From <@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> Sun Feb 5 03:19:47 1995 Received: from netaxs.com (root@netaxs.com [198.69.186.1]) by access.netaxs.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA08617 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 1995 03:19:47 -0500 Received: from UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu [128.205.2.1]) by netaxs.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA02911 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 1995 03:19:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199502050819.DAA02911@netaxs.com> Received: from UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU by UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7682; Sun, 05 Feb 95 03:19:31 EST Received: from UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UBVM) by UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3747; Sun, 5 Feb 1995 03:19:31 -0500 Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 03:19:30 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at UBVM (1.8a)" Subject: File: "GEODESIC LOG9206" To: "Christopher J. Fearnley" Status: RO ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 04:19:18 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU From: UCPL089@UNLVM.UNL.EDU Subject: Question: efficient use of geo's ? why don't people build more geo's ? from what I've heard about them they are a much more efficient structure to build and maintain than your average traditional frame house. i am going to build a house and am considering a geo. less building cost/square footage, cheaper to heat/cool, and a really neat house to boot. living in nebraska, i don't see very many geo's around, and if i do see one, it's usually a church or some type of office bldg. is it because of the radical design and it's out of the norm that people don't build geo's ? just wondering...ANYBODY OUT THERE ? ? ? ? ? ? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 09:42:23 PDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Alex Soojung-Kim Pang Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? In-Reply-To: <9206201029.AA28306@leland.Stanford.EDU>; from "UCPL089@unlvm.unl.edu" at Jun 20, 92 4:19 am Geodesic domes were never THAT big as residences. They flourished for a few years in the 1970s, but a lot of people who were initially very enthusiastic about domes found that they were more expensive than expected, that the interior space was difficult to divide and resulted in a lot of wasted space, sound bounces around like mad, etc.. Domes have always been used more regularly and successfully in commercial and military contexts. If you're interested in reading about the experiences other dome-builders, check out the pamphlet, "Refried Domes." It came out a couple years ago and was written by Lloyd Kahn, the guy who published the _Domebooks_ and _Shelter_. He started building them in 1966, and is probably as good a source as any on the subject. You may have to order it directly from the publisher. The ISBN # is 0-936070-102, and the address is Shelter Publications, Inc., P.O. Box 279, Bolinas CA 94924. Good luck! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 19:14:56 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Garym Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? In a message dated Sat 20 Jun 92 8:55, UCPL089@UNLVM.UNL.EDU wrote: UCP> much more efficient structure to build and maintain than your UCP> average UCP> traditional frame house. i am going to build a house and am UCP> considering UCP> a geo. less building cost/square footage, cheaper to heat/cool, and UCP> a really UCP> neat house to boot. living in nebraska, i don't see very many geo's UCP> around, UCP> and if i do see one, it's usually a church or some type of office UCP> bldg. is it UCP> because of the radical design and it's out of the norm that people UCP> don't UCP> build geo's ? just wondering...ANYBODY OUT THERE ? ? ? ? ? ? You have a good question, and one I am sure most newcomers ponder, especially when faced with the absurd cost of an old technology house, but there is a very serious caveat: Geodesic domes require a high degree of precision. If you are building just one, you will run into the same problem which plagued most of the models in the 'Dome Book' series: you will be spending far too much time on the precision and lose your shirt building your one-of-a-kind. Consider the "home of the future" the Rome World's Fair asked Bucky about. His quote was half a million. Not surprisingly, the response came back, "Half a million for a single domestic dwelling?!" Like a silicon chip, the first costs a fortune, but copies are dirt cheap. To build one house takes the same amount of tooling as building a thousand, and in geodesics, it is the fine precision of the tooling that prevents one-of-a-kind manufacture. This was why Bucky always spoke of using aircraft technology, and proposed (and prototyped) building homes out of aluminum (to be recycled and more efficiently used in the next version, thanks to ephemerialization) Now, in our world, 12 years post-Bucky, it _may_ be possible to use our advanced computer-aided-design and CAD-driven tooling to create a unique dome-icile, but we still have the same meta-problem: now we need to tool up for generic tooling-up for home building. We could probably also benefit from using our high-impact plastics (cheaper to mould but more expensive per pound) and I have often dreamed of using wood moulds to make a hex-pent style dome from fibreglass, again, the dies will be the major expense, but being out of wood, the cost is directly the mould itself and not the machinery to churn it out --- it _could_ be done by hand. A hobby maybe, but hardly an industry. There's my two cents. In an old TrimTab, there was a fellow in Florida who had completed his masters thesis on building dymaxion homes, and when I contacted him for info, he mentioned he was working on a business-plan and real commercial designs to be unveiled at some trade show ... but I never heard another word and my mail went unanswered. As a father of three in a single income family, I would dearly love to get that same 1/10th cost house Bucky offered in 1945. Any other comments, warnings, chastizements or success stories? -- Via DLG Pro v0.992 Gary Lawrence Murphy -- Garym@qube.ocunix.on.ca -- (613) 230-6255 ------------------------------------------------------------- "The view from the high mountain is worth the climb" - Dr. Morita Shoma ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 21:19:00 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: GM07661@SWTEXAS.BITNET Subject: dome homes i think the biggest problem with dymaxion housing is that society/business has agreed that we want conventional housing and all the expenses that go along with them. with dymaxion the original plan was for a factory (similar to an automobile factory) that would churn out low cost housing to be placed ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1992 21:52:00 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: GM07661@SWTEXAS.BITNET Subject: part 2 of my last note sorry about that last note it kind of took off before i was finished. anyway as i was saying, these low cost self contained homes present all kinds of problems for the economy. millions of people who currently work to build conventional homes would be out of work, not to mention the loggers who harvest the lumber to build these homes. if the production homes were actually self contained the utility companies (telephone, electric, gas, water) would begin loosing their clients which in turn would take more jobs. and if these homes could be had for a fraction of current home costs just think what this would mean for the banking industry which makes hundreds of thousands of dollars on each new home financed. sorry for being so negative but i think the effects of mass produced housing is great enough deterent to prevent any serious investment/research/development personally, i would love to own my own home and what could be better than a portable home, i could take it with me when i finish school. oh, that reminds me, all the property owners that rent to low income (read too low to buy) persons would never support anything that might jeopardize their incomes. i think the technology to mass produce homes is available, the self contained part might need some more work. in the future when people are *really* more concerned with the environment than income, i think bucky's designs will prove to be a viable alternative to our current wasteful home production. Gordon C. Muth III does anyone know anything of plastic homes produced by general electric? i heard they were developing and producing them but that was it. has anyone seen one? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 11:51:04 PDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Lutz Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? > > why don't people build more geo's ? from what I've heard about them they are a > much more efficient structure to build and maintain than your average > traditional frame house. i am going to build a house and am considering > a geo. less building cost/square footage, cheaper to heat/cool, and a really > neat house to boot. living in nebraska, i don't see very many geo's around, > and if i do see one, it's usually a church or some type of office bldg. is it > because of the radical design and it's out of the norm that people don't > build geo's ? just wondering...ANYBODY OUT THERE ? ? ? ? ? ? > I've heard that people have had problems making the joints weather tight. Also the cuts and angles may intimidate a lot of people who are used to more conventional construction that consists mostly of right angles. I've never built any domes, so maybe the question on sealing has been solved by now. Jim Lutz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 19:56:39 EDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: wkovarik@RUACAD.AC.RUNET.EDU Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? In-Reply-To: <9206221851.AA16657@ruacad.ac.runet.edu>; from "Jim Lutz" at Jun 22, 92 11:51 am > > > > > why don't people build more geo's ? > > I've heard that people have had problems making the joints weather tight. Also > the cuts and angles may intimidate a lot of people who are used to > more conventional construction that consists mostly of right angles. > I've never built any domes, so maybe the question on sealing has been > solved by now. > > Jim Lutz > Friends of mine recently finished a dome in sw. Virginia and had some serious difficulties with interior sheetrock. The 4 by 8 panels of plywood and gypsum that are sold commercially are very difficult to work with and there was a lot of waste with dome construction. No leaky roof -- they used conven- tional shingles and tarpaper, but again, the 4 by 8 plywood for the exterior were hard to work with. Some people have resorted to poly-urethane foam to get around the materials problem in years past. There was a health problem and I dont know if anything was found as a suitable replacement. The dome, when finished, was beautiful. Not really cheaper than a comparable conventional construction but spacious. For aesthetic reasons alone, it is worth pursuing.i ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 20:45:08 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Comments: Unregistered Shareware User From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? In-Reply-To: <92Jun22.145617edt.9747@mail.uunet.ca> (Gary Lawrence Murphy) In <92Jun22.145617edt.9747@mail.uunet.ca> (Jim Lutz ) writes: > > I've heard that people have had problems making the joints weather tight. + Also > the cuts and angles may intimidate a lot of people who are used to > more conventional construction that consists mostly of right angles. > I've never built any domes, so maybe the question on sealing has been > solved by now. > Some years ago I read a very interesting paper put out by the British Columbia Forestry Dept about some engineering tests done on panel domes. By attaching strain-guages to various points of a panel under normal load conditions (dead-weight and with snow on top) they found the stresses along the seams tend to be shear, moving the adjoining edges alon each other. If you've ever worked in wood, this is a major problem as simply pegging (or nailing) panels would only localize the trouble to between the pegs. If you look at a dome with gravity on your mind (as I often do ;-) ), it is easy to see where the torquing of panels would occur. I talked to some friends in construction, and they assured me it would be possible to use a geodesic frame and attach weather-proof panels using what they called "floating-wall" techniques. Fine and dandy, but it still leaves that old bane of frame-dome building, the hub, as a major expense. Frankly, I don't understand what the obsession is with making a solid-shell dome for your home; this is simply not done in nature. What I would like to see is a large-scale tensegrity structure (thereby avoiding the hub problem, literally ;-) ) at such a frequency as to greatly limit the strength of the environment (and keep bears out). Then, within this weather-barrier (a 4-d snow-fence if you will) you could build far less of a house than would normally be required using any technology, avoid the sensitive sealing, jointing, window/door framing &c problems of, dare I say it, traditional dome houses. For a system like this, the main problem shifts from making things fit (which they never do; a Zen nun told me that ;-) ) to keeping the occillations damped (a home that hums in the wind!). This is only my uninformed opinion, but it would seem to me a more economical approach for the one-of-a-kind style of structure. If you have the technology to churn out something like a Fly's Eye, please send me your price list, but until then, I'm spending my time with sticks good ol' 16th" aircraft cable ;-). I should maybe mention that I did attempt a 16' low-frequency tensegrity once, used as the stage for a Stellarc show in Toronto. When we were pulling together the last two stray tethers on our first model, four not-so-big guys managed to split a 12'x12"x2" board right down the longitudinal axis. Talk about a nut-cracker! Our other key problem (and keep in mind one should never attempt large _low_frequency_ structures as the slenderness ratio gets really stretched; this was for Art, so we have an excuse ;-) ) was the deformation due to gravity (and having a team of carpenters not accustomed to the very fine precision required). If you were building a dome-cover for housing, and using a more reasonable frequency for the materials, the deformation would not be an issue. "Inventions" even contains some interesting ideas for 'shingling' such a dome. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy -- garym@maya.isis.org -- (613) 230-6255 -------------------------------------------- "The present moment is a powerful goddess." - Goethe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 10:05:07 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: dosemagt@UWWVAX.UWW.EDU Subject: RE: Question: efficient use of geo's ? I'm not sure why more people don't build domes . I built my own dome and have lived in for 12 years. My family and I love it and would not consider moving into a box type house again. We are located in south central Wisconsin and there are 5 more domes within 5 miles of ours. One advantage that I noticed you didn't mention was the freedom of interior design. The dome (as I'm sure you already know) doesn't need any interior support walls like a box house does. The dome is a great adventure in living so go for it. If you do decide to build a dome keep one thing in mind as you design your interior. Don't try to put square rooms into a round house, work with the circle. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 10:11:07 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: dosemagt@UWWVAX.UWW.EDU Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? I've built my own dome(a 44 foot dia.) and the minor extra problems in building have more than been worth the extra effort. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 10:14:32 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: dosemagt@UWWVAX.UWW.EDU Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? Sealing domes is no longer a problem. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 10:21:19 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: dosemagt@UWWVAX.UWW.EDU Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? Trying to sheet rock for the interior panels of a dome is difficult at best, especically when you try to tape the joints. The greatest way to panel the interior is with tounge and groove boards. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 10:42:03 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: dosemagt@UWWVAX.UWW.EDU Subject: Re: Question: efficient use of geo's ? To get really good information on dome contruction call Natural Spaces at 1-800-733-7107 and ask to have them send your book called All About Domes. Tell Dennis that I reffered you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 09:32:51 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Murphy Subject: IRIS Geometry software From: software@riemann.geom.umn.edu (Geometry Center Software Development Group) Newsgroups: comp.archives Subject: [comp.graphics] Geomview is available --- 3D object viewer Date: 23 Jun 92 10:53:58 GMT Followup-To: comp.graphics,comp.graphics.visualization,comp.sys.sgi,sci.math Organization: Geometry Center NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.graphics,comp.graphics.visualization,comp.sys.sgi, + sci.math X-Original-Date: 22 Jun 92 21:20:06 GMT Archive-name: auto/comp.graphics/Geomview-is-available-3D-object-viewer The Geometry Center announces release 1.1 of geomview, a program for looking at and interactively manipulating 3D objects. The current version runs on Silicon Graphics IRIS workstations. It is available via anonymous ftp at geom.umn.edu (128.101.25.31) in the "pub/geomview" subdirectory. "geomview-bin.tar.Z" contains pre-compiled binaries, documentation, and data and takes up 3 MB of disk space. The source distribution is "geomview.tar.Z" and takes up 21 MB of disk space. To unpack, type "uncompress < [geomview|geomview-bin].tar.Z | tar xvopf -". Please send all correspondence regarding this software via email to "software@geom.umn.edu". Geomview represents the current state of an ongoing effort at the Geometry Center to provide interactive 3D graphics software which is particularly appropriate for displaying the kinds of objects and doing the kinds of operations of interest in mathematics research and education. While geomview was developed as a tool for research mathematicians, it is a general-purpose graphics system which could be useful in many domains. It can be used to examine a static object or as a dynamic display for a running program. An extensive command language allows programmers to easily extend the functionality of the basic viewer by writing external modules. Currently hyperbolic visualization capabilities are built-in, while four-dimensional visualization is handled through external modules. Geomview allows multiple independently controllable objects and cameras. Interactive control for motion, appearances (including lighting, shading, and materials), picking on an object, edge or vertex level, and adding or deleting objects is provided through direct mouse manipulation, control panels, and keyboard shortcuts. External programs can drive desired aspects of the viewer (such as continually loading changing geometry or controlling the motion of certain objects) while allowing interactive control of everything else. Geomview supports the following simple data types: polyhedra with shared vertices (.off), quadrilaterals, rectangular meshes, vectors, and Bezier surface patches of arbitrary degree including rational patches. Object hierarchies can be constructed with lists of objects and instances of object(s) transformed by one or many 4x4 matrices. Arbitrary portions of changing hierarchies may be transmitted by creating named references. The Geometry Center is an NSF-funded independent research group based at the University of Minnesota. The three-fold mission of the Center is to support and promote mathematics and computer science research; software, animation, and tool dvelopment and production; education and communication of mathematics at all levels. The Geometry Center's offical name is the "National Science and Technology Research Center for Computation and Visualization of Geometry Structures". The Geometry Center University of Minnesota 1300 S. 2nd St. Minneapolis, MN 55454 USA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 11:44:26 EDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Trimtab Subject: Re: part 2 of my last note In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 20 Jun 1992 21:52:00 CDT from The message regarding the economic implications of mass produced shelter shows a very astute assessment of the precessional issues surrounding Bucky's master plan. For Bucky's musings on this subject and his reasons for asserting that C osmic Evolution will require this transition to industrially produced housing read GRUNCH of Giants, St. Martins Press 1983. GRUNCH stands for Gross Univers al Cash Heist.