We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Oh my.
This is indeed a feast of logic.
Please, carry on gentlemen! Don’t mind the smiling green fat man in the corner. He’s just enjoying the show. (Flags down the beer guy.)
Slarti: “If by ‘use of energy’ you mean the transfer of energy from one form to another via a force acting over a distance, I agree with you. If you mean the energy is destroyed or leaves the system, I couldn’t disagree more strongly.”
While I agree with everything you cited from your text book, I thought I might mention that you’re committing the fallacy of composition. You are arguing from a part to the whole. That moment of impact is a part of and not the whole event. You are ignoring Newton’s second law entirely by stopping the video, so to speak, at the moment of impact; ignoring the opposing forces and the rest of the event entirely.
Furthermore, the fact that no one with a scintilla of a clue about the principles of thermodynamics would ever use the phrase that ‘energy is destroyed’ makes your statement thoughtlessly dismissive; and your insistence that no energy leaves ‘the system’ which you define as the universe is childishly absurd.
Epistemically speaking dear doctor, the only system you’re capable of analyzing is the one you’re capable of perceiving with empirical data. Using the premise that the system for purposes of our analysis is defined as ‘the universe’ is as counter-factual as “All cellestial bodies are made of green cheese.”
“7) I wish to determine how much of the GPE ended up as TE in the rubble (which is a well-defined amount somewhere between 0 and 400 GJ) .”
How did the GPE (of which some remained as KE when the pieces of the WTC hit the earth) get converted to TE? Is this some kind of “Poof Cheeze-It” process?
Rub your hands together. That’s one way of converting kinetic energy to thermal energy. It’s called friction. You’ll notice that it only heats the contact surface.
What causes this energy to go into the rubble instead of the earth and the atmosphere? (Try to give a scientific answer backed up by reliable sources) Wikipedia (without citation) is not a reliable source.
Slarti,
You’re not a scientist. You’re a story teller. When the laws don’t apply, you just disregard the required parameters and decide to apply them anyway.
I performed an analysis (using YOUR numbers) based on the premise that a child used a slingshot to hit both buildings with rocks, which somehow caused WTC 1 and 2 to collapse in the same amount of time that we have accepted. Guess what? IT COULD HAPPEN. That’s what happens when you apply JUNK SCIENCE.
HERE IS SLARTI’s SCIENCE
I asked “so EXPLAIN THE F-ING 45 degree cuts, and the evidence of molten metal at those cuts.”
Slarti responded; “By the time that the collapse was nearing the ground there was a mass of debris with something like 200 GJ of kinetic energy slamming through the remaining structure. This kinetic energy powered massive forces which were able to bend, buckle and shear beams very quickly. The kinetic energy used to do this work was transformed into thermal energy in the beams resulting in (in the extreme cases) melting.”
You think that just because you have available energy, that explains cuts (on multiple beams) at a 45 degree angle, and remnants of molten metal next to those cuts? You have lost all credibility as a scientist.
Slarti,
You quoted the Wikipedia entry for “The Mechanical Equivalent of Heat”. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mechanical_equivalent_of_heat&action=historysubmit&diff=335572387&oldid=333502650
“In the history of science, the mechanical equivalent of heat was a concept that had an important part in the development and acceptance of the conservation of energy and the establishment of the science of thermodynamics in the 19th century.
The concept stated that motion and heat are mutually interchangeable and that in every case, a given amount of work would generate the same amount of heat, provided the work done is totally converted to heat energy. […] Central to these developments, however, was Joule’s famous 1843 paper, entitled “The Mechanical Equivalent of Heat”, in which he published the value A for the amount of work W required to produce a unit of heat Q. Joule contended that motion and heat were mutually interchangeable and that, in every case, a given amount of work would generate the same amount of heat.”
But you left off the last part of that paragraph. Why? Why did you put a period (you put the period in the quote) instead of quoting the last part of the sentence that said “provided the work done is totally converted to heat energy.”?
That’s dishonest!
You left off the qualifying statement in order to sell your bag of bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Slarti said “Your line of 10 speakers requires 10 W and generates a sound of 130 dB and your bank of 100 speakers requires 100 W and generates a 140 dB sound (as loud as a rock concert).”
It would require 100 Watts to power 100 speakers, and it would sound as loud as a rock concert? Somebody should tell the sound people that run these rock concerts. How far from the speakers was the sound measurement taking place? Does it take the same amount of energy to drive a 20″ woofer as it does a 2″ tweeter? Is that 100 watts per millisecond? or nanosecond? All you did is put numbers in a statement. You didn’t support your numbers with math. You provided us with off the wall babble. Provide links to your source.
“Now, as far as I know, no one measured the dB level of the WTC collapse”
Previously you had stated “Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what the decibel level of the WTC collapse was, but it requires one megawatt of power to produce a 180dB sound. This is the sound of a rocket engine or the sound of the 1883 Krakatoa eruption as heard from 100 miles away. Given that 1 million joules per second produces this volume of sound, the sonic energy produced by the collapse is negligible in this calculation.”
Notice that you gave a distance for the measurement of Krakatoa (100 miles), but did not for the rocket engine. Do you think the sound level is the same at the source as it is at a distance of one mile? 10 miles? 100 miles?
“Seismic energy works exactly the same way, except in the case of the seismic energy we do have accurate measurements (2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale for the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses – I’m not sure which is which).”
As I told you before. The collapse of the WTC(s) CANNOT be directly related to the energy of an earthquake. The buildings hit the surface of the earth. An earthquake is an event in which the earths crust moves or crumbles. You’re not comparing apples to apples.
“I don’t think that Cobalt-60 is a good example since it undergoes beta decay. While the emitted electron is technically energy (by e=mc^2), I think that it kind of muddies the water here.”
The decay of Cobalt-60 also produces 2 gammas. (not that it matters for my example) Point, line, and plane sources are used to represent energy, and how measurement of that energy cannot be used to calculate the source without defining the source to be a point, line, or plane, NOT the type of energy. I think you’re purposely trying to miss the point. If we were talking about shielding, then the type of radiation we were trying to address would be important.
Bob,
Thank you for following my requests in your response. I think that we should stay away from the physics of the failure (natural or induced) which led to the WTC collapse for now. As we do not yet have common ground on the physics of work and energy, I don’t think that there is anything to be gained by debating this now (neither of us are going to convince the other, although I will respond to your comment if you ask me to).
I dug up this from my first-year physics text. This is a passage from ‘Physics: Foundations and Applications’ by Eisberg and Lerner. The event under consideration is a ball being dropped on the floor. I have replaced the word ‘ball’ with the word ‘whale’ and the word ‘floor’ with the word ‘ground’ in keeping with our metaphor – all other text is verbatim:
“Consider the whale-plus-earth system after the whale hits the ground, assuming it does not rebound. The whale is a rest at ground level . Therefore the system has neither kinetic energy nor potential energy. The constant total mechanical energy which the system had during the flight of the whale has vanished. What has happened to the mechanical energy?
This is what happens. When the whale hits the ground, the molecules in the surface of the whale collide with the molecules in the surface of the ground, setting the surface molecules in both bodies into vibrational motion. Their vibration sets adjacent molecules into vibration, and so on. So the vibrational motion propagates into the two bodies. The molecules are not vibrating in unison, however. There is still energy present, even though the whale as a whole is at rest on the ground. But it is an energy of random vibrational motion.
Just before the whale hits the ground the system has mechanical energy which is all in the form of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is an organized energy of motion. It is organized in the sense that all the molecules of the whale are moving in unison – in the same direction at the same speed. After the whale hits the ground there is still motion of molecules, and there is energy associated with this motion. But it is the disorganized energy of randomly vibrating molecules. This energy is called thermal energy. So when the whale hits the ground, the mechanical energy of the system is transformed into thermal energy.”
How can we find out how much thermal energy we get? Well, it turns out that James Joule did an experiment. From the ‘mechanical equivalent of heat’ entry in Wikipedia:
“In the history of science, the mechanical equivalent of heat was a concept that had an important part in the development and acceptance of the conservation of energy and the establishment of the science of thermodynamics in the 19th century.
The concept stated that motion and heat are mutually interchangeable and that in every case, a given amount of work would generate the same amount of heat, provided the work done is totally converted to heat energy. […] Central to these developments, however, was Joule’s famous 1843 paper, entitled “The Mechanical Equivalent of Heat”, in which he published the value A for the amount of work W required to produce a unit of heat Q. Joule contended that motion and heat were mutually interchangeable and that, in every case, a given amount of work would generate the same amount of heat.”
Your original quote about energy was:
“Energy is the capacity for doing work [Yes.]; Work refers to an activity involving a FORCE and movement in the direction of the FORCE (e.g. vector) [This applies specifically to mechanical work, but it is correct.]; Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy [Yes.]. Work is not the ‘transformation of energy.’ Why? Because WORK IS THE USE OF ENERGY.”
If by ‘use of energy’ you mean the transfer of energy from one form to another via a force acting over a distance, I agree with you. If you mean the energy is destroyed or leaves the system, I couldn’t disagree more strongly.
Robert,
Let’s talk speakers. As you said, the power required to generate a particular sound is measured in decibels (dB). Let’s say we have a bunch of speakers putting out 120 dB of sonic energy each. The sound from each speaker will be about as loud as a jackhammer and will require 1 Watt of power to generate. Your line of 10 speakers requires 10 W and generates a sound of 130 dB and your bank of 100 speakers requires 100 W and generates a 140 dB sound (as loud as a rock concert). Now let’s put 100 W through a single speaker, 10 W each through our line of speakers and leave our bank of speakers at 1 W each. In all three cases we are using 100W of power to generate a 140 dB sound. As you correctly point out, if we are sufficiently far away, we can’t tell the difference between these three cases. Also, if we measure the volume from a known distance away from the source, we can determine that we a hearing a 140 dB sound (at the source) that requires 100W of power to generate, but not which of the three cases we are hearing. The WTC collapse is exactly the same. From a distance, it is a point source. All of the sonic energy has formed a single pressure wave in the atmosphere and by measuring its volume a known distance away we can calculate the power that went into generating it. Now, as far as I know, no one measured the dB level of the WTC collapse, but I think that ‘as loud as a rocket for one minute’ probably requires more power. In any case, this is such a small amount of energy on the scale we’re talking about (5.9 MJ), that it’s pretty much a moot point. Seismic energy works exactly the same way, except in the case of the seismic energy we do have accurate measurements (2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale for the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses – I’m not sure which is which).
I don’t think that Cobalt-60 is a good example since it undergoes beta decay. While the emitted electron is technically energy (by e=mc^2), I think that it kind of muddies the water here.
Slarti,
The reason I introduced point, line, and plane sources is to illustrate how measurements can be deceptive. A point source would be like a valve body. A line source would be like a contaminated/radioactive section of pipe. And a plane source is generally what would occur from a spill of radioactive material over an “area”, or maybe the reactor vessel. As you increase the distance from a line source, it will act like a point source. As you increase the distance from a plane source, it will first act like a line source, and then a point source. As you can probably imagine, you will need to get further from a plane source than a line source before it begins to resemble a point source.
An example:
One speaker would be a point source. 10 speakers in a row would be a line source, and 10 speakers wide by 10 speakers high would be a plane source. Your cabinet speaker for your home stereo probably contains a woofer, a mid-range, and a tweeter. From where you sit, it appears to be a point source. But in reality, it is more like a line source. If you get real close to the cabinet, you can identify all three sources.
As I pointed out in a previous post, adding a speaker will not double the decibel level, but it would require twice the energy to drive two identical speakers at the same level than it does one.
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-leveladding.htm
Knowing that the rumble from the WTC collapse was, in reality, caused by numerous sources (millions of collisions) , there is no way to calculate the energy USED to create a decibel level at a given distance. The deviation from reality would be exponential. This can best be represented by considering the SOURCE to be a plane source.
The easiest way for me to demonstrate the difference is to consider it a radiation source.
1 Curie of Cobalt-60 will yield 1.3 Rem/hr at 1 meter from a point source. (We use (1 at one yields 1) as a rule of thumb) Increasing the distance follows an inverse square rule. As such, the dose rate will square as you get closer. (i.e. at 3 meters the dose rate is .143 R/hr, and at half a meter the dose rate is 5.18 R/hr.) A line source is treated as a point source at a distance of half the length of the line source and beyond. At a distance of less than half the length of the line source, the does rate is inversely proportional. (i.e. a 10 ft long line source will act as a point source at a distance of 5 ft. At less than 5 ft, the radiation levels increase proportionally.
I’ll skip the calculations for a plane source because that would require calculus, and I think you already get the idea. At least I hope you do. (To accurately calculate a line source requires calculus too, but the simplified math is much closer than that of a plane source.)
In my previous post I pointed out that radiation is energy. The same can be said of heat. Fifty 400 degree fires are only going to produce a temperature reading of 400 degrees. However, it doesn’t take an expert on physics to understand that it takes 50 times more energy to burn 50 fires. A temperature reading observed for an area cannot be used to interpret the amount of energy used. (notice I said used? Fires are doing work. They are heating the environment. Since we don’t have a good way to recover that energy we refer to it as used. Isolated systems don’t “use” energy.)
When calculating the amount of energy required to cut through a steel column, it is not enough to know the material and the thickness. That would only permit you do determine how much energy is required to cut through a pinpoint cross-section. In addition, if you don’t have a means of directing the energy (i.e. a shaped charge) you must assume that the energy is omni-directional. When you’re talking about lateral force during a vertical collapse, that would require you to assume a (for lack of better term) buttload of energy was wasted.
Slarti: “First, I’d like to clear up the definition of work. You said: “Work is not the ‘transformation of energy.’ Why? Because WORK IS THE USE OF ENERGY”
That’s not what I said; and context is key here. Before those sentences I said: “Energy is the capacity for doing work; Work refers to an activity involving a FORCE and movement in the direction of the FORCE (e.g. vector); Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy.”
Slarti: “The Wiki entries on mechanical and thermodynamic work say: “In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance.”
“In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the quantity of energy transferred by the system to another”
The foregoing are not equivalents. The concept of a transfer of energy does not necessitate an analysis of opposing force.
Slarti: “If you still disagree with my interpretation of how work transfers energy, please do it within the context of this metaphor.”
Let’s place the whale at the height of the Towers. In fact, let’s place it on the top of a tower on or before 9/11 because the lack of sufficient damage done by the plane makes it irrelevant.
Is the tower collapsing from the weight of the whale? No. Why? Because the entire purpose of architecture is to arrange structures in a mechanical fashion so that they are always pushing more newtons upwards than are being pushed downwards. Anything less would necessitate collapse.
Now let’s further imagine we have a magical device whereby with the turn of a potentiometer, we can gradually increase the density/mass of the whale. Imagine the whale and all its blubber completely covering the roof. What’s going to fail first and why? The perimeter steel, the 47 Column core or the roof and floors?
The roof and floors will go first because the whale will eventually create enough shearing force to break them before coming anywhere close to being able to crush the perimeter steel or core. The whale, in essence would get skewered by the perimeter steel and the core while crushing a few floors.
And if we turned the whale’s density/mass up to eleven, what then? How much force is being exerted upward by the square/vertical 47 column core and the square/vertical perimeter steel? How massive would that whale have to become before either skewering itself all the way down or forcing either support structure to bend?
While I consider the whale to be a ‘skewered’ example (pun intended) the point is that your definition regarding a simple transfer of energy is insufficient to explain the phenomena. The work done is not just the work of gravity moving said whale downwards, it’s more importantly the work done AGAINST the opposing forces upward; i.e. those forces put in place by virtue of its architecture.
The mere existence of a sufficient opposing Work force to collapse the core & perimeter necessitates its subtraction from the GPE of the Tower first, since it’s amount will greatly exceed any Ke due to free fall. And it’s the free fall part of this problem that poses the real problem; doesn’t it Slarti.
Robert said:
“I’ve done my best to educate you. You are too arrogant to learn.”
You cannot teach me anything because I do not believe that you have a better understanding of the physics of this situation than I do. If you want to convince me that I’m wrong you will need to show that I’ve made a mistake in my analysis. To help you out I have numbered all the steps that go into my estimate that 2-300 GJ of energy was transformed from gravitational potential energy in the WTC into thermal energy in the rubble below.
Robert said:
“I deal with physics on a daily basis. [And I deal with science on a daily basis.] I have to determine whether the radiation is from a point source, a line source, or a plane source. [I would assume that a point source would be like a heated object emitting black box radiation, a line source would be like a radio transmitter, and a plane source would be like the cone of a speaker.] Do you know what radiation is? It’s energy. [I don’t seem to be the only arrogant, condescending person here. ;-)] You can’t even comprehend the difference between point, line, and plane sources. [Please correct me if I was wrong in my assumptions.] It’s kind of ironic that this discussion is taking place ant a legal blog. You’re complaining that we’re not following Italian Law in a U.S. Court. [To me the question is a scientific one and I’m appealing to physical law.] Guess what? Just like Italian Law is not applicable in U.S. Court, Energy Conservation Law is not applicable in an open system. [I have detailed my logic below. Please indicate which step contains a false statement about energy conservation.] Why do you need to rely so heavily on energy conservation? [Because when looking at a physics problem (especially one involving a form of energy like heat), energy conservation is generally the best place to start.] Because it’s the only way that would permit your calculations to work. [Yes, my calculations depend on the assumptions and logic below.] Unfortunately, the same calculations would permit the building to collapse without the plane or the fire. [No, in this analysis I’m just assuming that the building collapsed as it was observed to do (for whatever reason) and trying to determine how much GPE in the building became TE in the rubble (and what work it did along the way), elsewhere I postulate how the collapse might have occurred given the damage in the airplane impact. I know that I have said a lot of different things here and there are many overlapping theories. I have tried my best to carefully qualify the meaning and context of all of my statements – my listing of the logic of my analysis below is another attempt.]
Robert said:
“Here’s a part of Wiki for you: “Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality”. Where have you heard that from before? Oh yeah, I’ve been repeating it over and over.”
Yes, truly isolated systems do not exist in reality. However if you read on, you would find:
“However, real systems may behave nearly as an isolated system for finite (possibly very long) times. The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models”
So I’m making an ‘acceptable idealization’ to construct a mathematical model (and I remind you that I have a Ph.D. in mathematics and my area of specialization is modeling). I have explicated my logic below and I believe that I have in no way violated conservation of energy (or any other physical law), if you feel otherwise, please explain why.
[Me] “So how did someone slip 750 metric tons of ‘thermate’ into the WTC and precision detonate it without anyone (strike that) EVERYONE noticing?”
[Robert] “Who said that 750 metric tons would be required? Show your calculations. Are you now a demolition expert?”
This is my estimate of the amount of the most powerful (non-nuclear) explosive it would take to double the expected thermal energy in the rubble pile of all 3 buildings. If you can show me data for the energy released by ‘thermate’, please do.
[Me] “I haven’t worked backwards at all. I started with 400 GJ of GPE. Given the time of collapse (10-13 s) we can estimate the velocity of the rubble before impact (65-85 m/s).”
[Robert] “You’re getting an estimate by using the time it took for the building to collapse, but you’re not working backwards? BULLSHIT!
[Me] “Some of this energy left the system via particles in the pyroclastic flow.”
[Robert] “Energy left your isolated system? BULLSHIT!”
Again, my process is below, please explain any mistakes you feel I’ve made.
[Me] “Do you really contend that the 47 column core could withstand the impact of a 23 kiloton mass with 1 GJ of kinetic energy without buckling?” [Robert] “YES”
I don’t think that a structural engineer would tell you that the central core (and perimeter structure) of the 94th floor of WTC1 could withstand the dynamic impact of a 23 kiloton mass with 1 GJ of kinetic energy (the amount it would gain by falling a single floor). What we need to know here is the yield strength of the core columns on the 94th floor (the steel gets thinner as you go up). Remember that due to damage from the airplane impact and fire (and complex dynamics between the central core, the perimeter structure, the 5-story ‘hat truss’, and the damaged area) the structure of the 94th floor had less than its ‘normal’ strength to ‘catch’ the falling building. If (when) it failed, the 93rd floor faced an even more energetic impact and so on. The magnitude of the forces would have risen much more quickly than the structural strength of the building increased as the collapse proceeded downwards.
[Me] “Shearing is not the only mode of failure possible. As I’ve said, the upper section of both buildings was the next best thing to the fist of god smashing into that spindle and causing it to buckle. What head-on force is necessary to buckle those columns? (If I can’t account for a solid estimate of that force, that would also falsify my model.)”
[Robert] “You’re right, so EXPLAIN THE F-ING 45 degree cuts, and the evidence of molten metal at those cuts.”
By the time that the collapse was nearing the ground there was a mass of debris with something like 200 GJ of kinetic energy slamming through the remaining structure. This kinetic energy powered massive forces which were able to bend, buckle and shear beams very quickly. The kinetic energy used to do this work was transformed into thermal energy in the beams resulting in (in the extreme cases) melting.
Robert said:
“And Slarti, I ran your premise past a few engineers. They all got a laugh out of your attempt to treat this as an isolated system. You see, every time you talk about energy and mass leaving, it violates the law on which you base your assumptions.”
As I implied above with the quote from Wikipedia above, my treatment is consistent with standard scientific practice. If you or your friends think otherwise, please let me know what errors I’ve made in the steps below:
1) The universe is a closed system.
2) Energy is conserved in a closed system.
3) Therefore energy is conserved in the universe.
4) The energy stored as GPE in the WTC (henceforth GPE) is in the universe, therefore conserved.
5) Since the GPE is conserved it exists in the universe for all time.
6) Since the GPE exists for all time, its location and form at any particular time is well-defined.
7) I wish to determine how much of the GPE ended up as TE in the rubble (which is a well-defined amount somewhere between 0 and 400 GJ) .
8) To determine (7), I have tracked the work done with the GPE to determine how and when the energy was transferred.
9) All of the GPE (less the GPE of the rubble pile which I’ve omitted and would estimate at (well) under 50 GJ) is converted into KE via work done by gravitation throughout the collapse.
10a) Some of this KE is transferred into TE in the structural steel by the work done to collapse the structure of the building (i.e. buckling and shearing beams).
10b) Some of the KE is transferred into TE in the building materials by the work done to pulverize those materials (this mostly remains with the dust). Much of this energy is ejected from the system in the pyroclastic flow.
10c) Some of the KE is transferred into sonic and seismic energy which leaves the system. (I’ve accounted for the sonic energy in 16b although it is trivial, and lumped the seismic energy in with the seismic event caused by the impact in 16a).
10d) Some of the KE along with some of the TE from 10a is ejected from the system with energetic debris (hot I-beams).
10e) Some of the KE along with some of the TE from 10b leaves the system in the pyroclastic flow.
11) The remaining GPE is tied up in KE of the descending debris immediately before impact.
12) From the time of collapse (assuming constant acceleration) I can calculate the the velocity of collapse just before impact.
13) By comparing the velocity of collapse to the free-fall velocity I can determine how much of the GPE remains KE in the rubble and how much was used for work in 10a-e (or potentially other work that I haven’t accounted for).
14) After the impact all of the KE in the rubble in 13 is gone.
15) Since GPE is conserved, it must have been transferred.
16a) Some of the KE was used to do work to emit waves of seismic energy – the magnitude of this can be computed via seismic readings of the collapse.
16b) Some of the KE was used to do work to emit waves of sonic energy – I estimated this energy as ‘as loud as a rocket engine for 1 minute’ (which is a trivial amount of energy).
16c) The rest of the KE from 13 was used to do work compressing or otherwise distorting the structure of the ground or the rubble and is transformed into TE in the ground and the rubble.
This is how I arrived at my estimate that roughly 2-300 GJ of GPE was converted into TE in the rubble (16c). Which steps do you believe are unjustified?
Bob,
First, I’d like to clear up the definition of work. You said:
“Work is not the ‘transformation of energy.’ Why? Because WORK IS THE USE OF ENERGY”
The Wiki entries on mechanical and thermodynamic work say:
“In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance.”
“In thermodynamics, work performed by a system is the quantity of energy transferred by the system to another”
Both definitions refer to energy being ‘transferred’. What does this mean? In the cleanest HHGTTG-related metaphor I can think of, imagine a whale (we’ll neglect the pot of petunias) coming into existence 5 miles above a planet (assume the whale is initially at rest with respect to the planet). Initially, the whale has GPE but no KE. Through the process of gravity, work is done to accelerate the whale. This work transforms the GPE stored in the whale into KE stored in the whale at a rate equal to the acceleration due to gravity times the distance traveled times the mass of the whale. One type of energy has become another type of energy through the process of doing work. Notice that the LOCATION of the energy has not changed – it remains in the whale. We can do this sort of accounting whenever work is done, this is how conservation of energy works (pun intended ;-)). When the whale goes ‘splat’, more work is performed. We can tell this because a large amount of kinetic energy has disappeared. Several kinds of work are done. Since all of the kinetic energy is used by this work, the total of all of the new forms of energy must be equal to the kinetic energy at impact (which is equal to the acceleration due to gravity times the weight of the whale times 5 miles neglecting air resistance – which is work which transfers KE in the whale to TE in the whale and in the atmosphere, btw). This work powers a shockwave through the earth (seismic energy), a shockwave through the atmosphere (sonic energy), and compression or other destruction of the structure of the earth and the whale. The result of the work used for compression/destruction is thermal energy in the earth and the whale (bits).
I admit that it has been very frustrating to me not to be able to take fundamental things like the definition of work for granted. If you still disagree with my interpretation of how work transfers energy, please do it within the context of this metaphor. The whimsical nature will help me keep my annoyance down. Thank you.
[Me] “You’ve said the burden of proof lies on he who asserts, not he who denies – Well, you’re asserting that ‘natural’ causes weren’t sufficient – I”m denying it.”
[Bob] Puerile sophistry. If I’m asserting anything it’s that your explanation is illogical.
I’ve done my best to clearly lay out my thinking so that we can address what you think is illogical.
[Me] “You explained how, due to your personality type, I offended you by, in your opinion, misusing Ockham’s Razor. I explained that I was using Ockham’s Razor in the way it is most frequently used in science.”
[Bob] “If this is true, why did you thank me for enlightening you as to the proper use of the Ockham’s razor (law of parsimony)?”
Initially, I used Ockham’s Razor as I was accustomed to in science. You jumped on me for using it incorrectly so I apologized for misusing it (on the assumption that you knew what you were talking about) and thanked you in an effort to offer an olive branch. I explained the manner in which I was using ‘OR’ and the specific hypotheses that I was applying it to. After you refused my olive branch, I looked into OR and discovered that the way I was using it was the generally accepted way that scientists use it. After that I felt justified in my usage and have said so.
In the interest of clarifying what part of our argument is semantics and misunderstanding and what part of if is substantive, let me lay out my view of the argument (if I incorrectly attribute any argument to you, please correct me). You raised the issues of heat and thermic residue as reasons to believe that controlled demolition brought down the WTC. I believe that OR favors the the hypothesis that ‘natural’ causes are sufficient to explain the collapse. I focused on the issue of heat and asked the question: “Were ‘natural’ causes sufficient to account for observations at ground zero?” and stated that I thought that the hypothesis: ‘natural causes are sufficient to explain the observed heat at ground zero’ was favored by OR over it’s contradiction: ‘explosives/incendiaries (or other outside sources) are necessary to account for the observed heat at ground zero’. To support (or falsify) this thesis, I needed to figure out how much heat would be expected in the rubble to determine if the heat observed in the rubble was an anomaly. Without knowing this we have no basis to determine if the heat observed in the rubble is unreasonably high (my assertion being that it is not).
To put this in legal terms, I had to establish a ‘chain of evidence’ for the thermal energy in the rubble. I have established a complete chain for all of the GPE in the WTC that remains in the system (ground zero) and have a chain for the rest of the energy until it leaves the system. I have several other chains of evidence for thermal energy, some quantified (8 TJ in WTC1 from 40 minutes of fire) and some not (heat produced by the oxidation of iron sprayed by water in the rubble and oxidation of aluminum sprayed by water in the impact zone). I have a complete theory of the crime based on solid scientific principles (conservation of energy, mechanics). I have supported my theory with evidence in the form of a falsifyable model of energy flow and with proper citations of law (I know Wikipedia isn’t the US Constitution, but it tends to be pretty accurate when it comes to things like the the definitions of scientific terms) and precedent (citing independent analysis like 400 GJ of GPE in the WTC). I’ve made extensive arguments on multiple grounds (no need for additional heat, impossibility of hiding the quantity of explosives necessary to significantly increase thermal energy, no need for explosives to explain collapse, etc.) as to why my theory of the crime is preferred over its negation. In short, I feel I’ve presented a pretty thorough case.
One of the necessary traits for a scientist is the need to constantly question the veracity of your work. This is not because one must be a superior person to be a scientist, but because other scientists (both in peer review and in independent labs repeating your experiments) will attack any flaw in your theory if you don’t identify and correct it beforehand. While I have not been presenting this for peer review, I have put my name on it because I have questioned its veracity and found it valid. I understand that in the judicial system, you employ the adversarial system and never concede any point until you are forced to, but we’re dealing with a scientific question here (‘were explosives used to collapse the WTC?’), not a legal one (we need to decide if there was a crime here before we argue about how to prosecute it). Accordingly I am trying (in this post and my post to Robert) to clearly state my arguments and explicate my process so we can establish what we agree on and clarify what we don’t.
[Me] “I explained that in your self-riteous anger you had violated the principle of conservation of energy (thus offending me) not just once, but repeatedly and willfully. Your response: Specious arguments attacking straw men.”
[Bob] “Show me Mr. Argumentation. Show me where I’ve done what you’re accusing me of doing. Furthermore, framing the conservation of energy argument with the universe as ‘the system’ is not only sophomoric but idiotic as well. It serves absolutely no definitive practical purpose whatsoever; unless you’re making a point to a 7th grade science class.”
Above I gave definitions for mechanical and thermal work and explained how work is used to transfer energy. I believe the way in which I’ve framed this is consistent with the laws of physics. If you disagree please tell me why. In my post to Robert I have explicated my assumptions and logic. Please tell me which of my steps you believe to be incorrect.
[Me] “I further explained that how in your suggested analysis (which shows how you are thinking about the situation) you had suggested doing something that I not only know to be bad mathematical practice, but can actually PROVE is bad. (Which offended me even more.) Your response: Falsely accusing me of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. [I addressed this in an earlier post.]”
[Bob] “How did you arrive at the 17.4% Slarti? [I explained this in my post to Robert.] What assumption in your reasoning caused you to ‘reach for the stars and comets and asteroids’ to fill a major gap? Why were you spending so much time discussing liquification via inelastic collisions when you know that Earth’s gravitational acceleration makes it ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for steel to liquify on impact; even if it all fell from the height of the Towers. What is that if not argument by verbosity?”
I never said (and was very careful never to say) that steel would have been liquified in the rubble impact* (unless it was already at or near the heat of fusion). My point is only that an enormous amount of energy was transformed by the impact into heat in the rubble. It is a known fact that iron meteors may not just liquify but vaporize in a terminal velocity impact. This would be an impact powered solely by the earth’s gravitational acceleration. In order to avoid misunderstanding and to aid myself in correcting misunderstanding I’ve tried to qualify everything I’ve said very carefully. Unfortunately this makes my arguments dry and verbose. Sorry.
*It is possible (I’m not going to go back to look) that I implied something of this sort at the beginning of this argument. If so, it was incorrect.
Bob said:
“Even more infantile is how you don’t own up to what you did. By denying that you ever said the steel liquified upon impact (as you did above) you sound like Bush when he denied making any connections between 9/11 & Iraq/Saddam.”
As I said iron meteors (basically the same thing as steel) will liquify in high-speed impacts. In the WTC collapse this ‘impact heat’ would not (generally) be sufficient to melt steel, but it does add a significant amount of heat to the rubble that would contribute to keeping steel at or near the heat of fusion (or pushing it over). My assertion is that ALL of the heat sources present combined (impact heat, fire, exothermic reactions, etc.) were sufficient to account for the observed heat and molten metal in the rubble.
[Me] “I’ve outlined a version of events which may not be completely accurate in every detail, but I believe to be a pretty good general framework of what happened.” Your version of events: ‘They musta blow’d them bildin’s up cuz that there rubbel were HOT!’”
[Bob] “No Slarti, you cobbled together a bunch of faulty premises & assumptions and created a crystal clear mathematical deduction of a bullshit argument. [My premises and logic are enumerated in my post to Robert. Which steps are bullshit?] My response has always been quite articulate and can be summed up as me constantly explaining to you why I don’t believe your argument that the moon is made of green cheese. Making me sound like a redneck would be fine; however when you do it while attributing to me arguments I”ve never made, that makes you intellectually dishonest. [We’ve both been rude to each other, but you have yet to put forth a theory of the collapse which explains (even in general terms) how explosives could have been used to increase the heat in the rubble.]”
[Me] “I’ve shown that to double the thermal energy in the collapse (of all three buildings) you would need the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT – that’s 1.5 kilotons of Robert’s hole-punching C4 charges (oops, no residue!) or 3/4 kilotons of the most powerful non-nuclear explosive known to Wikipedia, Octanitrocubane. Assuming (generously) that your mythical ‘thermate’ is equally powerful, your explanation of how something on the order of 750 metric tons of explosives were covertly planted and precision detonated?”
[Bob] “Further evidence that you’ve never studied the art of argumentation. [No, I haven’t. I studied science and math.] Resolved, that the explanations offered for the existence, for nearly six months, of molten metal and high temperatures within the rubble of Towers 1, 2 & most importantly 7, are untruthful; i.e. there is a huge lack of agreement between said knowledge and its object of analysis.”
This is certainly not resolved. I believe that my explanations are sufficient to account for said temperatures. I have sources of more that 12 TJ of thermal energy in the rubble. My assertion is that 12 TJ (more than 1/10th the energy released in the Hiroshima explosion) plus additional known or extremely probable heat sources in addition to the thermal insulation provided by the rubble (I think that the many small pockets of air would be a very good insulator in the rubble) are sufficient to explain the presence and duration of heat at ground zero. In the case of WTC7, I believe that the 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel pumped onto the fires in addition to the extended length of time that significant portions of the building were on fire is a much better explanation of the hot spots you mention than explosives. Finally, I believe that any theory which posits explosives as necessary to generate additional heat is multiplying entities beyond necessity (which has been my point from the start).
[Me] “I’ve explained how spraying water on hot iron causes a reaction which in addition to being exothermic on its own, creates hydrogen gas as a by-product.”
[Bob] “Okay Mr. Boyle, where did you get the superheated steam from to start said reaction and by what mechanism was the equilibrium shifted to maintain your alleged exothermic reaction? (Uh, Alex, I’ll take ‘Question Begging’ for $200)”
“What is water sprayed onto steel at or near the heat of fusion?”, Alex. The reaction could continue as long as the steel stayed hot (not likely a problem with the heat of reaction in addition to the probable oxidation of the hydrogen by-product) or they stopped spraying water on the debris (which they didn’t for a very long time).
[Me] “12,000 gallons of diesel fuel was pumped into the burning WTC7 from underground tanks generating 1.5 teraJoules of heat (that’s just the added heat from the diesel fuel, the total heat generated by fire is larger) which is enough to raise the entire mass of the building 339 C by itself.”
[Bob] “There you go again, tossing around big numbers without any focus whatsoever. [I have a basis for all of the numbers that I toss around.] All of the fuel was burned? [There were two 6,000 gallon tanks in the basement of WTC7 to power emergency generators, they were full the morning of 9/11 and empty thereafter (and none leaked into the ground beneath them). Other tanks under the WTC complex were found to be intact and full after the collapse. No diesel fuel was found in the debris, ergo it all burned.] Diffuse diesel fuel flames burn how hot? [I believe the fires were estimated to be as hot as 1100 C, but I’m not really sure.] 339 C? [This is an estimate (from the source I linked last night) of how much the temperature of the entire ferrocrete mass of WTC7 would increase with the addition of 1.5 TJ of thermal energy.] And you know how many joules were released from the fuel burning in WTC 7? [1.5 TJ is the amount of thermal energy released by burning 12,000 gallon of diesel fuel. If it was not all burned they would have found diesel fuel in the debris.] A man’s got to know his limitations Slarti. [I believe that I do and I stand behind everything I’ve said here.]”
[Me] “You make straw men of my arguments and question some of the values that I’m using.”
[Bob] “Don’t look now, but you’re whining.”
Whining, arrogance, and condescension aside, my arguments stand on their own. I don’t say you’ve done it deliberately, but you’ve frequently misrepresented my statements, creating straw men. (Questioning any of my values is perfectly legitimate and its inclusion here is snarky, sorry.)
[Me] “Can you answer ALL of my arguments here, like I’ve done with yours?”
[Bob] “I have replied to your arguments; over and over. [On this one, I have conflated you with Robert (who will frequently pick at one or two points in a massive post). Thinking back, you have answered pretty much every post directed at you, frequently point-by-point as you have here. I apologize for the mischaracterization.] In lieu of answering those questions I ask you, i.e. those elements that if you convince me you’d win the argument by winning my assent [What are these elements], you just repeat yourself, toss out more of your assumptions and declare your arguments immaculate by your own authority while denigrating me. [We definitely have a mutual denigration society going on here. In my posts tonight, I’ve tried my best to lay out exactly what my assumptions and arguments are. I am happy to clarify or defend any of it.]
In the end what I’m asserting boils down to this:
I believe that I applied Ockham’s Razor correctly in a way that is standard practice in science. To wit, using it to decided between the ‘natural’ and ‘explosive’ theories of heat at ground zero. I believe that OR favors the ‘natural’ hypothesis and have made extensive arguments as to why.
Bob said:
“I’m not the only one who has a problem with your method of debate.”
I agree that this debate has gotten quite heated. We have both leveled an enormous amount of disrespect at each other and I’m sure we would both point to the other as the cause of our anger. In an attempt to tone down the discussion and establish where we agree and where we disagree, I have written long posts to both you and Robert. I have endeavored to be civil, humble (admittedly not my strongest trait), and clam in addressing both your and Robert’s points and clarifying my assertions and process. I greatly prefer this discussion to proceed in a rational fashion to establish where we have common ground and debate where we don’t. I have tried to present a complex and nuanced theory in a forum ill-suited while simultaneously debating several issues. My theory is more or less complete now and both you and Robert (and Buddha and Byron) are responsible for forcing me to think this through far more thoroughly than I ever would have on my own. All I ask is that before you post an answer to this you read both of my next two posts and that we try to address the issues one at a time instead of all at once. I suggest we start with work and conservation of energy (which I address at the beginning of my post to you) and the related topic of my calculation of how much GPE is converted to TE in the rubble (which I address in detail in my post to Robert). On the subject of Ockham’s razor, I would appreciate it if you would let me know if you still believe that I have used OR inappropriately, or if you just believe that I am incorrect as to its conclusion.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kesseler, Ph.D.
(I would also appreciate it if you continued to call me Slarti…)
Slarti: “First of all, it’s energy, not work (work is the transformation of energy from one form to another).
