Monday, December 18, 2017

Câți pensionari sunt în România?

Legea bugetului pe 2018 se află în proces legislativ în Parlament.

Iată lista de pe site-ul camerei deputaților cu procesele legislative din 2017

http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck2015.lista?cam=2&anp=2017

La numărul 567 avem

567. PL-x 567/07.12.2017 Proiectul Legii bugetului de stat pe anul 2018 pe ordinea de zi

În cadrul acestui proces legislativ este un link la Anexa 1. La Anexa 1 este un pdf

http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2017/500/60/7/ax1.pdf

La pagina 3 a acestui pdf există un indicator care se numește CONTRIBUȚIILE ANGAJATORILOR cu o sumă de 535.442 pentru 2017. Această sumă, ca urmare a noilor legi fiscale, este prevăzută să crească în 2018 la 2.164.204. Sumă care nu corespunde nici pe departe cu necesarul arătat mai jos la Casa Națională Pensii, de peste 57 de miliarde de lei. De fapt toate cifrele nu concordă, între ele sau cu bugetul CNPP arătat într-un link mai jos.

În pagina 21 a acestui pdf există un indicator care se numește Pensii și ajutoare bătrânețe. Nu se specifică dacă aceste sume sunt finanțare sau subvenție. Aceste cifre nu concordă cu cele ale bugetului CNPP arătat mai jos sau chiar cu cele ale contribuțiilor însumate ale angajaților și angajatorilor.

Pe site-ul Casei Naționale de Pensii Publice există un link la bugetul lor. Pentru 2017 și 2016. https://www.cnpp.ro/en/buget-bass Link-ul conduce la descărcarea unui fișier excel în calculator, fără nici o altă întrebare. Am încărcat acest fișier pe Google Sheets. Iată link-ul

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vT2l6-pp1T50olzDiOz22FlDQwZmwDCwtQT4NhAqnhf1SULFCCQ0PtmVr8jMxcU-Rjhm3E3a238Ng55/pubhtml

La indicatorul SUBVENTII DE LA BUGETUL DE STAT avem o sumă 13,599,093 lei.

La indicatorul Venituri sistem public de pensii avem o sumă de 57,605,342 de lei.


De unde aceaste neconcordanțe? De ce avem acest indicator în bugetul de stat Contribuții ale angajatorilor pentru bugetul de stat?

Este Casa Națională de Pensii Publice complet autonomă iar veniturile și cheltuielile ei nu intră la Bugetul de Stat, și numai subvențiile către CNPP sunt raportate la Bugetul de Stat iar angajatorii plătesc o contribuție separată la Bugetul de Stat care să compenseze parțial subvențiile și restul direct la CNPP? Dar dacă la Bugetul de Stat Indicatorul Pensii și ajutoare de bătrânețe reprezintă o subvenție, de ce nu este numită subvenție și de ce nu este egală cu suma primita de CNPP?

Sau poate bugetul CNPP este complet fals și singura sumă plătită pensionarilor în 2017 a fost cea de la bugetul de stat, de 18.668.518 de lei, care nu se poate falsifica, ce corespunde la o pensie medie de 900 de lei unui număr de sub 1 milion de pensionari?

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Faptele Regilor





Ciudățenii:

"La vârsta de 3-4 ani conducea pe aleile Palatului Cotroceni o maşinuţă electrică, iar bunica sa, Regina Maria, notează în jurnal că Mihai făcea un zgomot asurzitor". Am găsit pe alte site-uri, e vorba de mașina care făcea zgomot asurzitor, nu de el. Mașinile electrice nu fac zgomot decât dacă sunt defecte. "Regina Maria, care scrie că mașina făcea un „zgomot asurzitor” Ok poate ea vorbea despre claxonul acelei mașinuțe.
http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/detaliile-mai-puc-in-cunoscute-ale-viac-ii-regelui-mihai.html

"Prima guvernantă a Principesei Ana s-a numit Madame Boutellier, o învăţătoare din Italia, oraşul Viareggio, unde principesa a locuit cu părinții ei în perioada crizei financiare"

"La vârsta de doisprezece ani, Principesa Ana a urmat la Paris, cu mare plăcere, cursuri de scrimă.

De la 16 la 18 ani (1939-1941), Regina Ana a urmat o şcoală de Arte Frumoase la New York şi, în paralel, a lucrat la magazinul universal Macy’s, pentru a-şi câştiga existența."

Prima guvernantă, au mai fost deci altele. Cursuri de scmrimă la Paris și lucrat la Macy, unde astăzi de exemplu dacă nu ești manager lucrezi cu salariul minim. Poate a fost manageră dar nu cred fiindcă dacă mergea la școală nu putea lucra decât part time și oricum era mult prea tânără să fi fost manager. Ce logică are să-ți câștigi existența dacă ai avut mai multe guvernante și ai luat cursuri de scrimă la Paris?

"Regina a urmat la New York în anii 1941 și 1942 cursurile Parson Schol of Art, unde a studiat ştiinţa promovării comerciale." School în engleză se scrie cu doi de o. Ce chestie, să înveți o știință la o școală de arte.

"La 19 ani [1923 + 19 = 1942-1943], Principesa Ana a cerut permisiunea mamei sale să se înroleze în războiul antinazist. Mama și-a dat acordul. Tatăl Anei, Principele René, și frații ei, Principii Jacques, Michel și André, erau deja înrolați și luptau în diverse unități militare franceze. Ana a mers pe frontul african, apoi european şi în fine german, în cadrul Armatei Franceze.

În 1943, Principesa Ana s-a înrolat în Forţele Franceze Libere, a traversat Atlanticul în luna septembrie şi a făcut studii de infirmieră la Casablanca, apoi la Rabat, în Maroc."

Războiul în Africa a durat până în mai 1943. "Frontul european" a început cu debarcarea americanilor în Franța în iunie 1944. Prințesa Ana de Bourbon Parma a ajuns în Maroc în septembrie 1943. Deci nu putea să fi mers "pe frontul african". Cel mult a stat acolo la școala de infirmiere până cel mai devreme iunie 1944.

"The North African Campaign of the Second World War took place in North Africa from 10 June 1940 to 13 May 1943." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign

Și totuși la fapta 13 a Regelui Mihai este scris. "Regele Mihai, în sala de cinema a Palatului Regal, a văzut într-un reportaj de război din Maroc (1943), câteva secunde cu chipul Principesei Ana de Bourbon Parma, care lucra ca infirmieră pe front."

"Reginei Ana i-au plăcut întotdeauna Jeep-urile, pe care le-a cunoscut îndeaproape ca ofiţer de legătură al Armatei Franceze Libere". Dar școala de ofițeri când a făcut-o, tot în Maroc?

"Singura perioadă, în cei 68 de ani de căsătorie, în care Regina Ana a stat despărțită de mai multe ori câteva săptămâni de Regele Mihai, soţul Reginei Ana, a fost în cei nouă ani în care Regele a lucrat ca broker autorizat la Bursa din New York."

Păcat că nu se scrie în ce perioadă a fost broker, căci s-ar putea căuta. De asemenea 9 ani este o pauză foarte mare pentru o familie cu 5 copii.

"Regele şi Regina şi-au reînnoit jurămintele conjugale la Monaco, în anul 1966, în cadrul unei ceremonii religioase catolice. Acela a fost momentul în care Regina Ana a fost reprimită în sânul Bisericii Catolice, căreia i-a aparținut întreaga viaţă." Un punct comun cu tatăl său Carol II ale cărui soții Zizi Lambrino și Elena Lupescu au fost catolice. Cum să fii reprimit acolo unde ai aparținut?

"La 22 de ani, în vara anului 1945, Regina Ana s-a întors la viaţa civilă, decorată cu Crucea de Război a Republicii Franceze şi avansată la gradul de locotenent în Armata Franței."

Și totuși este scris la fapta 17 a Regine Maria (implicit) că ea a fost ofițer de legătură a armatei Franceze Libere și asta înainte de a fi fost avansată la gradul de locotenent, după terminarea războiului când Armata Franceză a revenit la titlul de Armată Franceză?

La fapta 24 a Reginei Maria este scris. "niciuna dintre rudele sale catolice nu a luat parte la căsătorie." Așa că nici una din ele, reală sau nu, nu poate fi văzută în poze.

Fapta 32 "La 28 februarie 1953 s-a născut a treia fiică a Reginei Ana, Irina. Aceasta nu face parte din linia de succesiune la Coroana României."

Eu am impresia că Irina este singura fiică biologică a fostului Rege, fiindcă seamănă. Și fiindcă a fost arestată în Oregon. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/08/romanian_princess_oregon_husba.html

"Prietenii cei mai apropiaţi ai Reginei au fost câinii de companie crescuţi de-a lungul vremii. Ultima pereche de căţei, care a locuit în casa din Elveţia, au fost Bianco şi Bambi, din rasa Chihuahua." Nici un prieten uman?

Regele Mihai, Fapta 85. "Căsătorindu-se cu o persoană de rit catolic, Regele Mihai nu ar fi putut accede la Coroana Britanică, deşi ascendenţii şi descendenţii săi s-ar afla şi în linia de succesiune britanică."

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Non Human World Leader

First, a fake humanity declaration.

"The Humanity Declaration (人間宣言 Ningen-sengen) is an imperial rescript issued by the Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) as part of a New Year’s statement on 1 January 1946 at the request of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. In the rescript, which follows the Five Charter Oath of 1868, the Emperor denied the concept of his being a living god, which would eventually lead to the promulgation of the new Constitution, under which the Emperor is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people"."[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity_Declaration

"However, the meaning of the exact contents – delivered in stilted, archaic court Japanese – has been the subject of much debate. In particular, for the phrase officially translated into English as "the false conception that the Emperor is divine", the unusual phrase akitsumikami (現御神) was used instead of the common word arahitogami (現人神, "living god"). While usually glossed as "divinity" in English, some Western commentators, such as John W. Dower and Herbert P. Bix, have argued that this means "manifest kami" (or more loosely "incarnation of a god"), and the Emperor could still be an arahitogami even if he is not an akitsumikami."

Second, the physical resemblance of the Emperor Hirohito with pharaoh Khufu and the name which seems Asian.

Khufu is responsible for building the first and greatest of the Egyptian pyramids, a technical marvel of the stone age, of which functionality remains mostly unexplained to this day. Could it had been built using alien knowledge and its functionality include creating earthquakes and mega-lightning everywhere on Earth, global surveillance and communications, others and its first possible use was during the great war described in Mahabharata, which is dated about the same period the Great Pyramid was built?

Could it be the genealogical line of the emperors of Japan draw from aliens that landed on Earth millennia ago in a little ship, with little means but great knowledge and they had to make use of whatever materials and beings they got on hand?






Twin Towers Fall II

While checking the spelling on the title i remembered something. The strange connection between the title and logo of the series, Twin Peaks, and Oregon License plate. They say one picture equals one thousands words so i will make this post mostly of pictures.
There are many pictures of debris of WTC. The following are from forums, could not find the original sites, so i will just put them here. (I thing things are too important for everybody and too public for any fuss about copyright).

This one taken during construction says eveyrthing on how the towers were built. These are the structural outer beams made of HSS (Hollow Structural Steel) which basically is a square cross section empty in the middle made of rolled and welded carbon steel. There are some holes though kinda big to my opinion allowing workers to insert bolts and nuts and tools to tighten them.
This is from another site showing the type of joint between vertical beams. This type of joint can take a lot of pure vertical compression load, in fact as much as the beam itself. However, if the two beams are pulled from each other or pried, like in the case of wind bending the building and elongating it at one side, the maximum load is the one the 4 bolts can take.
There are numerous pictures on the web showing bolt failure at WTC. The bolts used at WTC where high strength hardened steel that could have been severely affected by heat. Also the ones that are not affected by the heat being hardened through quenching are more brittle than normal bolts. "ASTM A325 [note the symbolism] is an ASTM International standard for heavy hex structural bolts, titled Standard Specification for Structural Bolts, Steel, Heat Treated, 120/105 ksi Minimum Tensile Strength. It defines mechanical properties for bolts that range from  1⁄2 to 1- 1⁄2in diameter." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTM_A325

Heat treated. That basically means quenching followed by tempering. Quenching steel makes it harder but more brittle. In place if heated, looses some of the strength and becomes more ductile or easy to bend. The fracture of the bolt shown in this picture here is not brittle but ductile, showing some flow of the material before breaking).
If an image can say a thousand words, how about a video? Only trouble with videos is they have commentators who speak and sometimes get emotional and there is a background sound that is also highly emotional. However i will put here the link to a couple of starting point within the same video. My suggestion is not to watch more than a few seconds cause cause most if is not real information but real emotional garbage.

https://youtu.be/3S5ohCX9JI8?t=12m55s

https://youtu.be/3S5ohCX9JI8?t=14m19s

There are few pictures of the immediate post impact area of the towers. Some of them are on false conspiracy theory sites. However i need to put the pictures which are real here to explain something.

I never knew until now the outer beams were wrapped in aluminum cladding which is a health problem in itself.

This picture shows some of the beams (not cladding) broken or dislocated from their joints (bolts broken) right at the time of impact. Most of the plane made of thin aluminum sheet was actually shredded by the heavy steel beams and most of it and a part of the fuel went inside. This part of weakened structure was the starting point of collapse of the tower.

If the beams were fewer and bigger with the same total load capability the plane would have still gotten inside but the beams would have resisted. But that was not possible with this type of design where all the weight of the building was supported by continuous outer vertical beams. The beams were in the same number at the top and bottom of the building but at lower level they had put thicker beams because of accumulated weight. Fewer beams were not possible at the bottom because they probably could not find any bigger.
These two pictures show many structural beams broken right after impact at one side of the tower. Those alone would have been almost enough to make the tower tilt above this level and fall. As for the comment embedded in the picture. It was possible. It is in the picture. The plane didn't cut through the beams. The beams were bent and dislocated out of the joints more like from the pressure of the shredding of the plane. The cut circled in the image is in the soft aluminum cladding. You can see in the left side of the pictures some beams that seem dislocated by tree like the bolts were broken and the cladding on top broken on a line along the joints (of the cladding).
I think the tower structure broke at impact in the same points where it was assembled that is at the bolted joints of prefabricated components made of three beams each and three cross-plates or brackets that were again assembled by bolts.

At this point the claim "the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner" does not stand anymore. Important damage seen here right after impact may seem only superficial but these were some of the beams holding the weight of the building. Once a percentage of the beams where damaged at a location the tube design which is strong only as a whole would not behave anymore like a tube but more like pieces of metal held together by bolts.

Finally the picture of a truss that holds the floor. They were trusses connecting each beam of the outer core with a horizontal one of the inner. Once the outer beams are missing or bent, the truss that was held by only by two bolts with the beam will fall together with the concrete. If one floor falls, they will make all the others fall.
In the following picture you may see how fragile the connection between floors and structural beams are. The structural beams of the faces of the tower where not connected to each other horizontally by structural beams like in more "classic designs" making this type of tower look like a cage! If the structural vertical beams where to bend and brake like they did when they were impacted by a jetliner, they could not possibly be held together by the non-structural horizontal trusses. First consequence would be the floor will fall. Once one floor has fallen, only partially, the shock-wave of the falling massive concrete floor (not seen yet poured in this picture) hitting the concrete floor under will break enough of the bolts holding the structural beams together around that floor for the whole building to start collapsing and this again can happen only at this type of design with missing horizontal structural beams.
In a way the tower stood like a giant cage with nothing connecting the oposite sides. Only heavy concrete floors hanging loose on the opsosite sides (not yet present in the pictures). The fallen concrete floor account for the huge amounts of dust spread all around New York.

Hat trusses. Hat trusses stood on top of the building and judging by their size compared to columns they were structural. It was the only structural connection between the core and outer columns both structural preventing, well, the core not to... lean on a side!. The core was a tower within itself and could sustain a bit less than half the weight of all concrete floors. But was it a stand alone tower? It couldn't have been cause it was too thin for the height and would have swayed. Could sustain vertical but not horizontal loads. These hat trusses account for the rigidity of the whole structure and wind resistance. Also the floor trusses played a role in sway proofing the building especially the independent sway of the sides. We get to the point where non-structural elements play a role in the structural stability and this where the economy plays a part. The tower was built with half of the steel necessary for the same building designed "classically".
Sway is a well known design probelm of tall and thin structures. Allthough the calculated cross-section and material strength can withstand the vertical load they can collapse because of instability of being so thin and bend like a bow before the prying action of a beam bolted to the next one would break the bolts.

Here is described how a tower made of beams can sway and they actually all do only at a small tolerable and manageable scale. In our case without the non-structural floor trusses the very tall and thin core tower or tower within tower would have swayed at the middle pretty much like a bow under the enormous weight of the concrete and collapsed. The floor trusses where also also to controll sway of the central core.
Many people still ask themselves why the towers never fell on a side. Simply because they were too fragile to even lean especially after been severely weakened on one side.

From this picture is clearer. Fire or not tower could not have stood long after almost 1/3 of the structural beams on impact side (Number 100-200) at several floors were damaged or compromised. That is about 10% of total.
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=30059

"The core was a conventionally framed structure, albeit with massive columns, that primarily carried gravity loads (the majority of the floor system, as well as the elevators and HVAC system)"

It couldn't carry the load for the majority of the floor system cause at one end of the trusses were laying on the central core and the other on the outer "structure". So it was half. Right now it's a mystery to me where the trusses at the four corners where leaning on the other end from the outer beams.

Ok i solved that one. The trusses at corners where hanging on other trusses! (those themselves were hanging half on central core and half on outer columns, so that gives in total more load on outer). But here is one that seems of light design or the same design that seem to hold 4 others at that corner! The one with many purple dots. That beam holds several times more floor weight than others. It's easy to imagine what would happen if that one failed. Also. That truss loads the corresponding outer beam several times more then those around, breaking the whole symmetry of equally loading the outer tube.

And i think it was hanging in a damaged area of the outer beams. I think - no, i bet - that's the point where the tower started to collapse, the connection of the overloaded by design truss with the outer tube.
Yeah i just checked. The plane impacted in the area with the short trusses damaging that critical truss and at several floors at once many others on one side. At that moment the rest of the standing trusses started to bend and it was a matter of time until the floor fell. It took the accumulation of the energy of the falling of several compromised floors to start break the any others under that where structurally intact.

Either the shock wave from the impact made all the bolts of the outer beams pop or the tube was dilating a bit because of the pressure of the concrete actually exploding when hitting each other that was dilating the outer tube at each floor leaving the hanging trusses with no support or maybe a combination of both. Again the floor trusses which could play a structural role in sway proofing could not fully take a structural overload which should always taken into account during design because of earthquakes.
Could the "terrorists" know the weakest point of the floor and also steer the plane with such precision so it would hit exactly there?

One more thing. This is the kanji symbol for star.
And this one's for ninja.


And the symbol for kuji-kiri.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Hardening and Softening of Metals

All along the walk on the Greenway trail couldn't wait to come back to write about it. Though it is taught only in colleges that have something to do with manufacturing, including machine tools manufacturing, i think it should be part of mainstream general minimal knowledge.

Theoretically it should have been a nice walk but it was yet another one from hell. Just before i left i checked under the hood. About six months ago i closed with the soldering iron a crack in the nylon part of the radiator and a few days ago i smelled again the smell of coolant (That truck did that for most of its life, once i was fixing something something else was popping). The crack opened again and there was coolant by it. At the trail itself there was some sort of fireplace smoke in the air that also had a chemical component. For that to happen somebody must burn a piece of plastic in a cold fireplace. And before checking under the hood when i got outside i smelled some solvent. Here at this complex like in the other before and the other before there was always some major remodeling/fixing work to be done at one apartment nearby and today was no exception. Also. All morning since woke up like always there was a continuous roar of modified exhaust cars taking turns in vibrating my whole universe and spine to the point i got sick to the stomach. It has always been like that but i started to become more aware after i got rid of the last colita at the door and had not seen yet another after a week or so. Among others a guy dressed in neon green and blue, reminding me of the failure with the (winter, cold) blue-green tablet of denture cleaning detergent in the blue denture box.

So i opened Wikipedia for this one. Wow. Incogniscible. Far away from the mainstream eye this definition at the beginning of the article transcends my power of understanding though i studied it a lot in college and i got it re-freshenning after the previous post about WTC disaster.

But couldn't i just find something on the web close to my my current perception so i don't have to re-invent the wheel write right now in this afternoon?

No luck there. I wanted to find something that puts together both hardening through cold laminating and thermal treatment. Ok let's bring on the definition of metal, metal structure and start with the basics.

All people know in nature we have crystals. They find them in mines. Diamonds, rubies, quartz, amber. Just kidding. Amber is not a crystal. Amber is raisin from a tree that have fossilized. Polymeric. Amorphous. The opposite of crystal.

A crystal is a symmetric, repetitive arrangement of atoms in a pure substance upon cooling and solidifying. In a way is like a bigger 3d molecule because nearby crystals stick together by electric forces as well. Crystals come in a variety of shapes but most common and most interesting crystallizing systems are the cubic ones. It's the system in which diamond, ruby and iron crystallize. Didn't know metals are crystalline substances? They are, in a way. In another they are not due to fact that continuous crystals in metals are very small, confined to micron size grain-like crystals. Metals are thus hybrid crystalline-amorphous substances. Luckily there is a site on the web that allows us to see interactive 3d intuitive images of some crystallizing systems. Mono crystals or single crystals including two purely theoretic fcc (face cubic center) and bcc (body cubic center) are present in this website's archive. (Drag with the mouse to rotate).



Best way to figure crystal grains in metals is to look at a fracture. Here is a fracture of a piece of of steel increased 1000 times under microscope.
But what in the world makes metal crystallize in small grains and not in big crystals like other substances, like by example silicon dioxide which is grown in single crystals the size of an elephant's leg in wafer manufacturing facilities?

In my opinion there are two causes. One is thermal conductivity of metals. Unlike silicon dioxide, when cooling a metal there is enough time for the temperature change to diffuse in the whole or large contiguous volumes of metal for crystals to start growing simultaneously in all volume. Thus crystallization starts at many points at once and crystals stop growing when they bump into each other. This is being aided by the impurities. Real metal contains a number of impurities that may solidify first that act like seeds for growing the small grain.

Hardness in any substance is given by the symmetry of arrangement of atoms. The more symmetric, or the the closer to an average distances between atoms are the stronger that material or harder to find a weak point or area with larger distances that may initiate a fracture.
Intracrystalline hardness or hardness of crystals themselves is very easy to explain and it pertains to the crystallizing system. Both fcc and bcc give strong materials because of symmetry of arrangements but bcc is stronger because is more symmetric. Steel by example which is actually an alloy of iron and cementite (a chemical combination of iron and carbon) depending upon temperature crystallizes in both forms, being bcc under some 912 Celsius and fcc above, where it is heated to be easily forged or rolled because is softer but with some volume differences due to rearrangement in different size and shapes of crystals upon cooling (not talking about thermal deformation or dilation or contraction within the same crystallizing systems which is a different process of its own and it actually adds up to a total difference of size upon cooling), whic means if we process iron steel above that temperature in fcc state the cooled resulting shape and size in bcc state will be slightly smaller by two different causes, which needs to be taken both into account by manufacturers.

Intercrystalline hardness of metals is the total hardness or what we perceive as hardness of a metal and usually is less than that of crystals themselves. Metallic bonds, electric forces that hold together the atoms in mono-crystals and crystals or grains are the same forces responsible for holding the grains together though arrangement of atoms at the border of the grains is less than the ideal one inside crystals, or with different distribution of distances, other than close to average inside crystals.

Elasticity is the property of any crystal, metallic or ionic, to give in or to change shape within certain limits when a force is applied and atoms pulled apart or pushed into each other are still left in the same arrangement and then fully recover, that is the deformation is completely reversed upon cessation of the force. This is characteristic to pure crystals like diamonds.

Any pure non metallic (ionic) crystal will deform after a force is being applied and get back in the exactly same unchanged initial shape with any change of properties if the force is being ceased before fracture and will break after a certain limit, without a permanent deformation left (the two fractured parts are still the exact sum of the initial one). We say crystals are brittle.

Metals because of metallic bonds and the grain like structure and defects within grains due to impurities will permanently deform before fracture and if the deforming force is ceased before fracture they might be left deformed and functional and they can become part or of a working structure.

Upon deformation the grains will start moving onto each other and inside along defects and rearranging allowing the metal to basically flow before fracture which is both inter and intracrystaline. However the rearrangement will not be as neat as the initial puzzle anymore. Grain deformation means sliding of crystal planes inside in areas with defects which makes them harder to further deform by exhausting the possibilities but also closer to fracture. We say metals are plastic.

Due to this property many manufacturers use processes of shaping the metal through plastic deformation. Metals is deformed to known tolerated limits sometimes in several steps while becoming harder which can make the parts smaller and lighter basically with the same material. One of the processes is called cold rolling and is used to produce beams including those used in building of skyscrapers. Cold deformation always introduces some stress in metal with some volumes applying permanent forces to others. This stress makes the final products somehow prone to breakage in certain directions more than others when applying a load.

When metal parts like I or H beams is produced through hot rolling, which is done at a temperature above re-crystallization where metal flows without breakages they can be hardened through a different process, called quenching, which is controlling crystal growth through controlling the speed of cooling.

Also. It is known from experience the smaller the grains in a metal, the harder and brittle the metal and the properties are closer to those of crystals the grains are made of. That is because the smaller the grains, the harder to move them against each other cause the surface between them or bonding surface is bigger. (surface/volume ratio increases with decreasing volume) and also harder to initiate intracrystaline deformation because smaller crystals have fewer initial defects.

Grains in metal can permanently change size and quality (reducing the number of intracrystaline defects, increasing size) through annealing and decreasing size through quenching, processes called by metallurgists thermal treatments.

Annealing is a thermal treatment that is used to decrease hardness and reduce stress in metals, sometimes after plastic deformation used in fabrication of different shapes of steel and has three stages. Annealing can be done at temperatures way below melting or fcc/bcc transition in steel.

"The temperature range for process annealing ranges from 260 °C (500 °F) to 760 °C (1400 °F), depending on the alloy in question."

"if annealing is allowed to continue once recrystallization has completed, then grain growth (the third stage) occurs. In grain growth, the microstructure starts to coarsen and may cause the metal to lose a substantial part of its original strength. This can however be regained with hardening."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_(metallurgy)#Stages

We also know from experience the faster we cool a metal the smaller the grains. Temperature dropping suddenly in a volume or at the surface only will initiate many new solidifying points or grain seeds reducing final grain size. Blacksmiths call this quenching and they do it by immersing a piece of steel in water for a certain amount of time. It is done after achieving the phase of re-growth of incomplete annealing. Blacksmiths in the past knew the temperature of the hot metal and when to do this bu the shade and intensity of the color of the hot red metal and other signs.

Quenching is a form of hardening the steel through thermal treatment rather than plastic deformation. But not any steel will quench. You need a certain amount of carbon in the form of cementite in the steel for this to happen through initiating more grains. Cementite has a slightly higher melting point then iron and solidifies first. Being dispersed throughout the hot alloy, it will initiate many new crystals.

Iron processing was known since at least 2500 years ago in Northern Europe. Scandinavians are among the people who have a long tradition. There are infinite possibilities and ways to produce high quality steel parts and tools and they are still best at. Blacksmiths in Medieval Japan needed about 3 days of continuous firing of the smelting furnace just to produce the steel, the starting point for making samurai swords. The whole process that included folding and welding of the final product in many strata took about 6 months and the price for a sword was the equivalent of 1 million dollars in today's money. In the Middle East they were making the famous Damascus swords, which actually had a texture inside the metal and it is said they could cut the barrel of a gun.

With all these being said we can figure by now. A cheap steel beam with a low carbon content that will not quench can be produced through several stages of cold rolling, also increasing its strength through introduction of intra and inter crystalline deformation. The final product will have a strength higher than initial steel after slow cooling from being produced in liquid form. However if the final product is submitted to an annealing process will become as soft as the initial cast steel ingot before cold rolling.

I am pretty much convinced all these things are thought in the US as well. But they are so basic are oftenly overlooked by engineers who nowadays specialize in very narrow fields of manufacturing and neglect the greater picture. The few who however figure it out don't have a voice or the courage or the motivation to say it out loud.