Master Evars thought experiment.

  • 264 Replies
  • 33674 Views
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Master Evars thought experiment.
« on: March 03, 2017, 02:16:23 PM »
So, time to post my calculations:

First, the load can either be perceived to be a point mass, OR have it's center of mass at the specified position. That's where the force will be concentrated in both cases.

Secondly, I'll give the load in mass, it's not what you'd officially do (just like I very much doubt you'd give a load in pressure, like BHS does) but since we're only talking about gravitational laod, and we'll assume a homogenous gravitational field, they'll be proportional anyways. Also, disputeone did it first so I just followed their lead.

So, the load of the floor on each bolt is obviously 25 kg.

Then we add the extra 100kg load. Let's ignore the load of the floor for now. Because the load is static and we'll assume the floor doesn't give or the bolts shear, the sum of the load on all bolts must be 100 kg.

But, the sum off all torques on all bolts must equal 0 kgm (kilogram meters, officially it is Nm, Newton meters), otherwise the floor or the bolts would twist. Torque is calculated around a pivot (can be static/rigid) and an axis by multiplying a force by it's distance to the force at a right angle from the axis you want to calculate the torque around.

As an example, let us take the south bolt, and let us work in one dimension at a time. We'll position ourselves so that we are aligned with the west and east bolt. From this position we can only deal with torque around the west-east axis, or basically torque that goes in a right angle from the west-east axis. The point load is 5+3 meters away from the south bolt, or 8 meters, since we are blind to distances that go west-east. That means that the torque on the south bolt around the west-east axis is 8m*100kg, or 800kgm. The west and east bolt are both 5 meters away, and from this position they will act like a single pivot. This single pivot will add a negative torque to the south bolt of 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast). The north bolt is 10 meters away and will add a negative torque of 10*(-Loadnorth). The full torque around the west-east axis on the south bolt can be described as:
Torquesouth = 800kgm + 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast) + 10*(-Loadnorth),
or 800kgm + 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast) + 10*(-Loadnorth) = 0kgm,
since the torque on the south bolt must be 0 in all axis.

If we gather a few more relationships like these, we can compare them to each other in order to solve for all loads. However, there's a way I thought would be easier. Let's position ourselves so that the south and east bolt are aligned, and the north and west bolt are aligned. They are all evenly spaced along the circumference of a circle, so it is possible. From this northeast-southwest axis, the south and east bolts acts as one pivot and the north and west bolts act as another pivot. All cardinal directions are at a 45° angle to our axis, so we can calculate distances by adding their cardinal components (distance north + distance west - distance south - distance east, in this specific coordinate system) and multiplying with cos(45°).
Let's originate from the southeast pivot. The point mass is 3 meters north and 2 meters west away from from the center of the platform, or cos(45°)*5m. The southeast pivot is also cos(45°)*5m away from the center, but in the other direction. That means that the distance between the point mass and the pivot is 2*cos(45°)*5m, or cos(45°)*10m. That means that the torque is 100kg*cos(45°)*10m, or cos(45°)*1000kgm.
The north-west pivot is also cos(45°)*10m away from the south east pivot, and it's torque would be:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest)

So the torque on the southeast pivot is:
Torquesoutheast pivot = cos(45°)*1000kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest), and because the torque must equal 0:
cos(45°)*1000kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = 0
Or:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -cos(45°)*1000kgm
10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -1000kgm
(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -100kg.
Loadnorth+Loadwest = 100kg.

In order words, the north-west pivot takes all of the load of the 100kg load, because by dumb luck I managed to put it right on top of that pivot, or rather right in between the north and west bolt. That means that the south and east doesn't take any load from the 100kg weight, only the load of the floor.

Now it's easy, we just orient us at a right angle from the north-west axis, so that we have the north bolt, west bolt and the 100kg load in between. I'll calculate torque around the north bolt. Once again, I'll have to transform all directions with cos(45°) multiplied by (distance north - distance west - distance south + distance east).

The north bolt is cos(45°)*-5m away from the center (counting positive directions as towards the west bolt), the load is cos(45°)*(-3+2)m, or cos(45°)*-1m away from the center. The distance between the load and north pivot is therefore cos(45°)*5m-cos(45°)1m, or cos(45°)(5-1)m, or cos(45°)*4m.
The torque is cos(45°)*4m*100kg = cos(45°)*400kgm.

The west bolt is cos(45°)*5m away from the center, or cos(45°)*10m away from the north bolt. the negative torque is:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest)

The torque around north bolt is therefore:
Torquenorth bolt = cos(45°)*400kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest)
and because torque must be 0:
cos(45°)*400kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest) = 0
Which means:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest) = -cos(45°)*400kgm
10m*(-Loadwest) = -400kgm
(-Loadwest) = -40kg
Loadwest = 40kg

The west bolt takes 40 kg of the load of the 100kg mass. We know that the south and east doesn't take any of that load, and we know the sum of all loads must be 100kg. So the north bolt must take 60kg of load.

If we add in the 25 kg from the floor, the total loads become:
North: 85kg
East: 65kg
South: 25kg
East: 25kg

That means that even though we doubled the load on the floor, the load on the north bolt more than tripled and the load on the east bolt largely overshot double the load.

Had I placed the load even further northwest, the south and east bolt would experience less load as the north and east bolts acts as a pivot for a lever.

You can try inputting these values from any coordinate system, and it'll hold up. The sum of all torques will be 0, and the sum of all loads are obviously 100kg.

I don't know why BHS is trying to add variable that have nothing to do with this. Probably just as an excuse. As he says, this is pretty low-level for an engineer, but he still thought it's not solvable. Maybe it tells us something of his level?

You said you didn't make wagers with people over the Internet? So i left it alone after that.
Not about money, no. So you're going to cop out now?

As for being above middle school/freshmen math...No I am not above it at all...Math is math. However, from another angle I am above it..Not from a snooty perspective, but from the fact it isn't real world math. It is way to simple, leaves out too many variables. Your numbers gained from this would not reflect in the real world.
Newtons laws of gravitation are simpler. Hell, math-wise special relativity isn't all that bad(some parts of it at least). You need to make a distinction between "reflecting" and "perfectly simulates".

All I asked was questions about the structure, important questions any engineer would ask...Nothing really even complex about them. It is a habit, and natural..When you have my background and have as much skin in the game as I do, you can't help it, it must be real world. It's not like I am some engineer working for a company, there is a boss above me that will check my work before it goes out.
Important for a real building? Of course. Important for this thought experiment? Absolutely not. And they won't change the variables we are after. We don't care about shearing, so we don't need the footprint/dimensions of the load.

It is my business, I am the last one on the totem pole, it makes it by me it's gone. If it has issues, then people could get hurt or killed at the worse, at best I am sued for alot of money my insurance would cover, but would I ever recover from the bad rap? Or would I be forced out of business and all my employees are jobless....Alot of skin in the game every single day.
So far, every source I've looked up agrees with me. Can't you simply admit if it was a mistake?

Yet you take this natural tendency to exist in the real world, ask the correct questions needed for an answer that reflects reality and attempt to twist it. So, yes, I will continue to live in reality nor will I "stoop to your level" as you put it, and I will continue to call your math low brow nor applicable to reality alone. You can yell and point fingers at me all day long, I care not..Nor will I apologize...I will save the apology for when I say something inaccurate.
"Twist it", You're the one twisting MY thought experiment.

Also, I do have a slight feeling telling me you either did the experiment and it didn't turn out the way you wanted, or you know I'm right and you're trying to let the experiment die away.

BHS, I have accepted your bet, as I have already told you, with a proposed stake.

And while I wouldn't exactly call it middle school math... do you think you are above it? Do you think that simple math no longer applies to you? In that case, prove it. You offered to make an experiment, a great chance to prove yourself. Here's not where I learned to do these load distributions, but sources for them:
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/building-construction-design/109683-beam-load-calculations-explained/
https://bendingmomentdiagram.com/tutorials/calculating-reactions-at-supports/
Since we assume that the floor will not shear, we do not need to calculate the shearing force. The source also only dealt with 1 dimension (as in, all load and the pivots was placed along a single one-dimensional straight), while we are dealing with 2 dimensions (our pivots and loads are distributed across a surface).
Haven't you been attacking me and my maths enough already?

You said you didn't make wagers with people over the Internet? So i left it alone after that.

As for being above middle school/freshmen math...No I am not above it at all...Math is math. However, from another angle I am above it..Not from a snooty perspective, but from the fact it isn't real world math. It is way to simple, leaves out too many variables. Your numbers gained from this would not reflect in the real world.

All I asked was questions about the structure, important questions any engineer would ask...Nothing really even complex about them. It is a habit, and natural..When you have my background and have as much skin in the game as I do, you can't help it, it must be real world. It's not like I am some engineer working for a company, there is a boss above me that will check my work before it goes out.

It is my business, I am the last one on the totem pole, it makes it by me it's gone. If it has issues, then people could get hurt or killed at the worse, at best I am sued for alot of money my insurance would cover, but would I ever recover from the bad rap? Or would I be forced out of business and all my employees are jobless....Alot of skin in the game every single day.

Yet you take this natural tendency to exist in the real world, ask the correct questions needed for an answer that reflects reality and attempt to twist it. So, yes, I will continue to live in reality nor will I "stoop to your level" as you put it, and I will continue to call your math low brow nor applicable to reality alone. You can yell and point fingers at me all day long, I care not..Nor will I apologize...I will save the apology for when I say something inaccurate.

Can't find the OP atm will search for it soon, can we keep the other thread OT?
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2017, 03:24:15 PM »
Okay, thanks a lot. Sadly, it seems BHS wants nothing to do with the experiment anymore.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2017, 03:56:41 PM »
I'm very curious also, as I said before as much as I wanted to, I can't fault your maths and logic, I tried everything but you debunked it all.

I can see what Bhs is saying but I can't understand the maths / method yet.

I could actually knock something up but I'd need tension gauges for the bolts, (*I wonder of I could hire one) also we have to assume pins / bolts with no nuts / torque hey? Because as said before clamping force of the materials will nullify the bolt loads.

*http://www.strainsert.com/product-categories/force-sensing-bolts-studs/

I'm pretty good with my hands, would be easy to whip up a scale model. I have the tools and can get a lot of material for free. Just the load sensing bolts, might be able to borrow one.

Say 20kg with a 20kg point load. I've got some ideas, busy this morning but I might draw one up this arvo.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2017, 04:28:15 PM »
I'm very curious also, as I said before as much as I wanted to, I can't fault your maths and logic, I tried everything but you debunked it all.

I can see what Bhs is saying but I can't understand the maths / method yet.

I could actually knock something up but I'd need tension gauges for the bolts, (*I wonder of I could hire one) also we have to assume pins / bolts with no nuts / torque hey? Because as said before clamping force of the materials will nullify the bolt loads.

*http://www.strainsert.com/product-categories/force-sensing-bolts-studs/

I'm pretty good with my hands, would be easy to whip up a scale model. I have the tools and can get a lot of material for free. Just the load sensing bolts, might be able to borrow one.

Say 20kg with a 20kg point load. I've got some ideas, busy this morning but I might draw one up this arvo.

The thought experiment was about load distribution and a simple puzzle about how changing loads are re-distributed to the support structure.

BHS claimed it was unrealistic,  while that's true it's also irrelevant,  he also claimed there was insufficient information to solve the puzzle,  I think Master_Evar has shown that to be false.

The only thing to be gained is to prove BHS right or wrong,   since he's backed out,  the whole thing becomes simply an exercise to see if ME is correct.   I did enough already with a quick and dirty setup to prove that he is correct about the loads on the South and East bolt are going to be zero when the load is on the NW bolt line.   

Solving the 2,2 version,  is just as easy,   take the NW axis as one line,  and the SE axis as the second line,   balance torque reactions around the load location,  so we need the distance from load to the NW line, 

Since it's a 45 degree triangle its   3*20.5*(N+W) = 7*20.5*(S+E)  ==>  3(N+W) = 7(S+E),   and  we know N=W and S=E from symmetry,  and N+S+E+W=100,   solving we get N=W=35 and S=E=15

Maybe a little easier because of symmetry.

@disputeone  if you want to do the experiment,  I'm also interested to see what the results are.   



« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 04:32:03 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2017, 04:35:51 PM »
The actual numbers Evar gave make the equation childs play. I like how he used the correct math but as was said before he picked the magic numbers. It's just not that complicated from how I can see it.

Ok yeah sure I'll look into borrowing some load sensing studs.

As I said before I am very curious. Also as is probably obvious by now I am very interested in the truth and reality of situations.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2017, 12:12:45 AM »
Thanks, I don't have access to tools or materials for performing the experiment myself.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2017, 05:14:32 PM »
 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)  ::)

All this because I said his simplistic 1D grade school rhetoric is not useful in reality for finding the answer he wanted for his question (also, completely incorrect if you wanted the exact answer his question asked)..As a part of many different factors, plausible.

I wouldn't even had brought an attitude if he didn't present one with this question.

I still stand by my original answer to this.....Dubunk it if I am wrong.. :-*


The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

It's really late here and I'm on the phone, so I'll post my calculations tomorrow.

I have been really trying to decide what to say to this... Still not sure. I suppose I will start by I am in shock you had even an ounce of nerve to criticize me for asking serious questions ANY real structural engineer would ask. To have the nerve to criticize me, implying I don't know the answer to the question because I pointed out your question was fundamentally flawed. After the nerve to do that, you post this...

An answer, which the first part is barely middle school (lol divide 100 by 4?? Right, since this is reality smdh), the second part is barely highschool (and wrong).

I am trying to be nice here as much as I humanly can with as much nonsense as you spoke...So I will just say shame on you.

I will let your divide by 4 simple arithmetic go for the moment. We shall go to your second answer. I am going to attempt to make this as short as possible so I will be only hitting a few points, there are a plethora more to address.

One... you addressed the problem completely incorrect..You are using a measurement of mass instead a measurement of weight. Any actual presentation would be presented in form such as psf...

Two..Your starting figure of 25 kg per bolt is impossible in the real world, thus why I asked you so many follow up questions. Please don't ever design a building!..But I am leaving that alone..As a simple arithmetic it works.

Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

I could continue, there are 6 other things that come to mind off the top of my head, but would require way too much typing I am not in the mood for.

I will say this, despite all the reasons I have stated in this post and many before on why this question is bogus...I will state one more, and will actually get an actually moderately close answer (though not exact and would never fly in an actual presentation).

There is a reason I asked you every single question I did, which obviously you didn't understand so you yelled instead. We will use the structure size and frame size of the floor for the mating surfaces. We will hypothetically assume an 1 and 1/4 quarter inch wide for both, and 6 inch long for the floor mating surface. ( I am also ignoring reality just for this, as no flooring would ever pass code, or even pre design unless it has spandrels or channel plates, but again ignore reality for sake of argument)

So anyways, let's be Sammy safety and use .500 13 thread 325 bolts...So we torque them down, let's say they are the standard spray Telefon coated, that will give them about a .097 COF, so with that said they would torque to almost an even perdy 40 foot pounds.

So with all this said what would be the vertical load on the individual bolts? Almost nil...Why? Because friction of the mating surfaces with the almost 6000 pounds of clamping force per fastener (about 6400 pounds at the bolt bearing, in an eclipsed fashion, no way to figure that without more real world variables) will never be overcome by the available vertical force. So all the force on the bolt is lateral. (You start putting vertical force on bolt shanks, you have structural issues. The process I described is also how heat loads are shared rayzor)

C2 = 1.43(F/Fy)-0.93~ 0.643 for 1.05 < FjFy < 1.35

Just for kicks, if you really wanted to figure your load levels you would use..

Net=(1-0.9r+3.0rd/s) Fu<fu

Along with the equation I provided my last post about this
Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)
(though I apologize I don't know how to post the equations 100 percent correct here, but should be close enough)...Though this is still only 20 percent of the info you would need to build a real world answer.


Edit I am also leaving alone the fact the actual theoretical floor is impossible (at least with material I know)..Something that can span 31 feet diameter, 830 ish sq feet, only weight 220 pounds  yet support 220 pounds plus.....But that is another unimportant issue with an already bogus question.

As for building this to scale/ratio in reality (as I have said before it wouldn't be the size his question presented as that is impossible in real life)...Since no one is willing to put anything on the line, don't expect me to dance like a monkey and build it for no purpose. I don't need to convince myself (or any other engineer/someone with the needed prerequisites for that matter) it would only be for a prize.

I may still do it, just no promises without a prize...Though I was contemplating it yesterday, but got distracted by something else.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2017, 05:34:39 PM »
I just wanted to keep the 9/11 thread OT.

we were getting way to focussed on this in the other thread, it's interesting but is inconsequential to the debate I think.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2017, 01:39:31 AM »
I've already provided sources agreeing wiht me, you provide no sources. And it's not as much debuking as it is tryiong to get it into your head that this is a thought experiment, that we are only after a few variables and that we don't need to be 100% perfect because reality isn't 100% perfect. Even your calculations aren't 100% perfect. You still said that we need the footprint of the load, which is wrong, and that I am even theoretically incorrect, which is wrong, and I have provided sources agreeing with me. By all emans, I have debunked those two incorrect statements. If you want to complain that the math is too simple to be true, complain to the sources, not me. Complain to the engineers who wrote them, not me. Complain to the teachers who taught me how to do it. You're not the only engineer, and what you say not only goes against my knowledge but also the knowledge of, as far as I am aware of, any other engineer.

There's lots of things that can go wrong. If one of the supports are too short or too long, their load will change drastically. Scales provide some elasticity to make up for it, as well as using wood or something else that's mostly rigid but still elastic. It needs to be accurate down to the millimeter, and less. The smaller the scale, the harder it will be.

However, it is made easier since I predict that only two of the supports should take the increased load. We simply have to measure the combined load of the two other supports before and after, and the same for the supports that will take the load, and then compare the before and after measurements. The biggest problem is that one of the east or south supports, most probably the south, might not take any support because the floor might bend down in the north-west-east half of the floor, lifting it off the south support.

But there's nothing wrong with my calculations, especially not on the purely theoretical level where we don't have to deal with inaccuracies or elasticity.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2017, 08:06:32 PM »
You haven't debunked anything besides show your own ignorance on the subject. However, it isn't your profession..So...Why argue it so profusely when you barely understand or have the prerequisites of a small percentage of the subject. Unless it is just a deflection tactic, fortunately dispute moved it to another thread.

Even your own "sources"
"This is always the first step in analysing a beam structure, and it is generally the easiest."
Just as I said...Only a tiny part of a real world equation..

Also

"Point Load: A load or weight subjected over a point area is called a point load. However, mathematically a point load doesn’t look feasible, simply because any load will need to have a certain area of impact and cannot possibly balance over a point, but if the impact area is too small compared to the length of the beam, may be taken as defined."

As I said... Impact area does matter..This is from your sources, not mine. A hammer strike on a 100 foot 12 inch beam, not so much.. However, a 220 pound force on a structure that only ways 220 pounds...Lol absolutely area of impact matters. I don't expect you to get this, but that has zero bearing on the fact.


Not to mention, you are basing your loads on beams..Which by your own "question" don't exist. We are holding up a circle floor with bolts directly in the side of the floor....So even ignoring this..

So anyways, let's be Sammy safety and use .500 13 thread 325 bolts...So we torque them down, let's say they are the standard spray Telefon coated, that will give them about a .097 COF, so with that said they would torque to almost an even perdy 40 foot pounds.

So with all this said what would be the vertical load on the individual bolts? Almost nil...Why? Because friction of the mating surfaces with the almost 6000 pounds of clamping force per fastener (about 6400 pounds at the bolt bearing, in an eclipsed fashion, no way to figure that without more real world variables) will never be overcome by the available vertical force. So all the force on the bolt is lateral. (You start putting vertical force on bolt shanks, you have structural issues. The process I described is also how heat loads are shared rayzor)

There is also the issue of no beams...A circular floor with no supporting beams will transfer loads entirely different than beams. I don't want to get too complex, but more so like something hitting water. So again...Your equations are incorrect for the presented question.

This along with the many other issues I have stated.

Then there is the many issues I have not stated.

Maybe try listening for once...If you specialized in something I would listen to what you would have to say (like my old debates with false prophet on linguistics)....Unless you are trying to just derail..In that case GTFO
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2017, 01:11:06 AM »
As long as you can put the center of mass/concentration of forces at the specified position, te dimensions do not matter other than to calculate shearing forces, which is something we are ignoring.

And good job of twisting the meaning of the quote from "point loads obviously don't exist in the real world" to "the dimensions of the load matters", you hypocrite.

Until you can provide actual evidence you're considered debunked.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2017, 02:19:39 AM »
As long as you can put the center of mass/concentration of forces at the specified position, te dimensions do not matter other than to calculate shearing forces, which is something we are ignoring.

And good job of twisting the meaning of the quote from "point loads obviously don't exist in the real world" to "the dimensions of the load matters", you hypocrite.

Until you can provide actual evidence you're considered debunked.

Lol...I notice you use hypocrite when either you are wrong or you don't understand something..

Let's read the quote from your source again.

"Point Load: A load or weight subjected over a point area is called a point load. However, mathematically a point load doesn’t look feasible, simply because any load will need to have a certain area of impact and cannot possibly balance over a point, but if the impact area is too small compared to the length of the beam, may be taken as defined."

Then I explain what they are saying, as it is the same thing I have been saying ..
Quote
As I said... Impact area does matter..This is from your sources, not mine. A hammer strike on a 100 foot 12 inch beam, not so much.. However, a 220 pound force on a structure that only ways 220 pounds...Lol absolutely area of impact matters. I don't expect you to get this, but that has zero bearing on the fact.

Sits exactly with what they are saying, same thing I have been trying to explain to you.

Also

Quote
There is also the issue of no beams...A circular floor with no supporting beams will transfer loads entirely different than beams. I don't want to get too complex, but more so like something hitting water. So again...Your equations are incorrect for the presented question.

This is along with all the other issues listed..

Oh well... Just don't build anything and we are good.

Bad hypothetical math never hurt anyone as long as they didn't try to use it in reality ::)

Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2017, 02:40:48 AM »
Lol...I notice you use hypocrite when either you are wrong or you don't understand something..

When you did structural mechanics what methods did you use for determining load distribution on beams and  trusses?

Did you encounter the term point load at any stage during those studies?


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2017, 03:19:04 AM »
Lol...I notice you use hypocrite when either you are wrong or you don't understand something..

When you did structural mechanics what methods did you use for determining load distribution on beams and  trusses?

Did you encounter the term point load at any stage during those studies?

Well yah...Its of course part of larger equations.

Let's just assume we are speaking of STLF...Which is the most common. If I wanted to free hand a bit (which I, and most others only free hand to not get rusty now days, we spend shit loads on programs for a reason)...
Anyways, I would find the vector..
cIK=(T(i-k)-T(I+k),P(i-k)-P(I+k))

This is simplified (as I still don't know how to write equations here), then I would start looking at TD and RBF..

Actually, I was going to keep going, but I can't type the math out. Sorry.

Anyways..Yes, term loads are used quite often, point loads not so much.

Edit spelling
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 03:20:47 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2017, 03:23:09 AM »
Lol...I notice you use hypocrite when either you are wrong or you don't understand something..

When you did structural mechanics what methods did you use for determining load distribution on beams and  trusses?

Did you encounter the term point load at any stage during those studies?
Well yah...Its of course part of larger equations.

Let's just assume we are speaking of STLF...Which is the most common. If I wanted to free hand a bit (which I, and most others only free hand to not get rusty now days, we spend shit loads on programs for a reason)...
Anyways, I would find the vector..
cIK=(T(i-k)-T(I+k),P(i-k)-P(I+k))

This is simplified (as I still don't know how to write equations here), then I would start looking at TD and RBF..

Actually, I was going to keep going, but I can't type the math out. Sorry.

Anyways..Yes, term loads are used quite often, point loads not so much.

Edit spelling


But you do know what a point load is,  and you have used point loads in structural calculations.   you might have also converted UDL's  to point loads to simplify a calculation. 


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2017, 04:39:10 AM »
Lol...I notice you use hypocrite when either you are wrong or you don't understand something..

Let's read the quote from your source again.

"Point Load: A load or weight subjected over a point area is called a point load. However, mathematically a point load doesn’t look feasible, simply because any load will need to have a certain area of impact and cannot possibly balance over a point, but if the impact area is too small compared to the length of the beam, may be taken as defined."

Then I explain what they are saying, as it is the same thing I have been saying ..
Quote
As I said... Impact area does matter..This is from your sources, not mine. A hammer strike on a 100 foot 12 inch beam, not so much.. However, a 220 pound force on a structure that only ways 220 pounds...Lol absolutely area of impact matters. I don't expect you to get this, but that has zero bearing on the fact.

Sits exactly with what they are saying, same thing I have been trying to explain to you.
I cannot see how you intepret it that way, without twisting the meaning. They say nothing about importance. Where did you ge the word "important" from? They say that point loads do not look feasible, because they would be hard to balance. They don't say "However, you need the dimensions of a load to calculate this or this and that..."

There is also the issue of no beams...A circular floor with no supporting beams will transfer loads entirely different than beams. I don't want to get too complex, but more so like something hitting water. So again...Your equations are incorrect for the presented question.

How would the bolts know wether they are supporting a beam or not? And we are talking about rigid things, not fluid things. My equations are not wrong, if they are you are free to show it instead of simply claiming so. But you have choosen not to show it, so it's your problem, not mine.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2017, 04:49:41 AM »
Let's just assume we are speaking of STLF...Which is the most common. If I wanted to free hand a bit (which I, and most others only free hand to not get rusty now days, we spend shit loads on programs for a reason)...
Anyways, I would find the vector..
cIK=(T(i-k)-T(I+k),P(i-k)-P(I+k))
Please just PEASE, provide a link for this. It's just a bunch of seemingly random variables, and STFL doesn't tell me anything. Actually, let's see what STFL brings up:
Quote
STFL   Structured Terminal Forms Language/Library
http://www.clifford.at/stfl/
It's a code library.

Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2017, 03:22:10 PM »
Let's just assume we are speaking of STLF...Which is the most common. If I wanted to free hand a bit (which I, and most others only free hand to not get rusty now days, we spend shit loads on programs for a reason)...
Anyways, I would find the vector..
cIK=(T(i-k)-T(I+k),P(i-k)-P(I+k))
Please just PEASE, provide a link for this. It's just a bunch of seemingly random variables, and STFL doesn't tell me anything. Actually, let's see what STFL brings up:
Quote
STFL   Structured Terminal Forms Language/Library
http://www.clifford.at/stfl/
It's a code library.

I'd be interested in what that equation is supposed to be,   at first glance I thought he was trying to write a stress tensor,  but having trouble with the subscripts.   I think it's intended to obfusticate rather than explain anything.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2017, 06:32:48 PM »
Looks like a tensor equation to me.

pdf

STFL is a scripting language, perhaps the language Bhs would use to solve the problem irl.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 06:37:06 PM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2017, 10:21:18 PM »
STFL is a scripting language, perhaps the language Bhs would use to solve the problem irl.

Good call dispute ;)

You see you actually try instead of just attempting to twist and say shenanigans. It's used to forecast.

Please just PEASE, provide a link for this. It's just a bunch of seemingly random variables, and STFL doesn't tell me anything.


Please just PEASE, provide a link for this. It's just a bunch of seemingly random variables,

I'd be interested in what that equation is supposed to be,   at first glance I thought he was trying to write a stress tensor,  but having trouble with the subscripts.   I think it's intended to obfusticate rather than explain anything.

I use rounded speech to try so I can communicate normally I get yelled at...I use language I would use if speaking to another engineer I get yelled at...I am beginning to think y'all just wanna yell at me lol...

That equation was just a start, you would continue..

Aik=(T(I)-T(I+k),P(I)-P(i+k))
Bik=(T(I)-T(i-k),P(I)-P(i-k))
cIK=(T(i-k)-T(I+k),P(i-k)-P(I+k))

Pi random point, pi-k is front, pi+k is behind, a,b,c is angles p series time t time alone..Then we would move to  inflection, curve etc etc etc, but the math gets to the point where I can't type it here.

This is how we start to the original question from rayzor.

Edit* spelling
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 10:23:49 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2017, 01:25:33 AM »
STFL is a scripting language, perhaps the language Bhs would use to solve the problem irl.

Good call dispute ;)

You see you actually try instead of just attempting to twist and say shenanigans. It's used to forecast.
But STFL is used to quickly make GUI's for applications. So are you actually an applications developer?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2017, 02:11:31 AM »
This is fascinating. In the best sense of the word.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2017, 02:19:34 AM »
This is fascinating. In the best sense of the word.

Isn't it, that's why I was thinking about building it.

Load sensing studs are expensive, and specialised :(
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2017, 02:35:08 AM »
STFL is a scripting language, perhaps the language Bhs would use to solve the problem irl.

Good call dispute ;)

You see you actually try instead of just attempting to twist and say shenanigans. It's used to forecast.
But STFL is used to quickly make GUI's for applications. So are you actually an applications developer?

Python is another scripting language, notice how Totes built a working model with Python? It's not an applications developers specific tool.

If you didn't know, 99% of engineering is done on a computer, lot's can't really use a tape measure or even a hammer. This is another reason I have a lot of respect for Bhs, he actually builds cool shit, I admire that in an engineer nearly like the old ones who designed built and tested their own stuff.

Sorry rant, it is absolutely no surprise for an engineer to be intimately familiar with many scripting languages and programs, it does not make them an "applications developer" or whatever.

Bhs is an engineer, get over it, sorry but get over it.

He might be wrong on this thought experiment, I don't know and I don't claim to know. It doesn't mean he's not an engineer even if he is wrong.

You have done a good job of putting forward your answer and method Master Evar, as I said, I can't debunk it.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2017, 02:49:28 AM »
Load sensing studs are expensive, and specialised :(


Slo-Mo (or high speed) video, (always forget which is the right term), is cheaper and would support an argument.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2017, 04:33:09 AM »
Stfl IS specialised for GUI, it's an extension of the base languages. You can't write an equation in STFL, because it isn't implemented and isn't necessary. It's not a library for mathematical equations. You can't use STFL on it's own, it needs the base languages because a lot of things that is necessary for coding isn't implemented in STFL. Implementing them would be a lot of work and unnecessary if it's supposed to be used as an extension to the other languages.

And then we can clearly see that BHS wasn't referring to it as a library but as a method or standard:
"Let's just assume we are speaking of STLF...Which is the most common."

And BHS clearly see this as something OTHER than computer related, if we continue reading:
"If I wanted to free hand a bit (which I, and most others only free hand to not get rusty now days, we spend shit loads on programs for a reason)."

So all talk about BHS using STFL as a preferred language for making simulations (and no, most engineers wouldn't be used to many programming languages. They'd be used to 2/3D modelling and simulations applications. Of course, some still has to be used to programming, so they can develop those applications.) is just ridiculous to say the least.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2017, 06:20:03 AM »
Ok alright I'll stay out of it.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2017, 06:39:13 AM »
What the fuck are you babbling about master...You very much irritate me with your nonsense. I think it is clear you want no actual information from me.

Who the hell said I was talking about an actual language of a program. I simply said it was an algorithm on a program used for the forecasting of a short term load in 3D space. ::)
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2017, 06:46:28 AM »
Ok alright I'll stay out of it.
I'm pretty sure he just got an acronym wrong.  But he won't admit it, as he rarely does. But then again, he never explicitly said himself that he uses it like a programming language, he only said "It's used to forecast.", so he never confirmed that you were right either. BHS really only complimented you for having faith in him.
EDIT: Lol, called it.

And then he answers the question "What does the equation mean" with "Here's an extended, more complicated set of equations with minimal explanation, still not defining all varibles". Doesn't mean he's wrong, but presenting an equation does not prove that my equations are wrong. Unless he can tie it to the input and output of my thought experiment, it's irrelevant. If he's missing variables, he can make some up and show that different values give different outputs, proving me wrong about them not mattering. But he chooses not to.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Master Evars thought experiment.
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2017, 06:48:50 AM »
Who the hell said I was talking about an actual language of a program. I simply said it was an algorithm on a program used for the forecasting of a short term load in 3D space.
Who the hell said I asked for wether it was for forecasting or not? I asked for what STFL is supposed to mean, and for you to cite a source. But I guess you have difficulties doing that?

EDIT: You never said it was in a program. Whatever, it's just an algoritm, wether it's in a program or not doesn't matter. Just because it is in a computer program, that doesn't mean it is computer related.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 06:52:15 AM by Master_Evar »
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!