Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[leftysergeant]

Debunkers always claim that the ASCE and ASME are their supporters but that of course is not true. Virtually none of them have put their name to an official piece of paper supporting the goverment claims. ae911truth,org on the other hand has about 1,300 signed-up degreed/licenced building professionals staking rheir reputations on the fact that the government story is a lie.

Why would they need to form a group called "Engineers Who Are Not Ranting Nutbars?"

 

[Derek Johnson]

pls PM me once it is finished.

Ok, will do.

 

[Derek Johnson]

Don't put it on Oystein to answer that. Not his field of greatest expertise.

Even 2% of a building of that size would still be a staggering amount of metal. We have already told you repeatedly that there would be tons of lead,

Tons of lead in building 7? How many tons of lead in building 7?

brass, copper and aluminum subjected to horrendous heat.

Heat from what, incineration needs oxygen, from the air. When 610 ft becomes 40 ft, I thought air flow gets restricted. Maybe you have a theory?

I know that brass glows red and melts at a pretty low temperature (or it would not be as useful for "brazing." (You do know what "brazing" is, don't you?)

I think I've heard of brazing once or twice, give me a second to search Wiki....

Actually, you screwed that up a bit...there is copper plumbing, and copper in mechanical subsystems. But this copper is "brazed" by what? That's right, tin...with a little silver.

This is, in all likelihood what the fire fighters saw "running down the channels like lava" under building 6. In that enclosed space, if it were possible for steel to remain hot enough to run for more than a few seconds, it would have to be hot enough to have cooked the fire fighters.

Again, wrong. I stand feet, sometime less that one foot away from molten steel when I tap my cupola. My hands and fingers come within several inches of molten steel. Believe me or not, but the air around us is a fairly good insulator with respect to your claim. Sure, the heat radiation is strong, but I haven't been cooked yet, same thing at Nucor steel. Proxy to molten steel won't "cook" you or firefighters. Also, molten brass stinks to high heaven...if they would have been in proxy to this, they would not have been able to breath the noxious fumes. Have you been around molten brass?

I will now allow an actual engineer, if any are so inclined, to tell me just what the hell this blather about Lagrange is supposed to mean. It still looks to me like you are saying that the building could not be broken.

No sir, I am not saying that the building could not be broken. Buildings can be broken, this is very possible. But I am saying that there was redundancy in the column load carrying capacities. This much I can demonstrate without the need for knowing the column built up sections.

And stop with your squaking that Lagrange does not permit anything that happened.

Actually, the talk of dissipative energy is overdue, and this is the point of showing this equation. It allows us to discuss the energy analysis over various time intervals, and how the terms relate to one another. I think this thread is the perfect place for this discussion, don't you?

Real engineers say that it does..

Real engineers like these:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

You think they're wrong,

Actually when I see this,

"...We are, however, withholding 3,370 files.

The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include the remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Sincerely, Catherine S. Fletcher, Freedom of Information Act Officer.”

or this:

"The decision to withhold the data was based on the fact that the capabilities of the WTC 7 collapse initiation and global collapse models are unprecedented, in that they provide validated models that can predict collapse of typical tall buildings. If released, these models would provide a powerful tool to groups and individuals interested in simulating building collapses and devising ways to destroy buildings."

I become a little skeptical, I hope you can forgive me for my skeptical nature.

YOU need to show your complete analysis on paper, with concrete figues .

Ok, I will. Thanks for the suggestion.

Derek

 

[Derek Johnson]

Most of that is engineering stuff and outside my area of greatest expertise. That's not what I'm here for.

The nerds can do that mathy stuff. I, as an arson investigator, am here to tell you that it looks to the educated people here that you are ascribing to Thermite properties that it simply cannot have.

You haven't even come up with a plausible explanation as to how the temperatures in the pile are in the slightest unaccounted for, or how it would support any of you other whacky theories.

USGS aerial photos on 9-16-01 indicating 1340 deg F (712 deg C) is mighty, mighty strange. This makes me skeptical. Fire needs air and fuel, and sustainable, perpetual fire that goes on for 5 days under rubble needs both to, well, sustain. You and I are both trained in fire, how did it breath? We are trained to cover fire to put them out. These fires were covered. 1340 F is hot.

You haven't even come up with a plausible explanation as to how the temperatures that USGS are possible. How is this possible? This isn't a wacky theory, it's just a simple question.

 

[BigAl]

USGS aerial photos on 9-16-01 indicating 1340 deg F (712 deg C) is mighty, mighty strange. This makes me skeptical. Fire needs air and fuel, and sustainable, perpetual fire that goes on for 5 days under rubble needs both to, well, sustain. You and I are both trained in fire, how did it breath? We are trained to cover fire to put them out. These fires were covered. 1340 F is hot.

You haven't even come up with a plausible explanation as to how the temperatures that USGS are possible. How is this possible? This isn't a wacky theory, it's just a simple question.

Fire.

 

[Derek Johnson]

GREAT!! Maybe you can ask those guys the same questions you ask us, then write down their answers, and then PUT IT IN A PAPER!!

What's holding you back??

It's in the works, thanks for the encouragement. In the interim, maybe you or anyone else here could address the questions I raise in #1659 and the points raised in #1400 and #1475?

This calculator will help you.

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/calc_column_structural_steel.cfm

The results of your analysis will be a great benefit for our discussion as well as 3rd party readers. What is holding you back?

 

[Disbelief]

Real engineers like these:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

No, ones that publish a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal. Especially when they believe that a terrible crime has been committed.

 

[beachnut]

It's in the works, thanks for the encouragement. In the interim, maybe you or anyone else here could address the questions I raise in #1659 and the points raised in #1400 and #1475?

This calculator will help you.

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/calc_column_structural_steel.cfm

The results of your analysis will be a great benefit for our discussion as well as 3rd party readers. What is holding you back?

When will you fix or explain your lies in your presentation, your mission from god?

3rd party readers are waiting for your answers to your own moronic smoke screen to avoid explain your idiotic lies, your mission from god, and your failure to post real numbers to the Lagrangian equations. All you do is post the equations in text books, but no numbers, no proof to support your idiotic thermite CD claims

 

[leftysergeant]

Tons of lead in building 7? How many tons of lead in building 7?{/QUOTE]

Not relevant, since there was no flowing metal observed there.

Heat from what, incineration needs oxygen, from the air. When 610 ft becomes 40 ft, I thought air flow gets restricted. Maybe you have a theory?

The pile was full of air courses, being mostly a pile of beams with pockets of Class A fuels trapped between them.

Air came in through the maze of tunnels beneath the site. No mystery here, to an experienced fire fighter or anybody who bothers to read up a bit on ground fires.

Actually, you screwed that up a bit...there is copper plumbing, and copper in mechanical subsystems. But this copper is "brazed" by what? That's right, tin...with a little silver.

The building under which the fire fighters observed flowing molten metal contained hundreds of pound of brass. There was a pistol range with a couple million rounds of small arms ammo in there.

Again, wrong. I stand feet, sometime less that one foot away from molten steel when I tap my cupola. My hands and fingers come within several inches of molten steel. Believe me or not, but the air around us is a fairly good insulator with respect to your claim. Sure, the heat radiation is strong, but I haven't been cooked yet, same thing at Nucor steel. Proxy to molten steel won't "cook" you or firefighters.

A foundry is usually better-ventillated than the basement of an office building to which the power supply has been interupted.

Also, molten brass stinks to high heaven...if they would have been in proxy to this, they would not have been able to breath the noxious fumes. Have you been around molten brass?

Yes, I have done a bit of brazing. It does stinl. Doesn''t matter to a man wearing a Scott Air Pack. Do learn something about fire fighting equipment.

No sir, I am not saying that the building could not be broken. Buildings can be broken, this is very possible. But I am saying that there was redundancy in the column load carrying capacities. This much I can demonstrate without the need for knowing the column built up sections.



Actually, the talk of dissipative energy is overdue, and this is the point of showing this equation. It allows us to discuss the energy analysis over various time intervals, and how the terms relate to one another. I think this thread is the perfect place for this discussion, don't you?

So it was redundant. So were the fires and ballistic impacts of the perimeter columns that hit the building.

Real engineers like these:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

I have cause toi doubt the credentials of some of them. As I recall, last time I looked, they included a blithering idiot who thinks there were nukes in the building. And then there is little Dickie Gage with his cardboardc boxes that are, in some way, supposed to resemble the towers. By extension of his model, verinage don't work.

Coo-coo.

 

[triforcharity]

Real engineers like these:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Landscape engineers!! That is all.

Appeal to authority.

 

[triforcharity]

USGS aerial photos on 9-16-01 indicating 1340 deg F (712 deg C) is mighty, mighty strange. This makes me skeptical. Fire needs air and fuel, and sustainable, perpetual fire that goes on for 5 days under rubble needs both to, well, sustain. You and I are both trained in fire, how did it breath? We are trained to cover fire to put them out. These fires were covered. 1340 F is hot.

You haven't even come up with a plausible explanation as to how the temperatures that USGS are possible. How is this possible? This isn't a wacky theory, it's just a simple question.

Do you understand what the chimney effect is?

Also, do you understand that this pile was ENORMOUS, and had MANY MANY caverns, some so big, you could put a city bus in them? Do you also understand that the subway lines provided a direct line, directly to the bottom of the piles??

Amazing that is. Really.

Your knowledge on fire is about the same as mine on molecular biology. None.

 

[triforcharity]

It's in the works, thanks for the encouragement. In the interim, maybe you or anyone else here could address the questions I raise in #1659 and the points raised in #1400 and #1475?

This calculator will help you.

http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/calc_column_structural_steel.cfm

The results of your analysis will be a great benefit for our discussion as well as 3rd party readers. What is holding you back?

Not my area of study. I do fire, you do fail.

 

[Derek Johnson]

Fire.

Fire needs oxygen, from air.

Where is the air when a 40 foot pile of rubble is squishing the fuel (diesel from the generator tanks would be the dominant fuel...I'd surmise, then we have computers, carpet, books, clothes, coffee cups, pencils, paper, potted plants, tissue, plastics and any other combustible material inside the building)...all of which needed lots and lots of air to sustain conventional incineration. How did this fire get fed the air needed to sustain a 5 days incineration. Why on earth did the firefighters say that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. And guessed that it was 1500 degrees. He pointed out “bright bright reddish orange” steel six weeks later (as shown in the video below at about 2:50).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

If a 40 ft pile of rubble is all of what's left of a 610 foot building, it's going to starve air in less than 5 days. Much less. Wrong? If so, how I am wrong?

How did firefighters say "beams were being pulled up and burst into flames...kind of spooky." What flames? How is that even possible?

Also, if the rubble height is 40 ft, as indicated by aftermath photos, you have roughly .85-.9 ft per floor. Since the concrete decks are 5.5" thick alone, and some some thicker, that is a tight fit for the rest of the 25,700 tons of structural steel and the remainder of the building contents. Wrong?

Again, how did the fire stay get fed and stay fed with air with a compacted rubble heap such as this? Was their forced convection from below? If so, tell me more about this...

 

[Derek Johnson]

Not my area of study. I do fire, you do fail.

It's just plug and chug triforcharity. I'll help you out if you slip, not put you down, just help you work through it.

If we can agree on the column load carrying capacity once we get to the other side, you might be a bit suprised...who knows?

 

[beachnut]

...

Heat from what, incineration needs oxygen, from the air. When 610 ft becomes 40 ft, I thought air flow gets restricted. Maybe you have a theory?
... Derek

Derek, why is god keeping key information from you on fire? When I pray to god for knowledge and understanding, he comes through; bet it is your lies that keep god feeding you false information on 911. Better pray harder, so far all you have is the Jones failed thermite CD delusion.

Anyway, when will you address the many lies in your presentation which implies the BIG lie thermite did in WTC 7. Wow, you don't understand gravity, you claim to be an engineer with structural engineering skills, but you have no clue how to fill in the blank equations you keep presenting as fake evidence you know engineering and can apply the same to the WTC 7 collapse and prove NIST wrong. Wow.

This post, this part of your post on fire, proves you prefer to make up BS than to understand reality.

When will you address the many lies in your presentations posted on the internet?

Reading but unable to defend your slides, your slides of lies... When is your next presentation of woo on 911? Where?

has elvis has left the building... why is 911 truth unable to figure out fire? Have they not burned a ton of leaves? Set fire to structures and been grounded for long periods? Why have they failed to understand explosives? Never blown up the back yard with fertilizer and sugar? Cracked pools with tiny firecrackers? Why is experience limited to the few dumb enough to get this out of the way before puberty? I should have a PhD in experimental physics and chemistry at the age of 11; what happen to 911 truth?

 

[leftysergeant]

Fire needs oxygen, from air.

Where is the air when a 40 foot pile of rubble is squishing the fuel (diesel from the generator tanks would be the dominant fuel...I'd surmise, then we have computers, carpet, books, clothes, coffee cups, pencils, paper, potted plants, tissue, plastics and any other combustible material inside the building)...all of which needed lots and lots of air to sustain conventional incineration. How did this fire get fed the air needed to sustain a 5 days incineration.

Triforcharity and I already explained this to you. See "chimney effect."

Why on earth did the firefighters say that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. And guessed that it was 1500 degrees. He pointed out “bright bright reddish orange” steel six weeks later (as shown in the video below at about 2:50).

There were voids in the pile. These would be very hot and would be fed by air from below. Exhaust gases would need only a narrow space to escape.

If a 40 ft pile of rubble is all of what's left of a 610 foot building, it's going to starve air in less than 5 days. Much less. Wrong? If so, how I am wrong?

A bon fire should not work, if you want to take this to the extreme.

How did firefighters say "beams were being pulled up and burst into flames...kind of spooky." What flames? How is that even possible?

Paint on the steel or plastics that melted onto it, depreived of oxygen but heated by oxygen-stripped exhaust gases, burst into flames when they find oxygen. Nothing remarkable to anyone who has had to dig up a ground fire.

Also, if the rubble height is 40 ft, as indicated by aftermath photos, you have roughly .85-.9 ft per floor. Since the concrete decks are 5.5" thick alone, and some some thicker, that is a tight fit for the rest of the 25,700 tons of structural steel and the remainder of the building contents. Wrong?

Totally. The pile was not homogenous nor laid out in a strict order.

I think your thinking is too linear. Not everything would fall automaticly into a precalculated place. There were pieces of fllors and walls missing, and a;ll manner of office equipment to deflect falling structural elements.

Think "chaos."

Maybe it just challenges your limited understanding too much.

 

[beachnut]

... How did firefighters say "beams were being pulled up and burst into flames...kind of spooky." What flames? How is that even possible? ...

Wow, you keep proving you don't have clue what fire is, or how it works. Why is god keeping you in ignorance? Is it so people can see you don't have clue and can't do simple research? This is real bad! If you know engineering as well as you know fire, it is bad news. From your presentations filled with lies, it appears your engineering knowledge is right up there with fire science.

This is a Stundied - have you "stundied up" so you can make idiotic posts on fire?

Your failed thermite delusion would have finished reacting in minutes; you have no point, you have delusions and present them to people with slides of lies.

My wood fire, is hottest with the least amount of air given to the burn. I can burn wood for over 10 hours, which would burn up in minutes in an open fire. You never had a wood burning stove? Wood has more energy than thermite. oops

 

[triforcharity]

It's just plug and chug triforcharity. I'll help you out if you slip, not put you down, just help you work through it.

If we can agree on the column load carrying capacity once we get to the other side, you might be a bit suprised...who knows?

Sorry, there are engineers for that. I study and teach fire science, which, BTW, is certainly NOT your cup 'O Tea, based on some of your previous posts.

How about that paper? Do you have the abstract done?

 

[Derek Johnson]

I very roughly estimate the amount of steel in WTC7 to be somewhere near 50.000 metric tons, give or take a couple of tenthousand. Agreed? If that is 99$ of all the metals in that building, then we'd have 500 metric tons of other metals. You know, just a ball park number. Copper plumbing, aluminium has plenty of uses, you name it.

That's above twice the actual steel according to Salvinaris' article:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/CSEC/index.html

So at 1% we would have 116 metric tons, the two metals you named are a large fraction of the remaining 1%: Aluminum, then copper.

How much molten metal did the firefighter alledly see? And when did they see it? And where? Can you account for more than a few 100kg on the premises of WTC7? In fact, I am not aware of any firefighter mentioning molten metal specifically at the WTC7 site. Then again, I have not looked into that. It's your claims, you clue me in!

I agree with you here, I don't know where the firefighters were either, nor do I know how much molten whatever they say. But plenty of statements are made here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

There are several first hand witnesses that ID the material as molten steel. That suggests that there were metals other than copper and aluminum in a molten state. Watch the video please.

When I know there are 500 tons of metals that have a melting point far below that of steel, then it doesn't matter how many tens of thousands of tons of steel there are also - the first to melt will be the others! Always!

Agreed?

I agree, and this is why FEMA C is so interesting:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

"2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

See under figure 1-8. Because this suggests that there were conditions that not only melted Al and Cu, but also steel. How is this possible?

It screams "DEREK! FILL ME WITH NUMBERS! SOLVE ME!"

Hah! It is screaming more than that. Pick your time interval, that dissipative term and the F term on the opposite sides have meaning. Is energy conserved or not? This much I need to establish.

Great. I understand that you want the data to check it. I am not here arguing that NIST should keep it locked up. But may I point out that you are very much basing your whole argument on incredulity? You agree 100% that they used an appropriate method, you just don't like the result.

So you must charge incompetence or malfeasance.

No, they picked the right method, the right ENERGY method (FEA), and I tried to explain why this is "right". But not showing me the input to this FEA method is like telling a cop that you're ok to drive and don't need to take the stupid breathalizer test, no matter how much you we swerving and running over trash cans on the sidewalk. Will he believe you. Will real engineers believe NIST without seeing what “WENT INTO THEIR MODEL?”

When a redundant structure (from column loading capacity) plunges to the ground like our eyes all saw, seeing all the

1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model

2. Break element source code

3. ANSYS (FEA) scripts files for the break elements

4. Custom executable ANSYS (FEA) files

5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

6. Connection models

that made up the "energy" fea analysis is important. Otherwise, how can anyone believe the result?

Ah! Now there is a definite claim, at which, I am sure, you arrived at with evidence?! Using a Lagrangian, even? If so, show the work! If not, then I guess your claim is moot.

Actually, I stated why theory won't allow no resistance, and the best analytical approach is FEA, due to the reasons stated in #1712.

But the FEA is still good, isn't it?

Yes, third party FEA. More FEA than NIST alone. Do you agree?

Ok... Like I said, I am not an engineer. What I see there is no mention of "Langrange", no mention of "energy" either. What's that link to do with "the Lagrange energy method"?

I'm trying (in vain) to establish the needed energy for buckling initiation...and then establish the needed energy for dissipation once initiation begins. The Lagrangian equation will point some things out that defy unopposed collapse for 100 feet.

No. Actually, I am mainly here to figure out why you keep inflating this "molten steel" nonsense, and how you propose to wrap that molten steel into a theory of intentional collapse. How you gonna explain molten steel 16 days after the collapse, or even weeks later, with any criminal activity on 9/11.

