So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?

Dog Town

17th October 2006, 05:07 PM

So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?

Thought your main question was in general?
Could somebody give me evidence that friction causes molten metal?
I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.

Gravy

17th October 2006, 05:09 PM

gravy my source is www.debunking911.com (http://www.debunking911.com) which claims it was friction. also another thread in this forum claims it
False. This page, (http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm) which you were too lazy to link to, does not "claim it was friction." It raises the possibility.

Do you see the difference?

Is any of this sinking in at all, pdoherty, or are you just going to keep wasting our time like this?

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 05:11 PM

Anti-sophist

17th October 2006, 05:13 PM

I'm big a proponent of friction. Not so much before the collapse, but after. Most of the energy that was in the tower as gravitional energy left as heat, due to friction. The only two other places the energy could go would be pulverizing concrete, which is already a very ineffecient process with lots of friction and therefore heat, and "sound".. or more precisely.. kinetic energy of the air molecules.

Dog Town

17th October 2006, 05:14 PM

T.A.M.

17th October 2006, 05:19 PM

So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?

What was the title of this thread and the content of the original post you made PD. I was answering this.

No, I am not saying that the friction of re-entry is the same, or even close to that created by the falling of the WTC. I do not have the scientific knowledge to make a comparison between the two, besides the amount of friction would vary with the angle of re-entry, and the friction applied to a given piece of metal in the WTC would depend on how far up it was at collapse, and how much kinetic energy was applied to it.

My purpose, was to merely show you that your question, as originally posted, was to vague. I knew what you were after, I was simply trying to show you to be more exact when asking for some info, you will get all the possibilities.

TAM

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 05:21 PM

so in short none of you can give me a link to an academic paper that shows this phenomenon exists? yep those debunking sites are very scientific

Anti-sophist

17th October 2006, 05:23 PM

An academic paper to show you that friction can melt metal? Are you serious?

They don't write academic papers to prove high school physics topics.

Dog Town

17th October 2006, 05:23 PM

so in short none of you can give me a link to an academic paper that shows this phenomenon exists? yep those debunking sites are very scientific

Claims the man who loves to cite A.Jones! That's rich, good one.

Zep

17th October 2006, 05:24 PM

so in short none of you can give me a link to an academic paper that shows this phenomenon exists? yep those debunking sites are very scientificWassamatta? Too lazy to read?

Here's what they actually say on that site YOU linked to:One of the arguments for thermite that onspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

The report actually shows clearly that the burning contents of an aircraft can easily be hot enough to melt aircraft-grade aluminium, i.e. metal. It goes on to show that there was easily enough energy expended in the collapse of the WTC towers to cause ignition of the buildings' contents, and thus contribute to the melting of aluminium-based materials in the rubble, such as wall partitioning, window-frame, etc (the WTC, like most modern buildings, had LOTS of aluminium inside). See above. It did not require the use of external ignition sources (like squibs or explosives). Examples are shown in the report...if you read it.

T.A.M.

17th October 2006, 05:25 PM

Anti-sophist

17th October 2006, 05:25 PM

http://web.mit.edu/course/other/machineshop/Grinder/aluminum.con.html

http://web.mit.edu/course/other/machineshop/Images/gr_al.jpg

Please note the melted aluminum on this grinding wheel. Grinding is friction.

There are some materials that can cause major problems if you try to grind them. In particular, the big no-no with grinders is aluminum. Aluminum melts easily, and if you were to try to grind down aluminum, it would start to melt and the aluminum would coat the wheel.

delphi_ote

17th October 2006, 05:34 PM

gravy my source is www.debunking911.com (http://www.debunking911.com) which claims it was friction. also another thread in this forum claims it
The word "friction" does not appear anywhere on that page. If you're referencing a particular article, find it and link directly to it. Maybe even quote it. When you make a claim, it is not someone else's job to hunt down just what it is you are talking about.

If you fail to point people directly to what it is you are claiming the source said, they will suspect you are misrepresenting the source.
At the moment of the initiation of the pressure pulse due to floors stripping off, the initial forces will all be on just the outside edges of the most exterior of the box columns in the core. But as the calculation shows, the pressure required is less than 1/40th of the yield strength. So the box columns would not show signs of yielding, even with highly asymmetric patterns of the initial forces.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" significant quantities of iron in the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i.e., "combustion" of some sort).
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

In this case, it looks like people would be right to suspect you were misrepresenting the source.

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 05:45 PM

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 05:47 PM

are you looking for a reference to a paper that states that molten metal at the WTC site was caused by friction?

I do not believe that NIST addressed the "molten metal" at the site, and I am not sure, to them, what the relevence would be in doing so. The importance of this, is only in the minds of CTers...noone else.

TAM

Pools of molten metal are not characteristic of things falling.

I would love to see u produce an example of a builing collapse before or since 911 that has had molten metal involved

Gravy

17th October 2006, 05:48 PM

Yes, anti-Sophist, please provide a photograph of steel being ground. AHA! Caught you!

Gravy

17th October 2006, 05:49 PM

Pools of molten metal are not characteristic of things falling.

I would love to see u produce an example of a builing collapse before or since 911 that has had molten metal involved
Please reference similar building collapses so we can look into it.

Zep

17th October 2006, 05:53 PM

very helpful. now tell me what this has to do with steelPlease tell us where steel was the metal claimed to be molten in the WTC collapse.

defaultdotxbe

17th October 2006, 05:53 PM

very helpful. now tell me what this has to do with steel
anyone else see that goalpost move?

the topic was about molten metal, now we are talking about steel

eeyore1954

17th October 2006, 05:55 PM

So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?
I haven't heard of any scientists claiming the supposed molten steel found in the rubble was caused by friction alone. You don't think there was a lot of material that got buried in the collapse that was burning and/or extremely hot.

Do you think there wasn't any additional heat generated by the collapse. You do believe that friction can cause heat don't you. A little mental experiment would be If you dragged a piece of steel behind a car at 60 mph for a quarter of a mile what do you think would happen to the temperature of the steel. This isn;t my field of expertise but I wouldn't think picking it up with your bare hand would be a good idea.

BTW
When the Space Shuttle reenters Earth's atmosphere,
the friction of the air can get the temperature up as high as 3000 F
Shuttle reentry is a controlled, unpowered glide that starts at 18,000
miles per hour, and touches down at about 220 mph. They start entering
the atmosphere at a 40 degree angle of attack. If it's any steeper, the
shuttle will burn up (even with the nifty tiles), and if it's any
shallower, the shuttle will skip off the atmosphere like a stone over
water. Interesting stuff!
according to http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2001/987003987.Eg.r.html

Pardalis

17th October 2006, 05:55 PM

anyone else see that goalpost move?

You did. You're alert. :D

Zep

17th October 2006, 06:01 PM

More:...none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There's no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming "molten steel" have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Zep

17th October 2006, 06:02 PM

anyone else see that goalpost move?

the topic was about molten metal, now we are talking about steelHence my question! :D

defaultdotxbe

17th October 2006, 06:04 PM

I haven't heard of any scientists claiming the supposed molten steel found in the rubble was caused by friction alone. You don't think there was a lot of material that got buried in the collapse that was burning and/or extremely hot.

Do you think there wasn't any additional heat generated by the collapse. You do believe that friction can cause heat don't you. A little mental experiment would be If you dragged a piece of steel behind a car at 60 mph for a quarter of a mile what do you think would happen to the temperature of the steel. This isn;t my field of expertise but I wouldn't think picking it up with your bare hand would be a good idea.
not only that, but bending metal would also produce heat

Anti-sophist

17th October 2006, 06:12 PM

very helpful. now tell me what this has to do with steel

Right after you tell me what molten steel has to do with 9/11.

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 06:32 PM

ok thanks people. i have been informed

Mr. Scott

17th October 2006, 07:13 PM

I once asked if bending metal, like bending a spoon, caused enough heat to melt it. I was assured that, yes, what happened when you bent a spoon is that microscopic areas of the metal briefly reach melting point. Immediately thereafter, the melted spots spread their heat to the surrounding metal and re-solidify, leaving tiny defects in the spoon's structure. Bending the spoon fast enough by hand can cause enough heat buildup to not just make the metal warm -- even warm enough to burn you. The accumulation of re-melted spots will also materially weaken the spoon enough to make it soft and fall apart.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

There has to be, though, a ceasing of friction once the metal reaches liquid state, so the metal, I would think, would only reach melting point then would hit a temperature "brick wall" and not get any hotter because there's too little friction in liquid metal. The heat would be distributed and dissipated into the surrounding material.

In the case of a building like the WTC there is a mix of steel, lots of aluminum, concrete, and asbestos -- all with different coefficients of friction and melting and burning temperatures. Rub them all together really fast and I can believe the lower temperature stuff would melt from the friction.

Popeholden

17th October 2006, 07:16 PM

doherty, what makes you think the molten metal found at the WTC was steel? did anyone do any tests on it?

Anti-sophist

17th October 2006, 07:26 PM

There has to be, though, a ceasing of friction once the metal reaches liquid state, so the metal, I would think, would only reach melting point then would hit a temperature "brick wall" and not get any hotter because there's too little friction in liquid metal. The heat would be distributed and dissipated into the surrounding material.

In the case of a building like the WTC there is a mix of steel, lots of aluminum, concrete, and asbestos -- all with different coefficients of friction and melting and burning temperatures. Rub them all together really fast and I can believe the lower temperature stuff would melt from the friction.

You also need to consider what changing pressure would do to molten materials. You'd have an "interface" of melted stuff between two grinding materials. This is a non-trivial problem to analzye much beyond the point of proof-of-concept. Anyone who claims that friction (both external in the form of sliding and "internal" in things like deformation) can't melt metal just doesn't understand the very basics of the first law of thermodynamics.

TjW

17th October 2006, 09:49 PM

Also, anyone who was interested in whether friction could make metals hot enough to melt could Google or Wiki "friction welding" "stir welding"

Christophera

17th October 2006, 10:33 PM

so in short none of you can give me a link to an academic paper that shows this phenomenon exists? yep those debunking sites are very scientific

Good thread, good point, good post.

Anti-sophist

17th October 2006, 10:44 PM

Good thread, good point, good post.

This is my favorite CT technique. Take something 1/3 of the way up in the thread that's been throughly dismantled, requote it, and agree.

Why ask questions when you are going to ignore the evidence? Do you guys even bother to keep reading? Why do I get the feeling that asking questions is infinitely more important to you than getting answers?

delphi_ote

17th October 2006, 10:47 PM

Good thread, good point, good post.
Do you have something to contribute to the discussion, or are you here to cheerlead? pdoherty76 claims to have been informed by this discussion. I took that to mean we were reaching some kind of consensus on this subject, or at least agreeing that the subject is more complicated than it might seem at first blush.

Do you think friction can melt metal, Christopheria?

R.Mackey

17th October 2006, 11:00 PM

pdoherty76

17th October 2006, 11:18 PM

R.Mackey

17th October 2006, 11:28 PM

right r mackey ur on ignore

i have never worked with metal or studied it

my degree has no relevance here

;) But surely you learned about states of matter.

Hey, at least you learned something. But feel free to run away.

Gravy

17th October 2006, 11:50 PM

Regarding the OP...

I don't mean to sound, well, skeptical, but does it seem logical that someone with a master's degree in Mathematical Physics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2011751#post2011751) would have to ask if friction could melt metal?

I mean, everybody makes dumb mistakes once in a while, but c'mon now.
Aw, sorry to say you made one there, R. Mackey. He's a Mathematical Psychic. Numerology, that kind of thing.

While it's conceivable that someone with a Master's Degree in "Mathematical Physics" might say these things in this way...

im too grown up for this rubbish

if this site is for critical thinkers then surely thoughts will suffice not reams of evidence. There is such thing as original thought which by definition has no evidence to back it up

the word opinion exists for a reason u know. maybe we should just scrap the word opinion and use fact universally

there is suckh thing as circumstantial evidence which is ad missible in court

I dont think i shall stay very long at this site. It is not a debating site or a critical thinking site, it is a site where you are not allowed to have an opinion. Any thing you say must be referenced to a source. Its ridiculous

ok gravy i will admit i am not into this critical thinking and it isnt the place for me.

its physically impossible for me to debate 20 people, although i would destroy each of u one by one

now i know why i was dared to come here. this is your little ambush site

nope ive decided to be a coward and run away

time for me to leave i think.

i shall be addressing no one, i am unsubscribing from the site.

...It is absolutely inconceivable that someone with a degree in "Mathematical Physics" would say this in any way:

this forum just amazes my because i have never been exposed to this "show me the proof" tactic before.

Skibum

17th October 2006, 11:59 PM

...It is absolutely inconceivable that someone with a degree in "Mathematical Physics" would say this in any way:

Mail order degree. From WalMart.

slingblade

18th October 2006, 12:09 AM

I'd be willing to place a sizeable bet that Pd'oh has no degree whatsoever. That he's not even out of high school yet.

I do have a degree. The language mistakes he makes alone are evidence to me that he has not completed the one major thing you must complete to earn a Master's degree. And I'm also willing to bet he can't tell us what that thing would be, nor how he completed it.

I predict imminent and immediate obfuscation.

VBU2C5

18th October 2006, 12:12 AM

"INCONCEIVABLE" I do not think thatta word ameans whatta you think it does! ;)

Axiom_Blade

18th October 2006, 12:15 AM

So TAM you are claiming some steel falling from a thousand feet is comparable to shuttle re-entry? Game of jenga anyone?

Jenga! Jenga! (http://www.manse.cx/nine11_jenga/)

Incidentally, Jengas always fall on their sides...you know, the way deniers argue that the towers should have fallen.

qarnos

18th October 2006, 12:37 AM

Aw, sorry to say you made one there, R. Mackey. He's a Mathematical Psychic. Numerology, that kind of thing.

While it's conceivable that someone with a Master's Degree in "Mathematical Physics" might say these things in this way...

im too grown up for this rubbish

if this site is for critical thinkers then surely thoughts will suffice not reams of evidence. There is such thing as original thought which by definition has no evidence to back it up

I must have missed this the first time around. Is this guy for real????

Does he even understand what critical thinking is???

Really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!

delphi_ote

18th October 2006, 12:46 AM

right r mackey ur on ignore

i have never worked with metal or studied it

my degree has no relevance here
Well this certainly seems to be a trend (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2012121#post2012121)...

pdoherty76

18th October 2006, 12:49 AM

pdoherty76

18th October 2006, 12:51 AM

I must have missed this the first time around. Is this guy for real????

Does he even understand what critical thinking is???

Really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!

i have already admitted this is the first time i have encoutered a critical thinking forum and i have also admitted that it is not what i am used to

so what?

Axiom_Blade

18th October 2006, 12:51 AM

Jenga! Jenga! (http://www.manse.cx/nine11_jenga/)

Incidentally, Jengas always fall on their sides...you know, the way deniers argue that the towers should have fallen.

AH, MAN, that was terrible. Sorry about that.
I gotta quit posting after midnight...

pdoherty76

18th October 2006, 12:53 AM

gravy for a man so in love with evidence ur throwing round some unfounded accusations.

I will bet you a thousand pounds that i have exactly the degree i claim.

Will you take the bet?

Arkan_Wolfshade

18th October 2006, 03:24 AM

Energy of friction
According to the law of conservation of energy, no energy is lost due to friction. Energy is transformed from other forms into heat. A sliding hockey puck comes to rest due to friction as its kinetic energy changes into heat. Since heat quickly dissipates, many early philosophers, including Aristotle, wrongly concluded that moving objects lose energy without a driving force.

When an object is pushed along a surface, the energy converted to heat is given by:

where
N is the magnitude of the normal force,
μk is the coefficient of kinetic friction,
d is the distance travelled by the object while in contact with the surface.
Physical deformation is associated with friction. While this can be beneficial, as in polishing, it is often a problem, as the materials are worn away, and may no longer hold the specified tolerances.

The work done by friction can translate into deformation and heat that in the long run may affect the surface's specification and the coefficient of friction itself. Friction can in some cases cause solid materials to melt.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction#Energy_of_friction)

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm#coef

Cylinder

18th October 2006, 03:35 AM

Re-entry into the atmosphere at the wrong angle, I believe will cause enough friction to make a molten goop of any satellite or spaceship that has the misfortune...am I not correct.

TAM

Yup - I was going to mention the Columbia accident.

Lurker

18th October 2006, 03:47 AM

could any of you clowns produce evidence that i dont have a degree? i mean i have offered plenty of evidence that i do including the institution, my tutor, my year of graduation etc

but hey if ur idea of critical thinking debates is to question the education of someone you dont know and who admits himself that the degree has no relevence then go ahead.

Frankly, I don't know if you have a degree or not and it really is not all that important to me.

But the fact that you can't see how friction melts metals displays a complete lack of undertsnading of basic physics.

Ever hear of the First Law of Thermodynamics? The work term represents the friction, I'll let you figure out how the equation balances. Perhaps in your 4+ years of education in physics your university somehow managed to miss covering the First Law of Thermo. If so, I strongly suggest you sue to get your tuition back.

Lurker

fuelair

18th October 2006, 03:53 AM

talking of time wasting you asked me a question about alex jones in the double think post, i have answered but i get the feeling u will never reply

by the way, i am lazy, ill give u a minute to think of how that makes me anti semitic or a terrorist supporter

No, it just makes you too lazy to do your own research - so stay ignorant.
You are apparently too lazy to even bother framing your question correctly - and then want to annoy/complain when someone correctly answers the question as you wrote it. Remember - we (well many of us) are actually skeptics - we do not claim to be mind readers. GIGO.

William Rea

18th October 2006, 04:09 AM

I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.

I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.

This is a genuine request for info.

Friction welding is a good example. It is used to attach turbochargers to shafts and is used extensively in aerospace for making connections with low distortion due to the very limited HAZ.

Friction may not always be immediately obvious to the eye, take for example internal friction in beams undergoing bending (notice how a beam being bent back and forth gets warm).

The only problem with this is that the inefficiency of the process would require sustained and high levels of energy. Possibly the already partially heated members would have enough initial energy to melt when subjected to this but I am not expert enough in the thermodynamics to calculate it for you.

William Rea

18th October 2006, 04:15 AM

Anders W. Bonde

18th October 2006, 04:35 AM

Can friction melt metal?

Indeed it can - it's even exploited technologically in the friction welding and friction stir welding processes.

Also: When aircraft gas turbine engines crash at high speeds into solid objects, the roatating spools are often decellerated in a fraction of a second due to deformation of the engine. This causes enough heat to melt, weld and generally ignite a fuel fire - which then melts aluminum.

BTW, I've yet to see evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero, other than that caused by oxy-acetylene torches during the clean up. So why the question in the first place?

pdoherty76

18th October 2006, 07:24 AM

right thats lurker on ignore

i did indeed do a course on thermodynamics, no mention of molten metal

stateofgrace

18th October 2006, 07:46 AM

right thats lurker on ignore

i did indeed do a course on thermodynamics, no mention of molten metal

I agree with lurker, will you please put me on your ever expanding ignore list, thanks in advance.

