ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
You are speaking nonsense. What was available to burn didn't walk away. If the tires burned, the wheels were right there. You know it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum---and it doesn't kill the person holding the torch. It was commonly done in my junior high school metalshop class. The only thermal sinking that went on was when the molten aluminum dribbled away from the fire and congealed on the ground. I think you are speaking beyond the realm of practical experience.
I know all about space-based solar energy transmission, since it was first proposed in the late 1970s, looking over the shoulder of Boeing's design work on giant solar panel arrays in orbit. I knew John J. Olson, the engineer who produced some splendid artwork on the subject. There are no such things presently. Moreover, their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight. The designs had the satellites placed at geostationary orbit altitude and they were BIG, with dimensions in kilometers. Nothing like that exists, and we really don't know if they can be built (aspirations notwithstanding). All the current attempts at "proving" the concept involve satellites in low Earth orbit, where they indeed will "zip along rather rapidly." I've analyzed one proposed system, and it fell apart once the orbital and optical physics were accounted for. It also turns out that there is a very adverse relationship between the diameter of the satellite power aperture and the ground-based receiver aperture. They must both be big...and this has nothing to do with the amount of power being projected, so even a small-powered experiment will have an uphill test. Yeah, I would say understanding the operating theory and having analyzed proposed system examples constitutes "investigation" beyond what your quick scan provided. You flunk your rebuttal. It helps to actually know what is being talked about.
You always start off with an attack. You always then assume people have no idea what they are talking about if they don't put in every possible counter argument from the beginning. It's absolutely ludicrous. Your rebuttals are very often an anecdote that is based on completely different conditions and you then call it "the same," I know you aren't an idiot, yet you make so many argumentative errors; ad hominem, pro hominem, appeals to consensus, straw men, red herrings, etc. While you occasionally address the argument presented, more often than not you don't, rather you employ these argumentative errors and fill in the gaps with hubris (appeals to your "authority"). These tactics are exactly what the "fact checkers" do, which makes me think you might be an agent provocateur.
To address your anecdote and show its error:
A thing will melt if it receives more thermal energy than it can dissipate away. These are heat flows. If the flow coming into a volume is more than the flow going out and the total heat energy in the volume is higher than it's melting threshold (determined by it's chemical bond strength which is largely affected by its crystalline structure), then a metal will melt. That's how it works, it's not complicated. A blow torch is a large concentration of thermal energy in a small area. Its design purpose is to put in more energy into an volume than flows out of that volume. As soon as the threshold is met, it melts. That is what a blow torch is designed to do. That's it's whole purpose. It works on just about anything because again, that is what it is designed to do. It's all about heat energy v. volume v. dissipation rate out of that volume.
A tire fire on the other hand isn't shoving all of it's energy into a tiny spot on the wheel. On the contrary, most of it is going into the atmosphere and not into the wheel at all. What heat does go into the wheel isn't concentrated in one space, but is reasonably uniform (compared to a blow torch), thus the entire wheel will have a relatively uniform heat (there will be variance, but it won't be huge). Because aluminum is an extremely good thermal conductor, that heat energy will go to the nearest sinks. What are the nearest sinks? Well, the wheel is not sitting in free space, it's connected to an iron rod (the axle) and to the ground. The axle will take that heat away reasonably quickly, distributing it to the entire iron structure of the car. again, there will be a fair bit of variance there (more than in the aluminum), but heat still flows well in iron, so it will take away a good amount of heat. The ground is also a very good thermal conductor (relative to many things) and is a huge volume (effectively infinite) so it is, quite literally, a thermal ground (in the "electrical ground" sense). The aluminum wheel is connected to ground, thus as long as the thermal energy flow out to ground is the same or larger than the energy flow in, a wheel will not melt.
Interestingly, there are no reports of aluminum wheels melting from fires prior to a few years ago. Do a restricted date search from before 2012 (when the US Govt was legally allowed to spread propaganda through the media). You won't find any. All such reports come from the past few years.
