Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration

[Heiwa]

Invalid syntax.

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

But he cannot win! Myriad must first provide a real structure that will crush down when part C drops on part A. Pls, I know you are all just interested in money, but this thread is about something else.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Ya know...instead of spending upwards of $50-100 thousand dollars on building a structure just to destroy it, for the sole purpose of proving some nutjob wrong on a internet forum, why not put that money and resources into something a little more useful, like helping disadvantaged kids or the poor?

At least use it for booze and hookers or something! Geez...waste 50 g's on something so silly. Sometimes I wonder who's more OCD, the truthers or the debunkers.

 

[tsig]

Ya know...instead of spending upwards of $50-100 thousand dollars on building a structure just to destroy it, for the sole purpose of proving some nutjob wrong on a internet forum, why not put that money and resources into something a little more useful, like helping disadvantaged kids or the poor?

At least use it for booze and hookers or something! Geez...waste 50 g's on something so silly. Sometimes I wonder who's more OCD, the truthers or the debunkers.

You don't seriously think anybody is going to waste anything than time and bandwidth on this do you?

 

[nicepants]

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

But he cannot win!

If he cannot win, why wouldn't you bet him?

 

[Macgyver1968]

You don't seriously think anybody is going to waste anything than time and bandwidth on this do you?

Of course not...but we should use the time and sell the bandwidth and help the needy....or at least buy booze and hookers...much better use of time and resources.

Like Heiwa has a million....and I'm married to Scarlet Johansson.

 

[Heiwa]

If he cannot win, why wouldn't you bet him?

Because he'll lose.

 

[Myriad]

Expecting the other person to lose is an excellent reason to make a bet.

It was your idea that I should pay you if I fail the challenge. All I'm asking is, how much, in proportion to the amount you'd pay me if I succeed, are you suggesting I pay you if I fail?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[FineWine]

But he cannot win! Myriad must first provide a real structure that will crush down when part C drops on part A. Pls, I know you are all just interested in money, but this thread is about something else.

We understand why you keep ignoring me, but your dodging the issue just further undermines your hopeless position. You pretend that your bogus "challenge" relates somehow to the twin towers. But in neither case did 1/10 of the building crush the other 9/10. I want to ask a very simple question. I'm not an engineer and I know next to nothing about engineering. Apart from your mindless echoes, I'm the closest thing you have to a peer on this forum. So, humor me.

Just tell us this much. When the impact floors and the floors above them collapse, they hit the next floor below. They crash through and now that crushed floor is also collapsing. You like letters and numbers, so we'll call the original collapsing mass, the impact floors and the floors above, A. When they smash the floor immediately below, the collapsing mass becomes A + 1. When the new mass hits the next floor, it will become A + 1 + 2. Simple enough, right?

Now, all I ask is that you tell me if A + 1 weighs more or less than A. That's all. Does the total mass after the original collapsing floors hit the next floor increase or not. You can explain your unique theories about the nonexistence of gravity, and the magic that "arrests" the falling mass and reverses its momentum later. For now, can we have your answer about the difference (is there any?) between A and A + 1.

 

[nicepants]

If he cannot win, why wouldn't you bet him?

Because he'll lose.

So you only make a bet/wager if you expect the other person to win?

ETA: Why would anyone refuse to make a bet solely due to the expectation that they would win it?

 

[Heiwa]

We understand why you keep ignoring me, but your dodging the issue just further undermines your hopeless position. You pretend that your bogus "challenge" relates somehow to the twin towers. But in neither case did 1/10 of the building crush the other 9/10. I want to ask a very simple question. I'm not an engineer and I know next to nothing about engineering. Apart from your mindless echoes, I'm the closest thing you have to a peer on this forum. So, humor me.

Just tell us this much. When the impact floors and the floors above them collapse, they hit the next floor below. They crash through and now that crushed floor is also collapsing. You like letters and numbers, so we'll call the original collapsing mass, the impact floors and the floors above, A. When they smash the floor immediately below, the collapsing mass becomes A + 1. When the new mass hits the next floor, it will become A + 1 + 2. Simple enough, right?

Now, all I ask is that you tell me if A + 1 weighs more or less than A. That's all. Does the total mass after the original collapsing floors hit the next floor increase or not. You can explain your unique theories about the nonexistence of gravity, and the magic that "arrests" the falling mass and reverses its momentum later. For now, can we have your answer about the difference (is there any?) between A and A + 1.

Sorry, no total mass hits anything. It is only elements in the contact interface that hit each other and there the stronger ones destroy the weaker ones due to forces developing (unless there is just a bounce). So the stronger elements of the lower structure will destroy the weaker ones in the structure above.
The moving mass just provides the energy and as the lower structure - part A - shreds the upper structure - part C, the mass is split into smaller parts that will be deflected or simply stopped by part A.
Quite basic actually.

 

[FineWine]

Sorry, no total mass hits anything. It is only elements in the contact interface that hit each other and there the stronger ones destroy the weaker ones due to forces developing (unless there is just a bounce). So the stronger elements of the lower structure will destroy the weaker ones in the structure above.
The moving mass just provides the energy and as the lower structure - part A - shreds the upper structure - part C, the mass is split into smaller parts that will be deflected or simply stopped by part A.
Quite basic actually.

You are absurdly wrong.

 

[BigAl]

Sorry, no total mass hits anything. It is only elements in the contact interface that hit each other and there the stronger ones destroy the weaker ones due to forces developing (unless there is just a bounce). So the stronger elements of the lower structure will destroy the weaker ones in the structure above.
The moving mass just provides the energy and as the lower structure - part A - shreds the upper structure - part C, the mass is split into smaller parts that will be deflected or simply stopped by part A.
Quite basic actually.

"Shreds" or anything like it is not a term I heard in my single course in what would today be called FEA (Finite Element Analysis).

Nothing Heiwa says makes sense based on my one FEA course and related physics courses. We didn't use pizza boxes, we used chalkboard and slide rules at least for the intro course.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Because he'll lose.

With all that confidence, losing this will be an extremely difficult pill for you to swallow.

 

[1337m4n]

Sorry, no total mass hits anything. It is only elements in the contact interface that hit each other and there the stronger ones destroy the weaker ones due to forces developing (unless there is just a bounce). So the stronger elements of the lower structure will destroy the weaker ones in the structure above.

If that's really the case, then please explain how this works. Surely you've seen one of these toys before; how do they work according to your theory?

The moving mass just provides the energy and as the lower structure - part A - shreds the upper structure - part C, the mass is split into smaller parts that will be deflected or simply stopped by part A.
Quite basic actually.

Um, ever heard of conservation of mass? The falling portion does not lose mass simply because it is broken up.

A car is too heavy for you to lift. If you break that car into tiny pieces and place those pieces in a (hypothetically) weightless crate, it will STILL be too heavy for you to lift. Get it?

 

[Heiwa]

If that's really the case, then please explain how this works. Surely you've seen one of these toys before; how do they work according to your theory?



Um, ever heard of conservation of mass? The falling portion does not lose mass simply because it is broken up.

A car is too heavy for you to lift. If you break that car into tiny pieces and place those pieces in a (hypothetically) weightless crate, it will STILL be too heavy for you to lift. Get it?

??? A solid ball C with mass m hitting another same mass ball A at velocity v; C stops and A goes off a velocity v (almost - very quick acceleration of A and retardation/deceleration of C and some loss of energy due to compression at hit). What has this to do with Myriads Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration? C is supposed to one way crush down A! Not to stop!

Or two solid balls C1 and C2 contacting three balls A1, A2 and A3, the latter being in contact with each other; first C1 hits the three balls A123 and A3 is shot away, then C2 hits three balls C1A12 and A2 is shot away. Simple solid mechanics! Has nothing to do with structural damage analysis, e.g. WTC1!

WTC 1! Part C consists of say 13 floors, C1, C2 ... C13 (roof/hat truss) and part A consist of 97 floors, A97, A96, ... A1, with A1 connected to ground. A1 has very strong supports above it - A1 carries A2 ... A97 + C1 ... C13!

So first contact may be floor C1 hitting floor A97.

So what do you expect would happen? That ground below floor A1 flies away?

No, actually the energy that C1 applies to A97 at contact is first transformed into compression of all supports between ground and floor A97 for which you need a force F that C1 applies on A97.

A97 is clever and applies a force -F on C1 and its supports up to C13. What do you think -F does? Does it compress the C supports? Yes, it does! Does it decelerate C1? Yes it should.

As the supports between C1 and C2 are weaker than the supports between A97 and A96 (even with regard to fact that C1 now rests on A97) you can be sure that the C supports fail first if any supports fails (otherwise C bounces on A). What happens then?

Right! C2 drops on C1 that is resting on A97. What happens then?

Right! Supports between C2/C3 fails and C3 drops on C2 that is resting on C1. Etc, etc. Maybe local destruction stops when C5-C13 just bounce?

You see, you cannot one-way crush down a structure A by a small part C of same structure previously resting on A just using gravity energy.

The perpetrators of the WTC 1 9/11 destruction knew this so they planted disinfo to the contrary at once! A man in the street explained to FOX TV that towers just self destruct one-way crush downs global collapses due to local failures up top and a few days later a certain professor confirmed this strange phenomenon small C crushes big A (C rigid though, A very weak to suit!). The shocked public believed it. But they were simply fooled.

As is clear from this and similar JREF threads a one-way gravity crush down of a structure is not possible.

 

[BigAl]

??? A solid ball C with mass m hitting another same mass ball A at velocity v; C stops and A goes off a velocity v (almost - very quick acceleration of A and retardation/deceleration of C and some loss of energy due to compression at hit). What has this to do with Myriads Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration? C is supposed to one way crush down A! Not to stop!

I'm new to this thread. I never heard of "crush down" of any kind in my one semester of Finite Element Analysis. I keep thinking of "frame of reference", a term I have never seen Heiwa use.

Is there a substantial definition of "one way crush down we can agree on?

Is there such a think as a two way crush down?

 

[Heiwa]

Is there a substantial definition of "one way crush down" we can agree on?

Is there such a think as a two way crush down?

One way crush down = part C crushes part A (as per Bazant/Seffen = normal event, happens all the time).

Crush up = ground crushes part C (after C has crushed A).

Try to build a design that can do that!

 

[bill smith]

First...respect for the amount of work you put into this.

It strikes me that ypu need columns in both parts to be really dropping one part of something on another part of something....the somethings must be the same.

 

[FineWine]

??? A solid ball C with mass m hitting another same mass ball A at velocity v; C stops and A goes off a velocity v (almost - very quick acceleration of A and retardation/deceleration of C and some loss of energy due to compression at hit). What has this to do with Myriads Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration? C is supposed to one way crush down A! Not to stop!

Or two solid balls C1 and C2 contacting three balls A1, A2 and A3, the latter being in contact with each other; first C1 hits the three balls A123 and A3 is shot away, then C2 hits three balls C1A12 and A2 is shot away. Simple solid mechanics! Has nothing to do with structural damage analysis, e.g. WTC1!

WTC 1! Part C consists of say 13 floors, C1, C2 ... C13 (roof/hat truss) and part A consist of 97 floors, A97, A96, ... A1, with A1 connected to ground. A1 has very strong supports above it - A1 carries A2 ... A97 + C1 ... C13!

So first contact may be floor C1 hitting floor A97.

So what do you expect would happen? That ground below floor A1 flies away?

No, actually the energy that C1 applies to A97 at contact is first transformed into compression of all supports between ground and floor A97 for which you need a force F that C1 applies on A97.

A97 is clever and applies a force -F on C1 and its supports up to C13. What do you think -F does? Does it compress the C supports? Yes, it does! Does it decelerate C1? Yes it should.

As the supports between C1 and C2 are weaker than the supports between A97 and A96 (even with regard to fact that C1 now rests on A97) you can be sure that the C supports fail first if any supports fails (otherwise C bounces on A). What happens then?

Right! C2 drops on C1 that is resting on A97. What happens then?

Right! Supports between C2/C3 fails and C3 drops on C2 that is resting on C1. Etc, etc. Maybe local destruction stops when C5-C13 just bounce?

You see, you cannot one-way crush down a structure A by a small part C of same structure previously resting on A just using gravity energy.

The perpetrators of the WTC 1 9/11 destruction knew this so they planted disinfo to the contrary at once! A man in the street explained to FOX TV that towers just self destruct one-way crush downs global collapses due to local failures up top and a few days later a certain professor confirmed this strange phenomenon small C crushes big A (C rigid though, A very weak to suit!). The shocked public believed it. But they were simply fooled.

As is clear from this and similar JREF threads a one-way gravity crush down of a structure is not possible.

Absolute nonsense. It is inconceivable that an engineer can be so incompetent. Nobody in his right mind thinks that C1, the bottom part of a collapsing mass consisting of thirteen floors, hits the next floor independently. This is madness. The entire falling mass hits the next floor.
You dream that A97 applies a force to only C1??? Your understanding of physics would shame a child.

 

[bill smith]

Absolute nonsense. It is inconceivable that an engineer can be so incompetent. Nobody in his right mind thinks that C1, the bottom part of a collapsing mass consisting of thirteen floors, hits the next floor independently. This is madness. The entire falling mass hits the next floor.
You dream that A97 applies a force to only C1??? Your understanding of physics would shame a child.

Another way of looking at the same incident is that the upper part of an upstanding mass consisting of 97 floors resists the bottom floor of a collapsing mass consisting of 13 floors.