DavidJames

18th October 2006, 07:55 AM

right thats lurker on ignore
You really are in the wrong place. I suggest you return to the place where people can say whatever they please (using as few letters as possible) without fear of anyone asking for evidence. This is not that place.

delphi_ote

18th October 2006, 08:06 AM

right thats lurker on ignore

i did indeed do a course on thermodynamics, no mention of molten metal
If you took all the requisite physics classes to have a degree in the subject and took a course on thermodynamics but came away from all of that without understanding that friction causes heat, you either cheated on your exams, failed the thermodynamics course, or attended a horrible school. In any of those cases, your degree wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Horatius

18th October 2006, 08:24 AM

i have already admitted this is the first time i have encoutered a critical thinking forum and i have also admitted that it is not what i am used to

so what?

The "So what?" is that it seems almost incredible that someone who has graduated from a University with a degree in a science like Physics would have never before been exposed to people asking for evidence of a claim.

Were you around during the Cold Fusion debates a few years back? I was a physics undergrad at the time, and everybody in the department was talking about it, and asking for some evidence of it. Did you manage to miss all this?

Or how about the discovery of High Temperature Superconductors? Same deal, except they had evidence.

There was also a case in my department of a researcher who thought he had evidence for a non-zero neutrino mass, which had been confirmed by another lab. Very controversial, and eventualy proven wrong by, you guessed it, evidence.

So, how did you go thorugh 4+ years of science education, and never see anything like this? I wasn't even at a top university, and I was there for at least 3 such major events.

TV's Frank

18th October 2006, 08:25 AM

Unless he is a Cosmologist I would though expect him to have come across 2nd Order Simple Harmonic Motion equations that cover damping.

Hello, my name is Matt. I am a Cosmologist, and I have come across 2nd Order Simple Harmonic Motion equations that cover damping.:)

rwguinn

18th October 2006, 08:32 AM

pdoherty76

18th October 2006, 08:33 AM

gravy u prepared to take that bet?

slingblade

18th October 2006, 08:44 AM

could any of you clowns produce evidence that i dont have a degree?

Nope. Does it matter?

i mean i have offered plenty of evidence that i do including the institution, my tutor, my year of graduation etc

So? Your evidence doesn't suit my conclusion.

but hey if ur idea of critical thinking debates is to question the education of someone you dont know and who admits himself that the degree has no relevence then go ahead.

Thanks! I shall.

Ill just put u on ignore. if you would like a real debate then grow up

You're funny. Do it again.

jujigatami

18th October 2006, 09:39 AM

Any 100 level introductory physics class teaches about friction, torque, and conservation of energy within the first few days. They also teach F=MA early on, but the nutters have no grasp of that one either.

There is not a university in existence that gives out a degree in "mathematical physics" without having one of the required courses being introductory physics.

Not one.

Nowhere.

Since PD'oh doesn't understand these basic principles of physics, there is no way that he has an advanced physics degree.

jamrat

18th October 2006, 10:11 AM

"Since PD'oh doesn't understand these basic principles of physics, there is no way that he has an advanced physics degree."

Nor a job or life, apparently.

pdoherty76

18th October 2006, 10:15 AM

so im taking it that gravy is afraid to take the bet? enough said, he cant back up his allegations

Dog Town

18th October 2006, 10:18 AM

so im taking it that gravy is afraid to take the bet? enough said, he cant back up his allegations

Why should he? You hav not backed up any of yours. You claimed I had watched LC, you were wrong!

Arkan_Wolfshade

18th October 2006, 10:20 AM

so im taking it that gravy is afraid to take the bet? enough said, he cant back up his allegations

Or, it could be that he hasn't read the post yet since he is not currently logged in to the forums.

SwissSkeptic

18th October 2006, 10:22 AM

Or, it could be that he hasn't read the post yet since he is not currently logged in to the forums.

thats it ur on ignore

slingblade

18th October 2006, 11:05 AM

Maybe its an "ABT" Master's?

That, or it immediately vaporized on contact with his brain. Did you see any wreckage? I didn't see any. And what's coming out of his head is far too small to be from a Master's degree. There is just no way a Master's leaves a trail of incoherent sludge behind it like that. I talked to a guy who saw a Master's degree once, on his own wall, and he confirmed for me he's never seen any such incoherent sludge trail like that coming from a Master's degree.

Other witnesses say they never saw it either. They just heard a very loud EXPLOSION when the inchoate matter from pdoherty's delusions crashed into the upper levels of critical thinking, after being guided there by remote control! How else do you explain it? No one with even half a brain would let pdoherty's ramblings get anywhere near them if they could see them coming, so it must have been done by remote!

Then they all fell down in their own footprints, laughing, and had a few beers.

You just don't want to know the truth.

Lurker

19th October 2006, 04:39 AM

right thats lurker on ignore

i did indeed do a course on thermodynamics, no mention of molten metal

Heh, heh. Of course they didn't mention molten metal. You asked about the relationship between friction and heat and I provided it in the First Law of Thermodynamics. The friction is in the Work term and to conserve energy, energy is generated in the form of heat.

To extrapolate this to friction creating molten metal is simple, right?

That being said, I am not sure friction is the source for any molten metal at ground zero.

Lurker

cloudshipsrule

19th October 2006, 07:59 AM

pdoherty76 wrote:

I would love to see u produce an example of a builing collapse before or since 911 that has had molten metal involved

I'd love for you to produce an example of a 110 story building that was hit by a fuel-laden 767, and subesequently collapsed BEFORE 911 that didn't have molten metal involved.

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 08:12 AM

Heh, heh. Of course they didn't mention molten metal. You asked about the relationship between friction and heat and I provided it in the First Law of Thermodynamics. The friction is in the Work term and to conserve energy, energy is generated in the form of heat.

To extrapolate this to friction creating molten metal is simple, right?

That being said, I am not sure friction is the source for any molten metal at ground zero.

Lurker
i hav phd in teh metal physics and qed n thermo first law

ur post say metal is matter an heat energy r u sure

FramerDave

19th October 2006, 08:22 AM

Wow. Just wow. This is amazing.

I remember as a kid I asked my dad why my hands got warm when I rubbed them together on a cold day. He explained to me that friction causes heat. A one-minute explanation of friction and I understood. *

As a kid I bent a paperclip back and forth and noticed it got warm before finally breaking. Yeah, friction again.

When I was six or seven I would bang some rocks together when it got dark and they would flash. They contained quartz and I was seeing a piezoelectric effect, though I didn't know that for a long time. The rocks got warm. I knew it was because of friction.

The point is, a child with an explanation of friction from his dad was able to grasp the relationship between friction and heat. I knew that an object reentering the earth's atmosphere could melt due to friction, whether it was steel, aluminum or titanium.

All of this, and someone with a degree is physics can't grasp the concept? That's some kind of huge gap in education or mental acuity.

Further, pdoherty, your opening post asked about friction melting metal. You were given examples, yet you ignored them, insisting that you were asking about steel. We're not mind readers, and maybe you should be more specific.

And you also seem to be shocked that we would doubt your credentials. Your apparent lack of understanding of the most basic physics, your ignorance of the concept of burden of proof and your atrocious writing style contradict your claims of higher education. Yes, I know about your alleged broken arm, but that doesn't explain bad grammar.

I fully expect for you to reply with nothing more than "ur on ignor3" and I'm sure you won't disappoint. But something tells me that you haven't put anyone on ignore. This is a game to you, and you're so sadly lacking any real attention that you feed off of this, and you need and want it. Since for some reason you can't get positive attention in your life, you'll settle for any kind you can get. Just an educated guess, but I won't be shocked if I'm correct.

* Yes I know it's probably more from increased blood flow than friction, but it does play a role, and hey, I was six.

TruthSeeker1234

19th October 2006, 08:32 AM

Most of the energy that was in the tower as gravitional energy left as heat, due to friction.

No, if we are to believe the official story, then most of the PE was spent accelerating the mass down to the earth. Only that energy that was not used accelerating the mass downwards is available to do other work, such as pulverize concrete, shred steel, heat things up, or vibrate air molecules.

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.

Hellbound

19th October 2006, 08:35 AM

No, if we are to believe the official story, then most of the PE was spent accelerating the mass down to the earth. Only that energy that was not used accelerating the mass downwards is available to do other work, such as pulverize concrete, shred steel, heat things up, or vibrate air molecules.

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.

Wrong.

HAve you done the math?

Even assuming the CTer times (9 and 11 seconds) are correct, it leaves something like 20% of the energy available. If you take the NIST times, and actually account for the fact that the rubble pile was 6 stories high (meaning a shorter distance to fall), that percent goes up.

OF course, the math for this requires multiplication and at least one exponent, so I understand if you haven't bothered.

Dog Town

19th October 2006, 08:45 AM

FD says...
The point is, a child with an explanation of friction from his dad was able to grasp the relationship between friction and heat. I knew that an object reentering the earth's atmosphere could melt due to friction, whether it was steel, aluminum or titanium.

All of this, and someone with a degree is physics can't grasp the concept? That's some kind of huge gap in education or mental acuity.

Sure doesn't say much for Manchester U's masters in math program! Maybe he should still have a tutor, cuz he missed a few steps!
Now that is a fact! Welcome to the PD'oh ignore club. It's kinda nice ,pooltables, cheap draught, no CTers!

rwguinn

19th October 2006, 08:51 AM

No, if we are to believe the official story, then most of the PE was spent accelerating the mass down to the earth. Only that energy that was not used accelerating the mass downwards is available to do other work, such as pulverize concrete, shred steel, heat things up, or vibrate air molecules.

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.
in answer to boxofrocks1234-
ALL OF THE PE went into bringing the building down. A very large portion was converted to KE (kinetic Energy). Something (like, maybe, the ground?) caused the KE to change to something else.Remember--Energy cannot be destroyed or created-only converted. Eventually, it all ends up as heat energy--the LCD of energy.

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 08:56 AM

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.
Okay. Show your work. Let's see the physics.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 09:47 AM

i currently have 18 people on ignore

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel

Gravy

19th October 2006, 09:50 AM

i currently have 18 people on ignore
Said the "debunker."

Psst! PD! That's not something to brag about!

Bell

19th October 2006, 09:52 AM

Said the "debunker."

rite, ur on ignore

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th October 2006, 09:53 AM

i currently have 18 people on ignore

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel

Please show where the steel was melted.
Please show that there were no other sources of heat other than friction.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 09:55 AM

Said the "debunker."

Psst! PD! That's not something to brag about!

loads of peopple threatened to put me on ignore, as if i cared

i will never truly be a debunker, im kind of agnostic i guess. like charles goyette, the genius who destroyed davin coburns media career in approximately 4 seconds

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 09:57 AM

Please show where the steel was melted.
Please show that there were no other sources of heat other than friction.

people reported molten metal

how much heat could there really be? the fires fell 80 floors, have u ever kicked theembers of a bonfire? oops that sounds as bad as ur jenga theory

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 09:57 AM

i currently have 18 people on ignore

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel

First: The melting point of steel is 1000 degrees centrigrade. Not 3000.
Second: Formula 1. read point 9 (http://gleez.com/articles/did-you-know/some-interesting-info-about-f1-cars)

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 09:58 AM

people reported molten metal

how much heat could there really be? the fires fell 80 floors, have u ever kicked theembers of a bonfire? oops that sounds as bad as ur jenga theory

Evidence of molten metal? Who said what? Evidence of mentioned statements?

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 09:59 AM

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.

Wrong. And where did the kinetic energy go when the debris stopped falling? Hint: friction. _ALL_ of the energy that was used to accelerate things downward was "released" when it was decellerated to rest, at the ground.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 09:59 AM

First: The melting point of steel is 1000 degrees centrigrade. Not 3000.
Second: Formula 1. read point 9 (http://gleez.com/articles/did-you-know/some-interesting-info-about-f1-cars)

erm i was talking fahrenheit

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 10:00 AM

people reported molten metal
Metal or steel, Mr. Dancing Hypothesis?

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:00 AM

Evidence of molten metal? Who said what? Evidence of mentioned statements?

nope. lots of ground zero clear up people talked about it

Hellbound

19th October 2006, 10:01 AM

people reported molten metal

how much heat could there really be? the fires fell 80 floors, have u ever kicked theembers of a bonfire? oops that sounds as bad as ur jenga theory

Not to mention that even in house fires molten aluminum and copper have been found, and molten or deformed steel.

It's not uncommon.

The rubble pile would have insulated these pockets of molten or partially molten material, keeping them at a high temp for some time (much as the underground coal fire that's been burning for a couple thousand years or so).

It helps to research these things, at least spend 5 minutes doing a google search and reading what experts have to say (such as fire safety professionals and fire department spokespersons) before declaring it to be "impossible" just because you never saw it on any of the CSI episodes.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:01 AM

the fire stop comparing cars to buildings, apples and oranges

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 10:02 AM

people reported molten metal

how much heat could there really be?

From the fires? About 1.5 trillion joules. From the collapse? About 500 billion joules.

the fires fell 80 floors, have u ever kicked theembers of a bonfire?You really don't understand fire, at all, do you. By all accounts the fire was oxygen starved (embers aren't). Adding oxygen by vigoursly mixing in air would have caused the fire to increase in intensity, not decrease.

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 10:02 AM

nope. lots of ground zero clear up people talked about it
Lots of people say lots of things. Stop dancing. Show us who said what.

And do you mean metal or steel?

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:06 AM

From the fires? About 1.5 trillion joules. From the collapse? About 500 billion joules.

You really don't understand fire, at all, do you. By all accounts the fire was oxygen starved (embers aren't). Adding oxygen by vigoursly mixing in air would have caused the fire to increase in intensity, not decrease.

tell me how the fire increased in intensity when all its fuel was mysteriously pulverised?

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:06 AM

nope. lots of ground zero clear up people talked about it

Hearsay unless you back it up with sources/evidence.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:07 AM

anyway if the fire was oxygen starved it wouldnt compromised the steel

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:07 AM

the fire stop comparing cars to buildings, apples and oranges

You asked for evidence of friction melting steel. I provided.

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 10:09 AM

tell me how the fire increased in intensity when all its fuel was mysteriously pulverised?
:jaw-dropp
You do not have a degree in physics.

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:09 AM

anyway if the fire was oxygen starved it wouldnt compromised the steel

Someone should have told these guys (http://members.lycos.nl/cvdv/historycastiron.htm).

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 10:09 AM

tell me how the fire increased in intensity when all its fuel was mysteriously pulverised?

What does fuel being pulverized have to do with anything? If anything, pulverizing the fuel HELPS a fire, not hurts it. You are _really_ reaching now.

Why do you think we burn wooden logs, instead of wood shavings. Because it burns SLOWER. Try it yourself. Light a match in a room full of sawdust suspended in air... (that was sarcasm.. don't try it...)

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:12 AM

What does fuel being pulverized have to do with anything? If anything, pulverizing the fuel HELPS a fire, not hurts it. You are _really_ reaching now.

Why do you think we burn wooden logs, instead of wood shavings. Because it burns SLOWER. Try it yourself. Light a match in a room full of sawdust suspended in air... (that was sarcasm.. don't try it...)

Or coal dust (http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TECHRPT/P&T/COALDUST.pdf) (disclaimer: any painfull, lethal or non-lethal accidents following the lighting of a match in a room full of coaldust after reading this post is NOT my fault!).

Hellbound

19th October 2006, 10:14 AM

tell me how the fire increased in intensity when all its fuel was mysteriously pulverised?

Wow!

So all those grain silo explosions from dust were actually CDs!?

And I suppose that the old IM trick of adding flour to make a bigger boom, that's just heresay, too?

Wow!

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 10:15 AM

Or try solid a chunk of aluminum and a solid chunk of iron oxide.. once nothing happens, try grinding them both up together in an industrial grinder (make sure the insurance is paid on the grinder, and the building, first)

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:21 AM

What does fuel being pulverized have to do with anything? If anything, pulverizing the fuel HELPS a fire, not hurts it. You are _really_ reaching now.

Why do you think we burn wooden logs, instead of wood shavings. Because it burns SLOWER. Try it yourself. Light a match in a room full of sawdust suspended in air... (that was sarcasm.. don't try it...)

pulverising the fuel helps, dispersing the pulverised fuel does not

are u suggesting that a desk thats burnig at 1000ft up will still be burning after its been crushed and dropped 1000ft?

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:22 AM

Skibum

19th October 2006, 10:23 AM

pulverising the fuel helps, dispersing the pulverised fuel does not

If anything the fuel was concentrated into a big pile not dispersed.

Thousands of desks , many many many tons of paper, carpet, you name it all in a big pile that burned for quite awhile after the collapse.

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 10:24 AM

erm isnt what u just described thermite?

so ur agreeing with the thermite theory

Try reading. I'm proving to you that pulverizing the fuel helps oxididations reactions. Thermite is an awesome example of this.

I never said that it happened in the WTC. It's just proof that your idiotic comment about pulverization is bunk.

RenaissanceBiker

19th October 2006, 10:26 AM

Here's a simple experiment you can do at home. Try running you car engine without oil. For more dramatic results, drain the radiator of coolant as well.
http://www.engineproblem.com.au/crankshaft_seized.htm

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:26 AM

If anything the fuel was concentrated into a big pile not dispersed.

Thousands of desks , many many many tons of paper, carpet, you name it all in a big pile that burned for quite awhile after the collapse.

not a single desk was found

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:27 AM

not a single desk was found

And this proves...what again?

kookbreaker

19th October 2006, 10:28 AM

not a single desk was found

Intact.

Do you think the materials vansihed?

Skibum

19th October 2006, 10:29 AM

not a single desk was found

I guess while they were planting explosives, they had Office Movers come in and remove all the desks in the building.

Mercutio

19th October 2006, 10:29 AM

not a single desk was found

So....they burned? I agree.

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 10:32 AM

And this proves...what again?
People! This is it! Don't you understand? We finally are at the very core of the Globalist agenda! The cubicle desks at WTC were nicer than the ones at the Pentagon. The hole in the side of the Pentagon was the access route to get all the desks in there (and get rid of all the old desks, of course.)

Then they knocked down the WTC to destroy the evidence.

Shrinker

19th October 2006, 10:33 AM

not a single desk was found

Okay so we have some possibilities:

All desks were rigged with explosives
9/11 was a cover for the theft of 10,000 desks
Desks tend not to survive 110 storey building collapses and subsequent underground fires.
Nobody was logging the number of desks rescued

If a surviving desk is found somewhere, there'll be a conspiracy theorist attached to it, asking 'how did this desk survive the so-called collapse and so-called fires HMMMM.....??'

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:34 AM

Intact.

Do you think the materials vansihed?

no but i would have expected some large debris. have u seen the videos of the ironworkers at GZ? they keep saying how odd it is that they found nothing but tiny particles of things

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 10:36 AM

no but i would have expected some large debris. have u seen the videos of the ironworkers at GZ? they keep saying how odd it is that they found nothing but tiny particles of things

How large of pieces would you expect to find from a desk falling from over 100m?

And/or how many large pieces would you expect to find from a desk that had a building collapse on top of it?

Skibum

19th October 2006, 10:38 AM

they keep saying how odd it is that they found nothing but tiny particles of things

Not tiny particles, I believe the quote was "nothing larger than a keyboard" or something to that effect.

Popeholden

19th October 2006, 10:40 AM

doherty, even if molten metal was found at the scene (and all the evidence i've seen suggests HOT metal, not MOLTEN metal) it was almost CERTAINLY not STEEL because if an excavator ran into molten steel the heat would immediately render the machine unusable.

do you have any evidence that is was steel they found in the debris pile?

if fire could not survive after the building collapsed, then how were surrounding buildings caught on fire? The Men In Black? Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones?

