Contact.
An
impact only takes place and follows from the moment of
contact.
The Newton's Cradle shows the almost instanteous
transmission of kinetic energy through the line of balls.
Wreckage striking the heap will
transfer its kinetic energy whenever it makes contact with, and impacts, other material. The net direction of transferred kinetic energy is downwards.
There are differences between rubble and steel, and these are material density (thus greater momentum), toughness, and hardness. Under these conditions the steel will sink through rubble. At speed, of course, until it meets more steel.
Motion and contact. Steel balls of the same temperature, which are in contact but at rest, do not result in a change of temperature
Enough. The cradle isn't transferring HEAT.
It is also capable of many other things like bending columns and beams and pulverizing reinforced concrete
Of course it is. That is what is happening. What happens when you bend and pulverize? You generate heat.
Where is most of this material heading? The pile. Does the debris reach ground zero? Yes. Does the steel tend to penetrate the rubble? Yes. Does steel hitting steel transfer its energy? Yes. In what direction? Towards the bottom of the pile. So where does a significant proportion of the kinetic energy end up? The bottom of the pile, against ground zero.
Are these processes efficient? No. What happens to inefficient transfers of kinetic energy? They resolve as HEAT. And the temperature climbs.
This is patently untrue because if etc.
We're done here.
This is the type of patronizing etc.
And here.
myself said:
What proportion of the total energy resulted in hotspots is open to question.
Very much so. In fact it is pure conjecture on your part.
The energy isn't a conjecture. I have demonstrated it mathematically. The proportion of this non-conjecture isn't a conjecture. There must be one. The question is a conjecture, because that's what a conjecture is. A question.
The sentence as a whole isn't a conjecture. It's a statement of FACT.
But one educated by years of experience following years of training.
myself said:
The infra-red imagery is entirely to be expected.
Is it? And yet it is unique in its intensity and duration in such an event.
I agree with you, it's just as unique as collapsing long-span beamed steel-framed skyscrapers are.
myself said:
Wherever you were schooled, you should go and demand your money back
This is the type of patronizing comment, etc.
No. You have been sold a pup if you believe you know anything about physics and engineering.
(After Oxymoron reads what WIKI writes about kinetic energy)
Yes, any work produces heat but at a very small ratio.
By which you mean to say? I'll answer what I think you mean. Significantly less work is done destroying brittle material than bending tough material. Significantly less work is done at the top of the pile than at the bottom of it. The work, however, is there to be done. And that which doesn't go to bursting or bending goes to heating. We have established that.
And I gave you a ratio to consider: ten per cent.
If this were not the case, every time I repeatedly hammered a nail, it would melt.
It undoubtedly would if you hammered it fifty times per second for, say, a minute.
Did NIST not investigate where the molten metal came from?
I thought they investigated up to the collapse. What molten metal? Do you have pictures or videos of it? Where was it?
I have either found your sources to be irrelevant
Physics is irrelevant? Maybe to a truther of some sort, but the rest of us rather respect it.
or very often not working, (error 404's)
Yet you have never told me this up to this point. It doesn't point to your competence, does it?
I am attacking the credibility and veracity of your arguments
No, you aren't, because you never discern them. You are always talking about something else.
I suggest it is you who perceives it as personal.
I take it personally when, without reading and understanding what I say, you make loud and false accusations of contradiction without the slightest backing of argument with either facts or reason.
Enough.
Your laziness.
I note you avoided the question as to whether you still stick by your statement, "A vertical slender column which buckles IS collapsing. The only thing to follow it is its meeting ground zero."
Leonhard Euler made it in 1745. Who am I to disagree? When are you going to make a sensible dispute with slender vertical column buckling instability?
Of course the external columns were strapped together at the floor levels. They failed along their floor lines in planes. The undersides of the floor levels where the fires were burning were the most susceptible.
Unlike the Windsor Tower there was nothing there to hold them up. The WTC structures on the point of collapse were about to become
mechanisms, with failing members immediately transferring their loads to previously intact members.
Non mutually volatile objects
Balls.
[video=youtube_share;BMWsOyOHaaA]http://youtu.be/BMWsOyOHaaA[/video]