Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

[Max Photon]

* * *

Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti have a relatively new paper in - your favorite - the Journal of 911 Studies:

911 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible


This scratching post is for all you intellectual felines.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the paper?

[Pardalis]

Lame.

Their interpretation of the NIST's conclusion is wrong, they're still thinking of a pancake collapse.

[Gravy]

This idiocy has already been discussed. See the Journal of 9/11 Studies "100th paper" thread.

[Mancman]

They describe a collapse mechanism that obviously didn't happen, thus whatever they conclude is totally moot.

[16.5]

Max, we are still reading that incredibly detailed 1 and 1/2 page long note, and waiting instructions from the folks at MilDec.

In the interim, one may wish to read that whole other thread that was started about this jotting. And given the fact there is already a thread on it, I fully expect you to come in with a hard hitting analysis, right out of the gate! Go Max!

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Max, we are still reading that incredibly detailed 1 and 1/2 page long note

Not even 1 and 1/2.

[Max Photon]

Sorry, I didn't realize the paper was being discussed elsewhere.


This station is signing off.


* * *

[CHF]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

So in other words, the opposite is true.

[einsteen]

Originally Posted by CHF

So in other words, the opposite is true.

But I think they mean the opposite didn't happen.

[Mince]

I thought the circus was seasonal.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

* * *

Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti have a relatively new paper in - your favorite - the Journal of 911 Studies:

911 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible


This scratching post is for all you intellectual felines.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the paper?

The paper says nothing, presents nothing, is nothing. If you have some points that you can support please present them. But Tony has problems with reality, he makes up lies about 9/11 and posts political tripe in his old failed paper; even if you agree with his politics why is political junk in a science paper. The paper is like your stuff, wrong. You posted it and have no idea why it is wrong, and no idea why they are making it up.

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! The talk it up and prove nothing. Tony and Frank use talk to state a lie. Do you understand they did nothing! Read the paper, they talk about it, and say it can't happen. They say "it appears". They have no proof, they just say it can not happen, the old Fetzer method of stupid, just say it is so, it is so.

Summing up the paper, the sudden collapse initiation was impossible because they say so! Wowzer, and they ignore GRAVITY! Good job for these two with a new dolt idea on 9/11. Doltalicious

They say cause the sag had to go slow, the building would just sag down. They were proven wrong on 9/11, twice! Fools with education. If you have only a high school degree, you now see why there are many millionaires who share your plight of being rational and smart; higher educations does not prevent real dumb ideas from flowing from educated fools!

[einsteen]

I agree with you Beachnut, it is of the same level as the Blanchard report, you remember, the BS'er with an axe to grind...

Some calculations would be very needed. I think they should set up a mathematical model, 1d for example and then estimate a function representing the resistive static force as function of time. They should prove that the kinetic impact energy after the collapse of the first story is insufficient to collapse the next one. The paper, although their idea can made plausible, is no real high level science paper.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The paper says nothing, presents nothing, is nothing. If you have some points that you can support please present them. But Tony has problems with reality, he makes up lies about 9/11 and posts political tripe in his old failed paper; even if you agree with his politics why is political junk in a science paper. The paper is like your stuff, wrong. You posted it and have no idea why it is wrong, and no idea why they are making it up.

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! The talk it up and prove nothing. Tony and Frank use talk to state a lie. Do you understand they did nothing! Read the paper, they talk about it, and say it can't happen. They say "it appears". They have no proof, they just say it can not happen, the old Fetzer method of stupid, just say it is so, it is so.

Summing up the paper, the sudden collapse initiation was impossible because they say so! Wowzer, and they ignore GRAVITY! Good job for these two with a new dolt idea on 9/11. Doltalicious

They say cause the sag had to go slow, the building would just sag down. They were proven wrong on 9/11, twice! Fools with education. If you have only a high school degree, you now see why there are many millionaires who share your plight of being rational and smart; higher educations does not prevent real dumb ideas from flowing from educated fools!

Excellent points.

