User talk:Toiyabe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I put some new sources on the "Texas Longhorn" Talk page. I'd be interested in your opinion. Cheers, Johntex 00:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about that particular phrase. I've changed it, thanks! I'll try to include more info from those sources I posted when I have time someday... Johntex 17:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Single-leaf Pinyon 2 Wikipedia commons 3 New Engineering Wiki 4 Image:Stress v strain A36.png 5 Pitch Lake 6 Two pictures of mustangs 7 Wiki for Engineering 8 9/11 9 Collapse of Twin Towers 10 Why so few Wikipedians are engineers? 11 Ha! 12 Cui-ui article you created appears on Wikipedia main page 13 CBR 14 Grain size 15 Dynamic/Stace Models & Visualizations 16 Design criticisms of WTC 17 Bazant's latest 18 Cruft Alert

[edit] Single-leaf Pinyon

Nice pics, thanks! - can you do the same for Juniperus osteosperma? I've just started the page for it - MPF 17:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! - MPF 17:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for writing the Utah Juniper article. Can't help you much on anything else except Sagebrush and Quaking Aspen, though. Toiyabe 17:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Toiyabe - I'm fairly certain they're juniper tip midge galls (I'm assuming you mean the two brownish 'lumps' far left, that's what I'm referring to!); I've got a herbarium specimen I collected in the Calif White Mts which I'll take a photo of shortly, but while waiting, here's a photo at Forestry Images. The male cones are small (1-3 mm), pale yellow (probably pale green at this time of year as they're immature), I think I can see some on your pic just above right of the right-hand cone (the pale tips to some of the shoots) - MPF 16:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"The galls are so common" that's why I mentioned them in the article :-) exactly because I thought otherwise people might be confused with what they were . . . when I first saw them I didn't know what they were but realised they weren't cones, so had to be a gall of some sort, then when I got home I stuck 'juniper gall' into google and eventually found that forestry images pic, which is where I got the sci name from. Methinks your new Image:Utah_juniper_cones_2.jpg is a better pic for the taxobox, and Image:Utah_juniper_cones_1.jpg could go at the start of the para about the galls? - MPF 16:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia commons

Hi,

Thanks for the great tarantula picture. Would you please consider uploading your picture to the "commons"? That way people all over the world could use your photos in Wikipedia articles without having to do anything about copying them over to their own areas. Thanks. P0M 01:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Engineering Wiki

[Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.

[edit] Image:Stress v strain A36.png

Can you take the typo out of this pic? It's 'yield', not 'yeild'. Also, it is better to use reference numbers in a pic rather than text, so it can be used in other language articles.

Also, the scale of the pic is not correct; the yield strain is less than 1% of rupture strain. MH 18:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

>What do you mean about "reference numbers"

See e.g. weather front, instead of writing cold front in the pic, it says 1. This way the same pic can be used in e.g. the Spanish article Frente (meteorología)

>It's hard to show both the slope of the elastic portion of the curve and the full width of the plastic portion in a plot that doesn't take up the entire page.

Use a logarithmic scale on the strain axis?

> I've made another go of it - What do you think?

Better, but I still read 'Stress' and 'Strain' on the axes. You could use σ and ε those are international. MH 19:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

> another go...

Perfect! MH 12:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

oops.. I did not see your second pic.

On the right is a pic from my 1972 civil engineering book, it shows strain as % and the elastic region (ε < 0,2%) is shown in scale with the ultimate strain (ε > 25%). The letters are;

• P = limit of proportionality (Hooke's law)
• E = elastic limit
• V = upper yield stress/limit
• B = point of max. stress
• C = breaking point

The line shows the engineering stress (using the original cross section), the dotted line shows the true stress (using the true cross section, with contraction).

[edit] Pitch Lake

I think your sources must be in error, unless it refers to some other asphalt lake (though I am only aware of just the two asphalt lakes in the region - the one in Trinidad and the one across the Gulf in Venezuela). I have never come across anything called Lake Trinidad. Walter Raleigh reports that the area was called La Brea (as the town still is called). Pitch Lake loosely translates La Brea. The oldest map of Trinidad I have seen is from ~1800, just after the British conquest. While I don't have a copy of it, I have looked quite carefully at reproductions of the map, and I feel that something as unusual as "Lake Trinidad" would.

I have asked my sister to see what she can find - she has done consulting work in La Brea a couple times, so she's more likely to have come across the name than I would have. Guettarda 18:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought of a possible source for the "Lake Trinidad" references - the company that mines the Pitch Lake was called the "Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company Ltd." (now Lake Asphalt of Trinidad and Tobago). It isn't that hard to reverse the first two words to get Lake Trinidad. Guettarda 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but it has made me curious. Guettarda 20:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two pictures of mustangs

I got two beautiful pictures (see Commons:Mustang) of Utah mustangs by Jaime Jackson and I added one into Mustang (horse) article.--Alex brollo 05:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki for Engineering

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. The Engineering Wiki is in early development stages at the moment. We invite you to help devlope this wiki.

[edit] 9/11

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I appreciate your even handed discussions. It's always refreshing when someone who knows what they are talking about takes the time to spell it out. Thanks again.--MONGO 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collapse of Twin Towers

Hi Toiyabe, As a civil engineer, I wonder could you help answer some of my questions about the NIST report on the collapse. (The discussion on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center is getting very cluttered with noisy arguements, so I thought I'd move our converstaion here)

One of the components of the NIST explaination for the collapse is the sagging of the floor trusses due to heating. The metal trusses heat and expand, and then bend downwards, ultimately pulling the outer wall inward to begin collapse. But I don't understand why these trusses would bend downwards. Heated metal expands in all directions, but the important increase in dimention would be in length. So the expanding truss should lengthen and push the walls outward. They should only buckle if the outer wall is strong enough to resist the expansion outward pressure. And this buckling would only continue while the outer wall provided resistance. Remove the resistance and further truss expansion should push outward again. I don't understand why NIST assume the trusses could buckle, bend downwards, and then later continue buckling with enough tension to pull the outer wall inward. Am I missing something?

(This is a genuine question. I'm not suggesting any conspiracies. My understanding is that the buckled floors were seen by eyewitnesses and I have seen videos of the outer wall caving inward before collapse.)

Thanks for your help. Seabhcán 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Toiyabe 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed answer. I'll have to think about it a while and then read over the NIST report again. Another problem I had with the NIST report was their lack of depth on why the whole building collapsed, and not just the damaged sections. Several times it simply says "Global collapse then ensued". The one place where it is dicussed is section 9.3.3 where they simply decribe the fall without even attempting to offer explainations. They also appear to offer a circular argument: we saw it fall at free fall speed, thus the undamaged structural elements offered no resistance. They offered no resistance because the building was so heavy. thus the building fell at free fall speed. This seems to me to be an important ommission. Seabhcán 16:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why so few Wikipedians are engineers?

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

If you would rather not answer these questions on your Talk page, then you may respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a BS in Civil Engineering from Cornell University, awarded in 1999.

I came to wikipedia mostly to edit local articles. I find that editing articles in my specialty (pavements and highways) is a little painfull, as just about everyone deals with them in their daily lives, and therefore lots of people consider themselves experts. Terminology (layperson vs. jargon, US vs. Commonwealth) is also a big headache. Toiyabe 16:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha!

"Man, this is a lot of work dealing with you guys" as you put it...and amen to that. It's a combination of politics, misinformation and even as far as anti-American bias that fuels these people. I forget where I saw it, but someone prominent stated that this is the mother of all conspiracy theories. Maybe in time it will calm down, but even with all JFK now gone more than 40 years...there are still those that question (maybe for good reason) if there was a lone gunman. I would be more likely to believe in Bigfoot, UFO's and multiple hitmen for JFK then the conspiracy theories about 9/11. Thanks for your well put, calm and educated comments.--MONGO 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I'm just feeding the trolls. But on the other hand, while we probably can't convince the "true belivers", there are probably other people reading the talk page and for their sake we should continue continue to address the conspiracy theories. I'm woried that more and more normal people seem to be receptive to conspiracy theories. Simply citing wikipedia policies is all that should be necessary, but it makes our side look like jerks to people unfamiliar with the way wikipedia works.

Thanks for the support and the barnstar. Toiyabe 14:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You better believe there are others reading it...major media sources read it all the time...I would be willing to place a bet on it. I agree, it almost seems like folly to explain something that in the arena of common sense, shouldn't need any explanation. Wikipedia is going to become more and more mainstream and it's critical I believe that we not allow ourselfs look like idiots by allowing junk science to rule the the article spaces. Obviously, since this is a big wiki, I can't deal with the conspiracy stuff everywhere, so I concentrate on the area that I have some first hand knowledge...9/11. Amazingly, I have repeatedly been accused as being a paid webspammer of the Feds...that is exactly how I would expect a conspiracy theorist to think. Anyway, don't let them bog you down, but I appreciate your help.--MONGO 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cui-ui article you created appears on Wikipedia main page

hello Toiyabe. i nominated the cui-ui article you created (and cited you as the originator) for main page mention in the "Did you Know?" column. The editors have consequently selected your article for main page mention. good work with creation of this article.

An entry from Toiyabe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 June 2006.

best regards and i look forward to editing with you on other articles Covalent 04:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBR

Toiyabe, regarding your edit to Geotechnical engineering, is the old CBR design method no longer in use anywhere? I practice in California, where we've switched over completely to R-Value-based design, but I was under the impression that the AASHTO design method is still in use. Argyriou 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grain size

Knowinging your interest in engineering and soil properties, I think you may be interested in responding to questions I posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soil#Soil_types:

Conflicting particle size criteria needs to be resolved and affects the following articles: ...

-- Paleorthid 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic/Stace Models & Visualizations

Hi. I just added a section the Collapse of the World Trade Center article that might need your expert vetting. I think I got most of your suggestion in there. Anyway, check it out.--Thomas Basboll 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I like the way you reworked the paragraph. It got me thinking though whether the point good be made in wholly non-technical language. I'll read it a few times and maybe suggest something in the talk section.--Thomas Basboll 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design criticisms of WTC

Thanks for the suggestions. I've had a go at it. There's probably still some mopping up to do.--Thomas Basboll 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bazant's latest

I thought I'd elaborate my response from the Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center page a bit, and get your thoughts on it if you have time. My concern has been to show that it is natural to compare aspects of the WTC collapses with aspects of CD. At bottom, I've been trying to convince myself that the fact that I've allowed the collapses to puzzle me for a few months isn't a sign that I'm completely, you know, whacked out. Like Sunder, Bazant here shows a modicum of respect for the layman who entertains the thought that you need CD to get the apparent facts to jibe with physical theory. The fact that building demolitions can generate data for understanding the WTC collapses validates this intuition at least partly. For the purpose of this WP article, it's an argument for mentioning CD, in passing, as we have done. But looking into Bazant's work is curiouser and curiouser. He seems to have responded (PDF) to a Russian emigre engineer named Cherepanov, who has what is almost a conspiracy theory about the engineering community [1], and, while he also doesn't argue for CD, proposes strange (new?) principles, "fracture mechanics", to explain precisely the features of the collapse that the CDers emphasize. Cherepanov even explicitly says he can sort of understand what might have led David Ray Griffin to believe that CD would be necessary; and Bazant, in this paper we're talking about, also at least gives CTers a passing mention. Finally, Bazant emphasizes the surprise that engineers felt when the buildings came down. All this is nice to hear for someone who has too often heard CDers dismissed for even thinking there was a mystery.--Thomas Basboll 07:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The collapse of the WTC towers is uninteresting to me or to any of the other engineers I know. The only reason why I edit the talk or article page is because it's an engineering subject and there should be an engineer involved. If someone with equal or greater qualifications than me stepped up (and there's many, many such people in the world), I would happily un-watch and ignore that page. The only reason why I read the references on this subject is to counter their mis-use.

Why are so few engineers interested in this? For one thing, I think we have a much better appreciation of the great difficulty in understanding these sorts of events. I would not have been surprised if the buildings stood up or fell down under those conditions, because within this field I know what I don't know (and I think I know a fair bit about what nobody knows and nobody can know). As far as future designs are concerned, events after "global collapse ensued" are not interesting because survival after that time is not a reasonable design constraint. One thing to keep in mind is that the tragedy is that people died, not that the structures collapsed. Whether the towers collapsed on 9/11 or managed to stay up they failed and would have to have been torn down. What went wrong was that there wasn't enough time and useable exit routes to get those people out, not that the buildings collapsed.

As far as Mr. Cherepanov's paper is concerned, I think someone without any engineering knowledge at all should be able to read it and come to the conclusion that it's not terribly reliable. I have enough knowledge of the problem domain to seriously question some of his points but I can't claim to know exactly what he's getting at with "fracture waves" (I wonder if anybody does).

Barzant and Verdure's paper of June 23 2006 is something I can follow, although it would take me a long time to go through it and I'm not competent to critique it. Now, I'm skeptical that the model can be accurate under real-world conditions but that's something else. Practicing Civil Engineers tend to be very mistrustful of theoreticians, and I'm no exception.

One thing that does interest me is that most of the people who are interested are interested for political reasons (maybe you are the sole exception). People who had barely given a thought to structural engineering before in their lives are now surprised when a building falls down or would be surprised if it didn't. People with only rudimentary knowledge of the principals involved have questions about whether conspiracies are required to explain their observations.

It is impossible (well, you could do it but it would be bogus) to develop a theory based on a single event and use that theory to analyze the event. One needs data to develop a theory and independent data to validate the theory. For regularly occuring events, all the data could be real-world data, although that's difficult because of the lack of experimental controls (i.e. there will be uncontrolled variables unconsidered in the theory which the results may be sensitive to). To validate any theory based on the WTC towers one would have to generate data from contrived experiments. Those experiments could be characterized as "Controlled Demolition". That has no bearing on whether the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition or not, but unfortunetely many people will think that it does. Toiyabe 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's good to be reminded of the many things we don't know.--Thomas Basboll 18:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruft Alert

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend. Morton Devonshire^Yo