Are you for real ? It's a graph I made by recording the time between each of the datapoints in figure 12-76.
It provides exactly the insight required for me to say...
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
btw it appears to be just over .6s later. Closer to 1/2 second than 1 second...
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
See post below
Clarified that your graph labels the first data pair differently from NIST graph. Oh well.
Clarified that your graph labels the first data pair differently from NIST graph. Oh well.
Last edited:
~0.86s
Can you not read a graph ? Measure it, rather than waving your arms around and guessing.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Which leaves us once again with a void of data needed to support the claims made by both you and MT.
Nothing much has changed it seems. The new graph tracing the pixel brightness was a start though....
But I'm beginning to think that you haven't actually done the maths to back up the many assertions, otherwise methinks you would have posted the data already. In that case it really does make your claims seem quite poorly supported - I refer to the repeated assertions regarding horizontal/vertical motion components, and the complete invalidity of the NIST T=0 which is your central claim.
Nothing much has changed it seems. The new graph tracing the pixel brightness was a start though....
But I'm beginning to think that you haven't actually done the maths to back up the many assertions, otherwise methinks you would have posted the data already. In that case it really does make your claims seem quite poorly supported - I refer to the repeated assertions regarding horizontal/vertical motion components, and the complete invalidity of the NIST T=0 which is your central claim.
You really are making a bit of a fool of yourself you know. This is trivially simple stuff. Wasting my time because you can't eveb read a graph ? Jeebus.See above
As accurate as possible from the image extracted from the PDF. Accurate enough.
Your *nearer to 0.5* made me laugh. Get some glasses eh.
It proves no data between T0 and T=~0.86, supporting the suggestion that NIST started their positional trace later than T0 (which would be a good thing for them to do, as the roofline structures are in the way. They didn't leave it quite long enough, but hey)
Nah, you're making repeated incredibly inept assertions. Get some sleep.Am I for real? Just asking questions, that's all.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
~0.86s
Can you not read a graph ? Measure it, rather than waving your arms around and guessing.
Uhm, using your own timescale (1second interval), unless you've graphed it incorrectly, datapoint 1 to datapoint 2 are about .6 seconds apart.
Where is the datatapoint at T=0? Oh, it's missing. I checked 12-76 I see it is there in that graph.
Wasn't clear on yours because of that.
I've already stated I haven't determined z-plane information...
Here's a graph you might like from Jul 2010...
Take your time.
Oh, and...
Useful information that.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Maybe. But you really don't know. I don't see any reason to trust your assumptions as facts.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Yes, fine, so you have given up trying to determine it. Then it would be appropriate to stop bringing up the topic as if you had some conclusive evidence/ hard data, which you don't.
You decided to do it another way, again fine. That's your choice, doesn't mean it is the only valid choice.
Here's a graph you might like from Jul 2010...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/736613183.jpg[/qimg]
Take your time.
Oh, and...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/558511393.jpg[/qimg]
Useful information that.
Without knowing what the 0 frame refers to these graphs are not useful. You might like to include that info in the graph.
Last edited:
ROFL...
See that black circle where the two axes intersect ? T0, with a datapoint marker.
See the next one ? ~0.86s.
My graph shows the datapoint spacing, thus the title...
"NIST Figure 12-76 Datapoint Spacing"
...and the axis labels...
"Separation (s) / Datapoint Pair"
Get a grip man.
Last edited:
I know they recorded no data between T=0 and T=0.86
I suggested you take your time. I suggest so again. Don't rush and spout stupid.
Last edited:
Evidence that the *kink* is formed primarily in the N-S direction is the Dan Rather video.
See above.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I'll put the matter another way - the exact N/S motions are unknown. Determinations are inconclusive contrary to the claims of some; added to this the limited resolution of the videos and therefore data derived can only be used as estimations for general purposes.
In my view so long as the measurements fall within a reasonable range of accuracy and are recognized to be inherently inexact, they are useful.
Approximate collapse times may vary by 1 second or more, depending on the method of measurement. This does not in itself invalidate the major engineering conclusions of the main investigation done by NIST.
In my view so long as the measurements fall within a reasonable range of accuracy and are recognized to be inherently inexact, they are useful.
Approximate collapse times may vary by 1 second or more, depending on the method of measurement. This does not in itself invalidate the major engineering conclusions of the main investigation done by NIST.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
You don't accept any responsibility for it, I get that. But the fact is you didn't plot the first datapoint at T=0. NIST does put their first point there in 12-76.
You see? I really do understand. The NIST graph does a better job of presenting the data. But unfortunately I wasn't looking at it, I was looking at your graph.
Oh well...
That's the spirit.
Agreed.
No, I have plenty trace data from other regions. Now that I know the T0 position exactly, I can dig out the Dan Rather trace from that horizontal position and we can confirm the T0 in that location with the Dan Rather footage. I can also trace pixel column 304 on the Cam#3 data, which will also show, not useful as such, but interesting information
I think I've adequately shown the level of detail that can be extracted. It's surprisingly high
You are entitled to your opinion of course.
They really shouldn't, but if you're happy with that level of accuracy that's your lookout. I prefer such metrics to be as accurate as possible.
ROFL. You can't read the graph properly is the problem.
I CLEARLY state and label the x axis...Datapoint PAIR.
First point on my graph is for the time between the TWO datapoints, at T=0 and T=0.86
You really don't understand, and it's noones fault but your own.
You seem to think NIST plotted datapoint spacing somewhere. They didn't. "The NIST graph does a better job of presenting the data" ?? ROFL. Totally different graph content and purpose.
Last edited:
All the graphs are titled and labelled clearly.alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
The level of accuracy is perfectly adequate for the purposes of an engineering report on structural failure.
For physics and video tool geeks, I would understand this would not be so.