Originally Posted by
gerrycan
The erratums NIST were forced to issue speak directly to the accuracy of their analysis.
"Forced"? You imply guilt where none is shown.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
Sunder stated quite clearly that this was NISTs position re the c79 connection in his tech briefing. And that area interests me so I would like to see the model results wrt that area. Is that okay with ya?
Sure
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
Dumb question.
.
I known. It's only asked because you seem to focus on only one aspect/area where the NIST did not.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
Yes. And obviously there was an initiating factor in that failure ie the girder failure, which followed the supposed expansion of the beam.
Plus other factors according to the NIST. Obviously you also consider these factors (see my stupid question)
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
I don't know. But it wasn't thermal expansion as per NISTs analysis.
You have not shown this to be true using all of the conditions outlined by the NIST
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
Okay then. How much does the 53ft beam expand at the given temp?
There you go again taking one element in isolation. Stop.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
The assertion is that NIST are wrong. How should we go about proving that this assertion is correct without proving that NIST are wrong?
By developing an independent hypothesis. I thought I explained this.
Originally Posted by
gerrycan
NO, What would be childish is to accept an invalidated NIST hypothesis just because of the absence of an alternative.
It has not be "invalidated". That's your claim and it has never been supported and has nothing to do with the fact you have not been able to produce a better hypothesis.