As for the rest, your argument relies on the assumption that you know every single project that has ever been done. You begin with the absolutely unbelievable assumption that the technologies you may know something about can't be modified. For example:
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to better effect metal, yet you assume no one might have decided to make that change. The project design you know about wasn't capable of the required energy levels, so you inject the assumption that another project couldn't possibly have been created that was different and more effective than the one you know about.
I mean...
What the holy hell kind of gaslighting bullshit is that? It's like you're not even trying.
Your argument is based on the assumption that because you may have some level of experience in a field, that you know the limits of technology. That's fine that you believe that, but I think you are wrong. I think you are wrong because I know first hand that the government shuts down research and silences technological breakthroughs. I also know second hand (from numerous friends and family in top secret research) that the government has compartmentalized secret research projects and secret working technology. "Compartmentalized" means that someone in one top secret research project will likely have no knowledge whatsoever about other research projects, even if they are related technologies. Most importantly, no one knows all of what there is, yet you always assume you do.
It is this hubris that is most telling. You come off as "knowing it all," and you do know enough to make it appear (to those without enough experience) as if your assessment is correct. But regardless of what you do have knowledge of, no one knows it all, yet you spread around your "expertise" as an "authority" and "debunker" all the time. Because of your hubris and the argumentative fallacies you employ in your rebuttals, I am just shy of convinced that you are an agent provocateur. I will point that out every instance you use these fallacious "fact checker" like tactics in your rebuttals.
Very grim debating an encyclopedia. But you omit one terribly important fact about melting metals: if the flame temperature is not higher than the melting point, the metal simply will not melt. If it is higher, then it is a matter of the heat input being larger than the heat rejection.
But, if something is immersed in an environment at a certain temperature, and the temperature is being replenished by exothermic reactions, it will melt. You arm wave about thermal conduction, but iron is not that good a thermal conductor. I have a nice cast iron fireplace insert (stove) in which we get wood fire hot enough that the coals glow red-orange, and the stove is not something you want to touch, but it is far, far away from anything like melting (it, too, will glow slightly red in the darkness). To the extent that the ground is rock, it is a terrible conductor. But if the tire rubber is also on fire, and there is an ambient gasoline fire, all the aluminum wheels can do is sit there and reach melting point.
Aluminum wheels are now popular. Formerly, they were steel, with a higher melting point. And the nature of fires has changed. Now we get lithium battery fires, that are more ferocious than gasoline fires.
The solar power system designs were INTENDED to be safe and therefore had reduced power intensity at arrival. This went well with the required large receiver antenna size, from the standpoint of optics. The output of a satellite was supposed to have been a gigawatt, so there was plenty of power to do damage (enough that such a system would probably need an international treaty to operate, in order to prevent its use as an anti-satellite weapon). But to make that power concentrate enough to get to the melting point of aluminum (about 4 watts/cm2 if I recall correctly) would take an enormous projection aperture.
So, you are talking about building a multi-tens of $ billions satellite, in impossible secrecy (too damn visible), to accomplish the destruction of an automobile? The point is, if the objective is to start a forest fire, Zippo lighters and a crew of accomplices are simpler and cheaper---and whether cars get burnt up is NOT IMPORTANT.
Look, if you want to point to an example, look to YAL-1A. Easily capable of maybe 100 w/cm2 on target. Demonstrated to do the job against boosting targets. But it filled up an entire 747 with equipment and reactants, required lots of care and feeding---and was scrapped by Obama in 2014. End of story. Not necessary to lecture me with arm-waving when I worked on the Real Deal. This program had classified elements, but the program was NOT SECRET. So your all-availing excuse for the lack of evidence---that the culprit was "secret"---is just more bloviating by someone who thinks he knows more than he does.
The stuff that government keeps under wraps...is kept under wraps. It wouldn't be used to do juvenile stuff like start forest fires. I have been in very classified activities and can testify to that. In any case, you can't say that something exists when there is no evidence. Saying the evidence is "secret" is laughable. It just reveals you to be a fantasist.
I don't often use "fact checkers," as I distrust them as a class. But when somebody seems to have done his research and the answers are credible, then they have to be admitted. I make no apology for bringing facts into any discussion---nor should you expect me to apologize. I am, frankly, exasperated at the ignorance and illogical thinking that is accepted in these environs. You don't realize how totally that ruins your credibility to any outside observers.
Completely untrue. A thing will melt if it has absorbed enough heat energy to break the bonds (and the crystalline structure) in a localized area. That is how you can melt steel, which melts at 2500 F with wood, which has a flame temperature of about half that. It requires a insulated kiln to trap the heat to ensure that the steel will absorb enough heat energy.
A flame temperature higher than the melting point is only one way to accomplish melting, and even then, it still will not happen if the dissipation rate is faster than the incoming heat energy flow. That is why a thing doesn't melt instantaneously when exposed to such a flame.
The way I have explained it is how it works. Your understanding is insufficient. Just look it up, it's not hard.
Aluminum wheels have been popular for 30 years. They started melting in 2018. You have not addressed the topic directly, but are pretending you have through a straw man.
It may not be important to them, but it is an important piece of evidence that you still have not correctly addressed. Aluminum wheels will NOT MELT in a tire fire, period. I have given a substantial argument that you did not address (correctly) and perhaps more importantly, there is no actual evidence of it occurring prior to about 2018, and a metric fuckton after that.
From q#2225
Couple this with videos from the Navy of objects that, if the video evidence is as it suggests, can warp space (change directions and accelerate at impossible speeds). If they have technology that can warp space, then there are programs that exist that are FAR outside of the public domain. Your knowledge is irrelevant to what is possible. IRRELEVANT. You don't know shit. I don't know shit either about our technology, but I admit I don't know. I am willing to ask questions, you aren't.
It would be if the intention was to create distrust in the government. In fact, that would be a perfect use of the technology in that case.
I am not, nor have I ever made claims without evidence to back it up. Just because you think the evidence is insufficient, doesn't make it not corroborating evidence. You are completely unwilling to even ask questions, and your responses are very often totally incorrect full of false assumptions, like your concept of "melting". Your level of your own "rightness" would be almost laughable if it weren't interfering in what could otherwise be a productive conversation. Seriously, maybe you should brush up on thermo so we can have a proper conversation. Your physics is obviously a little rusty.
It would help if you could be succinct.
Check any book on thermodynamics. An object cannot become hotter than its environment if the heat is arriving by physical contact (conduction or convection). It is also true radiatively. Otherwise, we would have a violation of the 2nd Law.
The adiabatic flame temperature of wood combustion is 3,596 F. Coal/coke has an adiabatic flame temperature greater than 3,900 F. We use an insulated environment to reach that flame temperature. Nobody here is talking about instantaneous melting---though it is a great piece of nonsense to imply that I am saying so. I performed the calculations for melting such things as aluminum or titanium by a laser beam, close to 40 years ago. I haven't forgotten what you never knew.
When have automobiles been subjected to all-consuming fires? Since the introduction of lithium batteries and being in the midst of a forest fire. If you have an interesting point of statistics, write an article and get it published somewhere. I don't see anyone else being startled by the melted aluminum, least of all the manufacturers of aluminum wheels.
I have pointed out that tire fires have the temperature necessary to melt aluminum. I have also pointed out that evaporating aluminum can catch fire at a comparable temperature. You simply shrug this off.
Of course there are programs that are not in the public domain---but there are no programs that violate the laws of physics. I have worked in these programs. They are "interesting," but they do not involve any violations of known physics. The Navy videos are also "interesting" but have features suggestive of optical effects in the camera. In any case, they prove nothing. You can't build any case of "if they have technology X..." Well, do they? No answer. And, by the way, you have no idea what questions I have asked or considered. The fact is that I know more shit about this than you can pretend to know.
Use of DEWs? You don't spend billions of dollars for the sake of something that can be accomplished by thugs and cigarette lighters. It would be a waste of billions of dollars.
No, you don't have evidence. You have some facts that you want to interpret as "evidence," when they are much more easily explained in a mundane manner. You don't bother to consider the other hypotheses: large fire arrows delivered by arbalest, fire bombs delivered by drifting balloons, fire-breathing dragons (how do you know they don't exist?), thermite grenades tossed from a helicopter. For being an apostle of open-mindedness, you are stuck on one track.