OT: Bulls**t on TeeVee

[Rich Grise]

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.

 

[Clifford Heath]

Rich Grise wrote:

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.

 

[Tim M]

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:

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.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.02.12.06.42.51.656536@example.net>,
Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:
[....]

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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:13:59 +0000, Michael wrote:

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

 

[Rich Grise]

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tim M wrote:

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