The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

A lie just like the million dollars and your moronic axiom. Did you decide this after you woke up from passing out and forgot you terminated the challenge?

You terminated your delusional challenge after 7 years, 11 months, and 12 days of super stupid axioms and dirt dumb engineering where gravity is ignored.

So is your delusional challenged proved wrong on 911 terminated or are you still on your quest to be the most delusional engineer on earth?

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!

 

[MIKILLINI]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!

Actually, you're not. The challenge was flawed from the begining and you know it.

 

[tsig]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!

So you owe yourself one million dollars. You'll never collect 'cause the better is a welsher.

 

[beachnut]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!

You post the delusion as if it had merit. Your idea was proved wrong by Robertson. Robertson built the WTC towers you have built a moronic delusion; you lost and you ...

As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. ...

because it is a delusion.

To prove you don't have a delusion you have to take the Beachy Challenge and get the endorsement of 7 University Engineering Departments or your Challenge is a super moronic delusions. Go! I will give you a week to post the first endorsement and have it published in the news. The University Engineering programs must be accredited. Go!

Take some action. Are you going to fail the Beachy Challenge? Yes, too bad I can't win the Randi Challenge, but it is common knowledge and not predicting the future when it comes to your failure; a sure thing.

 

[Heiwa]

The challenge was flawed from the begining and you know it.

Not really. Here we are >2100 posts later and no winner, except me, and plenty whiners. Many thanks to JREF hosting the challenge.

 

[releaseeabode]

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

Not to mention the efficiency of the process for conversion of that kinetic energy into useful work or the power output.

 

[Carlos]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF -

Kinetic energy depends on two variables.

 

[Minadin]

Not to mention the efficiency of the process for conversion of that kinetic energy into useful work or the power output.

Word Salad

That was actually slightly less comprehendable than most of Heiwa's posts.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Not really. Here we are >2100 posts later and no winner, except me, and plenty whiners. Many thanks to JREF hosting the challenge.

There's no whiners here, heiwa. They know your challenge had fundamental flaws and have pointed out those flaws. You can pat yourself on the back for winning the flawed challenge thread though.

 

[releaseeabode]

Word Salad

That was actually slightly less comprehendable than most of Heiwa's posts.

So why not request an elaboration from me instead of just responding with irrelevance?

I don't deal with irrelevance, welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It seems you haven't studied http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm ?

I've had a quick look. I see that you're assuming that, when the top section hits the bottom section, no energy is transferred to the lower structure if the supports of the upper structure are the first to break, therefore in effect you're ignoring the kinetic energy of the upper structure. Since it's the kinetic energy of the upper structure that causes the collapse, it's hardly surprising that you conclude collapse doesn't propagate. Unfortunately, in real life, the kinetic energy of the upper structure has to go somewhere, and the lower structure is the only place for it to go.

I like the picture that explains it, when gravity is ignored:

There's a tiny little error you've made in there. Can you spot it?

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

I've had a quick look.
I see that you're assuming that, when the top section hits the bottom section, no energy is transferred to the lower structure if the supports of the upper structure are the first to break, therefore in effect you're ignoring the kinetic energy of the upper structure. Since it's the kinetic energy of the upper structure that causes the collapse, it's hardly surprising that you conclude collapse doesn't propagate. Unfortunately, in real life, the kinetic energy of the upper structure has to go somewhere, and the lower structure is the only place for it to go.



There's a tiny little error you've made in there. Can you spot it?

Dave

Thanks for looking at my paper. Evidently, when upper, moving part C contacts non-moving, fixed to ground part A, the kinetic energy of C is applied by both C, A and ground. No other energy is applied to the system C/A/ground.

So what does this energy do? Where does it go? Collapse A? Sorry! You have not read my paper to the end.

Evidently the energy deforms C, A and ground (the system). Where else can it go? What else can it do?

That the energy is only destroying part A is OCT nonsense.

Have you ever heard of a bounce? An upper part C bouncing on a lower part A connected to ground! It happens when C, A and ground just deform at impact. The energy applied results in a bounce of part C!

Have you ever heard of local failures in a collision C/A? It happens, when there is no bounce. The energy applied results in local failures in both C and A (ground just shaking).

In no case can C one way crush down A, when C and A have similar structures. C is too weak to apply its energy on A. C is destroyed before A.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In no case can C one way crush down A, when C and A have similar structures. C is too weak to apply its energy on A. C is destroyed before A.

And this is a prime example of scientific illiteracy. C cannot be destroyed. It can be broken into an arbitrarily large number of pieces, but those pieces still exist, still have mass, and still have momentum. That momentum can only be absorbed by A or the ground, and the ground can only absorb momentum from debris that falls outside the lower structure. Therefore, the lower block has to absorb the majority of the momentum of the upper block, however badly the upper block is damaged. And that absorption of momentum is by exerting an upward force on C; and that upward force is greater than the ultimate strength of A. So A collapses.

Dave

 

[Carlos]

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Doesn't it refers to crush down the whole structure below at the same time?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Doesn't it refers to crush down the whole structure below at the same time?

I don't know, but it doesn't refer to reality.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Therefore, the lower block has to absorb the majority of the momentum of the upper block, however badly the upper block is damaged.

And that absorption of momentum is by exerting an upward force on C; and that upward force is greater than the ultimate strength of A. So A collapses.

Dave

So lower part A has to absorb the majority of the momentum of upper part C?

What does it mean? We know the mass m_C and velocity v_C of upper part C and its momentum just prior impact.

We also know the mass m_A of the lower part A and the mass m_G of the G(round).

As the latter is very great it is safe to say that the velocity of lower part A after impact is 0!

What else can we say? That upper part C gets badly damaged? Yes, I agree with that. Thanks.

You are right that part A, when C impacts A, apply a force F on C, and that C is badly damaged.

Note, that A applies this force F on C, when A has velocity 0. This force F cannot damage A.

Evidently part C applies a force -F on part A, but, as we know that part A is bigger and stronger than part C, it will be less damaged than part C. Nothing will collapse when C impacts A. Either C bounces on A or there are local damages to C and A at interface C/A.

Therefore part C cannot one-way crush down part A.

Pls, do not use the word block when referring to C and A.

 

[willhaven]

1) You can't ignore gravity.
2) As C collapses into A, bits of A are essentially converted into bits of C.
3) Gravity pulls both A and C toward the ground. A is not as strong as the ground.

Imagine taking C straight up in the air a half mile, a mile, whatever arbitrary distance you think is "really really far." Drop C straight down on a windless day and have it impact A dead center. Would C bounce off of A or would it crush right through it?

The WTC towers weren't stacks of building blocks. You can't remove the top of the tower and have the same structural rigidity that you did before.

 

[Heiwa]

Doesn't it refers to crush down the whole structure below at the same time?

According NIST, famous US expert authority, global collapse of a structure ensues, when you apply energy to the structure, which exceeds the capacity of the structure to absorb it as strain. The energy is apparently applied by an outside moving body (an upper part?) that cannot be destroyed. The time for the global collapse is the time it takes to apply the energy to all parts of the structure. Clear? If you don't understand and try to question NIST, NIST will not reply and clarify this strange process.

According Bazant & Co, famous US expert on creep, crush down of a structure occurs, when you drop something on it (an upper part?) and when the structure suffers local failures and elements of the structure are compacted and compressed. This phenomenon is then repeated until there are no more elements to compact and compress of the poor structure; the structure then concists of a big Box of rubble, part B(azant).

Then, a miracle happens!! The big Bazant Box of rubble applies a force on the upper part and POUFF - it is destroyed. Result is a heap of rubble - the Bazant Box decides to collapse! It is a very funny theory, it really gives you the creep.

Thanks for joining the discussion. The Heiwa Challenge is closed, though!

 

[Dave Rogers]

As the latter is very great it is safe to say that the velocity of lower part A after impact is 0!

Wrong. The lower part A, after the impact, is no longer the lower part A; it's partly A, and partly B, the intermediate layer of rubble, which does not have zero velocity.

Evidently part C applies a force -F on part A, but, as we know that part A is bigger and stronger than part C, it will be less damaged than part C.

Except that we know that part A was damaged prior to the collapse, as the collapses both initiated above the aircraft damage zones. So we don't actually know that A was stronger. Plus, we don't know that the smaller (if it is smaller) amount of damage inflicted on A is too small to propagate collapse.

Nothing will collapse when C impacts A. Either C bounces on A or there are local damages to C and A at interface C/A.

Sufficient local damage to A will cause collapse. Since you have no idea how much local damage will be caused to A, you can't claim to know that nothing will collapse.

Dave

 

[Carlos]

According NIST, famous US expert authority, global collapse of a structure ensues, when you apply energy to the structure, which exceeds the capacity of the structure to absorb it as strain. The energy is apparently applied by an outside moving body (an upper part?) that cannot be destroyed. The time for the global collapse is the time it takes to apply the energy to all parts of the structure. Clear? If you don't understand and try to question NIST, NIST will not reply and clarify this strange process.

According Bazant & Co, famous US expert on creep, crush down of a structure occurs, when you drop something on it (an upper part?) and when the structure suffers local failures and elements of the structure are compacted and compressed. This phenomenon is then repeated until there are no more elements to compact and compress of the poor structure; the structure then concists of a big Box of rubble, part B(azant).

Then, a miracle happens!! The big Bazant Box of rubble applies a force on the upper part and POUFF - it is destroyed. Result is a heap of rubble - the Bazant Box decides to collapse! It is a very funny theory, it really gives you the creep.

Thanks for joining the discussion. The Heiwa Challenge is closed, though!

Thanks Heiwa, but I was talking about the Björkman's axiom.

If the weight of 98th to 110th floor were able to crush down the 97th floor columns, why weren't the 97th to 110th floor able to crush down the 96th floor?

Is it because the bottom floors cross section was greater than the upper floors cross section?