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:41 AM

Not tiny particles, I believe the quote was "nothing larger than a keyboard" or something to that effect.

I believe there's a quote in the Naudet documentary saying that the largest piece of a telefon the fireman found was half a keypad (he showed something in the area of 5-7 centimetres with his fingers, not sure of the inches).

William Rea

19th October 2006, 10:41 AM

Wrong. And where did the kinetic energy go when the debris stopped falling? Hint: friction. _ALL_ of the energy that was used to accelerate things downward was "released" when it was decellerated to rest, at the ground.

The (Gravitational) Potential Energy does work on the mass making it fall. The energy conversion is PE to KE and if there are no losses then at all times during the fall KEt = PEo - PEt. The object gains KE by losing its PE.

As the object hits the ground KEt = PEo, KEt does work on the Earth and because it is such a massive object the Earth acts as a Kinetic Energy sink. Literally the earth moves!

Note that PEo is a potential difference in energy level from a reference and gravitational forces act between the centres of objects.

In the case of the collapse...

KEt = PEo - PEt - Collapse Losses

The Collapse Losses would be work done through mechanical deformation of the structure during collapse.

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:42 AM

The Men In Black? Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones?

And then they would have used that giant blitzer from MIB2 to make everyone forget.......

defaultdotxbe

19th October 2006, 10:43 AM

no but i would have expected some large debris. have u seen the videos of the ironworkers at GZ? they keep saying how odd it is that they found nothing but tiny particles of things
so how long did those fires burn under the rubble?

and many 110-story skyscraper collapses do we have to comapre this to? the lack of large debris cant see "odd" unless you have a frame of reference

Skibum

19th October 2006, 10:45 AM

My new theory,

All of the office furniture was actually constructed of explosives.
This would explain the lack of office furniture found at the scene and would allow a means of getting the explosive into the building. After years of posing as an office furniture shop and selling/leasing furniture to the tenants of the WTC, the Gov decided on 9/11 that there was enough explosives in the building to do the job. They then proceeded with Operation BlowTheDesksUp.

defaultdotxbe

19th October 2006, 10:46 AM

They then proceeded with Operation BlowTheDesksUp.
sadly, it wouldnt surprise me in the least if some truthers latched on to this one

Dog Town

19th October 2006, 10:46 AM

no but i would have expected some large debris. have u seen the videos of the ironworkers at GZ? they keep saying how odd it is that they found nothing but tiny particles of things

Look at all the Lilliputians! These people must be tiny!

http://www.stopviolence.com/images/9-11/groundzero-cut.jpg

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 10:49 AM

Skibum

19th October 2006, 10:49 AM

I believe there's a quote in the Naudet documentary saying that the largest piece of a telefon the fireman found was half a keypad (he showed something in the area of 5-7 centimetres with his fingers, not sure of the inches).

Could have been it, thats still a far cry from nothing but tiny particles.

5-7 cm would be 2-3 inches.

Skibum

19th October 2006, 10:50 AM

sadly, it wouldnt surprise me in the least if some truthers latched on to this one

Now that I really think about it, I seem to recall running across it (or something similar) somewhere a year or 2 ago.

alexi_drago

19th October 2006, 10:55 AM

If only they'd had desks in the WTC
http://www.acte-gratuit.net/img/duckncover01.jpg
http://www.ljplus.ru/img/h/s/hsgpc/duckandcover.png

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 10:55 AM

when did i claim an excavator ran into the steel, straw man

So now there were no excavators at ground zero? Take another look at that post in it PROPER context before you yell strawman......

Shrinker

19th October 2006, 10:59 AM

The (Gravitational) Potential Energy does work on the mass making it fall. The energy conversion is PE to KE and if there are no losses then at all times during the fall KEt = PEo - PEt. The object gains KE by losing its PE.

As the object hits the ground KEt = PEo, KEt does work on the Earth and because it is such a massive object the Earth acts as a Kinetic Energy sink. Literally the earth moves!

Note that PEo is a potential difference in energy level from a reference and gravitational forces act between the centres of objects.

In the case of the collapse...

KEt = PEo - PEt - Collapse Losses

The Collapse Losses would be work done through mechanical deformation of the structure during collapse.

So things don't break when you drop them? Can you quantify how much of PEo was transferred to the Earth, and how much was used for additional breakages?

See, when I view the collapse videos, I see a lot of dust emerge during the collapse, then when the thing hits the deck, I see a cloud significantly denser, more energetic and ultimately larger. That implies to me that the ground collision did more pulverising than the collapse.

I've never seen anyone else claim this though, so both sides fire away!

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 11:00 AM

Could have been it, thats still a far cry from nothing but tiny particles.

5-7 cm would be 2-3 inches.

And that was from the first weeks of the cleanup, were they were still in the outskirts of the Pile where the most damaged/"pulverised" debris from the topfloors would have landed.

[goes out on a limb]
Is it, without evidence to back it, theoretical possible for larger pieces of furniture from the lower levels to have existed in the innards of the pile, smoldering to ashes before the cleanup crew reached them?
[/goes back on safer ground]

defaultdotxbe

19th October 2006, 11:24 AM

If only they'd had desks in the WTC
http://www.acte-gratuit.net/img/duckncover01.jpg
http://www.ljplus.ru/img/h/s/hsgpc/duckandcover.png
...or turtle shells

Hellbound

19th October 2006, 11:26 AM

...or turtle shells

Or boxes made out of chicken wire and wood. Those don't collapse.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 11:31 AM

I believe there's a quote in the Naudet documentary saying that the largest piece of a telefon the fireman found was half a keypad (he showed something in the area of 5-7 centimetres with his fingers, not sure of the inches).

would you like to put that quote in context? the fire man was making the poin that he was so amazed that that was the biggest piece he found

defaultdotxbe

19th October 2006, 11:37 AM

Or boxes made out of chicken wire and wood. Those don't collapse.
wait a second, does this mean we are conceding a-bombs at the WTC? lol

Hellbound

19th October 2006, 11:39 AM

wait a second, does this mean we are conceding a-bombs at the WTC? lol

No way, dude.

Photon torpedoes in the exhaust vents.

defaultdotxbe

19th October 2006, 11:52 AM

No way, dude.

Photon torpedoes in the exhaust vents.
one thing that always bothered me about that was that it was excelsior that was cataloging the gaseous anomolies, not enterprise

...i think i just reveled how big a nerd i really am...:boxedin:

Hellbound

19th October 2006, 11:53 AM

one thing that always bothered me about that was that it was excelsior that was cataloging the gaseous anomolies, not enterprise

...i think i just reveled how big a nerd i really am...:boxedin:

Heh.

Not really, I was thinking of Star Wars and the Death Star.

I have no idea what you're talking about :)

RenaissanceBiker

19th October 2006, 11:56 AM

ANYWAY, the seized crankshaft is a perfect example of friction causing metal to melt. It's pretty impressive to take a seized engine apart and see the shaft neatly welded to the case.

Hellbound

19th October 2006, 12:00 PM

BAck on topic:

Machine guns. Look for pictures of an M-60, or an M-2, or a similar weapon that was fired too long without changing the barrel.

The .50 cal M-2 has to have the barrels changed with oven mitts, because you'll get third degree burns from it grabbing with your hands. All friction. THe barrel can be melted within a few minutes of firing.

rwguinn

19th October 2006, 12:10 PM

<IMG class=inlineimg title="Jaw Dropping" alt="" src="images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/jaw-dropping.gif" border=0 smilieid="318">
You do not have any knowlege of physics.
fixed it

Edited to add: WTH? That was scrambled!

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 12:18 PM

would you like to put that quote in context? the fire man was making the poin that he was so amazed that that was the biggest piece he found

And that changes the context of my post how again? Or didn't you notice the post I was answering to which were about the size of the debris and not the amazement of the people finding it.

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 12:19 PM

fixed it

Edited to add: WTH? That was scrambled!

It showed in html codes on my screen instead of bb code.......

alexi_drago

19th October 2006, 12:19 PM

one thing that always bothered me about that was that it was excelsior that was cataloging the gaseous anomolies, not enterprise

...i think i just reveled how big a nerd i really am...:boxedin:

I disagree.
Somebody hacked the buildings main computer and transfered all power from the structural integrity field causing a core breach.

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 12:22 PM

I disagree.
Somebody hacked the buildings main computer and transfered all power from the structural integrity field causing a core breach.

And then promptly replaced the entirety of New York with a holodeck running a perfect copy of it to cover up the massive hole in the ground which were all that was left af THAT little antimatter disaster.......;)

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 12:25 PM

Heh.

Not really, I was thinking of Star Wars and the Death Star.

I have no idea what you're talking about :)
William Shatner: It all began with with the Star Trek Wars.

Zapp Brannigan: You mean the great migration of Star Wars fans.

William Shatner: No, that was the Star Wars trek.

alexi_drago

19th October 2006, 12:28 PM

And tractor beams pul..... OMG It's all making sense now.

Lurker

19th October 2006, 12:35 PM

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel

First: The melting point of steel is 1000 degrees centrigrade. Not 3000.

erm i was talking fahrenheit

Um, it doesn't take a physics PhD to convert Celsius to Farenheit yet you muddled that too.

1000C = 1832F, which is nowhere near your 3000F claim.

Lurker

rwguinn

19th October 2006, 12:41 PM

would you like to put that quote in context? the fire man was making the poin that he was so amazed that that was the biggest piece he found

would you like to put it in context?
That was the biggest piece of a phone (that's shortened English for Telephone, BTW) that he found
How big a chunk of plastic/Bakelite do you expect to find after falling 7800 feet with a building on top?

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 12:42 PM

Um, it doesn't take a physics PhD to convert Celsius to Farenheit yet you muddled that too.

1000C = 1832F, which is nowhere near your 3000F claim.

Lurker
Ah, give him some leeway. It is over half way to 3000. :D

alexi_drago

19th October 2006, 12:43 PM

http://www.cd-adapco.com/press_room/dynamics/24/renault.html

Since the temperature of the brakes can reach around 1200°C in a typical braking event, it is obvious that effective brake cooling is a critical factor in maintaining brake performance throughout a race.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 12:53 PM

"Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron (http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele026.html) that has been processed to control the amount of carbon (http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele006.html). Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."

id say 2500 is close

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 12:54 PM

why are u lot lying about the melting point of steel?

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 12:58 PM

why are u lot lying about the melting point of steel?
I know you've said you only type with 1 hand for issues of speed/convenience, but I not sure what you're trying to ask here.

1) Why are you lying a lot about the melting point of steel?

2) Why is your lot lying about the melting point of steel?

3) Why are you not lying about the melting point of steel? (assuming a minor typo)

Is it perhaps one of those three?

Shrinker

19th October 2006, 01:01 PM

I know you've said you only type with 1 hand for issues of speed/convenience, but I not sure what you're trying to ask here.

1) Why are you lying a lot about the melting point of steel?

2) Why is your lot lying about the melting point of steel?

3) Why are you not lying about the melting point of steel? (assuming a minor typo)

Is it perhaps one of those three?

Why are you guys lying....

It's a British thing...

Lurker

19th October 2006, 01:06 PM

CENOBITE

19th October 2006, 01:10 PM

have you ever taken a ball point pen and chew on the end? It tends to get hot... not from your mouth but from the friction caused by torqing the plastic. Now appy pressure to steel and you get the same result... heat.

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 01:13 PM

why are u lot lying about the melting point of steel?

Lying? No. Remembered it wrong? Yes. I made a mistake on the melting point of steel. See? I admited it.

Now let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? You asked for evidence of molten metal by friction. It was given to you.

You were also told that not all debris were "pulverised".

Not to mention that it would not be impossible for a fire to burn in a sealed off space prolonging the heatexposure to the metal.

You were also asked for credible sources and/or evidence of molten metal being present at the Pile. Now, I may have missed it, but did you provide said evidence?

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 01:14 PM

Why are you guys lying....

It's a British thing...
So, 2 then, kind of? Then I guess I can't answer his question until I get additional information. Who are these "guys" that are lying? I seen one guy make a claim about the melting point of steel, another took that number ran it through a simple formula to produce another. Finally, I came along, took the that last number to make a bad joke with regards to his original claimed number. Instead of claiming he was speaking of Fahrenheit instead of Celsius when the original claim was made, why not simply point out the melting point of steel in Celsius. The other way just looked like a dodge, which makes good fodder for jokes.

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 01:16 PM

I seen one guy make a claim about the melting point of steel, [snip]

And now admitting that it was wrongly remembered which is not a lie.

I would like my appology now, doherty......

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 01:20 PM

And now admitting that it was wrongly remembered which is not a lie.

I would like my appology now, doherty......
Oh, and it would seem I was wrong about the gender of the claim maker. :o

RenaissanceBiker

19th October 2006, 01:23 PM

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel

The crank shafts of car engines are made out of steel. If you run an engine without oil, it will get hot enough to melt the shaft, welding it to the case. I have seen it with my own eyes and I have provided a link that shows it.

pdoherty76

19th October 2006, 01:25 PM

The crank shafts of car engines are made out of steel. If you run an engine without oil, it will get hot enough to melt the shaft, welding it to the case. I have seen it with my own eyes and I have provided a link that shows it.

crankshafts are not lumps of steel falling, apples and oranges

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 01:34 PM

crankshafts are not lumps of steel falling, apples and oranges
Don't move your goal posts. You only asked for "evidence that friction causes molten metal?" Remember? I don't think I've seen where you produced evidence that there were, in fact, lumps of molten steel, and, should they exist, that they couldn't be explained in a number of ways. Perhaps I've missed it though, I don't stay too caught up on the CT threads.

The_Fire

19th October 2006, 01:36 PM

Oh, and it would seem I was wrong about the gender of the claim maker. :o

Don't worry. Happens alot "outhere" ;). I'm still waiting for the apology from that guy calling me a lier thou........

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 01:52 PM

You are right, it is apples and oranges.

The steel at the bottom of the WTC was under a great deal more force, and absorbed a great deal more energy than a crank shaft in a car w/o oil.

defaultdotxbe

19th October 2006, 01:59 PM

crankshafts are not lumps of steel falling, apples and oranges
another goalpost move

"can friction melt metal" becomes "can friction melt steel" becomes this, lol

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 02:05 PM

another goalpost move

"can friction melt metal" becomes "can friction melt steel" becomes this, lol
Maybe we can get him to design a sports stadium. Imagine how much better a game would be without those boring, stationary goals. :)

Anti-sophist

19th October 2006, 02:06 PM

I less than three logic

19th October 2006, 02:12 PM

Things we've established:

1) Friction can melt metal
2) Friction can melt steel (see #1)
3) There was evidence of molten metal at the WTC rubble pile.
4) There was, however, no evidence of molten steel.
5) Fires were hot enough to melt aluminum, without the help of friction.
Well in that case, I claim the molten metal was actually mercury. I think they were, um, doing experiments to see if drinking tea helps the body expel mercury. ;)

RenaissanceBiker

19th October 2006, 02:52 PM

crankshafts are not lumps of steel falling, apples and oranges

I didn't say they were. You asked for evidence of that friction could melt metal in general then steel in particular. I provided that evidence in a manner I thought you could understand. I'm an engineer. That's what I do. I don't know anything about your ground zero molten steel claims other than you feel it somehow supports a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I'll try to help you understand science, but I won't participate in your delusions.

rwguinn

19th October 2006, 02:57 PM

Gravy

19th October 2006, 04:47 PM

Seriously, though, how cute are little furry mammals? (http://cuteoverload.com/)

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 05:02 PM

Things we've established:

1) Friction can melt metal
2) Friction can melt steel (see #1)
3) There was evidence of molten metal at the WTC rubble pile.
4) There was, however, no evidence of molten steel.
5) Fires were hot enough to melt aluminum, without the help of friction.
6) The claim that anyone on debunking911 stated that friction from the collapse of the WTC caused steel to melt remains totally unsubstantiated.

stateofgrace

19th October 2006, 05:03 PM

I didn't say they were. You asked for evidence of that friction could melt metal in general then steel in particular. I provided that evidence in a manner I thought you could understand. I'm an engineer. That's what I do. I don't know anything about your ground zero molten steel claims other than you feel it somehow supports a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I'll try to help you understand science, but I won't participate in your delusions.

That's the thing that gets me also. If there was motel metal, or importantly molten steel found in the clean up operation at GZ, how does it contribute to the belief that explosives were used?

Incendiary devices don't burn for weeks and weeks and neither does bog standard explosives. Is the suggestion that this molten metal was formed during the collapse and not as a result of? And that it stayed molten for weeks and weeks by some as yet unknown catalyst?

I don't get it.

delphi_ote

19th October 2006, 05:05 PM

That's the thing that gets me also. If there was motel metal, or importantly molten steel found in the clean up operation at GZ, how does it contribute to the belief that explosives were used?

Incendiary devices don't burn for weeks and weeks and neither does bog standard explosives. Is the suggestion that this molten metal was formed during the collapse and not as a result of? And that it stayed molten for weeks and weeks by some as yet unknown catalyst?

I don't get it.
Creationist fallacy number 1: your hypothesis is false, therefore my hypothesis is true.

Kopji

19th October 2006, 07:54 PM

Steel. Melted by hand induced friction.

http://www.chlt.org/sandbox/lhl/Hooke1745/page.5.php

IN the common Way of striking Fire with a Flint and Steel, fiery Sparks fly out at every Blow which Sparks are nothing more than small Pieces of the Flint or Steel, (but usually of the Steel) broken off by the Violence of the Stroke, and either melted instantaneously into Steel Globules, or made at least red-hot, and thereby capable of kind- ling Tinder or Touch-wood. The Heat is likewise so intense sometimes as even to vitrify the broken Particles.

As a Proof of this, Dr. HOOKE struck Fire over a Sheet of very white Paper, and ob- serving diligently where the Sparks seemed to vanish, he discovered there certain very small, black, but glittering and moveable Specks, which, when examined with his Mi- croscope, appeared to be little round Globules ; some whereof did, from their Surface, yield a very bright and strong Reflection on that Side next the Light, and resembled Iron- Balls. One of which, whose Surface was pretty regular, is shewn by the Letter A.

Cultural Heritage Language Technologies: A Collaborative Project to Create Computational Tools For The Study of Ancient Greek, Early Modern Latin, and Old Norse In A Network of Affiliated Digital Libraries. See the Results of our work or read about them in the May 2005 issue of D-Lib or our CHLT Final Report.

BubbleGum

19th October 2006, 08:11 PM

Answer is yes.

Google 'friction welding'.

~Bub

BubbleGum

19th October 2006, 08:21 PM

Hey, I can post.

Hi All

This sight has a good explanation of how steel can and is routinely made molten by friction. >ardindustries.com

~Bub

Kevin Levites

19th October 2006, 08:37 PM

I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.

I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.

This is a genuine request for info.

The metal heat shield on any number of spacecraft melts off and vaporizes from air friction upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.

Metal will often melt in certain kinds of brake parts with racecars, or 18 wheelers that are improperly maintained.

It's been said that you can melt a nail be securing it in a drill (in place of the drill bit) and drilling it into metal, but this is hearsay.

I hope this helps you.

Best,

---Kevin

Regnad Kcin

19th October 2006, 09:25 PM

one thing that always bothered me about that was that it was excelsior that was cataloging the gaseous anomolies, not enterprise

...i think i just reveled how big a nerd i really am...

I disagree.
Somebody hacked the buildings main computer and transfered all power from the structural integrity field causing a core breach.A...concrete core breach?

FramerDave

20th October 2006, 07:13 AM

i currently have 18 people on ignore

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel

First, steel melts at about 1350 C depending on the alloy. Are we talking stainless steel, high-carbon steel, what? Here's your circumstance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

To quote from the article: "As Columbia descended from space into the atmosphere, the heat produced by air molecules colliding with the Orbiter typically caused wing leading-edge temperatures to rise steadily, reaching an estimated 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit (1400 °C) during the next six minutes."

In case you can't quite grasp this, air molecules colliding with the Orbiter = friction. If you don't trust Wiki you can download the full official report here: http://www.space.com/columbiatragedy/

William Rea

20th October 2006, 12:08 PM

You are right, it is apples and oranges.

The steel at the bottom of the WTC was under a great deal more force, and absorbed a great deal more energy than a crank shaft in a car w/o oil.

The point is that the energy has to be available to do "useful work" so while there might have been a lot of energy in the fall its total conversion to heat is not guaranteed. I suspect that the energy conversion process from kinetic energy to heat energy via bending steel is very inefficient likewise any frictional interaction between the beams. It is possible however that an abrasive substance like concrete could facilitate the heat conversion process.

Anyone know?

Dave_46

20th October 2006, 12:33 PM

<snip>
It's been said that you can melt a nail be securing it in a drill (in place of the drill bit) and drilling it into metal, but this is hearsay.

I hope this helps you.

Best,

---Kevin

I've melted the end of an HSS drill bit by trying to drill stainless steel with it.

Dave

Anti-sophist

20th October 2006, 12:44 PM

The point is that the energy has to be available to do "useful work" so while there might have been a lot of energy in the fall its total conversion to heat is not guaranteed.

Ok, I'm going to think about this in more detail.

Are you saying that if I drop a golf ball into a sand trap, that not all of the gravitional energy is converted into heat? Some of it is used to do work on the earth?

That would mean, also, I am doing work on the earth, as well as the ball, when I lift the golfball out of the sand, then?

What happens, asymtotically, as I pick up and drop the golfball an infinite number of times to the trajectory of the earth? (Assuming it was traveling in a straight line, and not rotating). I presume it stays relatively straight... but does this mean if I lift the ball, and never drop it, I've deflected the earth's path?

Beerina

20th October 2006, 02:01 PM

Although it is theoretically possible, I doubt that friction alone could cause molten metal, but high speed impacts, fires, and metal Oxidation reactions could, depending on the metals involved.
Friction can actually cause Aluminum and other reactive metals to Oxidize under the right conditions.

I saw a video of a manufacturing operation that welded two thick steel rods together, end-to-end, by twisting one and jamming them together hard.

I'd be more likely to believe melted metal was due to being at the core of a gigantic fire that lasted several months. There was still smoke coming out 2 months later. Heat will happily build up at the center of such a thing, well in excess of the "burn temperature" of the material.

tsig

20th October 2006, 02:20 PM

no but i would have expected some large debris. have u seen the videos of the ironworkers at GZ? they keep saying how odd it is that they found nothing but tiny particles of things

What you expect and what you get are often very differint.

This is called life.

BubbleGum

20th October 2006, 05:38 PM

Answer is yes.

Google 'friction welding'.

~Bub

Hey, that was my first post. And no one said 'Hi'. :(

It was a good one too... Steel is routinely melted via pure friction.

~Bub

delphi_ote

20th October 2006, 07:48 PM

Hey, that was my first post. And no one said 'Hi'. :(

It was a good one too... Steel is routinely melted via pure friction.

~Bub
Hi. :p

Seriously, welcome! I didn't notice it was your first post.

William Rea

20th October 2006, 08:39 PM

Ok, I'm going to think about this in more detail.

Are you saying that if I drop a golf ball into a sand trap, that not all of the gravitional energy is converted into heat? Some of it is used to do work on the earth?

That would mean, also, I am doing work on the earth, as well as the ball, when I lift the golfball out of the sand, then?

What happens, asymtotically, as I pick up and drop the golfball an infinite number of times to the trajectory of the earth? (Assuming it was traveling in a straight line, and not rotating). I presume it stays relatively straight... but does this mean if I lift the ball, and never drop it, I've deflected the earth's path?

Yes, the deflection of the earth will be infinitessimally small but the laws of conservation of energy and momentum apply depending upon the efficiency of the process. Dropping the ball into the sand would also disperse kinetic energy into the sand (hence a crater forms).

You do work on the ball by lifting it to a higher gravitational potential energy state. The energy for this is derived from chemical energy being converted to kinetic energy in your body. Although the mass of your body is applying a force to the earth you are in equilibrium and you are not changing your energy state relative to the earth therefore you are not doing work on the earth when lifting the ball.

If you lift the ball and never drop it you simply store the gravitational potential energy.

Dropping the ball is an energy conversion process, you do not destroy the energy (other than by losses) simply by dropping it. When the ball reaches reaches the earth's surface after falling all of the potential energy available is converted to kinetic energy.

William Rea

20th October 2006, 08:40 PM

Ok, I'm going to think about this in more detail.

Are you saying that if I drop a golf ball into a sand trap, that not all of the gravitional energy is converted into heat? Some of it is used to do work on the earth?

That would mean, also, I am doing work on the earth, as well as the ball, when I lift the golfball out of the sand, then?

What happens, asymtotically, as I pick up and drop the golfball an infinite number of times to the trajectory of the earth? (Assuming it was traveling in a straight line, and not rotating). I presume it stays relatively straight... but does this mean if I lift the ball, and never drop it, I've deflected the earth's path?

Yes, the deflection of the earth will be infinitessimally small but the laws of conservation of energy and momentum apply depending upon the efficiency of the process. Dropping the ball into the sand would also disperse kinetic energy into the sand (hence a crater forms).

You do work on the ball by lifting it to a higher gravitational potential energy state. The energy for this is derived from chemical energy being converted to kinetic energy in your body. Although the mass of your body is applying a force to the earth you are in equilibrium and you are not changing your energy state relative to the earth therefore you are not doing work on the earth when lifting the ball.

If you lift the ball and never drop it you simply store the gravitational potential energy.

Dropping the ball is an energy conversion process, you do not destroy the energy (other than by losses) simply by dropping it. When the ball reaches the earth's surface after falling, all of the potential energy available is converted to kinetic energy.

Shrinker

21st October 2006, 09:16 AM

Yes, the deflection of the earth will be infinitessimally small but the laws of conservation of energy and momentum apply depending upon the efficiency of the process. Dropping the ball into the sand would also disperse kinetic energy into the sand (hence a crater forms).

You do work on the ball by lifting it to a higher gravitational potential energy state. The energy for this is derived from chemical energy being converted to kinetic energy in your body. Although the mass of your body is applying a force to the earth you are in equilibrium and you are not changing your energy state relative to the earth therefore you are not doing work on the earth when lifting the ball.

If you lift the ball and never drop it you simply store the gravitational potential energy.

Dropping the ball is an energy conversion process, you do not destroy the energy (other than by losses) simply by dropping it. When the ball reaches the earth's surface after falling, all of the potential energy available is converted to kinetic energy.

Wait a minute. When the the structures keeping the WTC and the earth apart failed, the WTC fell to earth, but the earth also fell towards the WTC (a tiny tiny amount). When the two met, both stopped moving. The KE of the earth and the towers was used 100% for destructive work. No?

The idea that an earth-bound object can push the earth is like saying you can power a yacht by installing a fan on the back and blowing it at the sails.

Am willing to be shown wrong...:)

William Rea

22nd October 2006, 01:32 AM

William Rea

22nd October 2006, 02:21 AM

Wait a minute. When the the structures keeping the WTC and the earth apart failed, the WTC fell to earth, but the earth also fell towards the WTC (a tiny tiny amount). When the two met, both stopped moving. The KE of the earth and the towers was used 100% for destructive work. No?

The idea that an earth-bound object can push the earth is like saying you can power a yacht by installing a fan on the back and blowing it at the sails.

Am willing to be shown wrong...:)

On the same level as my point about the Earth moving you are right that as soon as the tower became essentially a free body the graviational force between them would cause attraction and they would move closer by an infinitessimally small amount.

Arguing that the Earth fell towards the tower would I guess come down to the point of reference. Someone standing on the tower could observe that the Earth is falling on him. As I said in the post conventionally the PE would be relative to a reference point on the Earth's surface.

It was the point of my illustration that not all the available KE did destructive work to collapse the tower. Some of it was lost into the Earth itself and some was not in a form useful to do work.

The point is that the tower was not Earth "bound" when it collapsed.

Incidentally, for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you attached a fan to the yacht it would propel it simply because it causes a force, the sail would not be required. In the same way we don't need to put something solid behind a jet engine to make it propel us forward.

gumboot

22nd October 2006, 04:53 AM

I keep hearing that the molten metal at wtc was caused by friction.

I have never heard of this phenomenon and if true would be very interested to see the proof of this.

Proof that friction can cause molten metal? It's in the words themselves:

Friction:

In situations where the surfaces in contact are moving relative to each other, the friction between the two objects converts kinetic energy into heat.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction)

Molten:

In physics, melting is the process of heating a solid substance to a point (called the melting point) where it turns liquid. An object that has melted is molten.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten)

Friction generate heat. Sufficient heat increases a solid's temperature until it reaches melting point and turns into a a liquid.

So yes, friction can produce molten metal.

Someone mentioned this was high school level physics. I beg to differ. This is primary school level science. I'm not sure what it is called in the US. I recall learning about melting and freezing when I was about 5.

-Gumboot

gumboot

22nd October 2006, 05:02 AM

The idea that an earth-bound object can push the earth is like saying you can power a yacht by installing a fan on the back and blowing it at the sails.

That only works if the sail in question happens to be a spinnaker... ;)

-Gumboot

William Rea

22nd October 2006, 12:39 PM

Proof that friction can cause molten metal? It's in the words themselves...Friction generate heat. Sufficient heat increases a solid's temperature until it reaches melting point and turns into a a liquid...Someone mentioned this was high school level physics. I beg to differ. This is primary school level science. I'm not sure what it is called in the US. I recall learning about melting and freezing when I was about 5.

-Gumboot

In fact depending on the composition, most alloys have a liquidus and solidus with zones in between that are mushy.

Materials also have a latent energy requirement to change between states so the melting process would not be a simple linear heat energy to raise the temperature.

It is fact that friction can cause melting but I still remain skeptical that there would be enough "useful" energy available during collapse to cause molten pools of steel.

defaultdotxbe

22nd October 2006, 12:47 PM

It is fact that friction can cause melting but I still remain skeptical that there would be enough "useful" energy available during collapse to cause molten pools of steel.
i dont think there was enough to create pools of molten steel, of course i dont think there were any pools of molten steel either, lol

Gravy

22nd October 2006, 01:01 PM

Incidentally, for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you attached a fan to the yacht it would propel it simply because it causes a force, the sail would not be required.True, but yachts are harder to steer in reverse. :)

alfaniner

22nd October 2006, 02:13 PM

fyi - pdoherty has been banned. That was totally unexpected.

defaultdotxbe

22nd October 2006, 02:52 PM

fyi - pdoherty has been banned. That was totally unexpected.
i understand he created a ne account to get around a 3 day suspension

although i dont know what the suspension was for

gumboot

22nd October 2006, 03:32 PM

It is fact that friction can cause melting but I still remain skeptical that there would be enough "useful" energy available during collapse to cause molten pools of steel.

I would be surprised if anyone here believed friction from the WTC collapse produced pools of molten steel.

-Gumboot

TjW

22nd October 2006, 04:13 PM

I would be surprised if anyone here believed friction from the WTC collapse produced pools of molten steel.

-Gumboot

But it probably could supply enough heat to set fire to pdoherty's strawman.

Shrinker

23rd October 2006, 04:00 AM

On the same level as my point about the Earth moving you are right that as soon as the tower became essentially a free body the graviational force between them would cause attraction and they would move closer by an infinitessimally small amount.

Arguing that the Earth fell towards the tower would I guess come down to the point of reference. Someone standing on the tower could observe that the Earth is falling on him. As I said in the post conventionally the PE would be relative to a reference point on the Earth's surface.

It was the point of my illustration that not all the available KE did destructive work to collapse the tower. Some of it was lost into the Earth itself and some was not in a form useful to do work.

The point is that the tower was not Earth "bound" when it collapsed.

Incidentally, for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you attached a fan to the yacht it would propel it simply because it causes a force, the sail would not be required. In the same way we don't need to put something solid behind a jet engine to make it propel us forward.

Your snooker ball analogy is plain wrong. If I jump up and down enough times during the night will I push the earth closer to the sun? No.

If you fire a canonball up into the air, the recoil will push the earth backwards, yes? When the canon ball comes back down, will the impact push the earth backwards as well? Will you get two pushes for the price of one? If it does, you're well on your way to building a perpetual motion machine. Good luck with that.

Building the WTC pushed the bulk of the planet 'downwards' relative to the earth's centre of gravity. When the WTC fell, the earth came back up again. The centre of gravity of (earth+WTC) never moved at all. All of the PE was used to deform the earth and the towers during the collision.

Anti-sophist

23rd October 2006, 05:46 AM

All of the PE was used to deform the earth and the towers during the collision.

I thought that, as well. This conversation is bringing up memories of my classes on statics and dynamics. Even simple questions involve deep thought.

Brainache

23rd October 2006, 06:06 AM

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish pdoherty a happy birthday. It's a shame he can't be with us to share the occasion. We could have had cake.:duck:

William Rea

23rd October 2006, 12:18 PM

Your snooker ball analogy is plain wrong. If I jump up and down enough times during the night will I push the earth closer to the sun? No.

If you fire a canonball up into the air, the recoil will push the earth backwards, yes? When the canon ball comes back down, will the impact push the earth backwards as well? Will you get two pushes for the price of one? If it does, you're well on your way to building a perpetual motion machine. Good luck with that.

Building the WTC pushed the bulk of the planet 'downwards' relative to the earth's centre of gravity. When the WTC fell, the earth came back up again. The centre of gravity of (earth+WTC) never moved at all. All of the PE was used to deform the earth and the towers during the collision.

My snooker ball analogy is plain right. When 2 free bodies like snooker balls collide energy is transferred.

If you fire a cannonball in the air you change Chemical Energy into Heat Energy and then KE energy. Some of the KE is lost in the recoil the rest is converted into PE as the ball climbs which is then released as KE until the cannonball hits the ground and transfers the remaining KE energy into the Earth. Yes you get two backwards pushes but not for free, the Chemical Energy is finally lost in a form that is not available to do work. It is nowhere near a perpetual motion scenario.

Chemical Energy conversion into KE into PE was used to raise the WTC, it was constructed in equilibrium and not fired into the air (as far as I know) so no reaction due to imbalance in forces was created. as soon as the tower became a free body the PE was released. The centre of gravity of the Earth would have been moved by an infinitessimally small amount by adding the WTC due to the moment change.

Your last sentence is close though.

Shrinker

23rd October 2006, 01:16 PM

My snooker ball analogy is plain right. When 2 free bodies like snooker balls collide energy is transferred.

No it isn't, the WTC didn't come from space. A better analogy would be a newton's cradle, where the earth is four balls and the WTC is the fifth. Imagine a tiny structure keeping the 'earth' and 'wtc' apart. What happens when you take the structure away? Both objects fall towards each other and reach a dead stop. The WTC does not push the earth.

A math problem: a 90kg astronouat in zero gravity has a 10 kg weight at the end of a spring. He is stranded 20m from his space shuttle with a velocity of 0. According to you if he throws the weight away from the shuttle the recoil will push him towars the shuttle. When the spring comes back the impact will push him towards the shuttle. How many throws before he is safely on board the shuttle?

Your last sentence is close though.Likewise.

This is an excercise in pedantry however. You're intial introduction of these concepts was to prove that objects don't break when they hit the earth, which is just silly.

gumboot

23rd October 2006, 08:33 PM

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish pdoherty a happy birthday. It's a shame he can't be with us to share the occasion. We could have had cake.:duck:

Don't be stupid. You can't eat cake over the internet.

Not yet anyway... mwahahahahahahahaha

-Gumboot

defaultdotxbe

23rd October 2006, 08:34 PM

Not yet anyway... mwahahahahahahahaha

-Gumboot
will that be the brighter colored internet with more knobs?

/thread crossover

delphi_ote

23rd October 2006, 10:51 PM

Don't be stupid. You can't eat cake over the internet.

Not yet anyway... mwahahahahahahahaha

-Gumboot
Oh yea?
:bcake:
On this internet, you can have your cake and eat it too!

William Rea

23rd October 2006, 11:31 PM

This is an excercise in pedantry however. You're intial introduction of these concepts was to prove that objects don't break when they hit the earth, which is just silly.

It was? Well that's news to me? I thought we were talking about energy transfer processes which involved making enough heat to cause molten metal. I'm darned interested to have it pointed out to me where I proposed that objects hitting the Earth don't break!

Yeah, lots of people that understand the mechanics of energy conversions are just plain pedantic.

Shrinker

24th October 2006, 01:21 AM

It was? Well that's news to me? I thought we were talking about energy transfer processes which involved making enough heat to cause molten metal. I'm darned interested to have it pointed out to me where I proposed that objects hitting the Earth don't break!

Yeah, lots of people that understand the mechanics of energy conversions are just plain pedantic.

Apologies if I read the thread too quickly, but it seemed to me when reading this post and the posts to which you are responding, that you are trying to downplay the KE of the towers in the final collision with the earth. I asked if you meant that falling objects don't break and you didn't respond. I asked if you could quantify the amount of KE lost to the earth's KE sink and you also didn't respond. I got the impression you wich to imply the KE of the towers played little or not part in the pulverisation, melting, bending etc.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2017165&postcount=132

The (Gravitational) Potential Energy does work on the mass making it fall. The energy conversion is PE to KE and if there are no losses then at all times during the fall KEt = PEo - PEt. The object gains KE by losing its PE.

As the object hits the ground KEt = PEo, KEt does work on the Earth and because it is such a massive object the Earth acts as a Kinetic Energy sink. Literally the earth moves!

Note that PEo is a potential difference in energy level from a reference and gravitational forces act between the centres of objects.

In the case of the collapse...

KEt = PEo - PEt - Collapse Losses

The Collapse Losses would be work done through mechanical deformation of the structure during collapse.

Crazy Chainsaw

24th October 2006, 06:52 AM

I just proved myself wrong, the friction could have created tons of molten steel not with friction against the steel, but by stripping the Aluminum Oxide off the Aluminum and causing it to burn at 2800c in oxygen, Why did I not think of sand blasting Molten Aluminum with drywall and concrete dust before. That is the action that would have occurred in the twin towers, I have to be the stupidest moron on earth not to think of that reaction!
All it took was filling a cheap sand blaster with pulverized Drywall and concrete, and spraying it into molten aluminum.
Wonder what would have happened if some of that material had it building 7 on the lower floors?
It is well documented that friction causes thermite like aluminum Oxidation reactions.