Tony Szamboti Illuminator

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 4,976

Oystein Originally Posted by It is difficult to believe that you, an acknowledged engineer, actually think this utter nonsense is correct.



Are you seriously claiming that a cube, 4500 °F hot, embedded in a rubble pile, would lose heat only through one surface??



Your calculation apparently does not have the heat capacities of liquid iron, gypsum and concrete as input.

This already would render your calculation INCORRECT.

Alternatively, you fail to show your calculation.

As a matter of fact, you DO fail to show your calculation: You present a formula for "Conduction equation", but do not justify why this formula, and what the values are of Q, k, A.



As benthamitemetric pointed out, solving the problem requires calculus, as temperature differential isn't constant over time, and dependent on the geometry, among other factors.



Your calculation is utter garbage, and you lack the honesty or intellectual capacity to admit it.

How do you function in your job??



Benthamitemetric is a <snip> who will <snip> . He will try to say the sides and bottom matter to the argument and they don't in the simplified sense. If you noticed my calculation showed 1.3 inches on top to keep the molten iron in that state for four days and I said a few inches in my answer here. I was only trying to show it was a viable theory and did not need to be six feet, or something like that.



The heat transfer will be even slower when the delta T is lower, and the molten state will last a little longer, so that doesn't work in your's or Benthamitemetric's favor. This is the kind of thing you don't know because you don't have this training.



If you people want me to do a full FEA transient heat transfer of all six sides I can do it. It will not change the results by much if at all.



You see this is what happens when people who are not skilled in the technical field are allowed to critique a technical point, they pick on insignificant things. I wouldn't even have to answer these questions on a more technically sophisticated forum. They would have understood the simplifications done in order to get a quick answer and would have the experience to understand the assumptions had merit and that the sides and bottom, and the change in the delta T, could be ignored to make the point I was trying to make.



<snip>

Edited by jsfisher: Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement. No, I am saying the heat transfer through the sides and bottom would be somewhat insignificant for the demonstration as there would be much more insulation there naturally.Benthamitemetric is awho will. He will try to say the sides and bottom matter to the argument and they don't in the simplified sense. If you noticed my calculation showed 1.3 inches on top to keep the molten iron in that state for four days and I said a few inches in my answer here. I was only trying to show it was a viable theory and did not need to be six feet, or something like that.The heat transfer will be even slower when the delta T is lower, and the molten state will last a little longer, so that doesn't work in your's or Benthamitemetric's favor. This is the kind of thing you don't know because you don't have this training.If you people want me to do a full FEA transient heat transfer of all six sides I can do it. It will not change the results by much if at all.You see this is what happens when people who are not skilled in the technical field are allowed to critique a technical point, they pick on insignificant things. I wouldn't even have to answer these questions on a more technically sophisticated forum. They would have understood the simplifications done in order to get a quick answer and would have the experience to understand the assumptions had merit and that the sides and bottom, and the change in the delta T, could be ignored to make the point I was trying to make.