From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Oct 26 11:46:09 2002 Return-Path: Received: from acsu.buffalo.edu (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.57]) by linux00.LinuxForce.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with SMTP id g9QFk7Wa005494 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:46:08 -0400 Message-Id: <200210261546.g9QFk7Wa005494@linux00.LinuxForce.net> Received: (qmail 16243 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2002 15:46:07 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (listserv@128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Oct 2002 15:46:07 -0000 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:45:48 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Buffalo (1.8e)" Subject: File: "GEODESIC LOG0112" To: Chris Fearnley Status: O Content-Length: 609647 Lines: 13852 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:55:16 -0800 Reply-To: docbox@earthlink.net Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Fish Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I am willing to make this once in a lifetime offer to anyone > who is a true believer, and believes ANY properly designed dome is > self-cooling Well, let's see. I'll start with the definition of "properly designed dome" to be "one which is self-cooling." Therefore any dome which is not self-cooling is obviously not properly designed. QED I'll swap your Brooklyn Bridge quit-claim for my five acres in Atlantis. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 00:00:02 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Patrick Salsbury Subject: *MONTHLY POSTING* - GEODESIC 'how-to' info ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the monthly "How To" file about the GEODESIC list. It has info on content and purpose of the list, as well as subscription info, posting instructions, etc. It should prove useful to new subscribers, as well as those who are unfamiliar with LISTSERV operations. This message is being posted on Sat Dec 1 00:00:01 PST 2001. If you are tired of receiving this message once per month, and are reading bit.listserv.geodesic through USENET news, then you can enter this subject into your KILL/SCORE file. If you're reading through email, you can set up a filter to delete the message. Both of these tricks are WELL worth learning how to do, if you don't know already. And isn't it about time to learn something new? Isn't it always? :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GEODESIC is a forum for the discussion of the ideas and creations relating to the work of R. Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller. Topics range from geodesic math to world hunger; floating cities to autonoumous housing, and little bit of everything in between. Other lists that focuses more specifically on some of these topics can be found on the Reality Sculptors Website: http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html On topic discussion and questions are welcome. SPAM and unsolicited promotions are not. (Simple, eh?) ----------------------- To subscribe, send mail to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SUB GEODESIC A web page to signon is available here: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/user/sub.html When you want to post, send mail to GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ******NOT***** to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU! LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is for subscriptions, administrivia, archive requests, etc. GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is the actual discussion group. Anything sent to GEODESIC will go to all members. (And you don't want to look like a jerk having everyone see your "SUB GEODESIC John Q. Public" command! ;^) ) This list is also linked to USENET in the group bit.listserv.geodesic If you want to receive copies of everything you send to the list, use the command SET GEODESIC REPRO. If you DON'T want copies, use SET GEODESIC NOREPRO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO SIGN OFF THE LIST: Simply send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SIGNOFF GEODESIC You should receive a confirmation note in the mail when you have been successfully removed. A web page to signoff is available here: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/user/signoff.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIST ARCHIVES: Listserv itself is keeping archives of the list, dating back to June, 1992. Send a note to listserv@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu with this message in the BODY of the note: INDEX GEODESIC You can get help on other Listserv commands by putting the line HELP into the body of the note. (Can be in the same message.) Web-searchable archives for the lists are available at: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/geodesic.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (You may want to save this file to forward on to people who are interested, as it tells what the list is about, and how to subscribe and unsubscribe.) Pat _____________________________Think For Yourself______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- Don't break the Law...fix it. ;^) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 09:05:31 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Millers Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates In-Reply-To: <200111302327_MC3-E8E6-98E1@compuserve.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit There is an account in The Dymaxion World of Buckminster Fuller that is the origin of this claim. During the construction of the DDU, a 20 ft metal dome of silo parts, the roof was hanging from a cable , the bottom edge of the dome 3 ft. off the ground. The hot midsummer Kansas sun was beating on it, the metal hot to the touch, but it was cool inside. A group of engineers used cigarettes to watch the flow of air inside: it came in the top vent, moved in circular paths, and out the bottom. Unfortunately, it is hard to make a dome with such big, freeflowing vents. Other practical concerns interfere. My own experience is that a top vent does make for superior venting, and I can feel the difference in domes I have made, but even with domes raised off the ground 1 1/2 to 2 ft. I have not experienced the dramatic effect described in the downdraft claim. In the North Carolina mountains I made a 42 ft. dome with the base raised 24" off the ground, 3 s.f. of holes at the top covered by an 8'x12 ft. panel. It was a pleasantly cool place on hot days despite the presence of 100 small skylights. Here in Vermont I have an 18 ft. dome raised 18" off the ground with a 12" top venthole and a 4'x8' panel over it. It is also cool in the summer despite several skylights. But again, there is never a vigorous draft. My sphere house has only a screen door at the base, and four casement windows at the 5/8 section upstairs. Not a large base "exhaust" area. The top vent is a 28" wide pentagon covered by a 20 ft. wide metal cap. There is air motion through the vent hole and I can feel it out the screen door, but it is not dramatic, unless compared to the situation before the vents were installed. There is no shelter from the sun here, and the unvented top held a lot of heat the first summer until I opened it up. I don't know how anyone can live in a dome without a top vent. I guess a lot of insulation helps compensate for lack of ventilation. I don't doubt the validity of the downdraft claim. I just think it is hard to make a working dome that will do it. There is a metal dome in India the locals call the "Ice House", because the hotter the outdoors gets, the colder it gets inside. It was designed to exploit that effect, and it does. That one is pictured in Ideas and Integrities. > From: Robert Conroy > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:27:31 -0500 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates > > Joe Moore was reported to have wrote: >>> If properly designed, ANY dome would be self-cooling; see>> > > Joe, for a measly $50,000, I would be prepared to sign over to you > a Quit Claim Deed to the Brooklyn Bridge? If interested, please e-mail me > direct. Please contact me on this once in a life time deal before I change > my mind. I am willing to make this once in a lifetime offer to anyone > who is a true believer, and believes ANY properly designed dome is > self-cooling. Bob > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 07:56:46 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Dymaxion Projection Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The current (December 2001) issue of National Geographic magazine in an = article entitled "Distance dissolves as fiber-optic and wireless = networks speed e-mails and ideas around the world" uses Fuller's = Dymaxion Projection (map) to show which parts of the world are currently = connected by fiber-optic cables! See: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/common/images/shim.gif or=20 http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/12/01/map/pdf/mp_downlo= ad_20011201.4.pdf =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:14:48 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Dymaxion Projection <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 01-DEC-2001 4:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us looks like they found the ultimate use for it -- schematic diagrams! if mister Grey has discerned the "projection" by now, I'd love to hear what in Hell it is; eh? The current (December 2001) issue of National Geographic magazine in an = article entitled "Distance dissolves as fiber-optic and wireless = networks speed e-mails and ideas around the world" uses Fuller's = Dymaxion Projection (map) to show which parts of the world are currently = connected by fiber-optic cables! See: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/common/images/shim.gif or=20 http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/12/01/map/pdf/mp_downlo = ad_20011201.4.pdf --Die, Harry, the Potter, Die! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 04:25:10 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Globalization <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 01-DEC-2001 4:25 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us wow; did this answer the query that I made, last night at a "post-9/11 Muslim/Infidel summit" (at the local U.U.), "How many of the OPECartel countries signed-on, along with the bevy (plurality?) of oil cos. and Enroniacs?" well, that's a paraphrase. can you say, thus quoth: Every country in the world except the US reached agreement this weekend on how to enforce the Kyoto accord on tackling climate change. China admitted to global market Dangerous road to Doha Success at this week's trade talks is critical. But are they doomed from the start, ask Nick Mathiason and John Madeley. The agenda: Food, drugs - and debt reduction --Die, Harry, the Potter, Die! >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 11:13:03 -0800 Reply-To: docbox@earthlink.net Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Fish Subject: self cooling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I love Bucky's "home as membrane" thinking. I also delight that the 4-D house rang like a can of rocks, in a hailstorm. Oops. Gotta filter out those sound-waves. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:47:43 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: The Millers > There is an account in The Dymaxion World of Buckminster Fuller that is the > origin of this claim. During the construction of the DDU, a 20 ft metal dome > of silo parts, the roof was hanging from a cable , the bottom edge of the > dome 3 ft. off the ground. The hot midsummer Kansas sun was beating on it, > the metal hot to the touch, but it was cool inside. A group of engineers > used cigarettes to watch the flow of air inside: it came in the top vent, > moved in circular paths, and out the bottom. That surprises me. > even with domes raised off the ground 1 1/2 to 2 ft. I have > not experienced the dramatic effect described in the downdraft claim. Do you mean you can't see the downdraft even with smoke? > It is also > cool in the summer despite several skylights. But again, there is never a > vigorous draft. Well, it's better not to have a draft strong enough to feel, as long as it is strong enough to displace warm air inside with cool air from somewhere. What the cool air is doing on top of the dome puzzles me. I would expect a Bernoulli effect from wind blowing over the dome faster at the roof than at ground level. But that would suck air OUT the top vents. If instead air is flowing out the bottom vents, of course there will be a downdraft at the top vent. What I am most skeptical about is Bucky's claim that the downdraft air expands enough to absorb significant heat. If the pressure is low enough inside to suck air down, then I agree that the air will cool; but the specific heat of air is so low, and the pounds of air that move are so few even with a downdraft you can feel, I don't think the expansion cooling would be noticeable. Expansion cooling is VERY effective in freon air conditioners and refrigerators but that's because it is BOILING a liquid into a gas at the expansion valve. There is a much higher pressure difference across the valve than I can believe could exist between inside and outside a dome with big vents. But it is the BOILING, the heat of vaporization, that makes the big difference. Also, the liquid freon has much higher specific heat and much more mass than air. > My sphere house has only a screen door at the base, and four casement > windows at the 5/8 section upstairs. Not a large base "exhaust" area. The > top vent is a 28" wide pentagon covered by a 20 ft. wide metal cap. There is > air motion through the vent hole and I can feel it out the screen door, but The smaller opening (door smaller than gap around whole bottom of dome) would make it easier to feel the same volume of air per minute; but the increased resistance would decrease the volume, I'd think. Can you feel a draft out the door when you can't feel a breeze outside? Maybe the 20' metal cap focuses wind down the 28" vent? Are the windows closed? > the unvented top held > a lot of heat the first summer until I opened it up. That's what I'd expect, hot air trapped at top. Vent open, it rises, and is replaced by brief downdraft of outside temp air. Then the downdraft stops, I'd think, but experiment trumps theory. Maybe I have the wrong theory. > There is a metal dome in India the > locals call the "Ice House", because the hotter the outdoors gets, the > colder it gets inside. !!!!???? Is the roof black and rough textured, high heat capacity material? Or a transparent outer skin and an airspace outside the structural dome? Jim Fish offered his property in Atlantis -- > Well, let's see. I'll start with the > definition of "properly designed dome" > to be "one which is self-cooling." but I think it might be easier to design a Bucky-effect self-cooling dome if the working fluid is water, so Jim might want to swap something else rather than his underwater property. A much larger volume air has to go into a downdraft to absorb as much heat as a tiny downdraft of water, because the water is so much denser and has higher specific heat. Ultimately it is the weight difference between the cool fluid and the hot fluid that drives convection currents, if I've got the right theory. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 14:34:09 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates In-Reply-To: <200111302327_MC3-E8E6-98E1@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Robert Conroy wrote: > Joe Moore was reported to have wrote: > >> If properly designed, ANY dome would be self-cooling; > see>> > > Joe, for a measly $50,000, I would be prepared to > sign over to you > a Quit Claim Deed to the Brooklyn Bridge? If interested, > please e-mail me > direct. Please contact me on this once in a life time > deal before I change > my mind. I am willing to make this once in a lifetime > offer to anyone > who is a true believer, and believes ANY properly > designed dome is > self-cooling. Bob > Oh, ye of little faith! Why not? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 14:45:09 -0800 Reply-To: docbox@earthlink.net Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Fish Subject: Cooling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I remember the lore, Bucky had a big cast iron circle placed atop the dome, that baked in the sunlight and created an updraft, which sucked cold air out of the higher realms, which circulated down and entered the bottom ports. He likened this to a kerosene lamp. This isn't exactly what is being spoken here. - j ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 14:44:33 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates In-Reply-To: <200112010411.fB14B7a06507@ns1.planetc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Lee Bonnifield wrote: > >From: The Millers > > > I am interested in hearing from anyone who has > experienced The Effect > > firsthand. > > Joe Moore? said > >> If properly designed, ANY dome would be self-cooling; > see > > I am extremely skeptical of this cooling effect on a > structure smaller than > a large stadium. But if this subject came up regarding a > dome to cover a > CITY -- any structure that big will create its own > weather. Actually I am > still skeptical of the effect working for cooling as > Bucky described, but a > city-sized dome could be designed to generate lots of > atmospheric effects I > bet. The "effect" is a result of a machine, the dome. Geometry and temperature defferentials will no doubt circulate the air in the pattern describe(see Joe's site), and _has to_ cool the air somewhat in the process. No way around it, I don't think. But I am sure insulation and other thermodynamic considerations are of course functions of the "effect." I mean, consider a dome with NO hole in its top. Then the coolin' machine is broken. We have then created an oven, another kind of machine. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:06:25 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- The Millers wrote: I have > not experienced the dramatic effect described in the > downdraft claim. > In the North Carolina mountains I made a 42 ft. dome > with the base > raised 24" off the ground, 3 s.f. of holes at the top > covered by an 8'x12 > ft. panel. It was a pleasantly cool place on hot days > despite the presence > of 100 small skylights. Here in Vermont I have an 18 ft. > dome raised 18" off > the ground with a 12" top venthole and a 4'x8' panel over > it. It is also > cool in the summer despite several skylights. But again, > there is never a > vigorous draft. Thanks for the info on cooling. I guess we need more research. Did you ever check the air temperature at the different openings? I wonder what the optimum area ratio is for inlet and outlet openings. Maybe it varies with the size of the dome and the temperatures of the dome. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 19:42:42 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Millers Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates In-Reply-To: <200112012108.fB1L8ba28470@ns1.planetc.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 12/1/01 1:47 PM, Lee Bonnifield at lee@PLANETC.COM wrote: >> From: The Millers >> There is an account in The Dymaxion World of Buckminster Fuller that is > the >> origin of this claim. During the construction of the DDU, a 20 ft metal dome >> of silo parts, the roof was hanging from a cable , the bottom edge of the >> dome 3 ft. off the ground. The hot midsummer Kansas sun was beating on it, >> the metal hot to the touch, but it was cool inside. A group of engineers >> used cigarettes to watch the flow of air inside: it came in the top vent, >> moved in circular paths, and out the bottom. > > That surprises me. (Steve) But that is what characterizes the dome cooling effect. We all know that hot air tends to rise inside buildings. But it rises outdoors too. If you have a large area of rising hot air, you must have cool air dropping through it somewhere, or what would occupy the space where the hot air used to be? So suppose you have made a dome with a roof that will heat up in the sun, and you have a hole in the top, covered with a metal parasol. The air under the parasol is cooler(shaded) than the rest of the roof. It is also heavier, because cool air is heavier than hot air. All around the parasol air is rising off the dome. It rises in a pattern of a circle with a hole in the middle, because of the parasol. It is a set up for a mass of cool air, further out in the atmosphere where air is almost always cooler than near the ground. The air beneath the parasol drops into your dome, and sucks more air in behind it, cool air dropping through a narrow path in the middle of the rising hot air of the dome roof. This heavy air displaces the lighter warm air inside, which is being sucked outward by the rising hot air outside, and it follows the hot air current in progress on the dome roof. Once the circulation gets going, the reach increases. A large dome, well designed for this purpose like the one in India, can suck cold air out of the stratosphere. How is that for formactive. >> even with domes raised off the ground 1 1/2 to 2 ft. I have >> not experienced the dramatic effect described in the downdraft claim. > > Do you mean you can't see the downdraft even with smoke? Well you've really got me there. I don't smoke, and I have not been looking for subtlety. No, I haven't been making smoke trails. >> It is also >> cool in the summer despite several skylights. But again, there is never a >> vigorous draft. > > Well, it's better not to have a draft strong enough to feel, as long as it > is strong enough to displace warm air inside with cool air from somewhere. > What the cool air is doing on top of the dome puzzles me. I would expect a > Bernoulli effect from wind blowing over the dome faster at the roof than at > ground level. But that would suck air OUT the top vents. When there is any wind, even a barely detectable breeze,there is absolutely no difficulty cooling the sphere. The air exchanges smoothly with the top and bottom vents. It is the sultry, stagnant midsummer days that have me seeking the ideal venting situation. During those times , with the complete lack of shade here, and full sun (no clouds), it is sometimes just as warm inside the dome as outside in the yard. Usually it is cooler in the dome. Now the downstairs of the sphere is a different story. It is cool. We have a terra cotta colored sphere. That is good in the winter, but you can imagine it gets hot in the summer. And the only insulation we have is 5/16" thick aluminized bubblepack. We do not mind 80-85 degree temperatures for the really hot spells, so we are comfortable enough. I just would like someday to have that dome powered cooling. > If instead air is flowing out the bottom vents, of course there will be a > downdraft at the top vent. What I am most skeptical about is Bucky's claim > that the downdraft air expands enough to absorb significant heat. If the > pressure is low enough inside to suck air down, then I agree that the air > will cool; but the specific heat of air is so low, and the pounds of air > that move are so few even with a downdraft you can feel, I don't think the > expansion cooling would be noticeable. > Expansion cooling is VERY effective > in freon air conditioners and refrigerators but that's because it is BOILING > a liquid into a gas at the expansion valve. There is a much higher pressure > difference across the valve than I can believe could exist between inside > and outside a dome with big vents. But it is the BOILING, the heat of > vaporization, that makes the big difference. Also, the liquid freon has much > higher specific heat and much more mass than air. > >> My sphere house has only a screen door at the base, and four casement >> windows at the 5/8 section upstairs. Not a large base "exhaust" area. The >> top vent is a 28" wide pentagon covered by a 20 ft. wide metal cap. There is >> air motion through the vent hole and I can feel it out the screen door, but > > The smaller opening (door smaller than gap around whole bottom of dome) > would make it easier to feel the same volume of air per minute; but the > increased resistance would decrease the volume, I'd think. Can you feel a > draft out the door when you can't feel a breeze outside? Yes > Maybe the 20' metal > cap focuses wind down the 28" vent? Are the windows closed? I have tried it both ways, but usually we open the windows. I think larger openings top and bottom are needed. >> the unvented top held >> a lot of heat the first summer until I opened it up. > > That's what I'd expect, hot air trapped at top. Vent open, it rises, and is > replaced by brief downdraft of outside temp air. Then the downdraft stops, > I'd think, but experiment trumps theory. Maybe I have the wrong theory. > >> There is a metal dome in India the >> locals call the "Ice House", because the hotter the outdoors gets, the >> colder it gets inside. > > !!!!???? Is the roof black and rough textured, high heat capacity material? > Or a transparent outer skin and an airspace outside the structural dome? It is bright metal. Either aluminum or galvanized steel, a membrane dome. When the engineers at Butler went inside the DDU they didn't say it was nice. They said it was cold. > > > Jim Fish offered his property in Atlantis -- > >> Well, let's see. I'll start with the >> definition of "properly designed dome" >> to be "one which is self-cooling." > > but I think it might be easier to design a Bucky-effect self-cooling dome if > the working fluid is water, so Jim might want to swap something else rather > than his underwater property. A much larger volume air has to go into a > downdraft to absorb as much heat as a tiny downdraft of water, because the > water is so much denser and has higher specific heat. Ultimately it is the > weight difference between the cool fluid and the hot fluid that drives > convection currents, if I've got the right theory. I think I would drown in that kind of dome. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 19:08:46 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Tony Kalenak Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates/cooling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" There is a detailed account of the Bernoulli Cooling Effect as applied to geodesic domes in "Critical Path" page 211. I must admit that I have tried to achieve this effect several times at several different scales but I have not been able to achieve it. However, with Bucky's track record for successful invention, I don't doubt that he did it. I want to know what you have to do to make it work. Is it the opaque/reflective nature of a metallic shell that makes it work ? -----Original Message----- From: The Millers To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Sent: 12/1/01 11:05 AM Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates There is an account in The Dymaxion World of Buckminster Fuller that is the origin of this claim. During the construction of the DDU, a 20 ft metal dome of silo parts, the roof was hanging from a cable , the bottom edge of the dome 3 ft. off the ground. The hot midsummer Kansas sun was beating on it, the metal hot to the touch, but it was cool inside. A group of engineers used cigarettes to watch the flow of air inside: it came in the top vent, moved in circular paths, and out the bottom. Unfortunately, it is hard to make a dome with such big, freeflowing vents. Other practical concerns interfere. My own experience is that a top vent does make for superior venting, and I can feel the difference in domes I have made, but even with domes raised off the ground 1 1/2 to 2 ft. I have not experienced the dramatic effect described in the downdraft claim. In the North Carolina mountains I made a 42 ft. dome with the base raised 24" off the ground, 3 s.f. of holes at the top covered by an 8'x12 ft. panel. It was a pleasantly cool place on hot days despite the presence of 100 small skylights. Here in Vermont I have an 18 ft. dome raised 18" off the ground with a 12" top venthole and a 4'x8' panel over it. It is also cool in the summer despite several skylights. But again, there is never a vigorous draft. My sphere house has only a screen door at the base, and four casement windows at the 5/8 section upstairs. Not a large base "exhaust" area. The top vent is a 28" wide pentagon covered by a 20 ft. wide metal cap. There is air motion through the vent hole and I can feel it out the screen door, but it is not dramatic, unless compared to the situation before the vents were installed. There is no shelter from the sun here, and the unvented top held a lot of heat the first summer until I opened it up. I don't know how anyone can live in a dome without a top vent. I guess a lot of insulation helps compensate for lack of ventilation. I don't doubt the validity of the downdraft claim. I just think it is hard to make a working dome that will do it. There is a metal dome in India the locals call the "Ice House", because the hotter the outdoors gets, the colder it gets inside. It was designed to exploit that effect, and it does. That one is pictured in Ideas and Integrities. > From: Robert Conroy > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:27:31 -0500 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates > > Joe Moore was reported to have wrote: >>> If properly designed, ANY dome would be self-cooling; see>> > > Joe, for a measly $50,000, I would be prepared to sign over to you > a Quit Claim Deed to the Brooklyn Bridge? If interested, please e-mail me > direct. Please contact me on this once in a life time deal before I change > my mind. I am willing to make this once in a lifetime offer to anyone > who is a true believer, and believes ANY properly designed dome is > self-cooling. Bob > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 20:41:32 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Chilling Machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is my understanding that in order to set up the air conditioning=20 effect a dome has to have many relatively large openings around the base = and a relatively small opening at the top. As air is pulled out from = around the bottom a vacuum is created which pulls air in through the top = and thereby cooling the incoming air by means of the Bernoulli effect. = This only works when the weather is hot. To the best of my knowledge no = one has ever verified this observed natural atmospheric phenomenon by = means of some type of aerodynamic simulation or mathematical = calculation. See: _The Dymaxion World of R Buckminster Fuller_, pages 124-5 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 02:38:00 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: SpaceshipEarth@MAIL.COM Subject: Re: Chilling Machine In-Reply-To: <007401c17ae3$3c6c9b40$d2a92618@pima1.az.home.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I clearly recall Buckminster Fuller stating somewhere that dome builders have it backwards in putting a vented fan on top of a dome pushing air out, that is should be the other way around. See also these notes in the following link. Cooling effect vs. "chilling machine": http://reality.sculptors.com/~hyprmail/domesteading/1308.html I lost the messages from the Australian collage students that were planning to build and study the Bernoulli chilling dome, and I can't find anything on the internet in reference to it. The student said that he believed their research would show that it doesn't work. > From: Joe S Moore > Organization: [Retired] > Reply-To: Joe S Moore > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 20:41:32 -0700 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Chilling Machine > > Bernoulli ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 12:09:58 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Fw: Chilling Machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The DomeHome List" To: Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 10:33 AM Subject: re: Chilling Machine > From: "Darrel Mand" > Organization: Natural Habitat Domes > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 10:29:59 -0800 > > This has also been called the "Venturi" effect.......and does indeed work. > > Darrel Mand > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "ROBERT VANCE" > > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:39:03 -0500 > > > > Prior to framing the inside walls & floors, I had the > > opportunity to experience this effect first hand; if the > > temperature was anywhere between 85 and 100 degrees "F", I > > would open the lower windows, climb up the scaffolding, open > > the cupola windows and wait ten minutes to experience a > > 20-25 degree temperature drop! That experience alone has > > shown me the wisdom of keeping the "interior airways" as > > "open" as possible. > > BobV! > > http://facstaff.gallaudet.edu/elaine.vance > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Subject: Chilling Machine > > > > > From: "Joe S Moore" > > > Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:58:50 -0700 > > > > > > It is my understanding that in order to set up the air > > > conditioning effect a dome has to have many relatively large > > > openings around the base and a relatively small opening at > > > the top. As air is pulled out from around the bottom a > > > vacuum is created which pulls air in through the top which > > > is cooled by the Bernoulli effect. This only works when the > > > weather is hot. > > > > > > http://www.domegroup.org/moore/ErgyCoolingDomeFreec.gif > > > .:'':. > .::::::::. The DomeHome Email List . http://www.domegroup.org > > > ** subscribe/unsubscribe to this list (under DOG LISTS) and subscribe to > DOME at http://www.hoflin.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 15:04:18 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: SpaceshipEarth@MAIL.COM Subject: Re: Chilling Machine In-Reply-To: <002601c17b64$efd8e680$d2a92618@pima1.az.home.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >> This has also been called the "Venturi" effect.......and does indeed work. I did a search for "venturi effect" and the first link on the list had this to say. WHAT IS VENTURI (Bernoulli Principal) EFFECT?: http://web.wt.net/~gecofact/ASTP17B.htm "In physics, the concept that as the speed of a moving fluid (liquid or gas) increases, the pressure within that fluid decreases. Originally formulated in 1738 by the Swiss mathematician and physicist Daniel Bernoulli, this principle states that the total energy in a steadily flowing fluid system is a constant along the flow path. An increase in the fluid's speed must therefore be matched by a decrease in its pressure. In other words, in regard to temperature, as pressure decreases gas expands and heat is dissipated (temperature drops) because of lower pressure (less density) at greater volume dispersing the kinetic energy. The above is why air leaving a nozzle or discharge port of an air tool often feels cold. Condensate may also be seen because of a lower dew point." I'm still trying to contemplate why it would be better to have the air flow into the dome from the top, rather than out from the top? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:37:04 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Millers Subject: Re: Chilling Machine In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 12/2/01 1:04 PM, SpaceshipEarth@MAIL.COM at SpaceshipEarth@MAIL.COM wrote: >>> This has also been called the "Venturi" effect.......and does indeed work. > > I did a search for "venturi effect" and the first link on the list had this > to say. > > WHAT IS VENTURI (Bernoulli Principal) EFFECT?: > http://web.wt.net/~gecofact/ASTP17B.htm > > "In physics, the concept that as the speed of a moving fluid (liquid or gas) > increases, the pressure within that fluid decreases. Originally formulated > in 1738 by the Swiss mathematician and physicist Daniel Bernoulli, this > principle states that the total energy in a steadily flowing fluid system is > a constant along the flow path. An increase in the fluid's speed must > therefore be matched by a decrease in its pressure. In other words, in > regard to temperature, as pressure decreases gas expands and heat is > dissipated (temperature drops) because of lower pressure (less density) at > greater volume dispersing the kinetic energy. The above is why air leaving a > nozzle or discharge port of an air tool often feels cold. Condensate may > also be seen because of a lower dew point." > > I'm still trying to contemplate why it would be better to have the air flow > into the dome from the top, rather than out from the top? When air flows out the top it is because the air inside the dome is hotter than outside air, like a chimney. Or it is higher pressure, as when the wind sucks it out. The best you can achieve is the same air temperature as out doors. Sometimes this is not good enough. Pulling air in the top can mean sucking in cold air from way off the ground. This has more potential. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:22:10 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Millers from The Dymaxion World of Buckminster Fuller Resent-From: The Millers Resent-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 18:26:05 -0800 Resent-Message-ID: This picture represents "a milestone episode" in Fuller's experimental testing of his "comprehensive theories in environment controlling." Here the first and second tiers of body sheets have been added to the suspended roof, and hung together from a mast which protrudes through the large hole in the top of the D.D.U.- a hole which was later to accommodate a ventilator. The ring of bricks and its contained earth, together with the steel tie-downs for the D.D.U., leading to anchors buried in the earth below, are clearly visible. The picture was taken at noon, in mid August of 1940, in Kansas City, Missouri, in the secluded test area of the Butler Manufacturing Company. Fuller had the structure hoisted in this position for the first time, awaiting the arrival of the Butler Company engineers, and the company's president, E.E, Norquist. The temperature was 100 degrees in the shade. The metal of the building was so hot that it could scarcely be touched. The Butler engineers were greatly impressed with the neatness of the demonstrated theory. Norquist, a lifelong enthusiast for structural enterprise, suggested the group go inside. "You'd better not do that," said the engineer, "you'll burn up." Norquist, with typical Swedish intransigence, entered. A few seconds later, he called out: "It's air-conditioned in here." The engineers thought he was joking, but followed him into the building. "To the amazement of all," Fuller reports, "it was truly cool- if not cold- inside. Cigarette smoke and the men's faces told them a vigorous, cold downdraft was operating at the center. Cigarettes were lighted, and the smoke patterns studied inside and out in an attempt to comprehend the atmospheric patterning that was invisibly in operation to bring about this surprising interior coolness under a scorching sun." What was discovered confirmed Fuller's long held theory that energy in gases evolves unique local patternings. He reasoned that energies could be maintained within local patterns at heat levels quite different from the surrounding atmospheres, just as the Gulf Stream maintains a different heat level as a unique hydraulic patterning within the comprehensive ocean pattern. If energies could be retained locally, by atmospheric patterning alone, local environment controlling for man might be accomplished even without visible walls. Visible shells, he saw, could be shaped to complement the inherent atmospheric self-shaping. Turnip shaped shells would complement the horizontal doughnut. When a smoke ring "evolutes" at its top, it must be involuting at its bottom.If such a ring were turned upside down, it would be involuting at its top and "evoluting" at its bottom. Fuller's experiments disclosed that compound curvature systems provide energy's No. 1 differentializer. Energy concentrations, such as the sun (in the picture) on the convex side of the system (roof), result in the radiation from the energy concentration being diffused by the convex surface. In this picture, the sun radiation (diffused into the atmosphere around the D.D.U.) is heating the atmosphere, causing it to expand.Hence it weighs less, and floats upward, initiating a rising thermal column around the Deployment Unit. This thermal drafts air from around the building to satisfy the upward flow, pulling the air from underneath the raised building, as well as from the surrounding area. This phenomenon, in turn, causes air from the top of the structure to be pulled downward inside the structure (through the ventilator at the top) to satisfy the partial vacuum created by the exhausting of air from under the structure. Also a cold draft spirals downward through the central! core of the rising thermal and is drawn in through the top ventilator. The downward spiral of cold air inside and the energy-exchanging rising column of warm air outside together account for energy dissipations as heat. The result, predicted by Bernoulli's principle, is a natural interior cooling system. When the energy concentrations are on the outside of a convex system, they cause an interior involuting torus of the atmosphere. That is to say,the air immediately adjacent to the hot skin on the interior, rises rapidly as a miniscule boundary layer; and all the rising airs converge at the top, to be vacuum-drafted downward, thinned, and cooled in the process. When the predominant energy concentration is on the concave side of a system, the energy released causes an "evoluting" of a centrally rising, expanding, outward air flow at the top; and exterior downflowing with return to center at base of the atmospheric torus pattern, to feed again upward into the "evoluting sche! me." Fuller saw that the involuting or evoluting patterns of atmospheres could be used to provide cooling or heating efficiencies, respectively, if he would provide complementary shell shapes, proper venting controls (top and bottom), and introduce small amounts of energy into the controlled local patterning. The demonstration confirmed his 1927 assumption of "interior and exterior aerodynamics as a fundamental of the essentially invisible design of environmental controls." However, despite Fuller's knowledge and exposition of the thermal column phenomenon, he finds today that dome users still tend to think of heated air only as everywhere rising. They put large ventilating fans at the zenith of their domes, and in the summer set a fan in motion to pull the air upward and outward from their domes. This simply frustrates the natural tendency of the air to flow downward ad outward at the bottom of the dome. The result is that the heat stays impounded within the dome. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:50:38 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Comments: Resent-From: The Millers Comments: Originally-From: triorbtl@sover.net From: The Millers Subject: Chilling Machine Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit from The Dymaxion World of Buckminster Fuller laboriously retyped just for you This picture represents "a milestone episode" in Fuller's experimental testing of his "comprehensive theories in environment controlling." Here the first and second tiers of body sheets have been added to the suspended roof, and hung together from a mast which protrudes through the large hole in the top of the D.D.U.- a hole which was later to accommodate a ventilator. The ring of bricks and its contained earth, together with the steel tie-downs for the D.D.U., leading to anchors buried in the earth below, are clearly visible. The picture was taken at noon, in mid August of 1940, in Kansas City, Missouri, in the secluded test area of the Butler Manufacturing Company. Fuller had the structure hoisted in this position for the first time, awaiting the arrival of the Butler Company engineers, and the company's president, E.E, Norquist. The temperature was 100 degrees in the shade. The metal of the building was so hot that it could scarcely be touched. The Butler engineers were greatly impressed with the neatness of the demonstrated theory. Norquist, a lifelong enthusiast for structural enterprise, suggested the group go inside. "You'd better not do that," said the engineer, "you'll burn up." Norquist, with typical Swedish intransigence, entered. A few seconds later, he called out: "It's air-conditioned in here." The engineers thought he was joking, but followed him into the building. "To the amazement of all," Fuller reports, "it was truly cool- if not cold- inside. Cigarette smoke and the men's faces told them a vigorous, cold downdraft was operating at the center. Cigarettes were lighted, and the smoke patterns studied inside and out in an attempt to comprehend the atmospheric patterning that was invisibly in operation to bring about this surprising interior coolness under a scorching sun." What was discovered confirmed Fuller's long held theory that energy in gases evolves unique local patternings. He reasoned that energies could be maintained within local patterns at heat levels quite different from the surrounding atmospheres, just as the Gulf Stream maintains a different heat level as a unique hydraulic patterning within the comprehensive ocean pattern. If energies could be retained locally, by atmospheric patterning alone, local environment controlling for man might be accomplished even without visible walls. Visible shells, he saw, could be shaped to complement the inherent atmospheric self-shaping. Turnip shaped shells would complement the horizontal doughnut. When a smoke ring "evolutes" at its top, it must be involuting at its bottom.If such a ring were turned upside down, it would be involuting at its top and "evoluting" at its bottom. Fuller's experiments disclosed that compound curvature systems provide energy's No. 1 differentializer. Energy concentrations, such as the sun (in the picture) on the convex side of the system (roof), result in the radiation from the energy concentration being diffused by the convex surface. In this picture, the sun radiation (diffused into the atmosphere around the D.D.U.) is heating the atmosphere, causing it to expand.Hence it weighs less, and floats upward, initiating a rising thermal column around the Deployment Unit. This thermal drafts air from around the building to satisfy the upward flow, pulling the air from underneath the raised building, as well as from the surrounding area. This phenomenon, in turn, causes air from the top of the structure to be pulled downward inside the structure (through the ventilator at the top) to satisfy the partial vacuum created by the exhausting of air from under the structure. Also a cold draft spirals downward through the central core of the rising thermal and is drawn in through the top ventilator. The downward spiral of cold air inside and the energy-exchanging rising column of warm air outside together account for energy dissipations as heat. The result, predicted by Bernoulli's principle, is a natural interior cooling system. When the energy concentrations are on the outside of a convex system, they cause an interior involuting torus of the atmosphere. That is to say,the air immediately adjacent to the hot skin on the interior, rises rapidly as a miniscule boundary layer; and all the rising airs converge at the top, to be vacuum-drafted downward, thinned, and cooled in the process. When the predominant energy concentration is on the concave side of a system, the energy released causes an "evoluting" of a centrally rising, expanding, outward air flow at the top; and exterior downflowing with return to center at base of the atmospheric torus pattern, to feed again upward into the "evoluting scheme." Fuller saw that the involuting or evoluting patterns of atmospheres could be used to provide cooling or heating efficiencies, respectively, if he would provide complementary shell shapes, proper venting controls (top and bottom), and introduce small amounts of energy into the controlled local patterning. The demonstration confirmed his 1927 assumption of "interior and exterior aerodynamics as a fundamental of the essentially invisible design of environmental controls." However, despite Fuller's knowledge and exposition of the thermal column phenomenon, he finds today that dome users still tend to think of heated air only as everywhere rising. They put large ventilating fans at the zenith of their domes, and in the summer set a fan in motion to pull the air upward and outward from their domes. This simply frustrates the natural tendency of the air to flow downward ad outward at the bottom of the dome. The result is that the heat stays impounded within the dome. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:31:07 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Chilling Machine Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A copyright is good for the lifetime of the owner plus 50 years. However, the "Fair Use" section of the law allows copying for, among other things, educational purposes. One is not allowed to make copies for commercial purposes except with the permission of the owner or his/her estate. ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The DomeHome List" To: Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 9:10 PM Subject: re: Chilling Machine > From: "W. Howard Adams" > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:13:42 -0500 > > Is the copyright on the DomeBook and Domebook 2 expired? > If so, is there anyone who would photocopy them for a price? > > thanX! > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: The Millers > > Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 19:29:34 -0800 > > > > In Domebook 2 there is a half page titled Fuller Item > > 'M' that shows a diagram of the cooling set up we are > > discussing. It is by Fuller himself. The only difference > > in this account is that the hole at the top is quite > > large in the illustration ( with a very large cover), > > not at all how it would be drawn if the hole was to be > > particularly small. The top vent is pictured with a > > radius about half of the dome radius. > > It states "be sure to design your building with large > > ventilating and reflective areas both top and bottom > > with screens, etc." > > > > Item "M", Boston Blue Print Data Archive by R. > > Buckminster Fuller > > > .:'':. > .::::::::. The DomeHome Email List . http://www.domegroup.org > > > ** subscribe/unsubscribe to this list (under DOG LISTS) and subscribe to > DOME at http://www.hoflin.