Why do you consider it likely? There are hints in my analysis, but I didn't calculate which breaks first, so what is your reasoning? Show your analysis. Show the calculations based on that analysis.
M2 and M3 are not disconnected from the rest of the structure until S3 breaks. I have shown that at no time do M2 and M3 stop moving downward with or without any pressure from M1, so there is no decompression before S3 breaks.
Perhaps you meant that after both S1 and S3 break, then M2 and M3 are momentarily disconnected from the rest of the structure, allowing the lower structure from M4 down to decompress so that S4 does not break? If so, show the analysis. Show that the structure below can decompress instead of continuing to compress under whatever momentum has been imparted to M4 at the time S3 breaks. Show that if it does, it decompresses enough to make a difference in what happens next. Show that the entire lower structure from M4 down, even with all its excess strain energy released and damped away, can absorb 1.3 * mgh of strain energy before S4 breaks. (Or show that my methods of calculating the upper bound on strain energy absorbed, which show that M4 down cannot absorb that much strain energy, by a wide margin, are wrong.)
Your opinion is worthless. Show the analysis. Show the calculations based on that analysis.
Your opinion is worthless. Show the analysis. Show the calculations based on that analysis. Show the delta t in when the springs break, based on some reasonable assumed difference in the tolerance of the springs' breaking strain. Show the resulting torques applied to the masses as a result, show the time interval over which they act, show the angular acceleration resulting, show the amount of tilt at the next impact, show how that affects the subsequent impacts (which remember, do not have to be perfect or instantaneous in order to overload the springs below; I have shown the math proving that that even if the collisions are imperfect and spread out over time the springs still break).
Your opinion is worthless. Show the analysis. Show the calculations based on that analysis. I have shown that the breaking of the upper part does not prevent progressive collapse, in the model that you created. Perhaps I've made errors in the calculations I presented. If so please point them out.
Otherwise:
Myriad said:
As an engineer, you should be able to justify your conclusions on an analysis based on the principles of engineering and physics. Not your intuitive opinion. Not what you can imagine might happen. Not made-up principles with your own name on them. Not hand-waving.
When I hire a plumber to fix a leak, I expect her to use a plumber's tools, methods, and expertise to do the job. If instead she puts chewing gum on the leak or does a Native American stop-the-leak dance, then she is not approaching the problem as a plumber, whether she has an actual license to work as a plumber or not.
Similarly, when I engage an engineer in discussion about an engineering matter, I expect you to use an engineer's tools, methods, and expertise to arrive at and justify your conclusions. You have not done so, and by all appearances you are unable to do so. You should be able to do it much better than me. Instead, on those rare occasions you go beyond tap-dancing "maybe this happens" arguments, I can easily see the errors in your reasoning and your math. (Take another look at your funny m calculations for SEmax of the structure. Have you missed something important? Would you like a hint?) That is why your opinion is worthless.
I recognize that my opinion is worthless too. That is why I am the one turning in carefully reasoned analysis and calculations that can be checked and verified (or shown wrong, if I've made mistakes) by anyone who can look up Hooke's Law on Wikipedia and perform basic algebra. I'm now moving on to computer models, with which I'll be able to test such issues as the effect of spring tolerances and tilting. I'll be looking for reasoned criticism of my methods and results as I use them to plan a smaller-scale physical model.
Since you have withdrawn your offers for any prize or wager for proving you wrong, your opinions are of no further concern to my plans for a physical model, unless you can justify them with reasoned analysis and calculations. Otherwise I'm afraid you will not be able to contribute anything further relevant to the topic of this thread. Worthless opinions that are backed by no apparent use of even the most basic engineering tools, methods, or expertise contribute nothing and I'm no longer interested in them.
Respectfully,
Myriad
