I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

  • 14383 Replies
  • 1978717 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #420 on: February 10, 2015, 12:44:48 PM »
(video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close)

The structure surrounding the core collapsed that quickly, but the core of WTC 1 took about 4-6 more seconds to collapse.  Regardless, if you take the collapse on the view of the conspiracy theorists, the model becomes more likely to have a progressive collapse is the point to take away from this.

Nice work.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #421 on: February 10, 2015, 01:29:09 PM »
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

You're a millionaire now!
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #422 on: February 10, 2015, 07:51:21 PM »
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.  Then make a model and drop top C on bottom A to see what happens, e.g. a bounce!
Yes, 45 000 000 kg will bounce full scale.

Suggest your model is smaller.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 08:32:00 PM by Heiwa »

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #423 on: February 10, 2015, 07:54:11 PM »
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #424 on: February 12, 2015, 12:05:43 AM »
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?

I was thinking of your innovative deceleration distance 1 m, whatever it can be! Imagine if it was 0. Then your impact force is quite big, to say the least.
Don't you agree?
But then the impact force only lasts for 0 seconds, so it will not cause any damage what so ever. The top remains stuck on top.

My calculations are much simpler. A certain amount of energy (J) or (Nm) is applied to the structure, when top C contacts bottom A after a drop of a certain height. It, the energy, compresses both C and A and may cause some local damages at interface C/A. But both C and A decompress (like springs) and C remains on top of A.

Unless the energy destroys top C from bottom up, of course

Any force applied by C at the impact C/A is simply transmitted to the support below A (ground/planet Earth) via A and disappears. It takes very little time.

I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.


*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #425 on: February 12, 2015, 12:32:38 AM »
LOL..... for once in his life, poor old Björkman couldn't think of any comeback.  I've obviously got him on the run!

He claims to be a much in demand, world-renowned engineering expert, but strangely, doesn't even rate one single entry in Wikipedia.  Even "Bozo the Clown" has eight Wikipedia pages devoted to him and his history. 

Does this mean that Bozo is more eminent and more in demand than the "great" boat mechanic Anders Björkman?     ;D


*

Arith

  • 351
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #426 on: February 12, 2015, 03:40:56 AM »
Quote
I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.

He also seems to think that buildings are loaded up with foam and springs. Because jumping on your bed is a GREAT analogue to a collapsing building.

Where did you say you got your 'engineering degree' from?

Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #427 on: February 12, 2015, 04:24:24 AM »
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?

I was thinking of your innovative deceleration distance 1 m, whatever it can be! Imagine if it was 0. Then your impact force is quite big, to say the least.
Don't you agree?
But then the impact force only lasts for 0 seconds, so it will not cause any damage what so ever. The top remains stuck on top.

My calculations are much simpler. A certain amount of energy (J) or (Nm) is applied to the structure, when top C contacts bottom A after a drop of a certain height. It, the energy, compresses both C and A and may cause some local damages at interface C/A. But both C and A decompress (like springs) and C remains on top of A.

Unless the energy destroys top C from bottom up, of course

Any force applied by C at the impact C/A is simply transmitted to the support below A (ground/planet Earth) via A and disappears. It takes very little time.

I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.

I suggest you go and read about how impact forces are calculated. I use 1 meter as a simplification and to underestimate the impact force. The actual impact probably occurred over just a few centimeters which would increase the impact force by an order of magnitude.

The premise here is very simple. The bottom can support x amount of load before failing. The impact of 45,000 tonnes of building falling 2-3 meters is going to significantly higher than x. I'm talking orders of magnitude higher.

As for jumping on my bed. If I jumped on my bed in the middle it would fail. The central wooden beam supporting the mattress  simply could not support a fully grown adult landing on it even from a height of a foot. This is an excellent example of the differences between static and dynamic loading. My bed will happily support two grown adults but will fail when one adult lands on it.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #428 on: February 12, 2015, 04:49:28 AM »
Heiwa - seeing as you won't actually answer the question.

Each floor had a dead load tolerance of about +30%.

When floors 93-110 fell they dropped approx. 3 metres onto floor 92 with a total weight of 45,000 tonnes. Even assuming that the acceleration was not at or close to gravitational free fall (video of the collapse shows the entire collapse in 10s versus 8s for pure free fall and therefore was fairly close), lets say 50% resulting in about 5 m/s/s.

Impact force from a falling object is calculated as:

Force = mass x acceleration x height / deceleration distance

Lets assume an extremely generous deceleration distance of 1 metre (it was probably far less than this in reality).

The result is: 45,000,000 kg x 5 m/s/s x 3 metres / 1 metre = 675,000,000 kg of force.

This is 1500% of standard dead load and two orders of magnitude higher than the maximum dead load tolerance.

Result = collapse.

This then repeats over each floor with increasing mass and initial velocity.

What is collapsing? The 45 000 000 kg falling top part C? Try to get your units correct, too.

45,000 tonnes is 45,000,000 kg. maybe you should get your units correct?

I was thinking of your innovative deceleration distance 1 m, whatever it can be! Imagine if it was 0. Then your impact force is quite big, to say the least.
Don't you agree?
But then the impact force only lasts for 0 seconds, so it will not cause any damage what so ever. The top remains stuck on top.

My calculations are much simpler. A certain amount of energy (J) or (Nm) is applied to the structure, when top C contacts bottom A after a drop of a certain height. It, the energy, compresses both C and A and may cause some local damages at interface C/A. But both C and A decompress (like springs) and C remains on top of A.

Unless the energy destroys top C from bottom up, of course

Any force applied by C at the impact C/A is simply transmitted to the support below A (ground/planet Earth) via A and disappears. It takes very little time.

I suggest you go and jump on your bed. You will find that you will bounce.

I suggest you go and read about how impact forces are calculated. I use 1 meter as a simplification and to underestimate the impact force. The actual impact probably occurred over just a few centimeters which would increase the impact force by an order of magnitude.

The premise here is very simple. The bottom can support x amount of load before failing. The impact of 45,000 tonnes of building falling 2-3 meters is going to significantly higher than x. I'm talking orders of magnitude higher.

As for jumping on my bed. If I jumped on my bed in the middle it would fail. The central wooden beam supporting the mattress  simply could not support a fully grown adult landing on it even from a height of a foot. This is an excellent example of the differences between static and dynamic loading. My bed will happily support two grown adults but will fail when one adult lands on it.

I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm .

Your mistake is to assume that top part C - 45 000 000 kg - is solid and cannot deform, when it contacts bottom part A 400 000 kg. As top part C is weaker than bottom part A it will only bounce on A with some local deformations in interface C/A.

The US 911 terrorists made the same mistake. It seems you are a terrorist supporter by fooling around with your theories. Shape up!


Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #429 on: February 12, 2015, 06:15:29 AM »
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #430 on: February 12, 2015, 06:23:15 AM »
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm .
It's just a shame that you couldn't get that oil tanker design approved by the US Coast Guard.
The Coulombi Egg Tanker is a design that is aimed at reducing oil spills. It was designed by Anders Björkman. It was approved by IMO as an alternative to the double hull concept. The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built
I guess the Coast Guard is run by terrorists too.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #431 on: February 12, 2015, 10:32:30 AM »
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #432 on: February 12, 2015, 10:39:03 AM »
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm .
It's just a shame that you couldn't get that oil tanker design approved by the US Coast Guard.
The Coulombi Egg Tanker is a design that is aimed at reducing oil spills. It was designed by Anders Björkman. It was approved by IMO as an alternative to the double hull concept. The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built
I guess the Coast Guard is run by terrorists too.

The United States Coast Guard, USCG, is nowadays part of US Department of Homeland Security so you never know. Foreign seamen arriving at US ports are all suspects and cannot leave their ships until checked by USCG/DHS getting frisked, fingerprinted, photos taken, etc, etc. And then they need a permit to pass through the port area ... and will be checked again going back to the ship. But who wants to visit the US bars outside the port? Are they safe?

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #433 on: February 12, 2015, 10:41:52 AM »
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis. The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions. http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm .
It's just a shame that you couldn't get that oil tanker design approved by the US Coast Guard.
The Coulombi Egg Tanker is a design that is aimed at reducing oil spills. It was designed by Anders Björkman. It was approved by IMO as an alternative to the double hull concept. The United States Coast Guard does not allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built
I guess the Coast Guard is run by terrorists too.

The United States Coast Guard, USCG, is nowadays part of US Department of Homeland Security so you never know. Foreign seamen arriving at US ports are all suspects and cannot leave their ships until checked by USCG/DHS getting frisked, fingerprinted, photos taken, etc, etc. And then they need a permit to pass through the port area ... and will be checked again going back to the ship. But who wants to visit the US bars outside the port? Are they safe?

Jingoism. As an American I find your statements offensive. Mods?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #434 on: February 12, 2015, 11:35:49 AM »
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #435 on: February 12, 2015, 08:14:27 PM »
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.

Structures consist of elements and ... plenty air. If you think my Challenge (topic) is about a bit of solid material crushing another bit of solid material you are a complete halfwit.

I use the US definition of a terrorist (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or covered person. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #436 on: February 12, 2015, 08:35:40 PM »
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.

Structures consist of elements and ... plenty air. If you think my Challenge (topic) is about a bit of solid material crushing another bit of solid material you are a complete halfwit.

I use the US definition of a terrorist (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or covered person. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm

Yet you seem to think that the bottom portion of the building is a solid that isn't subjected to the same structural weaknesses of the top portion. Who's the half wit?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #437 on: February 12, 2015, 10:27:08 PM »
It doesn't matter if the top deforms as it is still 45,000 tonnes impacting the next floor at speed and will still be orders of magnitude higher the maximum load capacity of each floor below.

That's where you are wrong to start with. The top C may well be sliced by bottom A and the C-slices will just drop off the top.
But there will be just one impact between C and A. C cannot ever impact A multiple times until there is nothing left of A.
Only terrorists believe the opposite.

A large block lands on another large block. How would it be sliced?

Again, you need to look up the word terrorist. I am simply someone who isn't a complete halfwit and actually understands physics and engineering.

Structures consist of elements and ... plenty air. If you think my Challenge (topic) is about a bit of solid material crushing another bit of solid material you are a complete halfwit.

I use the US definition of a terrorist (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or covered person. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm

Yet you seem to think that the bottom portion of the building is a solid that isn't subjected to the same structural weaknesses of the top portion. Who's the half wit?
No, I know that the bottom portion A, that carries top part C statically, is also capable to resist dynamically, if C is dropped on A. Bottom portion A acts as a spring!

C is also acting as a spring. Only terrorists and halfwits think C is solid and A is subject to structural weaknesses and that A can be crushed from top down by C and gravity.

Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #438 on: February 12, 2015, 11:20:33 PM »
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #439 on: February 13, 2015, 02:04:26 AM »
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #440 on: February 13, 2015, 02:51:42 AM »
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.
Heiwa: I think by now you realise that nothing you can say to these people will ever make them wake up. You are dealing with dense headed people who believe anything they're told and will not and cannot think on any other line than what they're trained to think by the very hypnotic TV they watch and absorb as a truth.

It SHOULD be blatantly obvious to even the most comatose, ignorant people that buildings' of this immense size and strength are not going to collapse into a pile of dust and well trimmed steel girders by simply one floor crushing the next.

The truth is, most on here will know this but the problem is, you have people like Geoffrey and co who's goals' are to constantly ridicule you to the point where the other sheep will join in, which feeds the other sheep the ruse that you are indeed a nutter, for no other reason than they can't think for themselves and just follow the crowd.

Obviously I'm telling you this but I know that you know all of this. I just feel that I need to add a bit of support to what you put out just so you know that your efforts on this forum are not going unseen.

Keep up the good work.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 02:54:34 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #441 on: February 13, 2015, 04:53:45 AM »
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.
Heiwa: I think by now you realise that nothing you can say to these people will ever make them wake up. You are dealing with dense headed people who believe anything they're told and will not and cannot think on any other line than what they're trained to think by the very hypnotic TV they watch and absorb as a truth.
'These people' do this funny thing when we learn something, we got out and investigate and test. I know how materials behave because I have actually gone out into the real world and tested them.
Quote
It SHOULD be blatantly obvious to even the most comatose, ignorant people that buildings' of this immense size and strength are not going to collapse into a pile of dust and well trimmed steel girders by simply one floor crushing the next.
Despite the fact that very elementary calculations show otherwise.
Quote
The truth is, most on here will know this but the problem is, you have people like Geoffrey and co who's goals' are to constantly ridicule you to the point where the other sheep will join in, which feeds the other sheep the ruse that you are indeed a nutter, for no other reason than they can't think for themselves and just follow the crowd.
WE ridicule him, as you put it, because he literally does not know what he is talking about and has been shown to be wrong on countless occasions by actual verifiable science and evidence.
Quote
Obviously I'm telling you this but I know that you know all of this. I just feel that I need to add a bit of support to what you put out just so you know that your efforts on this forum are not going unseen.

Keep up the good work.

It does amuse me how you both try and take the high ground in these debates despite having no evidence and no idea of how science and engineering actually operate.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #442 on: February 13, 2015, 05:03:28 AM »
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 05:05:01 AM by ausGeoff »

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #443 on: February 13, 2015, 08:21:19 AM »
You really are plucking rubbish out of thin air. Solid metal girders and concrete do not act like a spring, they act like solid, heavy objects.

Only terrorists believe it.

Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #444 on: February 13, 2015, 09:44:51 AM »
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

Thanks for quoting from my web page - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm .

It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles. Imagine that I was invited by the US Congress to explain why my design was approved by IMO and that later the US government declared that, if it was built, it could not enter US ports.
It has never happened before and after.   
Maybe one reason was that I declined to sell the patents to a US buyer?

But ausGeoff, you know why? I didn't need the money. I have plenty! Why waste my time/money with stupid Americans? Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.
 


*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #445 on: February 13, 2015, 09:48:17 AM »
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

Thanks for quoting from my web page - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm .

It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles. Imagine that I was invited by the US Congress to explain why my design was approved by IMO and that later the US government declared that, if it was built, it could not enter US ports.
It has never happened before and after.   
Maybe one reason was that I declined to sell the patents to a US buyer?

But ausGeoff, you know why? I didn't need the money. I have plenty! Why waste my time/money with stupid Americans? Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.

No, they gave the reason it can't.

Quote
...don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do

You know, sounds like because your design is a step backwards from double hull, since it wouldn't guarantee zero spillage from an incident.

I'm glad my congress shut it down.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #446 on: February 13, 2015, 09:52:28 AM »


Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
[/quote]

The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic. 


*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #447 on: February 13, 2015, 09:57:23 AM »
Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

I didn't ask in generalities, I want to know how much stronger the 91st is from the 92nd.

Because we both know its negligible, yet you can accept that the 92nd floor failed, but not that the 91st failed. Its puzzling to me.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #448 on: February 13, 2015, 10:02:51 AM »
I know a lot about impacts and collisions and dynamic and static structural analysis.
No you don't.  You simply misrepresent yourself as a qualified structural and/or mechanical engineer on an ad hoc basis dependent on the given scenario.  You also say—arrogantly but irrelevantly—many times on your sites:  "I am just a very friendly, healthy, intelligent and generous person trying to clear up confusion" that's allegedly aimed at you by your detractors.  Simply being friendly or healthy or generous does not make your alleged engineering qualifications any more credible Björkman.  More likely it makes it look as though you're desperate for people to believe in the bovine excrement you plaster all over your worthless sites.  "Oh... Anders is a nice friendly guy; he must be telling the truth".

Quote
The impacts and collisions take time and there are always local structural damages in the interface in the collision/impact zone. I even got an oil tanker design approved by the United Nations based on study of impacts/collisions.

Nope.  Major misrepresentation of the "facts" here Björkman.  I quote a transcript from the  U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation,  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, dated 25 June 1998:

"Mr. GILCHREST [Chairman of the subcommittee]:  Is there any other alternative technologies out there that IMO [UN International Maritime Organization] has looked into?

Admiral NORTH [Assistant & Commandant for Marine Safety & Environmental Protection US Coast Guard]:   IMO currently accepts double hull, mid-deck, and so-called Coulombi Egg designs, but again, they give more credit, so to speak, to median outflow and don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do.

Mr. GILCHREST:   Do you think that there will ever come a time when we might find some alternative technology that will prove at least as good or safer than double hulls?

Admiral NORTH:  The Coast Guard would be happy to look at any design that claims to provide the same kind of zero outflow performance that we see double-hulls providing.

Admiral NORTH:  There is nothing presently that we have found that matches the double-hull for the probability of zero outflow. We have looked at a number of designs; we did a report to Congress, currently in clearance that talks about some of those.  There have been other designs brought up that were not considered in that report and we have yet to find one that matches the double-hull from that perspective in terms of probability of zero outflow.

Admiral NORTH:  For zero outflow, the double-hull is the best we have seen, to date."



—As a result, The US Coast Guard would not allow this design of vessel to enter US waters, and thus no ships of this design have ever been constructed.  It's just another part in the many of Björkman's fairy stories that have virtually zero basis in fact.  And it should be noted that Björkman has been unsuccessfully trying to "sell" this Coulombi Egg design for more than 23 years!

Thanks for quoting from my web page - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm .

It is thus a fact that all members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, approved my clever design and that only USA decided that it could not enter US ports.
Real reason was that I didn't pay enough to lobbyists in Washington DC, etc, etc.
But it made me famous and well known in maritime circles. Imagine that I was invited by the US Congress to explain why my design was approved by IMO and that later the US government declared that, if it was built, it could not enter US ports.
It has never happened before and after.   
Maybe one reason was that I declined to sell the patents to a US buyer?

But ausGeoff, you know why? I didn't need the money. I have plenty! Why waste my time/money with stupid Americans? Of course, I waste my time with you, because I know how you dirty and wet your pants every time you see a post of me here.

No, they gave the reason it can't.

Quote
...don't hold their performance standard to a pure zero outflow criteria like we do

You know, sounds like because your design is a step backwards from double hull, since it wouldn't guarantee zero spillage from an incident.

I'm glad my congress shut it down.

Reason why my design was approved by the IMO 1997 was that it spilt much less oil in all accidents compared with the US double hull that spilt no oil in certain cases but a lot more in others and totally much more than my design. US decision was/is simply bad for the marine environment.

Knowing the cost to clean up spills, my design was more economic to protect the environment! It is also safer and costs less to build, etc.

No, US Congress shot itself in the foot. Same Congress a little later decided to start to bomb Afghanistan, a war that is lost 2015. It is tragic.



*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge
« Reply #449 on: February 13, 2015, 10:05:34 AM »
Whats the structural strength difference between the 91st and 92nd floors Heiwa?
The vertical structural members of the 91st floor supports all the vertical structural members  above up to the roof.

The vertical structural members of the 92nd floor supports all the vertical structural members above up to the roof.

Therefore the vertical structural members of the 91st floor are stronger than the vertical structural members of the 92nd floor.

To simplify construction the vertical structural members of three floors are identical but stronger below and weaker above, etc.

Happy? You are miles off topic.

I didn't ask in generalities, I want to know how much stronger the 91st is from the 92nd.

Because we both know its negligible, yet you can accept that the 92nd floor failed, but not that the 91st failed. Its puzzling to me.

You really have to study my scientific papers about it at http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm and http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm .