About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


Post 80

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Rev'. That's where I figured the temp-difference between kilns and open bonfires came from. Bonfires can get so much bigger than the fire used in 30-foot kilns, but the kilns trap the produced heat for a supra-additive effect (more heat from less fire).

Mike, I understand about the conservation of energy in closed systems. Your point is interesting. It would be neat to measure the energy of a plane crash in order to quantify how good of an explanation it is for the noted super hot heat.

And I think that you made a faux paux (or whatever) when you said that commercial planes weigh 1000's of tons. A loaded 747 is about 900,000 lbs (about 450 tons).

Ed

Post 81

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
I meant the building weighed thousands of tons. Each floor weighed far more than the plane, they all stacked up on the way down. That was a huge mass essentially in free fall from very high up smashing into the ground. If you hit a nail with a hammer or even bend it with your fingers you can feel how hot it gets. I suppose someone who was a structural engineer and was up on their physics could calculate the kinetic energy conversion to heat and the temperature of the ground after the fall could be calculated fairly accurately.

Post 82

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ever see a mountain of tires on fire?  That stuff will burn for weeks and weeks. Even in the rain.

Post 83

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike it was definitely an incredibly large amount of kinetic energy, and the transfer of that to heat must have been tremendous.

From debunking911.com

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 84

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 7:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The temperature increase by the mere act of falling is negligible. I'm a structural engineer but the question is just one of elementary physics.

The average height of the twin towers is 684 ft.

If you drop a pound of water from that height it has the potential energy of 684 ft-lb which will be converted to heat when it hits.

1 ft-lb = 0.001286 BTU, and a BTU is that amount of heat that will raise one lb of water one degree F.

684*0.001286 = 0.88 degrees F.

While the totality of the potential energy is huge, the temperature effect is negligible for the purposes of this discussion.  Ask yourself, if you dropped a chunk of lead from the tower, how hot would it be when you picked it up?

Sam


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 85

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam I think there's more to it. I'm certainly no physics expert, but I believe the estimated amount of energy from the twin towers falling is 1 trillion joules (1 joule = 1,000 BTUs) or the equivalent of 272 tons of TNT. Enough energy to melt 1,000 metric tons of steel.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

1.5 Some Basic Concepts in Physics



Readers can skip this for now, but I want to outline some very simple and fundamental concepts in physics needed to negotiate the scientific claims and counter-claims of the IF and CD theories. (I promise that this is very brief and easily accessible to the lay person.)



The first is that when an object is raised to a height, it gains what is known as gravitational potential energy. As Loizeaux says: “Every nail that was carried up in the pocket of some construction worker is potential energy that’s at our disposal, …” In terms of physics the potential energy is calculated by the formula



E = mgh



E is the energy, m is the mass (of the nail or any other object), g the acceleration due to gravity, and h the height that the object is raised. If m is in kilograms, g in metres per second per second, and h in metres, then E is measured in a unit called Joules. When the Loizeaux family demolish a building in an implosion they are liberating this stored potential energy as kinetic energy – the energy of movement. This energy is calculated by a different formula:



E = ˝ mv2



In this case the kinetic energy in Joules is equal to half the mass of the moving object times the velocity squared. When the collapsing building hits the ground the kinetic energy is converted into other forms, such as fracture energy (energy required to break, for example, concrete into rubble), sound energy, and heat energy. To give some pertinent examples, the gravitational potential energy (mgh) of one of the Twin Tower has been estimated at 1.139 x 1012 Joules. This is roughly 1 followed by 12 noughts or a billion times a billion Joules (an American trillion). To put that in perspective, it is roughly the same energy as 272 tons of TNT exploding, or enough to melt one thousand metric tonnes of steel. The impact of the faster of the two planes released kinetic energy (˝ mv2) roughly equal to 4 x 1009 Joules, or four thousand million Joules. This is enough to melt approximately 4 metric tonnes of steel.



Of course, the energy released by the collapse of the Towers or the impacts of the plane did not go into melting tonnes of steel (though a small fraction may have). The point here is to understand the colossal energies involved in the WTC disaster, and how they are estimated in physics. Also vital to understand is the law of conservation of energy, which requires that all the energy that disappears in one form must appear in an other form or forms.



While the totality of the potential energy is huge, the temperature effect is negligible for the purposes of this discussion. Ask yourself, if you dropped a chunk of lead from the tower, how hot would it be when you picked it up?


Wouldn't know unless we factor in the mass of the object falling.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/20, 11:27am)


Post 86

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

When asked on another forum what REALLY bugged me (i.e., the most) about the way in which 9/11 was "handled" -- I said this ...

=================
Let me start by saying that I'd be willing to change my opinion upon the release of certain evidence. That said, I can only narrow my answer down to 3 heretofore-unresolved contradictions ...

(1) Pentagon "Plane"
Having heat so hot that it vaporized 12 tons of steel and titanium -- yet not hot enough to destroy the biometric identifiers (fingerprints? DNA?) which were supposedly used in order to I.D. the "dead" there.


I would presume with the case of any fire, it is not an evenly distributed fire. Fires grow in intensity and spread according to what ever is fueling it. Some items (as grisley as this sounds, body parts) were simply not gotten to yet either because of firefighers attempting to suppress the fire stopped the spread of the fire, or again as awful as this sounds, the bodies from the inertia of the impact were thrown wildly about. Also the density of the object burning does not burn all the way through evenly and at the same rate. If you have a fireplace burn some logs, the logs tend to shrink as the outer layers are burned off, and a good amount of time needs to pass before it is completely burned off.

(2) Ground Zero
Having heat so hot that it measured higher than 2000 degrees Fahrenheit -- yet science knowing, from the nature and identity of jet fuel, that it only burns to 1500 or so.


Fires again grow in intensity according to whatever is fueling it. It's not just jet fuel but combustible materials like office furniture, paper, carpet, etc and of course the kinetic energy transferred to heat from the impact of the planes and the subsequent collapse. Plus I don't think temperatures needed to reach 2000 degrees fahrenheit to explain what was observed at the WTC.


(3) Non-responsive NORAD (NORAD's failure to respond with fighters for 80 minutes).
Publically excusing themselves by saying the equivalent of "Who would've thought they'd do this!" -- yet having a War Game exercise of 18 other supposed plane-hijacks going on and tying up all of our fighter pilots ... during the actual hijacks


http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD

NORAD was designed to fend off external attacks from foreign bombers and ballistic missiles. Not American commercial aircraft and especially with no capability of knowing which ones would be hijacked unless explicitly told which one by the FAA.

I'm not aware of the exercises you speak of, I recall there was mention by the Pentagon years ago they had uncovered a terrorist plot involving hijacking foreign commercial planes bound for a US destination to be crashed into buildings years before 9/11. But I don't think there's much evidence the government did much to prepare for such an event other than to try and disrupt those terrorist cells, and I haven't heard that NORAD had run such an exercise. The primary mindset was to go after and investigate terrorist threats and disrupt those plots, no so much to prepare a kind of military defense on US soil.

Post 87

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ask yourself, if you dropped a chunk of lead from the tower, how hot would it be when you picked it up?

Wouldn't know unless we factor in the mass of the object falling.


The mass doesn't really matter in practice.  If you double the mass, you double the amount of positional energy being converted to heat.  If you multiply the mass by a factor of a million, you get a million times the total heat -- but the temperature change per unit of mass (how much hotter it would get) would not vary.

Contrary to what seems to be implied above, if you dropped two identically shaped chunks of lead from the same tall tower, one huge and one tiny, the huge one would be a tiny bit cooler, because the smaller chunk would have a higher ratio of surface area to mass than the larger object, and thus the smaller chunk would have more heating due to air friction than the larger mass.  The larger mass would, of course, then have a slightly higher velocity when it impacted the ground, but not all that tiny extra bit of velocity would be converted into heat -- some would be converted into deforming the ground.

In practice, of course, the difference in temperature would be so negligible that it would be difficult to even measure.



Post 88

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John:

The discussion in your excerpt about kinetic energy is a red herring. A mass at the top of the tower has a potential energy content equivalent to its mass times its height. After its fall, all its potential energy is converted to heat. The intermediary conversion to kinetic energy just doesn't have to be taken into account. The falling object converts its potential energy to kinetic energy so that just before its collision all the potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. That kinetic energy is converted to heat when it collides.  The energy content after collision is exactly that of the potential energy at the top. No energy is lost or gained.

Drop an anvil on a brick — the brick fractures and the potential energy of the anvil is converted to the heat in the process of breaking the molecular bonds of the brick. Granted, sound is created also, but as you know it doesn't take much energy to create a lot of sound. 

Consider dropping a bag of putty. It doesn't bounce, it doesn't make a sound, it just gets "kneaded" and in the process it heats up

Wouldn't know unless we factor in the mass of the object falling.

Every pound is the same as every other pound, so each pound is heated the same amount. I took an example of a pound but if you consider a thousand pounds you'll find that the result is the same.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 2/20, 12:35pm)


Post 89

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 12:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

While the totality of the potential energy is huge, the temperature effect is negligible for the purposes of this discussion. Ask yourself, if you dropped a chunk of lead from the tower, how hot would it be when you picked it up?


Well, for starters, you are adding heat, not temperature to the pile of rubble. While a million 1 lb blocks of something all falling seperately and hitting seperate things certainly wouldnt create a large temperature increase, if they all hit *the same* spot, they certainly would If they are hitting a larger surface which is then focusing it's newly acquired momentum into a smaller area, they could drastically raise the temperature of that small area. Lets say a few hundred tons of concrete fall 600 feet and hit a steel plate which rests on an I beam, focusing most of their force into a corner of the Ibeam which sits atop a small area of another steel plate, the massive amount of forced leveraged into such a small area can certainly inject enough heat to raise the temperature high enough to melt steel

There are industrial welding processes based on this exact thing, essentially ramming two pieces of metal together fast enough that their kinetic energy when converted to heat welds the metals together, google "Impact Welding" and is most often used to weld dissimiliar metals (like Aluminum to Steel)

You also must consider the liberated fracture energy of these materials, which can be extremely high as well (possibly more than the kinetic energy) consider a spring loaded mechanism which falls, hitting the ground causes a large enough activation energy to trigger the spring mechanism, which then liberates far more energy. Simialarly every atomic bonded cross sectional layer of all the materials in the WTC have such fracture energy (anyone who shields their eyes when they bend a branch enough to snap it knows this energy well) All those high tensile strength steel I beams and concrete columns being bent or stressed enough to break when hitting the ground will liberate even more energy.

What is the formula to calculate fracture energy, something related to cross sectional area and yield stress?

here is an interesting paper
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You just can't violate the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total energy that can be released from a collapse is that of the total potential energy of the structure. You find that by taking every pound of the building, multiplying it by its height and summing them all up. That's all the energy in foot pounds that can be converted. The mechanical equivalent of heat is 778 foot pounds per BTU.

That's all I can say on the subject.

Sam


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 91

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

You just can't violate the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total energy that can be released from a collapse is that of the total potential energy of the structure...You find that by taking every pound of the building, multiplying it by its height and summing them all up


No violations going on here Sam, you are operating under the assumption that the *only* potential energy contained within the entire WTC structure is it's gravitational potential energy, which is obviously not the case. We have tons of flammable materials. We have pressurized steam pipes. We have prestressed beams which contain potential energy. We have laptops with explosive batteries. We have elevator cables wrapped around drums under stress, etc etc etc. Granted none of these are large, but it's clear that gravitational potential energy is not the ONLY energy that might be liberated on collapse.

As a structural engineer, no doubt gravitational potential energy is primarily what you would concern yourself with, but are you seriously suggesting that it is the *only* potential energy within ALL of the structure?



Post 92

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The mass doesn't really matter in practice. If you double the mass, you double the amount of positional energy being converted to heat. If you multiply the mass by a factor of a million, you get a million times the total heat -- but the temperature change per unit of mass (how much hotter it would get) would not vary.


Ah, right I understand. Thanks for clarifying it for me.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 93

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:
 
My response on this thread was to the comment by John:
 
Mike it was definitely an incredibly large amount of kinetic energy, and the transfer of that to heat must have been tremendous.

Michael:
 
Granted none of these are large, but it's clear that gravitational potential energy is not the ONLY energy that might be liberated on collapse.
 
Granted, but you made my point.
 
Sam
 
 
 
 


 
 
 




(Edited by Sam Erica on 2/20, 1:58pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


User ID Password or create a free account.