• Why no convictions for terrible engineering? (reprise)

    From wn@wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) to nz.general on Sat Nov 8 08:10:01 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Get a load of this -- Latest engineering finding out of Taiwan is that old-style buildings do *better* in earthquakes than the recent
    buildings from our idiot engineers: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/578271/buildings-that-drift-less-perform-better-in-quakes-according-to-growing-global-consensus

    excerpt: ****************
    In a Taiwan warehouse, researchers hit a button, and a five-storey, steel-and-concrete box begins to buck and sway. That's about the
    closest researchers can get to how the sort of multi-storey commonly constructed in New Zealand 9000km away might behave in a large
    earthquake. The revelations from the work are now coming in.

    "You know, partition walls, gypsum board that we use, windows, doors,
    even ceilings, which previously we thought would do worse in more
    robust buildings, we're seeing all these components do much better,"
    said Santiago Pujol.
    **** end excerpt **********

    Who knew? Willy knew. Below is my article from a few years ago where
    I laid this out exactly. Enjoy again, and remember, Willy is (almost)
    always right:

    On Sun, 03 Apr 2022, willynilly@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
    The attempted ending of a longstanding farce: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/464542/customers-expected-to-bear-cost-of-1-point-3-billion-scheme-to-vet-engineers
    They are projecting $1.3 billions to re-educate our inept civil
    engineers, when a few convictions for malfeasance would clean up the
    problem far quicker and better. Why no prosecutions?

    What I have personally seen: starting in the 1980's, a trendy line of >thinking permeated our civil engineering ranks -- our foolish
    engineers thought they could design earthquake-proof buildings from
    first principles, without the standard rigourous testing. They
    decided that flexible engineering would accomodate the shaking
    earthquakes. Idiots.

    It was bad enough that they built multi-storey buildings along these
    lines, but also had the gall to judge older, better-built buildings to
    their own meritless standards. Older building which had proudly stood
    for 50, 60, 80 years were "stickered" as being earthquake hazards,
    with their tenants ordered out. The landlords protested in vain.

    Enter the 2013 Seddon earthquake which shook the bejeesus out of all
    the newly-built Wellington wonder buildings, but left the old
    stickered buildings undamaged. The 2016 Kaikoura quake provided the
    coup de grace -- and the old buildings remained undamaged.

    This was a cultural problem where today's civil engineers thought they
    were simply smarter than the previous generations, but the truth was
    entirely the opposite. Nothing like prosecutions for malfeasance, >convictions and jail time to fix this problem. Instead Labour punishes
    the taxpayers instead of the true culprits.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to nz.general on Sun Nov 9 10:56:26 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2025-11-08 08:10:01 +0000, Willy Nilly said:

    Get a load of this -- Latest engineering finding out of Taiwan is that old-style buildings do *better* in earthquakes than the recent
    buildings from our idiot engineers: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/578271/buildings-that-drift-less-perform-better-in-quakes-according-to-growing-global-consensus


    excerpt: ****************
    In a Taiwan warehouse, researchers hit a button, and a five-storey, steel-and-concrete box begins to buck and sway. That's about the
    closest researchers can get to how the sort of multi-storey commonly constructed in New Zealand 9000km away might behave in a large
    earthquake. The revelations from the work are now coming in.

    "You know, partition walls, gypsum board that we use, windows, doors,
    even ceilings, which previously we thought would do worse in more
    robust buildings, we're seeing all these components do much better,"
    said Santiago Pujol.
    **** end excerpt **********

    Who knew? Willy knew. Below is my article from a few years ago where
    I laid this out exactly. Enjoy again, and remember, Willy is (almost)
    always right:

    On Sun, 03 Apr 2022, willynilly@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:
    The attempted ending of a longstanding farce:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/464542/customers-expected-to-bear-cost-of-1-point-3-billion-scheme-to-vet-engineers

    They are projecting $1.3 billions to re-educate our inept civil
    engineers, when a few convictions for malfeasance would clean up the
    problem far quicker and better. Why no prosecutions?

    What I have personally seen: starting in the 1980's, a trendy line of
    thinking permeated our civil engineering ranks -- our foolish
    engineers thought they could design earthquake-proof buildings from
    first principles, without the standard rigourous testing. They
    decided that flexible engineering would accomodate the shaking
    earthquakes. Idiots.

    It was bad enough that they built multi-storey buildings along these
    lines, but also had the gall to judge older, better-built buildings to
    their own meritless standards. Older building which had proudly stood
    for 50, 60, 80 years were "stickered" as being earthquake hazards,
    with their tenants ordered out. The landlords protested in vain.

    Enter the 2013 Seddon earthquake which shook the bejeesus out of all
    the newly-built Wellington wonder buildings, but left the old
    stickered buildings undamaged. The 2016 Kaikoura quake provided the
    coup de grace -- and the old buildings remained undamaged.

    This was a cultural problem where today's civil engineers thought they
    were simply smarter than the previous generations, but the truth was
    entirely the opposite. Nothing like prosecutions for malfeasance,
    convictions and jail time to fix this problem. Instead Labour punishes
    the taxpayers instead of the true culprits.

    The ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. built places like the
    Pyramids which have stood for thousands of years, but modern man can't
    build anything that lasts more than a few years before needing major
    repairs for leaks, subsidence, ... so much for advanced materials and
    design ideals. :-\



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general on Sat Nov 8 22:18:32 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 10:56:26 +1300, Your Name wrote:

    The ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. built places like the
    Pyramids which have stood for thousands of years ...

    If you set up a pile of a million tons of rock, it will take a while for Nature to tear it down again.

    Only the Pyramids were that big, and even they donrCOt look much like they were when new. See the Sphinx, and how badly battered that has been by the elements.

    Nobody lives inside a solid mass, so there is no incentive to tear it down
    and replace it with something else.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gordon@Gordon@leaf.net.nz to nz.general on Sat Nov 8 22:30:17 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2025-11-08, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 10:56:26 +1300, Your Name wrote:

    The ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. built places like the
    Pyramids which have stood for thousands of years ...

    If you set up a pile of a million tons of rock, it will take a while for Nature to tear it down again.

    Only the Pyramids were that big, and even they donrCOt look much like they were when new. See the Sphinx, and how badly battered that has been by the elements.

    The pyramids were also covered in shiny rock which has weathered away.

    Nobody lives inside a solid mass, so there is no incentive to tear it down and replace it with something else.

    The pyramids are do have chambers in them, even if on one lived in them.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mutley@mutley2000@hotmail.com to nz.general on Tue Nov 11 09:08:20 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2025-11-08, Lawrence DAOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 10:56:26 +1300, Your Name wrote:

    The ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. built places like the
    Pyramids which have stood for thousands of years ...

    If you set up a pile of a million tons of rock, it will take a while for
    Nature to tear it down again.

    Only the Pyramids were that big, and even they donAt look much like they
    were when new. See the Sphinx, and how badly battered that has been by the >> elements.

    The pyramids were also covered in shiny rock which has weathered away.

    Nobody lives inside a solid mass, so there is no incentive to tear it down >> and replace it with something else.

    The pyramids are do have chambers in them, even if on one lived in them.
    The Pantheon in Rome was built about 2000 years ago and has survived earthquakes, storm s etc and is still safely standing. If this was a
    building in NZ it would if would have been condemned as an earthquake
    risk and been demolished like the tuff old Wellington buildings that
    they forced demolished in the 1970s.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From wn@wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) to nz.general on Mon Nov 10 22:33:32 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2025, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    The Pantheon in Rome was built about 2000 years ago and has survived >earthquakes, storm s etc and is still safely standing. If this was a >building in NZ it would if would have been condemned as an earthquake
    risk and been demolished like the tuff old Wellington buildings that
    they forced demolished in the 1970s.

    Indeed, and the Pantheon is built largely out of concrete, that is,
    Roman concrete which is super-tough and lasts for thousands of years,
    unlike our own crumby concrete which lasts 100 years if you're lucky.
    We still don't know how the Romans achieved this -- latest thinking is
    that the Romans mixed their concrete very hot, at 300C or hotter. But
    no one today can replicate their amazing concrete.

    Also, about 60 years ago, the French/Italians built a highway through
    the Alps, with lots of ingenious ways of getting through. But while
    doing physical inspections, the designers kept seeing traces of an old
    roadway there, like someone had done this before. Turns out that a
    Roman road was there, following pretty much the same pathway.

    Those earlier generations did a lot with a little. Never
    underestimate how smart and capable they were. Or maybe, to look at
    it another way, how dumb our "experts" are today.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general on Mon Nov 10 23:44:56 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 22:33:32 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:

    ... the Pantheon is built largely out of concrete, that is,
    Roman concrete which is super-tough and lasts for thousands of years,

    If itrCOs supposed to last rCLfor thousands of yearsrCY, why is it a ruin?

    Also, about 60 years ago, the French/Italians built a highway through
    the Alps, with lots of ingenious ways of getting through. But while
    doing physical inspections, the designers kept seeing traces of an old roadway there, like someone had done this before.

    Why only traces? Because most of it had crumbled away?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From wn@wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) to nz.general on Tue Nov 11 05:35:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Lawrence Oliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 22:33:32 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
    ... the Pantheon is built largely out of concrete, that is,
    Roman concrete which is super-tough and lasts for thousands of years,

    If itrCOs supposed to last rCLfor thousands of yearsrCY, why is it a ruin?

    Wow, you're dumb. The Pantheon is not a ruin at all, it is fully
    intact and functional, and is used by the Catholic church today. It
    features an astonishingly large domed central room, the dome made out
    of Roman concrete is so large that no concrete today can construct it.
    Only the Romans could ever have built it. Gets huge tourism.

    Also, about 60 years ago, the French/Italians built a highway through
    the Alps, with lots of ingenious ways of getting through. But while
    doing physical inspections, the designers kept seeing traces of an old
    roadway there, like someone had done this before.

    Why only traces? Because most of it had crumbled away?

    Alas, Roman roadways cannot levitate when the mountainous slopes
    beneath them erode away.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Your Name@YourName@YourISP.com to nz.general on Tue Nov 11 18:56:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2025-11-11 05:35:37 +0000, Willy Nilly said:
    On Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Lawrence Oliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 22:33:32 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:

    ... the Pantheon is built largely out of concrete, that is,Roman
    concrete which is super-tough and lasts for thousands of years,

    If itrCOs supposed to last rCLfor thousands of yearsrCY, why is it a ruin?

    Wow, you're dumb. The Pantheon is not a ruin at all, it is fully intact
    and functional, and is used by the Catholic church today. It features
    an astonishingly large domed central room, the dome made out of Roman concrete is so large that no concrete today can construct it. Only the Romans could ever have built it. Gets huge tourism.

    Lawrence probably just got the Pantheon (Rome) mixed up with the
    Parthenon (Athens). :-)

    Most of the damage to the Greek Parthenon was done in 1687 when the
    fools used it as an ammunition storehouse. That ammunition exploded and destroyed the entire roof and other parts. If it wasn't for that, the
    Greek temple would largely still be intact today, just like the Roman
    Pantheon is. :-\



    Also, about 60 years ago, the French/Italians built a highway through
    the Alps, with lots of ingenious ways of getting through. But while
    doing physical inspections, the designers kept seeing traces of an old
    roadway there, like someone had done this before.

    Why only traces? Because most of it had crumbled away?

    Alas, Roman roadways cannot levitate when the mountainous slopes
    beneath them erode away.




    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general on Tue Nov 11 06:10:16 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 05:35:37 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Lawrence Oliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 22:33:32 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
    ... the Pantheon is built largely out of concrete, that is,
    Roman concrete which is super-tough and lasts for thousands of years,

    If itrCOs supposed to last rCLfor thousands of yearsrCY, why is it a ruin?

    Wow, you're dumb. The Pantheon is not a ruin at all, it is fully intact
    and functional, and is used by the Catholic church today.

    So no renovations or repairs or anything?

    That exterior looks a bit worse for wear.

    <https://www.britannica.com/art/Classical-architecture>

    Alas, Roman roadways cannot levitate when the mountainous slopes
    beneath them erode away.

    Excuses, excuses, eh?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mutley@mutley2000@hotmail.com to nz.general on Wed Nov 12 16:17:53 2025
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

    On Tue, 11 Nov 2025, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    The Pantheon in Rome was built about 2000 years ago and has survived >>earthquakes, storm s etc and is still safely standing. If this was a >>building in NZ it would if would have been condemned as an earthquake
    risk and been demolished like the tuff old Wellington buildings that
    they forced demolished in the 1970s.

    Indeed, and the Pantheon is built largely out of concrete, that is,
    Roman concrete which is super-tough and lasts for thousands of years,
    unlike our own crumby concrete which lasts 100 years if you're lucky.
    We still don't know how the Romans achieved this -- latest thinking is
    that the Romans mixed their concrete very hot, at 300C or hotter. But
    no one today can replicate their amazing concrete.

    Also, about 60 years ago, the French/Italians built a highway through
    the Alps, with lots of ingenious ways of getting through. But while
    doing physical inspections, the designers kept seeing traces of an old >roadway there, like someone had done this before. Turns out that a
    Roman road was there, following pretty much the same pathway.

    Those earlier generations did a lot with a little. Never
    underestimate how smart and capable they were. Or maybe, to look at
    it another way, how dumb our "experts" are today.

    Their secret ingredient was Volcanic ash from what I say on a
    program last week about it's construction.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2