Could somebody give me evidence that friction causes molten metal?

pdoherty76 wrote:

I would love to see u produce an example of a builing collapse before or since 911 that has had molten metal involved
Click to expand...

I'd love for you to produce an example of a 110 story building that was hit by a fuel-laden 767, and subesequently collapsed BEFORE 911 that didn't have molten metal involved.
 
Lurker said:
Heh, heh. Of course they didn't mention molten metal. You asked about the relationship between friction and heat and I provided it in the First Law of Thermodynamics. The friction is in the Work term and to conserve energy, energy is generated in the form of heat.

To extrapolate this to friction creating molten metal is simple, right?

That being said, I am not sure friction is the source for any molten metal at ground zero.

Lurker
Click to expand...
i hav phd in teh metal physics and qed n thermo first law

ur post say metal is matter an heat energy r u sure
 
Wow. Just wow. This is amazing.

I remember as a kid I asked my dad why my hands got warm when I rubbed them together on a cold day. He explained to me that friction causes heat. A one-minute explanation of friction and I understood. *

As a kid I bent a paperclip back and forth and noticed it got warm before finally breaking. Yeah, friction again.

When I was six or seven I would bang some rocks together when it got dark and they would flash. They contained quartz and I was seeing a piezoelectric effect, though I didn't know that for a long time. The rocks got warm. I knew it was because of friction.

The point is, a child with an explanation of friction from his dad was able to grasp the relationship between friction and heat. I knew that an object reentering the earth's atmosphere could melt due to friction, whether it was steel, aluminum or titanium.

All of this, and someone with a degree is physics can't grasp the concept? That's some kind of huge gap in education or mental acuity.

Further, pdoherty, your opening post asked about friction melting metal. You were given examples, yet you ignored them, insisting that you were asking about steel. We're not mind readers, and maybe you should be more specific.

And you also seem to be shocked that we would doubt your credentials. Your apparent lack of understanding of the most basic physics, your ignorance of the concept of burden of proof and your atrocious writing style contradict your claims of higher education. Yes, I know about your alleged broken arm, but that doesn't explain bad grammar.

I fully expect for you to reply with nothing more than "ur on ignor3" and I'm sure you won't disappoint. But something tells me that you haven't put anyone on ignore. This is a game to you, and you're so sadly lacking any real attention that you feed off of this, and you need and want it. Since for some reason you can't get positive attention in your life, you'll settle for any kind you can get. Just an educated guess, but I won't be shocked if I'm correct.


* Yes I know it's probably more from increased blood flow than friction, but it does play a role, and hey, I was six.
 
Anti-sophist said:
Most of the energy that was in the tower as gravitional energy left as heat, due to friction.
Click to expand...

No, if we are to believe the official story, then most of the PE was spent accelerating the mass down to the earth. Only that energy that was not used accelerating the mass downwards is available to do other work, such as pulverize concrete, shred steel, heat things up, or vibrate air molecules.

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, if we are to believe the official story, then most of the PE was spent accelerating the mass down to the earth. Only that energy that was not used accelerating the mass downwards is available to do other work, such as pulverize concrete, shred steel, heat things up, or vibrate air molecules.

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

HAve you done the math?

Even assuming the CTer times (9 and 11 seconds) are correct, it leaves something like 20% of the energy available. If you take the NIST times, and actually account for the fact that the rubble pile was 6 stories high (meaning a shorter distance to fall), that percent goes up.

OF course, the math for this requires multiplication and at least one exponent, so I understand if you haven't bothered.
 
FD says...
The point is, a child with an explanation of friction from his dad was able to grasp the relationship between friction and heat. I knew that an object reentering the earth's atmosphere could melt due to friction, whether it was steel, aluminum or titanium.

All of this, and someone with a degree is physics can't grasp the concept? That's some kind of huge gap in education or mental acuity.
Click to expand...

Sure doesn't say much for Manchester U's masters in math program! Maybe he should still have a tutor, cuz he missed a few steps!
Now that is a fact! Welcome to the PD'oh ignore club. It's kinda nice ,pooltables, cheap draught, no CTers!
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, if we are to believe the official story, then most of the PE was spent accelerating the mass down to the earth. Only that energy that was not used accelerating the mass downwards is available to do other work, such as pulverize concrete, shred steel, heat things up, or vibrate air molecules.

Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.
Click to expand...
in answer to boxofrocks1234-
ALL OF THE PE went into bringing the building down. A very large portion was converted to KE (kinetic Energy). Something (like, maybe, the ground?) caused the KE to change to something else.Remember--Energy cannot be destroyed or created-only converted. Eventually, it all ends up as heat energy--the LCD of energy.
 
i currently have 18 people on ignore

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel
 
pdoherty76 said:
i currently have 18 people on ignore

friction produces heat, i would like to see a circumstance where friction produced the 3000 degrees required to melt steel
Click to expand...

Please show where the steel was melted.
Please show that there were no other sources of heat other than friction.
 
Gravy said:
Said the "debunker."

Psst! PD! That's not something to brag about!
Click to expand...


loads of peopple threatened to put me on ignore, as if i cared

i will never truly be a debunker, im kind of agnostic i guess. like charles goyette, the genius who destroyed davin coburns media career in approximately 4 seconds
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Please show where the steel was melted.
Please show that there were no other sources of heat other than friction.
Click to expand...

people reported molten metal

how much heat could there really be? the fires fell 80 floors, have u ever kicked theembers of a bonfire? oops that sounds as bad as ur jenga theory
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Since the "collapse" was so close to free fall time (considering air resistance), only a small percentage was available for this other work.
Click to expand...

Wrong. And where did the kinetic energy go when the debris stopped falling? Hint: friction. _ALL_ of the energy that was used to accelerate things downward was "released" when it was decellerated to rest, at the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom