Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration

[Myriad]

I am mystified of your column/column connections and tray/column connections - if they can resist the transverse test, and if the structure will stand by itself with your heavy, solid trays, &c.

No great mystery. The columns only span one floor. Each tray has two sets of columns attached to it, one set extending downward to the tray below and one set extending upward to the tray above. Those columns do not meet end to end.

This is not so unusual. A lot of things (including most frame built houses) are built with vertical members that are only the height of one floor, and where each floor supports the columns for the next floor up instead of column ends bearing directly on lower columns.

That means that if the floors collapse the columns collapse with them. There are no long continuous columns to remain standing.

As I said, that is different from the WTC towers, which did have long continuous columns. But the columns in the WTC towers couldn't remain standing once the floors collapsed either. There's a different reason for that in the towers, but the result is the same; the columns cannot stand if the floors fall.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[phunk]

4. Side impact test? OK! Let's say C impacts A vertically with energy E for one-way crush down! To keep it simple. A shall also resist same energy application horizontally, applied at top. No damages, just elastic deformation, sideways, swaying.

Whoa wait a minute here. Now you expect the building to resist a lateral force at the top equal to the weight of the top section?

 

[beachnut]

...
The trays must also become rubble and break up into its components, of course.
...

Moving the goal posts again. You need a tractor for this.

What do you want? Components now means dust or atoms as your insane ideas on 911 are reflected in your sophomoric posts and quibbling.

Whoa wait a minute here. Now you expect the building to resist a lateral force at the top equal to the weight of the top section?

The Heiwa Challenge... 4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.

Heiwa said a small lateral impact he forgot to use his engineering to specify the small lateral load and is trying to back in the value; he lacks real engineering skills that Myriad has him beat by orders of magnitude.



expect a million goalpost moves, not a million dollars

 

[Heiwa]

Please specify the maximum size of the pieces the concrete contents of the trays must break into in order to win your challenge.

Also, please specify what percentage of the component parts must separate. If two tray sides happen to still be attached together, does that fail? How about if a chunk of concrete remains stuck to the tray bottom?

...

Respectfully,
Myriad

From The Heiwa Challenge conditions:

10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.

So you have to specify all the elements in your structure part A, say 10 trays, 40 supports between trays and total 80 connections.

So there are 50 elements and 80 connections. So it would appear that 35 elements (70%) have to be disconnected.

Part C thus just consist of 1 tray and 4 support and 4 connections.

But ... is a tray one element? It consists of four pieces of wood frame, a plywood bottom and cement. That's another 6 elements with plenty of connections. But let's say a tray is one element.

So if any tray has supports still connected to it, it is not disconnected. A problem! Each tray (except top one) has 8 supports connected to it so all 8 must be disconnected for it to count.

Maybe easier to disconnect the supports? There are 40 supports, and to be successful 35 must be disconnected top and bottom. It means 70 connections support/tray must be broken ... and there are 80 of them.

Maybe easier just to have four supports and 10 trays hanging on them via 40 connections? Then there are only 14 elements in the structure and 10 must be completely disconnected after crush down.

Hope above clarifies matter? I always try to keep conditions simple.

PS. Above gives a hint of the complexity of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. how to really disconnect an element from a structure. The simplest elements in your model structure are the supports and they have only two connections. You apply a force (part C dropping by gravity) on that element and only one connection will fail - the weakest one. Then the force is applied somewhere else ... and the other connection remains intact. It is not easy for part C or a loose element of part A to break both connections. But you can always try.

 

[Myriad]

Moving the goal posts again. You need a tractor for this.

What do you want? Components now means dust or atoms as your insane ideas on 911 are reflected in your sophomoric posts and quibbling.

To be fair, Heiwa did say this in his original challenge post:

10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.

The problem is the unclarity of "elements." I think most of us assumed that an "element" was something like a floor (e.g. one of his "funny m" units from his recent model) and that having the structure end up in a pile on the floor was sufficient to constitute the structure being "crushed" by the event. He apparently means instead that most of the pieces must separate into whatever component parts they were made from. (Even though when I crush cans and cardboard cartons they usually stay in one piece.) I would say two floors are crushed if neither remains standing above the ground, but Heiwa apparently thinks they must also come apart.

ETA: cross-posed with the above.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

To be fair, Heiwa did say this in his original challenge post:




The problem is the unclarity of "elements." I think most of us assumed that an "element" was something like a floor (e.g. one of his "funny m" units from his recent model) and that having the structure end up in a pile on the floor was sufficient to constitute the structure being "crushed" by the event. He apparently means instead that most of the pieces must separate into whatever component parts they were made from. (Even though when I crush cans and cardboard cartons they usually stay in one piece.) I would say two floors are crushed if neither remains standing above the ground, but Heiwa apparently thinks they must also come apart.

ETA: cross-posed with the above.

Respectfully,
Myriad

So hopefully 'element' is clear. Re WTC 1 we see right after initiation how big pieces of wall elements are fully disconnected from the structure and thrown sideways out in all directions in the fountain of rubble produced. It is quite easy to identify the pieces at the front of the rubble fountain on videos; they all come from upper part C!
But evidently lower part A cannot fully disconnect bits of part C and throw them sideways. Gravity doesn't work like that for similar structures (of different size) in collisions. So it seems that in WTC 1 other energy is a work.

 

[Myriad]

Heiwa, you appear to be making conflicting predictions in different threads concerning what you think would happen to my 10-meter model.

In this thread, you appear to have acknowledged that it would collapse completely to the ground (or "pancake" if you will), leaving all the trays in a pile on the ground. Your only quibble was that some percentage of the support pieces might stay connected at one end or the other to the trays, and/or that the individual trays will not break into smaller pieces, thus failing to meet the exact terms of the Challenge.

However, in another thread you claimed this:

2. The Myriad structure - see other thread. Myriad will encounter the psik effect in his/her structure. Thus part C will be slowed down and stopped and not one-way crush down A. As the Myriad structure also includes vertical supports as elements between horizontal elements/masses, they will break but ... in only one location. Thus the Myriad structure is not a winner in the Heiwa Challenge.

So, which do you actually think would happen? Disregarding whether or not the results would meet the terms of your Challenge, do you think the trays would pancake all the way down, or would "part C" (the single dropped top tray, in this case) slow down and stop part way down?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, you appear to be making conflicting predictions in different threads concerning what you think would happen to my 10-meter model.

In this thread, you appear to have acknowledged that it would collapse completely to the ground (or "pancake" if you will), leaving all the trays in a pile on the ground. Your only quibble was that some percentage of the support pieces might stay connected at one end or the other to the trays, and/or that the individual trays will not break into smaller pieces, thus failing to meet the exact terms of the Challenge.

However, in another thread you claimed this:




So, which do you actually think would happen? Disregarding whether or not the results would meet the terms of your Challenge, do you think the trays would pancake all the way down, or would "part C" (the single dropped top tray, in this case) slow down and stop part way down?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Assuming your structure consists of two trays in part C (could be only one) connected by supports and that part A consists of 20 trays, I assume that when part C impacts part A, the part C supports fail, so that part C consists of two loose trays. The bottom part C tray has contacted the top part A tray, and there may be damages to the supports below the top part A tray. So there are three loose trays to consider with broken supports in between. Perfect and uniform impacts between the trays are impossible - the trays will impact broken supports in between, etc, and there will be extensive damping and friction in play between loose trays and compression/decompression in part A supports all way down. So the one-way crush down will be arrested pretty soon. Part C cannot crush part A.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now try to crush a half-ton concrete mass (part A) with a 50 kg slice (part C)of same concrete mass and you are in business.

Are you just pulling values out of your undies?

Where did you get 50kg of concrete breaking a half-ton?

That did not happen anywhere, could not have happened anywhere, and did not need to have happened anywhere.

50kg only has to break 50kg loose from the wall, thus becoming 100kg, and fall onto another 50kg, becoming 150kg, and so on.

I admit that I am a bit short on math skills, but it does seem to me that , unless you base your calculations on something that can be quantified, your result is pretty much garbage.

In case you missed it, dude, the towers broke one floor at a time.

 

[Heiwa]

Are you just pulling values out of your undies?

Where did you get 50kg of concrete breaking a half-ton?

That did not happen anywhere, could not have happened anywhere, and did not need to have happened anywhere.

50kg only has to break 50kg loose from the wall, thus becoming 100kg, and fall onto another 50kg, becoming 150kg, and so on.

I admit that I am a bit short on math skills, but it does seem to me that , unless you base your calculations on something that can be quantified, your result is pretty much garbage.

In case you missed it, dude, the towers broke one floor at a time.

The Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse is supposed to demonstrate how 1/10 (part C) of a structure shall destroy the 9/10 (part A), e.g. 50 kgs has to break 50 kgs nine times and all the supports in between. For that the first 50 kgs must first apply a certain amount of energy to break the supports or connections of the 50 kgs below ... and it is not so easy. The supports of the 450 kgs below absorb a lot of energy to start with ... and it slows down any wished for collapse, etc, etc. All will be more clear when Myriad has got his/her design ready for collapse.

 

[nicepants]

The Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse is supposed to demonstrate how 1/10 (part C) of a structure shall destroy the 9/10 (part A), e.g. 50 kgs has to break 50 kgs nine times and all the supports in between. For that the first 50 kgs must first apply a certain amount of energy to break the supports or connections of the 50 kgs below ... and it is not so easy. The supports of the 450 kgs below absorb a lot of energy to start with ... and it slows down any wished for collapse, etc, etc. All will be more clear when Myriad has got his/her design ready for collapse.

Heiwa, don't forget these preliminary steps which must take place before he builds his model:

- Formal agreement with the challenge sponsor for the full terms of both challenges (demonstrating 1/10th crushing 9/10's, and disproving the so-called "Heiwa axiom") completed

- Verification of $100,000 of the prize money placed in escrow under control of the designated challenge referee, and verification of the existence of the remaining $900,000 in available assets liquefiable within the agreed-upon time period

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, don't forget these preliminary steps which must take place before he builds his model:

- Formal agreement with the challenge sponsor for the full terms of both challenges (demonstrating 1/10th crushing 9/10's, and disproving the so-called "Heiwa axiom") completed

- Verification of $100,000 of the prize money placed in escrow under control of the designated challenge referee, and verification of the existence of the remaining $900,000 in available assets liquefiable within the agreed-upon time period

This Myriad Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration is apparently a prospective structure for The Heiwa Challenge, conditions of which are in that thread.

If any challenger wants to have written confirmations or a formal agreement of full ... or modified terms just send a PM or email.

The Heiwa Challenge is not about money, BUT, I am evidently prepared to include that - money - in a formal agreement. Let's face it! There are only five things that matter in this biz; money, money, money, money, money.

Thus, if Myriad fails in his attempt of the Challenge, he/she should of course pay me an agreed amount.

BTW - there is no Heiwa axiom! But google on the Björkman Axiom and you may be informed what it is all about.

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: nicepants , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

 

[FineWine]

The Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse is supposed to demonstrate how 1/10 (part C) of a structure shall destroy the 9/10 (part A), e.g. 50 kgs has to break 50 kgs nine times and all the supports in between. For that the first 50 kgs must first apply a certain amount of energy to break the supports or connections of the 50 kgs below ... and it is not so easy. The supports of the 450 kgs below absorb a lot of energy to start with ... and it slows down any wished for collapse, etc, etc. All will be more clear when Myriad has got his/her design ready for collapse.

This gets asked repeatedly and you babble incoherently then run away. Nobody thinks that 1/10 of either tower crushed the other 9/10. As people tell you over and over, the impact floors and the floors above constituted more than 1/10 of the tower. As they fell, they added each successive floor to their mass. Their momentum accelerated; it was not arrested. Your bogus
"challenge" has nothing to do with the actual collapses of the towers. Please give up this extremely foolish charade.

 

[GlennB]

Thus, if Myriad fails in his attempt of the Challenge, he/she should of course pay me an agreed amount.

BTW - there is no Heiwa axiom! But google on the Björkman Axiom and you may be informed what it is all about.

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: nicepants , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

You should seek medical help.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thus, if Myriad fails in his attempt of the Challenge, he/she should of course pay me an agreed amount.

Just in case anybody missed Heiwa's latest utterly shameless and blatant piece of goalpost-moving. He's now changed his offer of $1M to anyone who can invalidate his axiom to a two-way bet, a condition very clearly absent from the original challenge.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Just in case anybody missed Heiwa's latest utterly shameless and blatant piece of goalpost-moving. He's now changed his offer of $1M to anyone who can invalidate his axiom to a two-way bet, a condition very clearly absent from the original challenge.

Dave

You are right. There is no money in The Heiwa Challenge - nur Ehre - but if a Challenger wants to to bet, Heiwa never says no in this particular case. Reason being, Heiwa is right and cannot lose - thanks to the Björkman Axiom. Suggest you assist Myriad with his/her structure.

 

[HeyLeroy]

That must be tiring.

 

[Myriad]

The Heiwa Challenge is not about money, BUT, I am evidently prepared to include that - money - in a formal agreement. Let's face it! There are only five things that matter in this biz; money, money, money, money, money.

Thus, if Myriad fails in his attempt of the Challenge, he/she should of course pay me an agreed amount.

Which of course, makes it not a Challenge at all, but a wager.

What odds are you suggesting, Heiwa? (That is, what ratio between the amount you stake and the amount I stake, assuming that the winner takes all?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

Which of course, makes it not a Challenge at all, but a wager.

What odds are you suggesting, Heiwa? (That is, what ratio between the amount you stake and the amount I stake, assuming that the winner takes all?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Odds? 0! You cannot win! But you can still try. I'll collect any money you can put up! Better is to invest it in your structure. So you'll realize yourself that it doesn't work. Good luck!

 

[nicepants]

What odds are you suggesting, Heiwa?

Odds? 0!

Invalid syntax.

If Myriad were to wager $1,000 and win the challenge/wager....how much would you pay him?