Scioly.org

okay, thank you guys!

The base should just be an open square. The base bracing is only making it heavier and more complicated. Plus having the force directed straight down on it is making it weaker.

Like this (the one with legs), plus a chimney:
http://gallery.scioly.org/details.php?image_id=1822

eta150 wrote:The base should just be an open square. The base bracing is only making it heavier and more complicated. Plus having the force directed straight down on it is making it weaker.

Like this (the one with legs), plus a chimney:
http://gallery.scioly.org/details.php?image_id=1822

I understand how it could make it heavier, but how could it make it weaker?

when you tested it, where did the tower exactly break?

soccerkid812 wrote:when you tested it, where did the tower exactly break?

one of the diagonals (base to core) fell off on the tower leaned in that direction and broke

yousef213 wrote:

eta150 wrote:The base should just be an open square. The base bracing is only making it heavier and more complicated. Plus having the force directed straight down on it is making it weaker.

Like this (the one with legs), plus a chimney:
http://gallery.scioly.org/details.php?image_id=1822

I understand how it could make it heavier, but how could it make it weaker?

The way you have it set up, the force is being pushed onto a relatively unsupported component of the tower. On a more tradition open bottom design, the force is distributed onto the testing surface.

oh, Okay.

it depends on how you make the tower. the four legs can be aligned with the sides of the opening, so you have four sides touching the base, or you can place the tower diagonally so the corners of the tower is along the sides.