Can all tractors flip over easy?
- Thread starter Learning2Tractor
- Start date
tacticalturnip
Elite Member
Oh? Really? Someone in a warzone 50 years ago tasked with going into boobytrapped, jungle, death tunnels had it harder?
You don't say?
I'm 6'5" and weighed 260 pounds at my smallest; tight spaces terrify me, and I'm not too proud to admit it. So, yeah, I have a bit of respect and admiration for people that can squeeze their asses into wells, tunnels, etcetera, whether they're in any real danger or not.
It's almost like we view things through a lens based on our own experiences, and therefore what is and it not impressive might vary from person to person.
Molalla1
Elite Member
Okay tacticalturnip, I think . . . most people do not akin to such behaviors, I know I do not, so let's leave it at that.Oh? Really? Someone in a warzone 50 years ago tasked with going into boobytrapped, jungle, death tunnels had it harder?
You don't say?
I'm 6'5" and weighed 260 pounds at my smallest; tight spaces terrify me, and I'm not too proud to admit it. So, yeah, I have a bit of respect and admiration for people that can squeeze their asses into wells, tunnels, etcetera, whether they're in any real danger or not.
It's almost like we view things through a lens based on our own experiences, and therefore what is and it not impressive might vary from person to person.
tacticalturnip
Elite Member
npalen
Elite Member
"Flipping is front to back" so you flipped your tires front to back?
mo1
Platinum Member
The Ford 8N was largely designed around pulling a 2-14 plow, and a lot of them did just that back in the day. Plowing is why the 3 point hitch was originally designed, before that, if a plow hit a stump or a tough patch of soil, the front wheels were coming off the ground.
The first tractor that was marketed for landscaping tasks and other not-strictly-ag purposes was the International Cub. The Ford N series were absolutely marketed as regular ag tractors and people used them as such.
Of the list of your improvements, this is the order in which they appeared, or very closely:
1. Power steering
2. Diesel engines
3. Loaders (but took a long time to go from being available and occasionally used to being ubiquitous)
4. 3 point hitch (category 1, then shortly after category 2)
5. Live and then later independent PTO
6. Synchromesh transmissions
7. Cabs with heat and A/C
8. Category 3 3-point hitches
9. ROPS
10. Full PTO shielding
11. Adjustable draft links
12. Hydrostatic transmissions
13. Practical 4WD (not MFWD)
14. Category 4 3-point hitches
15. Hydraulic reverser transmissions
16. Widespread use of MFWD
17. Loader QA
18. Pin or tube 3 point draft link stabilizers rather than chains
19. Industrial tires on tractors
jigs_n_fixtures
Platinum Member
I’m just a dumb ol‘ engineer
This dumb ol’ engineer knew as soon as the second plane hit, that if they were really lucky, the towers would pancake and not topple. I knew enough about how the building was put together, and that the plane impact it was designed to survive weighed less than a third of the planes which made impact.
You are right that it was a well planned demolition. The bastages who lead that effort were all graduate level architecture students at a polytechincal university in Germany, which also teaches structural engineering. The Towers were a distinct and ground breaking structural system. There were ten chapters in the back of my structures book, which were there so the book could be used as a graduate level text. One of those chapters was on the World Trade Center. The book was printed in multiple languages, one of which was German, and that book was used as a text in universities all over the world. If their classes weren't taught from that book, the library most certainly had at least one copy on the shelves.
I was very familiar with the World Trade Center’s structure because I had done that chapter for extra credit. And, personally I am certain that some engineering student who was freinds with the bastages, had explained how to take down the towers to the architects who ran the operation.
“Explosions”. Have you ever pulled a large piece of iron until it failed? I’ve been in a lab when they tested a #16 rebar to failure. You could feel it from the other end of the building. the instant release of energy destroyed a very expensive machine. The “explosions” were a cascade failure which occurred when one overstressed rod burst, and the instant increase in load to the ones on either side caused them to fail, which caused the ones beside those to fail, all the way around. That would definitely sound like a series of timed charges.
The impact points of the planes were not random.. they were chosen so that the load from the stories above would be enough to initiate a cascade failure once the structural steel cross ties started to stretch. The rolling of the plane to make a diagonal impact over multiple floors was not random. Putting the fuel in the wings into multiple floors would help assure the heat from the flames was spread out.
The sprayed on fire-proofing looks like a cross between paper mache, and hydro-turf, and is actually very easy to break away from the steel. the impact from the plane was more than enough to do it. Architects, and graduate students in structural engineering would know that.
So, please keep your ignorant opinions based on your total lack of real knowledge to yourself. At least, until you learn enough to begin asking intelligent questions, instead of spouting off your unfounded opinions.
I’m just a dumb ol’ engineer, who aced all the structures classes, while working his way through college as a bolted steel, and fireproofing inspector, and didn’t become a structural engineer only because I got a lot better offers to go be a construction guy, and build things.
This dumb ol’ engineer knew as soon as the second plane hit, that if they were really lucky, the towers would pancake and not topple. I knew enough about how the building was put together, and that the plane impact it was designed to survive weighed less than a third of the planes which made impact.
You are right that it was a well planned demolition. The bastages who lead that effort were all graduate level architecture students at a polytechincal university in Germany, which also teaches structural engineering. The Towers were a distinct and ground breaking structural system. There were ten chapters in the back of my structures book, which were there so the book could be used as a graduate level text. One of those chapters was on the World Trade Center. The book was printed in multiple languages, one of which was German, and that book was used as a text in universities all over the world. If their classes weren't taught from that book, the library most certainly had at least one copy on the shelves.
I was very familiar with the World Trade Center’s structure because I had done that chapter for extra credit. And, personally I am certain that some engineering student who was freinds with the bastages, had explained how to take down the towers to the architects who ran the operation.
“Explosions”. Have you ever pulled a large piece of iron until it failed? I’ve been in a lab when they tested a #16 rebar to failure. You could feel it from the other end of the building. the instant release of energy destroyed a very expensive machine. The “explosions” were a cascade failure which occurred when one overstressed rod burst, and the instant increase in load to the ones on either side caused them to fail, which caused the ones beside those to fail, all the way around. That would definitely sound like a series of timed charges.
The impact points of the planes were not random.. they were chosen so that the load from the stories above would be enough to initiate a cascade failure once the structural steel cross ties started to stretch. The rolling of the plane to make a diagonal impact over multiple floors was not random. Putting the fuel in the wings into multiple floors would help assure the heat from the flames was spread out.
The sprayed on fire-proofing looks like a cross between paper mache, and hydro-turf, and is actually very easy to break away from the steel. the impact from the plane was more than enough to do it. Architects, and graduate students in structural engineering would know that.
So, please keep your ignorant opinions based on your total lack of real knowledge to yourself. At least, until you learn enough to begin asking intelligent questions, instead of spouting off your unfounded opinions.
dirttoys
Platinum Member
Ernie-32
Bronze Member
Yep, you seem to know everything about it, so you're saying it was indeed controlled demolision and a pancake effect both at the same time. I only should not have written that I don't believe the pancake effect. Okay, the result is still the same.
What I saw was not a raging fire and seen recent other towers burning completely like a torch but not coming down, I say this clearly still remains an inside job.
Apart from all this, I find it beyond believe how the owner could say in an interview the day after "Building7 was so much burned down (hardly flames visible), we decided to pull it." Like every building has a button that says "push here to start controlled demolision" hahahahah what a joke.
I'm just frustrated that "the powers that be" can run a theatre like this in plain view of the world and get away with it and start a war over it that killed even more innocent people.
Bloody hell, this world is so bent out of shape.
Last edited:
jigs_n_fixtures
Platinum Member
I do know quite a bit about it. I read the report published by the Engineering Societies, on what happened and how. And have enough background to read it intelligently, and understand most of what they said. I think there were several versions. One dumbed down to a fifth grade level for the politicians, one dumbed down to a high school or college student with a SEM background, one one aimed at Engineers who understand the basics of structures. Very similar to a thesis from a grad student, or dissertation from a doctoral candidate.
I think the impact waves had rattled it enough that the fireproofing had popped off. To repair that to new standards, with new materials, would require gutting all of the interior to get at the steel. And, at theat point it would cost less to demo, and rebuild. The insurance companies probably hired a structural engineering consulting firm, and decided that the demo, was the least costly route.
When you demo most things in an urban environment, you don’t have the property available to make things topple. So, you have to design your demolition to fall within your property foot print. Which is when you design your demolition to pancake, into itself as opposed to topple.
Toppling is easy: Blow out the bottom in the direction you want it to go, down low so it sags that way. Moments later you blow the other side. As it goes from compression to tension, and the building falls where you want it. At least in theory. Tons of stuff on YouTube of it going wrong.
Designing a pancake is considerably harder. You design the blast pattern to start collapsing the building from neat the top, into it’s interior to contain your debris mostly in the building footprint. As the debris falls you time more blasts to help things break into the interior, and eventually the momentum of the falling debris gets high enough you don’t need any more charges, and the building takes itself down to the inside.
Designing, the aircraft impacts, to be at the right place, and generate enough heat, that the stay rods in the interior would stretch enough to let them expand just enough that the load from above, and outward movement of the stressed skin, would generate enough force to drop the buildings was a very complicated undertaking on demolition design.
Unfortunately, in a far less “secure” world, we essentially delivered the structural niceties of the towers to them, in the way of a text book which had enough information in it to allow the analysis required.
Last edited: