[psikeyhackr (OP)]

I just had an idea for another model design the other day. It would involve Newton's third law because the falling mass would be crushable unlike the stack of washers I used here:

When I originally came up with that model I intended to use larger washers. There is a size that is almost 2 inches in diameter and about 1/4th of an inch thick. But the hardware stores don't stock very many of that type. I would have had to go to 20 stores to get enough, so I used smaller washers.

But now I am thinking that by using the big washers a stack could be made with the washers separated by folded pieces of paper. Cut the paper into 1/2 inch strips and fold them into little boxes that could act as supports between the washers. Since the paper at the bottom of the stack would have to support more weight either thicker paper or multiple strips would need to be used. So the paper would act as the columns of the WTC which could be bent and crushed by sufficient falling mass.

So a small stack of washers, also separated by paper "columns" could be dropped down the dowel to test the effect of the impact. So if 4 washers separated by paper were dropped on 29 similarly separated washers then the bottom of the falling stack would experience the same CRUSHING EFFECT as the top of the stationary stack.  This would slow the mass of the top of the falling portion and kinetic energy would be used up by the falling portion crushing itself.

The only problem with this is that the washers would all be the same mass. There would not be the tapering of mass effect as in a real skyscraper.

So if this demonstration collapse ALWAYS STOPPED short of complete destruction in repeated tests then what would that say about the WTC?  Curious that so many engineering schools haven't come up with something this simple.  Ryan Mackey suggested the principle in his 3rd Hardfire episode but not a realistic method of implementing it.

This would be better than toothpicks since the "paper columns" would have to be made stronger toward the bottom to support greater weight. A lot of experimenting would have to be done with the strength of the paper to be sure each level had the minimum strength necessary for a realistic collapse and yet be capable of supporting itself for at least a week to be sure it was sufficiently similar to a real skyscraper.

psik

[psikeyhackr (OP)]

I just videotaped my collapse last night.

I am using the 2 inch diameter washers dropped down a 3/4 in. diameter dowel.  The washers weigh about 1.7 oz each.  The washers are separated by strips of paper 1/2 in wide.  For the top 11 levels the paper is 5 in long and curled into a single loop.  The next 17 levels use 8 1/2 in paper strips curled in a double loop.  The bottom 5 levels use one of each making a triple loop.  This structure was able to support itself for 3 days before I did the collapse test.

So I am using 33 washers held up by 33 paper spacers.  The stack is almost 24 inches tall.  I raised 4 washers to a 45 inch height.  That is where I drilled the hole for the straightened out paper clip to hold my falling mass.  So 4 washers numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 separated by 3 single loop paper spacers numbered 1, 2 and 3 would fall onto single loop paper spacer #4 and the rest of the stack.

So my falling mass could free fall for about 24 inches before impact.  Proportunately that is much greater than what happened to the north tower.  My mass ratio is 4/33 or 12.1%.  The height ratio for the north tower was 14/110 or 12.7%.  But we don't have any trustworthy mass ratio for the towers.

My collapse was ARRESTED, just like the one with the toothpicks.

Single loop spacers #1 and #11 remained intact and all of the spacers numbered greater than 11 which were farther down the stack were unaffected.  Spacers 3, 4, 5 and 6 were crushed completely flat.  The number on 8 was readable in the collapsed state but the other side was crushed.

Since spacers 2 and 3 were part of the falling mass and were crushed this demonstrates that Bazant's concept of the falling mass remaining intact while crushing the rest is COMPLETE NONSENSE. 

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Bazant is claiming something violated Newton's 3rd law.

Without the dowel there is no way this structure could have stood straight up.  I am sure some people will use that to complain about it.  It would be nice to have finer control over the strength of the spacers but I haven't come up with anything better yet.  I haven't tried spaghetti.

It will probably take me longer to edit the video and make a sound track than the model did.

But the collapse was ARRESTED!

psik

PS - As expected.

PS2 - The parts for this demonstration are less than $20 so any educator can have a class of grade school kids perform the experiment.  This bullshit dragging on for EIGHT YEARS+ is totally ridiculous!

[Geezer]

Per psikeyhackr:

Therefore SOMETHING ELSE had to be responsible for the destruction.  I am not trying to say what that Something Else was.  That is other people's problem.

In otherwords, the objective of the "experiment" was a foregone conclusion.

This is a conspiracy theory disguised as a science experiment.
 
This thread is locked.

Mod.