Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

newton3376 said:
:confused:

How can you say stuff like this?
Click to expand...

Because mathematics do not deal with rigid bodies. It is an idealized body used in solid mechanics/dynamics only to get a feel for what happens when bodies - both rigid - contact each other, etc. A rigid body does not deform, etc. and does not exist in the real world.

In structural analysis there are no rigid elements but an element can be connected to a support that is fixed, i.e. does not move. That fixed support is quite useful in the analysis! One - the structure will not fly away, two - the total forces/moments at the fixed support must be zero, three - if the structure fails at the fixed support, you have probably done something wrong in your analysis, etc, etc.

Anybody, like Bazant & Co, introducing rigid bodies/elements in a structural deformation problem is cheating as those elements cannot be deformed.

Bazant is worse! He treats the whole problem in 1-D, when it is quite easy to do it in 3-D. However, if you do it properly in 3-D, all tools are available, the result is ... you guessed it; a one way crush down is not possible.

I have of course informed NIST, etc. No reply! I assume they agree and are ashamed of themselves.
 
Heiwa said:
........ I have of course informed NIST, etc. No reply! I assume they agree and are ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...
LOL. Actually last time I spoke to them they were very pleased that their report was almost universally accepted across the international engineering community.

And, of course, no one had presented any credible evidence of CD.

So looks like you don't have any credibility on that forum either
 
Bluesky said:
LOL. Actually last time I spoke to them they were very pleased that their report was almost universally accepted across the international engineering community.

And, of course, no one had presented any credible evidence of CD.

So looks like you don't have any credibility on that forum either
Click to expand...

lol. You guys sound a bit ragged these days.
 
Heiwa said:
........ I have of course informed NIST, etc. No reply! I assume they agree and are ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...
LOL. Actually last time I spoke to them they were very pleased that their report was accepted across the international engineering community.

And, of course, no one had presented any credible evidence of CD.

So looks like you don't have any credibility on that forum either
 
Bluesky said:
LOL. Actually last time I spoke to them they were very pleased that their report was accepted across the international engineering community.

And, of course, no one had presented any credible evidence of CD.

So looks like you don't have any credibility on that forum either
Click to expand...

Double ragged. lol
 
Heiwa said:
Because mathematics do not deal with rigid bodies.
Click to expand...
Except...

Heiwa said:
It is an idealized body used in solid mechanics/dynamics only to get a feel for what happens when bodies - both rigid - contact each other, etc.
Click to expand...
Under conditions which deal with simplified modeling that reduces the complexity of events? Then...

Heiwa said:
Anybody, like Bazant & Co, introducing rigid bodies/elements in a structural deformation problem is cheating as those elements cannot be deformed.
Click to expand...
Why do you still....

Heiwa said:
Bazant is worse! He treats the whole problem in 1-D, when it is quite easy to do it in 3-D.
Click to expand...
....not understand that Bazant's treatment of the upper section was that of a simplified model? You claim to have read his paper, but it doesn't look like you have. Based on that you're in no position to levy criticism... Malpractice of all sorts seems to be pathogenic throughout AE911truth... reading comprehension, and the ability to perform basic case studies are pre-requisites to being credible in the architectural community, is there a reason why you and the rest of AE911 are having difficulty with these?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa,


Heiwa said:
Since when is a rigid body a mathematical approximation? I thought math was exact.
Click to expand...
.
Oh, about as long as engineers have been doing math. You ARE aware that we do this on a fairly regular basis, aren't you?

As for "math being exact"?? Ever heard of a slide rule? What was that pejorative...? Oh, yeah, IDtenT.
.
Heiwa said:
I like your 'the same piece that can be considered rigid at small accelerations can become amazingly non-rigid at higher ones'. Is that your rubbish in reverse?
Click to expand...
.
Apparently you've never heard of "dynamics". You should check it out, some time.
.
Heiwa said:
When will we see your rubble getting compacted crushing anything analysis being published?
Click to expand...
.
How does "right after you answer my questions" work for ya?
.
Heiwa said:
Or was it just done?
Yes it was! "A water balloon thrown thru the air, vibrating and oscillating like crazy CAN be considered to be a rigid body"!!
LOL
Click to expand...
.
I guess that you were trying to duplicate this quote of mine, weren't you.

tfk said:
A water balloon thrown thru the air, vibrating and oscillating like crazy (like those Pixar animation gum drops) CAN be considered to be a rigid body IF your only interest is "what is the path of the CG of the balloon?"
Click to expand...

I know that it is SOOOO hard to accurately cut & paste something as complex as a full sentence.

I'm sure that it's just an accident that it looks like you deliberately truncated my quote to make it seem irrational.

Just an accident. I'm sure...

Have you always been this deceitful? Or is this something new?

Tom
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Bad Boy you are thinking pretty clearly it seems. Just do not accept any rubbish you are told as gospel. Trust yourself and your instincts.
Click to expand...

For instance: Virtually anything Bill "The Heiwa parrot" says is rubbish.
 
bill smith said:
lol. You guys sound a bit ragged these days.
Click to expand...


You still can't bring yourself to face the harsh reality that Heiwa stands alone. The international engineering community uses principles of physics that Heiwa rejects. NIST ignores him because he is a laughingstock. When the real engineers at the ASCE journal slap him down, he will rave about religious fundamentalists (you will, of course, agree with him). He won't, however, find a single prominent engineer who thinks there is any merit in his mad garble of basic physics. Have you noticed that everything he has been claiming is wrong? He repeats it over and over, oblivious to devastating refutations, but he has been thoroughly debunked.
 
Heiwa said:
Because mathematics do not deal with rigid bodies.
Click to expand...

I agree. Mathematics is a tool that can be applied to many different disciplines in engineering and science including structural engineering...

Heiwa said:
It is an idealized body used in solid mechanics/dynamics only to get a feel for what happens when bodies - both rigid - contact each other, etc. A rigid body does not deform, etc. and does not exist in the real world.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that it's only use is to "get a feel for what happens when bodies - both rigid - contact each other" although I could be wrong...

And I agree with you that technically a rigid body does not deform and does not exist in the real world.

You have shocked me by making some accurate statements...

Heiwa said:
In structural analysis there are no rigid elements but an element can be connected to a support that is fixed, i.e. does not move. That fixed support is quite useful in the analysis! One - the structure will not fly away, two - the total forces/moments at the fixed support must be zero, three - if the structure fails at the fixed support, you have probably done something wrong in your analysis, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the connection point between the element and fixed support was not strong enough...

Heiwa said:
Anybody, like Bazant & Co, introducing rigid bodies/elements in a structural deformation problem is cheating as those elements cannot be deformed.

Bazant is worse! He treats the whole problem in 1-D, when it is quite easy to do it in 3-D. However, if you do it properly in 3-D, all tools are available, the result is ... you guessed it; a one way crush down is not possible.

I have of course informed NIST, etc. No reply! I assume they agree and are ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...

And this is where you go wrong....Bazant did this to simplify the analysis....

I don't know why you aren't getting this....
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Suppose the plane was hanging statonary in the sky and you flew he building at the aluminium plane at 600 mph do you really think the plane would smash through 33 well braced steel box-columns , go on to destroy 10 massive core columns and partially exit the building through perhaps a dozen more steel box columns ? The physics are exactly the same . Don't rush to answer.

Or do you think the 500,000 ton building would swat the 150 ton plane from the sky ?
Click to expand...

You are SOOOOO right. The physics are the same.



I mean it was just a steel plate against another flat steel plate. The steel plates should be fine right? Just flat steel against flat steel... with a aluminum car in between.

what happened to the steel bill? What happened at the 2 minute mark? huh?

oh the steel was bent to crap by the impact with a FLAT steel plate... oh and the aluminum car in between them.

You bring up the truther strawman that the steel in the towers was severed... it wasn't. the connecting bolts broke on the outer facings. BIG DIFFERNECE
 
newton3376 said:
I agree. Mathematics is a tool that can be applied to many different disciplines in engineering and science including structural engineering...




And this is where you go wrong....Bazant did this to simplify the analysis....

I don't know why you aren't getting this....
Click to expand...

Well, if you, like Bazant & Co, simplify structural damage analysis by first making all assemblies of elements involved 1-D and second assume (!) that one assembly of elements (part C) is rigid ... and the other (part A) not, then you'll end up with the wrong result.
It becomes surrealistic when part C then transforms part A into rubble (part B) as such a destruction process is not possible, when C and A has similar structures. You cannot assume that C is rigid and A not. To clarify this is one purpose of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom