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.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My Python program makes it possible for anyone to create a table with whatever mass distribution they want to see how it affects collapse time.
12 seconds is the minimum with what you would call constant density. Making it bottom heavy increases the time.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My Python program makes it possible for anyone to create a table with whatever mass distribution they want to see how it affects collapse time. 12 seconds is the minimum with what you would call constant density. Making it bottom heavy increases the time.
Thats odd, as the calculations are independent of the mass. After all, when you increase the mass of the lower floors, the mass of the top floors increase with the same amount.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by IrishWristwatch
I guess I will have to do the the math myself to really understand this. But I do think I get the basic idea now. As speed increases, total inertia in a given time frame also increases. I must say that it is indeed counter intuitive to me, but its not the first time my intuition has been wrong. Thanks for the extensive explanation.edit on 1-2-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by -PLB-
I am not an native English speaker...
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
We know that many columns lagged or were outside the collapse front (so no momentum exchange there) and just fell to the ground. So modeling all columns as part of the collapse front is not realistic. Though I agree that assuming a constant floor mass is also not realistic.
Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Mass ratio is the horizontal axis, depicted logarithmically. Notice the difference in collapse times for the extremes is less than 4 seconds. The maximum collapse time asymptotically approached for any linear mass distribution is about 14.25 seconds.
So it matters, just not very much.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Mathematics is never 100% realistic. Reality is very random and messy except whe it is gravity working in a vacuum.
But how did 4 ton girders get all of the way to the Winter Garden 600 feet away? How did steel get stuck into the AmEx building? Gravity and collapse cannot explain everything that happened on 9/11. So if something destroyed the core and steel being hurled 600 feet away was just a side effect then gravitational collapse programs are not going to account for that.
That program is to show how ridiculous the collapse only explanation is. Because that Python program assumes no realistic supports which 1360 foot buildings must have.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Mass ratio is the horizontal axis, depicted logarithmically. Notice the difference in collapse times for the extremes is less than 4 seconds. The maximum collapse time asymptotically approached for any linear mass distribution is about 14.25 seconds.
So it matters, just not very much.
But that collapse is MAGICAL. The masses are held up by NOTHING.
I am not doing this for smart alek mathematical purposes.
Dr. Sunder said the north tower came down in 11 seconds.
4 seconds is a significant percentage of 11.
The Python program is just to combat all of the people who say we shouldn't care about the distributions of steel and concrete at all.
If mass alone has some effect then the destruction of supports must have an additional effect also.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But how did 4 ton girders get all of the way to the Winter Garden 600 feet away?
Mathematics is never 100% realistic.
Originally posted by -PLB-
So why don't you add those realistic supports to your model, and see what the collapse time becomes? Without that, do you really think you can make any meaningful conclusion? Your argument is purely based on incredulity and assumption.
My physical model is more realistic than any modification to the computer model.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
My physical model is more realistic than any modification to the computer model.
If you mean a washer sitting on a paper ring over and over then no. Because it doesn't come anywhere close to the actual construction used.
A better method would to staple a bunch of paper rings end to end. Then spot glue the washers inside.
If your physical model doesn't show the same results as reality then your model is wrong. Gravity, fire, damage due to plane impacts explains the collapse of the twin towers. The tube in tube design can not be modeled as washers supported by paper rings with a broom stick handle through the washer centers.
Regarding this last exchange: It only takes one introductory physics class, not even close to an undergrad degree, to separate the skilled from the lay person on this matter.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
You can cite equations till you are blue in the face, but they only describe the assumptions built into your model.
Whatever outcome you reach is only true for your model, not all reality, unless you can also show that your model also actual systematically predicts real world phenomena it is not valid scientifically.
This is what bugs me so intensely about you Irish, you think that no one can see through your jargon and spot the model underneath, a model which makes ROOSD and Bazant look like the height of sophistication.
...you have a tube with sand poured down it.
...your sand tube...
Originally posted by Darkwing01
Undergrad degrees don't typically require any understanding.