From <@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> Wed Feb 8 03:11:58 1995 Received: from netaxs.com (root@netaxs.com [198.69.186.1]) by access.netaxs.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA28221 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 03:11:58 -0500 Received: from UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu [128.205.2.1]) by netaxs.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA19130 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 03:11:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199502080811.DAA19130@netaxs.com> Received: from UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU by UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3701; Wed, 08 Feb 95 03:10:34 EST Received: from UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UBVM) by UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0663; Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:33:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:33:17 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at UBVM (1.8a)" Subject: File: "GEODESIC LOG9412" To: "Christopher J. Fearnley" Status: RO ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:09:08 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: naked girl wisdom from Synergetics 1009.67: "What is spoken of ecology is slowly orbiting local interaction of mutual intersupport within unpremeditatedly accomplished tuning of prime drive programming of the spontaneous fall-in-ability of creatures within the critical-proximity conditions: the sugar on the table, the naked girl on the bed." -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:50:25 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: jitterbug, scale In <199411301848.KAA00192@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >>>A full itterbug seems to be a >> >>> VE<->icosa<->octa<->tetra<->0<->tetra<->octa<->icosa<->VE >> >>would it not also be appropriate to name the 0 above also somehow >>with VE, since he describes in detail how the Vector Equilibrium >>represents the zero-tetrahedron? (Synergetics 441.00) >I think this would be appropriate. i suppose we could call it VE0 or something, right? >The Jitterbug Transformtion seems to mean something (for Fuller) whether >juxtaposed with sizeless concepts, or the temporal ones. Some confusion >(for me) arises in that even sizeless concepts have a built-in "relative size" >within the context of the cosmic hierarchy (e.g. VE=20, octa=4, tetra=1) so >the Jitterbug is through a range of sizes here too. as sizeless forms they should legitimately be able to still have relative sizes.. because the sizeless form is the abstract analogue of the form as it appears as an "instance" at a specific scale, and if the scale is determined, the sizes become "real" and proportional to their relative sizes. >"Size/level/frequency" is meant to identify Frequency with "having >special-case time/size-realized existence as a phenomenon with >measurable energy characteristics" or something like that. i guess i have trouble with the inclusion of "frequency" with the other two, because the frequency (in Fuller's terminology) often dramatically affects the form's characteristics. for example, the VE at frequency zero is unstable, but at frequency two it's very stable. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:57:37 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: the book In <199411301854.KAA01016@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >sorted alphabetically, indexed by publication and so on. I've often >thought Ed's Synergetics Dictionary would be a good place to start >an electronic Bucky archives. that item is a bit too pricey for me, but you're probably right. >PS: for someone who lives on a billiard table, a favorite locus of >Newtonian mechanics demonstrations, you have a remarkably >post-Newtonian outlook. why thank you! :) of course the billiard table i'm talking about has cows and sheep on it, and straight ditches, and dikes. cows are particularly post-Newtonian in their outlook, i gather from my long detailed discussions with them about Fuller. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 08:58:04 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Re: Language In Rob Pollock writes: > > ~ > I find it disconcerting that noone on the list wants to talk about floating > islands. Settle down Rob. I find the topic of floating islands interesting. I joined this list to learn of things just like that. Unfortunately, I am a green horn when it comes to the various fields of discussion around here, so I've been mostly just listening. Please don't you or anyone else get discouraged. The more you write, the more I learn, and with a little help from some the reference sources I've collected from this list I too hope to be participating in some of the discussions here. Harry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:09:36 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Re: Trimtabs - correction X-To: damico@gelman.circ.gwu.edu Trimtabs are one or more planes mounted on the stern of a boat below and parrallel to the water line. They are either mechanically or manually angled up or down to control the pitch of boat in the water. In other words they control the 'lift' like flaps on an airplane. Harry ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 13:02:58 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: vision, style In <199411301935.AA02850@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >Perhaps as "rational" beings, we coordinate Universe (all of our experience) >using language, which is a kind of "coordinating system" for organizing and >conveying experience. In this sense, "comprehensively co-ordinate system" >is more the philosopher's System (capital S), metaphorically symbolized >by an IVM. yes, but language is a coordinating system (if that terminology makes any sense at all) that is quite a-spacial - has nothing to do with any particular number of physical dimensions. it just doesn't jive to make some link between spoken/written language and the IVM. >Some parts of it are clearly mathematizable. Proving that the 12, 42, 92 > around 1 arrangement (IVM packing) is actually a "densest" packing was >only proved recently, and is a very difficult proof I understand. i had also heard that - while intuitively you'd think that it was quite a trivial proof. >called that though, and no reference to Fuller). The dimensions of the >polyhedra, e.g. the A,B and T modules that's another good one - i never really could fathom the many conclusions that were made based on the A and B modules. > Your doubts probably focus more on what I'd >call the "physics" of synergetics. "Translation" in this case would involve >equations involving cgs units, various physical constants etc. my doubts are indeed centered around this. as i think of examples or encounter them in Synergetics, i'll be sure to bring them up. PS. i'm very pleased to have found a forum and such a knowledgeable person (or group of people) with which to discuss these ideas. my impression is that my (perhaps occasionally devil's-advocate-like) questions have certainly livened up the list! not so? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 14:54:53 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Organization: Prodigy Services Company, White Plains, New York Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale > > Kirby Urner writes: > >A full itterbug seems to be a > > VE<->icosa<->octa<->tetra<->0<->tetra<->octa<->icosa<->VE > >thing, where one side of 0 is the inside-out (mirror image) of the > >other side. > would it not also be appropriate to name the 0 above also somehow > with VE, since he describes in detail how the Vector Equilibrium > represents the zero-tetrahedron? (Synergetics 441.00) > > This relates to Fuller's "bow tie Universe", which he > >cites as one of his earliest insights > this is presumably the idea that if something is capable of passing > through a zero size situation and coming out the "other side", then it's > appearance at the other side is a mirror image of the original. It's important, I think, to remember that the inside-out is not the mirror image. Remember the rubber glove Fuller was always using as his example: pull the rubber glove off of your left hand and you have a right-handed glove. But this glove is NOT the mirror image of the original, because it's inside-out: concave has become convex and convex has become concave. It's easier if you add the colors as Fuller did in some of his rubber-glove exmaples: red on the outside and green on the inside. Strip off a red left-handed rubber glove and you have a green right-handed rubber glove: that is, not mirror-imaged. The inside-outing tetrahedron -- and thus, the jitterbugging vector equilibrium -- works the same way. Kirby writes further: > > That's another reason we can't look at > >it as a grab-bag or inventory of loosely connected insights. There > >are these underlying themes or metaphors which really inform the whole > >of Bucky's vision. This is very true. Bucky repeated himself often -- oh, how he repeated himself -- but I've found that each repetition is like a new facet helping me to understand the whole. I'm on my second way through _Synergetics_, supplementing that with having read _Critical Path_, _Inventions_, _Operating Manual_, and _Intuition_, and cross- referencing across all of those simultaneously. The more I read, the more I understand. I've been through _Critical Path_, for example, at least ten times, but only once did I read it linearly. Since then I go back to parts of it to clarify other things of Fuller's. Reading Bucky requires reading ALL of Bucky, it seems. > also, is it not entirely possible that the topology of subatomic particles > resembles fractals (ie. Julia sets) more than shiny spheres? then there > would be no validity in the supposition that we occupy somehow the "middle" > of the scale spectrum. > it is also not at all impossible that our universe is inside of > a subatomic particle of some other universe. > one view that i very much enjoy contemplating is that Universe forms > a "scale loop", meaning that Universe might be found to be located > within each and every elementary particle in Universe. this view > would suggest that we occupy one "side" of the loop. There's a problem with relating fractals to reality, though, and it's something I've been thinking about over the last few days. The main problem is that fractals require infinity: a finite volume/area enclosed by an infinite surface/perimeter. As Bucky was fond of pointing out, though, physics has disclosed no infinities. Humans' probing of the Universe has thus far discovered only finities. So I have been asking myself a question similar to one Fuller once asked from the bow of a ship: if Nature is using fractals to design things, and fractals entail an infinitude of calculations, at what point does Nature say, ``That's close enough,'' and round off? Also, when you write ``topology of subatomic particles'' I have to wonder what you mean. Einstein already showed us that the Universe consists entirely of ``discontinuous discrete-energy events'' (to use Fuller's term, from _Synergetics_ 525.01), so what does this topology refer to? My subatomic physics is rather sketchy. And, discussing your ``scale loop,'' that would require a very different Universe than the one we've observed so far. This is not to say that such a thing is impossible -- I for one am willing to believe anything, really -- but current observations haven't borne this idea out. The macro world and the micro world are very different places, and the forces involved just don't ``scale.'' Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:57:16 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Return to Sender Forgive me if I offend. All my postings to this list return to me with the message "Email Nondelivery Notice -- FAILED MESSAGE" and then when I try to post it again I get "Rejected posting to GEODESIC@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU" stating that I was attempting to post a message that I had already posted. Would someone please let me know if I am getting through? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:28:28 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style Sigh. Like all online discussions -- which is one of the reasons I try to post so rarely -- this discussion is wending its way away from real content/ context and into the realm of point-by-point debate. I think at this moment, while obviously I want to discuss Gerald's -- criticisms of? problems with? points of contention with? Please insert a term with no adversarial loading here -- synergetics, I worry about losing our focus on what we were originally discussing. It's easy for the important parts of conversations to get lost in the shuffle of quotes from previous posts, especially after three of us have been all over each other. (Suddenly I'm reminded of a pile of young puppies, little more than a largish mound of brown fur in a basket. It becomes difficult to visually distinguish between one puppy and the next and what is certainly a group of individuals starts to look like one mass of a creature. This discussion -- like most news threads -- is rapidly heading in that direction.) But I think, before I dive into Gerald's and Kirby's posts, I should write something that may place us on some sort of track, give us back some context; or, possibly, it will bring us into a new context. The most important thing I've learned so far from Buckminster Fuller is not my newfound hope for humanity, or the fact that humanity can be fully successful, or that geodesic domes make great houses, or that cubes are a fairly complicated way of measuring the universe. I can't even say that learning how to read Buckminster Fuller was the most important thing I've learned from Buckminster Fuller, since it's such an incredibly limited skill. The most important thing I've learned from Buckminster Fuller is about conceptual maps. What Fuller has taught me is that most people -- virtually everyone, in fact -- has a very static conceptual map which they lay on top of their experiences and through which all of their experiences are viewed. This map doesn't only apply to scientific data or government statistics or political debates; this map applies to everything a given person experiences, absolutely everything. Thus, a physicist thinks in terms of XYZ and a Shakespearean scholar thinks in terms of iambic pentameter. (Usually, I think, this conceptual map is fully formed by early adolescence and only slightly modified as time goes on.) And what Fuller wants us to do is re-evaluate our conceptual maps -- starting with recognizing the fact that we do indeed have a conceptual map -- and then start writing our own map on some kind of volitional basis. _Synergetics_ discloses Bucky's own work at revamping his map to fit experiential data, and what he challenges us with is not understanding his map but charting our own. And what follows, once you've written your own map, is that you can modify your map as you see fit, and even get to the point where you can swap maps -- that is, use the map that is appropriate for whatever task you have at hand, or whatever map you deem appropriate for whatever mood you find yourself in. I think Bucky was trying to find his own conceptual map and he wanted his map to cover the entirety of his experiences: engineering, love, life, death, physics, poetry, bowel movements, chemistry, medicine, and so on. But I don't think he wanted or expected his map to be the only map and he certainly didn't want us to buy into any static interpretations, even his own. He was continually revising his work throughout his life -- consider his ``Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer'' -- and he would have expected us, not only to revise and expand his ideas, but to revise and expand our own; certainly we should use his ideas, I think he would have said, but not his ideas exclusively. Overall, I believe Bucky was an iconoclast, and to round out my definition of ``iconoclast'' I give you this, neatly copied from Ambrose Bierce's _Devil's Dictionary_ (via http://www.ii.uib.no/cgi-bin/devil ): ICONOCLAST, n. A breaker of idols, the worshipers whereof are imperfectly gratified by the performance, and most strenuously protest that he unbuildeth but doth not reedify, that he pulleth down but pileth not up. For the poor things would have other idols in place of those he thwacketh upon the mazzard and dispelleth. But the iconoclast saith: ``Ye shall have none at all, for ye need them not; and if the rebuilder fooleth round hereabout, behold I will depress the head of him and sit thereon till he squawk it.'' Now, Bucky did some reedifying and pilething, but for himself; and I think he would want us to do the same. ``Do your own thinking,'' he wrote, and ``Dare to be naive.'' From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Synergetics - vision, style > >This also means it is not easily grasped by anyone versed in only one > > discipline. Reading Fuller is an art in itself. > not that i feel defensive, but is that not a mild accusation aimed > at anybody who finds it difficult to grasp the concepts, effectively > stating that they are somehow "single-minded"? Not at all. It does sound that way, however. What it means is that it's difficult to overcome the weight of progressive specialization. People who have trouble understanding Fuller's work ARE ``single-minded'' -- but this is not a fault thing or a blame thing. Generally, as an individual one has not been given control over one's own conceptual mapping; and when part of the mapping is the idea that one doesn't have a mapping and that that mapping is not modifiable, it's very difficult to assimilate new maps. We are all in some sense ``single-minded.'' Some of us were lucky enough to be gifted with maps that included the possibility of modification. Bucky, for example, was very nearsighted; and this handicap wasn't corrected until he had already been in school. Thus his early learning experiences possibly didn't program him as tightly as they might have. Also, he came from a fairly well-to-do family and could afford a certain level of luxury, allowing him a certain level of freedom of thinking. For my part, I'm fairly young -- about 24 at last count -- and so I don't have years and years of habit to break. Even so, I find the limits of my paradigms: I cannot disbelieve Darwinian evolution, for example. I can't for my life think of a another mechanism. Fuller did, but I can't quite believe his explanations. And Darwinism is relatively new; yet, like many people I know, I am somewhat contemptuous of pre- Darwinian thinking. Is it because Darwinism is the best theory to date, or is it because Darwinism is enfolded in my conceptual map? Let's remember to try not to confuse the map with the territory (or Robert Anton Wilson will be mad at us). So if you have difficulty understanding the concepts -- as opposed to simply disagreeing with them -- you're not alone, and it's not a value judgement for me to say that you're single-minded. (Also, we can't discount the fact that a lot of Fuller IS obtuse and not well-written, and that misunderstanding or failing to understand some of his work is not a matter of maps or single-mindedness at all but a problem with communication at Bucky's end of things. He left a lot purposely vague, I think, because he hadn't thought it through much himself. Sometimes I think he needed a more forceful editor.) > >Fuller believed that this was a major problem. His gift was not actually > > coming up with anything new, but making connections between existing > > things that no one else made because they were too specialized. > this is presumably your opinion, because the rather smug statement > from Intuition above "And thankfully found it" seems indicative of > his confidence in having discovered something quite new. He thought that he had indeed found something quite new, but his feeling about finding things -- as I understand it from his writings; personally he may have felt quite differently about it -- was like an explorer, not an inventor. He felt that he had literally found something new, not that he had called into existence something new. His discoveries, even in the realm of ``nature's coordinate system,'' were on the order of making connections between things. For example, Descartes discovered ``that the sum of the angles of a polyhedron is always 720o less than the number of vertexes times 360o.'' [_Synergetics_ 224.10] And I'm sure someone else worked out that the sum of the angles of a tetrahedron is always 720o. So Fuller made a connection -- and whether or not there's any point to this connection is debatable -- and said that the difference between infinitely flat -- where the sum of the angles around a polyhedron is exactly the number of vertexes times 360o -- and finitely closed is one tetrahedron. (I'm afraid that the previous bit might not have made much sense to a lot of people. It sure didn't make much sense to me the first, oh, twenty times I read it. I hope it doesn't scare anyone away.) Anyway, the point is that Bucky thought like an explorer discovering a pass through a mountain range: ``Look what I've found, an easy way to do what we need to do,'' not ``Look at how I made it easier to do what we need to do.'' > i'm for different "translations". i just doubt that it would stand > up to the test of formalization - it remains somewhere between literary > and poetic. I fully believe this. I'm willing to bet that an appreciable amount of synergetics as it stands now would not stand up to formalization. But I also think significant amounts of it would; and I get that conviction from in-depth discussions I've had with other scientifically-oriented (though not Bucky-aware) individuals. > incidentally, did you find Synergetics to be easier to read [than _Godel, Escher, Bach_]? Not having really seriously sat down with _GEB_, I can't say. I found _Synergetics_ to be the most difficut book I've ever read (and I've read Umbertos Eco's _Foucault's Pendulum_ and Wilson's _Illuminatus!_). I read it with six bookmarks and a great deal of cross-referencing. It made my brain hurt. Was it worth it? As I wrote above, it helped me to explore the possibilities of new conceptual maps. I think it was worth it (and I imagine _GEB_ will be worth it when I get around to it). > >Interesting stuff, to be sure. > certainly! but this is why people employ formal languages like > math - so that it's possible to explore the axioms of an argument > and have a stronger basis for saying "i agree, and here's why" or > "i just don't think so, and here's why". But a formal language like math only embodies logic. Unfortunately, logic only tells us whether a system is internally consistent or not; it doesn't give us any idea as to whether or not what's being modeled is being modeled accurately. Mentioning Robert Anton Wilson perhaps one time too many, he wrote a list once of the things you need to understand in order to reason effectively about the universe. I wish I had that list here. Essentially, it included logic, experience, and intuition. Only with a full complement of faculties can one make effective decisions regarding one's life. Fuller chose to leave the formalization up to others in order to open up his experiences to as wide a range of people as possible. It is certainly required, however, and I hope people are working on it. Chris. crywalt@tinman.prodigy.dev.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:53:21 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Trimtabs - correction >Trimtabs are one or more planes mounted on the stern >of a boat below and parrallel to the water line. They >are either mechanically or manually angled up or down >to control the pitch of boat in the water. In other >words they control the 'lift' like flaps on an airplane. > >Harry > > No kidding. I always thought trim tabs were perpendicular to the water line, helping to turn the rudder itself by playing rudder to the rudder. Could their be trimtabs in both planes? Airplanes have flaps on both the wings and tail, after all. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:55:07 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: vision, style >PS. i'm very pleased to have found a forum and such a knowledgeable >person (or group of people) with which to discuss these ideas. my >impression is that my (perhaps occasionally devil's-advocate-like) >questions have certainly livened up the list! not so? > So. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:53:02 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: vision, style >In <199411301935.AA02850@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: > >>Perhaps as "rational" beings, we coordinate Universe (all of our experience) >>using language, which is a kind of "coordinating system" for organizing and >>conveying experience. In this sense, "comprehensively co-ordinate system" >>is more the philosopher's System (capital S), metaphorically symbolized >>by an IVM. > >yes, but language is a coordinating system (if that terminology makes >any sense at all) that is quite a-spacial - has nothing to do with >any particular number of physical dimensions. it just doesn't jive >to make some link between spoken/written language and the IVM. > I'll continue this thread by attaching an essay from my web site, complete with bizzaro HTML markups (which control web browsers and do not appear on screen). I realize the HTML will be a deterrent to would-be readers, unless their interested in the technology of the World Wide Web. My apologies. Essay on Thinking

On the Omnidirectional Halo

Synergetics is a geometric vision pumped full of as much significance as possible. Getting all experiences to mean something in terms of geometry might seem undoable at first, but the tack is to get a view of thinking itself, to present the thinking process in terms of a geometric model. By thinking about thinking in terms of geometry, all thought content is thereby brought within its scope.

The synergetics model of thinking is derived by analogy to the electromagnetic spectrum. It helps that we already have a vernacular wherein like-minded people are "on the same wavelength" and wherein ideas get "tuned in". In synergetics, the brain is the metaphorical "TV transceiver" wherein sense-relayed programs are presented to experience.

The electromagnetic spectrum as traditionally depicted in text books is a linear affair, from shortest to longest wavelengths. Synergetics depicts this continuum of shortest to longest as concentric spherical networks, the way we have been taught to view electrons (the ones in s-orbitals at any rate). The highest frequency systems (e.g. gamma particles) are towards the center, whereas larger scale phenomena (e.g. the portion of the spectrum visible to the naked eye) occupy middle to outer layers of the spectral onion.

To think, then, is to highlight one spherical band within the continuum, to select a channel. Higher and lower bands are "dismissed as irrelevant" because, relative to the tuned-in system, these higher and lower frequency bands are too close together, or too far apart to merit close attention.

Too close together might mean: too detailed, too trivial, too nitpicky, or literally too small to be sensed. Too far apart might mean: too general, too cosmic, or too spread apart in time and/or space to be noticably part of the visible pattern. Amidst all the transceiver brain traffic, some thoughts are too fleeting, escaping before becoming incorporated, classified or organized within a larger system. Other thoughts are too long in dawning, by which time the train of thought to which they might have attached has long ago vanished over the horizon.

The tuned system itself consists of inter-related events, points of focus. Synergetics models the relationships among our set of relevant considerations as lines of tension around the circumference of a sphere. This is because synergetics consistently associates order with the a squeezing implosive action, disorder with a radial explosive action. Radial vectors each act on their own, pointing away from a common center, whereas tension vectors collaborate, and exert leverage against the center by pulling together at 90 degrees to radiation, i.e. around a circumference.

The World Wide Web, with its page-events tensively intercohered by hypertext links, is topologically spherical in a literally geographic sense: the Web servers on which the pages are resident dot the globe, while activated links cause text to travel in a circumferential traffic pattern. Whether the Web also works to contain the entropic tendencies of conflicting cultures is a question about the integrity of its sphericity in a non-literal sense. Synergetics makes the leap from literal to non-literal in the blink of an eye -- to a view of the global weather pattern, with local highs and lows in pressure.

Text by Kirby Urner

pdx4d@teleport.com
------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:17:41 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kiyoshi Kuromiya Subject: Re: Syntegration Protocol X-cc: rich@cpp.pha.pa.us In-Reply-To: from "SteveW7562@AOL.COM" at Oct 10, 94 04:04:29 pm Steve W-- I don't know the term Syntegration Protocol, but much of Stafford Beer's ideas and program are described in his "Platform for Change" (John Wiley & Sons, 1975). He covers a huge range of topics in a form of "ventilated prose" that is reminiscent of RBF. His ideas and presentation are those of a generalist and seem to be a not-always-comfortable marriage of Norbert Weiner and Teilhard de Chardin, with elements of e e cummings, John Cage, Warren McCulloch, and James Grier Miller. He says that Science offers the means to a) measure and manipulate complexity through mathematics, b) design complex systems through general systems theory, c) devise viable organizations through cybernetics, d) work effectively with people through behavioural science, and e) apply all this to practical affairs through operational research. What emerges are such things as metalanguage and metaorganization. It's twenty years old, but worth a careful read. --Kiyoshi Kuromiya Forwarded message begins here: > > Could someone explain what Stafford Beer's Syntegration > Protocol is? It's referred to by Prof. Perk in his > Fuller Centennial memo. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 17:15:44 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Re[2]: Trimtabs - correction In Kirby Urner writes: > > No kidding. I always thought trim tabs were perpendicular > to the water line, helping to turn the rudder itself by playing > rudder to the rudder. Could their be trimtabs in both planes? > Airplanes have flaps on both the wings and tail, after all. > > Kirby > ------------------------------------------------ I suppose you could implement vertical trim tabs, but they would be basically superfluous since you could accomplish the same thing by just moving the rudder a bit more in the desired direction. Whereas trim tabs (that is those mounted horizontally) are in effect horizontal rudders. As for the need to help a rudder, On lager boats where assistance is needed in making a turn, two or more rudders are used in sync. Airplanes are a different story. They react more rapily to these types of changes. My analogous reference to airplanes was merely to illustrate the position and purpose of trim tabs on a boat. Harry ps. Kirby, thanks for letting me know I am getting thru ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:25:37 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: smtc5@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU Organization: University of Toledo Subject: Re: Looking for... In Article <9411271837.aa22581@cruzio.cruzio.com> Joe Moore writes: >You're right. People are born "geniuses" but get degeniused >(sp?) by the "system". He was one of the few who were undamaged >or recovered from damage. I have been attempting to assess the validity of such a statement for quite some time (about the past year-and-a-half,) and finally struck upon some evidence that strongly supports it (though it is an evaluation of the other end of the "Bell Curve.") My psychology teacher, a man who adopted three children deemed retarded from brain damage by nine "experts" in the field, now has three children of normal or better intelligence. How? One of his girls, when he adopted her, he was told was so profoundly retarded (or developmentally handicapped is the proper term now) that she would not develop beyond the age of three months during her entire life. Her sister was also said to be retarded, but not nearly so extremely. The first girl was a child of fetal alcohol syndrome (and probably a crack baby, as well,) and was left on the same spot in bed as an infant, staring at the blank ceiling for hours on end. Because of this lack of stimulation, he contends, as well as some damage from alcohol, she developed no way of dealing with the world, and so tested retarded. She as well as her sister are now in kindergarden and deal with life and school as normal children, due to high expectations (their father didn't believe the diagnosis) and the high levels of stimulation necessary for proper developement. For their brother, the situation was similar. I don't care to make rash generalizations from just a few cases, but it has now been found that children with Downs (sp?) syndrome can, with a proper program of excessive stimulation as infants, develop mentally with average or better intelligences. There are cases where such measures wouldn't work, but they seem to be few and far between. If this is true for allegedly retarded children, wouldn't the similar jumps be possible for the allegedly average man? Could the main differences between Einstein and your average case of severe retardation be a matter of environment? I don't argue that heredity determines nothing when it comes to intelligence, but I think it's a much smaller factor than most people are aware of. We are capable of nearly anything. Don't you think it's about time we started? Steve Mather ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 00:12:08 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Michael Sklaroff Subject: Re: Trimtabs - further corrections In-Reply-To: <199412011931.AA19337@mailhub.cc.columbia.edu> Trim tabs are the little rings that one pulls off the tops of cans of diet soft drinks and lite beer. Thank you. Michael Sklaroff ms401@columbia.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 21:18:44 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Isotropic Vector Matrix hello Fullerites! ever since i first encountered the beautiful omnitriangulated vector matrix i have been bothered by something. if it were indeed to be useful as a model of the structure of space then there remained some important problems. the propagation of waves in space appears in reality to be spherical, while the vector matrix model would instead have the waves propagating in the form of a cuboctahedron (the vector equilibrium form) which is hardly spherical. then i allowed myself to imagine that each vertex were moving around, restricted by the twelve spring-like relationships with its neighboring vertexes. i then wondered what form of cloud would be formed by tracing a history of movement of the vertex for a time, keeping in mind that the nearby vertexes would also be moving. due to the multiplicity of nonlinear forces acting on the vertex, it would be most sensible to consider the history as being a statistical cloud or a strange attractor - but what shape? would it not be so that the cloud should be star-shaped with six larger arms (corresponding to the six square faces of the vector equilibrium form) and eight smaller arms (the eight triangular faces)? i suspect that the arms would be very vaguely defined, more like lumps - essentially producing a "soft" octahedron. now, due to the fact that not every angle in the Isotropic Vector Matrix is 60 degrees, it is just not sufficiently symmetrical to account for truly spherical wave propagation, and as such loses its ability to model space effectively. if the vertexes (in a dynamic vector matrix!) were considered to be soft octahedra instead of resembling the centers of closest-packed spheres, would this compensate with respect to wave propagation for the irksome asymmetry of the static Isotropic Vector Matrix? i'm still not sure that this view is _useful_, but it might lead to a model of space involving discrete events that is still capable of supporting spherical wave propagation. it would be interesting to be able to modify our concept of the the shape of the microscopic events in order to balance out or re-symmetrize the macroscopic structure of the model. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 08:34:03 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tom Dosemagen Subject: Re: info on geodesic domes CAll Natural Spaces at 1 800-733-7107 and ask for their All About Domes book. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 07:05:15 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Lutz Subject: World Game results? In-Reply-To: <941202043639.4c203929@Csa3.LBL.Gov> I was reading a book recently that claimed the reason the Limits to Growth (a computer simulation model of global development developed in the early '70's) predicted doom instead of sort of muddling through we've seen so far is that it didn't model learning and creativity on the part of humanity. Since the Limits to Growth and the World Game start from about the same information, resources, population, etc. etc. (I assume), the World Game might be a better model for what is possible, given human creativity and learning. I was wondering what percentage of World Games make it? In other words attain a just distribution of world resources in ecologically sustainable manner. What percentage fail? Just curious Jim Lutz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:59:20 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Organization: Prodigy Services Company, White Plains, New York Subject: Re: jitterbug, scale From: Gerald de Jong Subject: jitterbug, scale [Kirby writes:] > >The Jitterbug Transformtion seems to mean something (for Fuller) whether > >juxtaposed with sizeless concepts, or the temporal ones. Some confusion > >(for me) arises in that even sizeless concepts have a built-in "relative > > size" within the context of the cosmic hierarchy (e.g. VE=20, octa=4, > > tetra=1) so the Jitterbug is through a range of sizes here too. > as sizeless forms they should legitimately be able to still have > relative sizes.. because the sizeless form is the abstract analogue > of the form as it appears as an "instance" at a specific scale, and > if the scale is determined, the sizes become "real" and proportional > to their relative sizes. Another way of putting this is that characteristics are independent of size. That is, a tetrahedron has 4 areas, 6 edges, and 4 vertexes, no matter what size that tetrahedron is -- even if it's a tetrahedron of zero size. Fuller considered the prime volumes (calculated in relation to a unit tetrahedron) to be one of those characteristics, like number of edges or number of vertexes, which are independent of size. Thus, a zero-size tetrahedron still has a volume of one in relation to a zero- size octahedron's volume of 4. > i guess i have trouble with the inclusion of "frequency" with the > other two, because the frequency (in Fuller's terminology) often > dramatically affects the form's characteristics. for example, the VE at > frequency zero is unstable, but at frequency two it's very stable. Is a two-frequency VE stable even if it's just a shell, with no interior shells? I would think not, but not having enough balls to make a two-frequency VE to test it with (amazing how hard it is to find a pile of magnetic spheres at a computer company, isn't it?), I don't know for sure. If it's not stable, then the stability of a two-frequency VE comes from the layers below -- in essence, the twelve struts Fuller wrote about, saying that they were required to stabilize the VE (which twelve struts are equivalent to two tetrahedra, he noted). I remember Bucky wrote that removing the center sphere from a one-frequency VE caused it to collapse into an icosahedron. (I hope I'm not mixing up my frequencies.) Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:58:49 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Larry Rhodes Subject: Re: Trimtabs - further corrections Actually trimtabs are little devices used by barbers to prevent getting your ears nicked during a haircut. ***************************************** ***************************************** ** ** Live Long and Prosper, ** ** Larry W. Rhodes ** lrhodes@chickasaw.astate.edu ** ***************************************** ***************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:15:27 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Russell Chu Subject: Tensegrity Hexapent Dome I have recently subscribed to GEODESICS. I realized this system can be equivalent to a nuclear computer, with information being received and broadcasted to all members and beyond, and that each member is a mind able to process and utilize the information locally or send new information to the nucleus and have it rebroadcasted or operate as another nucleus. So I am posting information from my application of Synergetics. Tensegrity Hexapent Dome. To my knowledge this is new information. I have made models and an actual structure of 7 feet in diameter. Its advantage is a more efficient structure and the ability to fold into a compact package. Hexa-Pent Dome was patented by Shoji Sadao and Fuller in 1970, US Patent 3,810,336. You can find it and most other Fuller patents in the book Inventions. Hexapent looks like most soccer balls, composed of pentagons and hexagons, thus its name. It is essentially the 3 frequency geodesic dome. The Tensegrity Hexapent is made up of hexagonal umbrellas replacing each hexagon of the dome. The pentagons can also be replaced by struts or umbrellas for extra rigidity but it is not necessary for structural integrity. The tensegrity hexapent dome would look like a net of cables following the edges of the pentagons and hexagons. When the hexagonal umbrellas are opened, much like regular umbrellas, the hexapent net would be taught into shape, the tensegrity hexapent dome. The hexagonal umbrellas are made of six outward struts and six inward struts, of equal length, hinged on a sliding or detachable axis/shaft with the other ends of the six pairs hinged together. Cables of the length of the edges of the hexagons are connecting the ends of the six pairs of struts. The hexagonal umbrellas are attached to each other at the corners of the hexagons. The ends of the 4 struts are attached together through hinge like connections. With appropriate hinge connectors this dome will fold to a bundle of parallel struts. You can model this structure with dowels and string. Have fun. Russ Chu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 17:58:35 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: FLOATING ISLAND CITIES In-Reply-To: <9411301459.aa16670@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "Rob Pollock" at Nov 30, 94 3:58 pm Rob Pollock writes: > > Language is a funny thing. I guess I added my small part to the current > discussion regarding what to say and how to say it. That's great, that people > are interested in the use of language.~ > ~ > I find it disconcerting that noone on the list wants to talk about floating > islands. Only one person even responded to my post, and that was to say I was > pretty vague, and un-understandable.~ > ~ > That's life, I guess.~ > ~ > If anyone wants to talk about floating islands, and you don't want to talk to > the list, please send me an e-mail, and hopefully i will be able to discuss > things in a more coherent manner. There is a potential that a consortium of > people can be gathered so that an island can be built. A pilot project is > being planned for St Croix, US Virgin Islands, with construction hoped for in > the early 2000's.~ > ~ > If anyone has any suggestions for a more appropriate internet (or wherever) > discussion list, *please* let me know publicly, or privately.~ > ~ > -robs-~ > ~ > rob@decisionsys.com See "Basic Bucky", section 2.6 for detailed citations. I know of others who are interested also, but I'll have to dig the info out of the Bucky Database. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 18:10:09 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: MISSION-EARTH In-Reply-To: <9411301921.aa05802@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "Marc Tremblay" at Nov 30, 94 6:11 pm In the "To:" line put listserv@listserv.ncsu.edu In the body of your message put on one line only against the left margin the command subscribe mission-earth Leave the Subject line blank and don't use caps. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 18:31:36 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: Return to Sender In-Reply-To: <9412010837.aa15970@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "HAROLD E HAMMOND" at Dec 1, 94 10:57 am You're getting through. Every time I post a message I get one return to sender because one guy has a screwed up address; but your post goes through to everyone else. If not, you would be getting several hundred "Return to Sender" notices!!! -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:11:48 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: Syntegration Protocol In article , Kiyoshi Kuromiya (kiyoshi@CPP.PHA.PA.US) writes: >Steve W-- > I don't know the term Syntegration Protocol, but much of Stafford Beer's >ideas and program are described in his "Platform for Change" (John Wiley & >Sons, 1975). He covers a huge range of topics in a form of "ventilated >prose" that is reminiscent of RBF. His ideas and presentation are those >of a generalist and seem to be a not-always-comfortable marriage of Norbert >Weiner and Teilhard de Chardin, with elements of e e cummings, John Cage, Warren >McCulloch, and James Grier Miller. He says that Science offers the means to >a) measure and manipulate complexity through mathematics, b) design complex >systems through general systems theory, c) devise viable organizations through >cybernetics, d) work effectively with people through behavioural science, >and e) apply all this to practical affairs through operational research. What >emerges are such things as metalanguage and metaorganization. It's twenty years >old, but worth a careful read. > >--Kiyoshi Kuromiya > > > >Forwarded message begins here: >> >> Could someone explain what Stafford Beer's Syntegration >> Protocol is? It's referred to by Prof. Perk in his >> Fuller Centennial memo. Staford now has a new book out that deals with the culminating protocol of his research called _Beyond Dispute_. There is also a group up in Canada called Team Sytegrity that leads workshops called Sytegrations that teach business and gvmnt types new protocols of organization and power sharing. When I dig through the pile in my office and find it, I'll post the publisher of the new book and the address of Team Sytegrity. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:24:48 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: Isotropic Vector Matrix In article , Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) writes: >hello Fullerites! > >ever since i first encountered the beautiful omnitriangulated vector >matrix i have been bothered by something. if it were indeed to be >useful as a model of the structure of space then there remained some >important problems. the propagation of waves in space appears in >reality to be spherical, while the vector matrix model would instead >have the waves propagating in the form of a cuboctahedron (the vector >equilibrium form) which is hardly spherical. > the VE as a model for wave motion is somthing I have thought long and hard on... actually seeing a multi-cell model of the jitterbug in motion would probably make things clearer for you. As the octa opens to the VE stage, all surrounding VE's are compressed into octa form which in turn 'bumps' the next layer into VE's and so on... When you have an actual physical model to watch the effect is totally mesmerizing, hypnotic, and dare I say, somehow almost _sexual_. The propagation of the wave can clearly be seen - and I must say watching a physical model is at least 1000 times better than ANY computer simulation! My company produces a paper jitterbug model (the Octabug) designed by the same fellow, Dennis Dreher, that designed the original dihedral hinge on Fuller's multi-cell models. Dennis actual made a moving 40 ft diameter model that was on display in Zurich a few years back, but they ignored his engeering advise on the hinges and the whole thing collapsed (no one hurt, luckily). StuQ Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:29:43 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: World Game results? In article , Jim Lutz (jdlaps@DANTE.LBL.GOV) writes: >I was reading a book recently that claimed the reason the Limits to Growth >(a computer simulation model of global development developed in the early >'70's) predicted doom instead of sort of muddling through we've seen so >far is that it didn't model learning and creativity on the part of >humanity. Since the Limits to Growth and the World Game start from about >the same information, resources, population, etc. etc. (I assume), the >World Game might be a better model for what is possible, given human >creativity and learning. I was wondering what percentage of World Games >make it? In other words attain a just distribution of world resources in >ecologically sustainable manner. What percentage fail? > >Just curious > > Jim Lutz When I played the game the main impression left was not of winning or losing (it would take days to resolve). Everyone started with various local game-playing strategies and the main thing learned from playing (and learned VERY powerfully) was a much more intimate understanding of how multiple local strategies interact to form unpredictable global events. It was a wild and totally out of control experience and well worth the time. (and much better than a computer simulation ) StuQ Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:10:14 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimenstions, powering, etc In <199411302013.AA11839@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >>special relativity. >No explicit dealing with Lorentz contraction type stuff, as far >as I recall, even in secondary stuff not in synergetics per se. yes, and that's puzzling to me, since physics has demonstrated very convincingly that the space-contraction/time-dilation indeed occurs. i don't yet see how these things are implicitly accommodated in Fuller's view. >>>Heighth, width and depth >>with those three coordinates, however, you can locate an object in >>static space. what are you locating if you specify four co-ordinates >>in the tetrahedrally arranged axes? >Any three edges of the tetrahedron, not all in the same plane, >define a zig-zag with implies the other three edges (creating >volume as a tetrahedron). Using 3 axes of a tetrahedron is not >to contradict that the concepts of "inside" versus "outside" appear >with the concept of "container" (space=a volume), and the >tetrahedron is the most primitive volume. yes, but if space is inherently 4-dimensional, what co-ordinate system should we be using, so as not to offend our synergetics? >But in any case, Fuller does not use (x,y,z) notation or equate a fourth >coordinate with time. he avoids mathematical discussion, and so while he forcefully criticises the standard (x,y,z)-related coordinate systems, he does not offer an alternative coordinate system to the point of illustrating its use. >>i fail to see how >>separating a number out into its prime factors so elegantly elicidates >>five-dimensionality and such. >I think you're refering to the "Numerology" sections, the "indigs" >and all that. I wasn't thinking of that section when I wrote about >powers vs dimensions. On dimensions, what do you think of >using triangles and tetrahedra to model 2nd and 3rd powering, >vs squares and cubes. no, i was not referring to the numerology (i'm afraid i had very little use for those, to be honest). i'm referring to his talk about the forms to model "powering". despite reading it many times, i failed to get the point. >Fuller seems to equate energy >vectors with mass x velocity (mv), but of course this is not standard >physics. Making mv=energy was played with in the early days, but >now energy units are in units of m v v. he persistenly bases his models on what physics teaches us, but on points like this one, he seems imprecise. > The fact that two ideas >occur in the same brain relates them, via the thinker (not to get too >Cartesian-cogito-ish). but the relationship need not be meaningful. baby-chair and fern and charcoal are ideas in my brain - completely unrelated, really. >I'm not making any animations available via my web site yet. Just >lots of stills. Of course we have kits and models to get our hands >dirty with (real glue, yuk!) in the meantime. i'll be ordering a few of them from BFI, to add to the ones i've made myself. by the way, i've built a number of cool models using glass tubes of a few inches in length (i bought 500 at a surplus store) and spools of elastic thread from the sewing store. our apartment is full of forms - from vector equilibrium to 2-frequency icosahedra, to tetrahelixes. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:32:06 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale In <199412011604.AA25496@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt writes: >It's important, I think, to remember that the inside-out is not the mirror > image. Remember the rubber glove Fuller was always using as his > example: pull the rubber glove off of your left hand and you have a > right-handed glove. But this glove is NOT the mirror image of the > original, because it's inside-out: concave has become convex and > convex has become concave. yes, indeed. very good point. >Reading Bucky requires reading ALL of Bucky, it seems. oh no! where can i find the time? :) >> also, is it not entirely possible that the topology of subatomic particles >> resembles fractals (ie. Julia sets) more than shiny spheres? >There's a problem with relating fractals to reality, though, and it's something > I've been thinking about over the last few days. The main problem > is that fractals require infinity: a finite volume/area enclosed by > an infinite surface/perimeter. As Bucky was fond of pointing out, > though, physics has disclosed no infinities. Humans' probing of the > Universe has thus far discovered only finities. i'm not so sure about that. i think that Bucky's main beef was with the use of coordinate systems that were too "flat" and thereby introduced infinity far off in the distance. i know you've already got a lot to read , but i'd suggest that you also make your way through "Chaos" by James Gleick (if you haven't already). our recent probing into the universe has indeed revealed infinities - in the simplest of nonlinear systems. it would seem that even a jolted pendulum exhibits chaotic behavior - which is probably best described as extreme (nearly infinite?) sensitivity to microscopic conditions. >if Nature is using fractals to design things, and > fractals entail an infinitude of calculations, at what point does > Nature say, ``That's close enough,'' and round off? i'd guess that nature never gets tired of calculating, since She's got access to the most incomprehensibly large massively parallel machine - Universe. does She have to round it off? >Also, when you write ``topology of subatomic particles'' I have to wonder what > you mean. Einstein already showed us that the Universe consists > entirely of ``discontinuous discrete-energy events'' well, it was iffy terminology to start with. suffice it to say that these events appear from "above" (from much much larger scale) to be discrete, but nobody is saying that they are so down deep. in fact quantum mechanics has surrendered itself to being satisfied with a "probability wave" description of quantum events (in other words: uhh.. the particle might end up here, or there, but we'll just have to wait and see), which does nothing to exclude the possibility of a complex (infinitely so?) myriad of events behind the quantum events. who knows what a subatomic particle looks like from the inside out? >And, discussing your ``scale loop,'' that would require a very different > Universe than the one we've observed so far. This is not to say that > such a thing is impossible -- I for one am willing to believe anything, > really -- but current observations haven't borne this idea out. > The macro world and the micro world are very different places, and > the forces involved just don't ``scale.'' can you expand on that? i sort of visualize a situation where each particle sort of stores inside of it every interaction that it ever experiences, and as a result, the entire experience of Universe would be stored "holographically" in all the many discrete particles - each of them recording it's own point of view. only the sum of all these experiences would be able to make up Universe itself. of course i'm just "talking out of my neck" as we say in Dutch. :) -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 06:30:21 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kevin Sahr Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER In article , Gerald de Jong wrote: > ...on-the-mark comments and questions trimmed... > >i hope that i'm not considered to be "out of line" by suggesting such >things in this group. i also hope that replies don't simply suggest >that i read further or read again until i get it. I consider all of the issues you raised very much to the point! While I enjoy Fuller's philosophy very much, I think the greatest of his contributions is the gold-mine of generalized principles waiting to be understood and applied to specific computational and scientific problems. Unfortunately, I too am stuck at the stage of trying to figure out how to do this, and the few times I've posted questions like yours (though never as well-worded!) I've been dissapointed with the discussions raised. >to make the brilliant and fresh ideas palatable for the scientific >community, someone will have to start nailing it down. Slowly I'm starting to see the appearance of some Fuller-like ideas in the computational sciences. For instance, there is a growing swell of interest in doing 2D cellular automata on hexagonal rather than cartesian grids. But I have to admit that I find this sort of slow advance rather frustrating; I wondered why the hell people were using cartesian grids the first time I saw Life years ago! Years of research that now must be duplicated the way it should have been done in the first place. And then look at 3D cell-based simulations, like hydro- codes. They're still using cartesian coordinates, where the waves propagate a hell of a lot less spherically than they would in the IVM. People will realize this and migrate to the IVM for this work eventually. But when you see where the technology is at, then it becomes rather despairing to hope for answers to questions like yours which strike to the real heart of the matter: while just using the IVM as a direct replacement for cartesian coordinates is a step in the right direction, I think it misses the real subtleties of Fuller's conception, which I occasionally glimpse far-off but am in general clueless about. Similarly, as part of research I'm currently participating in we're looking into Bucky's ideas concerning the subdivision of the sphere; we're trying to apply this knowledge to the construction of a global spatial database. Again, it's a real step in the right direction (compared to the majority of global models now, which are based on the longitude/latitude graticule; "BLECH!" to quote Calvin), but I can glimpse incredible potential in the jitterbug and the IVM to take this work to another level entirely, but unfortunately I seem to lack the vision to make that happen. I have to agree with you about the vagueness of the recent computational articles, but I don't want to discourage their authors, because I truly believe the things they're writing about are possible, I just think there's a bit of a chasm to be crossed between what they've written and useful pieces of code. But that's the beauty of computing; anyone with the right idea and enough money to buy an old PC (maybe $100?) can quiet all the scoffing any time they wish to... >i'd love to >be able to spend the time to build a tool for the purpose of >coming to terms with the structural language employed in Synergetics. >i find it difficult to puzzle about some magical new synergetic >computer, when we haven't even yet built the "Lotus 123" of structural >dynamics. don't we more urgently need a generation of kids at play >in a little virtual world of synergetics geometry software? Sounds like a great idea to me! Where's the BFI at? Too busy scrounging for the almighty $$ to do some real work in the name of Bucky? Sorry I couldn't give more informative answers to your queries. I'm waiting anxiously to see if someone else can! >-- > ________________ ___________ _________________ >____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) Kevin -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // // Kevin Sahr // // Research Associate/Programmer Wilkinson Hall, Room 204 // ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 10:13:05 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style In <199412011854.AA17861@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >The most important thing I've learned from Buckminster Fuller is about > conceptual maps. What Fuller has taught me is that most people -- > virtually everyone, in fact -- has a very static conceptual map which > they lay on top of their experiences and through which all of their > experiences are viewed. one's "point of view" perhaps. i assume that the ideal is that we have an omni-point-of-view. >And what Fuller wants us to do is re-evaluate our conceptual maps -- starting > with recognizing the fact that we do indeed have a conceptual map -- > and then start writing our own map on some kind of volitional basis. > _Synergetics_ discloses Bucky's own work at revamping his map to fit > experiential data, and what he challenges us with is not understanding > his map but charting our own. his "map" consists mainly of structural geometry and numerology. not quite enough to justify pidgeonholing all other intellectuals as single-minded specialists. i doubt that he was particularly adept at understanding the psychology of other people - though he was an expert on his own. >> >This also means it is not easily grasped by anyone versed in only one >> > discipline. Reading Fuller is an art in itself. >> not that i feel defensive, but is that not a mild accusation aimed >> at anybody who finds it difficult to grasp the concepts, effectively >> stating that they are somehow "single-minded"? >Not at all. It does sound that way, however. What it means is that it's > difficult to overcome the weight of progressive specialization. People > who have trouble understanding Fuller's work ARE ``single-minded'' -- > but this is not a fault thing or a blame thing. it's not their fault that they're single-minded, how could they know? i dunno. i still find the statement quite condescending. keep in mind that it just might be so that Bucky was (in a number of areas about which he wrote) a bit thwacked in the head, and the people who find it difficult just might be the ones who are thinking sensibly. >We are all in some sense ``single-minded.'' Some of us were lucky enough to be > gifted with maps that included the possibility of modification. it's not a black-and-white issue. >So if you have difficulty understanding the concepts -- as opposed to simply > disagreeing with them -- you're not alone, and it's not a value > judgement for me to say that you're single-minded. really? well, my single-mindedness probably prevents me from understanding how they can be not value judgements. :) > is not a matter of maps or single-mindedness at all but a problem with > communication at Bucky's end of things. He left a lot purposely vague, > I think, because he hadn't thought it through much himself. Sometimes > I think he needed a more forceful editor.) that's better. :) >> i'm for different "translations". i just doubt that it would stand >> up to the test of formalization - it remains somewhere between literary >> and poetic. >I fully believe this. I'm willing to bet that an appreciable amount of > synergetics as it stands now would not stand up to formalization. > But I also think significant amounts of it would; and I get that > conviction from in-depth discussions I've had with other > scientifically-oriented (though not Bucky-aware) individuals. that's why i'm so interested in those who have taken the "formalizable" parts and spent time working them out. >But a formal language like math only embodies logic. Unfortunately, logic > only tells us whether a system is internally consistent or not; it > doesn't give us any idea as to whether or not what's being modeled is > being modeled accurately. are you saying that it's possible to make a model that's not internally consistent, yet models something accurately? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 10:34:15 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: zero tetrahedron In <199412030101.AA15162@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt writes: >Another way of putting this is that characteristics are independent of size. > That is, a tetrahedron has 4 areas, 6 edges, and 4 vertexes, no matter > what size that tetrahedron is -- even if it's a tetrahedron of zero > size. zero-size goes too far, doesn't it? it has no areas, no edges and perhaps one vertex (if you're lucky). the most you can say about it is that (for continuity) it possesses the _symmetries_ of both the inside-out and outside-in tetrahedra. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 12:34:10 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Ben Rosenkrans <5142030@SUNYBROOME.EDU> Organization: Broome Community College, Binghamton, NY, USA Subject: Re: info on geodesic domes Tom, Thanks for the number to call about the book. I appreciate it. Ben Rosenkrans ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 03:46:37 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER >In article , >Gerald de Jong wrote: >> >>i'd love to >>be able to spend the time to build a tool for the purpose of >>coming to terms with the structural language employed in Synergetics. >>i find it difficult to puzzle about some magical new synergetic >>computer, when we haven't even yet built the "Lotus 123" of structural >>dynamics. don't we more urgently need a generation of kids at play >>in a little virtual world of synergetics geometry software? > I couldn't agree more that kids need to be exposed to Fuller's work, but I must admit I have great trouble with the "virtual" part. I use computers intensively in product design, graphics, computation, and programing so I doubt I qualify as a 'Luddite'. (broad sweeping generalization follows) What bothers me is the willingness of a group like this - concerned with the multi-dimensional approach of Fuller to be so totally preoccupied with reducing that vision to a flat 100 sq. in. of 2D! Enough with the computers already! I love to see computer visulizations as much as anybody, but there's a whole 4D WORLD just to the right, left, top, bottom, front, and back of that little screen. I realize from reading your other posts, Gerald, that you've been making models yourself, and I don't mean this rant to be aimed at you. But I see this intoxication with computers in our Western cultures to be at least partially at odds with the scope of Fuller's vision. Computers hold great potential, but they're unquestioned acceptance in this 'brave new electronic world' needs to be seriously examined. Law of conservation (heavily paraphrased) "Whenever somthing's gained, somthing's lost". I'm new to the net so I've been hanging back and not posting much yet. I've also had reservations about talking about my own company 'cause I didn't want to 'come on' too commercial. But what I do IS of direct interest (I hope) to most in this group so here comes a little ad. My company (Design Science Toys) makes a wide variety of models, construction toys, puzzles, and more that mainly relate to Fuller's work. Anyone interested in catalogs can email their physical address to me directly. Stuart Quimby Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 22:30:47 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER In <199412030841.AA22490@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kevin Sahr writ es: >>to make the brilliant and fresh ideas palatable for the scientific >>community, someone will have to start nailing it down. >Slowly I'm starting to see the appearance of some Fuller-like ideas >in the computational sciences. For instance, there is a growing swell >of interest in doing 2D cellular automata on hexagonal rather than >cartesian grids. apparently the hexagonal grid in 2D is symmetrical enough to allow cellular automata to simulate 2D fluid flow, which is brilliant! the Iso Vector Matrix, however, just isn't symmetrical enough to allow the cellular automata models to simulate the flow. apparently there's another dimension required. i'd like to know about how to make it work in 3D, and maybe the jitterbug transformations would do the trick - as an extension of the IVM. >first place. And then look at 3D cell-based simulations, like hydro- >codes. They're still using cartesian coordinates, where the waves >propagate a hell of a lot less spherically than they would in the IVM. go figure! >Similarly, as part of research I'm currently participating in >we're looking into Bucky's ideas concerning the subdivision of >the sphere; we're trying to apply this knowledge to the >construction of a global spatial database. i also wondered at one point if there were a sensible mapping between 1D space (computer memory) and a triangulated sphere, but i couldn't come up with anything nice. >"BLECH!" to quote Calvin), but I can glimpse incredible potential >in the jitterbug and the IVM to take this work to another level >entirely, but unfortunately I seem to lack the vision to make >that happen. maybe only the kids who've played with the models all their childhood will be able to take that step. >>i'd love to >>be able to spend the time to build a tool.. >Where's the BFI at? Too busy >scrounging for the almighty $$ to do some real work in the name of >Bucky? they're at bfi@aol.com and yup, i've got a wife and kid - therefore a job. drag. :/ -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 09:44:46 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc In-Reply-To: <199412040443.AA25307@charon.osc.on.ca> (message from Kirby Urner on Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:49:07 -0800) It's my understanding that Fuller did incorporate time, going even further to incorporate temperature and all manner of coordinate axes which elsewhere appear only in gauge symmetry physics. These are the "nine dimensionality" associated, and modelled tactually by the VE. Regarding Lorenz contractions, since Fuller's geometry is topologically based, wouldn't contractions vanish? Einstein's general relativity shows the preservation of physical laws in all frames of reference and Fuller's geometry could be taken as a model of those laws, rather than a model of the appearance of those laws in the given frame. Also, in Synergetics, the matrix of close-packed spheres is described as dynamic with angle and distance (in someone else's perspective, an angle) being valved, thus could what Einstein wrote about the differentials of local distances in a gravitational field could describe valving imposed by interference by the between-body gravitational tethers? All the more reason why we need your animations, Kirby ;-) Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 -------------------------------------- nothing surpasses the ordinary ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 13:00:09 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Looking for... In article , smtc5@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >We are capable of nearly anything. Don't you think it's about time >we started? You got that right! Rick ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 10:22:39 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Isotropic Vector Matrix In <199412030916.AA24962@xs1.xs4all.nl> Stuart Quimby w rites: >the VE as a model for wave motion is somthing I have thought long >and hard on... actually seeing a multi-cell model of the >jitterbug in motion would probably make things clearer for you. i'm sure it would. i'm left to my imagination, which hasn't yet been able to show me a picture of a multi-cell situation. >As the octa opens to the VE stage, all surrounding VE's are >compressed into octa form which in turn 'bumps' the next layer >into VE's and so on... you're making me jealous! i would love to see this thing in action. are you saying that the pulsating of one octa <--> VE phase causes a more-or-less spherical wave out from that point? does this allow for multiple sources of disturbance in the matrix? > When you have an actual physical model to >watch the effect is totally mesmerizing, hypnotic, and dare I say, >somehow almost _sexual_. now you're _really_ making me jealous! :) >My company produces a paper jitterbug model (the Octabug) designed by >the same fellow, Dennis Dreher, that designed the original dihedral >hinge on Fuller's multi-cell models. the Octabug is really only one cell, right? can they be combined into more cells? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 22:36:42 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER In <199412040519.AA16184@xs1.xs4all.nl> Stuart Quimby w rites: >(broad sweeping generalization follows) What bothers me is the >willingness of a group like this - concerned with the >multi-dimensional approach of Fuller to be so totally preoccupied >with reducing that vision to a flat 100 sq. in. of 2D! on the one hand i fully agree. but my idea for a program was to begin with stereo-vision and motion - so that doesn't quite qualify as 2D. >Enough with the computers already! I love to see computer >visulizations as much as anybody, but there's a whole 4D WORLD >just to the right, left, top, bottom, front, and back of that >little screen. eventually we'll be able to slip on the old VR helmet and a couple of gloves and fly through a pulsating folding-enfolding jitterbugging vector matrix. i'd be tempted to rate that one step above being able to walk around a physical model. imagine crawling inside! >I realize from reading your other posts, Gerald, that you've been >making models yourself, and I don't mean this rant to be aimed at >you. it's not taken personally at all (he says as he finishes the last few cocktail sticks in a 2-frequency icosa sphere for in the livingroom). > But I see this intoxication with computers in our Western >cultures to be at least partially at odds with the scope of >Fuller's vision. i think it's a tricky phase that we're in - where the goofy keyboards and geeky little screens prevent us from surrounding ourselves with the imaginary models we create and getting our hands dirty with them. this phase will pass pretty soon as basic VR gear gets cheap. > had reservations about talking about my own >company 'cause I didn't want to 'come on' too commercial. very polite of you. but that won't keep me from ordering a few things. if you folks had a storefront in my city i'd probably buy the shelves empty! does your company need a European connection? . :) -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 13:14:17 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc In <199412041445.AA08054@xs1.xs4all.nl> Gary Lawrence Murphy writes: >It's my understanding that Fuller did incorporate time, going even >further to incorporate temperature and all manner of coordinate >axes which elsewhere appear only in gauge symmetry physics. These >are the "nine dimensionality" associated, and modelled tactually >by the VE. do you have references in Synergetics, or perhaps other works? >Regarding Lorenz contractions, since Fuller's geometry is >topologically based, wouldn't contractions vanish? could you please take the time to explain this further? >[General Relativity:] Fuller's geometry could be taken as >a model of those laws, rather than a model of the appearance of >those laws in the given frame. i hardly know what to ask.. uh.. what is then, in Fuller's geometry, a representation of the laws in a given frame? > Also, in Synergetics, the matrix >of close-packed spheres is described as dynamic with angle and >distance (in someone else's perspective, an angle) being >valved, thus could what Einstein wrote about the differentials of >local distances in a gravitational field could describe >valving imposed by interference by the between-body gravitational >tethers? what is "valving"? (feel free to give a reference to Fuller) i'm having a difficult time wrestling with this posting, though it sounds fascinating. perhaps my physics training is inadequate. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 13:30:06 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dome Fan Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: info on geodesic domes You might also call Timberline Geodesics at 1-800-366-3466 or 1-800-DOME-HOME ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:26:34 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale > i know you've already got a lot to read , but i'd suggest that > you also make your way through "Chaos" by James Gleick (if you haven't > already). our recent probing into the universe has indeed revealed > infinities - in the simplest of nonlinear systems. it would seem that > even a jolted pendulum exhibits chaotic behavior - which is probably > best described as extreme (nearly infinite?) sensitivity to microscopic > conditions. I haven't read Gleick's book (again, I've been meaning to) but I have done a lot of research into fractals. I still don't recall that science has revealed infinities, since the pendulum as a system is finite, as in fact all systems are finite, Universe being the biggest system. As far as sensitivity to conditions, this cannot be infinite either, as the conditions themselves are finite -- packaged quanta -- and thus everything occurs in finite steps. > i'd guess that nature never gets tired of calculating, since She's > got access to the most incomprehensibly large massively parallel > machine - Universe. does She have to round it off? Universe is still a finite machine. So, yes, Nature does have to round off. If pi goes on infinitely, and Nature is using pi to calculate bubbles, then for every bubble Nature creates She is either calculating infinitely -- obviously not the case, or we would never see a bubble, since as much as I would like to stick around that long I doubt I'll manage it -- or She is rounding off somewhere down the line. > can you expand on that? [``That'' being my contention that our universe is > not just a sub-atomic particle in some larger universe and that there aren't > any sub-atomic universes lurking smaller than ours.] Yes. QED forces -- weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and so on -- are very limited by distance. Thus, assuming humans have made a fairly comprehensive list of forces acting in Universe, only gravity is capable of long-range action. Therefore, if we are indeed just a sub- atomic particle of a much larger universe, there must be some forces at work which are both very long-range and very pervasive and thus very nearly impossible to detect (much like the gravitational attraction between two brass balls on planet Earth: the Earth's gravitational field so overwhelms the gravitational fields of the two balls, those fields are nearly unnoticeable). As I said, I'm willing to believe that this is possible; but I also know of no observations that would support such an idea. (I also wonder of how much use such an idea would be; almost by definition, such a conclusion would be meaningless to humans. But, I suppose the weak nuclear force is also nearly meaningless except insofar as it increases humans' understanding of Universe.) > of course i'm just "talking out of my neck" as we say in Dutch. :) In _Stranger in a Strange Land_, Jubal Harshaw calls it speaking ex cathedra from his belly button. I'm very good at it -- so good, sometimes people take me seriously. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:27:26 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style You're exactly right, Gerald, when you say, ``it's not their fault that they're single-minded, how could they know?'' The term ``single-minded'' is in no way intended to be condescending, even though you may find it so. At least, *I* don't mean it that way. I recall at this point what Bucky wrote in _Critical Path_ (which I will not quote but paraphrase, since I stopped lugging my copy of _Critical Path_ around in favor of lugging around Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_ and -- yes, I decided to get to it -- Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher, Bach_), which was this: there are no good or bad people. If you recognize yourself or anyone you know in this book, remember that there's no judgement being made. So yes, they're single-minded and they have no way of knowing that they're not. No pity or recrimination is involved. They just are like I just am. And you're right again in saying that this is not a black-and-white issue. It isn't. Nothing is. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:27:29 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style Is it possible for us to have a model that is internally inconsistent and yet still accurately models reality? I think so. If you take, for example, physics, we have a model of the Universe which is not internally consistent but which models things quite accurately. There is still no bridge between gravity and quantum electrodynamics, and yet both model different ``views'' of human experiences very well. But I thik we'd all have to agree that the dividing line between a ``QED view'' and a ``gravity view'' is, as far as the Universe is concerned, non-existent. So humans arbitrarily draw a dividing line at the approximate place where the two theories become internally inconsistent with each other. In fact, humans' overall model of entire Universe is, taken as a whole -- including sociology, chemistry, biology, bowel movements, and basically the Whole Enchilada -- internally inconsistent in many places. But, again, we draw dividing lines where there are inconsistencies and call them separate models. But -- and I think this is important,-- they're NOT separate models. We are, as Bucky was fond of quoting, ``setting in order the facts of experience.'' The facts of experience admit no departments except those seen by humans through their conceptual maps: again, Nature does not call a department head meeting to decide what to do when a boy throws a stone in a pond. Think for a moment about the practice of medicine. Medicine is concerned with a multitude of models: chemical, biological, sociological, and so on. And the most important fact I get from reading medical literature is this: no one really knows what's going on. All their models are inaccurate and inconsistent. No one of their models is capable of explaining the multiplicity of experienced reality. And so doctors rely very heavily on empirical evidence. They have to, because lives are in the balance. People are dying of things all the time and in order to get something that works, doctors are willing to forgo models in large part. Their models are such a mess because the models humans have built up are so inconsistent with each other, and the practice of medicine cuts across all of them, ignorant of the separate departments into which we humans have broken Universe. So what we have operating here, at varying degrees of accuracy, is any number of sub-models of Universe, which models vary in their internal consistency (how well the model agrees with itself), and two types of external consistency (how well the model agrees with other models and how well the model agrees with reality). So, yes, I would say that s model can be internally inconsistent and yet model reality -- to some limited extent. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:28:26 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetrahedron From: Gerald de Jong Subject: zero tetrahedron > [A] zero-size [tetrahedron] goes too far, doesn't it? it has no areas, no > edges and perhaps one vertex (if you're lucky). the most you can say about > it is that (for continuity) it possesses the _symmetries_ of both > the inside-out and outside-in tetrahedra. No, and that's the point. It has areas -- four of zero size -- and edges -- six of zero size -- and vertexes -- four of zero size. Fuller was defining what he meant by the tetrahedron being conceptual regardless of size. A tetrahedron can be of zero size but still have these characteristics because these characteristics are conceptual and thus timeless, sizeless and eternal, while size is special-case and thus has time, size and duration. Just like the isotropic vector matrix, which is conceptual. Reality is asymmetric and special-case, and thus the isotropic vector matrix does not exist in reality; however, it is the equlibrium relative to which reality's fluctuations occur. A zero-size tetrahedron cannot exist -- it is entirely conceptual -- but it is the equilibrium relative to which reality oscillates. I imagine knitting needles, three of them, laid out as the edges of a triangle. They overlap at the vertexes; in fact, Fuller would define the vertexes as those overlappings. So imagine them laid out so that all of the needles overlap thusly (cheesy ASCII graphic follows): _ _ \\ // \\// \\ //\\ // \\ :==//========: // \\ ~ ~ Now, if you slide the needles toward each other, the triangle formed by their intersection shrinks; then, there comes a point where the needles can get no closer to each other and they twist, becoming perpendicular to each other (much like xyz coordinate axes). If you then start to pull them apart, you'll get another triangle; and if you allow the inertia of the needles to follow-through, the second triangle will be the inside-out of the first: _ _ \\ // \\// // //\\ // \\ :========\\==: // \\ ~ ~ The center around which the needles twist is the zero-size triangle. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:46:13 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: MISSION-EARTH X-To: Lieberman@aol.com In-Reply-To: <941203033126_4556537@aol.com>; from "Lieberman@aol.com" at Dec 3, 94 3:31 am Lieberman@aol.com writes: > > I think I missed something somewhere... could you clue me in on what mission > earth is about? I think they are trying to set up a global computer simulation to assess the feasability of, for instance, Fuller's proposal for a global electrical storage and distribution grid. Maybe someone out there can post a more detailed description of their goals. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:00:42 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: Tensegrity Hexapent Dome In-Reply-To: <9412022145.aa13748@cruzio.cruzio.com>; from "Russell Chu" at Dec 2, 94 3:15 pm Hey Russ, Great stuff! How 'bout posting some of your old articles from "Synergetica"? -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:12:25 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: URNER'S WWWEB SITE Kirby, I finally got around to learning how to use my text-only Web browser (LYNX) to g(o) to a specific Internet address such as your World Wide Web site: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ It's great! I downloaded every page, printed it out, read it and put it in my "Urner" binder. (Too bad I couldn't see the pictures, etc., but I could have downloaded them. Someday I'll have a Pentium with all the bells and whistles.) Judging from your content plus your ongoing dialog about Synergetics, you definitely have done your homework! Do you know of any other sites that have Bucky stuff? Could you link a word or phrase to the Geodesic list? What about other Bucky groups like World Game, GENI and BFI? What about references? What are your plans? If you need a picture, let me know. Maybe I can help. I still have a lot of stuff that I haven't uploaded yet. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:51:28 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: BASIC BUCKY In-Reply-To: <9411260843.AA01706@mx5.u.washington.edu> Re:Synergetics II R, Buckminster Fuller 2,1 Quark Models Discovery of "Top" Quark completes a unified model Holy Grail of physics was a misnomer ANON 12/05/94 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 23:45:08 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles Well here are my two cents worth on recent postings by Kirby, Chris & Gerald plus a few choice bits of my own.... from Kirby... >Fuller seems to equate energy >vectors with mass x velocity (mv), but of course this is not standard >physics. Making mv=energy was played with in the early days, but >now energy units are in units of m v v. In classical physics, energy, like work, is considered a scalar quantity; the units of energy are the same as those of work. These units may be ergs, joules, watt-hours, foot-pounds, or foot-poundals, depending on the system of units being used. In modern physics, energy and the three components of linear momentum (i.e. p=m x v, a vector quantity) are thought of as different aspects of a single four-dimensional vector quantity, much as time is considered to be one aspect of the four-dimensional space-time continuum. Bucky's "action" = vectors = mass x velocity = momentum = polyhedral edge = size = an energy event. As such it is inherently terminaled. Time is taken into account by this definition. (It is interesting to note that there exists a conservation of momentum along with energy, mass and charge). >> i'd guess that nature never gets tired of calculating, since She's >> got access to the most incomprehensibly large massively parallel >> machine - Universe. does She have to round it off? from Chris... >Universe is still a finite machine. So, yes, Nature does have to round off. > If pi goes on infinitely, and Nature is using pi to calculate bubbles, > then for every bubble Nature creates She is either calculating > infinitely -- obviously not the case, or we would never see a bubble, > since as much as I would like to stick around that long I doubt I'll > manage it -- or She is rounding off somewhere down the line. It is my thinking that the principles behind nature's self-organized, structuring are wickedly simple. They are based on minimization of energy (i.e. energy events, vectors) while balancing the constraints imposed by space. The soap bubble has a surface that is a geodesic tensegrity. The energy events on the surface (i.e. surface tension energy) are trying to balance against other energies present and the constraints imposed by space. Soap films tend to contract over a minimum area while the energy is being minimized. I would propose the following... The Soap Bubble Scenario 1.) Energy must first be available from the "cosmic pool". This is likely to be in several different forms. 2.) An impetus is applied by some external agent (e.g. a child's breath). The scenario begins... 3.) Components precess and fall back upon each other in critical proximity. 4.) Excess energy is transfered elsewhere (i.e. as heat to the environment), while system energy minimizes. Structure begins to form based on energy and spatial constraints. 5.) The surface film is composed of omnitriangulated energy events (i.e. vectors). 6.) Structure is complete when energy events & spatial constraints balance. This is the halting condition. No pi required! No round-off! Universe isn't as much a computer as a balance scale. 7.) The scenario terminates upon "bursting" which returns the energies to the "cosmic pool" The shape of structures are inherent. Synergetics has identified many of them. The commonality of molecular structures such as DNA, amino acids etc. is due to the fact that they have no way else to form given their special case conditions. Self-organization is an illusion. Structures form as result of "least action" within spatial constraints. Energy has shape as does space. The missing piece that connects physical reality to synergtics reality is this item. Paraphrasing Loeb, Space is not a passive vacuum and imposes structural constraints on matter (i.e. energy events) that inhabits it. The bridge is the structural/energetic (synergetic) aspects. The key is identifying all of the spatial constraints. look up the following article if you have a chance: The Geometry of Soap Films and Soap Bubbles, Scientific American July 1976. Model builders will enjoy reproducing some of the forms many of which they will have seen first while reading Synergetics. ============================ Aside: I was thinking about a few other things that led to some other thinking in a critical proximity sort of way. Bucky defines time intervals, delta t = the negative Universe phase of the tetrahedrons oscillation. Time intervals are essentially disconnects from eternity. This oscillation from positive to negative phase changes occur constantly at the quantum level providing not only time but also life. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle can be written as delta E x delta t = h where h=planck's constant = 6.6 x 10^-27. (gm x s / cm^2). Bucky noted that the 6.6ness comes from the volume of the VE / volume of the cube (20/3 = 6.6). From this is conceptually easy to see where the uncertainty principle comes from as the delta t comes from the negative phase of Universe oscillation which we have no direct access to. This also makes sense when examining quantum gravity and properties of the energetic vacuum. ================================== from Gerald... >ever since i first encountered the beautiful omnitriangulated vector >matrix i have been bothered by something. if it were indeed to be >useful as a model of the structure of space then there remained some >important problems. the propagation of waves in space appears in >reality to be spherical, while the vector matrix model would instead >have the waves propagating in the form of a cuboctahedron (the vector >equilibrium form) which is hardly spherical. The complex of jitterbugs does appear to describe wave propagation so visually & so eloquently. The other aspect of wave behavior that I have noticed within the jitterbug is in the shape made by a hexagonal equator of the VE as it reaches the icosa phase. The configuration of the VE edges of such an equator appear to be roughly analogous to a 1-1/2 cycle sine/cosine waveform. I wonder whether the arcs of the equato'rs vertexia would follow a sinousoidal path? Perhaps a computer simulation would help? Rick "I've learned to just say Know" Bono P.S. Hope I got the quotes right, my apologies if I goofed... RJB ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:50:47 +0100 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc [Gary was so rushed, he mailed to me personally by accident] As I'm in the midst of exhibit building (blatent ad ---> http://www.osc.on.ca/Exhibits/info-highway.html) I haven't much time for a thorough reply, so I welcome any other comments to flesh this out. > "GdJ" == Gerald de Jong writes: GdJ> In <199412041445.AA08054@xs1.xs4all.nl> Gary Lawrence Murphy GdJ> writes: >> It's my understanding that Fuller did incorporate time, going even >> further to incorporate temperature and all manner of coordinate >> axes which elsewhere appear only in gauge symmetry physics. These >> are the "nine dimensionality" associated, and modelled tactually by >> the VE. GdJ> do you have references in Synergetics, or perhaps other works? I believe it is Synergetics where VE are spoken of in increasing dimensions up to nine modellable dimensions. Also, I remember somewhere in there the description that a picture of a caterpillar says nothing of the butterfly (perhaps in Tetrascroll) which suggests to me Fuller held the dimension of time intrisic to any modelling. >> Regarding Lorenz contractions, since Fuller's geometry is >> topologically based, wouldn't contractions vanish? GdJ> could you please take the time to explain this further? Topologically, relative to any VE, the geometry is preserved so far as angles, edges, faces and vertices. However distorted, even if folded into a klein bottle, these topological relations are invariant. If we take another Fullerian view, of reality being the sum of experience, to the frame of reference of any VE, the geometric relations of angle and edge values are also unchanged by gravity (however they may be changed when viewed from another frame) >> [General Relativity:] Fuller's geometry could be taken as a model >> of those laws, rather than a model of the appearance of those laws >> in the given frame. GdJ> i hardly know what to ask.. uh.. what is then, in Fuller's GdJ> geometry, a representation of the laws in a given frame? the angle, edge, vertex and face relations, the invariants. these describe the relations within the frame and I might also accept, because these are topological, the description also holds for those relations seen from another frame. > Also, in Synergetics, the matrix >> of close-packed spheres is described as dynamic with angle and >> distance (in someone else's perspective, an angle) being valved, >> thus could what Einstein wrote about the differentials of local >> distances in a gravitational field could describe valving imposed >> by interference by the between-body gravitational tethers? GdJ> what is "valving"? (feel free to give a reference to Fuller) valving is the modulation in angles. part of the trouble with Synergetics as a guide is how it tries to describe a dynamic 4D geometry using static 2D images. If you have a rubber-hub VE model, the valving of face surface angles is modelled. If you replace the sticks with springs (because the sticks are in reality, tensegrity towers, hence elastic) you can model edge 'inner angle' (as seen from the model centre) valving. GdJ> i'm having a difficult time wrestling with this posting, though GdJ> it sounds fascinating. perhaps my physics training is GdJ> inadequate. Everyone's physics may be inadequate (and mine is no exception). That's why we are we and Bucky was Bucky! (although, Bucky proves through Guinea Pig B that there is very little, if any, difference :) Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 -------------------------------------- nothing surpasses the ordinary -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 08:58:54 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: JOE MOORE PROFILE I have had several requests for the following information: I am a 54 year old divorced male with no children. I was born and raised in Northern California. For what it's worth, I have a Bachelor of Arts in the Economics (of Scarcity). I am self-taught as far as computers go (I have an Amiga 2000). I've worked in City "Planning" and for a County Department of "Social Services" (Welfare!), among other things. I now manage several rentals for my parents and live off my savings and investments. While working in City Planning I began to wonder how all the problems that I saw around me could be solved (City planning obviously wasn't doing such a hot job). Since humans were, at that time, getting ready to go to the moon, I instinctly felt that there was no reason that humans couldn't invent their way out of ANY problem. So I started looking. In 1970 I stumbled upon Bucky's 'Utopia or Oblivion' and realized that his strategy of "more with less" could work. So I started the long process of acquiring and absorbing the ideas and information he was making available. I did part-time volunteer work for the Buckminster Fuller Institute in Los Angeles (Fall '83-Fall '85) while I was trying to figure out what types of projects needed to be done. I decided to create a digital library of black and white and color Bucky pictures, a digital bibliography of references by and about him, and a database to manage the whole thing. I have since come to the conclusion that the fact that Bucky's works are still copyrighted has actually held back the spread of his ideas. Therefore, I decided to put all my work in the Public Domain. And I intend to put more of my material into the public domain as time goes on. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 10:51:45 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale Chris: >Universe is still a finite machine. So, yes, Nature does have to round off. > If pi goes on infinitely, and Nature is using pi to calculate bubbles, > then for every bubble Nature creates She is either calculating > infinitely -- obviously not the case, or we would never see a bubble, > since as much as I would like to stick around that long I doubt I'll > manage it -- or She is rounding off somewhere down the line. > Picking up the PI thread... Bucky's contention was not that Nature is rounding PI somewhere down the line, but doesn't use Pi at all. Pi is useful in our algorithms (all of which truncate Pi -- keep in mind that no calculation using non-terminating, non-repeating decimals has ever been done by anyone, anywhere -- symbolic manipulation doesn't require digital values, but once digits are introduced, they're always terminated, i.e. rational in practice). People may think that because trigonometric functions etc are useful when predicting or modeling phenomena that therefore those phenomena must somehow involve some kind of invisible "computing" on nature's part. But the interplay of molecules and pressures which result in a bubble need not involve anything like binary manipulation of electrons through logic gates (our method). Instead of saying that nature is involved in "rounding" inherently non-terminating sequences of digits, I think we should realize that Pi and root-of-five are symbols of algorithms, which, if run indefinitely, will continue to produce a string of digits ad infinitum, how many depending on the time we allow the algorithm to run. To say that "infinitely long strings of digits" really exist out there somewhere, to be rounded off by nature when she does practical things like make bubbles, is misleading. These "infinite strings" do not exist anywhere and are not used by anyone or anything. Nature is not "rounding" figments of our imagination or approximating anything. To say our concepts are the real McCoy and nature is "rounding" is to get it backwards. Nature is the reality, and our symbolic systems and digit games are approximations thereto. To our infinite strings from algorithmic generators, nothing in nature corresponds, except her ability to make each moment unique and different from the last. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 10:59:03 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: zero tetrahedron >From: Gerald de Jong >Subject: zero tetrahedron > >> [A] zero-size [tetrahedron] goes too far, doesn't it? it has no areas, no >> edges and perhaps one vertex (if you're lucky). the most you can say about >> it is that (for continuity) it possesses the _symmetries_ of both >> the inside-out and outside-in tetrahedra. Chris: >No, and that's the point. It has areas -- four of zero size -- and edges -- > six of zero size -- and vertexes -- four of zero size. Fuller was > defining what he meant by the tetrahedron being conceptual regardless > of size. A tetrahedron can be of zero size but still have these > characteristics because these characteristics are conceptual and thus > timeless, sizeless and eternal, while size is special-case and thus > has time, size and duration. Chris, good post! I liked it a lot. You and Gerald have a great dialogue going. Gerald, thanks for being willing to advocate for the devil. Kirby PS: I keep forgetting to mention, or did I mention it (I will again then): a great little book with lots of fun math and lots of Bucky intermixed is: Connections: The Geometric Bridge Between Art and Science by Jay Kappraff (Dept of Mathematics, New Jersey Inst. of Tech) 1991, McGraw-Hill Inc. This book well illustrates how synergetics can be synchronized with a wealth of other material and help to organize it. A lot of the value of synergetics is in its hypertext linking of what would normally be treated in different departments. Even if synergetics gets it wrong in places, I think the intent to integrate and use geometry-rich thinking center-stage (visualizable metaphors and precision abilities) is right on. ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 11:21:00 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Synergetics - vision, style Chris: >In fact, humans' overall model of entire Universe is, taken as a whole -- > including sociology, chemistry, biology, bowel movements, and basically > the Whole Enchilada -- internally inconsistent in many places. But, > again, we draw dividing lines where there are inconsistencies and call > them separate models.... >So what we have operating here, at varying degrees of accuracy, is any number > of sub-models of Universe, which models vary in their internal > consistency (how well the model agrees with itself), and two types of > external consistency (how well the model agrees with other models and > how well the model agrees with reality). >So, yes, I would say that s model can be internally inconsistent and yet model > reality -- to some limited extent. > I think Bucky modeled this enchilada of inconsistent sub-models in synergetics, in passages about frequency balls experiencing friction with one another, like spherical gears that don't mesh but rub and spark (don't have the passage, sorry). Instead of "model" in this connection, synergetics speaks of "systems," which are hypertext balls of related thoughts and events, spherically depicted, kind of like the World Wide Web is a spherical (because scattered around the globe) network of interlinked pages (events, concepts, experiences). Each of us internalizes and works with our own personal systems for relating stuff to stuff. Synergetics has a visual representation of this. I even think synergetics models "open minded" vs "closed minded". A closed system is an icosahedron, its 12 vertex "railroad stations" disconnected from the grand IVM internetwork network. But when the icosa "leaps" (of faith?) through VE phase, it momentarily connects to the Hermetic ALL and the light bulb goes on -- new idea! Intuition! Then we hunker down into icosaphase again -- can't live in totally receptive mode, just hop through it, like a tiger through a hoop. As Chris said, real human experience is of inconsistency and imperfection. The generalized principles completely harmonize in some eternal zero, but that's prefrequency uncreated equilibrium (echoes of Zen Void), whereas reality is a slanted fun house, an off-center, disequilibrious "after image" of the future perfect (playing here with the Tipler notion that eternal zero might be at the temporal far side of Universe, opposite the Big Bang, everything in between being a quantum "possible" a "could have been" which we're in the midst of experiencing). Frequencies are the fall out of the big bang (ever the beginning of another "possible Universe"), to be regathered at the "end of time". The whole sound spectrum of biggest to smallest cycling, universal expansion-contraction to atomic buzzing, creates our "after image" Universe of transforming energies. Prefrequency is uncreated pure principles, a zero anchor point which keeps Possible Universe possible. Kirby tilting towards the mystic pole on a snowy morning ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 11:58:59 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc >>> Regarding Lorenz contractions, since Fuller's geometry is >>> topologically based, wouldn't contractions vanish? > >GdJ> could you please take the time to explain this further? > >Topologically, relative to any VE, the geometry is preserved so far >as angles, edges, faces and vertices. However distorted, even if >folded into a klein bottle, these topological relations are invariant. > >If we take another Fullerian view, of reality being the sum of experience, >to the frame of reference of any VE, the geometric relations of angle >and edge values are also unchanged by gravity (however they may be changed >when viewed from another frame) I think another way in which Fuller tried to accommodate the relativity princple was to emphasize that Universe is ultimately aconceptual, i.e cannot be visualized or depicted as an object, which is another way of saying we have no "absolute" reference frame that is somehow synonymous with Universe itself -- that being said I might have to admit the IVM is such an "absolute" but with the caveat that it is an "idea" of a perfect coordinate system that we might have in common, without actually imputing some single "universe filling" existence. If you have the idea of a giant IVM filling all Universe simultaneously and completely, throw it out -- Einstein did. The absolute is more like a gyroscope local to each "system" behaving like a compass, pointing towards "zero". A greater angle means larger divergence. Fuller persistently advocates that attaining greater precision, greater fidelity in synergetics, is a matter of gross, then ever finer tuning. So we have an image of language (a "coordinate system") approximating an absolute, which can sound like a non-relativistic image. But then general relativity is really about how certain quantities (e.g. the speed of light) are "abolutes" -- identical with respect to all reference frames. Sorry about the poor focus of the above remarks. I'm into fuzzier logic this snowy morning. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 02:32:24 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: missing posts I was mysteriously unsubscribed to this newsgroup just after my rant about "too much computer not enough physical models (must have blown a circuit ). Judging from the direct email response I got there must have been some good comments out there. If I missed anything, could you please repost? Or does somebody out there know how to make this @#$!@#$ Internet repost the past few days postings to my address? TIA Stuart Quimby Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 08:03:11 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles In <199412060603.AA10977@xs1.xs4all.nl> Rjbono writes: >Energy has shape as does space. The missing piece that connects physical >reality to synergtics reality is this item. Paraphrasing Loeb, Space is >not a passive vacuum and >imposes structural constraints on matter (i.e. energy events) that >inhabits it. The bridge is the >structural/energetic (synergetic) aspects. The key is identifying all of >the spatial constraints. what is the shape of energy? is it somehow based on the omnitriangulated vectors combining? >The complex of jitterbugs does appear to describe wave propagation >so visually & so eloquently. spherical expansion as well? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 08:12:31 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc In <199412051653.AA26718@charon.osc.on.ca> Gary Lawrence Murphy writes: >I believe it is Synergetics where VE are spoken of in increasing >dimensions up to nine modellable dimensions. that's something i couldn't grasp. it seemed like numerology more than mathematics. >valving is the modulation in angles. part of the trouble with >Synergetics as a guide is how it tries to describe a dynamic 4D geometry >using static 2D images. If you have a rubber-hub VE model, the valving >of face surface angles is modelled. If you replace the sticks with >springs (because the sticks are in reality, tensegrity towers, hence >elastic) you can model edge 'inner angle' (as seen from the model centre) >valving. fortunately i built a VE with glass tubes and elastic thread and with that came to understand the movements it makes. is it not so that for the VE to jitterbug into an octa form, the nucleus would have to "blink out" in some way or other? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:33:11 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale In <199412052302.AA09695@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >> already). our recent probing into the universe has indeed revealed >> infinities - in the simplest of nonlinear systems. it would seem that >> even a jolted pendulum exhibits chaotic behavior - which is probably >> best described as extreme (nearly infinite?) sensitivity to microscopic >> conditions. >I haven't read Gleick's book (again, I've been meaning to) but I have done a > lot of research into fractals. I still don't recall that science has > revealed infinities, since the pendulum as a system is finite, as in > fact all systems are finite, Universe being the biggest system. As > far as sensitivity to conditions, this cannot be infinite either, as > the conditions themselves are finite -- packaged quanta -- and thus > everything occurs in finite steps. though quantum mechanics speaks of quanta - it doesn't predict them more than to the level of probabilities. it appears that "from above" (from a macro viewpoint) energy is quantized. we have no clue (i believe) about the source of the unpredictability - and i doubt that we can say definitely that it isn't due to perhaps even smaller nonlinear events that combine into apparently stable quanta. >> i'd guess that nature never gets tired of calculating, since She's >> got access to the most incomprehensibly large massively parallel >> machine - Universe. does She have to round it off? >Universe is still a finite machine. So, yes, Nature does have to round off. what's the basis for saying that Universe is finite? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:21:18 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetrahedron In <199412052145.AA29950@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >> [A] zero-size [tetrahedron] goes too far, doesn't it? it has no areas, no >> edges and perhaps one vertex (if you're lucky). the most you can say about >> it is that (for continuity) it possesses the _symmetries_ of both >> the inside-out and outside-in tetrahedra. >No, and that's the point. It has areas -- four of zero size -- and edges -- > six of zero size -- and vertexes -- four of zero size. edges of zero size? that's something that i would define as meaningless. Synergetics 441.02: Vector equilibrium accommodates all intertransformings of any one tetrahedron by polar pumping, or turning itself inside out... The vector equilibrium is a tetrahedron exploding itself, turning itself inside-out in four possible directions. it would seem to me that he is talking here about the symmetries present in a tetrahedron and how they are reflected in the VE, rather than about such things as an edge of zero size. >I imagine knitting needles, three of them, laid out as the edges of a triangle. >... > Now, if you slide the needles toward each other, the triangle formed > by their intersection shrinks; then, there comes a point where the > needles can get no closer to each other and they twist, becoming > perpendicular to each other (much like xyz coordinate axes). this is a very nice illustration. but i'm stuck on this perpendicular point, because i can't see it as representing the zero triangle. > If you then start to pull them apart, you'll get another triangle; > The center around which the needles twist is the zero-size triangle. what is the working definition of a triangle if this is the zero case? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:51:21 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale Chris Rywalt (crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com) wrote: [lots of deletia] > Kirby writes further: > > also, is it not entirely possible that the topology of subatomic particles > > resembles fractals (ie. Julia sets) more than shiny spheres? then there > > would be no validity in the supposition that we occupy somehow the "middle" > > of the scale spectrum. > > it is also not at all impossible that our universe is inside of > > a subatomic particle of some other universe. > There's a problem with relating fractals to reality, though, and it's something > I've been thinking about over the last few days. The main problem > is that fractals require infinity: a finite volume/area enclosed by > an infinite surface/perimeter. As Bucky was fond of pointing out, > though, physics has disclosed no infinities. Humans' probing of the > Universe has thus far discovered only finities. > So I have been asking myself a question similar to one Fuller once asked from > the bow of a ship: if Nature is using fractals to design things, and > fractals entail an infinitude of calculations, at what point does > Nature say, ``That's close enough,'' and round off? > Chris. > crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com I read Gleick's book on Chaos and once attended a lecture on fractals. I find the concept that a fractal (or chaos theory or complexity theory) "models" reality to be rather ludicrous. My especial flame goes to the fractal people: How can they suggest that illions of computer iterations later their SVGA 21" monitor finally has a "representation" of a fern? Where was the seed phase modeled? They completely overlook the plant's entire growth process and call it a model of the fern. Do plants really place their cells according to the Julia set? I don't think so. Fractals (IMHO) belong to the field of art (and so are inherently valuable but not as descriptions of reality). Chaos and complexity theory are more useful. They demonstrate to me just exactly what is required to get the current models of physics to explain those little inaccuracies that everyone has ignored to date: the biggest mathematical kludge yet (and not even well understood). The way current science thinks about these issues is 1) Make your Newtonian model (but remember that's not the whole story) 2) Now add Einstein extensions (but that's not the whole story) 3) Now add some quantum extensions (but that's not the whole story) 4) Now add some chaos - And that's the way nature is. Just ridiculous. But reasonable: the art of further refining your approximations to make up for the fact that your entire model is based on oversimplification and approximation. Now to prove that I'm an American (complainer par exellance): Fuller's models don't explain all that much either. But at least they properly put into perspective where science is at its weakest. And they give some thrilling suggestions about where to go from here. -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) cjf@netaxs.com | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@jpacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 09:08:38 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: HAROLD E HAMMOND Subject: Do Not Re-Post Stuart Quimby recently requested that everyone re-post their messages from the past few days. PLEASE DON'T! I get enough mail now. I don't think the rest of you want to have to weed thru all that duplicate mail either. To Stuart and anyone else who needs back mail you can get a list of the archived files by sending a message to: LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU or LISTSERV@UBVM.BITNET (for bitnet) Include as the body of the message: INDEX GEODESIC Then you can order individual files by sending another message to the same address only this time include as the body of the message: GET GEODESIC LOGxxxx where 'xxxx' is the corresponding number of the archived file. More information regarding the listserv database can be found by sending a message to the above mentioned address including as the body of the message: INFO REFCARD HTH - Harry harry@fs0.uii.com heh@scotty.uii.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 11:18:42 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale Chris cites: >> Kirby writes further: >> > also, is it not entirely possible that the topology of subatomic particles >> > resembles fractals (ie. Julia sets) more than shiny spheres? Chris replies (deleting most): >Just ridiculous. Kirby didn't write about fractals. That was Gerald. Fractal subdividing, getting more and more detailed, like extending Pi to amazing billions of decimal places, is constrained only by the time allotted, time being a real constraint. I doubt nature uses fractals in their theoretical sense for the same reason she doesn't use Pi to infinite decimals (or use Pi at all). Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:52:48 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale In-Reply-To: <199412072044.AA32386@charon.osc.on.ca> (message from Kirby Urner on Wed, 7 Dec 1994 11:18:42 -0800) > "K" == Kirby Urner writes: K> Fractal subdividing, getting more and more detailed, like extending K> Pi to amazing billions of decimal places, is constrained only by K> the time allotted, time being a real constraint. I doubt nature K> uses fractals in their theoretical sense for the same reason she K> doesn't use Pi to infinite decimals (or use Pi at all). I wouldn't be as certain. When I first started to look into geodesics modelling by computer, I was frustrated by the need for transcendental functions, but then realized I was not following the letter of Nature's method: Nature does not construct domes, or bubbles or fern leaves, Nature always _grows_ them. Starting from a seed, adding layers by subdivision and replication and indeterminancy: This is the recipe for fractal, chaotic (in the math sense) development! If you build a dome by beginning with the zero-frequency rules, adding first one, then 12, then 42 then 92 ... you need integers in the 10-illions, but eventually you get the smooth dome of an orange's skin. I do agree with Kirby on this: Nature does not use "theoretical sense" Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 "...it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - R.P. Feynman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:01:28 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Ed Applewhite Subject: Jim Baggott book on Buckyballs This morning's mail just brought a new book from Oxford University Press by Jim Baggott: PERFECT SYMMETRY; THE ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF BUCKMINSTERFULLERENE. It is 315 pages, copiously illustrated with photographs and diagrams. This is a work by a science writer (who has also been a practicing chemist) putting the discovery of Buckminsterfullerene in the historical context of 20th chemistry. It aims at an objective exposition of how the discovery was made and the role of the people involved. It appraises the prospects for commercial applications, suggesting that some of the expectations were premature; and he explains why this is. . His references to Buckminster Fuller are sympathetic and fair, and he has gone farther than most other journalists in appreciating that the appropriateness of naming this molecule for Fuller is far from trivial. He speculates on the impact of this new form of carbon on developments in other branches of science, and concludes with a frank discussion of the dilemmas facing the Nobel Prize committee in awarding the prize which he presumes it has earned. In a recent article in NEW SCIENTIST Baggott reported that "In 1992 the US Patent Office saw more correspondence on fullerenes than on all other subjects combined." Ed Applewhite ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 16:40:45 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale In-Reply-To: <9412080020.AA27853@mx4.u.washington.edu> Re. Feynmen's statement about experIment is open to question. Who makes the experiemnt? As I and so many others see it (Sea) it. The observers make it and no doubt there are limits that color the experiment. Testability has no doubt some liability you know the ability to lie ,but I am just being facitous and there maybe some (sea ) there? take care nicku On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > > "K" == Kirby Urner writes: > > K> Fractal subdividing, getting more and more detailed, like extending > K> Pi to amazing billions of decimal places, is constrained only by > K> the time allotted, time being a real constraint. I doubt nature > K> uses fractals in their theoretical sense for the same reason she > K> doesn't use Pi to infinite decimals (or use Pi at all). > > I wouldn't be as certain. When I first started to look into geodesics > modelling by computer, I was frustrated by the need for transcendental > functions, but then realized I was not following the letter of Nature's > method: Nature does not construct domes, or bubbles or fern leaves, > Nature always _grows_ them. Starting from a seed, adding layers by > subdivision and replication and indeterminancy: This is the recipe > for fractal, chaotic (in the math sense) development! If you build a > dome by beginning with the zero-frequency rules, adding first one, > then 12, then 42 then 92 ... you need integers in the 10-illions, but > eventually you get the smooth dome of an orange's skin. > > I do agree with Kirby on this: Nature does not use "theoretical sense" > > > Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca > Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html > Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 > Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 > > "...it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter > how smart you are - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." > > - R.P. Feynman > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 20:10:24 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Joe Moore's Database Joe, I seem to recall you mentioning an FTP site for your database. Would you mind repeating it? I've just gotten FTP access and would like to study it. Thanks, Rick Bono ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 23:10:28 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles In article , Gerald de Jong writes: >>Energy has shape as does space. The missing piece that connects physical >>reality to synergtics reality is this item. Paraphrasing Loeb, Space is >>not a passive vacuum and imposes structural constraints on matter >>(i.e. energy events) that inhabits it. The bridge is the >>structural/energetic (synergetic) aspects. The key is identifying all of >>the spatial constraints. >what is the shape of energy? is it somehow based on the omnitriangulated >vectors combining? Here we come back to Planck's constant (h = 6.6 x 10^-34 [joule * s]). Planck's constant defines the minimum energy-as-radiation increment (energy as radiation is quanitized and takes on only discrete values). The value of h was derived using a cubical reference frame. Bucky asserts that, although h provides correct results when used to determine a photon's energy value (because it is a truth), it is unecessarily irrational. Further investigations led to his discovery that energy has shape. One quantum of energy is in the shape of a tetrahedron. The tetrahedron has the highest structural integrity and encloses the least volume with the most surface. It is the prime structure. These are extermely important properties to have in containing energy. A cube is structurally unstable an could therefore not properly contain a quantum of energy. The vector equilibrium is composed of 20 centrally and radially arranged tetrahedronal volumes. The cube has a containment value of 3 tetrahedra vs the VE's 20 tetra. 20/3 = 6.6. Thus, h can be made rational when in synergetic accounting. The energy packet (quanta) is tetrahedronal. Each quanta travels radially away from its source. All quanta from a source travel omnidirectially, radially away from it. Ergo, the spherical wavefront. This is not a continuous spherical shell. The motion all packets follow is a spherical, areal expansion wavefront. The upshot of all this is that science has overlooked the shape properties of energy and have focused on the size properties. Size is special case, shape is conceptual. When the energy as shape properties are combined with spatial contraints, structures and patterns emerge. >>The complex of jitterbugs does appear to describe wave propagation >>so visually & so eloquently. >spherical expansion as well? Yes. The complex of jitterbugs does follow a pattern of omnidirectional propagation. It remains a useful visual model of invisible events. BTW, I also wouldn't be too quick to discard the notion that the VE/jitterbug complexes constitutes a "structure of space". Work in quantum gravity seems to indicate that space has a certain structure to it. Some refer to it as having a foamlike quality at the quantum level. The energetic vacuum in particular has many curious properties. See the later chapters in Misner, Thorne & Wheeler's _Gravitation_ for more info. This volume also describes the Regge Calculus which is suprisingly Synergetic. I also recall a photograph in Scientific Amercian a few years ago (Sept 92) of a "cosmic loop" model used to illustrate the Ashtekar Loop-string theory of quantum gravity. It looked very similar to the complex of jitterbugs. Rick "Jitterbugging through this life thing" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 23:30:16 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: FULLER'S COMPUTER In article <9411231758.aa07152@cruzio.cruzio.com>, Joe Moore writes: >Your paper, "Applied Computational Cosmography" (6-92), and Jim Nystrom's >paper, "Computational Cosmography" (4-92), are the clearest and most >detailed descriptions of how the hardware and software for Fuller's computer >would work that I have ever seen. I think that you guys are definitely on >the right track. > >Could you send me a copy of Part II of ACC, if you have already posted it? Thanks for the encouragement, Joe! I've noted that most of the response I've recieved for the papers is that they are vauge. Well...yes...as far as providing details on implemenation that is right. I had hoped that my opening statements would have softened that a bit. My intent was to start some thinking into the realization of such a machine, not to draw a blueprint. Since that paper was written I have refined many of the ideas. Quantum dots as "processors" make Fuller's original vision feasible. That they will be used in next generation computers is inevitable. I would like to see it taken a step further so that we go beyond today's "pocket calculator" stuff into something that enhances our knowledge of Universe and helps us efficiently allocate Earth's resource situation. Part II of ACC is still in preparation. I'll be happy to upload it when complete. Meanwhile I hope that the outline will help. Thanks again to all for the encouragement and comments! Rick "Ready to help build the BIG machine" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 01:05:19 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Nuclear Computers Got this post from sci.nanotech newsgroup last week. It illustrates that the computational properties of nature can be tapped and mapped to specific problems areas... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Subject: first working molecular computer? From: dkliman@cosmic.com (Dave Kliman) Date: 29 Nov 1994 15:21:27 -0500 Message-ID: <3bg2g7$15j@planchet.rutgers.edu> I saw in Tuesday's New York Times, Science Times, Page C1, Column 1, an article about how a scientist discovered a way to use DNA to make a "computer." According to the article, "The experiments designer, Dr. Leonard Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, discovered a way to use DNA to solve a problem that involves finding the shortest path linking seven cities." ... "Dr. Adleman began by assigning each city a name in the form of a specific sequence of letters represented by chemical units of DNA. Each city had a first name that consisted of a string of 10 arbitrarily selected DNA letters and a last name that consisted of a different configuration of 10 DNA letters..." "Next Dr. Adleman gave each city a set of 'flight numbers.' A flight number for a flight between Baltimore and Chicago, for example would consist of the last name of Baltimore in the DNA code appended to the first name of Chicago in the DNA code, except that these sequences of DNA would be expressed in their mirror opposites of the sequences for the cities..." "Dr. Adleman then ordered the synthesis of DNA molecules corresponding to the cities and to the flight tags representing all the possible flights between one city and another. Then he mixed all the DNA segments together. What happened then was that each flight tag started pairing with the DNA for its two cities, building up longer and longer chains of DNA representing flights between more and more cities. "As the DNA segments sloshed through the solution and bumped into one another, they almost instantaneously created all possible paths linking the seven cities. Using well established techniques of molecular biology, Dr Adleman could fish out the molecule that started with the designated starting city, ended with the designated ending city, contained all the intermediate cities and was shortest in length. The sequence of this molecule represented the computed solution of the problem... -Dave Kliman ======================================= Ok, so the input/output is a wee bit cumbersome... This experiment has solved one of the most difficult compuational problems there is (i.e. the shortest-network problem). A realization of Fuller's nuclear computer would be a general purpose machine capable of solving problems in much the same way. Rick "I am not the vegetables that I eat!" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 22:01:06 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics In <199412061902.AA24374@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: > hypertext balls of related thoughts and events, spherically depicted, kind >of like the World Wide Web is a spherical (because scattered around the globe) >network of interlinked pages (events, concepts, experiences). ech, WWW is hardly spherical. links can go splam to the other side of the planet. > But when the icosa "leaps" (of faith?) through VE >phase, it momentarily connects to the Hermetic ALL and the light bulb goes on >-- new idea! Intuition! Then we hunker down into icosaphase again -- can't >live >in totally receptive mode, just hop through it, like a tiger through a hoop. wow! i don't know what you're smoking, but i bet you'd enjoy a visit to the little cafe down my street. ;) >[relativity] >If you have the idea >of a giant IVM filling all Universe simultaneously and completely, >throw it out -- Einstein did. of course. but what about an IVM with me as the center, in other words - one reference frame? >Fuller persistently advocates that attaining >greater precision, greater fidelity in synergetics, is a matter of >gross, then ever finer tuning. that's why i found it funny to hear such terms as "the 6.6ness of Planck's constant". doesn't that kind of vague talk contradict these high standards of precision? >Sorry about the poor focus of the above remarks. I'm into >fuzzier logic this snowy morning. see above. :) :) >[about pie] >Picking up the PI thread... Bucky's contention was not that Nature is >rounding PI somewhere down the line, but doesn't use Pi at all. PI is a number and nature doesn't use any numbers - we do. PI is also a _difficult_ number which we only approximate though we know exactly what it is. it's nothing to be afraid of. why not describe it as sizeless and conceptual, just like the tetrahedron? it is a ratio - part of the description of a round circle, regardless of the size of the circle. >People may think that because trigonometric functions etc are useful >when predicting or modeling phenomena that therefore those phenomena >must somehow involve some kind of invisible "computing" on nature's part. i think that's just a way to talk about it and that people don't really mean it that way. PI and "e" and a few others are nature's numbers, not our numbers - She doesn't calculate so She doesn't need to worry about decimal places or rounding off. >Instead of saying that nature is involved in "rounding" inherently >non-terminating >sequences of digits, I think we should realize that Pi and root-of-five are >symbols of algorithms, which, if run indefinitely... oh no - not at all! PI and root-of-five don't represent algorithms! PI is purely one of the ratios you come up with when you talk about circles and spheres. it's tricky to describe in digits, but easy to describe in concept. Bucky's idea, i think, was that if we have to resort to wierd irrational numbers to describe nature, then we're probably not using the best type of approach for the description. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 11:49:09 EST/EDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: DAMICO@GELMAN.CIRC.GWU.EDU Subject: Re: Jim Baggott book on Buckyballs I look forward to examining the book. Thanks for the posting and review. "Just call me Trimtab" {~~~| R. Buckminster Fuller ~~~| _______ | / \ | BDAMICO@GWUVM.GWU.EDU ___________/__________\______|_____ \ Trimtab: A tiny gear / Blaine A. D'Amico |\ which moves the rudder / Systems Specialist ~~~~~~ |__\ that turns great ships / ~~~~~ Design Science Revolutionary --------------------- Comprehensive Generalist ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:20:45 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Charles Hendricksen Subject: Re: Nuclear Computers In-Reply-To: <9412080718.AA24733@carson.u.washington.edu> Good story! This reminds me of an article or column I saw some years ago about mechanical computers that could outperform the electronic ones, if their I/O problems are ignored. The best one I remember is the spaghetti computer which can perform sorts on the magnitude of a variable. To find the longest stick of spaghetti, regardless of the number of sticks, just place them vertically on a flat surface, jiggle and pick the one that sticks out furthest. Repeat for the next highest, etc. Charlie Hendricksen veritas@u.washington.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:26:03 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: Joe Moore's Database In-Reply-To: ; from "Rjbono" at Dec 7, 94 8:10 pm Rjbono writes: > Joe, > I seem to recall you mentioning an FTP site for your database. Would you > mind repeating it? I've just gotten FTP access and would like to study it. > Thanks, > Rick Bono > > I FTPd my Bucky Database to Chris Fearnley at switchboard.ftp.com and Kirby Urner at ftp.teleport.com If you have trouble, I can send it to any site you designate. The file is in compressed DBase form (lha Amiga compression, that is.) It would be better if there were one site where all ftp files (pics, sound, text, animation, etc) were available to the public. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:23:31 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale In <199412071640.AA31671@charon.osc.on.ca> Gary Lawrence Murphy writes: >> "G" == Gerald de Jong writes: >G> what's the basis for saying that Universe is finite? >only at any given (totally abstract) moment-interval of time, the >Universe is the sum of finite processes, hence finite. each positive integer is a discrete and finite entity, but the set of positive integers is infinite. countable, but infinite. i'm sure you've explored the different theoretical classes of infinity at some time or other. > Because it >is non-simultaneous (entropy here, syntropy there), it is in >practical terms infinite because it is rearranging, redistributing >and reorganizing such that, after you move on the explore more, what >you left is no longer what it was (and thus can be re-explored) that simply raises the class of infinity - like the set of real numbers is in a different class of infinity as the integers. i still can't see a basis for calling Universe finite. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 17:52:36 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Fractals and Heisenberg for our discussion about whether nature uses fractals, i'd like to bring up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. it would seem that this principle is used in Bucky-esque reasoning to defend the supposition that nature works in discrete bits and is therefore finite. since the smallest "resolution" available to nature is the quantum of energy, it is concluded that fractals (being infinitely complex) cannot represent matter. but what does Heisenberg's principle say, exactly? it is a statement about the resolution with which one can observe microscopic events. it says that the more precisely one attempts to localize a particle in time, the more unpredictable its momentum will be. and likewise the more precisely one can measure a particle's momentum, the more unpredictable its position will be. to me, this is not suggesting that nature is operating in discrete chunks. on the contrary, this principle suggests quite the opposite! particles resist localization (space or time) by becoming unpredictable (horrendously complex) in one or the other dimension. it's more like the behavior of a particle is not to be made simple, no matter how you try to look at it. that's probably why i don't exclude the possibility that fractals might be a hint as to the structure of subatomic matter. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 12:42:33 EST/EDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: DAMICO@GELMAN.CIRC.GWU.EDU Subject: Nuclear computer Allegra Fuller Snyder sent the following message which I am forwarding. >I am just checking in. Did you all see the article in the Science >Times of the NY Times 11/22/94 on NOVEL KIND OF COMPUTING: >CALCULATION WITH DNA. I found it an amazing article, very design >science in concept. This seems to tie in with an earlier thread, anyone else catch this article. "Just call me Trimtab" {~~~| R. Buckminster Fuller ~~~| _______ | / \ | BDAMICO@GWUVM.GWU.EDU ___________/__________\______|_____ \ Trimtab: A tiny gear / Blaine A. D'Amico |\ which moves the rudder / Systems Specialist ~~~~~~ |__\ that turns great ships / ~~~~~ Design Science Revolutionary --------------------- Comprehensive Generalist ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:17:48 EST/EDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: DAMICO@GELMAN.CIRC.GWU.EDU Subject: Re: Nuclear Computers I should catch up on my mail before I send things. I see the conversation about the DNA computer has already begun. I will forward them to Allegra in case she hasn't seen them. "Just call me Trimtab" {~~~| R. Buckminster Fuller ~~~| _______ | / \ | BDAMICO@GWUVM.GWU.EDU ___________/__________\______|_____ \ Trimtab: A tiny gear / Blaine A. D'Amico |\ which moves the rudder / Systems Specialist ~~~~~~ |__\ that turns great ships / ~~~~~ Design Science Revolutionary --------------------- Comprehensive Generalist ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:42:49 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Thanks (was RE: zero tetrahedron) From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: zero tetrahedron > Chris, good post! I liked it a lot. You and Gerald have a great dialogue > going. Gerald, thanks for being willing to advocate for the devil. Thanks. In fact, while I'm here, let me thank everyone who has emailed me complimenting me on my posts. Me head is getting a little big for me Sony headphones, but I'll try to keep it within the confines of my office. Now I feel like I have something to live up to. But will it ever end? Good thing I have so little work to do. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:43:57 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: Synergetics - dimension, powering, etc > is it not so that for the VE to jitterbug into an octa form, the > nucleus would have to "blink out" in some way or other? Yes. Also, this can be envisioned as the removal of the twelve interior struts of the vector equilibrium -- which twelve struts are equal to two tetrahedra. Where do they go? Well, Fuller relates this -- in some fairly fuzzy way -- to radiation. The two tetrahedra -- possibly two quanta -- are emitted by radioactive matter as it transforms itself into energy. I would like to be able to link this together better, but again, my grasp of physics is not what it should be. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:43:32 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: zero tetrahedron I wrote: > >[The zero-size tetrahedron] has areas -- four of zero size -- and edges -- > > six of zero size -- and vertexes -- four of zero size. And Gerald replied: > edges of zero size? that's something that i would define as meaningless. But Fuller doesn't. Size is special-case, including at zero size, while properties are not. I wrote further: > >I imagine knitting needles, three of them, laid out as the edges of a > >triangle. > >[omitted is my brilliant metaphor for visualizing the zero-size triangle > >(I expect the knitting-needle model to be the claim-to-fame upon which I'll > >build my technocratic empire -- so watch out!)] And Gerald questions: > this is a very nice illustration. but i'm stuck on this perpendicular > point, because i can't see it as representing the zero triangle. The perpendicular point is not the point that represents the zero-size triangle. The perpendicular point is the point at which the system comes closest to forming a zero-size triangle; then -- because the zero-size triangle is always and only conceptual and can never be realized -- the needles twist away and begin to form an enlarging (inside-out) triangle. However, the importance of the zero-size triangle lies not in its existence -- for it can never exist in time -- but in that it is the eternal zero about which the reducing-enlarging knitting needle-framed triangle transforms. (Help, I'm trapped in Bucky-speak!) In other words, when the needles reach perpendicularity and they are as close to forming a zero-size triangle as they can get, and then begin to twist, that twisting -- and thus, the reducing to the twisting state and the enlargement from the twisting state -- is relative to that never-formed zero-size triangle. And then, just to confuse me, Gerald asks: > what is the working definition of a triangle if this is the zero case? Uh, I don't remember. I'd need my copy of _Synergetics_ to refer to. (And one day soon, the damn thing WILL be online, I swear.) Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:45:41 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision, style and jitterbug, scale Sure, I go away for one day and you guys bury me. You're just trying to smother my genius! I don't think this list/group has seen this much traffic in the year or so I've been reading it. Are we doing something right -- or something horribly wrong? Anyway, I don't have much comment on Kirby's ``tilting towards the mystic pole'' post aside from saying that it's intriguing. The idea of an icosahedron -- whose vertexes do not coinicide with the vector equilibrium's great circles -- modeling ``close-mindedness'' is a very interesting concept. (Did Fuller state this more explicitly than I remember, or did Kirby make an intuitive leap?) However, I might take issue with his mentioning of the Big Bang model. I've been thinking about this very deeply lately, in light of Bucky's idea of an ``uncreated'' Universe; that is, the idea that Universe just is, and it continually regenerates itself like a never-ending never- beginning film loop -- except that no frame ever repeats itself exactly. I have noticed with some interest that the physicists and astronomers -- the astrophysicists -- have been out searching for support for the Big Bang theory but have come up empty by about 90%. Apparently, in order for the Big Bang theory to have resulted in Universe as we now observe it, there must be quite a bit more matter out there -- matter which we have been completely unable to locate. Absolutely no theories on where this ``missing'' matter is have been upheld by experiment -- and given that we can only see about ten percent of the matter necessary for the theory to hold, we're missing an awful lot. This makes me hold high hopes for the ``uncreated'' Universe theory. (I find it interesting, too, to note the ``uncreated word'' of the Koran.) Moving on the the posts about Nature's rounding off, I was writing somewhat argumentatively. Certainly I realize that Bucky's idea was that Nature never rounds off because Nature does not use pi; I was bringing up the idea as an absurdity, much as Fuller did. I feel the same thing can be applied to fractals as a model of Universe; while our model seems to result in surprising parallels to Nature's forms, we must be reaching these ends by entirely different means. Nature is assuredly not calculating in infinite and ``imaginary'' numbers and rounding off after a few million iterations to determine which way a branch will grow. And Universe is not infinite, so Nature can't take infinity to perform Her necessary tasks. But Gerald asked, ``What's the basis for saying that Universe is finite?'' The basis is our definition of Universe. Universe, essentially, is made up of all of the experiences of all of the sentient creatures (thus far, humans only). Each of these experiences is defined by a beginning and an ending, and thus is finite; and a sum of finites is itself finite. Therefore, Universe is finite. Even just dealing on a purely physical level, the best we can hope for -- thanks to the fact that energy is quantized -- is that Universe is sum- totally countably infinite; and here I'm using ``countably infinite'' in its strictly mathematical sense. In either case, there's no room for irrational numbers which require rounding, such as pi, or infinitely divisible objects, like fractals. And if there's no room for them, then Nature must not be using them. So we must explore and ask: What is Nature using to calculate ferns and virus protein shells and galaxies and bubbles and you and me? Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 16:44:35 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Phillip A. Mitchem" Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision, style and jitterbug, scale In-Reply-To: <9412082057.AA29998@gsusgi2.gsu.edu> On Thu, 8 Dec 1994, Chris Rywalt wrote: > In either case, there's no room for irrational numbers which require rounding, > such as pi, or infinitely divisible objects, like fractals. And if > there's no room for them, then Nature must not be using them. So we > must explore and ask: What is Nature using to calculate ferns and > virus protein shells and galaxies and bubbles and you and me? Yes, that's what I would like to know: What is Nature using to calculate ferns, virus protein shells, galaxies, bubbles, you and me? Take Care, Phillip Mitchem - Atlanta, Georgia USA email: usgpam@gsusgi2.gsu.edu Client Services Web Page: http://www.gsu.edu/dept/gsucc/cs/home.html Client Services Web Page on the Lan: http://enterprise.gsu.edu/index.htm Phillip's Home Page: http://gsusgi2.gsu.edu/~usgpam/phillip.html Some of my favorite quotes: Amicus usque ad aras. To Strive, to Seek, to Find and to never yield. I seem to be a verb. -B. Fuller ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:08:03 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: MISSION-EARTH I received the following carbon copy post regarding SCS and MISSION-EARTH: (Header stuff deleted) >Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 13:07:48 -0500 >From: Wayne Ingalls (206)865-3593 > >Gerald, I had assumed that everyone who had recently subscribed to the >M/E ( that's the shortened form of mission-earth ) listserv was on the >list from GENI and was aware of the Society and its goals. For many of >you on the list is will be old stuff but I think it is worth >repeating. > >First let me quote the mission statement of the Society: > > [ SCS ] > The > international multidisciplinary > forum > dedicated to > research, development, > and applications > of > simulation. > >I will now quote ( leaving out some US legalese ) the Purpose and >Activities sections of the Bylaws: > >Purpose > The Society for Computer Simulation International is a not-for-profit >association founded for the primary purpose of promoting an >understanding, appreciation, and utilization of modeling, simulation, >and related fields. > >Activities > The Society accomplishes its primary purpose in the following ways: >(a) Serves the international technical community, society, and > members of the organization. >(b) Promotes local technical meetings, emphasizing both balanced > coverage of all areas of simulation, and cooperation between > societies and other organizations having complementary interests. >(c) Sponsors or co-sponsors national and international technical > conferences and professional development seminars. >(d) Produces high-quality technical publications and educational > materials about simulation and related fields. >(e) Promotes interest and communication about simulation and > related fields. >(f) Promotes education, research, and development in its fields of > interest. >(g) Serves as a resource for information on simulation. >(h) Sponsors awards to recognize achievements in the field of > simulation. > >The Society was formed in 1952 by John McLeod and a small group of >others using analog computers for simulation. This group was local to >southern California. Very quickly the idea spread to other parts of the >US. Within a few years individual groups, called councils, formed a >national organization known as Simulation Councils, Inc. or SCi. Over >the years,the scope of the Society has broadened both in subject matter >and geography. The name was changed to reflect this change and it is >now The Society for Computer Simulation International. >John is still very much involved with the Society and is one of the drivers >behind Mission Earth which is an activity of the Society. Below is John's >description of what Mission Earth is all about. BTW, this is the text of >the Mission Earth homepage on the World Wide Web. > which is http://www.santafe.edu/~gmk/MissionEarth/ > > * > > MISSION EARTH > > To UNDERSTAND > > To INFORM > >The Society for Computer Simulation International, founded in >1952, is a technical society dedicated to the improvement of the >art and science of computer modeling and simulation, and their >application to study and alleviate problems of our society. > >To this end SCSI organizes and co-sponsors conferences and >publishes a technical journal SIMULATION, and TRANSACTIONS of >archival material related to its interests. > >"Simulation in the Service of Society" is a non-technical, >newsletter-type section of the journal SIMULATION devoted to >keeping readers informed as to what is going on in simulation and >related fields. > >MISSION EARTH is an Activity of the Society, the purpose of which >is: > >"To promote progress toward a SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL SYSTEM. > SUSTAINABLE, because of our concern for the future; > GLOBAL, to counter the untenable imbalance between regions and > nations; > SYSTEM, because of inescapable interactions among all aspects > of all sectors involved." > >Our objective is to accomplish this by surveying and publishing >information on modeling and simulation work, in progress and >completed, with results and comments, in an effort to reduce >duplication of effort and improve the technology. > >Our belief is that solutions to global problems, as well as >others, are much easier to arrive at, and more likely to prove >beneficial, if there is a good understanding of the system in >which the problem is embedded -- AND, that modeling and >simulation are among the best tools for imparting understanding >that modern technology has produced. > >You are invited to join us in our efforts. > >John McLeod, Coordinator 8484 La Jola Shores Drive >La Jolla, CA 92037 La Jolla CA 92037 >Phone (619) 454-0966 FAX (619) 277-3830 >E-Mail mcleod@sdsc.edu > * > >Global Energy Network International ( GENI ) is a group that is >promoting the ideas of R. Buckminister Fuller about the use of >electrical power, human quality of life, and population control. > >I will have someone from GENI post their mission statement. > >Again, I apologize to those who's mailbox I stuffed this into that >already know it and some could probably written it better. For those of >you new to the Society, I hope it helps understand who and what we are. > >V. Wayne Ingalls >Senior Vice President >SCS international > > >*************************************************************** > >V. Wayne Ingalls Phone: (206) 865-3593 >Research & Technology FAX: (206) 865-2965 >Boeing Computer Sevices E-Mail: wingalls@atc.boeing.com >PO Box 24346, MS 7L-48 >Seattle, WA 98124-0346 > >This is my personal view and does nor necessarily represent the view of >The Boeing Co. > -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 17:33:49 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Ben Rosenkrans <5142030@SUNYBROOME.EDU> Organization: Broome Community College, Binghamton, NY, USA Subject: Re: info on geodesic domes Thanks for your help dome fan. Ben ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 18:20:43 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Russell Chu Subject: Re: Posting old Synergetica articles Hi Joe, Thanks. The Synergetica articles were not done on computer and they need the drawings to go with it. So maybe in the future it could be done by scanning. Back issues of Synergetica are available from Buckminster Fuller Institute at bfi@aol.com 2040 Alameda Padre Serra, Ste. 224, Santa Barbara, CA. 93103 (805) 962-4440. I will be posting more of my recent thinking soon. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 16:23:31 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision, style and jitterbug, scale In-Reply-To: <9412082259.AA05633@mx5.u.washington.edu> Re: In response to your question on What is nature using to calculate here is a take of mine. one standing flower in the sea tree of you and me a pattern in number so many distant calls felt in close take care nicku On Thu, 8 Dec 1994, Phillip A. Mitchem wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 1994, Chris Rywalt wrote: > > In either case, there's no room for irrational numbers which require roundin g, > > such as pi, or infinitely divisible objects, like fractals. And if > > there's no room for them, then Nature must not be using them. So we > > must explore and ask: What is Nature using to calculate ferns and > > virus protein shells and galaxies and bubbles and you and me? > > Yes, that's what I would like to know: What is Nature using to calculate > ferns, virus protein shells, galaxies, bubbles, you and me? > > Take Care, > Phillip Mitchem - Atlanta, Georgia USA > email: usgpam@gsusgi2.gsu.edu > Client Services Web Page: http://www.gsu.edu/dept/gsucc/cs/home.html > Client Services Web Page on the Lan: http://enterprise.gsu.edu/index.htm > Phillip's Home Page: http://gsusgi2.gsu.edu/~usgpam/phillip.html > > Some of my favorite quotes: > Amicus usque ad aras. > To Strive, to Seek, to Find and to never yield. > I seem to be a verb. -B. Fuller > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 02:48:16 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Re: Do Not Re-Post In article <003CNJ@SCOTTY.UII.COM>, HAROLD E HAMMOND (HEH@SCOTTY.UII.COM) writes: >Stuart Quimby recently requested that everyone >re-post their messages from the past few days. >PLEASE DON'T! I get enough mail now. I don't >think the rest of you want to have to weed thru >all that duplicate mail either. > >To Stuart and anyone else who needs back mail >you can get a list of the archived files by >sending a message to: > LISTSERV@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU > or > LISTSERV@UBVM.BITNET (for bitnet) > >Include as the body of the message: > INDEX GEODESIC > >Then you can order individual files by sending >another message to the same address only this >time include as the body of the message: > GET GEODESIC LOGxxxx >where 'xxxx' is the corresponding number of the >archived file. > >More information regarding the listserv database >can be found by sending a message to the above >mentioned address including as the body of the >message: > INFO REFCARD > > >HTH - Harry > harry@fs0.uii.com > heh@scotty.uii.com > Duh! Dumb request on my part Harry. I downloaded the log and am trying to catch up on my mail. Thanks for the instruction to this OBVIOUS beginner. Stuart Quimby Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 03:05:00 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Stafford Beer's Syntegration The address for the group that is putting together forums and workshops based on Stafford Beer's Syntegration (which was partly based on Bucky's geometry): Open Futures 1350 Hampton Street Suite 5 Oakville, Canada L6H 2S6 (905) 849-4809 Tell 'em Stu sent you! Stuart Quimby Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 03:22:38 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: Jitterbug followup >>StuQ writes: >>the VE as a model for wave motion is somthing I have thought long >>and hard on... actually seeing a multi-cell model of the >>jitterbug in motion would probably make things clearer for you. >Gerald de Jong replys: >i'm sure it would. i'm left to my imagination, which hasn't yet >been able to show me a picture of a multi-cell situation. >>As the octa opens to the VE stage, all surrounding VE's are >>compressed into octa form which in turn 'bumps' the next layer >>into VE's and so on... >you're making me jealous! i would love to see this thing in action. >are you saying that the pulsating of one octa <--> VE phase causes >a more-or-less spherical wave out from that point? does this allow >for multiple sources of disturbance in the matrix? Yes, in a manner of speaking. The movement of each layer creates the next. All layers propogate omnidirectioanlly from the center and the overall effect is of "expanding shells". >> When you have an actual physical model to >>watch the effect is totally mesmerizing, hypnotic, and dare I say, >>somehow almost _sexual_. >now you're _really_ making me jealous! :) Don't mean to tease. Here in the States, in Hebron, Maine, there's a beautiful 15 cell motorized jitterbug made out of metal, designed by the fellow who made the first jitterbugs for Fuller, Dennis Dreher. My wife and I made a "pilgramige" to the library at the Hebron Academy. It was an incredible sight. Took me 15 minutes before I was even able to look away. >>My company produces a paper jitterbug model (the Octabug) >>designed by >>the same fellow, Dennis Dreher, that designed the original >>dihedral >>hinge on Fuller's multi-cell models. >the Octabug is really only one cell, right? can they be combined >into more cells? Yes, one cell. They can be (carefully) combined to make a 15 cell model but one has to be gentle. The original idea was to get the per/cell price down low enough so that it would be economical to build multicell models. Sorry for the delayed responce, my system somehow 'unsubscribed' me to this group. Stuart Quimby Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 03:45:29 GMT Reply-To: Stuart Quimby Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Stuart Quimby Subject: FULLER'S COMPUTER: delayed response StuQ writes: >>(broad sweeping generalization follows) What bothers me is the >>willingness of a group like this - concerned with the >>multi-dimensional approach of Fuller to be so totally preoccupied >>with reducing that vision to a flat 100 sq. in. of 2D! Gerald de Jong replies: >on the one hand i fully agree. but my idea for a program was to >begin with stereo-vision and motion - so that doesn't quite >qualify as 2D. >>Enough with the computers already! I love to see computer >>visulizations as much as anybody, but there's a whole 4D WORLD >>just to the right, left, top, bottom, front, and back of that >>little screen. >eventually we'll be able to slip on the old VR helmet and a couple >of gloves and fly through a pulsating folding-enfolding >jitterbugging vector matrix. i'd be tempted to rate that one step >above being able to walk around a physical model. imagine crawling >inside! There's this amazing sequence in one of the Fuller videos toward's the end where B.F. is standing outside with the sun near the horizon and spreads his arms and starts talking about how if you REALLY try, you can feel the Earth spinning around. He gets VERY physically involved with this and starts deep breathing while he's talking and get's quite excited by the whole idea. For Fuller, (IMHO) geometry was a whole body experience, not just a disembodied intellengence. But then, any dancer could tell you that! >>I realize from reading your other posts, Gerald, that you've been >>making models yourself, and I don't mean this rant to be aimed at >>you. >it's not taken personally at all (he says as he finishes the last >few cocktail sticks in a 2-frequency icosa sphere for in the >livingroom). >> But I see this intoxication with computers in our Western >>cultures to be at least partially at odds with the scope of >>Fuller's vision. >i think it's a tricky phase that we're in - where the goofy >keyboards and geeky little screens prevent us from surrounding >ourselves with the imaginary models we create and getting our hands >dirty with them. this phase will pass pretty soon as basic VR gear >gets cheap. Wellll... pretty soon _could_ be quite a long way off yet (the promises of the advertisers notwithstanding). And regardless of how amazing the simulation of life is, it still ain't REAL. >> had reservations about talking about my own >>company 'cause I didn't want to 'come on' too commercial. >very polite of you. but that won't keep me from ordering a few >things. if you folks had a storefront in my city i'd probably >buy the shelves empty! Judging from some of the return email I came close to crossing the politeness line. My company is such an extension of my own studies (Fuller and otherwise) that the distinctions get mighty slim. >does your company need a European connection? . :) Always open to new ideas! If you got some, let me hear. Stuart Quimby Design Science Toys ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 22:39:06 EST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Subject: Re: Joe Moore's Database In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:26:03 PST from On Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:26:03 PST Joe Moore said: >Rjbono writes: >> Joe, >> I seem to recall you mentioning an FTP site for your database. Would you >> mind repeating it? I've just gotten FTP access and would like to study it. >> Thanks, >> Rick Bono >> >> >I FTPd my Bucky Database to Chris Fearnley at > > switchboard.ftp.com Actually, this is Dave Kaplowitz's site. Has nothing to do with me. But thanks to Dave's generosity, there is a bucky directory there and one of the directories is set up to receive files. You must e-mail Dave to get them moved to the bucky directory (dkap@vax.ftp.com). Thanks again Dave for donating some space to our cause. > >and Kirby Urner at > ftp.teleport.com > >If you have trouble, I can send it to any site you designate. The file is in >compressed DBase form (lha Amiga compression, that is.) It would be better if >there were one site where all ftp files (pics, sound, text, animation, etc) >were available to the public. > I have converted all the files to JPEG. I should upload them to switchboard.ftp.com so that those without access to lha format can view them. Sheesh, now that I've gone public I had better do this soon before you all get on my case :) OK, I just created the tgz archive but it will be a few hours before they are uploaded and could be days before they are moved to the bucky directory. > >-- > >JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 >850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 >CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 1914-3907 | (215)349-9681 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 23:57:19 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Joe Moore's Database >On Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:26:03 PST Joe Moore said: >>Rjbono writes: >>> Joe, >>> I seem to recall you mentioning an FTP site for your database. Would you >>> mind repeating it? I've just gotten FTP access and would like to study it. >>> Thanks, >>> Rick Bono >>I FTPd my Bucky Database to Chris Fearnley at >> switchboard.ftp.com >>and Kirby Urner at >> ftp.teleport.com Just to clarify, Joe ftp'd his excellent database to me, on my request, here at teleport, but to a directory called incoming, which is for us teleporters to receive stuff, but not a permanent archive by any means -- Joe's database is long gone from /incoming. So don't ya'll frustrate yerselves by trying to retrieve it from teleport. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 00:05:39 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: MISSION-EARTH >> >>First let me quote the mission statement of the Society: >> >> [ SCS ] >> The >> international multidisciplinary >> forum >> dedicated to >> research, development, >> and applications >> of >> simulation. >> Thanks for the backgrounder Joe. Hmmmmm. I wonder if SGS has been in touch with Takeshi Utsumi and his Global University and global simulation enterprises. Utsumi is a leading exponent of global lecture halls via affordable technology and has staged many demos of such global university notions. He's published some of my stuff on hypertext and the Hermetic Tradition (e.g. The Art of Memory by Francis Yates) in his GLOSAS News. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:35:41 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles In <199412080534.AA25587@xs1.xs4all.nl> Rjbono writes: >>what is the shape of energy? is it somehow based on the omnitriangulated >>vectors combining? >Here we come back to Planck's constant (h = 6.6 x 10^-34 [joule * s]). >Planck's constant defines the minimum energy-as-radiation increment >(energy as radiation is quanitized and takes on only discrete values). > The value of h was derived using a cubical reference frame. how? how is a joule or a second part of a cubic frame? >Bucky asserts that, although h provides correct results when used to >determine a photon's energy value >(because it is a truth), it is unecessarily irrational. but as far as i can recall he doesn't bother to pursue it farther than that assertion. has anyone rewritten the constant - using a non-cubical reference frame? >One quantum of energy is in the shape of a tetrahedron. why? > The tetrahedron has the highest structural >integrity and encloses the least volume with the most surface. It is the >prime structure. is that _the_ reason? > These >are extermely important properties to have in containing energy. A cube is >structurally unstable an could therefore not properly contain a quantum of >energy. how does a tetrahedron "contain" a quantum of energy? >Thus, h can be made rational when in synergetic accounting. if it _can_ be done, why don't Bucky (and you?) make it rational. do some synergetic accounting. (don't be offended by my tone, i'm just posing some interesting questions that i haven't been able to answer for myself. it's fascinating to me to read about these suppositions when i see no evidence of them being worked out. allow me to be a disbeliever.) >The energy packet (quanta) is tetrahedronal. Each quanta travels radially >away from its source. travelling tetrahedra? >The upshot of all this is that science has overlooked the shape properties >of energy and have focused >on the size properties. Size is special case, shape is conceptual. When >the energy as shape properties >are combined with spatial contraints, structures and patterns emerge. yes.. and that leads us to which conclusions.. that science has been blind and that we see the light? >>spherical expansion as well? >Yes. The complex of jitterbugs does follow a pattern of omnidirectional >propagation. It remains a useful visual model of invisible events. so the pulsating of one VE through an octa-phase and back to a VE (in an isotropic vector matrix) results in a spherically expanding wave motion - not in a VE-shaped one? if that's true i'd like to watch it happen, because it goes against my intuition. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 07:35:41 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: > i still can't see a basis for calling Universe finite. Simply put: there is a finite amount of energy in Universe. Since all matter is energy, there is nothing infinite about physical Universe. Fuller also seems to define Universe as the aggregate of all our experiences. Which would also be finite. > -- > ________________ ___________ _________________ > ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 09:53:15 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Thanks (was RE: zero tetrahedron) In <199412082159.AA10026@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >From: Kirby Urner >Subject: Re: zero tetrahedron >> Chris, good post! I liked it a lot. You and Gerald have a great dialogue >> going. Gerald, thanks for being willing to advocate for the devil. >Thanks. In fact, while I'm here, let me thank everyone who has emailed me > complimenting me on my posts. Me head is getting a little big for me > Sony headphones, but I'll try to keep it within the confines of my > office. Now I feel like I have something to live up to. >But will it ever end? Good thing I have so little work to do. uh... and a big thanks from me as well to all the people who haven't emailed me complimenting me on my posts! it's good to know that people don't feel compelled to cheer the devil's advocate. d'y'all remember this sleepy list before i arrived? my first thought was "okay, where do i find the active exciting people who are interested in Fuller? obviously this isn't the place." well, in the end, to my surprise it was the place! i just had to shake the tree a few times before the apples fell. my compliments to all of you who take the time to write nice long posts explaining your views. the nice thing about a list is that your efforts are not expended on just one reader. and maybe you've realized that you sometimes don't know what you think until you're forced to explain it to somebody (who doesn't think the same way). -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 11:42:30 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt X-To: Fractals@dev.prodigy.com, Heisenberg@dev.prodigy.com, and@dev.prodigy.com, is@dev.prodigy.com From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Fractals and Heisenberg > for our discussion about whether nature uses fractals, i'd like > to bring up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. > it would seem that this principle is used in Bucky-esque reasoning > to defend the supposition that nature works in discrete bits and > is therefore finite. since the smallest "resolution" available > to nature is the quantum of energy, it is concluded that fractals > (being infinitely complex) cannot represent matter. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not actually on what I'm basing my ideas about the quantum nature of reality. My friend -- who is much more knowledgeable about physics than I am -- and frequently toss back and forth ideas about the things we've read having to do with quantum electrodynamics and other exciting physics topics. Recently, he mentioned to me that he came across the work of a man named Edward Witten, who -- working from Heisenberg's work as well as a heap of other stuff, I'd imagine -- determined that, at the scale of 10^-33 cm, quantum energy fluctuations allow for a region of space-time to acquire enough energy to cause it to curve in on itself, causing it to ``in effect, create mini black holes.'' (The quotes are my friend's; I believe he found the quote in Witten's writings.) Witten has a problem with this since Universe is certainly not populated with illions upon illions of black holes; so he is dubious of being able to apply the laws of quantum physics and relativity at this scale. Also, I recall when reading Richard Feynman's _QED_ he expressed a problem theoretical physicists had been having at distances much smaller than 10^-30 cm; apparently, QED does quite a nice job of explaining things until that distance is reached, after which the math blows up and infinities start cropping up. Feynman offered two educated guesses as to the possible solutions to this problem: either gravity -- which is ordinarily not taken into account in quantum electrodynamics -- has an appreciable effect at this distance; or physicists are wrong in thinking that it's possible for two particles to get infinitely close to each other. In other words, Feynman -- who had great respect for quantum electrodynamics as possibly the best predictive theory ever produced by humans -- figured that either we needed a Grand Unification Theory to get gravity and quantum electrodynamics into the same model or we needed to take into account a quantization of space. So, while Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle enters into this insofar as it enters into any discussion of quantum physics, it isn't -- at least for me -- the basis of the ``quantum distance'' idea. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:55:30 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Callie Stanley Subject: Re: bit.listserv.geodesic sub Cancel subscription ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 14:22:33 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Martin Roller Organization: University of Regensburg Subject: tetrahedral coordinates In BASIC BUCKY Joe Moore writes: > 1.2 A SIXTY DEGREE COORDINATE SYSTEM > R. Buckminster Fuller discovered that nature is using a sixty degree > coordinate system (the tetrahedron), not ninety degrees (the cube)! If > humanity were to convert to nature's system, we would not need to useall > kinds of irrational constants such as pi, etc. All our measurements and > calculations would be simplified and come out in nice round numbers > (tetrahedional units). Ok, here's my 2 Pf. worth of comment. 1) Nature doesn't use coordinates. We do when doing geometry. 2) Humanity doesn't use coordinates, mathematically minded people do. 3) Your coordinate system has very little influence on the kind of irrational numbers that you have to deal with. You can't get rid of pi and e. 4) Using coordinate axes of 60 degrees may be useful when all you are interested in is the densest packing of disks in the plane. Where else? 5) A tetrahedron has regular triangles as faces, but the angle between the faces is different. The densest packing of spheres in 3 dimensions is not known. 6) Cubes, on the other hand, do pack space 100%, in all dimensions. All angles are 90 degrees. Centuries of usage have shown cartesian coordinates to be extremely practical, very natural and highly intuitive. 7) On the whole, it seems to me that the number of calculations that are simplified by using a 60 degree coordinate system is negligible compared to the nuisance this would introduce. I'm siding with Decartes. -- Martin Roller, Mathematik, . Tel +49 941 943 2991 Universitaet Regensburg, . Fax +49 941 943 2576 93040 Regensburg, Germany . email Martin.Roller@mathematik.uni-regensburg.de ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 19:16:18 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Joe Moore's Database Kirby Urner (pdx4d@TELEPORT.COM) wrote: > >On Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:26:03 PST Joe Moore said: > >>Rjbono writes: > >>> Joe, > >>> I seem to recall you mentioning an FTP site for your database. Would you > >>> mind repeating it? I've just gotten FTP access and would like to study it. > >>> Thanks, > >>> Rick Bono > >>I FTPd my Bucky Database to Chris Fearnley at > >> switchboard.ftp.com > >>and Kirby Urner at > >> ftp.teleport.com > Just to clarify, Joe ftp'd his excellent database to me, on my request, > here at teleport, but to a directory called incoming, which is for > us teleporters to receive stuff, but not a permanent archive by any > means -- Joe's database is long gone from /incoming. So don't > ya'll frustrate yerselves by trying to retrieve it from teleport. It's still on switchboard.ftp.com in the pub directory. I have uploaded a 2 Meg conversion of the lha pictures Joe Moore has there. So if you can't handle lha file, get the JPEGs. I should e-mail Dave Kaplowitz to see if he can still maintain the site or if it is temporary also. For now though it seems to be the most permanent Bucky archive site (use the bucky and pub directories). Note the database is only in lha format (I haven't looked at it yet - it's his pictures that are converted and available. > Kirby -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 13:19:22 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <9412091915.AA09978@mx5.u.washington.edu> Re: Are you familiar with Charles Fort's "law".It goes something like this. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Along those lines The" Quark and the Jaguar" By Murray Geller Mann And The Elemential Mind by Nick Herbert go into a point counter point interpretation that might supplement and enhance this rap of Feynmens about the likeyness of eternal verities you know" What is there really"( the ontic game) and it is very interestiong to me that John Archibald Wheeler who supports the notion that the participants make the reality ,so to speak, has said on record that R. Buckminster Fulller's work is revolutionary. At any rate, the contents of aforementioned books represent the spectrum of views from Wholistic to reductionistic. I tip towards the work of David Bohm His last Book with Basil Hiley" The Undivided Univers"e Lay out their best shot up to the time of his death with An ontological approach. Maybe you mightconsider checking into this. take care nicku On Fri, 9 Dec 1994, Chris Rywalt wrote: > From: Gerald de Jong > Subject: Fractals and Heisenberg > > > for our discussion about whether nature uses fractals, i'd like > > to bring up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. > > it would seem that this principle is used in Bucky-esque reasoning > > to defend the supposition that nature works in discrete bits and > > is therefore finite. since the smallest "resolution" available > > to nature is the quantum of energy, it is concluded that fractals > > (being infinitely complex) cannot represent matter. > > Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is not actually on what I'm basing my ideas > about the quantum nature of reality. My friend -- who is much more > knowledgeable about physics than I am -- and frequently toss back and > forth ideas about the things we've read having to do with quantum > electrodynamics and other exciting physics topics. Recently, he > mentioned to me that he came across the work of a man named Edward > Witten, who -- working from Heisenberg's work as well as a heap of > other stuff, I'd imagine -- determined that, at the scale of 10^-33 cm , > quantum energy fluctuations allow for a region of space-time to acquir e > enough energy to cause it to curve in on itself, causing it to ``in > effect, create mini black holes.'' (The quotes are my friend's; I > believe he found the quote in Witten's writings.) Witten has a proble m > with this since Universe is certainly not populated with illions upon > illions of black holes; so he is dubious of being able to apply the > laws of quantum physics and relativity at this scale. > Also, I recall when reading Richard Feynman's _QED_ he expressed a problem > theoretical physicists had been having at distances much smaller than > 10^-30 cm; apparently, QED does quite a nice job of explaining things > until that distance is reached, after which the math blows up and > infinities start cropping up. Feynman offered two educated guesses as > to the possible solutions to this problem: either gravity -- which > is ordinarily not taken into account in quantum electrodynamics -- has > an appreciable effect at this distance; or physicists are wrong in > thinking that it's possible for two particles to get infinitely close > to each other. > In other words, Feynman -- who had great respect for quantum electrodynamics a s > possibly the best predictive theory ever produced by humans -- figured > that either we needed a Grand Unification Theory to get gravity and > quantum electrodynamics into the same model or we needed to take into > account a quantization of space. > So, while Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle enters into this insofar as it > enters into any discussion of quantum physics, it isn't -- at least fo r > me -- the basis of the ``quantum distance'' idea. > > Chris. > crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 13:51:34 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: HOW TO CANCEL SUBSCRIPTION In-Reply-To: ; from "Callie Stanley" at Dec 9, 94 10:55 am Callie Stanley writes: > > Cancel subscription > .- > You must send the command SIGNOFF GEODESIC to LISTSERV@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu in order to unsubscribe to the GEODESIC list. Leave the subject line blank, the command to the computer should be to the far left margin, and probably no caps would be better. I think this procedure will work for most lists. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 16:05:05 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles In article , Gerald de Jong writes: >>Here we come back to Planck's constant (h = 6.6 x 10^-34 [joule * s]). >>Planck's constant defines the minimum energy-as-radiation increment >>(energy as radiation is quanitized and takes on only discrete values). >> The value of h was derived using a cubical reference frame. >how? how is a joule or a second part of a cubic frame? A joule is defined in fundamental units as (Kg * m^2)/s^2. A Kg = 1000 g. Each gram is defined as the mass of one CUBIC centimeter of pure water. The gram is thus "containerized" in a cubic reference frame. >>Bucky asserts that, although h provides correct results when used to >>determine a photon's energy value >>(because it is a truth), it is unecessarily irrational. >but as far as i can recall he doesn't bother to pursue it farther >than that assertion. has anyone rewritten the constant - using >a non-cubical reference frame? Bucky had a lot of things going on. Maybe he didn't have the time to pursue this past his intuition? As far as I know no one has developed Planck's constant in a non-cubical frame. To do so would require re-examinining our notion of "Units" for starters. >>These >>are extermely important properties to have in containing energy. A cube is >>structurally unstable an could therefore not properly contain a quantum of >>energy. >how does a tetrahedron "contain" a quantum of energy? We are not dealing with a physical container here. The energy IS the tetrahedron. >>Thus, h can be made rational when in synergetic accounting. >if it _can_ be done, why don't Bucky (and you?) make it rational. >do some synergetic accounting. >(don't be offended by my tone, i'm just posing some interesting >questions that i haven't been able to answer for myself. it's >fascinating to me to read about these suppositions when i see >no evidence of them being worked out. allow me to be a disbeliever.) I've been dealing with REAL disbelievers for a long time now Gerald. It takes alot to offend me. At the same time...lighten-up, yeah?...we're all friends here ;) I have worked on the problem of converting trig functions to integers using the Scheharezade (pardon my spelling I'll call it S numbers from now on) number in Cosmography. After dividing the unit circle by the number of degrees minutes and seconds I came up with a large but rational number. I have not been able to find definitions of trig functions in terms of only angle so that the ratios may be calculated. BTW, if any body out there does know these relationships let me know. Once these are established I can crank out the numbers fairly easily. >>The energy packet (quanta) is tetrahedronal. Each quanta travels radially >>away from its source. >travelling tetrahedra? Radially translating, omnidirectially expanding tetrahedronal energy-as-radiation packets. >>The upshot of all this is that science has overlooked the shape properties >>of energy and have focused >>on the size properties. Size is special case, shape is conceptual. When >>the energy as shape properties >>are combined with spatial contraints, structures and patterns emerge. >yes.. and that leads us to which conclusions.. that science has been >blind and that we see the light? no...that science has been doing things the hard way. The synergetics view of problems will likely lead to greater and greater discovery. Synergetics is not and end, it is a means. A tool for expanding our understanding of Universe. I think it is important to realize that Synergetics is just one class in our design science degree plan. Rick "Feeling like I'm walking along the prime meridian of life" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 16:05:25 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision, In article <199412082045.AA46678@tinman.dev.prodigy.com>, Chris Rywalt writes: >However, I might take issue with his mentioning of the Big Bang model. I've >been thinking about this very deeply lately, in light of Bucky's idea >of an ``uncreated'' Universe; that is, the idea that Universe just is, >and it continually regenerates itself like a never-ending never- >beginning film loop -- except that no frame ever repeats itself exactly. >I have noticed with some interest that the physicists and astronomers -- the >astrophysicists -- have been out searching for support for the Big >Bang theory but have come up empty by about 90%. Apparently, in order for >the Big Bang theory to have resulted in Universe as we now observe >it, there must be quite a bit more matter out there -- matter which we >have been completely unable to locate. Absolutely no theories on where >this``missing'' matter is have been upheld by experiment -- and given >that we can only see about ten percent of the matter necessary for the >theory to hold, we're missing an awful lot. This makes me hold high hopes for >the ``uncreated'' Universe theory. (I find it interesting, too, to note the >``uncreated word'' of the Koran.) Chris, Read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". Hawking along with Roger Penrose first opened up the possiblity of a BIG BANG while studying gravitational singularities like black holes. The BIG BANG is a singularity from which Universe burst forth from. In his book ABHofT, Hawking explains that his current research is into adding quantum gravitational effects which now indicate that a singularity as the start of the Universe is no longer required. He has in fact been trying to convince his peers that the BIG BANG might not have happened after all and Universe just IS. Recent observations by the Hubble have failed to provide evidence of missing or dark matter. At the same time science as an industry has devoted quite a few resources to proving the BIG BANG happened. Bucky was also opposed to the idea of a BIG BANG mainly due to the arguement that where could Universe have formed from? It is not a system. It has no outside. Rick "To Be or to BE?" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 15:11:36 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: BUCKY FILES BUCKY FILES AT: SWITCHBOARD.FTP.COM ncftp>open switchboard.ftp.com switchboard.ftp.com:/ ncftp>dir total 6 dr-x--x--x 2 root root 1024 May 29 1994 bin drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1024 Jul 31 15:21 bucky bucky stuff dr-xr-xr-x 2 root root 1024 Feb 15 1994 etc dr-x--x--x 2 root root 1024 Jul 14 14:26 lib drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 1024 Dec 9 01:54 pub more rbf files dr-x--x--x 2 root root 1024 Jul 14 14:25 usr ncftp>cd bucky ncftp>dir total 2253 -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 11600 Jul 20 09:52 curVE1.F.jpg jpeg pic -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 219261 Jul 21 02:11 fuller.ascii text doc -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 279384 Jul 21 02:12 fuller.dvi ? -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 217247 Jul 25 01:23 fuller.latex ? -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 215441 Jul 21 02:11 fuller.sgml ? -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 17243 Jul 20 09:52 sphere.jpg jpeg pic -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 37717 Jul 20 09:52 tenseg-6.jpg jpeg pic -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 623782 Jul 20 09:53 tenseg-6.ps postscript -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 38137 Jul 20 09:52 tenseg-7.jpg jpeg pic -r--r--r-- 1 ftp other 623780 Jul 20 09:53 tenseg-7.ps postscript ncftp>cd pub ncftp>dir total 3093 -rw-r----- 1 ftp other 3644 Oct 28 18:08 Buckypic.amiga iff ilbm pic -rw-r----- 1 ftp other 785464 Nov 1 11:00 Buckypics.lha crunch iff -rw-r----- 1 ftp other 276585 Nov 9 11:48 RBFdb.lha crunch DBase -rw-r----- 1 ftp other 2082174 Dec 9 01:58 joe.moore.buckypics.jpg.tgz ncftp>quit -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 18:43:03 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412082200.AA10161@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >And Gerald replied: >> edges of zero size? that's something that i would define as meaningless. >But Fuller doesn't. Size is special-case, including at zero size, while > properties are not. this is a tricky leap for me, since i still see zero-size as being a point at which shape is extinguished. perhaps that's an element of traditional mathematical training. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ living on a billiard table, just a tad above sea level (4th floor) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 18:46:14 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale In <199412090809.AA04085@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Fearnley writes: >Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: >> i still can't see a basis for calling Universe finite. >Simply put: there is a finite amount of energy in Universe. Since all >matter is energy, there is nothing infinite about physical Universe. the premise about energy seems just as unfounded. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 19:09:10 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Jitterbug followup In <199412090522.AA16788@xs1.xs4all.nl> Stuart Quimby w rites: >The movement of each layer creates >the next. All layers propogate omnidirectioanlly from the center >and the overall effect is of "expanding shells". and are these shells analogous to the shells around a single sphere in a closest-packed matrix or are they somehow more spherical in shape? >a beautiful 15 cell motorized jitterbug made out of metal, > My wife and I made a "pilgramige" to the library at >the Hebron Academy. It was an incredible sight. Took me 15 >minutes before I was even able to look away. i can imagine! i want one in the livingroom! >>the Octabug is really only one cell, right? can they be combined >>into more cells? >Yes, one cell. They can be (carefully) combined to make a 15 cell >model but one has to be gentle. you mentioned the number 15 twice in this post. i hope that there isn't a limit to the number of VE cells you can combine in this jitterbug formation. or can you fill space with it? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 01:26:20 CST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: ST7743@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Subject: New Curator of Bucky's Carbondale Dome Home Bucky's Carbondale dome home will soon have a new resident curator! Cornelius Crane, an SIUC student, will move in on January 1, 1995, and hopes to have the home ready for guided tours during the Centennial Celebration of Bucky's birth. For the past seven years, the home has served as a private residence inaccessible to Buckyphiles. Cornelius, a self-professed Buckyphile, intends to open the dome's doors to fellow Bucky admirers. Unfortunately, the dome is in sad shape and in need of some TLC. As a student, Cornelius' finances are rather limited, therefore, he would welcome any assistance in readying the residence for July. He can be contacted at P.O. Box 2793, Carbondale, IL, 62902, or at 618-549-4258, and will soon have an electronic mail account which he will post to the net. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 09:09:03 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: HOW TO CANCEL SUBSCRIPTION In <199412100052.AA15072@xs1.xs4all.nl> Joe Moore writes: >You must send the command >SIGNOFF GEODESIC >to LISTSERV@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu okay, Joe, so you can tell us how to signoff the list, but why in heaven's name does nobody know how to fix the list???? all posters get big error messages back every time they post (as you know). i've tried to mail root@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu, but no luck. does ANYBODY have any idea how to get this list fixed??? -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 11:52:58 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles In <199412100118.AA18057@xs1.xs4all.nl> Rjbono writes: >A joule is defined in fundamental units as (Kg * m^2)/s^2. >A Kg = 1000 g. Each gram is defined as the mass of one CUBIC centimeter >of pure water. isn't mass a scalar value however you define it? the cubic cm stuff is only arbitrary, isn't it? >>but as far as i can recall he doesn't bother to pursue it farther >>than that assertion. has anyone rewritten the constant - using >>a non-cubical reference frame? >As far as I know no one has developed Planck's constant in a >non-cubical frame. To do so would require re-examinining our notion of >"Units" for starters. see, that's what puzzles me. we've had a number of years to think about it. maybe if you give me a clue as to what you mean by "re-examining our notion of units", i can use my mathematics training and take a crack at it. can't we do it here and now, as a group? there must be enough clever list members! >>>These are extermely important properties to have in containing energy. >>> A cube is structurally unstable an could therefore not properly >>> contain a quantum of energy. >>how does a tetrahedron "contain" a quantum of energy? >We are not dealing with a physical container here. The energy IS the >tetrahedron. it _was_ the terminology used above. so the _structure_ "tetrahedron" represents the quantum? does it have size? >>(don't be offended by my tone, i'm just posing some interesting >>questions that i haven't been able to answer for myself. >It takes alot to offend me. At the same time...lighten-up, yeah?... >we're all friends here ;) lighten up? i'm having the time of my life here! not because i'm being wildly critical or sarcastic (i try to avoid that), but because i'm now able to communicate with a bunch of bright people who share my fascination with Fuller's thinking. i used to be alone in my circle of friends - talking tetrahedrons, and building all sorts of triangulated items for around the house (and as gifts! ). >>travelling tetrahedra? >Radially translating, omnidirectially expanding tetrahedronal >energy-as-radiation packets. the question is: do the tetrahedra all expand outwards from a single origin, or do a group of them all fly off in different directions? >>yes.. and that leads us to which conclusions.. that science has been >>blind and that we see the light? >no...that science has been doing things the hard way. The synergetics view >of problems will likely lead to greater and greater discovery. i hope so. and i want to help figure out how. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 14:07:07 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: tetrahedral coordinates >In BASIC BUCKY Joe Moore writes: > >> 1.2 A SIXTY DEGREE COORDINATE SYSTEM >> R. Buckminster Fuller discovered that nature is using a sixty degree >> coordinate system (the tetrahedron), not ninety degrees (the cube)! If >> humanity were to convert to nature's system, we would not need to useall >> kinds of irrational constants such as pi, etc. All our measurements and >> calculations would be simplified and come out in nice round numbers >> (tetrahedional units). > >Ok, here's my 2 Pf. worth of comment. > >1) Nature doesn't use coordinates. We do when doing geometry. Except we are part of nature, so what we do, nature does. >2) Humanity doesn't use coordinates, mathematically minded people do. That fewer people are mathematically minded MIGHT have something to do with the awkwardness of the present system. >3) Your coordinate system has very little influence on the kind of > irrational numbers that you have to deal with. You can't get rid > of pi and e. General agreement here. But how we conceptualize about these so-called irrationals is another issue. IE we could acknowledge more explicitly that all our computations are with terminal numbers and that these need not be regarded as "approximations" since the phenomena we are modeling generally do not have a meaningful place for arbitrarily long constants, which goes for pi and e as well. >4) Using coordinate axes of 60 degrees may be useful when all you are > interested in is the densest packing of disks in the plane. > Where else? I think Fuller's use of 60-degree coordination as a basis *combined with his definition of the tetrahedron as the unit volume* gives young children a far tighter, more integrated, more whole numbered, more rational way of grasping spatial relationships and geometric concepts. Tetrahedral and octahedral volumes are described by this packing. Their volumes are 1 and 4 respectively. The Voronoi cells for the spheres (space-filler stand-ins) are rhombic dodecahedra of volume 6. And so on and on. Crystallography often works overtime to map molecular structures to the cubic lattice, where the isotropic vector matrix has a simpler juxtaposition. Via the jitterbug transformation, the cuboctahedron (the outward conformation of closest packing around a nucleus) accesses five-fold symmetric patterns, such as fly's eyes and viral shells (natural phenomena). All of this information is imparted visually and descriptively *without* use of coordinates. In other words, I think if a child had the sphere packing system "memorized" or visualized, from watching synergetics videos or modeling, then basic fluency with other polyhedra and their interrelationships would be improved. No accident that "solid" geometry is thrown in the back of most text books, mostly a hodge podge, and mostly skipped because no one gets to the end of the book in the course of a normal school year. >5) A tetrahedron has regular triangles as faces, but the angle between > the faces is different. The densest packing of spheres in 3 dimensions > is not known. Some professor at UC Berkeley I think it was -- I can find his name I suppose, Chinese-sounding, has submitted a proof that the packing we're talking about is in fact the densest possible in 3 dimensions. I agree with you that no formal proof of this has been available until recently, and perhaps the jury is still out on whether prof X's proofs meets the standard. >6) Cubes, on the other hand, do pack space 100%, in all dimensions. > All angles are 90 degrees. Centuries of usage have shown cartesian > coordinates to be extremely practical, very natural and highly > intuitive. A skewed Cartesian lattice, using rhombic hexahedra instead of cubes, matches the centers of spheres, making all integer coordinates (x,y,z) be sphere centers. A simple matrix will therefore convert coordinates in and out of Cartesian, if we want to go that route. I think the intuitiveness is partly cultural -- because architecture is resolutely cubic, because post and lintel building since greek times is 90 degree. It's precisely when unexamined assumptions are the most "highly intuitive" and I value proposed alternatives -- often the breakthroughs ocassioned by stepping away from age-old assumptions can be stunning. I don't think anyone is advocating the wholesale discard of Cartesian coordination, but rather that this alternative deserves serious attention because it may have some serious advantages, including when it comes to simply appreciating polyhedra in space and their possible relationships. >7) On the whole, it seems to me that the number of calculations that are > simplified by using a 60 degree coordinate system is negligible compared > to the nuisance this would introduce. > >I'm siding with Decartes. Descartes didn't really have a choice, since the alternative was not presented to him. He might have sided with Bucky for all we know. Again, I don't think it's either/or but both/and. Using rational, whole number values for the volumes of many of the simplest polyhedra (integral part of the proposed 60-degree coordinate system) would make a huge difference in a lot of mathematics, and, again looking from the point of view of a grade schooler, would likely permit greater geometric fluency of a larger portion of humanity, and might, by that means, make science and mathematics more accessible to many and less the province of specialists. >Martin Roller, Mathematik, . Tel +49 941 943 2991 >Universitaet Regensburg, . Fax +49 941 943 2576 >93040 Regensburg, Germany . email Martin.Roller@mathematik.uni-regensburg.de > > ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions www: http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ Portland (PDX), Oregon "All realities are virtual" -- KU ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 11:33:58 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: tetrahedral coordinates Martin Roller (Martin.Roller@mathematik.uni-regensburg.de) wrote: > In BASIC BUCKY Joe Moore writes: > > 1.2 A SIXTY DEGREE COORDINATE SYSTEM > > R. Buckminster Fuller discovered that nature is using a sixty degree > > coordinate system (the tetrahedron), not ninety degrees (the cube)! If > > humanity were to convert to nature's system, we would not need to useall > > kinds of irrational constants such as pi, etc. All our measurements and > > calculations would be simplified and come out in nice round numbers > > (tetrahedional units). > Ok, here's my 2 Pf. worth of comment. I consider the above quote to be a claim that has yet to be proven ... > 1) Nature doesn't use coordinates. We do when doing geometry. Nature does *coordinate*. Obviously Nature doesn't use (p,q). I think of Nature's coordinate system as being conceptual/relational. 60-degree coordination means, at minimum, that many key phenomena are inter-relating at 60 degrees not 90 degrees (it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with graph paper). So the fundamental question is "how does Nature coordinate her complex activities?" I think there is a distinction between the "big picture Bucky" (the one you read when going through his books quickly without getting bogged down in the details or when hearing him lecture) and the "Computational Synergeticist" (who wants to do Synergetics on paper or computer). Clearly, Nature doesn't use the crude first-generation attempts to model Universe that us fledgling Synergeticists use. But I think we're on the right track. > 2) Humanity doesn't use coordinates, mathematically minded people do. > 3) Your coordinate system has very little influence on the kind of > irrational numbers that you have to deal with. You can't get rid > of pi and e. I have yet to be convinced either way on this point. Since Nature's coordinate system is not necessarily based on real numbers, there is still hope that we can develop a full-featured computing system based on the one Nature herself uses. > 4) Using coordinate axes of 60 degrees may be useful when all you are > interested in is the densest packing of disks in the plane. > Where else? Any system with regular triangles (which includes many space figures). > 5) A tetrahedron has regular triangles as faces, but the angle between > the faces is different. The densest packing of spheres in 3 dimensions > is not known. It has been known for some time now. It is based on the Isotropic Vector Matrix (IVM, as Fuller called it). I even believe I heard that a mathematical proof had been discoved. Anyway, it is known even without the pure mathematicians' blessings. > 6) Cubes, on the other hand, do pack space 100%, in all dimensions. > All angles are 90 degrees. Centuries of usage have shown cartesian > coordinates to be extremely practical, very natural and highly > intuitive. There are many space-fillers (Rhombic Dodecahedron, Octet-truss, coupler, etc.). Synergeticists (if I may be allowed to speak for this as yet non-existant discipline :) have the cube, but it consists of triangularly stabilized faces and hence is not fundamental. Cubes have been "extremely practical, very natural and highly intuitive" because we have so much experience with them. Wheather history will look at them in the same way as we do today will only be decided in the future. I have found Synergetic's shapes to be very natural and intuitive with only a rather short exposure to building, designing, and thinking about them. > 7) On the whole, it seems to me that the number of calculations that are > simplified by using a 60 degree coordinate system is negligible compared > to the nuisance this would introduce. But how many tetrahedra fit inside an octahedra? a rhombic dodecahedra? On the whole you are correct. Of course a system based on Nature's own coordinate system shouldn't be a nuisance :) > I'm siding with Decartes. I'm choosing the more difficult path: to explore how Nature really works by adapting as a working hypothesis the concepts of synergetics. > -- > Martin Roller, Mathematik, . Tel +49 941 943 2991 > Universitaet Regensburg, . Fax +49 941 943 2576 > 93040 Regensburg, Germany . email Martin.Roller@mathematik.uni-regensburg.de -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 17:06:22 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Fearful symmetry in synergetics Kirby: But when the icosa "leaps" (of faith?) through VE phase, it momentarily connects to the Hermetic ALL and the light bulb goes on -- new idea! Intuition! Then we hunker down into icosaphase again -- can't live in totally receptive mode, just hop through it, like a tiger through a hoop. Gerald: wow! i don't know what you're smoking, but i bet you'd enjoy a visit to the little cafe down my street. ;) Kirby: We hear about those Gibbsian gas phase cafes.nl. And I'm sure I can dig out passages which make my "mystical" reading a fairly obvious interpretation of the text -- but I realize the burden is on me to prove this point. Bucky: Synergetics arouses human awareness of the always-and-only-co-occuring, non-tuned-in cosmic complementations of our... tuned-in conceptionings. Synergetics'... transformings disclose a succession of "local way stations".... [s]uperficially... recognizable as the family of Platonic polyhedra. (1033.122) The simultaneous vanishing... and lingering topological characteristics from the previously stable icosahedral state, and the instant appearance of the next neighboring state... is what we mean by a "click stop" or "way station" state. (1033.125)... The vector equilibrium... invoke[s] the cosmically intolerable vacuum voids of macro-micro-nothingness essential to the spontaneous capture of one quantum's six vectors, which -- in the VE's maxi-state -- structurally contracts the VE's 20-ness of spatial Universe nothingness into the 20-ness of icosahedral somethingness... (1033.653). We do not have two Universes -- "this world" and "the next world." Death is only the nonresonant, between-frequency silence of our oscillatory "no-stopover" passages through the Grand Central Station of the vector equilibrium's equilibrious center (1053.822). Kirby: that's the tyger's leap (icosa->VE->icosa), to which I would link passages about icosa as "closed mind" and VE as "omni-mind" (but shapeless, eternally aconceptual). For example: Bucky: The 31 great circles of the icosahedron always shunt the energies into local-holding great-circle orbits, while the vector equilibrium opens the switching to omniuniverse energy travel. The icosahedron is red light, holding, no-go; whereas vector equilibrium is green light, go. (1132.02).... When an energy entity holding locally on a local sphere gets a green light to get back on the grand-omni-interspheres' system tracks, it can do so by crossing over one of the 12 inter-atomic-sphere bridges (1131.12).... [all citations to Synergetics 2] ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Design Science Curricula In _Utopia or Oblivion_, Bucky outlined a proposed curricula for design science. I have assembled a brief summary of each of the subject areas and have added definitions and references for self-study. Most of the references given are my own favorites...feel free to suggest any texts that may be appropriate. Curricula for Design Science Synergetics Synergetics promulgates a system of mensuration employing 60-degree, vectorial coordination comprehensive to both physics & chemistry and to both arithmetic and geometry, in rational whole numbers. Synergetics shows how we may measure our experiences geometrically and topologically and how we may employ geometry and topology to coordinate all information regarding our experiences, both metaphysical and physical. Texts: Synergetics, R. Buckminster Fuller, MacMillan, 1975 Synergetics 2, R. Buckminster Fuller, MacMillan, 1979 A Fuller Explanation, the Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller, Amy C. Edmondson, Birkhauser, 1987 Cosmography, R. Buckminster Fuller, MacMillan, 1992 General Systems Theory A methodology of the design of complex systems. A system is defined as a set of concepts or parts that must work together to form a particular function. The systems approach is the methodology of design, and as such, it questions the very nature of the system and its role in the context of the larger system. The typical systems method consists of the following steps: 1.) problem statement 2.) identification of objectives 3.) generation of alternatives 4.) analysis of these alternatives 5.) selection of one of the alternatives 6.) creation of the system 7.) operation Texts: Applied General Systems Theory, John P. van Gigch, Harper & Row, 1978 Theory of Games (von Neumann style) The theory of games might be called the mathematics of competition and cooperation. It analyzes situations in terms of gains and losses of opposing "players". It is widely applied in economics, operations research, military science, political science, organization theory, and the study of bargaining and negotiation. Texts: Game Theory: Mathematical Models of Conflict, A.J. Jones, Halsted Press: Division of John Wiley and sons Chemistry Chemistry is the physical science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and also the transformations these substances undergo. Because the study of chemistry encompasses entire material Universe, it is central to the understanding of other sciences. Texts: Many standard chemistry texts exist. A good book on basic chemistry for the layman is Chemistry in Perspective, Jerry Mohrig and William C. Child Jr, Allyn & Bacon Inc., 1987 Physics Physics lies at the root of other physical sciences and much of technology because it deals both with constitutents that may be treated as fundemantal in a specific problem and the laws that govern their interactiosn, individually and in bulk. Texts: Many standard physics texts exist. The Feynman Lectures on Physics stand as some of the best. Topology Topology is a branch of pure mathematics that deals with the fundamental properties of abstract spaces. Whereas classical geometry is concerned with measureable quantities such as, angle, distance, area and so forth, topology is concerned with notations of continuity and relative position. Texts: Check the standard reference texts. General Topology,Seymour Lipschutz, Schaum's outline series, McGraw-Hill, 1965 Projective Geometry Projective geometry is the study of properties of figures that are unchanged when the figures are transformed in certain ways (i.e. transformed by by finite sequences of perspectivities). Projective geometry is also considered a very general geometry of points, lines and planes--- the geometry that is obtained when the requirements of preserving area, shape and parallelisim are removed from Euclidian geometry. Texts: Check standard reference texts. Cybernetics Cybernetics is a term formerly used to descibe an interdisciplinary approach to the study of control and communications in animals, humans, machines and organizations. Much of the early work in Cybernetics focused on the use of feedback by servomechanisims and other kinds of automation. Texts: Automatic Control Systems, Benjamin C. Kuo,Prentice-Hall, 1982 Communications The science of transmitting information in the form of symbols. Communication involves the symbolic representation of thoughts, ideas, quantities, and events we wish to record for later retrieval or transmit for reception at a distant point. The motivation for studying the mathematical foundation of communication is its universality. The theory applied to all communication systems and is not affected by any particular technology. Texts: Fundamental Concepts in Communication, Pierre Lafrance, Prentice-Hall, 1990 Meteorology Meteorology is the study of the Earth's atmosphere and the variations in temperature and moisture patterns that produce different weather conditions. Some of the major subjects of study are such weather phenomena as precipitation(i.e. rain & snow), thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes and typhoons. Texts: Check standard reference texts Geology Geology deals with the study of the planet Earth---the material from which it is made, the processes that affect the Earth's materials, the products formed in the Earth, and the history of the planet and of its inhabitants since its origin. Texts: Check standard reference texts Biology Biology is the science of living systems. It is inherently interdisciplianry, requiring knowledge of the physical sciences and mathematics, although specialties may be oriented towards a groups of oragnisims or a level of organization. Texts: Check standard reference texts Sciences of Energy Mainly subgroups of physics. Thermodynamics, electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, and relativity theory. texts: Political Geography Political geography is the study of governmental units as observed on the landscape. This can involve the regional study of a specific political unit or the effect of political phenomena on an area. Texts: See standard reference texts Ergonomics Ergonomics, the "science of work", is a field of technology that considers human capabilities and limitations in the desgin of machines and objects that people use, the work processes that they must follow, and the environments that they must operate. Texts: See standard reference texts Production Engineering Production engineering is an engineering discipline dealing with the determination of the most efficient methods of production. Texts: Production and Operations Management, Howard J. Weiss & Mark E. Gershon, Allyn & Bacon, 1989 ======================= I would also recommend the addition of materials science to this list. Rick "Design Scientist-in-training" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 17:51:04 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca Subject: Direct quotes re Dimension etc. >From Kirby... More on dimension: To clarify Fuller's views, in support of our discussion of 4Dness etc., I'm uploading a few key paragraphs... 527.702 Geometers and "schooled" people speak of length, breadth, and height as constituting a hierarchy of three independent dimensional states -- "one-dimensional," "two-dimensional," and "three-dimensional" -- which can be conjoined like building blocks. But length, breadth, and height simply do not exist independently of one another... 527.706 Infinity is only a consequence of subdividing finity. Because synergetics has conceptuality independent of size, it permits -- indeed, requires -- systemic conceptuality before the subdividing commences. There is no a priori size.... Subdivision may be considered as potentially limitless, provided infinite time. But time is always a special case limited characteristic of special case time-size systems. Time is not generalizable. [KU: I link our threads vis-a-vis fractals and infinitely continued irrational numbers, e.g. pi, through the above] 527.711 People think of a point as the most primitive thing with which to initiate geometrical conceptioning. A point is a microevent of minutiae too meager, they say, to be dignified with dimensionality: Ergo, they assume a point to be only an "imaginary fix." But speaking in the experiential language of science, whatever is optically point-to-able is a substance, and every substance has insidedness and outsideness -- ergo, is systemic: Ergo, all point-to-ables can never be less than the minimum system: the tetrahedron. [KU: thread vis-a-vis zerovolume (sizeless) tetrahedron links to the above] 1033.611 Dimension begins at four. Four-dimensionality is primitive and exclusively within the primitive systems' relative topological abundances and relative interangular proportionment. Four-dimensionality is eternal, generalized, sizeless, unfrequenced. 1033.612 If the system is frequenced, it is at minimum lineraly five-dimensional, surfacewise six-dimensional and volumetrically seven-dimensional. Size is special case, temporal, terminal, and more than four-dimensional. ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: PINECONE DOME PICS & DATA Dome pictures and docs may be seen and downloaded at this W W WEB address: http://cs1.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~t93827ya/index.html QUOTE: YOSHIAKI ARAKI'S HOME PAGE Now logging on cs0 (133.27.4.200) Dec 8, 1994 at 01:26 (JST), 16:36:02 (GMT) _________________________________________________________________ Fortnightly bachyard: (Dec 6 ~ Dec 19) BLUE NIGHT IWAN [IMAGE] The top of Blue Night Iwan in Islamic Mosque. aly moon in the sky. by Yoshiaki Araki 1994 _________________________________________________________________ Projects: * Neural Computing Center at Prof. Takefuji lab, Keio University * The Geometry Sender * Dome project, at Synagetics Institute. <<======DOME PICS * Araki Virtual Home, family networking * Ethics and copyrights on the net _________________________________________________________________ Hot topics: * Ika-hikouki, 3D interactive Origami WebOOGL * Webpaint, the web-version of bodypaint * eWorld will provide aly's escher gallery on Education Internet Sampler * My elder brother, Mitu is one of the organizer of Tokai univ festival Kengaku-sai Web page, and here is Momo chan's jazz band schedule. _________________________________________________________________ Neat stuff: * aly's Escher patterns * Deep in the Fractals. * MPEG Animations with Hyperbolic Animation. * Fortnightly bachyard on this Home Page * Take the B-Life, with Jun Kitazawa. * Other neat stuff on the net _________________________________________________________________ Contact: Yoshiaki Araki Email: t93827ya@sfc.keio.ac.jp =========================================================================== DOME PROJECT PAGE The dome project at the Synergetics Institute (Feb 9~Mar 28) is intended to making dome as a shareware house, stable to live, cheap to buy, easy to build. Dome is originally designed by R. B. Fuller, and re-designed by Yasushi Kajikawa. This dome is based on a three frequency "fuller body". This project was supported by some SFC students: Aketa, Nagaoka Ben, and Yoshiaki Araki. * bit.listserv.geodesic newsgroup * dome jpegs from: switchboard.ftp.com computer + about Fuller FAQ text + Sphere jpeg pic + curVE1.F jpeg pic + Tensegrity66 jpeg pic + Tensegrity7 jpeg pic * Fuller's One Frequency bodies ? * Fuller's Two Frequency bodies ? * Fuller's Three Frequency bodies off doc * Fuller's Four Frequency bodies off doc * Computer Image for Pine dome (the first modeling) gif pic * Unit parts for Pine dome gif pic _________________________________________________________________ [IMAGE] Pine dome ? [IMAGE] Inside the dome ? [IMAGE] Modeling on computers by Yoshiaki Arkaki ? _________________________________________________________________ Yoshiaki Araki Email: t93827ya@sfc.keio.ac.jp Contact: Mr. Yasushi Kajikawa Synagetics Institute END QUOTE -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 18:12:48 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: GEODESIC CONSTRUCTS PICS 11 JPEG pictures may be seen and downloaded at this W W WEB address: http://mathsource.wri.com/~mathart/portfolio/SPD_Geo_port_detail.html#capsi QUOTE: Stewart Dickson 1105 Burtonwood Avenue Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 USA (805) 494-6713 / (213) 957-2161 (Tel) (805) 371-1214 / (213) 464-8912 (FAX) dickson@mathart.com / dickson@rezn8.com (e-mail) Contact: The Williams Gallery. _________________________________________________________________ PORTFOLIO OF GEODESIC CONSTRUCTIONS (updated 15 September, 1994) [IMAGE] Circles Oriented at the Vertices and Edges of a Tetrahedron, Mathematica computer rendering, (c) 1990 Stewart Dickson. This is the first step in the construction of a smoothed modular hull based upon a lattice made of units derived from the Platonic Solids. Hardware/Software used: The Mathematica system for doing Mathematics by computer, Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Tetrahedral Circular Arcs Truncated at their Intersections, Mathematica computer rendering, (c) 1990 Stewart Dickson. This is the second step in the construction of a smoothed modular hull based upon a lattice made of units derived from the Platonic Solids. Hardware/Software used: The Mathematica system for doing Mathematics by computer, Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Tessellated Six-Arc Boundaries, which form the Tetrahedral Lattice Unit, computer rendering, (c) Stewart Dickson 1986. This is the fundamental unit of an approximation of an Infinite, Periodic Minimal Surface of tetrahedral lattice topology. It is constructed by repeated instances of a smoothed, triangulated surface patch unit. The basic sub-assembly is homeomorphic to an tetraehdron with its vertices removed. The construction process is theoretically infinite and is a geodesic structure of non-spherical topology. The infinite variety of possible designs has a very organic quality. Software/Hardware used: Form originally developed on a pdp11/40 using Tom DeFanti's GRASS, later adapted to Wavefront Technologies modeling environment and the Mathematica system for doing mathematics on the computer with C-language enhancements by Stewart Dickson. Computing hardware: Silicon Graphics Personal Iris 4D/25TG. [IMAGE] Geodesic Tetrahedron, Mathematica computer visualization, (c) Stewart Dickson 1990. This is the fundamental unit of an approximation of an Infinite, Periodic Minimal Surface of tetrahedral lattice topology. It is constructed by repeated instances of a smoothed, triangulated surface patch unit. The basic sub-assembly is homeomorphic to a tetrahedron with its vertices removed. The surface in the slide has been closed with geodesic hemispheres. The construction process is theoretically infinite and is a geodesic structure of non-spherical topology. The infinite variety of possible designs has a very organic quality. More information on the construction scheme can be found in: Dickson, Stewart; "Graphics Gallery: Many-Handled Surfaces", The Mathematica Journal, pp. 51-58, Volume 1, Issue 4, (Spring, 1991) Addison-Wesley, Publishers. Software/Hardware used: Form originally developed on a DEC pdp11/40 using Tom DeFanti's GRASS, later adapted to Wavefront Technologies modeling environment and the Mathematica system for doing mathematics on the computer with C-language enhancements by Stewart Dickson. Computing hardware: Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Geodesic Cyclohexane, Mathematica computer rendering, (c) Stewart Dickson 1991. This is one of an infinite number of possible designs based upon the Smoothed Tetrahedral Lattice Unit. This is an approximation of an Infinite, Periodic Minimal Surface of tetrahedral lattice topology. It is constructed by repeated instances of a smoothed, triangulated surface patch unit. The basic sub-assembly is homeomorphic to a tetrahedron with its vertices removed. The construction process is theoretically infinite and is a geodesic structure of non-spherical topology. The infinite variety of possible designs has a very organic quality. Software/Hardware used: Form originally developed on a DEC pdp11/40 using Tom DeFanti's GRASS, later adapted to Wavefront Technologies modeling environment and the Mathematica system for doing mathematics on the computer with C-language enhancements by Stewart Dickson. Computing hardware: Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Geodesic Adamantane, Mathematica computer rendering, (c) Stewart Dickson 1991. This is one of an infinite number of possible designs based upon the Smoothed Tetrahedral Lattice Unit. This is an approximation of an Infinite, Periodic Minimal Surface of tetrahedrallattice topology. It is constructed by repeated instances of a smoothed, triangulated surface patch unit. The basic sub-assembly is homeomorphic to a tetrahedron with its vertices removed. The construction process is theoretically infinite and is a geodesic structure of non-spherical topology. The infinite variety of possible designs has a very organic quality. Software/Hardware used: Form originally developed on a DEC pdp11/40 using Tom DeFanti's GRASS, later adapted to Wavefront Technologies modeling environment and the Mathematica system for doing mathematics on the computer with C-language enhancements by Stewart Dickson. Computing hardware: Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Circles Oriented at the Vertices and Edges of a Octahedron, Mathematica computer rendering, (c) 1990 Stewart Dickson. This is the first step in the construction of a smoothed modular hull based upon a lattice made of units derived from the Platonic Solids. Hardware/Software used: The Mathematica system for doing Mathematics by computer, Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Octahedral Circular Arcs Truncated at their Intersections, Mathematica computer rendering, (c) 1990 Stewart Dickson. This is the second step in the construction of a smoothed modular hull based upon a lattice made of units derived from the Platonic Solids. Hardware/Software used: The Mathematica system for doing Mathematics by computer, Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Tessellated Six-Arc Boundaries which form the Octahedral Lattice Unit, computer rendering, (c) Stewart Dickson 1986. This is the fundamental unit of an approximation of an Infinite, Periodic Minimal Surface of cubic lattice topology. It is constructed by repeated instances of a smoothed, triangulated surface patch unit. The basic sub-assembly is homeomorphic to an octahedron with its vertices removed. The construction process is theoretically infinite and is a geodesic structure of non-spherical topology. The infinite variety of possible designs has a very organic quality. Software/Hardware used: Form originally developed on a pdp11/40 using Tom DeFanti's GRASS, later adapted to Wavefront Technologies modeling environment and the Mathematica system for doing mathematics on the computer with C-language enhancements by Stewart Dickson. Computing hardware: Silicon Graphics Personal Iris 4D/25TG. [IMAGE] Geodesic Octahedron, Mathematica computer visualization, (c) Stewart Dickson 1990. This is the fundamental unit of an approximation of an Infinite, Periodic Minimal Surface of octahedral lattice topology. It is constructed by repeated instances of a smoothed, triangulated surface patch unit. The basic sub-assembly is homeomorphic to an octahedron with its vertices removed. The surface in the slide has been closed with geodesic hemispheres. The construction process is theoretically infinite and is a geodesic structure of non-spherical topology. The infinite variety of possible designs has a very organic quality. More information on the construction scheme can be found in: Dickson, Stewart; "Graphics Gallery: Many-Handled Surfaces", The Mathematica Journal, pp. 51-58, Volume 1, Issue 4, (Spring, 1991) Addison-Wesley, Publishers. Software/Hardware used: Form originally developed on a DEC pdp11/40 using Tom DeFanti's GRASS, later adapted to Wavefront Technologies modeling environment and the Mathematica system for doing mathematics on the computer with C-language enhancements by Stewart Dickson. Computing hardware: Sun 3/160. [IMAGE] Eight Instances of the Smoothed Octahedral Lattice Unit, Mathematica Graphics3D[], (c) 1990 Stewart Dickson. This is the basic way in which designs begin based upon the octahedral Infinite, Periodic Minimal Surface unit. Proposed designs range from four to hundreds of feet in height. The Artist has researched and developed the methods for reproducing the structure via the more traditional means of fiberglass fabrication and using the same methods as are used in building architectural Geodesic Domes. Software/Hardware used: Form originally developed on a pdp11/40 using Tom DeFanti's GRASS, later adapted to Wavefront Technologies modeling environment and the Mathematica system for doing mathematics on the computer with C-language enhancements by Stewart Dickson. Computing hardware: Silicon Graphics Personal Iris 4D/25TG. _________________________________________________________________ Contact: The Williams Gallery. END QUOTE -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 08:01:28 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: In <199412091919.AA06567@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >In other words, Feynman -- who had great respect for quantum electrodynamics as > possibly the best predictive theory ever produced by humans -- figured > that either we needed a Grand Unification Theory to get gravity and > quantum electrodynamics into the same model or we needed to take into > account a quantization of space. very good post. thanks! isn't it true that a quantization of space in QED would transform the infinite-series calculations into _integer_ calculations? that's ambitious but it would sure simplify matters. on the other hand, the other possibility of Feynman's might also be the right one - and in that case, no quantization of space is necessary. and things could then be infinitely complex at smaller scales. doesn't Bucky also allude to fractals when he describes a point as something like (not a quote) an as-yet not sufficiently closely observed complex of events that is at lease as complex as a tetrahedron. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:04:06 EST Reply-To: dkap@vax.ftp.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "A Page in the Life of ..." Subject: Joe Moore's Database In-Reply-To: Chris Fearnley's message of Fri, 9 Dec 1994 19:16:18 GMT <199412092359.SAA12961@cs.brandeis.edu> It's still on switchboard.ftp.com in the pub directory. I have uploaded a 2 Meg conversion of the lha pictures Joe Moore has there. So if you can't handle lha file, get the JPEGs. I should e-mail Dave Kaplowitz to see if he can still maintain the site or if it is temporary also. For now though it seems to be the most permanent Bucky archive site (use the bucky and pub directories). Note the database is only in lha format (I haven't looked at it yet - it's his pictures that are converted and available. It shouldn't be going away at any point in the (forseeable) future ... (aka as long as I am employed here) but someone should let me know if it is running out of disk space at some point ... not that I expect it to, but ... well ... things happen. Dave K. -- 148 THINGS (NOT) TO DO OR SAY AT OR FOR YOUR THESIS DEFENSE 57) Food fight. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 15:13:28 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Organization: Prodigy Services Company, White Plains, New York Subject: Re: Thanks (was RE: zero tetrahedron) I had planned, actually, to thank you personally, Gerald, for reviving what had been an only mildly active list. I'm not sure the phrase ``devil's advocate'' applies to you, since it implies that you don't necessarily believe the position you're arguing; I think you have some well- founded doubts about synergetics in general and about Bucky in particular. It's good to have someone continually confronting us with ourselves. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:05:16 EST Reply-To: dkap@vax.ftp.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "A Page in the Life of ..." Subject: Joe Moore's Database In-Reply-To: Chris Fearnley's message of Thu, 8 Dec 1994 22:39:06 EST <199412090556.AAA29593@cs.brandeis.edu> Actually, this is Dave Kaplowitz's site. Has nothing to do with me. But thanks to Dave's generosity, there is a bucky directory there and one of the directories is set up to receive files. You must e-mail Dave to get them moved to the bucky directory (dkap@vax.ftp.com). Thanks again Dave for donating some space to our cause. No problem, and I take this as an email to move things, so everything that was in pub is now in bucky (Buckypic.amiga, Buckypics.lha, RBFdb.lha, and joe.moore.buckypicts.jpg.tgz) so feal free, folks ... -- LA BALLE EPOQUE - Era in which males still dominate but are not so sure about it anymore ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 12:28:17 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: CONVERT CUBE TO TET TET AS UNITY _______ __________ / \ / __-/|\ / \ / __/ / | \ __ / \ / __/ / | \\/2 \ | / /__/ / | \ \ |1 / /-________/ |2 \ \___|___/ \-__ \ | / / | \ \ \__ \ | / __ / |1 \ \ \__ \ | / \/2 / | \ \ \__\ | / \ / \________-\|/ \ / \_______/ If the radii of identical close-packed atoms have a value of one (1), then the distance between their centers is equal to two (2). The basic unit vector of the tetrahedron formed by these atoms equals two (2). If a tetrahedron is made out of unit vectors with a value of 2, then the edges of a cube containing this tet must have a value of the square root of 2 (or 1.4142136). This is how to convert from our present artificial ninety degree cubical system of measuring to nature's much simpler sixty degree system. For further information see: 'Synergetics' by R. Buckminster Fuller (1975), pages 588-9. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:26:39 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: > In <199412090809.AA04085@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Fearnley writes: > >Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: > >> i still can't see a basis for calling Universe finite. > >Simply put: there is a finite amount of energy in Universe. Since all > >matter is energy, there is nothing infinite about physical Universe. > the premise about energy seems just as unfounded. It is based on physics' conservation of energy something to the effect of ``energy can be neither created nor destroyed.'' Hence energy is finite. -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:36:50 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: > In <199412082200.AA10161@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w > rites: > >And Gerald replied: > >> edges of zero size? that's something that i would define as meaningless. > >But Fuller doesn't. Size is special-case, including at zero size, while > > properties are not. > this is a tricky leap for me, since i still see zero-size as being > a point at which shape is extinguished. perhaps that's an element > of traditional mathematical training. Shape is independant of size. There is nothing in the concept/word ``tetrahedron'' that gives its weight, mass, color, etc. ``zero-size'' seems to me to be just a word-tool to indicate that the edge-frequency could be zero, infinite, variable, eternal, unknown -- whatever. -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 21:19:55 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Fearful symmetry in synergetics In <199412120000.AA01746@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >Bucky: We do not >have two Universes -- "this world" and "the next world." >Death is only the nonresonant, between-frequency silence >of our oscillatory "no-stopover" passages through the >Grand Central Station of the vector equilibrium's >equilibrious center (1053.822). amazing how far he takes his geometry! nice quotes. thanks Kirby. it makes me want to pick up Synergetics II (the sequel?). -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:52:49 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412130438.AA22805@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Fearnley writes: >Shape is independant of size. There is nothing in the concept/word >``tetrahedron'' that gives its weight, mass, color, etc. ``zero-size'' >seems to me to be just a word-tool to indicate that the edge-frequency >could be zero, infinite, variable, eternal, unknown -- whatever. then that's my problem with the term! the word-tool contradicts my intuition. to me, "zero" size, doesn't mean "unspecified, unknown" size. it gives a numeric value to the size - one which represents the degenerate case in which all dimensions disappear. it doesn't say "darn small" size and it doesn't say "undefined" size, it says "zero". presumably, since Bucky outlawed the concept of a dimensionless point (and he's the Sheriff in this here town!), one has to assume another meaning for the word "zero". -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:39:59 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Joe Moore's Database A Page in the Life of ... (dkap@VAX.FTP.COM) wrote: > Actually, this is Dave Kaplowitz's site. Has nothing to do with me. But > thanks to Dave's generosity, there is a bucky directory there and one of the > directories is set up to receive files. You must e-mail Dave to get > them moved to the bucky directory (dkap@vax.ftp.com). Thanks again > Dave for donating some space to our cause. > No problem, and I take this as an email to move things, so everything that > was in pub is now in bucky (Buckypic.amiga, Buckypics.lha, RBFdb.lha, and > joe.moore.buckypicts.jpg.tgz) so feal free, folks ... Thanks Dave. And sorry I didn't e-mail you directly :) BTW, the site is switchboard.ftp.com and the bucky directory is below the pub directory (which is where ftp put me). So you have to type "cd ../bucky" to get to the bucky related files after connecting. Do Enjoy! -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:53:05 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Design Science Curricula Rjbono (rjbono@aol.com) wrote: > In _Utopia or Oblivion_, Bucky outlined a proposed curricula for design > science. > I have assembled a brief summary of each of the subject areas and have > added definitions and references > for self-study. Most of the references given are my own favorites...feel > free to suggest any texts > that may be appropriate. > Curricula for Design Science [Large deletion.] > Theory of Games (von Neumann style) > The theory of games might be called the mathematics of competition and > cooperation. It analyzes > situations in terms of gains and losses of opposing "players". It is > widely applied in economics, > operations research, military science, political science, organization > theory, and the study of > bargaining and negotiation. > Texts: Game Theory: Mathematical Models of Conflict, A.J. Jones, Halste d > Press: Division of John Wiley > and sons I found the competitive approach of game theory to be rather wanting. But I did find this really great book that discusses these issues in a very ``Making the world work'' kind of way: _The_Evolution_of_Cooperation_ by Robert Axelrod Basic Books, Inc., 1984, ISBN 0-465-02122-0 (cloth), 0-465-02121-2 (paper) [Another large deletion.] > Rick "Design Scientist-in-training" Bono -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:25:09 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Synergetics Research Initiative Recent threads suggest that the time might be right to initiate a synergetics research initiative using the resources of the groups members & the internet. I would like to propose that we spend the next week or so discussing possible research projects and then divide up the work among those interested. We can coordinate the data collected by the individual and prepare a summary report when complete. I would be willing to devote some time as a project coordinator (as well as a research contributor). A couple of projects that have been mentioned within the last week are: 1.) Determination of Planck's constant under a synergetics accounting scheme. This would also involve redefinition of the notion of units, which are currently based on a cubic reference frame. Other constants could then be calaculated. 2.) Recalculation of the trignometric tables using Scheharezade (sp?) numbers. This may result in trig tables based soley on integers. Each of us has specific talents and access to resources. By combining our strengths we should be able to start contributing more to the advancement of synergetics into the mainstream. Rick "I can lead or I can follow" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:23:52 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision) From: rjbono@aol.com (Rjbono) Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision, > Chris, Read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". Hawking along with > Roger Penrose first opened up the possiblity of a BIG BANG while studying > gravitational singularities like black holes. The BIG BANG is a singularity > from which Universe burst forth from. In his book ABHofT, Hawking explains > that his current research is into adding quantum gravitational effects which > now indicate that a singularity as the start of the Universe is no longer > required. He has in fact been trying to convince his peers that the BIG BANG > might not have happened after all and Universe just IS. Recent observations > by the Hubble have failed to provide evidence of missing or dark matter. At > the same time science as an industry has devoted quite a few resources to > proving the BIG BANG happened. I dug out my copy of _A Brief History of Time_ and reread the bits about the origin and eventual fate of Universe. I find it interesting that Hawking sort of synthesizes the two views of Universe that we discussed; that is, he writes about an ``uncreated'' Universe without beginning or end but with a pulsation from minimum to maximum -- which minima and maxima look like beginnings and endings to us, since we're beings living in time. I find this corresponds very well with what Fuller wrote about Universe. It gives me even more hope for the uses of synergetics. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:24:37 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Planck's constant (was Re: Synergetics, energy...) This post actually ties together several ongoing threads we've been following. From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: Synergetics, energy, & soap bubbles In <199412100118.AA18057@xs1.xs4all.nl> Rjbono writes: >A joule is defined in fundamental units as (Kg * m^2)/s^2. >A Kg = 1000 g. Each gram is defined as the mass of one CUBIC centimeter >of pure water. > isn't mass a scalar value however you define it? the cubic cm stuff > is only arbitrary, isn't it? True. And that's what Fuller was pointing out: the ``cubic cm stuff'' is only arbitrary. However, it affects all of your measurements afterwards. I'm about halfway through Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher, Bach_ and so I can pull this example from it: remember the ``discovery'' of non-Euclidean geometry? The ``discovery'' lay in taking a postulate -- in this case, the definitions of the concepts ``point'' and ``line'' -- from which everything else follows and changing it, thus changing everything. The result is a system that's just as consistent as the one you had before, but different -- and perhaps the ``new'' system doesn't match your conceptual map as easily as the ``old'' (probably because your map was built in part by the ``old'' system); but this ``new'' system may still be useful in many ways. So what Fuller was talking about was changing one of our postulates -- namely our use of the square-cube as a basic unit -- and seeing what system would result from that. (Actually, I think Fuller might have taken a different approach with the same result: that is, thinking, ``How can we do this more sensibly?'' and happening upon the tetrahedron, then asking ``Why are we using cubes?'') So, returning to the discussion about Planck's constant: according to Fuller, h measures the quanta of energy carried by one photon. It's a fairly ugly number for such a basic unit. Fuller's idea was to translate this from the XYZ (cubical) CGtS (necessarily cubical and very special-case) measuring system into synergetics accounting. But Rick Bono (poor AOL soul that he is) suggested that no one has developed Planck's constant in a non-cubical frame. But I remember that Bucky had done just that in _Synergetics_, and so when I went home I cracked open my badly-abused paperback and found that Bucky had indeed re- evaluated Planck's constant in synergetics terms. It's all in sections 223.70 through 223.91. To sum it up here, though: Planck's constant measures the minimum increment of radiation, the photon. That is, one photon has at minimum exactly one Planck's constant quantum of energy. Now, in synergetics volume, the tetrahedron rates as 1, the cube as 3, and the vector equilibrium as 20. The volume of the vector equilibrium -- which we are using as our model of radiation -- divided by the volume of the cube -- which is what Max Planck was inadvertently using in his measuring of quanta -- comes out to 6.666.... Therefore, in order to cancel out Planck's 6.6ness, we multiply by three, and find that Planck's constant in synergetics terms is 20. Thus, we come around to the discussion going on in another thread, namely the vector equlibrium as a model of electromagnetic wave propagation. First, we need some givens, which Fuller goes into great detail about. I'll assume we all know enough about synergetics and Euler and geometry to take as true some equations. Then please follow this reasoning: 20 is synergetic's Planck's constant and thus the minimum quantum of one photon; And the vector equilibrium is our model of photon emission; And the number of surface points of a vector equilibrium is 10F^2 + 2 (10 times the number of concentric shells of spheres to the second power plus the additive 2 of the nonpolar vertexes); And the number of triangular surface areas of a system increases at twice the rate of the nonpolar surface points; And at very high values of F, the additive 2 becomes undetectable; Thus the rate of system surface increase is 20F^2; so we have E = 20F^2 for the energy value of a wavefront of photons of a given frequency. Photons do propagate spherically according to current theory; but the difference between spherical and icosahedral or cuboctahedral (vector equilibrium-al) is minimal -- probably undetectable, like Fuller's additive two. And photons do each have an individual direction -- that is, they travel radially outward from a common origin. However, the group of photons radiating from any common center forms a spherical surface pattern and it is the growth of that surface that exactly expresses the total energy investment in those photons. However, I have run into some problems. Most notably, in reading Hawking's _A Brief History of Time_, he writes that Planck's constant is actually the limit case in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: that is, that ``the uncertainty in the position of the particle times the uncertainty in its velocity times the mass of the particle can never be smaller than a certain quantity, which is known as Planck's constant.'' Now, I don't know if Planck's constant has multiple derivations or if Fuller got it wrong. Bucky's idea that Planck's constant is the minimum quantum I seem to remember from my physics classes; but I have no references at this point to confirm it. Also, I've tried very hard to reconcile the idea of mapping E = Mc^2 onto E = 20F^2, as Fuller seems to have done. I believe that 20, being the minimum quantum of a photon, is also its mass; and then that F in some way maps to the speed of light in a vacuum. I think I need more physics to cover this. Further, Bucky seems to put these equations in parallel with the gravitational equation, but I haven't even come close to understanding it. Particularly, he notes that the gravitational constant is 6.6x10^-8 grams per second per second. Interesting, but unconnected in my mind. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:53:11 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: My letter to Autumn/Winter Trimtab? As an aside: When I got home yesterday (Monday), my wife was sorting the mail. She asked me, ``Do you know anyone named `Spinosa'?'' I said that I knew a philosopher named Spinoza, but that was all. ``Well, you have a letter from him,'' she said, missing the fact that the Spinoza I meant was a philosopher and quite dead -- hardly in the shape for writing letters to me. Anyway, the letter was actually from one Jim Spinosa, age indeterminate, who had read my letter to BFI Trimtab Bulletin Autumn/Winter 1994 -- ``with interest.'' On the spot I formulated Rywalt's First Law, which is this: Never write to a periodical to which you don't have a subscription. The upshot of all this is, did anyone (besides Mr. Spinosa, that is) get a copy of the Autumn/Winter Trimtab? And could someone tell me what I wrote (I don't recall it being very interesting) and if anything was written in reply? Thanks much. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:46:50 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: UNIFIED FIELD MODEL & FORMULA In-Reply-To: ; from "Chris Rywalt" at Dec 13, 94 11:24 am The model of the Unified Field shown on plate 9 and its formula on page 448 of 'Synergetics 2' should help in the process of converting to Nature's coordinate system. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 15:14:55 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale About the finity of Universe, this from _A Brief History of Time_ by Stephen Hawking: ...[T]he total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. You can't get much more finite than zero. But perhaps it's a semantic argument; Hawking notes that twice zero is still zero, so the universe can contain as much energy as it likes as long as it contains the same amount of negative energy -- including infinity, I'd imagine. Later, Hawking goes on to explain how nicely a finite -- but unbounded -- universe fits with observation, as opposed to the mismatches involved in trying to fit the Big Bang model to reality. For comparison, here's a bit from the Physics FAQ: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IS ENERGY CONSERVED IN OUR UNIVERSE? NO Why? Every conserved quantity is the result of some symmetry of nature. This is known as Noether's theorem. For example, momentum conservation is the result of translation invariance, because position is the variable conjugate to momentum. Energy would be conserved due to time-translation invariance. However, in an expanding or contracting universe, there is no time-translation invariance. Hence energy is not conserved. If you want to learn more about this, read Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, and look up Noether's theorem. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does this actually make sense to anyone? Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 16:39:55 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle > then that's my problem with the term! the word-tool contradicts > my intuition. to me, "zero" size, doesn't mean "unspecified, unknown" > size. it gives a numeric value to the size - one which represents > the degenerate case in which all dimensions disappear. it doesn't > say "darn small" size and it doesn't say "undefined" size, it says "zero". > presumably, since Bucky outlawed the concept of a dimensionless > point (and he's the Sheriff in this here town!), one has to assume > another meaning for the word "zero". I don't think Chris Fearnley has quite the right idea about zero size. Zero size -- as used by Fuller in _Synergetics_ -- does not mean unspecified or unknown or infinite or anything of the sort. It means exactly what it says: zero size. No new meaning for the word ``zero'' is required. I'm not sure I can make this clearer than I did in my knitting-needles model, but I'll try. I'll summarize and steal some bits from _Synergetics_ verses 1012.30 on. A ``point'' is actually eight tetrahedra -- the eight tetrahedra of the vector equilibrium -- converged to no size. The tetrahedra have been brought to zero size and thus abstracted from time and special case. Though the tetrahedra -- and also the vector equilibrium -- are now sizeless, we can say that the eight tetrahedra converged on a certain locus, where they vanished to: this ``macros-micro switchabout between convergence and divergence'' is what we mean by a point. But, we know that no two lines can go through the same point at the same time. At zero size, though, there can be no intereference, and thus this restriction can be lifted; but zero size is never truly attained. What happens in time-space is the tetrahedra, upon reaching a certain minimum distance, twist and torque around by 180 degrees -- one half spin -- and then the distance between them increases again. This is from 1012.37: Here we find that the vector equilibrium, or the vector equilibrium's eight tetrahedra's external vertexes, all converged toward one another only to suddenly describe four half-great-circle spins as they each turned themselves inside out just before the convergence; thus accomplisheing sizeless invisibility without ever coming into contact. So, again, the zero size tetrahedron is never realized, but can be described as the center about which transformative events occur; that is, about which inside-outing tetrahedra revolve, or about which the jitterbugging vector equilibrium pulsates. Importantly: this ``point'' is not by any means dimensionless: it is still a tetrahedron. Size has come to zero, but the characteristics -- edges, vertexes, openings -- which are conceptual, ergo timeless, ergo eternal -- still remain and still apply to that ``point.'' Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 13:43:27 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision) In-Reply-To: <9412131716.AA01804@mx4.u.washington.edu> Re: Chris Hawkings Cosmological interpretations is just one of many other likely possibilities.The popular science writer Guy Murchie "The Music of The Spheres" mentions the steady state view ( Hoyle Is one representaive of this view).Guy Murchie writes about Bucky's Thinking in a very simple yet eloquent manner. The take I have of Bucky Fullers view of Origins is one that is along the lines of a steady statement "you have to love the truth, whatever the truth maybe" In his book Cosmography somewhere towards the end of the book he goes on a page or two articulation, that looks to me like a steady state interpretation if there ever was one! take care nicku ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 06:54:38 KST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: DANTES Far East Field Office Subject: Re: Synergetics - jitterbug, scale zero tetra and triangle Fearful symmetry in synergetics zero tetra and triangle Design Science Curricula Synergetics Research Initiative Joe Moore's Database Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision) Planck's constant (was Re: Synergetics, energy...) My letter to Autumn/Winter Trimtab? UNIFIED FIELD MODEL & FORMULA Terminal server numbers X-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl, gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl, "Chief, YSF" Please take me off your mailing list. dantes-oof@emh7.korea.army.mil ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 19:43:45 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Russell Chu Subject: Earth's Space is curved December 13,1994. Earth's Space is not flat it is curved, it is spherical. I have been thinking about how it has been a while since Einstein, and we still do not have a feel for space-time and gravity/acceleration-space, so I would like to explore a little. Even though we know Earth is not flat we are still operating as if it was. We now have the image of Spaceship Earth, a blue ball with swirling clouds, traveling in space, orbiting the Sun. We know that satellites and space shuttles orbit the Earth. The space shuttle comes in for a landing by decelerating slowly, a controlled falling-in, its orbits decreasing in radius gradually. The airplanes are doing the same, they go out to 3000 feet and cruise for a while at the 3000 feet radius orbit and then decelerate in for the landing on Earth's surface. Since we do not encounter anything unusual during take off and landing such as space shifts from flat to curved space we have to assume space is curved including on the surface of the Earth. Space is curved around Earth, that is why Earth is spherical. Gravity is omniradial. We cannot easily travel in straight lines in the space surrounding Earth. Orbiting is the least energy, most economical path, when the acceleration of the traveling mass becomes equal to the force of gravity. Einstein said that gravity and acceleration is the same, one cannot tell the difference. Lets look at it on the surface of the Earth. We have a good feel for gravity and acceleration through driving or riding a car. When we go "up" a hill we accelerate, stepping on the gas pedal,we feel our backs pushing against the seats, and then "down" the hill we let up on the gas and start braking slowly, we are decelerating, our bodies go forward. When we are going "up" we are going out and when we are going "down" we are going in. So when we accelerate we go out and when we decelerate we come in and when we maintain speed, when we are cruising, we are orbiting maintaining the same radius from the center of the Earth. The space around Earth is spherical (a perfect sphere does not exist) The curvature decreases as the distance from the center of the Earth increases. Gravity decreases as the distance increases, inversely proportional to the spherical area. The space around other masses are also "curved" by its gravitational field. Going back to why we think and feel flatness. Our geometry came from a need to solve local problems, land and building on the surface of the Earth. Our geometry works very well on local problem solving. The coordinate system is an agreed upon grid (common to all) so that accurate representations of the problem could be visualized, drawn, calculated etc... The most used system is the Cartesian coordinate system with three orthogonal axis, 3 axis at 90 degrees to each other. This matched the tools used in the building trade and they are still the same. 1-The plumb bob gives us the perpendicular to the ground, by attaching a weight at the end of a string and holding it at a distance from the ground. This tool accurately shows the radial axis to the center of the Earth. 2- The square which determines the 90 degreeness to any edge. 3-The level which determines the "level" or flat floor or any surface parallel to it. The level originated from observing that water always seek level. It was incorrectly assumed that it is flat. As we know the ocean follows the curvature of the Earth. Everything that we have built to date use these tools or its derivatives and incorporate the concept of flat Earth. The FLAT concept comes from very localized thinking. If we increased the scope of view the concept of flatness would fall apart. For example: We like to have a "level" floor, really flat, but if we built a large flat floor it would become a lake when it rains. Lets look at the spherical Earth, if we were able to slice off a small piece of the landmass, like taking a cap off an orange, the ocean water would fill it, achieving level again. So level is spherical. We know that a "flat" highway with the least amount of hills takes the least amount of energy to travel. And if we could build a highway around the Earth it would not be flat but curved, it would be a great circle or orbital. A flat highway would actually feel like going downhill and then uphill. Flat is parallel to a surface tangent to spherical Earth, therefore the highway would continue out away from Earth. The least energy, most economical state is spherical. All objects around earth is being acted upon by Earth's gravity equally, therefore they all tend towards the spherical, like the ocean. Resistance to the level, spherical, orbital would require energy. So SPACE around Earth is not flat it is curved, it is SPHERICAL. I will continue this thinking at a later date. Please feel free to comment. Thanks, Russ Chu Stephen Hawking's "Black Holes and Baby Universes" is out in paperback. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 18:02:32 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision) >Re: Chris > Hawkings Cosmological interpretations is just one of many other >likely possibilities.... In his book Cosmography somewhere towards the >end of the book he goes on a page or two >articulation, that looks to me >like a steady state interpretation if there ever was one! >take care >nicku > Fuller does acknowledge the Hubble constant -- the observed fact of parts of Universe growing increasingly interdistant (2:986.094). He seemed to suggest that expanding awareness of expanding universe was evidence of what counters entropic expansion: concentrations of metaphysical intelligence. I think we need to inject passages such as the following into Big Bang discussions to remind ourselves how Fuller uses the word "Universe": 2:537.41 We may define the individual as one way the game of Universe could have eventuated to date... Each individual is a complete game of Universe from beginning to end... 2:537.44 We regard each individual as the special case, but consciousness as the generalization. Like the bumper sticker: "The Real World is Special Case." Reality is special case. 2:537.45 There are many different realities. This is the difference between reality and generalization. There is only one generalization. 2:537.46: What is important about the individual and important about the Universe is that neither is exempt from any of the rules. Universe is the sum-total, and the individual is the special case. Universe is the aggregate of the generalized principles. Each individual is one of the illions of ways the game of Universe could be played. Some food for thought, grist for the email mill... Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca Subject: Kirby writes... (ongoing synergetica) I'm going to try explaining synergetics to a philosophically-minded other, off the top of my head, as an experiment -- not giving myself the luxury of going back and re-editing, except the ocassional typo. Would enjoy reading results of similar experiments undertaken by others. Here goes: Synergetics has a core metaphysical meaning, that is zero, a tautology, reflective of what anchors special case Universe (as experienced) to the eternal (atemporal). When reading synergetics, you can put yourself in a "zero-frequency" mindset and read along for purely metaphysical meaning -- you get a lot of centering of sizeless polyhedra around zero, reflecting thought's attempt to network and implode on itself so completely as to become patent nonsense (Ludwig Wittgenstein would have called it) but highly aesthetic and "true-seeming" nonetheless. Once the purely taut, the tautologically taut, wires of meaning are allowed to hum with literal meanings and interpretations, you get a lot of interesting science and chemistry, stuff about the energy world. These are the "chromo chords", the off-center resonances that propagate as radiation within an abberation -- "life is but a dream." Human experience is defined by this "after image", this warm glow of literal experience a safe distance from the ruthless zeroing of principles to nothing whatsoever. The after-image is "big" (as big as Universe) and "small" (as small as intra-atomic quantal phenomena), is "slow" (rotating galaxies, geologic time) is "fast" (atoms vibrating), is an amalgamation of frequencies (resonances) permitted by the tautological core, which in itself is uncreated, sizeless, unmanifest in our afterimage Possible Universe. The uncreated isotropic vector matrix gives rise to possibilities, this Universe being one of them. Whether many possible universes co-exist at the same time, invisible to one another, or arise, expand, subside, one after the next, is a matter of preference -- the isotropic vector is not in time, so "at the same time" or "in sequence" amount to the same thing. What every possible universe has in common is the tautological anchoring zero of rules intercanceling, interbalancing, comprising that untenable, untunable equilibious center that we may pass through, but never stay within. And that, I say in sum, is another possible reading of synergetics, permitted in pure principle, and expressed as one more special case shimmering of circumferentially inter-cohered ideas. Kirby Urner ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412132309.AA29669@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >A ``point'' is actually eight tetrahedra -- the eight tetrahedra of the > vector equilibrium -- converged to no size. The tetrahedra have been > brought to zero size and thus abstracted from time and special case. it's at that specific point where they are completely gone - conceptually, timewise or any other wise. > happens in time-space is the tetrahedra, upon reaching a certain > minimum distance, twist and torque around by 180 degrees -- one half > spin -- and then the distance between them increases again. so the conclusion is that there _must_ be a half-circle (dare i call this PI radians?) torque-about that happens "a certain minimum distance"? would this action be less-than-instant? during the transformation through the unattainable zero-size, would the first few degrees of twisting happen more slowly than when 90 degrees has been reached, and then the last degrees once again happening slowly? what factors would affect the radius of the structure at the point of the twisting conversion? >Importantly: this ``point'' is not by any means dimensionless: it is still > a tetrahedron. Size has come to zero, but the characteristics -- > edges, vertexes, openings -- which are conceptual, ergo timeless, ergo > eternal -- still remain and still apply to that ``point.'' how can you say "size has come to zero" when you just said that zero-size was unattainable? at zero size there are no edges, no (distinct) vertexes, and no openings! i must maintain that we cannot call this "zero". i'm thinking of halfway through the 180 degree twist - the symmetries would be entirely different than either of the larger-size phases. perhaps it's against the law of Fuller to dwell on the halfway point. -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 08:17:28 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Planck's constant (was Re: Synergetics, energy...) In <199412131751.AA03389@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >But Rick Bono (poor AOL soul that he is) suggested that no one has developed > Planck's constant in a non-cubical frame. uh.. i believe that it was me. >To sum it up here, though: >Planck's constant measures the minimum increment of radiation, the photon. > That is, one photon has at minimum exactly one Planck's constant > quantum of energy. >Now, in synergetics volume, the tetrahedron rates as 1, the cube as 3, and > the vector equilibrium as 20. The volume of the vector equilibrium -- > which we are using as our model of radiation -- divided by the volume > of the cube -- which is what Max Planck was inadvertently using in his > measuring of quanta -- comes out to 6.666.... Therefore, in order to > cancel out Planck's 6.6ness, we multiply by three, and find that > Planck's constant in synergetics terms is 20. i always have to let loose a snicker when i see this argument, either in its original form, or repeated. this is nothing better than hand-waving, pure and simple. >Photons do propagate spherically according to current theory; but the > difference between spherical and icosahedral or cuboctahedral (vector > equilibrium-al) is minimal -- probably undetectable, like Fuller's > additive two. i find that my models of icosa's and cubocta's are quite pointy and bumpy compared to the infinitely symmetrical sphere. how can you say that the diff is minimal? >However, I have run into some problems. Most notably, in reading Hawking's > _A Brief History of Time_, he writes that Planck's constant is actually > the limit case in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle heyyy! there comes happy Heisenberg. :) -- ________________ ___________ _________________ ____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 10:34:58 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Planck's constant From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: Planck's constant (was Re: Synergetics, energy...) > i always have to let loose a snicker when i see this argument, either > in its original form, or repeated. this is nothing better than > hand-waving, pure and simple. I don't know for sure that it is just hand-waving, but it certainly isn't what I'd call rigorous, either. My point was not that this is necessarily how it is, but that Fuller had made some sort of calculation of Planck's constant. If we want, we can work it out better, I suppose. However, I have to fall back on my previous excuse: I don't really have enough physics background to play with this. (Of course, Bucky might not have either.) > i find that my models of icosa's and cubocta's are quite pointy and > bumpy compared to the infinitely symmetrical sphere. how can you > say that the diff is minimal? An icosahedron-based geodesic of sufficient frequency -- in the illions -- would be within epsilon of an actual sphere, so there the difference would be minimal. The same goes for a vector equilibrium, I should think. > heyyy! there comes happy Heisenberg. :) Somebody shoulda smacked him before he made everyone's life so messy. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 10:25:45 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kiyoshi Kuromiya Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle X-cc: rich@cpp.pha.pa.us In-Reply-To: from "Chris Rywalt" at Dec 13, 94 04:39:55 pm Chris-- Thanks for your astute observations on these sometimes difficult issues, such as zero size tetrahedra. Much appreciated. --Kiyoshi Kuromiya > > From: Gerald de Jong > Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle > > > then that's my problem with the term! the word-tool contradicts > > my intuition. to me, "zero" size, doesn't mean "unspecified, unknown" > > size. it gives a numeric value to the size - one which represents > > the degenerate case in which all dimensions disappear. it doesn't > > say "darn small" size and it doesn't say "undefined" size, it says "zero". > > presumably, since Bucky outlawed the concept of a dimensionless > > point (and he's the Sheriff in this here town!), one has to assume > > another meaning for the word "zero". > > I don't think Chris Fearnley has quite the right idea about zero size. Zero > size -- as used by Fuller in _Synergetics_ -- does not mean unspecifie d > or unknown or infinite or anything of the sort. It means exactly what > it says: zero size. No new meaning for the word ``zero'' is required . > I'm not sure I can make this clearer than I did in my knitting-needles model, > but I'll try. I'll summarize and steal some bits from _Synergetics_ > verses 1012.30 on. > A ``point'' is actually eight tetrahedra -- the eight tetrahedra of the > vector equilibrium -- converged to no size. The tetrahedra have been > brought to zero size and thus abstracted from time and special case. > Though the tetrahedra -- and also the vector equilibrium -- are now > sizeless, we can say that the eight tetrahedra converged on a certain > locus, where they vanished to: this ``macros-micro switchabout > between convergence and divergence'' is what we mean by a point. > But, we know that no two lines can go through the same point at the same time. > At zero size, though, there can be no intereference, and thus this > restriction can be lifted; but zero size is never truly attained. Wha t > happens in time-space is the tetrahedra, upon reaching a certain > minimum distance, twist and torque around by 180 degrees -- one half > spin -- and then the distance between them increases again. > This is from 1012.37: > > Here we find that the vector equilibrium, or the vector equilibrium's > eight tetrahedra's external vertexes, all converged toward one > another only to suddenly describe four half-great-circle spins as > they each turned themselves inside out just before the convergence; > thus accomplisheing sizeless invisibility without ever coming into > contact. > > So, again, the zero size tetrahedron is never realized, but can be described > as the center about which transformative events occur; that is, about > which inside-outing tetrahedra revolve, or about which the > jitterbugging vector equilibrium pulsates. > Importantly: this ``point'' is not by any means dimensionless: it is still > a tetrahedron. Size has come to zero, but the characteristics -- > edges, vertexes, openings -- which are conceptual, ergo timeless, ergo > eternal -- still remain and still apply to that ``point.'' > > Chris. > crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:13:00 AST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Victor Huerfano <960912813%RUMAC@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU> Subject: Re: UNIFIED FIELD MODEL & FORMULA Dear... Drs. I need a copy about the book " Synergetics ".. How i can for to find it ? Victor Physics Dt, U of Puerto rico Mayaguez, PR 00681 Victor Huerfano ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:08:19 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Bill Long Organization: SUNY at Plattsburgh, New York, USA Subject: Re: Earth's Space is curved >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 19:43:45 -0500 >From: Russell Chu >Subject: Earth's Space is curved > > >We know that satellites and space shuttles orbit the Earth. >The space shuttle comes in for a landing by decelerating slowly, a controlled >falling-in, its orbits decreasing in radius gradually. In order for the shuttle to return to Earth it does a deorbital burn about half an orbit away from the landing field. Once this delta V takes place it is no longer in a stable orbit, but instead is falling out of the sky. >The airplanes are doing the same, they go out to 3000 feet and cruise for a >while at the 3000 feet radius orbit and then decelerate in for the landing on >Earth's surface. No, this is wrong. Airplanes are not in orbit...they are in powered flight. They use aerodynamic lift produced by pushing the wings through the atmoshpere to stay aloft. Objects in orbit are coasting on their own momentum and do not require additional energy to maintain their paths... except to make corrections or to change the characteristics of the orbit. >Space is curved around Earth, that is why Earth is spherical. Gravity is >omniradial. We cannot easily travel in straight lines in the space >surrounding Earth. Orbiting is the least energy, most economical path, when >the acceleration of the traveling mass becomes equal to the force of gravity. > Einstein said that gravity and acceleration is the same, one cannot tell the >difference. Space-time is distorted near gravitational sources, and motion can be considered as straight paths through this distorted space-time >When we go "up" a hill we accelerate, stepping on the gas pedal,we feel our >backs pushing against the seats, and then "down" the hill we let up on the >gas and start braking slowly, we are decelerating, our bodies go forward. >When we are going "up" we are going out and when we are going "down" we are >going in. So when we accelerate we go out and when we decelerate we come in >and when we maintain speed, when we are cruising, we are orbiting maintaining >the same radius from the center of the Earth. I don't think this analogy works. If we go up the hill carefully maintaining the same velocity (or even allowing the vehicle to decelerate) with respect to the road surface we will still feel as though we are pushed back in our seats. This is because the direction of our motion is now at some angle (not perpendicular) to the direction of the force of gravity..so instead of all the gravitational force holding us down in our seat, some of it is forcing us back as well. The hill will force us away from the gravitational center whether or not we accelerate with respect to the road surface. If we accelerated on a level surface we'd stay at the same distance from the gravitational center... we'd just increase our velocity. Of course if we could accelerate to 7 ft/sec (escape velocity) then we might start to move away from the Earth. >The space around Earth is spherical (a perfect sphere does not exist) >The curvature decreases as the distance from the center of the Earth >increases. >Gravity decreases as the distance increases, inversely proportional to the >spherical area. I think a more accurate representation of the local distortion in space- time would be a funnel, with its deepest point at the gravitational center of the local body. As you move away from the massive body the funnel becomes more open, in a sort of inside-out-parabaloid shape, until it becomes flat (unaffected space-time with no nearby massive bodies to distort it). Now, any object in motion through this space-time will travel a straight path (like a marble rolling on a flat surface) but when it reaches a distortion the path appears to curve, the amount depending on how close to the center of the funnel it passes. At just the right distance (depending on the objects velocity) it will curve just so that it goes into a circular motion around the center of mass of the funnel and achieve a stable orbit. Closer than this it will fall into the central mass. farther away, it will go into a hyperbolic path and escape the system. But all these are cases of sraight paths through the distorted space-time geometry. >The coordinate system is an agreed upon grid (common to all) so that accurate >representations of the problem could be visualized, drawn, calculated etc... >The most used system is the Cartesian coordinate system with three orthogonal >axis, 3 axis at 90 degrees to each other. This matched the tools used in the >building trade and they are still the same. You know, for a while I've been wondering how you could define location in three dimensions based on a tetrahedral rather than cubical co-ordinate system...instead of three axes would there be six? >The least energy, most economical state is spherical. ^within a gravitational well For an object to have a stable orbit just above the earth's surface it must have a velocity of 17,672 mi/hr. For it to have a stable orbit at about 250 miles above the earth's surface it must have a velocity of 17,224 mi/hr. This is why when you see satellites in lower orbits passing overhead they are travelling faster than those which have higher orbits. It has something to do with the centripedal force required to counter the acceleration of gravity at whatever the orbital radius is. I'm starting to confuse myself...I gotta take a break, do a little reading, and store up some more ammo for this thought experiment...but I'd really like to know what you folks out there think of the tetrahedral coordinate system. bye for now...Bill Long >-- StarGazer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:59:15 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: Big Bangs and fractals (was RE: Synergetics - vision) X-To: Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca In-Reply-To: <9412140437.AA10479@mx4.u.washington.edu> Re: Kirby Yes he acknowledged what you call Hubble constant, but if you read Introductiohn to Cosmology" by Narlikyar. He states many different interpretations that could emerge to be as likely. What has me curious is Bucky's view that we came here already complex. It depends on which texts you read of his. Sometimes he doesn't go along with Darwin catagorically and sometimes he puts a spin on it with gestations and time coming into the phases. One of his assummptions, that life is not physical (a pattern integrity). And if you read those two to three paragraphs in Cosmography there seems to be a conjecture that has aspects of what I would interpret as a steady state If you read the critics of Sir Frederick Hoyle, they say he is wrong and long ago passed by, but if you read his responce , he talks back with facts and figures and claims his contention is still likely. It is interesting that Freeman Dyson recently took a good look at Sir Fredericks view. In a private conversation with a" systems theory" expert i was told that bucky fuller was 30 years behind the times . I said "This guestion of time?" In many ways we haven't caught up to Fuller's thinking. Take care nicku ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:07:14 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: UNIFIED FIELD MODEL & FORMULA In-Reply-To: ; from "Victor Huerfano" at Dec 14, 94 2:13 pm Victor Huerfano writes: > > Dear... Drs. > > > I need a copy about the book " Synergetics ".. How i can for to find it ? > > Victor > Physics Dt, U of Puerto rico > Mayaguez, PR 00681 > Victor Huerfano > .- > E-mail the Buckminster Fuller Institute at bfi@aol.com There are 2 volumes: 'Synergetics' and 'Synergetics II. I think they are both still in print in paperback. Ask for BFI's catalog. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:09:53 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: OCTET TRUSS THE OCTET TRUSS +-------------------+-------------------+ __// \\__ __// \\__ __// \\__ __/ / \ \__ __/ / \ \__ __/ / \ \__ _/ / \ \_ _/ / \ \_ _/ / \ \_ +-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+ |\ / \ /|\ / \ /|\ / \ /| | \ / \ / | \ / \ / | \ / \ / | | \ / | \ / | \ / | | / \ / \ | / \ / \ | / \ / \ | |/ \ / \|/ \ / \|/ \ / \| +-----\-------/-----+-----\-------/-----+-----\-------/-----+ \\__ \ / __// \\__ \ / __// \\__ \ / __// \ \__\ /__/ / \ \__\ /__/ / \ \__\ /__/ / \ \\ // / \ \\ // / \ \\ // / \ +-------------------+-------------------+ / \ |\ / \ /|\ / \ /| / \ | \ / \ / | \ / \ / | / \ | \ / | \ / | / \ | / \ / \ | / \ / \ | / \|/ \ / \|/ \ / \|/ +-----\-------/-----+-----\-------/-----+ \\__ \ / __// \\__ \ / __// \ \__\ /__/ / \ \__\ /__/ / \ \\ // / \ \\ // / \ +-------------------+ / \ |\ / \ /| / \ | \ / \ / | / \ | \ / | / \ | / \ / \ | / \|/ \ / \|/ +-----\-------/-----+ \__ \ / __/ \__\ /__/ \\ // + The combination of octahedra and tetrahedra produces a truss that has no redundency and it therefore is extremely strong and lightweight. It can produce just about any shape desired and since the components are all the same length, it may be easily mass-produced. For further information see: "The Tetrahedral Principle in Kite Structure", National Geographic (magazine) by Alexander Graham Bell Jun 1, 1903 pages 219-51 "Aerial Locomotion", National Geographic (magazine) by Alexander Graham Bell Jan 1, 1907 pages 1-27 "Octet Truss" May 30, 1961 by R. Buckminster Fuller US patent 2,986,241 'Steel Space Structures' 1965 by Z. S. Makowski 220 pages 'Utopia Or Oblivion' 1969 by R. Buckminster Fuller page 91 'The Dymaxion World of Buckminster Fuller' 1973 by R. Buckminster Fuller & Robert Marks pages 57, 170-75 'The Mind's Eye of Buckminster Fuller' 1974 by Donald W.Robertson pages 50-52 'Inventions' 1983 by R. Buckminster Fuller pages 248-55 'A Fuller Explanation' 1987 by Amy C. Edmondson pages 141-42 "Octet Structures Using Tension and Compression" by Russell Chu & Tony S. Gwilliam Dec 8, 1987 US patent 4,711,062 -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:48:45 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca Subject: Re: OCTET TRUSS > The combination of octahedra and tetrahedra produces a truss that has >no redundency and it therefore is extremely strong and lightweight. It can >produce just about any shape desired and since the components are all the >same length, it may be easily mass-produced. For further information see: > Joe -- you should get some kind of award for "Most committed use of ASCII art to express engineering concepts" or something like that. Really wild. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: 'SYNERGETICS' BOOKS SOURCE Nick Consoletti writes: > From homer10.u.washington.edu!u.washington.edu!nicku Wed Dec 14 15:47:36 1994 > X-Sender: nicku@homer10.u.washington.edu > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:50:27 -0800 (PST) > From: Nick Consoletti > To: Joe Moore > Subject: Re: UNIFIED FIELD MODEL & FORMULA > In-Reply-To: <9412142121.AA27087@mx4.u.washington.edu> > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Powell's Bookstore in Portland is a way to go for synergetics purchase. > the university of washington will pay mailing costs if you purchase from > them maybe same applies at the u. c. santa cruz bookstore. > > On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, Joe Moore wrote: > > > Victor Huerfano writes: > > > > > > Dear... Drs. > > > > > > > > > I need a copy about the book " Synergetics ".. How i can for to find it ? > > > > > > Victor > > > Physics Dt, U of Puerto rico > > > Mayaguez, PR 00681 > > > Victor Huerfano > > > .- > > > > > > > E-mail the Buckminster Fuller Institute at bfi@aol.com > > > > There are 2 volumes: 'Synergetics' and 'Synergetics II. I think they are bo th > > still in print in paperback. Ask for BFI's catalog. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 > > 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 > > CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domai n. > > > .- > -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 16:55:48 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: QUARK MODEL QUARK MODEL ____ __/ /\ \__ __/ / \ \__ __/ / \ \__ __/ / \ \__ __/ / \ \__ __/ / \ \__ __/ / \ \__ +----------------------------------------------+ /|\ / \ /| / | \ / \ / | / | \ / \ / | / | \ / OCTA \ / | / | \ / \ / | / | \ / \ / | / | \ / \ / | / | \ _ CG / | / | / \ __// / \ | / | / \ __// / / \ | / | / \ __/_/ / / \ | / | / __\ _/ / / \ | / TET | / __/ _\ / / \ | / | / __/ _/ \ / / \ | / |/_/ _/ \/ / \| / +- _/ /\--------------/---------------+ / __/ | _/ / \ / __/ / __/ | _/ MITE / \ / __/ / __/ |/____ / \ / __/ / __/ CG \____/__ \ / __/ / __/ \__ \ / __/ / __/ \__ \ / __/ /__/ \__\/__/ +-----------------------------------------------+ Fuller discovered that the minimum shape that will compound with itself to fill all space is an irregular tetrahedron which he called the "MiTe" (minimum tetrahedron). And since energy as matter must have some kind of shape, and the minimum "thing" or shape (system) is a tetrahedron, Fuller's mite must be what the atomic physicists call a "quark"! All systems must have certain basic properties: 1) Clockwise or counter-clockwise rotation or spin; 2) Opposite poles (with north either "up" or "down"; 3) Various volumes or energy contents ( + and - charges) 4) An inside and an outside; In addition, tetrahedra have the unique property of being able to easily turn themselves inside out to display eight (8) different faces. Therefore, in light of all of the above, it is possible to construct a quark chart listing all the various combinations of the above properties. This chart predicts a total of thirty-two (32) basic quarks (8 families, not 6) plus thirty-two inside-out versions (antiquarks) for a total of sixty-four (64) quarks. For further information see: 'Synergetics' 1975 by R. Buckminster Fuller pages 101, 535-9, 804-6. 'Synergetics II' 1979 by R. Buckminster Fuller pages 263, 416. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 17:17:47 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Kirby writes... (ongoing synergetica) In <199412140347.AA11221@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca writes: >Once the purely taut, the tautologically taut, wires of meaning are >allowed to hum with literal meanings and interpretations.. Kirby, your brain is made of pea soup! :) >Human experience is defined by this "after image", this warm glow >of literal experience a safe distance from the ruthless zeroing of >principles to nothing whatsoever. Plato's Cave? >And that, I say in sum, is another possible reading of synergetics, >permitted in pure principle, and expressed as one more special case >shimmering of circumferentially inter-cohered ideas. duhhhhh... -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:51:16 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative In <199412131537.AA09063@xs1.xs4all.nl> Rjbono writes: >..to initiate a synergetics research initiative... i'm from the anti-redundancy committee against redundancy. :) >2.) Recalculation of the trignometric tables using Scheharezade (sp?) >numbers. This may result in trig tables based soley on integers. what's a table? is that, like, a list of numbers on a piece of paper that i can use in concert with my slide-rule and my quill-pen to figure out answers to 3 digits accuracy? seriously, though: would this result in approximate fractions? what's the point? anyway, how about: 3) find/share/develop software with which we can... 3a) generate various geodesic domes, based on a few parameters 3b) animate the various jitterbug transformations 3c) build arbitrary vertex-and-strut structures that can later be converted into tensegrity structures. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:35:18 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative In article , Gerald de Jong writes: >>..to initiate a synergetics research initiative... >i'm from the anti-redundancy committee against redundancy. :) Sorry...I need to stop posting things in the wee AM hours. I am not an AM person...yet I think you got the drift.... >>2.) Recalculation of the trignometric tables using Scheharezade (sp?) >>numbers. This may result in trig tables based soley on integers. >what's a table? is that, like, a list of numbers on a piece of >paper that i can use in concert with my slide-rule and my quill-pen >to figure out answers to 3 digits accuracy? seriously, though: would >this result in approximate fractions? what's the point? Picky...picky...picky ;) When the SN number given in Cosmography is divided by the number of degrees minutes, and seconds in a circle the result is a large but rational number. It appears promising that a trignometric function could yield only rational results. >anyway, how about: >3) find/share/develop software with which we can... >3a) generate various geodesic domes, based on a few parameters >3b) animate the various jitterbug transformations >3c) build arbitrary vertex-and-strut structures that can later > be converted into tensegrity structures. Thanks for the suggestions, we can add them to the list. I am currently working on my own incarnation of 3a. I'll post the C++ code within a month or two. I would love to see a program based on 3b. Rick "Living on the border, by the sea" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 13:52:18 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Planck's constant In <199412141633.AA06753@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >From: Gerald de Jong >> i always have to let loose a snicker when i see this argument, either >> in its original form, or repeated. this is nothing better than >> hand-waving, pure and simple. >I don't know for sure that it is just hand-waving, but it certainly isn't what > I'd call rigorous, either. it's only handwaving. to talk about "cancelling out the 6.6ness" of a number (iffy in itself) and then not give more than a clue as to how is as far from rigorous as you can get! >> i find that my models of icosa's and cubocta's are quite pointy and >> bumpy compared to the infinitely symmetrical sphere. how can you >> say that the diff is minimal? >An icosahedron-based geodesic of sufficient frequency -- in the illions -- > would be within epsilon of an actual sphere, so there the difference > would be minimal. The same goes for a vector equilibrium, I should > think. i'm afraid you've got to inflate your geodesic to round-out the twenty triangles - regardless of frequency. a icosahedron or a vector equilibrium with a large frequency is still shaped just like any other one. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:55:48 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Mike Kohl Subject: Bucky in Business I am writing to ascertain anyone's knowledge of the applications of Bucky's thinking to Business Process Reengineering, Total Quality Management, Creativity & Innovation and those sorts of topics. I am familiar with Bucky's view of artifacts and a design science revolution as opposed to social change. I am seeking any correlation of Bucky's thought which might assist managers and executives. Thanks in advance. *************************************************************************** Michael P. Kohl, P.E. Phone (404) 453-7455 Michael_Kohl@INS.com Fax (404) 740-1506 International Network Services Pager (800) 710-0104 5151 Brook Hollow Parkway Suite 220 Norcross, Georgia 30071 *************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:20:46 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: Bucky in Business In-Reply-To: ; from "Mike Kohl" at Dec 15, 94 10:55 am Mike Kohl writes: > > I am writing to ascertain anyone's knowledge of the applications of > Bucky's thinking to Business Process Reengineering, Total Quality > Management, Creativity & Innovation and those sorts of topics. I am > familiar with Bucky's view of artifacts and a design science revolution as > opposed to social change. I am seeking any correlation of Bucky's thought > which might assist managers and executives. Thanks in advance. > *************************************************************************** > Michael P. Kohl, P.E. Phone (404) 453-7455 > Michael_Kohl@INS.com Fax (404) 740-1506 > International Network Services Pager (800) 710-0104 > 5151 Brook Hollow Parkway > Suite 220 > Norcross, Georgia 30071 > *************************************************************************** > .- > Check out the works by John McHale. He did extensive studies on the implications of Fuller's work for institutions of all types, including business. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:19:17 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle Well, this ``zero size'' thread has been going on for some time and I've been thinking about it a lot. Finally, I think I may have come to a realization which may make the whole ``zero size'' concept easier to understand. Now, Gerald, I think you'd agree that the ``standard'' geometry definition of ``point'' is something that doesn't exist; yet you're willing to deal with ``points'' in mathematics. I believe, from this thread we've been having, that your problem with the idea of ``zero size'' in synergetics lies not with the non-existence of zero size as it does with the non- existence of such characteristics as egdes, vertexes, and openings at that zero size. Proceeding on the assumption that this is the case -- and feel free to disillusion me if I've misunderstood -- I realized that our argument stems from the question of conceptuality, not reality. Neither zero size tetrahedra or mathematician's ``points'' exist, so we're not arguing that. So now we come to one of Fuller's basic ideas of synergetics: conceptuality. Fuller held that a dimensionless ``point'' is non-conceptual, meaning that, not only cannot it exist, it cannot even be imagined by humans. Conceptuality, for Fuller, requires insideness and outsideness, which are defined by at minimum four vertexes, six edges, and four openings: the tetrahedron. Therefore, we can conceptualize a tetrahedron by pointing to any special-case tetrahedron and generalizing it. Because size is special-case, we can decide to conceptualize a tetrahedron of any size we choose -- including no size at all. A zero-size tetrahedron is simply a tetrahedron of size zero. However, we have no way whatsoever of conceptualizing a dimensionless point. ``Dimensionless point'' is physically meaningless. Humans cannot in any way point to a special-case dimensionless point and generalize it. ``Points'' do not exist. Thus, it is pointless (excuse me) to speak of ``points'' in synergetics. This is why Fuller defined a point as being a not-yet-finely-discerned event; and such an event must be, at minimum, a tetrahedron in order to be conceived and perceived. So, if we chose to mix synergetics and ``standard'' geometry (horrors!), it could be said that geometric points are in fact pretty much the same as zero-size tetrahedra, in that they would behave in much the same way -- both being non-existent and thus only useful in abstract terms. But the fundamental difference between them is in the conceptuality: If I were trying to explain Euclidean geometry to a grade-school-age child, I would have to define a ``point'' (and, as noted by Hofstadter in _Godel, Escher, Bach_, this definition would vary if I were trying to explain elliptical geometry). And I would have to make it very clear that ``point'' means something very small -- infinitely small -- smaller than you could imagine. And then I would tell the child, ``Of course, points don't exist. But take it from me, we can pretend, and you can learn a lot about the universe this way.'' And the child would just have to take it on faith that these non-existent -- and non-imaginable! -- points can be used to say things about the way the world works. Eventually, of course, this child would grow up and the intial confusion about dimensionless points, one-dimensional lines, and two-dimensional planes would be replaced by a little marker in their conceptioning reading, ``Do Not Question.'' This is necessary, because once one starts attempting to map these ideas onto the real world, everything collapses. Have you ever tried to cut out a stick figure with a pair of scissors? So now we have the ability to explain geometry to the child in terms of conceptuality -- a tetrahedron. We can start with something the child can see and play with and interact with and -- most importantly -- imagine. And though zero-size tetrahedra do not exist, when one attempts a map onto reality of this idea, one ends up with -- surprise! -- a special-case tetrahedron of some fixed size. So that's the importance of zero size, and why the purely conceptual tetrahedron can be of zero size. But this doesn't explain deeper parts of our modeling, as you question below. From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle [We're discussing the jitterbugging vector equilibrium, which is contracting and expanding again. The vector equilibrium never attains zero size, but at ``a certain minimum distance'' the tetrahedra rotate around and the vector equilibrium begins to expand.] > so the conclusion is that there _must_ be a half-circle (dare i call > this PI radians?) torque-about that happens "a certain minimum distance"? > would this action be less-than-instant? during the transformation > through the unattainable zero-size, would the first few degrees of > twisting happen more slowly than when 90 degrees has been reached, > and then the last degrees once again happening slowly? > what factors would affect the radius of the structure at the point > of the twisting conversion? You could call it PI radians, but then we'd have to kill you. I don't know that there must be a half-circle torque-about. That seems to be what Fuller is saying, though. I think it might have to be, given the geometry we're discussing. He's made models of this, I have not. (I have a Vector Flexor which I play with -- much to the delight of visitors and the dismay of my wife -- but it doesn't help with conceptualizing this. Perhaps. But I do know that, in the Vector Flexor (and thus, the vector equilibrium), as you contract it from cuboctahedron through icosahedron to octahedron, the surface triangles rotate one half-spin. Perhaps there's an isomorphism here, or perhaps the Vector Flexor is indeed modeling what we're talking about and I just don't see it.) The closest mental model I have right now is the knitting needles model I gave previously, where the needles do undergo a half-spin around the zero-size triangle point. (Try it. It works with pencils, too, though it's hard to keep them from slipping.) The speed with which this rotation occurs depends on physical factors, I would think, such as electromagnetic charges, gravitational attractions, and the force with which you shove the needles around. The factors affecting the radius at the twisting point would be the same. In what way can this be used to model anything in the real world? You've got me there. Someone would need to map current physics onto a synergetic base before we could use it to predict things. I never forget that the power of a model lies in its ability to allow us to predict events in the real world; and as such, our current physics/mathematics has done quite well. My hope is that synergetics could do at least as well -- particularly in the areas in which current physics/mathematics has recently been found lacking -- and also that synergetics would open up real-world modeling to a larger constituency. But I also understand that there's a long way to go. > i'm thinking of halfway through the 180 degree twist - the symmetries > would be entirely different than either of the larger-size phases. > perhaps it's against the law of Fuller to dwell on the halfway point. There is no Law of Fuller, except perhaps one that was formulated by Crowley some years earlier: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. So, by all means, dwell on the halfway point! Tell us what you see. Dare to be naive and ask the ``stupid'' questions. Looking again at my knitting needles (currently special-cased as yellow pencils), I see that at the turnaround point -- the closest we can get to that zero-size triangle -- the symmetries are indeed quite different. Interesting things may be going on here. What do you see at the halfway point of the vector equilibrium? Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:47:00 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: ll Subject: GENI MISSION STATEMENT >Could someone post your mission statement to the Geodesic list? >If you're not subscribed then send it to me and I will forward it. >Thanks, Joe Dear Joe, Thanks for your request. The following statement of GENI's Mission and two primary projects offer an excellent overview. I've also attached some comments by several noted leaders in their fields, each taking a strong stand for this initiative becoming real in the world. Global Energy Network International - GENI Our Mission is to accelerate the attainment of optimal ecologically sustainable energy solutions in the shortest possible time for the peace, health and prosperity for all. STRATEGIC POSITION: Global Energy Network International (GENI) is a tax exempt, IRS Sec 501(c)(3), organization in the United States of America. We conduct research and educational activities related to the international and inter-regional transmission of electricity, with a specific emphasis on the interconnection of renewable energy resources. Integrated resource usage is currently not possible without interconnections and high voltage transmission. Our research to date finds that, using today's technology, the interconnection of large scale renewable resource energy is an economic and environmentally sustainable solution. In considering the decision making processes of the global electricity industry, there exists three areas of activity that will accelerate the attainment of optimal energy solutions: First, the industry must be convinced that interconnection of renewable energy sources via high voltage transmission networks is both a financially viable and highly desirable global energy option; Second, the general public and their representative organizations need to be aware of sustainable global energy options; and Third, our policy makers need to be aware of global sustainable energy options when determining their regional policy direction and legislation. OUR ACTIVITIES: The activities of GENI have focused on researching the development of transmission and distribution networks as a viable option to meet our global energy requirements. Clear evidence indicates that large scale remote renewable energy resources can be made available via high-voltage transmission. Extensive progress has been accomplished. GENI continues to work with the electricity industry to explore the implications of interconnections around the world. GENI has identified a hurdle for the industry's wider use of interconnection of large scale renewable energy resources: the lack of a suitable, validated computer simulation model to demonstrate the cost/benefit analysis of such a scenario, which includes a comparison with other energy scenarios, for example, those of the World Energy Council. Therefore: To accelerate the decision making and approval process, we have initiated a Computer Simulation Project, enlisting the active support of the electricity industry and the Society for Computer Simulation's "Mission Earth" project. To leverage our communication with the general public, we have initiated, in collaboration with Earth Vision Productions, a Documentary Film Project suitable for international broadcast media. To leverage the education of the industry and our policy makers, we work with other organizations promoting global sustainable development, are actively involved in international meetings, and have joined with the United Nations Environmental Program to co-sponsor an International Conference on Electrical Interconnections. OUR VISION: All people having access to ecologically sustainable energy. ********************************************************************** ****** WHAT'S BEING SAID BY THE EXPERTS "I have followed closely the work of Global Energy Network International for some time, and find the project to be one of the most important opportunities to further the cause of environmental protection and sustainable development." Noel Brown, North American Director, United Nations Environmental Program "The extensive international cooperation necessary would mean alternative expenditures to armaments, and at the same time, help overcome social-economic problems which exist today in developing countries." Yevgeny Velikhov, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences "Birthrates decrease at exactly the same rate that the per capita consumption of inanimate electrical energy increases. The world's population will stop increasing when and if the integrated world electrical grid is realized. The grid is the World Game's highest priority objective." Dr. R Buckminster Fuller, "Critical Path" "A global energy network makes enormous sense if we are to meet global energy needs with a minimal impact on the world's environment." "Such advances (in long distance transmission) may even make possible the visionary suggestion of Buckminster Fuller two decades ago that the Eastern and Western hemispheres be linked by underwater cable to assist each other in managing peak energy demand, since the high daytime use in one hemisphere occurs at precisely the low nighttime consumption by the other." Al Gore, letter from US Senator (Tennessee), and "Earth in the Balance" "My conclusion is that to build a new world -- to build peace -- we must literally build it. . . Two billion people live without electricity today. Show me any area in the world where there is a lack of energy, and I'll show you basic poverty. There is a direct tie-in between energy and poverty, energy and war, energy and peace. . . Electrical interconnections between regions -- and even continents -- can and must be tackled now. This can be a vast and visionary undertaking -- worthy of our generation." Walter Hickel, Governor of Alaska, Chairman of Northern Forum "The construction lists ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:51:52 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: _Cosmography_ available via WWW Incidentally, Bucky Fuller's _Cosmography_ is available for order via the World Wide Web. The company is called Intertain and the URL for them is: http://intertain.com/store/welcome.html Following is the information I got from their pages: List price $24.95 Your price $22.45 (hardcover) Publication date: 02/92 Author: Fuller, R. Buckminster (Richard Buckminster), 1895- Title: Cosmography : a posthumous scenario for the future of humanity Publisher: New York : Macmillan ; Toronto : Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; New York : Maxwell Macmillan International, c1992. Physical description: viii, 277 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Quote: Includes index. Subject: Cosmography. Co-author: Kuromiya, Kiyoshi. Title Price ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- Cosmography : a posthumous scenario for the future of $22.45 ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- FREE Shipping and handling until December 25,1994 Total order (Sales tax will be added to MA orders) $22.45 You can order from them by sending them a check or money order, including the usual information -- name, address, and so on -- to the following address: Profitable Technology, Inc. 40 Maclean Drive Sudbury, MA 01776 Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com P.S.: Kiyoshi Kuromiya -- don't we know him from somewhere? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:30:52 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle Chris, responding to Gerald, responding to Chris responding to... >Well, this ``zero size'' thread has been going on for some time Good dialog ya'll. I jump in... Can we just say: imagine a dimensionless point (sizeless). OK, now zoom in. Wait! It doesn't get bigger, points aren't allowed to ever get bigger. A big fat spherical "point" is a silly idea. OK, now imagine the point growing into a tetrahedron. The tetrahedron still doesn't have size -- it's as "dimensionless" as the point was, just seen up close. Zoom in on any vertex -- a tetrahedron again! Fractal city! But that's just an exercise. The point ("") is: in synergetics points are tetrahedra in disguise. They have no size -- any more than traditional points do. The idea the a point is somehow "more sizeless" than a tetrahedron is what's most suspicious. Points have insides and outsides and that, most simply described, is a tetrahedron. Points occupy volume (purely conceptual sizeless volume -- ah, there's the problem, we don't distinguish in geometry between conceptual and actual -- the frequency / prefrequency distinction is wholly missing). Once we let points have volume (but no size in temporeal reality), then having them be tetrahedra is easy. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby T. Urner email: pdx4d@teleport.com (public access node) 4D Solutions Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Nystrom Organization: University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative Rjbono (rjbono@aol.com) wrote: : In article , Gerald de Jong : writes: ... ... ... : >anyway, how about: : >3) find/share/develop software with which we can... : >3a) generate various geodesic domes, based on a few parameters : >3b) animate the various jitterbug transformations : >3c) build arbitrary vertex-and-strut structures that can later : > be converted into tensegrity structures. : Thanks for the suggestions, we can add them to the list. I am currently : working : on my own incarnation of 3a. I'll post the C++ code within a month or two. : I : would love to see a program based on 3b. : Rick "Living on the border, by the sea" Bono I agree that a "program" to model item 3b) and beyond is something to be desired. As is this synergetic research initiative (something to be desired). I am currently looking into how to create this computational model, where the spatial characters in the synergetic play can dance within the confines of the IVM. This has previosly been referred to as a computational cosmography. The problem is that our familiar synergetic players (i.e. tetrahedron, coupler, VE, mite, et. al.) are not static structures, per se. For if they were, simple rotations and translations are not a problem (computationally) to show; but they would be rather boring and never would produce real interesting behavior. It is when these structures intertransform and multiply by division that the real action begins. I currently see the model something like this (rambling follows): we begin with th basic cellular automata model (parts include the grid and intersections), but for the grid (you guessed it) we use the IVM-based octet truss. Now, popular CA models place a point-like object at the intersections and use some rule system to update this point object from one state to another every "time" step. (each point object might have from 2-n possible states, the game of LIFE uses a 2-state object(light on or off), and the rules usually just take into account the current states of the immediate neiborhhod). Now, (again as you might have guessed), we will not use point-objects but rather the synergetic players, which in order to perform their synergetic-energetic geometrical dance will need some rules. Where these rules can not be as simpleton as are the neighborhood based ideas of most CA and lattice gas techniques, but rather based on (drum roll please...) some kind of "spatial action". Now this idea of a "classical action" have been brought up before during discussions on this list, and it name in the popular press is "the principle of least action". The standard computational units are Energy*time. What is so appealing about this principle (which forms the basis of Hamilton-Jacoby theory, path of least time in optics(the eikonal), and from which EVERY SINGLE PHYSICAL THEORY NOW IN USE CAN BE DERIVED FROM {sorry for shouting}) is that it somehow currently seems to me that it could be a means by which we get these players to dance. Well, thanks for listening, and hopefully the flames won't be able to burn me up here in Idaho. JFN ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:51:48 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative Rjbono (rjbono@aol.com) wrote: > In article , Gerald de Jong > writes: > >3) find/share/develop software with which we can... > >3a) generate various geodesic domes, based on a few parameters > Thanks for the suggestions, we can add them to the list. I am currently > working > on my own incarnation of 3a. I'll post the C++ code within a month or two. OK, how many people have preliminary code for this? In how many computer languages? I suspect this is the most frequently written program for which I have yet to see any code. Since Joseph P. Clinton's alleged NASA program (have you seen the code?), I suspect no fewer than 10 (20? anyone) people have written this type of program. BUT WHERE ARE THEY NOW! I want an ftp site, now. [OK, I saw one program that did some octahedral domes, what about icosahedra?] The design science revolution: talking about good ideas and never releasing design specs. ... Over and over again. -signed the committee against vaporware and inaction -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 11:03:08 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Planck's constant Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: > In <199412141633.AA06753@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w > rites: > >From: Gerald de Jong > >> i always have to let loose a snicker when i see this argument, either > >> in its original form, or repeated. this is nothing better than > >> hand-waving, pure and simple. > >I don't know for sure that it is just hand-waving, but it certainly isn't what > > I'd call rigorous, either. > it's only handwaving. to talk about "cancelling out the 6.6ness" of a > number (iffy in itself) and then not give more than a clue as to how is > as far from rigorous as you can get! Geometrically, Fuller's calculation in (I)223.74 made sense to me anyway. Now, as to the physics it is idle speculation and probably inaccurate at that. Where are our physics students lurking? -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 08:35:09 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative In article <3crrg4$h0s@netaxs.com>, cjf@netaxs.com (Chris Fearnley) writes: >OK, how many people have preliminary code for this? In how many >computer languages? I suspect this is the most frequently written >program for which I have yet to see any code. Chris I'd be happy to post the code I have so far for this. It currently calculates the symmetry triangles for icosa, octa, & tetra Class I domes in frequencies up to about 75. This constraint is due to memory limits on my PC. The output is in the form of a DXF file which can be imported into most CAD systems such as Cadkey & autocad. I have refrained from doing so because it is "buggy" code written in Borland C++ and although it illustrates the princples it is not what I like to call a stable release. I would prefer to upload this code after after I do some more work on it. I'd like to solve a few bugs, add class II support, check for portability violations, and add textual output to screen and file before I post this geodesic class. I do plan to post this code in the public domain. Rick "Trying to speak Geodesically" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 14:17:34 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412151912.AA08847@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner / Dawn Wicca writes: >Can we just say: imagine a dimensionless point (sizeless). OK, >now zoom in. Wait! It doesn't get bigger, points aren't allowed >to ever get bigger. A big fat spherical "point" is a silly idea. indeed, that's what we _must say. >OK, now imagine the point growing into a tetrahedron. The tetrahedron >still doesn't have size -- it's as "dimensionless" as the point was, >just seen up close. nope. this is the mental equivalent of jumping off the cliff and hoping to land on a mattress truck. if it has no size, it is simply dimensionless, and it is consequently undefined. it is not a tetrahedron. > Zoom in on any vertex -- a tetrahedron again! >Fractal city! But that's just an exercise. damn. we were just getting somewhere! :) > The point ("") is: >in synergetics points are tetrahedra in disguise. They have no >size -- any more than traditional points do. on that "point", synergetics is madness. >purely conceptual sizeless volume -- ah, there's the problem that's off the edge. sizeless volume is as sensible as the point in traditional geometry. >Once we let points have volume (but no size in temporeal reality), >then having them be tetrahedra is easy. we must let them have volume - and then they become aggregations of "points" (tet,octa,icosa-based and no others) or (apparent!) crossings. once again, though, there can be no volume without size! the logical results can be one of two (and that's IT!): 1) "points" have a fractal nature 2) "points" represent apparent (from certain points of view!) crossings of looped filaments ("great circles"). i gather that Fullerites lean towards 2. a geodesic (an orbit) great-circle loop filament of a micrometer in length is one of the great-circles of the entire universe. (ask a clever mathemetician to build a fence around the north pole, and he'll erect a fence around himself and say "i'm outside!".) here, i believe, we're into the essence of Fuller's thinking. i still think that he made one big thought-error in saying that the zero-tet (or zero-VE) represents a turning inside-out. it's either a twist or the thing must pass through a dimensionless singularity state. he disallows the latter, and incorrectly concludes that the former involves and inside-outing. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 13:53:40 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412151825.AA00534@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >Now, Gerald, I think you'd agree that the ``standard'' geometry definition of > ``point'' is something that doesn't exist; yet you're willing to deal > with ``points'' in mathematics. it's a co-ordinate, an abstract thing, like a triangle, or a sphere. >Proceeding on the assumption that this is the case -- and feel free to > disillusion me if I've misunderstood -- I realized that our argument > stems from the question of conceptuality, not reality. Neither zero > size tetrahedra or mathematician's ``points'' exist, so we're not > arguing that. yes. >.. it is pointless (excuse me) to speak of ``points'' in synergetics. This > is why Fuller defined a point as being a not-yet-finely-discerned > event; and such an event must be, at minimum, a tetrahedron in order to > be conceived and perceived. yes. > I were trying to explain Euclidean geometry to a grade-school-age > child, I would have to define a ``point'' (and, as noted by Hofstadter > in _Godel, Escher, Bach_, this definition would vary if I were trying > to explain elliptical geometry). And I would have to make it very > clear that ``point'' means something very small -- infinitely small -- > smaller than you could imagine. call it a "singularity". no matter how closely you approach, it remains a point. > And then I would tell the child, > ``Of course, points don't exist. But take it from me.. but tetrahedrons also don't exist. there are no "lines" between the four "points", and certainly no faces involved. is it not equally difficult to explain? >So now we have the ability to explain geometry to the child in terms of > conceptuality -- a tetrahedron. We can start with something the child > can see and play with and interact with and -- most importantly -- > imagine. And though zero-size tetrahedra do not exist, when one > attempts a map onto reality of this idea, one ends up with -- > surprise! -- a special-case tetrahedron of some fixed size. a non-zero size! >So that's the importance of zero size, and why the purely conceptual > tetrahedron can be of zero size. But this doesn't explain deeper > parts of our modeling, as you question below. to talk about a zero-size tetrahedron is just as abstract and unreal as talking about a point. but, just as Fuller defines a crossing (or an event) as the approach of two great-circles until they are indistinguishably _close_ but never touching, you must define a tetrahedron shrinking-and-reappearing act (bowtie?) as never reaching the zero-size state - never! it may approach zero-size, but at some point it freaks out and does a half-circle twist. a zero-size tet is _not_ discussable, just like a point. >> so the conclusion is that there _must_ be a half-circle (dare i call >> this PI radians?) torque-about that happens "a certain minimum distance"? >> would this action be less-than-instant? >You could call it PI radians, but then we'd have to kill you. it's about time for me to rant on about how i think we can use concepts like PI and the trig functions without offending Fuller. within a few days i'm bound to spout off, so be prepared! :) >The closest mental model I have right now is the > knitting needles model I gave previously, where the needles do undergo > a half-spin around the zero-size triangle point. that's a wonderful image - very useful! but the conclusion that you have to make is that there remains _no_ zero-size triangle. there's a point at which the triangle (as it appears from _most_points_of_view, and that's important because from the side it's just a line!) makes a twist. once again - it refuses to achieve zero-size! >In what way can this be used to model anything in the real world? You've got > me there. oh, i don't even think that this is a great problem. if we can make use of the limited-resolution-of-space aspects of quantum mechanics, we can say that at the border of this resolution, the triangle does physically make the twist. in the physical world, this argument jives just fine, but in the abstract world of conceptuality (unless you impose limits on it like Fuller did - based on physics) it will not. > in the real world; and as such, our current physics/mathematics has > done quite well. My hope is that synergetics could do at least as > well we've got to do more than hope. we've got to make it happen. >> i'm thinking of halfway through the 180 degree twist - the symmetries >> would be entirely different than either of the larger-size phases. >> perhaps it's against the law of Fuller to dwell on the halfway point. >There is no Law of Fuller, except perhaps one that was formulated by Crowley > some years earlier: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > So, by all means, dwell on the halfway point! Tell us what you see. > Dare to be naive and ask the ``stupid'' questions. thanks. :) all we have to do is _disallow_ the zero-size case. we must assume that lines don't cross, and that tetrahedrons don't reach zero size, but at some point "do the twist". i'd suggest that there may be the clue we're looking for! this twist is perhaps the conceptual justification for the built-in uncertainty of quantum mechanics. at the twist stage (which "must" happen), the system is wholly unpredictable. >Looking again at my knitting needles (currently special-cased as yellow > pencils), I see that at the turnaround point -- the closest we can get > to that zero-size triangle -- the symmetries are indeed quite > different. Interesting things may be going on here. What do you > see at the halfway point of the vector equilibrium? similar! that's why the needles is such an illustrative image. all you have to do is let it happen in 3D. the symmetries blow up with a VE as it approaches the unattainable zero-state - just like Feynman found that the infinities blow up in quantum electrodynamics. there is one really surprising conclusion that i must make, however, based on my understanding as explained in these arguments... that Fuller was _wrong_ about the tetrahedron shifting inside-out. if there is such a twist, then inside remains inside. thoughts? -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 14:28:02 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: . Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl In <199412160142.AA12374@xs1.xs4all.nl> Jim Nystrom writ es: >: >3b) animate the various jitterbug transformations >I agree that a "program" to model item 3b) and beyond is something >to be desired. >It is when these structures intertransform and multiply by division >that the real action begins. my ears are pricked up! >I currently see the model something like this (rambling follows): we >begin with th basic cellular automata model (parts include the grid >and intersections), but for the grid (you guessed it) we use the >IVM-based octet truss. yes, otherwise you'd discuss this in the non-Bucky world outside. :) >some kind of "spatial action". Now this idea of a "classical action" >have been brought up before during discussions on this list, and >it name in the popular press is "the principle of least action". path of least resistance? geodesic, in other words? >shouting}) is that it somehow currently seems to me that it could >be a means by which we get these players to dance. i want more! give me more! could this involve a point "splitting" into multiple points which join together to form new points. this sort of cellular-automata model might just provide enough flexibility/symmetry to be able to model fluids. in CA, the points are static. perhaps there can be some defined local movements, which must eventually average out to zero-movement. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 14:33:28 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative In David Buttrick writes: >On Thu, 15 Dec 1994, Gerald de Jong wrote: >> 3c) build arbitrary vertex-and-strut structures that can later >> be converted into tensegrity structures. >With respect to tensegrity structures: >How about a system which could load a wire frame graphic and DO a >tensegrity ANALYSIS on it. In other words, show you where the the >weaknesses are, or allow you to modify the graphics and run an anlysis on >the modifid structure? sure. but how do you construct the graphic in the first place? i was thinking of integrating the building and analysis in one, although they could of course be separated. i want to build the equivalent of a word-processor or spreadsheet program, but then for 3D push-pull structures. one unified virtual structure-research environment. load structure, add a tetrahedron, save, load another, zap a strut, save, load another, let it settle and show the stress levels. that sort of thing. anybody want to finance the half-year of development time i'd need? :) -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:09:47 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative In-Reply-To: <199412161451.AA03681@charon.osc.on.ca> (message from Rjbono on Fri, 16 Dec 1994 08:35:09 -0500) > "RB" == Rjbono writes: RB> I'd be happy to post the code I have so far for this. It RB> currently calculates the symmetry triangles for icosa, octa, & RB> tetra Class I domes in frequencies up to about 75. Please post away! RB> ... The output is in the form of a RB> DXF file which can be imported into most CAD systems such as RB> Cadkey & autocad. And SGI Inventor (well, almost) RB> I would prefer to upload this code after after I do some more work RB> on it. I'd like to solve a few bugs, add class II support, check RB> for portability violations, and add textual output to screen and RB> file before I post this geodesic class. I do plan to post this RB> code in the public domain. Some suggestions: 1) save Class II and text for a revision 2) release the code under the GNU Public License with a sample main() that is known to work 3) with the GPL, the rest of us are free to find and help fix the portability issues, bugs, test the coverage of the demo, benchmark, optimize, extend and catapult your code into fame :) While text widgets may be neccessary, there will a problem of portability standards --- for example, because I use SGI OpenGL on the Iris machines, I prefer to use the public domain VoGL (GL emulation) library on X11 and MsDOS/BGI machines, and VoGL already has full 3D Hershey font support and backface removal. With the Borland BGI (use MegaGraphics' MGL instead, much much faster), the code will be very difficult to port to non-Borland compilers. If the code will fit into standard C++ and be built with GNU Make, our fixes and extensions can be managed using patch files and we can have a stable package in a very short time. Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 - Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:26:13 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Ed Applewhite Subject: Re: Bucky in Business X-cc: JaimeS2@aol.com For Michael Kohl ! think Jaime Snyder at BFI(JaimeS@) might have some good inopt for you Ed Applewhite ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:24:50 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Ed Applewhite Subject: Re: Bucky in Business X-cc: JaimeS2@aol.com For Mike Kohl I think Jaime Snyder at BFI (JaimeS2) might have some good input for you. Ed Applewhite ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 07:44:59 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle Gerald writes: >once again, though, there can be no volume without size! > >the logical results can be one of two (and that's IT!): > > 1) "points" have a fractal nature > > 2) "points" represent apparent (from certain points of view!) > crossings of looped filaments ("great circles"). > >i gather that Fullerites lean towards 2. Both (1) and (2) can be supported I think (using the term "fractal" loosely since I don't see Fuller buying the notion of "fractional dimension" which is where the term "fractal" comes from -- requires first buying lines of one and planes of two dimensions, fractals being somewhere in between). A couple threads twisting together here. I was a bit off topic, coming from quotes about no fewer than 4 dimensions. You and Chris are primarily discussion the zero-volume tetrahedron. I think we can all agree with the following (?): in synergetics, time and size are conceptually linked such than one implies the other. Furthermore, purely conceptual tetrahedra are distinguished from those special case ones which have an actual time and place. In this sense, we *do* have "sizeless" tetrahedra, meaning not that they're miniscule beyond further subdivisibility but merely that "size" is not one of their attributes. Timeless, sizeless tetrahedra are four dimensional, according to Fuller. Add time/size and you're talking more dimensions. I agree there can be no such thing as "unimaginably small" and agree that "zero-volume tetrahedron" is no more sensible than "zero-volume point". You go from nothing whatsoever (as if that means anything) to a 4D tetrahedron, not to a 0D point. ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Louis K. Bonham" Subject: Geotangent v. Geodesic Domes I have recently stumbled across Craig Yacoe's two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 4,679,361 [geotangent spherical domes] and 4,825,602 [geotangent elipsoid domes]), both issued in the late 1980's. As noted in the patents, "the term geotangent domes will be understood to mean structures comprising a section of a polyhedron made up of rings of polygons, the edges of which are each tangent to the same sphere [or elipsoid of revolution] and in which the most equatorial ring of polygons contains more faces than the most polar ring. All polygons in the same ring have inscribed circles [or elipses], the centers [or foci] of which are at the same spherical [or elipsoidical] latitude." Yacoe claims that such structures are superior to geodesic designs in a number of ways, primarily dealing with ease of construction (simpler junctions, perpendicularity of all equatorial polygons to the equator, regular base line), and suggests that the avoidance of great circles in the joint locations provides greater strength. Has anyone seen any analyses of comparing the structural strength of geotangent and geodesic domes (or otherwise contrasting the advantages / disadvantages of the two)? In short, given the simplier nature of a geotangent dome, is there any particular reason why geodesic structures would be preferred? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 21:46:19 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412161558.AA29999@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >Gerald writes: >>once again, though, there can be no volume without size! >> >>the logical results can be one of two (and that's IT!): >> >> 1) "points" have a fractal nature >> >> 2) "points" represent apparent (from certain points of view!) >> crossings of looped filaments ("great circles"). >Both (1) and (2) can be supported I think (using the term >"fractal" loosely since I don't see Fuller buying the notion >of "fractional dimension" which is where the term "fractal" >comes from -- requires first buying lines of one and planes >of two dimensions, fractals being somewhere in between). don't think that fractals are limited to one or two dimensions or somewhere in between. the talk of fractional dimensions can equally apply to things between 3 and 4 dimensions, etc. >I think we can all agree with the following (?): in synergetics, >time and size are conceptually linked such than one implies the >other. Furthermore, purely conceptual tetrahedra are distinguished >from those special case ones which have an actual time and place. sure. >In this sense, we *do* have "sizeless" tetrahedra, meaning not that >they're miniscule beyond further subdivisibility but merely that >"size" is not one of their attributes. absolutely. but "sizeless" is very different from "zero size". > Timeless, sizeless >tetrahedra are four dimensional, according to Fuller. and what are these four dimensions? you're talking about static (not changing through time, because they're timeless) tetrahedra. how can they be four-dimensional if i can specify the (static!) position of each vertex on some arbitrary 3D reference frame? it's easy to say "it's just 4D, believe me!", but i can't see how this can be backed up. something that's really 4d should not surrender to description with three coordinates. a conceptual tetrahedron does. >I agree there can be no such thing as "unimaginably small" and >agree that "zero-volume tetrahedron" is no more sensible than >"zero-volume point". i believe it was "dimensionless point". are you also agreeing that the shrinking tet never reaches the zero-state? see, there is an easy way to account for the inside-outing of a shrinking tetrahedron. for the same reason that Chris's knitting needles skirt the zero state, and with the same image that Bucky presents of lines never meeting - always missing each other, we can also say that the four vertexes of the shrinking tetrahedron cannot meet at one point simultaneously. if they don't coordinate it means that one of the four must arrive first and zip through the triangle made by the other three - and _that's_ inside-outing! -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 10:30:04 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative Rjbono (rjbono@aol.com) wrote: > OK I'm convinced! (gee that wa easy) > Give me a day or two to clean up what I've got and I'll post the code. My > next > problem is more procedural. I will likely have to post the code as a mail > message as I have no way to upload binaries. Any suggestions on how to do > this given that I'm a poor AOL soul would be appreciated. See what flaming can get you :) Actually my original post was aimed at those who *must* have completed there dome code ages ago - not those of you who only began work recently. But my flame did shake something out of the woodwork :) I think Gary Lawrence Murphy's comments on the GPL and cooperatively developed code are very appropriate. I don't know c++ and I can't deal with DXF images ... yet! ... but I'll compile it on my machine anyway! How big is it? I believe alt.sources is considered the best way to upload source code (but you can use GEODESIC if you like). If the code is large, then using an ftp site like switchboard.ftp.com would be best. If you have access to a UNIX box, you can use the split(1) command to break up large files before posting. You can gzip and uuencode before splitting to make it smaller (uudecode and gzip are available on all platforms). > A few other notes... > The program only calculates the symmetry triangle. not the complete > sphere. > I haven't taken rotations into account yet, which is what I need for class > II > implemenation. The program is entirely text based the BGI is not used. > I should have things ready by Monday, so hang in there until then... Documentation (even sketchy docs) may be more important than fully-polished code -- you may have to guide us through what you're trying to do so that when the code breaks we know what it was supposed to do. So feel free to take until after New Year's as I'll be away most of the time 'till after New Year's anyway :) > Rick "Must I clean my code?" Bono -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 13:41:05 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: trig functions and irrrational numbers there seems to be a tendency among Fullerites to develop an allergy for the trigonometric functions (sin, cos, tan, etc) and the difficult numbers such as PI and root 2. i'd like to try and debunk these fears, because they might be a hindrance to the spread of synergetics into the mainstream. first, the trig functions. Bucky suggested that all experience were accountable in terms of angles, and to express these angles he persists in using the arbitrary measurement of degrees/minutes/seconds. to build such a measurement system, you must take a full circle and subdivide it according to some arbitrary imaginary plan. you might choose to base this on the number of fingers on your hands, or if you're adventurous you could base it on the number 7 or something. another way to describe an angle is to drop a perpendicular from one ray to the other and then talk about the ratio between the lengths of the various sides. these ratios are called trig functions, and they produce rather bitter-tasing numbers which are figured out using sums of infinite series - yuck. but as it turns out, you can do great things with these functions without ever actually figuring them out numerically! they exhibit certain mathematical characteristics and can be manipulated algebraically, allowing us to figure out many interesting things. ..and never once did anybody have to worry about irrational numbers or infinite series. trig functions are part of the language of angles, and they might indeed represent a much more useful description than some arbitrary subdivision of a circle. second, the irrational numbers. if we're going to use numbers at all, we end up talking about some sort of number-line. for integers it consists of a series of dots equidistant from each other and extending off to the horizon, and for real numbers it's a solid line flying off to the same place. if we're talking integers-modulo-x, then we've got something a little more tangible - a polygon with x equal sides. (more on that one later.) but the number line for the rational numbers (fractions) is the same as that for the real numbers except for the fact that it's riddled with holes, and they're not particularly evenly distributed either. it seems a rather quirky system with which to do physics. numbers like PI and root 2 represent holes in the line of rational numbers. the trick here as well is to never figure them out! if you can talk about root(2) without talking about 1.4142136..., you're remaining purely conceptual and not committing the sin of talking about imprecise things. likewise, if PI is allowed to represent the ratio of the arc-length of a half-circle to it's diameter, but never worked out to some dirty inaccurate representation in our silly decimal system, you're home free. in summary... perhaps what we need for synergetics is a new group of named-numbers, or numbers for which we never work out the dirty decimal descriptions. take a look at Bucky's description of the dimensions of the A and B modules (synergetics 913.00, 916.00)! the lengths of the sides are littered with irrational mathematical curses! these, however, are the accurately-expressed numbers that roll out of synergetics accounting. they are the PI's of synergetics - equally irrational and annoying. try this: first, ignore all the inaccurate hours/minutes/seconds descriptions of the angles that he uses (they're very dirty!), but recalculate the lengths of the sides using the following numbers: Ernie = 6*sqrt(3), Bert = 4*sqrt(2) if these two numbers are given names, we're _free_ to describe the whole situation in terms of integers! maybe there are a few more numbers that we can name which will allow us to describe the platonic solids in terms of integers. maybe there are more for the description of sphere-like triangulated domes. this is left as an exercise to the reader. :) conclusion: don't worry about PI, nature does use it as an asymptotic value, but never bothers to translate it into decimal digits or any other digits for that matter. don't worry about the value of cos(A), just about the angle/ratio relationships and how we might simplify stuff by using the trig algebra. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 11:40:09 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rjbono Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Synergetics Research Initiative In article <3cuejc$r7p@netaxs.com>, cjf@netaxs.com (Chris Fearnley) writes: >Documentation (even sketchy docs) may be more important than fully-polished >code -- you may have to guide us through what you're trying to do so that >when the code breaks we know what it was supposed to do. So feel free to >take until after New Year's as I'll be away most of the time 'till after New >Year's anyway :) Yes it appears that Monday was optimistic. I need clean things up a bit more than I thought in order to make the program presentable. The code for this program is actually fairly short. Thanks for the inputs as to how to upload the package when I'm ready. As far as documentation, I have been using Kenner's _Geodesic Math & How to Use It_ as my primary reference. The real trick was setting up the algorithms needed to set up the coordinate scheme used. I would recommend reviewing this book as far as the notations used in the calculations. I will likely have the program ready to post a few days after Christmas. Rick "I working as fast as I can, yeah?" Bono ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 18:44:16 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dystan Hays Organization: Dystan Hays Studios Subject: Re: trig functions and irrrational numbers Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: [snip, snip] : ... as it turns out, you can do great things with these functions : without ever actually figuring them out numerically! they exhibit : certain mathematical characteristics and can be manipulated : algebraically, allowing us to figure out many interesting things. : ..and never once did anybody have to worry about irrational : numbers or infinite series. [snip, snip] : trig functions are part of the language of angles, and they : might indeed represent a much more useful description than some : arbitrary subdivision of a circle. [snip, snip] : don't worry about PI, nature does use it as an asymptotic value, : but never bothers to translate it into decimal digits or any other : digits for that matter. don't worry about the value of cos(A), : just about the angle/ratio relationships and how we might simplify : stuff by using the trig algebra. [snip, snip] Thanks, Gerald. Right on. This whole post is a ray of light in a murky chaos of conversation. My own take on Bucky is that he saw some problems that he cared very much to find solutions for, and did his best to do so, while sharing his experience as he progressed. I see the same, and feel similarly pressed to fix something that I can see how to fix. We have a collective long history of breaking things we didn't understand well enough yet to meddle with. On the other hand, we find ourselves possessed with this intellect, by which we can learn (perhaps only as individuals). I'm more interested in pursuing similar work to Bucky's, in parallel or tandem while he was alive, and carrying it on since his leaving us. I agree with your vision that this newsgroup can become the forum for collaboration on these activities. regards, -- John Kirk Dystan Hays Studios email: dystan@netaxs.com (215) 382-3040 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 13:25:53 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: trig functions and irrrational numbers X-To: Dystan Hays In-Reply-To: <9412171921.AA19418@mx5.u.washington.edu> John Do you remember John Cages Statements At Stanford" Buckminster Fuller Is dead we need to carry on his work" "After losing every battle right up to the final victory' Mesostics Eyes Art and Population John Cage "Composed In America" U. of Chicago Press take care cosmic messenger service nicku On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Dystan Hays wrote: > Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: > [snip, snip] > : ... as it turns out, you can do great things with these functions > : without ever actually figuring them out numerically! they exhibit > : certain mathematical characteristics and can be manipulated > : algebraically, allowing us to figure out many interesting things. > : ..and never once did anybody have to worry about irrational > : numbers or infinite series. > [snip, snip] > : trig functions are part of the language of angles, and they > : might indeed represent a much more useful description than some > : arbitrary subdivision of a circle. > [snip, snip] > : don't worry about PI, nature does use it as an asymptotic value, > : but never bothers to translate it into decimal digits or any other > : digits for that matter. don't worry about the value of cos(A), > : just about the angle/ratio relationships and how we might simplify > : stuff by using the trig algebra. > [snip, snip] > > Thanks, Gerald. Right on. This whole post is a ray of light in a murky > chaos of conversation. My own take on Bucky is that he saw some problems > that he cared very much to find solutions for, and did his best to do so, > while sharing his experience as he progressed. I see the same, and feel > similarly pressed to fix something that I can see how to fix. We have a > collective long history of breaking things we didn't understand well > enough yet to meddle with. On the other hand, we find ourselves possessed > with this intellect, by which we can learn (perhaps only as individuals). > I'm more interested in pursuing similar work to Bucky's, in parallel or > tandem while he was alive, and carrying it on since his leaving us. > I agree with your vision that this newsgroup can become the forum for > collaboration on these activities. > regards, -- John Kirk > Dystan Hays Studios > email: dystan@netaxs.com > (215) 382-3040 > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 03:15:05 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: WorldGamer Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: World Game In article , b j Altschul writes: World Game is alive and well. World Game Institute is in Philadelphia and has offices in the Pacific Northwest, Japan, New Zealand, and others being negotiated. There will soon be a page on the World Wide Web. World Game Institute 3215 Race St Philadelphia PA 19104 215-387-0220 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 09:08:23 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: trig functions and irrrational numbers >Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: >[snip, snip] >: ... as it turns out, you can do great things with these functions >: without ever actually figuring them out numerically! they exhibit >: certain mathematical characteristics and can be manipulated >: algebraically, allowing us to figure out many interesting things. >: ..and never once did anybody have to worry about irrational >: numbers or infinite series. These functions first made their appearance in history in connection with long tables in the backs of books, painstakingly computed, with the number of significant digits being a selling point. Engineering calculators competed by getting trig functions accurate to more places etc. Of course symbolic manipulation is important, necessary. But turning the end results into decimal digits, for use in construction, engineering, design, is what 99.99% of the real world need for such functions is (not counting classroom hours spent by the world's school kids in search of good grades, where real world concerns do not apply). Algebraic manipulation is a means to an end, not (usually) an end in itself. >[snip, snip] >: trig functions are part of the language of angles, and they >: might indeed represent a much more useful description than some >: arbitrary subdivision of a circle. SIN, COS, TAN etc. require inputs, either in angular degrees, radians, or grad (100 notches per quadrant). However arbitrary these subdivisions, they are necessary to make any use of these functions. Fuller's central criticism of SIN, COS is that they treat angles and edges as separate types of scalar. He liked to look at edges in terms of there subtended central angles, i.e. a triangle is a triangle on the surface of the earth, the face of a tetrahedron with the earth's center as an apex -- it's edges are therefore expressible (at least in concept) in terms of central angles at the center of the earth. So all the measures are of angles -- either surface or central. >: don't worry about PI, nature does use it as an asymptotic value, >: but never bothers to translate it into decimal digits or any other >: digits for that matter. don't worry about the value of cos(A), >: just about the angle/ratio relationships and how we might simplify >: stuff by using the trig algebra. >[snip, snip] Except in the form of humans and their calculations (part of nature), nature does no such thing. Nature does *not* use pi as an asymptotic value. To think Pi is the standard which nature tries to approach, but never quite makes it, is the height of anthropocentric prejudice. After a few digits to the right of the decimal (say 33 for the sake of argument), we're talking about physical distances that have no meaning in physics, no physical interpretation. Yet Pi goes on for billions more digits and so on -- not just in decimal digits but in any system capable of such precision (information theory will show that even extraterrestrials would need the same number of binary bits to represent Pi to a million places as we do, no matter what their symbolism). You cannot divorce the concept of Pi from its irrational, transcendental (math term) character. True, it can be used as a Greek letter in algebra, but irrationality, the inability to express a number as the ratio of two integers, even in principle, is a problem that plagued the Pythagoreans thousands of years ago. John Kirk: >I'm more interested in pursuing similar work to Bucky's, in parallel or >tandem while he was alive, and carrying it on since his leaving us. >I agree with your vision that this newsgroup can become the forum for >collaboration on these activities. > The proposal to look for alternative ways of handling SIN and COS based on different ways of dividing the unit circle is a continuation of one of Bucky's projects and interests. This is not to depart from Fuller's agenda even a little. Whether the project will produce any practical results is open to question (I certainly have my doubts), but in no way should those who choose to proceed with it be discouraged by criticisms that Fuller himself would have found their work irrelevant. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: Is dead we need to carry on his work" "After losing every battle right up >to the final victory' Mesostics Eyes >Art and Population John Cage "Composed In America" U. of Chicago Press >take care >cosmic messenger service >nicku Nick, why are you so mysterious? i, for one, don't know what the heck you're talking about here. is it your intent to give others here the sense that they don't belong? -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:30:59 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Angle is Everything In <199412181710.AA21617@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >>Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: >Fuller's central criticism of SIN, COS is that they treat angles and >edges as separate types of scalar. He liked to look at edges in terms >of there subtended central angles, i.e. a triangle is a triangle on >the surface of the earth, the face of a tetrahedron with the earth's >center as an apex -- it's edges are therefore expressible (at least >in concept) in terms of central angles at the center of the earth. >So all the measures are of angles -- either surface or central. yes, this is a brilliant and inspired way to look at edges, because it removes our tendency to think of straight lines in favour of our seeing all lines as geodesics or parts of great-circles. (please correct me if my interpretation is not accurate). now, what if you're trying to describe a situation in which, for example, there is a triangle floating in space? what angles can be used to describe it's edges? we could, i suppose, restrict ourselves to the internal angles of the triangle itself, since we're dealing only with a triangle- in-space (shades of the Muppets' Pigs in Space). but suppose i were moving towards the triangle. would my measurement be changing as i move? would i be forced to disregard the relatively static "distances" between the vertexes? if this is not the case, then i must be able to find a pivot (origin) in order to describe the edges as angles. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 12:48:23 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Pie In <199412181710.AA21617@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >>Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: >>: don't worry about PI, nature does use it as an asymptotic value, >>: but never bothers to translate it into decimal digits or any other >>: digits for that matter. don't worry about the value of cos(A), >>: just about the angle/ratio relationships and how we might simplify >>: stuff by using the trig algebra. >>[snip, snip] >Except in the form of humans and their calculations (part of nature), >nature does no such thing. Nature does *not* use pi as an asymptotic >value. To think Pi is the standard which nature tries to approach, but >never quite makes it, is the height of anthropocentric prejudice. not that nature is "trying", but PI represents a number that nature is unable to exceed. it's not anthropocentric, because it would be there with or without someone to say it were there. >After a few digits to the right of the decimal (say 33 for the >sake of argument), we're talking about physical distances that have >no meaning in physics, no physical interpretation. this i don't understand. could you explain further? >You cannot divorce the concept of Pi from its irrational, >transcendental (math term) character. True, it can be used as a >Greek letter in algebra, but irrationality, the inability to >express a number as the ratio of two integers, even in principle, >is a problem that plagued the Pythagoreans thousands of years ago. why is "rationality" so important? i have trouble with the assertion that PI is a black-sheep number. to me it's as primal as an integer - despite the fact that we have trouble expressing it in digits. the number 2 is, in a sense, irrational as well, because there are no two identical things in the physical world that we can put beside each other and call "two". (you don't even have to square-root it!). PI is the holy ratio between the circumference and the diameter of an imaginary circle (a polygon with scads of edges, and vertexes equidistant from the center). this is a limit-value, and if there's a problem with the fact that this also represents a reference to flat space, we can include that the origin of the reference-surface (i'm winging the terminology) is really far away. in any event, if you keep raising the number of chords, and the size of the reference sphere, you get nearer and nearer to the holy ratio. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:51:22 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle I was so glad to see that I haven't misunderstood you, Gerald. I mean, we were even agreeing for a few lines there. Alas, it could not last: > but tetrahedrons also don't exist. there are no "lines" between > the four "points", and certainly no faces involved. is it not > equally difficult to explain? Ah, but tetrahedra DO exist. (Yes, Virginia, there is a polyhedron.) They can be conceptualized. A singularity does not have this quality. And further, according to Fuller's reworking of the definitions of point, line, and face -- into event, vector, and opening -- we can say that these things do indeed exist, and even point to them. Whereas we cannot point to a mathematician's point. > > And though zero-size tetrahedra do not exist, when one > > attempts a map onto reality of this idea, one ends up with -- > > surprise! -- a special-case tetrahedron of some fixed size. > a non-zero size! No, not at all. When you map a conceptual zero-size tetrahedron onto reality, you get a special-case tetrahedron WITH size -- because reality requires size and time. > to talk about a zero-size tetrahedron is just as abstract and unreal > as talking about a point. but, just as Fuller defines a crossing (or > an event) as the approach of two great-circles until they are > indistinguishably _close_ but never touching, you must define a > tetrahedron shrinking-and-reappearing act (bowtie?) as never reaching > the zero-size state - never! it may approach zero-size, but at some > point it freaks out and does a half-circle twist. a zero-size tet > is _not_ discussable, just like a point. I think we're starting to understand each other. I can agree all the way up to the last sentence: yes, as the tetrahedron contracts, it reaches a certain minimum size -- twists -- and begins to expand again. It never ever ``reaches'' zero size, because if it did it would fall out of physical Universe and into metaphysical Universe -- and that can't happen. It cannot exist physically and have no size. But, the usefulness of zero size is much like the usefulness of a mathematician's point -- except for the conceptual difficulties. The zero-size tetrahedron is what the physical tetrahedra of the vector equilibrium are rotating around -- what they can be said to be transforming in relation to -- and is, in effect, what they are going ``through'' when they inside-out. When the knitting needles are coming together and then spreading apart -- when our triangle is contracting and then expanding -- we can see that the triangle never reaches zero size. But, if we're conceptualizing, we can see a triangle shrinking and enlarging, and if we wish to model this behavior, we can do so by thinking of the ``bowtie'': contracting to zero size and then expanding again -- all the time remembering that this zero size is conceptual only, but never attained. > this twist is perhaps the conceptual > justification for the built-in uncertainty of quantum mechanics. at > the twist stage (which "must" happen), the system is wholly unpredictable. I think maybe you have mixed up the ideas of ``uncertain'' and ``unpredictable.'' However, this is intriguing. I would certainly say that the ``twist'' occurs because of at least two factors: the forces between the events that comprise the vertexes; and the quantum distance limit proposed by Feynman. > there is one really surprising conclusion that i must make, however, > based on my understanding as explained in these arguments... > that Fuller was _wrong_ about the tetrahedron shifting inside-out. > if there is such a twist, then inside remains inside. thoughts? [My brow wrinkles from the effort of deep thinking.] Perhaps we're mixing up some things. I think that the inside-outing of the tetrahedron is a different creature from the jitterbugging vector equlibrium. I think maybe the tetrahedra are not turning inside out during the jitterbug -- it's a simple pulsation from maximum to minimum size. The inside-outing is a separate happening -- although I suppose it could happen concurrently with the jitterbug. I know this is not what I have been saying, but maybe I was led astray. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:40:48 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: ll Subject: GENI MISSION AND GOAL > >Could someone post your mission statement to the Geodesic list? >If you're not subscribed then send it to me and I will forward it. >Thanks, Joe Dear Joe, Thanks for your request. The following statement of GENI's Mission and two primary projects offer an excellent overview. I've also attached some comments by several noted leaders in their fields, each taking a strong stand for this initiative becoming real in the world. Global Energy Network International - GENI Our Mission is to accelerate the attainment of optimal ecologically sustainable energy solutions in the shortest possible time for the peace, health and prosperity for all. STRATEGIC POSITION: Global Energy Network International (GENI) is a tax exempt, IRS Sec 501(c)(3), organization in the United States of America. We conduct research and educational activities related to the international and inter-regional transmission of electricity, with a specific emphasis on the interconnection of renewable energy resources. Integrated resource usage is currently not possible without interconnections and high voltage transmission. Our research to date finds that, using today's technology, the interconnection of large scale renewable resource energy is an economic and environmentally sustainable solution. In considering the decision making processes of the global electricity industry, there exists three areas of activity that will accelerate the attainment of optimal energy solutions: First, the industry must be convinced that interconnection of renewable energy sources via high voltage transmission networks is both a financially viable and highly desirable global energy option; Second, the general public and their representative organizations need to be aware of sustainable global energy options; and Third, our policy makers need to be aware of global sustainable energy options when determining their regional policy direction and legislation. OUR ACTIVITIES: The activities of GENI have focused on researching the development of transmission and distribution networks as a viable option to meet our global energy requirements. Clear evidence indicates that large scale remote renewable energy resources can be made available via high-voltage transmission. Extensive progress has been accomplished. GENI continues to work with the electricity industry to explore the implications of interconnections around the world. GENI has identified a hurdle for the industry's wider use of interconnection of large scale renewable energy resources: the lack of a suitable, validated computer simulation model to demonstrate the cost/benefit analysis of such a scenario, which includes a comparison with other energy scenarios, for example, those of the World Energy Council. Therefore: To accelerate the decision making and approval process, we have initiated a Computer Simulation Project, enlisting the active support of the electricity industry and the Society for Computer Simulation's "Mission Earth" project. To leverage our communication with the general public, we have initiated, in collaboration with Earth Vision Productions, a Documentary Film Project suitable for international broadcast media. To leverage the education of the industry and our policy makers, we work with other organizations promoting global sustainable development, are actively involved in international meetings, and have joined with the United Nations Environmental Program to co-sponsor an International Conference on Electrical Interconnections. OUR VISION: All people having access to ecologically sustainable energy. ********************************************************************** ****** WHAT'S BEING SAID BY THE EXPERTS "I have followed closely the work of Global Energy Network Internatie caus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 15:30:47 -0500 Reply-To: Beshears Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Beshears Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: playground geodesic domes If anyone would happen to know where I could find the manufacturers-distributors of playground geodesic domes I would appreciate if you would let me know via e-mail to beshears@aol.com. I am in North Carolina. Thanks ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 23:17:59 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412191504.AA01922@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >Ah, but tetrahedra DO exist. (Yes, Virginia, there is a polyhedron.) They > can be conceptualized. A singularity does not have this quality. how is it so that a tetrahedron _can_ be conceptualized where a singularity cannot? simply because a tetrahedron has an inside and an outside? > point, line, and face -- into event, vector, and opening the man sure did his share of redefinition! :) >No, not at all. When you map a conceptual zero-size tetrahedron onto reality, > you get a special-case tetrahedron WITH size -- because reality > requires size and time. i'm afraid a zero-size tetrahedron refuses to map onto reality for me. zero is a special number! there is no mapping. >> tetrahedron shrinking-and-reappearing act (bowtie?) as never reaching >> the zero-size state - never! it may approach zero-size, but at some >> point it freaks out and does a half-circle twist. a zero-size tet >> is _not_ discussable, just like a point. >I think we're starting to understand each other. I can agree all the way up > to the last sentence: yes, as the tetrahedron contracts, it reaches > a certain minimum size -- twists -- and begins to expand again. It > never ever ``reaches'' zero size, because if it did it would fall out > of physical Universe and into metaphysical Universe -- and that can't > happen. how about we drop the term zero-size and call it sizeless, because then we're probably in perfect agreement. specifying zero-size, to me, means attaching a real physical value. sizeless says metaphysical. >..if we wish to model this behavior, we can do so by > thinking of the ``bowtie'': contracting to zero size and then > expanding again -- all the time remembering that this zero size is > conceptual only, but never attained. i'd rather simply call it a metaphysical pivot, instead of assigning it specific symmetries by calling it a tetrahedron. >> that Fuller was _wrong_ about the tetrahedron shifting inside-out. >> if there is such a twist, then inside remains inside. thoughts? >[My brow wrinkles from the effort of deep thinking.] >Perhaps we're mixing up some things. I think that the inside-outing of the > tetrahedron is a different creature from the jitterbugging vector > equlibrium. oh, it is. how about we concentrate on inside-outing: let's grab four of your knitting needles and paint them with a smooth graduation of rainbow colours from violet to red. hold them so that they all "connect" at one point in the center, sort of star-like. now, consider these needles as being the paths of the four vertexes of our collapsing tetrahedron. if we were so inclined, we could also allow the knitting needles to magically pass through each other at a crossing point, as long as the colors of the needles were all different at this point. the reason that they may not cross the same point _and_ have the same color at that point is, uhh.. the Pauli Exclusion Principle, or whatever. in any event, it would seem to concur with Bucky's thinking (and mine) that they not be allowed to be "simultaneous". first of all, do you think this image is appropriate? if so, based on our painted knitting needles - can inside-outing occur? can inside-outing _not_ occur? -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 09:25:12 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Butterfly Organization: Evolutionary Acceleration, Inc. Subject: Re: HOW TO CANCEL SUBSCRIPTION Gerald de Jong writes: -In <199412100052.AA15072@xs1.xs4all.nl> Joe Moore writes: ->You must send the command ->SIGNOFF GEODESIC ->to LISTSERV@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu -okay, Joe, so you can tell us how to signoff the list, but why in -heaven's name does nobody know how to fix the list???? all posters -get big error messages back every time they post (as you know). -i've tried to mail root@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu, but no luck. does -ANYBODY have any idea how to get this list fixed??? --- - ________________ ___________ _________________ -____/ gerald de jong \____/ rotterdam \____/ the netherworld \____ -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What's wrong with it? I've been away for ages, and haven't actually had write privs to the list-headers for about 2 years, since I moved away from Buffalo. I only get to peek in every now and again, so I'm afraid I've not seen what's causing the errors, but I may be able to direct some attention to it, as I know the postmaster over there... -- Pat ______________________________Think For Yourself_______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury 1800 Market Street #23, San Francisco, CA 94102 Voicemail: 415/703-7177 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've seen the wiring under the board. :) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 09:22:18 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Butterfly Organization: Evolutionary Acceleration, Inc. Subject: Re: Geotangent v. Geodesic Domes "Louis K. Bonham" writes: -I have recently stumbled across Craig Yacoe's two patents (U.S. -Patent Nos. 4,679,361 [geotangent spherical domes] and 4,825,602 -[geotangent elipsoid domes]), both issued in the late 1980's. As -noted in the patents, "the term geotangent domes will be understood -to mean structures comprising a section of a polyhedron made up of -rings of polygons, the edges of which are each tangent to the same -sphere [or elipsoid of revolution] and in which the most equatorial -ring of polygons contains more faces than the most polar ring. All -polygons in the same ring have inscribed circles [or elipses], the -centers [or foci] of which are at the same spherical [or -elipsoidical] latitude." -Yacoe claims that such structures are superior to geodesic designs -in a number of ways, primarily dealing with ease of construction -(simpler junctions, perpendicularity of all equatorial polygons to -the equator, regular base line), and suggests that the avoidance -of great circles in the joint locations provides greater strength. -Has anyone seen any analyses of comparing the structural strength of -geotangent and geodesic domes (or otherwise contrasting the -advantages / disadvantages of the two)? In short, given the -simplier nature of a geotangent dome, is there any particular -reason why geodesic structures would be preferred? I talked about this with my design prof, Harold Cohen, about 4-5 years back when I got a paper geotangent model from Yacoe. It's an interesting implementation of doming, to be sure, but as Harold pointed out, you can build geodesics out of ellipsoid forms just as easily as you could from spherical. (As Bucky points out in Synergetics 1 - 703.01: "Geodesic domes can be either symmetrically spherical, like a billiard ball, or asymmetrically spherical, like pears, caterpillars, or elephants.") :-) If I remember correctly, the great-circles are part of what make a geodesic so strong to begin with. They help form unified structural members made of smaller components that can distribute stresses across the totality of the structure. Geodesics can have perpendicular walls if you design them to. Or inwardly sloping walls, or _outwardly_ sloping walls. It's up to the designer. If you want a wide, low, domed roof with vertical walls, use an ellipse. If you want a silo, use a different elipse. Say, one that is 25' across and 250' tall. (...Which is closer to the old tensegrity masts, but hey!) The 4 and 5 sided polygons that Yacoe used in the model I built were nice looking, although you had to pay reasonably close attention to orientation & placement. And 4 or 5 sided figures are not structurally stable in and of themselves, if built as frames. They were stable because they were planar, but you wouldn't be able to build that geotangent very well out of, say, thin rods. It was more suited for a plywood-type construction, where the stability came from the material, not the method. (Much like most conventional construction.) The cardboard dome I designed with Harold and another friend while back in Buffalo had a similar planar design, and two different sized pieces, both triangles. The strength of a planar material is quite astonishing, when the whole structure is in place. I've not seen any specific studies of geotangent dome strength, so I can't provide references for such. I have seen lots of them for geodesics, though. They've been around for longer, so that's to be expected. Any recent news on Yacoe? I've not talked with him in about 5 years. -- Pat ______________________________Think For Yourself_______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury 1800 Market Street #23, San Francisco, CA 94102 Voicemail: 415/703-7177 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've seen the wiring under the board. :) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 14:42:47 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle > how is it so that a tetrahedron _can_ be conceptualized where a > singularity cannot? simply because a tetrahedron has an inside > and an outside? Well, yes. And because all of the parts of a tetrahedron can be seen: vectors (``It went thataway.''); crossings (``Those two things went thataway and there's where they were closest.''); and openings (``Those three things went thataway, there are the three places where they were each closest to each other, and there's the space between them.''). These give us tetrahedra: the space between the ``thataways,'' the events that went ``thataway,'' and the triangles formed by them. A singularity, however, admits of no such description. > i'm afraid a zero-size tetrahedron refuses to map onto reality > for me. zero is a special number! there is no mapping. > how about we drop the term zero-size and call it sizeless, because > then we're probably in perfect agreement. specifying zero-size, to > me, means attaching a real physical value. sizeless says metaphysical. Aha! So that's the problem! Fine -- ``zero size'' equals ``sizeless.'' They mean the same thing. (How can you be sizeless and yet have a non-zero size?) You've been mapping your own perceptions on the term ``zero.'' ``Zero'' is not a physical value. You can't count ``zero'' sheep. ``Zero'' is metaphysical only. Zero is not special-case, it is the absence of special cases. I'm glad we're in agreement on the whole ``sizeless'' (and pointless) thing. > i'd rather simply call [the zero-size tetrahedron at the center of the > jitterbugging vector equilibrium] a metaphysical pivot, instead of assigning > it specific symmetries by calling it a tetrahedron. It's just a term. The term ``metaphysical pivot'' is completely meaningless, however. It makes more sense to talk about it in terms of what we can know -- and we can know tetrahedra. > let's grab four of your knitting needles and paint them with a > smooth graduation of rainbow colours from violet to red. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your improved knitting-needle-model is all about. Could you explain it better for me? I'm not sure what the colors are supposed to represent, or why we can pass the needles through each other. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 15:10:01 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: FlexiStar 6 visualization toy On Monday, I was given a most interesting birthday present, and I thought I'd share my experience with everyone here. My roommate, knowing that I've been getting into playing with all sorts of weird geometric crap -- reading Buckminster Fuller leads to carpentry -- bought me an odd little geometric toy called the FlexiStar 6. At first, I didn't think it was that cool. It looked for a bit like she'd gotten me an only mildly interesting toy, and that I'd fiddle with it and add it to my shelf where it would sit and gather dust forever or so. Let me explain, for those of you who haven't seen it, what the FlexiStar 6 is. It's a long loop of what look to be wire squares, hinged between with copper tubes. The squares are somewhat twisted so the loop flexes and wobbles. Fiddling with it will produce cubes and other odd shapes. Because it seemed to be made up of squares and not triangles, I was slightly less than impressed (I'm becoming an anti-squarist). But, intuitively, there seemed to be a bit more to this, and I figured I'd see what I could come up with. I read through the package insert and it pointed out to me that what I had thought to be squares were actually tetrahedra, with two of the edges implied. Aha. But the insert mentioned nothing about Fuller or synergetics or anything (unlike the Vector Flexor toy). Anyway, now I had something indicating there was more to this toy than meets the eye, so I played with it some more. In playing with it, I remembered that it came in the box in the shape of two stacked cubes. This shape was fairly easy to reform. Then I realized: if I could form two stacked cubes, I could fill allspace with this toy -- and since the individual segments are tetrahedra, they're each allspace-filling tetrahedra! I ran to _Synergetics_ and discovered -- much to my delight -- that the FlexiStar 6 is made up of double-bonded A quantum modules, alternating positive and negative along the chain. What a discovery! I'd been having trouble visualizing the quantum modules, and here is a toy that is a great visual aid; in addition, it's a fun way to physically play with the quantum modules. So if you've wanted to get into manipulating A quantum modules, this is the creature for you. It's distributed in the U.S. by our old friends at Design Science Toys: Design Science Toys Route 9, Box 1362 Tivoli, NY USA 12583 I imagine you can call them, too, at 914.756.4221 (and FAX them at 914.756.4223). And isn't one of them lurking around on this list? Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 16:29:40 -0400 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: David Roach Organization: NS Research Subject: Re: FlexiStar 6 visualization toy The flexistar 6 is only one of eight toys in this product line from the ORB Factory(Canadian company). All their products will be available via cyberspace early next year. If the group is interested I'm sure they will be more than happy to post the WWW location it at that time! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 15:41:01 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Mike Kohl Subject: Where is Marshall Thurber I am searching for a guy named Marshall Thurber. I took a seminar of his several years ago. He claimed to have been a student of Bucky. Any help would be greatly appreciated. *************************************************************************** Michael P. Kohl, P.E. Phone (404) 453-7455 Michael_Kohl@INS.com Fax (404) 740-1506 International Network Services Pager (800) 710-0104 5151 Brook Hollow Parkway Suite 220 Norcross, Georgia 30071 *************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 16:58:42 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: Re: FlexiStar 6 visualization toy In-Reply-To: ; from "David Roach" at Dec 20, 94 4:29 pm David Roach writes: > > The flexistar 6 is only one of eight toys in this product line from > the ORB Factory(Canadian company). All their products will be > available via cyberspace early next year. If the group is interested > I'm sure they will be more than happy to post the WWW location > it at that time! > .- > Yes! Please ask them not only to post their Web address, but also post their catalog. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:34:59 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Pie In <199412191845.KAA10467@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >I mean that if we're talking about a physical phenomenon, circular >or spherical in nature, where our PI would show up to mirror nature's >doings, that there's a limit to the level of precision that makes >any sense. At 10 to the -33, your down below the dimensions of >quantum uncertainty. i see what you mean. but 10e-33 what? metres? it's a ratio, so if we make a circle a few galaxies in diameter, i'm sure we can add a few digits. still, you're right, nature will never even attempt to approach PI to infinite digits accuracy. but is that important? it's a theoretical number. > However round a natural phenomenon is, you >get down to atoms and molecules and such -- what is PI at this >"bumpy" level? since it's bumpy, the fractal nature pops up and the circumference becomes darn near infinite. :) > How is nature struggling to approach PI carried >to further billions of digits of accuracy, even in theory? okay, so that's a justification for not worrying about more than a bunch of digits of pi. does that negate the meaning of pi itself somehow? it's a ratio related to the ideal circle. >>the number 2 is, in a sense, irrational as well, because there are >>no two identical things in the physical world that we can put beside >>each other and call "two". (you don't even have to square-root it!). >Now this I don't understand. We have two non-identical things. >We're just counting things, whether they're identical doesn't matter. >Two sheep, one black, one white. Two things, one whatever and one >whatever. sorry. i panicked. :) to me there's a number line upon which you can place a bunch of dots. we put a dot at 1, 2, or pi, but it matters little whether one of these dots is describable in digits or not. it's no more natural to put a dot at 42 than it is to put one at pi. why should we distinguish at all between integer/rational/transcendental numbers? nature doesn't. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 04:08:33 -0500 Reply-To: "Louis K. Bonham" Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Louis K. Bonham" Subject: Re: Geotangent v. Geodesic Domes Thanks for the report -- re: strength, I kinda suspected as much. > The cardboard dome I designed with Harold and another friend while >back in Buffalo had a similar planar design, and two different sized pieces, >both triangles. The strength of a planar material is quite astonishing, when >the whole structure is in place. Do you still have the design for the cardboard dome? I'd be real interested to see it. > Any recent news on Yacoe? I've not talked with him in about 5 years. Nope. If you find out where he is, I'd be interested in his address, as I suspect that he probably has a data on these issues. Best regards, LKB ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:41:06 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: FlexiStar 6 visualization toy Further stories of fun with the FlexiStar 6: I found that, with a bit of work, I could thread a string through the tubular connectors of the creature and thus make it easier to visualize the tetrahedra by running the string to follow the missing tetrahedron edges. It makes it an even better visualization toy than it was before. However, I'm starting to wonder about its being made up of alternating positive and negative A quantum modules. I skimmed _Synergetics_, and I get the impression that A quantum modules won't fill allspace -- that only Mites, made up of two A quantum modules and a B quantum module, will fill allspace. Also, as much as I tried, I couldn't quite get a messy tracing of one of the FlexiStar tetrahedra to look like the unfolded A quantum module in _Synergetics_. I'm still trying to figure out what they are, though, if they're not A quantum modules. They're not Mites or Sytes, certainly, and not B quantum modules. I think they might be half of a Mite, which would be a B quantum module and half an A, or an A and half an A. I really just don't know. It is intriguing, though. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:51:44 MDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Ken G. Brown" Organization: BEST Online Subject: Nine Chains Book Available Saw Bucky's 'Nine Chains to the Moon' book in a local used book store for $10 Cdn. I could pick it up and send it if someone wants it. First direct e-mail gets it (if I'm not too late). -Ken- (kbrown@atc.edmonton.ab.ca) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 23:09:36 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: World Game Institute Organization: Drexel University Subject: WGI Workshop schedule The following has some redundancy with the first posting of World Game Institute's Workshop schedule. This update starts at the first instance of a change in the previous schedule. Send a note, call, or write if you would like information about attending a workshop in your area. Most events would be free to observe or participate. - Dane World Game Institute 3215 Race Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2597 (215) 387-0220 WORLD GAME WORKSHOP SCHEDULE as of 12/20/94 * Environmental Workshop **Diversity Workshop Dec. 9 Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA Dec. 13 Univ of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 1/18/95 Holdrum Middle School, Rivervale, NJ 1/23,24/95 Dwight-Englewood School, Englewood, NJ 1/26/95 Darien High School, Darien, CT 1/27/95 Linn Benton Comm. College, Albany, OR 1/27/95 Yale University, New Haven, CT 1/28/95 Lutheran Campus Ministries, Blacksburg, VA 2/2/95 Pittsburgh School District, Pittsburgh, PA 2/8/95 SUNY-Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, NY 2/13/95 Motorola, Schaumburg, IL 2/16,17/95 Peddie School, Hightstown, NJ** 2/17/95 Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA 3/3/95 Morristown Baird School, Morristown, NJ 3/4/95 Rennsalaer Polytechnic Inst., Troy, NY 3/7/95 Franklin Township School, Quakertown, NJ 3/14/95 Eastern High School, Voorhees, NJ* 3/15/95 Great Lakes Invit. Conference, Flint, MI 3/21,22/95 Paramus HS, Paramus, NJ** 3/22,23/95 Motorola, Phukat, Thailand 3/24/95 Ranney School, Tinton Falls, NJ 3/27/95 Motorola, Singapore 3/28/95 Briarcliff Middle School, Mountain Lakes, NJ 4/7/95 Johnathan Dayton HS, Springfield, NJ 4/11/95 North Arlington HS, N. Arlington, NJ* 4/20/95 Morris Hills High School, Rockaway, NJ 4/20-22/95 Iowa Dept. of Education, Des Moines, IA* 4/24/95 Motorola, Schaumburg, IL 4/26/94 Southern Regional HS, Manahawkin, NJ 4/27/95 Museum of Disc. & Sci., Ft. Lauderdale, FL* 5/3/95 West Morris Central HS, Chester, NJ* 5/4/95 Columbia School, Berkeley Heights, NJ 5/4/95 Scottsdale Leadership, Scottsdale, AZ 5/8/95 Motorola, Europe 5/10/95 Passiac Co. Votech HS, Wayne, NJ 5/18,19/95 Roxbury High School, Succasunna, NJ** 5/24/95 Montgomery High School, Skillman, NJ 5/26/95 Edison Intermediate School, Westfield, NJ 6/8/95 Columbia School, Berkeley Heights, NJ 6/12/95 Motorola, Schaumburg, IL 6/25/95 Youth Envir. Summit, Loveland, CO* 7/3/95 Motorola, Singapore 8/13-15/95 Presby. Peacemaking Program,HempsteadNY** 9/4/95 Motorola, Singapore 9/11/95 Motorola, Schaumburg, IL 10/9/95 Motorola, Schaumburg, IL 1/15/96 Fay School, Southborough, MA** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 01:46:32 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Russell Chu Subject: Re: Earth's Space is curved This is in response to Bill Long's comments on 12/15/94. I found it difficult to switch from synergetic thinking to the planar/flat thinking, whenever I tried to consider in the flat thinking I would get caught in the erroneous common senses that I learned in the past. The Earth is spherical and the space around Earth is spherical, and everything in Earth's spherical space is affected by it. This is due to Earths gravity, or Earth's omnidirectional gravitational field, spherical. >>Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 19:43:45 -0500 >>From: Russell Chu >>Subject: Earth's Space is curved >>We know that satellites and space shuttles orbit the Earth. >>The space shuttle comes in for a landing by decelerating slowly, a controlled >>falling-in, its orbits decreasing in radius gradually. >In order for the shuttle to return to Earth it does a deorbital burn about >half an orbit away from the landing field. Once this delta V takes place it >is no longer in a stable orbit, but instead is falling out of the sky. The shuttle comes in faster than I thought. It is not falling out of the sky, it is falling-in to Earth. The spherical space around Earth is like the layers of an onion. In these orbits are the most energy efficient paths. Like lanes one can travel (across) inward or outward by decreasing or increasing energy. It is very difficult to come in or go out radially, or to travel in straight paths. The paths of ligh, high energy particles are almost straight but they are also affected by gravity. This shows that the shuttle is not very efficient and will be replaced by shuttle-planes that can travel in and out more gradually. >>The airplanes are doing the same, they go out to 3000 feet and cruise for a >>while at the 3000 feet radius orbit and then decelerate in for the landing on >>Earth's surface. >No, this is wrong. Airplanes are not in orbit...they are in powered flight. >They use aerodynamic lift produced by pushing the wings through the >atmoshpere to stay aloft. Objects in orbit are coasting on their own >momentum and do not require additional energy to maintain their paths... >except to make corrections or to change the characteristics of the orbit. Again the space on the ground, in the ocean, in the air and further out is only determined by its distance from the center of the Earth. On the surface of the Earth, if we had a level surface ( curvature of the Earth) discounting friction from ground and air, a ball was set in motion, the ball would continue in motion. The "solid" ground is supplying the energy for the ball to stay in that orbit. Likewise the air is supplying the rest of the energy for the plane to travel on that orbit. The other way to look at it is the weather balloon being pushed out. >>Space is curved around Earth, that is why Earth is spherical. Gravity is >>omniradial. We cannot easily travel in straight lines in the space >>surrounding Earth. Orbiting is the least energy, most economical path, when >>the acceleration of the traveling mass becomes equal to the force of gravity. >> Einstein said that gravity and acceleration is the same, one cannot tell the >>difference. >Space-time is distorted near gravitational sources, and motion can be >considered as straight paths through this distorted space-time Yes, Space-Time. Space is 4D and there are no straight paths. Space cannot be dissociated from time. If we use the onion layers again, we can represent the gravitational field by the density of layers. Closer to the source higher the density of layers. This is what it is refered to as space-time gravitational distortion. Since the speed of light is constant the higher the density of layers, greater the time change. This area needs further discussion. >>When we go "up" a hill we accelerate, stepping on the gas pedal,we feel our >>backs pushing against the seats, and then "down" the hill we let up on the >>gas and start braking slowly, we are decelerating, our bodies go forward. >>When we are going "up" we are going out and when we are going "down" we are >>going in. So when we accelerate we go out and when we decelerate we come in >>and when we maintain speed, when we are cruising, we are orbiting maintaining >>the same radius from the center of the Earth. >I don't think this analogy works. If we go up the hill carefully maintaining >the same velocity (or even allowing the vehicle to decelerate) with respect to >the road surface we will still feel as though we are pushed back in our seats. >This is because the direction of our motion is now at some angle (not >perpendicular) to the direction of the force of gravity..so instead of all the >gravitational force holding us down in our seat, some of it is forcing us back >as well. The hill will force us away from the gravitational center whether or >not we accelerate with respect to the road surface. If we accelerated on a >level surface we'd stay at the same distance from the gravitational center... >we'd just increase our velocity. Of course if we could accelerate to 7 ft/sec >(escape velocity) then we might start to move away from the Earth. I wanted people to feel acceleration, deceleration, moving in and out of Earth. >>The space around Earth is spherical (a perfect sphere does not exist) >>The curvature decreases as the distance from the center of the Earth >>increases. >>Gravity decreases as the distance increases, inversely proportional to the >>spherical area. >I think a more accurate representation of the local distortion in space- >time would be a funnel, with its deepest point at the gravitational center >of the local body. As you move away from the massive body the funnel >becomes more open, in a sort of inside-out-parabaloid shape, until it >becomes flat (unaffected space-time with no nearby massive bodies to >distort it). Now, any object in motion through this space-time will travel >a straight path (like a marble rolling on a flat surface) but when it reaches >a distortion the path appears to curve, the amount depending on how close to >the center of the funnel it passes. At just the right distance (depending on >the objects velocity) it will curve just so that it goes into a circular motion >around the center of mass of the funnel and achieve a stable orbit. Closer >than this it will fall into the central mass. farther away, it will go into a >hyperbolic path and escape the system. But all these are cases of sraight >paths through the distorted space-time geometry. I think the 4 dimensional representation of space is less confusing. I would like to add that since Earth and all the bodies are moving the SPACE is an always changing overlapping of each individual spaces. Maybe there are better, more economical paths of space travel. Path like in superconducting materials. Air travel became more efficient with the understanding of geodesics, great circles. >>The coordinate system is an agreed upon grid (common to all) so that accurate >>representations of the problem could be visualized, drawn, calculated etc... >>The most used system is the Cartesian coordinate system with three orthogonal >>axis, 3 axis at 90 degrees to each other. This matched the tools used in the >>building trade and they are still the same. >You know, for a while I've been wondering how you could define location in >three dimensions based on a tetrahedral rather than cubical co-ordinate >system...instead of three axes would there be six? >>The least energy, most economical state is spherical. > ^within a gravitational well >For an object to have a stable orbit just above the earth's surface it must >have a velocity of 17,672 mi/hr. For it to have a stable orbit at about >250 miles above the earth's surface it must have a velocity of 17,224 mi/hr. >This is why when you see satellites in lower orbits passing overhead they >are travelling faster than those which have higher orbits. It has >something to do with the centripedal force required to counter the >acceleration of gravity at whatever the orbital radius is. >I'm starting to confuse myself...I gotta take a break, do a little reading, >and store up some more ammo for this thought experiment...but I'd really >like to know what you folks out there think of the tetrahedral coordinate system. >bye for now...Bill Long >-- StarGazer Bill, thanks for your comments and sorry I took so long to respond. I have been thinking a lot about a coordinate system using the Isotropic Vector Matrix, it would include the positive and negative tetrahedral axis, the octahedral axis and the Vector Equilibrium (cuboctahedron) axis. This would be 4 interpenetrating Isotropic Vector Matrices. I think that is why it is very important for us to get an accurate picture of Space. Thanks, Russ Chu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 10:48:05 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Pie In <199412211513.HAA29693@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >My theory is you and I are both intelligent enough to perpetuate >arguments indefinitely, kind of like the digits of pi. my theory is that we've learned some things by talking it out. i certainly have. and i also think that we've progressed on a few issues. i guess you disagree. >we've argued about whether dimensionless nothing should be >visualized as a tetrahedron or a dot (the debate still rages, >with no sign of abatement) the discussion was about how to visualize a vertex, since vertexes are mentioned throughout Fuller's work. discussing this is inappropriate somehow? >we'd probably still be arguing about >what a cockroach should look like, or maybe an amoeba. i maintain that your proposal for a black-clad cockroach is not the most sensible! i suggest we use the colors of Smarties. >I think one goal is to get a clear an understanding of what >Fuller's take was, using original texts as a basis. that's exactly why i am so curious about vertexes, because he refuses to acknowledge the "point" definition. it's absolutely central to his thinking, isn't it? > In sum: what Bucky thought, what might >be said in support, what might be said to counter. Finis. truncated debate? (in modern American: bobbitted debate?) >not stall out in argument mode, on the misassumption that we need >some kind of final resolution -- as if we were waiting to finally >get to that last digit of PI. the final resolution might be: here's a definitive proof that pi is transcendental. waiting for the last digit is something else. >the closed-mind belief system icosahedron is rationally incommensurable >with the untenable vector equilibrium of eternal aconceptuality. an expert in Buckyspeak! >Translation: the ultimate truth is not a believability, or: if >you believe it with all your heart, it ain't the truth or: the >truth believed is a lie. how Zen of you. :) -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 12:49:59 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Angle is Everything In <199412201621.IAA03379@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >>either way i will have to use both the angle and the distance >>to describe an edge - and that "distance" must once again >>be described as an angle (or not?). >Fuller stress angle AND frequency. Angle is a change in direction, >frequency is a series of tick marks, mile stones, clicks, going in >one direction -- or at least that's one way of looking at it. but both angle and frequency are size-independent, so i cannot describe the size of my triangle using only those two. >I think we can think about distances in terms of subtended angles >without changing over to a whole different method of computation. even if i am unable to specify the actual length of something or the distance between two events? >And when characterizing a geodesic sphere with lots of cords, >then in makes sense to use central and surface angles only (as >is done in the appendicies of Synergetics). absolutely, in such a limited universe of discourse (one geo sphere) it works perfectly. -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:29:46 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <9412201945.AA28982@sun4nl.NL.net> Chris Rywalt wri tes: >From: Gerald de Jong >> how is it so that a tetrahedron _can_ be conceptualized where a >> singularity cannot? simply because a tetrahedron has an inside >> and an outside? >Well, yes. And because all of the parts of a tetrahedron can be seen: vectors > (``It went thataway.''); crossings (``Those two things went thataway > and there's where they were closest.''); and openings (``Those three > things went thataway, there are the three places where they were each > closest to each other, and there's the space between them.''). how big is a crossing? can you see it with the naked eye? do you need a microscope or a telescope? you can't talk about "seeing" such a thing, i believe. of course you can make a nice model of it, but that's all. (nice description though) >> then we're probably in perfect agreement. specifying zero-size, to >> me, means attaching a real physical value. sizeless says metaphysical. >Aha! So that's the problem! Fine -- ``zero size'' equals ``sizeless.'' no, i mean "zero size" is in the trashcan and "sizeless" is the word we use. for me there's a diff. > (How can you be sizeless and yet have a non-zero size?) size is undefined: not zero, and also not nonzero! > ``Zero'' is not a physical value. You can't count ``zero'' sheep. sure i can. i had one sheep but i sold it to Chris Rywalt for cheap. > ``Zero'' is metaphysical only. Zero is not special-case, it is the > absence of special cases. i guess i'm suggesting to replace the term because it's more commonly used to indicate a particular physical quantity rather than a metaphysical state. whatever. >I'm glad we're in agreement on the whole ``sizeless'' (and pointless) thing. i'm glad i got a few dollars for my sheep. >I'm afraid I don't quite understand what your improved knitting-needle-model > is all about. Could you explain it better for me? I'm not sure what > the colors are supposed to represent, or why we can pass the needles > through each other. it's an attempt to visualize in 4d. the idea of your knitting needles was that they can only touch each other but they cannot pass through the same point. it's analogous to Bucky's vectors that can only get close to each other but cannot touch. when you paint the spectrum of colors on your needles, you add one extra dimension. call it time. then we can use the needles to describe the paths of the vertexes of a collapsing-and-reappearing tetrahedron. the description is just fine with normal needles because they never pass through the same point (that's why your triangle worked nicely), but since we've got the colors, we can also "let them" pass through the same point (though needles can't do that) since they will be doing it at different colors (times). you could also visualize four ball-bearings sliding through pipes that have a 4-joint at the center. as long as there are no crashes, we're sailing smoothly. suppose each ball-bearing leaves a painted trail of spectrum colors depending on what time it is. now, the question is.. given some model of this type, where the rules of the collapsing tetrahedron are observed, can we determine: * if it's possible to inside-out * if it's possible to not inside-out * if both are possible -- gerald de jong * rotterdam * the netherworld * "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 10:50:33 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Fearnley Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts Subject: God tells all (was Re: Pie) Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: [deletions] > not that nature is "trying", but PI represents a number that nature > is unable to exceed. it's not anthropocentric, because it would > be there with or without someone to say it were there. [More deletions] > PI is the holy ratio between the circumference and the diameter > of an imaginary circle (a polygon with scads of edges, and vertexes > equidistant from the center). this is a limit-value, and if there's > a problem with the fact that this also represents a reference to > flat space, we can include that the origin of the reference-surface > (i'm winging the terminology) is really far away. in any event, > if you keep raising the number of chords, and the size of the > reference sphere, you get nearer and nearer to the holy ratio. OK, it's very clear now: This is a religious issue. I have a first-hand, personal relationship with God. God has personally told me that Pi does not exist -- It is an invention of the devil (in cahoots with some ancient mathematicians - who didn't know any better by the way) and has absolutely no relation to how God actually runs the Universe. All those who disagree with God (and me) are heretics. This is the Word of God. Convert now, or live forever on the wrong side of The Force of Truth. :) For the humor impaired -- Christopher J. Fearnley | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS cjf@netaxs.com | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society) fearnlcj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu | Design Science Revolutionary cfearnl@pacs.pha.pa.us | Explorer in Universe 503 S 44th ST | Linux Advocate Philadelphia PA 19104-3907 | (215)349-9681 finger me at cjf@netaxs.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 09:33:04 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Nine Chains Book Available In-Reply-To: <199412212322.AA01815@charon.osc.on.ca> (kbrown@MAUGHAM.ATC.EDMONTON.AB.CA) Yes please! (am I in time to be first?) Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 -------------------------------------------------- Today's work today ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 10:16:33 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Pie >> =Kirby > =Gerald =Kirby > >>My theory is you and I are both intelligent enough to perpetuate >>arguments indefinitely, kind of like the digits of pi. > >my theory is that we've learned some things by talking it out. >i certainly have. and i also think that we've progressed on >a few issues. i guess you disagree. No, I don't disagree, but was having visions of sands on the beach, each grain being an issue on which we might progress. So many grains, so little time... sigh. >>we've argued about whether dimensionless nothing should be >>visualized as a tetrahedron or a dot (the debate still rages, >>with no sign of abatement) > >the discussion was about how to visualize a vertex, since vertexes >are mentioned throughout Fuller's work. discussing this is >inappropriate somehow? No, not inappropriate. I think it helps if your newsreader is intelligent enough to structure replies to subject headers as such, instead of making all the posts scroll by in an unstructured flat format. Netscape can do the former, but I'm accessing GEODESIC through email. Maybe I'll switch to ALT.BITNET.GEODESIC and look from that angle. Is a vertex dimensionless to your way of thinking? <-- looks like a trap. >>we'd probably still be arguing about >>what a cockroach should look like, or maybe an amoeba. > >i maintain that your proposal for a black-clad cockroach is not >the most sensible! i suggest we use the colors of Smarties. Smarties? How 'bout neon, glow-in-the dark roaches -- easier to stomp. >>I think one goal is to get a clear an understanding of what >>Fuller's take was, using original texts as a basis. > >that's exactly why i am so curious about vertexes, because he >refuses to acknowledge the "point" definition. it's absolutely >central to his thinking, isn't it? He refuses to go along with "dimensionless point" yes. All those stories about his teacher saying "here is a dimensionless point" [mark on the chalk board] and disruptive pain-in-the-!#$% Bucky raising his hand saying "But teacher, that's a chunk of chalk and looked at under the microscope would have the aspect of Mount Everest -- how can you say it's 'dimensionless'." Sheesh, what a teacher's anti-pet Bucky must have been. >> In sum: what Bucky thought, what might >>be said in support, what might be said to counter. Finis. >truncated debate? (in modern American: bobbitted debate?) I liked my smashing window image better. Nature the Definite, Nature the Doubtless (Mrs. Doubtfree). >>not stall out in argument mode, on the misassumption that we need >>some kind of final resolution -- as if we were waiting to finally >>get to that last digit of PI. > >the final resolution might be: here's a definitive proof that >pi is transcendental. waiting for the last digit is something else. Would such a proof look like an end point to you? I had no idea. >>the closed-mind belief system icosahedron is rationally incommensurable >>with the untenable vector equilibrium of eternal aconceptuality. > >an expert in Buckyspeak! OmniBlush. > >>Translation: the ultimate truth is not a believability, or: if >>you believe it with all your heart, it ain't the truth or: the >>truth believed is a lie. > >how Zen of you. :) What did the customer say to the Zen Buddhist hot dog seller? "Make me one with everything." Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: >And when characterizing a geodesic sphere with lots of cords, >>then in makes sense to use central and surface angles only (as >>is done in the appendicies of Synergetics). > >absolutely, in such a limited universe of discourse (one geo sphere) >it works perfectly. Which brings up another little graphical scenario in synergetics. I'll find the passage numbers later. You have this unit radius spherical (high frequency icosa) "theater" and fix a segment running pole to pole through the center of volume, on a pivot. This segment can swivel around at will -- it always connects 2 (any 2) opposite poles of the unit radius sphere. Connected to each end of this segment are variable length lines out to the end points of another segment, forming a tetrahedron. This other segment has no restrictions on length or orientation. The one constraint in this system is the tetrahedron formed by the axial diameter and the other any-length/oriented segment, always have the same volume. Bucky's contention is that the axis inside the sphere can always "compensate" for what the other segment does (grows, shrinks, reorients) to keep the tetrahedron volume (=energy in this model) the same. In other words, the variable length can be used to connect any two points in universe, while the "theater" segment confines itself to polar pairs in a local "planetarium" sphere. Fun? Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: a thing, i believe. of course you can make a nice model of it, but > that's all. (nice description though) I think the nice thing about the definition of a tetrahedron is that it doesn't involve questions like ``how big is a crossing?'' A crossing is just as big as we want it to be -- or as small. It's conceptual, and thus can be of any size, including none. In any particular special case, a crossing is where two vectors *appear* to be closest. That's it. You have to be able to see such a thing, because actually seeing it is part of the definition of it. > no, i mean "zero size" is in the trashcan and "sizeless" is the word > we use. for me there's a diff. > size is undefined: not zero, and also not nonzero! Waitaminnit. You're the mathematician -- you figure out how something can be ``not zero'' AND ``not non-zero.'' The dividing line here is pretty sharp, I think: on one side zero, on the other, everything that isn't zero. Where does non-zero fit in to this? (Perhaps it's a super- natural number.) > sure i can. i had one sheep but i sold it to Chris Rywalt for cheap. This doesn't count ``zero.'' This counts ``1-1'' which happens to equal zero. > > ``Zero'' is metaphysical only. Zero is not special-case, it is the > > absence of special cases. > i guess i'm suggesting to replace the term because it's more commonly > used to indicate a particular physical quantity rather than a metaphysical > state. whatever. I've never heard of zero being used to denote a physical quality. I always hear zero being used to denote the absence of physical qualities: ``zero charge'' means ``no charge'' (or, at worst, averaging out to ``no charge''), ``zero mass'' means ``no mass'' and so on. I think perhaps you've abstracted the concept of ``zero'' so far from its physical representation that you think it means the same thing as any other number; in this, I think you'd be making a mistake of great magnitude (at least, you would be in the eyes of the infallible Bucky of Oz. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!) I'm afraid, though, that your knitting-needle/ball-bearing-model has me stumped. I still don't know exactly what you're trying to model. I'd be more specific if I could, but I can't. Try again -- maybe I'll get it next time. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 02:15:09 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 Subject: Structure of bit.listserv.geodesic Following my own advice, I'm looking at GEODESIC as a newsgroup. For some reason, many messages with the same heading (e.g. RE: PIE) are not filing as replies under a single heading. Perhaps I don't understand structuring. I notice with some of you, when I hit Reply, I get a personal email address, whereas other times I get the GEODESIC list itself as a return address. Is the only difference that some folks are posting to the newsgroup and others by email to the list? Anyway, this is an entertaining new view of our discussions. Kirby ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 09:03:41 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Earth's Space is curved In <199412220647.AA28953@xs1.xs4all.nl> Russell Chu writes: >I have been thinking a lot about a coordinate system using the Isotropic >Vector Matrix, it would include the positive and negative tetrahedral axis, >the octahedral axis and the Vector Equilibrium (cuboctahedron) axis. This >would be 4 interpenetrating Isotropic Vector Matrices. hey, Russel, this sounds very interesting. can you describe what you've come up with a little more precisely? -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 11:01:37 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Pie In <199412221815.KAA26918@desiree.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) writes: >Is a vertex dimensionless to your way of thinking? <-- looks like a trap. i'll bite! in traditional math, a dimensionless point is the creature you start with. you slide it away and it traces a line, you slide the line around and you get a plane and you put a zillion planes on top of each other to fill space. after a dosage of synergetics, this stuff starts to appear pretty hollow - useful or not. so now we don't have points, we have vertexes (by the way, i always learned "vertices", but anyway) which are crossings or event foci. imagining an event focus is a little tricky for me - i don't know if y'all find it easy - because i don't see how events can be focussed. if i am to imagine a crossing, then i have to consider some sort of line, loop, curve, or great circle to be the creature that synergetics starts with. (this way of thinking is probably related to string theory, but i'm not able to say). of course this is not the case, since the basic item in synergetics is the triangle made up of three vectors (action-reaction-resultant?). but these vectors are also somehow linked to each other perfectly while unable to close to create a closed triangle. they represent momentums, i suppose, mass x velocity. then these vectors themselves don't live in real space, only in imaginary space, so a crossing of these vectors is also nothing more than an imaginary thing. so here we are again back at imaginary things, just as imaginary as the dimensionless points in traditional math. hmmm... .. i guess i'd have to say that vertexes are... conceptual and dimensionless - not real. actually, i suspect that there's a way to define space in which each particle represents part of it's "surface", and inside the particle is "outside of space". i can't support any of that, though. >Smarties? How 'bout neon, glow-in-the dark roaches >-- easier to stomp. good point... uhh... vertex! >stories about his teacher saying "here is a dimensionless point" >[mark on the chalk board] and disruptive pain-in-the-!#$% Bucky >raising his hand saying "But teacher, that's a chunk of chalk and >looked at under the microscope would have the aspect of Mount >Everest -- how can you say it's 'dimensionless'." Sheesh, >what a teacher's anti-pet Bucky must have been. he obviously had a thick teacher. i would have said "this dot on the blackboard is the closest i can come to drawing a representation of a zero-dimensional point, which is something i'm afraid you'll just have to close your eyes and imagine. for those of you who can't imagine it, there's still some empty chairs in the finger-painting room." >>the final resolution might be: here's a definitive proof that >>pi is transcendental. waiting for the last digit is something else. >Would such a proof look like an end point to you? I had no idea. in an imaginary flat plane, the circumference of an imaginary perfect circle divided by its diameter is a transcendental number we'll call pi. we can work it out to any degree of accuracy we choose, but we've already agreed in principle on what it represents. our imaginary world just happens to contain transcendental numbers - nobody said it would be rational all the time. >"Make me one with everything." you crack me up! -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 11:20:35 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412222051.AA26115@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >> size is undefined: not zero, and also not nonzero! >Waitaminnit. You're the mathematician -- you figure out how something can be > ``not zero'' AND ``not non-zero.'' only if size is not discussed. >I'm afraid, though, that your knitting-needle/ball-bearing-model has me > stumped. I still don't know exactly what you're trying to model. > I'd be more specific if I could, but I can't. Try again -- maybe I'll > get it next time. damn. i guess the point was this: if a tet is to collapse to zero size, it won't happen by having all vertexes meet at one point, but rather by one vertex plunging through the triangle made by the other three. at that moment, however, the symmetries of the tet are nothing more than that of a 2d plane - and if the zero point must be avoided, then there is no inside-outing going on. basically: case 1) inside-outing, zero point, symmetries collapse and then reappear. case 2) no inside outing, quick twist _around_ the zero point, symmetries twist really fast near that point but are maintained throughout. -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 11:03:31 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: Pie About all this transcendental number stuff -- in particular pi -- I guess we have to ask what these ``imaginary flat planes'' and ``imaginary perfect circles'' are supposed to represent. If they're meant to represent objects in the Real World, they're doing a pretty bad job of it. (I won't go over the details of this bad job yet again. We've all read Bucky and we know all about it.) So we come to the conclusion that pi grows entirely out of our inaccurate modeling of Universe. I remember Arthur Loeb talking about synergetics at Science Kick last year, and he said that while he appreciated a lot of what Bucky said and thought, he didn't think we could throw away numbers like pi and the Golden Ratio, because no matter how we look at it, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is going to be pi. What he forgot -- because Loeb's a mathematician -- was that when Bucky wanted to toss out pi, he wasn't just throwing out the bath water -- he wanted to throw out the baby, too! There are no circles, there are no diameters. The ratio simply doesn't exist, except in our heads. So when we encounter a non-thick-headed teacher who can explain that the point on the blackboard is just the closest they can get to representing a dimensionless point -- and then tells us to imagine the unimaginable (and worse, to go play with fingerpaints if we can't!), I guess we have to ask: if that's the closest you can get, what good is it? Wouldn't it be smarter to work with a model which we can actually model with some accuracy? So we come to the idea of vertexes (which I was also taught to call ``vertices,'' Gerald; but lately I've decided I prefer regular plural forms. Either is correct English). A crossing or an event is not dimensionless -- though it is conceptual. An event ``focus'' is a fairly simple concept, even if you find yourself wondering how you can focus on an event. Focusing on an event or a crossing can be done because, while we live in time, we have the conceptual ability to abstract time from our event recollections. Perhaps following this chain of thought will help: Two particles go by. (I will note, at this point, that a ``particle'' is actually an event. There are no ``things,'' only happenings -- particular conformations of energy interacting with each other.) In order to make this work visually, these particles are special-cased as tennis balls. So, two tennis balls sail by. In my ``mind's eye'' I imagine the two balls' trajectories. Going further, I mentally picture, not two balls, but many balls, each one representing each tennis ball at a specific time. (I've read of a native American language which actually stated things in terms of time: There was not ``the rabbit'' but ``that rabbit just now'' which was a different creature entirely from ``that rabbit just now'' a few seconds later.) Now I have two tennis tubes made of individual tennis balls, because in my ``mind's eye'' I can overlay experiences of different times. (Another useful note at this point is that this is why it's impossible *in concept* for two events to occupy the same point at the same time -- because even though I can abstract time out of this scenario, I am not abstracting space.) Where these two tennis tubes come closest is my vertex -- my event crossing -- my event -- and the tennis tubes are my vectors. Where the tubes come closest is governed by their vector-ness: the mass and velocity of each tennis ball. It's important during this operation to remember that each tennis ball is actually an event in itself, and each event is actually a collection of events; however, we have chosen to focus on each tennis ball as a single event. If we chose, we could ``zoom in'' on one of our tennis balls and view it as made up of molecules, each with its own vectors, all of which we can view as events and vertexes. This is what Fuller was talking about when he spoke of a system being tetrahedral in nature: there's the part of Universe outside of the system which is made up of events too intermittent to be considered in our system; there's the part of Universe outside of the system which is made up of events too frequent to be considered in our system; and then there's the part of the Universe that makes up the system. Each event is a vertex istelf, being made up of events which we are not focusing on and are thus abstracting into a single event. This recursive hierarchy of events being made up of smaller events ``bottoms out'' at the quantum level, where we reach the smallest event possible, and ``tops out'' at the Universe level, where we reach everything humans can consider (though not sum-totally simultaneuously). So the definition of a vertex as an ``event'' or ``crossing'' and not as a dimensionless ``point'' has enormous repercussions for our modeling of Universe. When you say, ``Here's a point'' and I say, ``Let's look more closely at this,'' and we ``zoom in'' we may find that what we were representing as a ``point'' is a nucleus; but there, next to our nucleus, is that point, still the same size is was before. But when we define our vertex as an event, I can say, ``Let's look more closely at this,'' and we'll discern a new system. Our vertex hasn't moved and it hasn't changed size -- we can draw a circle around it and say, ``This is what we were calling the vertex.'' Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 11:16:29 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle From: Gerald de Jong Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle > case 1) inside-outing, zero point, symmetries collapse and > then reappear. > case 2) no inside outing, quick twist _around_ the zero point, > symmetries twist really fast near that point but are > maintained throughout. I'd say both are possible. But since we're talking about inside-outing, I'll stick to discussing the first possibility. I don't know that the symmetries collapse. You assert that, as one of a tetrahedron's vertexes plunges through the opening opposite it -- thus turning the tetrahedron inside-out -- it reaches a zero point at which the tetrahedron collapses into 2 dimensions. This brings us around again to the zero size argument, I'm afraid. The symmetries do not collapse; the tetrahedron simply becomes a tetrahedron with zero height. Since ``height'' is another special-case aspect of the tetrahedron, we are free to conceptualize it as being of any size we choose, including no size at all. The invariant characteristics of a tetrahedron -- four vertexes, six edges, four faces -- still exist. So, as the vertex plunges through the opposite face, all the way through the action the ``tetrahedroness'' of the events persists. Just because we can draw it out on a piece of paper -- which mathematicians have been insisting is ``two dimensional'' -- doesn't make it any less of a tetrahedron, and doesn't make it any less spatial than any other. (I believe, though, that somewhere in _Synergetics_ Bucky writes about two events not occupying the same plane at the same time. I don't know exactly what he wrote.) So I think the idea of the tetrahedron collapsing into two dimensions is one that, like pi, grows out of our inaccurate model of Universe. Using synergetics -- which we are working with as if it were a better model -- this collapse would never even be a question. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 13:30:33 EST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Harry Hammond Subject: test posting - don't waste your time If you're reading this I appologize for wasting your time. This is a test posting. We changed mail systems here, and I've had some difficulty posting to another list. Just checking this one out too. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 20:39:09 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Angle is Everything In <199412221909.AA13195@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >Frequency doesn't have to be size-independent. The length of >x wavelengths of krypton might be a calibrating frequency (the >meter is defined this way). okay. so we could describe two objects as being x cycles away from each other? (objects = "event foci"?) >>absolutely, in such a limited universe of discourse (one geo sphere) >>it works perfectly. >... the variable length can be used to connect any two >points in universe, while the "theater" segment confines itself to >polar pairs in a local "planetarium" sphere. Fun? sure. if the icosa has a high enough frequency it would be able to make a good estimation at compensating to keep the volume the same, but there would be many orientations of the local segment that would do the trick - not just one. also, don't forget that to keep the volume exact, you will eventually introduce them nasty irrational numbers. i do find it a fun image, but has anyone developed a useful mathematical model of its behavior? when i ask that i wonder if you consider the question to be a kill-joy. these images should eventually spawn models and find some usage, shouldn't they. or is it to remain at the stage of image - for some conceptual or philosophical use? -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 21:48:15 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Pie In <199412231609.AA11354@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >So we come to the conclusion that pi grows entirely out of our inaccurate > modeling of Universe. true, if flat space weren't pretty darn close to reality in a lot of cases, but it is. everybody who calculates using Newtonian mechanics these days knows that it's only an estimation that works really well for situations that don't involve extreme speed. despite relativity, it would be silly to abandon classical mechanics. > What he forgot -- because Loeb's a mathematician -- was that > when Bucky wanted to toss out pi, he wasn't just throwing out the bath > water -- he wanted to throw out the baby, too! not clever. >..and then tells us to imagine the unimaginable > (and worse, to go play with fingerpaints if we can't!), I guess we > have to ask: if that's the closest you can get, what good is it? would you stick around for the answer? there's a tremendous amount of fantastically useful mathematics that flows forth once you make a few assumptions that may be considered strange. a good example is complex numbers. if you make the leap and accept the square root of minus one as a number (completely crazy, not so?) then you can witness a fountain of discovery - without which the design of electronic circuits would have been much more difficult. >[good story about vertexes deleted] >This is what Fuller was talking about when he spoke of a system being > tetrahedral in nature: there's the part of Universe outside of the > system which is made up of events too intermittent to be considered in > our system; there's the part of Universe outside of the system which > is made up of events too frequent to be considered in our system; and > then there's the part of the Universe that makes up the system. Each > event is a vertex istelf, being made up of events which we are not > focusing on and are thus abstracting into a single event. wow. tetrahedral? i don't see how it follows that it should be tetrahedral. i do, however, understand the concept of vertex as opposed to points a little better than i did before thanks to your description. i do have to do a lot more thinking about these things in general before i'll consider myself somewhat able to make good use of the concepts of synergetics. of course i am having fun with the ideas right now, and lots of others are doing the same. right now, for example, i'm spending a few days with the in-laws (christmas stuff) in Belgium, and i brought along: * two metres of clear-plastic soft pipe * several boxes of cocktail sticks * a few big needles, and a razor i just started snipping rings of pipe, perforating them and pricking the sticks into them, and eventually inspired a bunch of kids and a few adults to help me with the process. in one long happy afternoon we built a huge 4-frequency geodesic ball, which everybody is still admiring. we could have played monopoly or re-assembled puzzle pictures. but this was a lot more fun. the whole thing cost about five bucks! i remain fascinated by synergetics and i keep wanting it to be more than a masterfully interlinked collage of images and ideas, but aside from having become a triangle fanatic and filling my house with all sorts of structures, i'm not a full fledged synergeticist. something must be made of the math. -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 22:01:40 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle In <199412231625.AA13025@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >I don't know that the symmetries collapse. You assert that, as one of a > tetrahedron's vertexes plunges through the opening opposite it -- thus > turning the tetrahedron inside-out -- it reaches a zero point at which > the tetrahedron collapses into 2 dimensions. if it plunges through, it must pass through the zero point. are you asserting that it somehow "jumps through the hoop" making a discontinuous hop? i suppose, if we consider the whole process as happening in hops, then the zero point could be avoided - and yes, the zero point is by definition a point at which the symmetries must collapse. > symmetries do not collapse; the tetrahedron simply becomes a > tetrahedron with zero height. funny. a dimensionless point makes no sense, but a tetrahedron of zero height is somehow completely sensible. it blows my mind. > characteristics of a tetrahedron -- four vertexes, six edges, four > faces -- still exist. So, as the vertex plunges through the opposite > face, all the way through the action the ``tetrahedroness'' of the > events persists. i still can't find that convincing. :( -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 17:09:40 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: GLOBAL ENERGY GRID FULLER'S GLOBAL ENERGY PRODUCTION, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM by Joe S. Moore |\ _/*| ___/* */ /* * */ _/* *| /* */ __/* *| /* * *| /* *| /* *\ / * *\ \__* *\ \_* *\ \* */ \_* */ \_* * * *|_ \_____/*_\_ *_\_____ o ____ |*_*_* \ ---- | *\ . ___| *\\ |\-- * * *|\ o / * * * * \ |* * *\ / * * * * * * * *| _)* * *| _\_ * * * * *| (_\/ /\__ *| \_ \ ) *| \/-- ./ *| __ (\_(_____ * \ ( \_ \_\ (\\_ * \__ | \_ O \) \ * _\ | |() <> \__*_/ | \__ |() * \/ /|_ O_/) o (* \ (_/ ______ o _/* _ \_ _ _____ ( __ \ __ _____/ * \\__\ ______ / \_/ )|/_( (_______/ * * / __/ * * *\\*_*_* \_/ * * * *\___ / * * \_ ) * * * * * * * * * * * \_\ / * * \_ (/\* * * * \ O | * * / |____* * * * * ] (\ | * * \_ /\_ | * _* * * * * * * [_ \* \ * * \ \_ \/ / ) *_*\* o \__* * \__/ | ( */ | * */* (_) *|_ | * || * * * * * / / * || |\_* * * \ | * || \_ \*_* * * * * * * / / * ||* * * *)* \ * _ * *____/o / * *\\_____/ \ * / \ * * \o | * * * * \_ \ * / \_* * \ O / * * ________/ \ */ |* / O | * * * * / \/ |*/\/ O | * * *_____/ O \*\ _/\ ___ \____/ ____ \\* / ( \_*`--/ / __/ \*\ \__/ O *-* \*/\) \/ \*_*_*-*-* _ /* __/ \_| *\ / *\_ _/ * \ / * | (* *__*__* * / o \_* *_/ \__/ o o \_/ o O As far back as 1955 R. Buckminster Fuller envisioned a comprehensive global system of energy production and distribution that would be the physical basis for mankind's future prosperity. He calculated that for everyone to have a "bare maximum" (decent) standard of living would require at least 40 megawatts per person per year. The world presently produces about 20 megawatts per person per year of which about 90% comes from non-renewable sources which are estimated to be used up within the next 20 years or so. However, 16 different types of renewable energy sources could produce 10 times as much energy as we have now or 200 mw/person/year. These renewable resources could be fed into a global distribution system that would be capable of handling both east-west (daily) & north-south (monthly) fluctuations in demand. He also proposed a global system of high mountain, pumped-storage lakes to act as "batteries" to store surplus energy and release it when needed. With such a global energy generation and distribution system many economies of scale (savings) would be realized. He pointed out that development could take place in stages over a 50 year period with an ultimate goal of at least 1,000 times as much energy as the world has now (or 20,000 mw/person/yr). For further information see: 'Earth, Inc.' by R. Buckminster Fuller (1973), pages 150, 165-8 'Energy, Earth and Everyone' by Medard Gabel (1975), page 117 "Energy Economics" by R.Buckminster Fuller,Journal of Ekistics,5-78, pp.170-1 'Critical Path' by R. Buckminster Fuller (1981), pages xxxii and xxxiii -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 18:16:02 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: JOHN MCHALE'S WORKS SELECTED ARTICLES, BOOKS, FILMS & EXHIBITS BY JOHN MCHALE (1922-1978) RELEVANT TO THE WORK OF R. BUCKMINSTER FULLER by Joe S. Moore Note: Some months and days are estimated ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jul 01 1956, "Buckminster Fuller", pp.12-20 Architectural Review (magazine), England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1957, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jul 01 1958, "Total Design", pp.244-51 Architecture & Building (magazine), England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1959, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1960, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apr 01 1961, "Introduction" in 'Tensegrity' by R. B. Fuller, p.112 Portfolio and Art News Annual (magazine), U.S.A. Jul 07 1961, "Richard Buckminster Fuller", pp.290-322 (whole issue) Architectural Design (magazine), England Jul 10 1961, "Buckminster Fuller Exhibit" in U.S. Information Service gallery, U.S. Embassy, England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apr 20 1962, "R. Buckminster Fuller" in 'Makers of Contempory Architecture' edited by _?_, George Braziller, Inc., U. S. A. Dec 01 1962, "Les Structures de Buckminster Fuller", pp._?_ L'Architecture d'Aujourd'Hui (magazine), France ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sep 01 1963, 'Inventory of World Resources,Human Trends & Needs' & R.B.Fuller Phase 1, Doc 1, World Design Science Decade 1965-75 World Resources Inventory, Southern Illinois Univ, U.S.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- May 07 1964, "The Geoscope", pp._?_ Architectural Design (magazine), England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sep 28 1965, 'The 10 Year Program' Phase I Doc 4, World Resources Inventory World Design Science Decade 1965-75, So.Illinois Univ, U.S.A. Oct 07 1965, "An International Scientific City", pp._?_ Architectural Design (magazine), England Oct 07 1965, "Towards a World University", pp._?_ Architectural Design (magazine), England Nov 05 1965, "Our World 2000"; 15 min film about world population growth over the last 5000 years), publisher?, U.S.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- May 27 1966, "Information Explosion--Knowledge Implosion", p._?_ (Denison Univ) Campus Dialogue (magazine), U.S.A. Jun 01 1966, "Education for Real", pp._?_ (W.A.A.S.) World Academy of Art & Science (newsletter), Netherlands ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan 01 1967, "World Dwelling", pp.121-9 Perspecta II: The Yale Architectural Journal, U.S.A. Feb 07 1967, "People Future", pp._?_, (whole issue) Architectural Design (magazine), England Feb 07 1967, "2000+", pp._?_, (whole issue) Architectural Design (magazine), England Apr 01 1967, "The Plastic Parthenon", pp._?_, Dotzero (magazine), England ? Jun 01 1967, 'The Ecological Context: Energy & Materials', Phase II, Doc 6 World Design Science Decade 1965-75, World Resources Inventory Southern Illinois University, U. S. A. Sep 01 1967, "New Symbiosis", p._?_, Ekistics (magazine), Greece Sep 01 1967, "Science, Technology and Change", pp.120-40 Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science,USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aug 01 1968, "Toward the Future", pp._?_ (whole issue) Design Quarterly (magazine), U. S. A. Sep 01 1968, "World Energy Resources in the Future", pp.4-12, Futures (magazine), England Oct 01 1968, "Future Cities: Notes on a Typology", pp._?_ (Univ of) New Mexico Quarterly (magazine), U. S. A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aug 10 1969, 'The Future of the Future'; hardback; George Braziller, Inc., U. S. A. Nov 01 1969, "Changing Values in a Revolutionary Age", pp.11-16 Future Markets (magazine), U. S. A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jun 01 1970, "The Transnational World", pp.444-8 Ekistics (magazine), Greece ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- May 01 1971, "The Changing Information Environment:A Selective Topography" in 'Information Technology:Some Critical Implications for Decision Makers 1971-90',Senior Execs Council of the Conf.Board, NY, USA Jun 01 1971, 'The Future of the Future', (paperback) Ballantine Books, Inc, U.S.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mar 01 1972, 'World Facts and Trends', (hardcover) Collier Books, Inc, U. S. A. May 01 1972, "The Changing Context for Management",pp.?, in 'Management in a Changing World', Senior Executives Council of the Conference Board, New York, U.S.A. Jun 01 1972, "Global Ecology: Towards the Planetary Society", pp.?, in'Human Identity in the Urban Environment', ?,ed, Penguin Books, England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jun 01 1973, "The Timetable Project", pp._?_, in 'Managing the Planet', ?, ed Prentice-Hall, U.S.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jun 01 1974, "Futures Critical: A Review", pp._?_ Futures (magazine), England ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jun 01 1975, "Today's Tomorrows", p.?, in 'Tomorrow Today', Geo.Zebrowski, ed Unity Press, Santa Cruz, CA, U.S.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- May 01 1976, "The Study of the Future", pp._?_, in 'Elsevier/Wentworth Encyclopedia', Elsevier Publishing Projects, Switzerland ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jun 01 1977, "Futurology: Discovering the Shoals Ahead" in 'The University Desk Encyclopedia', Elsevier Publishing Projects, Switzerland ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan 12 1978, 'Basic Human Needs: A Framework for Action' with Magda C. McHale Transaction Books, U. S. A. ---------------------------END OF DOCUMENT---------------------------------- -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 11:34:53 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Christmas gifts I got an absolutely awesome Christmas gift this year, and I thought that, out of all the people I could think of who could appreciate it, the members of this list would. My friend found in a used book store an original first edition 1938 printing of _Nine Chains to the Moon_. And if that wasn't already cool enough, it's signed on the inside cover by R. Buckminster Fuller himself. What's particularly interesting about this book is the preface, which was not printed in later editions, in which Bucky makes a few short-term predictions. Some people have said that the preface was cut because his predictions turned out to be wildly wrong. I'll type them in and we can banter about them at some later date. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 11:51:51 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: zero tetra and triangle A tetrahedron turns inside out by one of its vertexes plunging through the face opposing it. As the vertex passes through the opposite face, there comes a point where one of two things happens: either the tetrahedron becomes a zero-height tetrahedron; or the zero point is never reached because of the quantization of space. Gerald, you seem unwilling to accept the idea of a zero-height tetrahedron, stating that if a dimensionless point makes no sense, then surely a zero-height tetrahedron makes no sense. I think we're really stuck on this argument of zero size again: you refuse to accept the idea of size being special-case and thus unrelated to the concept of a tetrahedron. I can explain it no better than I have previously, so I guess we'll just have to drop it. However, we may be able to get around the zero-height tetrahedron problem by positing the quantization of space. I've been willing to do this for some time, based on Fuller's ideas and Feynman's problems with quantum electrodynamics. So, I suppose we can say that, due to the quantization of space, the zero-height point is never occupied because it is unoccupiable, because the quantum never falls there. This is in keeping with other ideas in synergetics along the lines of ``no two events can occupy the same point at the same time'' and ``no two events can occupy the same plane at the same time.'' I don't know, however, if there's a physical basis for this; although, if we make it part of the theory, and the theory matches experiment, we've then done enough to warrant it. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 09:43:40 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Angle is Everything >sure. if the icosa has a high enough frequency it would be able to >make a good estimation at compensating to keep the volume the same, >but there would be many orientations of the local segment that >would do the trick - not just one. also, don't forget that to >keep the volume exact, you will eventually introduce them nasty >irrational numbers. > >i do find it a fun image, but has anyone developed a useful mathematical >model of its behavior? when i ask that i wonder if you consider the >question to be a kill-joy. these images should eventually spawn >models and find some usage, shouldn't they. or is it to remain >at the stage of image - for some conceptual or philosophical use? > >-- >gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" > No, not a kill-joy. The only way to keep the volume constant when the stretchable segment is very long and faraway would be to run almost exactly parallel with the "theater" segment. The number of unique orientations per external connection would be somewhat interesting to know about. Riemann had a way of mapping the real numbers plane to a sphere, which this system reminds me of. Another Bucky enthusiast I used to be in mail contact with -- a guy in Canada -- has been studying the expanding VE sphere packing, looking for those spheres which really are equidistant, i.e. are at radial distance x from the origin -- lie on the surface of a sphere in other words. One gets some interesting numbers and patterns (e.g. in a packing of 200 layers, how many spheres are exactly distance x from the center?). Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: > I got an absolutely awesome Christmas gift this year, and I thought that, out > of all the people I could think of who could appreciate it, the > members of this list would. > My friend found in a used book store an original first edition 1938 printing o f > _Nine Chains to the Moon_. And if that wasn't already cool enough, > it's signed on the inside cover by R. Buckminster Fuller himself. > What's particularly interesting about this book is the preface, which was > not printed in later editions, in which Bucky makes a few short-term > predictions. Some people have said that the preface was cut because > his predictions turned out to be wildly wrong. I'll type them in and > we can banter about them at some later date. > > Chris. > crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 20:26:44 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: zero tet - r.i.p. In <199412271701.AA03740@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >Gerald, you seem unwilling to accept the idea of a zero-height tetrahedron, > stating that if a dimensionless point makes no sense, then surely a > zero-height tetrahedron makes no sense. all i said is that a zero height tetrahedron is indistinguishable from a triangle in a plane. size *is* special-case, but as such it must also be nonzero. zero size represents the degenerate case, not the sizeless case. > I guess we'll just have to drop it. i guess. -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 20:43:21 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: faith In <199412271754.AA10498@xs1.xs4all.nl> Chris Rywalt w rites: >This only takes our argument back a step, though: is the synergetics system > a good model? Well, that's what Gerald and I have been going back and > forth about all this time: Is this particular portion of synergetics > sensible? How about this one? This is the big question. Obviously, > if synergetics models Universe less accurately than the model in wide > use today -- the XYZ-CGtS-pi-e-h-etc model -- then synergetics is not > the model to use. that *is* the question. >My faith in synergetics is based on... faith? why is it that synergetics is not already in common use among scientists everywhere? is it because the formalizable elements have not yet been formalized? it should be fairly easy, for example, to model the allspace-filling jitterbug motion on a computer, since it only involves a limited number of states and the displacements are all local. if it were reproduced digitally, it could be tested for the accuracy of its representation of 3d wave propagation. has this been done?? >And just a quick answer to Gerald's question about how a system should > necessarily be tetrahedral: that's the problem with email without quotes - i don't remember asking such a question. -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 21:09:16 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Angle is Everything In <199412271746.AA09339@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >No, not a kill-joy. The only way to keep the volume constant when the >stretchable segment is very long and faraway would be to run almost >exactly parallel with the "theater" segment. The number of unique orientations >per external connection would be somewhat interesting to know about. the stretchable element, perhaps light-years away, will be making very small movements of its endpoints (is continuous motion allowed?) which can only be "cancelled" by very much *other* movements in our little theatre. the local icosa theatre would need to have infinite frequency to handle a micrometer of movement in the light-year- remote segment. figuring out how to move your local beam involves nasty irrational calculations as well, i believe. >Riemann had a way of mapping the real numbers plane to a sphere, which >this system reminds me of. indeed. he imagined a unit sphere having it's equator on the unit circle of a coordinate plane. the bottom pole is marked "infinity" and the top pole is "zero". you map from the plane to the sphere by projecting a line from "infinity" to the point and seeing where it passes through the unit sphere. as it turns out, all angular relationships are maintained by the mapping, which is a very nice result. >Another Bucky enthusiast I used to be in mail contact with -- a guy in Canada - - >has been studying the expanding VE sphere packing, looking for those spheres >which really are equidistant, i.e. are at radial distance x from the origin >-- lie >on the surface of a sphere in other words. One gets some interesting numbers >and patterns (e.g. in a packing of 200 layers, how many spheres are exactly >distance x from the center?). get him on Geodesic! this sounds fascinating! BTW, in 120.01 of Synergetics: "The attraction of one mass for the other increases as the second power of the rate of increase of their proximity to one another.." i thought it was a function of their proximity, not the rate of change. am i crazy or did this get past the editors? -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 10:26:26 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Chris Rywalt Subject: Re: faith From: Gerald de Jong Subject: faith > that's the problem with email without quotes - i don't remember asking > such a question. Sorry. I've been trying to get away from using the ``quoted passages'' method because I find that it makes discussions rapidly unreadable by anyone but the two people involved in them. (In fact, they often become unreadable even for them!) Anyway, our exchange went as follows: CR> This is what Fuller was talking about when he spoke of a system being CR> tetrahedral in nature.... GdJ> wow. tetrahedral? i don't see how it follows that it should be GdJ> tetrahedral. So I was showing how it followed that a system should be tetrahedral. I guess I'll have to refine my email-discussion technique a little further. Moving on: I think you're right when you say that synergetics is not already in common use among scientists ``because the formalizable elements have not yet been formalized.'' I think, though, that it has not been formalized because synergetics has been dismissed out-of-hand by most scientists, largely because it was not written by someone from some specific specialization. I think, though, that Fuller expected this; and further, that he figured that synergetics would find fertile ground in succeeding generations of young people, who, unencumbered by strongly-fixed conceptual frames, would embrace any artifact that would give them improved results. I, at least, am part of those succeeding generations of youth -- I only just turned twenty-four -- and so I imagine that we're at the forefront in the uptaking of synergetics as a problem-solving tool. Chris. crywalt@tinman.dev.prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 15:37:43 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Paul L. Hergt" Organization: BASF BioResearch Corp. Subject: Joinery I've fooled with much of the geodesics from a modeling point of view with computers &c, but when I've tried to do anything in the real world the major focus was on the joints (no comments - I went to school in the '70's). Does anyone have pictures and ideas for both intersection jointery for framed structure and panel jointery for both framed and unframed structures. Materials? Two projects in mind are a greenhouse and a Kids playhouse. Obtainable references? Advance. -- Paul L. Hergt - hergtp@basf-corp.com BASF BioResearch Corp; 100 Research Dr.; Worcester, MA 01605-2601 Tel 508.849.2601 FAX 508.755.8511 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 13:11:29 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Russell Chu Subject: Re Earth's space is curved/Coordinate System In <199412220647.AA28953@xs1.xs4all.nl> Russell Chu writes: >I have been thinking a lot about a coordinate system using the Isotropic >Vector Matrix, it would include the positive and negative tetrahedral axis, >the octahedral axis and the Vector Equilibrium (cuboctahedron) axis. This >would be 4 interpenetrating Isotropic Vector Matrices. hey, Russel, this sounds very interesting. can you describe what you've come up with a little more precisely? -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ------- Gerald, sorry it has taken me a while to respond. I have been interested in the Isotropic Vector Matrix for a while. Fuller said it was Nature's coordinate system. I reasoned that if it was true than I would have to be able to plot events in nature such as crystal structures. The IVM (Isotropic Vector Matrix) is the closest packing of spheres, with the center of each sphere being a vertex or a crossing of vectors. Referencing on a center or nucleus, the IVM would be multifrequency Vector Equilibriums (cuboctahedrons.) Thru modeling I noticed relationships and patterns of growth of VEs, octahedra, tetrahedra (pos and neg) and its truncations. While VE exhibited all its frequencies (ie 1,2,3,4,5...) Octahedra showed in 2,4,6,8...and Tetrahedra showed in 4,8,12,16... I thought that a coordinate system using frequencies would have to show all its frequencies otherwise we would have to be compensating and it would get more complicated. The other requirement of plotting simple crystaline structures such as the cubic, cubic body centered and cubic face centered, was not easily acomplished. Trying to resolve this dilema I realized that it would have to be a complex system and thus the interpenetrating four IVMs. Now we have all the frequencies and we can plot the simple structures and it could simplify the representation of structures such as the diamond structure making it obvious why some tetrahedrons are empty and the others are filled. Included in this system is the Cartesian coordinate system, they are the octahedral axes. By 4 interpenetrating IVM matrices I mean the original nucleated VE plus the Pos Tet entered matrix, the Neg Tet centered matrix and the Octa centered matrix. Interpenetrating is like overlapping in two dimensions, like four basketball teams playing together. The 4 IVMs together do not look complicated, there is actually a simplicity to it. There is still a lot of work and a lot of thinking to be done on the coordinate system. I am very interested in working with others to develop this system so that it would be usable to everyone. We could start by putting the matrix on screen so that it becomes visible to people. Russell Chu. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 17:33:42 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Joinery In-Reply-To: <199412281613.AA10687@charon.osc.on.ca> (Hergtp@BASF-CORP.COM) >From a practical standpoint, the best advice for amateur joinery is to avoid the question. For example, the 'panelboard' domes for children's playgrounds were composed of plywood sheets curved and bolted to avoid face triangle junctions (ref Inventions). If you have "aircraft technology", then by all means construct hubs, however you should be forewarned your allowable error diminishes as your frequency increases, and the leverage of a geodesic can cause dramatic results while trying to close the last few gaps if the measures are short (I once split a 12"x12'x2" lengthwise with very little effort). Hubs need to accomodate shear (twisting faces), torque (twisting corners) and tension (radial face motions) as well as attach at precise strut points (to keep struts the proper length). Tensegrities avoid hubs and can also accomodate small errors in manufacture with adjustable tendons. Of course, tensegrities have harmonic properties that are not always desirable in largescale structures. On the other hand, if you look at the panelboard dome from a tensegrity point of view, ways to avoid hubs while keeping 'hard' geodesic structure is very possible. Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 -------------------------------------------------- Today's work today ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 13:11:52 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gus Harris Can anyone on this list tell me how to subscribe and info about the list ......how active it is, etc. Thank you in advance. Gus Harris Pensacola, FL GHARRIS@UWF.CC.UWF.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 11:56:20 PST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe Moore Subject: JOINING GEODESIC LIST In-Reply-To: ; from "Gus Harris" at Dec 29, 94 1:11 pm Gus Harris writes: > > Can anyone on this list tell me how to subscribe and info about the list > ......how active it is, etc. > Thank you in advance. > > Gus Harris > Pensacola, FL > GHARRIS@UWF.CC.UWF.EDU > .- > Send an e-mail to: listserv@ubvm.bitnet leave the subject line blank, put the following one line message starting at far left margin: subscribe geodesic (your name) Follow the directions when the computer responds in a few minutes. -- JOE S MOORE joemoore@cruzio.com TEL: 408-464-3743 850 PARK AVE, # 3-A FAX: 408-479-0733 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 I hereby declare this post to be in the public domain. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:27:00 AST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Victor Huerfano <960912813%RUMAC@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU> Subject: Good Lock.. HAPPY NEW YEAR.. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:27:21 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gus Harris Subject: New member Hello! I am a new member on the list so I thought I would introduce myself. My name is Gus Harris. My profession is records management. I work for the University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL. My interest in Fuller goes back several years.....to a time when I became very interested in "geodesic architecture." I constructed models, worked with a "dome home company" building domes, co-sponsored workshops on domes, displayed geospheres and the tensegrity sphere in public exhibitions and did some consulting to individuals constructing dome homes. This all took place from about 1984 to 1989. Because of my interest in "domes" I began to read about Fuller and his other work, philosophy, etc....and became very much an admirer of all of his work. Nowadays I'm not involved much with domes but from time to time I still find myself explaining about them, and Fuller....to someone. Anyway, I thought this would be a good list to be on and that I might learn other things I don't already know about Fuller's work. I do have a very specific information request concerning Disney's Epcot geosphere. Can anyone tell me the cord factors for the framework? Ironically, I've yet to visit Disney World, though I've lived in Florida all my life! From the pictures I've seen I gather it is an Alternate breakdown. Could someone provide me with all the breakdown information. I would like to build a model of it and of course I need the preceding info. I'm sure I can get it from the Disney folks but I thought I would try the list first. Looking forward to your comments.... Gus Harris GHARRIS@UWF.CC.UWF.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 22:27:34 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Angle is Everything At 09:09 PM 12/27/94 +0100, Gerald de Jong wrote: >In <199412271746.AA09339@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: > >>No, not a kill-joy. The only way to keep the volume constant when the >>stretchable segment is very long and faraway would be to run almost >>exactly parallel with the "theater" segment. The number of unique orientations >>per external connection would be somewhat interesting to know about. > >the stretchable element, perhaps light-years away, will be making >very small movements of its endpoints (is continuous motion allowed?) >which can only be "cancelled" by very much *other* movements in >our little theatre. I don't see "very much other" -- if the goal is to keep the volume set at unity, and the other is light years away, then we're basically dealing with parallel segments (zero volume) except not quite (hence volume 1). The local segment will have to remain essentially parallel to the distant one. >the local icosa theatre would need to have >infinite frequency to handle a micrometer of movement in the light-year- >remote segment. figuring out how to move your local beam involves >nasty irrational calculations as well, i believe. Infinite or many, depending on your patience level. I have nothing against nasty calculations. Irrational we might say, although my point all along is no one has ever computed with an irrational number -- in arithmetic on paper or using computers, the number of digits is strictly finite, hence rational. Semantics maybe? ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Robert L. Read" Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin Subject: Re: Joinery I'm buiding an octet-truss out of 2x4s, and although I think it will eventually go together, it hasn't been easy. The bottom and top surfaces are neat: I notched the 2x4s at 60 degrees at regular intervals, and they all go together nicely to make a nice plane. I then screwed metal tie straps into all the joints. That part went pretty quickly and smoothly. The "vertical" struts were much harder. I wanted to just cut each end on a slant and have it join a few inches aways from the intersection point of the boards in the top and bottom plane, but my partner convinced me to cut complicated birds-mouth notches in each end so they would fit snugly and securely, which meant many saw passes on each end. The whole thing now only needs screws to keep it from slipping and I think it will look pretty good, but I wish I had done it the simpler way to save all that labor. I'm not an expert, but I guess my two points of advice are keep the cuts simple and use metal straps when you need to, even if that means you "waste" some wood on the ends that serves no purpose, or you don't line the boards up so they radiate perfectly from a node point. How this pertains to dome-type construction, I don't know. -- Robert L. Read, Member of the League for Programming Freedom ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 18:52:07 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kevin Sahr Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Subject: Re: Re Earth's space is curved/Coordinate System In article <941228131128_764335@aol.com>, Russell Chu wrote: > ...stuff trimmed... > >The other requirement of plotting simple crystaline structures such as the >cubic, cubic body centered and cubic face centered, was not easily >acomplished. Just wanted to point-out that the IVM _is_ the cubic face centered lattice, though it's tough to see because of the difference in the traditional viewing orientations of the two. Sure makes it easier to find the cartesian coordinates of the vertices of the IVM, though, if you realize that it's a CFC... > ...more stuff trimmed... > Kevin -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // // Kevin Sahr // // Research Associate/Programmer Wilkinson Hall, Room 204 // ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 19:07:12 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kevin Sahr Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Subject: Re: Angle is Everything In article , Gerald de Jong wrote: >In <199412271746.AA09339@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: > ...trimmed... > >>Another Bucky enthusiast I used to be in mail contact with -- a guy in Canada - >- >>has been studying the expanding VE sphere packing, looking for those spheres >>which really are equidistant, i.e. are at radial distance x from the origin >>-- lie >>on the surface of a sphere in other words. One gets some interesting numbers >>and patterns (e.g. in a packing of 200 layers, how many spheres are exactly >>distance x from the center?). > >get him on Geodesic! this sounds fascinating! > Not sure what is so difficult about this. Each of the layers are just VE's, right? So isn't the problem just to determine how many points of intersection a VE has with a sphere centered at the same point? > ...more trimmed... > Kevin -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // // Kevin Sahr // // Research Associate/Programmer Wilkinson Hall, Room 204 // ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 19:03:21 GMT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kevin Sahr Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Subject: Re: Angle is Everything In article , Gerald de Jong wrote: >In <199412181710.AA21617@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >>>Gerald de Jong (gerald@TACIT.HACKTIC.NL) wrote: > >>Fuller's central criticism of SIN, COS is that they treat angles and >>edges as separate types of scalar. He liked to look at edges in terms >>of there subtended central angles, i.e. a triangle is a triangle on >>the surface of the earth, the face of a tetrahedron with the earth's >>center as an apex -- it's edges are therefore expressible (at least >>in concept) in terms of central angles at the center of the earth. >>So all the measures are of angles -- either surface or central. > >yes, this is a brilliant and inspired way to look at edges, because >it removes our tendency to think of straight lines in favour of >our seeing all lines as geodesics or parts of great-circles. >(please correct me if my interpretation is not accurate). > >now, what if you're trying to describe a situation in which, >for example, there is a triangle floating in space? what >angles can be used to describe it's edges? I'm getting this thread in garbled order, but haven't seen an answer to this specific question yet so here's one way to approach it... The three points of the triangle define a plane. Find a normal to the plane that intersects the center of the triangle. Move along that normal to some large distance (relative to the size of the triangle) and choose a point to be the center of a sphere of that distance in radius. By increasing the radius you can approach the plane of the triangle to any arbitrary degree of precision (and for any physical triangle this should be sufficient). The edges of the triangle then correspond to great circle arcs on the large sphere (again, to any arbitrary degree of precision). > ...stuff trimmed... > Kevin -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // // // Kevin Sahr // // Research Associate/Programmer Wilkinson Hall, Room 204 // ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 16:31:19 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: a big $5 ball In <199412301258.HAA14850@freenet.buffalo.edu> ad960@freenet.buffalo.edu (Timoth y P. Gardner) writes: >could you please describe this constrction process in more detail??? >i would like to build one with my son. sure can, Tim! (my own son is 14 months old so i have to wait ). i assume you can get your hands on the raw materials: > * two metres of clear-plastic soft pipe > * several boxes of cocktail sticks (500) > * a few big needles, and a razor or big scissors well, you use the razor or scissors to cut 162 rings of the pipe, about 6-10mm (5/16 inch?) wide - or just enough to be able to prick some holes in the side (this will depend on the kind of pipe). then comes the needle part. you've got to prick six evenly-spaced holes around each of 150 rings (make a few extra, because it's a skill you'll develop after making some mistakes). remember that you can prick right through to mark the spot on the other side of the ring - that speeds things up a bit. take a lesson from Henry Ford and enlist helpers in an assembly line. then even trickier, you must make five evenly spaced holes in 12 rings. this is hard because you can't prick through to the other side. (if you come up with any useful hints about the whole pricking process, let me know, because this won't be my last project.) then, it's a question of pricking the cocktail sticks (toothpicks, whatever) into the already-made holes. and making a big mesh of triangles. best thing is maybe to start with the 12 five-hole rings, each stuck by sticks to five six-hole rings, which also have five sticks holding them together around the perimeter. these are your 12 corners of the icosahedron. you thought you were nearly finished, but you're not. in total you've got to prick 480 sticks into the 960 holes you've made in the 162 rings, but that's not the end of the story. the result of the process is a 4-frequency icosahedron, but that's not exactly what we want! the last phase is the long process of adjusting the depth to which the sticks are pricked into the rings so as to make the thing really spherical instead of pointy. believe me, it becomes much much more impressive when it gets spherical! the process involves "flattening the pentagon" (something several governments wouldn't mind doing) twelve times. the best thing is to actually remove the five-hole rings and cut their sticks to make the whole unit completely flat (it regains some height a little later). the other adjustments luckily don't require cutting, just a lot of twisting and pushing. i can't describe this - you'll have to wing it. the long spherizing process is very educational - you learn firsthand the difference between an icosahedron and a sphere! >also, heve you ever built any TENSEGRITY masts? don't get me started! no, not *Y*E*T*. i'm always thinking about how i might be able to make it feasible to try - but i'm not yet ready to begin. -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 19:41:52 +0100 Reply-To: gerald@tacit.xs4all.nl Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gerald de Jong Organization: Tacit Software Subject: Re: Angle is Everything In <199412300628.AA02477@xs1.xs4all.nl> Kirby Urner writes: >At 09:09 PM 12/27/94 +0100, Gerald de Jong wrote: >>the stretchable element, perhaps light-years away, will be making >>very small movements of its endpoints (is continuous motion allowed?) >>which can only be "cancelled" by very much *other* movements in >>our little theatre. >I don't see "very much other" -- if the goal is to keep the volume set at >unity, and the other is light years away, then we're basically dealing >with parallel segments (zero volume) except not quite (hence volume 1). >The local segment will have to remain essentially parallel to the distant one. let's turn things around. suppose that the segment our theatre makes one "jump" (and it *will* jump, because we're talking about a discontinuous situation) then i'd suggest that if the other segment is a tidy light-year away it will jump a great distance - and i don't think that movement in space is that discontinuous - if it is at all. >>the local icosa theatre would need to have >>infinite frequency to handle a micrometer of movement in the light-year- >>remote segment. >Infinite or many, depending on your patience level. virtually infinite. you've got to more than imitate the detail of the entire universe in a unit-"sphere". that sort of thing just doesn't work on a discontinuous basis, i believe. > I have nothing against >nasty calculations. Irrational we might say, although my point all along is no >one has ever computed with an irrational number -- in arithmetic on paper >or using computers, the number of digits is strictly finite, hence rational. >Semantics maybe? not quite. there are a number of symbolic computation programs out there which are happy with your pi's and your root-2's. you don't need digits to represent these nasties. there's an entire branch of computer science (mathematics) called numerical analysis dedicated to the study of the errors introduced by our imperfect representations of wicked numbers, how these errors propagate, and how to minimize them. the problem with even Bucky's so-called "rational" accountability is that after a few computations you're forced to round off anyway, which is no better than working with pseudo-accurate real numbers and keeping a close eye on the errors. the alternative is to calculate with rationals that have an unlimited number of digits - which is slow, and you don't win in the end anyway because you have to round off for a sensible answer. as you can tell, i'm not too hip on Bucky's rational-number approach. maybe it's me, but i don't find whole numbers particularly holy when it comes to physics. they're fun for mathematicians, but... -- gerald de jong, rotterdam. "reality is a special case" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 13:39:57 CDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gus Harris Subject: Models Just sent a post about "Gerald's model construction" and thought it was going to the list--apparently it went just to Gerald. What I said was that I have constructed numerous models of Geospheres, tensegrity spheres, icosahedrons and tetrahedrons, etc. both small and large (15-20 ft.) and I'd be glad to describe my construction techniques to anyone interested in a specific model. Just mail me direct. Gus Harris GHARRIS@UWF.CC.UWF.EDU Pensacola, FL ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 13:56:06 MDT Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Ken G. Brown" Organization: BEST Online Subject: Re: Models >What I said was that I have constructed numerous models of Geospheres, >tensegrity spheres, icosahedrons and tetrahedrons, etc. both small and >large (15-20 ft.) and I'd be glad to describe my construction techniques to >anyone interested in a specific model. Just mail me direct. > >Gus Harris >GHARRIS@UWF.CC.UWF.EDU >Pensacola, FL In my opinion this is just the kind of discussions that would be good to keep on the list since you never know who might benefit from the ideas. Please keep posting. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:07:50 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Tetrahelix X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --0-355437941-788832470=:14052 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Here is a rough unfinished draft of a paper I wrote several years ago. Please send questions, comments and criticism to: Ted Campbell 315 E. Broadway #2 Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 721-8792 e-mail beth@selway.umt.edu --0-355437941-788832470=:14052 Content-Type: APPLICATION/octet-stream; name="Tetrahelix_Inter.Trans.mod" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: /1dQQyUOAAABLAMAAAAAAAAAAQAAAA0EAAAMBAAAARHaTq0Guk51AAActkFo AAJOVv9GSOcPGEfu/6RCbv9ecA1XUF9UVjIzMzI1MDI3AgAAAFdQVFZXUEMy AAAAAAAAAABXUFRWV1BDMgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKspyJ0A AAAAAAAOFY+plD1f/2A/LgAIqZhVjy8uAAqpUD1f/1Z4AXAAHwCpm3oBYAAB eHgBLy4ACj8FLwupRi8LSG7/WKkAWY8vPEZGQk0/Lv9YqaAtX//kZzIvLv/k SG7/Ukhu/+hIbv9kqahVj0hu/2QvC06tNJJKX2YEQgRgDC8u/+SprSBu/+Sg I0oAAAASAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgADAAAAAScPAAEAAAABAAAE 8QAAAQgACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADucMA AMPDAQDDwwIAw8MDAMPDBADDwwUAw8MGAMPDBwDDwwgAw8MJAMPDCgDDwwsA w8MMAMPDDQDDww4Aw8MPAMPDEADDwxEAw8MSAMPQAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAADADQ 0AEAFAAAAAAAAAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQ0AIADAAAAAAAAQAAAAwC0NADABQA AAAAAAAAAAAyAAAAAAAAABQD0NAEABH/gQD/uAAA5gAkAAD/ABEE0NAFABQA AAAAAAAAAABIAAAASAAAABQF0NAGAAYAAAAGBtDQBwAIAAAAAAAIB9DQCAAG AAAABgjQ0AkAFgAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAWCdDQCgAMAAAAAAAAAAAA DArQ0AwADAAAAAAAAAAAAAwM0NEAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEADR0QEAFwAA AAAAAAAAAAMAAQZHZW5ldmEAFwHR0QIACAAMAAwACALR0QMADAAAAACAAAAA AAwD0dEEABoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPABQAHgAlgDIABoE0dIBAAYAAAAGAdLS AgA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEBIUEzQzISMAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAADQC0tIDACQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAAASAAADoAEqAAAA AAAkA9LSBAAkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAAAEgAAAwABKgAAAAAAJATS 0goAGgAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/wAAAA8ASwAPAEsAGgrS0gwAGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAMAAMGR2VuZXZhABsM0tINABsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAADBkdlbmV2YQAb DdLTAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuAAAALAAUANPTAQAGAAEABgHT0wUAFAAAAAAA AAAAAAEANgAAAAEAFAXT0xEADAAAAAAAAAAAAAwR098AAAgAAAAAAAgA398B AAgAAAAAAAgB398CAAgAAAAAAAgC398DAAgAAAAAAAgD398EAAgAAAAAAAgE 398FAAgAAAAAAAgF398GAAgAAAAAAAgG398HAAgAAAAAAAgH398IAAgAAAAA AAgI39EBACMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACMB0dEC AAgAAAAMAAgC0dIMACcAAAAAdHVyeSBTAAAADAAAEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNj aGxiawAnDNLSDQAnAAAAAHR1cnkgUwAAAAwAABJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hs YmsAJw3SAAABtAAAAQgACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAe9wTACIWAEgAAAIcAAAAbAAAAfgAABYiAAAACgADAA0AACIAIhPc qtABABQASAAAAEgAAABsAAAAbAAAABQB0KvRAQAjqdXapgADAAEAIgABEk5l dyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAjAdFDYW1wYmVsbJaWKDEpzAqp1dqnzAQAAAFB AAABCAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJwwsB w6TDC4DDAAABiAAAAQgACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAUNwTABAiAAAADgADABEAACIAEBPc0QEAJarZZacAAwABO88AABRC ZXJuaGFyZE1vZCBCVCBSb21hbgAlAdHRAgAIAAwADgAIAtHMCqrZZajMAAAB OAAAAQgACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZ7V1B9 MDEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAA ADQDAIAAAAADMy4wKTMuMCwgqSAxOTg5LCAxOTkzIFdvcmRQZXJmZWN0IENv cnBvcmF0aW9uAAAAKAMAgAAAAAMzLjAdQ3JlYXRlZCB3aXRoIFdvcmRQZXJm ZWN0qiAzLjAAAAAuAAAADgAnACMByAJ+AACrKdEyqynRCQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAqNBuAwAAAAAAAAAAAAwLV29yZFBlcmZlY3QAAAB4AAwAAABIAEgAAAAA AvACQP/s/+4DBAJSZAIFKAP8AQAAAAFoAWgAAAAADrALQAABAQAAZAABAAAA AQAAAAAAAScPAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP+c/6YPFAua AAgAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAADQQAAAwEAAABEQBOeDAOsgAAABwA 7gAHUFNldAAAAEJQSm9iAAAATlN0eWwAAABadmVycwABAGZUU3RsAAMAfldE YXQAAACuU1RSIAAAALpQdFB0AAAAxgAB//8AAAAAAE5xkAAB//8AAAAWAE5x nAABAAAgAAAoAAAAAAAB//8gAAriAE5zxAAC//8gAAsaAE5x8EtSAAcAAAUd AAAAAA06AA4AAAbVAAAAAEIdABUAAAgaAAAAAB8FABwAAAmmAAAAAAAB//8A AAtGAE5ztL/0//8gAAt4AE538AAB//8AAAuIAAAAAAZ7V1B9MDEGe1dQfTIw BntXUH0xMwZ7V1B9MTQGe1dQfTEw3BMAECIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQE9zOAADq AADO2wMAEqspyJ0AAAZ7V1B9MTAAABID29EEABoAAEYAUAB4AJYAyAAAPABQ AHgAlgDIABoE0dIKABr/AAAADwA8AA8APP8AAAAPAEsADwBLABoK0tEBACOr KcidAAMAAQAiAAESTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACMB0dIMACerKcidAAAA DAADAAAADAAiEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAnDNLSDQAnqynInQAAAAwA AwAAAAwAIhJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJw3S2wAAAgDbv6rVAAH5AKsp yJ0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAMgAAAd7cEwA0FgBIAAACHAAAAEgAAAIcAAAWFwAF AAAABRcdAAAAAAAAAAAdIgAAAA4AAwAiAAAiADQT3NsDABKrKcidAAAGe1dQ fTEwAAASA9vQBAAcgQD/uAAA7gAkAAD/gQD/uAAA5gAkAAD/ABwE0NEEABoA ADIASwB9AJYAyAAAPABQAHgAlgDIABoE0dIMABurKcidAAAADAAiAAAADAAD BkdlbmV2YQAbDNLSDQAbqynInQAAAAwAIgAAAAwAAwZHZW5ldmEAGw3S0QEA I6spyJ0AAwABACIAARJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAIwHR0gwAJ6spyJ0A AAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACcM0tINACerKcidAAAA DAADAAAADAAiEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAnDdLbAAACANuq0AIADAAB AAAAAgAAAAwC0KvRAQAlqynInQAiAAE7zwAAFEJlcm5oYXJkTW9kIEJUIFJv bWFuACUB0dECAAgADAAOAAgC0UNhbXBiZWxslpYo2AYACgAIAAABMQAKBtgp 3AIALAEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMiAAAADgADACIAACIA LALcAfkA1dAGAAYAAQAGBtDQAgAMAAEAAAACAAAADALQq8wCqynInszcAgAs AQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyIAAAAQAAQAKAAAIgAsAtzO AAAoAADOwwIBw9ECAAgADAASAAgC0VRoZSBUZXRyYWhlbGl4IGluIEludGVy dHJhbnNmb3JtYWJpbGl0eSBNb2RlbHPDAoDD3AIALAEAAQABAAIAAAAaAAAA AAEDAAAAGgAAABoAAAMiAAAAEAAEACgAACIALALczgAAegAAzmJ5IEVkd2Fy ZCBIdWdoIENhbXBiZWxs0QIACAASABgACALR3AIALAEAAgABAAMAAABCAAAA AAEDAAAAQgAAAEIAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIALALczgAA6gAAztECAAgAGAAM AAgC0dwHAHABAAMAAQAEAAAAagAAAAABAwAAAGoAAABqAAADCAAAAGoAAABq AAAABAAEAAEAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAhAAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIWAEgA AAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYiAAAACgADABoAACIAcAfczgAAogAAzqrQAQAUAEgA AABIAAAAkAAAAJAAAAAUAdCr3AIAFAEABAABAAUAAACUAAAAAAEAFALczgAA ogAAztwCABQBAAUAAQAGAAAArgAAAAABABQC3M4AAKIAAM7MAqspusDM3AIA FAEABgABAAcAAADIAAAAAAEAFALczgAAogAAztwCABQBAAcAAQAIAAAA4gAA AAABABQC3M4AAKIAAM7MBaspunrM3AIAIAEACAABAAkAAAD8AAAAAAEiAAAA DAADAB4AACIAIALczgAAQQAAzswGqym6e8zAqQQXwCAxOTk0IGJ5IEVkd2Fy ZCBIdWdoIENhbXBiZWxs0QIACAAMAA4ACALRLtwCACwBAAkAAQAKAAABFgAA AAABAwAAARYAAACCAAADIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiACwC3M4AAG6AAM7RAgAIAA4A DAAIAtEgQWxsIHJpZ2h0cyByZXNlcnZlZMMCAcPcBwBwAQAKAAEACwAAATQA AAAAAQMAAAE0AAAAoAAAAwgAAAE0AAAAoAAAAAcACwACAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAEAAAAAAU4ACAsSABAAAAB6AAASFgCQAAAB1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWIgAAAAoA AwAaAAAiAHAH3M4AAOoAAM6q0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq8MC gMPcAgAUAQALAAEADAAAAV4AAAAAAQAUAtzOAADqAADO3AIAFAEADAABAA0A AAF4AAAAAAEAFALczgAA6gAAztwCACABAA0AAQAOAAABkgAAAAABIgAAAAoA AwAaAAAiACAC3M4AAOoAAM7DAQHD3AIALAEADgABAA8AAAGsAAAAAAEDAAAB rAAAAE4AAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIALALczgAA6gAAztwCACABAA8AAQAQAAAB xgAAAAABIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiACAC3M4AAKoAAM5UbzogIEouUC5DLixqciBh bmQgSi5TLkMuwwGAw8MCAcPcBwBeAQAQAAEAEQAAAeAAAAAAAQMAAAHgAAAA ggAAAwgAAAHgAAAAggAAAAYAEQADAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAfoACAsS ABAAAAB6AAASIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiAF4H3KrQBgAGAQAABgbQq8wCqynIpszN AAAHqynInc3cBwBGAQARAAEAEgAAAgoAAAAAAQgAAAIKAAAAAAAAAAEAEgAE AAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAiQACAsSABAAAAB6AAASAEYH3M0BAAerKcid zdwCACABABEAAQASAAACCgAAAAABIgAAABAABAAoAAAiACAC3MMCgMPRAgAI AAwAEgAIAtFDb250ZW50c9ECAAgAEgAMAAgC0dwCACwBABIAAQATAAACJAAA AAABAwAAAiQAAAAaAAADIgAAAAwAAwAeAAAiACwC3NECAAgADAAOAAgC0Uku ICBUaGUgRGVsaWJlcmF0ZWx5IFRlbGVvbG9naWMgU2NlbmFyaW/cAgAsAQAT AAEAFAAAAkwAAAAAAQMAAAJMAAAAQgAAAyIAAAAMAAMAHgAAIgAsAtxJSS4g IEludHJvZHVjdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgR2VvbWV0cnkgb2YgVGhpbmtpbmfcAgAU AQAUAAEAFQAAAmoAAAAAAQAUAtxJSUkuICBUaGUgVm9sdW1ldHJpYyBMaW5l 3AIAFAEAFQABABYAAAKIAAAAAAEAFALczAKrKbq2zElWLiAgVGhlIE5vbnNp bXVsdGFuZW91cyBMaW5l3AIAFAEAFgABABcAAAKmAAAAAAEAFALczAiq2ZKG zFYuICBUaGUgSW5mbHVlbmNlIG9mIE5vdmVudCBvbiBFdmVudNwCABQBABcA AQAYAAACxAAAAAABABQC3FZJLiAgVGhlIFRldHJhaGVsaXggSW52b2x2ZW1l bnQgRmllbGTcAgAUAQAYAAEAGQAAAuIAAAAAAQAUAtxWSUkuICBOb3Rlc9wC ACABABkAAQAaAAADAAAAAAABIgAAAAwAAwAeAAAiACAC3FZJSUkuICBJbGx1 c3RyYXRpb25z3AIALAEAGgABABsAAAMeAAAAAAEDAAADHgAAARQAAAMiAAAA CgADABoAACIALALc0QIACAAOAAwACALRwwIBw9wHAF4BABsAAQAcAAADPAAA AAABAwAAAzwAAAEyAAADCAAAAzwAAAEyAAAACwAcAAQABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAAADVgAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIiAAAACgADABoAACIAXgfcwwKAw9wCACwB ABwAAQAdAAADZgAAAAABAwAAA2YAAAAAAAADIgAAABAABAAoAAAiACwC3MwC qynIqMzRAgAIAAwAEgAIAtFQcmVmYWNl3AIALAEAHQABAB4AAAOAAAAAAAED AAADgAAAABoAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIALALc0QIACAASAAwACALRwQAAACQA AMFUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIGFuIHVuZmluaXNoZWQgcm91Z2ggZHJhZnQu ICBJdCBlbmRzIGFicnVwdGx5IGluIHBhcnQgzQIAD6spyJ3NNs0DAA+rKcid zSwgwwEBw1RoZdwAABwDAAADqAAAAEIAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIAHADcVGV0 cmFoZWxpeCBJbnZvbHZlbWVudCBGaWVsZMMBgMMsIGJ1dCB0aGVyZSBpcyBy ZWFsbHkgbXVjaCBtb3JlIHRvIHRoZSB0aGVzaXMgdGhhdCBJ3AAAHAMAAAPC AAAAXAAAAyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAcANxoYXZlbsDVBBzAdCB3cml0dGVuLiAg VGhlIHdvcmsgaXMgY29weXJpZ2h0ZWQuICBUaGUgcmVhZGVyIG1heSBkb3du bG9hZCBhIGNvcHksIG9yLNwAAAIA3HByZWhhcHMsIGZvcndhcmQgYSBjb3B5 IHRvIGEgZmVsbG93IGRlc2lnbiBzY2llbnRpc3QsIGJ1dCBJIGRvIGFzayB0 aGF0IHRoZSByaWdodHMgb2YgdGhl3AAAAgDcaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBiZSByZXNw ZWN0ZWQuICBUaGlzIHdvcmsgaXMgbm90IGZvciBjb21tZXJjaWFsIHB1Ymxp Y2F0aW9uLiDcAgAUAQAeAAUAIwAAA6gAAAAAAQAUAtzMAqspyKfMwQAAACQA AMFQbGVhc2UgZm9yd2FyZCB5b3VyIHF1ZXN0aW9ucywgY29tbWVudHMgYW5k IGNyaXRpY2lzbXMgdG863AIAIAEAHwABACQAAAQqAAAAAAEiAAAACgADABOA ACIAIALcqtACAAwAAgAAAAGAAAAMAtCrwQAAACQAAMFUZWQgQ2FtcGJlbGzc AgAsAQAgAAEAJQAABEQAAAAAAQMAAAREAAAA3gAAAyIAAAAKAAMAE4AAIgAs AtzBAAAAJAAAwTMxNSBFLiBCcm9hZHdheSAjMtwCABQBACEAAQAmAAAEVwAA AAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBTWlzc291bGEsIE1UICA1OTgwMtwCABQBACIAAQAn AAAEawAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBKDQwNikgNzIxljg3OTLcAgAmAQAjAAEA KAAABH4AAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAABIAAAB1AAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFABIAAAASAAA AEgAAACQAAAAFAHQq8MCAcPcBwBGAQAkAAEAKQAABJIAAAAAAQgAAASSAAAB LAAAAA0AKQAFAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAABKUACAsSABAAAAB6AAASAEYH 3MwCqynIo8zcAgAyAQAlAAEAKgAABLUAAAAAARYASAAAAdQAAABIAAACHAAA FiIAAAAQAAQAHgAAIgAyAtyq0AEAFABIAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq9EC AAgADAASAAgC0cMCgMNJLiAgwwIBw1RoZSBEZWxpYmVyYXRlbHkgVGVsZW9s b2dpYyBTY2VuYXJpb9ECAAgAEgAMAAgC0cMCgMPcAgA+AQAmAAEAKwAABMkA AAAAAQMAAATJAAAAE4AAAxYASAAAAhwAAABsAAAB+AAAFiIAAAAKAAMAE4AA IgA+AtzOAADGAADOqtABABQASAAAAEgAAABsAAAAbAAAABQB0NAGAAYAAQAG BtCr3AIAFAEAJwABACwAAATnAAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYBAwAGBtCrwQAAACQA AMFBbnkgU2NpZW50aWZpY2FsbHkgYWR2YW5jZWQgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBpcyBp bmRpc3Rpbmd1aXNoYWJsZdwCABQBACgAAQAtAAAE+gAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAk AADBIGZyb20gbWFnaWMgYnkgdGhvc2UgbGVzcyBhZHZhbmNlZC7cAgAUAQAp AAEALgAABQ4AAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwcEAAAAkAADBwQAAACQAAMHBAAAA JAAAwcEAAAAkAADBwQAAACQAAMGWQXJ0aHVyIEMuIENsYXJrZdwCABQBACoA AQAvAAAFIQAAAAABABQC3KrQBgAGAwAABgbQq9wCABQBACsAAQAwAAAFNQAA AAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBRXZvbHV0aW9uIHBpdm90cyBvbiBjb25zY2lvdXNu ZXNzLtwCABQBACwAAQAxAAAFSAAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBwQAAACQAAMHB AAAAJAAAwcEAAAAkAADBwQAAACQAAMHBAAAAJAAAwZZSLiBCdWNrbWluc3Rl ciBGdWxsZXLcAgAgAQAtAAEAMgAABVwAAAAAASIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAgAtyq 0AIADAABgAAAAgAAAAwC0KvcAgA+AQAuAAEAMwAABW8AAAAAAQMAAAVvgAAA ugAAAxYAbAAAAfgAAABIAAACHAAAFiIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgA+Atyq0AEAFABs AAAAbAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq8EAAAAkAADBVGhlIHByaW5jaXBsZSBvZiB0 ZWxlb2xvZ3kgaXMgYSBrZXkgZmFjdG9yIGluIGEgbmV3IHBhcmFkaWdtIG9m IHNjaWVuY2UgYW5kIGFydHMuINwAAAIA3FRoZSBwcmluY2lwbGUgb2YgdGVs ZW9sb2d5IGlzIHRoZSBjb3JuZXJzdG9uZSBvZiDDAgHDU3luZXJnZXRpY3Mg MSYgMsMCgMMgYnkgUi4gQnVja21pbnN0ZXLcAAACANxGdWxsZXIuIFN5bmVy Z2V0aWNzIHByZXN1bWVzIHRoYXQgbmF0dXJlIHVzZXMgdGhlIG1vc3QgZWNv bm9taWNhbCBhbmQgaW50ZWxsaWdlbnTcAAACANxtZXRob2RzIG9mIHJlYWNo aW5nIGl0cyBnb2Fscy4gIE5hdHVyZXMgcHJvcGVuc2l0eSBmb3IgZGVzaWdu IGVmZmljaWVuY3kgaXMgYWxzbyBrbm93btwAAAIA3GFzIHRoZSBwcmluY2lw bGUgb2YgbWluaW11bSBlZmZvcnQgaW4gbmF0dXJlLCBvciwgYXMgQnVja21p bnN0ZXIgRnVsbGVyIGNhbGxzIGl0LCB0aGXcAAACANxwcmltZSBsYXcgb2Yg cmVnZW5lcmF0aXZlIGRlc2lnbi4g3AIAJgEALwAGADkAAAWJAAAAAAEWAEgA AAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQASAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0NAG AAYAAwAGBtCr3AIAFAEAMAABADoAAAYlAAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCr MTYwLjAwICBHZW5lcmFsaXplZCBEZXNpZ24gU2NpZW5jZSBFeHBsb3JhdGlv biDcAgAUAQAxAAEAOwAABj8AAAAAAQAUAtwxNjYuMDAgICBUaGUgcHJpbWUg ZXRlcm5hbCBsYXdzIGdvdmVybmluZyBkZXNpZ24gc2NpZW5jZdwAAAIA3GFy ZSB0aHVzIGZhciBhY2NydWVkIHRvIHRoYXQgb2YgY29zbWljIGxhdyBvZiBn ZW5lcmFsaXplZNwAAAIA3GRlc2lnbpZzY2llbmNlIGV4cGxvcmF0aW9uIGlz IHJlYWxpemFiaWxpdHkgYW5kIHJlbGF0aXZl3AAAAgDcbWFnbml0dWRlIG9m IHJlcHJvZHVjaWJsaXR5ICwgd2hpY2ggbWlnaHQgYmUgY2FsbGVkIHRoZSBs YXfcAAACANxvZiByZWdlbmVyYXRpdmUgZGVzaWduOiAgdGhlIHJlbGF0aXZl IHBoeXNpY2FsIHRpbWXcAAACANxtYWduaXR1ZGUgb2YgcmVwcm9kdWNpYmls aXR5IGlzIHByb3BvcnRpb25hbCB0byB0aGUgb3JkZXIgb2bcAAACANxtYWdu aXR1ZGUgb2YgY29zbWljIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGdlbmVyYWxpemFiaWxpdHkuICBC ZWNhdXNlIHRoZdwBADYIAAAG9YAAAkAAAAAZAEIABgAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB AAAAAAcPAAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2AdxoaWdoZXIgdGhlIG9yZGVyIG9mIHN5 bmVyZ2V0aWMgZnVuY3Rpb24gZ2VuZXJhbGl6YXRpb24sIHRoZb/cAAACANxt b3JlIGVtYnJhY2luZ2x5IGFuZCBzaW1wbGUgaXRzIHN0YXRlbWVudDogIG9u bHkgdGhl3AAAAgDcaGlnaGVzdCBvcmRlcnMgY2FuIGVtYnJhY2luZ2x5IHNh dGlzZnkgdGhlIHBsdXJhbGl0eSBvZiBsb3fcDAACDNxvcmRlciBpbnRlcmFj Y29tb2RhdGlvbiBjb25kaXRpb25zLiDcAgAmAQAxAAsARQAABj8AAAAAARYA kAAAAdQAAABIAAACHAAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQ q9wCABQBADIAAQBGAAAHbQAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBQmVjYXVzZSBuYXR1 cmUgdXNlcyB0aGUgbW9zdCBpbnRlbGxpZ2VudCBtZXRob2Qgb2YgZGVzaWdu LCBuYXR1cmFsIHBoZW5vbWVuYdwAAAIA3GlzIGFuIGVuaWdtYSB0byBtYW6W lmhhdmluZyBub3QsIHRvIHdpdCwgYXR0YWluZWQgZGl2aW5lIGludGVsbGln ZW5jZS4gIE5hdHVyZSBpc9wAAAIA3G9wZXJhdGluZyBvbiBhbiBhZHZhbmNl ZCB0ZWNobm9sb2dpY2FsIGxldmVsIHRoYXQsIGFzIEFydGh1ciBDLiBDbGFy a2Ugc2FpZCwgaXPcAAACANzA0gQewGluZGlzdGluZ3Vpc2hhYmxlIGZyb20g bWFnaWPA0wQfwCwgYW5kIEkgbWlnaHQgYWRkLCBub3IgaXMgaXQgZGlzdGlu Z3Vpc2hhYmxlIGZyb20gZGl2aW5l3AAAAgDcaW50ZWxsZWN0IHRvIHRob3Nl IGxlc3MgYWR2YW5jZWQuICBFdmVuIGFuIGFnbm9zdGljIGNhbm5vdCByZWZ1 dGUgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyB0aGXcAAACANxwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHNjaWVuY2UgdG8g Y29tcHJlaGVuZCBuYXR1cmUuICBRdWl0ZSBjbGVhcmx5LCBuYXR1cmVzIGRl c2lnbnMgYXJlIHRoZdwAAAIA3GFzcGlyYXRpb24gb2YgaHVtYW4gZGVzaWdu LiAgU2NpZW5jZSBjb3VsZCBiZSBkZXNjcmliZWQgYXMgcHV0dGluZyBpbiBv cmRlciB0aGUgZmFjdHMgb2bcAAACANxleHBlcmllbmNlIGFzIGFuIGFzcGly YXRpb24gdG8gZHVwbGljYXRlIGFuZCB1c2UgTmF0dXJlwNUEHMBzIGRlc2ln biBwcmluY2lwbGVzLtwCABQBADMACABOAAAHhwAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADB U2NpZW50aXN0cyBoYXZlIG5vdGljZWQgdGhhdCBhbGwgb3JnYW5pemVkIHN5 c3RlbXMgZm91bmQgaW4gbmF0dXJlIGFzcGlyZSB0byBh3AAAAgDcZ29hbC4g IFRoYXQgaXMsIGVhY2ggb3JnYW5pemVkIHN5c3RlbSBpcyBjb250YWluZWQg d2l0aGluIGEgbGFyZ2VyIHN5c3RlbSBhbmQgYWxs3AAAAgDcc3lzdGVtcyBh cmUgdWx0aW1hdGVseSBjb250YWluZWQgd2l0aGluIHRoZSBjb21wcmVoZW5z aXZlIHN5c3RlbSBjYWxsZWQgdW5pdmVyc2UuINwAAAIA3FRoZSBzbWFsbGVy IHN5c3RlbSwgdGhlIG1pY3JvlnN5c3RlbSwgYnkgd29ya2luZyB0b3dhcmQs IG9yIGluIGFjaGlldmluZyBpdHMgZ29hbCwgaXTcAAACANxzYXRpc2ZpZXMg YSBuZWVkIG9mIGEgc3lzdGVtIG9mIHRoZSBuZXh0IGhpZ2hlciBvcmRlci7c AgAUAQA0AAUAUwAACFcAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwU9uZSBvZiB0aGUgcHJv YmxlbXMgd2l0aCBldm9sdXRpb25hcnkgdGhlb3J5IGlzIHRoYXQgaW4gb3Jk ZXIgZm9yIGFuIG9yZ2FuaXplZNwAAAIA3GJpb2xvZ2ljYWwgc3lzdGVtIHRv IGV2b2x2ZSB0aGUgc3lzdGVtIG11c3QgaXRzZWxmIGhhdmUga25vd2xlZGdl IG9mIHRoZSBnb2FsIHRvIGJl3AAAAgDcYWNoaWV2ZWQuICBCZWNhdXNlIG9m IHRoZSBnZW9tZXRyaWMgY29tcGxleGl0eSBvZiB0aGUgY2VsbCBpdCBoYXMg YmVlbiBwcm92ZW4gdGhhdCBpdCBpc9wAAAIA3GltcG9zc2libGUgZm9yIG11 dGF0aW9ucyB0byBoYXBwZW4gYXQgcmFuZG9tIHdpdGggYW55IHN1Y2Nlc3Mu ICBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIGFu3AAAAgDcb3JnYW5pc20gbXVzdCBwdXJzdWUgYSBj b25zY2lvdXNseSBkZWxpYmVyYXRlIHRlbGVvbG9naWNhbCBldm9sdXRpb24u ICBUZWxlb2xvZ2ljYWzcAQA2CAAACUGAAAI8AAAAFwBYAAcABwAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAQAAAAAJWwAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIANgHcZXZvbHV0aW9uIHdvdWxkIGJl IHNhdGlzZmFjdG9yeSB0aGVvcnkgaWYgdGhlcmUgd2FzIGFueSBldmlkZW5j ZSBhdCBhbGwgZm9yIHByb2dyZXNzaXZlv9wAAAIA3GV2b2x1dGlvbiBpbiB0 aGUgZm9zc2lsIHJlY29yZC4gIEl0IGNhbiwgaG93ZXZlciwgYmUgcHJvdmVu IHRoYXQgdGhlIHN5c3RlbXMgZG8gbm903AAAAgDcaGF2ZSB0aGUga25vd2xl ZGdlIG9mIGhvdyB0byBwaHlzaWNhbGx5IGV2b2x2ZS7cAgAUAQA1AAgAWwAA CNkAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwUluIG90aGVyIHdvcmRzLCBwbGFudHMgYXJl IG5vdCBzaXR0aW5nIGFyb3VuZCBzYXlpbmcgdG8gb25lIGFub3RoZXI7ICDA 0gQewElmIHdlIGRv3AAAAgDcdGhpcywgdGhhdCwgYW5kIHRoZSBvdGhlciB0 aGluZywgdGhlIGVudmlyb25tZW50LCBvciB0aGUgbmV4dCBsYXJnZXIgc3lz dGVtLCB3aWxs3AAAAgDcYmVuZWZpdC4gIFRoaXMgaXMgd2hhdCBHb2Qgd2Fu dHMgdXMgdG8gZG8sIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhlc2Ugb3RoZXIgb3JnYW5pc21zLCB0 aGlzIHBsYW5ldCzcAAACANxhbmQgdGhlIHVuaXZlcnNlIGFyZSBoZXJlIGZv ciBhIHJlYXNvbi4gIEFuZCBvdXIgdGVsZW9sb2dpY2FsIHJvbGUgaXMgdG8g d29yayBpbiBzdXBwb3J03AAAAgDcb2Ygb3VyIGxvY2FsIGFyZWEuICBPdXIg ZnVuY3Rpb25pbmcgaW4gdGhpcyBsb2NhbCBhcmVhIHByb3ZpZGVzIGEgbmVj ZXNzaXR5IHRvIHRoZSBvdGhlctwAAAIA3HN5c3RlbXMgaW4gdGhlIGFyZWEs IHdoaWNoIHVsdGltYXRlbHkgaGVscHMgdGhlIHdob2xlIHVuaXZlcnNlIHJl YWNoIGl0cyBnb2FscyzcAAACANx3aGF0ZXZlciB0aG9zZSBnb2FscyBtYXkg YmUuwNMEH8AgIEluIGNvbnRyYWRpc3RpbmN0aW9uLCB0aGlzIGlzIHRoZSBt b25vbG9ndWUgdGhhdCBJIGFt3AAAAgDccHJlc2VudGluZyBoZXJlLiAgVG8g YmUgZGVsaWJlcmF0ZWx5IHRlbGVvbG9naWMgaXMgYSB1bmlxdWUgYWJpbGl0 eSBwb3NzZXNzZWQgYmUgaHVtYW7cAAACANxiZWluZ3MuINwCABQBADYACQBk AAAJuQAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBSW4gU3luZXJnZXRpY3MsIGl0IGlzIHRo b3VnaHQgdGhhdCB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2UgaGFzIGEgY29tcHJlaGVuc2l2ZSB0 ZWxlb2xvZ3ncAAACANxnb3Zlcm5lZCBieSBkZXNpZ24gbGF3cy4gIFRoZXNl IGxhd3OWlnRoYXQgc2NpZW5jZSBpcyBkaXNjb3ZlcmluZyBpbiB0aGUgZm9y bSBvZtwAAAIA3HBoeXNpY2FsLCBjaGVtaWNhbCwgYmlvbG9naWNhbCwgYW5k IG1hdGhlbWF0aWNhbCBwcmluY2lwbGVzIGFyZSBhIGNvbXByZWhlbnNpdmXc AAACANxtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwgZnJhbWUgd29yayB0aGF0IGFsbG93IHRoZSBz dWKWc3lzdGVtcyBvZiB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2UgdG8gd29yayBmb3IgdGhl3AAA AgDcVW5pdmVyc2XA1QQcwHMgdGVsZW9sb2d5IGF1dG9tYXRpY2FsbHksIHVu Y29uc2Npb3VzbHksIHNwb250YW5lb3VzbHksIG9yIGluYWR2ZXJ0ZW50bHku INwAAAIA3EJ1Y2ttaW5zdGVyIEZ1bGxlciBtYWtlcyBhbiBhcHQgZXhhbXBs ZSBpbiBoaXMgbWV0YXBob3Igb2YgdGhlIGhvbmV5IGJlZS4gIFRoZdwAAAIA 3GhvbmV5IGJlZSBnb2VzIG91dCDA0gQewHRoaW5raW5nwNMEH8AgaG9uZXks IGhvbmV5LCBob25leSEsIGJ1dCB1bmNvbnNjaW91c2x5IGNyb3Nz3AwAAgzc cG9sbGluYXRlcyBmbG93ZXJzLiAgVGhlIHRlbGVvbG9neSBpbiB0aGlzIG1l dGFwaG9yIGlzIHRoZSBwb2xsaW5hdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZmxvd2VycywgYXPc DAACDNx3ZWxslmFzIHRoZSBzdXJ2aXZhbCBvZiB0aGUgaG9uZXkgYmUsIGFu ZCBtb3Jlb3ZlciwgdGhlIHN1cnZpdmFsIG9mIGVudmlyb25tZW50IGFuZCBv ZtwAAAIA3HRoZSBwbGFuZXQgYXMgYSB3aG9sZS4gIFRoZSBzdWNjZXNzIG9m IHRoZSBwbGFuZXQgaW4gdHVybiBoYXMgc29tZXRoaW5nIHRvIGRvIHdpdGgg dGhl3AAAAgDccmVhbGl6YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIFVuaXZlcnNlwNUEHMBzIGNv bXByZWhlbnNpdmUgdGVsZW9sb2d5LiAgQWx0aG91Z2gsIHdlIGRvIG5vdCBr bm93IHRoZdwBADYIAAALp4AAAjwAAAAXAG8ACAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA AAvBAAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2AdxleGFjdCBnb2FscyBvZiB0aGUgVW5pdmVy c2UsIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGV2aWRlbmNlIGluIHRoZSBzY2llbnRpZmljIGlu dmVudG9yeSBvZiBkZXNpZ26/3AAAECIAAAANAAQAIgAAIgAQANxwcmluY2lw bGVzIHByb2hpYml0aW5nIHRoZSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSB0aGF0IHRoZSBVbml2 ZXJzZSBkb2VzIGhhdmUgZ29hbHMsIG9yIGEgZ29hbJbRAQAXqynInQAiAAEA F///BlN5bWJvbAAXAdHcDAAQAwAAC+uAAAAaAAADABAM3MB0CCnAwGUIC8DA bAgXwMBlCAvAwG8IH8DAVggnwNEBACOrKcidABf//wAiAAESTmV3IENlbnR1 cnkgU2NobGJrACMB0S7cAgAsAQAwAA4AZwAACbUAAAAAAQMAAAsfgAAAVgAA AyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAsAtzBAAAAJAAAwVRoZSBwcmluY2lwbGUgb2YgdGVs ZW9sb2d5IGltcGxpZXMgdGhhdCBpZiwgZmlyc3QsIHdlIHJlY29nbml6ZSB0 aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF03AAAAgDcbmF0dXJlcyBwaHlzaWNhbCBkZXZpY2VzIGFy ZSBkZXNpZ25lZCBtb3JlIGludGVsbGlnZW50bHkgdGhlbiBodW1hbiBiZWlu Z3MgYXJlIGFibGXcAAACANx0byBkdXBsaWNhdGUuIEFuZCBzZWNvbmQsIHdl IHdpdG5lc3MsIGFzIGEgcGFydCBvZiBuYXR1cmFsIGRlc2lnbiwgcmVnZW5l cmF0aW9uLCBlbmVyZ3ncAAACANxleGNoYW5nZSwgd2hvbGUgc3lzdGVtcywg YW5kIGdvYWwgc2Vla2luZyBiZWhhdmlvci4gVGhpcmRseSwgd2Ugc3R1ZHks IGRlcml2ZSwgYW5k3AAAAgDcZW1wbG95IHRoZXNlIGdlbmVyYWxpemVkIGRl c2lnbiBwcmluY2lwbGVzLiAgVGhlbiB0aGUgZGVzaWduIHByaW5jaXBsZXMg dGhlbXNlbHZlcyBhcmXcAAACANxhIG1ldGFwaHlzaWNhbCBzeXN0ZW0gYW5k IHRoZSBVbml2ZXJzZSBoYXMgYSBjb21wcmVoZW5zaXZlIHRlbGVvbG9neS7c AgAUAQAxAAYAbQAAC0EAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwUFjY29yZGluZyB0byDD AgHDR2VuZXJhbCBTeXN0ZW0gVGhlb3J5wwKAwywgYnkgTHVkd2lnIHZvbiBC ZXJ0YWxhbmZmeSwgKDEpICBhIHdob2xl3AAAAgDcc3lzdGVtIGhhcyBhIHRl bGVvbG9neSwgKDIpICBhIHN5c3RlbSBpcyBtYWRlIG9mIHBhcnRzLiAgKDMp ICB0aGUgcGFydHMgYXJlIGRpdmlkZWQgaW50b9wAAAIA3Gdyb3VwcyBiYXNl ZCBvbiB0aGVpciB1bmlxdWUgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXN0aWNzLiAgKDQpICB0aGUg cGFydHMgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGRlbGliZXJhdGVsedwAAAIA3GluY2x1ZGVkIGlu IHRoZSBzeXN0ZW0gaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gaGVscCB0aGUgd2hvbGUgc3lzdGVt IHJlYWxpemUgaXRzIHRlbGVvbG9neS4gICg1KVRoZdwAAAIA3HN1Y2Nlc3Mg b2YgdGhlIHdob2xlIHN5c3RlbSBkZXBlbmRzIHVwb24gdGhlIHN1Y2Nlc3Mg b2YgdGhlIHN5c3RlbXMgcGFydHMuICAoNikgIFRoZdwAAAIA3HN1Y2Nlc3Mg b2YgdGhlIHN5c3RlbXMgcGFydHMgZGVwZW5kIHVwb24gdGhlIHN1Y2Nlc3Mg b2YgdGhlIHdob2xlLtwCABQBADIABgBzAAAL3QAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADB TWFyayBEYXZpZHNvbiwgaW4gaGlzIGJvb2sgwwIBw1VuY29tbW9uIFNlbnNl wwKAw5aWYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxpZmUgYW5kIHdvcmsgb2bcAAACANxCZXJ0YWxh bmZmeZaWbWFrZXMgYW4gYXB0IGV4YW1wbGUgaW4gaGlzIG1ldGFwaG9yIGFi b3V0IGNhbmNlciBpbiB0aGUgaHVtYW7cAAACANxib2R5LiAgSW4gYSBib2R5 IHN0cmlja2VuIHdpdGggY2FuY2VyLCB0aGUgY2FuY2VyIGNlbGxzIG11bHRp cGx5IGZhc3RlciB0aGFuIHRoZdwAAAIA3HN1cnJvdW5kaW5nIGNlbGxzLCB0 aGVyZWJ5IGNyZWF0aW5nIGEgdHVtb3IuICBUaGlzIGNhdXNlcyBhIGJyZWFr ZG93biBvZiB0aGUgd2hvbGXcAAACANxzeXN0ZW0gd2hpY2gsIGluZXZpdGFi bHksIGxlYWRzIHRvIHRoZSBkZXN0cnVjdGlvbiBvZiBib3RoIHRoZSB3aG9s ZSBhbmQgdGhlIHBhcnRzLiDcAAACANxUaGlzIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgbWV0YXBo b3IgbWlnaHQgYmUgZXh0ZW5kZWQgYnkgYW5hbG9neSB0byB0aGUgd29ybGQg c2l0dWF0aW9uIGlu3AEANggAAAz7gAACMgAAABYAeQAJAAkAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAEAAAAADRUACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB3HJlZ2FyZCB0byB0aGUgZGVzdHJ1 Y3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIGVjb3N5c3RlbS6/3AIAFAEAMwAHAHoAAAx5AAAAAAEA FALcwQAAACQAAMFIdW1hbnMgYXJlIHBhcnQgb2YgYSBjb21wcmVoZW5zaXZl IHdob2xlIHN5c3RlbSBjYWxsZWQgVW5pdmVyc2UuICBUaGV53AAAAgDcaGF2 ZSBiZWVuIGRlbGliZXJhdGVseSBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbiBvcmRlciB0byBoZWxw IHRoZSB3aG9sZSBzeXN0ZW0gcmVhbGl6ZSBpdHMgZ29hbHMuINwAAAIA3FRo ZWlyIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGFzIGEgZ3JvdXAgaXMgdW5pcXVlIGZyb20gdGhlIG90 aGVyIHBhcnRzLiAgT3VyIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGFzIGluZGl2aWR1YWxz3AAAAgDc YXJlIHVuaXF1ZSBmcm9tIG9uZSBhbm90aGVyLiAgVGhlIHN1Y2Nlc3Mgb2Yg dGhlIHdob2xlIHN5c3RlbSBkZXBlbmRzIHVwb24gdGhl3AAAAgDcc3VjY2Vz cyBvZiB0aGUgc3lzdGVtcyBwYXJ0cyBhbmQgdmljZSB2ZXJzYS7cAgAUAQA0 AAUAfwAADT8AAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwUtlZXBpbmcgaW4gbWluZCB0aGF0 IG5hdHVyZSBjYXN0cyBtYW55IHNlZWRzLCBub3QgYWxsIG9mIHdoaWNoIGdl cm1pbmF0ZS4gIFRoZdwAABAiAAAACgADABoAACIAEADcZWFydGggaXMgYSBz ZWVkIG9mIGh1bWFuIHBvcHVsYXRpb24uICBJdCBoYXMgYmVndW4gdG8gZ3Jv dy4gIEluIHRoZSAyMcMLAcNzdMMLgMMgY2VudHVyeSB3ZdwAABwDAAAN24AA ALYAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIAHADcbWF5IGNvbWUgb3V0IG9mIEJ1Y2ttaW5z dGVyIEZ1bGxlcsDVBBzAcyDA0gQewGdyb3VwIHdvbWLA0wQfwCBvZiBjb2xs ZWN0aXZlIHVuY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzc5bcDAACDNxvciwgYXMgSSBtaWdodCBz YXksIMDSBB7AYSBncm91cCB3b21iIG9mIHNwb250YW5lb3VzbHkgdGVsZW9s b2dpYyBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzLtwCABQBADUABACDAAANwQAAAAABABQC3MEA AAAkAADBT25lIG9mIHRoZSB0aGluZ3MgdGhhdCBzY2llbmNlIGhhcyBkaXNj b3ZlcmVkLCBpcyB0aGF0IGFsdGhvdWdoIHRoZSBwYXJ0cyBvZiB0aGXcAAAC ANx1bml2ZXJzZSBhcmUgdmVyeSB1bmlxdWUsIHRoZXkgcmUgYWxsIHVsdGlt YXRlbHkgbWFkZSBvZiB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aGluZ5aWZWl0aGVyIGVuZXJnedwA AAIA3GFzIG1hdHRlciBvciBlbmVyZ3kgYXMgcmFkaWF0aW9uLiAgV2hlbiBl bmVyZ3kgaXMgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCBpbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcGF0dGVybnMgdGhl 3AAAAgDcc3lzdGVtcyBwcm9kdWNlZCBhcmUgdW5pcXVlLiAgIFNpbmNlIHRo ZSB1bml2ZXJzZSByZXF1aXJlcyBzbyBtYW55IGRpZmZlcmVudCBraW5kcyBv ZtwAAAIA3HBhcnRzLCBpdCBpcyBhZHZhbnRhZ2VvdXMgZm9yIHVzIHRvIGNv bnNpZGVyIHRoZSBzdWKWc3lzdGVtcyBvbiB0aGVpciBkZWdyZWUgb2bcAAAC ANx1bmlxdWVuZXNzIG5vdCBvbiB0aGVpciBkZWdyZWUgb2Ygc2ltaWxhcml0 eS7cAgAUAQA2AAYAiQAADikAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwU9uZSBvZiB0aGUg dGhpbmdzIHRoYXQgaHVtYW5zIGRvIHRoYXQgaXMgdW5pcXVlIGZyb20gdGhl IG90aGVyIHBhcnRzIG9mIHRoZdwAAAIA3HN5c3RlbSBjYWxsZWQgdW5pdmVy c2UgaXMgdG8gcGxhbiBhbmQgd29yayB0ZWxlb2xvZ2llcy4gIEFub3RoZXIg YWJpbGl0eSB0aGF0IGlzIHVuaXF1ZdwAAAIA3HRvIGh1bWFucyBpcyBvdXIg YWJpbGl0eSB0byBzdG9yZSBrbm93bGVkZ2UuICBFYWNoIGdlbmVyYXRpb24g aHVtYW5zIGFjY3VtdWxhdGXcAAACANxhbmQgc3RvcmUga25vd2xlZGdlLiAg QWx0aG91Z2gga25vd2xlZGdlIGlzIG1ldGFwaHlzaWNhbCwgaXQgY2FuIG9u bHkgYmUgc3RvcmVkIGFuZNwAAAIA3GNvbW11bmljYXRlZCB0aHJvdWdoIHBo eXNpY2FsIGRldmljZXMuICBFYWNoIGdlbmVyYXRpb24gwNQEG8B0aWVzwNUE HMAgdXAgdGhpcyBtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWzcAAACANxleHBlcmllbmNlIGluIMDU BBvAa25vdHPA1QQcwCwgb3IsIHJhdGhlciwgcGh5c2ljYWwgZGlzcGxhY2Vt ZW50cyBvZiBtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwgZXhwZXJpZW5jZS4g3AAAAgDcVGhlc2Ug a25vdHMsIGluIHRoZSBmb3JtIG9mIGJvb2tzLCBhbmQsIG5vdywgaW4gdGhl IGZvcm0gb2YgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbtwBADYIAAAPYYAA AjwAAAAXAJAACgAKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAA97AAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2 Adxjb21wdXRlciBtZW1vcmllcywgdHJhcCB0aGlzIGtub3dsZWRnZSBmb3Ig ZnV0dXJlIGdlbmVyYXRpb25zIHRvIHN0dWR5LiAgRXZlcnm/3AAAAgDcZ2Vu ZXJhdGlvbiwgdGhlbiwgaGFzIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIGxlYXJuIGluIGEg ZmV3IGhvdXJzIHdoYXQgaGFzIHRha2VuIG1pbGxlbm5pdW1z3AAAAgDcdG8g ZGlzY292ZXIuICBUaGlzIGFiaWxpdHkgZ2l2ZXMgZWFjaCBnZW5lcmF0aW9u IGEgc3luZXJnZXRpYyBhZHZhbnRhZ2UgdGhhdCBtYXkgYmXcAAACANxsZXZl cmFnZWQgYWdhaW5zdCBzb2x2aW5nIGh1bWFuaXRpZXMgcHJvYmxlbXMgYW5k IHRvd2FyZCBmaW5kaW5nIG91ciB3aHkgaXQgaXMgdGhhdNwAAAIA3HdlIGFy ZSBoZXJlIGluIHRoZSB1bml2ZXJzZSBhbmQgb24gdGhpcyBwbGFuZXQu3AIA JgEANwAMAJUAAA7FAAAAAAEWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQA SAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0NAGAAYAAwAGBtCr3AIAFAEAOAABAJYAABAN AAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCrMjI5LjAwICBQcmluY2lwbGUgb2YgU3lu ZXJnZXRpYyBBZHZhbnRhZ2XcAgAUAQA5AAEAlwAAECcAAAAAAQAUAtwyMjku MDEgIERlZmluaXRpb246ICBUaGUgcHJpbmNpcGxlIG9mIHN5bmVyZ2V0aWMg YWR2YW50YWdl3AAAAgDcc3RhdGVzIHRoYXQgwNQEG8BtYWNybyB0byBtaWNy b8DVBBzAIGRvZXMgbm90IGVxdWFsIMDUBBvAbWljcm8gdG/cAAACANxtYWNy b8DVBBzALiAgU3luZXJnZXRpYyBhZHZhbnRhZ2UgaXMgb25seSBlZmZlY3Rl ZCBieSDA1AQbwG1hY3JvIHRv3AAAAgDcbWljcm/A1QQcwCBwcm9jZWR1cmUu ICBTeW5lcmdldGljIGFkdmFudGFnZSBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIGFyZdwAAAIA3Gly cmV2ZXJzaWJsZS4gIMDUBBvATWljcm8gdG8gbWFjcm/A1QQcwCBwcm9jZWR1 cmVzIGFyZSBpbmhlcmVudGx53AAAAgDcZnJ1c3RyYXRlZC7cAgAUAQA6AAYA nQAAEEEAAAAAAQAUAtwyMjkuMDIgIFRoZSBub3Rpb24gdGhhdCBjb21tZW5j aW5nIHRoZSBleHBsb3JhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGXcAAACANx1bmtub3duIHdpdGgg dW5pdHkgYXMgb25lIChzdWNoIGFzIERhcndpbsDVBBzAcyBzaW5nbGUgY2Vs bCncAAACANx3aWxsIHByb3ZpZGUgc2ltcGxlIHJlbGlhYmxlIGFyaXRobWV0 aWMgY29tcG91bmRpbmcgIChzdWNo3AAAAgDcYXMgRGFyd2luwNUEHMBzIHRo ZW9yeSBvZiBldm9sdXRpb246ICBnb2luZyBmcm9tIHNpbXBsZSB0b9wAAAIA 3GNvbXBsZXg7ICBhbW9lYmEgdG8gbW9ua2V5IHRvIG1hbikgaXMgYW4gaWxs dXNpb24gdGhhdCBhc9wAAAIA3HlldCBwZXJ2YWRlcyBhbmQgZGViaWxpdGF0 ZXMgZWxlbWVudGFyeSBlZHVjYXRpb24u3AIAFAEAOwAGAKMAABDdAAAAAAEA FALcMjI5LjA2ICBVbml2ZXJzZSBpcyB0aGUgYWdncmVnYXRlIG9mIGV0ZXJu YWwgZ2VuZXJhbGl6ZWTcAgAUAQA8AAEApAAAEXkAAAAAAQAUAtxwcmluY2lw bGVzIHdob3NlIG5vbnVuaXRhcnkgY29uY2VwdHVhbCBzY2VuYXJpbyBpc9wA AAIA3HVuZm9sZGluZyBtYW5pZmVzdCBpbiBhIHZhcmlldHkgb2Ygc3BlY2lh bCBjYXNlcyBpbiBsb2NhbNwAAAIA3HRpbWWWc3BhY2UgdHJhbnNmb3JtYXRp dmUgZXZvbHV0aW9uYXJ5IGV2ZW50cy4gIEh1bWFuc9wBADYIAAARx4AAAjwA AAAXAKcACwALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAABHhAAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2Adxh cmUgZWFjaCBhIHNwZWNpYWyWY2FzZSB1bmZvbGRtZW50IGludGVncml0eSBv ZiB0aGUgY29tcGxleL/cAAACANxhZ2dyZWdhdGUgb2YgYWJzdHJhY3Qgd2Vp Z2h0bGVzcyBpbnRlcpZhY2NvbW1vZGF0aXZl3AAAAgDcbWF4aW1hbGx5IHN5 bmVyZ2V0aWMgbm9ulnNlbnNvcmlhbCBVbml2ZXJzZSBvZiBldGVybmFsINwA AAIA3HRpbWVsZXNzIHByaW5jaXBsZXMuICBIdW1hbml0eSBiZWluZyDA1AQb wG1hY3JvIHRvIG1pY3JvwNUEHMDcAAACANxVbml2ZXJzZSwgdW5mb2xkaW5n IGV2ZW50dWF0aW9uIGlzIHBoeXNpY2FsbHkgaXJyZXZlcnNpYmxl3AAAAgDc eWV0IGV0ZXJuYWxseSBpbnRlZ3JhdGVkIHdpdGggVW5pdmVyc2UuICBIdW1h bml0eSBjYW5ub3TcAAACANxzaHJpbmsgYW5kIHJldHVybiB0byB0aGUgd29t YiBhbmQgcmV2ZXJ0IHRvIGFzIHlldNwAAAIA3HVuZmVydGlsaXplZCBvdmEu 3AIAJgEAPQALAK8AABGTAAAAAAEWAJAAAAHUAAAASAAAAhsAABYAJgLcqtAB ABQAkAAAAJAAAABIAAAASQAAABQB0KvcAgAUAQA+AAEAsAAAEsEAAAAAAQAU AtzBAAAAJAAAwUl0IGlzIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGhvdyBjb252ZW5pZW50IHRo aXMgd29ya3MuICBUYWtpbmcgaW50byBhY2NvdW50IHRoZdwAAAIA3G1hY3Jv Y29zbWljIHByaW5jaXBsZSBvZiB0ZWxlb2xvZ3ksIHdlIGhhdmUgdGhlIGFi aWxpdHkgdG8gZG8gdGhlc2UgdGhpbmdzLCBvciBub3QgZG/cAAACANx0aGVt LCBmb3IgYSByZWFzb24uICBBY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gQnVja21pbnN0ZXIgZnVs bGVyLCDA0gQewFNpbmNlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgaXMgZmluaXRlLCBpdCBjYW7c AAACANxiZSBzdG9yZWQsIHN0dWRpZWQsIGRpcmVjdGVkLCBhbmQgdHVybmVk IHdpdGggY29uc2Npb3VzIGVmZm9ydCB0byBodW1hbiBhZHZhbnRhZ2Uu3AIA JgEAPwAEALQAABLbAAAAAAEWAEgAAAIbAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQA SAAAAEkAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0NAGAAYAAwAGBtCr3AIAFAEAQAABALUAABND AAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCrNTAyLjIzICBUaGlzIG1lYW5zIHRoYXQg ZXZvbHV0aW9uIHBpdm90cyBvbiBjb25zY2lvdXPcAAACANxzZWxlY3RpdmUg dXNlIG9mIGh1bWFuIGV4cGVyaWVuY2WWllt0ZWxlb2xvZ3ldlpZub3Qgb27c AAACANxEYXJ3aW7A1QQcwHMgaHlwb3RoZXNpcyBvZiBjaGFuY2UgYWRhcHRh dGlvbiB0byBzdXJ2aXZhbCwgbm9y3AAAAgDcb24gaGlzIGFzc3VtcHRpb24g b2YgZXZvbHV0aW9uIGluZGVwZW5kZW50IG9mIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgd2lsbNwA AAIA3GFuZCBkZXNpZ24u3AIAJgEAQQAFALoAABNdAAAAAAEWAJAAAAHUAAAA SAAAAhsAABYAJgLcqtABABQAkAAAAJAAAABIAAAASQAAABQB0KvcAgAUAQBC AAEAuwAAE98AAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwVdlIGFyZSBjb25mcm9udGVkIHdp dGggYSBjaG9pY2UgdGhhdCBubyBvdGhlciBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSB1bml2ZXJz ZSBoYXMuICBXZdwAAAIA3GhhdmUgdGhlIGNob2ljZSBiZXR3ZWVuIGJlaW5n IHVuY29uc2Npb3VzbHkgdGVsZW9sb2dpYywgb3IgZGVsaWJlcmF0ZWx5IHRl bGVvbG9naWMuINwAAAIA3FNpbmNlIHdlIGhhdmUgdGhpcyB1bmlxdWUgYWJp bGl0eSBpdCBpcyB0byBvdXIgYWR2YW50YWdlIHRvIHVzZSBpdC4gIEl0IGlz IHRoZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9m3AEANggAABQtgAACPAAAABcAvgAMAAwAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAAAAFEcACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB3HRoZSBzY2llbmNlIG9mIFN5 bmVyZ2V0aWNzIHRvIGRpc2NvdmVyIHRoZSBkZWxpYmVyYXRlbHkgdGVsZW9s b2dpYyBhc3BlY3RzIG9mIG91cr/cAAACANxleHBlcmllbmNlIGFuZCB0byB1 c2UgdGhlbSBmb3IgdGhlIGJlbmVmaXQgb2Ygb3Vyc2VsdmVzIGFzIGEgd2hv bGWWlmkuZS4sIGZvciBodW1hbml0eS7cAgAUAQBDAAUAwAAAE/kAAAAAAQAU Atyq0AQAOoEA/7gAAOYAJAAA/4EA/7gAAPsAJAAAAACCAAAAAJAAAPsAJAAA AAFpAAAAAYwAAPMAJAAA/wA6BNCrwwIBw9wCABQBAEQAAQDBAAAUiwAAAAAB ABQC3NwCACABAEUAAQDCAAAUpQAAAAABIgAAABAABAAoAAAiACAC3NECAAgA DAASAAgC0cMCgMNJSS4gIMMCAcNJbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gdG8gdGhlIEdlb21l dHJ5IG9mIFRoaW5raW5n0QIACAASAAwACALRwwKAw9wCACwBAEYAAQDDAAAU vwAAAAABAwAAFL+AAABoAAADIgAAAAoAAwATgAAiACwC3KrQAgAMAAIAAAAB gAAADALQq8EAAAAkAADBbGlmZSBpcyBidXQgYSBkcmVhbS7cAgAsAQBHAAEA xAAAFOcAAAAAAQMAABTngAAAkAAAAyIAAAAKAAMAE4AAIgAsAtzBAAAAJAAA wcEAAAAkAADBwQAAACQAAMGWUi4gQnVja21pbnN0ZXIgRnVsbGVy3AIAIAEA SAABAMUAABT7AAAAAAEiAAAACgADABoAACIAIALcqtACAAwAAYAAAAIAAAAM AtCr3AIALAEASQABAMYAABUOAAAAAAEDAAAVDoAAALcAAAMiAAAACgADABoA ACIALALcwQAAACQAAMFPbmUgb2YgbmF0dXJlwNUEHMBzIHRlbGVvbG9naWVz IGlzIHRvIGFjY29tcGxpc2ggYWxsIGRlc2lnbnMgd2l0aCB0aGUgbWluaW11 bdwAAAIA3HBvc3NpYmxlIHVzZSBvZiB0aW1lLCBzcGFjZSwgYW5kIGVuZXJn eS4gIE5hdHVyZSwgYnkgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBtaW5pbXVtIGxpbWl0cyzcAAAC ANxtYXhpbWl6ZXMgcmVzdWx0cy4gIEJ1Y2ttaW5zdGVyIEZ1bGxlciBlbXBo YXNpemVkIHRoZSBwcmFjdGljZSBvZiBzb2x2aW5nIHByb2JsZW1z3AAAAgDc ZnJvbSBhIG1hY3JvY29zbWljIGFuZCBob2xpc3RpYyBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZS4g IElyb25pY2FsbHksIGhvbGlzdGljIHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlIGlzIG9mdGVu3AAA AgDcYWNoaWV2ZWQgdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgb2JzZXJ2YXRpb24gb2YgbWluaW11 bSBsaW1pdHMuICBNaW5pbXVtlm1heGltdW0gbGltaXRzIGFyZdwAAAIA3GNh bGxlZCBFeHRyZW1hbCBQcmluY2lwbGVzLtwCACYBAEoABgDMAAAVKAAAAAAB FgBIAAACGwAAAJAAAAHUAAAWACYC3KrQAQAUAEgAAABJAAAAkAAAAJAAAAAU AdDQBgAGAAMABgbQq9wCABQBAEsAAQDNAAAVxAAAAAABABQC3KrQBgAGAwAA BgbQq8DSBB7AQW4gZXh0cmVtYWwgcHJpbmNpcGFsIGlzIGEgcGFydGljdWxh ciBraW5kIG9mIGludGVncmFsIGxhdyBvZtwAAAIA3G1vdGlvbi4uLlRoZSBl eHRyZW1hbCBwcmluY2lwbGUgaXRzZWxmIGRvZXMgbm90IGRpc3Rpbmd1aXNo 3AAAAgDcYmV0d2VlbiBtYXhpbWEsIG1pbmltYSBhbmQgdW5jaGFuZ2luZyBp bnRlcm1lZGlhdGXcAAACANx2YWx1ZXM7IGFueSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlc2UgdGhy ZWUgaXMgYSBwb3NzaWJsZSBhY3R1YWwgbW90aW9uLiDcAAACANxIaXN0b3Jp Y2FsbHksIGl0IHdhcyBmaXJzdCB0aG91Z2h0IHRoYXQgZXh0cmVtYWwgcHJp bmNpcGFsc9wAAAIA3HBpY2sgb3V0IG1pbmltYTsgaGVuY2UgdGhlIHdvcmQg wNIEHsBsZWFzdMDTBB/AIGluIHRoZSB0aXRsZSBvZiB0aGXcAAACANxlYXJs eSBwcmluY2lwbGVzIChQcmluY2lwbGUgb2YgTGVhc3QgVGltZSwgUHJpbmNp cGxlIG9mIExlYXN03AAAAgDcQWN0aW9uKS4gIEl0IHdhcyBzb29uIHJlYWxp emVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIGFjdHVhbCB2YWx1ZXMgcGlja2Vk3AEANggAABaUgAAC PQAAABcA1QANAA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAFq4ACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB 3G91dCBieSB0aGUgcHJpbmNpcGxlcyBhcmUgZXh0cmVtZSB2YWx1ZXMgcmF0 aGVyIHRoYW6/3AAAECIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQANxtaW5pbXVtIHZhbHVlcy7A 0wQfwMMLAcOs2wQAEqspyJ0ADQZ7V1B9MTMAABIE28MLgcPYCAAKAAUAAAEx AAoI2MMLgMPDCwHDwwuBw9sAAAIA29YBAkIBqynInQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAEQAAAAAAAQABABEAANwTADQWAEgAAAIcAAAASAAAAhwAABYXAAUAAAAF Fx0AAAAAAAAAAB0iAAAADgADABEAACIANBPc2wMAEqspyJ0AAAZ7V1B9MTAA ABID29AEAByBAP+4AADuACQAAP+BAP+4AADmACQAAP8AHATQ0QQAGgAAMgBL AH0AlgDIAAA8AFAAeACWAMgAGgTR0gwAG6spyJ0AAAAMACIAAAAMAAMGR2Vu ZXZhABsM0tINABurKcidAAAADAAiAAAADAADBkdlbmV2YQAbDdLTBQAUAAEA NgAAAAEAAQA2AAAAAQAUBdPRAQAjqynInQADAAEAIgABEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5 IFNjaGxiawAjAdHSDAAnqynInQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBT Y2hsYmsAJwzS0g0AJ6spyJ0AAAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2No bGJrACcN0tsAAAIA26rbAQASqynInQAOBntXUH0xNAAAEgHb0QEAJaspyJ0A IgABO88AABRCZXJuaGFyZE1vZCBCVCBSb21hbgAlAdHRAgAIAAwADgAIAtHb AAACANur2AgACgAIAAABMQAKCNguICDDAQHDRW5jeWNsb3BlZGlhIG9mIFBo aWxvc29waHnDAYDD3AIALAEAAAAKAAEAAAAAAAAAAAEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMi AAAADgADABEAACIALALcAkIB1q3DC4DD3AIAPgEATAAKANcAABXeAAAAAAED AAAW2IAAABoAAAMWAJAAAAHUAAAASAAAAhwAABYiAAAACgADABoAACIAPgLc qtABABQAkAAAAJAAAABIAAAASAAAABQB0KvcAgAUAQBNAAEA2AAAFvIAAAAA AQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwVdoYXQgUi4gQnVja21pbnN0ZXIgRnVsbGVyIGhhcyBk b25lIGluIGhpcyB0d28gYm9va3MsIMMCAcNTeW5lcmdldGljc8MCgMMgYW5k 3AAAAgDcwwIBw1N5bmVyZ2V0aWNzIDLDAoDDLCBpcyBnZW5lcmFsaXplIHRo ZSBleHRyZW1hbCBwcmluY2lwbGVzIGluIHRlcm1zIG9mIGdlb21ldHJ5LiAg SGUgY2FsbHPcAAACANx0aGVtIE1heGltdW2WYW5klk1pbmltdW2WTGltaXRz LCBUaGUgUHJpbWUgTGF3IG9mIFJlZ2VuZXJhdGl2ZSBEZXNpZ24gYW5k3AAA AgDcdGhlIFByaW5jaXBsZSBvZiBDb25jZXB0dWFsIE1pbmltdW1zLtwCABQB AE4ABADcAAAXDAAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBSW4gc3luZXJnZXRpY3Mgd2Ug YXJlIGNvbmNlcm5lZCB3aXRoIG1pbmltdW0gZGlzdGFuY2UsIG1pbmltdW0g c3RydWN0dXJlcyzcAAACANxtaW5pbXVtIHN5c3RlbXMsIGFuZCB0aGUgbWlu aW11bSB1c2Ugb2YgdGltZSwgc3BhY2UgYW5kIGVuZXJneS4gIEFjY29yZGlu ZyB0b9wAAAIA3EZ1bGxlcizcAgAmAQBPAAMA3wAAF3QAAAAAARYASAAAAhwA AACQAAAB1AAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFABIAAAASAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQ0AYABgAD AAYG0KvcAgAUAQBQAAEA4AAAF8IAAAAAAQAUAtyq0AYABgMAAAYG0KvA0gQe wFRoZXJlIGFyZSBubyBleHBlcmltZW50YWxseSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0aXZlLCBh YnNvbHV0ZdwMAAIM3G1heGltdW0gbGltaXRzLiAgT25seSB0aGUgbWluaW11 bSBsaW1pdCBpcyBkZW1vbnN0cmFibHncAAACANxhYnNvbHV0ZZaWZXZlbiB3 aGVuIGl0IGxvb2tzIGxpa2UgYSBwb2ludC4uLkFsbNwAAAIA3GNoYXJhY3Rl cmlzdGljcyBvZiBhIHN5c3RlbSBhcmUgYWJzb2x1dGUgYmVjYXVzZSBlYWNo IG9m3AAAAgDcaXTA1QQcwHMgY29tcG9uZW50cyBpcyB0aGUgbWluaW11bZZs aW1pdCBjYXNlIG9mIGl0c9wAAAIA3GNvbmNlcHR1YWwgY2F0ZWdvcnksIGZv ciBhbGwgY29uY2VwdHVhbGl0eZaWYXMgRXVsZXLcAAACANxkaXNjb3ZlcmVk IGFuZCBwcm92ZWSWlmNvbnNpc3RzIGF0IG1pbmltdW0gb2YgcG9pbnQs3AAA ECIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQANxhcmVhcyBhbmQgbGluZS7A0wQfwMMLAcOs2wQA EqspyJ0ADQZ7V1B9MTMAABIE28MLgcPYCAAKAAUAAAEyAAoI2MMLgMPDCwHD wwuBw9sAAAIA29YBAlUCqynInQAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQAAAAAAAQAB ABEAANwTADQWAEgAAAIcAAAASAAAAhwAABYXAAUAAAAFFx0AAAAAAAAAAB0i AAAADgADABEAACIANBPc2wMAEqspyJ0AAAZ7V1B9MTAAABID29AEAByBAP+4 AADuACQAAP+BAP+4AADmACQAAP8AHATQ0QQAGgAAMgBLAH0AlgDIAAA8AFAA eACWAMgAGgTR0gwAG6spyJ0AAAAMACIAAAAMAAMGR2VuZXZhABsM0tINABur KcidAAAADAAiAAAADAADBkdlbmV2YQAbDdLTBQAUAAEANgAAAAEAAQA2AAAA AQAUBdPRAQAjqynInQADAAEAIgABEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAjAdHS DAAnqynInQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJwzS0g0A J6spyJ0AAAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACcN0tsAAAIA 26rbAQASqynInQAOBntXUH0xNAAAEgHb0QEAJaspyJ0AIgABO88AABRCZXJu aGFyZE1vZCBCVCBSb21hbgAlAdHRAgAIAAwADgAIAtHbAAACANur2AgACgAI AAABMgAKCNguICBSLiBCdWNrbWluc3RlciBGdWxsZXIsIMMBAcNTeW5lcmdl dGljcyzDAYDDNTA1LjYzljY0LtwCACwBAAAACAABAAAAAAAAAAABAwAAAAAA AAAAAAADIgAAAA4AAwARAAAiACwC3AJVAdatwwuAw9wCAD4BAFEACADoAAAX 3AAAAAABAwAAGJKAAAHUAAADFgCQAAAB1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWIgAAAAoAAwAa AAAiAD4C3KrQAQAUAJAAAACQAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdCr3AIAFAEAUgABAOkA ABisAAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFUaGlzIGVzc2F5IGNvbmNlcm5zIGl0c2Vs ZiB3aXRoIHRoZSBtaW5pbXVtIG9mIHRoZSBwYXR0ZXJuaW5nIGVsZW1lbnRz 3AAAAgDcdGhlbXNlbHZlcy4gIEkgYW0gY29uY2VybmVkIHdpdGggdGhlIG1p bmltdW2WbGltaXQgZ2VvbWV0cmljIHNoYXBlcyBvZiBwb2ludHMs3AAAAgDc YXJlYXMgYW5kIGxpbmVzLiAgSW4gdGhlIHNjaWVuY2Ugb2Ygc3luZXJnZXRp Y3MgYWxsIGludmVzdGlnYXRpb25zIGludG8gTmF0dXJlIHJlcXVpcmUgYdwB ADYIAAAY+oAAAjwAAAAXAOwADgAOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAABkUAAgLEgAQ AAAAegAAEgA2AdxnZW5lcmFsaXplZCB0b3BvbG9naWNhbCBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0 aW9uLiAgv9wCABQBAFMABADtAAAYxgAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBVGhlcmUg YXJlIHNldmVyYWwgcmVhc29ucyBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0b3BvbG9neSBp biBzY2llbnRpZmljIGludmVzdGlnYXRpb25zLtwCABQBAFQAAQDuAAAZPgAA AAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBYS4pICBhbGwgcGh5c2ljYWwgcGhlbm9tZW5hIGhh dmUgYSBzaGFwZS7cAgAUAQBVAAEA7wAAGVgAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwWIu KSAgYWxsIG9mIHRoZSBwaGVub21lbmEgY2FuIGJlIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiB0 ZXJtcyBvZtwCABQBAFYAAQDwAAAZcgAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBwQAAACQA AMEgICAgICBwb2ludHMsIGFyZWFzIGFuZCBsaW5lcy7cAgAUAQBXAAEA8QAA GYwAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwWMuKSAgdGhlIHBoZW5vbWVuYSBjYW4gYmUg YWJzcmFjdGVkLCBhdCBpdHMgbWluaW11bSzBAAAAHgAAwcEAAAAjAADB3AIA FAEAWAABAPIAABmmAAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMHBAAAAJAAAwSAgICAgIGlu dG8gdGFjdGlsZSBtb2RlbHMgYW5kIG91Z2h0IHRvIGJlLCBiZWNhdXNl3AIA MgEAWQABAPMAABnAAAAAAAEWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAfgAABYiAAAACgADABOA ACIAMgLcqtABABQASAAAAEgAAACQAAAAbAAAABQB0NACAAwAAgAAAAGAAAAM AtCr3AIAPgEAWgABAPQAABnaAAAAAAEDAAAZ2oAAALYAAAMWAJAAAAH4AAAA kAAAAdQAABYiAAAACgADABoAACIAPgLcqtABABQAkAAAAGwAAACQAAAAkAAA ABQB0NACAAwAAYAAAAIAAAAMAtCrwNIEHsBUaGUgbWluZCBsYXlzIGhvbGQg b2YgcGFydGljdWxhciB0aGluZ3MuICBJdCBjYW4gbm90IGtub3fcAAAcAwAA Ge4AAADJgAADIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABwA3GFuIGFic3RyYWN0aW9uIHRoYXQg aXQgaGFzIG5vdCBpdHNlbGYgbWFkZS4gIEhlbmNlIHRoZdwAAAIA3GZ1bmRh bWVudGFsIHNjaG9sYXN0aWMgcHJpbmNpcGxlLCDA1AQbwE5vdGhpbmcgaXMg aW4gdGhlIGludGVsbGVjdNwAABAiAAAACgADABoAACIAEADcdGhhdCBpcyBu b3QgZmlyc3QgaW4gdGhlIHNlbnNlcy7A1QQcwMDTBB/AwwsBw6zbBAASqynI nQANBntXUH0xMwAAEgTbwwuBw9gIAAoABQAAATMACgjYwwuAw8MLAcPDC4HD 2wAAAgDb1gECVAOrKcidAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAAAAAAABAAEAEQAA 3BMANBYASAAAAhwAAABIAAACHAAAFhcABQAAAAUXHQAAAAAAAAAAHSIAAAAO AAMAEQAAIgA0E9zbAwASqynInQAABntXUH0xMAAAEgPb0AQAHIEA/7gAAO4A JAAA/4EA/7gAAOYAJAAA/wAcBNDRBAAaAAAyAEsAfQCWAMgAADwAUAB4AJYA yAAaBNHSDAAbqynInQAAAAwAIgAAAAwAAwZHZW5ldmEAGwzS0g0AG6spyJ0A AAAMACIAAAAMAAMGR2VuZXZhABsN0tMFABQAAQA2AAAAAQABADYAAAABABQF 09EBACOrKcidAAMAAQAiAAESTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACMB0dIMACer KcidAAAADAADAAAADAAiEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAnDNLSDQAnqynI nQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJw3S2wAAAgDbqtsB ABKrKcidAA4Ge1dQfTE0AAASAdvRAQAlqynInQAiAAE7zwAAFEJlcm5oYXJk TW9kIEJUIFJvbWFuACUB0dECAAgADAAOAAgC0dsAAAIA26vYCAAKAAgAAAEz AAoI2C4gIEh1Z2ggS2VubmVyLCDDAQHDVGhlIFBvZXRyeSBvZiBFenJhIFBv dW5kwwGAwyxwLiA3Ni7cAgAsAQAAAAQAAQAAAAAAAAAAAQMAAAAAAAAAAAAA AyIAAAAOAAMAEQAAIgAsAtwCVAHWrcMLgMPcAgA+AQBbAAQA+AAAGe4AAAAA AQMAABo8AAABF4AAAxYAkAAAAdQAAABIAAACHAAAFiIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgA+ Atyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq9wCABQBAFwAAQD5AAAaVgAA AAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBUi4gQnVja21pbnN0ZXIgRnVsbGVyIHRha2VzIHRo ZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudCBmb3IgZ2VuZXJhbGl6ZWQgdG9wb2xvZ2ljYWzcAAAC ANxpbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9ucyBiZXlvbmQgdGhlIHJlYWxtIG9mIHRoZSBwaHlz aWNhbC4gIEhlIHN0YXRlZCB0aGF0IGFsbCBvZiB0aGXcAAACANxtZXRhcGh5 c2ljYWwgcGhlbm9tZW5hIGNhbiBhbHNvIGJlIGRlc2NyaWJlZCB0b3BvbG9n aWNhbGx5LCBoZW5jZSBoZSBjb2lucyB0aGUgdGVybdwAAAIA3MDUBBvAZXBp c3RlbW9ncmFwaHnA1QQcwC4gIFRoZSDA0gQewGdlb21ldHJ5IG9mIHRoaW5r aW5nwNMEH8AgaXMgdXNlZCBhcyBvcHBvc2VkIHRvIHRoZSBwaHJhc2UgwNIE HsBsaW5lIG9m3AAAAgDcdGhpbmtpbmfA0wQfwC4gIEhlIHN0YXRlcywgaW4g ZmFjdCwgYWxsIHBoeXNpY2FsIHBoZW5vbWVuYSBhcmUgaW5oZXJlbnRseSBt ZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwuINwAAAIA3GFjY29yZGluZyB0byBNci4gRnVsbGVyLCBz eW5lcmdldGljcyBkaXNjb3ZlcnMs3AIAJgEAXQAGAP8AABpwAAAAAAEWAEgA AAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQASAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0KvA 0gQewFRoZSBpbnRlZ3JhdGlvbiBvZiBnZW9tZXRyeSBhbmQgcGhpbG9zb3Bo eSBpbiBhIHNpbmdsZdwAAAIA3GNvbmNlcHR1YWwgc3lzdGVtIHByb3ZpZGlu ZyBhIGNvbW1vbiBsYW5ndWFnZSBhbmTcAAAQIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABAA3GFj Y291bnRpbmcgIGZvciBib3RoIHRoZSBwaHlzaWNhbCBhbmQgbWV0YXBoeXNp Y2FsLsDTBB/AwwsBw6zbBAASqynInQANBntXUH0xMwAAEgTbwwuBw9gIAAoA BQAAATQACgjYwwuAw8MLAcPDC4HD2wAAAgDb1gECUwSrKcidAAAAAAAEAAAA AAAAAAAAAAARAAAAAAABAAEAEQAA3BMANBYASAAAAhwAAABIAAACHAAAFhcA BQAAAAUXHQAAAAAAAAAAHSIAAAAOAAMAEQAAIgA0E9zbAwASqynInQAABntX UH0xMAAAEgPb0AQAHIEA/7gAAO4AJAAA/4EA/7gAAOYAJAAA/wAcBNDRBAAa AAAyAEsAfQCWAMgAADwAUAB4AJYAyAAaBNHSDAAbqynInQAAAAwAIgAAAAwA AwZHZW5ldmEAGwzS0g0AG6spyJ0AAAAMACIAAAAMAAMGR2VuZXZhABsN0tMF ABQAAQA2AAAAAQABADYAAAABABQF09EBACOrKcidAAMAAQAiAAESTmV3IENl bnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACMB0dIMACerKcidAAAADAADAAAADAAiEk5ldyBDZW50 dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAnDNLSDQAnqynInQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJOZXcgQ2VudHVy eSBTY2hsYmsAJw3S2wAAAgDbqtsBABKrKcidAA4Ge1dQfTE0AAASAdvRAQAl qynInQAiAAE7zwAAFEJlcm5oYXJkTW9kIEJUIFJvbWFuACUB0dECAAgADAAO AAgC0dsAAAIA26vYCAAKAAgAAAE0AAoI2C4gIFIuIEJ1Y2ttaW5zdGVyIEZ1 bGxlciwgwwEBw1N5bmVyZ2V0aWNzwwGAwywgMjUxLjUwLtwCACwBAAAAAwAB AAAAAAAAAAABAwAAAAAAAAAAAAADIgAAAA4AAwARAAAiACwC3AJTAdatwwuA w9wCACwBAF4AAwECAAAbDAAAAAABAwAAG0AAAAIbgAADIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAi ACwC3MEAAAAkAADB3AMAWAEAXwABAQMAABtaAAAAAAEIAAAbWgAAAjWAAAAX AQMADwAPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAABt0AAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEhYAkAAAAdQA AABIAAACHAAAFgBYA9yq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq8EAAAAk AADBRnVsbGVyIHJhdGlvbmFsaXplcyB0aGlzIHN0YXRlbWVudCB3aXRoIHRo ZSBmYWN0cyBvZiBwaHlzaWNhbCBzY2llbmNlIGFuZCB1cmdlc7/cAAACANxz Y2llbnRpc3RzIHRvIG1ha2UgdGhlaXIgZmluZGluZ3MgZXhwbGljaXQu3AIA JgEAYAACAQUAABuEAAAAAAEWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQA SAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0NAGAAYAAwAGBtCr3AIAFAEAYQABAQYAABu4 AAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCrwNIEHsBTY2llbmNlcyBzZWxmlmFzc3Vt ZWQgcmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkgaGFzIGJlZW4gIHNlbGaWbGltaXRlZNwAAAIA 3HRvIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUgdG8gc29jaWV0eSBvbmx5IG9mIHRoZSBzZXBhcmF0 ZSwgc3VwcG9zZWRsedwAAAIA3HBoeXNpY2FsIChiZWNhdXNlIHNlcGFyYXRl bHkgd2VpZ2hhYmxlKSBhdG9taWPcAAACANxjb21wb25lbnQgaXNvbGF0aW9u cyBkYXRhLiAgU3luZXJnZXRpYyBpbnRlZ3JpdHkgd291bGTcAAACANxyZXF1 aXJlIHRoZSBzY2llbnRpc3RzIHRvIGFubm91bmNlIHRoYXQgaW4gcmVhbGl0 eSB3aGF0IGhhZNwAAAIA3GJlZW4gaWRlbnRpZmllZCBoZXJldG9mb3JlIGFz IHBoeXNpY2FsIGlzIGluaGVyZW50bHncAAACANxtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWyWlmJl Y2F1c2Ugc3luZXJnZXRpY2FsbHkgd2VpZ2h0bGVzcy4g3AAAAgDcTWV0YXBo eXNpY2FsIGhhcyBiZWVuIHNjaWVuY2XA1QQcwHMgZGVzaWduYXRpb24gZm9y IGFsbNwAAAIA3HdlaWdodGxlc3MgcGhlbm9tZW5hIHN1Y2ggYXMgdGhvdWdo dC4gIEJ1dCBzY2llbmNlIGhhc9wAAAIA3G1hZGUgbm8gZXhwZXJpbWVudGFs IGZpbmRpbmcgb2YgYW55IHBoZW5vbWVuYSB0aGF0IGNhbtwAAAIA3GJlIGRl c2NyaWJlZCBhcyBhIHNvbGlkLCBvciBhcyBhIGNvbnRpbnVvdXMgc3VyZmFj ZSBwbGFuZSwgb3LcAAACANxhcyBhIHN0cmFpZ2h0IGxpbmUsIG9yIGFzIGFu IGluZmluaXRlIGFueXRoaW5nLiAgV2UgYXJlIG5vd9wAAAIA3HN5bmVyZ2V0 aWNhbGx5IGZvcmNlZCB0byBjb25jbHVkZSB0aGF0IGFsbCBwaGVub21lbmEg YXJl3AAAAgDcbWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsOyB3aGVyZWZvcmUsIGFzIG1hbnkgaGF2 ZSBsb25nIHN1c3BlY3RlZJbcDAAQIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABAM3Gxpa2UgaXQg b3Igbm90lpZsaWZlIGlzIGJ1dCBhIGRyZWFtLi7A0wQfwMMLAcOs2wQAEqsp yJ0ADQZ7V1B9MTMAABIE28MLgcPYCAAKAAUAAAE1AAoI2MMLgMPDCwHDwwuB w9sAAAIA29YBAisFqynInQAAAAAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQAAAAAAAQABABEA ANwTADQWAEgAAAIcAAAASAAAAhwAABYXAAUAAAAFFx0AAAAAAAAAAB0iAAAA DgADABEAACIANBPc2wMAEqspyJ0AAAZ7V1B9MTAAABID29AEAByBAP+4AADu ACQAAP+BAP+4AADmACQAAP8AHATQ0QQAGgAAMgBLAH0AlgDIAAA8AFAAeACW AMgAGgTR0gwAG6spyJ0AAAAMACIAAAAMAAMGR2VuZXZhABsM0tINABurKcid AAAADAAiAAAADAADBkdlbmV2YQAbDdLTBQAUAAEANgAAAAEAAQA2AAAAAQAU BdPRAQAjqynInQADAAEAIgABEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAjAdHSDAAn qynInQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJwzS0g0AJ6sp yJ0AAAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACcN0tsAAAIA26rb AQASqynInQAOBntXUH0xNAAAEgHb0QEAJaspyJ0AIgABO88AABRCZXJuaGFy ZE1vZCBCVCBSb21hbgAlAdHRAgAIAAwADgAIAtHbAAACANur2AgACgAIAAAB NQAKCNguIEliaWQuLCB4eHhpLtwCACwBAAAADwABAAAAAAAAAAABAwAAAAAA AAAAAAADIgAAAA4AAwARAAAiACwC3AIrAdat3AIAPgEAYgAPARUAABvSAAAA AAEDAAAdPgAAAboAAAMWAJAAAAHUAAAASAAAAhwAABYiAAAADAABABoAACIA PgLcqtABABQAkAAAAJAAAABIAAAASAAAABQB0KvDC4DD3AIALAEAYwABARYA AB1YAAAAAAEDAAAdWAAAAdQAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIALALcwQAAACQAAMFU aGUgYXV0aG9yIHJlY29nbml6ZXMgdGhhdCBhbGwgwNIEHsB0aGluZ3PA0wQf wCBhcmUgbWFkZSBvZiBlbGVjdHJvlm1hZ25ldGljIHdhdmVzLCB0b9wAAAIA 3HRoZSBsaW1pdCBvZiAgbWVhc3VyaW5nIGNhcGFiaWxpdHkuICBXYXZlcyBh cmUgbWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsIHdlaWdodGxlc3MgcGF0dGVybnPcAAACANxkZXRl Y3RhYmxlIGJ5IHZpcnR1ZSBvZiBhIGRpc3BsYWNlZCBtZWRpdW0uICBXaGF0 IHdhcyBwcmV2aW91c2x5IGNvbnNpZGVyZWQsIGJ5IHRoZdwAAAIA3HNjaWVu dGlmaWMgZXN0YWJsaXNobWVudCwgYXMgYSDA0gQewHdlaWdodMDTBB/AIGlz IHJlYWxseSBhIHF1YW50aXR5IG9mIMDSBB7AZ3Jhdml0ecDTBB/ALiAgSWYg Z3Jhdml0eSBpcyBh3AEANggAAB3AAAACPAAAABcBGgAQABAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAEAAAAAHdoACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB3HByb2R1Y3Qgb2YgYWNjZWxlcmF0 aW9uLCB0aGVuIHdhdmVzIGhhdmUgZ3Jhdml0eSwgc2luY2UgdGhleSBoYXZl IGFjY2VsZXJhdGlvbi4gSWa/3AAAAgDcd2F2ZXMgYXJlIG1ldGFwaHlzaWNh bCB0aGVuIG1ldGFwaHlzaWNhbCBwaGVub21lbmEgbWF5IGhhdmUgZ3Jhdml0 eS7cAgAmAQBkAAYBHAAAHXIAAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAACQAAAB1AAAFgAmAtyq 0AEAFABIAAAASAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0KvcAgAUAQBlAAEB HQAAHh4AAAAAAQAUAtyq0AYABgMAAAYG0KvA0gQewFdoaWxlIGdyYXZpdHnA 1QQcwHMgZWZmZWN0cyBhcmUgcGh5c2ljYWxseSBtZWFzdXJhYmxlLCB0aGXc AAACANxjb25jZXB0IG9mIGdyYXZpdHkgaXMgaW4gaXRzZWxmIHVud2VpZ2hh YmxlLiAgTGlrZXdpc2UgdGhl3AAAAgDcZWZmZWN0cyBvZiBlbGVjdHJvbWFn bmV0aXNtIGFyZSBwaHlzaWNhbGx5IHdlaWdoYWJsZS4gIFRoZdwAAAIA3HBo eXNpY2lzdHMgaGF2ZSBydWxlZCBpbnRlbGxlY3R1YWxseSB0aGF0IGFsbCBp cyBpbXBvbmRlcmFibGXcAAACANxpcyBtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwuICBDbGVhcmx5 IGl0IGlzIHNlZW4gdGhhdCB0aGUgbWV0YXBoeXNpY2Fs3AAAAgDcaXMgdG8g dGhlIHBoeXNpY2FsIGFzIGFudGltYXR0ZXIgaXMgdG8gbWF0dGVyLCBpLmUu LCBhcyB0aGXcAAAQIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABAA3GVsZWN0cm9uIGlzIHRvIHRo ZSBwb3NpdHJvbi7A0wQfwMMLAcOs2wQAEqspyJ0ADQZ7V1B9MTMAABIE28ML gcPYCAAKAAUAAAE2AAoI2MMLgMPDCwHDwwuBw9sAAAIA29YBAloGqynInQAA AAAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQAAAAAAAQABABEAANwTADQWAEgAAAIcAAAASAAA AhwAABYXAAUAAAAFFx0AAAAAAAAAAB0iAAAADgADABEAACIANBPc2wMAEqsp yJ0AAAZ7V1B9MTAAABID29AEAByBAP+4AADuACQAAP+BAP+4AADmACQAAP8A HATQ0QQAGgAAMgBLAH0AlgDIAAA8AFAAeACWAMgAGgTR0gwAG6spyJ0AAAAM ACIAAAAMAAMGR2VuZXZhABsM0tINABurKcidAAAADAAiAAAADAADBkdlbmV2 YQAbDdLTBQAUAAEANgAAAAEAAQA2AAAAAQAUBdPRAQAjqynInQADAAEAIgAB Ek5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAjAdHSDAAnqynInQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJO ZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJwzS0g0AJ6spyJ0AAAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3 IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACcN0tsAAAIA26rbAQASqynInQAOBntXUH0xNAAA EgHb0QEAJaspyJ0AIgABO88AABRCZXJuaGFyZE1vZCBCVCBSb21hbgAlAdHR AgAIAAwADgAIAtHbAAACANur2AgACgAIAAABNgAKCNguICBSLiBCdWNrbWlu c3RlciBGdWxsZXIsIMMBAcNVdG9waWEgb3IgT2JsaXZpb27DAYDDLCBwLiAz MTEu3AIALAEAAAAHAAEAAAAAAAAAAAEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMiAAAADgADABEA ACIALALcAloB1q3cAgAsAQBmAAcBJAAAHjgAAAAAAQMAAB7UAAAA6gAAAyIA AAAMAAEAGgAAIgAsAtzMAqspuo3MwwuAw9wCAD4BAGcAAQElAAAe7gAAAAAB AwAAHu4AAAEEAAADFgCQAAAB1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiAD4C 3KrQAQAUAJAAAACQAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdCrwQAAACQAAMFGdXJ0aGVybW9y ZSB0aGUgdW5pdmVyc2UgaXRzZWxmIGlzIGEgbWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsIGVudGl0 eS4gIEFsbCDA0gQewHRoaW5nc8DTBB/A3AAAAgDcY29uc2lkZXJlZCB0aGUg dW5pdmVyc2UgaXMgYSB3ZWlnaHRsZXNzIHBoZW5vbWVub24uICBUaGUgYWJp bGl0eSBvZiB0aGUgdW5pdmVyc2UgdG8gYmXcAAACANxhcyBpdCBpcywgd2Vp Z2hhYmxlIGFuZCBtZWFzdXJhYmxlLCBhbmQgc3RpbGwgYmUgd2VpZ2h0bGVz cyBlbnRpdHkgaXMgcG9zc2libGUgYnkgdmlydHVl3AAAAgDcb2YgdGhlIHBy aW5jaXBsZSBvZiBOb25zaW11bHRhbmVpdHksIHdoaWNoIEkgd2lsbCBleHBs YWluIGxhdGVyIGluIHRoaXMgZXNzYXku3AIAJgEAaAAEASkAAB8IAAAAAAEW AEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQASAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB 0NAGAAYAAwAGBtCr3AIAFAEAaQABASoAAB9wAAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAG BtCrwNIEHsBUaGUgbW9zdCByZWNlbnQgc3RhdGVtZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgbGVh ZGluZyBzY2llbnRpc3RzIGhvbGTcAAACANx0aGF0IHRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9m IG9yaWdpbmFsIGNoYW9zIGlzIHVudGVuYWJsZSBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZdwAAAIA 3HBoeXNpY2FsIGNvbXBvc2l0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSB1bml2ZXJzZSBtYXkgbm90 IGJlIHJlZHVjZWQgdG/cAAACANxsZXNzIHRoYXQgdGhlIG9yZGVybHkgaW50 ZXJ0cmFuc2Zvcm1hYmlsaXR5IG9mIHRoZSBuZXV0cm9u3AAAAgDcYW5kIHRo ZSBwcm90b24gYW5kIHRoZWlyIHJlc3BlY3RpdmUgd2Vha5ZlZmZlY3QgbGVm dG5lc3PcDAACDNxhbmSWcmlnaHRuZXNzIGFkanVuY3RzIHRoZSBlbGVjdHJv biwgcG9zaXRyb247IG5ldXRyaW5vLNwAAAIA3GFudGluZXV0cmlub5aWdGhl IHBvc2l0aXZlIGFuZCBuZWdhdGl2ZSBjb3VudGVycGFydHPcAQA2CAAAICYA AAI8AAAAFwExABEAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAgQAAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIA NgHcaW5jbHVkaW5nIGJvdGggdGhlaXIgbmVnYXRpdmUgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBw b3NpdGl2ZSB3ZWlnaHRzLL/cAAACANxlcmdvOiAgdGhlIGF2ZXJhZ2Ugb2Yg YWxsIHdlaWdodCBvZiBhbGwgcGh5c2ljYWwgcGhlbm9tZW5hIGlz3AAAECIA AAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQANx6ZXJvLsDTBB/AwwsBw6zbBAASqynInQANBntXUH0x MwAAEgTbwwuBw9gIAAoABQAAATcACgjYwwuAw8MLAcPDC4HD2wAAAgDb1gEC MgerKcidAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAAAAAAABAAEAEQAA3BMANBYASAAA AhwAAABIAAACHAAAFhcABQAAAAUXHQAAAAAAAAAAHSIAAAAOAAMAEQAAIgA0 E9zbAwASqynInQAABntXUH0xMAAAEgPb0AQAHIEA/7gAAO4AJAAA/4EA/7gA AOYAJAAA/wAcBNDRBAAaAAAyAEsAfQCWAMgAADwAUAB4AJYAyAAaBNHSDAAb qynInQAAAAwAIgAAAAwAAwZHZW5ldmEAGwzS0g0AG6spyJ0AAAAMACIAAAAM AAMGR2VuZXZhABsN0tMFABQAAQA2AAAAAQABADYAAAABABQF09EBACOrKcid AAMAAQAiAAESTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACMB0dIMACerKcidAAAADAAD AAAADAAiEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAnDNLSDQAnqynInQAAAAwAAwAA AAwAIhJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJw3S2wAAAgDbqtsBABKrKcidAA4G e1dQfTE0AAASAdvRAQAlqynInQAiAAE7zwAAFEJlcm5oYXJkTW9kIEJUIFJv bWFuACUB0dECAAgADAAOAAgC0dsAAAIA26vYCAAKAAgAAAE3AAoI2C4gIEli aWQuLCBwcC4gMzExljEyLtwCACwBAAAACgABAAAAAAAAAAABAwAAAAAAAAAA AAADIgAAAA4AAwARAAAiACwC3AIyAdatwwuAw9wCAD4BAGoACgE0AAAfigAA AAABAwAAIIQAAAA0AAADFgCQAAAB1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAi AD4C3KrQAQAUAJAAAACQAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdCr3AIAFAEAawABATUAACCe AAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFUaGVyZSBpcyBhIMDSBB7AdHdpbGlnaHQgem9u ZcDTBB/AIHRocmVzaG9sZCBiZXR3ZWVuIHdoYXQgaXMgbm9ybWFsbHkgY29u c2lkZXJlZNwAAAIA3HBoeXNpY2FsIGFuZCB3aGF0IGlzIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQg bWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsLiAgVGhpcyB0aHJlc2hvbGQgb2YgdW5jZXJ0YWludHkg aXMgbm903AAAAgDcdW5saWtlIHRoZSBhbWJpZ3VvdXMgdGhyZXNob2xkIGJl dHdlZW4gYW5pbWF0ZSBhbmQgaW5hbmltYXRlIG1hdGVyaWFsLiAgQdwAAAIA 3GRpZ3Jlc3Npb24gaW50byB0aGUgdGhlb3J5IG9mIHRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNl IGJldHdlZW4gcGh5c2ljYWwgYW5kIG1ldGFwaHlzaWNhbC7cAgAUAQBsAAQB OQAAILgAAAAAAQAUAtzcAgAmAQBtAAEBOgAAISAAAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAACQ AAAB1AAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFABIAAAASAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQq8DSBB7AVGhl IHN1cHBvc2VkIGxvY2F0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSB0aHJlc2hvbGQgYmV0d2VlbiBh bmltYXRl3AAAAgDcYW5kIGluYW5pbWF0ZSB3YXMgbWV0aG9kaWNhbGx5IG5h cnJvd2VkIGRvd24gYnncAAACANxleHBlcmltZW50YWwgc2NpZW5jZSB1bnRp bCBpdCB3YXMgbWV0aG9kaWNhbGx5IG5hcnJvd2Vk3AAAAgDcZG93biBieSBl eHBlcmltZW50YWwgc2NpZW5jZSB1bnRpbCBpdCB3YXMgY29udGFpbmVk3AAA AgDcc3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5IHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgZG9tYWluIG9mIHZpcm9sb2d5 LiAgVmlyb2xvZ2lzdHMgaGF2ZdwAAAIA3GJlZW4gdG8gYnVzeSwgZm9yIGlu c3RhbmNlLCB3aXRoIEROQZZSTkEgZ2VuZXRpYyBjb2Rl3AAAAgDcaXNvbGF0 aW5ncywgdG8gZmluZCB0aGUgdGltZSB0byBzZWUgdGhlIHN5bmVyZ2V0aWMg c2lnbmlmaWNhbmNl3AAAAgDcdG8gc29jaWV0eSBvZiB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0 IHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBmb3VuZCBubyBwaHlzaWNhbNwAAAIA3HRocmVzaG9sZCBk b2VzIGluIGZhY3QgZXhpc3QgYmV0d2VlbiBhbmltYXRlIGFuZNwAAAIA3Glu YW5pbWF0ZS4gIFRoZSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSBvZiBpdHMgZXhpc3RlbmNlIHZh bmlzaGVk3AAAAgDcYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgc3VwcG9zZWRseSB1bmlxdWUgcGh5 c2ljYWwgcXVhbGl0aWVzIG9mIGJvdGjcAAACANxhbmltYXRlIGFuZCBpbmFu aW1hdGUgaGF2ZSBwZXJzaXN0ZWQgcmlnaHQgYWNyb3Nz3AAAAgDceWVzdGVy ZGF5wNUEHMBzIHN1cHBvc2VkIHRocmVzaG9sZCBpbiBib3RoIGRpcmVjdGlv bnMgdG/cAAACANxwZXJtZWF0ZSBvbmUgYW5vdGhlcsDVBBzAc5aWcHJldmlv dXNseSBwZXJjZWl2ZWQgdG8gYmXcAQA2CAAAIowAAAI8AAAAFwFIABIAEgAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAipgAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIANgHcZXhjbHVzaXZllpZk b21haW5zLiAgU3Vic2VxdWVudGx5LCB3aGF0IHdhcyBhbmltYXRlIGhhc7/c AAACANxiZWNvbWUgZm9nZ2llciBhbmQgZm9nZ2llciBhbmQgd2hhdCBpcyBp bmFuaW1hdGUgY2xlYXJlctwAAAIA3GFuZCBjbGVhcmVyLiAgQWxsIG9yZ2Fu aXNtcyBjb25zaXN0IHBoeXNpY2FsbHkgYW5kIGVudGlyZWx53AAAAgDcb2Yg aW5oZXJlbnRseSBpbmFuaW1hdGUgYXRvbXMuICBUaGUgaW5hbmltYXRlIGFs b25lIGlzIG5vdNwAAAIA3G9ubHkgb21uaXByZXNlbnQgYnV0IGlzIGFsb25l IGV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbGx53AAAAgDcZGVtb25zdHJhYmxlLiAgQmVsYXRlZCBu ZXdzIG9mIHRoZSBlbGltaW5hdGlvbiBvZiB0aGlz3AAAAgDcdGhyZXNob2xk IG11c3QgYmUgaW50ZXJwcmV0ZWQgdG8gbWVhbiB0aGF0IHdoYXRldmVyIGxp ZmXcAAACANxtYXkgYmUsIGl0IGhhcyBub3QgYmVlbiBpc29sYXRlZCBhbmQg dGhlcmVieSBpZGVudGlmaWVkIGFz3AAAAgDccmVzaWR1YWwgaW4gdGhlIGJp b2xvZ2ljYWwgY2VsbCwgYXMgaGFkIGJlZW4gc3VwcG9zZWQgYnkgdGhl3AAA AgDcZmFsc2UgYXNzdW1wdGlvbiB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdhcyBhIHNlcGFyYXRl IHBoeXNpY2Fs3AAAAgDccGhlbm9tZW5vbiBjYWxsZWQgYW5pbWF0ZSB3aXRo aW4gd2hpY2ggbGlmZSBleGlzdGVkLiAgTm/cAAACANxsaWZlIHBlciBzZSBo YXMgYmVlbiBpc29sYXRlZC4gIFRoZSB0aHJlc2hvbGQgYmV0d2VlbtwAABAi AAAACgADABoAACIAEADcYW5pbWF0ZSBhbmQgaW5hbmltYXRlIGhhcyB2YW5p c2hlZC7A0wQfwMMLAcOs2wQAEqspyJ0ADQZ7V1B9MTMAABIE28MLgcPYCAAK AAUAAAE4AAoI2MMLgMPDCwHDwwuBw9sAAAIA29YBAlAIqynInQAAAAAACAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAEQAAAAAAAQABABEAANwTADQWAEgAAAIcAAAASAAAAhwAABYX AAUAAAAFFx0AAAAAAAAAAB0iAAAADgADABEAACIANBPc2wMAEqspyJ0AAAZ7 V1B9MTAAABID29AEAByBAP+4AADuACQAAP+BAP+4AADmACQAAP8AHATQ0QQA GgAAMgBLAH0AlgDIAAA8AFAAeACWAMgAGgTR0gwAG6spyJ0AAAAMACIAAAAM AAMGR2VuZXZhABsM0tINABurKcidAAAADAAiAAAADAADBkdlbmV2YQAbDdLT BQAUAAEANgAAAAEAAQA2AAAAAQAUBdPRAQAjqynInQADAAEAIgABEk5ldyBD ZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAjAdHSDAAnqynInQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJOZXcgQ2Vu dHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJwzS0g0AJ6spyJ0AAAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3IENlbnR1 cnkgU2NobGJrACcN0tsAAAIA26rbAQASqynInQAOBntXUH0xNAAAEgHb0QEA JaspyJ0AIgABO88AABRCZXJuaGFyZE1vZCBCVCBSb21hbgAlAdHRAgAIAAwA DgAIAtHbAAACANur2AgACgAIAAABOAAKCNguICBSLiBCdWNrbWluc3RlciBG dWxsZXIsIMMBAcNTeW5lcmdldGljc8MBgMMsIHh4eC7cAgAsAQAAABsAAQAA AAAAAAAAAQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyIAAAAOAAMAEQAAIgAsAtwCUAHWrcMLgMPc AgA+AQBuABsBVQAAIToAAAAAAQMAACPuAAABOAAAAxYAkAAAAdQAAABIAAAC HAAAFiIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgA+Atyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQ q9wCABQBAG8AAQFWAAAkCAAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBV2hhdCBpcyBsZWFy bmVkIGZyb20gdGhlIGRpc2FwcGVhcmFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHRocmVzaG9sZCBi ZXR3ZWVuIGFuaW1hdGUgYW5k3AAAAgDcaW5hbmltYXRlIGlzIHRoYXQgYWxs IGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsIG1hdHRlcpZlbmVyZ3kgaGFzIGEgbGltaXRlZCBjb25z Y2lvdXNuZXNzlpYxLiBhLtwAAAIA3EhhdmluZyBhbiBhd2FyZW5lc3Mgb2Yg b25lcyBvd24gZXhpc3RlbmNlLCBzZW5zYXRpb25zLCBhbmQgdGhvdWdodHMs IGFuZCBvZiBvbmVz3AAAAgDcb3duIGVudmlyb25tZW50LiAgYi4gQ2FwYWJs ZSBvZiBjb21wbGV4IHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIHRoZSBlbnZpcm9ubWVudC7cAgAU AQBwAAQBWgAAJCIAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwUVudmlyb25tZW50LCBpbiBh IGNvbXByZWhlbnNpdmUgc2Vuc2UsIGlzIHRoZSB1bml2ZXJzZSzcAgAmAQBx AAEBWwAAJIoAAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAACQAAAB1AAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFABIAAAA SAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0KvcAgAUAQByAAEBXAAAJKQAAAAA AQAUAtzA0gQewFVuaXZlcnNlIHRvIGVhY2ggbXVzdCBiZSDcAgAUAQBzAAEB XQAAJL4AAAAAAQAUAtwgYWxsIHRoYXQgaXMsIGluY2x1ZGluZyBtZS7cAgAg AQB0AAEBXgAAJNgAAAAAASIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAgAtwgRW52aXJvbm1lbnQg aW4gdHVybiBtdXN0IGJlINwDAF4BAHUAAQFfAAAk8gAAAAABAwAAJPIAAAI8 AAADCAAAJPIAAAI8AAAAFwFfABMAEwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAlDAAICxIA EAAAAHoAABIiAAAACgADABoAACIAXgPcIGFsbCB0aGF0IGlzLCBleGNlcHRp bmcgbWUuwNMEH8DDCwHDrNsEABKrKcidAA0Ge1dQfTEzAAASBNvDC4HD2AgA CgAFAAABOQAKCNjDC4DDwwsBw8MLgcPbAAACANvWAQIvCaspyJ0AAAAAAAkA AAAAAAAAAAAAABEAAAAAAAEAAQARAADcEwA0FgBIAAACHAAAAEgAAAIcAAAW FwAFAAAABRcdAAAAAAAAAAAdIgAAAA4AAwARAAAiADQT3NsDABKrKcidAAAG e1dQfTEwAAASA9vQBAAcgQD/uAAA7gAkAAD/gQD/uAAA5gAkAAD/ABwE0NEE ABoAADIASwB9AJYAyAAAPABQAHgAlgDIABoE0dIMABurKcidAAAADAAiAAAA DAADBkdlbmV2YQAbDNLSDQAbqynInQAAAAwAIgAAAAwAAwZHZW5ldmEAGw3S 0wUAFAABADYAAAABAAEANgAAAAEAFAXT0QEAI6spyJ0AAwABACIAARJOZXcg Q2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAIwHR0gwAJ6spyJ0AAAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3IENl bnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACcM0tINACerKcidAAAADAADAAAADAAiEk5ldyBDZW50 dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAnDdLbAAACANuq2wEAEqspyJ0ADgZ7V1B9MTQAABIB29EB ACWrKcidACIAATvPAAAUQmVybmhhcmRNb2QgQlQgUm9tYW4AJQHR0QIACAAM AA4ACALR2wAAAgDbq9gIAAoACAAAATkACgjYLiAgSWJpZC4sIDEwMC4wMTIu 3AIALAEAAAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMiAAAADgADABEAACIA LALcAi8B1q3DC4DDv9wCACwBAHYAAQFgAAAlHAAAAAABAwAAJRwAAAAAAAAD IgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiACwC3KrQBgAGAwAABgbQq8EAAAAkAADB3AIAJgEAdwAB AWEAACU2AAAAAAEWAJAAAAHUAAAASAAAAhwAABYAJgLcqtABABQAkAAAAJAA AABIAAAASAAAABQB0KtJdHphayBCZW50b3YsIGluIGhpcyBib29rIMMCAcNT dGFsa2luZyB0aGUgV2lsZCBQZW5kdWx1bcMCgMMsIGRlZmluZXMgY29uc2Np b3VzbmVzcyBhdCBpdHPcAAACANxtaW5pbXVtIGxpbWl0LtwCACYBAHgAAgFj AAAlUAAAAAABFgBIAAACHAAAAJAAAAHUAAAWACYC3KrQAQAUAEgAAABIAAAA kAAAAJAAAAAUAdDQBgAGAAMABgbQq9wCABQBAHkAAQFkAAAlhAAAAAABABQC 3KrQBgAGAwAABgbQq8DSBB7ATGV0IHVzIGRlZmluZSDA1AQbwGNvbnNjaW91 c25lc3PA1QQcwCBpbiB0aGUgc2ltcGxlc3QgcG9zc2libGXcAAACANx0ZXJt cy4gIFdlIGNhbiBzYXkgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyB0aGUgY2FwYWNpdHkgb2YgYSBz eXN0ZW0gdG/cAAACANxyZXNwb25kIHRvIHN0aW11bGkuICBUaGlzIHN5c3Rl bSBtYXkgYWxzbyBiZSBhIG5lcnZvdXPcAAACANxzeXN0ZW0sIG5vIG1hdHRl ciBob3cgc2ltcGxlLiAgU3VwcG9zZSB3ZSBzdGltdWxhdGUgYW7cAAACANxh dG9tIGJ5IGFwcGx5aW5nIHVsdHJhdmlvbGV0IGxpZ2h0IG9yIG90aGVyIGVs ZWN0cm9tYWduZXRpY9wAAAIA3HJhZGlhdGlvbiB0byBpdC4gIE9uZSBvciBt b3JlIG9mIHRoZSBlbGVjdHJvbnMgbWF5IGdldNwAAAIA3GV4Y2l0ZWQgYW5k IHJlc3BvbmQgYnkganVtcGluZyBpbnRvIGEgaGlnaGVyIG9yYml0IGZhcnRo ZXLcAAACANxhd2F5IGZyb20gdGhlIG51Y2xldXMuICBXaGVuIHdlIHJlbW92 ZSB0aGlzIHN0aW11bHVzLNwAAAIA3HRoZXNlIGVsZWN0cm9ucyBtYXkgZHJv cCBiYWNrIGludG8gdGhlaXIgcHJldmlvdXMgb3JiaXRz3AAAAgDcYW5kIGVt aXQgcGhvdG9ucyBvZiBhIGNlcnRhaW4gZW5lcmd5IG9mIGZyZXF1ZW5jeSBp biB0aGXcAAACANxwcm9jZXNzLiAgQnkgYXBwbHlpbmcgZGlmZmVyZW50IHN0 aW11bGksIHdlIHNoYWxsIGVsaWNpdNwAAAIA3GRpZmZlcmVudCByZXNwb25z ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGlzIHN5c3RlbS7cAgAUAQB6AAwBcAAAJZ4AAAAAAQAUAtzB AAAAJAAAwcDSBB7AV2UgbWF5IGF0IGZpcnN0IGhhdmUgdHJvdWJsZSB0cnlp bmcgdG8gdmlzdWFsaXplIGHcAAACANxyb2NrIG1heSBhbHNvIGhhdmUgZGlm ZmljdWx0eSBpbiB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIGh1bWFu3AAAAgDcY29uc2Npb3Vz bmVzcy4gIEF0IHByZXNlbnQgd2UgcmVzdHJpY3QgdGhlIHRlcm0gwNIEHsBs aXZpbmfcAAACANxiZWluZ3PA0wQfwCB0byBiZWluZ3MgdGhhdCBjYW4gcmVw cm9kdWNlLiAgVGhpcywgSSBiZWxpZXZlLCBpc9wAAAIA3HF1aXRlIGFyYml0 cmFyeS4gIFdlIHNlZW0gdG8gcHJvamVjdCBvdXIgb3duIGJlaGF2aW9yIG9u dG/cAAACANxvdGhlciBzeXN0ZW1zLCBieSBzYXlpbmcgdGhhdCBzdGFydGlu ZyBmcm9tIHRoZSBhdG9tIGFuZNwBADYIAAAnWAAAAjwAAAAXAXYAFAAUAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAACdyAAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2Adxnb2luZyB0byBsYXJn ZXIgYWdncmVnYXRlcyB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyDA0gQewGxpZmXA0wQfwCwgYW5k IHRoZW6/3AAAAgDcc3VkZGVubHksIHdoZW4gdGhlIGFnZ3JlZ2F0ZXMgb2Yg YXRvbXMgaGF2ZSByZWFjaGVkIGHcAAACANxjZXJ0YWluIGxldmVsIG9mIG9y Z2FuaXphdGlvbiwgwNQEG8BsaWZlwNUEHMAgYXBwZWFycywgYmVjYXVzZSB3 ZdwAAAIA3HJlY29nbml6ZSBvdXIgb3duIGJlaGF2aW9yIGluIGl0LiAgTXkg YmFzaWMgcHJlbWlzZSBpcyB0aGF03AAAAgDcY29uc2Npb3VzbmVzcyByZXNp ZGVzIGluIGFsbCBtYXR0ZXI7IHB1dCBhbm90aGVyIHdheSwgYWxs3AAAAgDc bWFzcyAobWF0dGVyKSBjb250YWlucyBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIChvciBsaWZl KSB0byBhIGdyZWF0ZXLcAAACANxvciBsZXNzZXIgZXh0ZW50LiAgSXQgbWF5 IGJlIHJlZmluZWQgb3IgcHJpbWl0aXZlLiAgV2UgaHVtYW7cAAACANxiZWlu Z3MgYXJlIHNvIGRlc2lnbmVkIHRoYXQgd2hlbiBwcm9wZXJseSB0cmFpbmVk IHdlIGNhbtwAAAIA3GludGVyIGFjdCB3aXRoIGFueXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgaGFz IGNvbnNjaW91c25lc3Mgb27cAAAQIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABAA3HdoYXRldmVy IGxldmVsLsDTBB/AwwsBw6zbBAASqynInQANBntXUH0xMwAAEgTbwwuBw9gI AAsACgAAAjEwAAsI2MMLgMPDCwHDwwuBw9sAAAIA29YBAjIKqynInQAAAAAA CgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQAAAAAAAQABABEAANwTADQWAEgAAAIcAAAASAAAAhwA ABYXAAUAAAAFFx0AAAAAAAAAAB0iAAAADgADABEAACIANBPc2wMAEqspyJ0A AAZ7V1B9MTAAABID29AEAByBAP+4AADuACQAAP+BAP+4AADmACQAAP8AHATQ 0QQAGgAAMgBLAH0AlgDIAAA8AFAAeACWAMgAGgTR0gwAG6spyJ0AAAAMACIA AAAMAAMGR2VuZXZhABsM0tINABurKcidAAAADAAiAAAADAADBkdlbmV2YQAb DdLTBQAUAAEANgAAAAEAAQA2AAAAAQAUBdPRAQAjqynInQADAAEAIgABEk5l dyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAjAdHSDAAnqynInQAAAAwAAwAAAAwAIhJOZXcg Q2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAJwzS0g0AJ6spyJ0AAAAMAAMAAAAMACISTmV3IENl bnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACcN0tsAAAIA26rbAQASqynInQAOBntXUH0xNAAAEgHb 0QEAJaspyJ0AIgABO88AABRCZXJuaGFyZE1vZCBCVCBSb21hbgAlAdHRAgAI AAwADgAIAtHbAAACANur2AgACwAQAAACMTAACwjYLiAgQmVudG92LCBwcC43 N5Y3OC7cAgAsAQAAABAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyIAAAAOAAMA EQAAIgAsAtwCMgHWrcMLgMPcAgA+AQB7ABABgAAAJtYAAAAAAQMAAChsAAAA 6gAAAxYAkAAAAdQAAABIAAACHAAAFiIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgA+Atyq0AEAFACQ AAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq9wCABQBAHwAAQGBAAAohgAAAAABABQC3MEA AAAkAADBSGlnaGVyIG9yZGVyIGFuaW1hdGUgb2JqZWN0cyBhcmUgYSBzeW5l cmdldGljIGNvbWJpbmF0aW9uIG5vdCBvbmx5IG9mIGF0b21z3AAAAgDcYW5k IG1vbGVjdWxlcyBpbiB0aGUgcGh5c2ljYWwgc2Vuc2UsIGJ1dCB0aGV5IGFy ZSBhIHN5bmVyZ2V0aWMgY29tYmluYXRpb24gb2bcAAACANxjb25zY2lvdXNu ZXNzLiAgTGltaXRlZCBhdG9taWNhbCBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzIGNhbm5vdCBi ZSBhcmJpdHJhcmlseSBoZWFwZWTcAAAQIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABAA3HRvZ2V0 aGVyIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgZ3JlYXRlciBjb25zY2lvdXNuZXNzLCB0aGV5IG11 c3QgYmUgwwEBw2NvbWJpbmVkwwGAwyBpbiBh3AAAHAMAACjuAAABbAAAAyIA AAAKAAMAGgAAIgAcANxjb21wcmVoZW5zaXZlIGFuZCB0ZWxlb2xvZ2ljIHNl bnNlIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSB3aG9sZSB0aGF0IGlzIGdyZWF0 ZXIgdGhhbtwAAAIA3Gl0cyBwYXJ0cy7cAgAUAQB9AAYBhwAAKKAAAAAAAQAU AtzBAAAAJAAAwVRoZSBzaXR1YXRpb24sIG9mIHRoZSBkaXNhcHBlYXJhbmNl IG9mIG1lYW5pbmcgZm9yIHRoZSB3b3JkIGluYW5pbWF0ZSwgaXMgdmVyedwA AAIA3G11Y2ggdGhlIHNhbWUgc2l0dWF0aW9uIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHdvcmRz IHBoeXNpY2FsIGFuZCBtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwuICBUaGUgdGVybdwAAAIA3HBo eXNpY2FsIGlzIG9ubHkgYSBsaW5ndWlzdGljYWwgY29udmVuaWVuY2UgdGhh dCByZXByZXNlbnRzIHdoYXQgaXMgaGVyZXRvZm9yZdwAAAIA3GVtcGlyaWNh bGx5IG1lYXN1cmFibGUuICBUaGVyZSBpcyByZWFsbHkgb25lIHNwZWN0cnVt IG9mIGFuaW1hdGUgbWV0YXBoeXNpY3MuINwAAAIA3FRoaW5ncyBvbiBlaXRo ZXIgZW5kIG9mIHRoZSBzcGVjdHJ1bSBvZiBhbmltYXRlIG1ldGFwaHlzaWNz LiAgVGhpbmdzICBvbiBlaXRoZXIgZW5k3AAAAgDcb2YgdGhlIHNwZWN0cnVt IHN0YW5kIG91dCBhcyBiZWluZyBtdXR1YWxseSBleGNsdXNpdmUuICBCdXQg YXMgd2UgbW92ZSB0b3dhcmQgdGhl3AEANggAACm+AAACPAAAABcBjQAVABUA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAKdgACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB3GNlbnRlciBvZiBv dXIgc3BlY3RydW0gZnJvbSBib3RoIGVuZHMgd2Ugc2VlIHRoYXQgdGhleSBh cmUgZnVuZGFtZW50YWxseSBpZGVudGljYWwuIL/cAAACANxQaHlzaWNhbCBh bmQgbWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsIGFyZSB0aGUgb3Bwb3NpdGUgcG9sZSBvZiBvbmUg YW5vdGhlci4gIEVhY2ggZW5k3AAAAgDcZW1waGFzaXplcyBvbmUgc2V0IG9m IHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgYXNwZWN0cy7cAgAUAQB+AAkBkAAAKTwAAAAAAQAUAtzB AAAAJAAAwVRoZSBlbGVjdHJvbWFnbmV0aWMgc3BlY3RydW0gaXMgYW5vdGhl ciBzY2VuYXJpbyB0aGF0IGlzIHZlcnkgc2ltaWxhciB0byB0aGXcAAACANxz Y2VuYXJpb3Mgb2YgYW5pbWF0ZSBhbmQgaW5hbmltYXRlLCBwaHlzaWNhbCBh bmQgbWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsLiAgV2UgaGF2ZSBsaWdodCBvbtwAAAIA3G9uZSBl bmQgYW5kIHNvdW5kIG9uIHRoZSBvdGhlci4gIE9uIHRoZSBzdXJmYWNlLCB0 aGV5IGFyZSBhcHBhcmVudGx5IGRpZmZlcmVudCwgYnV03AAAAgDcdXBvbiBm dXJ0aGVyIGludmVzdGlnYXRpb24gd2UgZGlzY292ZXIgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGFy ZSBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGx5IGlkZW50aWNhbC4gIFRoZXncAAACANxhcmUgZW5l cmd5IHdhdmVzIG9wZXJhdGluZyBhdCB2YXJ5aW5nIGZyZXF1ZW5jaWVzIGFu ZCBhdCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdmVsb2NpdGllcy4gIEncAAACANxwcm9nbm9zdGlj YXRlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRocmVlIHNjZW5hcmlvcyBhbmltYXRllmluYW5pbWF0 ZSwgcGh5c2ljYWyWbWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsLNwAAAIA3GFuZCBsaWdodJZzb3Vu ZCBjYW4gYmUgcmVwcmVzZW50ZWQgb24gdGhlIHNhbWUgc3BlY3RydW0u3AIA FAEAfwAHAZcAACo2AAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFXZSBoYXZlIHRoaXMgYnJv YWQgc3BlY3RydW0gb2YgYW5pbWF0ZSBtZXRhcGh5c2ljYWwgZW50aXRpZXMu ICBPbiB0aGlz3AAAAgDcc3BlY3RydW0gdGhlcmUgYXJlIHR3byBnZW5lcmFs IHR5cGVzIG9mIHBoZW5vbWVuYSwgZ2VuZXJhbGl6YXRpb24gYW5kIHNwZWNp YWwgY2FzZS4g3AAAAgDcR2VuZXJhbGl6ZSBtZWFucywgwNIEHsBUbyByZWR1 Y2UgdG8gYSBnZW5lcmFsIGZvcm0sIGNsYXNzLCBvciBsYXcuwNMEH8AgIE1v cmUgc3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5LCBh3AAAAgDcZ2VuZXJhbGl6YXRpb24gaXMgYSBz dGF0ZW1lbnQgdGhhdCBjYW4gYmUgc2FpZCB0byBiZSB0cnVlIGZvciBldmVy eSBzcGVjaWFslmNhc2XcAAACANxrbm93biwgYnV0IHVzdWFsbHkgYSBnZW5l cmFsaXphdGlvbiBpcyB1c2VkIHdpdGhpbiBhIGNlcnRhaW4gY29udGV4dCwg d2l0aG91dNwAAAIA3GV4Y2VwdGlvbi4gIFRoYXQgaXMsIGEgdGV0cmFoZWRy b24gaXMgYm90aCBhICBnZW5lcmFsaXphdGlvbiBhbmQgYSBzcGVjaWFsIGNh c2UuICBB3AAAAgDcdGV0cmFoZWRyb24gaXMgYSB0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiBpbmRl cGVuZGVudCBvZiBzaXplIGFuZCwgb3IgbWVkaXVtLCB3aGljaCBtYWtlcyBh 3AAAAgDcdGV0cmFoZWRyb24gYSBnZW5lcmFsaXphdGlvbi4gIEEgdGFjdGls ZSB0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiwgaG93ZXZlciwgaXMgYSBzcGVjaWFsIGNhc2Uu3AIA FAEAgAAIAZ8AACrsAAAAAAEAFALcV2hlbiB3ZSBzcGVhayBhYm91dCB0ZXRy YWhlZHJvbiAoeCksIHdlIGFyZSBzcGVha2luZyBhYm91dCBhIHRldHJhaGVk cm9uIGlu3AAAAgDcZ2VuZXJhbGl6YXRpb24uICBCdXQgd2hlbiB3ZSBhcmUg c3BlYWtpbmcgYWJvdXQgwNIEHsB0aGF0IHRldHJhaGVkcm9uwNMEH8AsIGEg c3BlY2lmaWMsIHBvaW503AwAAgzcdG+WYWJsZSBtb2RlbCB0aGF0IHlvdSBo b2xkIHRoZXJlIGluIHlvdXIgaGFuZCwgd2UgYXJlIHNwZWFraW5nIGFib3V0 IGEgdGV0cmFoZWRyb27cAAACANxpbiB0aGUgc3BlY2lhbCBjYXNlLtwCABQB AIEABAGjAAArvAAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBVGhlIHRlcm0gwNIEHsBzcGVj aWFsIGNhc2XA0wQfwCByZWZlcnMgdG8gYSBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIGluc3RhbmNl IG9mIGFuIGV2ZW50ltwNADYIAAAsJAAAAjwAAAAXAaQAFgAWAAAAAAAAAAAA AAABAAAAACw+AAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2DdxCdWNrbWluc3RlciBGdWxsZXIg Y2FsbGVkIHRoYXQgYSDA0gQewHBvaW50lnRvlmFibGXA0wQfwC4gIEluIG90 aGVyIHdvcmRzLCBJIGNhbiB1c2UgdGhlIHRlcm2/3AAAAgDcY2FyIGFzIGEg Z2VuZXJhbGl6YXRpb24sIG9yIEkgY2FuIHNob3cgeW91IGEgY2FylpZJIGNh biBwb2ludCB0byBpdC4gIEEgc3BlY2lhbCBjYXNlIGlz3AAAAgDcYWx3YXlz IHVuaXF1ZSwgZG93biB0byBldmVyeSBsYXN0IHF1YW50dW0gcGFydGljbGUu ICBUaGVyZSBhcmUgbm8gc3BlY2lhbCBjYXNlcyB0aGF03AAAAgDcYXJlIGxp a2UgYW55IG90aGVyIHNwZWNpYWwgY2FzZXMuICBJIGNhbiBoYXZlIHR3byBj YXJzIG9mIHRoZSBzYW1lIG1ha2UsIG1vZGVsIGFuZNwAABAiAAAACgADABoA ACIAEADcbnVtYmVyIHBhcmtlZCBuZXh0IHRvIG9uZSBhbm90aGVyLCBidXQg Y2xlYXJseSB0aGV5IGFyZSBub3QgdGhlIMMBAcNzYW1lIMMBgMNjYXIsIGV4 Y2VwdCBpbtwAABwDAAAstgAAAGgAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIAHADcdGhlIGdl bmVyYWxpemVkIHNlbnNlLtwCABQBAIIABwGqAAAsJAAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAk AADBU2luY2UgSSBoYXZlIGFscmVhZHkgZWxpbWluYXRlZCB0aGUgdGVybSDA 0gQewHBoeXNpY2FswNMEH8AgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBpcyByZWFsaXN0aWNhbGx5 3AAAAgDcbWVhbmluZ2xlc3MsIHRoZSB0ZXJtIHNwZWNpYWwgY2FzZSBjYW4g YmUgc3Vic3RpdHV0ZWQgZm9yIGFueSBjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2Ugd2hlbiB3ZdwA AAIA3G1heSBiZSBpbmNsaW5lZCB0byB1c2UgdGhlIHRlcm0gwNIEHsBwaHlz aWNhbMDTBB/ALtwCABQBAIMAAwGtAAAs6gAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBVGFr aW5nIGludmVudG9yeSBvZiB0aGUgd29yZHMgSSBoYXZlIGVsaW1pbmF0ZWQg ZnJvbSB0aGUgdm9jYWJ1bGFyeSBvZiB0aGlz3AAAAgDcZXNzYXk6ICBJIGhh dmUgZWxpbWluYXRlZCBwaHlzaWNhbCBhbmQgaW5hbmltYXRlIGFuZCBoYXZl IHN1YnN0aXR1dGVkIHNwZWNpYWwgY2FzZdwAAAIA3GZvciB0aGUgdGVybSBw aHlzaWNhbCBhbmQgaGF2ZSBtYWRlIHRoZSB0ZXJtcyBnZW5lcmFsaXphdGlv biBhbmQgbWV0YXBoeXNpY2Fs3AAAAgDcZXF1aXZhbGVudCBpbiBtZWFuaW5n LtwCACYBAIQABAGxAAAtOAAAAAABFgBIAAACHAAAAJAAAAHUAAAWACYC3KrQ AQAUAEgAAABIAAAAkAAAAJAAAAAUAdDQBgAGAAMABgbQq9wCABQBAIUAAQGy AAAtoAAAAAABABQC3KrQBgAGAwAABgbQqzEwMjMuMTAgIFN5c3RlbWF0aWMg RW5jbG9zdXJl3AIAFAEAhgABAbMAAC26AAAAAAEAFALcMTAyMy4xMSAgSWYg d2UgZ2V0IHRvbyBzZW1hbnRpY2FsbHkgaW5jaXNpdmUsIHRoZSByZWFkZXLc AAACANxtYXkgbG9zZSBhbGwgY29ubmVjdGlvbiB3aXRoIGFueXRoaW5nIGhl IGhhcyBldmVyIHRob3VnaHTcAAACANxiZWZvcmUuICBUaGF0IG1pZ2h0IG5v dCBiZSBhIGdyZWF0IGxvc3MuICBCdXQgd2UgYXNzdW1l3AAAAgDcdGhhdCB0 aGUgcmVhZGVyIGNhbiBjb3BlIHdpdGggaGlzIHJlZmxleGVzIGFuZCBtYWtl 3AAAAgDcY29ubmVjdGlvbnMgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgb2xkIHdvcmRzIGFuZCBu ZXcgY29uY2VwdHMgd2l0aNwAAAIA3HRoZSBuZXcgbW9yZSBhcHQgd29yZHMu ICBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgc2luY2UgcGh5c2ljcyBoYXPcAAACANxmb3VuZCBu byBjb250aW51dW1zLCB3ZSBoYXZlIGhhcyB0byBjbGVhciB1cCB3aGF0IHdl 3AAAAgDcbWVhbiBieSBzcGhlcmUuICBJdCBpcyBub3QgYSBzdXJmYWNlOyBp dCBpcyBhIG4gYWdncmVnYXRlIG9m3AEANggAAC6KAAACPAAAABcBuwAXABcA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAALqQACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB3GV2ZW50cyBpbiBj bG9zZSBwcm94aW1pdHkuICBJdCBpc27A1QQcwHQganVzdCBmdWxsIG9mIGhv bGVzOiBpdCBkb2VzbsDVBBzAdL/cAAACANxoYXZlIGEgY29udGludXVtIGlu IHdoaWNoIHRvIGhhdmUgaG9sZXMu3AIAFAEAhwAKAb0AAC3UAAAAAAEAFALc MTAyMy4xMiAgVGhlIHdvcmQgcG9seWhlZHJvbiBoYXMgZ290IHRvIGdvIGJl Y2F1c2UgaXQgc2F5c9wAAAIA3MDSBB7AbWFueSBzaWRlZCzA0wQfwCB3aGlj aCBpbXBsaWVzIGNvbnRpbnV1bS4gIFdlIGRvbsDVBBzAdCBldmVu3AAAAgDc aGF2ZSBmYWNlcy4gIEZhY2VzIGJlY29tZSBzcGFjZXMuICBUaGV5IGJlY29t ZSBpbnRlcnZhbHMuINwAAAIA3FRoZXkgYmVjb21lIG5vdGhpbmcuICBUaGUg RWluc3RlaW5pYW4gZmluaXRlIFVuaXZlcnNllpZhbtwAAAIA3GFnZ3JlZ2F0 ZSBub25zaW11bHRhbmVvdXMgVW5pdmVyc2WWlmlzIHByZWRpY2F0ZWQgb25s eSBvbtwAAAIA3HRoZSBhYnNvbHV0ZSBmaW5pdGVuZXNzIG9mIGVhY2ggbG9j YWwgZW5lcmd5lmV2ZW50IHBhY2thZ2XcAAACANxhbmQgdGhlIGxvZ2ljIHRo YXQgYW4gYWdncmVnYXRlIG9mIGZpbml0ZW5lc3MgaXMgaXRzZWxmIGZpbml0 ZS7cAgAUAQCIAAcBxAAALugAAAAAAQAUAtwxMDIzLjE0ICBJZiB3ZSBnZXQg cmlkIG9mIHRoZSB3b3JkIHBvbHloZWRyYSwgdGhlbiB3aGF03AAAAgDcd29y ZCBkbyB3ZSBoYXZlIGluIGl0cyBwbGFjZT8gIEEgaGlnaJZmcmVxdWVuY3ks 3AAAAgDcb21uaWRpcmVjdGlvbmFsLCBzcGhlcmUgZXZlbnQgc3lzdGVtLtwC ABQBAIkAAwHHAAAvngAAAAABABQC3MwCqym6k8zcAgAmAQCKAAEByAAAL+wA AAAAARYAkAAAAdQAAABIAAAB+AAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABs AAAAFAHQq8EAAAAkAADBVXNpbmcgdGhlIG5vbWVuY2xhdHVyZSBvZiBzeW5l cmdldGljcyBhbmQgdGhlIG5vbWVuY2xhdHVyZSB0aGF0IEncAAACANxoYXZl IGhlcmV0b2ZvcmUgZGVmaW5lZCwgd2hhdCBpcyBkb25lIGluIGEgZ2VuZXJh bGl6ZWQgdG9wb2xvZ2ljYWwgaW52ZXN0aWdhdGlvbtwAAAIA3GlzLCBhbiBh bmltYXRlIG1ldGFwaHlzaWNhbCBwaGVub21lbm9uIGlzIGFic3RyYWN0ZWQg aW50bywgd2hhdCBGdWxsZXLcAAACANx0ZXJtZWQsIMDSBB7AY3Jvc3Npbmdz LCB0cmFqZWN0b3JpZXMsIGFuZCBvcGVuaW5ncy7A0wQfwNwCABQBAIsABAHM AAAwBgAAAAABABQC3NwCACYBAIwAAQHNAAAwbgAAAAABFgBIAAAB+AAAAJAA AAHUAAAWACYC3KrQAQAUAEgAAABsAAAAkAAAAJAAAAAUAdCrwNIEHsBFdWxl ciBzaG93ZWQgdGhhdCBhbGwgb3B0aWNhbCBleHBlcmllbmNlcyB0aGF0IHdl IGNhbtwAAAIA3HBhdHRlcm4gb3IgZm9ybSBhcmUgY29tcG9zZWQgZXhjbHVz aXZlbHkgb2YgdGhyZWXcAAACANxwYXR0ZXJuaW5nIGVsZW1lbnRzOiAgbGlu ZXMsIHZlcnRleGVzLCBhbmQgYXJlYXOWlm9y3AAAAgDcdHJhamVjdG9yaWVz LCBjcm9zc2luZ3MsIGFuZCBvcGVuaW5ncywgYXMgdGhleSBhcmUga25vd24g aW7cAAACANxzeW5lcmdldGljcy4gIFRoZXNlIGluY29udHJvdmVydGlibGUg bWluaW11bSBhc3BlY3Qgb2bcAQA2CAAAMPAAAAI8AAAAFwHSABgAGAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQAAAAAxCgAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIANgHccGF0dGVybiBhcmUgYWxs IHRoYXQgaXMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IHRvIGFuYWx5emUgYW5kIGludmVudG9yeb/c AAACANxhbGwgcGFydHMgb2YgYWxsIG9wdGljYWxseSBhcHByZWhlbmRlZCBw YXR0ZXJucyBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIG9m3AAAECIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQANxhbGwg d2hvbGUgcGF0dGVybnMuLi7A0wQfwMMLAcOs2wQAEqspyJ0ADQZ7V1B9MTMA ABIE28MLgcPYCAALAAoAAAIxMQALCNjDC4DDwwsBw8MLgcPbAAACANvWAQJU C6spyJ0AAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAABEAAAAAAAEAAQARAADcEwA0FgBIAAAC HAAAAEgAAAIcAAAWFwAFAAAABRcdAAAAAAAAAAAdIgAAAA4AAwARAAAiADQT 3NsDABKrKcidAAAGe1dQfTEwAAASA9vQBAAcgQD/uAAA7gAkAAD/gQD/uAAA 5gAkAAD/ABwE0NEEABoAADIASwB9AJYAyAAAPABQAHgAlgDIABoE0dIMABur KcidAAAADAAiAAAADAADBkdlbmV2YQAbDNLSDQAbqynInQAAAAwAIgAAAAwA AwZHZW5ldmEAGw3S0wUAFAABADYAAAABAAEANgAAAAEAFAXT0QEAI6spyJ0A AwABACIAARJOZXcgQ2VudHVyeSBTY2hsYmsAIwHR0gwAJ6spyJ0AAAAMAAMA AAAMACISTmV3IENlbnR1cnkgU2NobGJrACcM0tINACerKcidAAAADAADAAAA DAAiEk5ldyBDZW50dXJ5IFNjaGxiawAnDdLbAAACANuq2wEAEqspyJ0ADgZ7 V1B9MTQAABIB29EBACWrKcidACIAATvPAAAUQmVybmhhcmRNb2QgQlQgUm9t YW4AJQHR0QIACAAMAA4ACALR2wAAAgDbq9gIAAsAEAAAAjExAAsI2C4gIFIu IEJ1Y2ttaW5zdGVyIEZ1bGxlciwgwwEBw1N5bmVyZ2V0aWNzwwGAwywgNTA1 LjExLtwCACwBAAAACAABAAAAAAAAAAABAwAAAAAAAAAAAAADIgAAAA4AAwAR AAAiACwC3AJUAdat3AIAPgEAjQAIAdUAADCIAAAAAAEDAAAxTgAAADQAAAMW AJAAAAHUAAAASAAAAfgAABYiAAAADAABABOAACIAPgLcqtABABQAkAAAAJAA AABIAAAAbAAAABQB0NACAAwAAgAAAAGAAAAMAtCrwwuAw9wCAD4BAI4AAQHW AAAxaAAAAAABAwAAMWgAAABOAAADFgBIAAAB+AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWIgAAAAoA AwAaAAAiAD4C3KrQAQAUAEgAAABsAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdDQAgAMAAGAAAAC AAAADALQq8EAAAAkAADBV2hhdCBJIHdpbGwgZG8gaW4gdGhpcyBlc3NheSBp cyBhYnN0cmFjdCB0aGUgaWRlYSBvZiB0aGUgwNIEHsBsaW5lwNMEH8AgaW50 byBhIHBvbHlnb24gdG/cAAAcAwAAMXuAAABhgAADIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABwA 3HNlZSB3aGF0IGNhbiBiZSBsZWFybmVkIGFib3V0IHRoZSBuYXR1cmUgb2Yg YW4gaWRlYWxpemVkLCBhbmQgaHlwb3RoZXRpY2FsLCBtaW5pbXVt3AAAAgDc bGltaXQgdHJhamVjdG9yeS4gIFRoaXMgZXNzYXkgaXMgbm90IGEgc2NpZW50 aWZpYyB0aGVvcnkuICBJIGFtIGRlYWxpbmcgd2l0aCB0aGUgdGhlb3J5IG9m 3AAAAgDcYSBsaW5lIGluIHB1cmUgbWV0YXBoeXNpY2FsIGFic3RyYWN0aW9u lpZpLmUuLCBwaGlsb3NvcGhpY2FsbHmWlmFzIG9wcG9zZWQgdG/cAAAQIgAA AAoAAwAaAAAiABAA3GV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbGx5LiAgVGhpcyB0aGVzaXMsIHJh dGhlciwgbW9sZHMgdGhlIMMBAcNpZGVhwwGAwyBvZiBhIGxpbmUgYnkgcHJv Z3Jlc3NpdmVseSBhcHBseWluZ9wAABwDAAAx44AAAMmAAAMiAAAACgADABoA ACIAHADcdGhlIHJlbGV2YW50IHNjaWVudGlmaWMgZ2VuZXJhbGl6YXRpb25z IGFzIHByb3BvdW5kZWQgaW4gc3luZXJnZXRpY3MsIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMsIHRo b3Nl3AAAAgDccG9zdHVsYXRlZCBieSBteXNlbGaWlnRoZSBjb25jbHVzaW9u LiAgTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgb2Ygc3BlY2lhbCBjYXNlIGxpbmVzIGNhbiBvbmx5 IGJl3AAAAgDcZG9uZSBieSBtZWFucyBvZiBleHBlcmltZW50YXRpb24uICBB bmQgZXhwZXJpbWVudGF0aW9uIHdpbGwgYmUgdGhlIHRydWUgdGVzdCBvZiBh bnncAAACANxoeXBvdGhlc2lzLtwCABQBAI8ACQHfAAAxewAAAAABABQC3MwI qtlqNMzBAAAAJAAAwVdoYXQgSSBhbSB0cnlpbmcgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCB0aGlz IGVzc2F5IGlzIHRvIGRpc2NvdmVyIHRoZSBnZW5lcmFsaXphdGlvbiB0aGF0 3AAAAgDccmVwcmVzZW50cyB3aGF0IGEgbGluZSBtdXN0IGJlIMDSBB7AZ3Jl YXRlciB0aGFuIG9yIGVxdWFsIHRvwNMEH8AsIGluIHB1cmUgcHJpbmNpcGxl LiAgVGhhdCBpcyzcAAACANx0byBzdGF0ZSB3aGF0IGEgbGluZSBpcyBpbiBp dHMgc2ltcGxlc3QgcG9zc2libGUgdGVybXMgd2l0aG91dCBleGNsdWRpbmcg dGhl3AAAAgDcY2hhcmFjdGVyaXN0aWNzIG5lY2Vzc2l0YXRlZCBieSB0aGUg cHJpbmNpcGxlcyBvZiBkZXNpZ24u3AIAFAEAkAAEAeMAADJlAAAAAAEAFALc wwIBw9wCABQBAJEAAQHkAAAyzQAAAAABABQC3NwCACABAJIAAQHlAAAy5wAA AAABIgAAABAABAAoAAAiACAC3NECAAgADAASAAgC0cMCgMNJSUkuICDDAgHD VGhlIFZvbHVtZXRyaWMgTGluZdECAAgAEgAMAAgC0dwCACwBAJMAAQHmAAAz AQAAAAABAwAAMwGAAAHngAADIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiACwC3MMCgMPBAAAAJAAA wUJ1Y2ttaW5zdGVyIEZ1bGxlciBzYWlkIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIG5vIHpl cm8gZGltZW5zaW9uYWwgcG9pbnRzLCBvbmXcAAACANxkaW1lbnNpb25hbCBs aW5lcywgbm9yIHR3byBkaW1lbnNpb25hbCBwbGFuZXMgaW4gYW55IG9mIGFs bCBkZW1vbnN0cmFibGUgc3BlY2lhbNwAAAIA3GNhc2VzLiAgVGhlIGNvbmNl cHRzIG9mIHplcm8sIG9uZSBhbmQgdHdvIGRpbWVuc2lvbmFsaXRpZXMgYXJl IHVzZWZ1bCBvbmx5IHdoZW4gYdwBADYIAAAzXYAAAkOAAAAXAekAGQAZAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAADN3AAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2AdxwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIG1l YXN1cmVtZW50IGRvZXMgbm90IHJlcXVpcmUgdGhlIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24g b2YgdGhlIG90aGVyIGRpbWVuc2lvbnMgdG+/3AAAAgDcZnVsZmlsbCBpdHMg cHVycG9zZS4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIGluIHRoYXQgdGhleSBkb27A1QQcwHQgZGVz Y3JpYmUgYW55IHNwZWNpYWwgY2FzZSAsIHRoZXkgY2FuIGJl3AAAAgDcY29u Y2VwdHVhbGx5IGRhbWFnaW5nIHdoZW4gaW50cm9kdWNlZCB0byB5b3VuZyBt aW5kcyBhcyBheGlvbXMuICDcAgAUAQCUAAYB7AAAMykAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAA JAAAwUluIHRoaXMgZXNzYXkgYSBsaW5lIGlzIGVubGFyZ2VkIHZvbHVtZXRy aWNhbGx5LCBiZWNhdXNlIHdlIGtub3cgdGhhdCBlbXBpcmljYWzcAAACANxz cGVjaWFsIGNhc2UgbGluZXMgcmVxdWlyZSBhIHZvbHVtZXRyaWMgc2hhcGUg cmVwcmVzZW50ZWQgd2l0aCBhYSBtaW5pbXVtIG9mIHRocmVl3AAAAgDcc3Bh dGlhbCBkaW1lbnNpb25zLiAgVGhpcyBlbmxhcmdlbWVudCBpcyByZWZlcnJl ZCB0byBpbiBTeW5lcmdldGljcyBhcyB0aGXcAAAQIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABAA 3G1pbmlhdHVyaXphdGlvbiBjb25jZXB0ICjDAQHDU3luZXJnZXRpY3PDAYDD LCA3NDAuMjApLiAgU3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5LCBtaW5pYXR1cml6YXRpb24gZXhw bGFpbnPcAAAcAwAANCOAAACcAAADIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABwA3HRoZSBvYnNl cnZlcyB0cmFuc2NlbmRlbmNlIG9mIGNvc23A1QQcwHMuICBUaGUgb2JzZXJ2 ZXLA1QQcwHMgcmVmZXJlbmNlIGZyYW1lIGlzIG1vdmVkIGZyb23cAAACANx0 aGUgbWVzb2Nvc20gdG8gdGhlIG1pY3JvY29zbS4gIFRoZSBtaWNyb2Nvc21p YyByZWZlcmVuY2UgZnJhbWUgYmVjb21lcyB0aGXcAAACANxjdXJyZW50IG1l c29jb3NtaWMgZnJhbWUuICBBIGxpbmUgdGhhdCBpcyBhcHBhcmVudGx5IG9u ZSBkaW1lbnNpb25hbCBpcyDA0gQewGJsb3dulnVwwNMEH8As3AAAAgDcaW4g c2l6ZSwgIHNvIHRoYXQgaXQgY2FuIGJlIHZpZXdlZCB0aHJlZSBkaW1lbnNp b25hbHkuICBUaGVuIHRoZSBwcmluY2lwbGVzIG9mIG1pbmltdW3cDAACDNxs aW1pdCBjYXNlIHRvcG9sb2dpZXMgYXJlIHVzZWQgdG8gZGlzY292ZXIgdGhl IG1pbmltdW2WbGltaXQgY2FzZSBvZiBhIGxpbmUuICBUaGXcAAACANx1c2Vm dWxuZXNzIG9mIG1pbmltdW2WbGltaXQgY2FzZXMgY29tZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUg b2JzZXJ2YXRpb24gdGhhdCBtYXhpbXVtlmxpbWl03AwAAgzcY2FzZXMgYXJl IG5vdCBrbm93bi4gIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBubyBjb21wcmVoZW5zaWJsZSBtYXhp bXVtlmxpbWl0IHRvcG9sb2dpZXMuICBUaGVyZdwAAAIA3GFyZSwgaG93ZXZl ciwgdGhlIG1pbmltdW2WbGltaXQgdG9wb2xvZ2llcyBjYW4gYmUga25vd24s IGFuZCB0aGV5IGNhbiBiZSBrbm93btwAAAIA3GRlZmluaXRpdmVseS7cAgAU AQCVAA0B+QAAM9UAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwUluIHRoZSBzY2llbmNlIG9m IHN5bmVyZ2V0aWNzIHdlIHVzZSB0aGUgdGVybXMgwNQEG8BmaW5pdGXA1QQc wCBhbmQgwNQEG8BkZWZpbml0ZS7A1QQcwCAgVGhlIHdvcmTcAAACANxpbmZp bml0ZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBkaXNjYXJkZWQgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGUgRmlyc3Qg TGF3IG9mIFRoZXJtb2R5bmFtaWNzLCB0aGUgbGF3IG9m3AAAAgDcY29uc2Vy dmF0aW9uIG9mIGVuZXJneSwgd2hpY2ggc3RhdGVzIHRoYXQgwNIEHsBlbmVy Z3kgY2FuIGJlIG5laXRoZXIgY3JlYXRlZCBub3IgbG9zdC7A0wQfwCDcAAAC ANxUaGUgcXVhbnRpdHkgb2YgZW5lcmd5IGluIHRoZSBVbml2ZXJzZSBpcyBj b25zdGFudCwgaXQgaXMgdGhlIHF1YWxpdHkgb2YgZW5lcmd5IHRoYXTcAAAC ANxjaGFuZ2VzLiAgVGhpcyBtZWFucyB0aGF0IHRoZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgaW50 ZXJyZWxhdGlvbnNoaXBzIGJldHdlZW4gZW5lcmd5IHF1YW50YSBpc9wAAAIA 3GFsc28gZmluaXRlLiAgQWx0aG91Z2ggd2UgZG8gbm90IGtub3csIGRlZmlu aXRpdmVseSwgdGhlIG51bWJlciBvZiBxdWFudGEsIGVyZ28sIHRoZdwAAAIA 3G51bWJlciBvZiBpbnRlcnJlbGF0aW9uc2hpcHMgYmV0d2VlbiBxdWFudGEg dGhhdCBwcm9kdWNlIGEgdG9wb2xvZ3kgb2YgY3Jvc3NpbmdzLNwBADYIAAA1 w4AAAjwAAAAXAgAAGgAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAADXdAAgLEgAQAAAAegAA EgA2Adx0cmFqZWN0b3JpZXMsIGFuZCBvcGVuaW5ncywgd2UgZG8ga25vdyB0 aGF0IHRoZSBxdWFudGl0eSBpcyBmaW5pdGUgYW5kIG5vdCBpbmZpbml0ZSBi eb/cAAACANx2aXJ0dWUgb2YgcHVyZSByZWFzb24u3AIAFAEAlgAJAgIAADUn AAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFBIG51bWJlciAoeCkgaXMgZmluaXRlLiAgVG8g c2F5ICh4PTUpIHJlZHVjZXMgdGhlIHF1YW50aXR5ICh4KSB0byBhIGRlZmlu aXRlIG9mIGZpdmUuINwAAAIA3FRoZSBudW1iZXIgZml2ZSBpcywgaG93ZXZl ciwgYSBnZW5lcmFsaXphdGlvbi4gIFRoZSBudW1iZXIgZml2ZSBjYW4gcmVw cmVzZW50IGZpdmXcAAACANxvcmFuZ2VzIG9yIGZpdmUgYXBwbGVzLCBldGMu 3AIAJgEAlwADAgUAADYhAAAAAAEWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtAB ABQASAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0NAGAAYAAwAGBtCr3AIAFAEAmAABAgYA ADZvAAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCrNTM1LjAwICBIYWxvIENvbmNlcHTc AgAUAQCZAAECBwAANokAAAAAAQAUAtw1MzUuMDEgIFRoZSBwaGVub21lbm9u IMDSBB7AaW5maW5pdHnA0wQfwCBvZiBjYWxjdWx1cyBpcyBpbmhlcmVudGx5 3AAAAgDcZmluaXRlIChzZWUgwwIBw1N5bmVyZ2V0aWNzwwKAwyAyMjQuMTEp LiAgVW5pdmVyc2UgaXMgbm9u3AwAAgzcc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzIGJ1dCBmaW5p dGUsIGJlY2F1c2UgYWxsIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VzIGJlZ2luIGFuZNwAAAIA3GVu ZCwgYW5kIGJlaW5nIHRlcm1pbmFsLCBhcmUgZmluaXRlOyBlcmdvLCBVbml2 ZXJzZSBhcyB0aGXcAAACANxzdW0gdG90YWwgb2YgZmluaXRlcyBpcyBmaW5p dGUu3AIAFAEAmgAFAgwAADajAAAAAAEAFALczAKrKbqWzDUzNS4wMiAgTm9u c2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzIFVuaXZlcnNlIGlzIGZpbml0ZSBidXTcAAACANxjb25j ZXB0dWFsbHkgdW5kZWZpbmFibGUuICBXZSBkaXNjb3ZlciB0aGF0IFVuaXZl cnNlIGlz3AAAAgDcZmluaXRlIGFuZCBhIGxvY2FsIHN5c3RlbSBpcyBkZWZp bml0ZS4uLtwCACYBAJsAAwIPAAA3JQAAAAABFgCQAAAB1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAW ACYC3KrQAQAUAJAAAACQAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdDQBgAGAAMABgbQq8EAAAAk AADB3AIAFAEAnAABAhAAADdzAAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCrwQAAACQA AMFUaGUgVW5pdmVyc2UgaXMgZGl2aWRlZCBpbnRvIGNvbnNpZGVyYWJsZSBz ZXRzLiAgU3lzdGVtcyBpbiB0aGUgbWFjcm9jb3NtLNwAAAIA3G1lc29jb3Nt LCBhbmQgbWljcm9jb3NtcyBjYW4gYmUgdmFzdGx5IGNvbXBsaWNhdGVkLiAg QW5kIHRoZSBjb21wbGV4aXRpZXMgY2Fubm903AAAAgDcYmUgYWNjdXJhdGVs eSBtZWFzdXJlZC4gIFRoaXMgaW5hYmlsaXR5IHRvIG1lYXN1cmUgdGhpbmdz IGFjY3VyYXRlbHkgaXMgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gYnncAAACANxXZXJuZXIgSGVp c2VuYmVyZyBhcyB0aGUgwNQEG8B1bmNlcnRhaW50eSBwcmluY2lwbGUuwNUE HMAgIFRoaW5ncyB3aGljaCBhcmUgdG9vIGxhcmdlLCBvciB0b2/cAAACANxz bWFsbCwgb3IgdG9vIG51bWVyb3VzIHRvIGJlIGFjY3VyYXRlbHkgbWVhc3Vy ZWQgY2Fubm90IGJlIGFyYml0cmFyaWx5IHN1YnRlbmRlZCB0b9wAAAIA3HRo ZSBpbmZpbml0ZWx5IGxhcmdlLCBzbWFsbCBvciBudW1lcm91cyBqdXN0IGJl Y2F1c2UgdGhleSBhcmUgb3V0IG9mIG91ciDA0gQewGx1Y2lkbHncAAACANxy ZWxldmFudCBzZXQuwNMEH8AgIENhbGxpbmcgdGhpbmdzIHRoYXQgYXJlIHRv byBjb21wbGljYXRlZCB0byBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmFibGUgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmXc AQA2CAAAOCmAAAI8AAAAFwIXABsAGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAA4QwAICxIA EAAAAHoAABIANgHcb3VyIGNvbXB1bHNpdmUgd2F5IG9mIGRlYWxpbmcgd2l0 aCB0aGluZ3Mgb3V0c2lkZSBvdXIgY29tcHJlaGVuc2lvbi4gIEJ1Y2ttaW5z dGVyv9wAAAIA3EZ1bGxlciByZWNvZ25pemVkIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHRo aW5ncyBvdXRzaWRlIG91ciBodW1hbiBjb25jZXB0dWFsaXR5IGFuZCBoYXPc AAACANxkZXZlbG9wZWQgYSByYXRpb25hbCBtZXRob2QgZm9yIGRlYWxpbmcg d2l0aCB0aGVtIHdpdGhvdXQgYmxhbmtldGluZyB0aGVtIHdpdGggdGhl3AAA AgDcbm9ulmRlc2NyaXB0aXZlIHRlcm0gwNIEHsBpbmZpbml0ZS7A0wQfwNwC ABQBAJ0ACwIbAAA3jQAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBSW4gdGhlIGV4YW1wbGUg b2YgdGhlIGZpdmUgb3JhbmdlcywgbGltaXRpbmcgwNQEG8BmaXZlwNUEHMAg dG8gwNQEG8BmaXZlIG9yYW5nZXPA1QQcwCBpcyBub3TcAAACANxhbHRvZ2V0 aGVyIGFjY3VyYXRlIC4gIFdlIGNhbiBnbyBtdWNoIGZ1cnRoZXIgYW5kIGRl c2NyaWJlIHRoZW0gYXMgY2VydGFpbtwAAAIA3GNoZW1pY2FscywgY29udGFp bmluZyBhIGNlcnRhaW4gbnVtYmVyIG9mIGF0b21zLCB0aGF0IHdlaWdoIHNv IG11Y2gsIGV0Yy4gIFdlIGNhbtwAAAIA3GVzdGltYXRlIGhvdyBtdWNoIGVu ZXJneSB0aGV5IGNvbnRhaW4gaW4gdGVybXMgb2YgIMDUBBvAcXVhbnRhwNUE HMAuICBJbiB0aGUgc3VilmF0b21pY9wAAAIA3HJlYWxtLCB0aGluZ3MgYmVj b21lIGluY3JlYXNpbmdseSBhbWJpZ3VvdXMuICBBcyB3ZSBwcm9ncmVzc2l2 ZWx5IHJlZHVjZSBvdXLcAAACANxtZWFzdXJlbWVudHMgd2UgYmVjb21lIHVu c3VyZSBvZiBob3cgc21hbGwgdGhpbmdzIGNhbiBnZXQgYW5kIHdoYXQgdGhl c2UgdGhpbmdz3AAAAgDcYXJlIHJlYWxseSBtYWRlIG9mLCBhbmQgc28gb24u ICBXaXRoIHRoZSBpZGVhIG9mIGEgY29uc2lkZXJhYmxlIHNldCB3ZSBjYW4g Ym9hcmRlciBvdXLcAAACANxhd2FyZW5lc3Mgd2l0aG91dCBzdGF0aW5nIHRo YXQgdGhlIG9yYW5nZXMgYXJlIG1hZGUgb2YgwNIEHsBpbmZpbml0ZWx5IHNt YWxsIHBhcnRpY2xlc9wAAAIA3HRoYXQgZXhpc3QgaW4gKHgpIGludmlzaWJs ZSBhbmQgaXJyYXRpb25hbCAgZGltZW5zaW9ucy4gIEFuZCB0aGF0IHRoZXNl IHRpbnkgcGFydGljbGVzIGFyZdwAAAIA3HRoZW1zZWx2ZXMgaW5maW5pdGVs eSBkaXZpc2libGUsIGV0Yy4sIGJlY2F1c2UgaWYgd2UgY2FuIGluZmluaXRl bHkgZGl2aWRlIGEgbnVtYmVyLNwAAAIA3GVtcGlyaWNhbCByZWFsaXR5IGlz IHRoZSBzYW1lIGNhc2UuICBBbmQsIG9mIGNvYXJzZSwgdGhlc2UgcGFydGlj bGVzIGhhdmUgcGxlbnR5IG9m3AAAAgDcY2hhcm0gYW5kIGZsYXZvciB0b28u wNMEH8AgIFdoYXQgd2UgZG8gd2l0aCBhIGNvbnNpZGVyYWJsZSBzZXQsIGJ5 IGNhbGxpbmcgdGhlbSDA1AQbwGZpdmXcAAACANxvcmFuZ2VzwNUEHMAgaXMg ZGlzbWlzcyB0aGUgbWljcm9zY29waWMgaXJyZWxldmFuY2llcyBhbmQgc3Rp bGwgY29tbXVuaWNhdGUgdGhlIG5lY2Vzc2FyedwAAAIA3GluZm9ybWF0aW9u LiAgSW4gb3RoZXIgd29yZHMsIGl0IGlzbsDVBBzAdCBuZWNlc3NhcnkgdG8g a25vdyBldmVyeXRoaW5nIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGtub3fcAAACANxzb21ldGhp bmcuICBJIGtub3cgb3JhbmdlcyB3aGVuIEkgc2VlIHRoZW0u3AIAJgEAngAP AioAADi7AAAAAAEWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQASAAAAEgA AACQAAAAkAAAABQB0NAGAAYAAwAGBtCr3AIAFAEAnwABAisAADpBAAAAAAEA FALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCrNTA5LjAwICBDb25zaWRlcmFibGUgU2V03AIAFAEA oAABAiwAADpbAAAAAAEAFALcNTA5LjAxICBUaGUgY29uY2VwdHVhbCBwcm9j ZXNzIGlzIG5ldmVyIHN0YXRpYy4gIFRoaW5raW5n3AAAAgDcZG9lcyBub3Qg Y29uc2lzdCBvZiB0aGUgaW5zZXJ0aW9uIG9mIGludmVudGVkIGltYWdlcyBp bnRvIGFu3AEANggAADqPgAACPAAAABcCLgAcABwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAA OqkACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB3G90aGVyd2lzZSBlbXB0eSB2YWN1dW2WdHVi ZSBjaGFtYmVyIGNhbGxlZCBicmFpbi4gv9wAAAIA3FRoaW5raW5nIGlzIHRo ZSBzZWxmlmRpc2NpcGxpbmVkIHByb2Nlc3Mgb2YgcHJlb2NjdXBpZWTcAAAC ANxjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uIG9mIHNwZWNpYWyWY2FzZSBzZXRzIG9mIGZlZWRi YWNrIGFuc3dlcnPcAAACANxzZWxlY3RlZCBvdXQgb2YgdGhlIG11bHRpdHVk ZSBvZiBoaWdolmZyZXF1ZW5jeSBhbHRlcm5hdGluZ9wAAAIA3HRyYW5zY2Vp dmVyIGJyYWluIHRyYWZmaWMuICBUaGlzIHRyYWZmaWMgY29uc2lzdHMgb2bc AAACANxvbW5pZXhwZXJpZW5jZWQgYW5kIHByb2Nlc3NlZCBhbnN3ZXJzIHRv IHByZXNlbnQgb3IgcGFzdNwAAAIA3HF1ZXN0aW9ucywgZm9ybXVsYXRlZCBl aXRoZXIgYnkgdGhlIGNvbnNjaW91cyBvctwAAAIA3HN1YmNvbnNjaW91cyAg Y29vcmRpbmF0aW5nIGluaXRpYXRpdmUgb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWzA1QQc wHPcAAACANxvdmVybGFwcGluZyBnZW5lcmF0aW9uIG9mIGdyb3VwIG1lbW9y eS7cAgAUAQChAAsCNwAAOnUAAAAAAQAUAtw1MDkuMDIgIEEgY29uc2lkZXJh YmxlIHNldCBpcyBhIGxvY2FsbHkgZGVmaW5pdGl2ZSBzeXN0ZW3cAAACANx3 aXRoaW4gVW5pdmVyc2UgdGhhdCByZXR1cm5zIHVwb24gaXRzIGNvbnNpZGVy YWJpbGl0eSBpbiBhbGzcAAACANxjaXJjdW1mZXJlbnRpYWwgZGlyZWN0aW9u cyBhbmQgdGhlcmVmb3JlIGhhcyBhbiBpbmhlcmVudNwAAAIA3HdpdGhvdXRu ZXNzIGFuZCB3aXRoaW5uZXNzOyAgdGhlIGxhdHRlciB0d28gZGlmZmVyZW50 aWFibGXcAAACANxmdW5jdGlvbnMgaW5oZXJlbnRseSBzdWJkaXZpZGUgYWxs IFVuaXZlcnNlIGludG8gdHdvIHVuaXF1ZdwAAAIA3GV4dHJlbWVzIG9mIG1h Y3JvliBhbmQgbWljcm+WZnJlcXVlbmNpZXMu3AIAFAEAogAGAj0AADujAAAA AAEAFALcNTA5LjAzICBGb3IgaW5zdGFuY2UsIHdlIGZpbmQgdGhhdCBhbGwg aXJyZWxldmFuY2llcyBmYWxsIGludG/cAAACANx0d28gbWFpbiBjYXRlZ29y aWVzLCBvciBiaXRzLiAgT25lIHNldCBlbWJyYWNlcyBhbGwgdGhl3AAAAgDc ZXZlbnRzIHRoYXQgYXJlIGlycmVsZXZhbnQgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGV5IGFyZSB0 b28gbGFyZ2UgaW7cAAACANxtYWduaXR1ZGUgYW5kIHRvbyBmcmVxdWVudCB0 byBiZSBkaWZmZXJlbnRpYWxseSByZXNvbHZlZCBhdNwAAAIA3HRoZSB3YXZl bGVuZ3RoIHRvIHdoaWNoIHdlIGFyZSB0dW5lZCwgZXJnbywgaW4gYW553AAA AgDcZGlzY2VybmFibGUgd2F5IHRvIGFsdGVyIHRoZSBpbnRlcnJlbGF0aW9u c2hpcCB2YWx1ZXMgb2YgdGhl3AAAAgDcc2V0IG9mIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgcmVs YXRpb25zaGlwcyB3ZSBhcmUgY29uc2lkZXJpbmcuICBIYXZpbmfcAAACANxk aXNtaXNzZWQgdGhlIHR3byBjbGFzc2VzIG9mIGlycmVsZXZhbmNpZXMsIHRo ZXJlIHJlbWFpbnPcAQA2CAAAPPWAAAI8AAAAFwJFAB0AHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAAA9DwAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIANgHcdGhlIGx1Y2lkbHkgcmVsZXZhbnQg c2V0IHRvIGJlIHN0dWRpZWQuv9wCACYBAKMACQJGAAA8PwAAAAABFgCQAAAB 1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWACYC3KrQAQAUAJAAAACQAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdDQBgAG AAMABgbQq9wCACABAKQAAQJHAAA9OQAAAAABIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiACAC3KrQ BgAGAwAABgbQq8EAAAAkAADBS25vd2luZyB0aGF0IHNwZWNpYWyWIGNhc2Ug c29tZXRoaW5ncyByZXF1aXJlIGEgdm9sdW1ldHJpYyBzaGFwZSBpbiDDAQHD YXQgbGVhc3TDAYDD3AAAHAMAAD1TgAAANAAAAyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAcANx0 aHJlZSBzcGF0aWFsIGRpbWVuc2lvbnMsIGFuZCBrbm93aW5nIHRoYXQgbWF4 aW11bSBsaW1pdCB0b3BvbG9naWVzIGFyZSBub3Qga25vd24uINwAAAIA3El0 IGlzIGxvZ2ljYWwgdG8gYmVnaW4gdG9wb2xvZ2ljYWwgaW52ZXN0aWdhdGlv bnMgYXQgdGhlIG1pbmltdW2WbGltaXQsIGJlY2F1c2XcAAACANxtaW5pbXVt lmxpbWl0cyBjYW4gYmUga25vd24uICBUaGUgbWluaW11bSB0b3BvbG9neSBp biB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2UgaXMgdGhl3AAAAgDcdGV0cmFoZWRyb24uICBBbnkg ZW1waXJpY2FsIHNwZWNpYWyWY2FzZSBzb21ldGhpbmcgY2Fubm90IGhhdmUg YSB0b3BvbG9neSBsZXNzIHRoYW7cAAACANxmb3VyIGNyb3NzaW5ncywgc2l4 IHRyYWplY3RvcmllcywgYW5kIGZvdXIgb3BlbmluZ3MuICBUaGUgc2hhcGUg b2YgYW55IHNwZWNpYWyWY2FzZdwAABAiAAAACgADABoAACIAEADcc29tZXRo aW5nIG11c3QgYmUgwwEBw2dyZWF0ZXIgdGhhbiBvciBlcXVhbCB0byBhIHRl dHJhaGVkcm9uLsMBgMPcAgAsAQClAAcCTgAAPVMAAAAAAQMAAD3vgAAA0AAA AyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAsAtzBAAAAJAAAwUFueSBwb2ludCB0aGF0IGlzICBh biBlbXBpcmljYWwgc3BlY2lhbJZjYXNlIHNvbWV0aGluZyBpcyBhIHBvbHlo ZWRyb24uINwAAAIA3FdoYXRldmVyIHBvbHloZWRyb24gaXQgaXMsIGl0IG11 c3QgYmUgZWl0aGVyIHRvbyBzbWFsbCBvciB0b28gZmFyIGF3YXkgb3IgZWxz ZSB3ZSB3b3VsZNwAABAiAAAACgADABoAACIAEADcbm90IHBlcmNlaXZlIGl0 IGFzIGEgcG9pbnQuICBUaGUgcG9seWhlZHJvbiB0aGF0IHdlIGNhbGwgYSBw b2ludCDDAQHDY291bGTDAYDDIGhhdmUgYW7cAAAcAwAAPj2AAAEeAAADIgAA AAoAAwAaAAAiABwA3GluY29tcHJlaGVuc2libHkgY29tcGxpY2F0ZWQgdG9w b2xvZ3kuICBCdXQgc2luY2Ugd2UgZG8gbm90IGtub3cgZXhhY3RseSB3aGF0 IHRoZdwAAAIA3HBvbHloZWRyb25zIHRvcG9sb2d5IGlzLCBpdCBtYXkgYmUg Y29uc2lkZXJlZCBhIHRldHJhaGVkcm9uLiAgSW4gc3luZXJnZXRpY3MsIGFu eXRoaW5n3AAAAgDcdGhhdCBjYW5ub3QgYmUgbWVhc3VyZWQgaXMgcmVkdWNl ZCB0byBhIHBvbHloZWRyb24gYXQgaXRzIG1pbmltdW2WbGltaXQgY2FzZdwA AAIA3GJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgTmF0dXJlwNUEHMBzIHByb3BlbnNpdHkgZm9yIGVw aGVtZXJhbGl6YXRpb24sIHRoZSBwcmltZSBsYXcgb2YgcmVnZW5lcmF0aXZl 3AAAAgDcZGVzaWduLtwCACYBAKYACAJWAAA+CQAAAAABFgBIAAACHAAAAI8A AAHUAAAWACYC3KrQAQAUAEgAAABIAAAAjwAAAJAAAAAUAdDQBgAGAAMABgbQ q9wCACYBAKcAAQJXAAA+2QAAAAABFgCPAAAB1AAAAJAAAAHUAAAWACYC3KrQ AQAUAI8AAACQAAAAkAAAAJAAAAAUAdDQBgAGAwAABgbQqzE2Ny4wMCAgVGhl cmUgYXJlIHNldmVyYWwgY29yb2xsYXJpZXMgdG8gdGhlIHByaW1lIGxhdyBv ZtwAAAIA3HJlZ2VuZXJhdGl2ZSBkZXNpZ24gZHVyYWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgYW1w bGl0dWRlIG9m3AAAAgDccmVwcm9kdWNpYmxpdHkuICBDb3JvbGxhcnkgQTog VGhlIHNpbXBsZXIsIHRoZSBtb3Jl3AAAAgDcZW5kdXJpbmdseSByZXByb2R1 Y2libGUuICBDb3JvbGxhcnkgQjogIFRoZSBzcGVjaWFsIGNhc2XcAAACANxy ZWFsaXphdGlvbnMgb2YgYSBnaXZlbiBkZXNpZ24gY29tcGxleCBjb3JyZWxh dGUgYXMgdGhlIG1vcmXcAQA2CAAAP1uAAAI8AAAAFwJcAB4AHgAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAQAAAAA/dQAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIANgHcc3ltbWV0cmljYWwsIHRoZSBt b3JlIHJlcHJvZHVjaWJsZS4gIENvcm9sbGFyeSBDOiBUaGVyZb/cAAACANxi ZWluZyBsaW1pdCBjYXNlcyBvZiBvcHRpbXVtIHN5bW1ldHJ5IGFuZCBzaW1w bGljaXR5LNwAAAIA3HRoZXJlIGFyZSBzaW1wbGljaXRpZXMgb2YgY29uY2Vw dHVhbCByZWFsaXphdGlvbi4gIFRoZSBtb3N03AAAAgDcZW5kdXJpbmdseSBy ZXByb2R1Y2libGUgZGVzaWduIGVudGl0aWVzIG9mIFVuaXZlcnNlIGFyZdwA AAIA3HRob3NlIG9jY3VycmluZyBhdCB0aGUgbWlulm1heCBsaW1pdHMgb2Yg c2ltcGxpY2l0eSBhbmTcAAACANxzeW1tZXRyeS7cAgAUAQCoAAsCYgAAPvMA AAAAAQAUAtwxNjguMDAgIENvcm9sbGFyeSBEOiBUaGVyZSBiZWluZyB1bmlx dWUgbWluaW11bdwMAAIM3G1heGltdW0gc3lzdGVtIGxpbWl0cyBnb3Zlcm5p bmcgdGhlIHRyYW5zZm9ybWF0aW9uIG9m3AAAAgDcY29uY2VwdHVhbCBlbnRp dGllcyBpbiBVbml2ZXJzZSwgd2hpY2ggZGlmZmVyZW50aWF0ZSB0aGXcAAAC ANxjb25jZXB0dWFsbHkgdW5pcXVlIGVudGl0aWVzIG9mIFVuaXZlcnNlIGlu dG8gdGhvc2XcAAACANxjb25jZXB0aW9ucyBvY2N1cnJpbmcgZXhjbHVzaXZl bHkgb3V0c2lkZSB0aGUgc3lzdGVt3AAAAgDcY29uc2lkZXJlZCBhbmQgYWxs IG9mIHRoZSBVbml2ZXJzZSBpbnNpZGUgdGhlIGNvbmNlcHR1YWzcAAACANxl bnRpdHksIHRvZ2V0aGVyIHdpdGggdGhlIHN0cnVjdHVyYWwgcGF0dGVybiBp bnRlZ3JpdHncAAACANxzeXN0ZW0gc2VwYXJhdGluZyB0aGUgaW5zaWRlIGZy b20gdGhlIG91dHNpZGUsIHRoZXJlIGJlaW5n3AAAAgDcYSBsaW1pdGVkIG1p bmltdW0gc2V0IG9mIHN0cnVjdHVyYWwgYW5kIG9wZXJhdGluZ9wAAAIA3HBy aW5jaXBsZXMgZXRlcm5hbGx5IHByb2R1Y2luZyBhbmQgcmVwcm9kdWNpbmcg cmVjb2duaXphYmxl3AAAAgDccGF0dGVybiBpbnRlZ3JpdHkuICBBbmQgdGhl cmUgYXJlIGxpa2V3aXNlIGEgbWluaW11bSBzZXQgb2bcAAACANxwcmluY2lw bGVzIHRoYXQgaW50ZXJhY3QgdG8gdHJhbnNmb3JtIGFscmVhZHkgb3JkZXJs edwAAAIA3HBhdHRlcm5zIGludG8gb3RoZXIgc3RydWN0dXJlIHBhdHRlcm5z LCBhbmQgdGhlcmUgYmVpbmfcAAACANxtaW5pbXVtIGNvbnN0aXR1ZW50IHBh dHRlcm5zIHRoYXQgaW52b2x2ZSB0aGUgY29tcGxleNwAAAIA3GludGVydHJh bnNmb3JtaW5ncyBhbmQgc3RydWN0dXJhbCBmb3JtaW5ncyBvZiBzeW1tZXRy aWNhbNwAAAIA3G9yZGVycyBhbmQgdmFyaW91cyBtYWduaXR1ZGVzIG9mIGFz eW1tZXRyaWNhbCBkZXZpYXRpb25z3AAAAgDcdG9sZXJhdGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBw cmluY2lwbGVzIGNvbXBsZXhlZGx5IGludm9sdmVkLiAgVGhlcmUgYXJl3AEA NggAAEHBgAACPAAAABcCcwAfAB8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAQdsACAsSABAA AAB6AAASADYB3HNjaWVudGlmaWNhbGx5IGRpc2NvdmVyYWJsZSBudWNsZWFy IGFnZ3JlZ2F0ZXMgb2YgcHJpbWFyeb/cAAACANxkZXNpZ24gaW50ZWdyaXR5 IGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgY29tcGxleCBzeW1tZXRyaWNhbNwAAAIA3HJlYXNzb2Np YWJpbGl0aWVzIG9mIHRoZSBudWNsZWFyIHByaW1hcnkgaW50ZWdyaXRpZXMg YW5k3AAAAgDcZGVsaWJlcmF0ZWx5IGVtcGxveWFibGUgcmVsYXRpb25zaGlw cyBvZiBudWNsZWFyIHNpbXBsZXhlc9wAAAIA3HdoaWNoIGRlc2lnbmVkbHkg aW1wb3NlIGFzeW1tZXRyaWNhbJZzeW1tZXRyaWNhbNwAAAIA3HB1bHNhdGl2 ZSBwZXJpb2RpY2l0aWVzLtwCABQBAKkAFwJ5AABAIQAAAAABABQC3DE2OS4w MCAgQ29yb2xsYXJ5IEU6IFRoZSBtb3JlIHN5bW1ldHJpY2FsIGFuZCBzaW1w bGUgYW5k3AAAAgDcbnVjbGVhciwgdGhlIG1vcmUgZnJlcXVlbnRseSBlbXBs b3lhYmxlOyBlcmdvLCB0aGUgbW9yZdwAAAIA3GZyZXF1ZW50bHkgb2NjdXJy aW5nIGluIGV0ZXJuYWxseSByZWdlbmVyYXRpdmUgVW5pdmVyc2XA1QQcwHPc AAACANx0cmFuc2Zvcm1hdGl2ZSBwcm9ibGVtIHNvbHV0aW9ucy7cAgAUAQCq AAQCfQAAQocAAAAAAQAUAtwxNzAuMDAgIENvcm9sbGFyeSBGOiBUaGUgc21h bGxlciBhbmQgc2ltcGxlciwgbW9yZdwAAAIA3HN5bW1ldHJpY2FsLCBmcmVx dWVudGx5IG9jY3VycmluZyBpbiBVbml2ZXJzZSBhbmQgdGhl3AAAAgDcbGFy Z2VyIGFuZCBtb3JlIGNvbXBsZXgsIGxlc3MgZnJlcXVlbnRseSBvcmlnaW5h bGx53AAAAgDcb2NjdXJyaW5nIGFuZCBwZXJpb2RpY2FsbHkgcmVvY2N1cnJp bmcuLi7cAgAmAQCrAAQCgQAAQu8AAAAAARYAkAAAAdQAAABIAAACHAAAFgAm Atyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq9wCABQBAKwAAQKCAABDVwAA AAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBQSDA1AQbwG9uZSBkaW1lbnNpb25hbMDVBBzAIGxp bmUgaXMsIHN1cHBvc2VkbHksIHRoZSBpbnRlcnJlbGF0aW9uc2hpcCBiZXR3 ZWVuIHR3b9wAAAIA3MDUBBvAcG9pbnRzwNUEHMAgdmlhIHRoZSBtb3N0IGVj b25vbWljYWwgcm91dGUuICBUaGF0IGxpbmUgY2FuIGFsc28gaGF2ZSBhbiB1 bmxpbWl0ZWQsIG9y3AAAAgDcwNQEG8BpbmZpbml0ZSzA1QQcwCBudW1iZXIg b2YgwNQEG8B6ZXJvIGRpbWVuc2lvbmFsIHBvaW50c8DVBBzAIGFsb25nIHRo YXQgbGluZS4gIFdoaWNoIGlzIHJlYWxseSBub25zZW5zZSzcAAACANxzaW5j ZSBhIGxpbmUgaXMgYSBwb2x5aGVkcm9uLiAgQSBsaW5lIGlzIGRlZmluaXRl bHkgYWJvdXQgc28gbG9uZywgaXMgbWFkZSBvZiBzbyBtYW553AAAAgDcYXRv bXMsIHdoaWNoIGFyZSBhYm91dCBzbyBiaWc7IGl0IGRlZmluaXRlbHkgc3Rh cnRzIGhlcmUgYW5kIGVuZHMgdGhlcmUuICBJdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBnb9wAAAIA 3G9uIHRvIGluZmluaXR5LCBiZWNhdXNlIGZvciBhIHNwZWNpYWyWY2FzZSBs aW5lIGluIGEgVW5pdmVyc2Ugd2l0aCBhIGZpbml0ZSBhbW91bnQgb2bcAAAQ IgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiABAA3GVuZXJneS4gIFJlYWwgbGluZXMgaGF2ZSBhIHNo YXBlIGluIMMBAcNhdCBsZWFzdMMBgMMgdGhyZWUgZGltZW5zaW9ucy4gIEkg ZG9uwNUEHMB0IHNlZSBob3cgYW7cAAAcAwAARA2AAAIiAAADIgAAAAoAAwAa AAAiABwA3HVucmVhbCBsaW5lIGNhbiBiZSB1c2VmdWwsIG5vdCBldmVuIGNv bmNlcHR1YWxseS4gIFN5bmVyZ2V0aWNzIGNvbmNlcm5zIGl0c2VsZiBvbmx5 IHdpdGjcAQA2CAAARCeAAAI8AAAAFwKKACAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAABE QQAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIANgHcc3BlY2lhbJZjYXNlcyBhbmQgZ2VuZXJhbGl6 YXRpb25zIGFib3V0IHNwZWNpYWyWY2FzZXMuICBPbmUgZGltZW5zaW9uYWwg bGluZXMgYW5kv9wAAAIA3Hplcm8gZGltZW5zaW9uYWwgcG9pbnRzIGRvIG5v dCBkZXNjcmliZSBhbnl0aGluZyBwb2ludJZ0b5ZhYmxlLCBzbyB0aGV5IHdp bGwgbm90IGJl3AAAAgDcdXNlZCBpbiB0aGlzIHRoZXNpcy7cAgAUAQCtAAsC jQAAQ3EAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwVdpdGggc3luZXJnZXRpYyB0aGlua2lu ZyBhIGxpbmUgaXMgYXQgbWluaW11bSB0aGUgaW50ZXJyZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAg YmV0d2VlbtwAAAIA3HR3byB0ZXRyYWhlZHJhIGFsb25nIHRoZSBtb3N0IGVj b25vbWljYWwgcm91dGUuICBBIGxpbmUgaXMgYSBwb2x5aGVkcm9uLtwCABQB AK4AAgKPAABEnwAAAAABABQC3MwCqym6mczMCKspunrMQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRv IEZ1bGxlcjrcAgAmAQCvAAECkAAARNMAAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAACQAAAB1AAA FgAmAtyq0AEAFABIAAAASAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0KvcAgAU AQCwAAECkQAARO0AAAAAAQAUAtyq0AYABgMAAAYG0KsyNDAuMDYgIEEgbGlu ZSBpcyBhIHRldHJhaGVkcm9uIG9mIG5lZ2xpZ2libGUgYmFzZSBkaW1lbnNp b27cAAACANxhbmQgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgYWx0aXR1ZGUu3AIAJgEAsQACApMA AEUHAAAAAAEWAJAAAAHUAAAASAAAAhwAABYAJgLcqtABABQAkAAAAJAAAABI AAAASAAAABQB0KvcAgAUAQCyAAEClAAARTsAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwUEg bGluZSBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGFuIGluY29tcHJlaGVuc2libGUgbnVtYmVyIG9m IHBvaW50cywgZWRnZXMsIGFuZCBhcmVhcywgYnV0LNwAAAIA3GJ5IGVtcGxv eWluZyB0aGUgcHJpbWUgbGF3IG9mIHJlZ2VuZXJhdGl2ZSBkZXNpZ24gYW5k IHRoZSB0aGVvcnkgb2YgY29uY2VwdHVhbNwAAAIA3G1pbmltdW1zLCB3ZSBj YW4gbGVhcm4gc29tZSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgZmFjdHMgYWJvdXQgdGhpcyBsaW5l IHdpdGhvdXQgaGF2aW5nIHRoZdwAAAIA3GNhcGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gZXhhbWlu ZSB0aGUgbGluZSBkaXJlY3RseS4gIFdlIG1heSBmaXJzdCB1c2UgdGhlIHBy aW5jaXBsZSBvZiBtaW5pbXVt3AAAAgDcbGltaXQgdG9wb2xvZ2ljYWwgY2Fz ZXMgYW5kIHRoZSBwcmluY2lwbGUgb2Ygbm9uc2ltdWx0YW5laXR5LtwCABQB ALMABQKZAABFVQAAAAABABQC3NwCABQBALQAAQKaAABF1wAAAAABABQC3MwC qym6vszMCKspunzMwwIBw9wCACABALUAAQKbAABF8QAAAAABIgAAABAABAAo AAAiACAC3NECAAgADAASAAgC0cMCgMNJVi4gIMMCAcNUaGUgTm9uc2ltdWx0 YW5lb3VzIExpbmXRAgAIABIADAAIAtHDAoDD3AIAPgEAtgABApwAAEYLAAAA AAEDAABGC4AAAboAAAMWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYiAAAACgADABoAACIA PgLczgEAAhxxzqrQAQAUAEgAAABIAAAAkAAAAJAAAAAUAdDQBgAGAAMABgbQ q09uZSB2aWV3IGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIHdvcmxkIGVzc2VudGlhbGx5IGNvbnNp c3RzIG9mIHRoaW5ncyzcAAACANzOAQACoADOYW5kIGFueSBjaGFuZ2VzIHdl IG5vdGljZSBhcmUgcmVhbGx5IHNlY29uZGFyeSwgYXJpc2luZ9wAAAIA3M4B AASqqs5mcm9tIHRoZSB3YXkgdGhpbmdzIGludGVyYWN0IHdpdGggb25lIGFu b3RoZXIuICBUaGXcAAACANzOAQAAqqrOYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmUgaXMgdGhhdCB0 aGUgd29ybGQgY29uc2lzdHMgb2YgcHJvY2Vzc2VzLCBhbmQgdGhl3AEANggA AEaBgAACMAAAABYCoAAhACEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAARpsACAsSABAAAAB6 AAASADYB3M4BAAC6Ls50aGluZ3Mgd2UgZGVjZXJuIGFyZSBvbmx5IHN0aWxs cyBvdXQgb2Ygd2hhdCBpcyBlc3NlbnRpYWxseSBhv9wAAAIA3G1vdmllLtwC ABQBALcABgKiAABGMwAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBwQAAACQAAMHBAAAAJAAA wcEAAAAWAADBICAgICAgICAglkMuIEguIFdhZGRpbmd0b27cAgAmAQC4AAEC owAARt8AAAAAARYAkAAAAdQAAABIAAACHAAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAA AEgAAABIAAAAFAHQ0AYABgMAAAYG0KvcAgAUAQC5AAECpAAARvkAAAAAAQAU AtzBAAAAJAAAwVRoZSBwcmluY2lwbGUgb2Ygbm9uc2ltdWx0YW5laXR5IHdh cyBjb2luZWQgYnkgUi4gQnVja21pbnN0ZXIgRnVsbGVyLiAgRnVsbGVywNUE HMBz3AAAAgDcwNQEG8Bub25zaW11bHRhbmlldHkgaXMgYW5hbG9nb3VzIHRv IHRoZSByZWxhdGl2aXR5IG9mIHNpbXVsdGFuZWl0eSBkaXNjb3ZlcmVkIGJ5 IEFsYmVydNwAAAIA3EVpbnN0ZWluLiAgRWluc3RlaW7A1QQcwHMgcmVsYXRp dml0eSBvZiBzaW11bHRhbmVpdHkgc3RhdGVzIHRoYXQgZXZlbnRzIHRoYXQg YXJlIHBlcmNlaXZlZNwAAAIA3GZyb20gb25lIGxvY2F0aW9uIGFzIHNpbXVs dGFuZW91cyBhcmUgbm90IHBlcmNlaXZlZCBhcyBzaW11bHRhbmVvdXMgZnJv bSBhbm90aGVy3AAAAgDcbG9jYXRpb24uICBCdWNrbWluc3RlciBGdWxsZXIg c2FpZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBkaXNjb3Zlcnkgb2Ygbm9uc2ltdWx0YW5laXR5IGlz IGHcAAACANxjb25zZXF1ZW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgTWljaGVsc29ulk1vcmVseSBl eHBlcmltZW50IHRoYXQgZGlzY292ZXJlZCB0aGF0IGxpZ2h0IGhhZCBh3AAA AgDcdmVsb2NpdHkuICBUaGUgdmVsb2NpdHkgd2FzIHN1YnNlcXVlbnRseSBt ZWFzdXJlZCBieSBBbGJlcnQgQS4gTWljaGVsc29uIGluIDE5MjYuINwAAAIA 3FdoYXQgaXMgZGVub3RlZCBieSB0aGUgcHJpbmNpcGxlIG9mIG5vbnNpbXVs dGFuZWl0eSBpcyB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0IGxpZ2h0LCBoYXZpbmcgYdwAAAIA 3HZlbG9jaXR5LCB0b29rIHRpbWUgdG8gdHJhbnNmZXIgaXRzZWxmIGFuZC9v ciBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi7cAgAUAQC6AAkCrQAARxMAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAA wUluIG9yZGVyIGZvciB0aGluZ3MgdG8gYmUgY29uZ3J1ZW50IGluIHRpbWUs IGkuZS4sIHNpbXVsdGFuZW91cywgdGhleSBtdXN0IGFsc28gYmXcAAACANxj b25ncnVlbnQgaW4gc3BhY2UuICBPbW5pY29uZ3J1ZW5jZSBvZiB0d28gb3Ig bW9yZSBzcGVjaWFslmNhc2Ugc29tZXRoaW5ncyBjYW5ub3TcAAACANxiZSBk ZW1vbnN0cmF0ZWQuICBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIGFsbCBzcGVjaWFslmNhc2Ugc29t ZXRoaW5ncyBhcmUgc3BhdGlhbGx5IHNlcGFyYXRlZCBlcmdvLNwAAAIA3G5v bnNpbXVsdGFuZW91cy4gIEJ1Y2ttaW5zdGVyIEZ1bGxlciByZWZlcnJlZCB0 byB0aGlzIHNwYXRpYWwgc2VwYXJhdGlvbiBhcyBh3AAAAgDcwNIEHsBncmF2 aXRhdGlvbmFsIHRyYW1wb2xpbmXA0wQfwCB3aGljaCBwcm9oaWJpdHMgc3Bl Y2lhbCBjYXNlcyBmcm9tIGFjdHVhbGx5IHRvdWNoaW5nLiAgVGhpc9wAAAIA 3G9ic2VydmVkIHNwYXRpYWwgc2VwYXJhdGlvbiBjYXVzZXMgYSBkaWZmZXJl bmNlIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHRpbWUgYW4gZXZlbnQgaGFwcGVuZWTcAAACANxh bmQgd2hlbiBpdCBpcyBwZXJjZWl2ZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBoYXBwZW5lZC4gIFRo ZSBxdWFudGl0eSBvZiBub25zaW11bHRhbmVpdHkgaXMgdGhl3AAAAgDcZGlz dGFuY2UgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgdHdvIGV2ZW50cyBkaXZpZGVkIGJ5IHRoZSB2 ZWxvY2l0eSBvZiBsaWdodC4gIFRoZSBpbXBvcnRhbmNlIG9m3AAAAgDcdGhp cyBmYWN0IGluIHRoZSBtaW5pbXVtIHRvcG9sb2d5IG9mIGEgbGluZSBpcyB0 aGF0IGEgbGluZSBlcGhlbWVyYWxpemVkIGlzIGEgdHJhamVjdG9yeS7cAgAm AQC7AAkCtgAAR/0AAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAACQAAAB1AAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFABI AAAASAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQq9wDAEYBALwAAQK3AABI5wAAAAABCAAASOeA AAI8AAAAFwK3ACIAIgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAABJAQAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIA RgPcNTMwLjAwICBOb25zaW11bHRhbmVpdHm/3AIAFAEAvQABArgAAEkRAAAA AAEAFALcNTMwLjAxICBUaG91Z2h0IGRpc2NvdmVycyB0aGF0IHdlIGRpdmlk ZSBVbml2ZXJzZSBpbnRvIGFu3AAAAgDcwNIEHsBvdXR3YXJkbmVzcyBhbmQg aW53YXJkbmVzcyzA0wQfwCBzbyB0aGlua2luZyBpcyB0aGUgZmlyc3TcAAAC ANxzdWJkaXZpc2lvbiBvZiBVbml2ZXJzZSwgYmVjYXVzZSBVbml2ZXJzZSwg d2UgZGlzY292ZXJlZCzcAAACANx3YXMgZmluaXRlLiAgVGhpbmtpbmcgaXMg YSBub25zaW11bHRhbmVvdXNseSByZWNhbGxhYmxl3AAAAgDcYWdncmVnYXRl IG9mIGluaGVyZW50bHkgZmluaXRlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VzIGFuZCBmaW5pdGXc AAACANxleHBlcmllbmNlIGZ1cm5pdHVyZZaWc3VjaCBhcyBwaG90b25zIG9m IGxpZ2h0LiAgT25lIG9mIHRoZdwAAAIA3G1vc3QgaW1wb3J0YW50IG9ic2Vy dmF0aW9ucyBhYm91dCBvdXIgdGhvdWdodCBpcyB0aGXcAAACANxkaXNjb3Zl cnkgdGhhdCBleHBlcmllbmNlcyBhcmUgbm9uc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzLiDcAAAC ANxOb25zaW11bHRhbmVpdHkgaXMgYSBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbCBjaGFyYWN0ZXJp c3RpYywgYW5kIGlm3AAAAgDcZXhwZXJpZW5jZXMgYXJlIG5vbnNpbXVsdGFu ZW91cywgeW91IGNhbm5vdCBoYXZl3AAAAgDcc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzIHJlY29u c2lkZXJhdGlvbi7cAgAUAQC+AAsCwwAASSsAAAAAAQAUAtw1MzAuMDIgIEFs bCB0aGUgd29yZHMgb2YgYWxsIHRoZSB2b2NhYnVsYXJpZXMgY291bGQgYmUg c2FpZCB0b9wAAAIA3HJlcHJlc2VudCBhbGwgdGhlIGZvcm1hbGl6ZWQgYXR0 ZW1wdHMgb2YgbWVuIHRv3AAAAgDcY29tbXVuaWNhdGUgYWxsIHRoZWlyIGV4 cGVyaWVuY2VzLiAgU28gd2UgY291bGQgc2V0IG91dCB0b9wAAAIA3GV4YW1p bmUgYWxsIHRoZSBkaWN0aW9uYXJpZXMgb2YgdGhlIHdvcmxkLiAgV2UgY2Fu IHBpY2sgdXDcAAACANxhbnkgb25lIGRpY3Rpb25hcnkgYW5kIGRpc2NvdmVy IGEgbmljZSBmaW5pdGUgcGFja2FnZS4gIFdl3AAAAgDcY2FuIG9wZW4gb25l IHBhZ2UsIGJ1dCB3ZSBjYW5ub3QgbG9vayBhdCBhbGwgdGhlIHdvcmRzIGF0 3AAAAgDcb25jZS4gIElmIHdlIGNhbm5vdCBsb29rIGF0IGFsbCB0aGUgd29y ZHMgZXZlbiBvbiBvbmUgcGFnZSzcAAACANx3ZSBjZXJ0YWlubHkgY2Fubm90 IGxvb2sgYXQgYWxsIHRoZSB3b3JkcyBvZiBhIHdob2xl3AAAAgDcZGljdGlv bmFyeSBhdCBvbmNlLiAgSXQgZG9lcyBub3QgbWFrZSB0aGUgZGljdGlvbmFy eSBpbmZpbml0ZdwAAAIA3GJlY2F1c2Ugd2UgY2Fubm90IGxvb2sgYXQgYWxs IHRoZSB3b3JkcyBhdCBvbmNlIG9yIHRoaW5r3AAAAgDcYWJvdXQgYWxsIHRo ZSB3b3JkcyBhdCBvbmNlLiAgVGhlIGluYWJpbGl0eSB0byB0aGluayBhYm91 dNwBADYIAABLTYAAAjwAAAAXAs4AIwAjAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAEtnAAgL EgAQAAAAegAAEgA2AdxldmVyeXRoaW5nIGF0IG9uY2UgZG9lcyBub3QgbWVh biB0aGF0IGV4cGVyaWVuY2Ugb3K/3AAAAgDcY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBvZiBl eHBlcmllbmNlIGlzIGluZmluaXRlLiAgSXQgaXMgcGVycGxleGluZyB0aGF0 3AAAAgDcb25lIG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IHBlcnNpc3RlbnQgY29udGVtcGxhdGlv bnMgb2YgaHVtYW4gYmVpbmdz3AAAAgDcaGFzIGJlZW4gcHJlZGljYXRlZCBv biBhIHN0YXRpYyBjb25jZXB0IG9mIFVuaXZlcnNlLCB0aGXcAAACANxraW5k IG9mIFVuaXZlcnNlIHRoYXQgd2VudCBvdXQgd2l0aCBjbGFzc2ljYWwgTmV3 dG9uaWFu3AAAAgDcbWVjaGFuaWNzLiAgV2UgY2Fubm90IHRoaW5rIG9mIFVu aXZlcnNlIGFzIGEgZml4ZWQsIHN0YXRpY9wAAAIA3HBpY3R1cmUsIHdoaWNo IHdlIHRyeSB0byBkbyB3aGVuIHBlb3BsZSBhc2sgd2hlcmUgdGhl3AAAAgDc b3V0d2FyZG5lc3Mgb2YgVW5pdmVyc2UgZW5kcy4gIEh1bWFucyB0cnkgdG8g Z2V0IGEgZmluaXRl3AAAAgDcdW5pdCBwYWNrYWdlLiAgV2UgaGF2ZSBhIG1v bm9sb2dpY2FsIHByb3BlbnNpdHkgZm9yIHRoZdwAAAIA3HRoaW5nLCB0aGUg a2V5LCB0aGUgYnVpbGRpbmcgYmxvY2sgb2YgVW5pdmVyc2UuICBXaGF0IHdl 3AAAAgDcZGlzY292ZXIgaGVyZSBpcyB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIG5vdCBwb3NzaWJs ZSB0byB0aGluayBhYm91dCBhbGzcAAACANxVbml2ZXJzZSBhdCBvbmNlLiAg SXQgaXMgbm9uc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzbHkgY29uY2VwdHVhbC4g3AAAAgDcVGhp cyBpbiBubyB3YXkgbWl0aWdhdGVzIGFnYWluc3QgZmluaXRlbmVzcyBhbmTc AAACANx0aGlua2FibGVuZXNzLtwCACYBAL8AGQLcAABKSQAAAAABFgCQAAAB 1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWACYC3KrQAQAUAJAAAACQAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdCr3AIA FAEAwAABAt0AAEzjAAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFCeSBlbXBsb3lpbmcgdGhl IHByaW5jaXBsZSBvZiBub25zaW11bHRhbmVpdHkgYSBwb2ludCBjYW4gYmUg YW5pbWF0ZWQgaW4gYdwAAAIA3HRyYWplY3RvcnkgdGhhdCB3aWxsIGJlIHBl cmNlaXZlZCBieSB0aGUgb2JzZXJ2ZXIgYXMgYSBzaW11bHRhbmVvdXMgbGlu ZS4gIFN1cHBvc2UgYdwAAAIA3HBvaW50IG9uIGEgY29tcHV0ZXIgaXMgbW92 ZWQgc2xvd2x5IGZyb20gcG9pbnQgKGEpIHRvIHBvaW50IChiKSBpbiBhIHN0 cmFpZ2h0IGxpbmUuICBJdNwAAAIA3HdpbGwgYXBwZWFyIGFzIGEgZG90IG1v dmluZyBwcm9ncmVzc2l2ZWx5IHRocm91Z2ggYSBzZXJpZXMgb2YgcG9zaXRp b25zIGluIGEgbGluZS4gIFdoZW7cAAACANx0aGUgdmVsb2NpdHkgb2YgdGhl IGRvdCBiZXR3ZWVuIHBvaW50IChhKSBhbmQgcG9pbnQgKGIpIGlzIGFjY2Vs ZXJhdGVkIHRvIDE1Y3BzIGl0IHdpbGwgbm/cAAACANxsb25nZXIgbG9vayBs aWtlIGEgZG90IG1vdmluZyB0aHJvdWdoIGEgc2VyaWVzIG9mIHBvc2l0aW9u cywgYnV0IGEgY29udGludW91cyBsaW5l3AAAAgDcYmV0d2VlbiBwb2ludCAo YSkgYW5kIHBvaW50IChiKS4gIFRoZSByZWFzb24gZm9yIHRoaXMgaWxsdXNp b24gaXMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIGxhZyB0aW1l3AAAAgDcYmV0d2VlbiB3 aGVuIHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgdGhlIGxpZ2h0LCBsZWF2ZXMgdGhlIGV2 ZW50LCByZWFjaGVzIHRoZSBleWUsIGFuZCBpc9wBADYIAABNs4AAAjwAAAAX AuUAJAAkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAE3NAAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2AdxpbnRl cnByZXRlZCBieSB0aGUgYnJhaW4uICBUaGUgYnJhaW5zIHZpc3VhbCBmYWN1 bHR5IGNhbm5vdCBwZXJjZWl2ZSB0aGUgaW50ZXJ2YWxzv9wAAAIA3GJldHdl ZW4gZXZlbnRzIHRoYXQgb2NjdXIgbW9yZSBmcmVxdWVudGx5IHRoYW4gMTVj cHMu3AIAFAEAwQAKAucAAEz9AAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFCdWNrbWluc3Rl ciBGdWxsZXIgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gdGhpcyBpbGx1c2lvbiBhcyBhIMDSBB7A ZmlsbZZzdHJpcCBldmVudCzA0wQfwCBiZWNhdXNlIG9m3AAAAgDcaXRzIGxp a2VuZXNzIHRvIGEgbW92aW5nIHBpY3R1cmUuLCB3aGVyZSBzZXZlcmFsIHN0 aWxsIGZyYW1lcyBvZiBhbiBldmVudCBhcmUgcHJlc2VudGVk3AAAAgDcc28g cmFwaWRseSB0aGF0IHRoZSBzdGlsbCBmcmFtZXMsIHRoZSBzdGlsbCBwaG90 b2dyYXBocywgYXBwZWFyIHRvIHNob3cgYSBjb250aW51aXR5IG9m3AAAAgDc bW90aW9uLiAgSW4gb3RoZXIgd29yZHMsIGEgbW92aW5nIHBpY3R1cmUgY29t cG9zZWQgb2Ygc3RpbGwgcGhvdG9ncmFwaHMgZ2l2ZXMgdGhl3AAAAgDcaWxs dXNpb24gb2YgbmF0dXJhbCBtb3Rpb24u3AIAFAEAwgAFAuwAAE4RAAAAAAEA FALcwQAAACQAAMFCdWNrbWluc3RlciBGdWxsZXIgY2FsbGVkIHRoZSBVbml2 ZXJzZSBhIHNjZW5hcmlvLCBiZWNhdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBwcmluY2lwbGUgb2bc AAACANxub25zaW11bHRhbmVpdHkgYW5kIHRoZSBpbGx1c2lvbiBvZiBjb250 aW51aXR5IGl0IGNhdXNlcy4gIFRoZSBVbml2ZXJzZSwgb24gdGhl3AAAAgDc cHJhY3RpY2FsIGxldmVsLCBpbiB0aGUgbWVzb2Nvc20sIGlzIGRvaW5nIHRo ZSBzYW1lIHRoaW5nIHdpdGggbmF0dXJhbCBldmVudHMgYXMgd2VyZdwAAAIA 3HNob3duIHRvIGhhcHBlbiB3aXRoIHRoZSBwb2ludCBvbiB0aGUgY29tcHV0 ZXIgc2NyZWVuIGFuZCB3aXRoIGEgbW92ZSBmaWxtlnN0cmlwLiDcAAACANxB Y2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gRnVsbGVyLCB3aGVuIHdlIGxvb2sgYXQgdGhlIG5pZ2h0 IHNreSzcAgAmAQDDAAUC8QAATpMAAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAACQAAAB1AAAFgAm Atyq0AEAFABIAAAASAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0KvcAgAUAQDE AAEC8gAATxUAAAAAAQAUAtyq0AYABgMAAAYG0Ks1MzAuMDcgIFdlIGFyZSBs b29raW5nIGF0IGEgbGl2ZSBzaG93IHRoYXQgdG9vayBwbGFjZdwAAAIA3HRo b3VzYW5kcyBvZiB5ZWFycyBhZ28uICBJbiBsb29raW5nIGF0IHRoZSBuaWdo dCBza3kgd2UgYXJl3AAAAgDcbG9va2luZyBhdCBzdGFycyB0aGF0IGFyZSBu b3Qgd2hlcmUgdGhleSByZWFsbHkgYXJlLiAgSW7cAAACANxzb21lIGNhc2Vz IHRob3NlIHN0YXJzIGRvbsDVBBzAdCBldmVuIGV4aXN0IGFueSBtb3JlLtwC ADIBAMUABAL2AABPLwAAAAABFgCQAAAB1AAAAEgAAAIcAAAWIgAAAAoAAwAT gAAiADIC3KrQAQAUAJAAAACQAAAASAAAAEgAAAAUAdDQBgAGAAMABgbQ0AIA DAACAAAAAYAAAAwC0KvcAgAsAQDGAAEC9wAAT5cAAAAAAQMAAE+XgAABugAA AyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAsAtyq0AYABgMAAAYG0NACAAwAAYAAAAIAAAAMAtCr wQAAACQAAMFJbiB0aGUgZmlsbZZzdHJpcCBldmVudCB0aGF0IEkgY3JlYXRl ZCBvbiB0aGUgY29tcHV0ZXIgbW9uaXRvciwgSSB0b29r3AAAHAMAAE+rAAAB zYAAAyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAcANxhZHZhbnRhZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIGhpZ2ggdmVs b2NpdHkgb2YgdGhlIHBvaW50IG1vdmluZyBhY3Jvc3MgdGhlIHNjcmVlbiB0 byBnaXZlIHRoZdwAAAIA3GlsbHVzaW9uIG9mIGEgY29udGludW91cyBsaW5l LCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdhcyAgbW9yZSBlbmVyZ3kgdGhlcmUgdGhhdCB0aGVy ZSByZWFsbHkgd2FzLiDcAAACANxJbiBvdGhlciB3b3JkcywgIHRvIG1ha2Ug dGhlIGxpbmUgYmV0d2VlbiBwb2ludCAoYSkgYW5kIHBvaW50KGIpIHdpdGgg aW5kaXZpZHVhbCBkb3RzIGl03AAAECIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQANx3b3VsZCB0 YWtlIHNldmVyYWwgZG90cyB0byBmaWxsIGluIHRoZSBsaW5lLCBidXQgSSBj cmVhdGVkIGEgbGluZSB3aXRoIGEgwwEBw3NpbmdsZSDDAYDDZG90IGluIGHc AQBOAwAAUBMAAAI1gAADCAAAUBMAAAI1gAAAFwL8ACUAJQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQAAAABQLQAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIiAAAACgADABoAACIATgHcdHJhamVjdG9y eS4gIFRoZSByZWxhdGl2ZSBoaWdoIHZlbG9jaXR5IG9mIGxpZ2h0IGNhdXNl cyB0aGUgaWxsdXNpb24gaW4gc2xvdyBzZW5zb3JpYWy/3AAAAgDcc3lzdGVt cywgbGlrZSB0aGUgaHVtYW4gYnJhaW4sIG9mIGVuZXJneSBiZWluZyBpbiBt b3JlIHRoYXQgb25lIHBsYWNlIGF0IGEgdGltZS4gIElu3AAAAgDcdGhlIGV4 YW1wbGUgb2YgdGhlIGxpbmUgb24gdGhlIGNvbXB1dGVyIG1vbml0b3IsIHRo ZSBkb3QgYXBwZWFyZWQgdG8gYmUgaW4gYm90aCBwb2ludNwAABAiAAAACgAD ABoAACIAEADcKGEpIGFuZCBwb2ludCAoYikgc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzbHkgwwEB w2FzIHdlbGwgYXPDAYDDIGF0IGV2ZXJ5IHBvaW50IGJldHdlZW4gcG9pbnQg KGEpIGFuZCBwb2ludNwAABwDAABQiwAAAE4AAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIAHADc KGIpLiAgU3RhcnMgaW4gdGhlIG5pZ2h0IHNreSBhcHBlYXIgdG8gYmUgaGVy ZSwgYnV0IGFyZSByZWFsbHkgdGhlcmUgZGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIHdoZXJl3AAA AgDceW91IG9ic2VydmUgdGhlIHN0YXJzIGZyb20u3AIAFAEAxwALAwIAAE+r AAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFCdWNrbWluc3RlciBGdWxsZXIgcmVmZXJzIHRv IHRoZSBVbml2ZXJzZSBhcyBhIHNjZW5hcmlvLCBhbmQgbm90IGEgc3lzdGVt LNwAAAIA3GJlY2F1c2UsIG9uIHRoZSBtYWNyb2Nvc21pYyBsZXZlbCwgdGhl IG5vbnNpbXVsdGFuZWl0eSBiZWNvbWVzIGluY3JlYXNpbmdsedwAAAIA3GRp c2Nlcm5hYmxlIGFzIHRoZSBkaXN0YW5jZXMgYXJlIGluY3JlYXNlZC4gIEFz IHdlIGFscmVhZHkga25vdywgaG93ZXZlcizcAAACANxnZW5lcmFsaXphdGlv bnMgYXJlIHRydWUgaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgb2Ygc2l6ZS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgdHJ1 ZSwgdGhlbiwgaW4gYm90aCB0aGUgbWVzb2Nvc23cAAACANxhbmQgbWljcm9j b3NtLCBhcyB3YXMgc2VlbiB3aXRoIHRoZSBhbmltYXRlZCBkb3Qgb24gYSBj b21wdXRlciBtb25pdG9yLtwCABQBAMgABQMHAABQ2QAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAk AADBV2hhdCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdGhlIHJlYWRlciB0byBpbWFnaW5lIGlu IHJlZ2FyZCB0byB0aGUgbWluaW11bZZsaW1pdCBjYXNlIG9m3AAAAgDcYSBs aW5lIGlzIGEgcG9seWhlZHJvbiBtb3ZpbmcgcHJvZ3Jlc3NpdmVseSB0aHJv dWdoIGEgc2VyaWVzIG9mIHBvc2l0aW9ucyBpbiBhIHN0cmFpZ2h03AAAAgDc bGluZS4gIFRoZSBwb2ludCBpcyBhIHBvbHloZWRyb24gYW5kIHRoZSBwb2x5 aGVkcm9uIGlzIGEgcG9seWhlZHJvbiBhdCBpdHMgbWluaW11bdwMAAIM3Gxp bWl0LCB0aGF0IGlzLCB0byBzYXksIGEgdGV0cmFoZWRyb24uICBJbWFnaW5l IHRoYXQgdGhlIHBvaW50IG9uIHRoZSBjb21wdXRlciBtb25pdG9y3AAAAgDc aXMgYSB0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiBhbmQgc3VwcG9zZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBsaW5lIGlz IHRoZSB0cmFqZWN0b3J5IG9mIHRoYXQgdGV0cmFoZWRyb24uICBUaGXcAAAC ANxtaW5pbXVtIGxpbWl0IG9mIGEgbGluZSBpcyB0aGUgdHJhamVjdG9yeSBv ZiBhIHRldHJhaGVkcm9uLtwCABQBAMkABgMNAABRWwAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAk AADBTXkgaHlwb3RoZXNpcyBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZSB0ZXRyYWhlbGl4IGlzIGEg Z2VuZXJhbGl6ZWQgcmVwcmVzZW50YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIG1vc3TcAAACANxl Y29ub21pY2FsIHRyYWplY3Rvcnkgb2YgYSB0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbi4gSXQgdGFr ZXMgRnVsbGVywNUEHMBzIGdlbmVyYWxpemF0aW9uIGEgc3RlcCBmdXJ0aGVy 3AAAAgDcYnkgYXBwbHlpbmcgdGhlIHByaW5jaXBsZSBvZiBub25zaW11bHRh bmVpdHkuICBXaGlsZSBhIGxpbmUgbWF5IGJlIMDSBB7AYSB0ZXRyYWhlZHJv biBvZtwAAAIA3G5lZ2xpZ2libGUgYmFzZSBkaW1lbnNpb24gYW5kIHNpZ25p ZmljYW50IGFsdGl0dWRlLMDTBB/AIHRoZSBlZGdlcyBvZiB0aGF0IHByaW1h cnncAAACANx0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiBhcmUgc3ViamVjdCB0byB0aGUgb3RoZXIg Z2VuZXJhbGl6YXRpb25zIHdoaWNoIG5lY2Vzc2l0YXRlIHRoYXQgdGhlIGVk Z2Vz3AAAECIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQANxvZiB0aGUgcHJpbWFyeSB0ZXRyYWhl ZHJvbiBhcmU63AMAXgEAygAGAxMAAFH3AAAAAAEDAABSeQAAAjwAAAMIAABS eQAAAjwAAAAXAxMAJgAmAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAFKTAAgLEgAQAAAAegAA EiIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgBeA9zBAAAAJAAAwSgxKSDDAQHDYXQgbGVhc3TDAYDD IHRocmVlIGRpbWVuc2lvbmFsIL/cAgAsAQDLAAEDFAAAUqMAAAAAAQMAAFKj AAAAAAAAAyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAsAtzBAAAAJAAAwSgyKSBieSBhcHBseWlu ZyB0aGUgZXh0cmVtYWwgcHJpbmNpcGxlLCBhIHRyYWplY3Rvcnku3AIAFAEA zAABAxUAAFK9AAAAAAEAFALc3AIAFAEAzQABAxYAAFLXAAAAAAEAFALcRXJn bywgdGhlIG1pbmltdW0gbGltaXQgb2YgYSBsaW5lLCB0aGUgbWluaW11bSBs aW1pdCBvZiBhbGwgZWRnZXMgb2YgYWxsIHBvbHloZWRyYSBpcyB0aGXcAAAC ANx0cmFqZWN0b3J5IG9mIGEgdGV0cmFoZWRyb24sIGkuZS4sIGEgdGV0cmFo ZWxpeC7cAgAUAQDOAAIDGAAAUvEAAAAAAQAUAtzcAgAUAQDPAAEDGQAAUyUA AAAAAQAUAtzDAgHD3AIAIAEA0AABAxoAAFM/AAAAAAEiAAAAEAAEACgAACIA IALc0QIACAAMABIACALRwwKAw1YuICDDAgHDVGhlIEluZmx1ZW5jZSBvZiBO b3ZlbnQgb24gRXZlbnTRAgAIABIADAAIAtHcAgAsAQDRAAEDGwAAU1kAAAAA AQMAAFNZAAAAtgAAAyIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAsAtzDAoDDwQAAACQAAMEgSW4g wwIBw1NjaWVuY2UsIE9yZGVyLCBhbmQgQ3JlYXRpdml0ecMCgMMgYnkgRHIu IERhdmlkIEJvaG0gYW5kIEYuIERhdmlkIFBlYXQgdGhl3AAAAgDcY2F1c2Fs IGludGVycHJldGF0aW9uIG9mIHF1YW50dW0gbWVjaGFuaWNzIGlzIHByZXNl bnRlZC7cAgAmAQDSAAIDHQAAU4EAAAAAARYASAAAAhwAAACQAAAB1AAAFgAm Atyq0AEAFABIAAAASAAAAJAAAACQAAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0KvDAgHD3AIA FAEA0wABAx4AAFO1AAAAAAEAFALcqtAGAAYDAAAGBtCrcC45NNwCABQBANQA AQMfAABTzwAAAAABABQC3MMCgMNJbiwgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHRoZSBkb3Vi bGUgc2xpdCBleHBlcmltZW50LCBlYWNoIHBhcnRpY2xl3AAAAgDccmVzcG9u ZHMgdG8gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdGhhdCBjb21lcyBmcm9tIHRoZSBlbnRpcmXc AAACANxlbnZpcm9ubWVudC4gIEZvciB3aGlsZSBlYWNoIHBhcnRpY2xlIGdv ZXMgdGhyb3VnaCBvbmx5IG9uZdwAAAIA3G9mIHRoZSBzbGl0cywgaXRzIG1v dGlvbiBpcyBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGx5IGFmZmVjdGVkICBiedwAAAIA3GluZm9y bWF0aW9uIGNvbWluZyBmcm9tIGJvdGggc2xpdHMuICBNb3JlIGdlbmVyYWxs eSwgZGlzdGFudNwAAAIA3GV2ZW50cyBhbmQgc3RydWN0dXJlcyBjYW4gc3Ry b25nbHkgYWZmZWN0IGEgcGFydGljbGVz3AAAAgDcdHJhamVjdG9yeSBzbyB0 aGF0IGFueSBleHBlcmltZW50IG11c3QgYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBhcyBh3AAA AgDcd2hvbGUuLi7cAgAmAQDVAAgDJwAAU+kAAAAAARYAkAAAAdQAAABIAAAC HAAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABIAAAAFAHQq9wCABQBANYAAQMo AABUuQAAAAABABQC3MEAAAAkAADBVGhlIHRoaXJkIGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsIGFz cGVjdCBvZiBhIGdlbmVyYWxpemVkIHBvbHloZWRyb24gYXJlIHRoZSBmYWNl cywgb3LcAQA2CAAAVNMAAAIwAAAAFgMpACcAJwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAABU 7QAICxIAEAAAAHoAABIANgHcb3BlbmluZ3MgYXMgdGhleSBhcmUga25vd24g aW4gU3luZXJnZXRpY3MuICBCdWNrbWluc3RlciBGdWxsZXIgdXNlcyB0aGUg d29yZL/cAAACANzA0gQewG9wZW5pbmfA0wQfwCB0byBkZXNjcmliZSB3aGF0 IGlzIHVzdWFsbHkga25vd24gYXMgYW4gYXJlYSBvciBhIGZhY2UuICDcAgAU AQDXAAMDKwAAVNMAAAAAAQAUAtzBAAAAJAAAwUFuIG9wZW5pbmcgaXMgbm90 IGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgdHdvIGRpbWVuc2lvbmFsIGluIHRoZSBzY2llbmNlIG9m IFN5bmVyZ2V0aWNzLCBhbtwAAAIA3G9wZW5pbmcgaXMgYXQgbWluaW11bSB0 aHJlZSBkaW1lbnNpb25hbCwgYmVjYXVzZSBpcyBhbHdheXOWYW5klm9ubHkg YXR0YWNoZWQgdG8gYdwAAAIA3HBvbHloZWRyb24uICBBbiBvcGVuaW5nIGlz IG9ubHkgZGlzY2VybmFibGUgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCBpcyBmcmFtZWQgYnkgdHJh amVjdG9yaWVzIHRoYXTcAAACANxjb252ZXJnZSBhdCBjcm9zc2luZ3Mu3AIA JgEA2AAEAy8AAFUxAAAAAAEWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYAJgLcqtABABQA SAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0KvcAgAUAQDZAAEDMAAAVZkAAAAAAQAUAtzM AqspuqDMwNIEHsBUaGVyZSBhcmUgbm8gYXJlYXMgaW4gVW5pdmVyc2UgdGhh dCBjYW5ub3QgYmUgc2FpZCB0byBiZdwAAAIA3GF0dGFjaGVkIHRvIGF0IGxl YXN0IGEgdGV0cmFoZWRyb24gdGhhdCBjYW4gYmUgdHJhY2Vk3AAAAgDcYmV0 d2VlbiBmb3VyIHBvaW50cywgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIHRoZSBzdGFycyBpbiB0 aGUgbmlnaHTcAAACANxza3kuwNMEH8DcAgAyAQDaAAQDNAAAVbMAAAAAARYA kAAAAdQAAABIAAACGwAAFiIAAAAKAAMAE4AAIgAyAtyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAA AEgAAABJAAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0NACAAwAAgAAAAGAAAAMAtCr3AIALAEA 2wABAzUAAFYbAAAAAAEDAABWGwAAAR4AAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIALALcqtAG AAYDAAAGBtDQAgAMAAGAAAACAAAADALQq8EAAAAkAADBSXQgaXMgdGhvdWdo dCBpbiBwaHlzaWNzIHRoYXQgYXRvbXMgZG8gbm90IHRvdWNoIHBoeXNpY2Fs bHkuICDcAgA+AQDcAAEDNgAAVi4AAAAAAQMAAFYugAABMYAAAxYASAAAAhsA AACQAAAB1AAAFiIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgA+Atyq0AEAFABIAAAASQAAAJAAAACQ AAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0KvcAgAUAQDdAAEDNwAAVkgAAAAAAQAUAtyq0AYA BgMAAAYG0KvA0gQewFRoZXkgYXJlIHJlbGF0aXZlbHkgYXMgcmVtb3RlbHkg c3BhY2VkIGFzIHRoZSBwbGFuZXRzIGFuZNwAAAIA3G1vb25zIGluIHRoZSBz b2xhciBzeXN0ZW0uwNMEH8DcAgAyAQDeAAIDOQAAVmIAAAAAARYAkAAAAdQA AABIAAACHAAAFiIAAAAKAAMAE4AAIgAyAtyq0AEAFACQAAAAkAAAAEgAAABI AAAAFAHQ0AYABgADAAYG0NACAAwAAgAAAAGAAAAMAtCr3AIAPgEA3wABAzoA AFaWAAAAAAEDAABWloAAAZmAAAMWAEgAAAIcAAAAkAAAAdQAABYiAAAACgAD ABoAACIAPgLcqtABABQASAAAAEgAAACQAAAAkAAAABQB0NAGAAYDAAAGBtDQ AgAMAAGAAAACAAAADALQqzUyNC4wMCAgTm92ZW503AIALAEA4AABAzsAAFaq AAAAAAEDAABWqgAAAa0AAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIALALcNTI0LjAxICBXZSBl eHBlcmllbmNlIGV2ZW50cyBhbmQgbm+WZXZlbnRzLiAgRXJnbywgd2XcAAAC ANxpbnZlbnQgbm92ZW50LiAgTm92ZW50cyBjaGFyYWN0ZXJpemUgdGhlIGZp bml0ZSBidXTcAAACANxub25zZW5zb3JpYWwgcmVtb3RlIG1hc3Nlc8DVBBzA IGludGVyYXR0cmFjdGlvbiwgaS5lLiwgdGhl3AAAAgDcZ3Jhdml0YXRpb25h bCBjb250aW51dW0u3AIAFAEA4QAEAz8AAFbEAAAAAAEAFALcNTI0LjAyICBT ZWVtaW5nIMDSBB7Ac3BhY2XA0wQfwCBpcyB0aGUgYWJzZW5jZSBvZiBlbmVy Z3kgZXZlbnRzLiDcAAACANxUaGUgd29yZCBzcGFjZSBhcyBhIG5vdW4gbWlz bGVhZGluZ2x5IGltcGxpZXMgcHJvcGVydGllc9wBADYIAABXRgAAAkkAAAAY A0EAKAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAFdgAAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgA2Adx0aGF0 IGFyZSBhbGwgdG9nZXRoZXIgbGFja2luZy6/3AIAFAEA4gADA0IAAFcsAAAA AAEAFALcNTI0LjAzICBBbGwgb3VyIGV4cGVyaWVuY2VzIGFyZSBwZXJpb2Rp Y2FsbHkgdGVybWluYXRlZDogIHRoZdwAAAIA3HRlcm1pbmF0aW9uIGNoYXJh Y3Rlcml6ZXMgYm90aCB0aGUgcGh5c2ljYWwgYW5kIHRoZdwAAAIA3G1ldGFw aHlzaWNhbCBhc3BlY3RzIG9mIG91ciBvYnNlcnZpbmcgZmFjdWx0aWVzIGFu ZCB0aGXcAAACANxvYnNlcnZlZCBwaGVub21lbmEuICBUaGVyZSBhcmUgbm8g ZXhwZXJpbWVudGFsbHkga25vd27cAAACANxjb250aW51dW1zLiAgUGh5c2lj cyBoYXMgZm91bmQgbm8gwNIEHsBzb2xpZHMuwNMEH8AgIFdlIGhhdmUgb25s edwAAAIA3GF3YWtlIG9yIGFzbGVlcJaWZXhwZXJpZW5jZSBvciBub25leHBl cmllbmNllpZvY2N1cnJlbmNl3AAAAgDcZHVyYXRpb25zIGFuZCBub25vY2N1 cnJlbmNlIGludGVydmFsczsgZWl0aGVyIGRpc2NyZXRlIGFuZNwAAAIA3HVu aXF1ZSBwYWNrYWdlcyBvZiBlbmVyZ3kgb3IgdGhvdWdodCwgb24gdGhlIG9u ZSBoYW5kLiBvctwAAAIA3G9mIG5vbmVuZXJneSBvciBub250aG91Z2h0LCBv biB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaGFuZC4gIEVhY2ggYW5k3AAAAgDcYWxsIGFyZSBhcyB1 bmlxdWVseSBkaWZmZXJlbnRpYWJsZSwgYW5kIGFzIHNlcGFyYWJsZSwgZnJv bdwAAAIA3G9uZSBhbm90aGVyIGFzIGFyZSB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBzdGFy cyBvZiB0aGUgTWlsa3kgV2F5LtwCABQBAOMACwNNAABXigAAAAABABQC3MwC qym6osw1MjQuMDQgIFRoZSBub2V2ZW50IGNvbnRpbnV1bSBpcyB0aGUgbm92 ZW50LiAgVGhlIG5vdmVudNwAAAIA3GNvbnRpbnV1bSBwZXJtZWF0ZXMgdGhl IGZpbml0ZWx5IHBvcHVsYXRlZCB3aXRoaW5uZXNz3AAAAgDcYW5kIGNvbXBy aXNlcyB0aGUgZmluaXRlIG5vdmVudCB3aXRob3V0bmVzcy4gIE5vdmVudCBp c9wAAAIA3HRoZSBmaW5pdGUgYnV0IG5vbnNlbnNvcmlhbCBjb250aW51dW0u 3AIAMgEA5AAEA1EAAFioAAAAAAEWAJAAAAHUAAAASAAAAhwAABYiAAAACgAD ABOAACIAMgLcqtABABQAkAAAAJAAAABIAAAASAAAABQB0NAGAAYAAwAGBtDQ AgAMAAIAAAABgAAADALQq9wCACwBAOUAAQNSAABZEAAAAAABAwAAWRAAAAGg AAADIgAAAAoAAwAaAAAiACwC3KrQBgAGAwAABgbQ0AIADAABgAAAAgAAAAwC 0KvBAAAAJAAAwUJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIFNlY29uZCBMYXcgb2YgVGhlcm1v ZHluYW1pY3MsIHRoZSBMYXcgb2YgdGhlIEluY3JlYXNlIG9mIHRoZdwAABwD AABZI4AAAbOAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIAHADcUmFuZG9tIEVsZW1lbnQsIHN5 c3RlbXMgY29udGFpbmluZyBlbmVyZ3kgaGF2ZSB0aGUgZGVzaXJlIHRvIGRp c3BlcnNlIHRoZWlyIGVuZXJnedwAAAIA3GVxdWFsbHkgaW4gdGhlIHN1cnJv dW5kaW5nIGVudmlyb25tZW50LiAgVGhpcyBpcyB0aGUgZXNzZW5jZSBvZiBB dm9nYWRyb8DVBBzAcyBMYXcgb2bcAAACANxHYXNlcyBhbmQgb2YgQnJvd25p YW4gTW92ZW1lbnQuICBQbGFjZXMgd2l0aCBoaWdoIGdhcywgb3IgZW5lcmd5 LCBjb250ZW50IGVxdWFsaXpl3AAAAgDcd2l0aCBsb3cgZ2FzLCBvciBlbmVy Z3ksIGFyZWFzIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGNyZWF0ZSBhIGlzb3Ryb3BpYyBhbmQg aG9tb2dlbmVvdXPcAAACANzA0gQewGF0bW9zcGhlcmUuwNMEH8AgIEluIHRo ZSB0ZXJtcyBvZiBtZXRlb3JvbG9neSwgaGlnaCBwcmVzc3VyZSBhcmVhcyBh bmQgbG93IHByZXNzdXJl3AEANggAAFmlgAACNYAAABcDWAApACkAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAEAAAAAWb8ACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYB3GFyZWFzIHNwb250YW5lb3Vz bHkgYmVjb21lIGVxdWFsIGluIHByZXNzdXJlLiAgVGhlIGVxdWFsaXphdGlv biwgaG93ZXZlciwgaXMgbmV2ZXK/3AAAAgDcZnVsbHkgYWNoaWV2ZWQu3AIA FAEA5gAIA1oAAFkjAAAAAAEAFALcwQAAACQAAMFJbiBhIG1vZGVybiBwYXJh ZGlnbSBvZiBwaHlzaWNzIGl0IGlzIHRob3VnaHQgdGhhdCB0aGUgZm9yY2Ug Y2F1c2luZyB0aGXcAAACANxlcXVhbGl6YXRpb24gb2YgZW5lcmd5IGlzIGNv bnRhaW5lZCB3aXRoaW4gdGhlIGVuZXJneSBpdHNlbGYuICBUaGV5IGNhbGwg aXQgdGhlIMDUBBvAd2Vha9wAAAIA3GZvcmNlLMDVBBzAIHdoaWNoLCB0aGV5 IHNheSwgaXMgcmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoZSBkZWNheSBvZiB0aGUgYXRv bSwgb3IgYW55IGVuZXJnZXRpY9wAAAIA3HN5c3RlbS4gIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhh dCB0aGUgZm9yY2UgaW1wZWxsaW5nIGVudHJvcHkgaXMgY29udGFpbmVkIHdp dGhpbiB0aGXcAAACANxvbW5pcGVybWVhdGluZyBhbmQgb21uaWNpcmN1bmZl cmVudGlhbCBzcGFjZSBub3RoaW5nbmVzcyBpbiB0aGF0IGl0IMDSBB7AcHVs bHPA0wQfwCB0aGXcAAACANxlbmVyZ2V0aWMgc3lzdGVtIGFwYXJ0LiAgSSBw cm9wb3NlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBub3RoaW5nbmVzcywgb3Igbm92ZW50LCBoYXMg YW4gaW5mbHVlbmNl3AAAAgDcb24gZW5lcmdldGljIHN5c3RlbXMgYW5kIHRo YXQgdGhpcyBpbmZsdWVuY2Ugc3RlbXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgZmFjdCB0aGF0IGl0 IGlzIG5vdC7cAgAUAQDnAAcDYQAAWgMAAAAAAQAUAtzcAgAUAQDoAAEDYgAA WrkAAAAAAQAUAtzDAgHD3AIAIAEA6QABA2MAAFrTAAAAAAEiAAAAEAAEACgA ACIAIALc0QIACAAMABIACALRwwKAw1ZJLiAgwwIBw1RoZSBUZXRyYWhlbGl4 IEludm9sdmVtZW50IEZpZWxk0QIACAASAAwACALRwwKAw9wCAD4BAOoAAQNk AABa7QAAAAABAwAAWu2AAAEeAAADFgBIAAACHAAAAJAAAAHTAAAWIgAAAAoA AwAaAAAiAD4C3KrQAQAUAEgAAABIAAAAkAAAAJEAAAAUAdDQBgAGAAMABgbQ q9wCABQBAOsAAQNlAABbFQAAAAABABQC3NwCABQBAOwAAQNmAABbLwAAAAAB ABQC3KrQBgAGAwAABgbQqzEwMzMuMDAgIEludGVydHJhbnNmcm9tYWJpbGl0 eSBNb2RlbHPcAgAUAQDtAAEDZwAAW0kAAAAAAQAUAtwxMDMzLjAxMSAgQ29t bWVuY2luZyB3aXRoIHRoZSBleHBlcmltZW50YWxsedwAAAIA3GRlbW9uc3Ry YXRlZCBwcm9vZiB0aGF0IHRoZSB0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiBpcyB0aGUgbWluaW11 bdwAAAIA3HN0cnVjdHVyYWwgc3lzdGVtIG9mICBVbml2ZXJzZSAoaS5lLiwg dGhlIHZlY3RvcmlhbGx5IGFuZNwAAAIA3GFuZ3VsYXJseSBzZWxmlnN0YWJp bGl6aW5nICBtaW5pbXVtIHBvbHloZWRyb24gY29uc2lzdGluZ9wAAAIA3G9m IGZvdXIgbWluaW11bSBwb2x5Z29ucyBpbiBvbW5pc3ltbWV0cmljYWwgYXJy YXkpLCB3ZdwAAAIA3HRoZW4gZGlzY292ZXIgdGhhdCBlYWNoIG9mIHRoZSBm b3VyIHZlcnRpY2VzIG9mIHRoZdwAAAIA3HRldHJhaGVkcm9uIGlzIHN1YnRl bmRlZCBieSBmb3VyIMDSBB7AZmFjZXMswNMEH8Agb3IgZW1wdHncAQA2CAAA W/+AAAIwAAAAFgNuACoAKgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAABcGQAICxIAEAAAAHoA ABIANgHcdHJpYW5ndWxhciB3aW5kb3dzLiAgVGhlIGZvdXIgdmVydGljZXMg aGF2ZSBwcm92ZW4gdG8gYmW/3AAAAgDcb25seSB3aG9sZZZyYW5nZSB0dW5h YmxlIGFuZCBwb2ludJZ0b5ZhYmxlIG5vaXNlIG9y3AAAAgDcwNIEHsBkYXJr bmVzc8DTBB/AIGNlbnRlcnOWlndoaWNoIGFyZSBwcmltaXRpdmUgKGkuZS4s IGFzIHlldNwAAAIA3GZyZXF1ZW5jeSBibHVycmVkKSwgc3lzdGVtaWMgc29t ZXRoaW5ncyAoc2VlIFNlY3MuIDUwNS42NSzcAAACANw1MjcuNzExLCBhbmQg MTAxMi4zMykgIGhhdmluZyBzaXggdW5pcXVlIGFuZ3VsYXJsedwAAAIA3Glu dGVyc2lnaHRhYmxlIGxpbmVzIG9mIGludGVycmVsYXRpb25zaGlwIHdob3Nl IGJvdGiWZW5kc9wMAAIM3GludGVyY29ubmVjdGVkIHNpeCBsaW5lcyBwcm9k dWNlIGZvdXIgdHJpYW5ndWxhciB3aW5kb3dzLNwAAAIA3G91dCB0aHJvdWdo IHdoaWNoIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIGZvdXIgc3lzdGVtlmRlZmluaW5n3AAAAgDc c29tZXRoaW5ncyBnYWlucyBmb3VyIHNlcGFyYXRlIHZpZXdzIG9mIHRoZSBz YW1l3AAAAgDcb21uaW5vdGhpbmduZXNzIG9mIGFzlnlldJZ0dW5lZJZpbiBV bml2ZXJzZS4gIEFz3AAAAgDcc3VidHVuZWFibGUgc3lzdGVtcywgcG9pbnRz IGFyZSBzdWJzdGFuY2VzLCBzb21ldGhpbmdzltwMAAIM3GVyZ28sIHdlIGhh dmUgaW4gdGhlIHRldHJhaGVkcm9uIGZvdXIgc29tZXRoaW5nc9wAAAIA3HN5 bW1ldHJpY2FsbHkgYXJyYXllZCBhZ2FpbnN0IGZvdXIgbm90aGluZ25lc3Nl cy4gIChGb3Vy3AAAAgDcSU5TIHZlcnN1cyBmb3VyIE9VVFMuKdwCABQBAO4A FQN8AABbYwAAAAABABQC3DEwMzMuMDEyICBUaGUgZm91ciBzb21ldGhpbmdu ZXNzZXMgYXJlIG1hc3PcDAACDNxpbnRlcmF0dHJhY3RpdmVseSBpbnRlcnJl bGF0ZWQgYnkgc2l4IGludGVycmVsYXRpb25zaGlw3AAAAgDcdGVuc29yc5aW ZWFjaCB0ZW5zb3IgaGF2aW5nIHR3byBvdGhlciBpbnRlcmNvbm5lY3RlZNwA AAIA3HRlbnNvcnMgcmVzdHJhaW5zIHByZXZlbnRpbmcgb25lIGFub3RoZXIg YW5kIHRoZWlyIGZvdXLcAAACANxyZXNwZWN0aXZlIHZlcnRleGlhbCBzb21l dGhpbmdzIGZyb20gbGVhdmluZyB0aGUgc3lzdGVtLiDcAAACANxMaWtlIGEg dGhyZWWWcnViYmVylmJhbmRlZCBzbGluZ3Nob3QsIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlIGZv dXIgc2V03AAAAgDcb2YgdGhyZWUgcmVzdHJhaW5pbmcsIGJ1dCBpbiBmYWN0 IHZlcnRleGlhbGx5IGNvbnZlcmdlbnQs3AAAAgDcdGVuc29ycyBub3Qgb25s eSByZXN0cmFpbnRzIGJ1dCBhbHNvIGNvbnN0cmFpbnRzIHRoZWly3AAAAgDc cmVzcGVjdGl2ZSBmb3VyIHNvbWV0aGluZ3MgdG8gcGx1bmdlIGFpbWVkbHkg aW50b5Z0aHJvdWdo3A0ANggAAF5lgAACPAAAABcDhQArACsAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAEAAAAAXn8ACAsSABAAAAB6AAASADYN3GFuZCBvdXQgdGhlaXIgcmVzcGVj dGl2ZWx5IHN1YnRlbmRlZCB0cmlhbmd1bGFyIHdpbmRvd3Msv9wAAAIA3Glu dG8gdGhlIHVucmVzaXN0aW5nIG5vdGhpbmduZXNzLCBhbmQgcGVuZXRyYXRp bmcgdGhhdNwAAAIA3G5vdGhpbmduZXNzIHVudGlsIHRoZSBzdHJldGNoYWJs ZSBsaW1pdCBvZiB0aGUgdGhyZWUgdGVuc29yc9wAAAIA3GlzIHJlYWNoZWQs IHdoZXJlYXQgdGhleSB3aWxsIGJlIHN0cmFpbmVkIGludG8gcmV2ZXJzaW5n IHRoZdwAAAIA3GRpcmVjdGlvbiBvZiBpbXBsZW1lbnQgb2YgdGhlaXIgdmVy dGV4aWFsIHNvbWV0aGluZ3MuICBUaHVz3AAAAgDcd2UgZGlzY292ZXJlZCB0 aGUgdGV0cmFoZWRyb27A1QQcwHMgaW5oZXJlbnQgcHJvY2xpdml0eSB0b9wA AAIA3HJlcGVhdGVkbHkgdHVybiBpdHNlbGYgaW5zaWRlIG91dCwgYW5kIHRo ZW4gb3V0c2lkZZZvdXQsIGFuZNwAAAIA3HJldmVyc2UuICBUaHVzIHRoZSB0 ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiBoYXMgdGhlIG1lYW5zIHRvIGNvbnZlcnTcAAACANxpdHMg dHVuZWSWaW6WbmVzcyB0byBpdHMgdHVuZWSWb3V0lmFuZJZ0dW5lZJZvdXSW bmVzcyzcAAACANx3aGljaCBpbmhlcmVudGx5IHByb2R1Y2VzIHRoZSBmcmVx dWVuY2llcyBvZiB0aGUgcGFydGljdWxhctwAAAIA3GRpc2NvbnRpbnVpdGll cyBvZiB0aGUgZWxlY3Ryb21hZ25ldGljIFVuaXZlcnNlLtwCABQBAO8AFAOQ AABdlQAAAAABABQC3DEwMzMuMDEzICBCZWNhdXNlIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBmb3Vy IHN5bW1ldHJpY2FsbHkgYXJyYXllZNwAAAIA3HNldHMgb2Ygbm90aGluZ25l c3Mgc3VidGVuZGluZyBmb3VyIHNvbWV0aGluZ3MsIHRoZXJlIGFyZdwAAAIA 3GZvdXIgd2F5cyBpbiB3aGljaCBldmVyeSBtaW5pbXVtIHN0cnVjdHVyYWwg c3lzdGVtIGlu3AAAAgDcVW5pdmVyc2UgbWF5IGJlIHR1cm5lZCBpbnNpZGUg b3V0LiAgRXJnbywgZXZlcnncAAACANx0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiBpcyBpbmhlcmVu dGx5IGVpZ2h0IHRldHJhaGVkcmEsIGZvdXIgb3V0c2lkZZZvdXTcAAACANxh bmQgZm91ciBpbnNpZGWWb3V0OiB0aGUgb2N0YXZlIHN5c3RlbS7cAgAmAQDw AAYDlgAAX60AAAAAARYAkAAAAdMAAACQAAACHAAAFgAmAtyq0AEAFACQAAAA kQAAAJAAAABIAAAAFAHQq9wCACYBAPEAAQOXAABgSQAAAAABFgCQAAACHAAA AEgAAAIbAAAWACYC3KrQAQAUAJAAAABIAAAASAAAAEkAAAAUAdDQBABJgQD/ uAAA+wAkAAAAAIIAAAAAkAAA+wAkAAAAAWkAAAABjAAA8wAkAAD/gQD/uAAA 6QAkAAAAAwcAAAADGAAA/gAkAAD/AEkE0KvBAAAAJAAAwVRoZSB0ZXRyYWhl bGl4IGludm9sdmVtZW50cyBmaWVsZCB0aGVvcml6ZXMgd2hhdCB0aGUgdHJh amVjdG9yeSBvZiBh3AAAAgDcdGV0cmFoZWRyb24gYXQgaXRzIG1pbmltdW2W bGltaXQgY2FzZSwgdGhlIHRldHJhaGVsaXgsIHdvdWxkIGxvb2sgbGlrZSBm cm9tIGEgZml4ZWTcAAACANxwb2ludCBvZiBvYnNlcnZhdGlvbi4gIEkgc3Vz cGVjdCwgdGhhdCBpZiB0aGUgdmVydGljZXMgb2YgYSB0ZXRyYWhlZHJvbiB3 ZXJlIHRyYXZlbGluZyBhdNwAAAIA3GEgY29uc3RhbnQgc3BlZWQsIHNheSB0 aGUgdmVsb2NpdHkgb2YgbGlnaHQsIGFuZCB3ZXJlIGluaXRpYWxseSBwb3Np dGlvbmVkIGF0IGVxdWFs3AAAECIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgAQANxkaXN0YW5jZXMg ZnJvbSB0aGUgY2VudGVyIG9mIGdyYXZpdHkgb2YgdGhlIHRldHJhaGVkcm9u LCBhbmQgY29udmVyZ2VkIMMBAcNhdCB0aGUgc2FtZdwBAE4DAABgy4AAAjwA AAMIAABgy4AAAjwAAAAXA5wALAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAGDlAAgLEgAQ AAAAegAAEiIAAAAKAAMAGgAAIgBOAdx0aW1lwwGAwywgdGhlIHZlcnRpY2Vz IHdvdWxkIGNvbGxpZGUgYXQgdGhlIGNlbnRlci6/3AIALAEA8gAGA50AAGBj AAAAAAEDAABg9YAAAAAAAAMiAAAACgADABoAACIALALczAaq2ZKHzMEAAAAk AADBVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBJIHRoaW5rLCB0aGF0IGlmIHRoZSB2ZXJ0aWNlcyB3 ZXJlIHRvIGNvbnZlcmdlIGF0IHRoZSBjZW50ZXIgYXQgYdwAAAIA3GNvbnN0 YW50IHZlbG9jaXR5IHRoZW4gdGhleSBtdXN0LCBpbml0aWFsbHksIGJlIHBv c2l0aW9uZWQgYXQgZGlmZmVyZW50IGRpc3RhbmNlcyBmcm9t3AAAAgDcdGhl IGNlbnRlci7MAqspyKDM3AIAFAEA8wADA6AAAGEPAAAAAAEAFALc3AcARgEA 9AABA6EAAGFdAAAAAAEIAABhXYAAAGgAAAAFA6EALQAtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB AAAAAGF3AAgLEgAQAAAAegAAEgBGB9zcAgAgAQD1AAEDogAAYYcAAAAAASIA AAAQAAQAKAAAIgAgAtzRAgAIAAwAEgAIAtFWSUkuICDDAgHDTm90ZXPRAgAI ABIADAAIAtHDAoDD3AIALAEA9gABA6MAAGGhAAAAAAEDAABhoYAAABoAAAMi AAAADAADAB4AACIALALczAKrKbqjzNEBACWrKcidACIAATvPAAAUQmVybmhh cmRNb2QgQlQgUm9tYW4AJQHRzAKrKcifzLM= --0-355437941-788832470=:14052-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:52:02 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Garbled Posting X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu I apologise for my garbled posting. I didn't know the computer would do that. Sorry. Ted ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 18:29:44 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Test X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --0-865783223-788837384=:21093 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This is only a test --0-865783223-788837384=:21093 Content-Type: APPLICATION/octet-stream; name=Test Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: AARUZXN0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABURVhUV1BDMgEAAAAAzwAAAAAAAAAfAAAA AKsqAiCrKgIgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACBgVCvAABURVNUIDog VEVTVCA6IFRFU1Q6IFRFU1QgOiBURVNUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA== --0-865783223-788837384=:21093-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 19:48:51 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Robert L. Read" Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin Subject: Stewart Brand's Criticism Hi. I got Stewart Brand's book _How Buildings Learn: What happens after their built_ for Christmas, in which he criticizes domes. Thought I would post that quote here, and see what y'all think. Stewart Brand writes: p. 59-60 As for domes, fancied by architecs through the ages, the findings are now in, based on an entire generation's experience with Buckminster Fuller geodesic domes in the 1970s. They were much touted in the architecture magazines of the period. As a major propagandist for Fuller domes in my _Whole Earth Catalogs_, I can report with mixed chagrin and glee that they were a massive, total failure. Count the ways... Domes leaked, always. The angles between the factes could never be sealed successfully. If you gave up and tried to shingle the whole damn thing---dangerous process, ugly result---the nearly horizontal shingles on top still took in water. The inside was basically one big room, impossible to subdivide, with too much space wasted up high. The shape made it a whispering gallery that broadcast private sounds to everyone in the dome. Construction was a nightmare because _everyting_ was non-standard--- "Constractors who have worked on domes all swear that they'll never do another." Even the vaunted advantage of saving on materials with a dome didn't work out, because cutting triangles and pentagons from rectangular sheets of plywood left enourmous waste. Insulating was a huge hassle. Doors and windows weakened the structure, and _they_ leaked because of shape and angle problems. Worst of all, domes couldn't grow or adapt. Redefining space inside was difficult, adding anything to the outside nearly impossible---a cut-and-try process of matching compound angles and curves. When my generation outgrew the domes, we simply left them empty, like hatchlings leaving their eggshells. End of quote. I was pretty stunned on reading this. I am very interested in everyone's opinion. There are at least five companies that claim to sell a hundred domes a year. Have they, in relatively recent years, solved these problems, or not, I wonder? -- Robert L. Read, Member of the League for Programming Freedom ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 23:32:33 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Subject: Re: Stewart Brand's Criticism In-Reply-To: <199412310303.AA02155@charon.osc.on.ca> (read@CS.UTEXAS.EDU) I haven't lived in a dome, but I have visited some badly built ones and these do fit Stewart's assessments regarding whispers, leaks and non-standard parts, but these were problems with the kinds of domes built by the post-commune societies, ie. domes built by hand, primarily of wood. Looking over the Natural Spaces homes, I'm ready to concede many of the troubles have been solved, even with wood, by Fuller's first advice on dome construction: Use aircraft technology in a mass-production. I found the "Dome Book" volumes to be excellent sources of badly built but beautiful domes, each certainly with that problem of customized parts, something Natural Spaces solves by their pre-fab mass production method --- the very key problem, also forseen by Bucky, is still the infrastructure of a proper service industry and while NS can solve this somewhat with mail-order, it is still difficult to effect immediate repairs on critical parts. The NS homes are very intriguing for a number of reasons, and on this list a few years back we had numerous postings from some happy dome-owners. Their strut method is rather ingenious and I could believe it would solve the trouble of face-rotation shear which makes domes so hard to seal (there is an excellent paper on dome facet behaviour under loading conditions put out by the British Columbia forestry dept). About 4 years ago, I was in correspondence with a fellow (lost his name long since) who had done his masters in Florida on a service-industry-based dome project which he, at that time, had describled as about two years away from production. Does anyone else remember more about this project? Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 --------------------------------------- Don't oppose forces, use them ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 22:12:30 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Well, since I can't seem to send a document from my own files and have it arrive on the list intact, I'll have to compose a document in e-mail:-( Briefly, since "One view is that the world consists of things, and any changes we notice are really secondary, arising from the ways things interact with one another. The alternative is that the world consists of processes, and the things we decern are only stills out of which is essentially a movie." -C. H. Waddington and since Synergetics views the world as a moving picture and a line is a trajectoy, then the minimum-limit-case of a line is the trajectory of a tetrahedron and the tetrahelix is the best representative of the trajectory of a tetrahedron when least action principles are applies. There are several corollaries: a) An isotropic vector matrix can be made with tetrahelixes as the trajectories and icosahedrons as the crossings--traffic patterns. b) There are other helixes 1) an octahelix can be extracted from a two-frequency tetrahelix. 2) A cubo-octa helix can be extracted from the octhelix. In sum, the whole isotropic vector matrix can be shown in terms of a trajectory, i.e., the IVM can be frequency modulated within a trajectory--jitter bug, et al. Ted Campbell beth @selway.umt.edu "To inhabit a circle within a circle is to enter a spell." -Norman Mailer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 23:09:12 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Re: Angle is Everything X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Pardon me for jumping in here, I haven't been able to caputure all of this discussion. One needs to remember that there are limits to rationality. Zeno's paradoxes rationally prove that achilles cannot catch the tortise, but he does catch the tortise and in fact passes him. Fuller is an idealist. He deals with geometry the way Plato did, he presumes that there are perfect "forms" underlying nature--i.e., generalized principles--and that special cases are aberrant and teleologically "aspire" to being perfect. Fuller was a hyper-rationalist, Zeno an irrationalist. The only way to surpass reason is to do something "irrational";-) such as giving up earning a living and so forth. Bucky balanced many contradictions. Those perfect polyhedra, generalized principles, or perfectly rational numbers may be out there, but, since there are limits to reason, we'll never know what they are. ---------------------------------- Ted beth@selway.umt.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 02:17:23 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Russell Chu Subject: Re: Re Earth's space is curved/Coordinate System In article <941228131128_764335@aol.com>, Russell Chu wrote: > ...stuff trimmed... > >>The other requirement of plotting simple crystaline structures such as the >>cubic, cubic body centered and cubic face centered, was not easily >>acomplished. >Just wanted to point-out that the IVM _is_ the cubic face centered lattice, >though it's tough to see because of the difference in the traditional >viewing orientations of the two. Sure makes it easier to find the cartesian >coordinates of the vertices of the IVM, though, if you realize that it's >a CFC... Kevin, you are correct if you consider the IVM as a lattice, but as a coordinate system there is a need for a reference point or the axes. The cubic face centered would actually correspond to the IVM centered on the octahedron which are the octahedral axes or the xyz axes. Russ Chu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 03:03:27 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: The Political Dimension of the BFI X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu I've noticed that the Buckminster Fuller Institute has decided to lend its hands to politics. "The next book I'd like to see coming out of Washington would be a collaboration between our new Green Vice President, Al Gore...and our systems thinking Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich." Janet Brown, Trimtab vol. 7 no.4 Spring 1993 Well if happiness isn't a warm puppy! I'm sure that when the BFI says "Green" they don't mean "Red." And if MacNeil/Leher is going to lend a hand, why not Excellence In Broadcasting? Reality must really be virtual. After all, "15 or so years later Lewis discovered Hitler. I hand it to him as a superior perception. Superior in relation to my own 'discovery' of Mussolini." -Ezra Pound ---------------------------------- Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 05:06:29 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Global energy grid X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Something that really blows my mind is the fact that people are still touting the Global Energy Grid when Buckminster Fuller took all that time to convince us that Machivelli & Machivelli Atoms and Oil have us "Metered, Piped and Wired" Something that really needs to be done with this phase of Dome Head Philosophy is to find some consistency, if not in Fuller's works then in our own. I felt that Buckminster Fuller took great pains to show people that it was the individual that mattered in this Universe, not Nations, not Communes, and not Corporations. The Geodesic Dome was supposed to provide the individual with autonomy, "allowing the scholar to return to his studies." It was suposed to be a dwelling machine, one in which the power, water, food,etc. could not be shut off or interrupted by a well placed bomb. What's going to power this Global Energy Grid anyway? Coal fire plants? Nuclear plants? All wind, sun and tide? I don't think so. If you think that the government is small and far away now, just wait until you have a virtual government inside one of the United Nations computers at one of its various ephemeral locations and you'll find that you'll have virtual freedom too. When that happens, someone will say, "I rule the world," and it will be true. And one more thing. I've travelled all over the world and I'm glad that everyone speaks they're own language and makes they're own laws, because whatever oppression exists in those places, there are also freedoms that we have eagarly given away. Have fun sanitizing the culture! ---------------------------------------- Ted "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't...feigning or dissimulating leaves the reality principle intact...whereas simulation threatens the difference between 'true' and 'false', between 'real' and 'imaginary'." -Jean Baudrillard ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 14:20:49 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kiyoshi Kuromiya Subject: Re: Global energy grid X-cc: rich@cpp.pha.pa.us In-Reply-To: from "Edward H Campbell" at Dec 31, 94 05:06:29 am Ted-- Fuller suggested that the Global Energy Grid could be powered by hydro- electric plants on the northward flowing rivers of Siberia. And of course he also showed how tidal, wave, and wind power could be utilized in a way they have never been utilized before. --Kiyoshi Kuromiya > > Something that really blows my mind is the fact that people are still > touting the Global Energy Grid when Buckminster Fuller took all that time > to convince us that Machivelli & Machivelli Atoms and Oil have us > "Metered, Piped and Wired" > > Something that really needs to be done with this phase of Dome Head > Philosophy is to find some consistency, if not in Fuller's works then in > our own. > > I felt that Buckminster Fuller took great pains to show people that it > was the individual that mattered in this Universe, not Nations, not > Communes, and not Corporations. The Geodesic Dome was supposed to > provide the individual with autonomy, "allowing the scholar to return to > his studies." It was suposed to be a dwelling machine, one in which the > power, water, food,etc. could not be shut off or interrupted by a well > placed bomb. > > What's going to power this Global Energy Grid anyway? Coal fire plants? > Nuclear plants? All wind, sun and tide? I don't think so. If you think > that the government is small and far away now, just wait until you have a > virtual government inside one of the United Nations computers at one of > its various ephemeral locations and you'll find that you'll have virtual > freedom too. When that happens, someone will say, "I rule the world," > and it will be true. > > And one more thing. I've travelled all over the world and I'm glad that > everyone speaks they're own language and makes they're own laws, because > whatever oppression exists in those places, there are also freedoms that > we have eagarly given away. > > Have fun sanitizing the culture! > ---------------------------------------- > Ted > > "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To > simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't...feigning or dissimulating > leaves the reality principle intact...whereas simulation threatens the > difference between 'true' and 'false', between 'real' and 'imaginary'." > > -Jean Baudrillard > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 13:53:55 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Robert L. Read" Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin Subject: Re: Stewart Brand's Criticism garym writes: I haven't lived in a dome, but I have visited some badly built ones and these do fit Stewart's assessments regarding whispers, leaks and non-standard parts, but these were problems with the kinds of domes built by the post-commune societies, ie. domes built by hand, primarily of wood. Looking over the Natural Spaces homes, I'm ready to concede many of the troubles have been solved, even with wood, by Fuller's first advice on dome construction: Use aircraft technology in a mass-production. [stuff deleted] Rob responds: It certainly seems based on Brand's fairly limited text that he is talking about things done in the 70s more than the relatively long-established companies, such as Natural Spaces. This is sad, as he is a powerful voice and his statements, if not pertaining to domes-with-the-bugs-worked-out are bound to be misleading and detrimental. Perhaps this group should prepare a letter to send Mr. Brand. This, come from a diverse audience of builders, users, and thinkers might have more weight than some particular company, such as Natural Spaces, complaining, as they have a vested interest. If anyone else is interested, I would serve as the editor of the correspondence. Gary Lawrence Murphy ------------------------- garym@charon.osc.on.ca Sr.Scientist, Technology ------ http://www.osc.on.ca/people/Gary.html Research/Exhibit Planning --------------- voice: (416) 429-4100 x2215 Ontario Science Centre ------- 770 Don Mills Road, North York M3C 1T3 --------------------------------------- Don't oppose forces, use them -- Robert L. Read, Member of the League for Programming Freedom ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 13:26:09 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Nick Consoletti Subject: Re: Global energy grid In-Reply-To: <9412311940.AA15548@mx4.u.washington.edu> I have recently been reading the work of poet Charls Olson "Poetry and Truth"and" Causal Mythology"I should szay rereading I go back to gems over and over again. I find much inspiration in Olsons work that relates to this question of Cultureand grid lock systems,so to speak. He doesn't believe in Culture there is omly ourselves. " That which has meaning exists through itself" In other words the particular the personal is what is essential Olson felt we are putting an end to this diviseveness that is called the nation state and this business of culture " parts are of wholes no one has it right". A quote from Edwin Schlossberg in a long ago communique. Essentila and diversity can thrive. Sterilizxation of culture is more of the disease of idiology playing itself out. Coleridge "the Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner" and John Keats a poet were good friends Keats's notion of megative capability, where we stay with uncertainty and in doubts, is something to consider. What has this to do with Steward Brands thinking about Domes and The electric grids feasabilty? This is some of the work for those who can muster it in the mapped out facts and figures domain. The appropriations for the military haven't dropped significanly to allow a reallocation of funds towards an interpenitrating inquiry. Keep in mind Brand is a journalist. He is out for the story. As I read it he is parrotting Loyd Kahn,who lives in stick in the mud Bolinas, a pot hole country galore. A retrograde place if you ever saw one. Ask J Baldwin what he thinks about posssible ways to go in the design of domes . I think we would get a very thorough story. nicku On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, Kiyoshi Kuromiya wrote: > Ted-- > Fuller suggested that the Global Energy Grid could be powered by hydro- > electric plants on the northward flowing rivers of Siberia. And of course he > also showed how tidal, wave, and wind power could be utilized in a way they > have never been utilized before. > > --Kiyoshi Kuromiya > > > > > > Something that really blows my mind is the fact that people are still > > touting the Global Energy Grid when Buckminster Fuller took all that time > > to convince us that Machivelli & Machivelli Atoms and Oil have us > > "Metered, Piped and Wired" > > > > Something that really needs to be done with this phase of Dome Head > > Philosophy is to find some consistency, if not in Fuller's works then in > > our own. > > > > I felt that Buckminster Fuller took great pains to show people that it > > was the individual that mattered in this Universe, not Nations, not > > Communes, and not Corporations. The Geodesic Dome was supposed to > > provide the individual with autonomy, "allowing the scholar to return to > > his studies." It was suposed to be a dwelling machine, one in which the > > power, water, food,etc. could not be shut off or interrupted by a well > > placed bomb. > > > > What's going to power this Global Energy Grid anyway? Coal fire plants? > > Nuclear plants? All wind, sun and tide? I don't think so. If you think > > that the government is small and far away now, just wait until you have a > > virtual government inside one of the United Nations computers at one of > > its various ephemeral locations and you'll find that you'll have virtual > > freedom too. When that happens, someone will say, "I rule the world," > > and it will be true. > > > > And one more thing. I've travelled all over the world and I'm glad that > > everyone speaks they're own language and makes they're own laws, because > > whatever oppression exists in those places, there are also freedoms that > > we have eagarly given away. > > > > Have fun sanitizing the culture! > > ---------------------------------------- > > Ted > > > > "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To > > simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't...feigning or dissimulating > > leaves the reality principle intact...whereas simulation threatens the > > difference between 'true' and 'false', between 'real' and 'imaginary'." > > > > -Jean Baudrillard > > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 15:23:12 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: Stewart Brand's Criticism At 07:48 PM 12/30/94 -0600, Robert L. Read wrote: > >Stewart Brand writes: >p. 59-60 > >Domes leaked, always.... >The inside was basically one big room, impossible to subdivide, with too much >space wasted up high... >The shape made it a whispering gallery >Construction was a nightmare >Worst of all, domes couldn't grow or adapt. >I was pretty stunned on reading this. I am very interested in >everyone's opinion. There are at least five companies that >claim to sell a hundred domes a year. Have they, in relatively >recent years, solved these problems, or not, I wonder? > Bucky might have agreed with a number of these criticisms -- but the premise, that these were/are the domes of the design science dream, is false. Brand is writing about the generation of dome made using traditional construction methods and materials -- trying to bend the traditional housing construction pattern to fit to domical design. Bucky's vision involved overhauling dwelling design from scratch, applying the latest engineering principles, mostly to be found in the aerospace sector. Once the prototypes were developed, the mass-distribution models would have modular components, permit add-ons (or trade ins) etc. The structure at the South Pole is a dome, and must be fairly wind/snow proof. Domes have been used to cover oil tanks etc., and are no-doubt rain proof. It's when you start cutting pieces of plywood and try to build a traditional house with a dome shape that you get into trouble. But this was never Fuller's vision. As a general proposition, I'd say, if wood is the primary construction material, it isn't a Fuller dome, regardless of whether it's geodesic. Also, we should point out that many of Fuller's futuristic dwelling machine designs were not based on domes (e.g. the Dyamxion House -- although tension over compression was still of central concern). Furthermore, many of the dome designs are large enough to permit more rectilinear subdivisioning into living units, plus gardening or swimming, all within the same continuous enclosure. You could even build an English country style Tudor bed and breakfast looking thing under a dome -- and save on heating costs and have covered tennis to boot. To your specific question: have the dome kit companies worked out some of the bugs Brand talks about?, I don't have a specific answer. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: >Something that really needs to be done with this phase of Dome Head >Philosophy is to find some consistency, if not in Fuller's works then in >our own. I found Grunch of Giants to be more paradoxical, having more "unity of opposites" tension, than your post suggest, by which I mean, Fuller saw the potential of corporate infrastructure to morph into his cyberspace networking dream machine, that would enable nature to move along with her Humans in Universe program. >The Geodesic Dome was supposed to >provide the individual with autonomy, "allowing the scholar to return to >his studies." It was suposed to be a dwelling machine, one in which the >power, water, food,etc. could not be shut off or interrupted by a well >placed bomb. It was also to be mass produced and air-delivered, perhaps lowered by helicopter. Scholars were to be globally networked, so even if somewhat isolated physically, would be anything but islanded mentally. >What's going to power this Global Energy Grid anyway? Coal fire plants? >Nuclear plants? All wind, sun and tide? I don't think so. If you think >that the government is small and far away now, just wait until you have a >virtual government inside one of the United Nations computers at one of >its various ephemeral locations and you'll find that you'll have virtual >freedom too. When that happens, someone will say, "I rule the world," >and it will be true. I already find a lot of my freedoms are "virtual." >And one more thing. I've travelled all over the world and I'm glad that >everyone speaks they're own language and makes they're own laws, because >whatever oppression exists in those places, there are also freedoms that >we have eagarly given away. Who is "we"? I don't think the global energy grid would mean people all speaking the same language or something. Nature's infrastructure is already global -- we share the same atmosphere, circulating biospheric water networks, etc. etc. The "small is beautiful" school sometimes forgets that nature herself is comfortable on whatever scale. Appropriate and well-designed is beautiful, whatever the scale. And yes, human greed and you-or-me training has made its grander scale attempts ugly and noxious. Obnoxico is a reality, as are Atoms & Oil. So I ultimately think your suspicion of big invasive powers trying to erode your personal liberties is valid, healthy and worth feeding. But the fact remains: the planet is one integrated system, ecosystemically, and therefore economically. That's an inevitable fact. Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: after a few computations you're forced to round off anyway, which is no >better than working with pseudo-accurate real numbers and keeping a close >eye on the errors. the alternative is to calculate with rationals >that have an unlimited number of digits - which is slow, and you don't >win in the end anyway because you have to round off for a sensible answer. And what would be the point? Nature does not offer quantities to us that would require unlimited numbers of digits, even in principle. A wooden box of edge one has a "root of 3" body diagonal, but in what sense is a wooden box supposed to have a body diagonal of "precisely" 1.732050807568877 cm, or edges of 1.000000000000000 cm? We're talking about wood for gosh sakes -- it just doesn't come in sizes that precise. Because of the uncertainty principle etc., nature has an upper limit to the precision of her quantities. Our use of unlimited digits is at best propagating irrelevant information. Pi, in its rigorous mathematical sense, has no physical correlate. We may have other semantic difficulties here: rational does not mean whole number in any way. 1.234282832873984791793871 is a rational number. A rational number with an unlimited number of digits that does not cycle in a repeating pattern is a contradiction, i.e. 1.01001000100001000001... is irrational by definition. >as you can tell, i'm not too hip on Bucky's rational-number approach. >maybe it's me, but i don't find whole numbers particularly holy when >it comes to physics. they're fun for mathematicians, but... > I regard your skepticism as healthy. Whole numbers have their allure. Even in physics and chemistry, molecules are made of integral numbers of atoms. Lots of whole number stuff goes on in science. But I don't think Fuller's claim was that we should throw away our calculators and do domes on our fingers. Synergetics is full of root-of-x symbols, talk of SIN and COS. You do need to deal with lots of numbers after the decimal point to be a design scientist -- but with the philosophical caveat that nature is not trying to approach some unlimited digits ideal. Bucky was an advocate of starting from experience. If you haven't experienced a point of no dimensions (e.g. the chalk bit has dimension), then maybe you don't need a mathematics that defines points as dimensionless. Lets just go with the easier proposition: points may be small and pointy, but they don't have to be dimensionless to be useful. And planes don't have to be "infinitely thin" -- really really thin is plenty good enough. And so on... Kirby ------------------------------------------------ Kirby Urner & Dawn Wicca "All realities are virtual" -- KU Portland (PDX), Oregon pdx4d@teleport.com Web: Truth"and" Causal Mythology"I should szay rereading I go back to gems > over and over again. > I find much inspiration in Olsons work that relates to this question of > Cultureand grid lock systems,so to speak. He doesn't believe in Culture > there is omly ourselves. " That which > has meaning exists through itself" In other words the particular the > personal is what is essential Olson felt we are putting an end to > this diviseveness that is called the nation state and this business of > culture " parts are of wholes no one has it right". A quote from Edwin > Schlossberg in a long ago communique. > Essentila and diversity can thrive. Sterilizxation of culture is more of > the disease of idiology playing itself out. > Coleridge "the Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner" and John Keats a poet were good > friends Keats's notion of megative capability, where we stay with > uncertainty and in doubts, is something to consider. > > What has this to do with Steward Brands thinking about Domes and The > electric grids feasabilty? This is some of the work for those who can > muster it in the mapped out facts and figures domain. The appropriations > for the military haven't dropped significanly to allow a reallocation of > funds towards an interpenitrating inquiry. Keep in mind Brand is a > journalist. He is out for the story. As I read it he is parrotting Loyd > Kahn,who lives in stick in the mud Bolinas, a pot hole country galore. A > retrograde place if you ever saw one. > Ask J Baldwin what he thinks about posssible ways to go in the design of > domes . I think we would get a very thorough > story. > nicku > On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, > > Kiyoshi Kuromiya wrote: > > > Ted-- > > Fuller suggested that the Global Energy Grid could be powered by hydro- > > electric plants on the northward flowing rivers of Siberia. And of course h e > > also showed how tidal, wave, and wind power could be utilized in a way they > > have never been utilized before. > > > > --Kiyoshi Kuromiya > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To > > > simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't...feigning or dissimulating > > > leaves the reality principle intact...whereas simulation threatens the > > > difference between 'true' and 'false', between 'real' and 'imaginary'." > > > > > > -Jean Baudrillard > > > > > > When we're speaking about culture, we're speaking, in general about Law. Fuller never addressed the issue of Law, what Law is and what stands it. Law is both written and unwritten. It orignated in the aural/oral tradition, before writing, and was codified--i.e., written down, later by the Jews after the Babylonian Captivity ac500 B.C.--at least it was for this culture. The elements of Religious Law are mainy seen as "customs" now--like shooting abortionists in America and killing writers in Islam. If formal Law was religion before, its politics now. The important thing to see here is that the power to kill stands behind Law--even for the simplest infraction--say loitering--its enforced by institutional structures that have the power to take human life. In this day Law itself is generally regarded as the supreme power in society and its political institutions. That is, to say, even political leaders are subjects to the Law, e.g. U.S. v. Nixon. The Greeks invented tyrany. Tyrany is when a human or a group of humans issue laws when they themselves are not subject to the law. The whole point of this is that there are subtleties to Fuller's thinking which have political ramifications. How do plan to make this utopia. Obviously we are going to have to engage Law at some point to, say, impliment the Energy Grid, to clean up the water, to allow the free flow of information. At some point we're say you can do this and not this and we're backing it with the power to take life. Is this ethical? Is it ethical to say that we are not politically inclined when the Energy Grid Proposal contains elements of Socialism--i.e., presumably all this stuff is going to be controlled by the state. (if not the state then who? It going to take an institution to run it). There is also an element of State health care and State sponsored art, e.g., the National Endowment for the Arts, underlaying much of Fuller's arguments. This would all known as Facism if it were known by another name. How do we plan to IMPOSE our beliefs on others? ----------------------------------- Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 17:31:54 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Re: Global energy grid X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, Nick Consoletti wrote: > I have recently been reading the work of poet Charls Olson "Poetry and > Truth"and" Causal Mythology"I should szay rereading I go back to gems > over and over again. > I find much inspiration in Olsons work that relates to this question of > Cultureand grid lock systems,so to speak. He doesn't believe in Culture > there is omly ourselves. " That which > has meaning exists through itself" In other words the particular the > personal is what is essential Olson felt we are putting an end to > this diviseveness that is called the nation state and this business of > culture " parts are of wholes no one has it right". A quote from Edwin > Schlossberg in a long ago communique. > Essentila and diversity can thrive. Sterilizxation of culture is more of > the disease of idiology playing itself out. > Coleridge "the Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner" and John Keats a poet were good > friends Keats's notion of megative capability, where we stay with > uncertainty and in doubts, is something to consider. > > What has this to do with Steward Brands thinking about Domes and The > electric grids feasabilty? This is some of the work for those who can > muster it in the mapped out facts and figures domain. The appropriations > for the military haven't dropped significanly to allow a reallocation of > funds towards an interpenitrating inquiry. Keep in mind Brand is a > journalist. He is out for the story. As I read it he is parrotting Loyd > Kahn,who lives in stick in the mud Bolinas, a pot hole country galore. A > retrograde place if you ever saw one. > Ask J Baldwin what he thinks about posssible ways to go in the design of > domes . I think we would get a very thorough > story. > nicku > On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, > > Kiyoshi Kuromiya wrote: > > > Ted-- > > Fuller suggested that the Global Energy Grid could be powered by hydro- > > electric plants on the northward flowing rivers of Siberia. And of course he > > also showed how tidal, wave, and wind power could be utilized in a way they > > have never been utilized before. > > > > --Kiyoshi Kuromiya > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To > > > simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't...feigning or dissimulating > > > leaves the reality principle intact...whereas simulation threatens the > > > difference between 'true' and 'false', between 'real' and 'imaginary'." > > > > > > -Jean Baudrillard > > > > > > When we're speaking about culture, we're speaking, in general about Law. Fuller never addressed the issue of Law, what Law is and what stands it. Law is both written and unwritten. It orignated in the aural/oral tradition, before writing, and was codified--i.e., written down, later by the Jews after the Babylonian Captivity ac500 B.C.--at least it was for this culture. The elements of Religious Law are mainy seen as "customs" now--like shooting abortionists in America and killing writers in Islam. If formal Law was religion before, its politics now. The important thing to see here is that the power to kill stands behind Law--even for the simplest infraction--say loitering--its enforced by institutional structures that have the power to take human life. In this day Law itself is generally regarded as the supreme power in society and its political institutions. That is, to say, even political leaders are subjects to the Law, e.g. U.S. v. Nixon. The Greeks invented tyrany. Tyrany is when a human or a group of humans issue laws when they themselves are not subject to the law. The whole point of this is that there are subtleties to Fuller's thinking which have political ramifications. How do plan to make this utopia. Obviously we are going to have to engage Law at some point to, say, impliment the Energy Grid, to clean up the water, to allow the free flow of information. At some point we're say you can do this and not this and we're backing it with the power to take life. Is this ethical? Is it ethical to say that we are not politically inclined when the Energy Grid Proposal contains elements of Socialism--i.e., presumably all this stuff is going to be controlled by the state. (if not the state then who? It going to take an institution to run it). There is also an element of State health care and State sponsored art, e.g., the National Endowment for the Arts, underlaying much of Fuller's arguments. This would all known as Facism if it were known by another name. How do we plan to IMPOSE our beliefs on others? ----------------------------------- Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:08:59 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Re: Global Energy Grid/Urner X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, Kirby Urner wrote: > > I found Grunch of Giants to be more paradoxical, having more > "unity of opposites" tension, than your post suggest, by which I mean, > Fuller saw the potential of corporate infrastructure to morph into > his cyberspace networking dream machine, that would enable nature > to move along with her Humans in Universe program. There is no unity in opposites, only negation. > It was also to be mass produced and air-delivered, perhaps lowered by > helicopter. Scholars were to be globally networked, so even if somewhat > isolated physically, would be anything but islanded mentally. Is one islolated from the power of Law? From the impositions of laws created in a far away place under radically different belief sytems? > I already find a lot of my freedoms are "virtual." That's because power structures can completelt violate you, even when they say that you're protected. > Who is "we"? I don't think the global energy grid would mean people all > speaking the same language or something. Nature's infrastructure is already > global -- we share the same atmosphere, circulating biospheric water networks, > etc. etc. The "small is beautiful" school sometimes forgets that nature herself > is comfortable on whatever scale. Appropriate and well-designed is beautiful, > whatever the scale. And yes, human greed and you-or-me training has made > its grander scale attempts ugly and noxious. Obnoxico is a reality, as are > Atoms & Oil. So I ultimately think your suspicion of big invasive powers > trying to erode your personal liberties is valid, healthy and worth feeding. > But the fact remains: the planet is one integrated system, ecosystemically, > and therefore economically. That's an inevitable fact. > > Kirby > Bucky did say that it was ineviable that english would take over. He couch that by saying that the Universe, or Nature, was doing it. It's interesting to note that Attic Greek has more words for thoughts than it does for things. Nonetheless, global government is shaped like a pyramid. ---------------------------- Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:16:36 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Re: Global Energy Grid/Kuromiya X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, Kiyoshi Kuromiya wrote: > Ted-- > Fuller suggested that the Global Energy Grid could be powered by hydro- > electric plants on the northward flowing rivers of Siberia. And of course he > also showed how tidal, wave, and wind power could be utilized in a way they > have never been utilized before. > > --Kiyoshi Kuromiya > Kiyoshi--- Are we assuming that something in Siberia is somehow ours? That the people there agree with Bucky's vision? When you say Fuller showed (x) do you mean that he simulated it? --Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 21:39:30 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: Re: Sanitary Ideology/Grid/Consoletti X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, Nick Consoletti wrote: > Essentila and diversity can thrive. Sterilizxation of culture is more of > the disease of idiology playing itself out. What I want to know is how deeply does Fuller's world view (ideology) play into the sanitization of american culture with all of its ramifications abroad? How does Fuller's nomenclature play into the politically correct's 'new speak'? You see there is something very subtle about reconstucting a language, especially in a deliberate fashion (as is happening now) when political structures are behind it. Language operates directly on an individuals psyche, even to the extent of changing bodily functions, chemical balances in the brain, e.g., causing anger. Language in part creates personality. Words represent things. They either represent things concrete or things that are absract--thoughts. In a sense, to know more words is to have more thoughts (there is, of course, a function based on how the words are combined) But, what does it do to society to have its cognitive catagories shuffled? I know that Fuller attempted to make his linguistic modifications contingent on scientific discovery. Unfortunately, however, the political structures operative in the world today are on the same agend that they have been on since the promulgation of the modern world. Today were dealing with post-modern hyperreal linguistic structures. Hyperreal is not just the 'fake', but when the 'fake' has more power than the 'real', when people prefer the 'fake' to the 'real'. This is what's happening in the world, I'm not saying Fuller is responsible for it, but I have to ask, "How do his followers play into it?" Ted ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 21:54:41 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Edward H Campbell Subject: New Year/New Moon X-To: geodesic%ubvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu It is iteresting to note that Buckminster Fuller believed it was important to begin projects during a new moon and complete them during a full moon. New Years Day is a new moon as well as the first day of the year. ??? How's that for rationality? Good luck everyone. Ted