View Single Post
Old 3rd December 2015, 05:25 PM   #359
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I understand that but, do they have the capabilities if they somehow do have the abilities to enter equal or greater data than the NIST?
I'm not sure we are on exactly the same track. BUT conceptual brainpower IMO will be the limiting resource - long before the hardware or software cuts in as a limit. And the validity of the existing data is IMO another real limit...we are on different perspectives with that one - see my comments on your next bit.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Most of this can be taken from the NIST reports (yes it's all there). As far as fire damage goes the NIST inputs were always seen as conservative by relevant professionals or seen as far too conservative by many (James Quintiere being the most vocal).
That is one aspect of the issue of definition that I am suggesting is the problem. Is the NIST "data" good enough as a basis for seeking alternative explanations? I seriously doubt it - and tho you express it differently - I think your comments about "conservative" are pointing at the same area as I am trying to explain.

Keeping it as simple as I can for purposes of explanation only - IF they take a less conservative approach to the temperature dynamics - will it lead to a different mode of structural failure?

That could well be true - wouldn't surprise me if it did. It is a sort of "sensitivity analysis" review.

And the difference needed to get to that point is in the level of applied brainpower making the choices on conservatism. That is a layer or two higher up the issue taxonomy than crunching the numbers. And picking the right numbers to crunch lies intermediate between them. Problem definition - and failure to identify errant definitions - is an ongoing issue causing confusion in WTC collapse debate. Look how many times debunkers have chased truthers - esp T Sz - down rabbit burrows following his false definition of problem. And PA'ed persons like me who dare to suggest "you are falling for his trap" OR "he has falsely defined the starting scenario - why follow his error?".

So put very simply (I think ) are they clever enough to validly redefine the problem RATHER than simply and blindly redoing a few FEA's? We've seen a lot of "Blind application of FEA" on these forums - It would be great If we saw fundamental reviews of the problem. Revisiting "Drain the Swamp" - even asking "Why Drain the Swamp" - instead of tit-for-tat reacting to alligators teeth.

And I know the risk of using that pair of analogies
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top