Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient.

You are missing what I keep saying. The melting of aluminum by microwaves is not a function of the cross section of the microwaves with the aluminum lattice, but with the free electrons on the boundaries. The reflections, if directed towards other boundaries, increase this interaction, thus the more boundaries in a close area the more interaction between photon and free electron -> stronger electric field -> plasma -> melting metal (or heating metal). This happens with any material with free electrons. I couldn't find the original tech that I was thinking of that shows this, but I did find one. It's not a good explanation, since it's a popular science release, not a technical one, but it gives an idea of how this can be accomplished in a 3D printing technology.

If there is a discontinuous surface (a rough spot, or dent with pits e.g.) then there will be a lot of reflections in a localized area, and a lot of free electron movement. This will lead to a plasma that will melt the metal which will cause even more discontinuity in the surface (of say an aluminum wheel), which will lead to more reflections, etc. This is a runaway thermal effect, which can lead to the complete destruction of some metal object in a microwave field.

Having said that, the incoming radiation would have to be high enough and last for long enough to make it happen. So is that feasible? I don't know. It would have to be modelled, and I'm not doing that. The point is, technically it is possible. Admitting it is possible is an important step in any investigation, and usually the biggest hurdle.

Your arm-waving is only that.

This is the best argument you have made. Don't get me wrong, your objections are reasonable. You have made good arguments, though in some cases, like above, you keep sidestepping the statements I am making. But when it comes down to it, if I don't put my math where my mouth is, it's just that; arm-waving.

My purpose was not to make you believe it to be true. I don't believe it to be true. I do however believe that it is possible, and you do not. My point was only to get you to admit that it was possible. You keep sidestepping the first and most important point I made by arguing completely different topics.

If you look at all of the evidence from all of the "really big uncontrollable urban fires" from the past 6 or 7 years or so, you find one thing that keeps coming up. The things that have metal in them are burning completely, and the things that do not are fine. For example, grass, trees, fences sometimes, etc. are still standing and green and/or not even singed, but buildings, cars, lamp posts, etc. are completely destroyed. Fire is spreading across hundreds of yards of fire breaks without apparent reason. It is plausible that it is spread by "high winds," but it is also possible that is not the reason it is making it across those gaps at all. There are numerous reports of Firemen who are flabbergasted by the behavior and results of the fires. They insist "they don't make any sense". Cars are completely melted next to trees that are green. Houses are burnt to dust while still sitting under the green branches of their trees. Not just once or twice, but everywhere. This is not the behavior seen in fires prior to a few years ago.

Something has changed.

All you have to do to figure this out is look. You refuse to do that, because it's "impossible." Thus my desire to convince you it's not impossible. It is impossible to convince you if you don't address the actual argument I am presenting.

Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient.

You are missing what I keep saying. The melting of aluminum by microwaves is not a function of the cross section of the microwaves with the aluminum lattice, but with the free electrons on the boundaries. The reflections, if directed towards other boundaries, increase this interaction, thus the more boundaries in a close area the more interaction between photon and free electron -> stronger electric field -> plasma -> melting metal (or heating metal). This happens with any material with free electrons. I couldn't find the original tech that I was thinking of that shows this, but I did find one. It's not a good explanation, since it's a popular science release, not a technical one, but it gives an idea of how this can be accomplished in a 3D printing technology.

If there is a discontinuous surface (a rough spot, or dent with pits e.g.) then there will be a lot of reflections in a localized area, and a lot of free electron movement. This will lead to a plasma that will melt the metal which will cause even more discontinuity in the surface (of say an aluminum wheel), which will lead to more reflections, etc. This is a runaway thermal effect, which can lead to the complete destruction of some metal object in a microwave field.

Having said that, the incoming radiation would have to be high enough and last for long enough to make it happen. So is that feasible? I don't know. It would have to be modelled, and I'm not doing that. The point is, technically it is possible. Admitting it is possible is an important step in any investigation, and usually the biggest hurdle.

Your arm-waving is only that.

This is the best argument you have made. Don't get me wrong, your objections are reasonable. You have made good arguments, though in some cases, like above, you keep sidestepping the statements I am making. But when it comes down to it, if I don't put my math where my mouth is, it's just that; arm-waving.

My purpose was not to make you believe it to be true. I don't believe it to be true. I do however believe that it is possible, and you do not. My point was only to get you to admit that it was possible. You keep sidestepping the first and most important point I made by arguing completely different topics.

If you look at all of the evidence from all of the "really big uncontrollable urban fires" from the past 6 or 7 years or so, you find one thing that keeps coming up. The things that have metal in them are burning completely, and the things that do not are fine. For example, grass, trees, fences sometimes, etc. are still standing and green and/or not even singed, but buildings, cars, lamp posts, etc. are completely destroyed. Fire is spreading across hundreds of yards of fire breaks without apparent reason. It is plausible that it is spread by "high winds," but it is also possible that is not the reason it is making it across those gaps at all. There are numerous reports of Firemen who are flabbergasted by the results of the fires. They insist "they don't make any sense". Cars are completely melted next to trees that are green. Houses are burnt to dust while still sitting under the green branches of their trees. Not just once or twice, but everywhere. This is not the behavior seen in fires prior to a few years ago.

Something has changed.

All you have to do to figure this out is look. You refuse to do that, because it's "impossible." Thus my desire to convince you it's not impossible. It is impossible to convince you if you don't address the actual argument I am presenting.

Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient.

You are missing what I keep saying. The melting of aluminum by microwaves is not a function of the cross section of the microwaves with the aluminum lattice, but with the free electrons on the boundaries. The reflections, if directed towards other boundaries, increase this interaction, thus the more boundaries in a close area the more interaction between photon and free electron -> stronger electric field -> plasma -> melting metal (or heating metal). This happens with any material with free electrons. I couldn't find the original tech that I was thinking of that shows this, but I did find one. It's not a good explanation, since it's a popular science release, not a technical one, but it gives an idea of how this can be accomplished in a 3D printing technology.

If there is a discontinuous surface (a rough spot, or dent with pits e.g.) then there will be a lot of reflections in a localized area, and a lot of free electron movement. This will lead to a plasma that will melt the metal which will cause even more discontinuity in the surface (of say an aluminum wheel), which will lead to more reflections, etc. This is a runaway thermal effect, which can lead to the complete destruction of some metal object in a microwave field.

Having said that, the incoming radiation would have to be high enough and last for long enough to make it happen. So is that feasible? I don't know. It would have to be modelled, and I'm not doing that. The point is, technically it is possible. Admitting it is possible is an important step in any investigation, and usually the biggest hurdle.

Your arm-waving is only that.

This is the best argument you have made. Don't get me wrong, your objections are reasonable. You have made good arguments, though in some cases, like above, you keep sidestepping the statements I am making. But when it comes down to it, if I don't put my math where my mouth is, it's just that; arm-waving.

My purpose was not to make you believe it to be true. I don't believe it to be true. I do however believe that it is possible, and you do not. My point was only to get you to admit that it was possible. You keep sidestepping the first and most important point I made by arguing completely different topics.

If you look at all of the evidence from all of the "really big uncontrollable fires" from the past 6 or 7 years or so, you find one thing that keeps coming up. The things that have metal in them are burning completely, and the things that do not are fine. For example, grass, trees, fences sometimes, etc. are still standing and green and/or not even singed, but buildings, cars, lamp posts, etc. are completely destroyed. Fire is spreading across hundreds of yards of fire breaks without apparent reason. It is plausible that it is spread by "high winds," but it is also possible that is not the reason it is making it across those gaps at all. There are numerous reports of Firemen who are flabbergasted by the results of the fires. They insist "they don't make any sense". Cars are completely melted next to trees that are green. Houses are burnt to dust while still sitting under the green branches of their trees. Not just once or twice, but everywhere. This is not the behavior seen in fires prior to a few years ago.

Something has changed.

All you have to do to figure this out is look. You refuse to do that, because it's "impossible." Thus my desire to convince you it's not impossible. It is impossible to convince you if you don't address the actual argument I am presenting.

Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient.

You are missing what I keep saying. The melting of aluminum by microwaves is not a function of the cross section of the microwaves with the aluminum lattice, but with the free electrons on the boundaries. The reflections, if directed towards other boundaries, increase this interaction, thus the more boundaries in a close area the more interaction between photon and free electron -> stronger electric field -> plasma -> melting metal (or heating metal). This happens with ferrous materials as well. I couldn't find the original tech that I was thinking of that shows this, but I did find one. It's not a good explanation, since it's a popular science release, not a technical one, but it gives an idea of how this can be accomplished in a 3D printing technology.

If there is a discontinuous surface (a rough spot, or dent with pits e.g.) then there will be a lot of reflections in a localized area, and a lot of free electron movement. This will lead to a plasma that will melt the metal which will cause even more discontinuity in the surface (of say an aluminum wheel), which will lead to more reflections, etc. This is a runaway thermal effect, which can lead to the complete destruction of some metal object in a microwave field.

Having said that, the incoming radiation would have to be high enough and last for long enough to make it happen. So is that feasible? I don't know. It would have to be modelled, and I'm not doing that. The point is, technically it is possible. Admitting it is possible is an important step in any investigation, and usually the biggest hurdle.

Your arm-waving is only that.

This is the best argument you have made. Don't get me wrong, your objections are reasonable. You have made good arguments, though in some cases, like above, you keep sidestepping the statements I am making. But when it comes down to it, if I don't put my math where my mouth is, it's just that; arm-waving.

My purpose was not to make you believe it to be true. I don't believe it to be true. I do however believe that it is possible, and you do not. My point was only to get you to admit that it was possible. You keep sidestepping the first and most important point I made by arguing completely different topics.

If you look at all of the evidence from all of the "really big uncontrollable fires" from the past 6 or 7 years or so, you find one thing that keeps coming up. The things that have metal in them are burning completely, and the things that do not are fine. For example, grass, trees, fences sometimes, etc. are still standing and green and/or not even singed, but buildings, cars, lamp posts, etc. are completely destroyed. Fire is spreading across hundreds of yards of fire breaks without apparent reason. It is plausible that it is spread by "high winds," but it is also possible that is not the reason it is making it across those gaps at all. There are numerous reports of Firemen who are flabbergasted by the results of the fires. They insist "they don't make any sense". Cars are completely melted next to trees that are green. Houses are burnt to dust while still sitting under the green branches of their trees. Not just once or twice, but everywhere. This is not the behavior seen in fires prior to a few years ago.

Something has changed.

All you have to do to figure this out is look. You refuse to do that, because it's "impossible." Thus my desire to convince you it's not impossible. It is impossible to convince you if you don't address the actual argument I am presenting.

Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient.

You are missing what I keep saying. The melting of aluminum by microwaves is not a function of the cross section of the microwaves with the aluminum lattice, but with the free electrons on the boundaries. The reflections, if directed towards other boundaries, increase this interaction, thus the more boundaries in a close area the more interaction between photon and free electron -> stronger electric field -> plasma -> melting metal (or heating metal). This happens with ferrous materials as well. I couldn't find the original tech that I was thinking of that shows this, but I did find one. It's not a good explanation, since it's a popular science release, not a technical one, but it gives an idea of how this can be accomplished in a 3D printing technology.

If there is a discontinuous surface (a rough spot, or dent with pits e.g.) then there will be a lot of reflections in a localized area, and a lot of free electron movement. This will lead to a plasma that will melt the metal which will cause even more discontinuity in the surface (of say an aluminum wheel), which will lead to more reflections, etc. This is a runaway thermal effect, which leads to the complete destruction of some object in a microwave field.

Having said that, the incoming radiation would have to be high enough and last for long enough to make it happen. So is that feasible? I don't know. It would have to be modelled, and I'm not doing that. The point is, technically it is possible. Admitting it is possible is an important step in any investigation, and usually the biggest hurdle.

Your arm-waving is only that.

This is the best argument you have made. Don't get me wrong, your objections are reasonable. You have made good arguments, though in some cases, like above, you keep sidestepping the statements I am making. But when it comes down to it, if I don't put my math where my mouth is, it's just that; arm-waving.

My purpose was not to make you believe it to be true. I don't believe it to be true. I do however believe that it is possible, and you do not. My point was only to get you to admit that it was possible. You keep sidestepping the first and most important point I made by arguing completely different topics.

If you look at all of the evidence from all of the "really big uncontrollable fires" from the past 6 or 7 years or so, you find one thing that keeps coming up. The things that have metal in them are burning completely, and the things that do not are fine. For example, grass, trees, fences sometimes, etc. are still standing and green and/or not even singed, but buildings, cars, lamp posts, etc. are completely destroyed. Fire is spreading across hundreds of yards of fire breaks without apparent reason. It is plausible that it is spread by "high winds," but it is also possible that is not the reason it is making it across those gaps at all. There are numerous reports of Firemen who are flabbergasted by the results of the fires. They insist "they don't make any sense". Cars are completely melted next to trees that are green. Houses are burnt to dust while still sitting under the green branches of their trees. Not just once or twice, but everywhere. This is not the behavior seen in fires prior to a few years ago.

Something has changed.

All you have to do to figure this out is look. You refuse to do that, because it's "impossible." Thus my desire to convince you it's not impossible. It is impossible to convince you if you don't address the actual argument I am presenting.

Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient.

You are missing what I keep saying. The melting of aluminum by microwaves is not a function of the cross section of the microwaves with the aluminum lattice, but with the free electrons on the boundaries. The reflections, if directed towards other boundaries, increase this interaction, thus the more boundaries in a close area the more interaction between photon and free electron -> stronger electric field -> plasma -> melting metal (or heating metal). This happens with ferrous materials as well. I couldn't find the original tech that I was thinking of that shows this, but I did find one. It's not a good explanation, since it's a popular science release, not a technical one, but it gives an idea of how this can be accomplished in a 3D printing technology.

If there is a discontinuous surface (a rough spot, or dent with pits e.g.) then there will be a lot of reflections in a localized area, and a lot of free electron movement. This will lead to a plasma that will melt the metal which will cause even more discontinuity in the surface (of say an aluminum wheel), which will lead to more reflections, etc. This is a runaway thermal effect, which leads to the complete destruction of some object in a microwave field.

Having said that, the incoming radiation would have to be high enough and last for long enough to make it happen. So is that feasible? I don't know. It would have to be modelled, and I'm not doing that. The point is, technically it is possible. Admitting it is possible is an important step in any investigation, and usually the biggest hurdle.

Your arm-waving is only that.

This is the best argument you have made. Don't get me wrong, your objections are reasonable. You have made good arguments, though in some cases, like above, you keep sidestepping the statements I am making. But when it comes down to it, if I don't put my math where my mouth is, it's just that; arm-waving.

My purpose was not to make you believe it to be true. I don't believe it to be true. I do however believe that it is possible, and you do not. My point was only to get you to admit that it was possible. You keep sidestepping the first and most important point I made by arguing completely different topics.

If you look at all of the evidence from all of the "really big uncontrollable fires" from the past 6 or 7 years or so, you find one thing that keeps coming up. The things that have metal in them are burning completely, and the things that do not are fine. For example, grass, trees, fences sometimes, etc. are still standing and green and/or not even singed, but buildings, cars, lamp posts, etc. are completely destroyed. Fire is spreading across hundreds of yards of fire breaks without apparent reason. It is plausible that it is spread by "high winds," but it is also possible that is not the reason it is making it across those gaps at all. There are numerous reports of Firemen who are flabbergasted by the results of the fires. They insist "they don't make any sense". Cars are completely melted next to trees that are green. Houses are burnt to dust while still sitting under the green branches of their trees. This is not the behavior seen in previous fires.

Something has changed.

All you have to do to figure this out is look. You refuse to do that, because it's "impossible." Thus my desire to convince you it's not impossible. It is impossible to convince you if you don't address the actual argument I am presenting.

Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient.

You are missing what I keep saying. The melting of aluminum by microwaves is not a function of the cross section of the microwaves with the aluminum lattice, but with the free electrons on the boundaries. The reflections, if directed towards other boundaries, increase this interaction, thus the more boundaries in a close area the more interaction between photon and free electron -> stronger electric field -> plasma -> melting metal (or heating metal). This happens with ferrous materials as well. I couldn't find the original tech that I was thinking of that shows this, but I did find one. It's not a good explanation, since it's a popular science release, not a technical one, but it gives an idea of how this can be accomplished in a 3D printing technology.

If there is a discontinuous surface (a rough spot, or dent with pits e.g.) then there will be a lot of reflections in a localized area, and a lot of free electron movement. This will lead to a plasma that will melt the metal which will cause even more discontinuity in the surface (of say an aluminum wheel), which will lead to more reflections, etc. This is a runaway thermal effect, which leads to the complete destruction of some object in a microwave field.

Having said that, the incoming radiation would have to be high enough and last for long enough to make it happen. So is that feasible? I don't know. It would have to be modelled, and I'm not doing that. The point is, technically it is possible. Admitting it is possible is an important step in any investigation, and usually the biggest hurdle.

Your arm-waving is only that.

This is the best argument you have made. Don't get me wrong, your objections are reasonable. You have made good arguments, though in some cases, like above, you keep sidestepping the statements I am making. But when it comes down to it, if I don't put my math where my mouth is, it's just that; arm-waving.

My purpose was not to make you believe it to be true. I don't believe it to be true. I do however believe that it is possible, and you do not. My point was only to get you to admit that it was possible. You keep sidestepping the first and most important point I made by arguing completely different topics.

If you look at all of the evidence from all of the "really big uncontrollable fires" from the past 6 or 7 years or so, you find one thing that keeps coming up. The things that have metal in them are burning completely, and the things that do not are fine. For example, grass, trees, fences sometimes, etc. are still standing and green and/or not even singed, but buildings, cars, lamp posts, etc. are completely destroyed. Fire is spreading across hundreds of yards of fire breaks without apparent reason. It is plausible that it is spread by "high winds," and it is possible that is not the reason it is making it across those gaps at all. Cars are completely melted next to trees that are green. Houses are burnt to dust while still sitting under the green branches of their trees. This is not the behavior seen in previous fires.

Something has changed.

All you have to do to figure this out is look. You refuse to do that, because it's "impossible." Thus my desire to convince you it's not impossible. It is impossible to convince you if you don't address the actual argument I am presenting.