aofl
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 505
Yes, and it will only be a true test if there is a concrete pizza inside the concrete pizza box.
A
Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment
- Thread starter nicepants
- Start date
Yes, and it will only be a true test if there is a concrete pizza inside the concrete pizza box.
A
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Odd, that doesn't seem to be what Bazant is saying here.
Source.
Bazant said:
You do understand the process of setting boundary conditions, yes? You understand the concept of potential energy and how it can be converted to kinetic energy, yes? (Although, judging by your comment, "so it seems the energy came from within the towers themselves," maybe you do not understand potential energy.)
Giggywig
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,851
Maybe it's time to rewrite the Cartoon Laws of Physics to fit trutherism.
I can only hope Heiwa is yanking our chains. Pizza impactor? Good name for rock band.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Can we assume that the air craft colliding with the pizza box tower would knock cheese and other toppings from the crust?
Not only would this leave the crust unprotected, but if the toppings include generous quantities of pepperoni and large-chunk sausage, then the grease content may be sufficient to soak through the cardboard floor.
Not only would this cause a general weakening of the overall pizza box structure, it would make the structure much more susceptible to the ravages of fire.
By the way, according to documents obtained under FOIA from Papa John's, pizza box towers were in fact designed to survive impact of a Boeing 707 lost in the fog traveling at an air speed of 185 MPH.
Not only would this leave the crust unprotected, but if the toppings include generous quantities of pepperoni and large-chunk sausage, then the grease content may be sufficient to soak through the cardboard floor.
Not only would this cause a general weakening of the overall pizza box structure, it would make the structure much more susceptible to the ravages of fire.
By the way, according to documents obtained under FOIA from Papa John's, pizza box towers were in fact designed to survive impact of a Boeing 707 lost in the fog traveling at an air speed of 185 MPH.
Zipster
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 178
Wait...you're confusing me here. You're saying Bazant has a Ph.D., so we should ignore him because of it?
A Ph.D. doesn't necessarily mean one person's smarter than another. It just means that a person went through the formal process required to get it.
Still, it's a title of respect and shows the person knows his / her field (since they don't hand them out for an average performance), so if Bazant has one, doesn't that mean he knows what he's talking about?
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Of course, which is exactly why Heiwa is making such a sad attempt to denigrate PhD's. They're a threat to his delusion.
Last edited:
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
All irrelevant. Did you know that in 1945 a B-52 Stratofortress* slammed into Don Vito's pizza box tower on Broadway? It did not collapse.
Did you know that in the history of pizza box towers, none have ever collapsed due to fire?
Did you know that in 1963 the US Government planned to unleash Operation Dominoes, in which unspecified CIA spooks would infuriate Cuban nationals in florida by flogging them with pizza boxes and make it look the Mafia started it?
Dude. Do some freakin research. PWNED.
*Originally broadcast on the Untightened Dubloons Radio show, September 25th, 1952. OK it was a B-25 Mitchell but we swear we researched it, really. Our screenwriter is dyslexic so, like, get over it OK?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
You know nothing. According to a documentary aired on PBS 30 years ago the pizza box towers were constructed with 4-scale-foot Sicilian crust cores, and the crust was coated with a C-4 sauce.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Oh right then! Take the word of the government controlled PBS, or Pizza Box Syndicate to the uninitiated. Gawd, I suppose you're going to start up with some tripe about Papa John NOT being a distant relative of John McCain next.
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,354
Yes that inspired me to put him in my sig twice. A very rare accomplishment Heiwa has achieved. And he did it in the same thread!
Hello Hokulele! Thanks for your message with:
Source.
Originally Posted by Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson
"First, let us review the basic argument (Baˇzant 2001; Baˇzant and Zhou 2002).
After a drop through at least the height h of one story heated by fire (stage 3 in Fig. 2 top), the mass of the upper part of each tower has lost enormous gravitational energy, equal to m0gh. Because the energy dissipation by buckling of the hot columns must have been negligible by comparison, most of this energy must have been converted into kinetic energy K = m0v2/2 of the upper part of tower, moving at velocity v. Calculation of energy Wc dissipated by the crushing of all columns of the underlying (cold and intact) story showed that, approximately, the kinetic energy of impact K > 8.4 Wc (Eq. 3 of Baˇzant and Zhou 2002).
