It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Akareyon
We can't even agree what an average is
and that E=p*V
and now you try to tell me that you'd throw the "inevitability theory" overboard if I'd just post some fancy diagram
proving the change in tension per floor
that ultimately MUST go along with the crush-down.
No, really, sorry, I don't believe this discussion is going anywhere soon. I suggest we all stay friends and keep up our respect for each other, even if I won't change my mind about the laws of nature and you don't have to change your mind about the inevitability of gravitational progressive collapses. Is that okay for you?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
and that E=p*V
Ok, I agree with you.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
and that E=p*V
Ok, I agree with you.
You do? I would like to hear your explanation. It seems to me the only situation where (average) energy density as result of pressure makes any sense is in a fluid. How does it apply to building collapses?
See, Joey, that's not what I'm here for. Bazant and some of the other people at NIST and ASCE know exactly what they have done. They will have to answer a greater judge.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
SO then quit discussing it here and wasting your time.
Get cracking on that collapse program !!
Show NIST/Bazant/ASCE/CTBUH/etc.... that they are all fools !!!
Be a friggin' hero of the twoof movement !!!
Originally posted by Akareyon
I have found no explanation whatsoever for the "optimistic" assumption that the very structure that held itself up against several fires, one plane impact, one huge kerosene explosion, one bomb in the basement and several storms should suddenly be "doomed" out of the blue under its own weight...
In the meantime, my experiments were worthless because paper loops are more stable than steel...
What kind of circular logic is that? The potential energy didn't go up there for free, but it stayed up there for free, no tensile strength or resistive force needed, thank you, it's just in the weakest links.
And naaw, we cannot derive an average for the tension in the towers...
...but if Bazant and Greening say each floor's resistance was negligible...
...it's hewn in stone and not debatable because he's the expert.
Originally posted by Akareyon
But you reveal an interesting aspect of the debate, of which this discussion is but a small filament in the loom of threads. In some people's eyes, this seems to be some sort of game - who is right and who is not; a debate for the sake of a debate, a psychological battle against the patience and goodwill of honest seekers of peace, and love, and truth. I have seen such on both sides; left and right, truthers and debunkers, creationists and darwinists, feminists and patriachalists, capitalists and communists, sceptics and spiritualists. Most of them just repeat what they are being told by some authority figure.
Originally posted by Akareyon
Bazant and some of the other people at NIST and ASCE know exactly what they have done. They will have to answer a greater judge.
I discovered for myself a truth important enough to share. To share, not to shove it down people's throats.
Originally posted by Akareyon
Second: Fig. 4a-c in BV'07. I promise I will remain within the boundaries of Bazants paper from now on. If somebody builds something, he will make sure that the maxwell line is way above any m*g that can be expected. If it is below m*g, it will crush. With a FoS of 2, the maxwell line will even be two times m*g.
The area between the maxwell line and m*g is the energy needed to crush one floor.
It is already loaded, though (except for the topmost floor), hence, we substract m*g from F_c (because it's a little easier now to crush it). I didn't want to cheat but be as "optimistic" as possible towards collapse ;-)
Originally posted by -PLB-
Also not correct. The maxwell line itself determines the energy consumed when crushing one story. In other words, the energy to crush one story, divided by the height of one floor, results in F_c, or:
F_c = E_crush/h
And E_crush is determined by taking the integral of F(u). The area under F(u) is equal to the area under F_c. (I think by the way that F(z) in figure 4 should be F(u)). Note that this is almost literally explained in Bazants paper.
Originally posted by Akareyon
We're putting a stable and static structure under E_pot, remember? : )
It is already loaded, though (except for the topmost floor), hence, we substract m*g from F_c (because it's a little easier now to crush it). I didn't want to cheat but be as "optimistic" as possible towards collapse ;-)
But that's not the point, really. Let the first peaks of F(s) be somewhat twisted and deformed to account for the fact that there are a lot of chaotic processes going on in the impact zone. Makes Φ(s) a little smaller, that is true.
Then there must be something wrong either with my eyes or with Figs. 3 and 4a-c in BV'07 where F_c is designated as "maxwell line".
Originally posted by -PLB-
They do not occur simultaneously.
Now we agree. Sorry, I didn't know what it was called. But it should exist, that's what I'm saying, it was there just yesterday.
This force does not actually exists.
I tried to, but E=p*V didn't make sense to me either.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Akareyon
How about this, explain in your own words what F(u), F_c, and mg represent and how they relate to the forces in an actual collapse.