Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment

[240-185]

If a person with uniform density 0.98 tries the Heiwa Bathroom Scale experiment, the result may be BANG, THUD, SPLASH.

No, it will be "BANG, OUCH MY LEG, I NEED TO GO TO HOSPITAL".

and noises aren't a scientific way to explain physics (like Judy Wood and her explanation of 9/11: "Poof!").

 

[Dave Rogers]

How anything with uniform density 0.18 then can be rigid is another question that Bazant does not answer. He just assumes it.

This is rather a ridiculous comment. Rigidity has nothing to do with density. Mercury is far more dense than balsa wood, yet balsa wood is rigid and mercury isn't. Besides, the Twin Towers managed to stand up when there was a wind blowing, so assuming them to be rigid seems reasonable as a first approximation.

If you drop anything with uniform density of 0.18 on a bathroom scale, I doubt very much there will be a spike, or so.

Then, as usual, you're pretending Newtonian physics is wrong. If you drop a rigid object on a bathroom scale, the spike in the reading depends on its weight, not its density.

Re velocity - if an upper block (or person) with velocity v applies force F (or mg) on a bath room scale, the bath room scale measures F + a spike due to v. And then the spike disappears, and the scale only measures F.

Not if F + spike is enough force to break the scale, because in that case the energy delivered to the spring is too great for it to absorb elastically. Just like what happened to the Twin Towers; the spike was big enough to break them.

But I'm sure you'll come up with a fantasy explanation of why nothing can possibly break a bathroom scale next.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

How anything with uniform density 0.18 then can be rigid is another question that Bazant does not answer. He just assumes it.

This is rather a ridiculous comment. Rigidity has nothing to do with density. Mercury is far more dense than balsa wood, yet balsa wood is rigid and mercury isn't. Besides, the Twin Towers managed to stand up when there was a wind blowing, so assuming them to be rigid seems reasonable as a first approximation.

If you drop anything with uniform density of 0.18 on a bathroom scale, I doubt very much there will be a spike, or so.

Then, as usual, you're pretending Newtonian physics is wrong. If you drop a rigid object on a bathroom scale, the spike in the reading depends on its weight, not its density.

Re velocity - if an upper block (or person) with velocity v applies force F (or mg) on a bath room scale, the bath room scale measures F + a spike due to v. And then the spike disappears, and the scale only measures F.

Not if F + spike is enough force to break the scale, because in that case the energy delivered to the spring is too great for it to absorb elastically. Just like what happened to the Twin Towers; the spike was big enough to break them.

But I'm sure you'll come up with a fantasy explanation of why nothing can possibly break a bathroom scale next.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

So I calculated the uniform density of the upper block and got it to be 0.18. Like wool or cotton. Steel has uniform density 7.82 BTW or 43 times more but it is very little steel in the upper block.

Very little steel! Yeppers, you are taking 70 million pounds of Building, waving your hands and talking fantasy density, and ignoring 70 million pounds of upper floors for one tower.

Must have been the dense bodies of victims who destroyed the lower sections, since you have taken the steel and turned it into floating debris on your ocean of ignorance.

Just talk it away, 70 million pounds of building, people, steel, and office stuff, concrete, drywall, all just floating on your vast ocean of ignorance and flawed physics.

Did you know a WTC floor can only hold 25 million pounds? Do you understand the floor is a system to connect the shell to the core?

Your posts are proof you lack some stuff, something in understanding physics. Get some help before your bathroom scale explodes from laughter.


This sounds like the trick question, what weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of steel? 25,000 million pounds of static feathers would cause a failure of a WTC floor. 70 million pounds of falling WTC will do what?

 

[jaydeehess]

Forgive me if someone else just pointed this out and had a great ol' laugh but Heiwa believes he just proved that the towers would float.

He still does not comprehend that Bazant was outlining the method of approximation he was using by considering the upper block as one rigid item of uniform density.

What school did you say you attended again?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

and noises aren't a scientific way to explain physics (like Judy Wood and her explanation of 9/11: "Poof!").

"Clunkity-clunk" is exactly what the scientific method would sound like if converted to audio.

 

[alexi_drago]

assuming the density of the upper block matches a bale of wool the kinetic energy increase during the fall would be the same in both cases but one factor that makes a huge difference is that the bale of wool has totally different characteristics during impact giving a much longer impact duration and so exerts a much lower force on the structure below.

 

[Heiwa]

Forgive me if someone else just pointed this out and had a great ol' laugh but Heiwa believes he just proved that the towers would float.

He still does not comprehend that Bazant was outlining the method of approximation he was using by considering the upper block as one rigid item of uniform density.

What school did you say you attended again?

??? Towers would float?? No, it is the upper block that would float ... if it had uniform density <1. But evidently the density was not uniform.

And it was not rigid, either. A child understands that.

Anyone that assumes in an outline of a method of approximation (to explain the WTC destructions) that an object has uniform density and is rigid when the object has neither of these characteristics is a con man. It is as simple as that.

 

[Heiwa]

Not if F + spike is enough force to break the scale, because in that case the energy delivered to the spring is too great for it to absorb elastically. Just like what happened to the Twin Towers; the spike was big enough to break them.

But I'm sure you'll come up with a fantasy explanation of why nothing can possibly break a bathroom scale next.

Dave

You are 100% right about 'if F + spike is enough force to break the scale ... '.

And as explained in my papers that was not the case at WTC on 9/11. F + spike - actually many Fs and spikes - would just cause local failures of both upper block and lower structure at all the points of contacts that developes when a big object comes loose. After a while the local failures are arrested.

To assume, in an approximate method of explanation - that the big object has uniform density is ridiculous. And then to add, that the object of uniform density is rigid is a joke. All con men uses such tricks. But then you can prove (sic) anything; it is quite evident that at rigid body (that does not exist) destroys anything not rigid it contacts. Why prove that? And the uniform density trick? Bazant wants you to believe that it is the density of solid steel (7.82) and not wool (0.18) that this rigid object concists of. Then add some fancy figures with this upper block crushing down anything and ... voilà!

But the Bathroom Scale experiment shows that Bazant is wrong on all accounts.

 

[alexi_drago]

If you drop anything with uniform density of 0.18 on a bathroom scale, I doubt very much there will be a spike, or so.

You appear to be assuming that low density objects all behave like bales of wool which can compress and increase impact duration thus decreasing the force during impact.

Re velocity - if an upper block (or person) with velocity v applies force F (or mg) on a bath room scale, the bath room scale measures F + a spike due to v. And then the spike disappears, and the scale only measures F. The velocity v is then 0.

Where did the spike go? The energy of the spike was simply absorbed by the scale (or actually the spring inside the scale and what was below the scale).

If that spring wasn't there there would be a shorter impact time and therefore a higher force from the impact which would have to be dissapated through acceleration/decelleration and/or deformation/destruction. Since the forces are equal in both directions and since the falling object experiences decelleration then only some of the force actong on it is destructive. How much of the force on the lower block goes into accelerating that downward?

 

[Heiwa]

If that spring wasn't there there would be a shorter impact time and therefore a higher force from the impact which would have to be dissapated through acceleration/decelleration and/or deformation/destruction. Since the forces are equal in both directions and since the falling object experiences decelleration then only some of the force actong on it is destructive. How much of the force on the lower block goes into accelerating that downward?

No, all the force applied on the upper block by the lower structure is destructive one way or another; at contacts (I assume there are many contact points) very high pressures develop and they will first deform and later cause failures of the upper block structure at and around the contact points. Part of the total force will evidently also decelarate the upper body.

As the force is applied upwards on the upper block it will not cause it to accelerate downwards. It should brake (and break) the upper body. Happens at every collision.

The force applied on the lower structure is also destructive - but just locally i.w.o. contacts. As the lower structure is fixed to the ground, it will not accelerate anywhere. All the force will cause local deformations and failures up top but as part of the upper structure actually also acts as a spring, it will also try to bounce off the upper block.

