On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:09:49 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 2/5/2014 9:56 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Lots of very interesting stuff about the building of the new One World Trade
Center building. With the tower, the building comes to 1776 feet tall.
It's a remarkable story about how huge projects come together and all the
issues they had to face building super-tall skyscrapers.

The elevators rise at 1800 fpm, making a trip to the top possible in under a
minute. The shape of the building was designed to "spoil" wind vortices.
One thing that surprised me was the copious use of bolts instead of rivets.

I can't picture 1800 fpm. It is the same as 20.5 mph. Hard to imagine
how they move an elevator that fast.

1800 is going down, Going up it's 5 fpm.

I don't think they have used rivets for a long time.

"bud--" wrote in message news:52f568b4$0$61279$c3e8da3

stuff snipped

The History Channel surely isn't what it used to be. It's like they say
about VH-1 - "It's hard to believe we ever had *anything* to do with
music."
Change "music" to "history" and VH-1 to the History Channel and it's the
same thing. I just dropped my expanded cable package because I was done
with "Ancient Aliens" and "Finding Bigfoot" and "Duck Dynasty" and
"Pit Bulls and Parolees" and alls sorts of other useless crap. Most of
what
I watch is available OTA on HDTV with better quality video that the
highly
compressed feed that Comcast provides.

There used to be good science on Discovery and TLC, and history on
History Chanel. I agree there is not much anymore.

You can say that again. I've been watching the local college TV stuff and
it's way more interesting than anything on the aforementioned channels. The
Pentagon Channel had a fascinating show on how the various drones are
operated in the field (hope AlQeda wasn't watching!) I learned about how
they are trying to find a test for uterine cancer using genetic markers. I
learned that in the beginning it took take 20 years to sequence the genes
for a single biological process. Now machines can do thousands of such
tests in hours. These are things I *used* to watch Discovery and the
History Channel for, but they've gone into the Twilight Zone.

I don't watch Animal Planet, but I thought that was still good. But they
recently had a show on mermaids (actually 2 shows), highest viewers they
ever had. It featured Dr. Paul Robertson, a NOAA scientist. The
scientist was an actor and the whole thing was BS.

YES! I saw that. It boiled over to one of the blogs I read:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...fake-monsters/

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8...hbdyo1_400.jpg

--
Bobby G.

"bob haller" wrote in message
news:643afa29-44e8-41c3-ad06-

stuff snipped

the replacement building is clearly a future target by idiots

This one will be a LOT harder to knock down because it's so much stronger
and the security is so much better. Who cares what those damn terrorists
like or don't like or what they consider a "target" for their evil?

Did you see how they were parading about a military service dog they had
captured, saying it had the rank of Colonel? Savages.

--
Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 2/7/2014 3:02 AM, Robert Green wrote:

The real question is what would you do with an open window at 1,200
feet?

I wouldn't want to be near an open window at 1,200 ft, Or 50 ft.

One of my very first front page photos in the very defunct Washington Star
was of a residential apartment tower that was coming apart in a very high
wind. The building was not well-designed, aerodynamically - it was actually
two L shaped buildings sited next to each other with a small gap between
them like this |_ _| - the wind was entering the wide open space in the back
and was funneled (and concentrated) by the design. The wind began tearing
out the windows on both sides of the gap on the ninth floor on down.

First the window panels dislodged, then the curtains came flying out, then
the blinds and after that, stuff from the inside of the affected apartments.
I managed to get a picture of a huge window section and of the Venetian
blinds suspended in mid-air. I only realized later one of those big panes
of glass could have killed me (or anyone else on the ground) quite easily if
it took a bad hop.

You could see during the Skyscraper program how windy it gets up at 1,500
feet. They had to redesign the spire (to remove the cladding) because wind
tunnel tests showed it was likely to shear away in very high winds. They
wanted to clad it to make sure the spire counted as part of the building,
thus clinching the title of the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere.
The "tall building" commission gave the title to them anyway.

I worked in a very, very tall building once in NYC and I gotta say -
they
move a LOT. Some more than others depending on harmonics but on a good,
windy day, you can feel the whole damn structure swaying.

Some buildings have a real heavy weight near the top that is controlled
to move in the same direction the building is (pushes the building in
the other direction).

Those devices probably *weren't* in the building I worked in. It was really
unsettling. The only time I experience worse swaying was when my Mom drove
us across the newly opened Verazzano Bridge in a severe winter blizzard in a
relatively tiny Olds F-85. God bless her, she kept her composure as big
tractor-trailers were just sliding from lane to lane without warning. It
took over an hour to cross the bridge because traffic was moving so slowly.

It was only decades later that she confessed that she had never been more
scared in her life. She was certain the car was going to get swept off the
bridge. FWIW, that bridge really, really dances around in very high winds.
Not quite as bad as the Tacoma Narrows bridge (the one made famous by the
film of it shaking apart in high winds) but I developed a life long fear of
bridges after that incident.

--
Bobby G.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 2/7/14 11:18 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Gilbert Stuart, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
Alexander Hamilton, 21
Betsy Ross, 24
James Madison, 25
Thomas Jefferson, 33
John Adams, 40
Paul Revere, 41
George Washington, 44
Samuel Adams, 53

--
Bobby G. minus 176

And now the Feds think it's ok for "kids" to mooch off of their
parents' insurance until the ripe old age of 26.

Back then I assume a LOT of people never even made it to age 26. I had no
idea that some of the Founding Fathers were hardly old enough to BE fathers.

--
Bobby G.

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 2/5/2014 9:56 PM, Robert Green wrote:
Lots of very interesting stuff about the building of the new One World
Trade
Center building. With the tower, the building comes to 1776 feet tall.
It's a remarkable story about how huge projects come together and all
the
issues they had to face building super-tall skyscrapers.

The elevators rise at 1800 fpm, making a trip to the top possible in
under a
minute. The shape of the building was designed to "spoil" wind
vortices.
One thing that surprised me was the copious use of bolts instead of
rivets.

I can't picture 1800 fpm. It is the same as 20.5 mph. Hard to imagine
how they move an elevator that fast.

They made a big point of the speed and said that the "follow on trades"
couldn't keep up with just the outside hoist, which ran very slowly. So as
soon as they could, they got the internal elevators working.

I don't think they have used rivets for a long time.

I don't build too many skyscrapers so it was news to me! (-: It reminded
me of a story in one of my journalism text books about writing "feature"
stories. The article described how riveters (in the old days, I guess) use
to toss hot rivets around from where they were heated to where they were
hammered in just using coffee cans as catcher's mitts. When asked what
would happen if he dropped a red-hot rivet to the streets below the rivet
jockey said "Well, he's not *supposed* to drop it!"

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote:
"bud--" wrote in message

....snip...

Some buildings have a real heavy weight near the top that is controlled
to move in the same the building is (pushes the building in
the other direction).

Those devices probably *weren't* in the building I worked in. It was really
unsettling. The only time I experience worse swaying was when my Mom drove
us across the newly opened Verazzano Bridge in a severe winter blizzard in a
relatively tiny Olds F-85.

....snip...

The Verazzano Narrows bridge was the first place I drove a car over 100
MPH.

I had about 6 months between high school and USCG boot camp. My best
friend's older brothers owned a bagel shop in Queens and they hired me to
deliver fresh bagels to stores in Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. It
didn't take me too many early morning trips across the bridge to notice
that the police in Brooklyn stayed in Brooklyn and the police on Staten
Island stayed on the island.

2 miles of open highway, no cops, and rarely a lot of traffic at 5
AM...what's a teenager to do? 110 MPH in a Chevy station wagon loaded to
the roof with a couple of hundred dozen bagels, that's what!

On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:51:21 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:


I don't build too many skyscrapers so it was news to me! (-: It reminded
me of a story in one of my journalism text books about writing "feature"
stories. The article described how riveters (in the old days, I guess) use
to toss hot rivets around from where they were heated to where they were
hammered in just using coffee cans as catcher's mitts. When asked what
would happen if he dropped a red-hot rivet to the streets below the rivet
jockey said "Well, he's not *supposed* to drop it!"

You can see scenes of riveters tossing rivets in a couple movies from
the 30's and maybe the late 40's.

--
Bobby G.

"micky" wrote in message

stuff snipped

The elevators rise at 1800 fpm, making a trip to the top possible in
under a
minute. The shape of the building was designed to "spoil" wind
vortices.
One thing that surprised me was the copious use of bolts instead of
rivets.

I can't picture 1800 fpm. It is the same as 20.5 mph. Hard to imagine
how they move an elevator that fast.

1800 is going down, Going up it's 5 fpm.

I heard that they had to wait until an elevator full of people needed to go
down to act as a counterweight that lifted the elevator occupants at the
ground floor. humor alert

--
bg

"micky" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:51:21 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:


I don't build too many skyscrapers so it was news to me! (-: It
reminded
me of a story in one of my journalism text books about writing "feature"
stories. The article described how riveters (in the old days, I guess)
use
to toss hot rivets around from where they were heated to where they were
hammered in just using coffee cans as catcher's mitts. When asked what
would happen if he dropped a red-hot rivet to the streets below the rivet
jockey said "Well, he's not *supposed* to drop it!"

You can see scenes of riveters tossing rivets in a couple movies from
the 30's and maybe the late 40's.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bolti...ng+skyscrapers

leads to a lot of interesting hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivet

says:

Until relatively recently, structural steel connections were either welded
or riveted. High-strength bolts have largely replaced structural steel
rivets. Indeed, the latest steel construction specifications published by
AISC (the 14th Edition) no longer covers their installation. The reason for
the change is primarily due to the expense of skilled workers required to
install high strength structural steel rivets. Whereas two relatively
unskilled workers can install and tighten high strength bolts, it takes a
minimum of four highly skilled riveters to install rivets in one joint at a
time.

Plus, the occasional red hot rivet hitting a pedestrian had to raise the
costs. (-:

Here's something else about rivets v. bolts I did not know:

The stress and shear in a rivet is analyzed like a bolted joint. However,
it is not wise to combine rivets with bolts and screws in the same joint.
Rivets fill the hole where they are installed to establish a very tight fit
(often called interference fit). It is difficult or impossible to obtain
such a tight fit with other fasteners. The result is that rivets in the same
joint with loose fasteners carry more of the load-they are effectively more
stiff. The rivet can then fail before it can redistribute load to the other
loose fit fasteners like bolts and screws. This often causes catastrophic
failure of the joint when the fasteners unzip. In general, a joint composed
of similar fasteners is the most efficient because all fasteners reach
capacity simultaneously.

The article describes the process of riveting in the old days:

At a central location near the areas being riveted, a furnace was set up.
Rivets were placed in the furnace and heated to a glowing hot temperature.
The Rivet warmer or heater used tongs to individually remove rivets and
throw them to a catcher stationed near the joints to be riveted. The catcher
usually caught the rivet in a leather bucket with an ash lined bottom then
placed the glowing hot rivet into the hole to be riveted, and quickly turned
around to await the next rivet. The "Holder up or holder on" would then hold
a heavy rivet set or dolly or another (larger) pnuematic hammer against the
round head of the rivet, while the Riveter (or sometimes two
riveters)applied a pneumatic rivet hammer to the unformed head, making it
mushroom tightly against the joint in its final domed shape. Upon cooling,
the rivet contracted and exerted further force, tightening the joint.

--
Bobby G.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
news:8947afdd-29e3-4843-ab61-
stuff snipped

There's a very tall building in, I think, Shanghai, that uses that
principle, but it is ROUNDED. Astonishingly graceful.

The design for the new One World Trade Center uses a square base that
transforms into a square top that's rotated like a 8 point star. Very easy
to see how it works with a computer animation, harder to show in a still
photo:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1131141

(Published: Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 8:07 PM - old, but it makes the design
quite clear)

A lot of reviews panned the design but I think it's pretty elegant. It's
easy to like a building after watching how hard the people worked to build
it and how much of their heart went into it.

--
Bobby G.

On 2/8/14 1:46 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 2/7/14 11:18 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Gilbert Stuart, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
Alexander Hamilton, 21
Betsy Ross, 24
James Madison, 25
Thomas Jefferson, 33
John Adams, 40
Paul Revere, 41
George Washington, 44
Samuel Adams, 53

--
Bobby G. minus 176

And now the Feds think it's ok for "kids" to mooch off of their
parents' insurance until the ripe old age of 26.

Back then I assume a LOT of people never even made it to age 26. I had no
idea that some of the Founding Fathers were hardly old enough to BE fathers.

--
Bobby G.

It's remarkable how much they knew with the little technology
the had for education. Granted, they were probably the cream of the
crop but those were some sharp people.
Maybe they were better off not having American Idol as a distraction.