I favor the blacksmith chart [on the right] because it is consistent with the molten steel in the crab claw.
So let me get this straight - you are using one chart over another because you have already determined the temperature in your head.
This is why we have a hard time with you.
You already have a conclusion and use a chart to support your conclusion. That is bad science. The source of the chart
http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm even states:
PERCEIVED COLORS DEPEND ON LIGHTING
You cannot use this chart to determine the temperature of the material (which is most likely glass because it's transparent), because a) you don't know what the material is b) you don't know the lighting conditions. Your musings about the grab photo are therefore incorrect.
What you should do is ascertain first what the material is and you haven't done this. Only then can you start looking at charts to determine what temperature range is possible and then you have to look at all the charts.
What you have done is incorrect and some might call it dishonest - I'll put it down to an inexperienced mistake.
The metal dripping off the bottom is a off the chart and about 1500 °C which is the melting point of steel.
Completely baseless as I have just shown above.
This is admittedly biased but moot because debris pile fires would be oxygen starved and just smoldering at around 300-400°C.
Another baseless assumption based on zero evidence - we have IR data that shows this is not true.
Secondly you are slowly but surely hoisting yourself with your own petard.
Remember when you said that fires in the rubble pile plus insulation kept the steel liquid?
Get serious. I can only point out that the smoldering combustibles and the insulating qualities of the pulverized debris would slow the cooling of the molten steel.
Well if the rubble piles only smouldered at 3-400°C then how on earth are you going to keep the liquid steel liquid for any period of time let alone 6 weeks? The lower the rubble fire temperature the less likely liquid steel will be possible. I gave you a hint when discussing this previously when I said I'd be happy to give a maximum temperature of 1000°C to help you but you didn't take the hint. You can do the experiment in a very well insulated furnace to show that liquid steel will be solid in less than 8 hours once the furnace temperature is reduce to 400°C.
Then you say
The only known possible explanation for the intense fires 6 weeks later is that molten steel was keeping those fires fires going.
So what is it? Low temperature smouldering fires that can't keep steel liquid or molten steel producing intense fires?
Can you have a smouldering intense fire 3-400°C that keeps steel liquid for 6 weeks? Everyone including C7 knows the answer to that one.
I've just shown that you keep changing your position whilst not realising that they contradict one another. Death by quotation.
When I talk about how hot the falling metal is, I use the range 1000-1400 [FONT="]°[/FONT][FONT="]C[/FONT] which covers both charts. Office fires burn at about 1000[FONT="]°C. [/FONT]1200[FONT="]°C [/FONT]are possible but only in extreme conditions.
So now you are admitting that an office fire burns hot enough to produce a Fe-O-S eutectic if there is sufficient presence of a sulphate species and enough time for diffusion. You realise this statement goes against the use of thermite as a source of sulphur. Secondly at 1200°C what do you can you find out about the modulus and yield strength of steels at that temperature?
Hint: it's less than 10% of the room temperature values.
The hotter a fire burns, the faster it consumes the fuel so in the end the same amount of heat is released whether the fire burns fast or slow.
Correct. I hope you can continue with such good statements.
Your own post contradicts your own theory of liquid steel.
)
