WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

Sounds like my model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6 . Very popular. I use a weight of 1 750 kgs or almost 3 900 lb. The force on the lower structure is about 17 185 Newton, but the stresses in the structure below before heating up is just 0.3 of yield. Exactly as in WTC1/2.

But nothing is pushed to an edge and nothing is free falling and and nothing is impacting something below. The support structure of the upper block is heated, so it slowly loses strength and then the support structure starts to deform, bend, buckle and fail and the 3900 lbs upper block moves down ... but there is no free fall and no impact.


Heiwa, have you performed this test yourself?

Since you claim it's "popular," who else has performed it?

It appears that Heiwa might have me on ignore, which is difficult to explain as I have never been insulting or impolite to him. That would be unfortunate, because disregarding this question is a very bad idea. Publicly reporting results of an experiment without having actually performed the experiment is career suicide for a scientist, and certainly doesn't seem to conform to the ethical standards expected of engineers either.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Strange, then, that in Google the keywords

"United Nations International Maritime Organization" +coulombi

only return results from Heiwa Co ??

On the other hand ....

Heiwa Co will compute the tanker environmental index E for shipyards designing and building Coulombi Egg oil tankers.
[SIZE=-1]Heiwa Co has designed, got Class approval, and manufactured and fitted a large number of life boat davits to extremely competetive costs.[/SIZE]

Heiwa - you are a ships welder, right?

Try "IMO + Coulombi Egg" on Google and you get plenty of info from me and others incl. IMO. Use your imagination.

1966/7 I worked as a plater/welder in a shipyard to get some first hands-on experience. But I (and technology) have moved on since then.

BTW - what sect do you belong to?
 
Your incompetent embarrassment of a paper has been torn to shreds. You are a preposterous fraud who lacks any comprehension of physics or engineering. You were exposed as a complete fool.....


Seconded.
 
Try "IMO + Coulombi Egg" on Google and you get plenty of info from me and others incl. IMO. Use your imagination.
Ok...
The United States does not consider the Coulombi Egg tanker design as equivalent to the double hull design and tankers meeting the Coulombi Egg design will not be allowed in United States ports.
My imagination tells me that no Coulombi Egg tanker has been built.
 
Hm, the columns and their welded connections were under compression all the time.
This is relevant how? Steel regardless looses strength under high temperature conditions, whilst the compressive stresses remain the same. In other word, the capacity for the column to resist load stresses is reduced.

When heated (to 500°C) (and compressed) the columns cross area would expand and the compressive stress be reduced.
Thermal expansion and contraction contribute to weakening the steel and affected bolt connections. Neither thermal expansion nor contraction would in any way reduced the compressive stresses imparted by the structure above the impact region.

But also the material properties change so some plastic deformation (bulging) may take place where the heat is really high - in compression. No creep stresses occur causing failures ... in the welded connections! The welded connections are actually much stronger than the columns themselves (as the welded material has better properties).
Newton's Bit has already explained this far better than I can

I conclude that you do not know what you are talking about.
I'm not an engineer, nor will I ever claim to be, but I certainly appear to understand the basic concept better than you do. Your website makes assumptions which clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge. I would advise tending to those errors before trying to correct any thing of mine you perceive to be in error.

Are you a sect member? Pls, describe this sect and its physics.

DeathStarShoop.jpg
 
Heiwa, you claim to have an engineering background from school, but this statement just proved that statement a lie. You see, there's a difference between engineering stress-strain behavior and true stress-strain behavior.

Engineering stress-strain behavior normalizes the stress-strain curve based on the original cross-sectional area of steel. This allows engineers to accurately asses the behavior of the element based on the original constructed dimensions of the shape.

True stress-strain behavior, what pure scientists and most of the writers of articles on wikipedia use, are only interested in the actual material itself, not engineering properties.

By using the latter, you've more than proven you don't use engineering on a daily basis and either forgot or never learned the engineering principles in the first place

Furthermore, heat is detrimental to full perimeter welds. This is because the perimeter of the steel increases and since steel and the weld material have different coefficients of thermal expansion it induces shear into the weld plane. It's not that hard to figure out. Do the math. Oh wait, you CANT.

?? I obviously have an engineering background from a very good university. Graduated 1969. I always use first (scientific) principles in lieu of engineering standards to get things right. That's one difference between lower engineering institutes and higher edu universtites.

Now - assume a steel beam under compression with a full penetration connection weld at mid-length and that you heat this beam. Do you suggest that it suddenly shears off at the welded connection? Pls provide any evidence for this strange event.

What sect(s) do you belong to? Have you done my suggested model test?
 
Try "IMO + Coulombi Egg" on Google and you get plenty of info from me and others incl. IMO. Use your imagination.

1966/7 I worked as a plater/welder in a shipyard to get some first hands-on experience. But I (and technology) have moved on since then.

BTW - what sect do you belong to?

I already tried those search criteria .. I found stuff posted by you on obscure websites.

Heiwa - you are a ship's welder, n'est-ce pas?
If not, give us one verifiable source of major marine engineering you have been involved with. That is .. engineering with an actual physical outcome (as opposed to mere theory).
 
Any luck getting that paper published Heiwa?

And don't whine about how you're waiting for NIST to do anything first, it has nothing to do with your inability to get a paper published.
 
Heiwa, have you performed this test yourself?

Since you claim it's "popular," who else has performed it?

It appears that Heiwa might have me on ignore, which is difficult to explain as I have never been insulting or impolite to him. That would be unfortunate, because disregarding this question is a very bad idea. Publicly reporting results of an experiment without having actually performed the experiment is career suicide for a scientist, and certainly doesn't seem to conform to the ethical standards expected of engineers either.

Respectfully,
Myriad

No, you are not on ignore for any reasons whatsoever. Insults and impolitenesses are just weaknesses of potty opponents of dangerous sects, you know. I just feel sorry for them. And their ethical standards, if any.

Re my popular model test for children I await the NIST results confirming my findings and wonder when they will arrive. But it is easy to do yourself. Try it.

Kind regards

Heiwa
 
Re my popular model test for children I await the NIST results confirming my findings and wonder when they will arrive. But it is easy to do yourself. Try it.

Kind regards

Heiwa

Have you actually done the experiment yourself?
If so, please provide doumentary evidence. Photos would be good.
 
I already tried those search criteria .. I found stuff posted by you on obscure websites.

Heiwa - you are a ship's welder, n'est-ce pas?
If not, give us one verifiable source of major marine engineering you have been involved with. That is .. engineering with an actual physical outcome (as opposed to mere theory).

?? Obscure web sites? Links!

Oui, I was a welder long time ago. But I have moved on. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm . Plenty of actual physical outcome, all quite good. But, always checked against first, scientific principles, of course. I never trust standards. Particularly not NIStandardsT! They really lack ethics. NISectsT? Truth and Freedom and Freedom and Truth are my foundations. Not Lies and Sectcurity. The US Homeland Sectcurity set up is really awful.

BTW, what sect do you belong to?
 
Any luck getting that paper published Heiwa?

And don't whine about how you're waiting for NIST to do anything first, it has nothing to do with your inability to get a paper published.

Luck? Chance of fortune! Gambling! Not my business. I work for Peace (Heiwa), Freedom and Truth. It works very well, at least for me. Problems are all those sects. Which one are you member of?


Please re-read Rule 11: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject. On this Forum thread drift is expected but must follow from the discussion.
Keep your posts on topic please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re my popular model test for children I await the NIST results confirming my findings and wonder when they will arrive. But it is easy to do yourself. Try it.

Kind regards

Heiwa

Mr Heiwa,

With the greatest respect I like to recommend you stop suggesting that your experiment is suitable for children (or in fact any layperson).

Aside from the financial burden of $400 that you ask a child to spend on following your instructions I also feel that the suggestion that children should acquire and set fire to a gallon of gasoline deeply irresponsible and worrying. I notice that the 'model experiment' includes no mention of fire safety, other hazards or diagrams to assist someone following the instructions.

If you wish to make a scientific point with this experiment then I would ask that you conduct and record it yourself and turn the model experiment into a complete analysis for your website, rather than potentially putting children at risk trying to follow your instructions.

Yours,

Tickers
 
No, you are not on ignore for any reasons whatsoever. Insults and impolitenesses are just weaknesses of potty opponents of dangerous sects, you know. I just feel sorry for them. And their ethical standards, if any.


Well, that's nice to know.

Re my popular model test for children I await the NIST results confirming my findings and wonder when they will arrive. But it is easy to do yourself. Try it.


You didn't answer my question. Have you performed the experiment yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
?? I obviously have an engineering background from a very good university. Graduated 1969. I always use first (scientific) principles in lieu of engineering standards to get things right. That's one difference between lower engineering institutes and higher edu universtites.

What sect(s) do you belong to? Have you done my suggested model test?

:dl:

No Heiwa. You confuse the two (I think intentionally) to get the answer you want. Yes the increase in temperature increases the cross-sectional area, however it lowers the yield stress of the material by a proportionally larger extent. It's not exactly rocket science, but it is the reason why engineering use engineering stress-strain. We don't really care that the stress has gone down a small amount, the material is WEAKER. And that's based on it's normalized cross-sectional area.

Now - assume a steel beam under compression with a full penetration connection weld at mid-length and that you heat this beam. Do you suggest that it suddenly shears off at the welded connection? Pls provide any evidence for this strange event.

WTF are you going on about? Did you even read what I wrote? I said it induces shear. To anyone with a basic mechanics of materials understanding of the subject would understand that this means, add stress. This is me once again pointing out you don't have any clue as to what you're talking about. However it seems that you don't have any clue as to what people write either, instead just making up whatever you think you want them to say.

Oh, and none of the column splices in the WTC were full-pen welds. That would be just silliness.
 
Mr Heiwa,

With the greatest respect I like to recommend you stop suggesting that your experiment is suitable for children (or in fact any layperson).

Aside from the financial burden of $400 that you ask a child to spend on following your instructions I also feel that the suggestion that children should acquire and set fire to a gallon of gasoline deeply irresponsible and worrying. I notice that the 'model experiment' includes no mention of fire safety, other hazards or diagrams to assist someone following the instructions.

If you wish to make a scientific point with this experiment then I would ask that you conduct and record it yourself and turn the model experiment into a complete analysis for your website, rather than potentially putting children at risk trying to follow your instructions.

Yours,

Tickers


Welcome Tickers!
 

Back
Top Bottom