• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heiwa said:
Conditions are at posts #1 and #239. In this Challenge only honour is at stake. A money award is mentioned in another thread.
Click to expand...

Really? Because earlier you said:

Heiwa said:
See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!
Click to expand...

1418947d05fc07d27e.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1418947d05fc07d27e.jpg
 
240-185 said:
Please Heiwa, tell us what the similarities are between these:

[qimg]http://images.craveonline.com/article_imgs/Image/lemons.jpg[/qimg]

and these:

[qimg]http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311600/Images/twintowers1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

bump
 
KreeL said:
It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.

Again.:yikes:
Click to expand...

Yeah... To some it appears that Dane Cook is funnier than Richard Pryor, but a cocktail of weed, acid, ecstasy, and stupid is a helluvadrug.
 
Minadin said:
Really? Because earlier you said:
Click to expand...

Yes, not part of the conditions, though. Just a little personal encouragement to some poster with a Japanese signature. Never heard from him since! Probably trying to put a one-way crush down C+A structure together?

And that's the real Challenge. Imagine big A just collapsing, if you drop little C (a bit of A) on it. I really wonder what kind of structure that can be???

I have never heard of one! Have you? :)
 
KreeL, my definition of 'pwning' would be if your folks got some actual, respected scientists and engineers from real scientific and engineering organizations to agree with you. Playing rhetorical games and refusing to answer questions on a relativaly obscure internet forum isn't 'pwning' crap.

Until you folks aren't considerd kooks and charlatens by just about everybody who knows what they are talking you 'pwn' NOTHING.
 
Redtail said:
Yeah... To some it appears that Dane Cook is funnier than Richard Pryor, but a cocktail of weed, acid, ecstasy, and stupid is a helluvadrug.
Click to expand...

I second this notion. And for the record - Richard Pryor was the funniest man on the planet
 
KreeL said:
It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.

Again.:yikes:
Click to expand...

One must wonder the kind of mentality required of someone in order to support a comparison between pizza boxes, sponges, & lemons to full-sized buildings. But fear not, you've earned my respect for having the balls to support such comparisons -- you see... not everyone is able to support that level of idiocy with such honesty

I commend you. :)


Heiwa said:
And that's the real Challenge. Imagine big A just collapsing, if you drop little C (a bit of A) on it. I really wonder what kind of structure that can be???

I have never heard of one! Have you? :)
Click to expand...

I think this question is relevant enough, I asked this very question to two other members, but I fear they won't demonstrate the intellectual honesty of genuinely answering it. Perhaps you could?

By assigning proportions (percentages, relative size, etc) to the upper section in order to state that a smaller part is incapable of crushing the larger, are you implying that the force of an object in motion when it encounters a sudden change in acceleration is the same as when the object is at rest? In other words if I can carry 100 pounds at rest, does this mean that I can carry the same mass falling into my arms from 10 feet?

Any conspiracy theorist is welcome to tackle this.... I'm afraid until you understand that the size is to an extent less important than the force the mass imparts when it accelerates that any "competition" with you would be worthless
 
Heiwa, you posted this quote from another thread.

Heiwa said:
NIST thinks that if you drop a mix of air, floors, walls, furniture, AC, cables and humans on a solid steel column or 280+ steel columns, the latter are destroyed.

Reason should be that the potential energy, PE, of the mix of air, floors, walls, furniture, AC, cables and humans exceed the strain energy, SE, that can be absorbed by the steel columns! PE > SE.

However, the suggestion is absurd! Like most propaganda. BUT, as 80%+ of the US population has no idea of PE and SE, they believe it.

I assume you belong to this gullible 80%.
Click to expand...

Heiwa, I have a couple of questions.

You state the the floors that fell downward were composed of a mix of air, floors, walls, funriture, AC, cables, and humans.

Why did you not include the 10000 lb. elevators motors, the transformers, the thicker concrete pads, the roof slabs, the roof structural steel, the window washing equipment, etc?

When I think of the top part of the structure starting to collapse, I have no problem thinking that a 10000 lb. or transformer would be able to break a steel connection as it fell onto it. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
One must wonder the kind of mentality required of someone in order to support a comparison between pizza boxes, sponges, & lemons to full-sized buildings. But fear not, you've earned my respect for having the balls to support such comparisons -- you see... not everyone is able to support that level of idiocy with such honesty

I commend you. :)

I think this question is relevant enough, I asked this very question to two other members, but I fear they won't demonstrate the intellectual honesty of genuinely answering it. Perhaps you could?

By assigning proportions (percentages, relative size, etc) to the upper section in order to state that a smaller part is incapable of crushing the larger, are you implying that the force of an object in motion when it encounters a sudden change in acceleration is the same as when the object is at rest? In other words if I can carry 100 pounds at rest, does this mean that I can carry the same mass falling into my arms from 10 feet?

Any conspiracy theorist is welcome to tackle this.... I'm afraid until you understand that the size is to an extent less important than the force the mass imparts when it accelerates that any "competition" with you would be worthless
Click to expand...

Konitchi wa! In structural analysis we study structures of various materials (different properties); steel, concrete, paper, wood, organic materials, &c. The principles are the same. Thus pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c., experiments are quite useful. I made a structural analysis of a 400+ years old wooden frame structure (my house) just for fun. They built very strong in 1590! A canon ball apparently damaged the structure December 1641.

Re question : "are you implying that the force of an object in motion when it encounters a sudden change in acceleration is the same as when the object is at rest?"

The total forces on an object at constant velocity including velocity 0 (at rest) when added together is 0 or equilibrium.

To change the velocity (up/down) of the object you must apply a force for a while (to decelerate or accelerate the object). When you remove the force, i.e. total force is again 0, the required velocity (incl. rest) may be achieved.

You can change acceleration of an object with mass m by changing the force you apply. Say that force F on mass m produces acceleration a, then force 2F on mass m produces acceleration 2a.

You can also change acceleration of an object driven by a force F by changing its mass.

When you carry 100 lbs at velocity 0, let's say it is bale of wool, the bale of wool apply a force on you corresponding to 100 lbs. Equilibrium.

Now, if 100 lbs (say 45 kg) drops on you from 10 feet (say 3 m), it will impact you with a velocity of 7.68 m/s. The pressure it applies on you depends on the properties of the structures involved, i.e. you and the 100 lbs.
Say 100 lbs of wool drop on you! I think it will knock you off your feet but nobody will really be hurt. However, replace the 100 lbs with a block of depleted uranium and you have no chance.

Anata wa toto wakarimasu ka?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Any scale, any size, any structure are sufficient, as long as C<1/10A, C and A have same internal structure (material, elements, joints, &c) and C is dropped on A (say from 3.7 m) and tries to one-way crush down A.

I have in kitchen and backyard tried with various composite structures; steel, pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, bricks, wood logs, glass, eggs and combinations of all them and reported at JREF. Result is always part A remains uncrushed.

My business associates have by bad luck dropped big Cs on really bigger As. Same result. C never crushes A. A always crushes C.
Click to expand...


Heiwa, i'd really like to have a go at this experiment. It's just that it doesn't seem very clear to me what's allowed to be constructed.

For instance, can you specifically tell me how you built the egg structure? One of the points i'm concerned about is the following;

4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
Click to expand...

How did you build the egg structure, in a manner such that it was not affected by the condition above?

I'm not trying to insult you or be argumentative. I'm just trying to find a starting point - and a clear and comprehensive example of an experiment that you have performed, so that i can at least attempt to replicate it. (i.e. something a bit more in depth than, "i used eggs")

I just don't want to go to the trouble (and time) of attempting to build a particularly complicated structure that just happens to perfectly suits your conditions, when you've already created something relatively simple. I'd like to mention also, that i have no interest in money/prizes.


Regards,
Alex
 
Heiwa said:
Conditions are at posts #1 and #239. In this Challenge only honour is at stake. A money award is mentioned in another thread.
Click to expand...

I believe that you did mention money in this thread. It also seems that the money award is tied into this one, because completing the criteria for this one would simultaneously complete the criteria for that one.
 
Gamolon said:
Heiwa, you posted this quote from another thread.



Heiwa, I have a couple of questions.

You state the the floors that fell downward were composed of a mix of air, floors, walls, funriture, AC, cables, and humans.

Why did you not include the 10000 lb. elevators motors, the transformers, the thicker concrete pads, the roof slabs, the roof structural steel, the window washing equipment, etc?

When I think of the top part of the structure starting to collapse, I have no problem thinking that a 10000 lb. or transformer would be able to break a steel connection as it fell onto it. Am I wrong in thinking this way?
Click to expand...

Upper part C structure can consist of anything you can think of, transformers, lemons, pizza boxes making up some sort of composite structure. Just ensure that the lower part A (A>10C) composite structure is identical in composition.

And then drop C on A. No way C can crush down A.

But if you drop a 10 000 lb transformer on a pizza box, the pizza box is probably crushed. But if you drop the pizza box on the transformer, the pizza box only bounces. That is what would have happened to WTC 1 on 911. Upper part was ... like a pizza box, compared with the lower structure (also pizza boxes but a little stronger).

Rule 1 for Heiwa Challenge. Do not mix transformers with pizza boxes.
 
alex04 said:
Heiwa, i'd really like to have a go at this experiment. It's just that it doesn't seem very clear to me what's allowed to be constructed.

For instance, can you specifically tell me how you built the egg structure? One of the points i'm concerned about is the following;



How did you build the egg structure, in a manner such that it was not affected by the condition above?

I'm not trying to insult you or be argumentative. I'm just trying to find a starting point - and a clear and comprehensive example of an experiment that you have performed, so that i can at least attempt to replicate it. (i.e. something a bit more in depth than, "i used eggs")

I just don't want to go to the trouble (and time) of attempting to build a particularly complicated structure that just happens to perfectly suits your conditions, when you've already created something relatively simple. I'd like to mention also, that i have no interest in money/prizes.


Regards,
Alex
Click to expand...

Easter is past (unless you are in Egypt or Russia) and all eggs have been eaten, but anyway. Take an egg, make a hole in it and empty it and you get an empty egg. Make same thing with 39 similar eggs.

Now glue 40 empty eggs together in a structure with four eggs at bottom (2x2) and another 9 similar layers of eggs on top. You have a nice egg structure 10 eggs high (4x10). Test it that it doesn't collapse. The eggs are the elements, the glue are the joints.

Now carefully remove the top 4 egg layer - that is part C - from the 36 egg tower below - that is part A. Now drop part C on part A!

If part C crushes part A, you have won the Challenge.

You can also use eggs full of white and yellow, if you like - raw or boilt - but they must all be same throughout and glued together. BTW you dont have to glue C to A to test structure but just test A for lateral stability (that all eggs are glued). Then drop part C (4 eggs glued together) on your part A World Easter Egg Tower and report! Photos are welcome.
 
Last edited:
Wildy said:
I believe that you did mention money in this thread. It also seems that the money award is tied into this one, because completing the criteria for this one would simultaneously complete the criteria for that one.
Click to expand...

Yes, only with Grizzly Bear! To cheer him up. Banzai! Aussies must comply with conditions in posts #1 and 239!
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, only with Grizzly Bear! To cheer him up. Banzai! Aussies must comply with conditions in posts #1 and 239!
Click to expand...

So what exactly is the incentive for me to do your challenge then?

And if I did this challenge and successfully completed it, would I get the prize from the other challenge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom