The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

Can we assume that when his paper is rejected it will prove that ASCE is part of the conspiracy?

Well, the paper was sent to ASCE/editor Ross Corotis (Journ. of. Eng. Mech) on 3 February who said he would publish it after some sort of review of his peers. Early Arpril I contacted ASCE/Corotis and was informed the review was still going on. Now it is early May. I haven't heard anything. No questions asked, no clarifications or corrections requested. No comments of any kind.

 

[GlennB]

Well, the paper was sent to ASCE/editor Ross Corotis (Journ. of. Eng. Mech) on 3 February who said he would publish it after some sort of review of his peers. Early Arpril I contacted ASCE/Corotis and was informed the review was still going on. Now it is early May. I haven't heard anything. No questions asked, no clarifications or corrections requested. No comments of any kind.

I suspect they're lost for words.

 

[Myriad]

The purpose of the article is only to establish what spring breaks first in this 3-D structure of Funny m assemblies assuming, unrealistically, that part C actually free fall drops on part A! What happens afterwards is another story.

And yet, your claims in the article's conclusions go well beyond which spring breaks first in that particular ultra-unrealistic model.

Conclusions:
...
A tower or any steel structure of elements joined together cannot collapse due to structural failures up top and by gravity!

And it seems it is always a spring in part C that breaks first regardless of how flexible or stiff the structure is. So you have evidently learnt something.

I never said a spring in part C breaks first. It might under some conditions and not under others.

You asked about a case in which an overload mass was added to the top of the tower, and my assessment was that in that case the top springs of the tower (there is no "part C" in that scenario, just one tower with some mass on the top floor) would break first. That's hardly sufficient to establish a universal rule.

Evidently a floor cannot be represented by one m element in the Funny m assembly. It was only there to provide mass to compress the springs. And assuming that the springs just compress and break somewhere ... and do not slip off or damage their connections - are simplifications.

I'm glad you agree that your model is insufficiently detailed to support the broad conclusions you stated in the article. However, that makes me wonder how you do support those conclusions, and why you stated those conclusions in the article without supporting them with evidence in the article.

So far the only other models I am aware of are by Bazant and Seffen, which are just in 1-D! Lines C and A with some funny density/mass per meter where only line A is getting shorter - no springs/floors, etc.

Your model is likewise 1-D. You drew some 2-D pictures to illustrate it (as others including Bazant have done for their 1-D models as well), but the model itself includes no information for a second horizontal dimension, not even e.g. a height to width ratio.

Bazant (or one of his co-authors; I forget which paper this appeared in) did address the possibility of the toppling of "part A" and calculated that it's not a possibility that need be considered for the tower collapses. I've explained in other threads the dependence on scale of the ratio of angular momentum of "part A" to the torques involved (so that smaller scale models might topple where larger ones, like the real tower tops, could not). The importance of angular momentum in that question should be self-evident. You have not even addressed that issue in your funny model.

As I said before, your funny model is a big improvement over the ones you've offered previously. However, your analysis of it and the conclusions you've drawn from it are as sloppy and unjustified as ever.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[WilliamSeger]

Well, the paper was sent to ASCE/editor Ross Corotis (Journ. of. Eng. Mech) on 3 February who said he would publish it after some sort of review of his peers. Early Arpril I contacted ASCE/Corotis and was informed the review was still going on. Now it is early May. I haven't heard anything. No questions asked, no clarifications or corrections requested. No comments of any kind.

It's pro'lly still at the proofreaders, having all the exclamation marks removed.

 

[Heiwa]

1. Your model is likewise 1-D. You drew some 2-D pictures to illustrate it (as others including Bazant have done for their 1-D models as well), but the model itself includes no information for a second horizontal dimension, not even e.g. a height to width ratio.

2. Bazant (or one of his co-authors; I forget which paper this appeared in) did address the possibility of the toppling of "part A" and calculated that it's not a possibility that need be considered for the tower collapses. I've explained in other threads the dependence on scale of the ratio of angular momentum of "part A" to the torques involved (so that smaller scale models might topple where larger ones, like the real tower tops, could not). The importance of angular momentum in that question should be self-evident. You have not even addressed that issue in your funny model.

3. As I said before, your funny model is a big improvement over the ones you've offered previously. However, your analysis of it and the conclusions you've drawn from it are as sloppy and unjustified as ever.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks for comments!

1. Well the four springs are spaced apart and the Funny m assemblies, heigh h, are stacked on top of each other and that makes it 3-D in my view.

2. If you modify the springs on one level, the weaker ones will always fail before the stronger ones and toppling of part C (!) will take place.

3. This is clear from the Super Funny m Tower described in the article (updated at request of fans).

Hope above is helpful when you build your 10 meters model! Suggest you include at least 16 vertical support columns, 4 internal and 12 external, to really make your model 3-D and that the weakest support ones are located below the top element outer corners. And that the bottom #1 assemby supports are 22 times stronger than the equivalent #22 top assembly supports, etc.

Wish you luck to show that my conclusions are unjustified and sloppy. Based on experience always the weakest element in a collision interface fails first!

Good luck.

 

[GlennB]

Hope above is helpful when you build your 10 meters model! Suggest you include at least 16 vertical support columns, 4 internal and 12 external, to really make your model 3-D and that the weakest support ones are located below the top element outer corners. And that the bottom #1 assemby supports are 22 times stronger than the equivalent #22 top assembly supports, etc.

Have you changed the terms of "The Heiwa Challenge" to incorporate these new conditions?

What I foresee (gasp, I'm psychic all of a sudden ) is that your final conditions will require a 400m tall steel-framed "tube in tube" construction, with concrete lined steel floor pans, somewhere in Lower Manhattan. Hit by a virtually fully fuel-laden commercial aircraft flying at top speed, and allowed to burn for a good while ...

I suspect your "peer reviewers" can't finish their work because they keep passing out from laughter.

 

[Heiwa]

Have you changed the terms of "The Heiwa Challenge" to incorporate these new conditions?

What I foresee (gasp, I'm psychic all of a sudden ) is that your final conditions will require a 400m tall steel-framed "tube in tube" construction, with concrete lined steel floor pans, somewhere in Lower Manhattan. Hit by a virtually fully fuel-laden commercial aircraft flying at top speed, and allowed to burn for a good while ...

I suspect your "peer reviewers" can't finish their work because they keep passing out from laughter.

No, conditions are unchanged. I am just advising Myriad to get his particular structure together, i.e. to be siimilar to WTC 1 but not identical, of course, (only 16 tiny columns instead of 280+) and easy to simulate with FEA, e.g. LS DYNA or ANSYS.
Re article the editor, prof. Ross Corotis, is very friendly. So let's wait what happens to article. I can always publish it on my web site.

 

[George 152]

I suspect they're lost for words.

Not lost for words. It's just that the applicable words are unprintable

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Pardon my confusion.

Are you, or are you not, offering $1 million for a structure that will meet your criteria?

tom

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Pardon my confusion.

Are you, or are you not, offering $1 million for a structure that will meet your criteria?

tom

Yes, many JREF posters are confused like religious fundamentalists and apparently also interested in, or influenced by, flouss. Conditions of The Heiwa Challenge are in post #1 as amended in later posts (#239?). Just get working!

 

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

Or anyone who thinks like him.

 

[Swing Dangler]

This is why....

Do not, under any circumstances, board any ship designed by Anders Björkman. (Fortunately, it seems that experiment has never been attempted.)

Heiwa, I'm still waiting for your explanation for how two floors of the Skyline Towers building managed to crash through 22+ floors, and why you eliminated that example from your phony "challenge."

Have you studied that collapse? The building was under construction, not a fully complete structure. It did not collapse globally of course from the partial collapse.
It's sort of missing that complete global collapse feature that Hewia is looking for.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1997/3737/1024/241416/Skylinep.jpg

 

[tfk]

Yes, many JREF posters are confused like religious fundamentalists and apparently also interested in, or influenced by, flouss. Conditions of The Heiwa Challenge are in post #1 as amended in later posts (#239?). Just get working!

So, apparently you are incapable of providing a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question...

Let me try again. I'll make it easier.

A. "yes, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am offering $1 million to the winner"
B. "no, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am not offering $1 million to the winner".

You can copy & paste your reply.

tk

 

[Heiwa]

So, apparently you are incapable of providing a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question...

Let me try again. I'll make it easier.

A. "yes, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am offering $1 million to the winner"
B. "no, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am not offering $1 million to the winner".

You can copy & paste your reply.

tk

??? The Heiwa Challenge conditions are quite clear! Pls read post #1.

What kind of structure are you putting up?

Pls ask your religious fundamentalist secret society for support to get it together.

 

[phunk]

??? The Heiwa Challenge conditions are quite clear! Pls read post #1.

What kind of structure are you putting up?

Pls ask your religious fundamentalist secret society for support to get it together.

Translation from heiwaspeak: no, of course there's no prize, you're expected to spend your own money on building this for no good reason.

 

[tfk]

??? The Heiwa Challenge conditions are quite clear! Pls read post #1.

What kind of structure are you putting up?

Pls ask your religious fundamentalist secret society for support to get it together.

.

PROVING AGAIN that you are incapable of providing a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question...

Let me try again. I'll make it easier.

A. "yes, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am offering $1 million to the winner"
B. "no, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am not offering $1 million to the winner".

You can copy & paste your reply.

tk

PS. Do you really think that your schoolboy attempts at "clever", evasive answers will outlast my asking this simple question over & over. And YOU making yourself look like an idiot for evading the answer?

PPS. In order to "atari your next stone"...
Do you really think that you have garnered sufficient good will from the posters here that, when you petulantly put me on "ignore", NO ONE else will pick up the question until you a) answer it directly or b) have EVERYONE on ignore and yourself looking - if possible - even more buffoonish?

PPPS. Trust me. You DO want to answer this simple question for me. It is in YOUR immediate financial interest. ESPECIALLY if the answer is B. above.

You will understand perfectly as soon as I see your reply.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Have you studied that collapse?

Yep. In fact, I was working as a structural draftsman in an A&E office in Alexandria at the time, just a few miles away. The structural engineers talked about it for weeks.

The building was under construction, not a fully complete structure.

The "Heiwa Challenge" was originally for any self-supporting structure where 10% falling would destroy the other 90%. The weaseling came later.

It did not collapse globally of course from the partial collapse.
It's sort of missing that complete global collapse feature that Hewia is looking for.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1997/3737/1024/241416/Skylinep.jpg

It collapsed completely up to an expansion joint. In reinforced concrete buildings, expansion joints create virtually independent buildings, to avoid cracking from thermal stresses The slabs on each side were also poured separately, which was important in this case because the shoring under that part of the building was removed before the concrete had cured enough to support itself plus the next floor above that was being poured. Everything on that side of the expansion joint collapsed "globally." I don't think anyone sane expects Heiwa to pay the $million for any case, but the Skyline Towers collapse clearly demonstrates the principle that Heiwa denies: Buildings are not designed to withstand that kind of abuse. If Heiwa were really an engineer, he would understand that they could be designed to withstand a global collapse, provided the owner is willing to pay for it. Which means they hardly ever are -- they're just designed "to code."

 

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

I hope you're in for the long haul, tfk.

 

[tfk]

I hope you're in for the long haul, tfk.

I can't figure out why he's weaseling around this issue.

It's not as if his reply #416 is any secret. Where he says:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4623727&postcount=416
"No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour."

I fully expected that he had rescinded his prize money, and was simply trying to get him to confirm or deny this.

Because if he HAS rescinded his prize money, he's in for a rather rude surprise.

It turns out that ole Bill Smith is still posting around the internet that Heiwa is offering $1 million.

And Bill's posting this anonymously, WHILE SIGNING HEIWA's NAME to the posts.

I figured that Mr. Bjorkmann might want to know that.

I thought he'd be grateful to me...

tom

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yep. In fact, I was working as a structural draftsman in an A&E office in Alexandria at the time, just a few miles away. The structural engineers talked about it for weeks.



The "Heiwa Challenge" was originally for any self-supporting structure where 10% falling would destroy the other 90%. The weaseling came later.



It collapsed completely up to an expansion joint. In reinforced concrete buildings, expansion joints create virtually independent buildings, to avoid cracking from thermal stresses The slabs on each side were also poured separately, which was important in this case because the shoring under that part of the building was removed before the concrete had cured enough to support itself plus the next floor above that was being poured. Everything on that side of the expansion joint collapsed "globally." I don't think anyone sane expects Heiwa to pay the $million for any case, but the Skyline Towers collapse clearly demonstrates the principle that Heiwa denies: Buildings are not designed to withstand that kind of abuse. If Heiwa were really an engineer, he would understand that they could be designed to withstand a global collapse, provided the owner is willing to pay for it. Which means they hardly ever are -- they're just designed "to code."

1) You're absolutely correct about the expansion joints. For structural purposes, they are in fact two separate buildings.

2) You're really old.