It is well known that, in inelastic buckling, the deformation must localize into inelastic hinges (Baˇzant and Cedolin 2003, sec. 7.10). To obtain an upper bound on Wc, the local buckling of flanges and webs, as well as possible steel fracture, was neglected (which means that the ratio K/Wc was at least 8.4). When the subsequent stories are getting crushed, the loss m0gh of gravitational energy per story exceeds Wc exceeds 8.4 by an ever increasing margin, and so the velocity v of the upper part must increase from one story to the next. This is the basic characteristic of progressive collapse, well known from many previous disasters with causes other than fire (internal or external explosions, earthquake, lapses in quality control; see, e.g., Levy and Salvadori 1992; Baˇzant and Verdure 2007).
Merely to get convinced of the inevitability of gravity driven progressive collapse, further analysis is, for a structural engineer, superfluous. Further analysis is nevertheless needed to dispel false myths, and also to acquire full understanding that would allow assessing the danger of progressive collapse in other situations."
So Bazant & Co suggest that after initiation (the drop of the upper block and the impact on the lower structure) the velocity v of the upper part must increase from one story to the next and 'further analysis is ... superfluous'.
This is simply false (only valid, if upper block is rigid, which it is not) and ignoring Newton.
When the upper block impacts the lower structure and applies a force F on it and the lower structure apparently is affected, the lower structure applies a force -F on the upper block that is also affected.
Evidently the upper block deforms the lower structure, but the lower structure also deforms the upper block that is not rigid.
As force -F acts on the upper block and its mass m, the upper block is evidently accelerated a = -F/m (according Newton). It is actually a retardation. But no such effect is seen on any video.
If the forces are big enough to cause plastic deformation (e.g. buckling, which absorbs energy), then sub-parts of both the lower structure and the upper block start to be destroyed and get entangled into one another or drop out of the action and friction and other forces between these parts will arrest the collapse.
As the upper block is smaller and weaker than the lower structure it cannot destroy the lower structure, e.g. a crystal glass dropping on a marble table top.
Happens every time. As seen in the Pizza Box Tower experiment.
Thanks for your quote of Bazant above.
Source.
Originally Posted by Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson
"First, let us review the basic argument (Baˇzant 2001; Baˇzant and Zhou 2002).
After a drop through at least the height h of one story heated by fire (stage 3 in Fig. 2 top), the mass of the upper part of each tower has lost enormous gravitational energy, equal to m0gh. Because the energy dissipation by buckling of the hot columns must have been negligible by comparison, most of this energy must have been converted into kinetic energy K = m0v2/2 of the upper part of tower, moving at velocity v. Calculation of energy Wc dissipated by the crushing of all columns of the underlying (cold and intact) story showed that, approximately, the kinetic energy of impact K > 8.4 Wc (Eq. 3 of Baˇzant and Zhou 2002).
It is well known that, in inelastic buckling, the deformation must localize into inelastic hinges (Baˇzant and Cedolin 2003, sec. 7.10). To obtain an upper bound on Wc, the local buckling of flanges and webs, as well as possible steel fracture, was neglected (which means that the ratio K/Wc was at least 8.4). When the subsequent stories are getting crushed, the loss m0gh of gravitational energy per story exceeds Wc exceeds 8.4 by an ever increasing margin, and so the velocity v of the upper part must increase from one story to the next. This is the basic characteristic of progressive collapse, well known from many previous disasters with causes other than fire (internal or external explosions, earthquake, lapses in quality control; see, e.g., Levy and Salvadori 1992; Baˇzant and Verdure 2007).
Merely to get convinced of the inevitability of gravity driven progressive collapse, further analysis is, for a structural engineer, superfluous. Further analysis is nevertheless needed to dispel false myths, and also to acquire full understanding that would allow assessing the danger of progressive collapse in other situations."
So Bazant & Co suggest that after initiation (the drop of the upper block and the impact on the lower structure) the velocity v of the upper part must increase from one story to the next and 'further analysis is ... superfluous'.
This is simply false (only valid, if upper block is rigid, which it is not) and ignoring Newton.
When the upper block impacts the lower structure and applies a force F on it and the lower structure apparently is affected, the lower structure applies a force -F on the upper block that is also affected.
Evidently the upper block deforms the lower structure, but the lower structure also deforms the upper block that is not rigid.
As force -F acts on the upper block and its mass m, the upper block is evidently accelerated a = -F/m (according Newton). It is actually a retardation. But no such effect is seen on any video.
If the forces are big enough to cause plastic deformation (e.g. buckling, which absorbs energy), then sub-parts of both the lower structure and the upper block start to be destroyed and get entangled into one another or drop out of the action and friction and other forces between these parts will arrest the collapse.
As the upper block is smaller and weaker than the lower structure it cannot destroy the lower structure, e.g. a crystal glass dropping on a marble table top.
Happens every time. As seen in the Pizza Box Tower experiment.
Thanks for your quote of Bazant above.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No, because the truth movement would not accept the expert opinion of those designing the experiment that the scaling was appropriately accounted for. If a team of engineers models the collapse of a building using computer simulations, the result is rejected as "biased in favor of collapse" by the truth movement; why should any different behaviour be expected if the model used is a physical one?
Dave
Megalodon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Messages
- 3,228
If you scaled down the WTC to 3.5m, it would be to fragile to handle. Conversely, if you scaled up a pizza box tower to 400m, it would be completely plane (or almost anything, actually) proof. This leaves us with the conclusion that you don't understand what is meant by "scale".
The good news is that your OP is the most amusingly inane thing that I've read in quite sometime.
And they say a scientists life is gray, cold and devoid of awe... I'm in awe how people like this can tie their shoelaces, let alone use a computer...
The good news is that your OP is the most amusingly inane thing that I've read in quite sometime.
And they say a scientists life is gray, cold and devoid of awe... I'm in awe how people like this can tie their shoelaces, let alone use a computer...
I am no engineer so maybe I don't know what I am talking about but I am pretty sure that you got it backwards. If you scaled one of the towers down to 3.5m, it would be proportionally much stronger than the actual tower. It could likely withstand much more severe, scaled down damage than happened on 9/11. If you scaled the pizza tower up to 400m it likely couldn't even stand on its own. Please, someone correct me if I am wrong (Heiwa, you don't count).
Either way, Heiwa doesn't know what he is talking about but I thought for accuracies sake, I thought I should point this out.
Megalodon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Messages
- 3,228
No, I got it right.
A scaled down model of the wtc would be one that, if tilted a few degrees, would crumble upon itself. similarly, imagine being able to flip a floor of the real wtc on it's side, with no damage... that would be a scaled up model of a pizza box. Of course, it doesn't happen, which is why scaled models are more useful for architectural purposes than engineering ones.
There are, of course, scaled models of buildings used for things like wind resistance, or structural models to compare the effectiveness of different kinds of basic structure. But to scale down a building in a way that it would realistically represent an event like 9-11... well, it would be to fragile to handle...
SezMe
post-pre-born
Heiwa, in your pizza box model, what is the equivalent of the airplane hitting the building. Er, I assume you do accept the airplane scenario. Anyway, when that thing, whatever it is, hits the pizza tower, what happens?
Maybe I was a little confused about what you were talking about. You were talking about scaling it down so it would behave the same towers did on 9/11? Rather than a model that is scaled down just by size, i.e. all the columns and trusses and everything are proportionally the same but just smaller? And the converse for the pizza tower, that it would be scaled up in such a way that it would behave the same as the smaller one rather than just proportionally by size?
Megalodon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Messages
- 3,228
Of course, you scale down the properties to be tested, otherwise there would be no point to the experiment in the first place.
What it's now proposed is like modeling the behavior of a plywood hut on a hurricane by using a boulder and an electric fan...
Last edited: