Thank you, Harry!

Haven't gone over those numbers with a calculator and CRC yet but it
looks good at first glance -- and it provides a great place to start
even if I end up disagreeing!


Harry Veeder wrote:
> 
> A calculation can be found here near the end of the page:
> 
> http://www.takeourworldback.com/smokinggun.htm
> 
> quote:
> 
> <<As for the kinetic energy available from the massive collapse, this is
> given by: 
> 
> KE = 0.5mv^2 where v = SQR(2gh) which leads to KE = mgh
> 
> ...and if all of this was converted to heat and remained within the
> material, the temperature increase is found by dividing by the mass and heat
> capacity: 
> 
> T2 - T1 = mgh/(mc) leading to gh/c
> 
> So for g = 9.807 m/s^2, h = 1368 / 3.2808 m, and c = 450 J/kg.K for steel at
> around ambient temperature, the mean temperature increase is 9.09 degrees
> Kelvin. The concrete would be cooler; its specific heat is nearly twice that
> of steel. 
> 
> This is already a very high estimate for the mean, since that supposes the
> entire building mass was dropped from 1368 feet. There should be a reducing
> factor of more than 2, considering the steel was much heavier grade at the
> bottom, and a considerable amount of the building's mass was below ground.
> 
> 400,000 tonnes distributed over an area of more than 4,000 square meters
> averages less than 100 tonnes per square meter. There would not be spots
> where a few pieces of steel would experience temperature increases that were
> hundreds of times greater than the mean increase. If a couple of trucks
> collided head-on, tens of tonnes of mass would be distributed over a
> cross-section of a few square meters and the impact would be very sharply
> concentrated over tens of milliseconds as opposed to ten seconds or more.
> Such collisions do not result in puddles of molten metal on the road. And
> unfortunately for the "gravitational energy melts steel" theory, even if the
> steel was already hot, it still requires some 250 KJ/kg for the latent heat
> of fusion to melt it, which is over 60 times the energy needed to raise
> from, say, 25 C to 34 C.>> 
> 

Reply via email to