From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Jun 15 10:22:25 2004 Return-Path: Received: from acsu.buffalo.edu (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.57]) by linux00.LinuxForce.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with SMTP id i5FEMFa6008471 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:22:15 -0400 Message-Id: <200406151422.i5FEMFa6008471@linux00.LinuxForce.net> Received: (qmail 1217 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2004 14:22:00 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 Jun 2004 14:22:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:22:00 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Buffalo (1.8e)" Subject: File: "GEODESIC LOG0206" To: Chris Fearnley X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.71, clamav-milter version 0.71 X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO Content-Length: 417405 Lines: 11028 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 00:00:03 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: *MONTHLY POSTING* - GEODESIC 'how-to' info ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the monthly "How To" file about the GEODESIC list. It has info on content and purpose of the list, as well as subscription info, posting instructions, etc. It should prove useful to new subscribers, as well as those who are unfamiliar with LISTSERV operations. This message is being posted on Sat Jun 1 00:00:01 PDT 2002. If you are tired of receiving this message once per month, and are reading bit.listserv.geodesic through USENET news, then you can enter this subject into your KILL/SCORE file. If you're reading through email, you can set up a filter to delete the message. Both of these tricks are WELL worth learning how to do, if you don't know already. And isn't it about time to learn something new? Isn't it always? :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GEODESIC is a forum for the discussion of the ideas and creations relating to the work of R. Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller. Topics range from geodesic math to world hunger; floating cities to autonoumous housing, and little bit of everything in between. Other lists that focuses more specifically on some of these topics can be found on the Reality Sculptors Website: http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html On topic discussion and questions are welcome. SPAM and unsolicited promotions are not. (Simple, eh?) ----------------------- To subscribe, send mail to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SUB GEODESIC A web page to signon is available here: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/user/sub.html When you want to post, send mail to GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ******NOT***** to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU! LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is for subscriptions, administrivia, archive requests, etc. GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is the actual discussion group. Anything sent to GEODESIC will go to all members. (And you don't want to look like a jerk having everyone see your "SUB GEODESIC John Q. Public" command! ;^) ) This list is also linked to USENET in the group bit.listserv.geodesic If you want to receive copies of everything you send to the list, use the command SET GEODESIC REPRO. If you DON'T want copies, use SET GEODESIC NOREPRO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO SIGN OFF THE LIST: Simply send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SIGNOFF GEODESIC You should receive a confirmation note in the mail when you have been successfully removed. A web page to signoff is available here: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/user/signoff.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIST ARCHIVES: Listserv itself is keeping archives of the list, dating back to June, 1992. Send a note to listserv@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu with this message in the BODY of the note: INDEX GEODESIC You can get help on other Listserv commands by putting the line HELP into the body of the note. (Can be in the same message.) Web-searchable archives for the lists are available at: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/geodesic.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (You may want to save this file to forward on to people who are interested, as it tells what the list is about, and how to subscribe and unsubscribe.) Pat _____________________________Think For Yourself______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- Don't break the Law...fix it. ;^) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:37:27 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Iraq <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 01-JUN-2002 10:37 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us look at the new guy in Columbia. although he's suyppozed to be a hardliner vis-a-vu the maoist dopers, he is aligned with Chavez in his support for the "liberalization" of all of the utilities. they seem to divide-up, like the members of the jacobin Revolutionary Council into a left & right dichotomy that is also known as "neocon" and "neolib." oh, and they call themselves, Capitalistas! thus quoth: and for visiting Saddam in OPEC meetings (OPEC was founded by Venezuela). And the US government has been attacking Chavez, too, because he won't let them do whatever they want here (the oil companies), and --les ducs d'Enron! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 13:15:19 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: new to the loop Comments: To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi John Brawley, Kirby, Dick! I finally made it over here to synergeo. --- I agreed with your (JBw?) remarks to Dick about casual use of "random"; I warned him about calling it "randome" http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0108&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=25 575 but I cannot understand the disparagement he gets in GEODESICS (or most of the other comments there.) I bet comments here will make more sense to me. Whatever Dick calls his domes, I see advantages in NOT having to compute precise element dimensions before you start building; and NOT having to make every connection precisely because you can intuitively compensate for errors after you make them. I think there will be disadvantages in strength and material economy. --- Please give me a link to: > We do know from the work that Kirby and Tom did on my best-effort > 1000-sphere pack, that they found several places in the pack where there was > *not* a 12-around-1 situation --- Here's a 4-meter 12 strut tensegrity I built (I think JBw gave the URLs months ago, thanks) http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=78 http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=81 I'm not sure who came up with this cuboctahedron pattern first. Snelson's idea (Kirby gave a URL) of treating "floating compression" like a celebration of the aesthetics of structure makes more sense to me than "tensional integrity" as an engineering technique for efficiency. At least, it is not a structure well-designed to support itself on Earth. Much strength is wasted as the struts try to compress each other. Maybe my sloppy construction (+/- 1.5%) contributes to the problem but Bob Burkhardt did calculations for an ideal case. (More URLS from GEODESICS available, I won't look them up now.) By one questionable but credible calculation the total compressive load on the 12 struts is about 1170 pounds altho the total weight is only 112 pounds. In orbit (traveling on a geodesic, not forced off its 4-D geodesic path by contact with the ground) theoretically with precision components the 1170 pound load could be reduced to 0. That leaves all the strength of the struts available for absorbing any asymmetrical load like being slammed by spacejunk. I think it would be very resilient as a protective shell around a satellite. Some prestressing might be a good idea (by shrinking the tendons enough to slightly bend the struts) for predictability in what a strut under sudden compressive load is likely to do (thanks Rick Flowerday.) I wish somebody else would do the math to make clear to me 1) the elasticity multiplication which does such an effective job at spreading stress on any tendon around the whole network. Hugh Kenner calculated it for a 6-strut in his book Geodesic_Math and how to use_it. 2) the force multiplication that causes 3 parallel 38 pound forces on three strut ends to appear as 1170 pounds shared by all 12 struts. --- Here's me jump-testing my strongest "geeodesic": http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0108&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=22 744 --- > Business bein' taken care of ain't good, so I may be permanently out of the > loop some day soon. No, no! I want you to stay looped! Peace Lee Bonnifield LeeBonnifield@planetc.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 08:53:01 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Mark L. Vines" Subject: fog gun inquiry Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v388) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Buckyfolk: Greetings, Mark L. Vines here. My family unit is designing our next home, to be located in the Central Texas Hill Country, where potable water supplies are evaporating in the heat of climate change, population growth & expanding real estate development. Since we are planning for long-term (century plus) occupancy, we believe our home design must incorporate technologies that will reduce our demand for water while making the water we do use meet our needs more productively. Accordingly we are interested in learning more about the water-conserving inventions of Buckminster Fuller, notably the fog gun. Fuller suggested using compressed air fogger technology for personal bathing & other household cleaning activities. This URL describes that suggestion: http://www.nous.org.uk/fog.html Since the Buckybooks in our library don't say enough about such water-conserving inventions, we're hoping to find someone who can tell us more. Is anyone on this list familiar with Fuller's fog gun bathing apparatus? Does anyone here know anyone who helped with testing that apparatus in the late 1940s or early 50s at Chicago's Institute of Design or at Yale? Can anyone tell me how to access the resulting data? Thus far in most of the USA, potable water shortages have not been chronically severe enough to make the Fuller fogger marketable. Indeed the market for much less radical water conservation devices, like low-flow showerheads, remains relatively untapped. But global climate change is increasing the regional severity of both drought & flooding, either of which can disrupt potable water supply. Also, niche demand for specialty housing -- & rental units -- built & operated off the water & power grids is growing in North America. Under the circumstances, I believe a closer look at Fuller's idea is warranted. Eventually I'll want a test rig of the Fuller fogger, or a model better than Fuller's, augmented by water & energy consumption gauges, noise level gauges et cetera. Fog additives like solvents & disinfectants would also have to be tested, assuring their safety, comfort & effectiveness when used on human skin of different types, at different ages & states of health, and when used on other materials that a household fogger might have to clean. In the near term, however, my most urgent questions concern what fixtures & other accommodations might be required to integrate such a fogger into a home design. Air intakes & compressors? Temperature controls? Additive tanks? Water feeds? Sonic transducers? Noise bafflers? Mud or dust or aerosol collectors? Room overpressure release valves? Any informed comments would be welcome. Thanks in advance for your time & assistance. ~~ Mark L. Vines ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 07:28:29 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry Comments: cc: marklvines@MAC.COM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, For the super-low flow shower see: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/07-IcosHouseShowerScientific.htm For a waterless toilet see: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/07-IcosHouseToiletScientific.htm ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark L. Vines" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 6:53 AM Subject: fog gun inquiry > Dear Buckyfolk: > > Greetings, Mark L. Vines here. My family unit is designing our next > home, to be located in the Central Texas Hill Country, where potable > water supplies are evaporating in the heat of climate change, population > growth & expanding real estate development. Since we are planning for > long-term (century plus) occupancy, we believe our home design must > incorporate technologies that will reduce our demand for water while > making the water we do use meet our needs more productively. > > Accordingly we are interested in learning more about the > water-conserving inventions of Buckminster Fuller, notably the fog gun. > Fuller suggested using compressed air fogger technology for personal > bathing & other household cleaning activities. This URL describes that > suggestion: > > http://www.nous.org.uk/fog.html > > Since the Buckybooks in our library don't say enough about such > water-conserving inventions, we're hoping to find someone who can tell > us more. > > Is anyone on this list familiar with Fuller's fog gun bathing apparatus? > Does anyone here know anyone who helped with testing that apparatus in > the late 1940s or early 50s at Chicago's Institute of Design or at Yale? > Can anyone tell me how to access the resulting data? > > Thus far in most of the USA, potable water shortages have not been > chronically severe enough to make the Fuller fogger marketable. Indeed > the market for much less radical water conservation devices, like > low-flow showerheads, remains relatively untapped. But global climate > change is increasing the regional severity of both drought & flooding, > either of which can disrupt potable water supply. Also, niche demand for > specialty housing -- & rental units -- built & operated off the water & > power grids is growing in North America. Under the circumstances, I > believe a closer look at Fuller's idea is warranted. > > Eventually I'll want a test rig of the Fuller fogger, or a model better > than Fuller's, augmented by water & energy consumption gauges, noise > level gauges et cetera. Fog additives like solvents & disinfectants > would also have to be tested, assuring their safety, comfort & > effectiveness when used on human skin of different types, at different > ages & states of health, and when used on other materials that a > household fogger might have to clean. > > In the near term, however, my most urgent questions concern what > fixtures & other accommodations might be required to integrate such a > fogger into a home design. Air intakes & compressors? Temperature > controls? Additive tanks? Water feeds? Sonic transducers? Noise > bafflers? Mud or dust or aerosol collectors? Room overpressure release > valves? > > Any informed comments would be welcome. Thanks in advance for your > time & assistance. > > ~~ > > Mark L. Vines > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 06:49:14 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Soda Straw Tensegrity Structures Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How to build soda straw tensegrity models by George W Hart: http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/straw-tensegrity.html =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:35:52 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: Soda Straw Tensegrity Structures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I have tried to construct this but my straws keep buckling (even with the weakest rubber bands I could get). Has anyone else had good luck with this ? I may try it with dowels. -Tony. -----Original Message----- From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:49 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Soda Straw Tensegrity Structures How to build soda straw tensegrity models by George W Hart: http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/straw-tensegrity.html ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 15:30:22 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Philippe Axelsen Subject: Re: Soda Straw Tensegrity Structures In-Reply-To: <2F175DC588EFD211B37C0060088FAC39313571@pscserver3> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > I have tried to construct this but my straws keep buckling (even with the > weakest rubber bands I could get). > Has anyone else had good luck with this ? > > I may try it with dowels. > > -Tony. > > Yep, it works. I was able to construct a tens. structure using the same tutorial about 2 years ago. It takes A LOT of PATIENCE. If I remember correctly, I had the same problem you've described. I had to cut the straws to fit the bands. axel ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 07:08:50 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Important Topics or Ideology <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-JUN-2002 7:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us is this, mister Nelson, a dystinction that you are making between *de facto* and *de jure* governmental functioning? in navigation using the (forgot the name of it; you get the reading between two transmitters, which gives you a fix between two hyperbolic co-ordinates) system, the towers (many in old lighthouses, I guess) could be set-up, owned &/or run by an NGO. now, look at Great Britian, and dare yourself to ask a Brit, Where in Hell is your so-called constitution, Limey? --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 07:12:57 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Important Topics or Ideology <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-JUN-2002 7:12 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, now this is an interesting assertion of yours, mister Nelson. where do you find these tenets in Smith, Marx, or their latter-day followers (or bashers) ?? thus quoth: Markets create peace where governments create conflict. Markets create win-win positive sum situations where governments divvy up a zero-sum pot among conflicting parties. Isn't this OBVIOUS? I mean, the biggest wars in the world were fought when socialism was ascendant. Free-market sociaties don't fight wars amongst each other, whereas governments that restrict their economies fight wars amongst each other AND with the free-market societies. Sometimes so-called pacifists make me want to puke. You have peace in so, what do you call the so-called Civil War?... as you know, the South was adamant over its "free trade" with the Holy British Empire; was it not? --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 07:24:19 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-JUN-2002 7:24 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us hm; any notes from these universties on their alleged testing of the Fog Gun?... for instance, if it all evaporates, where does all of the dirt go!? thus quoth: Greetings, Mark L. Vines here. My family unit is designing our next home, to be located in the Central Texas Hill Country, where potable water supplies are evaporating in the heat of climate change, population growth & expanding real estate development. Since we are planning for long-term (century plus) occupancy, we believe our home design must incorporate technologies that will reduce our demand for water while making the water we do use meet our needs more productively. Accordingly we are interested in learning more about the water-conserving inventions of Buckminster Fuller, notably the fog gun. Fuller suggested using compressed air fogger technology for personal bathing & other household cleaning activities. This URL describes that suggestion: http://www.nous.org.uk/fog.html --les ducs d'Enron! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:55:39 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] FW: Friends changing for the Earth <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-JUN-2002 13:55 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I'm usually reminded by such ideals of solar power, of magazines such as *Nexus*, the Asutralian New Age Goofballs, where articles about water-powered cars appear, every-other issue. the whole problem with solar power is just the footprint: you have to put a lightbulb underneath it, to grow your miracle hempen economy along with it! or take the N-machine, please! thus quoth: the scientists & engineers take care of the whole problem without the need for any sacrifice by developing some magic technique like impact-free solar electricity or cold fusion? technically, the latter is refered to as *catalyzed* fusion, although it tends to occur at lower temperatures than in H-bombs and tectonic processes. --les ducs d'Enron! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:05:06 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-JUN-2002 14:05 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I'd never heard of any of those studies (from Yale etc.), but I did read the one from McGill, at BFI (when it was in Culver City, CA). unfortunately, it failed to replicate what is clear from Joe's schematic, substituting the 200psi pump with a bike-pump. if the super-atomized water causes significant breakdown of oil & dead skin & stuff, it might not even need a wipe-off with a towel ... or maybe it'd produce a nice, organic shellac all over your body. nah; too kinky. seriously, if you started from the head, and worked your way down ("in"), then you might be able to get the crud onto the floor, and mop it up with a paper-towel. in any case, how difficult could it be to test? I went as far as ordering a catalog to get a sample of a nozzle from a company that made such stuff, but I didn't follow-through with the air-pressure, either! thus saith: hm; any notes from these universties on their alleged testing of the Fog Gun?... for instance, if it all evaporates, where does all of the dirt go!? http://www.nous.org.uk/fog.html --les ducs d'Enron! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:12:07 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Important Topics or Ideology <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-JUN-2002 14:12 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us on the back page of today's L.A.Times, the new Administration policy of "doing nothing," as proclaimed by the usual environmentalists, is contrasted with their plain succumbing to the misnomer known as "global" warming. obviously, it isn't an overall warming, as pretended by computerized simulacra for decades, just by reading the little weather miscellania in the NYTimes daily forecast; it seems like every-other time that I look at it, it has some new, interesting record, not neccesarily a la mode hottest! of course, the Administration is utterly behind the centerpeice of the Kyoto Protocol, which is the very same shceme that was used by the FCC to rip us off of our airwaves (going to the highest bidders). --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 07:38:44 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry In-Reply-To: <200206041424.g54EOJ130825@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'd vacuum the dirt/dust off the floor. It would have to settle there. On second thought, if there was an exhaust fan, the dirt would land outside. Dick --- Brian Hutchings > > hm; any notes from these universties on their alleged > testing > of the Fog Gun?... for instance, > if it all evaporates, > where does all of the dirt go!? > > thus quoth: > Greetings, Mark L. Vines here. My family unit is > designing our next > home, to be located in the Central Texas Hill Country, > where potable > water supplies are evaporating in the heat of climate > change, population > growth & expanding real estate development. Since we > are planning for > long-term (century plus) occupancy, we believe our home > design must > incorporate technologies that will reduce our demand > for water while > making the water we do use meet our needs more > productively. > > Accordingly we are interested in learning more about > the > water-conserving inventions of Buckminster Fuller, > notably the fog gun. > Fuller suggested using compressed air fogger technology > for personal > bathing & other household cleaning activities. This URL > describes that > suggestion: > > http://www.nous.org.uk/fog.html > > --les ducs d'Enron! > >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 07:41:29 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Soda Straw Tensegrity Structures In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Have you tried bamboo skewers? They make a nice strut. Cheap, too. Dick --- Philippe Axelsen wrote: > > I have tried to construct this but my straws keep > buckling (even with the > > weakest rubber bands I could get). > > Has anyone else had good luck with this ? > > > > I may try it with dowels. > > > > -Tony. > > > > > > Yep, it works. I was able to construct a tens. structure > using the same > tutorial about 2 years ago. It takes A LOT of PATIENCE. > If I remember > correctly, I had the same problem you've described. I had > to cut the straws > to fit the bands. > > axel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:52:13 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: Soda Straw Tensegrity Structures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" How do you attach the rubber bands (or other tensile elements) to bamboo skewers ? -Tony. -----Original Message----- From: Dick Fischbeck [mailto:dick_fischbeck@YAHOO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 9:41 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: Soda Straw Tensegrity Structures Have you tried bamboo skewers? They make a nice strut. Cheap, too. Dick --- Philippe Axelsen wrote: > > I have tried to construct this but my straws keep > buckling (even with the > > weakest rubber bands I could get). > > Has anyone else had good luck with this ? > > > > I may try it with dowels. > > > > -Tony. > > > > > > Yep, it works. I was able to construct a tens. structure > using the same > tutorial about 2 years ago. It takes A LOT of PATIENCE. > If I remember > correctly, I had the same problem you've described. I had > to cut the straws > to fit the bands. > > axel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:53:18 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have a fog gun I made several years ago. I can't remember where I got the nozzle-but I do remember the mfg claimed it could spray a 7 ft. plume of fine spray for half an hour with 1 pint of water. That matched Bucky's specs and I spent almost a hundred dollars on the nozzle (1992). It required a high pressure water and high pressure air source to be that efficient. Since the fog gun was for camping, I used a 12v pump with a standard pressure tank and a small compressor, and ran it off the car battery. It felt terrific in the summer. An important point, though, is evaporative cooling. The mist has a powerful cooling effect. If you read in Critical Path about the fog gun, you will notice Bucky mentions a heat lamp. That is to prevent hypothermia. The compresseor I used was not up to specs- a cheap noisy tire inflator- so the nozzle did not deliver perfect performance, but ten years ago the nozzle was available for it, and of course air and water pressure were too. I found it without the internet. A search would no doubt uncover what is needed. I really enjoyed the fog gun on hot afternoons when camping. Refreshing. Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-JUN-2002 14:05 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > I'd never heard of any of those studies (from Yale etc.), > but I did read the one from McGill, at BFI (when > it was in Culver City, CA). unfortunately, > it failed to replicate what is clear from Joe's schematic, > substituting the 200psi pump with a bike-pump. > if the super-atomized water causes significant breakdown > of oil & dead skin & stuff, it might not even need a wipe-off > with a towel ... or maybe it'd produce a nice, organic shellac > all over your body. > nah; too kinky. > > seriously, if you started from the head, > and worked your way down ("in"), > then you might be able to get the crud onto the floor, > and mop it up with a paper-towel. > > in any case, how difficult could it be to test? > I went as far as ordering a catalog > to get a sample of a nozzle from a company that made such stuff, > but I didn't follow-through with the air-pressure, > either! > > thus saith: > hm; any notes from these universties on their alleged testing > of the Fog Gun?... for instance, > if it all evaporates, > where does all of the dirt go!? > > http://www.nous.org.uk/fog.html > > --les ducs d'Enron! > >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:58:29 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found it. BETE in Massachusetts. They make a variety of fog nozzles and misters for various uses. I didn't see the one I have at the site, but under Fog Nozzles there was an extremely low use one. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:24:57 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry In-Reply-To: <3CFE2715.9080701@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii What if the air was heated first? Would that compensate for the cooling problem? Dick --- Steve Miller wrote: > I found it. BETE in Massachusetts. They make a variety of > fog nozzles > and misters for various uses. I didn't see the one I have > at the site, > but under Fog Nozzles there was an extremely low use one. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:04:50 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: n-sphere Comments: To: domehome MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It turns out the mathematicians are way into this n-vertexion thing! http://www.ogre.nu/sphere.htm Link thanks to Martin Trump. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:32:02 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 11:32 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us good references. it'd probably be better, if I just don't say any thing, til you've looked into it (and *possibly* done a few "exercises," as we say in academia-- as THEY say !-) I first read about it in one of Martin Gardener's compilations of his essays for *Scientific American*, although he was laking in the "deltahedra" terminology, as I recall. of course, it certainly makes sense, to utilize a diferent terminology than "-hedra," since it can easily be applied to the duals of the archimedean shapes. oops; I mean, it is directly applicable to them, with the -hedron suffix being used for those duals, as an obvious thing to do once you take the step that Bucky made with his yucky-to-me neologism -- I won't say it, no mo'! thus quoth: It turns out the mathematicians are way into this n-vertexion thing! http://www.ogre.nu/sphere.htm --les ducs d'Enron! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ (geometry & other schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:39:22 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 11:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the cooling is not a "problem," since it's inevitably part of super-atomization and evaporation, therewith. cool water holds a lot more oxygen than warm, and this is the effect that Bucky was trying to get, anyway (the shipboard blast experience, naked .-) you can supplement that with a nice steambath, I guess. thus quoth: > I found it. BETE in Massachusetts. They make a variety of > fog nozzles > and misters for various uses. I didn't see the one I have > at the site, > but under Fog Nozzles there was an extremely low use one. that's the company that I'd contacted, i think, after my dysappointing experience with the McGill pamphlet. any lead on supposed other research?... I remember the showers at hy highschool, which were cold and needle-like! --les ducs d'Enron! > >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > (geometry & other schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:46:23 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 11:46 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us ah, this was my "point," that the oxygen-loaded water may do enough, not to need "triggere-in solvents," except maybe at the end for a nice douche (or what ever .-) thus quoth: So he devised the Fog Gun, which directed a jet of compressed air, atomized water and triggered-in solvents onto the skin. This accelerated surface oxidation and released surface cells and dirt, without the skin-damaging effects associated with high-pressure, "needlepointing" water showers. (I won't reference the site, since it has no other information on the Dyvertexionic Restroom.) --les ducs d'Enron! >> >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >> (geometry & other schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:57:51 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 11:57 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us did you have to remove your clothes? of course, the heatlamp! so, do you recall how wet you got, or what happened to the dirt (out there *on* the dirt, I suppose that was difficult) etc. ?? thus quoth: nozzle (1992). It required a high pressure water and high pressure air source to be that efficient. Since the fog gun was for camping, I used a 12v pump with a standard pressure tank and a small compressor, and ran it off the car battery. It felt terrific in the summer. An important point, though, is evaporative cooling. The mist has a powerful cooling effect. If you read in Critical Path about the fog gun, you will notice Bucky mentions a heat lamp. That is to prevent hypothermia. The compresseor I used was not up to specs- a cheap noisy tire inflator- so the nozzle did not deliver perfect performance, but ten years ago the nozzle was available for it, and of course air and water pressure were too. I found it without the internet. A search would no doubt uncover what is needed. --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:09:39 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 12:09 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the word "random" as used by "Dick" has no meaning (the fact that it almost *never* has any meaning is beside the point; nowadays, we refer to "deterministic chaos," somehow ognoring that Chaos was the mother of Chronos !-) every thing that you site by way of experiment goes against his fuzzy notion -- what ever it is, he's never defined it enough to ber able to finally pin him down, so that *he'd* understand taht it's all over. herr "Dick" had the idea that "conformal mapping" would help him in his wrestling with apices (which he conflated with his bizarre "conical" constructions -- actually, if he'd just show us the *other* sides of those silly things, you'd see that they don't close-up very well, is my hunch). actually, he could probably use the tool of complex geometry, which is where conformality is studied in the making of maps, the Dymaxion one e.g., to prove his problem, one way or the other. here's a printed textbook that is really good: _Complex Visual Geometry_ by Heedham. thus quoth: I agreed with your (JBw?) remarks to Dick about casual use of "random"; I warned him about calling it "randome" http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0108&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P =25 575 but I cannot understand the disparagement he gets in GEODESICS (or most of the other comments there.) I bet comments here will make more sense to me. Whatever Dick calls his domes, I see advantages in NOT having to compute precise element dimensions before you start building; and NOT having to make every connection precisely because you can intuitively compensate for errors after you make them. I think there will be disadvantages in strength and material economy. but of course, monsieur Brawley is notable for his own flimflamming with teh famous "icosanots," which he seems to partially recant from, in his post. my feeling is that his "experiment" with the big ball of marbles was actually *gedanken*, and quite Vaudeville. --les ducs d'Enron! >> >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:16:31 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Iraq <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 12:16 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, maybe I'll take it back; look at this article, "Colombia's Uribe Calls On IMF To Change Its Policies" -- did you see that in your local Wall Street Urinal? http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2922uribe.html thus saith: look at the new guy in Columbia. although he's suyppozed to be a hardliner vis-a-vu the maoist dopers, he is aligned with Chavez in his support for the "liberalization" of all of the utilities. they seem to divide-up, like the members of the jacobin Revolutionary Council into a left & right dichotomy that is also known as "neocon" and "neolib." oh, and they call themselves, Capitalistas! thus quoth: and for visiting Saddam in OPEC meetings (OPEC was founded by Venezuela). And the US government has been attacking Chavez, too, because he won't let them do whatever they want here (the oil companies), and --les ducs d'Enron! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:41:28 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 12:41 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us look at this, Dude/ettes! the very first of the links that I looked at (that I hadn't seen before, since this is obviously where "Dick" was trolling for his factoids), gives the approximate answer to the crazy supposition about n-asterons: Just so we're clear here, this is not a research paper or a summary of state-of-the-art techniques. Rather, this article just clarifies some basic points: "uniformly distributed" has more than one meaning; for most n there is no answer which is particularly elegant; quick-and-dirty approximations are easy; and so on. http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/spheres.html --les ducs d'Enron! > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:51:46 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No Dick Fischbeck wrote: > What if the air was heated first? Would that compensate for > the cooling problem? > > Dick > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>I found it. BETE in Massachusetts. They make a variety of >>fog nozzles >>and misters for various uses. I didn't see the one I have >>at the site, >>but under Fog Nozzles there was an extremely low use one. >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 06:54:35 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: geodesic In-Reply-To: <200206051832.g55IW2K08571@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Brian- Why do you change the subject line of all my posts to read "geodesic"? Why treat me differently, or shouldn't I ask? Dick --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 05-JUN-2002 11:32 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > good references. it'd probably be better, if > I just don't say any thing, til you've looked into it > (and > *possibly* done a few "exercises," > as we say in academia-- as THEY say !-) > I first read about it in one of Martin Gardener's > compilations > of his essays for *Scientific American*, although > he was laking in the "deltahedra" terminology, > as I recall. > > of course, it certainly makes sense, > to utilize a diferent terminology than "-hedra," since > it can easily be applied to the duals of the archimedean > shapes. > oops; I mean, > it is directly applicable to them, > with the -hedron suffix being used for those duals, > as an obvious thing to do once you take the step > that Bucky made with his yucky-to-me neologism > -- I won't say it, no mo'! > > thus quoth: > It turns out the mathematicians are way into this > n-vertexion thing! > > http://www.ogre.nu/sphere.htm > > --les ducs d'Enron! > >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > (geometry & other schoolboard '02 stuffin') __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:16:06 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: aberrant geodesic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Pretty easy to see here how if the circles were cones with equal angular deficits they would overlap and close nicely. http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/ptsphere/ Instead of random geodesic to describe the domes I am making, maybe aberrant geodesic would be a better description. Any thoughts? Not asking you, Brian. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:24:36 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: sphere of spheres MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii http://lonestar.texas.net/~jbuddenh/images/150a2.gif Random or aberrant? Or neither? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:47:34 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: regeodesic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I am asking Brian a question about circle packing on spheres. I found the quote below on this site: http://www.math.nwu.edu/comp-help/talk/paper/node3.html 4. The packing problem () It is interesting to note that as , the minimal discrete energy problem tends to the Best Packing Problem on the sphere (also known as Tammes' Problem []), which asks for the largest spherical radius of N identical spherical caps that can be packed onto the surface of the unit sphere; or equivalently, to maximize the least distance between any pair of points. G. Fejes Toth and L. Fejes Toth [] refer to this problem as the ``problem of inimical dictators'' since it can be stated in the following form: ``A spherical planet is governed by N mutually inimical dictators. How should they place their residences in order to get as far as possible from one another?'' The literature for this problem is enormous, so we refer the interested readers to articles of Coxeter [], and the books of L. Fejes Toth [] and Conway and Sloane []. >> --------------------- Brian, where the writer says, "The literature for this problem is enormous", do you know of any tetrahedral/synergetics solutions proposed for the problem? In other words, do you know of anyone NOT using xyz coordinantes? Anyone NOT using pi in there solution? I'd like to talk to them. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:11:48 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Re: Econodome Info Update Comments: To: fazechange Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wil, Will do. Thanks for the info update. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ----- Original Message -----=20 From: fazechange=20 To: joe_s_moore@hotmail.com=20 Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:27 PM Subject: Econodome Info Update Dear Joe, Please update info on website. Faze Change Produx manufacturers the Econ-O-Dome FCP is located in Sullivan, IL Phone Toll Free 1-888-DOME-LUV Friday is Consultation Day website www.one-eleven.net/econodome email fazechange@one-eleven.net Thanks, Wil Fidroeff, Owner/Designer/Consultant ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 10:51:05 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JUN-2002 10:51 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us you should take this to heart; you seem to not actually read anything that we post -- even if I'm just the only one to try to take it seriously! my advice is to work-thorugh the basics of spherical geometry, as a slight "remove" from the faceted polyhedra that is used all of the time in studying them (in Coxeter and Bucky e.g.). it was stated in that page that I quoted: Nothing really works for gnereal N! (or n-factorial .-) thus quoth: I am asking Brian a question about circle packing on spheres. I found the quote below on this site: http://www.math.nwu.edu/comp-help/talk/paper/node3.html 4. The packing problem () It is interesting to note that as , the minimal discrete energy problem tends to the Best Packing Problem on the sphere (also known as Tammes' Problem []), which asks for the largest spherical radius of N identical spherical caps that can be packed onto the surface of the unit sphere; or equivalently, to maximize the least distance between any pair of points. G. Fejes Toth and L. Fejes Toth [] refer to this problem as the ``problem of inimical dictators'' since it can be stated in the following form: ``A spherical planet is governed by N mutually inimical dictators. How should they place their residences in order to get as far as possible from one another?'' The literature for this problem is enormous, so we refer the interested readers to articles of Coxeter [], and the books of L. Fejes Toth [] and Conway and Sloane []. >> --------------------- Brian, where the writer says, "The literature for this problem is enormous", do you know of any tetrahedral/synergetics solutions proposed for the problem? In other words, do you know of anyone NOT using xyz coordinantes? Anyone NOT using pi in there solution? I'd like to talk to them. the stuff about xyz is lagubrious and meaningless; you shouldn't just believe every thing that Bucky saith. thus saith: Just so we're clear here, this is not a research paper or a summary of state-of-the-art techniques. Rather, this article just clarifies some basic points: "uniformly distributed" has more than one meaning; for most n there is no answer which is particularly elegant; quick-and-dirty approximations are easy; and so on. http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/spheres.html --les ducs d'Enron! > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 05:57:33 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: geodesic In-Reply-To: <200206061751.g56Hp5g16224@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings > you should take this to heart; > you seem to not actually read anything that we post > -- even if I'm just the only one to try to take it > seriously! > my advice is to work-thorugh the basics > of spherical geometry, > as a slight "remove" from the faceted polyhedra > that is used all of the time in studying them > (in Coxeter and Bucky e.g.). What about spherical geometry do you think I need to brush up on? > > it was stated in that page that I quoted: > Nothing really works for gnereal N! > (or n-factorial .-) So far, that seems to be the case. We'll see. -------- > the stuff about xyz is lagubrious and meaningless; > you shouldn't just believe every thing that Bucky saith. It isn't and I don't. How much of Bucky did you say you dismiss? This is the geodesic list. Are you only a detractor? Why keep saying Bucky is a crank unless you believe it? Maybe you just like to try to get people going. LaRouche is an idiot, so there. > > thus saith: > Just so we're clear here, this is not a research paper > or a summary of > state-of-the-art techniques. Rather, this article just > clarifies some > basic > points: > > "uniformly distributed" has more than one meaning; > for most n there is no answer which is particularly > elegant; > quick-and-dirty approximations are easy; > and so on. > > > http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/spheres.html > > --les ducs d'Enron! > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:35:43 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I remember when looking into the nozzles that a common use for them was to cool house interiors in the Arizona desert. The evaporative cooling was effective, even in an arid place(little water was required to do significant cooling). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:41:56 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JUN-2002 8:41 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us evaporative cooling is *only* effective in arid climates, unless you really want to sweat like a pig; take it from a guy from Phoenix, Az. !! thus quoth: I remember when looking into the nozzles that a common use for them was to cool house interiors in the Arizona desert. The evaporative cooling was effective, even in an arid place(little water was required to do significant cooling). --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >(geometry, politics & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:49:59 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JUN-2002 8:49 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us see my page, http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html, particularly my paper, "Cosmometrical Constance." the URL that "Dick" cited reduces the problem of distributing points on a sphere to that of its lesser circles a-touching, a variant on old Problem of Appolonius. thus quoth: teaches very advanced geometry. Why don't you state your idea again, to me specifically, and I'll research it a bit? I'm a chemist, but quite involved in see the book, _Symmetry through the Eyes of a Chemist_ by that husband & wife team, also. http://www.math.nwu.edu/comp-help/talk/paper/node3.html > "uniformly distributed" has more than one > meaning; > for most n there is no answer which is > particularly elegant; > quick-and-dirty approximations are easy; > and so on. > > > http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/spheres.html > > --les ducs d'Enron! > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:59:42 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: [Quaker-P] Re: The questions we're asking <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JUN-2002 8:59 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us speaking of science journals, the latest *Science* is a real bellweather (sik) regarding the nitty-gritty of carbonates, ozone etc. (the prior one about spacetime was the usual QBS goobbledy, though .-) of course, I shall try to comment (harrumph). thus quoth: If you did read scientific journals, and publications written for policy people such as come out of the national academies, why did you reject their ideas? toparaphrase a recent article on this stuff, The BAAS and the antecedent AAAS are the Oracles of the "Malthusian" retrenchment in technological progress," or some thing. however, that really applies to the over-arching editorial stance, not stuff like this, neccesarily! --les ducs d'Enron! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >>(geometry, politics & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:09:31 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JUN-2002 9:09 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us nothing but the basics; then, you'll know how to get out of the SMBay, legally & safely. the whole thing about this list is, the apparent near-absolute ignorance of its members (or at least its posters) of elementary stuff. I came across this, before, at a "Synergetics Camp" or what ever it was called, in Pacific Pallisades (apres Bucky). some of the kids, there, described themselves as "Bucky Withces," and that may about sum-up their know-how of the basics, that Bucky had in great measure. thus quoth: What about spherical geometry do you think I need to brush up on? the whole idea that Synergetics some-how obviates calssical geometry, or "xyz co-ordinateion," has no known basis; none that I've ever seen in the Buckafkafullofitarium! at the best, it merely includes it, and, in any case, you can't get "there" via _S_, without taking to heart the dedication to another geometer -- not that you have to use'im! thus quoth: > "uniformly distributed" has more than one meaning; > for most n there is no answer which is particularly > elegant; > quick-and-dirty approximations are easy; > and so on. > > > http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/spheres.html > > --les ducs d'Enron! > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:26:28 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Buckminster Fuller Comments: To: bal@inst.riba.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Royal Institute of British Architects London, England Gentlemen, The picture you show on your Buckminster Fuller Portrait page is not = Bucky. ref: http://www.riba-library.com/riba-library/porricbucful.html =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:48:31 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: geodesic In-Reply-To: <200206071549.g57FnxA01992@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I can read a .pcx file on my mac. CAn you reprint the paper in an email? --- Brian Hutchings < > see my page, > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html, > particularly my paper, "Cosmometrical Constance." > the URL that "Dick" cited reduces the problem > of distributing points on a sphere to that > of its lesser circles a-touching, > a variant on old Problem of Appolonius. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 06:48:43 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: geodesic In-Reply-To: <200206071549.g57FnxA01992@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I can"t read a .pcx file on my mac. CAn you reprint the paper in an email? --- Brian Hutchings < > see my page, > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html, > particularly my paper, "Cosmometrical Constance." > the URL that "Dick" cited reduces the problem > of distributing points on a sphere to that > of its lesser circles a-touching, > a variant on old Problem of Appolonius. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 07:00:33 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: geodesic In-Reply-To: <200206071609.g57G9VW02168@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings > nothing but the basics; > then, you'll know how to get out of the SMBay, > legally & safely. > the whole thing about this list is, > the apparent near-absolute ignorance of its members (or > at least its posters) of elementary stuff. Who appointed you to be the math wizard of the group? There are plenty people here with all kinds of knowledge of math. You tend to think putting people down is some kind of intellectual right of yours. I am the only one to really respond to your nasty posts it seems, or haven't you noticed? You may know _some_ math but you have no social skills that I see. If you have such a low opinion of Bucky, please go away. > I came across this, before, > at a "Synergetics Camp" or what ever it was called, > in Pacific Pallisades (apres Bucky). some of the kids, > there, described themselves as "Bucky Withces," and > that may about sum-up their know-how of the basics, > that Bucky had in great measure. > > the whole idea that Synergetics some-how obviates > calssical geometry, > or "xyz co-ordinateion," has no known basis; > none that I've ever seen in the Buckafkafullofitarium! > at the best, it merely includes it, and, in any case, > you can't get "there" via _S_, > without taking to heart the dedication to another > geometer > -- not that you have to use'im! The thing is is that you can still ride a horse to town, but why would you when there is a better way? Einstein didn't eliminate Newton, but he sure expanded our world view! LaRouche is a fool, too. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:05:38 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: fog gun inquiry MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I meant it is efficient in water use even where water is a concern. A little water and a lot of coolness. I went to ASU for 2 fall semesters: 1974 and 1975. Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JUN-2002 8:41 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > evaporative cooling is *only* effective in arid climates, > unless you really want to sweat like a pig; > take it from a guy from Phoenix, Az. !! > > thus quoth: > I remember when looking into the nozzles that a common use for them was > to cool house interiors in the Arizona desert. > The evaporative cooling was effective, even in an arid place(little > water was required to do significant cooling). > > --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >(geometry, politics & schoolboard '02 stuffin') > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 08:16:27 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JUN-2002 8:16 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it's a facsimile, so, No; what's the point, if you can read it (who ever you are) ?? thus quoth: I can read a .pcx file on my mac. CAn you reprint the paper in an email? --- Brian Hutchings < > see my page, > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html, > particularly my paper, "Cosmometrical Constance." > the URL that "Dick" cited reduces the problem > of distributing points on a sphere to that > of its lesser circles a-touching, > a variant on old Problem of Appolonius. --les ducs d'Enron! > > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 08:25:59 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: [Quaker-P] Re: Friends and science <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JUN-2002 8:25 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us you seem to hold the ideal that the supranationals' ideals are not quite green, although I'd agree that they aren't very peaceful. 2 articles in the latest *21st C. Science and Tech.* belie that: one on economist Simon's aping of von Hayek and Bernard Mandeville (source being "The Groaning Hive" article); the other one on a review of a new book on Admiral Rickover and the civilian nuclear program. both Greenpeace and the Greens started in Groovy Britain; God save Betty Dos! thus quoth: ...this sounds more like US bankers, military, and political figures than it does a bunch of activists...though your concerns here are important ones, and are a constant aspect of self-examination that all activists from the north need to address.. >But the world's perception of Greenpeace is not a surprise. Creating facts, >insisting they are true, can be an act of violence. A group that insists on >alternative reality righteously is already a group that does violence. again, sounds more like the northern multi national "free market" idealogues to me....forcing their "alternative reality" down the throats of indigenous peoples in the South that have a perfectly adequate reality of their own.. --les ducs d'Enron! > > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 08:32:09 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Friends and science <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JUN-2002 8:32 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us on the wayside, the article about Simon also notes that Lomborg relies primarily on statistics, since he's a professional one, so that he's quite effective in impugning environmentalists' use of the same (did you see the say-so in the paper about the halving of the putative deathrates in that study on deisel soot, based on statistical grounds which weren't related?), but he's not altogehter "there" in his stance. in that vain, people who really don't know any geometry, are not in any position to grok! thus quoth: Who appointed you to be the math wizard of the group? There are plenty people here with all kinds of knowledge of math. You tend to think putting people down is some kind of intellectual right of yours. I am the only one to really respond to your nasty posts it seems, or haven't you noticed? You may know _some_ math but you have no social skills that I see. If you have such a low opinion of Bucky, please go away. > I came across this, before, > at a "Synergetics Camp" or what ever it was called, > in Pacific Pallisades (apres Bucky). some of the kids, > there, described themselves as "Bucky Withces," and > that may about sum-up their know-how of the basics, > that Bucky had in great measure. > > the whole idea that Synergetics some-how obviates > calssical geometry, > or "xyz co-ordinateion," has no known basis; > none that I've ever seen in the Buckafkafullofitarium! > at the best, it merely includes it, and, in any case, > you can't get "there" via _S_, > without taking to heart the dedication to another > geometer > -- not that you have to use'im! The thing is is that you can still ride a horse to town, but why would you when there is a better way? Einstein didn't eliminate Newton, but he sure expanded our world view! --les ducs d'Enron! > > > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 23:50:34 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Quincy Quincy Quincy Subject: Re: geodesic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed save it to disk and find a reader (or a plug-in for your browser) on the web. (I was going to say, go to the SM Main Library, where I thought it was on all of the machinces, but it didn't work for the one I'm on; typical !-) note that I got two messages from you ("Dick," I see, in this unlame account), the one that I'd read saying "I can," and the other one being the same, but for "I can"t" -- with the double-quote mark. > it's a facsimile, so, No; > what's the point, if you can read it > (who ever you are) ?? > > thus quoth: > I can read a .pcx file on my mac. CAn you reprint the paper > in an email? > > --- Brian Hutchings < > > see my page, > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html, > > particularly my paper, "Cosmometrical Constance." > > the URL that "Dick" cited reduces the problem > > of distributing points on a sphere to that > > of its lesser circles a-touching, > > a variant on old Problem of Appolonius. > > --les ducs d'Enron! > > > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:34:45 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JUN-2002 10:34 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. no-one appointed me to be The Math Wizard, and I accept your nomination with trepidation; "beware of strangers bearing gifts!" thus quoth: Who appointed you to be the math wizard of the group? There are plenty people here with all kinds of knowledge of math. if so, they're lurking-about for scraps. it's quite amuzing that you say, "I am the only one to really respond to your nasty posts it seems, or haven't you noticed?" I did notice, and I noted that I was the only one who bothered with *your* absurd complains. small Universe? if you have such a high opinion of Einstein, Newton and Hawking --see the Star Trek movie where they're made into Knights-- then you should become a Subject o'Betty Dos! thus quoth: If you have such a low opinion of Bucky, please go away. > I came across this, before, > at a "Synergetics Camp" or what ever it was called, > in Pacific Pallisades (apres Bucky). some of the kids, > there, described themselves as "Bucky Withces," and > that may about sum-up their know-how of the basics, > that Bucky had in great measure. > > the whole idea that Synergetics some-how obviates > calssical geometry, > or "xyz co-ordinateion," has no known basis; > none that I've ever seen in the Buckafkafullofitarium! > at the best, it merely includes it, and, in any case, > you can't get "there" via _S_, > without taking to heart the dedication to another > geometer > -- not that you have to use'im! The thing is is that you can still ride a horse to town, but why would you when there is a better way? Einstein didn't eliminate Newton, but he sure expanded our world the super-expanding Universe; you beleive the latest flimflam, I suppose? --les ducs d'Enron! > > > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:35:56 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JUN-2002 10:35 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. I hate to point this out in quotidian terms, but you're just fibbing about how well everything goes together, with no notes of construction or measurement or any thing -- and your refusal to show os the other side of the pieces o'****. (admttedly, that wouldn't neccesarily prove you wrong, since it is *hard* to finsish a tiling like that .-) thus saith: what's "the b-boom," pritheetellus? thus quoth: When did you decide I had any success? A full sphere will come out beautifully, I am sure. I've made some small ones already. The "unit" hub-cone works fine, too. So does the unit truss, as in cupdome. They are simple to construct and will come out spherical. I have not seen them anywhere else. The closest thing to them is the b-boom and the tri-weave. nice try; you've convinced all geometers for all time. just say, Duh! --les ducs d'enron! > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html > > (temporary index.html while HS unscrews "up" -- again ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 22:55:34 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S_A_V_E_=A0_T_H_E_=A0_D_O_M_E_._C_O_M?= Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new = station is built: http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 23:17:35 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Human Geography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New book about human populations using Fuller Projection maps: _Places and Regions in Global Context: Human Geography_ by P L Knox and S A Marston http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/knox/medialib/media_portfolio/i= ndex.html =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 14:23:18 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: geodesic In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Quincy Quincy Quincy wrote: > save it to disk and find a reader (or a plug-in > for your browser) on the web. (I was going to say, > go to the SM Main Library, > where I thought it was on all of the machinces, but > it didn't work for the one I'm on; typical !-) > note that I got two messages from you ("Dick," > I see, in this unlame account), > the one that I'd read saying "I can," and > the other one being the same, but for "I can"t" > -- with the double-quote mark. > Yeah, I was correcting a typo. The correction had its own typo. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:05:04 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 09-JUN-2002 10:05 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. >ah, didn't we go through this rigamarole, >some months ago? > >thus quoth: > > save it to disk and find a reader (or a plug-in > > for your browser) on the web. (I was going to say, > >--les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:10:19 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Neo-Malthusianism <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 09-JUN-2002 10:10 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the "butterfly effect" is a patent absurdity, in any terms, and is always confuzed (conflated) with what Lorenz dyscovered about simple rounding-off errors that are inherent to the floating-point works -- as well as the mere shape of the Lorenz attractor (although this is not stated, as far as I know .-) the primary effect of the butterfly is, how much vegetation does the voracious caterpillar go-through, before that stage, and how successfully it is in producing more of'em; you can consider that also in "darwinian" terms, as well, but I won't go there. then, there are *two* butterflies to be considered in aggregate; eh? thus quoth: The popular press delights in talking about the "butterfly effect" and chaos theory. But when it comes to just the sort of complex dynamic system where we have every reason to believe that sensitivity to small variations in initial conditions will be the case they take every scenario that leads to disaster as the final word on what will happen. just say, Chaos, the mother of Chronos! --les ducs d'Enron! > > > > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:12:27 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: oops? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 09-JUN-2002 10:12 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us SUBJECT: [Quaker-P] Re: geodesic MESSAGE from =r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.u 05-JUN-20 12:42 <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 05-JUN-2002 12:41 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us look at this, Dude/ettes! the very first of the links that I looked at (that I hadn't seen before, since this is obviously where "Dick" was trolling for his factoids), gives the approximate answer to the crazy supposition about n-asterons: Just so we're clear here, this is not a research paper or a summary of state-of-the-art techniques. Rather, this article just clarifies some basic points: "uniformly distributed" has more than one meaning; for most n there is no answer which is particularly elegant; quick-and-dirty approximations are easy; and so on. http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/spheres.html --les ducs d'Enron! > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') _______________________________________________ Quaker-P mailing list Quaker-P@earlham.edu http://www.earlham.edu/mailman/listinfo/quaker-p ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_S_A_V_E_=A0_T_H_E_=A0_D_O_M_E_=2E_C_O_M?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme. AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? -Tony. -----Original Message----- From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new station is built: http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:56:36 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E =?ISO-8859-1?B?oCBUIEggRSCg?= D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <2F175DC588EFD211B37C0060088FAC3931359D@pscserver3> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) Leifur > From: Tony Kalenak > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: RE: S A V E =A0 T H E =A0 D O M E . C O M >=20 > It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. > If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme= . > AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? > How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >=20 > -Tony. >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >=20 > The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new > station is built: >=20 > http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Joe S Moore > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside it. Leifur Thor wrote: > Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something > that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the > modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the > geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) > > Leifur > > >>From: Tony Kalenak >>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >> >>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >>It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme. >>AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >> >>-Tony. >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >>The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new >>station is built: >> >>http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >> >>============================== >>Joe S Moore >>joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>============================= >> > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:58:22 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: save the god-am dome at the South Pole! <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 7:58 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us as was clear from the "tour," the thing is just a big shed (see the snow, inside?) to shed the snow from the buildings. any comment on the new design'd be of interest. thus quoth: Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ /Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:01:46 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] NYTimes.com Article: Criticism of Bush [...] <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 8:01 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I rather doubt that the Fabian socialist rag (the offical one of the Labour Party) says much about the British connections, other than the fact that Brown Bros. is the British side of that conglome (at the time, earth's largest private bank). thus quoth: http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm Put this together with America's *late* participation in the war, and the affection of the Administration of the day for Mussolini, (I believe your president called him, "That admirable Italian gentleman."). The American elite liked the fact that foreign investment was allowed and the unions were crushed and worker's rights were ignored. It was an international capitalists dream come true. Anybody recognize the similarity to "Free Trade" or "Libertarianism" for that matter. thus quoth: The story was reported at the time, although Bush largely succeeded in keeping his own name out of the press; and -- no surprise -- it is not much discussed in the media these days. (There was one article in the _Boston_Globe_ last year, plus one in the _New_Statesman_ two months ago.) Dhanesh [*] As to the ownership of Union Banking still not being well understood: following the money trail in those days was difficult because reporting requirements were even more laughable than they are now. As best we can tell, Union Banking was owned by four Americans (including Bunny Harriman and Prescott Bush); and by three German Nazis (all employees of Fritz Thyssen, one of Hitler's primary financial "angels"). In addition to his part ownership of the firm, Prescott Bush had also been a director since 1934. After the war, control and ownership of Union Banking was returned to its four American shareholders; and when the company was liquidated in 1951, Prescott Bush received $750,000, while George Herbert Walker (his father-in-law) received another $750,000. Note: While several well-known Americans (e.g., Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh) appear to have had some sympathy for fascism in common with Nazis, there is no evidence that Prescott Bush was an ideological collaborator -- what he did, he appears to have done purely for money. --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:03:36 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D04E264.8080209@sover.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit How's this for a novel idea. If the furniture doesn't fit, build a bigger dome... Leifur > From: Steve Miller > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside it. > > Leifur Thor wrote: > >> Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something >> that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the >> modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the >> geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >> >> Leifur >> >> >>> From: Tony Kalenak >>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>> >>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>> Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>> >>> It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>> If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme. >>> AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>> How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >>> >>> -Tony. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>> Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>> >>> The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new >>> station is built: >>> >>> http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >>> >>> ============================== >>> Joe S Moore >>> joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>> http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>> Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>> ============================= >>> >> ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:05:37 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: save the god-am dome at the South Pole! In-Reply-To: <200206101458.g5AEwMx16720@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, I should have said more specifically materials used. I'm sure the materials used when it was put up have been improved on... Leifur > From: Brian Hutchings > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:58:22 -0700 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: save the god-am dome at the South Pole! >=20 > <> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 7:58 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >=20 > as was clear from the "tour," > the thing is just a big shed (see the snow, inside?) > to shed the snow from the buildings. > any comment on the new design'd be of interest. >=20 > thus quoth: > Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something > that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that > the > modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the > geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >=20 > --les ducs d'Enron! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > /Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:40:41 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] NYTimes.com Article: Criticism of Bush [...] <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 8:40 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us first of all, I'm rather unfond of such hearsay about FDR, which is too-much like that about Pearl Harbor (look-up "Code Orange" on the American Almanac site, for the latter). secondly, the coauthor with Tarpley, Chaitkin, has a father-journalist who brought this stuff to light, then (into '42). thridly, there was an attempted fascist coup aginst FDR (again, look in the almanac archive, under "Lt.Col. Smedley Butler" !-) there needs to ba a *lot* more trepidation about FDR's cousin, the self-acclaimed Rought Rider, who brought us Woodrow Wilson, "the Klansman" (and the premier at the "white house" of "The Birth of a Nation"). unfortunately, you wont' find it in the biographical crap from Ed Morris et al British buffoons. thus quoth: http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm Put this together with America's *late* participation in the war, and the affection of the Administration of the day for Mussolini, (I believe your president called him, "That admirable Italian gentleman."). The American elite liked the fact that foreign investment was allowed and the unions were crushed and worker's rights were ignored. It was an international capitalists dream come true. Anybody recognize the similarity to "Free Trade" or "Libertarianism" for that matter. don't say "capitalist," when you are specifying "rentier-financier;" thank you!... I beleive that I read an *old* Columbia (brief) Encyclopedia, wherein it was stated that fascism was also defined, per Mussolini, as "corporatism." see tarpley's other book for the details on its guilds etc. (it's online, two !-) --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:46:04 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Depleted uranium <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 8:46 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us wow, it doesn't surprize me that "West Wing" is being used to propagandize about nuclear power; didn't they also go whole-hog on the anti-mines treaty (according to reports, of course ?-) that's a great table, except for where all of the decay-rates are added together; why'd you do that? as you mention, the U-238 can be used in a breeder reactor to turn it into a fissionable product (a-hem) -- except that the Administration mothballed the Hanford facility, earlier this year, according to the L.A.Times (pA37, I forget which Sunday). thus quoth: There seems to be much confusion about what depleted uranium is, both in these messages and on West Wing. The bottom line on what follows is THAT IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH SPENT FUEL RODS FROM REACTORS. Natural uranium is a mixture of 3 naturally occuring isotopes: Natural Isotope abundance halflife decays/sec in one g natural U U-234 = 0.0055 % 245500 years 13031 U-235 = 0.7200 % 0.7038 billion yr 595 U-238 = 99.2745 % 4.468 billion yr 12924 TOTAL 26550 (extra significance to check addition) All of these decay by pure alpha particle emission, along with low-energy gammas (x-rays) from nuclear deexcitation. This radiation is stopped by a very small amount of material, but the alphas can be bad news if inhaled or ingested. The U-234 is too short-lived to have survived for the age of the earth, but it itself is in the U-238 decay chain. If it is removed it is quickly replenished, and in equilibrium contributes exactly as many decays as U-238. Its own decay product has a halflife of 75000 years, and so further steps in the chain are not issues in chemically purified uranium. Uranium *ore* is much more radioactive than (recently) chemically purified uranium, per gram of uranium in the ore, since it contains all of the decaying decay products, all the way down to lead. For comparison, ordinary potassium has about 32 decays/g/sec, thanks to a small amount of K-40. (How much potassium do you contain?) ===> OK. If you want to build a bomb or a reactor, you want *pure* U-235, which is nowdays only 0.7% of uranium. The separation problem is perhaps the most difficult step in obtaining weapons-grade material. But the "waste" from this separation is the leftover U-238, and in a week or two the U-234 is there again.. It is "depleted" of U-235--that's all "depleted" means. The numbers aren't easily available, but evidently hundreds of thousands of tons of it are stored at Oak Ridge as pressurized, corrosive, uranium hexafluoride gas--it costs more than it's worth to reduce it, and there isn't really that much use for depleted uranium. I'm told the chemical toxicity of uranium is high; ingestion leads to kidney failure and such. This is probably more threatening than the radiation. But most heavy elements, such as Hg, Pb, and especialy Pu, are very toxic. NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SPENT FUEL RODS FROM REACTORS. You can't even use depleted uranium in a reactor, except, of course to make Pu-239. --les ducs d'Enron! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > /Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:50:33 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Depleted uranium <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 9:50 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. >you can look-up the RAND meta-study on DU; >I haven' seen it, except for the summary. > in general, it's completely cognate >with the hysteria over "low-level radiactive waste" >in general; in general, >the levels involved are comparable with natural background radiation,. >from local rocks or space (at high altitudes: "cosmic rays"), >as shown *par excellence* in the (intl.) Chinese Longitudunal Study >(see http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ for articles >on the measurement of biologically-important rays; >perhaps the recent half-cutting of the deisel-soot death-rate >was due to the simple getting-rid of the "LNT" method .-) > >thus quoth: > There has been some statements made on this list that DU is less > radioactive than a backyard BBQ... > > doe anyone have the information, or scientific studies to back this > up? I was asking my friendly experts on DU and all things bad about > the nuclear industry in general, and they said they had heard about > such a "wives tale" but didn't know what the source was. > >--les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:03:17 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Neo-Malthusianism <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 10:03 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us please; there's plenty of stuff that fits into various "power laws," but "chaos theory" is not only poorly named, but hardly predictive without good hypotheses to make it, so, in what ever study. (your earlier assertion about the existence of *o* is a case in point .-) unfortunately, mathemticians are just as blind-sided by The Computer as anyone else, and this is most evident in the overwhelming problem of the misnomers of "global warming" and "ozone hole" -- two that happen to cancel each-other out, on a spherical integration (so to say .-) that is to say that the UNIPCC is wholly chained to these simulacra, which are inherently chaotic *by specification* [*], and cannot predict any thing more than the GCMs can, which is weather approximately out to a year from now, via brute heuristics from massively-parallel computations, and a lot of rule-of-thumb know-how. * the spec is IEEE-755, -855, on floating-point algorithms; the -755 spec is nothing but an article in *Computer*, an issue form 1980, although you can see it just as well from the definition of "decimals" by Simon Stevin, circa the 15th CCE (see Oystein Ore's _Numbertheory and It's History_). you can see it, actually, in the *notation* that the author of the article needds to use. the implausbility of 700 ppm CO2 is an example of the absurdities, which I just read in the latest *Science*, in an otherwise great article; long before that hypothetical, occurs a phase-change (or, is). thus quoth: The problem with the press discussing chaos theory is that if they studied journalism it's because their math skills weren't very good, and chaos theory is probably the most complicated of all mathematical theories. NOBODY who isn't a mathematician should even dare discuss it. And BTW, it HAS been very effective in predicting much of the earth's behaviour and genetic effects. --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:45:02 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There's the wasted space, too. Leifur Thor wrote: > How's this for a novel idea. If the furniture doesn't fit, build a bigger > dome... > > Leifur > > >>From: Steve Miller >>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >> >>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >>They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside it. >> >>Leifur Thor wrote: >> >> >>>Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something >>>that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the >>>modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the >>>geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >>> >>>Leifur >>> >>> >>> >>>>From: Tony Kalenak >>>>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>> >>>>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>>>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>> >>>>It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>>>If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme. >>>>AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>>>How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >>>> >>>>-Tony. >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>>>Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>>>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>> >>>>The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new >>>>station is built: >>>> >>>>http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >>>> >>>>============================== >>>>Joe S Moore >>>>joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>>>http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>>>Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>>>============================= >>>> >>>> > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:45:58 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: save the god-am dome at the South Pole! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Stainless steel frame and aluminum cladding. Hard to improve on that! Leifur Thor wrote: > Sorry, I should have said more specifically materials used. I'm sure the > materials used when it was put up have been improved on... > > Leifur > > >>From: Brian Hutchings >>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >> >>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:58:22 -0700 >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>Subject: save the god-am dome at the South Pole! >> >><> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 7:58 >>r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >> >>as was clear from the "tour," >>the thing is just a big shed (see the snow, inside?) >>to shed the snow from the buildings. >>any comment on the new design'd be of interest. >> >>thus quoth: >>Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something >>that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that >>the >>modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the >>geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >> >>--les ducs d'Enron! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >>/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') >> > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:59:38 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D05561E.6030808@sover.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The geodesic dome was never good as both a shell and an interior (in my opinion) Try not the think of the dome as a wasted space because it is only a shell. Forget for a moment the idea of a shelter. Look at how all man made structures are built, with internal framing. Besides that this is a poor replica of mammalian design (bone/steel surrounded by softer tissue), it's not very efficient. Ask yourself this. What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life on earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close competition with creatures like mammals internal framing design. And for exoskelital design, the geodesic dome has proven to be the most pure representation of this kind of a structure. So the real value of a geodesic dome is that it encompasses an environment. This then allows the user to create a plethora of ideas as to how to resolve the space within the softer tissue area, or the protected environment inside (modular parts which could be arranged in to rooms and that can be rearranged when desired). And in regards to stainless steel frame and aluminum cladding being hard to improve on, all I can say is I know very little about materials and yet even I know there are a lot of materials that Bucky would have suggested here like carbon fiber, and extra thick sheets of tefzel. It's entirely possible to create a new dome larger built in the same spot that made an environment inside equal to tropical. I'm working on just such a house (maybe it will be a failure, but it's worth looking at) and I personally can't think of a better testing grounds when it comes time to test driving it (if it gets that far). If it worked there, it could work anywhere. Leifur > From: Steve Miller > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:45:02 -0400 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > There's the wasted space, too. > > Leifur Thor wrote: > >> How's this for a novel idea. If the furniture doesn't fit, build a bigger >> dome... >> >> Leifur >> >> >>> From: Steve Miller >>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>> >>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 >>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>> >>> They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside it. >>> >>> Leifur Thor wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something >>>> that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the >>>> modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the >>>> geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >>>> >>>> Leifur >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Tony Kalenak >>>>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>>> >>>>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>> Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>> >>>>> It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>>>> If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme. >>>>> AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>>>> How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >>>>> >>>>> -Tony. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>> Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>> >>>>> The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new >>>>> station is built: >>>>> >>>>> http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >>>>> >>>>> ============================== >>>>> Joe S Moore >>>>> joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>>>> http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>>>> Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>>>> ============================= >>>>> >>>>> >> ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:55:29 +0100 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Gall, Julian" Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Ask yourself this. > What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion > years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life=20 > on earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close=20 > competition with creatures like mammals internal framing design. Is it not the case that nature uses exoskeletons for small structures and internal framing for large ones? I.e. Insects have exoskeletons and anything bigger than a few inches has an internal frame. Why should that be? Presumably the people deciding that the dome should be replaced with a conventional structure have good (to them) reasons. Is it conservatism or lack of knowledge? Or maybe the efficiencies of a dome are outweighed by increased costs. It'd be fascinating to know. Julian ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:01:33 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Your analysis is intriguing. I agree with your value assessment. All too often people try to make geodesic domes fit the traditional HOUSE concept and even insist on TRADITIONAL materials, when the maximum benefit is to be realized as an ephemeral ENVIRONMENTAL VALVE on a large scale. It frees us to do whatever we want or need to do on the inside, without structural intrusion. -----Original Message----- From: Leifur Thor [mailto:lthor@EARTHLINK.NET] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:00 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M The geodesic dome was never good as both a shell and an interior (in my opinion) Try not the think of the dome as a wasted space because it is only a shell. Forget for a moment the idea of a shelter. Look at how all man made structures are built, with internal framing. Besides that this is a poor replica of mammalian design (bone/steel surrounded by softer tissue), it's not very efficient. Ask yourself this. What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life on earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close competition with creatures like mammals internal framing design. And for exoskelital design, the geodesic dome has proven to be the most pure representation of this kind of a structure. So the real value of a geodesic dome is that it encompasses an environment. This then allows the user to create a plethora of ideas as to how to resolve the space within the softer tissue area, or the protected environment inside (modular parts which could be arranged in to rooms and that can be rearranged when desired). And in regards to stainless steel frame and aluminum cladding being hard to improve on, all I can say is I know very little about materials and yet even I know there are a lot of materials that Bucky would have suggested here like carbon fiber, and extra thick sheets of tefzel. It's entirely possible to create a new dome larger built in the same spot that made an environment inside equal to tropical. I'm working on just such a house (maybe it will be a failure, but it's worth looking at) and I personally can't think of a better testing grounds when it comes time to test driving it (if it gets that far). If it worked there, it could work anywhere. Leifur > From: Steve Miller > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:45:02 -0400 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > There's the wasted space, too. > > Leifur Thor wrote: > >> How's this for a novel idea. If the furniture doesn't fit, build a bigger >> dome... >> >> Leifur >> >> >>> From: Steve Miller >>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>> >>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 >>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>> >>> They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside it. >>> >>> Leifur Thor wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something >>>> that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the >>>> modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the >>>> geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >>>> >>>> Leifur >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Tony Kalenak >>>>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>>> >>>>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>> Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>> >>>>> It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>>>> If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme. >>>>> AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>>>> How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >>>>> >>>>> -Tony. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>> Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>> >>>>> The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new >>>>> station is built: >>>>> >>>>> http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >>>>> >>>>> ============================== >>>>> Joe S Moore >>>>> joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>>>> http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>>>> Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>>>> ============================= >>>>> >>>>> >> ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:15:16 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Definite lack of curb appeal. Leifur Thor wrote: > The geodesic dome was never good as both a shell and an interior (in my > opinion) Try not the think of the dome as a wasted space because it is only > a shell. Forget for a moment the idea of a shelter. > > Look at how all man made structures are built, with internal framing. > Besides that this is a poor replica of mammalian design (bone/steel > surrounded by softer tissue), it's not very efficient. Ask yourself this. > What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion > years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life on > earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close competition > with creatures like mammals internal framing design. And for exoskelital > design, the geodesic dome has proven to be the most pure representation of > this kind of a structure. > > So the real value of a geodesic dome is that it encompasses an environment. > This then allows the user to create a plethora of ideas as to how to resolve > the space within the softer tissue area, or the protected environment inside > (modular parts which could be arranged in to rooms and that can be > rearranged when desired). > > And in regards to stainless steel frame and aluminum cladding being hard to > improve on, all I can say is I know very little about materials and yet even > I know there are a lot of materials that Bucky would have suggested here > like carbon fiber, and extra thick sheets of tefzel. > > It's entirely possible to create a new dome larger built in the same spot > that made an environment inside equal to tropical. I'm working on just such > a house (maybe it will be a failure, but it's worth looking at) and I > personally can't think of a better testing grounds when it comes time to > test driving it (if it gets that far). If it worked there, it could work > anywhere. > > Leifur > > >>From: Steve Miller >>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >> >>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:45:02 -0400 >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >>There's the wasted space, too. >> >>Leifur Thor wrote: >> >> >>>How's this for a novel idea. If the furniture doesn't fit, build a bigger >>>dome... >>> >>>Leifur >>> >>> >>> >>>>From: Steve Miller >>>>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>> >>>>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 >>>>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>> >>>>They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside it. >>>> >>>>Leifur Thor wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something >>>>>that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that the >>>>>modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the >>>>>geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >>>>> >>>>>Leifur >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>From: Tony Kalenak >>>>>>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>>>> >>>>>>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>>>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>>>>>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>>>Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>>> >>>>>>It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>>>>>If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the scheme. >>>>>>AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>>>>>How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >>>>>> >>>>>>-Tony. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>>>>>Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>>>>>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>>>Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>>> >>>>>>The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new >>>>>>station is built: >>>>>> >>>>>>http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >>>>>> >>>>>>============================== >>>>>>Joe S Moore >>>>>>joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>>>>>http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>>>>>Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>>>>>============================= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:34:15 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D54B5D3D78EF14AB8DF7CD5A7939C7903127D4E@reoexc01.emea.cpqcorp.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Good point about the size. Actually that's a great point. And yet interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome apart from all, and I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that it is the only structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the larger it becomes (depending on materials used). As for the people who decided to use a more conventional type of building, when Bucky was testing his first radar dome on the top of mount (___help me out everyone) where the average wind was I think 132mph, the military who had put up numerous structures which had all lasted hours before being torn apart by the wind expected Bucky's flimsy looking dome to last only minutes. Bucky's stood and stood and stood, for minutes, hours, days, and eventually years. Those domes may very well have saved us from WW3. So I would say never underestimate the lack of intelligence even in high circles in recognition of things that are ahead of their time. The geodesic dome is really a 21st or 22nd century structure that just happened to be discovered in the 20th century. The best indication of this is that materials that can best utilize the domes attributes are just now beginning to come on line. Which reminds me, is there anyone out there who knows what materials were used for the domes in England (the big ones). Leifur > From: "Gall, Julian" > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:55:29 +0100 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > >> Ask yourself this. >> What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion > >> years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life >> on earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close >> competition with creatures like mammals internal framing design. > > Is it not the case that nature uses exoskeletons for small structures > and internal framing for large ones? I.e. Insects have exoskeletons and > anything bigger than a few inches has an internal frame. Why should that > be? > > Presumably the people deciding that the dome should be replaced with a > conventional structure have good (to them) reasons. Is it conservatism > or lack of knowledge? Or maybe the efficiencies of a dome are outweighed > by increased costs. It'd be fascinating to know. > > Julian ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:48:59 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <2F175DC588EFD211B37C0060088FAC393135A3@pscserver3> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks Tony. I remember when I first saw a geodesic dome (75') and thought "that is the most stupid idea for a building I've ever seen, it's all glass. It would cost a fortune, earthquakes would tear it apart, and the living area is minimized because it's a circle (an inefficient shape for packing things). But I was thinking of it in conventional terms. Now that we have plastics like Tyvek that exemplify great ephemeralization traits for a material, the dome is now an entirely different vessel in my eye. Now I see it as a incredible shell, and a farm for water and energy for the occupants within. Leifur > From: Tony Kalenak > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:01:33 -0500 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > Your analysis is intriguing. > > I agree with your value assessment. All too often people try to make > geodesic domes fit the traditional HOUSE concept and even insist on > TRADITIONAL materials, when the maximum benefit is to be realized as an > ephemeral ENVIRONMENTAL VALVE on a large scale. It frees us to do whatever > we want or need to do on the inside, without structural intrusion. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Leifur Thor [mailto:lthor@EARTHLINK.NET] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:00 AM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > The geodesic dome was never good as both a shell and an interior (in my > opinion) Try not the think of the dome as a wasted space because it is only > a shell. Forget for a moment the idea of a shelter. > > Look at how all man made structures are built, with internal framing. > Besides that this is a poor replica of mammalian design (bone/steel > surrounded by softer tissue), it's not very efficient. Ask yourself this. > What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion > years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life on > earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close competition > with creatures like mammals internal framing design. And for exoskelital > design, the geodesic dome has proven to be the most pure representation of > this kind of a structure. > > So the real value of a geodesic dome is that it encompasses an environment. > This then allows the user to create a plethora of ideas as to how to resolve > the space within the softer tissue area, or the protected environment inside > (modular parts which could be arranged in to rooms and that can be > rearranged when desired). > > And in regards to stainless steel frame and aluminum cladding being hard to > improve on, all I can say is I know very little about materials and yet even > I know there are a lot of materials that Bucky would have suggested here > like carbon fiber, and extra thick sheets of tefzel. > > It's entirely possible to create a new dome larger built in the same spot > that made an environment inside equal to tropical. I'm working on just such > a house (maybe it will be a failure, but it's worth looking at) and I > personally can't think of a better testing grounds when it comes time to > test driving it (if it gets that far). If it worked there, it could work > anywhere. > > Leifur > >> From: Steve Miller >> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >> >> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:45:02 -0400 >> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >> There's the wasted space, too. >> >> Leifur Thor wrote: >> >>> How's this for a novel idea. If the furniture doesn't fit, build a bigger >>> dome... >>> >>> Leifur >>> >>> >>>> From: Steve Miller >>>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>> >>>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 >>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>> >>>> They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside > it. >>>> >>>> Leifur Thor wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build > something >>>>> that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that > the >>>>> modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of > the >>>>> geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >>>>> >>>>> Leifur >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: Tony Kalenak >>>>>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>>>> >>>>>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>>> Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>>>>> If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the > scheme. >>>>>> AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>>>>> How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Tony. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>>> Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>>> >>>>>> The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the > new >>>>>> station is built: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ============================== >>>>>> Joe S Moore >>>>>> joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>>>>> http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>>>>> Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>>>>> ============================= >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:50:26 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D0605F4.7090502@sover.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit What's curb appeal? Perhaps I've been under a rock.... Leifur > From: Steve Miller > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:15:16 -0400 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > Definite lack of curb appeal. > > Leifur Thor wrote: > >> The geodesic dome was never good as both a shell and an interior (in my >> opinion) Try not the think of the dome as a wasted space because it is only >> a shell. Forget for a moment the idea of a shelter. >> >> Look at how all man made structures are built, with internal framing. >> Besides that this is a poor replica of mammalian design (bone/steel >> surrounded by softer tissue), it's not very efficient. Ask yourself this. >> What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion >> years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life on >> earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close competition >> with creatures like mammals internal framing design. And for exoskelital >> design, the geodesic dome has proven to be the most pure representation of >> this kind of a structure. >> >> So the real value of a geodesic dome is that it encompasses an environment. >> This then allows the user to create a plethora of ideas as to how to resolve >> the space within the softer tissue area, or the protected environment inside >> (modular parts which could be arranged in to rooms and that can be >> rearranged when desired). >> >> And in regards to stainless steel frame and aluminum cladding being hard to >> improve on, all I can say is I know very little about materials and yet even >> I know there are a lot of materials that Bucky would have suggested here >> like carbon fiber, and extra thick sheets of tefzel. >> >> It's entirely possible to create a new dome larger built in the same spot >> that made an environment inside equal to tropical. I'm working on just such >> a house (maybe it will be a failure, but it's worth looking at) and I >> personally can't think of a better testing grounds when it comes time to >> test driving it (if it gets that far). If it worked there, it could work >> anywhere. >> >> Leifur >> >> >>> From: Steve Miller >>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>> >>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:45:02 -0400 >>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>> >>> There's the wasted space, too. >>> >>> Leifur Thor wrote: >>> >>> >>>> How's this for a novel idea. If the furniture doesn't fit, build a bigger >>>> dome... >>>> >>>> Leifur >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Steve Miller >>>>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>>> >>>>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:31:16 -0400 >>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>> >>>>> They are replacing the dome because furniture doesn't fit well inside it. >>>>> >>>>> Leifur Thor wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Very well put Tony. Perhaps it would be good to see them build something >>>>>> that's not a dome and shortly thereafter when it collapses request that >>>>>> the >>>>>> modern structure be returned or upgraded to a more modern version of the >>>>>> geodesic dome (i.e. newer materials) >>>>>> >>>>>> Leifur >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Tony Kalenak >>>>>>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:42:28 -0500 >>>>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>>>> Subject: RE: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not clear to me why the dome has to go. >>>>>>> If it is still structurally sound, why not incorporate it into the >>>>>>> scheme. >>>>>>> AND Why are they out there building BLOCKS ? >>>>>>> How well do those things distribute loads and shed forces ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Tony. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Joe S Moore [mailto:joe_s_moore@HOTMAIL.COM] >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:56 AM >>>>>>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>>>> Subject: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The South Pole Geodesic Dome is scheduled to be demolished after the new >>>>>>> station is built: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://130.94.234.188/savethedome/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ============================== >>>>>>> Joe S Moore >>>>>>> joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >>>>>>> http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >>>>>>> Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >>>>>>> ============================= >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:58:34 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mt. Washington in New Hampshire. Leifur Thor wrote: > Good point about the size. Actually that's a great point. And yet > interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome apart from all, and > I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that it is the only > structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the larger it becomes > (depending on materials used). > > As for the people who decided to use a more conventional type of building, > when Bucky was testing his first radar dome on the top of mount (___help me > out everyone) where the average wind was I think 132mph, the military who > had put up numerous structures which had all lasted hours before being torn > apart by the wind expected Bucky's flimsy looking dome to last only minutes. > Bucky's stood and stood and stood, for minutes, hours, days, and eventually > years. Those domes may very well have saved us from WW3. > > So I would say never underestimate the lack of intelligence even in high > circles in recognition of things that are ahead of their time. > > The geodesic dome is really a 21st or 22nd century structure that just > happened to be discovered in the 20th century. The best indication of this > is that materials that can best utilize the domes attributes are just now > beginning to come on line. > > Which reminds me, is there anyone out there who knows what materials were > used for the domes in England (the big ones). > > Leifur > > >>From: "Gall, Julian" >>Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >> >>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:55:29 +0100 >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >> >>>Ask yourself this. >>>What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion >>> >>>years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life >>>on earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close >>>competition with creatures like mammals internal framing design. >>> >>Is it not the case that nature uses exoskeletons for small structures >>and internal framing for large ones? I.e. Insects have exoskeletons and >>anything bigger than a few inches has an internal frame. Why should that >>be? >> >>Presumably the people deciding that the dome should be replaced with a >>conventional structure have good (to them) reasons. Is it conservatism >>or lack of knowledge? Or maybe the efficiencies of a dome are outweighed >>by increased costs. It'd be fascinating to know. >> >>Julian >> > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:52:56 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D06566A.80204@sover.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks Steve. Leifur > From: Steve Miller > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:58:34 -0400 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > Mt. Washington in New Hampshire. > > Leifur Thor wrote: > >> Good point about the size. Actually that's a great point. And yet >> interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome apart from all, and >> I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that it is the only >> structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the larger it becomes >> (depending on materials used). >> >> As for the people who decided to use a more conventional type of building, >> when Bucky was testing his first radar dome on the top of mount (___help me >> out everyone) where the average wind was I think 132mph, the military who >> had put up numerous structures which had all lasted hours before being torn >> apart by the wind expected Bucky's flimsy looking dome to last only minutes. >> Bucky's stood and stood and stood, for minutes, hours, days, and eventually >> years. Those domes may very well have saved us from WW3. >> >> So I would say never underestimate the lack of intelligence even in high >> circles in recognition of things that are ahead of their time. >> >> The geodesic dome is really a 21st or 22nd century structure that just >> happened to be discovered in the 20th century. The best indication of this >> is that materials that can best utilize the domes attributes are just now >> beginning to come on line. >> >> Which reminds me, is there anyone out there who knows what materials were >> used for the domes in England (the big ones). >> >> Leifur >> >> >>> From: "Gall, Julian" >>> Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works >>> >>> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >>> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:55:29 +0100 >>> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>> >>> >>>> Ask yourself this. >>>> What has nature chosen to design the most with over the last 5 billion >>>> >>>> years. Nature uses exoskeletons the most. Over 80% of all animal life >>>> on earth falls in the Arthropods category. It's not even a close >>>> competition with creatures like mammals internal framing design. >>>> >>> Is it not the case that nature uses exoskeletons for small structures >>> and internal framing for large ones? I.e. Insects have exoskeletons and >>> anything bigger than a few inches has an internal frame. Why should that >>> be? >>> >>> Presumably the people deciding that the dome should be replaced with a >>> conventional structure have good (to them) reasons. Is it conservatism >>> or lack of knowledge? Or maybe the efficiencies of a dome are outweighed >>> by increased costs. It'd be fascinating to know. >>> >>> Julian >>> >> ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:07:13 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Ooops? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 11-JUN-2002 9:07 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us OK, since my yesterday's missive on this subject seems not to have made it over there, I'll copy the following one, from yesterday. note that the lower time-stamp is from yesterday at 9:48 in the morning (although, I have to say, I didn't get to the library til a half-hour before closing; it could just be a badly set clock, though, which'd be no suprize ... wait; PEN used to use the 24:00 military clock, and perhaps ... wait, the library *closes* at 9pm). the upper time-stamp is from this morning at 8:17 -- meaning, when it was sent-out, I'm sure. the fact that there're two time-stamps has been nagging me for months, on some of my posts to the Quaker-p list, if not to geodesic-l (the fact is, on some occaisions, I do copy a priorly-sent message, including the time-stamp; not usually, though). --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') SUBJECT: Re: [Quaker-P] Neo-Malthusianism MESSAGE from =r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.u 11-JUN-20 8:17 <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 10-JUN-2002 10:03 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us please; there's plenty of stuff that fits into various "power laws," but "chaos theory" is not only poorly named, but hardly predictive without good hypotheses to make it, so, in what ever study. (your earlier assertion about the existence of *o* is a case in point .-) unfortunately, mathemticians are just as blind-sided by The Computer as anyone else, and this is most evident in the overwhelming problem of the misnomers of "global warming" and "ozone hole" -- two that happen to cancel each-other out, on a spherical integration (so to say .-) that is to say that the UNIPCC is wholly chained to these simulacra, which are inherently chaotic *by specification* [*], and cannot predict any thing more than the GCMs can, which is weather approximately out to a year from now, via brute heuristics from massively-parallel computations, and a lot of rule-of-thumb know-how. * the spec is IEEE-755, -855, on floating-point algorithms; the -755 spec is nothing but an article in *Computer*, an issue form 1980, although you can see it just as well from the definition of "decimals" by Simon Stevin, circa the 15th CCE (see Oystein Ore's _Numbertheory and It's History_). you can see it, actually, in the *notation* that the author of the article needds to use. the implausbility of 700 ppm CO2 is an example of the absurdities, which I just read in the latest *Science*, in an otherwise great article; long before that hypothetical, occurs a phase-change (or, is). thus quoth: The problem with the press discussing chaos theory is that if they studied journalism it's because their math skills weren't very good, and chaos theory is probably the most complicated of all mathematical theories. NOBODY who isn't a mathematician should even dare discuss it. And BTW, it HAS been very effective in predicting much of the earth's behaviour and in predicting much of the earth's behaviour and genetic effects. and what are those behavaiors & effects, pritheetell? --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:13:21 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Ooops? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 11-JUN-2002 14:13 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us do I pretend to know spherical geometry? let's see. do you know polar trigons and Napier's Rule? I don't relly know them through navigation, but I certainly know *about* them. as for the Gaussian Plane, and Lobachevski's Saddle, we sometimes refer to them as "neo-euclidean," since they only differ in a few axioms from the flat stuff. (again, I refer you to my MAA SoCal Spring '01 flyer for my poster, "Cosmometrical Constance," although it seems to be regarded as so elementary, as to be beyond "no comment!" as for the so-called cancellation of the so-called hole (this is a misnomer) in the ozone by the so-called global warming (this is a horrible misnomer, as can be shown by abundant datasets, if "overall" is the intended meaning -- as it has been for over a century), I can refer you to a knew book, something about glaciation I think in the title, but anyway which has a forward by Lynn Margullis. howeever, the essential thing is that there is a marked *differential* of solar input from the equator to the poles, with the attendant phenomena of weather. unfortunately, such a simple thing seems to be beyond the GCMs, which is why my generic term for them is, the Rectal Dysplay Unit (such total emersion is nearly available .-) thus quoth: discuss it? Such as how parallel lines do meet in spherical geometry? How well do you know your Euclidean geometry? Need to know ALL that before you can enter spherical geometry... I can't help but wonder if you even understand what an algorithm is... that's the little bug-aboo about floating-point algorithms, and the heardware that is nowhere-near universal, even within the same family of processors -- as was voiced by Mandelbrot's begging of my question at Royce Hall, UCLA, so many years ago ("Eet bleu oop!") -- although they may be within spec (IEEE-755; -855). --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') /Funny.html is where it's at. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:03:46 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Leifur- Will you explain about geodesic structures getting more stury as they get larger? I've had some trouble with this one. Dick --- Leifur Thor wrote: > Good point about the size. Actually that's a great point. > And yet > interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome > apart from all, and > I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that it > is the only > structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the > larger it becomes > (depending on materials used). > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:15:16 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is this a trick question? Dick Fischbeck wrote: > Leifur- Will you explain about geodesic structures getting > more stury as they get larger? I've had some trouble with > this one. > > Dick > > --- Leifur Thor wrote: > >>Good point about the size. Actually that's a great point. >>And yet >>interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome >>apart from all, and >>I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that it >>is the only >>structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the >>larger it becomes >>(depending on materials used). >> >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:06:31 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D074964.4000207@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii No, honest. I've never quite understood this. And it's gotten me in bit of trouble before. --- Steve Miller wrote: > Is this a trick question? > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > Leifur- Will you explain about geodesic structures > getting > > more stury as they get larger? I've had some trouble > with > > this one. > > > > Dick > > > > --- Leifur Thor wrote: > > > >>Good point about the size. Actually that's a great > point. > >>And yet > >>interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome > >>apart from all, and > >>I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that > it > >>is the only > >>structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the > >>larger it becomes > >>(depending on materials used). > >> > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:22:33 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Actually, I remember it being written and I have found, that the higher the frequency the lower the resistance to Dimpling, which would really make a large/high frequency dome weaker than a smaller/lower frequency dome and necessitate the need for "trussing" . However, there would be many more structural elements for a larger higher frequency and thus the dome could take many more penetrations before failing. Maybe that is what is meant by "the larger the dome, the stronger it becomes". -Tony. -----Original Message----- From: Dick Fischbeck [mailto:dick_fischbeck@YAHOO.COM] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:07 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M No, honest. I've never quite understood this. And it's gotten me in bit of trouble before. Among the piranha that swim the DomeHome list ? ;-) --- Steve Miller wrote: > Is this a trick question? > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > Leifur- Will you explain about geodesic structures > getting > > more stury as they get larger? I've had some trouble > with > > this one. > > > > Dick > > > > --- Leifur Thor wrote: > > > >>Good point about the size. Actually that's a great > point. > >>And yet > >>interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome > >>apart from all, and > >>I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that > it > >>is the only > >>structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the > >>larger it becomes > >>(depending on materials used). > >> > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:36:37 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a statement that requires some definition. What was the precise claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome stronger? Or do larger domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it could be the source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky sources such as New Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one considerably larger than the other, will question this claim. Tony Kalenak wrote: > Actually, I remember it being written and I have found, that the higher the > frequency the lower the resistance to Dimpling, which would really make a > large/high frequency dome weaker than a smaller/lower frequency dome and > necessitate the need for "trussing" . However, there would be many more > structural elements for a larger higher frequency and thus the dome could > take many more penetrations before failing. > > Maybe that is what is meant by "the larger the dome, the stronger it > becomes". > > > -Tony. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dick Fischbeck [mailto:dick_fischbeck@YAHOO.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:07 AM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > No, honest. I've never quite understood this. And it's > gotten me in bit of trouble before. > > Among the piranha that swim the DomeHome list ? ;-) > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>Is this a trick question? >> >>Dick Fischbeck wrote: >> >> >>>Leifur- Will you explain about geodesic structures >>> >>getting >> >>>more stury as they get larger? I've had some trouble >>> >>with >> >>>this one. >>> >>>Dick >>> >>>--- Leifur Thor wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Good point about the size. Actually that's a great >>>> >>point. >> >>>>And yet >>>>interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome >>>>apart from all, and >>>>I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that >>>> >>it >> >>>>is the only >>>>structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the >>>>larger it becomes >>>>(depending on materials used). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >>>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Formactive: >>http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:03:07 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I think you are right. The statement "large domes are stronger" is very vague. My previous email was an attempt to qualify someone else's statement. I really don't know how they meant it and in a general sense, my experience has shown the opposite (as regards resistance to inwardly directed forces). -Tony. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:37 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M This is a statement that requires some definition. What was the precise claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome stronger? Or do larger domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it could be the source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky sources such as New Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one considerably larger than the other, will question this claim. Tony Kalenak wrote: > Actually, I remember it being written and I have found, that the higher the > frequency the lower the resistance to Dimpling, which would really make a > large/high frequency dome weaker than a smaller/lower frequency dome and > necessitate the need for "trussing" . However, there would be many more > structural elements for a larger higher frequency and thus the dome could > take many more penetrations before failing. > > Maybe that is what is meant by "the larger the dome, the stronger it > becomes". > > > -Tony. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dick Fischbeck [mailto:dick_fischbeck@YAHOO.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:07 AM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > No, honest. I've never quite understood this. And it's > gotten me in bit of trouble before. > > Among the piranha that swim the DomeHome list ? ;-) > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>Is this a trick question? >> >>Dick Fischbeck wrote: >> >> >>>Leifur- Will you explain about geodesic structures >>> >>getting >> >>>more stury as they get larger? I've had some trouble >>> >>with >> >>>this one. >>> >>>Dick >>> >>>--- Leifur Thor wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Good point about the size. Actually that's a great >>>> >>point. >> >>>>And yet >>>>interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome >>>>apart from all, and >>>>I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that >>>> >>it >> >>>>is the only >>>>structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the >>>>larger it becomes >>>>(depending on materials used). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >>>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Formactive: >>http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:32:41 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: * * * * T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JUN-2002 6:32 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the "dimpling" is due to the apices of a higher-frequency geodesic, being closer to "flat," that is to say that, if there were 6 trigona around an apice (the usual case, except for 12, 6 or 4 of them for the full spheric), the 6 angles at the apice add nearly to 360 degrees. this is largely taken care of, at least in one dome that was built w/Bucky, by adding a second interior dome of the same freq. and intertrussing them (exactly how, I don't know .-) otherwise, for whatever configuration, there are probably rough power-laws that'd apply. thus quoth: source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky sources such as New Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one considerably larger than the other, will question this claim. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:42:07 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <2F175DC588EFD211B37C0060088FAC393135AB@pscserver3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the compressional elements are, and the more the dome is invested in tension. To the extent that frequency means size(and it does as far as I understand) a larger dome encloses more space per unit energy/material invested. Basically, more performance per pound. Dick --- Tony Kalenak wrote: > I think you are right. > The statement "large domes are stronger" is very vague. > > My previous email was an attempt to qualify someone > else's statement. > I really don't know how they meant it and in a general > sense, my experience > has shown the opposite (as regards resistance to inwardly > directed forces). > > -Tony. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:37 AM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > This is a statement that requires some definition. What > was the precise > claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by > becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome > stronger? Or do larger > domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? > I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it > could be the > source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky > sources such as New > Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one > considerably larger > than the other, will question this claim. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:09:23 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Yucca Mountain <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JUN-2002 7:09 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us first of all, here's the "PanTex" subpage that Karen was refering to, which should *not* surprize one, but for decades o'hype: http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/ (didn't look at what they do for you, but "Radiation and Us" is the best title .-) note the prevalence of radon, and even this has been hyped by the EPA et al to the absolute extreme, as can probably be told from the subpage that's listed as "Radiation Reassesed - the Why Files." in any case, it's a simple matter to include air-to-air heat- exchangers in polar climates, rather than going through with teh expensive recommendations of sub-basement ventilation -- now required by the EPA? of course, most of this is applicable to any exposure to any substance, including soot & ozone e.g. (a-hem), and comes under the heading of the "LNT" paradigm that's been in use for about 3 decades, which is just a graphical technique (dose vs. symptom "through (0,0)," the mystaquen part of it). of course, the fact that "geological dispozal remains the only long-term solution available" is contingent upon the Administration remaining placid about the mothballing they did of the Hanford facilities -- and everyone else. as for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28775-2002Jun10.html -- I haven't seen any further dyscussion in the papers about the recent halving by what ever authorities, on the estimated death-rates due to soot, but I do know that the ones for ozone are truly gonzo, based on LNT extrapolation of "LD-50" studies on rats & such-like, for some thing that is rather healthful, as well as pleasent, as well as being maxed-out on days that you aren't likely to "engage in exercise" -- but I should at least make an effort, apres siesta! thus quoth: I checked out nukewatch, and was interested to see their movement to protest an extemely low frequency transmitter. They cite several people, one a doctor (of?), one a Congressman. They miscite National Research Council. We can only hope that the citations from Newsweek are incorrect. Einstein never got a Nobel Prize for either special or general relataivity. His only Nobel Prize was for showing that cell phones and extremely low freqnecy transmitters do not cause cancer. very amuzing! --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:14:56 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Ooops? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JUN-2002 7:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us now. if you don't know "polar triangles," as they say, you don'know **** about spherical geometry. here's the ref from _S_ on Napier's Rules, which is diagrammed with a simple five-slice pie: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s10/p5000.html#1050.39 thus quoth: do I pretend to know spherical geometry? let's see. do you know polar trigons and Napier's Rule? I don't relly know them through navigation, but I certainly know *about* them. as for the Gaussian Plane, and Lobachevski's Saddle, we sometimes refer to them as "neo-euclidean," since they only differ in a few axioms from the flat stuff. (again, I refer you to my MAA SoCal Spring '01 flyer for my poster, "Cosmometrical Constance," although it seems to be regarded as so elementary, as to be beyond "no comment!" --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:10:42 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Yucca Mountain <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JUN-2002 13:10 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us thus quoth: 2. Transportation, the most dangerous part of the whole storage process, demands extraordinary protective measures, subject to open review by those most affected-- the people you've been ignoring every thing that Karen and I've been noting, at the least; it is quite absurd, but the "Einstein explained, why cellphones don't suck that much," was a good antidote. however, note that microwaves *will* hurt you, because if they're tuned to certain vibrational modes of water molecules, as those ovens' are; the question is, are their any structures in the human body that can act like antennae for cellphone frequencies? (although the cellphones do absorb most of them, of course, when answered .-) --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ah, so. the "new book" that I'd referred to re "global" warming is, _The Ice Chronicles_ (forward by Margullis; its dyscussion of urban heat islands is the first that I've seen, that notes the effects of burning stuff in cities -- and doesn't even *mention* the "passive solar" effects that used to be considered the whole thing). [needless to say, this is a good challenge to "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets its explanations to policy makers. (http://www.unep.ch/ipcc/) While the major reports are each about 1,000 pages, the summaries are about 10 pages. (Much of the reports lists how we know. For nonscientists, this is a very good introduction to a foreign world.)." but, all of the rest of these were generally great: DU in Iraq: 300 tons of DU munitions in the Gulf War, little of which is particulate (physicists ask why the attention to the cladding and not to the munitions contained in 300 tons of DU?) Soil: "In this regard, we should point out that the average concentration of natural uranium in soil is about 4 tons per square mile in the top 12 inches of soil." (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_s05.htm#V. FOLLOW-UP) Translation: DU is much less of a concern than naturally occurring uranium in soil. Naturally occurring uranium in soil is not a concern. I'd like to check these sites out "for nonscientists," say on DU: Some excellent sites are: ( I had some trouble downloading this one. It keeps linking to . I found that I could read it only if I clicked on my "Stop" button after it loaded.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:33:17 +0100 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Gall, Julian" Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Could it be that the material required increases in proportion to the square of the radius and the volume in proportion to the cube? Therefore, a larger dome requires less material per unit of enclosed volume. i.e. Less material for the same "strength", however you define it. Another way of saying a dome using x mass of material per unit volume is stronger, the bigger it is. Julian -----Original Message----- From: Dick Fischbeck [mailto:dick_fischbeck@YAHOO.COM]=20 Sent: 12 June 2002 21:42 To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the compressional elements are, and the more the dome is invested in tension. To the extent that frequency means size(and it does as far as I understand) a larger dome encloses more space per unit energy/material invested. Basically, more performance per pound. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:44:52 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please, not cubes and squares! This is the geodesic list. Linear dimensions are first power; area dimensions are second power; volume is third power. Using the proper terms makes geodesic material more clear. I think this 'squaring' and 'cubing' is the worst stumbling block there is to understanding geodesics and its partner, E=mc(second power) Gall, Julian wrote: > Could it be that the material required increases in proportion to the > square of the radius and the volume in proportion to the cube? > Therefore, a larger dome requires less material per unit of enclosed > volume. i.e. Less material for the same "strength", however you define > it. Another way of saying a dome using x mass of material per unit > volume is stronger, the bigger it is. > > Julian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dick Fischbeck [mailto:dick_fischbeck@YAHOO.COM] > Sent: 12 June 2002 21:42 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the > compressional elements are, and the more the dome is > invested in tension. To the extent that frequency means > size(and it does as far as I understand) a larger dome > encloses more space per unit energy/material invested. > Basically, more performance per pound. > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:50:54 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frequency means the number of modular subdivisions of an icosahedron (or other appropriate zero frequency figure). Frequency is independent of size. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the > compressional elements are, and the more the dome is > invested in tension. To the extent that frequency means > size(and it does as far as I understand) a larger dome > encloses more space per unit energy/material invested. > Basically, more performance per pound. > > Dick > > --- Tony Kalenak wrote: > >>I think you are right. >>The statement "large domes are stronger" is very vague. >> >>My previous email was an attempt to qualify someone >>else's statement. >>I really don't know how they meant it and in a general >>sense, my experience >>has shown the opposite (as regards resistance to inwardly >>directed forces). >> >>-Tony. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET] >>Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:37 AM >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >>This is a statement that requires some definition. What >>was the precise >>claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by >>becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome >>stronger? Or do larger >>domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? >>I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it >>could be the >>source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky >>sources such as New >>Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one >>considerably larger >>than the other, will question this claim. >> >> > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:29:28 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D08952E.6000709@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Steve- This is from Amy's book. --------------------------- Frequency and Size He insists upon nothing more adamantly than this distinction—between real ("experimentally demonstrable") phenomena and imaginary concepts. "Size" relates to real, time-dependent systems, whereas "shape," influenced only by angle and therefore independent of time, is a factor in both real and conceptual systems. ["Angles are... independent of size. Size is always special-case experience" (515.14).] But how does "frequency" apply to size and length? Frequency connotes number: the number of times a repeating phenomenon occurs within a specified interval—ordinarily an interval of time, but Fuller extends the concept to include space. Length is measured in synergetics in terms of frequency to underline the fact that the "distance from here to there" involves time and can be specified in terms of number: number of footsteps across the room, or number of heartbeats during that interval, number of water molecules in a tube, number of inches, number of photons, number of somethings. The choice of increment depends on what is being measured, but frequency (and hence size) is inescapably a function of time and number. --------------------------- This is why I said frequency is not independent of size. It is actually a measure of size, if I read this correctly. We can't have a frequency without a starting size, which is time and/or distance. This is the distinction between general case(angles) and special case(time/distance). I'll see if I can find a better quote, one from Bucky. Dick --- Steve Miller wrote: > Frequency means the number of modular subdivisions of an > icosahedron (or > other appropriate zero frequency figure). > Frequency is independent of size. > > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the > > compressional elements are, and the more the dome is > > invested in tension. To the extent that frequency means > > size(and it does as far as I understand) a larger dome > > encloses more space per unit energy/material invested. > > Basically, more performance per pound. > > > > Dick > > > > --- Tony Kalenak wrote: > > > >>I think you are right. > >>The statement "large domes are stronger" is very vague. > >> > >>My previous email was an attempt to qualify someone > >>else's statement. > >>I really don't know how they meant it and in a general > >>sense, my experience > >>has shown the opposite (as regards resistance to > inwardly > >>directed forces). > >> > >>-Tony. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >>From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET] > >>Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:37 AM > >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > >>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > >> > >>This is a statement that requires some definition. What > >>was the precise > >>claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by > >>becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome > >>stronger? Or do larger > >>domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? > >>I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it > >>could be the > >>source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky > >>sources such as New > >>Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one > >>considerably larger > >>than the other, will question this claim. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:46:12 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D54B5D3D78EF14AB8DF7CD5A7939C7901DD77E8@reoexc01.emea.cpqcorp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This is not enough because the same relationship between surface and volume holds true for the box. The box would surely fail from its own weight if we increased it size enough. Dick --- "Gall, Julian" wrote: > Could it be that the material required increases in > proportion to the > square of the radius and the volume in proportion to the > cube? > Therefore, a larger dome requires less material per unit > of enclosed > volume. i.e. Less material for the same "strength", > however you define > it. Another way of saying a dome using x mass of material > per unit > volume is stronger, the bigger it is. > > Julian > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:39:29 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D08952E.6000709@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Angle:shape::frequency:size. from-http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/terms.html. and, 750.20 Unlimited Subdivisibility of Tensional Components 750.21 The higher the frequency, the greater the proportion of the structure that is invested in tensional components. Tensional components are unlimited in length in proportion to their cross-section diameter-to-length ratios. As we increase the frequency, each tension member is parted into a plurality of fibers, each of whose strength is multiplied many times per unit of weight and section. If we increase the frequency many times, the relative overall weight of structures rapidly diminishes, as ratioed to any linear increase in overall dimension of structure. 750.22 The only limit to frequency increase is the logistic practicality of more functions to be serviced, but the bigger the structure, the easier the local treatability of high-frequency components. 750.23 In contrast to all previous structural experience, the law of diminishing returns is operative in the direction of decreasing size of geodesic tensegrity structures, and increasing return is realized in the direction of their increasing dimensions. --------------------- This sounds like Bucky is saying tensegrities gets better performance per pound as the frequency increases. Dick --- Steve Miller wrote: > Frequency means the number of modular subdivisions of an > icosahedron (or > other appropriate zero frequency figure). > Frequency is independent of size. > > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the > > compressional elements are, and the more the dome is > > invested in tension. To the extent that frequency means > > size(and it does as far as I understand) a larger dome > > encloses more space per unit energy/material invested. > > Basically, more performance per pound. > > > > Dick > > > > --- Tony Kalenak wrote: > > > >>I think you are right. > >>The statement "large domes are stronger" is very vague. > >> > >>My previous email was an attempt to qualify someone > >>else's statement. > >>I really don't know how they meant it and in a general > >>sense, my experience > >>has shown the opposite (as regards resistance to > inwardly > >>directed forces). > >> > >>-Tony. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >>From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET] > >>Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:37 AM > >>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > >>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > >> > >>This is a statement that requires some definition. What > >>was the precise > >>claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by > >>becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome > >>stronger? Or do larger > >>domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? > >>I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it > >>could be the > >>source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky > >>sources such as New > >>Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one > >>considerably larger > >>than the other, will question this claim. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:02:20 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <2F175DC588EFD211B37C0060088FAC393135AB@pscserver3> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks Tony, your right. My statement that large domes are stronger is pretty vague. All I meant to say was that the geodesic dome is unique among the history of man made structures in that "it has the potential to be made any size dependant upon the materials used" because it is not block on block conventional construction (god I hate that term). It really should be called backwards archaic construction. I'm pretty cynical though because I see things that are called "modern" and "cutting edge" like a laptop computer and all I see is an advanced rock and chisel. Something of true innovation in the area of communication would be direct download capability. As long as it's a thing we're reading, it's like a hourglass and the efficiency lies in the width of the thinnest part. When it comes to buildings or structures, because we are so inundated with gravity, our perception is that gravity is a vital component of any structure. Bucky's grand discovery with the geodesic dome I think was that true innovation begins with no assumptions, which would initial no forces at play in his thinking environment, i.e. like gravity. Oh and now that I may almost sound like I know what I'm talking about, I'm probably wrong because my learning from Bucky has been done through his books and his words alone. I still find the man the single person in my life who has spoken the truth the most. And my discovery of him happened entirely after his death (pattern integrity). Leifur > From: Tony Kalenak > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:03:07 -0500 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > I think you are right. > The statement "large domes are stronger" is very vague. > > My previous email was an attempt to qualify someone else's statement. > I really don't know how they meant it and in a general sense, my experience > has shown the opposite (as regards resistance to inwardly directed forces). > > -Tony. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:37 AM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > This is a statement that requires some definition. What was the precise > claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by > becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome stronger? Or do larger > domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? > I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it could be the > source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky sources such as New > Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one considerably larger > than the other, will question this claim. > > Tony Kalenak wrote: > >> Actually, I remember it being written and I have found, that the higher > the >> frequency the lower the resistance to Dimpling, which would really make a >> large/high frequency dome weaker than a smaller/lower frequency dome and >> necessitate the need for "trussing" . However, there would be many more >> structural elements for a larger higher frequency and thus the dome could >> take many more penetrations before failing. >> >> Maybe that is what is meant by "the larger the dome, the stronger it >> becomes". >> >> >> -Tony. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dick Fischbeck [mailto:dick_fischbeck@YAHOO.COM] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:07 AM >> To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >> Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >> >> No, honest. I've never quite understood this. And it's >> gotten me in bit of trouble before. >> >> Among the piranha that swim the DomeHome list ? ;-) >> >> --- Steve Miller wrote: >> >>> Is this a trick question? >>> >>> Dick Fischbeck wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Leifur- Will you explain about geodesic structures >>>> >>> getting >>> >>>> more stury as they get larger? I've had some trouble >>>> >>> with >>> >>>> this one. >>>> >>>> Dick >>>> >>>> --- Leifur Thor wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Good point about the size. Actually that's a great >>>>> >>> point. >>> >>>>> And yet >>>>> interestingly the one thing that sets the geodesic dome >>>>> apart from all, and >>>>> I do mean all structures ever invented by man is that >>>>> >>> it >>> >>>>> is the only >>>>> structure ever invented that becomes more sturdy the >>>>> larger it becomes >>>>> (depending on materials used). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> __________________________________________________ >>>> Do You Yahoo!? >>>> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >>>> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Formactive: >>> http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ >>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >> >> > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:35:26 +0100 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Paul Taylor Subject: World Trade Center memorial In-Reply-To: <3D08C6E3.A83F4806@sprintmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Just received this URL. World Trade Center memorial project, with Geodesic Dome: http://www.nycsky.com Paul Taylor ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:39:50 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Nicely put, Leifur. I share the same view about Bucky and his work. About being cynical....Except for global nuclear war, I think there is no reason to think that we won't make it in Universe. And we may be past the realistic possibility of global nuclear war. I hope. Things are moving faster than ever toward full planetary integration of resources. Not fast enough some say. Bucky's critical information is more readily accessible to more people than ever before. There is even a search function now for Synergetics. I don't think we lost any info that wasn't written down before his death. I could be wrong of course. He sure tried to get it all down! Nothing wrong in getting the info by reading. And doing one's own experiments. You hang glide? That must be fantastic. Dick --- Leifur Thor wrote: > Thanks Tony, your right. My statement that large domes > are stronger is > pretty vague. All I meant to say was that the geodesic > dome is unique among > the history of man made structures in that "it has the > potential to be made > any size dependant upon the materials used" because it is > not block on block > conventional construction (god I hate that term). It > really should be called > backwards archaic construction. > > I'm pretty cynical though because I see things that are > called "modern" and > "cutting edge" like a laptop computer and all I see is an > advanced rock and > chisel. Something of true innovation in the area of > communication would be > direct download capability. As long as it's a thing we're > reading, it's like > a hourglass and the efficiency lies in the width of the > thinnest part. > > When it comes to buildings or structures, because we are > so inundated with > gravity, our perception is that gravity is a vital > component of any > structure. Bucky's grand discovery with the geodesic dome > I think was that > true innovation begins with no assumptions, which would > initial no forces at > play in his thinking environment, i.e. like gravity. > > Oh and now that I may almost sound like I know what I'm > talking about, I'm > probably wrong because my learning from Bucky has been > done through his > books and his words alone. I still find the man the > single person in my life > who has spoken the truth the most. And my discovery of > him happened entirely > after his death (pattern integrity). > > Leifur __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:06:30 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: World Trade Center memorial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" IMHO: This is an inspired monument. A fitting and well conceived , yet functional memorial. Thanks for the link. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Taylor [mailto:pt@NOUS.ORG.UK] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:35 PM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: World Trade Center memorial Just received this URL. World Trade Center memorial project, with Geodesic Dome: http://www.nycsky.com Paul Taylor ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:33:44 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: * * * * T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JUN-2002 5:33 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us "frequency" is a term o'Bucky that is eclusively related to shape, not size. that said, you have redyscovered an old engineering maxim, which is related to power of an expanding spherical wave-form a la Bucky: E/m = cc (the interior of the waveform is also known as "timelike" in the doctrine o'Minkowski .-) thus quoth: Could it be that the material required increases in proportion to the square of the radius and the volume in proportion to the cube? Therefore, a larger dome requires less material per unit of enclosed volume. i.e. Less material for the same "strength", however you define it. Another way of saying a dome using x mass of material per unit volume is stronger, the bigger it is. --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:39:56 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: * * * * T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JUN-2002 5:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us there is a prefectly rational justification for what Bucky calls/knowed as the Greek Mystaque: tetragona are the only self-dual "flat" shapes, and octagona (hexahedra) are the only autodual spatial ones. thus quoth: Please, not cubes and squares! This is the geodesic list. Linear dimensions are first power; area dimensions are second power; volume is third power. Using the proper terms makes geodesic material more clear. I think this 'squaring' and 'cubing' is the worst stumbling block there is to understanding geodesics and its partner, E=mcc [sik]. --les ducs d'Enron! > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:45:33 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JUN-2002 5:45 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us you are conuzing the use of a particular emmission of a partiuclar atom to establish a meterlength (e.g.) -- a particular *use* frequencing -- with Bucky's "pre-time-size" frequency. admittedly, there may be a better neolgizm; that is your mission, should you choose to accept it as a Buck-o-philologist! thus quoth: But how does "frequency" apply to size and length? Frequency connotes number: the number of times a repeating phenomenon occurs within a specified intervalordinarily an interval of time, but Fuller extends the concept to include space. Length is measured in synergetics in terms of frequency to underline the fact that the "distance from here to there" involves time and can be specified in terms of number: number of footsteps across the room, or number of heartbeats during that interval, number of water molecules in a tube, number of inches, number of photons, number of somethings. The choice of increment depends on what is being measured, but frequency (and hence size) is inescapably a function of time and number. --------------------------- This is why I said frequency is not independent of size. It --les ducs d'Enron! >> > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >> > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:02:37 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: * * * * T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JUN-2002 6:02 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us that said. there is no reason to prove Pythagoras' Theorem by building "squares" on sides; one can use traingles, or any shape with one "flat" side, as long as they're all "similar." even so, the most elegant proof is the "lunes" proof, using semicircles. try to configure it! it is more difficult to establish the spatial case of the PT, however, in either of its forms. thus saith: there is a prefectly rational justification for what Bucky calls/knowed as the Greek Mystaque: tetragona are the only self-dual "flat" shapes, and octagona (hexahedra) are the only autodual spatial ones. --les ducs d'Enron! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (schoolboard stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:03:47 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Yucca Flats <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JUN-2002 9:03 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us Dear Friends and Colleagues; In working on my paper for the North American Entomological Society /Treatises by Youth ("nice-ty") meeting this August, titled "Entophilia: the Next Million Years or So," I haven't been able to find the origin of the beautiful variant of American pronunciation, of the word, nuclear, from the usual sources. So, I'm calling for help on it. It's my hypothesis, of course, that "nuke-you-lar" has its origin with members of *Periplenata americana*, although such a hypothesis is far from proof. Specifically, though, I have been led to the basement conference-room (where I've attended several groundhugging seminars on statistics, the Great Bread Science) of the WAND [*] Corp. in Manatee Sonica, California. The curious thing about these environs is to be found in the pre-election *WAND Review* (of Fall 2000), where our luddite preference is shown in a curious article about the California "energy crisis," in which there is no opinion expressed on this dangerous source of electricity (and process-heat for industry and for space exploration, if you follow the more extreme of the Nuke-you-larists. A lot of entomologists have given the credit to President Lyndon Johnson, but I feel that he was not sufficiently luddite enough to have really thought it through, and may have just been misdirecting the electorate, so they wouldn't find the word in the dictionary, just then. A more likely bearer of the word was President Carter, who after-all was a nuke-you-lah scientist with Admiral Rickover (note my use, hereat, of the Southern variant). But, the hypothesis is that these folks were not the actual *originators* of this fine vernacular. Thank you for your help. In the meantime, Please consider this fine epitaph for the "nuclear age:" Considering the Bush Administration's fine waffling on every thing That is nuclear, and there adamant support of the free trade nostrums That will surely be the end of "reasonably priced" electricity especially the "emmissions trading schemes" of the British, or those of the Kyoto Protocol, let us also consider a new name, the Eo! Wilson Yucca Flats Recreational Center and Feeding Grounds. Yours for the future, Charlie the Roach, Dept. of Entomology, Hahvahd Univahsity, Cambridge ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:13:49 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Re nucular waste <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JUN-2002 9:13 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us how about a more prosaical-clinical hypothesis. really, you have to be quite an activist to believe this stuff about DU in Iraq and vis-a-vu Gulf War Syndrome: the stuff is heavy, and doesn't float in the air for long (although it seems to be more of a concern, were it to do so, chemically). how about a comparison of "cellphone cancer" with the virtual vertigo that must have been experienced by the video-game killers at Columbine? honestly, you have to find a cellular structure in the brain that could serve as an antenna (and there could be such a thing, without regard to decades of hype about electronic mindcontrol; it's called, "television" -- thank you, mister Farnsworth !-) thus quoth: > Observers commenting on the strong Arab belief, that all Jews were > warned not to go to work on 9/11, express surprise that those who are > new to the internet seem to believe if it's there, it is fact. > > No large study has ever shown the "facts" Fred cites. Researchers > express frustration in their summaries that a sizeable portion of the > health research dollar continues to go to search for evidence of what > has never been found and is unlikely to be found, and for which no > model exists. There are small studies that show such evidence. Small > studies are worthless. Also, half of public health studies go into > peer-reviewed journals and half don't. The latter category produced > the original scare stories Fred cites (and some were not generated by > anyone in public health). > Reading through what you've said I came to realize that it could be paraphrased as, "All the contradicting studies are being effectively suppressed." and your posting seems to be part of the process. that's sort-of amuzing, about the cops frying their balls with their radar detectors (of course, you meant *transmitters). --les ducs d'Anderson! http://quincy4board.homestead.com /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:15:16 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Charles J Knight Subject: Re: World Trade Center memorial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > World Trade Center memorial project, with Geodesic Dome: > > > > http://www.nycsky.com > A fitting and well conceived , yet functional memorial. This is lovely. It looks fresh, modern, imposing, and yet in harmony with the skyscrapers around it. It is also somewhat nostalgic, reminiscent of the Trylon and Perisphere at the NY World's Fair, 1929 (I believe). The very symbol of America's supremacy in the rosy future ahead. A fitting message considering we are at war with those who knocked down the towers. Who do we email -- how can we get this thing built? -- Chuck Knight ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:27:58 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Foerd Ames Subject: Re: World Trade Center memorial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1939... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles J Knight" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: Re: World Trade Center memorial > > > World Trade Center memorial project, with Geodesic Dome: > > > > > > http://www.nycsky.com > > > A fitting and well conceived , yet functional memorial. > > This is lovely. It looks fresh, modern, imposing, and yet in > harmony with the skyscrapers around it. > > It is also somewhat nostalgic, reminiscent of the Trylon and > Perisphere at the NY World's Fair, 1929 (I believe). The very > symbol of America's supremacy in the rosy future ahead. A > fitting message considering we are at war with those who knocked > down the towers. > > Who do we email -- how can we get this thing built? > > -- Chuck Knight ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:55:06 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <20020613173950.75230.qmail@web20502.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit yup. Thirteen years and I know if it were around when Bucky was younger, he would have done it. Leifur > From: Dick Fischbeck > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:39:50 -0700 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M > > Nicely put, Leifur. I share the same view about Bucky and > his work. > > About being cynical....Except for global nuclear war, I > think there is no reason to think that we won't make it in > Universe. And we may be past the realistic possibility of > global nuclear war. I hope. Things are moving faster than > ever toward full planetary integration of resources. Not > fast enough some say. > > Bucky's critical information is more readily accessible to > more people than ever before. There is even a search > function now for Synergetics. I don't think we lost any > info that wasn't written down before his death. I could be > wrong of course. He sure tried to get it all down! Nothing > wrong in getting the info by reading. And doing one's own > experiments. > > You hang glide? That must be fantastic. > > Dick > > --- Leifur Thor wrote: >> Thanks Tony, your right. My statement that large domes >> are stronger is >> pretty vague. All I meant to say was that the geodesic >> dome is unique among >> the history of man made structures in that "it has the >> potential to be made >> any size dependant upon the materials used" because it is >> not block on block >> conventional construction (god I hate that term). It >> really should be called >> backwards archaic construction. >> >> I'm pretty cynical though because I see things that are >> called "modern" and >> "cutting edge" like a laptop computer and all I see is an >> advanced rock and >> chisel. Something of true innovation in the area of >> communication would be >> direct download capability. As long as it's a thing we're >> reading, it's like >> a hourglass and the efficiency lies in the width of the >> thinnest part. >> >> When it comes to buildings or structures, because we are >> so inundated with >> gravity, our perception is that gravity is a vital >> component of any >> structure. Bucky's grand discovery with the geodesic dome >> I think was that >> true innovation begins with no assumptions, which would >> initial no forces at >> play in his thinking environment, i.e. like gravity. >> >> Oh and now that I may almost sound like I know what I'm >> talking about, I'm >> probably wrong because my learning from Bucky has been >> done through his >> books and his words alone. I still find the man the >> single person in my life >> who has spoken the truth the most. And my discovery of >> him happened entirely >> after his death (pattern integrity). >> >> Leifur > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:47:18 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This means angle is to shape as frequency is to size. Angle has the same relationship to shape that frequency has to size. I agree that frequency has a relationship to size. But, for instance, the term 'six frequency' exists independent of size. It gives no clue of size, just of complexity. The text below is a good one to bring up. I have inserted comments. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > Angle:shape::frequency:size. > > from-http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/terms.html. > > and, > > > 750.20 Unlimited Subdivisibility of Tensional > Components > Unlimited Subdivisibility > > 750.21 The higher the frequency, the greater > the proportion of the structure that is invested in > tensional components. Tensional components are unlimited in > length in proportion to their cross-section > diameter-to-length ratios. As we increase the frequency, > each tension member is parted into a plurality of fibers, > each of whose strength is multiplied many times per unit of > weight and section. If we increase the frequency > many times, the relative overall weight of structures > rapidly diminishes, as ratioed to any linear increase in > overall dimension of structure. This seems to state that at any practical scale a higher frequency is a more efficient use of materials. That is, a 50 ft. dome of 16v weighing the same as a 3v dome, and properly and similarly designed from the same materials, would be stronger. Also, that enlarging a dome by increasing the frequency and using the same size components (i.e.,approx. 4 ft. aluminum struts) would deliver greater efficiency. > 750.22 The only limit to frequency increase is the > logistic practicality of more functions to be serviced, but > the bigger the structure, the easier the local treatability > of high-frequency components. > 750.23 In contrast to all previous structural experience, > the law of diminishing returns is operative in the > direction of decreasing size of geodesic tensegrity > structures, and increasing return is realized in the > direction of their increasing dimensions. This of course is simply the result of the volume (third power) outpacing the surface area (second power) . Another comment below: > > --------------------- > > This sounds like Bucky is saying tensegrities gets better > performance per pound as the frequency increases. > > Dick > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>Frequency means the number of modular subdivisions of an >>icosahedron (or >>other appropriate zero frequency figure). >>Frequency is independent of size. >> >> >>Dick Fischbeck wrote: >> >> >>>I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the >>>compressional elements are, You are describing a higher frequency design with the same radius here. If frequency is size, the struts remain the same. Which do you mean? Are you subdividing components or trucking in more of them? and the more the dome is >>>invested in tension. To the extent that frequency means >>>size(and it does as far as I understand) a larger dome >>>encloses more space per unit energy/material invested. >>>Basically, more performance per pound. >>> >>>Dick >>> >>>--- Tony Kalenak wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I think you are right. >>>>The statement "large domes are stronger" is very vague. >>>> >>>>My previous email was an attempt to qualify someone >>>>else's statement. >>>>I really don't know how they meant it and in a general >>>>sense, my experience >>>>has shown the opposite (as regards resistance to >>>> >>inwardly >> >>>>directed forces). >>>> >>>>-Tony. >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET] >>>>Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:37 AM >>>>To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >>>>Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >>>> >>>>This is a statement that requires some definition. What >>>>was the precise >>>>claim, where did it come from? What exactly is meant by >>>>becoming stronger? Does being larger make a dome >>>>stronger? Or do larger >>>>domes need to be stronger? Stronger in what sense? >>>>I found something in Synergetics that sounds like it >>>>could be the >>>>source, but mostly I have heard this from non-Bucky >>>>sources such as New >>>>Dimensions Radio. Anyone who has made two domes, one >>>>considerably larger >>>>than the other, will question this claim. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >>>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Formactive: >>http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:50:18 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Synergetics 516.01 Frequency means a discrete plurality of cycles within a greater cyclic increment. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > Angle:shape::frequency:size. > > from-http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/terms.html. > > and, > > > 750.20 Unlimited Subdivisibility of Tensional > Components > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:07:37 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey Dick! I looked up Size in Synergetics. Looks like you have got something there. 528.00 Size 528.03 Size and time are synonymous. Frequency and size are the same phenomenon. -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:44:51 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: sphere clusters MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Forwarded from the other group: More numbers Spheres in Shell Total spheres 6 6 7 7 8 8,9 9 9,10 10 10,11 11 11,12 12 12,13 13 13,14 14 15,16 15 17 16 18 17 19 18 20 19 21 20 22,23 21 24,25 22 25 25 30 30 35 34 40 36 45 40 50 There are more combinations than these. But this is what I counted. I guess this is why nuclides occur. For a given number of spheres in a shell, there is a range of total spheres possible. I guess the shell has some slack in it. It can stretch like the balloon. There is probably a most preferred ratio for most shells. In other word, for example, if there are 37 spheres in a shell, it will be most comfortable with some specific number of total spheres in the pack, even though a few more or a few less will support the shell. More numbers to come. Dick --- In synergeo@y..., "dick_fischbeck" wrote: > These are some numbers I am predicting. Actual results are beginning to > follow this pattern. It is difficult to count the "shell" because some > spheres may or may not be in the shell. I don't know when a sphere > enters the shell, other than it is or isn't actually touching the skin. > I can say there have been no rattlers. > > > spheres in shell total spheres > ---------------- ------------- > 20 23 > 30 37 > 40 51 > 50 67 > 60 85 > 70 103 > 80 122 > 90 142 > 100 163 > 146 268 > 200 407 > 475 1353 > > More counting to continue. > > Dick > > --- In synergeo@y..., "dick_fischbeck" wrote: > > I'm not done with the chart yet but I counted 475 exterior spheres in a > > cluster of 1353 spheres. > > > > Did anyone count the number of external spheres in the 1000 sphere pack > > of a few months ago? > > > > Dick > > > > --- In synergeo@y..., "dick_fischbeck" wrote: > > > I am conduction an experiment. I am stuffing marbles into a balloon. I > > > am keeping track of three things: number of marbles, number of marbles > > > kissing skin, and volume by displacement. I suspect that when I get 55 > > > marbles in the balloon I will have 42 exterior ones. Just a guess. I > > > also suspect that for some n-sphere the total number of spheres > > > contained in it can vary some. > > > > > > I want to graph the ratio of exterior marbles compared to total > > > marbles. It should be second power growth to 3rd power growth > > > approximately, maybe. > > > > > > Anyone done this? > > > > > > Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:38:28 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: sphere clusters <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JUN-2002 9:38 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what in Hell is it supposed to mean, this table? you're not going to explain that? thus quoth: Spheres in Shell Total spheres 6 6 7 7 8 8,9 9 9,10 10 10,11 11 11,12 12 12,13 13 13,14 14 15,16 15 17 16 18 17 19 18 20 19 21 20 22,23 21 24,25 22 25 25 30 30 35 34 40 36 45 40 50 There are more combinations than these. But --les ducs d'Anderson@ http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:56:10 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Re: Yucca Flats <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JUN-2002 9:56 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us of course, the "inverse second-power law" that Boyle and (supposedly) Newton derived from Kepler's orbital constraints, are probably the reason why that cited British study found only 1-in-5 of the affected families were close-enough to the "high-tension pylons" to go over 400 microteslas (?), from them. I simply note a couple of intersting observations de bucky that bear onthis phenomenon of "photons" (of course, it has no bearing on particles, really, which is why I put that in quotes .-) thus quoth: myself, I'm not so much bothered as curious, but I agree it's not the place for such a discussion. On 13 Jun 2002, at 5:33, Brian Hutchings wrote: > > <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 13-JUN-2002 5:33 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > "frequency" is a term o'Bucky that is eclusively related to shape, > not size. that said, you have redyscovered an old engineering maxim, > which is related to power of an expanding spherical wave-form a la > Bucky: E/m = cc (the interior of the waveform is also known as > "timelike" in the doctrine o'Minkowski .-) --les ducs d'Anderson! http://quincy4board.homestead.com /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:09:46 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Re nucular waste <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JUN-2002 10:09 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us a primary source is UNSCEAR, the organization that was set-up to do the studies. look for "The UNSCEAR 2000 Report The Truth About Chernobyl Is Told," at http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html (about two scrolls, down). thus quoth: Are there sources to quote, as to the non-existence of birth defects in Hiroshima? On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Karen Street wrote: > Thanks to Don for the Bob Cahn article. I hadn't read it, but after > years of teaching lower division physics, one picks up some of the > basics. A surprising number of mistakes made by the general > population, health professionals, and economists are addressed in > lower division physics. in short, references to childhood thyroid cancers in the mainstream press, don't note that most of these can be attributed to "occult" tumors (that is to say, epidemiolgically expected) -- reagarding the alleged horrors of Chernobyl. --les ducs d'Anderson! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com > /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 10:27:45 +0200 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: team cqa Subject: Re: sphere clusters In-Reply-To: <200206141638.g5EGcS416650@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Isn't it terribly obvious what all this refers to? Just ask. Pancho molleja > Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 14-JUN-2002 9:38 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >=20 > what in Hell is it supposed to mean, this table? > you're not going to explain that? >=20 > thus quoth: > Spheres in Shell Total spheres > 6 6 > 7 7 > 8 8,9 > 9 9,10 > 10 10,11 > 11 11,12 > 12 12,13 > 13 13,14 > 14 15,16 > 15 17 > 16 18 > 17 19 > 18 20 > 19 21 > 20 22,23 > 21 24,25 > 22 25 > 25 30 > 30 35 > 34 40 > 36 45 > 40 50 >=20 > There are more combinations than these. But >=20 > --les ducs d'Anderson@ > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:45:15 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: sphere clusters In-Reply-To: <200206141638.g5EGcS416650@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Did the rest of the post get cut off? I think it was all there. I am counting the number if spheres in the shell of a sphere cluster and comparing this with the total number of sphres. Spheres in the shell are the ones that are in contact with the skin. The spheres are marbles. The tensional cohesion is supplied by a balloon. I also filled one balloon with bb's. There were 475 spheres in the shell and a total of 1353 spheres. --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 14-JUN-2002 9:38 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > what in Hell is it supposed to mean, this table? > you're not going to explain that? > > thus quoth: > Spheres in Shell Total spheres > 6 6 > 7 7 > 8 8,9 > 9 9,10 > 10 10,11 > 11 11,12 > 12 12,13 > 13 13,14 > 14 15,16 > 15 17 > 16 18 > 17 19 > 18 20 > 19 21 > 20 22,23 > 21 24,25 > 22 25 > 25 30 > 30 35 > 34 40 > 36 45 > 40 50 > > There are more combinations than these. > But > > --les ducs d'Anderson@ > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:13:04 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D0A3A36.4040408@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Steve Miller wrote: > This means angle is to shape as frequency is to size. > Angle has the same > relationship to shape that frequency has to size. > I agree that frequency has a relationship to size. > But, for instance, the term 'six frequency' exists > independent of size. > It gives no clue of size, just of complexity. It's the multiplier(or divider). It tells the size of the thing in relationship to the prime size. It is like when someone says, "That thing is 6 tmes bigger than that other thing." Relationship is always to some starting thing. There is always some starting thing when using the term frequency. I can't subdivide nothing, only something. That is where size begins, I think. Angle is sizeless because it is sub-cyclic. Frequency is multi-cyclic. > > The text below is a good one to bring up. I have inserted > comments. > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > Angle:shape::frequency:size. > > > > from-http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/terms.html. > > > > and, > > > > > > 750.20 Unlimited Subdivisibility of > Tensional > > Components > > > Unlimited Subdivisibility > > > > > 750.21 The higher the frequency, the > greater > > the proportion of the structure that is invested in > > tensional components. Tensional components are > unlimited in > > length in proportion to their cross-section > > diameter-to-length ratios. As we increase the > frequency, > > each tension member is parted into a plurality of > fibers, > > each of whose strength is multiplied many times per > unit of > > weight and section. If we increase the frequency > > many times, the relative overall weight of > structures > > rapidly diminishes, as ratioed to any linear increase > in > > overall dimension of structure. > > This seems to state that at any practical scale a higher > frequency is a more efficient use of materials. That is, > a 50 ft. dome > of 16v weighing the same as a 3v dome, and properly and > similarly designed from the same materials, would be > stronger. > Also, that enlarging a dome by increasing the frequency > and using the same size components (i.e.,approx. 4 ft. > aluminum struts) > would deliver greater efficiency. > > > 750.22 The only limit to frequency increase is the > > logistic practicality of more functions to be serviced, > but > > the bigger the structure, the easier the local > treatability > > of high-frequency components. > > 750.23 In contrast to all previous structural > experience, > > the law of diminishing returns is operative in the > > direction of decreasing size of geodesic tensegrity > > structures, and increasing return is realized in the > > direction of their increasing dimensions. > This of course is simply the result of the volume (third > power) outpacing the surface area (second power) . I don't think so. He says "return." Return, as in return on investment. Don't forget a box also increase in volume at the third power of lineal expansion and its surface increases at the 2nd power of same. So, Bucky is not saying box construction returns more as it gets bigger. He is speaking of how the tensegrity returns more as it increases in size. > Another comment below: > > > > --------------------- > > > > This sounds like Bucky is saying tensegrities gets > better > > performance per pound as the frequency increases. > > > > Dick > > > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > > > >>Frequency means the number of modular subdivisions of > an > >>icosahedron (or > >>other appropriate zero frequency figure). > >>Frequency is independent of size. > >> > >> > >>Dick Fischbeck wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I think the higher the frequency, the shorter the > >>>compressional elements are, > > You are describing a higher frequency design with the > same radius here. If frequency is size, the struts remain > the same. > Which do you mean? Are you subdividing components or > trucking in more of them? I mean both. Either way works and says the same thing. In the first case, were the diameter of 2 structures is equal, but one is higher frequency, the higher frequency one is more efficient(stronger per pound). In the other case, were strut size is constant, the larger structure is more efficient, too. Each pound of structure is responsible for more enclosed area, or volume, which ever you look at. Maybe we should go to numbers and do some calculations. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:16:15 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D0A3AEA.4050808@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Steve Miller wrote: > Synergetics 516.01 > Frequency means a discrete plurality of cycles within a > greater cyclic > increment. Yes, and one 'cyclic increment' gives us the prime size to multiply. Multiply by dividing, I mean. > > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > Angle:shape::frequency:size. > > > > from-http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/terms.html. > > > > and, > > > > > > 750.20 Unlimited Subdivisibility of > Tensional > > Components > > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:18:57 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] In-Reply-To: <3D0A3EF9.2000601@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Steve, we can _both_ only learn more! I know I need dialogue. --- Steve Miller wrote: > Hey Dick! > I looked up Size in Synergetics. Looks like you > have got something there. > > 528.00 Size > 528.03 Size and time are synonymous. Frequency and size > are the same > phenomenon. > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 05:15:00 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 15-JUN-2002 5:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it seems as if Bucky was "definitively talking-out-loud" about two different things, herein, the question being, Huh? I have never had any argument with the "time-size" thing, although the use of "frequency" for the division of the basic shapes -- "multiplication-only-by-division," as it were -- seems to throw a spanner intoa simple works. thus quoth: > I looked up Size in Synergetics. Looks like you > have got something there. > > 528.00 Size > 528.03 Size and time are synonymous. Frequency and size > are the same > phenomenon. > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 05:21:45 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 15-JUN-2002 5:21 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it looks as if "Dick" (I guess) beat me to it. now, who runs GRUNCH.net, if it's not Obnoxico? thus quoth: Yes, and one 'cyclic increment' gives us the prime size to multiply. Multiply by dividing, I mean. > > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > Angle:shape::frequency:size. > > > > from-http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/terms.html. > > > > and, > > > > > > 750.20 Unlimited Subdivisibility of > Tensional > > Components --les ducs d'Accenture! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:12:10 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Getting back to the 'domes get stronger as they get larger' statement: Can we define strength? It seems obvious until one tries to pin it down. What is strength? Certainly it is not the same as efficiency. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > Steve, we can _both_ only learn more! I know I need > dialogue. > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>Hey Dick! >> I looked up Size in Synergetics. Looks like you >>have got something there. >> >>528.00 Size >>528.03 Size and time are synonymous. Frequency and size >>are the same >>phenomenon. >> >> >> >>-- >>Formactive: >>http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ >> >> >>-- >>Formactive: >>http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:44:40 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Re: plydomes (was: good use of materials) Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See http://www.backhomemagazine.com/ The article by Steve Miller is called "THE FAT HELICOPTER: Plywood domes revisited" on page 36 ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The DomeHome List" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 10:31 AM Subject: re: plydomes (was: good use of materials) > From: Steve Miller > Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:13:23 -0400 > > In the latest issue of BackHome Magazine. > > The DomeHome List wrote: > > > From: nielsenp@iprimus.com.au > > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:19:47 +1000 > > > > Maybe I missed it, but where are plans for the plydome > > to be found? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Petert Nielsen > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:52:10 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome Comments: To: Alexei Pace MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexei, I'm a little confused. What do you mean by a "network" dome? A tensegrity? Geodesic domes are the most advantageous because they distribute the forces in the most efficient way. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexei Pace" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 4:25 PM Subject: network dome vs. geodesic dome > Mr Moore, > Given that a network dome has the advantage of having identical size > members along its various horizontal bands, how come it has not overpowered > the popularity of geodesic domes? > > What are the disadvantages of network domes? > > Thanks and best regards > > Alexei Pace > student > University of Malta > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:25:13 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think a network dome is a tier-on-tier design. Despite the ease of understanding such a system, it is has many more different parts than a Triacon geodesic and is structurally inferior. Joe S Moore wrote: > Alexei, > > I'm a little confused. What do you mean by a "network" dome? A tensegrity? > > Geodesic domes are the most advantageous because they distribute the forces > in the most efficient way. > > ============================== > Joe S Moore > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > ============================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alexei Pace" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 4:25 PM > Subject: network dome vs. geodesic dome > > > >>Mr Moore, >>Given that a network dome has the advantage of having identical size >>members along its various horizontal bands, how come it has not >> > overpowered > >>the popularity of geodesic domes? >> >>What are the disadvantages of network domes? >> >>Thanks and best regards >> >>Alexei Pace >>student >>University of Malta >> >> > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:16:10 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome Comments: To: Alexei Pace Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alexei, Now I understand. Don Richter, the founder of Temcor, did a study = comparing the various types of domes--Schwedler, Lattice (Network), = Lamella & Geodesic. The geodesic was clearly superior. See _The = Artifacts of R Buckminster Fuller, Volume 4_, pages 381-84 & page 389. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Alexei Pace=20 To: Joe S Moore=20 Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 11:50 PM Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome See the attached image. It's a scan from Analysis, Design and Construction of Braced Domes, by = Z.S.Makowski Regards Alexei Pace At 05:52 16/06/02, you wrote: Alexei, I'm a little confused. What do you mean by a "network" dome? A = tensegrity? Geodesic domes are the most advantageous because they distribute the = forces in the most efficient way. = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:01:40 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Charles J Knight Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I think a network dome is a tier-on-tier design. Despite the ease of > understanding such a system, it is has many more different parts > than a If this is the case, there used to be a site online, for "Stratodesic" domes. While they cited the higher number of parts as a disadvantage, they cited the fact that each tier runs parallel and horizontal as an advantage. Easier to fit standard windows and doors into that design, or so they claimed...seemed like a reasonable claim. Should be easy to find with a google search -- I'm not online right now, or I'd post the link, myself. > Triacon geodesic and is structurally inferior. It might be structurally less efficient, but how efficient do you *need* to be? They're still dome shaped, minimal surface area, more energy efficient, fully triangulated, etc, but at the cost of slightly higher complexity. (can you say CAD?) Doesn't seem like a bad tradeoff, overall. And especially as an interim solution. -- Chuck Knight ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:34:50 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is gone now. Must have collapsed. Charles J Knight wrote: >>I think a network dome is a tier-on-tier design. Despite the ease of >>understanding such a system, it is has many more different parts >>than a >> > > If this is the case, there used to be a site online, for "Stratodesic" > domes. While they cited the higher number of parts as a disadvantage, > they cited the fact that each tier runs parallel and horizontal as an > advantage. Easier to fit standard windows and doors into that design, > or so they claimed...seemed like a reasonable claim. > > Should be easy to find with a google search -- I'm not online right now, > or I'd post the link, myself. > > >>Triacon geodesic and is structurally inferior. >> > > It might be structurally less efficient, but how efficient do you *need* > to be? They're still dome shaped, minimal surface area, more energy > efficient, fully triangulated, etc, but at the cost of slightly higher > complexity. (can you say CAD?) > > Doesn't seem like a bad tradeoff, overall. And especially as an interim > solution. > > -- Chuck Knight > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:04:06 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] In-Reply-To: <3D0BC9CA.40707@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Efficiency, as in meaning 2: 1. a.The quality or property of being efficient. b.The degree to which this quality is exercised: The program was implemented with great efficiency and speed. 2. a.The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system. b.The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation. 3.An efficiency apartment. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Strength, as in meaning 3 and 7,c: 3.The power to resist strain or stress; durability. 7c.An attribute or quality of particular worth or utility; an asset. The two words, strength and efficiency, mean close to the same thing in these usages pretty much. At least as applied to structures. We could say that we can enclose more space with less material and maintain equal strength(in what ever units, like kilograms per triangle meter) as a tensegrity geodesic shelter gets larger. I agree that in saying a certain srtucture gets stronger as it gets bigger one could be construe this to be magical or something. Dick --- Steve Miller wrote: > Getting back to the 'domes get stronger as they get > larger' statement: > Can we define strength? It seems obvious until > one tries to pin it down. What is strength? Certainly it > is not the same > as efficiency. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:13:43 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Re nucular waste <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JUN-2002 7:13 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. certainly, vaporization can produce dust "as small as dezired," but the amounts are such that I doubt that anyone has every been able to detect any DU, a few miles downwind at the proper time after the "pyrophorical" event. all you have to do is look at the fractionation of gaasses in the atmosphere; uranium is *weigh* at the bottom of the list, lower than argon, were it a gas, not a particulate. anyway, we have to compare the chemical toxicity of DU to its super-hyped radioactivity, and to other heavy metals; once that is done, perhaps you get the WAND meta-study conclusions, in part. (the other boner in teh works, the "LNT" paradigm, is virtually unavoidable in these studies .-) thus quoth: The depleted Uranium used is pyrophoric, meaning it burns spontaneously on contact with air. (One of the reasons the military like it so much: It penetrates armour or bunkers and dispersed as a fine dust/gas/plasma which burns anything it comes in contact with, something like white phosphorus. It's a skeleton-maker). Anyway, the result is Uranium Oxide in very fine particles. Have you ever sat in a room on a sunny day and watched the dust floating in the still air? Well it's the same principle. The slightest breeze stirs the Uranium Oxide and disperses it. When you get that small, the particles are more affected by the Brownian movement of the air molecules around them than by gravity. This is what has concerned people worried about Afghanistan not that the summer, or dry, season is arriving. Those bunker-busting bombs have likely put tons and tons of DU into the Afghan hills, much of it below ground which will slow dispersal and help to disguise the effects, but it's there. It will contaminate the groundwater. Uranium is highly toxic chemically and also radiologically. I believe that Karen cited the general prevalence of uranium in the soil, also. as a matter of fact, uranium sands in a huge swath from Baja to Tennessee, were the first primary sources for mining, I think. (Hamaker says that it was the result of a catastrophic tectonic event, like a ridge meeting a trench, that blew-up a continuation of the Sierra Madre, now the Gulf de Baja; that is to say, a fissile one.) --les ducs d'Anderson! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:14:49 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Friends talk about scientists <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JUN-2002 7:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. nothing could be more persuasive than local events, as in Alaska. even here, though, the predominance of populations on the periphery, mostly on the coast, should make one consider the differential effects, which are really quite considerable. however, only really in further considering the interior of the continent, which happens to be Canadian (the Inuit are indeginous to both climes, of course). this pericoastal "problem" is nothing that is new, and the Canadians actually are probably somewhat more aware of it, massed as they are upon our border! the stuff about the sea-ice, while intersting, of course, has no bearing on sea-level, and thereby is more prone to these climatic shifts; tempis fugit. the stuff about glaciers has always been prone to this selective process, with most of the contitnental interior glaciers unmeasured, but in this century, and the reporting about them in more spectatularly selective (or propogandistic) mode (or cartoon-mode, as in newspaper cut-and-paste graphics). thus quoth: Also see Now, in Alaska, Even the Permafrost Is Melting (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/national/16ALAS.html). The temperature there increased 7 F in the early 1970s, and has remained stable. Temperatures may go up 18 F more this century. This article describes what Alaska is experiencing. While EPA points out occasional positives: 'climate change would bring a longer growing season and open ice-free seas in the Arctic for shipping.... 'Dr. Glenn Juday, an authority on climate change at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. "We're experiencing indisputable climate warming. The positive changes from this take a long time, but the negative changes are happening real fast."' When some (primarily economists) talk about the positive effect increased carbon will have on growing rates, scientists counter that not enough is known to make this prediction, insects, for example, could be a problem. Alaska is finding this to be the case. --les ducs d'Anderson! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:15:38 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: plydomes (was: good use of materials) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JUN-2002 7:15 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. you have to buy the magazine, but you can see a picture of the Phatcopter Domes at http://www.backhomemagazine.com/BackHome_articles.html -- some other articles are readable online, though. thus quoth: The article by Steve Miller is called "THE FAT HELICOPTER: Plywood domes revisited" --les ducs d'Anderson! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:17:07 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Strep Throat (30th Anni.v -- the Post Sucks !-) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JUN-2002 7:17 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what about Strep Throat -- are you it? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:17:19 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Efficiency is a complex a/b term: miles/gallon, sq ft. of coverage/gallon, performance per pound. Strength is a simple measure of 'opposition to force'. The meanings are quite different. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > Efficiency, as in meaning 2: > > 1. > a.The quality or property of being efficient. > b.The degree to which this quality is exercised: > The program was implemented with great > efficiency and speed. > 2. > a.The ratio of the effective or useful output to > the total input in any system. > b.The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine > to the energy supplied for its operation. > 3.An efficiency apartment. > > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English > Language, Fourth Edition > Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > Strength, as in meaning 3 and 7,c: > > 3.The power to resist strain or stress; durability. > > 7c.An attribute or quality of particular worth or > utility; an asset. > > The two words, strength and efficiency, mean close to the > same thing in these usages pretty much. At least as applied > to structures. > > We could say that we can enclose more space with less > material and maintain equal strength(in what ever units, > like kilograms per triangle meter) as a tensegrity geodesic > shelter gets larger. > > I agree that in saying a certain srtucture gets stronger as > it gets bigger one could be construe this to be magical or > something. > > Dick > > > > > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>Getting back to the 'domes get stronger as they get >>larger' statement: >>Can we define strength? It seems obvious until >>one tries to pin it down. What is strength? Certainly it >>is not the same >>as efficiency. >> >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:53:37 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Re: [geodesic dome homes] I Want One Comments: To: sarillia87120@yahoo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Sarah, I, too, am a junior senior citizen who has been interested in the works of Buckminster Fuller since 1970. For tons of information about geodesic domes see the following section of my Master Index: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Dome-Dt.htm If you use the search function at the bottom of my home page you should get 27 hits for "New Mexico". ============================== Joe S Moore Tucson, AZ joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah Johnson" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:51 PM Subject: [geodesic dome homes] I Want One > > Hi - I'm not your typical geo-techie. I'm a 58 yr. old single woman who has wanted to build (or have built) a dome home for over 25 years. I'm nearing retirement and am even more sure this is what I want. So - I'll just listen in, get some tips (hopefully) and continue my quest. Would enjoy hearing from any of you. By the way I'm in New Mexico and nearby dealers are non-existent. BUT - the quest goes on. > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:09:20 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] In-Reply-To: <3D0D2A8F.5080201@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Okay, different. If, as a tensegrity structure gets larger, we keep the weight to volume ratio constant, the structure's capability to oppose force increases. --- Steve Miller wrote: > Efficiency is a complex a/b term: miles/gallon, sq ft. of > coverage/gallon, performance per pound. Strength is a > simple measure of > 'opposition to force'. The > meanings are quite different. > > Dick Fischbeck wrote: > > > Efficiency, as in meaning 2: > > > > 1. > > a.The quality or property of being efficient. > > b.The degree to which this quality is > exercised: > > The program was implemented with great > > efficiency and speed. > > 2. > > a.The ratio of the effective or useful output > to > > the total input in any system. > > b.The ratio of the energy delivered by a > machine > > to the energy supplied for its operation. > > 3.An efficiency apartment. > > > > > > Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the > English > > Language, Fourth Edition > > Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. > > > > Strength, as in meaning 3 and 7,c: > > > > 3.The power to resist strain or stress; durability. > > > > 7c.An attribute or quality of particular worth or > > utility; an asset. > > > > The two words, strength and efficiency, mean close to > the > > same thing in these usages pretty much. At least as > applied > > to structures. > > > > We could say that we can enclose more space with less > > material and maintain equal strength(in what ever > units, > > like kilograms per triangle meter) as a tensegrity > geodesic > > shelter gets larger. > > > > I agree that in saying a certain srtucture gets > stronger as > > it gets bigger one could be construe this to be magical > or > > something. > > > > Dick > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > > > >>Getting back to the 'domes get stronger as they get > >>larger' statement: > >>Can we define strength? It seems obvious until > >>one tries to pin it down. What is strength? Certainly > it > >>is not the same > >>as efficiency. > >> > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:14:58 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [geodesic dome homes] I Want One In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sarah, have you made models? Do you want help in that department? Or do you just want a dome delivered finished? You could start with a small plydome for the backyard. See July's Backhome magazine for Steve's 18 footer. Dick --- Joe S Moore wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I, too, am a junior senior citizen who has been > interested in the works of > Buckminster Fuller since 1970. For tons of information > about geodesic domes > see the following section of my Master Index: > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Dome-Dt.htm > > If you use the search function at the bottom of my home > page you should get > 27 hits for "New Mexico". > > ============================== > Joe S Moore > Tucson, AZ > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > ============================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sarah Johnson" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 2:51 PM > Subject: [geodesic dome homes] I Want One > > > > Hi - I'm not your typical geo-techie. I'm a 58 yr. old > single woman who > has wanted to build (or have built) a dome home for over > 25 years. I'm > nearing retirement and am even more sure this is what I > want. So - I'll > just listen in, get some tips (hopefully) and continue my > quest. Would > enjoy hearing from any of you. By the way I'm in New > Mexico and nearby > dealers are non-existent. BUT - the quest goes on. > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:37:18 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit When I travelled in Mexico, my wife and I were often approached by vendors displaying their wares and saying "Fina,fina." Of course they were referring to the fineness of their merchandise, be it woven goods or tequila (muscatel?). I think were are discussing the same concept. Fineness. High frequency. Only unlike a tapestry or piece of cloth woven of fine thread, we have a complex, space enclosing figure. Independent of size, higher frequency means higher performance. We see this in steel cables, where the same amount of steel, divided into finer wires, will make a significantly stronger cable. The reason for this is that splitting the fibers into more and finer parts exposes greater surface area. More of the steel is working in tension. Less of the steel is being squeezed inside the wire. Precession. But we are also enclosing space! Other types of construction do not have the option to continually use short spans to such advantage, and eventually become impractical. And there is an inherent depth of trussing because of the compound curvature. The geodesic dome just keeps on increasing frequency. It need never lose the advantage of short spans. But I still want to know where the original claim comes from. The paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the closest I have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I heard it on the New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not Bucky. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > Okay, different. > > If, as a tensegrity structure gets larger, we keep the > weight to volume ratio constant, the structure's capability > to oppose force increases. > > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>Efficiency is a complex a/b term: miles/gallon, sq ft. of >>coverage/gallon, performance per pound. Strength is a >>simple measure of >>'opposition to force'. The >>meanings are quite different. >> >>Dick Fischbeck wrote: >> >> >>>Efficiency, as in meaning 2: >>> >>> 1. >>> a.The quality or property of being efficient. >>> b.The degree to which this quality is >>> >>exercised: >> >>>The program was implemented with great >>> efficiency and speed. >>> 2. >>> a.The ratio of the effective or useful output >>> >>to >> >>>the total input in any system. >>> b.The ratio of the energy delivered by a >>> >>machine >> >>>to the energy supplied for its operation. >>> 3.An efficiency apartment. >>> >>> >>> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the >>> >>English >> >>>Language, Fourth Edition >>> Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. >>> >>>Strength, as in meaning 3 and 7,c: >>> >>> 3.The power to resist strain or stress; durability. >>> >>> 7c.An attribute or quality of particular worth or >>>utility; an asset. >>> >>>The two words, strength and efficiency, mean close to >>> >>the >> >>>same thing in these usages pretty much. At least as >>> >>applied >> >>>to structures. >>> >>>We could say that we can enclose more space with less >>>material and maintain equal strength(in what ever >>> >>units, >> >>>like kilograms per triangle meter) as a tensegrity >>> >>geodesic >> >>>shelter gets larger. >>> >>>I agree that in saying a certain srtucture gets >>> >>stronger as >> >>>it gets bigger one could be construe this to be magical >>> >>or >> >>>something. >>> >>>Dick >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>--- Steve Miller wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Getting back to the 'domes get stronger as they get >>>>larger' statement: >>>>Can we define strength? It seems obvious until >>>>one tries to pin it down. What is strength? Certainly >>>> >>it >> >>>>is not the same >>>>as efficiency. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >>>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Formactive: >>http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:55:46 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JUN-2002 5:55 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us yes, but the inherent curvature is less per strut-length at larger 'frequencies' at a given diameter; the simplest example (I guess) being a bubble, which is a single layer of water & surfacant, and superflexible. thus qtuoh: Other types of construction do not have the option to continually use short spans to such advantage, and eventually become impractical. And there is an inherent depth of trussing because of the compound curvature. The geodesic dome just keeps on increasing frequency. It need never lose the advantage of short spans. --les ducs d'Anderson! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 06:18:40 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Friends talk about scientists <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JUN-2002 6:18 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I fond Sunday's NYT with front page article on Alaska (and there was an earlier one, much like it, about 2 weeks ago, in the LATimes -- "the sky is glowing" !-) interstingly, the strange & well-known (but wholly unexplained) anomaly of the "overall" warming is shown on that first page of the article, but is not mentioned, past the presentation of the raw figures. alone, statistically, it must be more than one "SD" off o'the map! in other words, that anomoly shows that the warming is any thing *but* global, in the sense of my usage, here, which is the commonplace one that is meant in the science press, popular, AAAS or what ever. thus saith: the stuff about the sea-ice, while intersting, of course, has no bearing on sea-level, and thereby is more prone to these climatic shifts; tempis fugit. the stuff about glaciers has always been prone to this selective process, with most of the contitnental interior glaciers unmeasured, but in this century, and the reporting about them in more spectatularly selective (or propogandistic) mode (or cartoon-mode, as in newspaper cut-and-paste graphics). thus quoth: Also see Now, in Alaska, Even the Permafrost Is Melting (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/national/16ALAS.html). The temperature there increased 7 F in the early 1970s, and has remained the latter is the "average" figure, and thus doesn't reveal the anomaly (sp.?). --les ducs d'Anderson! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ /Funny.html (geometry, politics & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 06:39:59 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Re nucular waste <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JUN-2002 6:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I found a brief piece in (Friday's) Wall St. J., about Fiat selling their energy concern to another Italian co., who wanted to make energy in France, later -- because nuclear power is illegal in Italy. the absurdity of our own policy, with the mothballing of Hanford, is notable. after all, how much DU, the primary uranium constituent of the ore, by a long shot, would be used as shell-casings, if it were being used to make energy? perhaps, there won't be any, anyway, because (apparently) the reprocessing facilities to refine DU from the "spent" fuelrods are not being used; it's just waste for Yucca Flats, or a present to the Governor of S.Carolina. one good thing is that, accoring to the paper, the Mayor's Conference folks did not vote to oppose Yucca Flats, per se, but to make sure that the transportation was adequately safe. (I wonder if *my* Mayor got a word in, and what it'd have been.) Strep Throat, 30-year Anniv. Conclusion: the Washington Post REALLY Sucks. --les ducs d'Anderson! > >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:34:32 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The original geodesic patent suggests that the type of domes we build (small, single layer) peter out at small diameters because of either the long spans required or the lack of curvature in high frequency single layer designs. The intermediate rumply domes work for a while as the scale increases(with Bucky's specific design, 50-140 ft.), but after that a complete inner and outer dome with connectors is required. This is really the kind of dome that makes this discussion relevant. There is a dirigible hangar in Akron made with complex, deeply trussed metal arches that is so large in scale a collection of some of the world's big domes would fit inside. Designed by aircraft engineers and made in the early part of the last century, it is of light and durable construction. Apply this kind of thinking to a geodesic- and get an idea of what could be done with geodesics if there were the will to do it. Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JUN-2002 5:55 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > yes, but the inherent curvature is less per strut-length > at larger 'frequencies' at a given diameter; > the simplest example (I guess) being a bubble, > which is a single layer of water & surfacant, > and superflexible. > > thus qtuoh: > Other types of construction do not have the option to continually use > short spans to such advantage, and eventually become impractical. And > there is an inherent depth of trussing because of the compound curvature. > The geodesic dome just keeps on increasing frequency. It need never lose > the advantage of short spans. > > --les ducs d'Anderson! > >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:16:25 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] In-Reply-To: <20020617150920.30216.qmail@web20508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks Dick. I think that's the best explanation of the theory of how a geodesic gets stronger as it gets larger I've read yet. Leifur > From: Dick Fischbeck > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:09:20 -0700 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] > > Okay, different. > > If, as a tensegrity structure gets larger, we keep the > weight to volume ratio constant, the structure's capability > to oppose force increases. > > --- Steve Miller wrote: >> Efficiency is a complex a/b term: miles/gallon, sq ft. of >> coverage/gallon, performance per pound. Strength is a >> simple measure of >> 'opposition to force'. The >> meanings are quite different. >> >> Dick Fischbeck wrote: >> >>> Efficiency, as in meaning 2: >>> >>> 1. >>> a.The quality or property of being efficient. >>> b.The degree to which this quality is >> exercised: >>> The program was implemented with great >>> efficiency and speed. >>> 2. >>> a.The ratio of the effective or useful output >> to >>> the total input in any system. >>> b.The ratio of the energy delivered by a >> machine >>> to the energy supplied for its operation. >>> 3.An efficiency apartment. >>> >>> >>> Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the >> English >>> Language, Fourth Edition >>> Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. >>> >>> Strength, as in meaning 3 and 7,c: >>> >>> 3.The power to resist strain or stress; durability. >>> >>> 7c.An attribute or quality of particular worth or >>> utility; an asset. >>> >>> The two words, strength and efficiency, mean close to >> the >>> same thing in these usages pretty much. At least as >> applied >>> to structures. >>> >>> We could say that we can enclose more space with less >>> material and maintain equal strength(in what ever >> units, >>> like kilograms per triangle meter) as a tensegrity >> geodesic >>> shelter gets larger. >>> >>> I agree that in saying a certain srtucture gets >> stronger as >>> it gets bigger one could be construe this to be magical >> or >>> something. >>> >>> Dick >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- Steve Miller wrote: >>> >>>> Getting back to the 'domes get stronger as they get >>>> larger' statement: >>>> Can we define strength? It seems obvious until >>>> one tries to pin it down. What is strength? Certainly >> it >>>> is not the same >>>> as efficiency. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________ >>> Do You Yahoo!? >>> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup >>> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Formactive: >> http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:22:58 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <3D0E47D8.3070609@sover.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I think the duel layer using ultra thin membrane material is far more efficient, having the effect of a duel pane window has in conserving heat and creating a membrane in between the inner and outer. I can't help wonder what other pluses come from this type of (two layer) dome... Leifur > From: Steve Miller > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:34:32 -0400 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M >=20 > The original geodesic patent suggests that the type of domes we build > (small, single layer) peter out at small diameters > because of either the long spans required or the lack of curvature in > high frequency single layer designs. > The intermediate rumply domes work for a while as the scale > increases(with Bucky's specific design, 50-140 ft.), but after that a > complete inner and outer dome with > connectors is required. This is really the kind of dome that makes this > discussion relevant. >=20 > There is a dirigible hangar in Akron made with complex, deeply trussed > metal arches that is so large in scale a collection of some of the > world's big domes would fit inside. Designed by aircraft engineers and > made in the early part of the last century, it is of light and durable > construction. > Apply this kind of thinking to a geodesic- and get an idea of what could > be done with geodesics if there were the will to do it. >=20 > Brian Hutchings wrote: >=20 >> <> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 17-JUN-2002 5:55 >> r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >>=20 >> yes, but the inherent curvature is less per strut-length >> at larger 'frequencies' at a given diameter; >> the simplest example (I guess) being a bubble, >> which is a single layer of water & surfacant, >> and superflexible. >>=20 >> thus qtuoh: >> Other types of construction do not have the option to continually use >> short spans to such advantage, and eventually become impractical. And >> there is an inherent depth of trussing because of the compound curvature= . >> The geodesic dome just keeps on increasing frequency. It need never lose >> the advantage of short spans. >>=20 >> --les ducs d'Anderson! >>>> http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:25:52 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JUN-2002 5:25 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us this is almost a meaningless (verbal) construct, since weight & volume vary one-to-one, for a given shape. it's the same problem, though, as "building a dinosaur" for lunch. thus quoth: > If, as a tensegrity structure gets larger, we keep the > weight to volume ratio constant, the structure's capability > to oppose force increases. --les ducs d'Anderson! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:39:31 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Generational perspectives <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JUN-2002 5:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us however, except in those crises, the "international coverage" in the USA is really, primarily British, via Reuters and BBC (esp. PBS, television & radio, via a roll-call of plutarchic foundations), or Hollinger et al (ad vomitorium). I just dyscovered that teh US Postal Service is distributing those "1025 FREE HOURS on AOL" CDs, with their imprimatur on it; this is the company that's brought us the wholly British productions of Austin Powers, Harry the Potter and the Lord of the Rings, which can readily be considered as "faith based initiatives" of the HBE (f.k.a.; see the two books that deconstruct Harry for the great unwashed; _The Sorcerer's Companion_ is the better one, but there were at least a couple of things in the latest one, that weren't in it) ... a.k.a. The Blair Witch Project. thus quoth: where this applies. U.S. media, for example, do very poorly covering developments in the world that don't in some way engage U.S. short-term interests or involve Americans. The exception is when there is a crisis, as --les ducs d'Anderson! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:24:02 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Leifur- Have you seen the dome construction technique that I have been calling randome construction? Check out these pictures at: http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?Page=5 http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?Page=6 http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?Page=7 In spite of Brian "LaRouche" Hutching's constant whining, I think this method shows promise as an accessible ultra-low-cost hi-tech mass-producible home/dwelling possibility. Dick --- Leifur Thor wrote: > I think the duel layer using ultra thin membrane material > is far more > efficient, having the effect of a duel pane window has in > conserving heat > and creating a membrane in between the inner and outer. I > can't help wonder > what other pluses come from this type of (two layer) > dome... > > Leifur > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:00:09 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: irregular structure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Fantastic picture. http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~nj2t-hg/lpnet3s.jpg Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:17:23 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JUN-2002 12:17 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us why does it matter?... when the current editor and managing one came to the local "left" bookstore to tout there book on The Media, I asked them if they thought that Schlessinger had referred to what's-her-name; they stumbled over themselves to rponounce the notion, absurd. see what you think. it's the long sky-blue "banner" on my page, http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ -- but here's the text, for comparison: Dear Editor of a L.A. Local Free Paper, please, if you need, consider this as a letter-to-you-but-in-two-parts, with sub/heads added for emphasis; 'Strep Throat,' Sir Henry, Bradlee, Woodward et al ad Vomitorium: They Suck Horses; Won't They? A 30th Anniversary Boycott (Copyr. June, 2002 by Brian Quincy Hutchings) Linda Lovelace is dead; long live Strep Throat! Please, don't use the porn-star's real name, nor her dreadful sobriquet, for her sake & this author's hang-ups'. "ST" will be the abbreviation, for now. It must also be forthwith noted that Bob Woodward, in his rtle of go-between with ST, didn't say when after ST died, he'd unmask him, as cagey as that may be. (Didn't Bob work for military intelligence, before his career as a proverbial "fly on the wall" of contemporary history?) As much as it can be likened to a proving-grounds for writers of prehistorical novels - not in the "Clan of the Cave Bear" sense - the giant sucking-sound that's reverberated for 30 years from the Washington Post deserves a hard come-uppance, from the current management and Bob 'Laryngitis' W. After all, why should the Secret Tapes be thoroughly outed, still, when these folks have yet to reveal a key player in the downfall of Dick Nixon? So, my main reading on Watergate is a past perusal of the paperback of Haldeman, and a recent happenstance finding of the paperback of All the President's Men, spent cross-referencing "ST" in the index. (None of John Dean's access to the 900-page manuscript; I was only thirteen in '74. The most important thing noted by Haldeman is his assertion: the President's references to the "Bay of Pigs" were really pointed to Kennedy's murder; check that, and hold the dramatic re-inactment of the missing 18' in abeyance, Bob Sheer.) All of the President's Zen If there is no historical necessity in exposing the Watergate Gasbag, ST, such may reside in the easily-documented other shenanigans of a man, who is still an occasional, gravelly voice in the news, as an aspect of his vast "influence-peddling" oeuvre. He could easily have been the, or the most-frequent, source for whatever real or imagined "cut-out," who may've played that ugly thing, ST. In other words, who knows whether Woodward knows, at all? (If not, the compunction resides solely with Bob, and the revelation also may so-rest, if not without the duress of death.) Clearly, if it wasn't our former Secretary of State - who's been wanted in Italy on a criminal matter, and in Chile, recently, at the civil court - himself, in the setpiece DC garage, he still certainly could have been the main source for the trench-coated would-be insider of the Nixon entourage. If that is clear, now, in the second & last installment of this mini-exposi, we're going to have to get a ways into that other would-be victim of the Plumbers cubano, the smuggler of the illustrious "Pentagon Papers." Unfortunately, in the mainstream press, just as with the run-up to the 2000 elections with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's then-found matching of monetary heft with the "R" one, one of the worst aspects of the Nixon-Kissinger policies is ne'er mentioned: the abandonment of a (gold) standard for "floating rates of exchange." (Sir Henry's last official & nefarious appearance was on the President's Financial Intelligence Advisory Board of Sir George Bush.) Carl Wasn't in the Garage (or Did He Act Like ST?) That's clear from the book, so Bernstein can be the Good Cop (please?). Howsoever, one can dismiss John Dean's cow-towing to Bob's "midwestern values" as irrelevant, just as John's salon.com teaser for an "e-book" shows, he won't narrowed the line-up to one individual just as it highlights, how ST was so-often wrong (this is all that I've read of John's). Bob's persistent authorial modus operandum, the ubiquity of the fly-on-the-wall (sometimes known as "a bug"), subtly confirms the eulogy, quoted in the papers, of Arthur Schlessinger, Jr., in saying that Katherine Graham might have noted ST's funerial presence. But, this may not depend upon getting the full guestlist, and via his own place in the Kennedy Administration (where he saw Sir Henry's quick ushering-out-the-door, for which all of us may be so happy), Schlessinger well-knew of these internal & external relations, as with media. For, nota bene, the sole physical description by Bob of ST is, he smoked (cigarettes: the clichi de boudoir presents itself; oui?) --les ducs d'Anderson! http://quincy4board.homestead.com /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:20:44 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Foerd Ames Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What has this to do with RBF? If nothing, would you please consider getting to some semblance of appropriate topic? Thanks. Foerd Ames Ocean Wave Energy Company 20 Burnside Street Bristol, RI 02809 USA email: foerd@owec.com web site: www.owec.com voice and fax: 401-253-4488 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hutchings" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:17 PM Subject: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JUN-2002 12:17 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > why does it matter?... > when the current editor and managing one came > to the local "left" bookstore to tout there book > on The Media, I asked them if they thought that > Schlessinger had referred to what's-her-name; > they stumbled over themselves to rponounce the notion, > absurd. see what you think. > it's the long sky-blue "banner" on my page, > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ -- but > here's the text, for comparison: > > Dear Editor of a L.A. Local Free Paper, please, if you need, > consider this as a letter-to-you-but-in-two-parts, > with sub/heads added for emphasis; > > 'Strep Throat,' Sir Henry, Bradlee, Woodward et al > ad Vomitorium: They Suck Horses; Won't They? > A 30th Anniversary Boycott (Copyr. June, 2002 by Brian Quincy Hutchings) > > Linda Lovelace is dead; long live Strep Throat! > Please, don't use the porn-star's real name, nor her dreadful > sobriquet, > for her sake & this author's hang-ups'. "ST" will be the abbreviation, > for now. It must also be forthwith noted that Bob Woodward, > in his rtle of go-between with ST, didn't say when after ST died, > he'd unmask him, as cagey as that may be. (Didn't Bob work > for military intelligence, before his career as a proverbial "fly > on the wall" of contemporary history?) > As much as it can be likened to a proving-grounds for writers > of prehistorical novels - not in the "Clan of the Cave Bear" sense - > the giant sucking-sound that's reverberated for 30 years > from the Washington Post deserves a hard come-uppance, > from the current management and Bob 'Laryngitis' W. After all, > why should the Secret Tapes be thoroughly outed, still, when > these folks have yet to reveal a key player in the downfall of Dick Nixon? > So, my main reading on Watergate is a past perusal of the paperback > of Haldeman, and a recent happenstance finding of the paperback > of All the President's Men, spent cross-referencing "ST" in the index. > (None of John Dean's access to the 900-page manuscript; I was only thirteen > in '74. The most important thing noted by Haldeman is his assertion: the > President's references to the "Bay of Pigs" were really pointed > to Kennedy's murder; check that, and hold the dramatic re-inactment > of the missing 18' in abeyance, Bob Sheer.) > > All of the President's Zen > > If there is no historical necessity in exposing the Watergate Gasbag, ST, > such may reside in the easily-documented other shenanigans of a man, > who is still an occasional, gravelly voice in the news, as an aspect > of his vast "influence-peddling" oeuvre. He could easily have been the, > or > the most-frequent, source for whatever real or imagined "cut-out," > who may've played that ugly thing, ST. In other words, > who knows whether Woodward knows, at all? > (If not, the compunction resides solely with Bob, and > the revelation also may so-rest, if not without the duress of death.) > Clearly, if it wasn't our former Secretary of State - > who's been wanted in Italy on a criminal matter, and in Chile, recently, > at the civil court - himself, in the setpiece DC garage, he still > certainly could > have been the main source for the trench-coated would-be insider > of the Nixon entourage. If that is clear, now, in the second & last > installment of this mini-exposi, we're going to have to get a ways > into that other would-be victim of the Plumbers cubano, > the smuggler of the illustrious "Pentagon Papers." > Unfortunately, in the mainstream press, just as with the run-up > to the 2000 elections with the Democratic Congressional Campaign > Committee's then-found matching of monetary heft with the "R" one, > one of the worst aspects of the Nixon-Kissinger policies is ne'er > mentioned: the abandonment of a (gold) standard for "floating rates of > exchange." > (Sir Henry's last official & nefarious appearance was > on the President's Financial Intelligence Advisory Board > of Sir George Bush.) > > Carl Wasn't in the Garage (or Did He Act Like ST?) > > That's clear from the book, so Bernstein can be the Good Cop (please?). > Howsoever, one can dismiss John Dean's cow-towing to Bob's "midwestern > values" as irrelevant, just as John's salon.com teaser for an "e-book" > shows, > he won't narrowed the line-up to one individual just as it highlights, > how ST was so-often wrong (this is all that I've read of John's). > Bob's persistent authorial modus operandum, the ubiquity of the > fly-on-the-wall (sometimes known as "a bug"), subtly confirms the eulogy, > quoted in the papers, of Arthur Schlessinger, Jr., in saying that > Katherine Graham might have noted ST's funerial presence. But, > this may not depend upon getting the full guestlist, and via his own place > in the Kennedy Administration (where he saw Sir Henry's quick > ushering-out-the-door, for which all of us may be so happy), Schlessinger > well-knew > of these internal & external relations, as with media. > For, nota bene, the sole physical description by Bob of ST is, > he smoked (cigarettes: the clichi de boudoir presents itself; oui?) > > --les ducs d'Anderson! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com > /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:17:19 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dave Buck Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] In-Reply-To: <3D0E103E.2050606@sover.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable > But I still want to know where the original claim comes from. The > paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the closest I > have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I heard it on the > New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not Bucky. >=20 One place the quote or statement in question is found is in Cosmography, page 14, =B3In 1954 I patented the geodesic dome, a new structural system tha= t solved centuries-old architectural problems of enclosing space and spanning distance. The =8Comnitriangulated=B9 structural principle of the geodesic dome was described by the American Institute of Architects, in their Gold Medal citation, as =8Cthe strongest, lightest, and most efficient means of enclosin= g space yet devised by man.=8C It is the only structure we know of that gets stronger as it gets larger and has no limit to its span.=B2 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:15:34 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Touch=E9 Now, how did he justify his statement ? What exactly did he mean by the statement " It is the only structure we = know of that gets stronger as it gets larger" ? -Tony. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Buck [mailto:dbuck44@SILCON.COM]=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:17 PM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] > But I still want to know where the original claim comes from. The > paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the closest I > have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I heard it on the > New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not Bucky. >=20 One place the quote or statement in question is found is in = Cosmography, page 14, =B3In 1954 I patented the geodesic dome, a new structural = system that solved centuries-old architectural problems of enclosing space and = spanning distance. The OEomnitriangulated=B9 structural principle of the = geodesic dome was described by the American Institute of Architects, in their Gold = Medal citation, as OEthe strongest, lightest, and most efficient means of enclosing space yet devised by man.OE It is the only structure we know of that = gets stronger as it gets larger and has no limit to its span.=B2 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:27:05 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit That was a statememt by the architects, not Bucky. Tony Kalenak wrote: > Touché > Now, how did he justify his statement ? > What exactly did he mean by the statement " It is the only structure we know > of that gets > stronger as it gets larger" ? > > > -Tony. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Buck [mailto:dbuck44@SILCON.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:17 PM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] > > >>But I still want to know where the original claim comes from. The >>paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the closest I >>have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I heard it on the >>New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not Bucky. >> >> > > One place the quote or statement in question is found is in Cosmography, > page 14, ³In 1954 I patented the geodesic dome, a new structural system that > solved centuries-old architectural problems of enclosing space and spanning > distance. The OEomnitriangulated¹ structural principle of the geodesic dome > was described by the American Institute of Architects, in their Gold Medal > citation, as OEthe strongest, lightest, and most efficient means of > enclosing > space yet devised by man.OE It is the only structure we know of that gets > stronger as it gets larger and has no limit to its span.² > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:37:26 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why would Bucky let them get away with saying such a thing much less inscribing it on a medal if it wasn't true? (Of course, that is not a proof of the validity of the statement, just = an inconsistency.) -----Original Message----- From: Steve Miller [mailto:triorbtl@SOVER.NET]=20 Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 9:27 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] That was a statememt by the architects, not Bucky. Tony Kalenak wrote: > Touch=E9 > Now, how did he justify his statement ? > What exactly did he mean by the statement " It is the only structure = we know > of that gets > stronger as it gets larger" ? > > > -Tony. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Buck [mailto:dbuck44@SILCON.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:17 PM > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] > > >>But I still want to know where the original claim comes from. The >>paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the closest I >>have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I heard it on the >>New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not Bucky. >> >> > > One place the quote or statement in question is found is in = Cosmography, > page 14, =B3In 1954 I patented the geodesic dome, a new structural = system that > solved centuries-old architectural problems of enclosing space and spanning > distance. The OEomnitriangulated=B9 structural principle of the = geodesic dome > was described by the American Institute of Architects, in their Gold = Medal > citation, as OEthe strongest, lightest, and most efficient means of > enclosing > space yet devised by man.OE It is the only structure we know of that = gets > stronger as it gets larger and has no limit to its span.=B2 > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:41:58 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) In-Reply-To: <002a01c21759$808dcca0$d30ff7a5@energy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Goooood luuuuuuck... --- Foerd Ames wrote: > What has this to do with RBF? If nothing, would you > please consider getting > to some semblance of appropriate topic? Thanks. > > > Foerd Ames > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:46:16 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] In-Reply-To: <3D1094B9.4030002@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii No, Steve, check the book. It is outside the quotations. Dick --- Steve Miller wrote: > That was a statememt by the architects, not Bucky. > > Tony Kalenak wrote: > > > Touché > > Now, how did he justify his statement ? > > What exactly did he mean by the statement " It is the > only structure we know > > of that gets > > stronger as it gets larger" ? > > > > > > -Tony. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Buck [mailto:dbuck44@SILCON.COM] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:17 PM > > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E > . C O M] > > > > > >>But I still want to know where the original claim comes > from. The > >>paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the > closest I > >>have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I > heard it on the > >>New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not > Bucky. > >> > >> > > > > One place the quote or statement in question is found > is in Cosmography, > > page 14, 3In 1954 I patented the geodesic dome, a new > structural system that > > solved centuries-old architectural problems of > enclosing space and spanning > > distance. The OEomnitriangulated1 structural principle > of the geodesic dome > > was described by the American Institute of Architects, > in their Gold Medal > > citation, as OEthe strongest, lightest, and most > efficient means of > > enclosing > > space yet devised by man.OE It is the only structure > we know of that gets > > stronger as it gets larger and has no limit to its > span.2 > > > > > > > -- > Formactive: > http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:05:10 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] In-Reply-To: <2F175DC588EFD211B37C0060088FAC393135DE@pscserver3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cosmography, page 180. "Doubling the size of the pneumatic or tensegrity sphere reduces to one-quarter the surface enclosure stress occasioned by an external force impingement of a given magnitude." Not that I completely understand this. But this is not about the ratio of surface to volume. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:18:07 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: shipping container homes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The box option. http://www.gbs-gpc.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:47:37 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This just means that a given force-e.g., a falling tree branch or a misdirected hangglider- will stress a larger dome less (assuming tensegrity force dissipation ability) than a smaller one, because of its larger surface area to absorb it. The force remains the same, the dome is larger. The significant effect of the force is absorbed by a smaller percentage of the domes area. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > Cosmography, page 180. > > "Doubling the size of the pneumatic or tensegrity sphere > reduces to one-quarter the surface enclosure stress > occasioned by an external force impingement of a given > magnitude." > > Not that I completely understand this. But this is not > about the ratio of surface to volume. > > Dick > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:21:45 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JUN-2002 11:21 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what does it have to do with Bucky? have you read any of his historical stuff, as in Critical Path and so on? I've been trying to present a counter to this stuff, which is clearly influenced by Arnold Toynbee et al, via his hanging-around Princeton (because of Einstein, I think.) I'm happy to dyscuss anything geometrical & so on, of course! thus quoth: What has this to do with RBF? If nothing, would you please consider getting to some semblance of appropriate topic? Thanks. --les ducs d'Anderson! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') incidentally, UCSB has spun-out an Institute of Contemporary History, which puts it smack-dab near the new BFI joint. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:27:06 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M]] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is really a complex situation. Domes can reach scales that make tiny the threats to normal buildings. The largeness can work in different ways to help a dome. An airplane could fly through a section and leave the vast majority of a huge dome unaffected. The larger a dome the more it becomes subject to distributed forces, which are its strong suit. So in the abscence of qualifications, I think it is worthwhile to consider that Bucky was thinking mostly in terms of large scale double layer domes. If we get hung up on the fact that dome designs shift from single layer to double layer, with the increased investment of material, or if we get stuck on the limitations of single layer domes as they grow, we will miss the point. Bigness and complexity are qualities that work for domes. The popping in of vertexes is the anticipated result of taking a simple design beyond its scale of usefulness. Single layer domes are a happy, lighthearted situation that disappears very quickly as domes are designed large. Has anyone looked at the Akron Hangar? It is remarkable that 70 years ago such a voluminous clearspan structure could be made. Until you remember the structure it was made to enclose was an airship. Dave Buck wrote: >>But I still want to know where the original claim comes from. The >>paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the closest I >>have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I heard it on the >>New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not Bucky. >> >> > > One place the quote or statement in question is found is in Cosmography, > page 14, ³In 1954 I patented the geodesic dome, a new structural system that > solved centuries-old architectural problems of enclosing space and spanning > distance. The OEomnitriangulated¹ structural principle of the geodesic dome > was described by the American Institute of Architects, in their Gold Medal > citation, as OEthe strongest, lightest, and most efficient means of enclosing > space yet devised by man.OE It is the only structure we know of that gets > stronger as it gets larger and has no limit to its span.² > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:50:59 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JUN-2002 13:50 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the caveat, though, is embodied in the illustration in _s_, of really, really big cruiser-ship busting in half (the exercise for those who haven't seen it, is How ?-) of course the extremes for domes'd be one full spheric, "glasshousing" the planet and, thus, finally making the computerized simulacra of the last 3 decades, "right!" thus quoth: usefulness. Single layer domes are a happy, lighthearted situation that disappears very quickly as domes are designed large. Has anyone looked at the Akron Hangar? It is remarkable that 70 years ago such a voluminous clearspan structure could be made. Until you remember the structure it was made to enclose was an airship. --les ducs d'Anderson! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:31:45 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Foerd Ames Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Do actively pursue unrestricted ideation, have read Critical Path, and understand its reference for springboarding your posts. But they've been so stretched, for some time, that I admit their deletion before reading. However, 1) you contribute and 2) these are tough times. You obviously have a keen mind and it might be constructive to loop back, if just occasionally, toward inference of "optimistic design science" (observations, solutions) or some other RBF attribute. With reference to this discussion group, for example, a fleeting post-911 thought was Fuller revisitation of his Manhattan dome concept (still has problems). May we forego fantastic hydrocarbon sunsets, ad nauseum bright fluorescent baths of four corner squared Burger Things, old McDonMolds, competing gas-filling, and shed our oil fat? are we humble enough to be paid by health clubs for moving electrical generators instead of dead weight (PFA 1984), for example? Must corporationally induced lifestyle media be manufactured in and distributed to all facets of RBF's map? Indeed they've seen some of the stuff, many have bought in, and familiar litter drifts almost everywhere. Some have not and are symbolically communicating in brutal, lethal terms (please, please no dirty bombs). Lash out, get the culprits, but also self-efface. Time allaying preventive measures necessarily use critical resources just to achieve neutrality. Must the good life wait? I'm trying my darndest to bridge the gap between 911, the present... tense, and visions of a hydrologically happy hydrogen future powered by water waves wherein global modular renewable energy distribution systems help obviate regional resource disparity. Many other positive solutions are cooperatively available if people would stop fighting about... whatever, ease birth rate, get to the job of locking down and cleaning up the rapidly worsening mess of buried and emerging technological mistakes, and live symbiotically (hydrogen cars are on the road to a positive example). We've got all we need to make a viable network. I wonder what RBF would think, design, and do? Maybe this forum could venue a mini World Game for awhile. Just some thoughts. foerd@owec.com www.owec.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hutchings" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:21 AM Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JUN-2002 11:21 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > what does it have to do with Bucky? > have you read any of his historical stuff, > as in Critical Path and so on? > I've been trying to present a counter to this stuff, > which is clearly influenced by Arnold Toynbee et al, > via his hanging-around Princeton (because > of Einstein, I think.) > > I'm happy to dyscuss anything geometrical & so on, of course! > > thus quoth: > What has this to do with RBF? If nothing, would you please consider > getting > to some semblance of appropriate topic? Thanks. > > --les ducs d'Anderson! > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') > > incidentally, > UCSB has spun-out an Institute of Contemporary History, > which puts it smack-dab near the new BFI joint. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:25:52 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Leifur Thor Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) In-Reply-To: <004601c2183d$af111840$0f03f7a5@energy> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable well said Ford... Leifur > From: Foerd Ames > Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:31:45 -0700 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) >=20 > Do actively pursue unrestricted ideation, have read Critical Path, and > understand its reference for springboarding your posts. But they've been = so > stretched, for some time, that I admit their deletion before reading. > However, 1) you contribute and 2) these are tough times. You obviously ha= ve > a keen mind and it might be constructive to loop back, if just occasional= ly, > toward inference of "optimistic design science" (observations, solutions)= or > some other RBF attribute. With reference to this discussion group, for > example, a fleeting post-911 thought was Fuller revisitation of his > Manhattan dome concept (still has problems). May we forego fantastic > hydrocarbon sunsets, ad nauseum bright fluorescent baths of four corner > squared Burger Things, old McDonMolds, competing gas-filling, and shed ou= r > oil fat? are we humble enough to be paid by health clubs for moving > electrical generators instead of dead weight (PFA 1984), for example? Mus= t > corporationally induced lifestyle media be manufactured in and distribute= d > to all facets of RBF's map? Indeed they've seen some of the stuff, many h= ave > bought in, and familiar litter drifts almost everywhere. Some have not an= d > are symbolically communicating in brutal, lethal terms (please, please no > dirty bombs). Lash out, get the culprits, but also self-efface. Time > allaying preventive measures necessarily use critical resources just to > achieve neutrality. Must the good life wait? I'm trying my darndest to > bridge the gap between 911, the present... tense, and visions of a > hydrologically happy hydrogen future powered by water waves wherein globa= l > modular renewable energy distribution systems help obviate regional resou= rce > disparity. Many other positive solutions are cooperatively available if > people would stop fighting about... whatever, ease birth rate, get to the > job of locking down and cleaning up the rapidly worsening mess of buried = and > emerging technological mistakes, and live symbiotically (hydrogen cars ar= e > on the road to a positive example). We've got all we need to make a viabl= e > network. I wonder what RBF would think, design, and do? Maybe this forum > could venue a mini World Game for awhile. Just some thoughts. >=20 > foerd@owec.com > www.owec.com >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Hutchings" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:21 AM > Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) >=20 >=20 >> <> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 19-JUN-2002 11:21 >> r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >>=20 >> what does it have to do with Bucky? >> have you read any of his historical stuff, >> as in Critical Path and so on? >> I've been trying to present a counter to this stuff, >> which is clearly influenced by Arnold Toynbee et al, >> via his hanging-around Princeton (because >> of Einstein, I think.) >>=20 >> I'm happy to dyscuss anything geometrical & so on, of course! >>=20 >> thus quoth: >> What has this to do with RBF? If nothing, would you please consider >> getting >> to some semblance of appropriate topic? Thanks. >>=20 >> --les ducs d'Anderson! >>>> http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >>>> /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') >>=20 >> incidentally, >> UCSB has spun-out an Institute of Contemporary History, >> which puts it smack-dab near the new BFI joint. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 06:48:17 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Request to mailing list Quaker-P rejected <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-JUN-2002 6:48 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >Bruce and other "Friends of Sir Henry;" > have you heard of the "Landscam" operation >by Sharon and his buddy, Sir Henry, in the West Bank? > I wouldn't have thought, so. > >I have not yet seen the "line-ups" of either the PA school class, >or of John Dean, but if they don't specifically exclude the one >that I express (there may be many reasons to do so, but >how'd I know that?), then they are just promoting that piece >de crap, the Post, for another 30 years. > >thus quoth: > "Hello Brian, > > This post has already been previously rejected. > > Regards, > > Bruce Q-P Admin > > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:17:17 -0700 From: Brian Hutchings > Message-Id: > <200206181917.g5IJHHJ06815@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> To: > quaker-p@earlham.edu Subject: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the > Bums) > >--les ducs d'Anderson! > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 06:57:22 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Strep Throat (30 Anniv. Boycott o'the Bums) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-JUN-2002 6:57 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us here,s the problem, dude. some of what you cite is examplary of the stuff that Bucky construed as being much better than the invention of sliced whole-wheat bread, but which ought to be occasionally questioned ... perhaps via "unrestricted ideation," or may be not! you're run-on paragraph almost seems like a *tongue- in-cheek* example, but I'll just mention a couple of things. you buy into the entire oil co. paradigm of "fossilized fuels," a treade-name that has never been defined -- just as Bucky did. "hydrogen cars" are one of the buggest flim-flams going, when about half the puff-pieces make it sound as if hydrogen is a raw fuel, and not just a battery (as in fuel-cells: you have to generate the fuel, some how !-) thus quoth: oil fat? are we humble enough to be paid by health clubs for moving electrical generators instead of dead weight (PFA 1984), for example? Must corporationally induced lifestyle media be manufactured in and distributed to all facets of RBF's map? Indeed they've seen some of the stuff, many have bought in, and familiar litter drifts almost everywhere. Some have not and are symbolically communicating in brutal, lethal terms (please, please no dirty bombs). Lash out, get the culprits, but also self-efface. Time allaying preventive measures necessarily use critical resources just to achieve neutrality. Must the good life wait? I'm trying my darndest to bridge the gap between 911, the present... tense, and visions of a hydrologically happy hydrogen future powered by water waves wherein global --les ducs d'Anderson! > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:15:44 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: how the Wall Street J. virtually shreds comtemporary history <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-JUN-2002 7:15 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us of course, we ought to include the Washington Post on this specific issue, in particular because of its passive-aggresive cover-up of a 30-years-past "informant;" does Bob really know, anyway? in today's (Thursday, June 20, 2002) WSJ, the front-page article that quotes Galbraith on "bezzle," Gekko on stock-options, Harvahd Bidness School, and contains this excerpt, "inventor milken went to jail. "But the scope & scale of the forporate transgressions of the late 1990s, now coming to light, exceed anything [that] the US has witnessed since the years preceding the Great Depression." that's amongst the allusions to the "Roaring Twenties," but there is simply no pause for reflection upon the reforms that were wrought under FDR, because of it, that were only recently removed -- with the firm cheerleading of the WSJ, the WP et al (ad vomitorium) -- and which consolidated the virtual merger of the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, and possibly a few others. see my short letter on the 30th Anniv. Boycott o'the Post, on my front page. --les ducs d'Anderson! > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:59:49 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M]] In-Reply-To: <3D113D7A.9020206@sover.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Steve Miller wrote: > This is really a complex situation. Domes can reach > scales that make > tiny the threats to normal buildings. > The largeness can work in different ways to help a dome. > An airplane > could fly through a section and leave the vast > majority of a huge dome unaffected. The larger a dome the > more it > becomes subject to distributed forces, which are its > strong suit. > So in the abscence of qualifications, I think it is > worthwhile to > consider that Bucky was thinking mostly in terms of large > scale > double layer domes. Wasn't it you who pointed out to me there are no single layer anythings, since everything has thickness? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:41:49 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-JUN-2002 11:41 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us soapbubbles are made of a monolayer film, toward the very end whenthey pop. of course, one can see the vaying thickness, toward the drop near the bottom, by the rainbow patterns of interference. that is to say, it does approach a single layer of "molecules," near the top, akin to a simple geodesic. then, pop (no layers !-) --les ducs d'Anderson! > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:31:38 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M]] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Must have been someone else. Dick Fischbeck wrote: > --- Steve Miller wrote: > >>This is really a complex situation. Domes can reach >>scales that make >>tiny the threats to normal buildings. >>The largeness can work in different ways to help a dome. >>An airplane >>could fly through a section and leave the vast >>majority of a huge dome unaffected. The larger a dome the >>more it >>becomes subject to distributed forces, which are its >>strong suit. >>So in the abscence of qualifications, I think it is >>worthwhile to >>consider that Bucky was thinking mostly in terms of large >>scale >>double layer domes. >> > > Wasn't it you who pointed out to me there are no single > layer anythings, since everything has thickness? > > Dick > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 06:13:16 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <200206201841.g5KIfnB23160@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii That's like saying a plydome approaches a single layer of plywood. But only at the certer if the triangles. Meaningless. Molecules have thickness. Dick --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 20-JUN-2002 11:41 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > soapbubbles are made of a monolayer film, > toward the very end whenthey pop. of course, > one can see the vaying thickness, > toward the drop near the bottom, by the rainbow patterns > of interference. that is to say, > it does approach a single layer of "molecules," > near the top, akin to a simple geodesic. > > then, pop (no layers !-) > > --les ducs d'Anderson! > > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:26:25 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks, Dave, for finding this. And thanks also to Dick for persisting with the exploration of this statement. I profited from a closer look at the frequency text 750.21 in Synergetics. Dave Buck wrote: >>But I still want to know where the original claim comes from. The >>paragraph in Synergetics you quoted recently is the closest I >>have found. Maybe it is in the Snyder video. I know I heard it on the >>New Dimensions tape, but that was Michael Toms, not Bucky. >> >> > > One place the quote or statement in question is found is in Cosmography, > page 14, ³In 1954 I patented the geodesic dome, a new structural system that > solved centuries-old architectural problems of enclosing space and spanning > distance. The OEomnitriangulated¹ structural principle of the geodesic dome > was described by the American Institute of Architects, in their Gold Medal > citation, as OEthe strongest, lightest, and most efficient means of enclosing > space yet devised by man.OE It is the only structure we know of that gets > stronger as it gets larger and has no limit to its span.² > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:45:47 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 21-JUN-2002 10:45 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us hm. even if molecules "had thickness," which you might be able to prove in some sense with an atomic force microscope, say, that is certainly irrelevant to the condidtion of having only one per layer. isn't one thickness of plywood, a *single* one? of course, there are different thicknesses of plywood, with differeing numbers of plys. incidentally, "plywood" is no-longer the preferred term of the American Association. thus quoth: That's like saying a plydome approaches a single layer of plywood. But only at the certer if the triangles. Meaningless. Molecules have thickness. Dick --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings > 20-JUN-2002 11:41 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > soapbubbles are made of a monolayer film, > toward the very end whenthey pop. of course, --les ducs d'Anderson! > > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:20:13 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Steve Miller Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What is the preferred term for plywood now? Is your clock right? I received this message at 10:18pm EST. Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 21-JUN-2002 10:45 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > hm. even if molecules "had thickness," > which you might be able to prove in some sense > with an atomic force microscope, say, > that is certainly irrelevant to the condidtion of having only one > per layer. isn't one thickness of plywood, a *single* one? > of course, there are different thicknesses of plywood, > with differeing numbers of plys. incidentally, > "plywood" is no-longer the preferred term > of the American Association. > > thus quoth: > That's like saying a plydome approaches a single layer of > plywood. But only at the certer if the triangles. > Meaningless. > > Molecules have thickness. > > Dick > > > --- Brian Hutchings > wrote: > > <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings > > 20-JUN-2002 11:41 > > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > > > soapbubbles are made of a monolayer film, > > toward the very end whenthey pop. of course, > > --les ducs d'Anderson! > > > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') > > -- Formactive: http://www.sover.net/~triorbtl/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 07:53:57 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M In-Reply-To: <200206211745.g5LHjl329790@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hmmm. You are the one who took me to task about the fact that there will always be a concave radius and a convex radius to any curved surface. Want me to find it? Do you remember? You were railing against why cones couldn't overlap to form a contiuous curved surface, that there must be wrinkles somewhere. You used the "rubber sheet" geometry defense. You probably don't remember. Dick --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 21-JUN-2002 10:45 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > hm. even if molecules "had thickness," > which you might be able to prove in some sense > with an atomic force microscope, say, > that is certainly irrelevant to the condidtion of having > only one > per layer. isn't one thickness of plywood, a *single* > one? > of course, there are different thicknesses of > plywood, > with differeing numbers of plys. incidentally, > "plywood" is no-longer the preferred term > of the American Association. > > thus quoth: > That's like saying a plydome approaches a single layer > of > plywood. But only at the certer if the triangles. > Meaningless. > > Molecules have thickness. > > Dick > > > --- Brian Hutchings > > wrote: > > <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings > > 20-JUN-2002 11:41 > > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > > > soapbubbles are made of a monolayer film, > > toward the very end whenthey pop. of course, > > --les ducs d'Anderson! > > > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ > > > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:09:17 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Quincy Quincy Quincy Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed I forgot, because I think the *org* is still called, the American Plywood Assoc.; they have an annual contest for applications though, which you may already have won (through the "designs" of another .-) thus quoth: >What is the preferred term for plywood now? >Is your clock right? I received this message at 10:18pm EST. >> --les ducs d'Anderson! >> > > > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ >> > > > >/Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:13:24 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Quincy Quincy Quincy Subject: Re: S A V E T H E D O M E . C O M Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed no; *you* were the one who was trying to use rubber sheets in your kinky ways. didn't I suggest that they weren't universally applicable, even though that Picardian topologist-guy made that assertion? thus quoth: >Hmmm. You are the one who took me to task about the fact >that there will always be a concave radius and a convex >radius to any curved surface. Want me to find it? Do you >remember? > >You were railing against why cones couldn't overlap to form >a contiuous curved surface, that there must be wrinkles >somewhere. You used the "rubber sheet" geometry defense. --les ducs d'Anderson! http://quincy4board.homestead.com /Funny.html (geometry & schoolboard '02 stuffin') _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:29:39 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: [synergeo] Re: animation of images Comments: To: domehome Comments: cc: synergeo@yahoo.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 12 and 30 is 42. Very cool picture of 12 sticks. http://www.math.arizona.edu/~models/Wire_models/source/2.html re: The answer is always "42," as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy clearly states. How many edges are there in a nucleated icosahedron? Hmmm? Peace JB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:16:38 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: (Retired) Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome Comments: To: Alexei Pace Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alexei, See "The Dome Calculator" and "Dome Formulas" at http://www.desertdomes.com/, Rick Bono's dome software at http://www.cris.com/~rjbono/html/domes.html, and Dave Anderson's Monkey House at http://w3.one.net/~monkey/ ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexei Pace" To: "Joe S Moore" Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: Re: network dome vs. geodesic dome > Dear Joe, > thanks for your reply. > > May I ask one last thing please, for a frequency-26 geodesic "symmetry > triangle" [1/8th of a dome as in the attached image], how may I work out > mathematically the number of differently-sized members [not their lengths], > and, the number of different connections required [is this equal to the > frequency?] and their angles. > > Is there any software/spreadsheet available? > > Thanks > > Alexei Pace ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 07:59:46 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: animation of images <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 24-JUN-2002 7:59 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us this site has lots of those great, "old" models. http://www.math.arizona.edu/~models --les ducs d' Anderson! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 04:02:18 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Quincy Quincy Quincy Subject: PEN wiping out? Comments: cc: quaker-p@earlham.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed PEN apperas to be crapping out, so that I couldn't read any messages on it. see the note on my page, "PEN's last gasp?" of course, it'd be very simple for the City to move it *back* to an old mainframe with HP-UX on it. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:16:24 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [quaker-p] Privacy considerations <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 25-JUN-2002 14:16 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us and I suppose that the 'WAND Corp.' feels that they're at the very center of "panopticonical" stuff, since they've got 3 boardmembers in the Cabinet. also, I have to wonder whether this system, PEN, as well as my web-service, Homestead.com -- because it's got so-many horrible glitches, as well as other goffy stuff -- is a part of their Cyboterre-orist curriculum & "gaming," since trying to expose some of this in the last two elections. check my theory on "DT," since it's one that I haven't seen anyone else bother with, below. --'Strep Throat' at 30, or Boycott the Post, Dean et al! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/DeepPool.html thus quoth: Well, not yet. So far, we are not supposed to /know/ that our every move is being tracked, maybe because a little educated paranoia, causing minor changes in our everyday habits, would deprive our watchers of many of their best information sources. Heck, we might even lay seige to Congress and demand /some/ measure of privacy protection under law, if we were aware of how wide a trail we leave, and how many people have access to it. Panopticon: http://cartome.org/panopticon1.htm A day in the life: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,260388-1,00.html Yes, Virginia, there is a central database: http://www.infowar.com/class_1/02/class1_011402a_j.shtml ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 05:19:23 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Environmental resoures and environmental disaster. <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 26-JUN-2002 5:19 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us will some one (say, at the NAS, RP, or perhaps, "Obnoxico") please define the "ancient" trade-name, "fossil fuels," which is completely meaningless (unless you visualize that Mobilsaurus, of course, coagulating into a giant drop o'lube) ?? in partial answer to one of the (implied) plaints in the article (which was on the last page of the LATimes, yesterday), it was just realized in the science press, that *rain* takes-out a lot of the CO2 (which is certainly obvious, but no-one had plugged it into a simulacrum, it seems .-)... it's called, carbonic acid, or "acid raining." thus quoth: The results, for example, excluded the impact of local freshwater use and the release of solid, liquid, or gaseous pollutants other than CO2 into the environment. http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/06/06252002/reu_47632.asp --'Strep Throat' at 30 -- boycott The Post, Bob, John et al (ad vom.) http://quincy4board.homestead.com/DeepPool.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:04:43 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: the stupid Economy? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 27-JUN-2002 7:04 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I was amuzedto see some things in the paper, like yesterday's about the "real estate bubble," partiuclarly in SoCal -- without any mention of who is buying the property, or who's funding the mortgages at Fannie and Freddie et al. --'Strep Throat'@30; boycott Post et al (ad vom) http://quincy4board.homestead.com/DeepPool.html --Oil Platform 2000!... The Three Phases of Exploitation of the PROTOCOLS Of The ELDERS Of KYOTO: (FOSSILISATION (tm/sic))/ BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm. Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below): 17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT OF MARCH 30, 1981 (87K) 18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K) 19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K) 20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K) 21 -- OMAHA (25K) 22 -- BUSH TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K) 23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K) 24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K) 25 -- THYROID STORM (139K) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:10:49 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Comments: cc: domehome MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Here's a picture of my latest model making project: stuffing spheres into a tension web. Spherical shells of spheres. I am interested in the relationship between interior and exterior sphere. Is it 2:3? Is it area to volume? http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=104 Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:14:52 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 27-JUN-2002 12:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us if any one dug what "Dick" is trying to sell, here, please, respond with a trisyllabic expletive! thus quoth: stuffing spheres into a tension web. Spherical shells of spheres. I am interested in the relationship between interior and exterior sphere. Is it 2:3? Is it area to volume? http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&Phot oID=1 04 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:17:21 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Pledge of allegiance <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 27-JUN-2002 12:17 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us how ver Ericblairian ... I mean, GeorgeOrwellian! thus quoth: > Until World War II, millions of schoolchildren recited the pledge > with a stiff outstretched arm - reminiscent of a Nazi salute, but with > the palm perpendicular to the ground and fingers pointing to the flag. More interesting, the article pointed out the Pledge's socialist roots "The pledge itself has deeper roots. It is attributed to socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, who first published it in 1892 in a children's magazine to bolster the utopian ideal that the middle class could fashion a planned political and social economy, equitable for all." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 15:15:35 +0200 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: team cqa Subject: MO - LLE - JA In-Reply-To: <200206271914.g5RJEqM24317@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable > << TRHIS SUGGESTION FROM PANCHO MESSAGE from>> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 27-JUN-2002 12:14 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >=20 > if any one dug what "Dick" is trying to sell, here, > please, respond with a trisyllabic expletive! you coyld try MO - LLE - J= A >=20 > thus quoth: > stuffing spheres into a tension web. Spherical shells of > spheres. I am interested in the relationship between > interior and exterior sphere. Is it 2:3? Is it area to > volume? >=20 >=20 > http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=3DShowPhoto&Pho= t > oID=3D1 > 04 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:08:50 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: sphere clusters In-Reply-To: <200206271914.g5RJEqM24317@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Logically, your spheres could be used as a unit of measure, therefore the relationship should hold. However, unlike a unit of measure (inch, for example), the spheres are not subdividable, so the increase in measured surface area (or volume) would be "digital" and "quantum": you would jump from 'x' number of spheres to one more sphere suddenly, no intermediate fractional-spheres allowed. Peace JB jgbrawley@e... http://tetrahedraverse.com --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 27-JUN-2002 12:14 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > if any one dug what "Dick" is trying to sell, here, > please, respond with a trisyllabic expletive! > > thus quoth: > stuffing spheres into a tension web. Spherical shells > of > spheres. I am interested in the relationship between > interior and exterior sphere. Is it 2:3? Is it area to > volume? > > > > http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&Phot > oID=1 > 04 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:59:10 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: sphere cluster In-Reply-To: <200206271914.g5RJEqM24317@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As the number of spheres in a cluster increases, does the ratio of exterior spheres to total spheres change by the same amount as area changes with volume? And what is the relationship between radius and volume? Correct to question about ratio- not 2:3, but second power :third power. Anything wrong with the original subject name? Why change it? Dick --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 27-JUN-2002 12:14 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > if any one dug what "Dick" is trying to sell, here, > please, respond with a trisyllabic expletive! > > thus quoth: > stuffing spheres into a tension web. Spherical shells > of > spheres. I am interested in the relationship between > interior and exterior sphere. Is it 2:3? Is it area to > volume? > > > > http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&Phot > oID=1 > 04 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 07:14:15 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: sphere pack MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To Brian LaRouche Hutchings horror, "Dick" will not disappear! What's a micelle anyway? http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/~braun/personal/gallery/poster/micpost.jpg Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:17:24 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Quincy Quincy Quincy Subject: Re: geodesic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed even though the caption to the URL is wholly undfined in its terms, at least we can get a picture of Brawley's useless *gedanken* experiment (although "icosanots" may still be rescued for some thing, as a spiffy neologism .-) > thus quoth: > stuffing spheres into a tension web. Spherical shells of > spheres. I am interested in the relationship between > interior and exterior sphere. Is it 2:3? Is it area to > volume? > >http://groups.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=104 --'Strep Throat'@30; boycott Post et al (ad vom) http://quincy4board.homestead.com/DeepPool.html --Oil Platform 2000!... The Three Phases of Exploitation of the PROTOCOLS Of The ELDERS Of KYOTO: (FOSSILISATION (tm/sic))/ BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm. Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below): 17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT OF MARCH 30, 1981 (87K) 18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K) 19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K) 20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K) 21 -- OMAHA (25K) 22 -- BUSH TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K) 23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K) 24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K) 25 -- THYROID STORM (139K) _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 05:52:20 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] G8 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 29-JUN-2002 5:52 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us ... one nation, HOLDING HANDS WITH JESUS, VISHNU [ETC.] ... thus quoth: relationships and the pledge of alleigance, Bush has led the G8 to dicisions that will ensure growing poverty, disease, and economic injustice for millions in Africa. --Strep Throat @30; boycott Post et al (ad vom.) http://quincy4board.homestead.com/DeepPool.html --Oil Platform 2000!... The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols of the Elders of Kyoto: (FOSSILISATION (tm/sic))/ BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm. Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below): 17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT OF MARCH 30, 1981 (87K) 18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K) 19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K) 20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K) 21 -- OMAHA (25K) 22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K) 23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K) 24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K) 25 -- THYROID STORM (139K) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 13:04:24 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: VE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Even the Christians are citing Bucky. http://www.wavetech.net/~insights/cosmic/pat.htm Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:46:17 +0000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Quincy Quincy Quincy Subject: Re: VE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed ah, so; Chaos, the mother of Chronos?... I couldn't find the Bucky part, but the part about the "12 parts of the Galaxy," or what ever, surely sounds like Urantin'. thus quoth: again. In the current work being done in the development of chaos theory, the idea of "fractals" is representative of this idea. And if such patterns exist in the material world that we can observe with our five senses, then we know that such patterns most likely also exist within consciousness itself, the causality level of the material world. So let's begin by examining some of the basic patterns involved in the structure of consciousness, and the manner in which it evolves. Let's start by considering the vast unit of consciousness that embodies the universe of which we are a part. Perhaps it would first be well to define the meaning that we will associated with some of the terms to be used in this section. Additional terms will be defined as we encounter the need for them. Cosmos: This term will be used to refer to all of creation, all that exists. Creator: When spelled with an upper case "C", this term will be used to refer to the vast unit of consciousness who created the Cosmos, and all that is contained therein. In other words, it is the creative intelligence, substance, and power that underlies all that exists. Some would refer to this one as "God". Others might prefer the term "Source", in order to disassociate it from any particular persona, or religious context. Our Universe: This refers to the cluster of 12 primary galaxies which constitute that portion of the Cosmos in which our solar system resides. It includes our Milky Way Galaxy, and 11 other galaxies. In the overall scheme of the Cosmos, our universe is one of the more recent universes to be created. >Even the Christians are citing Bucky. > >http://www.wavetech.net/~insights/cosmic/pat.htm --Strep Throat @30; boycott Post et al (ad vom.) http://quincy4board.homestead.com/DeepPool.html --Oil Platform 2000!... The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols of the Elders of Kyoto: (FOSSILISATION (tm/sic))/ BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm. Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below): 17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT OF MARCH 30, 1981 (87K) 18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K) 19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K) 20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K) 21 -- OMAHA (25K) 22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K) 23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K) 24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K) 25 -- THYROID STORM (139K) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx