 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Which is the strongest structure : Honeycomb or Arch?
Strongest structure for say a bridge where the force is mostly downwards. I've heard the honeycomb is the strongest structure in nature. Bees have evolved to use it over millions of years when building their hives. Don't see very many bees building arches. > Strongest structure for say a bridge where the force is mostly > downwards. Given the loads, is the honeycomb the most efficient and cost effective way to construct bridges? can water, barge, rail or vehicle traffic pass underneath? > I've heard the honeycomb is the strongest structure in nature. Bees > have evolved to use it over millions of years when building their > hives. Don't see very many bees building arches. It would be stoooopid to store honey in arches. On Jul 26, 9:04 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote: > Strongest structure for say a bridge where the force is mostly > downwards. > > I've heard the honeycomb is the strongest structure in nature. Bees > have evolved to use it over millions of years when building their > hives. Don't see very many bees building arches. ----------------- 1 you are talking now to a structural engineer who shold know something about strength of structures but still is learning al his life (:-) so you question has no one deffinit answer iow iti sdependent on the specific case and specific case means **the size of the structure as well ie even the same *type* of structure in different sizes has different answers !! it is right that the honeycomb structure is one of themost efficient one even nature new it by TRIAL AND ERROR !! (again (:-)) too many crystals and the strongest of them hes the hexagonal shape and even that is due to more basic inner structures of Atoms !! now it depends on the size of that honeycomb of yours i fit is a small size it is ok but if it will be a very big structure and now comes the next factor STRONG FOR WHAT TYPE OF FORCE?? it depends for instance if the force is perpendicular to the face of the honeycomb or at one of its nodes ?? if it is a concentrated force or a spread evenly ?? or concentrated at only one point or a 'hydraulic pressure' ie from all around it evenly or not ?? etc etc so you see if the answer was just one answer we structural engineers would be unemployed (:-) 2 had i not been structural engineer(and in addition a crackpot ...) i would never discover my unprecedented model of the Atom and nuc (:-) (surprising Eh ??) ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > On Jul 26, 9:04 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > i would never discover my unprecedented model > of the Atom and nuc (:-) (surprising Eh ??) I'd have said the honey comb is system of arches, so an arch made of honeycomb shaped material should have the most strength for mass used. But with a bridge, the idea is to spread the load easily and quickly so breaking through a layer of honeycomb is going to upset the applecart. > > On Jul 26, 9:04 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > I'd have said the honey comb is system of arches, not a perfect arch shell we say more exactly arch that is composed of straight little sections ?? now if a force will attack the strudcture at the middle those straight sections it will find a week point now if we take for instance an hydraulic pressure (spread evenly arr around) the strongest structure will be ......... a cylinder or a sphere !! see the submarines !! (and even the submatins were not some Gods gift it costed a lot of tears and blood of trial and error ...!!! so an arch made of > honeycomb shaped material should have the most strength for mass used. > > But with a bridge, the idea is to spread the load easily and quickly > so breaking through a layer of honeycomb is going to upset the > applecart. yess i am a bridge engineer as well ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------- | Strongest structure for say a bridge where the force is mostly | downwards. | | I've heard the honeycomb is the strongest structure in nature. Bees | have evolved to use it over millions of years when building their | hives. Don't see very many bees building arches. Don't see very many bees building bridges either. The egg is the strongest structure in Nature. Try to crush one in the palm of your hand where the force is evenly distributed inwards. > <visualseep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > one in the palm of your hand where the force is evenly distributed > inwards. ------------- see above not for a concentrated force for a concentrated force that is designed to attack in a known point only it is rather the sort of honeycomb that is getting above force on one of its 'nodes ' to be a stri\onger situation (the connection between two straight sections ) if you talk about a submarine for instance you are right !! btw the diamond is a sort of a 3d honeycomb ATB Y.Porat > Strongest structure for say a bridge where the force is mostly > downwards. Are you asking what the best cross section of a supporting pillar is? I believe round is generally better than square or hexagonal. On Jul 26, 4:59 pm, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > <visualseep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I believe round is generally better than square or hexagonal. ------------------ again depends on the case: (you see it is not worth to start a discussion with a structural engineer nagger (:-) if in additional to the axial force of the column you have a bending moment as well **the rectangular shape is the best **!! actually more exctly a rectangle with two sides in direction of moment - longer (if we talk about economy ..) ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- > On Jul 26, 4:59 pm, "Cwatters" > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- Outstanding responses in this thread Mr. Porat. Thank you. Harry C. p.s., Notice how closely modern submarines resemble eggs in shape. On Jul 27, 6:17 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 4:59 pm, "Cwatters" > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > p.s., Notice how closely modern submarines resemble eggs in shape. ------------- Welcome hhc but why wonder that was my day job for 40 years and still i am not sure i was accurate all along 2 the submarines are imitating the geometric 3d shape of living marine creatures !! as well and the first airoplans as well !! and even that was done by nature by ';tears and blood ' ALONG MILLIONS OF YEARS by TRIAL AND ERROR so mypoint again is about what i preach over and over in spight of all our pompous pose that we can predict and know anything just by our 'good thinking and knowledge' it is all actually done (especially advance) by the old 'primitive' system of TRIAL AND ERROR !! anyway i hope that next advance will be as well by trial and error but not millions of years but by open inquisitive minds (:-) Y.Porat ----------------------------- [snip] Why do you always have to crosspost every inane little thought you have to off-topic newsgroups? Learn how USENET works or stop using it. > [snip] > > Why do you always have to crosspost every inane little thought you > have to off-topic newsgroups? Learn how USENET works or stop using it. --------------- little psycho Shaisse ask the German speakers what shaise is .....) (and send your fucken mother to the Alt morins not me ) go f.ck yourself with the homosexual bears of Alaska !! and be theit teacher dont be mine !! you are a too little teacher for me (and for most people here !!) Y.P ----------------------------- [snip] Oh look he had to forward his little bitch and whine to the off-topic newsgroups I specifically snipped. I wonder...is that a compulsion, or are you too stupid to know why that's rude? Am Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:14:31 -0700 schrieb "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> in ed2dcc27-3267-47fd-924b-86d834197193@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com in sci.physics.relativity (only God knows where this belongs): [...] > little psycho Shaisse > ask the German speakers what shaise is .....) (and send your fucken [...] If you are trying to spell "Scheiße"... - oh well, never mind: you are YPorat. That explains why you don't make sense.  Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Y.P > ----------------------------- On Jul 28, 8:16 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 9:14 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wonder...is that a compulsion, or are you too stupid to know why > that's rude? ----------------------------- (:-) the little psycho from Alaska became a structural engineer expert and teach me about topic or not topic in a strength of structure issue so obviously a psycho Y.P > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Y.P Engineering might be the only thing you know anything about. I'm just saying its' off-topic in sci.physics.particle and sci.physics.relativity. You are too old to be this thin skinned. Lighten the f.ck up. > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > You are too old to be this thin skinned. Lighten the f.ck up. ------------- 1 thank you for not diverting my post 2 i tolod you that you are a too little Shmekle to tell me were this issue belong to!! got it little shmekle from Alaska ?? so listen shmekle: strenght of materials is **deeply' rooted in the Atomic world it is a direct result of the Atomic structure and thaat is why i mentioned the Diamond and its inner Atomic structure of 3d hexagons that is a result of the 3d exagon structure of the Carbon WHICH IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE TETRAHEDER STRUCTURE OF THE 3 ALPHA PARTICLES THAT COMPOSE THE CARBON ATOM !! so little shmekle is it not you to tell me what to write and were to write !! (you are right only in claiming that it does not belong to relativity i can admit my mistakes can you admit your mistakes ???) keep well Y.P ---------------------- > > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > 3 ALPHA PARTICLES THAT COMPOSE THE > CARBON ATOM !! Nope, it's the behavior of the electrons in the valence shells of the atoms which determines the structure. Try again. > so little shmekle > is it not you to tell me what to write and were to write !! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i can admit my mistakes > can you admit your mistakes ???) Sure. When I make them. Can you learn to write coherent English? > keep well > Y.P > ---------------------- or stop using it. > > > > > --------------- > > > > > little psycho Shaisse [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Nope, it's the behavior of the electrons in the valence shells of the > atoms which determines the structure. Try again. --------------------- so who are you little moron goon to tell me a bout nuclear structure ?? the electronic structure of the Carbon is a direct result of the inner structure of the nuc as composed of 3 Alpha particles that are built as a tetrahedron do you know little sh.t what is the 3d structure of the tetrahedron and how the combination of those 3 make another bigger tetrahedron ?? got it presumptuous moron shmekle !! and if you dont know it and dont want to learn it then go f.ck yourself withthe homosexual bears of Alaska ! and dont come teaching or crackparroting here go sh.t your presumptuous ignorance in Alaska a pigg like you is not in a position to be a moderator here so it **does*** belong to sci.particle* got it psychopath moron ?? **and lier that is unable to admit his mistakes** !!! sh.t human being are very quickly detected here as sh.t human being one must be a human being before even being a scientist to be a sh.t cannot lead you to be a *real good* scientist not to menTion about to be a 'teacher here' or a self nominated moderator unless he is a clear PSYCHOPATH and a pain in the neck to this ng !!! to be ignored Y.P ------------------------ > or stop using it. > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > so who are you little moron goon to tell me a bout nuclear > structure ?? I don't feel like parsing broken English. > the electronic structure of the Carbon is a direct result > of the inner structure of the nuc > as composed of 3 Alpha particles How do you know? > that are built as a tetrahedron How do you know? [snip whining] > > or stop using it. > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > [snip whining] --------------------- your questions just show of your irnorance knowing some qm is far from knowing physics vastly enough now since you dont know that the Carbon is composed of 3 Alpha particles how can you know much more complicated issues about the nuc and the way it controls the AStom and its electrons ?? now had you undestood a bit more than you pretend to know you would know that it is the nuc tha governs the electrons and not vice versa so it is the nuc that makes the 'shells' of electrons (and not necessary as in your parroting books) therefore before speaking about electron shells betetr lokinto the nuc structure to really know more and understand more 2 since you dont believe me that theCarbon is composed of 3 Alpha particles make a net search and learn wHat i learned more than 15 years ago it is not my finding i read about it in acience magazine and if you still dont find it ask the experts of your university provided that they are realy experts about such basic experimental findings and mind you that WAS ONLY THE **SATRT POINT ** OF MY MODEL FINDIGS AND ] nuclear and Atom MODELING on which i worked later more than 10 years !! 3 had you a basic simplest 3d training or understanding you would find that if you combine even 3 spheres ie two protons and two neutrons to sory of a bundle you have no much choice but to get 4 free edges directed about 108 degrees between **any two outwards direction of that combination but now if you take the protons or neutrons ** not as spheres** but as sort of 'a longish bar' shape it will be more clear to you what i am talking to you 4 bars ***connected at one point*** and strecting outward with an 3d angle of 108 degrees between any of those bars in short you have no other choice but to get the tetrahedron shape anyway why do i wast my time spoon feeding a person that is unable to understand nothing but fomulas on a flat paper and considers himself a teacher of** any** physics ?? may be i do it not for Gisse but for the other readers !!!! Y.Porat ----------------------------- > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Y.P > ----------------------------- On Jul 28, 11:59 pm, The TimeLord <math-n-physics-...@att.com> wrote: > Am Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:14:31 -0700 schrieb "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> > in ed2dcc27-3267-47fd-924b-86d834197...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > // The TimeLord says: > // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! --------------------- i am trying to spell that Gisse (sheissse ) is a 'pig sh.t' but there is no such term in the whole English dictionary to decribe such a shitt human being . would you like to add yourself to that category ?? the op above is a clear strength of structure issue do you find Shaisse or yourself experts about that issue or may be you are 'experts about it as you are experts' on any other issues as well ?? btw coming here as an anonymous is the first good sign of dishonesty so what is your real identity ?? 2 the f.cker crook (Time Lord) tried as well to divert this response to his fucken ng by the same system so i gather and can imagine and actually revealed that the real identity of the 'Time lord' it is the same psycho identity as Eric Shaise you see -- a sophisticated psycho (:-)!! (just to anyone who is interested in those two little sh.ts ) Y.P --------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.