Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

Grizzly Bear said:
It's a mechanism called buckling, and the points where the buckling would have been most prominent are where the connections gave out. tfk gave you a very simplified analogy and you still did not understand the concept. And yes when a heavy object has a downward vector influenced by gravity in addition to a horizontal motion vector a 4 ton object isn't going to "bounce" off an 18 inch thick wall. Surprising you seem oblivious to the concept despite your claimed knowledge of otherwise.
Click to expand...
The mathematical analysis was done a couple pages back. The 'flicker factor' [buckling] is silly. Structural steel is not spring steel and cannot store very much 'spring energy' before it deforms and does not return to its original shape.

This is just a desperate childish attempt to deny the obvious.
 
rwguinn said:
wow.

I done stress and dynamic analysis and testing on the F-16, F-111, F-35, G-VI, STS, Titan III, 34D, and STS payloads (among other fun stuff), and never knew these things.
Do tell me more...
Click to expand...
share with us your delta testing cycles on rigidity if you would, kind sir, thermal resonance at microscopic integrals, perhaps in the ranges of the 4th to the 10th harmonics. It fascinates all of us.
 
if you guys have the time, what is your experience in the lab where you did TTF---test to failure for you non-lab types, at what point did or was their a joint failure in steel activities


give us the test conditions also
 
Christopher7 said:
The mathematical analysis was done a couple pages back. The 'flicker factor' [buckling] is silly. Structural steel is not spring steel and cannot store very much 'spring energy' before it deforms and does not return to its original shape.
Click to expand...

You've been presented with the calculations.
Now it's up to you to debunk them, but "it's obvious" isn't good enough.
So - let's see your numbers.
 
Last edited:
bob the analyst said:
share with us your delta testing cycles on rigidity if you would, kind sir, thermal resonance at microscopic integrals, perhaps in the ranges of the 4th to the 10th harmonics. It fascinates all of us.
Click to expand...
"'Twas Brillig, and slythy toves did gyre and gymbal in the wabe"
May I suggest that you peruse J. Hart's "Frammin in the Jim-Jam" for further elucidation?
 
bob the analyst said:
I will out you as a complet fraud, fake and phony...you design buildings as much as I design space elevators,
Click to expand...

wanker1.gif
 
Last edited:
What's your point, Wimpy?

Now, come on Bob. We know you're still here. Are you claiming, without any doubt, that either (a) I'm not an architecct or (b) you design space elevators? Put your money where that mouth of yours is.
 
I'll ask you for the 3rd time, share with us the duty and perfomance test cycles, this is an easy kill for Bob as everyone can see already
 
You know, Bob, unless you're glued to your telly watching Scotland get yet another penalty over on the Italians (9-3, 31.10 into the first half, btw) then you've suddenly gone all reticent on us.

Are you calling me a liar in respect of architectural qualifications and experience? And what, pray, are your own qualifications in this field?
 
Normally, folks like Bob slink away into the shadows when confronted by people who actually DO know that they are talking about.
 
Come on, Bob. You should be asking about ARB and RIBA registration details at least........
 
Christopher7 said:
NIST admitted that they did not explain the collapse.
Click to expand...

That was given before the explanation I linked you to, so you are being dishonest in using it. They have explained it since. Stop lying.

You are now shifting and saying they have not proved it. This is not what you claimed originally.
 
Sorry, Bob, clearly you are watching the Scotland game and have just been distracted by Simon's lovely wee try there. 14-3.

Incidentally, if the game keeps going like this I'll be off the watch the 2nd half uninterrupted myself.

So, anyway, Bob, whilst we wait for the conversion. Are you trying to call me out on my professional qualifications?
 
bob the analyst said:
wow, humor on this site doesn't get any better than that? Do you do vegas with that comedy routine? What other material do you have?
Click to expand...

Literally, what he said was true and what you said was a lie. And you know it. You have to be aware by now that you are trying to foist a lie. I have very little respect for people who do that.

Ask any firefighter if they would rather be under a steel truss roof or a timber truss roof in a fire? Steel roofs fail before timber ones.

See;

http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm

Which includes this interesting graph;
 

Attachments

  • G3c.gif
    G3c.gif
    24.3 KB · Views: 0
Actually it can depend on the design and size of the respective members. But, as it happens, large timber beams are more stable for longer than their steel equivalents.
 
I can just imagine the moans and groan from the shills here when i put them on the spot, yesterday it was for FMEA information, yet they had no idea what a FMEA was, also DVPR, nothing still, today it's their testing snd duty life cyles,parameters, metrics, things of that nature...they stand there like a deer caught in the headlights and Bob's driving the big semi--bearing down on them and they are frozen on the raod


just keep giving us that Homer Simpsonesque "dooh!"
doh-homer-simpson-air-freshener.jpg
 
Still waiting, Bob. Having second thoughts? Wanting to welch? Or just waiting for the penalty kick that the Italians just missed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom