• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?
 
FineWine said:
I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?
Click to expand...

You got it. But I suspect the elephant tower would spontaneously collapse during construction. This would lose you your challenge, as you didn't even have to drop the top part. A doggie tower might be on the borderline for a 10-layer furry creature tower. Weasels ? ;)

p.s. don't forget to glue the weasels to the plates. It's part of the challenge.
 
GlennB said:
You got it. But I suspect the elephant tower would spontaneously collapse during construction. This would lose you your challenge, as you didn't even have to drop the top part. A doggie tower might be on the borderline for a 10-layer furry creature tower. Weasels ? ;)

p.s. don't forget to glue the weasels to the plates. It's part of the challenge.
Click to expand...

All kidding aside, I don't think he sees any difference between snow and an avalanche. They both come down.
 
FineWine said:
All kidding aside, I don't think he sees any difference between snow and an avalanche. They both come down.
Click to expand...


Or, more troubling for a supposed naval engineer, the difference between an ice cube and an iceberg.
 
FineWine said:
All kidding aside, I don't think he sees any difference between snow and an avalanche. They both come down.
Click to expand...

Basically, he claims there is no such thing as a progressive collapse. An avalanche is a progressive collapse. They think there is no way the same principle can be applied to a steel structure. This is of course at odds with what the rest of the world knows. But it makes for great entertainement as can be seen here : www.hewai.triandpooped.com
 
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...

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...

Quit lying, liar.

Heiwa said:
The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

Why is that?

If C can apply suffient energy PE at impact C with A and following downward displacement and total strain energy SE that can be absorbed by A+C is less than PE and that C can absorb more strain energy than A and only deform elastically in the process, then A is crushed and C is not.

It is not really 'one-way' as C is always affected - elastic deformation - but it is pretty near.

I would conclude that 'one-way' crush down is only possible, if C can absorb more strain energy only as elastic deformation than A can absorb totally (elastic & plastic deformation, failures, &c).

If C is then only 1/10th of A volume/mass wise - as per Challenge conditions - and can only absorb 1/10th of A strain energy (A and C have same internal structure), then I would conclude C can never crush A in any model, size or scale.

It is just a question of strain energies! C has too little!

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!
Click to expand...

So where is the money Heiwa? You made this post in this very thread. If somebody beat your stupid challenge, they would also disprove your stupid axiom and be owed a million dollars. So do you have a million dollars or are you a lying fraud?
 
KreeL said:
Haewa's observations have already been published years ago. You can find them by googling Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy.
Click to expand...

LOL, actually Heiwa does this magic trick where he makes momentum and energy disappear. It's not much of a magic trick, though: He just claims it disappeared, so the trick only works on children and... well, never mind...

I really think Heiwa is on the wrong side of the magic energy thing, though: I hear there's a lot of money to be made by claiming you can make energy appear.

KreeL said:
Have fun - don't stay pwnd too long.
Click to expand...

He still pwns me a $million, but he seems to be ignoring me now.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Basically, he claims there is no such thing as a progressive collapse. An avalanche is a progressive collapse. They think there is no way the same principle can be applied to a steel structure. This is of course at odds with what the rest of the world knows. But it makes for great entertainement as can be seen here : www.hewai.triandpooped.com
Click to expand...

Funny that you mention avalanches. Nobody thought about it before I made the comparison at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#72 some years back.

Here topic is The Heiwa Challenge where a part C shall vertically one-way crush down of part A of same structure, where A previously carried C.

You can try to build a structure of snow and then drop more snow on it; question is how to make it stable one moment and unstable another moment, &tc. and you have to ask yourself if C really has the same structure than A during the one-way crush down? In an avalanche that is not really the case, you see?
 
FineWine said:
I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?
Click to expand...

Live structural elements? Why not? You have to connect them with joints of some kind, though! Glue? Then drop C on A. Send photos of your one-way crush down contraption. Thanks for taking part in The Heiwa Challenge!
 
Gamolon said:
How is a 5 ton motor hitting a steel beam connecting steel columns together the same as a piano hitting solid ground?

Are you telling me that if a 5 ton motor hit the cross member of a steel structure, the motor would shatter into pieces?

So let me get this straight. According to you:

1. Solid ground = structual steel beams
2. A piano = a 5 ton elevator motor

Is that correct?
Click to expand...

It is similar! An object C impacts an object A; in your case evidently of different structural types, which doesn't qualify them for The Heiwa Challenge!
 
Heiwa

Could you please clear this up. If someone was to apply and succeed in this challenge, would they automatically disprove the axiom and win money?
 
I dont understand. You seem to talk a lot about how the C part should be intact, but that doesn't appear in the challenge?

Edit: and can i use a card tower?
 
Last edited:
Fjolle said:
I dont understand. You seem to talk a lot about how the C part should be intact, but that doesn't appear in the challenge?

Edit: and can i use a card tower?
Click to expand...

In The Heiwa Challenge the final result must be that the part A structure is crushed by part C. Whether part C remains intact or not is of no importance.

Card structures are welcome but joints between cards cannot rely solely on friction. I recommend a little glue between the cards but not too much so that the joints become stronger than the cards.

Joints in part C must have equal strength of joints in part A. Do not cheat and make part C joints stronger than the part A joints.

Problem with card structures is that their masses are small. Better is a structure of steel plates glued together = more mass = more potential energy to break the fu...ng joints. Tip - chose a plate element that is stiff and does absorb minimum energy in elastic compression = loss of energy. You want the energy to break the joints, not to compress the elements.

So now you have a tower of stiff steel plates glued together. Every plate is glued to at least two other plates (except the top ones). Tip - keep number of joints minimum to reduce strain energy in joints of structure! Next condition is that it must withstand a small lateral impact without getting damaged. It ensures that the the joints are up to challenge standard.

Note that there are about 10 times more joints/elements in part A than in part C.

Now, remove joints between parts C and A and, TEST TIME, you drop C on A! Many things may happen. C bounces (try bigger drop height), some joints are damaged and some steel plate elements drop down (not good enough - try higher drop height) ... or all 100% joints are damaged in part A and you have a heep of steel plate elements on the ground of what was C and A.

If 70% of all the joints between elements in part A are broken after drop you are a winner.

It sounds easy but breaking joints with loose steel elements is not easy. The loose steel plate/card element (two joints broken) has really only one chance if it becomes loose and drops and maybe it decides to just slide off and not destroy a joint. &c, &c.

You'll learn a lot while building your structure. Go for heavy elements and weakest possible, fixed joints that withstand lateral force (the lateral test) but minimum vertical load. OK, upper part C must be as weak as the lower part A, so what happens at contact is of interest. Will part C actually apply all its energy on part A at impact and destroy A joints ... or will the energy be applied on something else ... or just pass through all elements/joints in part A and be absorbed by the ground? What really happens at impact? And later. You'll find out. This is a very educational Challenge.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
In The Heiwa Challenge the final result must be that the part A structure is crushed by part C. Whether part C remains intact or not is of no importance.

Card structures are welcome but joints between cards cannot rely solely on friction. I recommend a little glue between the cards but not too much so that the joints become stronger than the cards.

Joints in part C must have equal strength of joints in part A. Do not cheat and make part C joints stronger than the part A joints.

Problem with card structures is that their masses are small. Better is a structure of steel plates glued together = more mass = more potential energy to break the fu...ng joints. Tip - chose a plate element that is stiff and does absorb minimum energy in elastic compression = loss of energy. You want the energy to break the joints, not to compress the elements.

So now you have a tower of stiff steel plates glued together. Every plate is glued to at least two other plates (except the top ones). Tip - keep number of joints minimum to reduce strain energy in joints of structure! Next condition is that it must withstand a small lateral impact without getting damaged. It ensures that the the joints are up to challenge standard.

Note that there are about 10 times more joints/elements in part A than in part C.

Now, remove joints between parts C and A and, TEST TIME, you drop C on A! Many things may happen. C bounces (try bigger drop height), some joints are damaged and some steel plate elements drop down (not good enough - try higher drop height) ... or all 100% joints are damaged in part A and you have a heep of steel plate elements on the ground of what was C and A.

If 70% of all the joints between elements in part A are broken after drop you are a winner.

It sounds easy but breaking joints with loose steel elements is not easy. The loose steel plate/card element (two joints broken) has really only one chance if it becomes loose and drops and maybe it decides to just slide off and not destroy a joint. &c, &c.

You'll learn a lot while building your structure. Go for heavy elements and weakest possible, fixed joints that withstand lateral force (the lateral test) but minimum vertical load. OK, upper part C must be as weak as the lower part A, so what happens at contact is of interest. Will part C actually apply all its energy on part A at impact and destroy A joints ... or will the energy be applied on something else ... or just pass through all elements/joints in part A and be absorbed by the ground? What really happens at impact? And later. You'll find out. This is a very educational Challenge.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I missed that. Does anyone know how i scale a bolt to 1/4000? :jaw-dropp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom