Re: SCOUTED: Bush is Not Incompetent
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:10:42 -0500, Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Behalf Of Dave Land But I do think that progressives should address the actual cause of the nation's (and some of the world's) woes -- the conservative program -- instead of engaging in smug, self-satisfied and ultimately self-defeating talk about incompetence. I feel the same way about the people who call Bush "stupid". I don't think the man is stupid. He's not a genius but he is certainly not dumb. I think he plays up the folksy stupid aspect to get people to let their guard down and then... Whammo! How many people thought "that guy is way too dumb to be president" back in 2000. But he ran an extremely smart (and nasty) campaign. And he's gotten way too much of what he wanted since then. Or if he doesn't get what he wants, he signs the law with a little statement that says "except when it applies to me"! But he didn't _run_ the campaign at all. He smiled, waved and read canned speeches. Rove et al ran the campaign. I don't think he's stupid as compared to the average American, but compared to the average president he's near the bottom of the barrel. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and > physical trauma. > Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll > see. ... I'm certainly far more > worried about skin cancer than I am about brain > tumours. > Once again the key has to be whether the em > radiation from cell phones is > powerful enough to cause DNA damage in the brain. My > point is that the brain is > bathed in em all the time and unless the cell phones > produce a different or > more powerful type of radiation the brain should > have no trouble dealing with > this. By the way there is no evidence of increased > cancer risks in adults who > have undergone CT scan even multiple scans where > the radiation exposure is > orders of magnitudes greater than that from a cell > phone. Even radiation > therapy to the brain does not cause a significant > increase in additional cancers... Fetal and childhood exposure is another matter, however. I have previously cited the small but detectable increase in leukemia with fetal exposure to imaging X-rays; here are a few more [note that theoretical risks are typically calculated, b/c one cannot deliberately irradiate a thousand pregnant women and follow the babies born]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16498123&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum ...CONCLUSION: Radiation doses to the fetus from institutional MDCT protocols that may be used during pregnancy (for pulmonary embolus, appendicitis, and renal colic) are below the level thought to induce neurologic detriment to the fetus. Imaging the mother for appendicitis theoretically may double the fetal risk for developing a childhood cancer. Radiation doses to the fetus from pulmonary embolus chest CT angiography are of the same magnitude as ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11159059&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum ...CONCLUSION: The best available risk estimates suggest that pediatric CT will result in significantly increased lifetime radiation risk over adult CT, both because of the increased dose per milliampere-second, and the increased lifetime risk per unit dose. Lower milliampere-second settings can be used for children without significant loss of information. Although the risk-benefit balance is still strongly tilted toward benefit, because the frequency of pediatric CT examinations is rapidly increasing, estimates that quantitative lifetime radiation risks for children undergoing CT are not negligible may stimulate more active reduction of CT exposure settings in pediatric patients. WRT adults: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15128988&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related lung cancer risks associated with annual low-dose computed tomographic (CT) lung screening in adult smokers and former smokers, and to establish a baseline risk that the potential benefits of such screening should exceed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated lung radiation dose from low-dose CT lung examinations corresponds to a dose range for which there is direct evidence of increased cancer risk in atomic bomb survivors. Estimated dose-, sex-, and smoking status-dependent excess relative risks of lung cancer were derived from cancer incidence data for atomic bomb survivors and used to calculate the excess lung cancer risks associated with a single CT lung examination at a given age in a U.S. population. From these, the overall radiation risks associated with annual CT lung screening were estimated. RESULTS: A 50-year-old female smoker who undergoes annual CT lung screening until age 75 would incur an estimated radiation-related lung cancer risk of 0.85%, in addition to her otherwise expected lung cancer risk of approximately 17%. The radiation-associated cancer risk to other organs would be far lower. If 50% of all current and former smokers in the U.S. population aged 50-75 years received annual CT screening, the estimated number of lung cancers associated with radiation from screening would be approximately 36,000, a 1.8% (95% credibility interval: 0.5%, 5.5%) increase over the otherwise expected number. CONCLUSION: Given the estimated upper limit of a 5.5% increase in lung cancer risk attributable to annual CT-related radiation exposure, a mortality benefit of considerably more than 5% may be necessary to outweigh the potential radiation risks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1527&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related cancer mortality risks associated with single or repeated full-body computed tomographic (CT) examinations by using standard radiation risk estimation methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated dose to the lung or s
Conspiracy (was: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples)
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > > I'm a firm believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theory > - the one where a > > bunch of well-funded Saudis decided to do the most > spectacular attack > > on the most potent symbols of America's position > in the world, and so > > hijacked some planes and crashed them into the > WTC, the Pentagon, and > > would have destroyed something else, probably the > White House, if not > > for the passengers trying to take the plane back. > Now, there's a conspiracy theory I can buy into > 100%. :-) I'll not respond > to your criticism of Bush because I think we've > already laid out our > positions on Bush's actions and both know the > nuances of the relatively > modest differences we have on just how Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]&#^'d > up. A former Republican and military officer sent me a 'resume' of GWB; the whole thing is ~ 10K, so I picked out a few highlights: > PAST WORK EXPERIENCE I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record. I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history - Enron. > I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history. I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S.from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. > I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election). I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. > I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind. > RECORDS AND REFERENCES > All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library sealed and unavailable for public view. All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. And since no one has mentioned it in this current diss-cussion, I'll throw out the theory that higher-ups deliberately thwarted those lower echelon intelligence gatherers who warned about some of the 9/11 suiciders; i.e., allowed the hijackers to crash their planes and prep America for eventual kleptocracy (we'll never accept a dictatorship!). Debbi >:P That Ben Franklin Quote Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: SCOUTED: Bush is Not Incompetent
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dave Land > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:40 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: SCOUTED: Bush is Not Incompetent > > On Jun 29, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Horn, John wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Dave Land > > > >> But I do think that progressives should address the actual cause of > >> the nation's (and some of the world's) woes -- the conservative > >> program -- instead of engaging in smug, self-satisfied and > >> ultimately self-defeating talk about incompetence. > > > > I feel the same way about the people who call Bush "stupid". I don't > > think the man is stupid. He's not a genius but he is certainly not > > dumb. I think he plays up the folksy stupid aspect to get people > > to let > > their guard down and then... Whammo! How many people thought "that > > guy > > is way too dumb to be president" back in 2000. But he ran an > > extremely > > smart (and nasty) campaign. And he's gotten way too much of what he > > wanted since then. Or if he doesn't get what he wants, he signs > > the law > > with a little statement that says "except when it applies to me"! > > Spot on, John. "He's so stupid" assumes that this one guy, with his > folksy ways, /is/ the administration. It ignores the fact that he is > surrounded by the likes of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove -- arguable some of > the fiercest minds in politics today. The skill sets needed to effectively win election and effectively run the government are not the same. There is no doubt that the Bush team's political strategists were much more effective than the Democrats. They are good campaigners. But, when it came to running the government, they proved to be horrible managers. For those who believed in the value of invading Iraq, and who honestly wanted success, Bush's actions have been extremely grating. Throwing away a first rate State Department plan for rebuilding Iraq for a collection of wishes was a blunder. Eschewing people who know about the ins and outs of development, and having someone's whose experience with economic development was the managing of a day care was stupid. Keeping Zalmay Khalilzad out of the loop on Iraq for ~2 years was extremely stupid. By all accounts, he has done amazing work trying to cobble together a political agreement since he became ambassador. I think that a good Democratic tact on Iraq is not that we should never overthrow dictators. It is not that we always need permission from the UN. It is, that, if one decides to do this, one damn well better be prepared. IMHO, if Kerry were to focus on day care workers running Iraq, maybe with a commercials depicting someone working in a day care, praising their work, but asking "is this the right person to send to run Iraq?" But, that's mostly hindsight. Looking forward, I see only one Democrat on the national scene who "gets it": Barack Obama. He had some interesting statements on the way Democrats deal with people of faith yesterday. I can provide links if people want. One question to be asked is why middle and lower income whites have as much trouble identifying with the Democratic party as they do. To me, knowing a number of them, the answer seems pretty obvious: they see the national party as having less in common with them than the Republicans. I think Obama has presented one of the reasons why. I think there are others, and that an understanding of these is a prerequisite for any real resurgence of the Democrats. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. IIRC their conclusion was that the heat caused the structural beams to sag, pulling away from the anchors and thus causing the floors to pancake on top of each other. At a sufficient weight the lower floors were no longer able to support the weight... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:54:38 To:Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples On 29/06/2006, at 9:18 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: > I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look > forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. > As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and > debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity I take it you mean 2000F, around 1100C. You can heat steel to that temperature, it will not melt or deform. What it does do is become about half as strong, and will bend, stretch and fail if it's structural. Not to forget that a lot of the central support had just had a plane fly into it. > I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal > is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated > total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this > apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton > structure... leading to the "Soft Butter" support member lack of > resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near > free-fall speeds - all at once. It didn't collapse all at once. It was jackhammered floor by floor. it only needed the top 1/4 of the building to start collapsing to crush the rest. I'm amazed that this is at all mysterious. Charlie___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: > > . A stiffer join means that force is > transmitted through the structure more efficiently, so weakening > vibrations could have sundered the lower parts of the structure > before > the actual wave of collapse reached a particular level. Let me clarify myself a bit here. I'm proposing that there is a damaging kinetic shockwave that runs ahead of the actual wave of collapse weakening structural members to the degree that the collapse wave progresse almost unimpeded. Is that better? (I was unsatisfied with the way I stated it originally) xponent The Scud Missile Of Discourse Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/29/2006 2:42:40 PM, Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > OTOH, the shock that is transmitted though the structure by the > > pounding from above would significantly overpressure the shear > > strength of the bolts that tied the horizontal structure to the > > vertical structure. > > Does anyone know if there was welding performed in addition to > > bolting? Or would that inhibit the neccessary flexing required of > > such > > a tall structure? > > Let me ask a counter-question on this. Take a cross-beam welded and > bolted > to a vertical beam. How far could the cross beam move straight > down, > at the > point of attachment, before it shears apart from the vertical beam? > My > guess is that the 1 foot I referred to vastly overestimates the > distance > that the vertical beam would be offset at the point of attachment > before > breaking. Wouldn't a 1" movement at the point of attachment be > enough to > break the weld and shear the bolt? > 1/10th would break the weld handily and 1/4 to 1/2 for the bolt. (Bolt holes are not tightly fitted and there is often some variation in bolt hole pattens. You often see bolt holes being redrilled or torch cut to make the fit right.) The reason I asked is because welding adds strength WRT shearing forces but stiffens the joins. A stiffer join means that force is transmitted through the structure more efficiently, so weakening vibrations could have sundered the lower parts of the structure before the actual wave of collapse reached a particular level. This would be an effect that could explain why the entire structure gave way almost all at once. Maybe resonance? I remember an event in KC years ago where people dancing caused a bridge over a reception hall in a hotel caused the bridge to collapse and kill a few people. The cause was resonance. Everyone stomping their feet in time. Of course there are any number of forces at work during a chaotic event like the collapse of the WTC. Any and all of them could be operative. I'm interested in understanding the subject a bit better through an exploration of what occurred at different levels of the engineering of the structure. Having worked construction in similar buildings over the years and being aware of the nuts and bolts (NPI) of their construction, I find this all very interesting. xponent Frequency Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Bush is Not Incompetent
On Jun 29, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Dave Land But I do think that progressives should address the actual cause of the nation's (and some of the world's) woes -- the conservative program -- instead of engaging in smug, self-satisfied and ultimately self-defeating talk about incompetence. I feel the same way about the people who call Bush "stupid". I don't think the man is stupid. He's not a genius but he is certainly not dumb. I think he plays up the folksy stupid aspect to get people to let their guard down and then... Whammo! How many people thought "that guy is way too dumb to be president" back in 2000. But he ran an extremely smart (and nasty) campaign. And he's gotten way too much of what he wanted since then. Or if he doesn't get what he wants, he signs the law with a little statement that says "except when it applies to me"! Spot on, John. "He's so stupid" assumes that this one guy, with his folksy ways, /is/ the administration. It ignores the fact that he is surrounded by the likes of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove -- arguable some of the fiercest minds in politics today. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> OTOH, the shock that is transmitted though the structure by the > pounding from above would significantly overpressure the shear > strength of the bolts that tied the horizontal structure to the > vertical structure. > Does anyone know if there was welding performed in addition to > bolting? Or would that inhibit the neccessary flexing required of such > a tall structure? Let me ask a counter-question on this. Take a cross-beam welded and bolted to a vertical beam. How far could the cross beam move straight down, at the point of attachment, before it shears apart from the vertical beam? My guess is that the 1 foot I referred to vastly overestimates the distance that the vertical beam would be offset at the point of attachment before breaking. Wouldn't a 1" movement at the point of attachment be enough to break the weld and shear the bolt? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:18 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples > > > I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a > renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total > systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently > minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading > to the "Soft Butter" support member lack of resistance that allowed the > entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. > Seems a stretch. As Charlie pointed out, it wasn't all at once. Floor by floor, it collapsed, from multiple shocks. I discussed the physics of this at some length in an earlier post. The essence of what I am arguing is that the time to build the g forces necessary for the falling mass of floors X+1 to 110+ to build up sufficient g forces to break though floor X is very shortsay ~10msec. That is not surprising. If it is traveling at only 100 feet/sec, then this is the time it takes to travel 1 foot. The floor has to give 1 foot, fairly uniformly, or break in 10 msec.** To move 1 foot in 10 msec, it has to be accelerated at a rate of 8 g's. There is some resistance to this, of course, so the force of the falling upper stories has to be greater than 8 g's. I'd have to look at stress-strain curves and the building structure to give a good number, but I have a hard time seeing the lower floors not breaking before they are displaced 1 foot downwards. Shear, as Charlie suggested, looks like a very good candidate for the failure mechanism to me. Since this is the second time I explained this, I get the feeling that I'm not being as clear as I might wish. It would be helpful for you to tell me what about the shock wave propagation that I describe is troublesome for you. Dan M. ** Well, the falling mass could also be squeezed together, with the bottom part decelerating at a higher rate than the top part. But, this doesn't buy a whole lot of time before the forces needed for further compaction are multiple g's. Not a whole lot would probably add to one or two hundred msec. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Charlie Bell wrote: > On 29/06/2006, at 9:18 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: >> I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look >> forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. >> As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and >> debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity > > I take it you mean 2000F, around 1100C. You can heat steel to that > temperature, it will not melt or deform. What it does do is become > about half as strong, and will bend, stretch and fail if it's > structural. Not to forget that a lot of the central support had just > had a plane fly into it. > >> I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal >> is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated >> total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this >> apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton >> structure... leading to the "Soft Butter" support member lack of >> resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near >> free-fall speeds - all at once. > > It didn't collapse all at once. It was jackhammered floor by floor. > it only needed the top 1/4 of the building to start collapsing to > crush the rest. > > I'm amazed that this is at all mysterious. > I think what Jonathan is refering to is the idea that "jackhammered floor by floor" is not consistant with "freefall". The floors below, even though they give way should present a bit of resistance that slows the fall. The idea incorporates the fact that the floors below were not weakened by fire, but maintained their integrity until hammered kineticly. I can't say that I know much about this aspect, but my intuition tells me that the structure below should give more resistance than vacuum or air. OTOH, the shock that is transmitted though the structure by the pounding from above would significantly overpressure the shear strength of the bolts that tied the horizontal structure to the vertical structure. Does anyone know if there was welding performed in addition to bolting? Or would that inhibit the neccessary flexing required of such a tall structure? xponent Spasms Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blacksmiths
..once owned 50 hammers, forge, three sheet metal rollers, about seven punches, all four beverly shears, ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 29/06/2006, at 9:18 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity I take it you mean 2000F, around 1100C. You can heat steel to that temperature, it will not melt or deform. What it does do is become about half as strong, and will bend, stretch and fail if it's structural. Not to forget that a lot of the central support had just had a plane fly into it. I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading to the "Soft Butter" support member lack of resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. It didn't collapse all at once. It was jackhammered floor by floor. it only needed the top 1/4 of the building to start collapsing to crush the rest. I'm amazed that this is at all mysterious. Charlie___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blacksmiths
On 6/29/2006 1:09:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, if the annealoing being discussed is the same as the technique > I use, > then that woild be consistent. > > When working with PE (photo-etch) parts when building models, I > sometimes > heat the part until it glows a bit, then allow it to cool slowly. > Supposedly, this allows the part to be more easily bent, folded, > etc. The > material > I'm using is either brass or nickel. Never tried with copper though > (and stainless steel is right out and unbendable at this scale)... > Yes, the Yield Strength of Stainless is far higher than brass of nickel. xponent Ductility Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blacksmiths
Dan Minette wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett >> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:19 AM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples >> >> On 6/29/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the >>> consistency and structural integrity at that temp was actually the >>> same as well- chewed gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would >>> have >>> required big hammers and big >>> arms. :-) Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty >>> with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in >>> yield strength at that temperature. >> >> >> Even if it is soft, it's still heavy... and the hammers aren't just >> for shaping it, they are for annealing, which requires kinetic >> energy. > > I thought I might have been wrong about the annealing process, so I > looked it up. One decent reference, which is supported by other > more > technical references, is > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_%28metallurgy%29 > > To quote: > > > Annealing, in metallurgy and materials science, is a heat treatment > wherein the microstructure of a material is altered, causing changes > in its properties such as strength and hardness. There are several > phases in the annealing process, with the first being the recovery > phase, which results in softening of the metal through removal of > crystal defects and the internal stresses which they cause. The > second phase is recrystallization, where new grains nucleate and > grow > to replace those deformed by internal stresses. If annealing is > allowed to continue once recrystallization has been completed, grain > growth will occur, in which the microstructure starts to coarsen and > may cause the metal to have less than satisfactory mechanical > properties. > > I think you are referencing work hardeningwhich increases the > strength of the steel at the price of ductility. That has to do > with > stress/strain. A good reference on this is > > http://www.engineersedge.com/material_science/work_strain_hardening.htm > > I know I'm a bit pedantic about this, but I've had to spend a good > deal of time worrying about the tradeoffs between hardness and > brittleness. I had long talks on this with a colleague who has a PhD > in metallurgy...so the differences are fairly big in my mind. > OKwe are back in territory I know a bit about. Before I started doing electrical work I worked for 7 years in a manufacturing facility with it's own machine shop and heat treat facility. I was QC inspector so I frequently performed Rockwell and Brinnel (No Joke) hardness tests and was working-enviroment-aware of the results of Charpy impact tests. I had to be taught a minimal bit of metalurgy in order to understand what I was doing. Dan is correct. Annealing is a heat treating process wherein metal is made as soft and uniform as possible before it undergoes another heat treating process that hardens it to a desired state. (Most of the metals I worked with were 1018 &1020 carbon steels, 4130 & 4140 alloy steels, 12Chrome & 17-4PH stainless steels and just a few others. The company made chokes and valves to withstand 2000 - 40,000 PSI. They machined from bar stock, castings, and forgings.) We routinely case hardened (nitride hardening) machined stainless at 1200F without weakening the part and our heat treating used 2000F on alloy parts *to make them harder*. But then this was an industrial setting and a specific formula was being followed to get specific results. AFAIK the sub-100F temperatures *could* produce the weakening seen at WTC, but I can't say that I know that it *would*. The metals we were using probably would not have weakened at such low temps (to be honest I think the 1018 -1020 carbon steels could have, and further I believe the structural components of building steel are a similar metal with similar properties, say 1040 carbon steel.) But it all depends on the specific metal being used in the structure *and* if it were a quality product. I note that there has been some discussion of the Titanics sinking being related to the poor quality of the metal used in its hull. To have a rational non-chaotic discussion on this subject I believe one needs to understand the meanings of Hardness, Ductility, Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, and Shear Strength in at least a general manner, and to undertand how non-destructive testing and destructive testing are done (At least in regards to materials science). xponent Metal Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Whatever, honey. On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Sigh. [etc.] Look at my dialogue with Nick to understand how adults behave. If you had extended actual dialog you might have a point. Make me care. - J - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 29/06/2006, at 4:06 AM, Dave Land wrote: Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phase_diag_iron_carbon- color_temp.png You will see that iron undergoes a phase change at 600C, becoming soft and pliable. It is this phase change that allows farriers and swordsmiths to shape iron in a controlled manner. Steel changes from the solid metal it is at room temperature, to a material with a consistency and structural integrity about the same as well-chewed gum. And, of course, it doesn't matter how much fuel there was. They could have FILLED every floor of building with a couple of feet of Jet A and replaced the air with pure oxygen, and it still couldn't possibly burn hot enough to bring the buildings down. If you accept that the fuel burns above 600C as you have above, you *have* to accept that the structural integrity of the floors where the fuel fires were was fatally compromised by the heat, as the Fe phase diagram shows. I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity - which strikes a pretty notable blow to the theories as promulgated. It's described as 'sailing through' the tests. Perhaps this will change, but it still appears dubious given the paint chips another UL lab examined reveal less than 500° maximum heat and a mere 2% of these samples came close to this temperature. I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading to the "Soft Butter" support member lack of resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. Seems a stretch. I don't come to my conclusions easily, nor with any comfort. And I can certainly eat some nourishing helpings of crow when appropriate. I've found it chock-full of wholesome psychic vitamins good for one's moral constitution as well - but I'm leaving the stewing pot on the shelf for now. - Jonathan - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: SCOUTED: Bush is Not Incompetent
> On Behalf Of Dave Land > But I do think that progressives should address the actual > cause of the nation's (and some of the world's) woes -- the > conservative program -- instead of engaging in smug, > self-satisfied and ultimately self-defeating talk about incompetence. I feel the same way about the people who call Bush "stupid". I don't think the man is stupid. He's not a genius but he is certainly not dumb. I think he plays up the folksy stupid aspect to get people to let their guard down and then... Whammo! How many people thought "that guy is way too dumb to be president" back in 2000. But he ran an extremely smart (and nasty) campaign. And he's gotten way too much of what he wanted since then. Or if he doesn't get what he wants, he signs the law with a little statement that says "except when it applies to me"! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> On Behalf Of Dan Minette > If Gautam were still on the list, he might have been > persuaded to talk to the liberal Democrat he's going to > school with who compiled this. Why would liberal Democrats > want to whitewash Bush? If my conversation with Gautam was correct, this sort of thing is a big reason why he's not come back to the list. Not that I entirely understood that. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blacksmiths
Well, if the annealoing being discussed is the same as the technique I use, then that woild be consistent. When working with PE (photo-etch) parts when building models, I sometimes heat the part until it glows a bit, then allow it to cool slowly. Supposedly, this allows the part to be more easily bent, folded, etc. The material I'm using is either brass or nickel. Never tried with copper though (and stainless steel is right out and unbendable at this scale)... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Blacksmiths
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:42 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Blacksmiths > > On 6/29/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think you are referencing work hardeningwhich increases the > strength > > of the steel at the price of ductility. That has to do with > > stress/strain. > > > I'm familiar with it mainly via simulated annealing, which is a software > pattern for optimizing solutions to problems with high dimensionality... > which is what I deal with quite a bit. Which, I see, uses temperature as a metaphor in describing search algorithms. Might I suggest that the hammering is a better metaphor for using brute force methods? :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blacksmiths
On 6/29/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think you are referencing work hardeningwhich increases the strength of the steel at the price of ductility. That has to do with stress/strain. I'm familiar with it mainly via simulated annealing, which is a software pattern for optimizing solutions to problems with high dimensionality... which is what I deal with quite a bit. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mead (was Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of William T Goodall > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:17 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Mead (was Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical > Samples) > > > On 29 Jun 2006, at 4:18PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of David Hobby > >> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:28 AM > >> To: Killer Bs Discussion > >> Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples > >> > >> Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that > >> you mean "anthropogenic" global warming. : ) > > > > Well, I've a couple of references that indicate that she was full > > of hot > > air. :-) > > > If you are referring to the claims by Derek Freeman that Mead was > 'hoaxed' by her respondents in respect of _Coming of Age in Samoa_ I am. > > It doesn't appear to me that this controversy has been settled. I think that summarizes the situation fairly well. I hope you also note that my claim that there are a couple of references that indicates she was wrong is fully consistent with that statement. :-) There are references that indicate that, just as there are references that indicate that Dr. Freeman has less verisimilitude than Dr. Mead. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blacksmiths
On 29/06/2006, at 7:22 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I know I'm a bit pedantic about this, but I've had to spend a good deal of time worrying about the tradeoffs between hardness and brittleness. I had long talks on this with a colleague who has a PhD in metallurgy...so the differences are fairly big in my mind. I had a long-term gf who was M.Eng in Material Science, and who spent a fair bit of time getting me to test her on stuff for her finals. Some of it rubbed off (no, not that way). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Blacksmiths
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:19 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples > > On 6/29/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the > consistency > > and structural integrity at that temp was actually the same as well- > chewed > > gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would have required big hammers and > > big > > arms. :-) Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with > the > > multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength > at > > that temperature. > > > Even if it is soft, it's still heavy... and the hammers aren't just for > shaping it, they are for annealing, which requires kinetic energy. I thought I might have been wrong about the annealing process, so I looked it up. One decent reference, which is supported by other more technical references, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_%28metallurgy%29 To quote: Annealing, in metallurgy and materials science, is a heat treatment wherein the microstructure of a material is altered, causing changes in its properties such as strength and hardness. There are several phases in the annealing process, with the first being the recovery phase, which results in softening of the metal through removal of crystal defects and the internal stresses which they cause. The second phase is recrystallization, where new grains nucleate and grow to replace those deformed by internal stresses. If annealing is allowed to continue once recrystallization has been completed, grain growth will occur, in which the microstructure starts to coarsen and may cause the metal to have less than satisfactory mechanical properties. I think you are referencing work hardeningwhich increases the strength of the steel at the price of ductility. That has to do with stress/strain. A good reference on this is http://www.engineersedge.com/material_science/work_strain_hardening.htm I know I'm a bit pedantic about this, but I've had to spend a good deal of time worrying about the tradeoffs between hardness and brittleness. I had long talks on this with a colleague who has a PhD in metallurgy...so the differences are fairly big in my mind. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Mead (was Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples)
On 29 Jun 2006, at 4:18PM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that you mean "anthropogenic" global warming. : ) Well, I've a couple of references that indicate that she was full of hot air. :-) If you are referring to the claims by Derek Freeman that Mead was 'hoaxed' by her respondents in respect of _Coming of Age in Samoa_ it seems that Professor Freeman, apart from having an axe to grind , may have been hoaxed himself. It doesn't appear to me that this controversy has been settled. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:05 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples > > > > *Well-chewed* may mean something different to me. Lost all its > flavour, and started to go hard again... Put three sticks of > DoubleMint in your gob and chew them for 4 hours, your jaws will look > like the blacksmiths arms... Ah, we did have different mental pictures. > > Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the > > multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield > > strength at > > that temperature. > > Certainly don't have a problem with it. Plus it also shears far more > easily. > > I'm a firm believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theory - the one where a > bunch of well-funded Saudis decided to do the most spectacular attack > on the most potent symbols of America's position in the world, and so > hijacked some planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and > would have destroyed something else, probably the White House, if not > for the passengers trying to take the plane back. Now, there's a conspiracy theory I can buy into 100%. :-) I'll not respond to your criticism of Bush because I think we've already laid out our positions on Bush's actions and both know the nuances of the relatively modest differences we have on just how Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]&#^'d up. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 29/06/2006, at 6:17 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the consistency and structural integrity at that temp was actually the same as well- chewed gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would have required big hammers and big arms. :-) *Well-chewed* may mean something different to me. Lost all its flavour, and started to go hard again... Put three sticks of DoubleMint in your gob and chew them for 4 hours, your jaws will look like the blacksmiths arms... Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength at that temperature. Certainly don't have a problem with it. Plus it also shears far more easily. I'm a firm believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theory - the one where a bunch of well-funded Saudis decided to do the most spectacular attack on the most potent symbols of America's position in the world, and so hijacked some planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and would have destroyed something else, probably the White House, if not for the passengers trying to take the plane back. There's much I don't like - the Bush administration sucking up to the Saudis and allowing Bin Laden's relatives to flee the States, the way the Bush administration conflated the hatred of Iraq with TWAT. But that's the conspiracy, right there. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lurker Seeks A Voice
Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
On 6/27/2006 7:15:38 AM, Gibson Jonathan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hello,
HI!
Nice to meet you Jonathan!
I sent this letter yesterday to the discussion group and it has yet
to
be posted. I, frankly, do not understand the criteria our minders
use
for what passes through their gates and out to the agora.
As you can see by the headers I am addressing this to the group that
it may grab a bit more attention,.
I have sent
this not just to continue the discussion I _thought_ I was
participating in, but to ask why you think this was refused {without
comment} when I find nothing offensive and it is on topic.
We have in the past been plagued by gadflies who periodically return
to the list in disguise in order to perform some bit of mischief. You
may be aware of such happenings, but if I may be so bold as to speak
for the regulars/irregulars, we apologise for the inconvenience you
have suffered.
I'm sure Dave or Nick or Julia will address the situation shortly.
Someone beat me to it.
I hadn't checked e-mail in a timely manner. It's been a little hectic
this week.
I'll warn everyone, I am likely to NOT check e-mail in a timely manner
through next Wednesday, the 5th. I'll try to get back on top of things
after that. I don't want to bore anyone with the details, but sometimes
life happens at a more hectic pace than at others. And that's what I'm
dealing with right now -- very little negative, just busy, in case
anyone was concerned. (Things are a lot nicer than they were a year
ago, or even 4 months ago.)
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/29/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the consistency and structural integrity at that temp was actually the same as well-chewed gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would have required big hammers and big arms. :-) Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength at that temperature. Even if it is soft, it's still heavy... and the hammers aren't just for shaping it, they are for annealing, which requires kinetic energy. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:28 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples > > Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that > you mean "anthropogenic" global warming. : ) Well, I've a couple of references that indicate that she was full of hot air. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:56 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples > > > On 29/06/2006, at 4:06 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a > > third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phase_diag_iron_carbon-color_temp.png > > You will see that iron undergoes a phase change at 600C, becoming > soft and pliable. It is this phase change that allows farriers and > swordsmiths to shape iron in a controlled manner. Steel changes from > the solid metal it is at room temperature, to a material with a > consistency and structural integrity about the same as well-chewed gum. Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the consistency and structural integrity at that temp was actually the same as well-chewed gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would have required big hammers and big arms. :-) Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength at that temperature. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Dan Minette wrote: ...That is a factin the exact same sense that there is professional consensus on anthropological global warming. Dan-- I always like reading your well-reasoned and careful posts. So forgive me a slight nit-pick: Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that you mean "anthropogenic" global warming. : ) ---David Coming of Age, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
