Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[ergo]

[*]Anyone unclear on the definitions of "heat" and "temperature" must remedy his educational shortcomings before any intelligent discussion of NIST's findings is possible.

And...no. Fire doesn't bring down steel-framed structures. Neither do scattered, smoky, invisi-fires. So the whole "heat" vs. "temperature" debate is rather a moot point, isn't it?

 

[cmatrix]

A CD is a gravity collapse.

No. CD involves additional energy sources than just gravity.

 

[ergo]

No. Temperature is not a measurement of kinetic energy. It's more complicated than that.

Nor is it kinetic energy. Or is it?

Edit:

If you have two materials where the average random velocity of the particles, and the average mass of the particles, is the same, they do not necessarily have the same temperature. Diamond and graphite, for instance, same mass, same composition. Same temperature means different energies!

Okay. Thank you.

 

[beachnut]

No. CD involves additional energy sources than just gravity.

The major source of energy in CD is due to gravity. This is why you can't figure out fire collapses, you don't understand physics or reality.

To prove you point you have to present real work, not talk.

 

[R.Mackey]

Temperature is not a measurement of energy at all. Not kinetic, not thermal, not strain, not potential.

It is an intrinsic property. Like mass. Like volume.

Through calibrated experiments, one can measure temperature and infer heat content, but that doesn't mean the two are the same thing in any way.

The mistakes you've made are so horribly glaring, it really should give you some pause.

 

[excaza]

And...no. Fire doesn't bring down steel-framed structures.

Whew, I'm glad you're here to clear that up for everyone. Don't know how we'd survive without your incredulity.

 

[excaza]

Especially when most of your minions have no clue what you're talking about either? Let's be honest here.

I apologize for being overly simplistic.

 

[triforcharity]

And...no. Fire doesn't bring down steel-framed structures. Neither do scattered, smoky, invisi-fires. So the whole "heat" vs. "temperature" debate is rather a moot point, isn't it?

Charleston Fire Department disagrees.

So do the owners of Kader Toy Factory, and the Sight and Sound Theature.

You have been shown to be wrong again.

 

[triforcharity]

No. CD involves additional energy sources than just gravity.

So.....they put rockets on the roof?

 

[ergo]

Temperature is not a measurement of energy at all. Not kinetic, not thermal, not strain, not potential.

Well, there are numerous sources that would disagree with this

No, there are no sources who will disagree with this. Statistical Mechanics is a very mature science with an utterly stable vocabulary.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and that's all there is to it.

ahem.

Microscopically, temperature is the measure of the average energy of motion, called kinetic energy, of particles of matter, whether in solids, liquids, gases, or plasmas.

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

Temperature is a measure of molecular motion

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/whattemp.htm

Temperature is a measure of the average energy of the molecules of a body, whereas heat is a measure of the total amount of thermal energy in a body.

http://www.answers.com/library/Britannica+Concise+Encyclopedia-cid-82602

Temperature is a measure of the average heat or thermal energy of the particles in a substance.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/temperature.html

Temperature is the measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance.

http://www.reachoutmichigan.org/funexperiments/agesubject/lessons/caps/temperature.html

The energy from these vibrations is called kinetic energy.
Temperature quantifies this movement.

http://www.indepthinfo.com/temperature/

Temperature: A measure proportional to the average translational kinetic energy associated with the disordered microscopic motion of atoms and molecules.

http://www.temperatures.com/wit.html

A measurement of the average kinetic energy in a sample (how fast molecules are vibrating).

http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-T/temperature.html

 

[W.D.Clinger]

JC! At the top, the marble has a sum total of GPE. As it drops only some of that GPE is available to be converted to KE. With no resistance, all the _available_ GPE is converted to KE (free fall). Get it now Einstein?

If that's what you meant, then why did you think you were disagreeing with Dave Rogers?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

A ball rolling down a ramp of that same height will have the same kinetic energy at the bottom as the ball dropped straight from the height. The acceleration will not be g. GPE and KE are not linked to FFA.

No, you have to consider the energy required to get the ball rolling down the ramp, which involves the angle of the ramp, and the ball's moment of inertia. While balls of various masses and sizes will roll down the ramp at the same acceleration, and while hollow cylinders will likewise have the same acceleration, in general the acceleration is smaller as moment of inertia is larger. A solid sphere beats a solid cylinder beats a hollow sphere beats a hollow cylinder. It all boils down to ratios of mR².

 

[R.Mackey]

Yup.

New word to look up, for those inclined: Brachistochrone.

There is so much to learn. It's a pity Truthers aren't really interested... All those questions, yet they do almost nothing with them except repeat them over and over again.

 

[ozeco41]

500 posts since I pointed ergo at the cirical issue.

Probably of most relevance here is the fact that it is temperature which weakens steel.

Thanks to R Mackey and W D Clinger for their most recent contributions - respectively clarifying the basic physics and providing a summary of this discussion.

It must be some sort of record for truther stubbornness..

...or something.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Eighty gigs of video (or is it more?), of a crime scene, and not a single image of the south side inferno? Or of the south side at all. Why?

There are plenty of images of the south side inferno. For some reason, you've decided to pretend there aren't, but why should that trouble anyone honest?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and next to no flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire?

If it's a lot of smoke? A very large one, mostly in the middle of the building where it can't be seen. Now, let me think... what did NIST's model describe?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

ROFL Is it a fact or possibility that fire and gravity only brought down WTC 7? If it's a fact you'd have evidence.

We have. We have all the evidence. Everything about the WTC7 collapse points to fire and gravity as being the primary causes of the collapse. The gibbering of incompetents does not constitute contradictory evidence.

Dave

 

[excaza]

No, you have to consider the energy required to get the ball rolling down the ramp, which involves the angle of the ramp, and the ball's moment of inertia. While balls of various masses and sizes will roll down the ramp at the same acceleration, and while hollow cylinders will likewise have the same acceleration, in general the acceleration is smaller as moment of inertia is larger. A solid sphere beats a solid cylinder beats a hollow sphere beats a hollow cylinder. It all boils down to ratios of mR².

It still has the same net kinetic energy...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Explosives and thermitics could easily remove this resisting structure yet you prefer a theory with no supporting evidence whatsoever?

Explosives couldn't remove it without making a very loud bang, and there wasn't one. Thermitics, if they actually worked at all (which they don't), would work by melting the steel, which would weaken it gradually over several seconds, resulting in exactly the same objection to thermitics as you're making to fire. And, of course, all the supporting evidence supports fire.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ever hear of blasting mats?

Yes, they can produce as much as 9dB reduction in sound level. That still leaves the minimum sound level for severing one column above the pain threshold. Sorry; didn't happen.

Dave