• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meh. Let's not go overboard here, so to speak. No contract exists that is even close to legally enforceable, in my also-not-a-lawyer opinion. That's why my posts on the subject have frequently mentioned the need for a detailed written agreement in order for the 10-meter demonstration project to proceed.

Though I'm disappointed that it now seems I won't get to spend a few weeks putting game development on hold and doing a cool Mythbusters-like science fair project funded ultimately by Heiwa's prize money instead, I can't say I'm surprised it turned out this way. I certainly have no intention of trying to take anyone to court on the strength of idle Internet boasts!

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Meh. Let's not go overboard here, so to speak. No contract exists that is even close to legally enforceable, in my also-not-a-lawyer opinion. That's why my posts on the subject have frequently mentioned the need for a detailed written agreement in order for the 10-meter demonstration project to proceed.

Though I'm disappointed that it now seems I won't get to spend a few weeks putting game development on hold and doing a cool Mythbusters-like science fair project funded ultimately by Heiwa's prize money instead, I can't say I'm surprised it turned out this way. I certainly have no intention of trying to take anyone to court on the strength of idle Internet boasts!

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Actually, a contract really does exist. A detailed written agreement is not required. Behold, the beauty of the Common Law! Of course, it's obviously not worth pursuing legal action, but all of the required legal elements for a contract are present and accounted for.
 
D'rok said:
Actually, a contract really does exist. A detailed written agreement is not required. Behold, the beauty of the Common Law! Of course, it's obviously not worth pursuing legal action, but all of the required legal elements for a contract are present and accounted for.
Click to expand...


Maybe in some technical sense, but enforceability matters. Saying you have a contract but it's just not enforceable is like saying you have ice cubes but they're just not frozen.

Among the likely problems with enforceability in this case are: numerous unclear and contradictory terms, jurisdictional issues (Heiwa and I are citizens of different nations), my anonymity on the forum, and the supposed offer passing the "no reasonable person" test (as in, no reasonable person would believe Heiwa was truly offering a million dollars for demonstrating something that every structural engineer in the world already knows).

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Maybe in some technical sense, but enforceability matters. Saying you have a contract but it's just not enforceable is like saying you have ice cubes but they're just not frozen.

Among the likely problems with enforceability in this case are: numerous unclear and contradictory terms, jurisdictional issues (Heiwa and I are citizens of different nations), my anonymity on the forum, and the supposed offer passing the "no reasonable person" test (as in, no reasonable person would believe Heiwa was truly offering a million dollars for demonstrating something that every structural engineer in the world already knows).

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Stop arguing Heiwa's case, dammit! :p
 
Heiwa said:
Conditions have not changed. Some clarifications have been given, e.g., what is an element, etc.
Click to expand...

Sure they have:

First it was that 1/10 must crush the other 9/10...then it was that a certain number of elements must separate, then it was that a certain amount of "rubble" be created.

I'm still waiting for heiwa to post a detailed, written explanation of each and every requirement that must be met in order to receive the $1M payout. Randi can do it...why can't you?
 
nicepants said:
Sure they have:

First it was that 1/10 must crush the other 9/10...then it was that a certain number of elements must separate, then it was that a certain amount of "rubble" be created.

I'm still waiting for heiwa to post a detailed, written explanation of each and every requirement that must be met in order to receive the $1M payout. Randi can do it...why can't you?
Click to expand...

He won't do it. He doesn't have the money either. You know it. We all know it.

What he WILL do is deflect you onto something else,hoping that you'll give him some more attention. And he'll be right back in business again.

You guys are keeping him going, you do realize that, don't you?
 
So it's been adequately demonstrated that H. is dishonest, deceptive and generally a waste of time.

What next? More discussion with him? Please! Enough already.
 
nicepants said:
Sure they have:

First it was that 1/10 must crush the other 9/10...then it was that a certain number of elements must separate, then it was that a certain amount of "rubble" be created.

I'm still waiting for heiwa to post a detailed, written explanation of each and every requirement that must be met in order to receive the $1M payout. Randi can do it...why can't you?
Click to expand...

No condition re "rubble". Pls read post #1. Just a simple structure that self-destructs from top to bottom.
 
Almost 600 posts and no serious contender except Myriad trying!

In principle it should be VERY EASY! You just have to read the NIST report! Only a few pages. According NIST global collapse (of a structure) ensues when potential energy applied on and released inside exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. According NIST that happened on 9/11 and it should not be to difficult to verify ... or?

Further hints how to do it you find in the Bazant, Mackey and Seffen papers. Just drop upper part C on lower part A and part A is compressed into ... broken pieces.

There are also numerous JREF posters that suggest that part C easily one-way crushes down part A. They have SEEN numerous examples of structures that just do that. It shouldn't be to difficult to copy one such structure and win The Heiwa Challenge ... or?
 
Heiwa said:
Almost 600 posts and no serious contender except Myriad trying!

In principle it should be VERY EASY! You just have to read the NIST report! Only a few pages. According NIST global collapse (of a structure) ensues when potential energy applied on and released inside exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. According NIST that happened on 9/11 and it should not be to difficult to verify ... or?

Further hints how to do it you find in the Bazant, Mackey and Seffen papers. Just drop upper part C on lower part A and part A is compressed into ... broken pieces.

There are also numerous JREF posters that suggest that part C easily one-way crushes down part A. They have SEEN numerous examples of structures that just do that. It shouldn't be to difficult to copy one such structure and win The Heiwa Challenge ... or?
Click to expand...

Or .... the structures would need to be seriously large. Many tonnes in weight, many metres tall. Buildings, perhaps, as opposed to piles of lemons or pizza boxes?

Edited by Myriad: 
Edited for Rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GlennB said:
Or .... the structures would need to be seriously large. Many tonnes in weight, many metres tall. Buildings, perhaps, as opposed to piles of lemons or pizza boxes?

Edited by Myriad: 
Edited for Rule 12.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Just ensure that potential energy applied and released by part C exceeds the strain energy that part A can absorb (A>10C of same structure) as suggested by NIST.

The problem is that A and C have same structure so part C can absorb even less strain energy than A and will therefore have great difficulties to apply potential/kinetic energy to A without destroying itself (C) ... first. Actually the NIST proposal is nonsense.

Bazant/Seffen/Mackey overcomes this little problem by making - by assumption - C stronger than A, i.e. C can absorb much more strain energy than A and can therefore start to destroy A via some sort of shock wave. But that is cheating. C is suddenly another type of structure. Has nothing to do with science, physics or structural intact/damage analysis. Or The Heiwa Challenge!

BTW - now tell, how do you do with the religion?
 
Heiwa said:
Evidently not in The Heiwa Challenge as per post #1 of this thread. But $1M was mentioned in another thread as encouragement, which see.

Pls keep to topic of thread.
Click to expand...

I see my groupie tfk has been pestering you with stories about my anonymous postng of your challenge. Apparently the anonymous thing does not work very well if t. can see straight through it like that. lol
 
alienentity said:
So it's been adequately demonstrated that H. is dishonest, deceptive and generally a waste of time.

What next? More discussion with him? Please! Enough already.
Click to expand...

The Heiwa challenge makes no sense and has no cents.
 
bill,

bill smith said:
I see my groupie tfk has been pestering you with stories about my anonymous postng of your challenge. Apparently the anonymous thing does not work very well if t. can see straight through it like that. lol
Click to expand...


Your typical confusion on display.

I am the guy who consistently picks apart your poor excuses for "arguments" and finds your careless, frivolous disregard for the truth to be reprehensible.

This groupie must be someone else. Probably a figment of your imagination.
__

Regarding the anonymous postings:

Heiwa rescinded his offer of $1 million reward on April 16 in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4623727&postcount=416 when he says: "... No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour."

17 days after he rescinded his offer, you posted (on May 3rd) that he was still offering $1 million dollars here: http://www.rinf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21952&postcount=202

What is worse, is that you phrased everything in the first person, signing off:

"Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa"
__

The fact that you were signed in to this thread as "Unregistered Guest", you did NOT sign your name to the post, and left the readers no way to contact you for confirmation means that it is anonymous.

The fact that you DID sign someone else's name to the post means that your are unscrupulous.

The fact that you chose to put other people's money (if they lose) and reputation (when they "welch" on the bet) at risk shows irresponsibility.

The fact that you didn't notice (or didn't care) that Heiwa had rescinded his offer shows that you are "informationally incompetent" (or "truthiness challenged").

The fact that you did all of this AFTER Heiwa rescinded his offer, and led people to outdated information that had been subsequently contradicted, shows that you are informationally incompetent, irresponsible and unscrupulous.

Hundreds of previous postings have already left no doubt that you are regularly & casually dishonest.

Glad to clear that up for ya.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
bill,




Your typical confusion on display.

I am the guy who consistently picks apart your poor excuses for "arguments" and finds your careless, frivolous disregard for the truth to be reprehensible.

This groupie must be someone else. Probably a figment of your imagination.
__

Regarding the anonymous postings:

Heiwa rescinded his offer of $1 million reward on April 16 in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4623727&postcount=416 when he says: "... No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour."

17 days after he rescinded his offer, you posted (on May 3rd) that he was still offering $1 million dollars here: http://www.rinf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21952&postcount=202

What is worse, is that you phrased everything in the first person, signing off:

"Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa"
__

The fact that you were signed in to this thread as "Unregistered Guest", you did NOT sign your name to the post, and left the readers no way to contact you for confirmation means that it is anonymous.

The fact that you DID sign someone else's name to the post means that your are unscrupulous.

The fact that you chose to put other people's money (if they lose) and reputation (when they "welch" on the bet) at risk shows irresponsibility.

The fact that you didn't notice (or didn't care) that Heiwa had rescinded his offer shows that you are "informationally incompetent" (or "truthiness challenged").

The fact that you did all of this AFTER Heiwa rescinded his offer, and led people to outdated information that had been subsequently contradicted, shows that you are informationally incompetent, irresponsible and unscrupulous.

Hundreds of previous postings have already left no doubt that you are regularly & casually dishonest.

Glad to clear that up for ya.
Click to expand...

I was unaware that the financial element of the challenge had been withdrawn and for that I apologise to Heiwa. For the rest your post is pure ad-hominem. As for you being still my very own stalking groupie....well..we shall see.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I was unaware that the financial element of the challenge had been withdrawn and for that I apologise to Heiwa. For the rest your post is pure ad-hominem. As for you being still my very own stalking groupie....well..we shall see.
Click to expand...
.
Gee billy,

I guess the fact that you were did exactly the same thing earlier on two other websites, and that I told you then that he had rescinded the money...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4602624&postcount=275

... just didn't sink in, eh?

"Ad hominem"...?

Nah, just verifiable fact.
 
I would like to introduce my submission for the Heiwa challenge.

Here is my structure:

Fig 1. Top View

picture.php


_____

Fig 2. Side View

picture.php



The structure that I have in mind will have two towers of post-tensioned concrete flat slabs supported on steel columns. So as not to confuse them in discussion with the WTC towers, I will refer to my structures as the "East Tower" and the "West Tower". My towers will be connected by pour strips. Each tower will be a rectangle of roughly 60' x 110' and 12 stories high. The reason for having two towers is that we can also mimic the lateral progression of failure that happened in WTC7. When the West Tower collapses progressively to the ground (mimicking the Towers), the failure will progress laterally, dragging down the East Tower behind it, just like what occurred in WTC7. Modeling like this gives us a "two-fer".

It is my contention that I will be able to drop just one floor (the 12th) by removing one of its two supports, and that the drop of this floor will result in a total progressive collapse of BOTH towers. Moreover, I contend that this collapse will happen in "near free fall time" (perhaps 5 seconds), and each tower will generally fall within the footprint of its original, standing structure.

In my model, the concrete floors are supported by wedges that are permenently welded to the columns. Figure 2 above shows 7 floors of welded supports in the West Tower, and 8 floors in the East Tower. The 8th thru the 11th floors of the West Tower have "damage", i.e., removed floors, that statically mimics the damaged floors in the WTC towers.

Fig 2 shows the equivalent of one collapsed floor (the 8th) resting on Floor 7. This collapsed floor does not cause the slab-to-column supports to fail at Floor 7. The support wedges are able to support the static load. However, as a result of its collapse, there is now a 2.5 story fall possible if the upper slabs (9/10/11th floor) give way. This situation mimics the 3 story columns that were used in the towers. Since those columns failed as units, then the distance that the floors can fall is equivalent to at least 1 column height.

In order to meet the Heiwa Challenge criteria, there will be 12 total stories of concrete slab supported by steel columns. In my model, only ONE story (the 12th) will fail. When the 12th story fails, it drops only a couple of feet, strikes the 3 floor, closely spaced stack (9th thru 11th floors) and all four floors fall approximately 2.5 stories, striking the 7th story. This leads to a prompt failure of the 7th story supports, and a progressive failure of the entire West Tower to the ground.

At the same time, the failure propagates laterally into the East Tower. This entire structure will also be dragged down to the ground in a total collapse. The time for each Tower to collapse alone will be "near free fall time". The time for BOTH towers to collapse will be approximately 5 - 8 seconds.

Heiwa, do you accept that this assembly meets your criteria?

tom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom