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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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 tactics in your rebuttals.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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 tactics in your rebuttals.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
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 you are an expert. 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 tactics in your rebuttals.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to 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 you are an expert. 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 tactics in your rebuttals.
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:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to 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 you are an expert. 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 tactics in your rebuttals.
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 must be an agent provocateur.
To address your anecdote and show its error:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to 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 you are an expert. 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 tactics in your rebuttals.
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 must be an agent provocateur.
To address your anecdote and show its error:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to 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 it can't be true that another project was 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 you are an expert. 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 tactics in your rebuttals.
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 must be an agent provocateur.
To address your anecdote and show its error:
it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum
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 effected by its crystalline structure), then a thing 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 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 energy flow out 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, you are literally just talking out your ass. You begin with the absolutely unbelievable assumption that the technologies you may know something about can't be modified. For example:
their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to 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 it can't be true that another project was 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 you are an expert. 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 tactics in your rebuttals.