I'm not interested in criminal activity. That goes into conspiracy theories and beyond. I'm only interested in understanding how those buildings fell like they did. I'm puzzled beyond belief as to why and how these statements were made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

Maybe you could help me since you are interested in the thermite claims.

I know that explosives won't cause molten steel to appear 16 days later. I know that hydraulic devices won't, and I know damned sure that thermite can't do it because it contains so pathetically little energy.

Which type of energy? Be specific.

Eqn. 1: Fe2O3+ 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3+ 181.5 kcal
Eqn. 2: 3Fe3O4+ 8Al → 9Fe + 4Al2O3+ 719.3 kcal

These thermite equations are highly exothermic, and the energy release depends on the amounts and availabilities. Pathetically little energy is unspecific and perhaps an overstatement with respect to your intention to persuade away from a thermitic technology possibly applied.

So, really, all I want to figure out is: Why do you, and the liars over at AE911truth, keep mentioning reports of supposed molten steel?

The liars? Which, all are liars? List the AE911t lies, and list who among the 1317 (or however many) are guilty of your charges of lying.

Hm ok the other day I googled one of you variations of the phrase "Lagrange energy method" and found only this thread, but I see now that this wording does yield results. Never mind.

Arguing on the internet is one thing, and highly conducive to "google searches" alone. Deep study is another thing. If you are truly interested in energy theory, this is a good book if your background has some math beyond high school:

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Variational-Methods-Applied-Mechanics/dp/047117985X

Lagrange made huge contributions to Newton's equations in regards to energy methods for analysis. And the equation I've presented above gives clarity to the dissipative energy that he developed and occurs when columns buckle and steel deforms.

My reading of this thread is: You have not posed your question well enough. What exactly do you want to have explained, and what are the assumptions at the base of your question?

I understand that you need this explained to you, because you are yourself unable to do it? Is that right? Or are you able to do it, have done it, and came up with a different result? Then you should show your work, so the engineers here know what you are talking about.

Thread #1659 has questions I've repeated for a long time. I want these questions answered, and I want a discussion on their answers and how they relate to dissipative energy.

So you are saying it is impossible to explain to you anything in the format of a forum discussion, because it can't be done without software?

Of course not. TFK's statement (and many of his other statements) make it plain to me that he is not an engineer. Hand methods are fine. Numerical methods, computer software, tables, empirical analysis are fine as well. As long as the underlying principles and assumptions are also fine.

We haven't exactly seen you breathe...

LOL, I was metaphorically stating that if TFK is an engineer, I'm a baboon. And I get my baboon kicks from laying banana peels in front of Tarzan.

Oh great! Where's the code, the data, and the results? Going to publish these?

If you think that is a good question, what is your answer?

I've worked through it, and yet I'm looking for others who are so convinced that the NIST results are acurate to run through this buckling analysis. How can you be so certain if you don't know how redundant the column load capacity is?

Again, TFK appears to be posing as an engineer. If he really is, he has hitherto made a litany of statements that defies engineering practice, thought, knowledge, culture, methodology, testing and analysis. Real data comes from testing real physical evidence. Claiming that no evidence physical evidence is necessary all while not minding NIST withholding

1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model

2. Break element source code (FEA)

3. ANSYS (FEA) scripts files for the break elements

4. Custom executable ANSYS (FEA) files

5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

6. Connection models (FEA)

And supporting the result is suspect. Engineers do not practice this way. And buying of wholesale on NIST's statements, with respect to what I just said, puts TFK's so called "engineering education and experience" in a very suspect light.

Hmmm I have read both of y'all's posts here, and tfk's, franky, seemed to be a lot better structured, reasoned, and straighter to the point. He's gone out of his way to actually answer a few questions, even though those were merely "gotchas" in an (admitted by you) set-up.
So far tfk has come across to me as an experienced engineer, and you have come across as an arrogant punk.

Maybe I come across as an arrogant punk, that's fine. I'm sorry, but still, the points raised in #1400 and #1475 still stand. The questions raised in #1659 are not challenging, especially for engineers. The answers to the questions are the challenging part. That’s the gotchya. Anyone can already recognize that I am leading to a point in which I will show you, using accepted methods, that the columns were able to handle their gravity loads…and then some. And then a lot. If this forum truly wants a skeptic and lively debate…#1659 is a good starting point. #1400 and #1475 are good points that we need to discuss as well, agreed?

I can't competently judge the deeper engineering points made by either of you, as I am not an engineer and haven't looked very deep into these things.

However I CAN judge the issue of "molten steel", and I find that you treat that issue, too, like an undereducated, arrogant young punk would. That behaviour does not help my perception of your engineering skills much.

Ok, but keep in mind that this undereducated punk has worked in a steel (Jewett, TX) and aluminum foundry (Ft. Worth, TX). And this undereducated laborer somehow managed his way through a BS in Mech Engineering, somehow. This same undereducated punk melts scrap steel in a half zero size (9 inches diameter) cupola furnace for parts. This undereducated punk has also asked easy questions in #1659 and raised a slew of points in #1400 and #1475 that remain unanswered or grossly underanswered and remain largely unchallenged. But don't let facts, logic or science get in your way Oystein.

 

[Derek Johnson]

Wow, you keep proving you don't have clue what fire is, or how it works. Why is god keeping you in ignorance? Is it so people can see you don't have clue and can't do simple research? This is real bad! If you know engineering as well as you know fire, it is bad news. From your presentations filled with lies, it appears your engineering knowledge is right up there with fire science.

This is a Stundied - have you "stundied up" so you can make idiotic posts on fire?

Your failed thermite delusion would have finished reacting in minutes; you have no point, you have delusions and present them to people with slides of lies.

My wood fire, is hottest with the least amount of air given to the burn. I can burn wood for over 10 hours, which would burn up in minutes in an open fire. You never had a wood burning stove? Wood has more energy than thermite. oops

I appreciate your polite discourse beachnut, I'd also appreciate your answers to #1659. How is that working out for you, any progress yet? Need help? Also, are you able to challenge the charges in #1400 or #1475? A twoofie-slayer like you should have no problem with answering #1659 and knocking down #1400 and #1475, right?

We wouldn't want 3rd parties reading this thread to think any less of the twoof-slayers, would we?

To your point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=player_embedded

Watch it all, but see at about 2:30.

You stated:

"Wood has more energy than thermite"

This is not true in terms of thermal energy (heat release) and energy concentration once a reaction is occuring. You needs lots of dry oak and pure oxygen to prove your point, good luck with that one. You can compete with thermite with hydrocarbons, namely wood, but the framing to make this happen would be a chore. Also the reation mechanism is very different in thermite, no oxidation occurs as in conventional incineration.

C6H12O6 + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O or
4C6H11O5 + 25O2 -> 24CO2 + 22H2O for wood (there is a bit more to it than this: the ash will have unreacted lignins, tannins etc and likely small traces of hemicellulose and cellulose)

vs

Fe2O3+ 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3+ 181.5 kcal or
3Fe3O4+ 8Al → 9Fe + 4Al2O3+ 719.3 kcal for thermite

To melt steel in a cupola (smelter) you would need extremely dry wood, high density like white oak, and probably pure oxygen supplimented through your tuyeres. This will probably only render a very short campaign, as the stack gasses will spend the wood charges and halt the campaign prematurely if your lignins and tannins wouldn't clog the stack first. This is one reason why charcoal works and petro coke is greatly preferred over charcoal. If your goal is to measure energy in terms of thermal release for a steel melting application, the best wood is very difficult in the situation I've framed (and one I know well), the worst thermite does this effortlessly...

Don't let facts disturb your 19 hijacker fantasy though. And don't let your 19 hijacker fantasy disturb your mission of answering #1659 and knocking down #1400 and #1475. You will answer these questions some day, correct?