-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Hilarious Steven Jones article
- Thread starter papasmurf
- Start date
Really a useless question cause he will go on about nano-thermite and how it can be used as a shaped charge and then he will show some "thermite gun" that was patented in 2006 as proof that they were around in 2001.
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
Bump for papasmurf. Anyone willing to bet that papasmurf will ignore or hand-wave this question?
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
Papasmurf, allow me to introduce you to the concept of heat release rate, or HRR.
HRR is generally measured in megawatts.
If we burn 3,000 gallons of jet fuel in 10 minutes, how many watts will that be?
Nope.
It is a well known fact that the fires in those buildings did not reach anything near 1000C. This has already been established.
Why look at other simulated fires, when the wtc trusses themselves were tested by underwriter laboratories in a simulation of the wtc fire, and the damage needed was not even close to that set forth by NIST. Hence why it disproves the NIST theory and why they only attach the information in an appendix at the end rather than use it to support their theory.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf
We've all heard of kevin ryan i suppose. read that excellent analysis he gives.
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
No. The energy released is an intrinsic property for a given combustion reaction. The temperature released is dependent on other factors.
under your interpetation, the temperature of a flame in a combustion reaction would be the same no matter what the initial conditions are. In other words, you are stating that the temperature would be the same no matter what the initial temperature of the reactants were.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
That's it? That's your rebuttal of a detailed scientific study as to the behaviour of steel in fuel-specific fires? One word? That's your entire analysis of the post?
Would you submit a one-word answer as part of your "degree"?
For those of you who have never taken a thermodynamics or any real science or engineering class in their lives, and who STILL don't understand the difference between heat and temperature, i was able to find this video to help you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU-sPzshVnM
You don't have to thank me, you are welcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU-sPzshVnM
You don't have to thank me, you are welcome.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
How about you explain, in your own words, the "difference between heat and temperature", and why this means that 1 gallon of jet fuel would have the same effect on a steel girder as 1,000 gallons.
I'd be interesting to see whether that money your parents spent on your "engineering" degree was worth it.
Last edited:
Yes, we know that Kevin Ryan is the cowardly fraud who dared to challenge Mark Roberts to debate and who crawled back under his rock when his bogus challenge was instantly accepted.
Imagine if schools really were handing out engineering degrees to such morons. How could you ever feel comfortable entering a tall building?
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
The Cardington tests were not computer simulations. They were real life, full scale tests. Many steel beams reached 1000 C or more in an hour or less. You are wrong.
Oh jeez, Kevin Ryan. This has gotta be a joke.
You're right: we don't have to thank you.
(from the Fordham Prep site)
Heat and temperature are two concepts that are often confused. They are related to each other because they are both related to the concept of thermal energy, as discussed in lesson 1-6. As you may recall, thermal energy is the energy that a substance possesses due to the, kinetic energy, or motion of its molecules. Three factors affect the amount of thermal energy that a substance has:
1) Temperature - Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. An increase in temperature results in an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules and an increase in thermal energy. It is fair to say that temperature and thermal energy vary directly, but they are not the same thing.
2) Mass - Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance, as you recall from lesson 1-3. It makes sense that a more massive sample will have more thermal energy than a smaller sample, if all other factors are equal. Imagine the difference in total energy between a spoonful of boiling water and a vat of boiling water.
3) Specific Heat Capacity - Each material is able to "hold" a certain amount of thermal energy at a given temperature, due to what we call its specific heat. Think of the wide range of temperatures that your feet encounter during a day at the beach. The water may seem cold while the sand feels quite warm. The wood on the boardwalk may feel comfortable, but the blacktop in the parking lot is burning hot. Things will heat up at different rates, due, in part, to their different specific heat values.
So, as you see, temperature is one of the factors that affects the thermal energy of a substance. What is heat? Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a hotter to a colder object. What we think of as "cold" is really the absence of heat. An object with at a higher temperature can release more heat than the same object at a lower temperature, but temperature is only one of the factors that affect the amount of heat an object can transfer.
The factors that affect the amount of heat are the same as the factors that affect thermal energy, for reasons that should now be clear to you. Thermal energy is only measurable as heat, during heat transfer. The amount of heat transferred can be found according to the following formula:
amount of heat transferred = mass x change in temperature x specific heat
It is important to note that the symbols that are used for the formula will vary from textbook to textbook, but the values that they represent never change. One way to write the heat transfer formula is shown below:q = m(DT)Cp
Where q = heat transferred, DT = the change in temperature and Cp = the specific heat. This formula will be used in a later lesson, but you should begin to understand the concept now. Going back to our earlier example, picture a spoonful of 100.0 oC water and a vat filled with water, also at 100.0 oC. Which would you rather have spilled on you? The water in the vat can transfer much more heat, despite the fact that its temperature is no higher that the water in the spoon. This should help you understand that heat and temperature are not the same thing at all.
Last edited:
It has? By whom? Are you being so willfully ignorant to claim that an office fire can't ever reach or exceed 1000 C?
Yes we all heard about Aquaman and his failure in court. There was a song written about him by a band called Green Day. Maybe you are familiar with the song, it was called American Idiot...
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
Hey Papasmurf,
Why do refrence books always list chemical reaction data (like combustion) as being at "STP?"
Why do refrence books always list chemical reaction data (like combustion) as being at "STP?"
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
Thanks, Ron.
PapaSmurf - point 2 is the important one in understanding where you're going wrong, should you need that pointing out to you.
ETA: Your own video actually explains that very fact to you. 1,000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon of jet fuel. You understand that quite well; I'm sure. You wouldn't go putting 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue, would you?
PapaSmurf - point 2 is the important one in understanding where you're going wrong, should you need that pointing out to you.
ETA: Your own video actually explains that very fact to you. 1,000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon of jet fuel. You understand that quite well; I'm sure. You wouldn't go putting 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue, would you?
Last edited:
In this case I thought the acronym meant Stops Truther's Pointlessness
Do you honestly that twisting people's words and misrepresenting them is going to work on me?
I was very clear and concise in what i said.
The energy released from a combustion reaction is intrinsic? Really?
Energy is NEVER an intrinsic property. Temperature IS an intrinsic property.
" the temperature of a flame in a combustion reaction would be the same no matter what the initial conditions are."
Absolutely the farthest thing from what i said.
I said given a certain set of conditions, the temperature of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel.
"In other words, you are stating that the temperature would be the same no matter what the initial temperature of the reactants were."
Nope. Try again. Same as above. Besides the fact that the initial temperature of the reactants is negligible and irrelevant to the reaction temperature (note that if you put frozen wood and warm wood into a fire, they will both begin to combust at the same temperature, so what they started out with doesn't matter), besides that, that has nothing to do with what i said.
The conditions i refer to are those relevant to determining the temperature of a fire including air/fuel ratio, oxygen levels, circulation, etc...