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.
The reason the horse can pull the cart is the same reason that the guy can turn the crank. The force between animal and object is not the only force on the animal. The other one is the ground. The horse's legs push against the ground and the ground pushes back. This satisifes the third law but leaves forces unbalanced on the horse and subsequently the cart, so the cart moves. So it is with the crank.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by IrishWristwatch
I don't have such a deep understanding of Bazants model as you have, so I can well be wrong here. But doesn't what you say here means that his model does not account for static loads?
A debris layer laying on an intact floor increases the load of that floor.
In fact, even without a debris layer, the load on the lower floor is greater by the weight of 2 floors during an impact.
Originally posted by ANOK
then why did the weak joints not fail when the trusses supposedly pulled in columns much more massive than themselves?
That is a contradiction you need to address.
Also it should be noticed that the load comes on the structuree suddenly, and if the span is only a short one, the full live load effect is induced in a fraction of a second.
...
Then, as regards sudden loading, it can be shown theoretically that if a load is suddenly applied to a piece of material, the strain produced will be just twice that produced by the same load gradually applied, and, therefore, the equivalent stress will be twice that produced by the same load gradually applied, as calculated in the usual way.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by IrishWristwatch
Yeah, I was just drawing that diagram myself to understand it better (force acting from foot on floor (A), floor on foot (B), man on machine (C), machine on man (D), machine on floor (E), and floor on machine(F))
Thinking out loud (again, correct me if I'm wrong)
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Because earth is such a massive object, it is accelerated by such a small amount compared to the WTC that earth's simultaneous movement is unnoticeable to the casual human observer.
If one stands on the ground, what prevents one from moving downward further is not the reaction force from earth's center of mass, but the normal force that is the reaction force of the action force exerted on the ground through your shoes.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by snowcrash911
Then I do not understand how the model can ever predict arrest without initial debris layer. Even if the collapse starts with crush up, as debris piles up, crush down will happen as result of static load.edit on 5-2-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
The actual collapse mechanisms bear virtually no resemblance to that detailed in earlier papers. These were simplified formulations to determine gross energetic thresholds for continuation and a first order approximation to the dynamics. In all likelihood, and as appears from direct observation, the collapses consisted of bidirectional crush of varying proportion. In this reply, an ideal case leading to exclusive crushdown is examined to illustrate the validity of the earlier papers, but also a more general framework of bidirectional crushing is developed and it is seen that a number of realistic solutions depict total collapse as well. Ultimately, the analysis will be taken to the limit of applicability, where exclusive crush up and arrest result, and the reasons why the model is inapplicable in these regimes, versus being applicable in previous articles, will be thoroughly explained.
Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
The visual evidence points towards a significant amount of crush-up occurring early in the collapse at minimum.
Open systems are studied all the time. I get the impression you think systems must somehow be made closed before a model is acceptable.