Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration

[tuc0]

You have to test!

No, I don't.

But have a try!

No, thanks. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near such a structure.

But look. You're an engineer, I'm not. You could show me how collapse would be arrested in this setup. With calculations and neat stuff like that. Even if I won't understand it someone else will.

 

[Heiwa]

No, I don't.



No, thanks. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near such a structure.

But look. You're an engineer, I'm not. You could show me how collapse would be arrested in this setup. With calculations and neat stuff like that. Even if I won't understand it someone else will.

But I just showed you! Upper assembly/unit C is sliced into two at first contact with part A below and after that NO PART OF C WILL CONTACT ANY PART OF A AGAIN.

If you belive that part C remains intact during complete one-way crush down of A, i.e. slices A, all 8 units, into two parts, you have to show that!

Anyway - no glued connections between any glass panes are broken in your example, etc, etc.

Suggest you replace the glass panes with paper card board sheets or why not, thin steel plates! Then, I assure you, upper part C just bounces on part A.

 

[tuc0]

But I just showed you! Upper assembly/unit C is sliced into two at first contact with part A below and after that NO PART OF C WILL CONTACT ANY PART OF A AGAIN.

If you belive that part C remains intact during complete one-way crush down of A, i.e. slices A, all 8 units, into two parts, you have to show that!

Anyway - no glued connections between any glass panes are broken in your example, etc, etc.

No, sorry, this makes no sense. Do you really believe the upper part, when dropped from 3 km, will not completely smash the entire structure to pieces? Do you have some engineering to back up this curious opinion?

 

[Heiwa]

No, sorry, this makes no sense. Do you really believe the upper part, when dropped from 3 km, will not completely smash the entire structure to pieces? Do you have some engineering to back up this curious opinion?

I have described it in my famous papers at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

It doesn't matter if you drop part C from 3 kms or 1 meter; at contact forces develop in interface C/A whereby C is destroyed, i.e. sliced into two parts. It means that part C cannot one-way crush down part A, unless you believe that broken parts of C can do the job. In your case half C drops outside and other half drops inside A, so A remains. The puppy inside A may get half C dropped on it, i.e. the poor puppy is sliced into two.

 

[tuc0]

I have described it in my famous papers at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

It doesn't matter if you drop part C from 3 kms or 1 meter; at contact forces develop in interface C/A whereby C is destroyed, i.e. sliced into two parts. It means that part C cannot one-way crush down part A, unless you believe that broken parts of C can do the job. In your case half C drops outside and other half drops inside A, so A remains. The puppy inside A may get half C dropped on it, i.e. the poor puppy is sliced into two.

You are wrong. Your website in no way addresses this case. But anyway, your opinion is noted. Thank you.

 

[Heiwa]

You are wrong. Your website in no way addresses this case. But anyway, your opinion is noted. Thank you.

I think you have misunderstood topic - Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration. A spin-off of The Heiwa Challenge thread. You are not supposed to propose a fragile structure that can be demolished one way or another, e.g. your glass boxes.

No, you shall propose a design - of a structure - that can demonstrate a progressive collapse from top to bottom, i.e. a one-way crush down progressive collapse. Connected elements of a part C of the structure shall drop by gravity and damage other elements and connections of the structure part A below until the whole structure part A is demolished.

No such design is available ... reason being that the whole phenomenon - one-way crush down - is not possible at all. Your glass boxes are a prime example. Not one connection between any glass element will fail.

Reason being that the glue between elements acts as crack arrester and only elements crack, etc.

But thanks for your participation.

 

[tuc0]

I think you have misunderstood topic - Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration. A spin-off of The Heiwa Challenge thread.

I didn't misunderstand anything. As you may have have noticed I did not mention your challenge, nor do I wish to accept it. I just had an idea and an hour to kill. This seemed like the best thread to put it.

You are not supposed to propose a fragile structure that can be demolished one way or another, e.g. your glass boxes.

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. But why do you still insist my structure will not be crushed in your previous posts?

Just to be clear: Do you agree that my hypothetical setup would result in the complete destruction of the structure?

No, you shall propose a design - of a structure - that can demonstrate a progressive collapse from top to bottom, i.e. a one-way crush down progressive collapse. Connected elements of a part C of the structure shall drop by gravity and damage other elements and connections of the structure part A below until the whole structure part A is demolished.

I don't care about your definitions of 'one-way crush down progressive collapse' or 'part C' or 'connected elements'. No need to mention them again.

No such design is available ... reason being that the whole phenomenon - one-way crush down - is not possible at all. Your glass boxes are a prime example. Not one connection between any glass element will fail. Reason being that the glue between elements acts as crack arrester and only elements crack, etc.

I will take your word for that.

But thanks for your participation.

You're welcome.

 

[Heiwa]

Just to be clear: Do you agree that my hypothetical setup would result in the complete destruction of the structure?

No.

 

[tuc0]

Just to be clear: Do you agree that my hypothetical setup would result in the complete destruction of the structure?

No.

Thanks for a short and clear answer. And how, by what mechanism, would a collapse be arrested?

 

[Justin39640]

Thanks for a short and clear answer. And how, by what mechanism, would a collapse be arrested?

lol you should have read his paper
here is the illustration of how he thinks the building (WTC1) should have arrested
based on his 2D drawing i reinterpreted it with a 3D sketch here

 

[tuc0]

lol you should have read his paper
here is the illustration of how he thinks the building (WTC1) should have arrested
based on his 2D drawing i reinterpreted it with a 3D sketch here

I know about his paper and his illustrations, but I wanted him to address this specific case. He thinks the structure will not 'globally collapse'. I guess he wouldn't mind trading places with the puppy then...

 

[Justin39640]

I know about his paper and his illustrations, but I wanted him to address this specific case. He thinks the structure will not 'globally collapse'. I guess he wouldn't mind trading places with the puppy then...

i think its funny that his drawing implies that the beam on the left will shear off every floor and the entire left side of the upper part without sustaining any damage (notice the entire left side of the upper part is gone lol)

 

[tuc0]

i think its funny that his drawing implies that the beam on the left will shear off every floor and the entire left side of the upper part without sustaining any damage (notice the entire left side of the upper part is gone lol)

Yep, it's hard to decide which part of his story is the most entertaining. His cartoon reality drawings are pretty funny, but so is his belief that structures cannot collapse, or his disappearing steel, or his bouncing planes.

 

[Bluesky]

Here's a page from an old disinfo manual I found in the attic. Why wouldn't this work?

[qimg]http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/5896/bs23x.jpg[/qimg]

Sorry about the dried baby blood, but sometimes I just forget myself. You know how it is.

Hi, this is the 5th scheme that I have seen that meets all the requirements of heiwa's challenge, and of course there are millions more. I did it, and of course your scheme or variations of it would work easily. it's too easy.!