The Heiwa Challenge

[oldhat]

I'm not a science wiz or anything but Heiwa's challenge reminds me of this guy:

 

[bill smith]

I'm not a science wiz or anything but Heiwa's challenge reminds me of this guy:

I thought that was very good. He got his point across nicely.

 

[Heiwa]

Apart from when you contradicted your own "conditions" by stating that the structural elements needed to themselves be broken, not merely disconnected.

Actually, a connection in a structure is another element! It is up to the designer of the structure that can one-way crush down and win The Heiwa Challenge to decide whether the elements or their connections (other elements) are broken to provide the required result, i.e. that part C crushes part A. Anybody familiar with structural design and static and dynamic analysis of intact and partly damaged structures knows of course that this is impossible but maybe we are wrong?

I have asked NIST to provide a standard for a structure that can one-way crush down! Reason is of course to ensure that such structures are not used in, e.g. buildings. Safety first is my motto.

 

[oldhat]

I thought that was very good. He got his point across nicely.

This is why you're a Truther and I am not.

 

[tfk]

Please explain how you distinguish "pancake failure" from "crush down failure".

.

But I just did!

You did nothing of the sort.

When I am asked "what is the difference between A & B", my answer will have in it phrases such as:

"A is ___ ." And "B is ___ ." The main differences between A and B are ___ ."

In your post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4710195#post4710195 , there is nothing that even remotely resembles these phrases.

BTW, it is a secret to nobody that evasion is simply a game you play. I've asked you at least 5 times for a simple "yes" or "no" answer as to whether or not you were paying $1M for your challenge. You gave at least 4 separate replies - NONE of which said simply "yes" or "no".

Your evasion is not endearing. It's not clever. It doesn't win you points. And it has apparently become such a habit with you that you don't even recognize it any more.

Pancaking is, apparently, when one element in a structure gets loose and drops and contacts another identical element that also gets loose; the two identical elements then apparently fuse, drop and contact a third identical element that gets loose. The loose elements fuse, drop and contact a fourth identical element that gets loose, and so on. At the end of pancaking - when a pile of pancaked elements hits the ground - apparently these loose, identical elements are crushed up (!) by the ground. The rest of the structural elements are not affected by pancaking.

Perhaps my monitor is broken. But there are no words that come close to resembling these in any previous post to me.

Second, your "apparent" definition above is wrong.

Or, I should say, "OK, I accept this as YOUR personal definition." It's as silly as all get-out. No two objects are ever "identical". Short of the center of suns and nuclear weapons, few things truly "fuse". I've seen lots of structures that have collapsed, even several that have been described as "having pancaked". Not one of them has ever had "the rest of the structural elements unaffected by the pancaking".

The reality is that "pancaking" is a poorly defined, non-specific term. And none of your silly qualifiers are part of any "accepted definition" of the term.

Here, for example, is a structural engineer who (in Figure 6, pg 5) describes a "pancake collapse" of a concrete structure that possesses none of the qualifiers that you attempt to apply "pancake". And it precisely meets your definition of "crush down".
http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT16/B1263.PDF

Here's an architect who uses a generic definition of pancake that most architects & engineers would accept. Notice that this definition also possesses NONE of your qualifiers.
"Once the steel structure “softened” and deflected under the weight from the floors above, a pancake collapse occurred as one floor fell on to the next floor, each lower floor’s structural system unable to bear the sudden weight of the upper floors dropping on it."
http://www.freestone-inc.com/pubs/Skyscraper_Collapse.pdf

Crush down is, when an assembly of elements in a structure gets loose (part C), drops and contacts a similar but bigger structure below (part A). The energy applied by part C results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C. The forces will first compress parts C and A and if no element breaks, part C will bounce on part A. If an element breaks, it will be the weakest element in parts C and A and as part A previously carried part C, the weakest element is in part C, or, in other words, you would expect part C to be damaged before part A. That's one reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A.

And, in a similar fashion, your definition of "crush down" is yours & yours alone. And makes ZERO sense to any REAL mechanical engineer.

But thank you for FINALLY printing it out. It makes it much easier to pick it apart. (Of course, we all know that this is precisely why you so diligently avoid answering questions.

So let's start picking...

Crush down is, when an assembly of elements in a structure gets loose (part C), ...

"... gets loose ..."

Do you mean, as in "... is ripped apart by the destruction of thousands of buckled & ruptured components. A destruction that completely eliminates the structural integrity of several of the top floors of the bottom part & several of the bottom floors of the top part". ??

That sort of "gets loose"??

... drops and contacts a similar but bigger structure below (part A).

"... drops & contacts ..."

Do you mean "... contacts ..." as in "50,000 tons falls 12 feet and the shredded wreckage of the upper part violently & chaotically slams into the shredded wreckage of the lower part ..."?

That sort of "... drops & contacts ..."

The energy applied by part C results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C.

Very sloppy phraseology.

"The collision of parts C & A results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C."

The forces will first compress parts C and A and if no element breaks, part C will bounce on part A.

Wrong.

You've said nothing about elastic or plastic deformation, or of the coefficient of restitution, which determines whether the part "bounces".

Correct: "... if no element breaks, the collapse will arrest."

If an element breaks, it will be the weakest element in parts C and A

And this is unmitigated horse-pucky.

There is absolutely NO engineering theory that requires that the parts that break will be the weakest element in either part. The chance of "the weakest element in parts C & A" actually colliding are slim and none.

The CORRECT engineering theories are those of impact and fracture mechanics as applied to THOSE COMPONENTS IN THE TWO PARTS THAT ACTUALLY COLLIDE. The theories are based on the works of AA Griffith, Irwin, Cauchy, James Rice & others.

These are precisely the concepts that were embodied in Ryan Mackey's explanation of two parameter (stress & strain energy) failure analysis (which he applied to the wing of the plane fracturing the peripheral columns of the towers.

FRACTURE MECHANICS is verified engineering practice. Your nonsense is unmitigated tripe.

and as part A previously carried part C,

No sir. Part A did NOT previously carry part C.

Because Part A IS NO LONGER "Part A". Prior to the initiation of global collapse, Part A WAS a symmetrical, well built, firmly cross-braced structure. After the initiation of global collapse, Part A is a shredded mess, with it's several top floors' structural components asymmetric, weak & unbraced.

And these several upper floors' structural members are capable of supporting 1/100th to 1/1,000th the load that they were able to support PRIOR to the initiation of collapse, when they were properly aligned & cross braced.

THIS IS EXACTLY where your nonsense axiom collapses.

the weakest element is in part C, or, in other words, you would expect part C to be damaged before part A.

Unmitigated crap.

Which components fail is, again, determined by REAL engineering fracture theory. Which components fail is completely dependent upon which specific components happen to collide.

There is absolutely no theory that says Part C will fail because it was held up by Part A.

That's one reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A.

This is your delusion resulting from your abject failure to understand or apply real engineering to this problem.

tk

 

[GlennB]

Actually, a connection in a structure is another element!

Have you only just realised this? Oh dear.

 

[bill smith]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.

 

[tfk]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.

If you were capable of understanding, you'd recognize that no "part 2" is necessary.

Since he - FINALLY - defined his terms, the demolition of his "theory" and his "world famous axiom" is trivial.

 

[bill smith]

If you were capable of understanding, you'd recognize that no "part 2" is necessary.

Since he - FINALLY - defined his terms, the demolition of his "theory" and his "world famous axiom" is trivial.

It woulldn't matter if it was neccessary or not with you T. You like the sound of your own voice and can regurgitate like this indefinately. I have seen posts like this from you having three parts. As you know I generally emasculate them in a couple of lines. Brief and concise is best.

 

[Heiwa]

.


You did nothing of the sort.

When I am asked "what is the difference between A & B", my answer will have in it phrases such as:

"A is ___ ." And "B is ___ ." The main differences between A and B are ___ ."

In your post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4710195#post4710195 , there is nothing that even remotely resembles these phrases.

BTW, it is a secret to nobody that evasion is simply a game you play. I've asked you at least 5 times for a simple "yes" or "no" answer as to whether or not you were paying $1M for your challenge. You gave at least 4 separate replies - NONE of which said simply "yes" or "no".

Your evasion is not endearing. It's not clever. It doesn't win you points. And it has apparently become such a habit with you that you don't even recognize it any more.



Perhaps my monitor is broken. But there are no words that come close to resembling these in any previous post to me.

Second, your "apparent" definition above is wrong.

Or, I should say, "OK, I accept this as YOUR personal definition." It's as silly as all get-out. No two objects are ever "identical". Short of the center of suns and nuclear weapons, few things truly "fuse". I've seen lots of structures that have collapsed, even several that have been described as "having pancaked". Not one of them has ever had "the rest of the structural elements unaffected by the pancaking".

The reality is that "pancaking" is a poorly defined, non-specific term. And none of your silly qualifiers are part of any "accepted definition" of the term.

Here, for example, is a structural engineer who (in Figure 6, pg 5) describes a "pancake collapse" of a concrete structure that possesses none of the qualifiers that you attempt to apply "pancake". And it precisely meets your definition of "crush down".
http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT16/B1263.PDF

Here's an architect who uses a generic definition of pancake that most architects & engineers would accept. Notice that this definition also possesses NONE of your qualifiers.
"Once the steel structure “softened” and deflected under the weight from the floors above, a pancake collapse occurred as one floor fell on to the next floor, each lower floor’s structural system unable to bear the sudden weight of the upper floors dropping on it."
http://www.freestone-inc.com/pubs/Skyscraper_Collapse.pdf



And, in a similar fashion, your definition of "crush down" is yours & yours alone. And makes ZERO sense to any REAL mechanical engineer.

But thank you for FINALLY printing it out. It makes it much easier to pick it apart. (Of course, we all know that this is precisely why you so diligently avoid answering questions.

So let's start picking...



"... gets loose ..."

Do you mean, as in "... is ripped apart by the destruction of thousands of buckled & ruptured components. A destruction that completely eliminates the structural integrity of several of the top floors of the bottom part & several of the bottom floors of the top part". ??

That sort of "gets loose"??



"... drops & contacts ..."

Do you mean "... contacts ..." as in "50,000 tons falls 12 feet and the shredded wreckage of the upper part violently & chaotically slams into the shredded wreckage of the lower part ..."?

That sort of "... drops & contacts ..."



Very sloppy phraseology.

"The collision of parts C & A results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C."



Wrong.

You've said nothing about elastic or plastic deformation, or of the coefficient of restitution, which determines whether the part "bounces".

Correct: "... if no element breaks, the collapse will arrest."



And this is unmitigated horse-pucky.

There is absolutely NO engineering theory that requires that the parts that break will be the weakest element in either part. The chance of "the weakest element in parts C & A" actually colliding are slim and none.

The CORRECT engineering theories are those of impact and fracture mechanics as applied to THOSE COMPONENTS IN THE TWO PARTS THAT ACTUALLY COLLIDE. The theories are based on the works of AA Griffith, Irwin, Cauchy, James Rice & others.

These are precisely the concepts that were embodied in Ryan Mackey's explanation of two parameter (stress & strain energy) failure analysis (which he applied to the wing of the plane fracturing the peripheral columns of the towers.

FRACTURE MECHANICS is verified engineering practice. Your nonsense is unmitigated tripe.



No sir. Part A did NOT previously carry part C.

Because Part A IS NO LONGER "Part A". Prior to the initiation of global collapse, Part A WAS a symmetrical, well built, firmly cross-braced structure. After the initiation of global collapse, Part A is a shredded mess, with it's several top floors' structural components asymmetric, weak & unbraced.

And these several upper floors' structural members are capable of supporting 1/100th to 1/1,000th the load that they were able to support PRIOR to the initiation of collapse, when they were properly aligned & cross braced.

THIS IS EXACTLY where your nonsense axiom collapses.



Unmitigated crap.

Which components fail is, again, determined by REAL engineering fracture theory. Which components fail is completely dependent upon which specific components happen to collide.

There is absolutely no theory that says Part C will fail because it was held up by Part A.



This is your delusion resulting from your abject failure to understand or apply real engineering to this problem.

tk

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

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

Then I will clarify.

 

[Typicallucas]

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

Here is my entry to the challenge:



Video description:

The collapse starts at 0:40!

Using the game Armadillo Run I created a simplified simulation of the WTC 1/2 collapse scenario.

The structure is built to support itself and withstand a reasonable amount of live load applied laterally or vertically. The building will just sway nicely and will even take several rocket strikes without failing. Since the members are all slightly elastic the thing bounces a little... that is why the top section is delayed 12 seconds or so to let the bottom section settle.

As you can see the kinetic energy that the top section gains due to gravity is enough to overwhelm the entire structure beneath it resulting in complete and total collapse.

The structure is 39 stories tall, the top 3 stories are dropped from just over a height of 1 story (due to settling.) If the top section is dropped from a higher point the destruction is even more dramatic.

Similar to the WTC this simulation is more heavily reinforced at the bottom of the structure, getting lighter and less reinforced the higher up you go. This reduces the dead load and the reinforcement is not necessary at the top of the building to maintain integrity.

You can compare from the falling ball, the top of the structure falls very close to freefall. (both falling with the in-game gravity acceleration)

Note that this simulation is very limited.

I believe this meets the challenge criteria and passed. How do you respond?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUiPGwOReM

 

[Typicallucas]

FIXED: A demonstration of the strength of the structure.

Video Description:

Demonstration of the strength of the structure in the collapse video. It withstands 15 rocket strikes, debris falling from above, and an armadillo strike. All before collapsing on the 18th rocket.

Notice that the foundation gets blown out on both sides, too.

 

[tfk]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

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

Then I will clarify.

.

Are you proud of your ability to ask dumb, irrelevant questions, in multiple languages?

Every single one of my arguments has been based upon solid, transparent engineering.

And, unlike you, I've responded to every issue. Simply & directly.

BTW, are you offering $1 million for a successful defeat of the "Heiwa Challenge"?

tk

PS. I'm an engineer. And an atheist. "Religion" has no bearing on anything.

 

[FineWine]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.

Some of us noticed that your crackpot hero just got pulverized, smashed, blown out of the water, annihilated, etc.

 

[FineWine]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

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

Then I will clarify.

Great. A real engineer exposes you as an uncomprehending fraud and you babble incoherently. Your mindless worshippers must be quaking.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.

Bill, you consider damping as a light rain, so don't worry about it.

 

[Heiwa]

.


So let's start picking...



1. "... gets loose ..."

Do you mean, as in "... is ripped apart by the destruction of thousands of buckled & ruptured components. A destruction that completely eliminates the structural integrity of several of the top floors of the bottom part & several of the bottom floors of the top part". ??

That sort of "gets loose"??



2. "... drops & contacts ..."

Do you mean "... contacts ..." as in "50,000 tons falls 12 feet and the shredded wreckage of the upper part violently & chaotically slams into the shredded wreckage of the lower part ..."?

That sort of "... drops & contacts ..."



Very sloppy phraseology.

3. "The collision of parts C & A results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C."



Wrong.

You've said nothing about elastic or plastic deformation, or of the coefficient of restitution, which determines whether the part "bounces".

Correct: "... if no element breaks, the collapse will arrest."



4. And this is unmitigated horse-pucky.

There is absolutely NO engineering theory that requires that the parts that break will be the weakest element in either part. The chance of "the weakest element in parts C & A" actually colliding are slim and none.

The CORRECT engineering theories are those of impact and fracture mechanics as applied to THOSE COMPONENTS IN THE TWO PARTS THAT ACTUALLY COLLIDE. The theories are based on the works of AA Griffith, Irwin, Cauchy, James Rice & others.

These are precisely the concepts that were embodied in Ryan Mackey's explanation of two parameter (stress & strain energy) failure analysis (which he applied to the wing of the plane fracturing the peripheral columns of the towers.

FRACTURE MECHANICS is verified engineering practice. Your nonsense is unmitigated tripe.



5. No sir. Part A did NOT previously carry part C.

Because Part A IS NO LONGER "Part A". Prior to the initiation of global collapse, Part A WAS a symmetrical, well built, firmly cross-braced structure. After the initiation of global collapse, Part A is a shredded mess, with it's several top floors' structural components asymmetric, weak & unbraced.

And these several upper floors' structural members are capable of supporting 1/100th to 1/1,000th the load that they were able to support PRIOR to the initiation of collapse, when they were properly aligned & cross braced.

THIS IS EXACTLY where your nonsense axiom collapses.



Unmitigated crap.

Which components fail is, again, determined by REAL engineering fracture theory. Which components fail is completely dependent upon which specific components happen to collide.

6. There is absolutely no theory that says Part C will fail because it was held up by Part A.



This is your delusion resulting from your abject failure to understand or apply real engineering to this problem.

tk

1. Part C is assumed to displace downwards = gets loose.
2. Part C therefore drops and contacts part A.
3. Evidently forces develop between parts C and A at contact!
4. When two elements come in contact and the forces developing exceed what the weakest element can transmit, the weakest element fails.
5. Oh yes, part A previously carried part C. And part A will destroy part C prior part C destroys part A. Easy to show with proper structural damage analysis, incl. fracture analysis. Plenty of energy required to fracture an element in overload. And to fracture ONE element in two locations only by gravity is quite difficult. The force slips off when first failure has occurred.
6. This is the result if you apply proper structural damage analysis.

 

[KreeL]

Well, it appears part 2 is not forthcoming since part one got neutered.

 

[bill smith]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

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

Then I will clarify.

This is an interesting correspondence between Frank Greening and Steven Jones (and others). Maybe Bazant will join in ?

http://truhst.com/blog-news/steven-jones-and-frank-greening-and-others-correspond-april-may-2009

 

[tfk]

It woulldn't matter if it was neccessary or not with you T. You like the sound of your own voice and can regurgitate like this indefinately. I have seen posts like this from you having three parts. As you know I generally emasculate them in a couple of lines. Brief and concise is best.

.
Sure, bill. Whatever you say.

BTW, one of the last times you pranced around like this, I then asked you to calculate the volume of a thin walled cylinder. You were not able to do so. Have you learned how yet?

Then I asked you to calculate the weight of a certain volume of aluminum. I gave you the volume & the density of aluminum, but you were unable to calculate the weight. Have you figured out how to do that yet?

Here's a hint for ya, bill: "Hell, I don't know nuthin' bout no 'rithmaticin'!" does NOT constitute an "emasculating argument" amongst techies.

You keep prancin' there, bill. It's fun to watch.