It is only if you assume (like Bazant) that the upper block is rigid (indestructible) and also assume that it will plough through anything in its way, that global collapse would ensue. But it would not end there! The upper block would also 'collapse' any rubble on the ground and the ground itself causing a big hole in the ground and at the bottom of the hole you would find the upper block. But we know that did not happen. No hole! No rigid upper block found anywhere!

So after the initial contact (impact) and local failures, the same thing will happen at other contact points in the two bodies concerned. Every contact consumes energy ... and when the available energy is consumed, the destruction is arrested. After that you can look at the damaged parts and establish what happened.

It is a little Shanksville and Pentagon about the Bazant assumptions. That the planes were indestructible and disappeared into a hole in the ground or the wall of Pentagon.

If you do not collect the parts and analyze them, you are apparently not very interested to know what really happened and leave the stage to con men like Bazant that explains everything NWO wise.

 

[TheDaver]

No, all the force applied on the upper block by the lower structure is destructive one way or another; at contacts (I assume there are many contact points) very high pressures develop and they will first deform and later cause failures of the upper block structure at and around the contact points. Part of the total force will evidently also decelarate the upper body.

As the force is applied upwards on the upper block it will not cause it to accelerate downwards. It should brake (and break) the upper body. Happens at every collision.

And it happened at WTC as well. The collapses weren’t much slower than freefall, but they were slower, meaning there were braking forces. And the “upper block” wasn’t found intact in the rubble, so it was broken too.

It is only if you assume (like Bazant) that the upper block is rigid (indestructible) and also assume that it will plough through anything in its way, that global collapse would ensue. But it would not end there! The upper block would also 'collapse' any rubble on the ground and the ground itself causing a big hole in the ground and at the bottom of the hole you would find the upper block. But we know that did not happen. No hole! No rigid upper block found anywhere!

Pathetic and obvious reduction to absurdity.

So after the initial contact (impact) and local failures, the same thing will happen at other contact points in the two bodies concerned. Every contact consumes energy ... and when the available energy is consumed, the destruction is arrested. After that you can look at the damaged parts and establish what happened.

And in this case, the energy was enough to demolish the entire building.

 

[jaydeehess]

??? Towers would float?? No, it is the upper block that would float ... if it had uniform density <1. But evidently the density was not uniform.

No, if one takes the mass of an object and divides by its volume one gets a density for that object. It may well be that the mass is more conectrated at certain points in that volume. However if that number is less than the density of water then the object will float. If the density is uniform the object will float level and if the mass is concentrated at one end that end will be below the water line more than the less dense portion.

Gee, I'd have thought a marine specialist would understand the purpose of ballast and Archimedes Principle.

So, according to your calculations about the density of the upper block, if one made sure to seal the volume off to disallow water entering, it would float fairly high if the density of the upper block is less than 20% that of water.

And it was not rigid, either. A child understands that

.
Anyone that assumes in an outline of a method of approximation (to explain the WTC destructions) that an object has uniform density and is rigid when the object has neither of these characteristics is a con man. It is as simple as that.[/quote]

An approximation used by Bazant to simplify the calculations. If you wish to try calculating a better approximation by taking into account the flexure of the upper block then by all means write up your paper and submit it as an improvement on Bazant's model.

If you can show, by mathematical means, that Bazant's approximation is grossly in error, then by all means publish.

 

[Heiwa]

AA. No, if one takes the mass of an object and divides by its volume one gets a density for that object. It may well be that the mass is more conectrated at certain points in that volume. However if that number is less than the density of water then the object will float. If the density is uniform the object will float level and if the mass is concentrated at one end that end will be below the water line more than the less dense portion.

Gee, I'd have thought a marine specialist would understand the purpose of ballast and Archimedes Principle.

So, according to your calculations about the density of the upper block, if one made sure to seal the volume off to disallow water entering, it would float fairly high if the density of the upper block is less than 20% that of water.

BB. Anyone that assumes in an outline of a method of approximation (to explain the WTC destructions) that an object has uniform density and is rigid when the object has neither of these characteristics is a con man. It is as simple as that.

An approximation used by Bazant to simplify the calculations. If you wish to try calculating a better approximation by taking into account the flexure of the upper block then by all means write up your paper and submit it as an improvement on Bazant's model.

If you can show, by mathematical means, that Bazant's approximation is grossly in error, then by all means publish.

AA. Yes. Of course. This is just what I said in my posts.

BB. Yes, I confirm that anyone using false assumptions in an approximation to explain anything is a con man, incl. retired professors. And please - do not ask me to improve his tricks. You do not need mathematics to show if his assumptions are wrong. Use clear thinking.

Bazant assumes the upper block is rigid = no flexure (indestructible).

I just point out that any structure is quite flexible = not rigid. Particularly the WTC1 upper block 350+ meters up on top of the lower structure. Very light, little weight, mostly air, etc.

And in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm I show it will not initiate any global collapse due to gravity. Any destruction will be arrested after local failures.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

BB. Yes, I confirm that anyone using false assumptions in an approximation to explain anything is a con man, incl. retired professors. And please - do not ask me to improve his tricks. You do not need mathematics to show if his assumptions are wrong. Use clear thinking.

Structural engineering is a math based field. Engineers constantly must calculate the expected live and dead loads within a structure and determine the size of structural members accordingly. Bazant used math to support his analysis, you have not and you've hand waved my request to do so to offer you the opportunity to explain, to a non-engineer where bazant was wrong. I'll take your refusal to offer any kind of math as proof of your ignorance in this topic.

I just point out that any structure is quite flexible = not rigid. Particularly the WTC1 upper block 350+ meters up on top of the lower structure. Very light, little weight, mostly air, etc.

Reductive Fallacy... that is all this is... try again

And in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm I show it will not initiate any global collapse due to gravity. Any destruction will be arrested after local failures.

You show 2-dimensional diagrams and conjecture with no supporting math work to demonstrate and explain why your scenarios should happen. Please explain how a layman should approach your work with a clear sense of how to interpret it. "Common sense" is not an answer.

 

[Heiwa]

Structural engineering is a math based field. Engineers constantly must calculate the expected live and dead loads within a structure and determine the size of structural members accordingly. Bazant used math to support his analysis, you have not and you've hand waved my request to do so to offer you the opportunity to explain, to a non-engineer where bazant was wrong. I'll take your refusal to offer any kind of math as proof of your ignorance in this topic.


You show 2-dimensional diagrams and conjecture with no supporting math work to demonstrate and explain why your scenarios should happen. Please explain how a layman should approach your work with a clear sense of how to interpret it. "Common sense" is not an answer.

Evidently you need math in structural engineering but also clear thinking and common sense.

You cannot assume that some parts of your structure, e.g. an upper block, is rigid and with uniform density, etc. like Bazant and NIST. Then the math becomes wrong.

The upper block consists of many structural parts and as demonstrated in my papers, without math, just common sense and clear thinking, some of these parts will be deformed and will fail or just bounce off at contacts with other structure and no global collapse will ensue.

On the contrary, the global collapse will be arrested after a certain number of local failures. Happens every time.

My 2-D figures just demonstrate this - the columns will damage the floors and the damaged floors hinging down get entangled into one another, etc.

Structural damage analysis differs completely from structural (intact) design analysis. An intact structural design is easy to analyse using FEM and beam analysis and known loads. Damage analysis is different; you have to do it step by step analysing each local failure at a time ... and see what happens next with, e.g. the loads. The structure changes at every step.

Quite time consuming but possible. The Japanese did it many years ago simulating a ships collision; one ship ramming the other with plenty (10 000's) of local failures as a result until arrest.

I strongly recommend that same is done with WTC1. Not difficult to do, actually. I wonder why it is not done.

 

[beachnut]

Evidently you need math in structural engineering but also clear thinking and common sense.

You cannot assume that some parts of your structure, e.g. an upper block, is rigid and with uniform density, etc. like Bazant and NIST. Then the math becomes wrong.

The upper block consists of many structural parts and as demonstrated in my papers, without math, just common sense and clear thinking, some of these parts will be deformed and will fail or just bounce off at contacts with other structure and no global collapse will ensue.

On the contrary, the global collapse will be arrested after a certain number of local failures. Happens every time.
...

I was going to ...
but you refute your own work best! I think you do it by self induced calculation assassination.

How many physics classes did you take to become the expert you are at messing up the WTC demise?

Sorry, I am flabbergasted by your expertise on this topic.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, I confirm that anyone using false assumptions in an approximation to explain anything is a con man, incl. retired professors. And please - do not ask me to improve his tricks. You do not need mathematics to show if his assumptions are wrong. Use clear thinking.

You show yourself to be either incapable of doing the required math and physics to prove your point, or that you are a charlatan, or that you are simply delusional.

Bazant assumes the upper block is rigid = no flexure (indestructible).

If this bothers you so much then assign some valid values to the upper block and show that the flexure of the upper block's structural members would have made a gross difference in Bazant's calculations.

got math? got physics? got engineering?
You are bringing a knife to a gun fight here Heiwa. Bazant brings us valid engineering and physics and you bring " 'cause I say so"

I just point out that any structure is quite flexible = not rigid. Particularly the WTC1 upper block 350+ meters up on top of the lower structure. Very light, little weight, mostly air, etc.

How flexible, and exactly how will this affect the calculations that Bazant made on the failures in the lower section?
"Very light" is quite subjective. Would the floor pan/truss system of an individual level be expected to be able to hold the mass of the ten stories above it? What was the maximum load bearing capability of the floor of one level? How would the destruction of one level floor pan/truss system affect the load bearing capability of the columns that now span two levels with no lateral support?

And in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm I show it will not initiate any global collapse due to gravity. Any destruction will be arrested after local failures.

You claim that "All the energy released is absorbed by the local failures in the initiation zone and by friction between locally failed parts rubbing against each other after initiation. And the crush down is arrested!"

Where is the math to show even this basic claim? You have done nothing more than wave your hands and assume that 'friction' will arrest the movement of the entire upper block as well as other great assumptions. yet you complain that Bazant makes assumptions and uses them in his calculations. If are to claim that Bazant's assumptions contribute gross errors to his calculations then it is up to you to show (illustrate, demonstrate, calculate) this to be true. You nothing of the sort.

In fact there is basically no math at all in your entire 'paper'. It is about as technical as a science article written for "Lady's Home Journal" right next to the Blueberry pie recipes and as accurate as one that would be written by the likes of Geo.W. Bush

Again, you show yourself to be either incapable of doing the required work to prove your point, or that you are a charlatan, or that you are simply delusional.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Student Grade Report

Name: Björkman, Anders

Physics I: F
Statics: F
Strength of Materials: F
Kinematics: F
Introduction to Critical Thinking: F

 

[Heiwa]

AA. If this bothers you so much then assign some valid values to the upper block and show that the flexure of the upper block's structural members would have made a gross difference in Bazant's calculations.
How flexible, and exactly how will this affect the calculations that Bazant made on the failures in the lower section?

BB. You claim that "All the energy released is absorbed by the local failures in the initiation zone and by friction between locally failed parts rubbing against each other after initiation. And the crush down is arrested!"

Where is the math to show even this basic claim?

CC. If are to claim that Bazant's assumptions contribute gross errors to his calculations then it is up to you to show (illustrate, demonstrate, calculate) this to be true. You nothing of the sort.

DD. Again, you show yourself to be either incapable of doing the required work to prove your point, or that you are a charlatan, or that you are simply delusional.

AA. The upper block structure is as flexible as the lower structure. You cannot as Bazant assume that the upper block structure is of uniform density, rigid, indestructible and everything else is not. Only a con man makes such assumptions. The math afterwards is of no value at all.

BB. I show several examples starting with a rubber ball (falling object - non rigid) bouncing against a non-rigid surface (lower structure). Only if the rubber ball was rigid, it would punch a hole in the surface. This is what Bazant suggests.

CC. No, I do that. Laymen's terms so that children understands are essential.

DD. I think I make my points very clear. I am not a con man.