17-10-2012, 01:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-10-2012, 04:43 PM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Lemkin,
I am not a physicist, nor a chemist. I can't produce the calculations. You have asserted without proof that the heat produced by the communition from friction, abrading and grinding of 400,000 tons of building was not enough to either melt some metal and heat the debris to elevated temps which took months to cool. I think you are incorrect on this.
I realize that this sounds counter intuitive... the production of heat from a collapse. But if you have any experience in working in a shop, grinding, sanding, sawing, drilling and milling materials.. wood, metal... you name it... there is always a lot of heat produced from (destruction of material). Drill a hole in a sheet of steel and it is way too hot to touch. Same for concrete... the mechanical destruction releases heat. This is a fact.
Could this heat be concentrated to high enough temps to melt some metal? I think so. I can't offer a proof. Would the amount of heat raise the debris pile temps enough that it would take months to cool? I think so. How much long does it take to reduce the latent heat of 1 million tons of debris 1 degree? With water at room temp? With ambient air in contact being heated and *removing* some of the heat at the surface?
Take a hot iron frying pan and drop a bit of water on it.. it immediately boils off and hardly lowers the temperature of the pan. Take a million ton pan which is 15 or 20° warmer than the ambient air and shoot streams of water from fire hoses.... How much will this lower the temp of the million tons in a day? How many tons of water can one hose deposit on the pile in a day? How much of the pile is exposed to the water it shoots out?
I don't think you are appreciating the magnitude of the issues here or understand the physics involved.
here's a paper on heat transfer:
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3...elling.pdf
I am not a physicist, nor a chemist. I can't produce the calculations. You have asserted without proof that the heat produced by the communition from friction, abrading and grinding of 400,000 tons of building was not enough to either melt some metal and heat the debris to elevated temps which took months to cool. I think you are incorrect on this.
I realize that this sounds counter intuitive... the production of heat from a collapse. But if you have any experience in working in a shop, grinding, sanding, sawing, drilling and milling materials.. wood, metal... you name it... there is always a lot of heat produced from (destruction of material). Drill a hole in a sheet of steel and it is way too hot to touch. Same for concrete... the mechanical destruction releases heat. This is a fact.
Could this heat be concentrated to high enough temps to melt some metal? I think so. I can't offer a proof. Would the amount of heat raise the debris pile temps enough that it would take months to cool? I think so. How much long does it take to reduce the latent heat of 1 million tons of debris 1 degree? With water at room temp? With ambient air in contact being heated and *removing* some of the heat at the surface?
Take a hot iron frying pan and drop a bit of water on it.. it immediately boils off and hardly lowers the temperature of the pan. Take a million ton pan which is 15 or 20° warmer than the ambient air and shoot streams of water from fire hoses.... How much will this lower the temp of the million tons in a day? How many tons of water can one hose deposit on the pile in a day? How much of the pile is exposed to the water it shoots out?
I don't think you are appreciating the magnitude of the issues here or understand the physics involved.
here's a paper on heat transfer:
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3...elling.pdf