Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[WilliamSeger]

Bazant assumes in his famous - peer reviewed?? - papers that F2 is added (???) to the moving body (that becomes rigid) so that F3 = F1 + F2 and the moving body accelerates after contact with another body. Another body for unknown reasons globally collapses into small parts - quite magic! Only idiots believe con men like Bazant.

Bazant clearly says what caused the collapse: not magic but overwhelming strain energy caused by impact from a falling mass, something that you just as clearly don't understand. You are the one trying to pull a magic trick by making the energy disappear into a cloud of confusion, but you are like a magician who is merely closing his fist and claiming that the coin disappeared, and then can't understand why the audience is laughing at you. If I had paid to see this "trick," after I stopped laughing I would demand my money back.

Editorial comment out of the way, the real reason I'm responding is to ask you a serious question: Can you please tell me the ships you have designed and their current owners? Thank you.

 

[uruk]

I can only hope that hiewa knows that energy cannot cancel out. It gets converted to another form of energy. If force A encounters an equal but opposite force B the two forces do not equal zero. You just have two forces moving in opposite vectors to each other. the combined energy of the impact is still there. That energy has to be dissipated or changed into another form somehow.
Take forinstance crumple-zones on cars. if you have two cars run into each other from opposite directions, the energy of the impact is dissipated by deforming the crumple zones of the cars. This reduces the velocity vectors relative to the two cars to zero but the energy of the impacts have been converted to another form.

In the case of the WTC. the energy of the upper section impacting on the lower floor was imparted into the materials of the lower floors. the difference here is that the force of gravity is constantly acting on the upper mass that is detached from the building and in motion .

That would be like one car continuing to apply force on the car's accelerator in the impact.

 

[TheDaver]

Heiwa, brakes do accelerate a car. But only in the direction opposite to travel.

As if we didn’t already have enough evidence that you’ve never passed a physics course.…

By the way, I’m still waiting on your results from my proposed bullet experiment.

 

[Heiwa]

Bazant clearly says what caused the collapse: not magic but overwhelming strain energy caused by impact from a falling mass, something that you just as clearly don't understand. You are the one trying to pull a magic trick by making the energy disappear into a cloud of confusion, but you are like a magician who is merely closing his fist and claiming that the coin disappeared, and then can't understand why the audience is laughing at you. If I had paid to see this "trick," after I stopped laughing I would demand my money back.

Editorial comment out of the way, the real reason I'm responding is to ask you a serious question: Can you please tell me the ships you have designed and their current owners? Thank you.

Yes, Bazant assumes that the WTC1 upper block suddenly becomes rigid with overwhelming strain energy at impact so the lower structure becomes a cloud of dust ++. No energy required for THAT. In NWO that works, of course. Bye, bye Newton.

Re your real reason (???) to ask a serious (???????) question I have my doubts. Are you serious? In my opinion you appear plain stupid. So I will not waste more time on you.

 

[Heiwa]

This is a lie, and potentially a libellous one. Heiwa's continuing refusal to recognise the existence of acceleration due to gravity, his inability to determine a resultant force in a one-dimensional problem, and his unfounded belief that there is no such subject as dynamics, are the actual fallacies here. There's nothing new about that, but it's worth mentioning now and then.

Dave

What is the lie? Bazant suggests in his papers that when something impacts anything, something accelerates through anything due gravity, while anything becomes dust and something remains intact. I just query it. In my world, something doesn't do that. Something will be arrested. Meet you in court.

 

[Heiwa]

If you are trying to bring something to rest within a certain time period, initial velocity certainly does matter.

It takes a greater force to go from 60mph to 0mph in 2 seconds than it does to go from 30mph to 0 mph in 2 seconds.

You are right. Exactly what I have always stated. Apply it to WTC1 and there would not have been any global collapse. The PBT experiment proves it, too.

 

[Heiwa]

Based on the quality & content of that site (and the fact that it's on tripod)...I call BS. I don't think the company on that tripod site even exists...or..if it does...it certainly doesn't do any ship building.

The only "heiwa corporation" I've been able to locate is a Japanese company that makes pachinko machines and automatic ball-replenishment systems. http://www.heiwanet.co.jp

The fact that this supposed company can't even be bothered to pay $9/year for a domain name certainly doesn't help Heiwa's case....and did anyone notice that he photo of Anders Björkman on his site looks a lot like the photos we've seen of pdoherty76? (I don't have any of his photos handy...perhaps someone else does)

Based on his claims, style, and apparent obsession with starting futile arguments, I would not at all be surprised if Heiwa is the same person as Pdoherty76.

OT of course but the heiwaco website - http://heiwaco.tripod.com - was created 10+ years ago and lycos/tripod provides an excellent ISP service incl. everything I need. Why change?

I have noted that the content of my site incl. my photo have been copied and used elsewhere for other purposes but ... what's the problem. Just children at work. Doesn't bother me at all. Nobody else is concerned.

I have about 200 visitors/day since 5 years and none has told me about any BS. On the contrary.

So we just improved the layout of the site this week. Enjoy.

BTW Heiwa means Peace in Japanese and that's what we are working for. As salamou aleikoum! Same thing. Freedom and Democracy is then possible as Democracy is not possible without Freedom ... and Peace. Safety at Sea is just a spin off. Like the WTC1 papers. And the PBT experiment on this thread and the Bathroom scale experiment on another thread. Serious stuff, actually. All for free. Nobody can debunk really free and true ideas.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

If you are trying to bring something to rest within a certain time period, initial velocity certainly does matter.

It takes a greater force to go from 60mph to 0mph in 2 seconds than it does to go from 30mph to 0 mph in 2 seconds.

You are right. Exactly what I have always stated.

No, that's not what you've said. Witness:

a = F/m !

No, original velocity of object doesn't matter! Any force applied/removed to the object properly will bring said object to a stop. Force only produces acceleration/deceleration or change of velocity.

Clearly demonstrated in the PBT experiment.

And, according to the other thread, mass or distance falling doesn't seem to matter either...

So you think that dropping a bottle of water a few feet should have the same effect as dropping a 10 story building 15 feet?

YES!

So the initial velocity doesn't affect the force needed to stop a falling object...and the mass doesn't affect the force needed to stop a falling object...and the distance fallen doesn't affect the force needed to stop a falling object...

Tell me, what does affect the force needed to stop a falling object?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

OT of course but the heiwaco website - http://heiwaco.tripod.com - was created 10+ years ago and lycos/tripod provides an excellent ISP service incl. everything I need. Why change?

Interesting. The Wayback Machine shows it no earlier than August 16, 2000.

 

[Heiwa]

So the initial velocity doesn't affect the force needed to stop a falling object...and the mass doesn't affect the force needed to stop a falling object...and the distance fallen doesn't affect the force needed to stop a falling object...

Tell me, what does affect the force needed to stop a falling object?

Good that you finally realize that a force F2 develops to stop a falling object when it contacts anything. According Bazant and NIST no such force develops. It is thus anything that applies this force on the falling object - not the other way around.

The first effect this force F2 has on the falling object is to decelerate it. According Bazant deceleration will not happen as F2 does not exist.

A second effect is that force F2 may provide high pressure/stresses in the structure of the falling body and cause deflections, deformations or failures. According Bazant failures in the falling body will not happen as the falling body has suddenly become rigid (indestructible). Why that is necessary is not clear as F2 does not exist.

Evidently the falling body applies a force -F2 on anything. As anything has velocity zero -F2 tries to speed up anything which is difficult as anything is fixed on the ground. So -F2 will produce local failures up in the top of anything.

As Bazant suggests that force F2 does not exist, then evidently the force -F2 cannot exist and you then wonder what is causing the local failures of anything that then continues into 'global collapse?

It seems that Bazant suggests that the falling object, after contact, first becomes rigid and then continues to accelerate and destroys anything (global collapse).

The children in my class cannot simply understand that. So I developed the PBT + impactor (a couple of extra pizza boxes) to show that F2 exists (Bazant and NIST objecting of course).

F2 is first of all a function of time. It only exists between first contact and arrest of falling object.

F2 is then a function of the structure of the falling object. If the falling object is, e.g. similar to a rubber ball, it bounces on anything. F2 will ensure that.

To avoid this to happen, Bazant assumes the falling object is rigid and that it cannot bounce, even if F2 doesn't exist in his NWO ivory tower.

F2 is also a function of the energy (J or Nm) transmitted to anything by the falling body at contact and until arrest.

F2 will ensure that this energy is consumed as deceleration, local deformations, failures, deflections (bouncing), friction (heat), etc. etc. between contact and arrest.

So far it is shown that F2 is not really concerned with the mass of the falling object, its velocity or drop height; those particulars are taken care of by just looking at the energy transmitted at contact.

Bazant carefully avoids mentioning this energy, because then he must explain what happens to it. Bazant instead invents that a shock wave develops in anything, etc, etc, and similar fairy tales.

If you read my papers (and posts) you will find that the upper block of WTC1 may provide about 1 GJ of energy at contact (assuming 'near free fall'). 1 GJ is not a lot of energy. 41 litres of diesel oil will provide it, if you want it, but then you need a very effective engine.

For the record, I do not believe in 'near free fall' because then all structure in the initiation zone between upper block and lower structure must have evaporated instantaneously, which is another 9/11 myth. But a I agree that some energy will be transmitted by upper block to lower structure at initiation, but it will be much less than 1 GJ. The result will be the same, just less local failures, etc, etc.

So you ask: Tell me, what does affect the force needed to stop a falling object?

Answer is this force's capability to tranform energy of falling body into deceleration, local deformations, failures, deflections (bouncing), friction (heat), etc. etc. between contact and arrest.

 

[Heiwa]

Interesting. The Wayback Machine shows it no earlier than August 16, 2000.

OK - it might have been up and running on the net since 8+ years with ISP lycos/tripod but it took some time to compile the content of the site and design it. Plenty of work for that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How many times can Heiwa lie in one post?

Good that you finally realize that a force F2 develops to stop a falling object when it contacts anything. According Bazant and NIST no such force develops.

That's a lie.

According Bazant deceleration will not happen as F2 does not exist.

That's a lie.

According Bazant failures in the falling body will not happen as the falling body has suddenly become rigid (indestructible). Why that is necessary is not clear as F2 does not exist.

That's two lies.

As Bazant suggests that force F2 does not exist, then evidently the force -F2 cannot exist and you then wonder what is causing the local failures of anything that then continues into 'global collapse?

There's at least one lie in there.

It seems that Bazant suggests that the falling object, after contact, first becomes rigid and then continues to accelerate and destroys anything (global collapse).

That would be a lie if it weren't qualified "It seems", because it is possible that some people could be so deluded as to believe such nonsense. I'll give you a pass on that one.

The children in my class cannot simply understand that. So I developed the PBT + impactor (a couple of extra pizza boxes) to show that F2 exists (Bazant and NIST objecting of course).

The part in brackets is, of course, another lie.

To avoid this to happen, Bazant assumes the falling object is rigid and that it cannot bounce, even if F2 doesn't exist in his NWO ivory tower.

That is at least one lie.

F2 will ensure that this energy is consumed as deceleration, local deformations, failures, deflections (bouncing), friction (heat), etc. etc. between contact and arrest.

As a repeated assertion that you refuse to support with calculations, this is therefore clearly a lie.

So far it is shown that F2 is not really concerned with the mass of the falling object, its velocity or drop height; those particulars are taken care of by just looking at the energy transmitted at contact.

Lie 1: "it is shown...", you haven't shown anything. Lie 2: "by just looking at the energy transmitted...", you are refusing to look at the energy transmitted by declining any attempt to calculate it.

Bazant carefully avoids mentioning this energy, because then he must explain what happens to it. Bazant instead invents that a shock wave develops in anything, etc, etc, and similar fairy tales.

I'm not sure whether that's one lie or two. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and only count the second sentence.

I agree that some energy will be transmitted by upper block to lower structure at initiation, but it will be much less than 1 GJ. The result will be the same, just less local failures, etc, etc.

And finally, that's a lie by implication, because it implies that you've made a serious attempt to calculate the energy transferred, whereas instead you've simply advanced the bare assertion that it will be less than some arbitrary value.

Twelve lies, at a conservative estimate, in one post. This deserves some sort of award, though maybe not an engineering one.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

How many times can Heiwa lie in one post?



That's a lie.



That's a lie.



That's two lies.



There's at least one lie in there.



That would be a lie if it weren't qualified "It seems", because it is possible that some people could be so deluded as to believe such nonsense. I'll give you a pass on that one.



The part in brackets is, of course, another lie.



That is at least one lie.



As a repeated assertion that you refuse to support with calculations, this is therefore clearly a lie.



Lie 1: "it is shown...", you haven't shown anything. Lie 2: "by just looking at the energy transmitted...", you are refusing to look at the energy transmitted by declining any attempt to calculate it.



I'm not sure whether that's one lie or two. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and only count the second sentence.



And finally, that's a lie by implication, because it implies that you've made a serious attempt to calculate the energy transferred, whereas instead you've simply advanced the bare assertion that it will be less than some arbitrary value.

Twelve lies, at a conservative estimate, in one post. This deserves some sort of award, though maybe not an engineering one.

Dave

Or the truth is hard to accept! It seems you are in denial. Didn't like the PBT experiment?

 

[phunk]

Heiwa, the maximum value for what you'd call 'F2' is the load bearing capacity of the columns. It's impossible for any stronger force than that to develop, because the columns are what holds up all the parts creating that force. ALL load is on the columns. If the momentum of the falling upper section is more than the columns can arrest, there is NO other way to stop it. If the load doesn't land on the columns, it is either indirectly transferred to the columns, or it doesn't stop.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, the maximum value for what you'd call 'F2' is the load bearing capacity of the columns. It's impossible for any stronger force than that to develop, because the columns are what holds up all the parts creating that force. ALL load is on the columns. If the momentum of the falling upper section is more than the columns can arrest, there is NO other way to stop it. If the load doesn't land on the columns, it is either indirectly transferred to the columns, or it doesn't stop.

No, F2 has nothing to do with the static load bearing capacity of the columns. F2 is a dynamic load and a result of deceleration, local deformations, local failures, local friction, etc., in the time period after contacts (columns against floors) until arrest. It is F2 that 'consumes' the energy released at contacts until arrest when it is applied to all parts participating in the local destruction.

After arrest F2 is 0 and F1 (mass of upper block times g) is again applied to the partly damaged lower structure that applies -F1 to the upper block again. And F1 < 0.3 of the load carrying capacity of the columns.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

OK - it might have been up and running on the net since 8+ years with ISP lycos/tripod but it took some time to compile the content of the site and design it. Plenty of work for that.

It took 2 years to design that website? You should have fired your web designer.

 

[uruk]

After arrest F2 is 0 and F1 (mass of upper block times g) is again applied to the partly damaged lower structure that applies -F1 to the upper block again. And F1 < 0.3 of the load carrying capacity of the columns.

You do know the mass in movement increases as the structures of the floor being impacted adds it's mass to the upper sections due to disarticulation and gravity.

A structure that fails is no longer able to support any loads.

 

[phunk]

No, F2 has nothing to do with the static load bearing capacity of the columns. F2 is a dynamic load and a result of deceleration, local deformations, local failures, local friction, etc., in the time period after contacts (columns against floors) until arrest. It is F2 that 'consumes' the energy released at contacts until arrest when it is applied to all parts participating in the local destruction.

After arrest F2 is 0 and F1 (mass of upper block times g) is again applied to the partly damaged lower structure that applies -F1 to the upper block again. And F1 < 0.3 of the load carrying capacity of the columns.

If F2 is greater than the load bearing capacity of the columns, the columns fail and the building collapses. Make an attempt to calculate F2, or shut up and stop wasting everyone's time.

By the way, a force is a cause of deceleration, not a result of it. And forces can't consume energy, only transfer it between objects.

 

[uruk]

It took 2 years to design that website? You should have fired your web designer.

I'm guessing he may have been the web designer, secrtary, enginneer, accountant, CEO, manitenance, janitor, and sole employee of Heiwa Co. LLC

 

[Heiwa]

If F2 is greater than the load bearing capacity of the columns, the columns fail and the building collapses. Make an attempt to calculate F2, or shut up and stop wasting everyone's time.

By the way, a force is a cause of deceleration, not a result of it. And forces can't consume energy, only transfer it between objects.

No, it will not happen! Reason is that F2 is of very short duration and, applied to the impactor, decelerates the impactor, etc, etc, and arrests it. Plenty of energy absorbed in the process which is very quick.

Note that F2 is not applied to any columns! It is applied to floors, that fail, etc, etc. and consume energy. F2 acts as a brake.

Note that Bazant 'assumes' that the upper block is rigid, i.e. it cannot fail; it is indestructible, friction has no effect on it, even if F2 should be able to decelerate it, which Bazant conveniently ignores.

Therefore, logically, any F2 acting on Bazant's rigid upper block cannot stop it, which then Bazant via some magic equations tries to prove. But no such upper, rigid block exists in reality! As soon as Bazant assumes that the upper block is not rigid, he will get the same result as I have presented in my papers.