Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

tfk said:
This is immaterial to bill & Heiwa, to whom we have explained this about 200x. Another 200x won't matter.

But for anyone else who might be wondering...



Wrong. Away from the crush zone, Part A and Part C are both considered to be "rigid bodies".

"Rigid body" does NOT mean "indestructible".

Rigid body means that the component is considered by the analysis to move (or stand still) as a single unit. It means that the analysis does not worry about how one part of the "rigid part" flexes or deforms with respect to another part of the same rigid body.

But once the stresses on A PORTION of the rigid body exceed ultimate strength levels, or the energy imparted on A PORTION of the rigid body exceed the strain energy absorbing capacity of THAT PORTION of the rigid body, then THAT PORTION of the rigid body will fail. And the part that fails will no longer be part if its parent rigid body.

It is an approximation. It is a very good approximation that greatly simplifies the math, while having very, very little impact on the answer. It is not "a mistake" that invalidates the analysis.

It is exactly like the "perfect gas law" (PV=nRT). This "law" is an approximation that applies for a limited band of pressures, volumes & temperatures. It is fundamentally wrong. But it is a very, very good approximation that gives you very, very good answers for those who understand the limits of its applicability.

Heiwa's continuing harping that this assumption is a mistake that makes Bazant's analysis "wrong" is a joke.


Tom
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
Why don't you tell us how the meaning of the word 'rigid' deviates from it's standard english meaning when used in an engineering context ?

Or maybe you can direct me to a 'concise dictionary of English as used in Engineering'
Click to expand...
He did. As did I. As did Mackey. As did Newtons Bit...
"Rigid Body"= Motion between components of the rigid body are of negligible concern, and not considered.
The entire system is considered to move as a single unit for simplification purposes.
I-and others - have explained this time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time
and you troofers exhibit their stupidity by ignoring it.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is not. You have a terminal case.
 
Heiwa said:
You are right. Bazant suggests the opposite and that it is superfluous to argue against that. So I argue against that. Please, wrap a wet towel around your head, cool down, and start to ... think.
Click to expand...

Listen up you arrogant twit. Here is your exact quote:
Heiwa said:
So you see, gravity driven progressive collapse, where upper part C first one-way crushes down lower part A into rubble part B, and then gets crushed up by the rubble part B is a normal phenomenon and further analysis is really superfluous for structural engineers according expert Bazant & Co. Idiots, like you and me, are not supposed to ask any questions or do our own analysis.
Click to expand...

Do you see that part I bolded and enlarged for you? You say it's a "normal phenomenon". I don't see anything before it that says "Bazant wants us to think it's a" or anything of the sort.

I was just asking for a clarification. It sounds like you have an issue with Bazant not wanting us to ask questions, NOT with the bolded part.

You need to come off your high and mighty pedestal before you fall off and hurt yourself.

My apologies ahead of time to the admins for the rant.

If you want to continue to be a pompous ass, that's your choice.
 
rwguinn said:
He did. As did I. As did Mackey. As did Newtons Bit...
"Rigid Body"= Motion between components of the rigid body are of negligible concern, and not considered.
The entire system is considered to move as a single unit for simplification purposes.
I-and others - have explained this time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time
and you troofers exhibit their stupidity by ignoring it.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is not. You have a terminal case.
Click to expand...

Would this definition of 'a rigid body' mean that Part C would only have to be 'complete' as regards the number of it's components (see definition below) to be considered rigid in engineeering terms. After all you DO say:-

''Motion between components of the rigid body are of negligible concern''


Complete,adj....def...[Having every necessary or normal part or component]
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
You are right. Bazant suggests the opposite and that it is superfluous to argue against that. So I argue against that. Please, wrap a wet towel around your head, cool down, and start to ... think.
Click to expand...

Even if you could somehow show that Bazant is wrong...

..he would still not be nearly as wrong as you are.
 
tfk said:
.
If you were not such a inveterate, shameless wanker, I might tell you that the definition of the word "rigid" is irrelevant. And that the definition of the word "body" is irrelevant.

If you weren't such a wanker, I might tell you that the term "rigid body" is an engineering & physics phrase. With its own specific definition that is unrelated to the English definitions of either word.

If you weren't such a wanker, I'd suggest that you look it up, and pay particular attention to the "kinematic" and / or "engineering dynamics" definition.

Unfortunately, you ARE such a wanker, so...

tk
Click to expand...

Nominated
 
bill smith said:
Would this definition of 'a rigid body' mean that Part C would only have to be 'complete' as regards the number of it's components (see definition below) to be considered rigid in engineeering terms. After all you DO say:-

''Motion between components of the rigid body are of negligible concern''


Complete,adj....def...[Having every necessary or normal part or component]
Click to expand...

A rigid, turgid, throbbing body would seem your style.

Hot motion and lotion.
 
bill smith said:
I was looking up some of T's scientific terminology . This explained some of it.

http://lolfactory.blogspot.com/2007/03/angry-kid-whats-wanker.html
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about terminology, perhaps you should start a new thread. This one is about "Why a One-Way Crush Down is Impossible", a topic which has been shown to be demonstrably invalid.

There's really nothing more to say on the subject, unless you want to continue to harp on how wrong it is.

Hey, I'm up for it.
 
Heiwa,

Heiwa said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD126r9ihaw
Click to expand...

Well, how about that. A 24 story building whose collapse arrested after about 13 floors of crush down.

Thank you very much for providing falsification of your silly "axiom".

At first, it was a bit surprising that the falsification came from you. After a little reflection, it is not surprising at all. Because not even you understand what your dumb axiom is all about. Because it is just a bunch of words without an underpinning, self-consistent theory.

So, thanks again. You MADE my evening.

Tom
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'll let you guess for yourself.

Dave
Click to expand...

Hey Dave....did you see Heiwa's video a few posts back ? What do you think happened to arrest the collapse ?
Do you think that some of the demolition charges failed to detonate leaving the frame intact enough to bring the collapse to an end ?
 
bill, wake me up when your delightful movement can still exist when I turn my computer off
 
Heiwa,

Heiwa said:
Well, explain carefully why a one-way Crush down of a structure is possible and do not whine about questions without answers, the latter being a common trait of, e.g. the 911 Commission, FBI, NIST, etc.
Click to expand...
.
You, sir, have a damn lot of gall to write this.

A dozen people here, including me, treated you with professional respect. We engaged you in conversation, answered your question directly and honestly.

In return, you played your constant "duck, dodge & hide" game.

And congratulated yourself on your cleverness.

Sorry, Heiwa. You are not 1/100th as clever as you think you are.

You're not clever in engineering, where your mistakes are patently obvious to all of us. And your defense, "refusing to talk about the glaring errors", is a source of huge amounts of amusement and laughter

You're not clever in psychology. Even the non-tech folks find your games trivially transparent.

So, that was NOT "whining", Heiwa. It was a statement of simple fact when debating a dishonest person.

And the PROOF that the above is true is the 20 or so posts of mine, and (I'm guessing) 100s of others', which you've simply refused to ackowledge or answer.

Hey look. There's one right there. Post #2 in this thread.

Imagine that...

tom
 
tfk said:
Heiwa,



Well, how about that. A 24 story building whose collapse arrested after about 13 floors of crush down.

Thank you very much for providing falsification of your silly "axiom".

At first, it was a bit surprising that the falsification came from you. After a little reflection, it is not surprising at all. Because not even you understand what your dumb axiom is all about. Because it is just a bunch of words without an underpinning, self-consistent theory.

So, thanks again. You MADE my evening.

Tom
Click to expand...

My pleasure, Tom. Actually a fan of mine provided the link. But do not call an axiom silly and dumb. Try to demonstrate that it is not true! It's like parallell lines never cross. You say they cross but cannot pinpoint where.
There is no theory behind an axiom. Either you accept it or not. But then you have to consider the consequences, e.g. that a one-way crush down is possible, normal and natural and associated destruction of property and killing of people is just an unfortunate result. On the other hand - my axiom applies - you have to act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom