0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sirs, Madams, Others !Is the pressure acting on the lower blocks really taking on the weight of all above them ?If so, does this mean that the nature of the block is different than the ones at the top ?..ie: stronger mix ?..more absorbent of pressure mix ?Is there compression involved ? ie: do the blocks ' give ' under the weight !...or is there a way to evenly distribute the weight of the entire building ?
If that's true then you wouldn't have been able to climb up.It's true that the stone at the foot of a skyscraper is holding a pretty large pressure but don't worry too much. The rocks at the foot of a mountain are holding a lot more and have been doing so for a long time (the tapered shape of mountains helps a lot, but the point's still valid.)
If that's true then you wouldn't have been able to climb up.
Alberto, he was reffering to Neil's reaction on that picture in message 117265 (the human pyramid) where the lower blocks (or rather blokes in this case) have to carry all the load.
A flying butress didn't stop the masonry being crushed by the weight of the stuff above it. It stopped the walls being pushed out by the roof. I doubt anyone has built a building where the stonework failed in compression.Most skyscrapers don't float, but only because they are not on water. They have a density less than that of water so they would float. On the other hand, the windows would probably burst so don't try it at home.(Hmm, problem with windows; that sounds familliar)