Energy is the capacity for doing work; Work refers to an activity involving a FORCE and movement in the direction of the FORCE (e.g. vector); Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy. Work is not the ‘transformation of energy.’ Why? Because WORK IS THE USE OF ENERGY. Assuming a-symmetrical damage precipitated a symmetrical collapse, neither crash cut through the core and obliterated the perimeter walls. IOW, the damage didn’t allow for the possibility of all the floors above coming down on the area of impact. The floors above the impact zones were securely anchored to the 47 column core and the perimeter steel walls. Accordingly, in the North Tower, i.e. the South Tower Core was virtually untouched, the only symmetrical collapse capable of miraculously happening is the collapse of one floor at once; possibly a second. That’s not enough downward vertical force to shred the 47 column core or the steel perimeter. Because if it was the building would never have survived construction in the first place.
That aside, assuming that which did not and could not have happened, i.e. an entire floor’s worth of core and perimeter steel just vanished, which just a glance at the perimeter steel shows it didn’t, then even that force of falling 10-12 feet on to the internal core and perimeter steel structure intact below would remain standing like a railroad spike. That straight down vector of Work force is BEREFT OF ANY SHEARING FORCE VECTORS needed to shred the columns and perimeter steel. Robert, and I believe Buddha, also alluded to this problem in earlier posts.
Slarti: “And I haven’t worked backwards at all. I started with 400 GJ of GPE. Given the time of collapse (10-13 s) we can estimate the velocity of the rubble before impact (65-85 m/s).”
Don’t you see how your framing of the issue precludes the problem of Work? What you call ‘rubble before impact’ is necessarily the byproducts of downward vertical Work allegedly used to shred the columns and the perimeter steel sans reasonable shearing forces. Further, the immense speed at which the Work was completed by the ‘collapse’ is also indicative of the immense amount of Power required.
Slarti: “By comparing this to the free-fall velocity from that height, we can determine the energy stored as kinetic energy in the rubble immediately before impact (200-335 GJ).”
I need to get to sleep and will follow up on this tomorrow. But you need to examine that statement “the energy stored as kinetic energy in the rubble immediately before impact” and ask yourself if it’s truly a phrase befitting the observation. Work is a FORCE and movement in the direction of the FORCE; i.e. Newton-meter. Your hypothetical ‘piston’ is performing Work at an immense speed (power). The rubble just before the end of the event is still a byproduct of the work (in progress) and the rubble at the end of the event is no longer moving (i.e. no v^2 component), therefore containing no kinetic energy. But, I hear you ask, “where did it go?” And once again I remind you that the rubble owes its existence to WORK. There is no meaningful Ke in the rubble per se, the rubble is in a state of creation as a byproduct of WORK. And due to the fact that Earth’s gravitational acceleration does not permit the possibility of the liquification of steel, any thermal energy within the rubble must be attributed (for the most part) to the Te stored in the steel before collapse due to fire and the friction created during the Work process creating said rubble; neither one of which, separately or combined, would ever reach the heat of fusion for molten metal.
And per WTC 7, the autoignition temp for type 2 diesel (i.e. for generators) is 257 C
Must sleep now.
Slarti,
I’ve done my best to educate you. You are too arrogant to learn. I deal with physics on a daily basis. I have to determine whether the radiation is from a point source, a line source, or a plane source. Do you know what radiation is? It’s energy. You can’t even comprehend the difference between point, line, and plane sources.
It’s kind of ironic that this discussion is taking place ant a legal blog. You’re complaining that we’re not following Italian Law in a U.S. Court. Guess what? Just like Italian Law is not applicable in U.S. Court, Energy Conservation Law is not applicable in an open system. Why do you need to rely so heavily on energy conservation? Because it’s the only way that would permit your calculations to work. Unfortunately, the same calculations would permit the building to collapse without the plane or the fire.
Here’s a part of Wiki for you: “Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
Where have you heard that from before? Oh yeah, I’ve been repeating it over and over.
“So how did someone slip 750 metric tons of ‘thermate’ into the WTC and precision detonate it without anyone (strike that) EVERYONE noticing?”
Who said that 750 metric tons would be required? Show your calculations. Are you now a demolition expert?
“I haven’t worked backwards at all. I started with 400 GJ of GPE. Given the time of collapse (10-13 s) we can estimate the velocity of the rubble before impact (65-85 m/s).”
You’re getting an estimate by using the time it took for the building to collapse, but you’re not working backwards? BULLSHIT!
“Some of this energy left the system via particles in the pyroclastic flow.” Energy left your isolated system? BULLSHIT!
“Do you really contend that the 47 column core could withstand the impact of a 23 kiloton mass with 1 GJ of kinetic energy without buckling?” YES
“Shearing is not the only mode of failure possible. As I’ve said, the upper section of both buildings was the next best thing to the fist of god smashing into that spindle and causing it to buckle. What head-on force is necessary to buckle those columns? (If I can’t account for a solid estimate of that force, that would also falsify my model.)”
You’re right, so EXPLAIN THE F-ING 45 degree cuts, and the evidence of molten metal at those cuts.
And Slarti, I ran your premise past a few engineers. They all got a laugh out of your attempt to treat this as an isolated system. You see, every time you talk about energy and mass leaving, it violates the law on which you base your assumptions.
Bob,
This will be the last time that I respond to one of your posts point-by-point. I’ve shown that I can refute any particular point you make, but I don’t have the time to refute ALL of them so, like I told Robert, I’ll limit myself to responding to points I consider valid or inane (I’m betting on more of the latter).
Note: Some of the numbers that Bob cites or quotes me as using are from early in this discussion and are not necessarily accurate – I am assuming for the purposes of this post that the numbers are correct. Correcting the numbers does not affect the arguments in this post (Bob’s or mine) in any way.
[Me] “Your exact words: “…we calculate that the rubble retained 82.6% of the original gravitational potential energy as kinetic energy the moment before impact. This implies that 400 billion joules of kinetic energy were transformed into other types of energy at the moment of impact.*”
[Bob] “You started with the rubble and worked your way back to the 17.4% Work.”
*A second here to clear up something stated poorly: I should have said, “…transformed into other types of energy BY the impact.” The ‘impact’ of the rubble is a complex set of events, and I spoke imprecisely while treating it in aggregate.
First of all, it’s energy, not work (work is the transformation of energy from one form to another). And I haven’t worked backwards at all. I started with 400 GJ of GPE. Given the time of collapse (10-13 s) we can estimate the velocity of the rubble before impact (65-85 m/s). By comparing this to the free-fall velocity from that height, we can determine the energy stored as kinetic energy in the rubble immediately before impact (200-335 GJ). Therefore 65-200 GJ of energy was converted to other forms BEFORE impact. This energy was used to collapse the structure of the building and pulverize materials, and some of it was ejected in the pyroclastic flow (and various debris). You must account for energy by first determining where it started and tracing its path to determine where it ends up. That’s what I’ve done. Saying that there was a 1300 degree pile of rubble on 9/16 which can’t be explained by GPE is making an assertion based on an ill-posed question*. The correct question is ‘how much heat did GPE contribute to the 1300 degree pile of rubble?’, which is what I’ve endeavored to estimate.
*The problem with this is there is no way to determine how much heat came from which source by considering the pile of rubble. You need to determine how much heat each given source produced separately and then compare that to observations.
[Me] “I calculated that 17.4% of the original gravitational potential energy went into collapsing and pulverizing the building. [aka WORK] Some of this energy left the system via particles in the pyroclastic flow. The rest of it remained in the debris as heat (I didn’t include this energy in my analysis – effectively assuming that all of this energy left in the pyroclastic flow). Consider an imaginary box that completely contains the WTC (from the subbasement to the tip of the radio masts). Initially, this box contains approximately one trillion joules of gravitational potential energy. All of this energy either remains in the box or is transferred out of the box – I have kept track of the energy that stayed in the box and estimated that enough of it was converted into heat to liquify approximately 1,000 metric tons of iron at room temperature. I have not in any way violated the law of conservation of energy.”
[Bob] “And you didn’t engage in the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc here how??”
As I said, I have tracked 200-335 GJ of GPE transformed (via KE) into TE in the rubble. I have given a comparison in order to help determine the scale of that energy. I have described the processes via which these transformations take place. My links of causality are clear. (Or do you contend that GPE was NOT converted into KE which was then used to do more work?)
[Me] “re conservation of energy and closed systems. I defined the closed system to be the universe as there are no energy flows into or out of the universe (by definition), thus it is clearly a closed system. Neither Bob nor Robert can tell me where the KE goes when the rubble hits the ground in this system either.”
[Bob] “That’s about as meaningful for our purposes as subtracting infinity from infinity; i.e. you’ve defined the object of your analysis in such an ‘all inclusive way’ as to define it out of meaningful existence.”
‘The universe’ is a valid closed system, I am free to use it if I wish. Energy is conserved in this system, so I can assume that any energy I can identify (say 400 GJ of GPE in the WTC) will have an unbroken existence in spacetime in some form or other. I have tracked all of this energy until it was converted to heat or it left the region that I am concerned with (ground zero). EVERYTHING that I have done is totally consistent with the laws of physics.
Bob posted:
“Here’s another vague statement:
Slarti: “*The 17.4% drop from the gravitational potential energy to the kinetic energy before impact is the energy that went into pulverizing and accelerating the debris, it remained in the debris as thermal energy. This source of heat is neglected in the analysis.”
Work is NOT heat! Work may create heat as a frictional byproduct, but it is not heat. Accordingly WORK does not ‘remain in the debris as thermal energy.’”
Wikipedia says:
“In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance. Like energy, it is a scalar quantity, with SI units of joules.”
Kinetic energy does work to compress or otherwise deform the rubble and the ground which results in thermal energy in the rubble and the ground. In addition, kinetic energy does work to power a seismic event and a big kaboom. There is no other work powered by the kinetic energy in the impact and after the impact the kinetic energy is all gone. After subtracting out the seismic and sonic energy, what’s left is the thermal energy.
Bob said:
“Do you also see the problem your GENEROUS assumption regarding the thermal energy ‘naturally’ residing in the debris determining the amount of work required to tear down the building?”
GPE was being continually converted to KE during the collapse (via work done by gravity) some of this kinetic energy remained to the bottom and some was diverted elsewhere. You can compute this (given the collapse time). I did.
Bob said:
“Ask yourself this: How many buildings are able to stand with an 82.6% GPE to 17.4% opposing force construction? [I’m not really sure what you’re talking about here, I’m talking about how much of the GPE that was converted to KE remained KE until impact and how much was used before impact to do other work.] Hard to picture isn’t it? Imagine a building with the first few floors created out of balsa wood and the remaining floors created out of lead. Silly? Perhaps, but that’s exactly how your theory, DEMANDING the existence of FREE WORK, comes across as.”
You have completely misunderstood what I’m trying to say. I’ve done absolutely nothing improper.
Bob said:
“So 17.4% of the total GPE, i.e. that representing the existence (mass, height (& g)) of the entire building, was capable of shredding said entire building? [I’m computing, based on a 10-13s collapse time, that 70-200 GJ of energy were converted or transferred from KE in the descending debris (itself converted from GPE) into other forms. Primarily, this energy went into the work of destroying the structure of the building, pulverizing debris, ejecting the pyroclastic flow, and the sound of the collapse (trivial). This is one of the things that makes the model falsifyable – If you can show that it took more than 200 GJ worth of work to do all this, my model is wrong – but you don’t get to make up ridiculous numbers like Robert’s 14 GJ/floor without me attacking them.] That’s all the Work that was required to create the pile of rubble? [Yes. How much work do you think that it should take?] Tell me, other than wishful thinking, what forces were holding up the building for the thirty years of its existence and where did they go on 9/11? And given this oddly excessive amount of free Ke, why don’t your calculations support the theory of controlled demolition? If demolition devices weren’t removing the supports (i.e. forces opposing collapse) of the building, then how did it fall at near free fall speed? [As I’ve repeatedly said, knowing the speed of the collapse is what allows us to determine where the energy went. I’ve been using values (10-13s) out of one of your (or Robert’s) sources.]”
Bob said:
“Do you really contend there were no shearing forces necessary to bring down the 47 Column core?”
Do you really contend that the 47 column core could withstand the impact of a 23 kiloton mass with 1 GJ of kinetic energy without buckling?
Bob posted:
“Me w/ your bracketed notations:” [I’m just trying to place my responses near your arguments, if you would prefer other notation, please let me know.]
Bob said:
No Slarti, the core was an independent structure that, in the absence of shearing forces which a vertical collapse does not account for, would have been left standing like a spindle on a 45 record player.
Shearing is not the only mode of failure possible. As I’ve said, the upper section of both buildings was the next best thing to the fist of god smashing into that spindle and causing it to buckle. What head-on force is necessary to buckle those columns? (If I can’t account for a solid estimate of that force, that would also falsify my model.)
“1. Screw your conservation of energy bullshit. This is not an isolated system. This is not a conservation of energy problem. It is a work problem.”
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, work is the process by which energy is converted from one form to another. Energy is ALWAYS conserved. In isolated systems there is no energy flow into or out of the system (making tracking energy easier), but if we account for energy transfer into (which is insignificant) and out of (which I have) the system, conservation of energy applies.
Robert said:
“2. How hot does the fire need to be before steam can release oxygen to fuel the fire?”
Fire fighters were continually spraying water on the rubble. You and Bob are alleging that there was a lot of hot steel in the rubble (regardless of the source of the heat, we are all agreed that there was steel in the rubble ‘at or near’ the heat of fusion). The reaction I specified will occur when water is sprayed on heated steel.
Robert said:
“Where did you come up with that number?” [750 metric tons of explosives]
I have estimated (or borrowed estimates) of the agreed on sources of energy in the collapse:
400 GJ of GPE per tower plus WTC7’s unknown GPE – I’d guess about 100 GJ (which I contend mostly ended up in TE in the rubble).
8 teraJoules (TJ) of TE generated by fire in WTC1 in the first 40 minutes after impact (you can argue with the number, but you can’t deny this was a source of TE).
3 TJ of TE generated by fire in WTC2 in the first 40 minutes.
1.5 TJ of TE generated by the burning of 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel that was pumped from underground storage tanks into WTC7*, none of it remained in the rubble, ergo it was burned (the black smoke billowing from WTC7 is further evidence of this).
*Some of the burning diesel fuel would likely have been pooled around truss #2, one of the 3 massive trusses needed to support the building due to its unusual construction around a 3-story ConEd substation.
I totaled this up as 12 TJ (being conservative in my estimates – I can easily justify 15 TJ and might be able to get to 20 TJ or more if I include everything (see below). 12 TJ is the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT – since we don’t know what the relative equivalent of ‘thermate’ is, I’ve used the numbers for Octanitrocubane, the most powerful non-nuclear explosive listed in Wikipedia, to estimate that it would take 750 metric tons of ‘thermate’ to double the TE in the pile of rubble.
What I have NOT included (but adds heat none the less):
The additional GPE contained in the ‘live’ load of the buildings (non-structural walls, machinery, furniture, computers, people, etc.)
Exothermic reactions in the rubble (see above).
Heat originating in kinetic energy of the planes.
Heat released by the fireball.
Heat from the fires in WTC1 and WTC2 after the first 40 minutes and in WTC7 (I’ve counted the added heat of burning 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel, but that’s only a part of the total heat generated by fire in WTC7).
Heat from fires observed in the rubble.
You can argue about these sources if you like (and I reserve the right to argue for any or all of them), but they are not included in my numbers and thus do not effect them.
Robert said:
“You need to do some lab work.”
You need to suck it up and admit that despite my arrogance and condescension, I’m the one who is correct here (this isn’t a court of law or a scientific paper, if you can’t handle arrogance and condescension on a blog, you should probably stay off the internet). I’ve spent the last few weeks laying a solid scientific foundation while you and Bob have been fighting straw men and nitpicking numbers. I can now draw on the entire arsenal I’ve built – all of which I can defend as well as I have here. Because my foundation is solid, I can integrate new facts and analysis seamlessly and quickly into my theory. When I causally throw a number into my argument, I’m not trying to slip a fast one by you, I’m laying a trap to force you to justify your unscientific, unqualitative notions in the face of a computation showing them to be ridiculous. This will continue until you stop taking the bait or I get bored.
So how did someone slip 750 metric tons of ‘thermate’ into the WTC and precision detonate it without anyone (strike that) EVERYONE noticing?
Slarti: “You’ve said the burden of proof lies on he who asserts, not he who denies – Well, you’re asserting that ‘natural’ causes weren’t sufficient – I”m denying it.”
Puerile sophistry. If I’m asserting anything it’s that your explanation is illogical.
Slarti: “You explained how, due to your personality type, I offended you by, in your opinion, misusing Ockham’s Razor. I explained that I was using Ockham’s Razor in the way it is most frequently used in science (and explained exactly how I had used it in that context).”
If this is true, why did you thank me for enlightening you as to the proper use of the Ockham’s razor (law of parsimony)?
Slarti: “I explained that in your self-riteous anger you had violated the principle of conservation of energy (thus offending me) not just once, but repeatedly and willfully. Your response: Specious arguments attacking straw men.”
Show me Mr. Argumentation. Show me where I’ve done what you’re accusing me of doing. Furthermore, framing the conservation of energy argument with the universe as ‘the system’ is not only sophomoric but idiotic as well. It serves absolutely no definitive practical purpose whatsoever; unless you’re making a point to a 7th grade science class.
Slarti: “I further explained that how in your suggested analysis (which shows how you are thinking about the situation) you had suggested doing something that I not only know to be bad mathematical practice, but can actually PROVE is bad. (Which offended me even more.)
Your response: Falsely accusing me of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. (I’ll address this in a separate post.)”
How did you arrive at the 17.4% Slarti? What assumption in your reasoning caused you to ‘reach for the stars and comets and asteroids’ to fill a major gap? Why were you spending so much time discussing liquification via inelastic collisions when you know that Earth’s gravitational acceleration makes it ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for steel to liquify on impact; even if it all fell from the height of the Towers. What is that if not argument by verbosity?
Even more infantile is how you don’t own up to what you did. By denying that you ever said the steel liquified upon impact (as you did above) you sound like Bush when he denied making any connections between 9/11 & Iraq/Saddam.
Slarti: “I’ve outlined a version of events which may not be completely accurate in every detail, but I believe to be a pretty good general framework of what happened.”
Your version of events: ‘They musta blow’d them bildin’s up cuz that there rubbel were HOT!’”
No Slarti, you cobbled together a bunch of faulty premises & assumptions and created a crystal clear mathematical deduction of a bullshit argument. My response has always been quite articulate and can be summed up as me constantly explaining to you why I don’t believe your argument that the moon is made of green cheese. Making me sound like a redneck would be fine; however when you do it while attributing to me arguments I”ve never made, that makes you intellectually dishonest.
Slarti: “I’ve shown that to double the thermal energy in the collapse (of all three buildings) you would need the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT – that’s 1.5 kilotons of Robert’s hole-punching C4 charges (oops, no residue!) or 3/4 kilotons of the most powerful non-nuclear explosive known to Wikipedia, Octanitrocubane. Assuming (generously) that your mythical ‘thermate’ is equally powerful, your explanation of how something on the order of 750 metric tons of explosives were covertly planted and precision detonated?”
Further evidence that you’ve never studied the art of argumentation. Resolved, that the explanations offered for the existence, for nearly six months, of molten metal and high temperatures within the rubble of Towers 1, 2 & most importantly 7, are untruthful; i.e. there is a huge lack of agreement between said knowledge and its object of analysis.
Slarti: “I’ve explained how spraying water on hot iron causes a reaction which in addition to being exothermic on its own, creates hydrogen gas as a by-product.”
Okay Mr. Boyle, where did you get the superheated steam from to start said reaction and by what mechanism was the equilibrium shifted to maintain your alleged exothermic reaction? (Uh, Alex, I’ll take ‘Question Begging’ for $200)
Slarti: “12,000 gallons of diesel fuel was pumped into the burning WTC7 from underground tanks generating 1.5 teraJoules of heat (that’s just the added heat from the diesel fuel, the total heat generated by fire is larger) which is enough to raise the entire mass of the building 339 C by itself.”
There you go again, tossing around big numbers without any focus whatsoever. All of the fuel was burned? Diffuse diesel fuel flames burn how hot? 339 C? And you know how many joules were released from the fuel burning in WTC 7? A man’s got to know his limitations Slarti.
Slarti: “You make straw men of my arguments and question some of the values that I’m using.”
Don’t look now, but you’re whining.
Slarti: “Can you answer ALL of my arguments here, like I’ve done with yours?”
I have replied to your arguments; over and over. In lieu of answering those questions I ask you, i.e. those elements that if you convince me you’d win the argument by winning my assent, you just repeat yourself, toss out more of your assumptions and declare your arguments immaculate by your own authority while denigrating me.
BTW, I’m not the only one who has a problem with your method of debate.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-99415
“750 metric tons of explosive”
Where did you come up with that number?
Slarti,
You need to start paying attention.
1. Screw your conservation of energy bullshit. This is not an isolated system. This is not a conservation of energy problem. It is a work problem.
2. How hot does the fire need to be before steam can release oxygen to fuel the fire?
You need to do some lab work.
You’ve said the burden of proof lies on he who asserts, not he who denies – Well, you’re asserting that ‘natural’ causes weren’t sufficient – I”m denying it.
Have you lived up to your burden of proof? No.
You explained how, due to your personality type, I offended you by, in your opinion, misusing Ockham’s Razor. I explained that I was using Ockham’s Razor in the way it is most frequently used in science (and explained exactly how I had used it in that context).
Your response: nothing.
I explained that in your self-riteous anger you had violated the principle of conservation of energy (thus offending me) not just once, but repeatedly and willfully.
Your response: Specious arguments attacking straw men.
I further explained that how in your suggested analysis (which shows how you are thinking about the situation) you had suggested doing something that I not only know to be bad mathematical practice, but can actually PROVE is bad. (Which offended me even more.)
Your response: Falsely accusing me of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. (I’ll address this in a separate post.)
I’ve outlined a version of events which may not be completely accurate in every detail, but I believe to be a pretty good general framework of what happened.
Your version of events: ‘They musta blow’d them bildin’s up cuz that there rubbel were HOT!’
I’ve shown that to double the thermal energy in the collapse (of all three buildings) you would need the equivalent of 2 kilotons of TNT – that’s 1.5 kilotons of Robert’s hole-punching C4 charges (oops, no residue!) or 3/4 kilotons of the most powerful non-nuclear explosive known to Wikipedia, Octanitrocubane. Assuming (generously) that your mythical ‘thermate’ is equally powerful, your explanation of how something on the order of 750 metric tons of explosives were covertly planted and precision detonated?
Your response: nothing.
When I explained how controlled demolition (generally) only uses explosives to cut supports on lower floors to initiate gravitational collapse and how any building will collapse under its own weight in this manner – be it the upper 15 floors of WTC1 after a progressive failure caused by airplane impacts and the attendant fires, or WTC7 after the failure of truss #1 or truss #2 following damage and fire in the wake of the collapse of WTC1.
Your response: nothing.
I’ve explained how spraying water on hot iron causes a reaction which in addition to being exothermic on its own, creates hydrogen gas as a by-product.
Your response: nothing.
12,000 gallons of diesel fuel was pumped into the burning WTC7 from underground tanks generating 1.5 teraJoules of heat (that’s just the added heat from the diesel fuel, the total heat generated by fire is larger) which is enough to raise the entire mass of the building 339 C by itself.
Your response: nothing.
You make straw men of my arguments and question some of the values that I’m using.
My response: Point by point refutation of your arguments complete with calculations and citations in support of my interpretations.
Can you answer ALL of my arguments here, like I’ve done with yours?
Your response: