• 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.
I don't even understand why the hell you care so much about the antenna. It was was obviously supported well enough as it was standing there for decades. But do carry on chasing your tail around for our amusement.
 
bill smith said:
Look at thiis photo and the lack of support cables and then look at the blue structure and imagine how the support for the giant 30-storey mast worked without being attached to the core columns.
http://www.city-data.com/cpic/ufiles516.jpg antenna hi-res
Click to expand...

The mast is bolted to the blue platform and, as probably the core columns are pretty weak up top, they put in the four extra hat truss frames to support the platform and transmit loads to eight wall perimeter columns.

And for some reasons they put in four extra hat truss frames lined up with the edges of the core, e.g. to connect the core corner columns with the perimeter.

When in doubt, design/build strong!
 
bill smith said:
Do you want to answer post 855 Dave ?
Click to expand...

OK. Post 855 is mind-bendingly idiotic. It assumes that, because the support cables are not clearly visible on a specific photograph, despite the fact that they are clearly visible on other photographs, they do not therefore exist. This is a common pattern for you; it seems that, if you can find a single image that doesn't show a specific object, you therefore assert that the object doesn't exist, however many images of it you are shown. In the face of such denial, there's little to say.

In fact, as everyone but you - I mean, even Heiwa can figure this out - understands, the antenna was supported by the hat truss. The hat truss was in turn attached to the core columns and the perimeter columns, making the attachment of the antenna even stronger than if it had been directly attached to the core columns alone.

Dave
 
Heiwa said:
The mast is bolted to the blue platform and, as probably the core columns are pretty weak up top, they put in the four extra hat truss frames to support the platform and transmit loads to eight wall perimeter columns.

And for some reasons they put in four extra hat truss frames lined up with the edges of the core, e.g. to connect the core corner columns with the perimeter.

When in doubt, design/build strong!
Click to expand...

If it was only bolted to the top of the blue construction the forces at the point of contact must ave been enormoous when the wind blew what with a 30-story lever acting directly on the connection.The cabling was visibly not viable. Any force would hve been downwards at an angle. The blue thing ddidn't look like it was designed to deal with that direction of force and it wasn't that strong as you say yourself..
 
Last edited:
bill, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about so why the hell do you pretend like you do?
 
bill smith said:
If it was only bolted to the top of the blue construction the forces at the point of contact must ave been enormoous when the wind blew what with a 30-story lever acting directly on the connection.The cabling was visibly not viable. Any force would hve been downwards at an angle. The blue thing ddidn't look like it was designed to deal with that direction of force and it wasn't that strong as you say yourself..
Click to expand...

Truthers really don't know when to shut up, do they?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Can you calculate vector sums? If so, what is the resultant force from the vector sum of the following: lateral force due to wind, vertical compressive stress in the base connection of the antenna, and the tension in the diagonal bracing wire?

Dave
Click to expand...
You should really just go ahead and lay all your excellent pictures with the strong cabling on us. Even your best one would help.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Can you calculate vector sums? If so, what is the resultant force from the vector sum of the following: lateral force due to wind, vertical compressive stress in the base connection of the antenna, and the tension in the diagonal bracing wire?

Dave
Click to expand...

He should also assume a 360ft tall antenna, 30ft effective width (for calculating wind forces), and a design wind pressure of 100psf. It will also be easiest to assume that the base of the tower is pinned rather fixed (which it wasn't).

I've already run the numbers. 2x3.5"Ø 100ksi cables on each face of the antenna are sufficient.
 
bill smith said:
You should really just go ahead and lay all your excellent pictures with the strong cabling on us. Even your best one one would help.
Click to expand...

It's a fascinating debating technique, isn't it - pretend the evidence doesn't exist even though you've been shown it, then try to ridicule anyone who reminds you that you've already seen it.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's a fascinating debating technique, isn't it - pretend the evidence doesn't exist even though you've been shown it, then try to ridicule anyone who reminds you that you've already seen it.

Dave
Click to expand...

I am only askng for pictures of the cables Dave, We have mny pictures of the antenna but the cables are missing in most of them. The ones that do have a couple together on one side look very insufficient to restrain a 30-storey antenna.Not to say one-sided. There is no riducule involved.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
He should also assume a 360ft tall antenna, 30ft effective width (for calculating wind forces), and a design wind pressure of 100psf. It will also be easiest to assume that the base of the tower is pinned rather fixed (which it wasn't).

I've already run the numbers. 2x3.5"Ø 100ksi cables on each face of the antenna are sufficient.
Click to expand...

Why not answer my question ?
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's a fascinating debating technique, isn't it - pretend the evidence doesn't exist even though you've been shown it, then try to ridicule anyone who reminds you that you've already seen it.

Dave
Click to expand...

It's a useful stonewalling tactic for tiny internet forums. The heavy reliance on this rather shabby ploy by "truthers" explains why their crazy movement went nowhere. Imagine them sitting before a congressional investigating committee. Heiwa is spouting absolute gibberish, while the rest of them are displaying shocking ignorance of basic science, pretending that they can't see objects in photos, and accusing everyone who refutes their nonsense of lying.
 
bill smith said:
I am only askng for pictures of the cables Dave, We have mny pictures of the antenna but the cables are mising in most of them. The ones tht do have a couple together on one side look very insufficient to rstrain a 30-storey antenna.Not to say one-sided. There is no riducule involved.
Click to expand...

In the post I linked, and you responded to, there is a photograph in which at least ten guy wires are clearly visible, running in at least four different directions. If you can't see them - and I really am not joking here, you may actually have visual difficulties - I think you may need to consider an eye test. I have mild long sight but I can still see six of them clearly even without my glasses.

It's a little hard to know how to respond to you. You keep asking for evidence you've already been shown, and that's clearly visible to everyone except you.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
In the post I linked, and you responded to, there is a photograph in which at least ten guy wires are clearly visible, running in at least four different directions. If you can't see them - and I really am not joking here, you may actually have visual difficulties - I think you may need to consider an eye test. I have mild long sight but I can still see six of them clearly even without my glasses.

It's a little hard to know how to respond to you. You keep asking for evidence you've already been shown, and that's clearly visible to everyone except you.

Dave
Click to expand...

I see them now that I blew the picture up. There seem to be none on the side where the camera is. Can you explain that ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom