The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
newton3376 said:
Similar to Bill's response to the question "Can you give me one good reason why 911 was an inside job?"....

"I can't really. I just had a strong feeling it was and the videos on youtube made me wonder."

Ah truthers...

They are the finest investigooglers in the world....
Click to expand...

Investigoolers! I love it.
 
Heiwa said:
Hm, The Heiwa Challenge is open for everybody. Physics is a practical and experiemental science of the world around us. If anybody suggests that structures one-way crush down and self-destruct due to gravity, they should show this with real structures!! In The Heiwa Challenge only ONE structure suffices. No theoretical models are permitted.

Theoretical models suggesting that structures can one-way crush down when a part drops on the whole are very suspect. Bazant, BLGB and Seffen have a lot to explain, like NIST, FEMA, Purdue university, Mackey, etc. They can do it by participating in The Heiwa Challenge and produce ONE real structure that behaves as they postulate. Until then their theories are of no value. KISS.
Click to expand...

I do not know, why the OCTists are thinking, you should concede. Their model did not self-destruct, it only fall down. During the "collapse" of WTC 1,2 everybody can see, that there is no pile-driver oder pancaking floors (like in this model). The structure is pulverized during the crash like in a controlled demolition.
 
Last edited:
FineWine said:
Would you say that it was immature of Heiwa to offer money he doesn't have and make a wager he didn't intend to pay?
Click to expand...

In The Heiwa Challenge thread no money is at stake. Just honour = design and demonstrate a structure A that is one-way crushed down when a part C of A (C=1/10A) is dropped on A by gravity. Have a try! This anybody should be able to do at home.

In another thread = http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133271 money (plenty) was offered by me to selected candidates, if they could prove the same thing theoretically. I haven't heard from them since.

One person has actually produced a very impressive paper (in 1-D) showing what happens when C due gravity drop impacts A.

He considers a classical system of n material points constrained to move without friction along a straight line. Each material point i is characterized by a constant mass charge mi and by a position xi relative to an origin O (with infinite inertial mass) at position 0. It is supposed that two adjacent material points are linked by a potential (e.g. a spring), thereby forming a chain.

There are two chains, one C, free, that impacts another A that is fixed to ground. The potentials are assumed to first deform elastically and then break.

The potential yields a Lagrangian sum L of masses involved, giving two Euler-Lagrange equations of motion of all the mi masses involved in C and A due to their links and the contact forces. We can thus study what happens to chains C and A and their masses and links at impact.

Both C and A, their links, first deform elastically in various ways after impact - A more than C actually, because A is bigger and has more links - and a top link of A may in fact fail before a failure in a C link takes place. We are jointly working what happens next; when intact chain C continues to displace down into A with one damaged (top) link. Will a second link in A fail? When does the first link in C fail?

It would appear that at some time in 1-D a link in C fails and that it is the start of the arrest of link failures. Chain A arrests chain C.

We are even developing the model into 2-D. Links and masses can then displace sideways! Then A arrests C even quicker. Quite interesting stuff. I will send the final paper to ASCE JEM when we have put it all together.

Anyway, it seems it is possible to show theoretically that it is impossible to produce a structure A that is one-way crushed down by a part C of A being dropped on by gravity. But you can always try.
 
Heiwa said:
Anyway, it seems it is possible to show theoretically that it is impossible to produce a structure A that is one-way crushed down by a part C of A being dropped on by gravity. But you can always try.
Click to expand...

See: WTC 1 and WTC 2.
 
These people raise the incomprehension of Bazant's model to an art form.... *face palm*
 
my latest entry
although theres some problem with the floor texture i gotta figure out :(



64 levels
2305 pieces
 
releaseeabode said:
Typically JREF thread.

1770 posts the majority of which are irrelevant or personal attacks.

Keep going Heiwa.
Click to expand...
Typical no evidence truther can't defend Heiwa's work except with whining. Where are your calculations to support Heiwa's work? You have nothing! Typical.

You failed; Heiwa was proved wrong on 911 and you posted off topic whining the only thing you have produced at JREF as a JREF poster instead of presenting the evidence. The evidence you don't have.

Please tell me how Heiwa work is credible? Got engineering?
 
I have a serious question. Would the following structure satisfy all of the required elements of the challenge.

I take 4 steel rods with holes in them (like what you'd use for those closet hangers). I use these 4 steel rods as columns. I attach 10 bricks, floors, to these 4 rods using toothpicks and glue. The only thing holding up the brick is 4 toothpicks connecting it to the steel rod. I drop a brick onto the top "floor", breaking the toothpicks, causing a progressive collapse all the way down.

If someone built that, would that win?
 
Anti,

Yes, it should. But, he will make up some new rule about how there were no pizza boxes or linguini in it, so it doesn't count.
 
Anti-sophist said:
I have a serious question. Would the following structure satisfy all of the required elements of the challenge.

I take 4 steel rods with holes in them (like what you'd use for those closet hangers). I use these 4 steel rods as columns. I attach 10 bricks, floors, to these 4 rods using toothpicks and glue. The only thing holding up the brick is 4 toothpicks connecting it to the steel rod. I drop a brick onto the top "floor", breaking the toothpicks, causing a progressive collapse all the way down.

If someone built that, would that win?
Click to expand...

So we have the following elements in part A; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 bricks, unknown number of toothpicks.
Then we have unknown number of connections - glue.

You are supposed to disconnect part C from part A so C = A/10 A, e.g. 1 brick + pieces of steel rods, toothpicks and glue connections.

And then drop C on A. Will C one-way crush down A?

Probably not. There will be local failures at contact bottom of C with top of A. I have a feeling many connections will not fail and that many toothpicks will remain undamaged. The steel rods will not get damaged at all and the same with the bricks. So you fail!
 
Last edited:
See, my point exactly.

Um, you got one of those Insta-Goalposts don't you??? Just push a button, and it fold up into a nice near pile, then you roll it over to the next place, push another button, and VWALA!! New goalposts!!
 
Heiwa said:
So we have the following elements in part A; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 bricks, unknown number of toothpicks.
Then we have unknown number of connections - glue.

You are supposed to disconnect part C from part A so C = A/10 A, e.g. 1 brick + pieces of steel rods, toothpicks and glue connections.

And then drop C on A. Will C one-way crush down A?

Probably not. There will be local failures at contact bottom of C with top of A. I have a feeling many connections will not fail and that many toothpicks will remain undamaged. The steel rods will not get damaged at all and the same with the bricks. So you fail!
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that your warm buttocks will not get damaged by a thick prick.
 
Heiwa said:
So we have the following elements in part A; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 bricks, unknown number of toothpicks.
Then we have unknown number of connections - glue.
Click to expand...

Let's say 40 toothpicks, 4 per brick. And 80 connections, glue, gluing the toothpick to both the brick and the steel.

And then drop C on A. Will C one-way crush down A?

Probably not. There will be local failures at contact bottom of C with top of A. I have a feeling many connections will not fail and that many toothpicks will remain undamaged.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one who keeps bemoaning scenarios and mental theorizing? I'm not asking what you THINK will happen. This is about your challenge and what does and does not qualify as an "approved" structure. I'm asking IF it resulted in a progressive collapse, would it satisfy your challenge? Does this structure meet all of your required elements?

The steel rods will not get damaged at all and the same with the bricks.
Click to expand...

Nothing in your original challenge said ANYTHING about damaging the components. You said...

Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.


I feel that your "answer" didn't really answer my question. Let's presume I built this. Let's presume that I drop a brick onto the top floor.. and let's presume that the resulting collapse disconnects every brick from no less than 3 of the columns. This means that more than 75% of the connections will have been broken, nothing will be standing, and the "building" is completely collapsed.

If this was built, and if it collapsed as I've stated, does this satisfy your challenge?
 
Anti-sophist said:
Nothing in your original challenge said ANYTHING about damaging the components. You said...

Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.
Click to expand...

Good point. He tried to pull the same schtick with me when I proposed my model.

Heiwa, here is my model that I am going to use and beat your challenge.

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom