It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 76
420
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
1) I do not find it unrealistic that the trusses reached a temperature that caused them to sag.


I don't either, but this begins to happen because of thermal expansion while being restrained on the ends, and in fact this happens while involving greater forces and less temperature than the other mechanism you're trying to suggest, which requires significantly higher temperatures and involves less force.

I repeat this, because you repeatedly ignore this.


2) Show me the data that contradicts the idea that the trusses could act like a catenary (maybe you should have done this from the start instead of bringing up pointless argument after pointless argument?)


There is no evidence or even reason to believe that any significant number of trusses ever reached the necessary temperatures for any significant period of time. You're talking about temperatures where the fires themselves would have maxed out, outside of a brief flashover condition, and expecting large quantities of steel to be the exact same temperature, despite convection, entropy, and other tried and true scientific laws.


3) The spandrel plates or dampers have no effect on the forces as result of the catenary action. Why? Because they are not related or depend. If you disagree, show why they are.


Anyone with a brain will realize that those big plates welded horizontally across the perimeter columns, all the way around the building, are like a big steel-plate "band aid" holding them in place. I use the metaphor of a band aid because I'm trying to dumb this down for you. If you ever actually thought about why the spandrel plates exist in the first place, you would have already realized this. If you can't comprehend this, it's not my problem, and I don't care if you're ignorant of why they are there. If you think they have something to do with supporting gravity loads directly, you're even worse off than I imagined, like a new level of "wow."



4) I can exercise an enormous force on an object for a very short time, displacing it just a millimeter. I can also exercise a small force on that same object for a very long time, displacing it 1000km. Do you get the drift?


Yeah, I get it. Your understanding of physics is as horrible as ever. Equal and opposite reactions. When the truss pushes out, the building pushes back. This is why sagging occurs in the middle of a restrained beam when it is trying to expand from being heated. I should get paid for trying to teach you physics. It's made that much worse by the fact that you apparently automatically assume everything I say is false, when it's information anyone who has ACTUALLY had physics 101, and passed, would already understand. It's like trying to teach someone who WANTS to be wrong.

Or you can keep thinking that the trusses would have eventually pushed the columns over a hundred miles away, which I'm sure you will. That's a level of brilliant only you can achieve.



5) So let me guess your argument: The steel structure in the test setup did not collapse because of fire, therefor no steel building in the entire world can ever collapse because of fire, even when a plane crashes into it. Did I get your fallacy eeeh argument correct? If not, make your point.


"The steel structure in the test setup did not collapse because of fire, therefor" (sic) ...

Therefore, there is no evidence for the garbage you are trying to sell on behalf of NIST.

AND you are thoroughly embarrassing yourself every time you try to explain a physical concept that you end up totally butchering and turning into Looney Tunes.




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is no evidence or even reason to believe that any significant number of trusses ever reached the necessary temperatures for any significant period of time. You're talking about temperatures where the fires themselves would have maxed out, outside of a brief flashover condition, and expecting large quantities of steel to be the exact same temperature, despite convection, entropy, and other tried and true scientific laws.


So at the core of your argument is the assertion that it didn't happen.


Anyone with a brain will realize that those big plates welded horizontally across the perimeter columns, all the way around the building, are like a big steel-plate "band aid" holding them in place. I use the metaphor of a band aid because I'm trying to dumb this down for you. If you ever actually thought about why the spandrel plates exist in the first place, you would have already realized this. If you can't comprehend this, it's not my problem, and I don't care if you're ignorant of why they are there. If you think they have something to do with supporting gravity loads directly, you're even worse off than I imagined, like a new level of "wow."



Right, and how exactly does all this effect the force as result of catenary action? Draw a diagram, you are so fond of it and it is so little work. Good luck.


Yeah, I get it. Your understanding of physics is as horrible as ever. Equal and opposite reactions. When the truss pushes out, the building pushes back. This is why sagging occurs in the middle of a restrained beam when it is trying to expand from being heated. I should get paid for trying to teach you physics. It's made that much worse by the fact that you apparently automatically assume everything I say is false, when it's information anyone who has ACTUALLY had physics 101, and passed, would already understand. It's like trying to teach someone who WANTS to be wrong.


So you agree with what I said, and realize you were wrong? Or whats with all this whining?


Or you can keep thinking that the trusses would have eventually pushed the columns over a hundred miles away, which I'm sure you will. That's a level of brilliant only you can achieve.


Who was it again who tried to explain to you that displacement was limited and force != displacement? Yup, that was me. Bit of the contrary of what your are saying here isn't it? Although I wonder if your realize that.


"The steel structure in the test setup did not collapse because of fire, therefor" (sic) ...

Therefore, there is no evidence for the garbage you are trying to sell on behalf of NIST.

AND you are thoroughly embarrassing yourself every time you try to explain a physical concept that you end up totally butchering and turning into Looney Tunes.


I am trying to follow your logic here. Because a certain test proves something, there is no evidence for a totally unrelated event. Well, fits with the rest of your logic.
edit on 3-4-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Slander. Show me a single lie I made.



Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Malcram
 



What physics are you talking about? I haven't seen any physics as of yet, just someone claiming the physics are simple and make it impossible. Should I really accept anyones word for it? No, I require to see it. I am not a gullible layman like you, I am an engineer myself. I don't need totally dumbed down Youtube videos in order to "understand" something. Those kind of explanations hardly give any insight at all. I required a scientific study that includes the physics. Granted, I may not understand it all, but at least the person making the claims shows he has an understanding of the subject himself, making his word a bit more credible. Or he shows he doesn't have a clue of course.



I am an electrical engineer. I lack in knowledge about most of the physics that have to do with structural engineering. That doesn't mean I don't understand it when I read it per se, I just don't know it that well. Without study I won't be able to produce a basic model that describes a building collapse. I am not trained to do that.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Did you miss that a couple of pages ago?

An electrical engineering degree requires Physics I, II, & III. That is more than enough to understand the physics involved in the collapse of a building. In fact high school physics is enough (well at least when I was in high school).


Program Outcomes
The Electrical Engineering program seeks to produce graduates that:

1. have guaranteed exposure to statistics and have the ability to apply knowledge of mathematics and physics to solving engineering problems (a)

www.csufresno.edu...

You have demonstrated in this thread, and admitted, that you are not capable of that, and no I'm not trying to insult you, but expose your dishonesty. You are debating people here with a lot of experience in the various engineering fields, who are used to listening to and talking to real engineers, so its not hard to spot a fake. I wouldn't make this claim if I wasn't 100% certain.


edit on 4/3/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So at the core of your argument is the assertion that it didn't happen.


The original claim was that perimeter columns were pulled inward by sagging trusses. There is no evidence or even any reason to believe that this could have happened. So if you mean there is no evidence for what you're suggesting, you're actually right for once.



Anyone with a brain will realize that those big plates welded horizontally across the perimeter columns, all the way around the building, are like a big steel-plate "band aid" holding them in place. I use the metaphor of a band aid because I'm trying to dumb this down for you. If you ever actually thought about why the spandrel plates exist in the first place, you would have already realized this. If you can't comprehend this, it's not my problem, and I don't care if you're ignorant of why they are there. If you think they have something to do with supporting gravity loads directly, you're even worse off than I imagined, like a new level of "wow."



Right, and how exactly does all this effect the force as result of catenary action? Draw a diagram, you are so fond of it and it is so little work. Good luck.


The diagram would look the same as earlier. The numbers would just look different when you summed all the forces together using vectors, taking into consideration the moment of inertia of the spandrel plates that were welded firmly across all the exterior columns. I would do it if NIST provided the necessary data, but they didn't. I can only guess why they didn't.



Yeah, I get it. Your understanding of physics is as horrible as ever. Equal and opposite reactions. When the truss pushes out, the building pushes back. This is why sagging occurs in the middle of a restrained beam when it is trying to expand from being heated. I should get paid for trying to teach you physics. It's made that much worse by the fact that you apparently automatically assume everything I say is false, when it's information anyone who has ACTUALLY had physics 101, and passed, would already understand. It's like trying to teach someone who WANTS to be wrong.


So you agree with what I said, and realize you were wrong? Or whats with all this whining?


No, if you re-read this paragraph very carefully you'll notice I'm not agreeing with you.

In other words, no, I don't believe the trusses would have eventually pushed the exterior columns 1000 km away like you just said on the last page.




Or you can keep thinking that the trusses would have eventually pushed the columns over a hundred miles away, which I'm sure you will. That's a level of brilliant only you can achieve.


Who was it again who tried to explain to you that displacement was limited and force != displacement? Yup, that was me. Bit of the contrary of what your are saying here isn't it? Although I wonder if your realize that.


What in the hell are you talking about. You just told me the trusses could be pushed out 1000 km if the force was constantly applied, completely oblivious of the fact that the structure also represents forces that push back and have to be summed vectorally (some "engineer"). You also said that displacement in one direction wasn't limited by physics, and I was the one who said it was limited in both directions. You have lost it to such a degree that I'm really starting to think the best thing for both of us would be if I just walked away from this discussion and left you with the option to consult a therapist.

Force is not displacement but it is proportional to displacement. More force, more displacement. Again, if you disagree with this, see a doctor man. I don't know what kind of twisted world view it requires that less force produces greater displacements, than a larger force.


I am trying to follow your logic here. Because a certain test proves something, there is no evidence for a totally unrelated event.


They aren't unrelated. Now you're saying what allegedly happened at the WTC is unrelated to the sagging and deformations studied in the Cardington tests. One stupid argument after another. Are you going to bother to explain this one or were you just counting on wallowing in your own nonsense while I did all the work trying to make some sort of sense out of it?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
An electrical engineering degree requires Physics I, II, & III. That is more than enough to understand the physics involved in the collapse of a building. In fact high school physics is enough (well at least when I was in high school).


I can verify this because I also took the electrical engineering degree courses and I had to take physics. A lot of other stuff too.

This is why I know what vectors are, even though PLB repeatedly shows he doesn't have the slightest conception of what a vector even is. He doesn't understand that a deflection represents a component force in both the horizontal and vertical axes, which is basic, basic engineering math.

I would venture he wouldn't be able to solve basic circuits problems if pressed either. How about some basic AC capacitive or inductive transient analyses, PLB? Too bad those also require knowledge of vectors to solve, so I already know he wouldn't be able to solve those either. If he took any of this stuff he either dropped out or failed early on, or else this was all 100 years ago and he can't remember any of it. That would be the most flattering scenario at this point.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Did you miss that a couple of pages ago?

An electrical engineering degree requires Physics I, II, & III. That is more than enough to understand the physics involved in the collapse of a building. In fact high school physics is enough (well at least when I was in high school).


I know the very basics of structural engineering, but thats it. If for example I want to know what exactly eccentric loading is and does, I need to look it up (which is what I did). I never had that in any of my courses. Of course I could figure it out myself, but that doesn't constitute to knowledge. Maybe your standards are just a little lower?


You have demonstrated in this thread, and admitted, that you are not capable of that, and no I'm not trying to insult you, but expose your dishonesty. You are debating people here with a lot of experience in the various engineering fields, who are used to listening to and talking to real engineers, so its not hard to spot a fake. I wouldn't make this claim if I wasn't 100% certain.


Coming from you that rather meaningless. Luckily for me, in the real world more like 99% of the engineers think that these 911 conspiracy people are nut jobs, and totally agree with me. None of my class mates, PhD's or professors I ever had to deal with subscribes to this crap. Interesting to note is your line of reasoning though. It is typical of that of a conspiracy thinker, baseless and flawed.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The original claim was that perimeter columns were pulled inward by sagging trusses. There is no evidence or even any reason to believe that this could have happened. So if you mean there is no evidence for what you're suggesting, you're actually right for once.


Except for the evidence of uncontrolled fires. But other than that, you are correct.


The diagram would look the same as earlier. The numbers would just look different when you summed all the forces together using vectors, taking into consideration the moment of inertia of the spandrel plates that were welded firmly across all the exterior columns. I would do it if NIST provided the necessary data, but they didn't. I can only guess why they didn't.


Go ahead, draw it. Your last attempt was rather comical.


No, if you re-read this paragraph very carefully you'll notice I'm not agreeing with you.

In other words, no, I don't believe the trusses would have eventually pushed the exterior columns 1000 km away like you just said on the last page.


Aaah ok so you didn't understand it. What it actually entails is that once the columns deflect as result of the expanding trusses, the force decreases. Why do you ask? First the trusses were pushing reaaaly hard, because they got hot and they became larger. And the columns said to the trusses: ohkee, you can have a little more space, I will move aside a bit. And after that, the trusses were happy again and stopped pushing so hard.

But no worries, I take full responsibility for you no understanding that, as you need everything to be spoon fed.


What in the hell are you talking about. You just told me the trusses could be pushed out 1000 km if the force was constantly applied, completely oblivious of the fact that the structure also represents forces that push back and have to be summed vectorally (some "engineer"). You also said that displacement in one direction wasn't limited by physics, and I was the one who said it was limited in both directions. You have lost it to such a degree that I'm really starting to think the best thing for both of us would be if I just walked away from this discussion and left you with the option to consult a therapist.


I hope the little story above helps you understand.


Force is not displacement but it is proportional to displacement. More force, more displacement. Again, if you disagree with this, see a doctor man. I don't know what kind of twisted world view it requires that less force produces greater displacements, than a larger force.


That you do not understand it is pretty clear, but it is a bit tiring to explain it to you.


They aren't unrelated. Now you're saying what allegedly happened at the WTC is unrelated to the sagging and deformations studied in the Cardington tests. One stupid argument after another. Are you going to bother to explain this one or were you just counting on wallowing in your own nonsense while I did all the work trying to make some sort of sense out of it?


Sorry, I missed that the Cardington test setup was a replica of the WTC and had an airplane crashed into it. My bad. You don't really have a point do you? The Cardington test show there is no evidence for the events at the WTC? This logic it really amusing.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Except for the evidence of uncontrolled fires. But other than that, you are correct.


Uncontrolled fires, sure. That's not the mechanism you and NIST are trying to sell. So you giving up on that finally?


Go ahead, draw it. Your last attempt was rather comical.


I told you it would look the exact same, except with different numbers that I don't have because NIST didn't provide them. Maybe you are too dense to understand this, but somehow I still doubt it. So I guess you are just trolling intentionally now? It doesn't matter what I saw, your response will be the same, because you don't think about what I say before you respond apparently.



No, if you re-read this paragraph very carefully you'll notice I'm not agreeing with you.

In other words, no, I don't believe the trusses would have eventually pushed the exterior columns 1000 km away like you just said on the last page.


Aaah ok so you didn't understand it. What it actually entails is that once the columns deflect as result of the expanding trusses, the force decreases. Why do you ask? First the trusses were pushing reaaaly hard, because they got hot and they became larger. And the columns said to the trusses: ohkee, you can have a little more space, I will move aside a bit. And after that, the trusses were happy again and stopped pushing so hard.

But no worries, I take full responsibility for you no understanding that, as you need everything to be spoon fed.


Besides still not explaining how this could possibly push the columns 1000 km away, you're already changing your story from sagging catenaries to deflections from expansion. Great, now you have isolated yourself from NIST's report. Are you going to show pictures of significant deflections from columns being pushed outwards? Or do you just assume they exist on blind faith and ask nothing more, and refuse to look at the towers to try to find them?


I hope the little story above helps you understand.


Not how you think the columns could be moved 1000 km by the trusses from the expanding force, no. That still makes as much sense as a basketball racket.



Force is not displacement but it is proportional to displacement. More force, more displacement. Again, if you disagree with this, see a doctor man. I don't know what kind of twisted world view it requires that less force produces greater displacements, than a larger force.


That you do not understand it is pretty clear, but it is a bit tiring to explain it to you.



There is no sane way to explain how a smaller force can produce a larger displacement than a larger force.

To think that a smaller force can cause more displacement than a larger force, sounds like a pretty serious disorder.


Sorry, I missed that the Cardington test setup was a replica of the WTC and had an airplane crashed into it. My bad.


I knew this was coming.


I wonder why NIST didn't fly an airplane into their own recreation of the trusses and perimeter columns? Maybe because they were actually smart enough to realize the plane impacts don't explain everything.




You don't really have a point do you? The Cardington test show there is no evidence for the events at the WTC? This logic it really amusing.


So there is no point to scientific studies when it comes to 9/11. I already figured that too. Take your case to the religion forums then.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Uncontrolled fires, sure. That's not the mechanism you and NIST are trying to sell. So you giving up on that finally?


Still waiting for that temperature data and/or calculations of yours. Until then, your argument is void.


I told you it would look the exact same, except with different numbers that I don't have because NIST didn't provide them. Maybe you are too dense to understand this, but somehow I still doubt it. So I guess you are just trolling intentionally now? It doesn't matter what I saw, your response will be the same, because you don't think about what I say before you respond apparently.


Your first diagram showed a non-existing situation disproving a non-made claim. But if the next one would be the same, you better not draw it indeed.



No, if you re-read this paragraph very carefully you'll notice I'm not agreeing with you.

In other words, no, I don't believe the trusses would have eventually pushed the exterior columns 1000 km away like you just said on the last page.


Only thing is, I nowhere said that.


Besides still not explaining how this could possibly push the columns 1000 km away, you're already changing your story from sagging catenaries to deflections from expansion. Great, now you have isolated yourself from NIST's report. Are you going to show pictures of significant deflections from columns being pushed outwards? Or do you just assume they exist on blind faith and ask nothing more, and refuse to look at the towers to try to find them?


Maybe you should read my story again. Or was it too complicated? Maybe I can dumb it down a bit more for you. Or do you prefer a Youtube video? Sorry but don't do those.



Not how you think the columns could be moved 1000 km by the trusses from the expanding force, no. That still makes as much sense as a basketball racket.


Only thing is, I nowhere said that.

I kinda feel pity for you, reading all those things that are not there. It must confuse you a lot.


There is no sane way to explain how a smaller force can produce a larger displacement than a larger force.

To think that a smaller force can cause more displacement than a larger force, sounds like a pretty serious disorder.


The disorder is called being an engineer. Most people in that condition understand that the force applied over time causes displacement, given the force is larger than the resistance. Has to do with concepts like impulse and momentum.

But there are also other factors at play, not just force. But I think we can better ignore those as your are confused enough already.


I knew this was coming.


I wonder why NIST didn't fly an airplane into their own recreation of the trusses and perimeter columns? Maybe because they were actually smart enough to realize the plane impacts don't explain everything.


Yeh, why didn't the rebuild the whole WTC and crash a plane in it?



So there is no point to scientific studies when it comes to 9/11. I already figured that too. Take your case to the religion forums then.


Sure there is. If you can show how it relates to the event. But never mind.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
Uncontrolled fires, sure. That's not the mechanism you and NIST are trying to sell. So you giving up on that finally?


Still waiting for that temperature data and/or calculations of yours. Until then, your argument is void.


It's not my argument that the trusses were hot enough to pull the perimeter columns inward. It's yours. When it comes to you basically saying, "prove me wrong or else I'm right," you've already lost your argument. You have nothing to show for your garbage. It's done.



I told you it would look the exact same, except with different numbers that I don't have because NIST didn't provide them. Maybe you are too dense to understand this, but somehow I still doubt it. So I guess you are just trolling intentionally now? It doesn't matter what I saw, your response will be the same, because you don't think about what I say before you respond apparently.


Your first diagram showed a non-existing situation disproving a non-made claim.


Does that mean you're unable to comprehend the paragraph you're responding to?



In other words, no, I don't believe the trusses would have eventually pushed the exterior columns 1000 km away like you just said on the last page.


Only thing is, I nowhere said that.


Here's you not saying that:


Originally posted by -PLB-
I can exercise an enormous force on an object for a very short time, displacing it just a millimeter. I can also exercise a small force on that same object for a very long time, displacing it 1000km.


Btw you are talking about the same object, so there is no reason a smaller force would cause a greater displacement than a larger force. Maybe if you were talking about two significantly different masses, but unfortunately you think a smaller force moves the same object farther than a larger force would move that object.

So does your dog get on your account and post when you're not looking?



Besides still not explaining how this could possibly push the columns 1000 km away, you're already changing your story from sagging catenaries to deflections from expansion. Great, now you have isolated yourself from NIST's report. Are you going to show pictures of significant deflections from columns being pushed outwards? Or do you just assume they exist on blind faith and ask nothing more, and refuse to look at the towers to try to find them?


Maybe you should read my story again. Or was it too complicated? Maybe I can dumb it down a bit more for you. Or do you prefer a Youtube video? Sorry but don't do those.


I think the real problem is that you're trying to use the reasoning abilities of an elementary schooler to explain something that requires more of a college education that you don't have.

Speaking of which, you should be qualified to solve an AC capacitive or inductive transient circuit. Ie you should be able to solve for the transient curves. Also basic electrical stuff, but also involves vectors, which you claim to understand but can only prove otherwise. So if I give you a transient problem, as an electrical engineer, you would be able to solve it, correct?
Do you know what a transient is?



There is no sane way to explain how a smaller force can produce a larger displacement than a larger force.

To think that a smaller force can cause more displacement than a larger force, sounds like a pretty serious disorder.


The disorder is called being an engineer. Most people in that condition understand that the force applied over time causes displacement, given the force is larger than the resistance. Has to do with concepts like impulse and momentum.


I'm giving you a chance to put up or shut up, read above. I do not believe for a second that you have any idea what in the hell you are talking about, and are lying about being an engineer. The biggest give-away is that you don't know anything about vectors, failing to even realize that a deflection contains a horizontal component of force. This is probably all gibberish to you. Your facade isn't going to last much longer though, because I took the same courses you claim to have taken.



But there are also other factors at play, not just force. But I think we can better ignore those as your are confused enough already.


Like moment of inertia, which I already mentioned. You can't even work vectors though, so you can keep the projection to yourself. I'll give you a transient problem at the end of this post and we can see what kind of "engineer" you really are.



I knew this was coming.


I wonder why NIST didn't fly an airplane into their own recreation of the trusses and perimeter columns? Maybe because they were actually smart enough to realize the plane impacts don't explain everything.


Yeh, why didn't the rebuild the whole WTC and crash a plane in it?


Like I said, they realized that the planes alone don't explain the collapses. So they tried to show how fire could do it. But ended up only with an unverified hypothesis. Now you are still vainly and ignorantly trying to prove it while flailing around one utter disembowelment of physics after another.




So there is no point to scientific studies when it comes to 9/11. I already figured that too. Take your case to the religion forums then.


Sure there is. If you can show how it relates to the event. But never mind.


Fire in steel framed construction. That's the relevancy. And that's what Cardington studied. And that's what you need besides a plane impact. But you can't force it to work no matter how hard you boggle your noodle. So you fail.




So Mr. "electrical engineer." You have a series-parallel circuit. It includes an AC voltage source of 60 Hz, in series with the rest of the circuit. A capacitor rated 50uF is in parallel with another capacitor rated 100uF. Finally, a 500k resister before the voltage source, also in series with the rest of the circuit. How long does it take for the capacitors to charge, and what is the equivalent capacitance of the parallel legs if they were to be replaced by a series wire?


If you can answer, your proclaimed education may be worth a damn at least as far as electricity goes.


If you can't answer, you're a fraud and you deserve to be banned for lying. Or else you got your "degree" in some 3rd world country or so much time has passed since then that for all intents and purposes you are a layman again.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw you are talking about the same object, so there is no reason a smaller force would cause a greater displacement than a larger force. Maybe if you were talking about two significantly different masses, but unfortunately you think a smaller force moves the same object farther than a larger force would move that object.


This shows that you just have no clue what "force" is. I can only advice you to get educated, as this is really of elementary school level. For the rest, your arguments are tiresome and I lost interest again.

As for your question (didn't read it yet when I hit reply), it doesn't even make sense. Your question about capacitors can be found in 2 seconds in Google.

Lets return the favor: What is the Fourier series of t+1 between -1 < t < 1.


edit on 3-4-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Hey "PLB."


Stop cherry-picking what to respond to and prove you're an "electrical engineer" by solving the circuit problem I posted for you. I took those classes. You didn't. Now solve the problem or eat crow. It's AC circuits 101. Can't handle a capacitor, and you're telling us you're an electrical engineer?


If you want to make this entire discussion boil down to a pissing contest about who actually understands physics and who doesn't, then put up or shut up champ.


I thought this was your field of "expertise"?






Oh wait and we have an edit that says this now:


Originally posted by -PLB-
Lets return the favor: What is the Fourier series of t+1 between -1 < t < 1.



And there you have it. 100% cop-out from a first semester problem and proof that you are a fraud.

The "electrical engineer" couldn't handle two simple capacitors in parallel (because he doesn't understand vectors), and now he's asking me to do a Fourier analysis he probably ripped off of Google instead. You couldn't work your own problem, genius, unless you still have the Google page up that you ripped it off of.

You're not an electrical engineer. You are a fraud and you have been lying about your education this whole time.

And your "understanding" of other physics simply speaks for itself. Smaller forces allegedly being able to cause greater displacement than larger forces and too many other demonstrations of pure ignorance for me to even remember. Literally all you would have to do is use the correct formula to add the capacitances in parallel and then use vectors to determine the impedance, and plug that into a formula to determine the time. And you can't even do that. Because, once again, you don't even know how to add vectors.


So you wanted it to boil down to a pissing contest, and you lost. So much for your argument. Looks like I'm done here.
edit on 3-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If that is a question from one of your textbooks, it explains a lot. Are you seriously judging my expertise on whether or not I can do (50*100)/(50+100)?. You are as naive as ANOK when it comes to judging people. Now goo solve that Fourier series.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Really? All this time to scour Google and you've only got that far into the problem? I asked for the time before the capacitors charged. So far you've only figured out how to add two capacitors in parallel.

Keep searching. Maybe if you send some emails off to professors of universities tonight, by tomorrow one of them will reply and give you the answer.


Like I said, you could have done this in 3 minutes if you were actually an EE. That's just the time it takes to write everything down and punch it into a calculator.


We already know you're lying.



And with that, I really am done with this discussion with you. You're the one that chose to give up trying to explain your position and just make it all into a pissing contest, ie "You don't know physics but I do, so there." Looks like you kicked yourself in the face. Have fun playing with yourself here.

edit on 3-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If you know anything about this subject you know the capacitors are never "charged" as in done charging. You can at most ask the RC time. But that applies to DC not AC. So, whats that Fourier series?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


www.eng.uwaterloo.ca...

That pdf has two examples of capacitive transients being calculated using AC voltage sources. One is a square wave and the other a sine wave at 10kHz.

Excerpt talking about RC time transients in AC circuits (note the words "signal," "peak-to-peak," "ripple"):


Capacitors transiently
store energy, and so they tend to smooth out signals. So let us parallel a capacitor across
C the resistor, as in Fig. 2, and see if we can smooth out the rectified but rather bumpy
signal. The trick is to choose the time constant T=RC> > T, where T is the period of the
signal being rectified. So try various combinations and observe the results. The amount of
bumpiness is usually defined in terms of a percent ripple, the percent ratio of the peak-topeak
variation in the rectified signal to its average value (or bias voltage)




Now SERIOUSLY, this is my last post on this thread. The discussion has been wrapped up. Everything is said in posts above.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


This is the second physics question posed to PLB in order for him to prove his claim as being an engineer, I asked this question only a few pages ago...


Miles Tugo and Ben Travlun are riding in a bus at highway speed on a nice summer day when an unlucky bug splatters onto the windshield. Miles and Ben begin discussing the physics of the situation. Miles suggests that the momentum change of the bug is much greater than that of the bus. After all, argues Miles, there was no noticeable change in the speed of the bus compared to the obvious change in the speed of the bug. Ben disagrees entirely, arguing that that both bug and bus encounter the same force, momentum change, and impulse. Who do you agree with? Support your answer.


This was PLB's reply...


Originally posted by -PLB-
The problem isn't my lack of understanding in physics, its your lack of understanding what happens when during the collapse.


You're right bsbray, this discussion is now pointless.

PLB you can cry all you want, you have zero credibility. A smart OSer would have dropped this discussion by now and signed up under another user name. This must be your first assignment huh? You'll learn the ropes soon enough lol.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So you realized that the question what time it would take for the capacitors to be charged made no sense, so now you try to get away by bringing up points that may seem relevant to a laymen.

Just for laughs, what is the answer to your question "How long does it take for the capacitors to charge"? Give a value in actual seconds. Prediction: there will never be an answer. Or maybe something lame like 1/4T as total cop out, although I don't think you will think of that way out yourself.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Maybe you should go figure out where collapsed floors end up and come back when you did.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Wow, he couldn't answer that one either?

And yes, PLB, I could get an answer in seconds, not just a generic variable. 60 Hz is 60 cycles per second. You know I actually forgot to even give you a voltage for the source, I only gave its frequency, but you didn't even notice that.



Okay I know I've said this like two or three times now but seriously... Thus end PLB's attempt to prove NIST's hypothesis.

edit on 4-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
420
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join