WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Cool story bro.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Applicability of Bazant's model to the real world
- Thread starter pgimeno
- Start date
ozeco41
Philosopher
Cool story bro.
It sets the scene for a reasoned and reasonable debate.
Provided we don't get too many of the "Why don't you publish a peer reviewed paper" evasions and ad homery...
Last edited:
Your "debunking" is a joke.
It proves only one thing: that you don't understand his arguments.
But, I must admit, it does that quite convincingly.
___
Just for yuks & giggles, let's see how well you understand what Bazant is saying.
Let's see if you can answer two simple, but fundamental, questions accurately.
Here is a portion of BV's Figure 4.
1. What is the physical meaning of the areas W1 & W2 in these graphs?
2. Explain why setting them equal to each other is important in his analysis.
[No kibbutzing, please.]
It proves only one thing: that you don't understand his arguments.
But, I must admit, it does that quite convincingly.
___
Just for yuks & giggles, let's see how well you understand what Bazant is saying.
Let's see if you can answer two simple, but fundamental, questions accurately.
Here is a portion of BV's Figure 4.
1. What is the physical meaning of the areas W1 & W2 in these graphs?
2. Explain why setting them equal to each other is important in his analysis.
[No kibbutzing, please.]
Last edited:
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]
It sets the scene for a reasoned and reasonable debate.
Provided we don't get too many of the "Why don't you publish a peer reviewed paper" evasions and ad homery...
The first is a valid question.
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Major Tom.
I don't want to argue the engineering of the collapse progression with you (as my engineering isn't up to the mark to do so), but since you seem to believe that you have "debunked" Dr. Bazant, why don't you present your information to JEM or some other true peer reviewed engineering journal to have it published?
have you taken your claims and observations directly to Dr. Bazant? (IIRC, isn't that how Frank Greening did it? He had issues so he worked with Bazant for the last paper?)
What has Dr. Bazant said about it?
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
So, you have no idea what a "discussion" is in this context, do you?
Thread moved back behind basically 33 pages of propaganda and incorrect assertions.
Harassment continues unchecked.
Continuous efforts to dehumanize the poster while hiding from the obvious truth that garphics like the one below from BL are a cartoon.
Endless dishonestly from the JREF stream of consciousness.
Not one regular "debunker" besides Ozeco ready for a fair, honest debate.
Or how about this gem from BLGB:
If you do not know how to derive the equations of motion used through BV, BL and BLGB, how can you know if they are applicable to anything but the building of a wall of propaganda?
Attacking me is OK, but an honest, equation by equation debate over mistakes in the mechanics of BV, BL and BLGB doesn't deserve a thread.
Interesting.
Harassment continues unchecked.
Continuous efforts to dehumanize the poster while hiding from the obvious truth that garphics like the one below from BL are a cartoon.
Endless dishonestly from the JREF stream of consciousness.
Not one regular "debunker" besides Ozeco ready for a fair, honest debate.
Or how about this gem from BLGB:
If you do not know how to derive the equations of motion used through BV, BL and BLGB, how can you know if they are applicable to anything but the building of a wall of propaganda?
Attacking me is OK, but an honest, equation by equation debate over mistakes in the mechanics of BV, BL and BLGB doesn't deserve a thread.
Interesting.
W1 and W2 together represent total energy dissipated. W1 + W1 is the total energy dissipated in crushing through the entire displacement, the integral of the load displacement curve over the travel. The reason W1 and W2 are equal is because they are defined to be so. Fc is the equivalent average force and will intersect the load displacement curve such that the areas between the curve and Fc line are equal. Integrate load-displacement and divide by total displacement and the result is the value Fc.
What the hell do W1 and W2 have to do with the real collapse?
A question for tfk: why don't W1 and W2 appear in Fig 4.c?
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
Totally agree, Major Tom. Your thread, 3 Bazant Papers on WTC Debunked, took a sharp turn in a new direction from what was being discussed in the 'Applicability' thread and deserves its own discussion.
Last edited:
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Major Tom:
Step 1: [email protected]
Step 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Step 3: Profit!!!
Step 1: [email protected]
Step 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Step 3: Profit!!!
MT,
Just as I thought...
Wrong.
Care to try again?
Wrong.
Neither "W1 + W1" nor "W1 + W2" are equal to that amount.
Care to try again?
Well, "duh…"
The question is "WHY are they defined to be equal?"
Helping you along, what 2 fundamental engineering (& physics) principles are employed when Bazant sets these two values equal to each other?
They have meaning.
I'll answer this as soon as you get the above questions correct.
Why doesn't "W1" appear?
Apparently because you're blind. Look a little more carefully in the upper right corner of the diagram.
Why doesn't "W2" appear? Because the collapse arrests.
W1 is associated with the portion of the fall when the upper block decelerates.
W2 is associated with the portion of the collapse when the upper block accelerates. If the block arrests, i.e., comes to a halt, it doesn't subsequently accelerate.
Bonus questions for ya, MT.
In the diagrams, Bazant indicates the values of:
Fc, F0, ∆Fd, ∆Fa, W1, W2, λh, zc, h, K & mg.
One of these is incorrectly identified in the graphs? Which one?
Just as I thought...
Wrong.
Care to try again?
Wrong.
Neither "W1 + W1" nor "W1 + W2" are equal to that amount.
Care to try again?
Well, "duh…"
The question is "WHY are they defined to be equal?"
Helping you along, what 2 fundamental engineering (& physics) principles are employed when Bazant sets these two values equal to each other?
They have meaning.
I'll answer this as soon as you get the above questions correct.
Why doesn't "W1" appear?
Apparently because you're blind. Look a little more carefully in the upper right corner of the diagram.
Why doesn't "W2" appear? Because the collapse arrests.
W1 is associated with the portion of the fall when the upper block decelerates.
W2 is associated with the portion of the collapse when the upper block accelerates. If the block arrests, i.e., comes to a halt, it doesn't subsequently accelerate.
Bonus questions for ya, MT.
In the diagrams, Bazant indicates the values of:
Fc, F0, ∆Fd, ∆Fa, W1, W2, λh, zc, h, K & mg.
One of these is incorrectly identified in the graphs? Which one?
OK, tfk, you caught me in three errors.
1) a typo - W1 should've been W2 in one instance
2) I claimed W1 was not present in figure 4C, it is
3) W1 + W2 != total dissipated energy
.
But you have an error, too, tfk. Very fundamental. You say
- W1 is associated with the portion of the fall when the upper block decelerates.
- W2 is associated with the portion of the collapse when the upper block accelerates.
This is incorrect. Note the block accelerates while still in the W1 region in 4a, and it also decelerates while in W2 region in 4b, therefore the association you claim is false.
W1 and W2 are the shaded areas between the load displacement curve and the line for energetically equivalent average force Fc in figures a and b. The shaded area is then the integral of the difference between the two lines, which is zero since the Fc line is constructed by integrating the load displacement curve and dividing by the total distance to get the average force - by definition, as noted.
Given that W1 & W2 represent the integral of difference between F(u) and Fc in figures a and b, the area is defined to be the same because Fc is constructed as the average force by integrating F(u) and dividing by displacement. The W1/W2 areas are the same in figures a and b because half of the deviation from the average is above the average and half below - by definition. This does not apply to figure c.
The W regions are the difference in work done between the energetically equivalent force and the actual resistive force, up to a displacement u.
I made some mistakes. You have, too, and a big one. I don't think you're clueless because of your error but, if I am, you are.
1) a typo - W1 should've been W2 in one instance
2) I claimed W1 was not present in figure 4C, it is
3) W1 + W2 != total dissipated energy
.
But you have an error, too, tfk. Very fundamental. You say
- W1 is associated with the portion of the fall when the upper block decelerates.
- W2 is associated with the portion of the collapse when the upper block accelerates.
This is incorrect. Note the block accelerates while still in the W1 region in 4a, and it also decelerates while in W2 region in 4b, therefore the association you claim is false.
W1 and W2 are the shaded areas between the load displacement curve and the line for energetically equivalent average force Fc in figures a and b. The shaded area is then the integral of the difference between the two lines, which is zero since the Fc line is constructed by integrating the load displacement curve and dividing by the total distance to get the average force - by definition, as noted.
Given that W1 & W2 represent the integral of difference between F(u) and Fc in figures a and b, the area is defined to be the same because Fc is constructed as the average force by integrating F(u) and dividing by displacement. The W1/W2 areas are the same in figures a and b because half of the deviation from the average is above the average and half below - by definition. This does not apply to figure c.
The W regions are the difference in work done between the energetically equivalent force and the actual resistive force, up to a displacement u.
I made some mistakes. You have, too, and a big one. I don't think you're clueless because of your error but, if I am, you are.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
And that would be in a two part question?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
MT,
And the foolishness continues...
Wrong.
I told you in my last response that NEITHER "W1 + W1" NOR "W1 + W2" = the total energy dissipated.
So, repeating that you should have written "W1 + W2" isn't very, uh, astute.
Care to try again?
Yup, it is.
Right, it's not. So it wasn't really a "typo", was it?
Now you're saying that W1 + W2 + mgh(1-λ) equals the dissipated energy.
Nope. Still wrong.
Rather than go round & round & round, here's the right answer.
Here's a slightly elaborated version of Bazant's curve:
The work done by any force F(z) acting over a distance ∆z is defined as W = ∫F(z) dz, i.e., the area under a F(z) vs z curve.
So the work done exerting a force curve F(z) over a distance (1-λ)h (=z2) is:
Not W1.
Not W2.
Not W1+W2.
Not W1 + W2 + mgh(1-λ)
In the graph above, the work done crushing (whatever) from 0 to z2 using the force curve F(z) is the sum of the area W1 + CA. (Where CA = the common area = the orange area.)
The work done crushing the same (whatever) from 0 to z2 using a constant force Fc is equal to W2 + CA.
Equating the work done (essentially a statement of conservation of energy) by either force curve is equivalent to saying:
W1 + CA = W2 + CA
Which means that W1 = W2.
This is exactly why W1 is set equal to W2. It is a consequence of the physical laws:
1. Conservation of energy
2. Equivalence of work & energy
The block decelerates whenever F(z)> mg.
It accelerates whenever F(z)<mg.
I asked you which of the values described on Bazant's graphs was incorrectly marked. No answer...?
___
In my estimation, you got as much business "correcting" Bazant as you do "correcting" Edward Witten's string theory.
Just my opinion, of course...
And the foolishness continues...
Wrong.
I told you in my last response that NEITHER "W1 + W1" NOR "W1 + W2" = the total energy dissipated.
So, repeating that you should have written "W1 + W2" isn't very, uh, astute.
Care to try again?
Yup, it is.
Right, it's not. So it wasn't really a "typo", was it?
Now you're saying that W1 + W2 + mgh(1-λ) equals the dissipated energy.
Nope. Still wrong.
Rather than go round & round & round, here's the right answer.
Here's a slightly elaborated version of Bazant's curve:
The work done by any force F(z) acting over a distance ∆z is defined as W = ∫F(z) dz, i.e., the area under a F(z) vs z curve.
So the work done exerting a force curve F(z) over a distance (1-λ)h (=z2) is:
Not W1.
Not W2.
Not W1+W2.
Not W1 + W2 + mgh(1-λ)
In the graph above, the work done crushing (whatever) from 0 to z2 using the force curve F(z) is the sum of the area W1 + CA. (Where CA = the common area = the orange area.)
The work done crushing the same (whatever) from 0 to z2 using a constant force Fc is equal to W2 + CA.
Equating the work done (essentially a statement of conservation of energy) by either force curve is equivalent to saying:
W1 + CA = W2 + CA
Which means that W1 = W2.
This is exactly why W1 is set equal to W2. It is a consequence of the physical laws:
1. Conservation of energy
2. Equivalence of work & energy
The block decelerates whenever F(z)> mg.
It accelerates whenever F(z)<mg.
I asked you which of the values described on Bazant's graphs was incorrectly marked. No answer...?
___
In my estimation, you got as much business "correcting" Bazant as you do "correcting" Edward Witten's string theory.
Just my opinion, of course...
Last edited:
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
As I stated in my first post to you MT.
Have you submitted your "facts, figures and equations" to Dr. Bazant? Have you submitted them to any peer reviewed engineering journal?
I have no problem with the basics that you laid out in ROOSD other than your unsupported conclusion in which you add in demolitions. (I don't have the engineering to dissect your claims).
Finding Dr. Bazant's email should be rather easy. And I'm sure that ASCE and JEM are easy to find too.
Excuse the sperling.
Kibbitz away.
(Anyone know the the etymology of that word?)
It's from German, via Yiddish, where it means pretty much the same as current English usage. And it's spelled with one 'b'
Carry on ... even though I don't grasp the physics this thread makes for great spectator sport.
ozeco41
Philosopher
The spelling seems to be optional one 'b' or two.It's from German, via Yiddish, where it means pretty much the same as current English usage. And it's spelled with one 'b'
And at least half the dictionary meanings have the negative or unwelcome connotation e.g. "To give unwanted advice or make unhelpful or idle comments, especially to someone playing a game."
http://www.memidex.com/kibbitzing