When I was in college one of my classmates was a brilliant 4.0 student who, I swear, couldn't figure out how to put gasoline in his car.

He was the "smartest" guy I've ever known but he was also as dumb as a rock!

[Newtons Bit]

This paper is nothing but one long face-palm. How inept can two people possibly be?

[bje]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

This paper is nothing but one long face-palm. How inept can two people possibly be?

It's the nature of the beast.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I agree with you Beachnut, it is of the same level as the Blanchard report, you remember, the BS'er with an axe to grind...

Some calculations would be very needed. I think they should set up a mathematical model, 1d for example and then estimate a function representing the resistive static force as function of time. They should prove that the kinetic impact energy after the collapse of the first story is insufficient to collapse the next one. The paper, although their idea can made plausible, is no real high level science paper.

Yes you agree Tony, the realcddeal, and Frank have just made up stuff to fool people unable to understand physics and engineering. They lied to fool people in 9/11 truth. Too bad they have no facts or evidence. Gee, the aircraft impacts alone had enough energy to cut all the columns. No wonder these guys ignore gravity and other factors as they spin a talking tale of woo.

The best part is where they seem to say steel gets stronger with heat. They have twisted some stuff to make it seem like there were explosives used to bring down the WTC. Liars with no facts. Yes, since they are trying to deceive people, even you have fallen for their foolish attempt at science. Why do they beat around the bush like you?

I love how you bring up an off topic item to make your false agreement more dumb.

You can do a quick calculation and prove Tony wrong; just like Ross is wrong.

I have no idea where you stand on 9/11, you have done a great job not supporting anything 9/11.

Jim Hoffman fails to make his point on B man. But nice try; JH was killed in Iraq, just like the terrorists are still alive! Aside from that BS, you failed to make a point that Blanchard is wrong, in fact he is correct. Funny, you can be biased and be right, and yoiu can be biased like Tony, Jones and other 9/11 fools and be wrong. Ironic

[einsteen]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Excellent points.

When I was in college one of my classmates was a brilliant 4.0 student who, I swear, couldn't figure out how to put gasoline in his car.

He was the "smartest" guy I've ever known but he was also as dumb as a rock!

I remember a theoretical physics professor, he works on non-abelian gauge theories, quantum fields etc., but when he met the coffee maker he was really confused and had no idea how to make coffee.

[einsteen]

Originally Posted by beachnut

I have no idea where you stand on 9/11, you have done a great job not supporting anything 9/11.

I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI

[DGM]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI

Isn't that first video the one from 9-11 mysteries that Sophia(?) admits to adding the explosions?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI

You do know in the first 3 seconds there are fake sounds? Where did you get that clip, the first 3 seconds are dub sounds.

But there are no explosives making noises in the rest of your clip. Sounds more like a KC-135 crashing.

Your video proves there are no explosive sounds, no real sounds of explosives, just building falling.

Your video on 93 shows exactly what a plane looks like that hits at high speed. I have been worked aircraft crash scenes like this. Not one thing is strange with 93, nothing is out of the ordinary. 93 is what you get when you run a plane into the ground. So you have two good videos proving no explosives and nothing strange about 93. You are working too hard.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! They talk it up and prove nothing.

Beachnut,

We are what we hate.

Do not modify other posters' names.

Posted By:LibraryLady

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Beachnut,

We are what we hate.

Another scientific absolute? Do you have the related formulas and equations? Was this Galileo? Newton? Ptolemy?

Since we are what we hate, I am Max Proton and I proclaim myself (since I'm so big on self-proclaimation) an idiot. I'm not attacking you; I'm calling myself and idiot, since, like you said, we are what we hate.

I don't really hate you. I don't hate anyone. But I think you're ridiculous and could use a bit of a scientific education.

[einsteen]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You do know in the first 3 seconds there are fake sounds? Where did you get that clip, the first 3 seconds are dub sounds.

But there are no explosives making noises in the rest of your clip. Sounds more like a KC-135 crashing.

Your video proves there are no explosive sounds, no real sounds of explosives, just building falling.

Your video on 93 shows exactly what a plane looks like that hits at high speed. I have been worked aircraft crash scenes like this. Not one thing is strange with 93, nothing is out of the ordinary. 93 is what you get when you run a plane into the ground. So you have two good videos proving no explosives and nothing strange about 93. You are working too hard.

I noticed that also and wrote that down. I don't know where I got them all, but I'm aware that there are different versions, the most famous one is the fireman videos (posted by Rick Siegel at his board) with the booms added, I didn't add that video, but some people say that it was genuine from a tv broadcast. The 2nd last is from Naudet, or to be more precise the name of the vid was *Naudet*.mpg (*=wildcard)

With the latter you mean the Shanksville crash ? I uploaded it for someone and had no twoof purposes with it. But I don't know what to think about it if you compare it with other crashes. It's again a unique one off event, that should be added in the product of improbabilities.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Beachnut,

We are what we hate.

Max, try to support the paper with some facts. Go ahead try. What do you have? Your thermite is failed, now what? Come on, even with your thermite they are saying it can not happen. Did you get that. Their ideas mean it can't happen; see thermite would be too slow for the realcddeal to take place.

So you do you support a paper that says your stuff is a lie? Or do you say the paper is junk? Which is it, is their paper right, your thermite would fail, or their paper wrong 9/11 happen? It is that simple.

Your fantasy is not supported by the paper, you better get smart and think about who you support and why. Right?

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Max, try to support the paper with some facts. Go ahead try. What do you have? Your thermite is failed, now what? Come on, even with your thermite they are saying it can not happen. Did you get that. Their ideas mean it can't happen; see thermite would be too slow for the realcddeal to take place.

So you do you support a paper that says your stuff is a lie? Or do you say the paper is junk? Which is it, is their paper right, your thermite would fail, or their paper wrong 9/11 happen? It is that simple.

Your fantasy is not supported by the paper, you better get smart and think about who you support and why. Right?

I guess I am not as black-and-white as you seem to be, Beachnut. I simply asked what were the strengths and weaknesses of their paper. I didn't support it. I didn't shoot it down. I simply called for a discussion.

You see Beachnut, it is not essential that the paper be correct. Even a completely incorrect paper can have tremendous value if it triggers in even one other person some keen insight. The unfolding of understanding, individually and collectively, is a highly unpredictable process. That is what makes the human mind so incredible.

Now, understanding emerges from discussion, even if only with one's self. It is a shame that B&W thinkers such as yourself have such an abhorrence of discussion or debate. With you, its formulas (as if somehow that equals proof), or nothing. Oh well...it takes all types!


By the way, Beachnut, I expect from now on that YOU back YOUR statements with PROOF, and with CALCULATIONS. Enough of this argument-by-anger. (You can alway tell when BNut is P.O.ed...all his punctuation evaporates away.)

Let's see some figgerin's!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I noticed that also and wrote that down. I don't know where I got them all, but I'm aware that there are different versions, the most famous one is the fireman videos (posted by Rick Siegel at his board) with the booms added, I didn't add that video, but some people say that it was genuine from a tv broadcast. The 2nd last is from Naudet, or to be more precise the name of the vid was *Naudet*.mpg (*=wildcard)

With the latter you mean the Shanksville crash ? I uploaded it for someone and had no twoof purposes with it. But I don't know what to think about it if you compare it with other crashes. It's again a unique one off event, that should be added in the product of improbabilities.

You have to compare it with high speed crashes, it is a perfect match. You do not need to believe me, but I was trained by the air force to be an aircraft crash investigator. We used high speed impacts during training and I have been at scenes where the parts look exactly like what we see at 93 and the Pentagon. If you are an US citizen you paid for my training. The crashes on 9/11 look like they should. 9/11 truth is making up stuff. You have paid me to tell you this.

There is nothing improbable about 93 or 77. I was watching LCFC and Dylan goes on and says "No mayday, no hijack code", he ignores the pilots are dying, and makes up small talk to go with his great disrespect for victims making a false statement again on 9/11. But as I watch LCFC there is even less doubt about what happen on 9/11, and nothing LCFC implies happened. LCFC is all junk, and says nothing. I can't find anything worthwhile in LCFC. But the same goes for Tony's paper, his realcddeal is busted, 6 years ago, your own video proves it.

[Mince]

Yeah, beachnut, why require all that ikky science stuff when you're trying to prove a scientif theory? We're just discussin' and learnin', right?

[pomeroo]

After all is said and done, you have to take your hat off to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Those guys wanted to make it look as though planes caused the Twin Towers to fall, so to achieve maximal deception, they went and used real planes.

Brilliant--absolutely brilliant, I tell you.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

After all is said and done, you have to take your hat off to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.

And the Unecessarily Complex Conspiracy (thermite, Pentagon flyover) deserves at least a tip of the same hat.

[einsteen]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You have to compare it with high speed crashes, it is a perfect match. You do not need to believe me, but I was trained by the air force to be an aircraft crash investigator. We used high speed impacts during training and I have been at scenes where the parts look exactly like what we see at 93 and the Pentagon. If you are an US citizen you paid for my training. The crashes on 9/11 look like they should. 9/11 truth is making up stuff. You have paid me to tell you this.

There is nothing improbable about 93 or 77.

I've seen the Sandia F4 test in depth, but as a lay man I use the following lay formula

high speed plane + absorbing wall=dust
high speed plane + field =wreckage

I'm not sure what the difference in conditions is if you compare Shanksville with other crashes, like Lockerbie. I have to admit that I also don't know all the facts because I concentrate on the buildings, what was found then ?(except the .....passport)

ps. I'm a Dutch guy, my tax is only spend here...

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I've seen the Sandia F4 test in depth, but as a lay man I use the following lay formula

high speed plane + absorbing wall=dust
high speed plane + field =wreckage

I'm not sure what the difference in conditions is if you compare Shanksville with other crashes, like Lockerbie. I have to admit that I also don't know all the facts because I concentrate on the buildings, what was found then ?(except the .....passport)

ps. I'm a Dutch guy, my tax is only spend here...

Lockerbie the plane broke up due the the bomb and crashed to earth. Shanksville the plane raced upside down intact on throttle into the ground like a lawn dart. Both left craters

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I've seen the Sandia F4 test in depth, but as a lay man I use the following lay formula

high speed plane + absorbing wall=dust
high speed plane + field =wreckage

I'm not sure what the difference in conditions is if you compare Shanksville with other crashes, like Lockerbie. I have to admit that I also don't know all the facts because I concentrate on the buildings, what was found then ?(except the .....passport)

ps. I'm a Dutch guy, my tax is only spend here...

My dad was running around that area with the 101 back in 44.

But you know your disaster 747 crash you have was between the energy of 11 and 175 at impact. But the speed was slower, the energy, due to weight was about the same.

The passport is consistent with real world accidents. Not faked. 93 has a few personal effects ejected as the plane crashes into the ground in a 2500 pounds of TNT energy event, the objects were small items, not much KE with a drivers license, you can calculate it! So small items not smashed by people and metal can be in good condition, I have found items at crash scenes hundreds of feet away in perfect condition, ejected from the cockpit, instruments are flung out hundreds of feet.

I have yet to find something out of place, not right for 9/11. Even the terrorist pilots were not a surprise, I have put kids in simulators with no flying experienced and they have hit buildings.

The high speed is enough in soft field to destroy a plane. The impact angle and speed made a hole with metal and people smashed in a very small area feet below the ground. They have to dig out the people and planes parts. Speed below 200 you have some of the things you expect form the slow speed crashes you have seen. The pilots job is not to wreck, and if he fails, the next step is to crash as slow as possible. On 9/11 the planes were all going fast, over 470 mph, all large energy events when they hit massive objects like the WTC, Pentagon, and EARTH. The earth is the most massive, it did not move the earth much! Water destroys high speed bullets in a foot, or two, but slow speed bullets can go further. Energy and speed, work together to give different results. You must remember each object on 9/11 was going over 470 mph, it takes time to stop. The slow speed crashes 9/11 truth shows to dispute the debris fields of 77 and 93 were all slow speeds when you take into account that energy = 1/2 the mass times velocity squared. The velocity is the key to the destruction you see on 9/11. A slower speed accident like the 747 would leave less damage per pound of moving aircraft, only 30 percent of the energy for each pound of aircraft compared to flight 175 and flight 93. I am saying that 747 video you have is only experiencing 30 percent of the impact damage energy per pound of aircraft mass (or kg) than 175 and 93! If there were large sections after the 747 accident this is why. But the overall impact energy of the 747 was in the same class of energy about 1500 pounds of TNT. It is the speed that makes the big difference on what survives and how.

So the passport only had 0.0001 pound of TNT energy or less at impact, could this be why it made it if it was ejected? A person even if ejected in tact would have to dissipate .45 pounds of TNT, it could hurt! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYu4HLiXFc here is what 5 pounds of TNT is like, now what would you body at 590 mph do? If earth worms and patches can make it back from the space shuttle disaster, then a passport and other small items can make it through an aircraft accident. The USAF has many examples from crashes as fast or faster of objects found as if they were not in the accident.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I guess I am not as black-and-white as you seem to be, Beachnut. I simply asked what were the strengths and weaknesses of their paper. I didn't support it. I didn't shoot it down. I simply called for a discussion.

You see Beachnut, it is not essential that the paper be correct. Even a completely incorrect paper can have tremendous value if it triggers in even one other person some keen insight. The unfolding of understanding, individually and collectively, is a highly unpredictable process. That is what makes the human mind so incredible.

Now, understanding emerges from discussion, even if only with one's self. It is a shame that B&W thinkers such as yourself have such an abhorrence of discussion or debate. With you, its formulas (as if somehow that equals proof), or nothing. Oh well...it takes all types!


By the way, Beachnut, I expect from now on that YOU back YOUR statements with PROOF, and with CALCULATIONS. Enough of this argument-by-anger. (You can alway tell when BNut is P.O.ed...all his punctuation evaporates away.)

Let's see some figgerin's!

No, I expect you to provide proof of your fantasy BS junk using thermite. Just one fact, but since you have none, I will not see them.

Calculations, are not needed for Tony's paper, there is nothing to dispute, he only says because the collapse should go slow, that it can not happen. I beg you to please point out what I can calculate to prove his talk wrong. It is an opinion. It is wrong due to lack of facts to support their idea it should smash down into a neat pile and just stand forever.

This is why you lack of knowledge on their paper is funny. Your fantasy needs it to be possible for global collapse, Tony says no global collapse. You lack thermite devices found to cut the WTC columns. YOU SAID Your process meets the NIST slow thermal weakening (slow as in not a blast of RDX) would bring down the WTC with you fantasy BS thermite. Thus you have missed the point you need to prove this idiotic paper wrong just to have your pathetic fairy tale in tact to share with your grandkids when you win the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in the year 2025. No doubt your English skills can kill mine. Else I would have tons of money debunking idiot ideas on 9/11! Because the stupid dribble I see would make a great book on how idiots lie and disrespect the dead of 9/11 for idiotic reasons.

Since your ideas are tied for stupid with the talk of Tony and his readcddeal I am not sure what you should do. You could stop posting stupid ideas on 9/11 and start honoring those who dies on 9/11 by coming back to reality. No matter what your reasons are, your ideas will stand for much more if they are reality based. On a subject where so many people on 9/11 died to make up lies is not very nice.

So Max, what did they present that can be disputed with facts? They just talked their way out of global collapse; proven wrong with video 6 years ago. Proven wrong by the Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC. Just wrong. So if you want numbers do them yourself, you are the expert thermite man of MIHOP BS fantasy super duper Max Photo. No mass, just max speed posting BS thermite ideas on 9/11. I will try to find something in Tony's paper to bring numbers to, but gee, it has been done by NIST, and many other real papers, and many other papers we have not seen because we use the internet, not a real library. You can find many papers on 9/11 that make Tony's work look like baby crap. Go order up a few. Go over to Berkley and use the library, get help form the librarian and find 9/11 work that only real research can.

BTW, Tony is trying to back in explosives now, thermite will not meet his needs unless he has those devices patented after 9/11 to cut steel up close with thermite. Your MIHOP goes down the drain with Tony's paper, read it and weep, especially after you defined you meet the NIST criteria (funny how you web of fantasy comes back to destroy itself)! Tony, you and NIST; working together to mess up your ideas.

(This is meeting your opening post, I am telling you the paper says your ideas will not work; you missed it. You are welcome Max Photo)

[LashL]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI

And you lead off with a clip that has had fake sounds added, in true intellectually dishonest Truther™ fashion.

Congratulations.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by beachnut

[color=black]Yes you agree Tony, the realcddeal, and Frank have just made up stuff to fool people unable to understand physics and engineering...
...The best part is where they seem to say steel gets stronger with heat.

Called that right. That bit about yield strength increasing with heat has my mind all stretched to snaping trying to get a grip on it.

Quote:

It is well established that the yield strength of steel increasesas the degree of distortion increases. This tendancy increases with rising temperatures and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse.

Uhhh..Yeah...HUH? Is this an established principle that they could have backed up by naming an accepted and proven theory or did one of them just pull it out of some nether oriffice? They cite in footnote #9 a page from the Manchester site that seems not to even mention this phenomenon. On that basis alone, i must give them negative points for credibility.

They also cite Ross saying that the columns were too short for buckling to occur? HUH? Not that I give Ross much credit for his brilliance in his field.

I'm not an engineer, but it looks to me like these guys are flim-flamming non engineers with their supposed credentials.

[The Doc]

Originally Posted by LashL

And you lead off with a clip that has had fake sounds added, in true intellectually dishonest Truther™ fashion.

Congratulations.

I can't believe people are still re-posting 9/11 Mysteries... let alone that one specific clip that is the largest piece of proverbial corn in the crap.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Called that right. That bit about yield strength increasing with heat has my mind all stretched to snaping trying to get a grip on it.



Uhhh..Yeah...HUH? Is this an established principle that they could have backed up by naming an accepted and proven theory or did one of them just pull it out of some nether oriffice? They cite in footnote #9 a page from the Manchester site that seems not to even mention this phenomenon. On that basis alone, i must give them negative points for credibility.

Try again. It sounds like you didn't drill down to where the specific information exists.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk:80/...Properties.htm

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by realcddeal

Try again. It sounds like you didn't drill down to where the specific information exists.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk:80/...Properties.htm

It has nothing to do with "drilling down." The paper includes a character (either a space or a hard return, I didn't take note of which) in the link, which you have to remove to get the link to work.

Once you do, and refer to figure 1, you'll see the obvious and largely irrelevant point that the quoted sentence, in context, is actually making: that due to the increasing ductility of steel at higher temperatures, taking 0.5% or 1.0% strain as the yield condition, instead of 2%, will underestimate the yield stress at high temperatures, by up to about 25%. The same figure also nicely illustrates the dramatically decreasing yield stress with increasing temperature.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by realcddeal

Try again. It sounds like you didn't drill down to where the specific information exists.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk:80/...Properties.htm

Thanks for posting that Tony.

I thinks it's awesome that you've put out yet another angle on the matter. That it directly contradicts Bazant's model, and my model, is even more awesome! It is testament to just how wide open the field really is. (Plus, it adds to the excitement!)

As our field of hypotheses expands and matures, eventually the correct answer will be had, if we do not already have it.


* * *

Beachnut, you seemed refreshed. Did you pamper yourself at a spa or something?

[Good Lt]

Quote:

As our field of hypotheses expands and matures, eventually the correct answer will be had, if we do not have it already.

LOL

Maybe you can then expand your quest for credibility and recognition to a reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal instead of posting your terminally stupid theories in obscure Internet forums.

Go, go! For the good of the world!