Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

Christopher7 said:
No. Sorry you are not bright enough to see that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is not me who does not know what eutectic means and how this debunks your claims about high temps needed that only thermnite can supply. You shot yourself in the foot.

Keep reading. :D

BTW:
This quote from an official report clearly states that there was molten iron:
"[FONT=&quot]Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high[/FONT][FONT=&quot] heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]Figure 21 [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]and Figure 22show a spherical iron particle resulting from the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]melting of iron (or steel)[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]R. J. Lee Group [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pg 17 [pdf pg 21][/FONT] [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

That is not an answer. Try again

Please answer why there were only a few pieces showing this effect? It is not a subject shift it is a valid question. The steel was examined by forensic investigators, demo team members and public offials. Why is there a scarcity of pieces like this?
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong. A bellows is used to force more oxygen thru the fuel to increase the temp.
More oxygen = hotter fire
Less oxygen = fire not as hot
Click to expand...

Wrong. The bellows increases the rate of combustion, and hence the heat supply to the coals. More oxygen = more heat supply = higher equilibrium temperature in the surrounding material at which heat loss balances heat supply. Less oxygen = less heat supply = lower equilibrium temperature. This is in conditions where the dependence of heat loss on temperature is constant. In a better insulated fire, the temperature will be higher for the same rate of combustion.

You're deliberately ignoring one side of the equation.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong. A bellows is used to force more oxygen thru the fuel to increase the temp.
More oxygen = hotter fire
Less oxygen = fire not as hot

Insulation cannot increase the temperature above what the fire is burning at.
Click to expand...

The temperature of the flame is not what matters so much.

What matters is the equilibrium between heat generation and heat loss. As you have been told at least 10 times now, maybe 15 times.

A bellows increases heat production, so yes, all other things being equal, more oxygen will likely increase ambient temperature.
More insulation will decrease heat loss, so here too, and all other things being equal, insulation will result in higher ambient temperature.

Suppose you are in your room in winter. You got your heating running at full power, and the windows wide open. Some equilibrium temperature will result. Say, 18°C
Now turn the heater down to low (less heat production), and close the window (less heat loss) - will the temperature rise or fall?
If oyu are smart, you will say: We can't know, as we would have to guess which effect is bigger.
Samer with fire in open erect buildung vs. fire in collapsed building.
You just don't know.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Wrong. The bellows increases the rate of combustion, and hence the heat supply to the coals. More oxygen = more heat supply = higher equilibrium temperature in the surrounding material at which heat loss balances heat supply. Less oxygen = less heat supply = lower equilibrium temperature. This is in conditions where the dependence of heat loss on temperature is constant. In a better insulated fire, the temperature will be higher for the same rate of combustion.
Click to expand...
Jibberish. :boggled:

In a foundry or a blacksmiths forge, air is forced thru the fuel to increase the temperature. Neither depends on insulation. More oxygen = hotter fire and vice versa.
 
Christopher7 said:
Oystein said:
The fuel supply cannot reach those temperatures in the debris pile due to the limited oxygen...
Click to expand...

And a little earlier you said temperatures could not get higher because of limited fuel.

You still fail to understand what limits heat production in a fire. It is either fuel supply or oxygen supply, not both.

You can't have it both ways!



To help your thinking along a bit: In a collapsed building, fuel is more concentrated that in a standing building. So I guess fuel supply really is not limiting the heat produced.
Click to expand...
 
Christopher7 said:
Jibberish. :boggled:

In a foundry or a blacksmiths forge, air is forced thru the fuel to increase the temperature. Neither depends on insulation. More oxygen = hotter fire and vice versa.
Click to expand...

That is correct, but you keep forgetting, ignoring or willfully handwaving what you have been told many many times:

More insulation = hotter fire and vice versa, too!
 
Oystein said:
The temperature of the flame is not what matters so much.

What matters is the equilibrium between heat generation and heat loss. As you have been told at least 10 times now, maybe 15 times.
Click to expand...
And I have reminded you each time that insulation can only maintain the heat. It cannot make the fire burn hotter, only more oxygen can do that. Fire is essentially the oxidation of fuel. The more oxygen the faster the process can occur.
 
At the end of the day all the scientists and engineers in the world with relevent qualifications don't think Thermite or Thermate was involved and agree with the NIST findings.

It's like the Moonhoax. Only lone nuts on the internet or sicentists and engineers working outside of their field of speciality or experience think there is something wrong with the official versions.

Why is that?
 
Christopher7 said:
And I have reminded you each time that insulation can only maintain the heat. It cannot make the fire burn hotter, only more oxygen can do that. Fire is essentially the oxidation of fuel. The more oxygen the faster the process can occur.
Click to expand...

Chris, do you know what "equilibrium " means?

Combustion temperature is a equilibrium between heat generated and heat lost by conduction, radiation and convection.

A "well ventilated" fire loses lots of heat via convection, if nothing else.

A fire that is oxygen-limited may be very hot if it is well insulated and losing little heat to conduction, radiation and convection.

If you think I'm wrong, ask any fireman.
 
Christopher7 said:
Jibberish. :boggled:

In a foundry or a blacksmiths forge, air is forced thru the fuel to increase the temperature. Neither depends on insulation. More oxygen = hotter fire and vice versa.
Click to expand...

No insulation, no hot fire.

Ask any fireman.
 
Christopher7 said:
Jibberish. :boggled:
Click to expand...

No, thermodynamics. You need to learn to tell the difference.

Christopher7 said:
In a foundry or a blacksmiths forge, air is forced thru the fuel to increase the temperature. Neither depends on insulation. More oxygen = hotter fire and vice versa.
Click to expand...

I feel like I'm talking to a ten-year-old. So maybe I should try explaining this at ten-year-old level.

In a foundry or blacksmith's forge, the insulation is always the same, so there's no need to consider the dependence on insulation. However, you're comapring an open office fire to a rubble pile fore, where the insulation is very different, so you do need to consider its effect. Got that? If something isn't changing, you don't need to allow for it; if it is changing, you do need to allow for it. Now, we know that more oxygen = hotter fire, less oxygen = cooler fire. We also know that more insulation = hotter fire, less insulation = cooler fire. So what happens if you've got less oxygen and more insulation? One makes the fire hotter, the other makes it cooler. What's the answer?

The answer is, we need to know how much one makes it cooler, and how much the other one makes it hotter. If one makes it cooler by more than the amount the other one makes it hotter, overall it gets cooler. If one makes it cooler by less than the amount the other one makes it hotter, it gets hotter. But unless we know how much one makes it cooler, and how much the other one makes it hotter, we don't know whether it gets hotter or cooler overall.

In my experience, most intelligent ten-year-olds will understand that well enough. Chris, do you still think that a well-insulated smouldering fire must be cooler than a poorly-insulated fast-burning fire, even though you don't know how fast either is burning or how well either is insulated? If so, you're not as bright as a ten-year-old, and if not, you probably realise by now that you don't have a coherent argument.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
And I have reminded you each time that insulation can only maintain the heat. It cannot make the fire burn hotter, only more oxygen can do that. Fire is essentially the oxidation of fuel. The more oxygen the faster the process can occur.
Click to expand...

As fire burns, the potential energy of chemical bonds is released to the surrounding system. As long as that energy is not carried away at an equal or faster rate, temperature will rise. This is independent of what you conceive as "burning hot". The temperature of a flame is not some fixed property that is only dependent on fuel and oxygen. You seem to think so, but you keep on being flat wrong on that. The temperature of a flame is, as any temperature, the result of an equilibrium between positive and negative heat transfer - between heat production and heat loss, and thus also dependent on insultating factors.
 
Christopher7 said:
And I have reminded you each time that insulation can only maintain the heat. It cannot make the fire burn hotter, only more oxygen can do that. Fire is essentially the oxidation of fuel. The more oxygen the faster the process can occur.
Click to expand...

Insultation can maintain heat even in the absence of heat input.
If you light a fire in a hypothetical perfectly insulated room, temperature will rise and rise and rise and rise, theoretically forever, until it reaches kazillions of degrees, even if you only burn one little chip of paper once a minute with tiny amounts of oxygen.
The limiting factor in this scenario is neither fuel nor oxygen supply, it's the insulation, which naturally cannot be perfect.

You keep ignoring insulation, and you don't understand what heat is, and you don't understand how temperatures generally come into being, particularly in fires.

Since you don't understand an every-day phenomenon like fire, heat and the role of insulation, how can we expect that you understand scientific papers or the properties of steel in various hot environments?



Your stubborn, childish insistence that only the heat of the flame matters, shows that you are incapable of learning and understanding. Which renders a discussion with you rather pointless.
 
Exactly. Why does an oven work? Why does a smithy use an oven?

It amazes me that this argument over insulation and firr heat/temp is still ongoing.

TAM:)
 
funk de fino said:
Euetectic debunks your claim. Sorry you are not bright enough to see that.

Please answer why there were only a few pieces showing this effect? It is not a subject shift it is a valid question. The steel was examined by forensic investigators, demo team members and public offials. Why is there a scarcity of pieces like this?
Click to expand...

more than just a few:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

notice he said steel members...thats more than one.

then another:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

and another:
Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin."

and of coarse the fema samples.
 
Senenmut said:
more than just a few:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

notice he said steel members...thats more than one.
Click to expand...

You're arguing a strawman. FdF said that the eroded samples were scarce, not that there was only a single one. It's clear that there was more than one, but it also appears that there were relatively few compared to the total amount of steel in the pile. Nothing you've posted disagrees with this.

And incidentally, I thought the samples Astaneh-Asl reported on were the same samples as the ones FEMA collected. I think you may be double-counting them.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom