| Author |
Message |
Rich Grise
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:42 pm Post subject:
OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
There are a couple of shows I like on Friday evening, generally - and I
admit, one of the things I like about the shows is their verisimilitude.
But when they have a howler, it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.
It's like an extraneous apostrophe, or the misuse of "comprise".
Well, tonight's howler was on "NUMB3RS", the name of which should have
been my first clue; but when they're analyzing the wind loading on a
square building, and say that flat-on(orthogonally), it can take 90 MPH
winds, but "quartering winds", (i.e. 45 deg. to ortho.) it can only take
60 mph.
Isn't that kind of back-asswards?
How could a square turned corner-on to the wind have more resistance than
a square (the same size) turned face-on?
Thanks,
Rich
Oh, yeah, the other thing - who's letting the TeeVee folks get away with
this bullshit?
II: Should I have posted this as a wacko? I admit I am kind of feeling the
Black Velvet. ;-)
R.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Clifford Heath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:53 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
Rich Grise wrote:
| Quote: | How could a square turned corner-on to the wind have more resistance than
a square (the same size) turned face-on?
|
Perhaps the building is three-dimensional, and when you have a
wind on the quarter, it affects *two* sides of the building?
Plus the loads are pushing at an angle to the support structure
of the building, assuming it is using a shell support method
not an internal tower with floors hanging off it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim M
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
See, that's why I like the technobabble of Star Trek. It's internally
consistent, but it isn't actually *real.*
Oh wait, UPN just cancelled Trek so they can put on more reality TV and
bad sitcoms...
-Tim
Rich Grise wrote:
| Quote: | There are a couple of shows I like on Friday evening, generally - and I
admit, one of the things I like about the shows is their verisimilitude.
But when they have a howler, it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.
It's like an extraneous apostrophe, or the misuse of "comprise".
Well, tonight's howler was on "NUMB3RS", the name of which should have
been my first clue; but when they're analyzing the wind loading on a
square building, and say that flat-on(orthogonally), it can take 90 MPH
winds, but "quartering winds", (i.e. 45 deg. to ortho.) it can only take
60 mph.
Isn't that kind of back-asswards?
How could a square turned corner-on to the wind have more resistance than
a square (the same size) turned face-on?
Thanks,
Rich
Oh, yeah, the other thing - who's letting the TeeVee folks get away with
this bullshit?
II: Should I have posted this as a wacko? I admit I am kind of feeling the
Black Velvet. ;-)
R.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.02.12.06.42.51.656536@example.net>,
Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:
[....]
| Quote: | Well, tonight's howler was on "NUMB3RS", the name of which should have
been my first clue; but when they're analyzing the wind loading on a
square building, and say that flat-on(orthogonally), it can take 90 MPH
winds, but "quartering winds", (i.e. 45 deg. to ortho.) it can only take
60 mph.
Isn't that kind of back-asswards?
How could a square turned corner-on to the wind have more resistance than
a square (the same size) turned face-on?
|
At the 45, the building is 1.414 times as wide and only the one corner's
supporting member is required to take the load.
There was a building in New York (I think) that they figured out would
blow down in a certain wind. If this was about that one, the problem was
more about a mistake in the design than different loadings. One part of
the building's structure would fail because it could not support tension
loads.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
Rich Grise wrote:
| Quote: |
There are a couple of shows I like on Friday evening, generally - and I
admit, one of the things I like about the shows is their verisimilitude.
But when they have a howler, it's like fingernails on a blackboard to me.
It's like an extraneous apostrophe, or the misuse of "comprise".
Well, tonight's howler was on "NUMB3RS", the name of which should have
been my first clue; but when they're analyzing the wind loading on a
square building, and say that flat-on(orthogonally), it can take 90 MPH
winds, but "quartering winds", (i.e. 45 deg. to ortho.) it can only take
60 mph.
Isn't that kind of back-asswards?
How could a square turned corner-on to the wind have more resistance than
a square (the same size) turned face-on?
Thanks,
Rich
Oh, yeah, the other thing - who's letting the TeeVee folks get away with
this bullshit?
II: Should I have posted this as a wacko? I admit I am kind of feeling the
Black Velvet. ;-)
R.
|
The prof's explanation, as I understood it, held that quartering wind
put the leading corner under greatest tension, opposite corner under
compression, and the other two corners under bending tension. Point of
failure was at the base of the leading corner, because of weak (and
illegal) spot welds. While I am an E.E., I studied statics and dynamics
- many years ago - so I am prone to believe that I understand those
subjects today. ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carl D. Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 6:11 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:42:56 GMT, Rich Grise
<richgrise@example.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Well, tonight's howler was on "NUMB3RS", the name of which should have
been my first clue; but when they're analyzing the wind loading on a
square building, and say that flat-on(orthogonally), it can take 90 MPH
winds, but "quartering winds", (i.e. 45 deg. to ortho.) it can only take
60 mph.
Isn't that kind of back-asswards?
|
Depends on the design of the building. The writers have probably
been watching too much History channel and had recently seen the
show on skyscrapers where they talked about the Citicorp building
in NYC and how it was designed with triangle structures in the
sides to transfer the load to the center of the sides, so it
could sit up on 10 story high "posts."
After it was built, the designer realized that a design change
where they approved bolting some joints together instead of
welding them could cause the building to fail in a hurricane
"quartering wind" and they snuck a bunch of welders into the
building at night and welded plates on all the joints to fix it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:22 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:13:59 +0000, Michael wrote:
| Quote: | Rich Grise wrote:
[about wind loading)
The prof's explanation, as I understood it, held that quartering wind
put the leading corner under greatest tension, opposite corner under
compression, and the other two corners under bending tension. Point of
failure was at the base of the leading corner, because of weak (and
illegal) spot welds. While I am an E.E., I studied statics and dynamics
- many years ago - so I am prone to believe that I understand those
subjects today. ;-)
|
I guess I'm thinking of it from a sky-diver's perspective, thinking of the
pressure on the flat face and the burble on the downwind side, versus the
diamond-shape, which would have two little burbles at the outside corners,
but otherwise is pretty much "streamlined". i.e., it's not so much just
the pressure of the wind hitting it, as the energy to move all that air
around the building, and how much goes to turbulence.
Thanks,
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:24 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:27:33 -0500, Tim M wrote:
| Quote: | See, that's why I like the technobabble of Star Trek. It's internally
consistent, but it isn't actually *real.*
Oh wait, UPN just cancelled Trek so they can put on more reality TV and
bad sitcoms...
|
I noticed that. DAMN! They finally had a pretty good one there!
Then again, I _was_ kinda wondering how they'd segue into Captain Kirk and
the gang. ;-)
I also wish Babylon 5 had never ended. )-;
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim M
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:30 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
Well, there's some hope of a SciFi channel pickup. Actually, with
Enterprise gone, I don't think there will be any sci-fi series of note
on network TV!
I predict UPN tanks in 3 years.
-Tim
Rich Grise wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:27:33 -0500, Tim M wrote:
See, that's why I like the technobabble of Star Trek. It's internally
consistent, but it isn't actually *real.*
Oh wait, UPN just cancelled Trek so they can put on more reality TV and
bad sitcoms...
I noticed that. DAMN! They finally had a pretty good one there!
Then again, I _was_ kinda wondering how they'd segue into Captain Kirk and
the gang. ;-)
I also wish Babylon 5 had never ended. )-;
Cheers!
Rich
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:11 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
Tim M wrote:
| Quote: |
Well, there's some hope of a SciFi channel pickup. Actually, with
Enterprise gone, I don't think there will be any sci-fi series of note
on network TV!
I predict UPN tanks in 3 years.
-Tim
|
I am going to E- mail UPN to thank them for canceling Enterprise,
then tell them I no longer have any reason to watch anything on their
network since they are removing the only thing I watch on their sorry
network.
--
Beware of those who suffer from delusions of adequacy!
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Ford
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:11 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
"Michael" <NoSpam@att.net> wrote in message
news:420E2B44.123CC91B@att.net...
| Quote: | Rich Grise wrote:
There are a couple of shows I like on Friday evening, generally - and I
admit, one of the things I like about the shows is their verisimilitude.
But when they have a howler, it's like fingernails on a blackboard to
me.
It's like an extraneous apostrophe, or the misuse of "comprise".
Well, tonight's howler was on "NUMB3RS", the name of which should have
been my first clue; but when they're analyzing the wind loading on a
square building, and say that flat-on(orthogonally), it can take 90 MPH
winds, but "quartering winds", (i.e. 45 deg. to ortho.) it can only take
60 mph.
Isn't that kind of back-asswards?
How could a square turned corner-on to the wind have more resistance
than
a square (the same size) turned face-on?
Thanks,
Rich
Oh, yeah, the other thing - who's letting the TeeVee folks get away with
this bullshit?
II: Should I have posted this as a wacko? I admit I am kind of feeling
the
Black Velvet. ;-)
R.
The prof's explanation, as I understood it, held that quartering wind
put the leading corner under greatest tension, opposite corner under
compression, and the other two corners under bending tension. Point of
failure was at the base of the leading corner, because of weak (and
illegal) spot welds. While I am an E.E., I studied statics and dynamics
- many years ago - so I am prone to believe that I understand those
subjects today. ;-)
|
There is also more of a likelyhood of oscillations as the blunt object
starts to resemble an aerofoil ( there are symetrical aerofoils).
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:11 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:11:08 -0500, Pat Ford wrote:
| Quote: |
"Michael" <NoSpam@att.net> wrote in message
news:420E2B44.123CC91B@att.net...
Rich Grise wrote:
There are a couple of shows I like on Friday evening, generally - and I
admit, one of the things I like about the shows is their verisimilitude.
But when they have a howler, it's like fingernails on a blackboard to
me.
It's like an extraneous apostrophe, or the misuse of "comprise".
Well, tonight's howler was on "NUMB3RS", the name of which should have
been my first clue; but when they're analyzing the wind loading on a
square building, and say that flat-on(orthogonally), it can take 90 MPH
winds, but "quartering winds", (i.e. 45 deg. to ortho.) it can only take
60 mph.
Isn't that kind of back-asswards?
How could a square turned corner-on to the wind have more resistance
than
a square (the same size) turned face-on?
Thanks,
Rich
Oh, yeah, the other thing - who's letting the TeeVee folks get away with
this bullshit?
II: Should I have posted this as a wacko? I admit I am kind of feeling
the
Black Velvet. ;-)
R.
The prof's explanation, as I understood it, held that quartering wind
put the leading corner under greatest tension, opposite corner under
compression, and the other two corners under bending tension. Point of
failure was at the base of the leading corner, because of weak (and
illegal) spot welds. While I am an E.E., I studied statics and dynamics
- many years ago - so I am prone to believe that I understand those
subjects today. ;-)
There is also more of a likelyhood of oscillations as the blunt object
starts to resemble an aerofoil ( there are symetrical aerofoils).
|
Sure. Every areobatics and fighter aircraft built in the last
*mumble* years has had a symetric "airfoil". The AoA supplies the
difference between the top and bottom needed to generate lift. Though the
high-mach fighter aircraft don't really generate lift so much as
compressing the air underneath, more like a sled on snow.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in