Apparently you aren't reading. You're going to be waiting for a while.
Why do you rely so much on apeing? No sooner than I mention argument from incredulity, you turn it back on me. It's like certain things never occur to you until you're accused of them, then you immediately add it to your arsenal and use it. Are you a chatbot?
I fully comprehend the "bridge from the other parties point of view" tactic. Recall my professional background - managing conciliation processes in both Industrial and Customer Relations. (Plus working with a lot of politicians...:roll
BUT full conciliation process requires willing partners and Koko has rejected all offers. Agreed and understood resp.
OR if you can quantify which I can - but see next
My offers of explanation would lead to me explaining but Koko denies the path.
I have no such goal. Explanation remains my driving obsession. Hence I can walk away from those who don't want to learn. And not give a hoot when they claim I "ran away".
No doubt. And one of my professional strong areas - three dimensional visualising of structural realities. A sound basis for adding the fourth dimension of "time" or "dynamics". Hence my interest in explaining and relative lack of interest in arguing or "winning" arguments. BTW "lack of a sufficient mental model" is the T Sz failing with Missing jolt and the related issues of axial contact of columns. see the T Sz revisited topics on several forums in the guise of the "Pepper Letter". Same crap but applied to WTC7.
It is another examples of the risks of starting argument from the arse end. Missing the bleeding obvious. AKA "forests v trees" or, slightly different focus, "Alligators or Swamps" syndrome.
Understood but watch that the model used as an example is not used as an escape route derail. BTW al my ball park quantifications rely on valid upper or lower bound logic...also apparently outside of Koko's frame of reference so he denies rather than follow through with explanatory discussion.
It's the easiest or laziest tactic. Don't do your own thinking simple let the opponent think and write. Then take each element of explanation and reverse the polarity OR the target.
I'm not surprised everything so far has gone WAY over your head; it's quite obvious you've never had a physics course. I'm already doing it - setting up a useful model is the important part, silly - and I have to talk about it to communicate the particulars.
I guarantee it will continue that way without exception.
Yes. For the recod, it should be known by all that what I'm going to do is independent of any arguments you've made.
Did they? What is the relevance to this thread of a mostly false graphic allegedly posted by someone?but debunkers posted this
What is my "pivot conclusion"? Placement? Constraints? Region versus point? What are you talking about? Be specific or it'll be apparent you don't know what you're talking about.
When did I say that? On the contrary, I AM interested in seeing something from you besides naked assertions and incredulity.
Repeated boring and untruthful evasions noted - AND - apart form this comment - ignored.
Me too. If only he would post some substantial argument I would respond.
I haven't identified a point of rotation. I intend to check a range of locations.
How does something "rotate about a region"? The axis of rotation may change with time, but it is always instantaneously about a line in 3D (which is a point in 2D if the axis is normal to the 2D plane). I've already alluded to the possibility of moving the pivot location as time progress, but I certainly don't want to start with that. Is that what you're talking about?
It was in bold! 10-20% mg.
Yes. Many trials under a range of conditions.
The opportunity to flush a lot of time down the toilet? I'm thrilled.
A correction for tilt was done in BLGB. Kludge is more like it, but it was eventually addressed in some way.
Yes, I am.
No. Not at all. This is a simple approximation, better than a falling pencil but nowhere near an FEA with any sort of structural detail. The structure will be an array of 2D mass points connected by quadrilateral finite elements - literally a sheet. The masses in the grid can be assigned as desired, but I'm going to start with uniform mass just to keep it simple. Later, other distributions can be investigated.
I agree that center of mass location is pretty important. Or rather, the mass distribution in profile. But again, I'd like to start simple and use uniform density to see how that goes.
I find it... odd.. humorous... that you are suddenly now very attentive to the idea of air being under the perimeter. Yes, air is SO secondary that it will be ignored. When it comes to the resistive force, the capacity loss due to column/air "contact" is already factored in but supporting force will only be applied across the width of the lower structure.
Early on, I'd agree, to the extent that eccentric loading and geometry reduces capacity. There are consequences of that much distortion that make it much worse than eccentric loading of a single member, though. The ductile limit of steel is 20% elongation, which means the high side only needs to stretch 3/4 meter per story over any distance and that wall is fractured in tension. Guaranteed. That's not much tilt. On the opposite wall, there's foldover at a severe angle. In between on the other walls there's buckling. On the other hand, I think it would descend more slowly if rotated 90 degrees before dropping than displaced laterally two or three feet. Just a guess.
