You'd need another 400°C plus to see that and those temperatures are just too high. The inner part of the steel would see much higher temperatures and therefore would destroy the microstructures observed. We would see far more dissolution of the pearlite bands.
even if it was hot and fast? in some places, sample 1 from the bpat report (wtc7), 95% of the steel is gone. if the steel is hit hot (with thermxte and then cools fast, we might just be seeing the cool down period of that steel. the eutectic is cooling down and most of the "large grain pullout of material due to a liquid intergranular attack" has subsided.
remember the "preliminary laboratory simulation results" from your link, they went up to 1100C for 12 hrs and the steel was "similar" to wtc7. thats 150C more than the 950 C they said the wtc 7 steel reached. so how high can ya go and it look similar......
Define "a little" and "a lot". You can roughly measure the amount of liquid seen using the scale in the photo-micrographs.
i remember awhile back you stated it only took alittle. from what ive read concerning erin sullivans "a metallurgical examination and sim" she stated:
"In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants."
and ive also been thinking about that "eutectic".
from an article by Jerry Lobdill:
"For our purposes we consider Fe-S mixtures that contain 31.4% by weight sulfur (the point x in Figure 1) or less. At 31.4% sulfur and 994 C6 the system is at the eutectic point; i.e., the lowest temperature at which liquid can exist in a mixture of S and Fe."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf
that must be a hell of alot of sulfur gas when it comes to a concentration like that!! plus when the iron oxide is being dissolved via the liquid slag, one would need
more sulfur to keep the FeO curve from moving to the left which would mean needing a higher temp.
im aware of the FeO and FeS curve that brings the temp down to 940C but like i stated before, the experiment they ran was at 1100C and it produced "similar" results to the wtc 7 steel. of coarse they dont tell us how little metal they got to dissolve with that experiment either.
The copper strike used in the plating of nickel is the "external" source which is the reason why I mentioned it. That's self evident - see fig 10 in the report and pages 46 and 47 of Vander Voort's WTC talk slides.
please provide link again. i went through the whole slide show and didnt see any talk of the copper strike?
No, that's not how science is done. There is a valid reason why the FeS powder was used which has been explained to you. The FeS-FeO eutectic (as well as internal sulphidation and oxidation) was formed in the experiment - see page 9 of the report.
thats funny, even prof sisson wanted to do a study:
"From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is:
Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that,
we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment."
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
What experiment are you asking for?
to burn office material and see if a eutectic will form to attackt the steel as seen in the pieces from wtc 1 or 2 and 7. do you really think they were digging out steel deep in the pile only 8 days after the event. in all likely hood, that steel prof astaneh-asl saw that was missing 15.9mm was one top of the pile!!
So why do you not think that his conclusions, along with the other authors, are correct?
the rate of corrosion is way too fast. we know after 8 days 15.9mm disappeared. we know that after just 8-18 days that one inch turned to razor thin. like c7 stated, it takes yrs for this to occur.
), the greater his satisfaction in digging the hole.
Try Bitburger!
