Current events discussion

[Speed Chaser]

You ask if I have ever taken a science class, yet you clearly don't understand what a stoichiometric ratio is. If you did, you wouldn't have said any of the crap above. Here is the definition of a stoichiometric ratio: the exact ratio between air and flammable gas or vapor at which complete combustion takes place. Did you see the last four words? 'COMPLETE COMBUSTION TAKES PLACE,' and it's also capitalized since you love big letters, apparently. I wrote this in terms a third-grader would understand, but I doubt Rob will. Another reason I know you didn't understand that article is because you mentioned air movement twice now. The first time was by saying 'airflow,' and now by saying 'AIR provided at velocity.' A stoichiometric ratio already assumes the optimal amount of oxygen for complete combustion of the fuel. Adding more oxygen would not lead to more combustion or a hotter fire because there’s no additional fuel for the extra oxygen to react with, so airflow has no play in this. I wasn't even going to bother responding to the brain-dead comparison you keep making with a forge or furnace, but I am bored, so I will continue to show how moronic you are. In a forge or furnace, they are not typically stoichiometric. The operator often has an excess of fuel and controls the oxygen supply to adjust the temperature of the fire. This is different from a stoichiometric scenario, where the fuel and oxygen are in perfect balance. So please tell me how it relates to the article; you clearly are too slow-witted to understand. If you are dismissive of BS, you wouldn't respond because that is all you write—BS.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Tell us how in your example it would be different to connect one 2 ohm sub to each set of terminals, or both 2 ohm subs to one set of terminals. View attachment 56791
Because, you know, if you use both sets of terminals, it'll be different from using just one...SMH

Don't act like an expert now you literally just said this...

Now why were You the only one lost in that thread?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Are you genuinely questioning whether or not combusting jet fuel can melt metal? Jet fuel has an open air burn temp of just under 2,000F and can burn at upwards of 4,000F.
Steel can melt anywhere from 2,500F and up.
Math confuses you, so I'll explain that it only takes a little bit of air movement to make that jet fuel burn a lot hotter than its open-air burn temp.

Wood burns open-air at 700F and can be used to melt steel with some airflow. Jet fuel burns at ~2,000F open air. Guess what it can do with some airflow? MELT STEEL.
Where is your confusion?

I am trying to figure out in your conspiracy theory there why you think the jet fuel brought down these towers. Not that we didn't already know temperatures and other variables before your need to attempt to educate everyone because again, you think everyone is wrong or knows nothing, kicked in. Answer this... If the majority of the jet fuel was CONSUMED in the initial impacts and explosions (hence the large balls of fire on impact) how was there enough if any left behind to continue to burn for as long as each tower stood before they collapsed? Also, please educate us on this "airflow" inside each building that caused the fires to burn hot enough to melt the steel. Perhaps it was the HVAC pumping air through the building... maybe it was pumping pure oxygen? I am sure the fires weren't consuming any of the fuels needed for sustaining a fire either huh?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You ask if I have ever taken a science class, yet you clearly don't understand what a stoichiometric ratio is. If you did, you wouldn't have said any of the crap above. Here is the definition of a stoichiometric ratio: the exact ratio between air and flammable gas or vapor at which complete combustion takes place. Did you see the last four words? 'COMPLETE COMBUSTION TAKES PLACE,' and it's also capitalized since you love big letters, apparently. I wrote this in terms a third-grader would understand, but I doubt Rob will. Another reason I know you didn't understand that article is because you mentioned air movement twice now. The first time was by saying 'airflow,' and now by saying 'AIR provided at velocity.' A stoichiometric ratio already assumes the optimal amount of oxygen for complete combustion of the fuel. Adding more oxygen would not lead to more combustion or a hotter fire because there’s no additional fuel for the extra oxygen to react with, so airflow has no play in this. I wasn't even going to bother responding to the brain-dead comparison you keep making with a forge or furnace, but I am bored, so I will continue to show how moronic you are. In a forge or furnace, they are not typically stoichiometric. The operator often has an excess of fuel and controls the oxygen supply to adjust the temperature of the fire. This is different from a stoichiometric scenario, where the fuel and oxygen are in perfect balance. So please tell me how it relates to the article; you clearly are too slow-witted to understand. If you are dismissive of BS, you wouldn't respond because that is all you write—BS.
View attachment 56798

Tell me how air can move without a velocity. Is it air that is moving but standing still?
Do you think air in an HVAC system that is running has no velocity?
Do you think either WTC tower could be considered a completely sealed system with no air movement?

So, tell us why you think the stoichiometric ratio of the fire at WTC was at the perfect 14.7 or less, that jet fuel was the only thing burning, and thus why the fire could not melt steel.
And then explain how steel can be melted in a wood fire. While you're at it, also explain why an aluminum container can be melted in a campfire if wood only burns at 700F, but aluminum melts at 1,221F.

For extra credit, tell us why it is not possible for the temps inside Notre Dame to have reached 2,500F with nothing more than the building itself feeding the fire.
Same "act of god" that people claim saved the crucifix in there?
Now, tell us how a forest fire can reach upwards of 2,000F with nothing more than live trees (very inefficient fuel) being consumed by flame.

Explain the basics that you think "can't happen" before you get into the conspiracy fantasy crap.

I am trying to figure out in your conspiracy theory there why you think the jet fuel brought down these towers. Not that we didn't already know temperatures and other variables before your need to attempt to educate everyone because again, you think everyone is wrong or knows nothing, kicked in. Answer this... If the majority of the jet fuel was CONSUMED in the initial impacts and explosions (hence the large balls of fire on impact) how was there enough if any left behind to continue to burn for as long as each tower stood before they collapsed? Also, please educate us on this "airflow" inside each building that caused the fires to burn hot enough to melt the steel. Perhaps it was the HVAC pumping air through the building... maybe it was pumping pure oxygen? I am sure the fires weren't consuming any of the fuels needed for sustaining a fire either huh?

It wasn't the jet fuel, it was the fire started by the jet fuel. And the "majority of the fuel" wasn't consumed by the fireball. They estimate 20,000kg went into the building. That's over 5,000 gallons of jet fuel,
Do you consider that an insignificant amount when it is a fuel source dumped in a somewhat enclosed space, saturating anything porous?

Try this: pour a cup of gas on a rag and light it as fast as you possibly can.
Tell us if the gas just flash-burns off as vapor and leaves the rag untouched, or if the rag itself starts to burn.

But since you are likely an expert from your education, I'll defer to the other experts' explanation. You can then tell us why they are wrong:
."A substantial portion of the fuel got burned in the initial fireball on the exterior, which suggests that the fuel volume that was ignited in the interior of the towers may have been on the order of 25 m3, or about 20,000 kg. It should be remembered, however, that the initial fireball contributed to the heating of the building and the ignition of some of its flammable material. The enthalpy of reaction of the fuel, that is the heat generated as the fuel is burned under stoichiometric conditions in air, is almost 45 MJ/kg of fuel. Thus, for a plane fueled to capacity (72,000 kg), the total heat load (the heat generated if all the fuel is burned) is a staggering 3,240 GJ (giga-Joules). Burning this fuel continuously over a period of almost an hour, this energy generates a power of almost one gigawatt, equivalent to the power of a large conventional or nuclear power plant. A small fraction of this power is indeed capable of causing enormous damage if unleashed close to a building."

https://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

After you debunk the folks of MIT, please explain how this stainless chimney liner is glowing orange (indicating a temp in the range of 1,600-1,900F) when it is connected to a woodstove. Wood burns at 700F in free air.
Try to speak to facts and evidence, even scientific principles, in your explanation.

Is that the same MIT that worked with Jeffrey Epstein?

A typical useless and meaningless response.
No, it's the same MIT that helped create the vaccine that made your body a magnetic 5G tower full of nanobots.
They are funded by 100 y.o. astral-projecting Nazis who were resurrected from the dead and brought here by Bill Gates and IBM in order to conquer the world.
They work in pyramids hidden in caverns under the campus.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Tell me how air can move without a velocity. Is it air that is moving but standing still?
Do you think air in an HVAC system that is running has no velocity?
Do you think either WTC tower could be considered a completely sealed system with no air movement?

So, tell us why you think the stoichiometric ratio of the fire at WTC was at the perfect 14.7 or less, that jet fuel was the only thing burning, and thus why the fire could not melt steel.
And then explain how steel can be melted in a wood fire. While you're at it, also explain why an aluminum container can be melted in a campfire if wood only burns at 700F, but aluminum melts at 1,221F.

For extra credit, tell us why it is not possible for the temps inside Notre Dame to have reached 2,500F with nothing more than the building itself feeding the fire.
Same "act of god" that people claim saved the crucifix in there?
Now, tell us how a forest fire can reach upwards of 2,000F with nothing more than live trees (very inefficient fuel) being consumed by flame.

Explain the basics that you think "can't happen" before you get into the conspiracy fantasy crap.






It wasn't the jet fuel, it was the fire started by the jet fuel. And the "majority of the fuel" wasn't consumed by the fireball. They estimate 20,000kg went into the building. That's over 5,000 gallons of jet fuel,
Do you consider that an insignificant amount when it is a fuel source dumped in a somewhat enclosed space, saturating anything porous?

Try this: pour a cup of gas on a rag and light it as fast as you possibly can.
Tell us if the gas just flash-burns off as vapor and leaves the rag untouched, or if the rag itself starts to burn.

But since you are likely an expert from your education, I'll defer to the other experts' explanation. You can then tell us why they are wrong:
."A substantial portion of the fuel got burned in the initial fireball on the exterior, which suggests that the fuel volume that was ignited in the interior of the towers may have been on the order of 25 m3, or about 20,000 kg. It should be remembered, however, that the initial fireball contributed to the heating of the building and the ignition of some of its flammable material. The enthalpy of reaction of the fuel, that is the heat generated as the fuel is burned under stoichiometric conditions in air, is almost 45 MJ/kg of fuel. Thus, for a plane fueled to capacity (72,000 kg), the total heat load (the heat generated if all the fuel is burned) is a staggering 3,240 GJ (giga-Joules). Burning this fuel continuously over a period of almost an hour, this energy generates a power of almost one gigawatt, equivalent to the power of a large conventional or nuclear power plant. A small fraction of this power is indeed capable of causing enormous damage if unleashed close to a building."

https://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

After you debunk the folks of MIT, please explain how this stainless chimney liner is glowing orange (indicating a temp in the range of 1,600-1,900F) when it is connected to a woodstove. Wood burns at 700F in free air.
Try to speak to facts and evidence, even scientific principles, in your explanation.

View attachment 56802

Is that the same MIT that worked with Jeffrey Epstein?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Tell me how air can move without a velocity. Is it air that is moving but standing still?
Do you think air in an HVAC system that is running has no velocity?
Do you think either WTC tower could be considered a completely sealed system with no air movement?

So, tell us why you think the stoichiometric ratio of the fire at WTC was at the perfect 14.7 or less, that jet fuel was the only thing burning, and thus why the fire could not melt steel.
And then explain how steel can be melted in a wood fire. While you're at it, also explain why an aluminum container can be melted in a campfire if wood only burns at 700F, but aluminum melts at 1,221F.

For extra credit, tell us why it is not possible for the temps inside Notre Dame to have reached 2,500F with nothing more than the building itself feeding the fire.
Same "act of god" that people claim saved the crucifix in there?
Now, tell us how a forest fire can reach upwards of 2,000F with nothing more than live trees (very inefficient fuel) being consumed by flame.

Explain the basics that you think "can't happen" before you get into the conspiracy fantasy crap.






It wasn't the jet fuel, it was the fire started by the jet fuel. And the "majority of the fuel" wasn't consumed by the fireball. They estimate 20,000kg went into the building. That's over 5,000 gallons of jet fuel,
Do you consider that an insignificant amount when it is a fuel source dumped in a somewhat enclosed space, saturating anything porous?

Try this: pour a cup of gas on a rag and light it as fast as you possibly can.
Tell us if the gas just flash-burns off as vapor and leaves the rag untouched, or if the rag itself starts to burn.

But since you are likely an expert from your education, I'll defer to the other experts' explanation. You can then tell us why they are wrong:
."A substantial portion of the fuel got burned in the initial fireball on the exterior, which suggests that the fuel volume that was ignited in the interior of the towers may have been on the order of 25 m3, or about 20,000 kg. It should be remembered, however, that the initial fireball contributed to the heating of the building and the ignition of some of its flammable material. The enthalpy of reaction of the fuel, that is the heat generated as the fuel is burned under stoichiometric conditions in air, is almost 45 MJ/kg of fuel. Thus, for a plane fueled to capacity (72,000 kg), the total heat load (the heat generated if all the fuel is burned) is a staggering 3,240 GJ (giga-Joules). Burning this fuel continuously over a period of almost an hour, this energy generates a power of almost one gigawatt, equivalent to the power of a large conventional or nuclear power plant. A small fraction of this power is indeed capable of causing enormous damage if unleashed close to a building."

https://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

After you debunk the folks of MIT, please explain how this stainless chimney liner is glowing orange (indicating a temp in the range of 1,600-1,900F) when it is connected to a woodstove. Wood burns at 700F in free air.
Try to speak to facts and evidence, even scientific principles, in your explanation.

View attachment 56802


A typical useless and meaningless response.
No, it's the same MIT that helped create the vaccine that made your body a magnetic 5G tower full of nanobots.
They are funded by 100 y.o. astral-projecting Nazis who were resurrected from the dead and brought here by Bill Gates and IBM in order to conquer the world.
They work in pyramids hidden in caverns under the campus.

Still explaining everything but why only you didn't understand monoblocks

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

"First Human Neuralink Brain Chip Recipient Controls Computer Mouse By Thinking, Musk Claims"

First Human Neuralink Brain Chip Recipient Controls Computer Mouse By Thinking, Musk Claims

The startup’s founder reportedly gave the update during a virtual event on social media platform X.

www.iflscience.com

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Largest multicountry COVID study links vaccines to potential adverse effects

A new study on COVID-19 vaccines that looked at nearly 100 million vaccinated individuals affirmed the vaccines’ previously observed links to increased risks for certain adverse effects inclu…

thehill.com

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

When Eyes in the Sky Start Looking Right at You

For decades, privacy experts have been wary of snooping from space. They feared satellites powerful enough to zoom in on

dnyuz.com

 

[YourNameHere 10+ year member]

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Still explaining everything but why only you didn't understand monoblocks

Why do you think it's different to connect 2 subs in parallel to a mono amp that has a 4-point (+ -, + -) terminal block on the outside, versus a mono amp that a has a 2-point (+ -) terminal block on the outside?

As in "it's OK to only use one set" because "if you use both say a 2ohm load..." "the amp will see a 1 ohm load".

Is there some special subset of electronics theory that says parallel wiring acts differently if it's hidden inside a box?
What subset also tells us a mono amp can have multiple outputs?
Show us the symbol or other information that says this one is incorrect:

Tell us how wiring one 2 ohm sub to each set of terminals on the mono amplifier pictured on the left is different from wiring two 2ohm subs to the terminals on the mono amp pictured on the right.
Doe it increase or recue power output? Does it change the impedance "seen" by the amp? Is it a harder load to drive?
And tell us: What model amp was the O/P asking about? Did he already own it?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Why do you think it's different to connect 2 subs in parallel to a mono amp that has a 4-point (+ -, + -) terminal block on the outside, versus a mono amp that a has a 2-point (+ -) terminal block on the outside?

Show me where I said there was a difference...I can show you some dumbsh!t someone said about monoblocks

Back to the topic...why were YOU the only one lost on that thread?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Tell me how air can move without a velocity. Is it air that is moving but standing still?
Do you think air in an HVAC system that is running has no velocity?
Do you think either WTC tower could be considered a completely sealed system with no air movement?

So, tell us why you think the stoichiometric ratio of the fire at WTC was at the perfect 14.7 or less, that jet fuel was the only thing burning, and thus why the fire could not melt steel.
And then explain how steel can be melted in a wood fire. While you're at it, also explain why an aluminum container can be melted in a campfire if wood only burns at 700F, but aluminum melts at 1,221F.

For extra credit, tell us why it is not possible for the temps inside Notre Dame to have reached 2,500F with nothing more than the building itself feeding the fire.
Same "act of god" that people claim saved the crucifix in there?
Now, tell us how a forest fire can reach upwards of 2,000F with nothing more than live trees (very inefficient fuel) being consumed by flame.

Explain the basics that you think "can't happen" before you get into the conspiracy fantasy crap.






It wasn't the jet fuel, it was the fire started by the jet fuel. And the "majority of the fuel" wasn't consumed by the fireball. They estimate 20,000kg went into the building. That's over 5,000 gallons of jet fuel,
Do you consider that an insignificant amount when it is a fuel source dumped in a somewhat enclosed space, saturating anything porous?

Try this: pour a cup of gas on a rag and light it as fast as you possibly can.
Tell us if the gas just flash-burns off as vapor and leaves the rag untouched, or if the rag itself starts to burn.

But since you are likely an expert from your education, I'll defer to the other experts' explanation. You can then tell us why they are wrong:
."A substantial portion of the fuel got burned in the initial fireball on the exterior, which suggests that the fuel volume that was ignited in the interior of the towers may have been on the order of 25 m3, or about 20,000 kg. It should be remembered, however, that the initial fireball contributed to the heating of the building and the ignition of some of its flammable material. The enthalpy of reaction of the fuel, that is the heat generated as the fuel is burned under stoichiometric conditions in air, is almost 45 MJ/kg of fuel. Thus, for a plane fueled to capacity (72,000 kg), the total heat load (the heat generated if all the fuel is burned) is a staggering 3,240 GJ (giga-Joules). Burning this fuel continuously over a period of almost an hour, this energy generates a power of almost one gigawatt, equivalent to the power of a large conventional or nuclear power plant. A small fraction of this power is indeed capable of causing enormous damage if unleashed close to a building."

https://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

After you debunk the folks of MIT, please explain how this stainless chimney liner is glowing orange (indicating a temp in the range of 1,600-1,900F) when it is connected to a woodstove. Wood burns at 700F in free air.
Try to speak to facts and evidence, even scientific principles, in your explanation.

View attachment 56802


A typical useless and meaningless response.
No, it's the same MIT that helped create the vaccine that made your body a magnetic 5G tower full of nanobots.
They are funded by 100 y.o. astral-projecting Nazis who were resurrected from the dead and brought here by Bill Gates and IBM in order to conquer the world.
They work in pyramids hidden in caverns under the campus.

I like how you quoted my post before I asked it lol.

Comment? It's a question. Do you know what a question is? No? Actually you're wrong. It is the same MIT:

"But on Friday, months after the campus was roiled by revelations of Mr. Epstein’s financial ties to the school’s prominent Media Lab program, investigators hired by the school absolved M.I.T.’s leadership of breaking any rules."

Jeffrey Epstein Gave $850,000 to M.I.T., and Administrators Knew (Published 2020)

The university investigated its history with Mr. Epstein after Joichi Ito, the face of its prominent Media Lab program, acknowledged receiving money from the convicted *** offender.

www.nytimes.com

So, not only do you make fun of me, you're also just wrong on a simple question. This is what we call the dysfunction of Rob.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Show me where I said there was a difference...I can show you some dumbsh!t someone said about monoblocks

Back to the topic...why were YOU the only one lost on that thread?

So what you really wanted to say was "no difference"?
Why all the extra babble? Why the "if"/then conditional statement if there are not two different results?

And why are you confused about an amp having low-level input AND output connections?
Did you think maybe there was a secret signal source inside the amp? Maybe a tiny radio or CD player?
Are you just not familiar with signal passthrough and daisy chaining of amplifiers? Rockford has offered it for decades.

I like how you quoted my post before I asked it lol.

Comment? It's a question. Do you know what a question is? No? Actually you're wrong. It is the same MIT:

"But on Friday, months after the campus was roiled by revelations of Mr. Epstein’s financial ties to the school’s prominent Media Lab program, investigators hired by the school absolved M.I.T.’s leadership of breaking any rules."

Jeffrey Epstein Gave $850,000 to M.I.T., and Administrators Knew (Published 2020)

The university investigated its history with Mr. Epstein after Joichi Ito, the face of its prominent Media Lab program, acknowledged receiving money from the convicted *** offender.

www.nytimes.com

So, not only do you make fun of me, you're also just wrong on a simple question. This is what we call the dysfunction of Rob.

Great story, kid.
What does Epstein have to do with MIT's scientific analysis of the WTC collapse on 9/11?
Do you think that because Epstein donated to MIT, that they covered up the big 9/11 conspiracy?

Trump lied about donating money to the 9/11 fund, and about seeing people cheering in the streets that day.
Does that mean he is part of the big conspiracy to cause it all, and is just trying to create a good cover story?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

View attachment 56816

So what you really wanted to say was "no difference"?
Why all the extra babble? Why the "if"/then conditional statement if there are not two different results?





View attachment 56814
And why are you confused about an amp having low-level input AND output connections?
Did you think maybe there was a secret signal source inside the amp? Maybe a tiny radio or CD player?
Are you just not familiar with signal passthrough and daisy chaining of amplifiers? Rockford has offered it for decades.
View attachment 56813 View attachment 56815






Great story, kid.
What does Epstein have to do with MIT's scientific analysis of the WTC collapse on 9/11?
Do you think that because Epstein donated to MIT, that they covered up the big 9/11 conspiracy?

Trump lied about donating money to the 9/11 fund, and about seeing people cheering in the streets that day.
Does that mean he is part of the big conspiracy to cause it all, and is just trying to create a good cover story?

I think science tests can be misleading intentionally, absolutely. I'm just saying keep that in mind.