Jump to content

The Olympic Cauldron: Centre Of The Stadium


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They've dug a gasline under the concrete floor to the floor center.

It's going to be a steel - glass flame tower.

You don't need a gasline for a holographic projector.

Stop trying to deny the inevitable.

Funny how JLousa never comes on here.

We never hear from Orangevest either.

I'm still owed a nice big juicy steak for winning the roof bet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adiabatic flame temperature (constant volume) of common gases Fuel Oxidizer Tad (°C) Tad (°F)

Acetylene (C2H2) air: 2,500 C / 4,532 F

Oxygen: 3,100 C / 5,612 F

Butane (C4H10) air: 1,970 C / 3,578 F

Butane (C4H10) Oxygen: 2,718 C / 4,925 F

Hydrogen (H2) air: 2,210 C / 4,010 C

Hydrogen (H2) Oxygen: 3,200 C / 5,792 F

Methane (CH4) air: 1,950 C / 3,542 F

Natural gas air: ~1,950 C / ~3,542 F

Propane (C3H8) air: 1,980 C / 3,596 F

Propane (C3H8) Oxygen: 2,526 C / 4,579 F

MAPP gas Methylacetylene (C3H4) air: 2,010 C / 3,650 F

MAPP gas Methylacetylene (C3H4) Oxygen: 2,927 C / 5,301 F

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look! Mr. X / X2 / Nitronuts thinks I've destroyed this forum!

"Originally Posted by jlousa

It's nice to see this thread civil and not littered.

You can't say the same for the 2010 section at GamesBids, it's almost as if he who must not be named dropped a bomb in there...his latest topic:

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/inde...3&a...t=0&start=0

With no moderation, he has single handedly destroyed that forum."

You can read more of Mr. X / X2 / Nitronut's nonsense here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread...228&page=38

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know..don't feed the trolls..

Anyways, first off its not about the temperature that the flame burns at, but rather the heat generated by the flame. There is an important difference in the two terms that is often missed. Temperature is different than heat.

The olympic torch in Salt Lake City generated 8x10^6 BTU/hr. I'd submit that this figure is waaaayy high for anything they'd build indoors...but for the sake of a 'worst case' analysis, lets hold taht 8x10^6 figure.

Wow...that sounds like alot eh? 8 MILLION BTU/HR....Holy ****...the roof is gonna blow!

Orrr...maybe not. The average human at rest generates approx 350 BTU/hr. Assume that roughly 65,000 people will be in BC Place for the OC (60,000 spectators, 5,000 performers). This results in a heat generation of 22.75x10^6 BTU/hr just from the PEOPLE being inside the building......Roughly 2.8x the heat generated by a flame on the order of Salt Lake City's.

Or to frame it another way. The heat given off by a flame of this type is the equivalent of that generated by about 23,000 people sitting around doing nothing.....

If you think having 23,000 people sitting inside BC Place for 2 weeks would cause such a strain on the HVAC and Pressurization system that it would be unable to cope and would explode.......well.....I can't help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look! Mr. X / X2 / Nitronuts thinks I've destroyed this forum!

"Originally Posted by jlousa

It's nice to see this thread civil and not littered.

You can't say the same for the 2010 section at GamesBids, it's almost as if he who must not be named dropped a bomb in there...his latest topic:

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/inde...3&a...t=0&start=0

With no moderation, he has single handedly destroyed that forum."

You can read more of Mr. X / X2 / Nitronut's nonsense here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread...228&page=38

I don't think anyone can help you if you think that isn't true....reality is, most people here [except you] think that. :rolleyes:

I can only wonder why you were banned from Skyscraperpage....15 times? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know..don't feed the trolls..

Anyways, first off its not about the temperature that the flame burns at, but rather the heat generated by the flame. There is an important difference in the two terms that is often missed. Temperature is different than heat.

The olympic torch in Salt Lake City generated 8x10^6 BTU/hr. I'd submit that this figure is waaaayy high for anything they'd build indoors...but for the sake of a 'worst case' analysis, lets hold taht 8x10^6 figure.

Wow...that sounds like alot eh? 8 MILLION BTU/HR....Holy ****...the roof is gonna blow!

Orrr...maybe not. The average human at rest generates approx 350 BTU/hr. Assume that roughly 65,000 people will be in BC Place for the OC (60,000 spectators, 5,000 performers). This results in a heat generation of 22.75x10^6 BTU/hr just from the PEOPLE being inside the building......Roughly 2.8x the heat generated by a flame on the order of Salt Lake City's.

Or to frame it another way. The heat given off by a flame of this type is the equivalent of that generated by about 23,000 people sitting around doing nothing.....

If you think having 23,000 people sitting inside BC Place for 2 weeks would cause such a strain on the HVAC and Pressurization system that it would be unable to cope and would explode.......well.....I can't help you.

Thanks for that analysis. The air inside the stadium is monitored and can be adjusted. Reports indicate that the 2007 pop and deflation was the result of a miscommunication where 3x the pressure needed to hold up the roof. During the Olympics, I'm sure they will be monitoring the air pressure and communicating very closely.

And while the 2007 incident was a costly and embarrassing error, that is the only time in the stadium's 25 year history where the roof tore and deflated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

drowninginair, your analysis is too symplistic.

The heat generated by the flame is eminating from one point. The heat generated by 55,000 people is spread throughout the stadium.

The heat from the flame will rise to the top of the dome and cause it to expand.

So don't tell me that 55,000 people generate as much heat as a flame cauldron burning at 2000 degrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? Most people on internet forums are not experts. If you want an accurate response, call up or write an expert from an engineering firm or an engineering professor from a credible university. Or someone from Daily Planet or Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So what? Most people on internet forums are not experts. If you want an accurate response, call up or write an expert from an engineering firm or an engineering professor from a credible university. Or someone from Daily Planet or Bill Nye the Science Guy.

I actually am an engineer. M. Eng with an undergrad in Civil Engineering. Most of my work is transportation related, but I do have at least some background in structural work and heat transfer.

@towerguy3. Yes, this is obviously a 'back-of-the-napkin' estimation. I don't have the time, data or patience to do a full engineering calculation of this absurd idea.

Two points:

- It would seem that you're again missing the difference between heat and temperature. Both a match and a bonfire will burn at the same temperature....but they won't generate the same amount of heat. Heat is transferred due to a difference in temperature.

- The fact that a flame is a point source, and body heat would be dispersed is irrelevant unless you plan on putting that flame within probably about 5-10 meters of the roof. Think of it as analogous to how a fire's heat dissipates and warms the whole room.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you examine the design of the dome, one thing is apparent.

The furthest point in the stadium from any point on the teflon roof is...

drum roll please...

the center of the floor.

As you move to the extreme edges of the floor the distance between that point and a point directly above on the roof decreases.

It's a result of the geometry of the dome. The highest point (the apex) is the center 200 feet up.

Makes sense that the best, and ONLY, place to safely put a Flame is the center of the floor and close to floor level.

Thus the hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When you examine the design of the dome, one thing is apparent.

The furthest point in the stadium from any point on the teflon roof is...

drum roll please...

the center of the floor.

As you move to the extreme edges of the floor the distance between that point and a point directly above on the roof decreases.

It's a result of the geometry of the dome. The highest point (the apex) is the center 200 feet up.

Makes sense that the best, and ONLY, place to safely put a Flame is the center of the floor and close to floor level.

Thus the hole.

So what you're saying is that properly designed and placed flame could work inside BC Place? So whats the problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you could make the flame so small that it could work and not cause any problems.

How about a flame 6 inches high? Is that going to look good on NBC and International TV broadcasts around the world?

Two billion people seeing a flame twice as long as your hand?

That's how British Columbia should be represented? By a flame 12 inches high?

If this Government hadn't had it's collective head up it's ass and had the Retractable Roof done BEFORE the Olympics rather than AFTER,

we could have a Roof that opens and a huge bright Flame to show the world and be proud of.

Not a flame 6 inches high just so it doesn't stress the roof.

There's no doubt you can make the flame small enough that it doesn't create a problem.

The issue is: we could've done better

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ceremonies are tailored more for TV these days anyway. How something looks on the stadium floor is a secondary concern these days, as long as it looks great on a Plasma screen, 99.9999 per cent of the world will be happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...