Topic: Thought y'all might get a kick outta this

[Rob...]

Be careful to designate your revision clouds. 

[Josh Nieman]

I still think that's a photoshopping.

[M-dub]

Also see this -> http://www.theswamp.org/index.php?topic=140.msg194612#msg194612

[t-bear]

Photoshop....shadows are way off.

[M-dub]

I don't think it's a photoshop job, myself.  I think what you're looking at is water seepage.  It also looks like the white stuff is lime or some kind of residue from the cement... I dunno...

[CADaver]

looks like they were trying to find reinforcing

[M-dub]

Yeah, who knows... Maybe they needed a hole that big and drilling a bunch of holes was the best way to do it.  I've done something similar with ceramic tile.  Still, it's funny to think that someone was that absent minded to do that from a rev cloud.

[Josh Nieman]

looks like they were trying to find reinforcing

That's another reason I think it's a photoshop.  I am new to structural concrete design... but typically, I don't think you would have concrete spanning much of -any- distance without at least the minimum steel required per area of slab, let alone a floor or whatever that may be.

On top of that.. who cuts that shape, really?  It could happen... but come on.

Also I agree that the shadows conflict with each other.

But I agree it is a good photoshop job, very detailed, and otherwise hilarious.

... What M-Dub says about drilling 8 holes, or however would be the smartest way to make that shape... but man... why would you

[M-dub]

... What M-Dub says about drilling 8 holes, or however would be the smartest way to make that shape... but man... why would you

I mean, this picture was taken right after the drilling and before they cut off all the little 'triangular' pieces, assuming that they wanted a square hole for some reason or another.  You're right about the rebar, though.

[CADaver]

looks like they were trying to find reinforcing

That's another reason I think it's a photoshop.  I am new to structural concrete design... but typically, I don't think you would have concrete spanning much of -any- distance without at least the minimum steel required per area of slab, let alone a floor or whatever that may be.

If you know it's there, there is no need to look.  But if someone may have poured a floor without it, you need to make sure.

Also I agree that the shadows conflict with each other.

Having taken quite a few flash photos, I see nothing incongruent in the shadows.

... What M-Dub says about drilling 8 holes, or however would be the smartest way to make that shape... but man... why would you

if all you have is a four inch hole saw....

[M-dub]

Also I agree that the shadows conflict with each other.

Having taken quite a few flash photos, I see nothing incongruent in the shadows.

Nor do I...

Seepage.  (That's a cool word... unless you're explaining why your pants are wet)

[Josh Nieman]

... What M-Dub says about drilling 8 holes, or however would be the smartest way to make that shape... but man... why would you

I mean, this picture was taken right after the drilling and before they cut off all the little 'triangular' pieces, assuming that they wanted a square hole for some reason or another.  You're right about the rebar, though.

I don't know enough about concrete forming and such, but I also wonder why they wouldn't have formed that cutout initially... I guess it could be a revision, or mistake by the contractor... but I dunno.

As the 'benefit of the doubt' of the accuracy of the photo, it could be someone actively looking for reinforcement, of the suspicion that the contractor did not put any, and is coring over and over to find some... but I don't think you would make a square pattern of drills... you would really only need makes holes in one direction, then if none found, drill in the perpendicular direction... but no need to complete the square.

I hate over analyzing stuff like this... why can't I just laugh and move on..

[CADaver]

... What M-Dub says about drilling 8 holes, or however would be the smartest way to make that shape... but man... why would you

I mean, this picture was taken right after the drilling and before they cut off all the little 'triangular' pieces, assuming that they wanted a square hole for some reason or another.  You're right about the rebar, though.

I don't know enough about concrete forming and such, but I also wonder why they wouldn't have formed that cutout initially... I guess it could be a revision, or mistake by the contractor... but I dunno.

Or retro-fitting an existing structure.

As the 'benefit of the doubt' of the accuracy of the photo, it could be someone actively looking for reinforcement, of the suspicion that the contractor did not put any, and is coring over and over to find some... but I don't think you would make a square pattern of drills... you would really only need makes holes in one direction, then if none found, drill in the perpendicular direction... but no need to complete the square.

Seemed like the thing to do at the time, or they needed to make the hole big enough to take a picture.

[Josh Nieman]

Also I agree that the shadows conflict with each other.

Having taken quite a few flash photos, I see nothing incongruent in the shadows.

It seems to me that if it were a flash photo, there would be no shadow on the upper half of the back of the hole... unless that IS water saturation... but I can't put my finger on it exactly, but it seems too much like shadow.  The lines it makes... the darkness... I am not sure, what it is.

The dropped shadow from the top (nearest) edge of the hole seems most inconsistent... what is it reflecting on?  The ceiling in the background?  If so, that shadow is far too sharp.  It would most likely be much more blurred, I am thinking.

[M-dub]

Here's what I think...

The shadow comes from the flash of the camera because the flash is ABOVE the lens.  I bet if the camera was upside down, you wouldn't see the shadow... (Don't quote me on that though)