Melting/Bending a beam by burning Jet Fuel.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 май 2021
- I don't have some sob story and I am not going to guilt you into giving me money. If you want to give me money so I can make videos showing the earth is round or flat then by all means feel free. If you give me money, I don't promise anything in return. If you don't want to give me money that is fine to, I don't care. I'll delete this when my gofundme is over.
Here is a link to my gofundme:
gofund.me/4b28f80f
I know this video is almost 20 years late but I had fun with it.
I am not an engineer so any math or claims about the strength of materials is just my calculations based on my understanding/research. (Hope that makes all the ambulance chasing lawyers happy)
This is how the scientific method works. You come up with a hypothesis, you test your hypothesis, and you publish the results of your test.
I feel like there is a lot of cases today of scientists that when they don't get the results from their experiment they want they simply don't publish the results.
I though about doing that with this experiment and I am sure many will complain they want there 7 minutes back. I believe we should be open about when our experiments don't go the way we hoped.
Either way, hope you enjoyed.
If you feel so inclined, here is a link to my go fund me: gofund.me/4b28f80f
Great work... I do believe that a problem with your setup is that most of the beam is outside of the heat. Simply transferring the heat out to the rest of the beam and cooling the center part sufficiently so it don´t lose it strength.
To make the beam bend, it would probobly need to have heat over most of its length
Do more videos they are pretty darn good mr! You are a cool scientist type dude many will agree.
I rate this experiment 9/11
I think you did a pretty honest job of this experiment. It can definitely be difficult to replicate a skyscraper in your backyard.
Thanks, I feel like often when experiments don't go according to plan or don't have the results you want it is easy to just not publish the results. Not publishing results that don't fit what we want puts a bias into science.
Problem is that jet fuel in those wings weren't sitting in a pot all together,..it dispersed erverywhere,..Sorry not buying it
@@applejack2911 how do you think that would influence the results of the experiment?
@@FlyXenonRC heat gets trapped
@@applejack2911 10,000 gallons of jet fuel burning in an office building full of flammable furniture and paper which was just struck at 500 mph by 300,000 lb of passenger jet through part of its steel exoskeleton. It's not that hard to figure out that the planes hitting the towers caused structural failure by both heating and impact, which allowed for the top floor to collapse and pancake the rest of the tower.
Holy shit, I remember subscribing to you years ago when you first uploaded. You showed off different types of fuel and had made $0 so far. amazing, well done.
Thank you for doing this test with integrity, so many of the other tests I've seen lack the proper controls and test conditions
i love you man just cant bleave youre uploading
Great experiment. I think you did well letting the kerosene burn rich at first since that's how it would have been burning. All the official ones I see use a turbo torch directly on the beam, which is plain stupid.
The amount of jet fuel in that plane was hardly enuff to bring BOTH of those buildings down and all the steel is dust at the bottom,.who am I? Poo Poo the fool
The floors were solid steel plates, of 109 floors including the roof.... It doesn't need to destroy every floor, it only needs to destroy enough floors to start the collapse
The idea that jet fuel can´t melt steel is based on the fact that the jet fuel don´t reach steel melting temperature in (old) jet engines... because... they are made of steel.... Sure, high temperature steel, but still steel. If the engine would melt, the engine would stop.
The thing is that a jet engine runs incredibly lean to have the temperature going low... well except on start up, its going very close to the stochastic optimal.
It will probobly be hard to melt that beam in that set up because while steel is not the best conductor of heat, it still conduct it pretty well. With 90% of the beam outside int he air, it will cool of the center part very efficiently.
A torch that is made to melt steel is not only very hot, its also very high flowing, transferring the heat to the steel much faster than a fire does, melting the steel before it have a chance to lead the heat away.
To have the beam sufficiently warm to lose it strength, it would probobly needed to be heated over most of it length, not only a small part in the middle.
The thing is all fuels have an auto ignition temperature, at which it combusts regardless of whether or not there is an ignition source. Fuels cannot burn higher than a certain temperature. Likewise, steel cannot bend below a certain temperature.
A bit to the jet engines vs steel vs flames conundrum: the combustor liners (closest steel surface to the actual flames) would surely melt, if not for the cooling air going in/around them.
Anyone interested? Look up AgentJayZ and his videos for further thoughts and facts on the topic :)
@@cari9060 there is two issues with that..
1: you can still ad fuel after the auto-ignition temperature... that is pretty much how jet engines work
2: Auto-ignition temperature is calculated at normal pressure. There is very high pressure in the turbine
@@YCbCr Well the bleed air in the engine is something hat have been developed over time. But with the new turbines nowadays they use ceramic components in stead, but that is a fairly new development and something that was fairly uncommon in 2001. As far as i know, the only aircraft that used it back then was the 777, and even at that, it only used them in the static blades. They was started to be used in rotating blades first about 10 years later.
The only current in production Boeing or Airbus that don´t use it that i know if is the 767. So if someone checks it up with current aircrafts today, the argument don´t make any seance any more
@@cari9060 False. The auto ignition temperature is not the max temperature a fuel will release when burned that is only the temperature that when heated to a fuel will ignite without a spark or other flame. There is a specific amount of energy a fuel will release when burned. If there is no where for that energy to go that energy will increase the temperature of the air with no set max. For instance acetylene has an auto ignition temperature of just 572F and regular steel has a melting temp in the 1,400F to 1,500F (depending on carbon content) yet acetylene is used to cut steel all the time in industry.
I love this channel and guy and the topics he chooses.
Next try to bend a beam with a small office bin of papers to replicate building 7
Thermal conductivity of steel is substantial, the thermal mass of an I beam is significant, the distance of the fire and its small amount makes it unlikely it even reached 500c let alone the ~1000 necessary for serious mechanical integrity loss. Repeat the experiment at night, snuff the fire and look at the I beam. Is it visibly glowing at all? No = it's still below the Draper point of 525c.
I competely agree. I believe jet fuel can melt or at least weaken a steel beam. However, this is what I had. Surely I could mix pure O2 with a controlled stream of vaporized jet fuel and turned the entire beam into a puddle but I don't want to use that kind of resources and that certainly doesn't recreate the events of 9-11.
The entire thing was built in a way that it became a massive natural draft furnace. On top of that, a massive amount of support structure was compromised due to the massive hole in the building
@@liammadden7572 I'm aware.
Listen, the theory here is that those planes had enough jet fuel to cover the whole tower from top to bottom and to weaken the structure all the way to the foundations...
so honestly claiming that the conditions in the tower were so much better for melting the beams is just as ridiculous.
There's a reason this conspiracy theory still holds its ground 23 yrs later.
can jet fuel steal steel memes though?
Good experiment
Nice animation, bro.
there was a video of a better setup, showing concrete blocks on an i beam and a lot more jet fuel. it buckled. jet fuel does not melt i beams but it does weaken them.
people who love to hate complained about being forced to change their opinion and had it taken down. i should have downloaded it!
Only atomized or vapors of jet fuel ignite. impact explosion = ignited by spark, vapor, and atomization. The claim that fuel poured down shafts… where would it have a chance to ignite? Just Think showed us what happens when a match is dropped into a jar of jet fuel. Nada. Nothing. It put out the fire on the match.
Im 33 years old and I see what you did here lol
How were you measuring it? The right end looks closer to the blue flag after you pushed on it. You'd have to measure the height of the beam on the other side of the fulcrum too, in case the support got pushed into the ground or bent
Looking down the beam after unloading I didn't notice any curvature. I suspect the fulcrum got pushed slightly into the ground. We have soft ground.
I mean the plane must of added alot heat to the mix but the firefighters saying there was molten metal In the basement and what about wtc 7 that was pretty far away
I wonder what could melt that steel beam....Molten lava maybe....then again how could you get some of that I wonder.....best not to try...very bad idea
Good experiment but uhhh it didn't even melt it's container. Not trying to encourage the theory but kinda help prove it....
Don’t forget. On 9/11 the steel beams were just melted. They were turned to dust and ejected hundreds of feet out. Had to be explosions.
hmm this seems familiar 🤔
You also have to remember, the jet fuel wasn't the ONLY thing that was burning inside the old World Trade Center towers. There were quite a few flammable materials that were set ablaze as well.
Yes, those incredibly combustible desks and chairs.
@@JayTaylor3dollarfilms along with insulation and other flammable materials.
@@PhillipG34yea insulation doesn’t burn that hot because if it did it wouldn’t be used in residential homes. On the initial impact all the jet fuel immediately disappeared. What brought the buildings down is what’s called controller demolition
I bet if ya could get the flame closer u might have had a better result
I doubt that much heat energy is lost as the gasses are not allowed to disperse like a camping fire. Honestly you can see the flame reach out of the top at times. The idea location is at the very end of the flame tip where all the fuel has been burned.
Ya need about 3,000 degrees.
So what you have conducted is, 2 pans of jet fuel weren't enough.
True
This accounts awesome we need more of this on youtube
cut a smaller piece the big steel is acting as a heat sync
I agree but my experiment was intended to be realistic. This is a real beam that would actually be used as a structural member in a building. There are lots of things I could have done to make it work. From preheating the fuel and injecting it into the box, Injecting oxygen into the box, Insulating the beam, Preheating the beam, using a larger box with much more fuel, air directed into the box as the stoichiometric ratio with an oxygen sensor adjusting flows for the most heat. The problem is none of those were present and thus I would consider cheating. I don't believe 911 was a hoax but I also don't believe in faking results or not publishing results that don't line up with what I want. Honestly, I believe science suffers from bias because often if experiments don't get the results they want the experiment doesn't get published, and politicians take scientific data out of context to fit their narrative.
As did the beams in those towers.
The whole building was a massive heat sink, thousands of tons of steel to dissipate the heat.
If jet fuel is that violative why would anyone let there loved ones travel on a plane?
First
This test is pure amateur
you had no measurement at all. All you said it's definetly warm
You never mentioned the temperature where metal loose strength and you never measured the beam. So the beam could be at 250 c and still be damn hot.
Also the beam had only a small surface that had the fire and a huge surface where it could cools down
This test was pure useless you demonstrated nothing and you had 0 control over the experiment you made no measurements and your method was flawed. Why the long rod ?
If it's really weak you won't need half of that length
so yeah, it didn't melt. plus you cheated because you made a funnel, which didn't happen in the building.... i mean, how hard was it to place a beam vertically, with a load on top and just pour jet fuel randomly around it and notice nothing even happens because the heat is not even focused properly on the beam to begin with..... . #jetfuelcan'tmeltstellbeams.
Stop complaining that the experiment wasn't done right. If you want an accurate rerun then build a skyscraper and buy a plane. His setup was better than anything else I've seen yet. He didn't cheat, he was simply creating a simulation, not everything will be the same
You wasted everyones time
the only flaw i see here is you need to burn a lot more kerosene at once and much closer to the beam - people don't seem to understand heat transfer so i can see the argument they'd use, "oh jeez, sure a paint can 10 feet away isn't gonna melt it but this was kerosene right on the steel, burning for an hour, 60,000 gallons of it!
The change I'd make is to hang a long trough so the beam is half-submerged in kerosene, then light that and let it burn for an hour.. Also I'd go with the thinnest steel you can get - because it has nothing to do with the thickness, so if you can' tmelt a thin steel wire, you're definitely not going to melt (or even soften) anything larger.