Sigh. Le sigh. Le whatever.
Sadly, AdamT has decided to try to “debunk” me again. Unfortunately for him and his readers, it’s more a demonstration of how AdamT can’t read.
If NIST’s WTC report included information on a concrete slab’s thermal conductivity (something AdamT acknowledges to be true), then I find it highly unlikely that thermal conductivity of steel wasn’t accounted for in the WTC 7 model. As AdamT says, “They would do it for the concrete, but not the steel.” Well, no, they wouldn’t.
When I say “put numbers to your assertion,” I do not mean quote Kevin Ryan pulling a figure from his butt. I mean “put numbers to your assertion.” Do the math. Show us all just how quickly heat could get “wicked away” from the source of heat in an office fire. There’s a reason you won’t see Kevin Ryan working the formulas, AdamT.
Also, Kevin Ryan has sorely led you astray in his cherrypicking quotes from the NIST Twin Towers report. He’s quoting from NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, “Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center.” If he’d wanted to know about the thermal reaction of the structural steel to those fires, he would have quoted from NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, “Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of World Trade Center Towers.” 1-5F was simulating the fires, AdamT.
Let me demonstate the further calumny of Kevin Ryan here. His first quote of 1-5F is on page 20, “The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” Let’s see, hmm. I wonder if that paragraph said anything else about thermal conductivity? Let’s consult the text:
The steel used to construct the column and truss flanges was 0.64 cm (1/4 in.) thick. The density of the steel was assumed to be 7,860 kg/m3; its specific heat 450 J/kg/K (NIST NCSTAR 1-3E). The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin; thus, no thermal conductivity was used. Note that FDS performed a simple one-dimensional calculation of the steel temperature to be used as a boundary condition in the calculation. More detailed calculations of the steel and concrete temperatures were done using another model (NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).
I’m not surprised to see Kevin Ryan skip over such a blatant reference to the information he claimed to be looking for in the NIST Report, because I’ve been long familiar with the work Kevin Ryan is actually doing. But to others unfamiliar with Ryan’s ability to prevaricate, let me make that last paragraph clear. It was not within the purview of the fire simulation team to account for the thermal conductivity of the steel. That was for the fire structure interface team, whose report is read in 1-5G. The 1-5F team explicitly sends anyone looking for detailed information about the steel thermal conductivity used in the NIST modeling to the appropriate report (1-5G), where they would have read this (p. 15 (pdf 59)):
Thermo-physical properties of steel and SFRM as a function of temperature, were needed for analysis. These properties include density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity.
Therefore, thermal conductivity was accounted for in the NIST computer modeling of the Twin Towers. It was such a standard thing to have in models that the 1-5F team is noting its exclusion of the factor in the steel, their reasons for doing so, and where the person actually interested in the subject will find that information properly applied.
Kevin Ryan, however, kept cherrypicking the wrong report for quotes out of context. His second and third quote are both from page 52. Is there any disclaimer from the 1-5F team on page 52 (pdf 86) to go to 1-5G for detailed analysis of steel structure response?
The detailed calculation of the thermal penetration of the structural elements was performed separately using the Fire-Structure Interface developed by Prasad and Baum (NIST NCSTAR 1-5G), and the commercial finite-element software package ANSYS.
Anyone interested in a full examination of the truth would do well to drop Mr. Ryan from their list of people to uncritically quote.
AdamT continues by quoting my discussion of the eutectic attacking Sample 1 and then stating:
What Mr. Nobles seems to forget is that 1000°C is far hotter than the temperatures that NIST claims were in WTC 7.
What AdamT seems to forget is I don’t care how hot the temperatures in the building got when I’m claiming the eutectic attack happened in the debris pile after the collapse of the building! NIST not getting temperatures that high in WTC 7 is actually evidence that the eutectic corrosive attack did not happen before the collapse! But AdamT doesn’t seem to be able to recognize that.
He goes on:
…although thermate burns at temperatures much hotter than 1000°C, the steel would not necessarily have been heated to the exact temperature of whatever corroded it.
The eutectic approached 1000°C, AdamT. The eutectic got no hotter than that. The material attacking the steel got no hotter than 1000°C. Please consult the definition of “eutectic” before speaking on this issue further.
It’s 100% physical evidence, the actual piece of steel with the cooled remains of the eutectic solidified onto the steel, right there in the laboratories of the Worchester Polytechnic Institute. Therefore, the material attacking the steel (the eutectic) could not have been thermite, thermate, or whatever.
AdamT then produces the Mysterious Eutectic Steel video as proof the sulfur could not have come from the normal sources of sulfur in a building fire. That and AdamT’s incredible assertion that he had to remind me that Sample 1 likely came from WTC 7 will have to wait. AdamT has enough homework for now. (Hint: go back to my original quote, AdamT. Your inability to understand my words is not my problem.)