Merged Molten metal observations

[W.D.Clinger]

another fail swoop from Java Man

Let's recap:

1. First you ignored specific heat and the distinction between moles and kilograms.
2. Then you ignored the difference in units between specific heat and heat of fusion so you could claim that the latter is "540 times larger".
3. Then, after I had again pointed out that the specific heat requires as much energy as the heat of fusion even under your own impossible assumptions, you quote a passage in which NIST makes the same point I had made and pretend that salvages your argument.

Oh really? Then show us the correct calculations.

I did. In the post you quoted above, I quoted Sunstealer's post, which summarizes and links to a truther paper that's mostly garbage but does happen to include the correct calculations in its appendix and in the graph on page 8.

Your factor of 540 was off by more than two orders of magnitude.

 

[Java Man]

Your factor of 540 was off by more than two orders of magnitude.

So you're implying that the window area was not above 25º C?

 

[beachnut]

Simply put, to ask that question you have to admit that Harrit's thermitic material was found. Do you accept that?

Harrit is a paranoid conspiracy theorist, he made up the paper, had to publish it in a "fake" journal, vanity journal, and Jones who had the delusion first helped him. They found coatings from the WTC disaster and burned them in air, and found they did not have thermite because they burned at different temperatures. You will not understand the paper based on your failure to get the chemistry right on a simple thermite reaction. You believe whatever you want to, and you prefer lies from Jones and Harrit.

Jet fuel has 10 times more heat energy than thermite; you conspiracy theorists need to research before making up delusions.

If you want heat you bring Jet Fuel to your fire, not thermite. Notice when Jones and Harrit burned their "chips" of fake thermite, It did not match thermite. Even wood beats thermite for heat, a big reason we use wood for heat instead of thermite. We would not use thermite in our cars, gasoline and jet fuel have more energy, 10 times more.
You have no idea how to do the chemistry, you make it up as you go.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Also any reasonably sized company these days has three or four servers per office, all with UPS (If they've got any sense). Multiply that by the number of companies housed in a building that size. That's a lot of sulphuric acid lying around waiting to be liberated from it's plastic containers.





And on next weeks show. How to bring down an office building with thermostats, thermocouples, and burning thermal underwear...

Destruction by upsy daisy. Bookem.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Your factor of 540 was off by more than two orders of magnitude.

So you're implying that the window area was not above 25º C?

So you've forgotten what you were pretending your factor of 540 was about?

 

[beachnut]

So you're implying that the window area was not above 25º C?

He is saying you can't do math and chemistry. You posted this nonsense, it means you have no clue what you are doing as you google your way to exposing your lack of knowledge on the subject.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5306/1621.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6S-3WDC4CB-9&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1996&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1726876783&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a79ff03b520df13d26d667d87a86c021&searchtype=a

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S

what was this again? This single post indicates you have no idea what you are talking about, you posted junk after you googled it up.

Thermite leaves products behind, products not found in the WTC.

 

[Animal]

Java, their basic premise that fires, jet fuel/kerosene or office could be hot enough and of one location long enough weaken huge steel beams that would immediately conduct/disperse the heat throughout the entire length of itself(the beam) is insane.

Their subsequent premise that damage, weakening of steel beams, to a very limited area of the buildings could cause a building destroy itself by global collapse is even more insane. More insane because they have been grandiosely dubbed as gravity collapses which had heretofore been the domain of collapsed stars and the birth of the universe.

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



I thought I'd show everyone how hot a flame must be to cut steel. White/blue hot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM0Q-SpPsGg

So simple to prove a troofer wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

Note the wood campfire, note the few men it took and the easy it took, note the men holding it with bare hands.

Feel free to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[beachnut]

Java, their basic premise that fires, jet fuel/kerosene or office could be hot enough and of one location long enough weaken huge steel beams that would immediately conduct/disperse the heat throughout the entire length of itself(the beam) is insane. ...

You have no idea what holds the core to the perimeter. It is not huge steel beams. And you have no knowledge of the properties of steel. Pleaese feel free to back your opinion with some science.

Here is a huge steel beam.

See the beams (trusses) below the floor? Is that a huge steel beam? You need to get your story straight before making up false claims, and nonsense. Better study steel, it could take years, but you will google 911 truth lies and come back with more insane claims based on your own lack of knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfK7SDWbOLw

http://www.bollyn.com/public/WTC_Floor_pan_and_truss.JPG
A photo hosted by a bigot 911 truther. Extra credit stupid web site. Bollyn blames 911 on Jews, he is a typical truther, zero evidence. Does Bollyn hate Jews as much as you do with your Holocaust denial junk? Why do you Holocaust deniers jump on the insane claims of 911 truth wagon?

 

[Java Man]

So you've forgotten what you were pretending your factor of 540 was about?

No I'm not. I clearly said the amount of energy required for heat of fusion per gram is 540 times what is needed to raise one gram one degree. And it is backed up by the document you bring forward. The document has a more precise value table as the temperature raises.

For example at 50º cp = 0.1109 cal/deg/g

Heat of fusion is : 59.0988cal/g

59.0988/0.1109=532.90

At 700º cp = 0.1851 cal/deg/g

59.0988/0.1851=319.28

Clearly it is not a constant, but still a small value when compared to the energy required to melt the gram of iron.

All your other ranting is a sad attempt at misinterpreting my comment in a way that benefits your argument. Sad sad sad.

If you look at the table you put forward. Raising the metal from 600º or 700º to 1000º is about the same energy as the heat of fustion. Aprox some 50-70 cal/g

 

[Oystein]

He is saying you can't do math and chemistry. ...

You forgot physics

 

[Oystein]

Quick reminder to Java Man: You are now dodging TWO questions. Too inconvenient?
Allow me to repost:

Oh yes it does. To challenge the presence of sulfur with that point would be acceptance of thermite in the area. The whole discussion would be over before it even started and you would thus be supporting the existence of a conspiracy to bring down the towers.

You are saddling that horse from the wrong side. You try to argue thermate, and must thus present any and all evidence for it. That would include the alleged findings of Harrit's teams. You must have an assessment on that.
Besides, I already gave you my answer: I do not accept that Harrit found thermite.
So, what is your answer to that question: Do you accept that Harrit found thermite?



You are still dodging the following - will you answer this eventually:

A thermate charge, especially a NANO-thermate charge, would burn off in seconds, or less. Would that be sufficient time for the sulfur to diffuse intergranuarly and cause the kind of slow corrosion that was seen?

 

[Java Man]

A thermate charge, especially a NANO-thermate charge, would burn off in seconds, or less. Would that be sufficient time for the sulfur to diffuse intergranuarly and cause the kind of slow corrosion that was seen?

Well considering the fact that sulfur drops the melting point of iron as it mixes with it I'd say it does. Maybe you missed that part, but for most of us the answer to your question is pretty evident. That's why they add sulfur in the first place. A bit pointless to add something that would then not have enough time to react.

 

[beachnut]

Let's try it with the Fe one, given you're so interested

Fe2O3(s) + 2Al(s) has ΔH = -851.5 kJ/mol

....

How many grams of thermite are in that mol?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No I'm not. I clearly said the amount of energy required for heat of fusion per gram is 540 times what is needed to raise one gram one degree.

No, you clearly neglected to say the "raise one gram one degree" part when you stated the factor of 540. Here's exactly what you said:

The specific heat of iron is:

0.46 (kJ/kg K)

The fusion heat is

247.29 kJ/kg

That's about 540 times larger.

Because I didn't fall for your miscalculations/misrepresentations, you're now accusing me of the crimes you've committed:

All your other ranting is a sad attempt at misinterpreting my comment in a way that benefits your argument. Sad sad sad.

If you look at the table you put forward. Raising the metal from 600º or 700º to 1000º is about the same energy as the heat of fustion.

So here's your story:

1. First you ignored specific heat and the distinction between moles and kilograms.
2. Then you ignored the difference in units between specific heat and heat of fusion so you could claim that the latter is "540 times larger".
3. Then, after I had again pointed out that the specific heat requires as much energy as the heat of fusion even under your own impossible assumptions, you quoted a passage in which NIST made the same point I had made and pretended the agreement between NIST and myself involved some kind of contradiction.
4. You then demanded I replace your miscalculations with the correct calculation.
5. When I pointed out that I had already done so (by quoting Sunstealer) and noted that your factor of 540 was off by more than two orders of magnitude, you pretended I had been talking about something else.
6. In your most recent post, quoted above, you have finally agreed that the energy required to raise the temperature to the melting point is comparable to the energy for the heat of fusion, instead of the "540 times larger" you had originally claimed.^*

You were off by more than two orders of magnitude.

You're "sad sad sad" to have been caught out.

[size=-2]^*They're comparable under Java Man's ridiculous assumptions that sweep another factor of about 4 under the rug. That factor of 4 includes a factor of 2 from Java Man's assumption that the structural steel was already at a temperature that would have weakened it to a point well beyond collapse before the thermite is even ignited, and includes another factor of 2 from neglecting the specific heat of the necessary quantity of thermite itself and its reaction products.[/size]

 

[Oystein]

Well considering the fact that sulfur drops the melting point of iron as it mixes with it I'd say it does.

The reason for your answer makes no sense. I asked: Are the few seconds during which thermate burns long enough for the sulfur to diffuse into the steel and cause the intergranular melting and corrosion that Barnett, Biedermann and Sisson described? You are assuming the consequent in that reply. A logical fallacy, as you hopefully realize.

Maybe you missed that part, but for most of us the answer to your question is pretty evident.

"is pretty evident for most of us" often means "I can explain it, really, but you can believe me".

That's why they add sulfur in the first place. A bit pointless to add something that would then not have enough time to react.

Do they? Hm. Do you have a source that supports your claim? Consulting the Wikipedia stubb...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
...I learn that sulfur (and barium) "increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature^{[citation needed]}". No talk of lowering the melting point.
In fact, I read somewhere that it is far from clear that tge sulfur in thermate would lower the melting point of the steel it attacks precisely because of the reason behind my question: It would not mix with the steel before the steel melts, and thus not form a eutectic.

So please provide a citation to support your assertion that they put sulfur in thermite to create a eutectic!



And do not dodge the other question:

Do you accept that Harrit found thermite?

 

[Java Man]

No, you clearly neglected to say the "raise one gram one degree" part when you stated the factor of 540. Here's exactly what you said:



Because I didn't fall for your miscalculations/misrepresentations, you're now accusing me of the crimes you've committed:

So here's your story:

1. First you ignored specific heat and the distinction between moles and kilograms.
2. Then you ignored the difference in units between specific heat and heat of fusion so you could claim that the latter is "540 times larger".
3. Then, after I had again pointed out that the specific heat requires as much energy as the heat of fusion even under your own impossible assumptions, you quoted a passage in which NIST made the same point I had made and pretended the agreement between NIST and myself involved some kind of contradiction.
4. You then demanded I replace your miscalculations with the correct calculation.
5. When I pointed out that I had already done so (by quoting Sunstealer) and noted that your factor of 540 was off by more than two orders of magnitude, you pretended I had been talking about something else.
6. In your most recent post, quoted above, you have finally agreed that the energy required to raise the temperature to the melting point is comparable to the heat of fusion, instead of the "540 times larger" you had originally claimed.^*

You were off by more than two orders of magnitude.

You're "sad sad sad" to have been caught out.

LOL you're too funny. I did the same calculation on two units (kJ and calories) and came to the same relationship.

Why don't you address the relevant point here. What is the temperature of the metal there. Because a great deal many people here have claimed that to be molten aluminium or copper or lead or what not. That is incandescent and thus at a high temperature (700º+, some even claim 900º+).

That's the real issue here. If you bring a document that starts off at 25º and throw that at me you're basically saying the area was at room temperature and not blazing hot. Definitely not the "steel weakening" heat mentioned by NIST.

Now you can rant again about me being wrong. And I'll buy it for a moment if you address the issue I mention. Because regardless of me being right or wrong that table on that document you brought and you copied from Sunstealer is right. As claimed by you. As stated by you to be your "version" of the numbers. If you want to make a point about the specific heat of the iron you have to counter the standard position your camp holds about the internals of the fire and the heat it produced.

The only way specific heat can be an issue. A great issue as you're portraying it. Is to have a large temperature difference. In other words admit that the fire was not as hot as commonly claimed. Then yes, many hundreds of degrees difference do add up. But if not. If the fires raged uncontrolled as you say. If they melted aluminum and lead and made it red hot and also terribly weakened the structure and reached into the 1000º degree range as NIST claims.

But if you're not ready to admit that there was a huge temperature difference. Then the amount of degrees between the fire heated structure and the melting point of steel with the added assistance of sulfur is minimal. Specific heat becomes insignificant because you don't need to raise the temperature 1500º. You can not have it both ways. You either stick with your all time theory and commit to it and forfeit specific heat and the 273.3215cal/g. Or you forfeit your all time theory and your support for the NIST report. It's your choice. What's it going to be?

 

[Java Man]

...I learn that sulfur (and barium) "increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature^{[citation needed]}".

If you took the time to fill in the "citation needed"
>>> http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744

You'd see barium is the one that reduces ignition temperature, as mentioned on the patent.

 

[Java Man]

And do not dodge the other question:

Do you accept that Harrit found thermite?

I'll go with what you say. You want to admit presence of thermite?

 

[Oystein]

If you took the time to fill in the "citation needed"
>>> http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744

You'd see barium is the one that reduces ignition temperature, as mentioned on the patent.

We aren't discussing barium here. We are discussing sulfur. So you still need to support your assertion that sulfur from thermate would create a eutectic.


[edited to reflect subsequent new post by JM]

I'll go with what you say. You want to admit presence of thermite?

You are not going to get away with that kind of dodge. We are discussing your theory of thermate here. So it doesn't matter what I accept. Besides, I already DID answer that question. YOUR TURN NOW:
Do you accept that Harrit found thermite?

 

[dafydd]

You forgot physics

Be fair,he never learned any.