Rosch taking orders on OU Bouyancy device.

[truesearch]

Since this is a "buoyancy" thread, here is a "slightly" related link to something that I just noticed on GIZMAG:
An airplane that flies with no fuel (concept) ~ based on buoyancy:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3060/


truesearch

[MileHigh]

Of course the tensile strength does not change with size.  But what about Superman?  Can he really pick up an entire train by getting underneath a boxcar in the center of the train and lifting it up from there?  Or would he actually just punch a hole in the boxcar because the bottom of a boxcar could not possibly support the weight of a 15-boxcar train?

I tried to find it but I couldn't.  It was an article about naturally occurring grains of sand.  A grain of sand will only get so small, and then it will not get any smaller than that.  Why is that?  The answer is that proportionally the smaller the grain of sand gets, its relative strength increases and its resistance to the external environment increases.  Eventually it gets to a point were for all practical intents and purposes it is indestructible.  The smaller you go the stronger you get.

[tinman]

Since this is a "buoyancy" thread, here is a "slightly" related link to something that I just noticed on GIZMAG:
An airplane that flies with no fuel (concept) ~ based on buoyancy:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/3060/


truesearch

Unlike others here(the few) would say,i believe this could work,but it would be due to thermal energy-thermal updraft,much the same way a glider remains in the air for such long periods. It would have to also take advantage of this enviromental energy to work as the claim,but it would work.

[MileHigh]

It has nothing to do with his abilities as a physicist.

Trust me, he couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag when it came to electronics.  When he arrived at OUR to pitch his circuit, it was absolutely shocking to see how clueless he was.  This was a _physics professor_ and in first year physics they teach you basic electronics.

I sent an email to Poynt, ION, and perhaps TK saying how shocked I was that a physics professor could come an present a simple circuit and seem so completely lost and clueless.

I am telling you in all sincerity that I was shocked.  Shocked because there was no comparison at all between this guy and the real physics professors that I encountered at school.  I don't know how he managed to get away with that while being on the payroll.

[tinman]

Tinman:

It doesn't matter if the fires were oxygen starved or not.  Just the fact that they were burning means that they were producing a continuous flow of heat power within the confined space of the building.

What do you think "room flashover" is in house fires?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMVm72FMRk

It's exactly the same thing.  Stuff burning in the room creates heat.  The heat has nowhere to go so the ambient temperature in the room keeps increasing.  Eventually it gets so hot that everything in the room spontaneously catches on fire by itself - it doesn't even need to be in contact with a flame.

When the planes crashed into the towers, they created cavities with limited air flow and lots of combustible material.  The temperature inside those cavities rose to the point were the steel got soft and failed.  This is a no-brainer.  If you have a source of heat and nowhere for that heat to go then the temperature will climb.

The current source is the continuous source of burning material.  The capacitor is the cavity in the building.  The voltage across the capacitor is the temperature.

That's it - it's a no-brainer.  Eventually the burning inside the towers brought them down because of the effects of the trapped heat on the structural steel.

These were very big buildings and as you increase your scale, then materials get proportionally "softer."  Nobody doubts that steel is very strong stuff.  But if an aircraft carrier were to crash into a dock, then the steel structure of the aircraft carrier bow will crumple like it's made of soft butter.  The bigger you go the "softer" or "weaker" the metal gets.

The WTC towers were big and big means the steel is proportionally "weaker."  The burning fires made the temperature too high for the already "weak" steel.  It is no surprise at all that the towers came down.

MileHigh

MH
As i stated,my fire heater gets hotter than that.
Also,as i asked Mark,can you post links to any other highrise building that has collaped due to fire.

Quote: Indeed, in all of the history of structural engineering, not a single steel-framed skyscraper has ever totally collapsed due to fire.

Can you find one-just one MH?

Edit
MH
i will add this picture of the windsor building that burned for over two days-