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:51:33 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: please help! Comments: To: mafei@cast504.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mafei, I assume you have been looking at the following page: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/TriWeave3WayVs2Way.htm The reference you mention means a Mr Norris F. Dow of the Valley Forge Space Technologies Company (a General Electric Company) of Philadelphia, PA, USA, wrote the article in 1969. The second reference is an article with the same title but written by Mr Dow & Mr Tranfield working in the Fabric Research Lab in Dedham, MA, USA. The article appeared in the Textile Research Journal of November 1970. Sorry for being so cryptic; I was trying to squeeze everything on one line. Triaxial weave references are very hard to come by--at least the last time I looked. ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "ÂíС·É" To: Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 8:58 PM Subject: please help! > hi,joemoore: > I am very interesting to your introduction about "triaxial woven fabric" , > in the "http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/TriWeave3WayVs2Way.htm". > you said that "for more information see:,for example:"Preliminary investigation of Feasibility of Weaving Triaxial Fabrics Dow, Norris F (Valley Forge Space Tech) GE Co;phil, pa ??-77" > but I don't know what is the meaning of "Dow, Norris"?can you give me some information about it ,and where can I find it ?some site? > Thank you in advance! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 22:06:34 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Plydome Article in BackHome Magazine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A 4-page article by Steve Miller about "Bent-Plywood Domes" is in the = Nov/Dec 2001 issue of BackHome magazine: http://www.backhomemagazine.com/BackHome_article1.html =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:14:47 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: bendome MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >I recommend this article: > >http://www.backhomemagazine.com/BackHome_articles.html > >jmr > > > .:'':. >.::::::::. The DomeHome Email List . http://www.domegroup.org > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:48:58 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Chilling Machine Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wasn't volunteering--just clarifying. Maybe someone would be willing to scan the article & make it available for free on some web site--with the proper copyright notice, of course. I don't have room on mine; the hard drive space that I rent is already full! Refs: "Item M" article by R B Fuller in _Domebook One_, p 38 & _Domebook 2_, p 82. http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/EndEnergyCoolingFree.htm ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The DomeHome List" To: Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:00 AM Subject: re: Chilling Machine > From: "W. Howard Adams" > Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:40:17 -0500 > > Thanks for the info on copyrights...but, is it a yes, > you will copy them for me, or a no? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Joe S Moore" > > Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:31:07 -0700 > > > > A copyright is good for the lifetime of the owner plus > > 50 years. However, the "Fair Use" section of the law > > allows copying for, among other things, educational > > purposes. One is not allowed to make copies for > > commercial purposes except with the permission of the > > owner or his/her estate. > > > > ============================== > > Joe S Moore > > joemoore27@home.com > > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > > ============================= > > > .:'':. > .::::::::. The DomeHome Email List . http://www.domegroup.org > > > ** subscribe/unsubscribe to this list (under DOG LISTS) and subscribe to > DOME at http://www.hoflin.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:17:51 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Venturi Effect & cooling Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In order to take maximum advantage of the naturally occurring (invisible) hot weather thermodynamics, a dome shape must be used. On the outside is a huge evoluting donut-shaped mass of air, while inside of the dome is an involuting donut-shaped volume of air. The outside donut is rotating from the center "up" (out) as viewed from the side, while the inner donut is rotating from the center "down" (in). See (again): http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/EndEnergyCoolingFree.htm (BTW, the graphic was adapted from the "Item M" article. Also, the "M" stands for "Milestone"--a milestone event--RBF observing this phenomenon.) ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The DomeHome List" To: Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Venturi Effect & cooling > Robert Conroy at Robert_Conroy@compuserve.com wrote: > (snip) > ...? Or does the dome shape also contribute to it? (snip) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:47:54 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Help? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 03-DEC-2001 8:47 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us this may be the dictum about what one pays for. I'm having some whacky problems with my site, quincy4board.homestead.com, which is partly relrlected in my new Dysclaimer.html index page. first of all, that page does not load into the page-editor, excpet in an earlier form of my edit-- then it screws up and becomes uneditable (so far). secondly, most of my image inloads are not availabe -- thought plainly in the file-system -- for insertion into the pages (but the ones that are *already* on the pages, are listed). I *did* pay for a year's service in September, and the apparent blocking that's going on, from some services. may be a matter of people saying that it *should* be ... could I intefere with Dame Jo's open-ended franchize? (only 4 of the heptology have been publsihed, so that virtually anything could be inserted into the remaining & arguably greater 3 books, judging from the length of the 4th one; would you love, so, to be asubject of Betty Dos, like Dame Jo?) I feel sure that AOL/Time-Warner/Scholastic/Yahoo!/Reuters are OK with the fact that the movie's being pirated in China, thanks to the love-interest that is (reputed to be) developing at the end of the 4th book! ABC has bought the rites (sik) for TV, and their cable-stuff; that's Disney, of course NB: I didn't realize, but *The Lord of the Rings* is also another 100% British production, being dystributed by Warner Bros.! --Parental Advisory! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:32:41 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Help? In-Reply-To: <200112031647.fB3GlsO19807@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is this another example of you making sense when others don't? Dick > this may be the dictum about what one pays for. > I'm having some whacky problems with my site, > quincy4board.homestead.com, which is partly relrlected > in my new Dysclaimer.html index page. > first of all, that page does not load into the > page-editor, > excpet in an earlier form of my edit-- then it screws up > and > becomes uneditable (so far). > secondly, most of my image inloads are not availabe > -- thought plainly in the file-system -- > for insertion into the pages (but > the ones that are *already* on the pages, are listed). > > I *did* pay for a year's service in September, and > the apparent blocking that's going on, from some > services. > may be a matter of people saying that it *should* be ... > could I intefere with Dame Jo's open-ended franchize? > (only 4 of the heptology have been publsihed, so that > virtually anything could be inserted > into the remaining & arguably greater 3 books, > judging from the length of the 4th one; > would you love, so, to be asubject of Betty Dos, like > Dame Jo?) > I feel sure that > AOL/Time-Warner/Scholastic/Yahoo!/Reuters are OK > with the fact that the movie's being pirated in China, > thanks to the love-interest that is (reputed to be) > developing > at the end of the 4th book! > > ABC has bought the rites (sik) for TV, > and their cable-stuff; that's Disney, of course > NB: I didn't realize, but > *The Lord of the Rings* is also another 100% British > production, > being dystributed by Warner Bros.! > > --Parental Advisory! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:03:07 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Chilling Machine <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 03-DEC-2001 13:03 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us as I recall the diagram, the heated dome causes an "up" draft around itself -- bearing in mind that the heating is not even, due to season & time o'day -- which can be taken advantage-of by having vents at the base, for outflow, and one at the top, for inflow. actually, I just grokked this, with this dyscussion. the outside air is not restricted, but by the dome, itself; thus, the rising air'd "involute," further pushing (or at least not sucking "up" as much) air into the top hole; the air coming in may-well naturally "evolute," thereby (or was it the other way, around ?-) thus quoth: I'm still trying to contemplate why it would be better to have the air flow into the dome from the top, rather than out from the top? WHAT IS VENTURI (Bernoulli Principal) EFFECT?: http://web.wt.net/~gecofact/ASTP17B.htm --Some Words on the Ring! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:10:31 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Help? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 03-DEC-2001 13:10 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us also, the "user-to-user" newsgroups at Homested.com are, suddenly, "access denied" to me. I cannot explain the difference between my current index.html page, which is a relavent dysclaimer, and what comes up when I load it into Homestead's editor. one possible explanation is that there are two, different ones, one of which was accidentally left connected, and which may be used for some other purpose (that is, in misdirecting my URL, for some or all serfers). can anyone tell me, what they see on my site, in some specifics, as a check? thus saith: this may be the dictum about what one pays for. I'm having some whacky problems with my site, quincy4board.homestead.com, which is partly relrlected in my new Dysclaimer.html index page. first of all, that page does not load into the page-editor, excpet in an earlier form of my edit-- then it screws up and becomes uneditable (so far). secondly, most of my image inloads are not availabe -- thought plainly in the file-system -- for insertion into the pages (but the ones that are *already* on the pages, are listed). I *did* pay for a year's service in September, and the apparent blocking that's going on, from some services. may be a matter of people saying that it *should* be ... could I intefere with Dame Jo's open-ended franchize? (only 4 of the heptology have been publsihed, so that virtually anything could be inserted into the remaining & arguably greater 3 books, judging from the length of the 4th one; would you love, so, to be asubject of Betty Dos, like Dame Jo?) I feel sure that AOL/Time-Warner/Scholastic/Yahoo!/Reuters are OK with the fact that the movie's being pirated in China, thanks to the love-interest that is (reputed to be) developing at the end of the 4th book! ABC has bought the rites (sik) for TV, and their cable-stuff; that's Disney, of course NB: I didn't realize, but *The Lord of the Rings* is also another 100% British production, being dystributed by Warner Bros.! --Parental Advisory! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 06:48:56 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Help? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-DEC-2001 6:48 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us thanks, Friendly Fred! actually, I can't see attachments from PEN, although I can from Space998@hotmail.com. anyway, I realized that I'd just forgotten that I'd *changed* the Dysclaimer page *to* the Index (or the default page, if one types http://quincy4board.homestead.com), and forgotten to delete the older page, which I was calling-up in the editor. in other word, nevermind. in any case, the same provisos apply about spoofing, whether it has ever been done to me, yet. (the things that *have* been done, amount to minor interferences, such as on PEN (by City staff, even semi-officially).) thus quoth: I've attached the html file that I saved when I went to your site, so you can see exactly what I got. Note that I surf with all scripts disabled including JAVA and Java Script, so this will probably be different then what most people would see, but for what it's worth, this is what I get. --Harry the Potter must die, now; throw him in with the Ring! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:00:27 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Globalization <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-DEC-2001 7:00 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops, somehow, the part of my reply was left off: thus saith: wow; did this answer the query that I made, last night at a "post-9/11 Muslim/Infidel summit" (at the local U.U.), "How many of the OPECartel countries signed-on, along with the bevy (plurality?) of oil cos. and Enroniacs?" well, that's a paraphrase. can you say, Who in the room is not as Green as a ghost?, boys'n'girls? --Die, Harry, the Potter, Die! >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:40:37 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: PEN Weekly NewsBlast for November 30, 2001 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 04-DEC-2001 7:40 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us HARRY WORSHIP: HOW TO RUN AN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT Big-city school boards and community leaders are understandably frustrated with school superintendents who "came up through the ranks." Too often their first loyalty is to "the system," and though they share community leaders hopes for school improvement, they shrink from doing anything that would roil central-office staff, employee unions, or other entrenched interests. Such superintendents also are often itinerants who do not understand the politics of the cities in which they work. They are thus unable to marshal grassroots support for reforms. Paul Hill argues that Americans are paying too much for school district oversight and getting too little for it. In big cities the waste will continue as long as schools are dominated by political decision-making bodies, central management systems, and labor contracts. http://www.educationnext.org/20014/26hill.html HOME SCHOOLS COULD MAKE DRUG PROSECUTION YET MORE DRACONIAN There is a labyrinth of state and federal laws restricting drugs in and around schools, and they pose the same intriguing question arising from gun laws: Do they apply to home schools? Why does it matter? There are 850,000 home-schooled children in America. If the parents or siblings of any of these children get caught possessing drugs, they may be liable under the same laws intended for playground drug pushers. These laws may even apply to neighbors. Lets say you live within 1,000 feet of a home-schooling family. If you get busted you could be in for a longer trip up the river than you imagined. Similarly, what happens to someone pulled over for speeding in an unfamiliar residential neighborhood if a local constable finds drugs in the car? If its anywhere near a home school, things could get ugly. http://www.reason.com/hod/sm111901.shtml TEAR DOWN THIS WALL: RADICALLY OVERHAULING TEACHER CERTIFICATION Contrary to the claims of some critics, the problem of teacher certification is not the existence of schools of education and teacher preparation programs or their particular failings. The real problem lies in state laws that give these schools and programs a monopoly on training and certifying teachers. The arguments fall into two camps. Some propose abolishing schools of education or doing away with certification altogether. Others believe that adding new barriers to entry or creating advanced "master teacher" certifications will address the quality problem and increase the "rigor" of teacher preparation programs. According to Frederick Hess, neither of these approaches will adequately tackle the problems at hand. This paper proposes a third way: a "competitive certification" model that breaks the monopoly education schools hold on the supply of teachers with the aim of expanding the pool of potential teachers while also addressing the issue of quality. The goal is to increase the pool of qualified applicants for teaching jobs and at the same time increase the competition among providers of preparation and ongoing professional development for teachers. http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=135&contentid =3964 A WAREHOUSE FOR THE ARTS Just outside New York City you can find a warehouse full of unusual aids for creativity during a time of extra need. In these times of economic and social uncertainty, demand is rising in New York City for food for the hungry, clothing for the cold, shelter for the homeless and tutoring for children hit by cuts in Board of Education spending for after-school and Saturday classes. But at Materials for the Arts, or M.F.A. in the parlance of those in the know, workers say they are noticing a rise in demand for a more unexpected commodity--stuff to make art. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/30/nyregion/30ART.html FOUR THINGS TO CONSIDER ABOUT PERFORMANCE ASSESSEMENTS Local school leaders must determine when performance-based assessments are the best tool for accomplishing important instructional and accountability goals. On the one hand, teachers appreciate the instructional validity of many performance tasks. However, information from multiple-choice assessments (or from multiple-choice plus constructed-response tasks) may be the most efficient means of answering specific policy concerns. This article offers four probing questions you can use to determine if performance assessments are right for your students. http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2001_12/rabinowitz_sidebar.htm A TEST FOR U.S. SCHOOL REFORM Hard to remember, but school reform was President Bush's top priority before Sept. 11. Now, nearly three months later, he may soon have a bill on his desk that appears to hold local public educators accountable. But don't ring the bells quite yet. While a deal has been brokered in Congress on linking federal funding with the testing of all public school children, the record shows an embarrassing lapse in federal enforcement for the last big educational reform. In 1994, Congress gave states five years to set up learning standards and to create tests to measure whether students had met them. Failure to meet those rules would result in cutting Title I dollars - the largest portion of federal funding for schools. But only 28 states have met the federal standards, three years after the deadline. Part of the reason is stiff political opposition to school accountability in many states, led by teachers' unions. But the main reason was a weakness of will to enforce the law under the Clinton administration, and so far, under Mr. Bush, too. Which all goes to prove that maybe top-down accountability enforced from Washington on local schools may not be the cure-all that candidate Bush hoped for. Who will hold the US Education Department accountable for enforcing a new reform law? The record speaks for itself. http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1130/p10s1-comv.html GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING IN THE UNITED STATES 2001 Volunteering is at the core of citizen action and central to the successful operations of millions of charities, social welfare, and religious organizations in the United States. Volunteers are vital to the ability of a nonprofit to serve its communities. This report is the seventh in a series of national surveys that report trends in charitable behavior. Key findings: 44% of adults over the age of 21 volunteered in 2000; of these volunteers, 69% volunteered on at least a monthly basis; volunteers averaged just over 24 hours per month of volunteering time; individuals are much more likely to volunteer when asked; when asked to volunteer, 63% said yes; more women (46%) volunteered than men (42%). http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/GV01main.html COVERING THE EDUCATION BEAT This new resource--written by reporters for reporters and the general This new resource--written by reporters for reporters and the general public--covers nearly 100 topics in education, from early childhood to charter schools, dropouts, testing, and the achievement gap. The higher education section of the book covers more than a dozen essential topics, including college costs, financial aid, enrollment trends, curriculum, faculty, and athletics. U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to education and a guide to the U.S. Department of Education and Congress make the book particularly valuable for those seeking a national context on school reform. Each easy-to-read backgrounder covers the latest research, current and future concerns, and lists expert sources and pertinent organizations with websites, e-mail and phone numbers. http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/bulletin/ebullet.html#three BIG-TIME FUNDRAISING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS Fund raising is a billion dollar business in America, but the public schools have been slow to jump on the bandwagon. If public schools are to compete for needed dollars with private schools, colleges, universities and nonprofit organizations, superintendents and their staffs must aggressively apply the fund-raising strategies used so effectively by these other organizations. This article suggests creating a local education fund (LEF) to broaden the school constituency, keep the community informed, and facilitate the acquisition of grants and gifts. http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2001_12/focus_levenson.htm PUBLIC CAN BOOST PUBLIC EDUCATION Although not the fault of students, low income often means low achievement. The Education Alliance, West Virginia's statewide local education fund, recently received a planning grant from the Public Education Network to work with all parties who care about public education. The purpose of this program is to begin the impetus to ensure that a qualified, caring teacher teaches every student. This goal seems straightforward, but, unfortunately, there are no simple solutions. http://205.180.85.40/w/pc.cgi?mid=6843&sid=3382 THE EFFECTIVE TEACHER THINKS The effective teacher thinks, reflects, and implements. The effective teacher models what is expected from the students--the ability to think and solve problems on their own. Effective teachers use their cumulative knowledge to solve problems. Whether a teacher is in a public or private school, charter school, adult education classroom, teacher inservice workshop, or private industry seminar, the techniques remain the same. It makes no difference what the grade level is: kindergarten, fourth grade, high school, or a subject matter: music, foreign language, or physical education. (1) Effective classrooms start on time. (2) Students know the classroom procedures. (3) Teachers understand how to teach for mastery. (4) Teachers have high expectations for student success. http://teachers.net/gazette/NOV01/covera.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:25:40 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Plydome Article in BackHome Magazine Comments: To: SpaceshipEarth@mail.com Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SSE, I would love to see the US drop emergency parachute domes that become rigid while on the way down; see: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/IcosDomeParachute.htm The attached canister would contain all the necessary camping gear to make the shelter functional. Or maybe something like this: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/IcosDomeTentInflate.htm ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Joe S Moore" Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:04 PM Subject: Re: Plydome Article in BackHome Magazine > Just what Afghanistan needs right now. As you may recall, in a pinch, the US > State Department called upon Buckminster Fuller to hurriedly construct and > erect a dome pavilion for Afghanistan's Geshin Fair in 1954, to compete with > the Russian's exhibit. Fuller constructed a 114 foot dome in 25 days, and > air delivered to Kabul where it was erected in one day. The king of > Afghanistan asked the US to let them keep the modern Afghan like yurt, but > the US denied the request. > > > A 4-page article by Steve Miller about "Bent-Plywood Domes" is in the Nov/Dec > > 2001 issue of BackHome magazine: > > > > http://www.backhomemagazine.com/BackHome_article1.html > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:36:45 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Fw: dome homes in geogia Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franz-Josef Reinhardt" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:56 PM Subject: dome homes in geogia > hi, > > does anyone know of a dome home in geogia or south carolina that I could > visit. > > thanks > > Franz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:13:04 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Dome info Comments: To: Darrel Mand Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Darrel, Assuming you are referring to domes based on the icosahedron, take a = look at these two sites. They may be what you are looking for: http://www.desertdomes.com/dome6calc.html (exterior elevation) http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/domes/domegeo.html (top roof view) It was surprisingly difficult to find examples in the printed = literature; see: _An introduction to Tensegrity_ by Pugh, page 30 _Domebook 2_ by Pacific Domes, pages 11, 110, 112 _Geodesics_ by Popko, figs 14, 39 _Polyhedra: A Visual Approach_ by Pugh, page 65 _The Artifacts of R Buckminster Fuller, Volume 4_ by Ward (editor), page = 64 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Darrel Mand=20 To: joemoore@qwest.net=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:48 AM Subject: Dome info Hello Joe, Hope this finds you in good health and spirits. I have a question for = you and maybe you can help me out. I am trying to build either a 74' or = 92' diameter panelized wood dome in 6v.......as per the calculations in = the DESERT DOME web site. I have all of those chord factors already but = I am seeking an exterior elevation view as well as a top roof view for = this size dome. Can you direct me in the right direction to secure this = information? Most appreciated Joe.............thank you. Warmest regards, Darrel J. Mand, President Natural Habitat Domes N4981 County Road "S" Plymouth, WI 53073 E-mail: darrelm@naturalhabitatdomes.com Web: www.naturalhabitatdomes.com Phone: (920) 893-5308 Fax: (920) 892-2380 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 07:17:04 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Opium in China: Saturday Conf. at UCLA <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-DEC-2001 7:16 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us this all-day-Saturday conference on China, of the Ctr.for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) at UCLA, *begins* with a talk, "Opium and the Political Economy of the Coolie Trade." --Opium for Tea? http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 05:45:57 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: 1984 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-DEC-2001 5:45 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us wow; the Nov.4 issue of *The New Yorker* contains a bizarre piece, 2 pages in length, with a photo of a big Union Jack next to a small "Old Glory," and a rather creepy (or just silly) citation of George Orwell. did you see that? --Opium for Tea? http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:52:43 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Wow-!!!! you are going great with your site. Comments: To: Foerd Ames Comments: cc: "Moore, Joe S" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Foerd, Thanks. Now that I am retired I work on it full-time. Go to the abebooks (http://www.abebooks.com/) used book website and search for the title. You should find about 19 copies at prices from $5 to $850 depending on various factors. ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Foerd Ames" To: "Joe S Moore" Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 5:31 PM Subject: RE: Wow-!!!! you are going great with your site. > Yes, like Michael said, thank you very, very much Joe. Your site is a really > great body of work. > > By the way, does anyone know where I can get my hands on "Nine Chains to the > Moon"? > > Foerd Ames > > Ocean Wave Energy Company > 20 Burnside Street > Bristol, RI 02809 USA > > email: foerd@owec.com > web site: www.owec.com > voice and fax: 401-253-4488 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 19:00:05 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Domebooks Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The abebooks used book website ( http://www.abebooks.com/ ) currently = has 15 copies of Domebook One and/or Domebook 2 for sale ranging in = price from $15 to $250. Search for the title "Domebook". =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 07:09:52 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: VOA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Voice of America reports on Bucky, October 2001. http://www.manythings.org/voa/01/011021pia_t.htm Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:19:00 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Fly's Eye Volunteers Needed Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From the Dec 7, 2001, issue of BFI News (vol 2 # 9): "A Call for Volunteer/Potentially Paid Help ! One Driver is needed to transport original prototype Fly's Eye Dome molds from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara. We are moving the dome parts from Santa Barbara to a storage location in Northern California on December 14th. We urgently need the molds to be brought from Los Angeles to Santa Barbara in time to join the other parts for the main pick-up going north. This entails renting a small moving truck picking the molds up in LA, and dropping them in Santa Barbara. BFI will reimburse all gas and truck rental costs. If you can do this or know someone who can, please call us at 800-967-6277 or e-mail Lauren at lauren@bfi.org. Thank you! For other volunteer opportunities, visit: http://www.bfi.org/about_this_website.htm#HOW " =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:15:35 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: [synergeo] Modelling toy now available Comments: To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Rob, My Bucky site is designed to meet the needs of anyone wanting to learn = more about the ideas and works of R Buckminster Fuller. That's why = there is a Master Index, a Bibliography, a Glossary, a list of Pictures, = a brief summary of his Grand Strategy for solving the major problems = facing humanity, and a section I call Selected Ideas which has a brief = description of certain of his ideas and the best references for further = information. Through the Index a person can find out what others are = doing (or not doing) and then decide what they want to do. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rob Strange=20 To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com=20 Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [synergeo] Modelling toy now available Rob Strange, (I hope I have your name right) That's the one! Where are you located? (city, state, country) Do you have a = snail-mail address and phone number? I want to add you to my = Index/Geometry/Models collection. http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/GeomModels.htm My address is: 32 Elmore Road, Horfield, Bristol, UK 0044 (0)117 9046768 Thanks for the link. Yours will be found in my links page soon. Can = you send me a short summary to go with it? Rob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.astro-logix.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To post a message, send plain text only to: synergeo@eGroups.com=20 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 16:46:57 -0500 Reply-To: heidi@peace.worldconflicts.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: buofh@HOTBOT.COM Subject: A Gift of Peace ruoxc Comments: To: qvain@aol.com Do you want to learn about an Exceptional Gift for the Holidays that Embodies a Message of Peace and Hope in this Season? Reply below and we will send you information on an award-winning line of products that has been praised by Presidents and Celebrities alike. Act Now and We will Also Email You a Code That Makes You Eligible for 10% Discounts Off Your Holiday Gift Purchases! Recent global turmoil has shown the need for peace. This year give a gift that makes a difference. To receive more information please send an email with the subject "yes" to heidi@newsalerts.port5.com or click below. mailto:heidi@newsalerts.port5.com?subject=yes. This is a one time mailing. If you wish to be removed from our list please send an email with the subject remove to leslie@masrawy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 09:11:35 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] 1984 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-DEC-2001 9:11 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops; I meant, the Nov.4 issue of *the New York Times Magazine*. clearly, this is some thing of a warning, not a joke! thus qaith: wow; the Nov.4 issue of *The New Yorker* contains a bizarre piece, 2 pages in length, with a photo of a big Union Jack next to a small "Old Glory," and a rather creepy (or just silly) citation of George Orwell. did you see that? --Opium for Tea? http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 02:27:57 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: chilling machine Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit (Quotes from various people in GEODESICS) > In Domebook 2 there is a half page titled Fuller Item > 'M' that shows a diagram of the cooling set up we are > discussing. It is by Fuller himself. I scanned that and posted it: http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=79 Thanks Joe Moore for providing that site. I am still skeptical but it is such a good idea if it works I'd like to hear about more experiments. Maybe I misunderstand convection theory, or that's the wrong theory, so I'd appreciate anybody's corrections. Steve Miller's recent plydome article made me realize a disadvantage of conventional "cross-ventilation", where a building is designed with windows that are hopefully in the right directions to let breezes blow thru. With a central vent on top the direction of the breeze doesn't matter. (But, breezes don't blow "thru", they have to generate vertical movement inside.) > When there is any wind, even a barely detectable breeze,there is > absolutely no difficulty cooling the sphere. The air exchanges > smoothly with the top and bottom vents. It is the sultry, > stagnant midsummer days that have me seeking the ideal venting > situation. During those times , with the complete lack of shade > here, and full sun (no clouds), it is sometimes just as warm > inside the dome as outside in the yard. Usually it is cooler in > the dome. Now the downstairs of the sphere is a different story. > It is cool. That sounds enough like the behavior of a conventional building that I'm particularly interested in tests done on hot days without a breeze. I think breezes are irrelevant to the item M claims. It would be interesting to know the patterns of air flow in a breeze too, but theoretically a breeze would work AGAINST item M cooling -- I think, because breezes usually blow faster 10 feet above the ground than at ground level (due to friction.) Bernoulli says the faster wind over the top vent would be at a lower pressure than the air at the bottom vent, so with a breeze air would be sucked OUT the top. It is the no-breeze circulation (air being sucked IN the top) that is interesting to me because it is not part of conventional ventilation. > There is a metal dome in India the locals call the "Ice House", >because the hotter the outdoors gets, the colder it gets inside. Do you mean that at 80 outside it's 75 inside, and at 85 outside it's 70 inside? That would be even more amazing, I'm not sure even freon refrigeration can accomplish that. Maybe it becomes more efficient at higher temperatures, so the temperature difference increases -- instead of a 5 degree difference at 80, there's a 6 degree difference at 85 (inside temp 79.) There would still surely be a limit to the difference that can be reached, partly set by the insulating value of the dome. > So suppose you have made a dome with a roof that will heat up in > the sun, and you have a hole in the top, covered with a metal > parasol. The air under the parasol is cooler(shaded) than the rest > of the roof. It is also heavier, because cool air is heavier than > hot air. All around the parasol air is rising off the dome. It > rises in a pattern of a circle with a hole in the middle, because > of the parasol. The shady side of the dome would not contribute hot air to the "circle", and I don't see why there would be a "hole in the middle". The top of the parasol would be heated just like the sunny side of the dome. The air above the parasol would be heated too. > If you have a large area of rising hot air, you must have cool air > dropping through it somewhere, or what would occupy the space where > the hot air used to be? > cool air dropping through a narrow path in the middle of > the rising hot air of the dome roof. Why should the downdraft drop "through" it? Why not around it, or beside it? Why not around it in such a wide annulus that there is no detectable downdraft at all? Are there any glider pilots here who can tell us how air flows in thermals? I bet this is well known, but not by me. I'd think that any local low pressure area left behind by rising hot air would be filled with local air -- not high altitude cold air, but low altitude ambient temperature air. > Once the circulation gets going, the reach increases. A large dome, > well designed for this purpose like the one in India, can suck cold > air out of the stratosphere. How is that for formactive. Well, a LARGE dome, say 6 miles in diameter, might conceivably be designed to form a weather pattern that extends clear thru the 6-10 mile thick troposphere. If the troposphere were REALLY stagnant, I suppose there is no upper limit to the "reach". But there will be turbulence that disperses the rising thermal column. There may be no falling column at all. For a building-sized dome I would be surprised if any organized pattern persisted for more than a few hundred vertical feet, on the most stagnant day. I think there are NO naturally occurring circulation patterns with that sort of vertical reach. Even huge thunderheads flatten out horizontally before they penetrate the stratosphere. > In order to take maximum advantage of the naturally occurring > (invisible) hot weather thermodynamics, a dome shape must be used. The DDU was not dome shaped. It was a cylinder, with vertical walls, and a shallow conical cap. Fuller's description of evolution inside a container heated from inside, and involution inside a container heated from outside seems reasonable. But maybe the only critical aspect of the shape is "hollow". Straight vertical walls seem to me to be better at generating updrafts than dome exteriors. Interior structures can only hurt, I think, by increasing resistance to the flow. Maybe radial walls (so the rooms are shaped like pie wedges) would not hurt the vertical circulation, but maybe the circulation spirals so even radial walls would disrupt it. Floors would surely disrupt it unless there's a big hole in the middle of the floor and a gap between floor and wall. If the lower vent is reduced to a single door, and there are open windows in the second story, and a solid floor above the door, is that configuration so different from the hanging DDU that item M circulation is irrelevant? > Geometry and temperature defferentials will no doubt circulate the > air in the pattern describe(see Joe's site), and _has to_ cool the > air somewhat in the process. No way around it, Cooling "somewhat" can be utterly unnoticeable. I don't believe organized currents of cold air flow down from the high atmosphere. I think the air that is sucked in the top vent is ambient temperature, it is cool only in the sense that it has not been heated by the outside skin of the dome. If it is sucked in, I agree cooling "somewhat" is inevitable, but it could be a trillionth of a degree; the pressure difference is surely very small. Cooling air by that tiny amount, given the tiny mass and heat capacity of air, means the expansion cooling is insignificant. It is like worrying about the heat added by a window fan, just because it is compressing slightly the air it blows into a room. The temperature increase in the air caused by the fan is irrelevant compared to the effects of the mass movement of air the fan causes. Bernoulli expansion of air coming down thru the top vent is a trivially small cooling effect until the pressure differential gets up to several psi, I bet; and with vents as large as item M, the differential never exceeds milli-psi. > Bucky had a big cast iron circle placed atop the dome, that baked in > the sunlight and created an updraft, which sucked cold air out of > the higher realms, which circulated down and entered the bottom > ports. He likened this to a kerosene lamp. This is the opposite effect of item M, and I also believe it would suck local air in at the bottom, like a kerosene lamp. It's not cold air from higher realms, it is ambient temperature air. It is cold only in the sense that it is cooler than the air that is being heated by the flame / iron circle inside the chimney. If you have been experimentally convinced that item M cooling actually works, please think of the above as a discussion of what is wrong with conventional theory. Please explain how that theory (or my understanding of it) should be modified. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:08:20 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Millers Subject: Re: chilling machine In-Reply-To: <200112090632.fB96W1c21273@ns1.planetc.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 12/8/01 11:27 PM, Lee Bonnifield at lee@PLANETC.COM wrote: > That sounds enough like the behavior of a conventional building > that I'm particularly interested in tests done on hot days without > a breeze. I think breezes are irrelevant to the item M claims. It > would be interesting to know the patterns of air flow in a breeze > too, but theoretically a breeze would work AGAINST item M cooling > -- I think, because breezes usually blow faster 10 feet above the > ground than at ground level (due to friction.) Bernoulli says the > faster wind over the top vent would be at a lower pressure than > the air at the bottom vent, so with a breeze air would be sucked > OUT the top. It is the no-breeze circulation (air being sucked IN > the top) that is interesting to me because it is not part of > conventional ventilation. The difference from a conventional building or even a conventional dome is that I have a closeable vent directly out the top. This is rare in buildings. I knew when I made the sphere that I would not likely achieve the Item 'M' effect, because my earlier attemptsin other domes did not yield strong results. But the top vent is effect because it introduces hi-low possibilities, which I think have more potential than sideways blow thrus. Yes, the wind does suck air out of the top. I am happy with that. And, by the way, that is how the Witchita House worked. Sometimes, I am sure there is a mild downdraft, for whatever reason. There is a lot of air activity which takes place in my home because the top vent, in combination with the other openings, makes it possible. The big reflecting cone on the top of the roof, the air space beneath it, the casement windows on the second floor, the screen door downstairs, the two 4" airpipes that go out the very bottom of the sphere through the ground to the outside (screened, and closeable), and the cool bermed ferrocement mudroom, with its own venthole and cover, and three screen doors and screened widow, they all are ways my wife and I can manipulate air to improve our environment. We have learned what to do through experience. When we go away in the summer we leave the top vent wide open, and the two pipes that go out the bottom are open too. That way the air is usually moving. We keep the windows shut in case of rain, and lock the door. On hot still days we open everything, because that works best. The addition I am building will be my best chance to see if I can make a cooling machine out of a dome. I think a 31 ft. dome with one floor and almost no obstructions, with what I think is a good ventilator design, the top vent, and big base vents, should work. Ask me in June how it works out. That is the best I can do. Steve ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 14:47:37 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: chilling machine Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >> In Domebook 2 there is a half page titled Fuller Item >> 'M' that shows a diagram of the cooling set up we are >> discussing. It is by Fuller himself. > > I scanned that and posted it: > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=79 Did that picture come out whole for anybody? The preview shows that the whole diagram was uploaded, but so far when I look at the picture the bottom is cut off. It should say Domebook 2 page 82 at the bottom. Another thought -- there is nothing easier to cool than what was inside the DDU -- air. Anything massive at ambient temperature inside a dome is not only going to obstruct flow, it will add heat that will tend to counter the involution air flow. The higher specific heat and the much higher mass of furniture vs air means it will be harder to get an involving flow in an occupied dome than in an empty DDU. > The addition I am building will be my best chance to see if I can make a >cooling machine out of a dome. I think a 31 ft. dome with one floor and >almost no obstructions, with what I think is a good ventilator design, the >top vent, and big base vents, should work. Ask me in June how it works out. I'm glad to hear you're trying it! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 07:58:43 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: PEN Weekly NewsBlast for December 7, 2001 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 09-DEC-2001 7:58 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us 17 THINGS PHILADELPHIA SHOULD KNOW ABOUT EDISON SCHOOLS Parents from San Francisco, who were left with a bitter taste in their mouths from their experience with Edison Schools, have compiled a list of 17 things Philadelphians should know about how the controversial school management outfit skirts accountability, manipulates testing data, and negotiates behind closed doors. They say, Caveat Emptor! http://dailynews.philly.com/content/daily_news/2001/11/30/opinion/PASA30E .htm ENRICHMENT VS. INEQUITY: PRIVATE DONATIONS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Do private donations to schools in well-off communities leave others behind? Local school districts are debating the appropriateness of private funding or PTA payments for building improvements. Proponents say that parents who can should contribute to schools. Critics say a gulf will grow between affluent school districts and poorer ones. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52339-2001Dec3.html GOOD RESULTS GET $10 MILLION FOR BOSTON SCHOOLS Boston Public Schools have been awarded a second $10 million from the Annenberg Foundation and the city's business leaders have launched a fundraising effort aimed at matching the massive education reform grant. So far, Boston is the only system to receive a second installment from the Philadelphia-based charity, which five years ago gave $10 million to Boston and 17 other districts. The grant will be administered by the Boston Plan for Excellence, a local education fund. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/awar12052001.htm STUDY FINDS SKIMPY EVIDENCE ON VOUCHERS In the heated debate over private school vouchers and charter schools, a new analysis by Rand researchers says both opponents and supporters lack evidence to back their claims. Proponents argue that the competition from school choice programs would force traditional public schools to improve. Opponents say vouchers and charter schools would skim off highly motivated students and their money. Download the summary or full report here: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1118/ ADD IT UP: USING RESEARCH TO BENEFIT LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY STUDENTS A good education, one that overcomes the burdens on children of racial discrimination and poverty, is the hope of every parent in schools where too many children are failing. This new guide clearly explains new research on turning around low-performing schools. It also examines the effectiveness of the standards movement and Title I programs. http://www.prrac.org/additup.html HELPING PARENTS ADVOCATE FOR HIGHER STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Only a rare group of teachers can transform their schools alone. In reality, most teachers need all sorts of help. The state must provide most of this help, such as policy coherence and focus, resources and training. of this help, such as policy coherence and focus, resources and training. But help must also come from the community. Learn some key lessons about the role of parents as educational change agents. http://www.pewtrusts.com/return_results.cfm?content_item_id=844 INNER LIFE OF EXECUTIVE CHILDREN In the last 20 years, business has become the dominant institution in American society, in many respects usurping the role once played by religion. As such, business has infiltrated every aspect of our lives--including the hearts and minds of our children. For many, it is an unsettling force. The wild competitiveness of business today compels managers to be constantly available for customers and colleagues, inevitably reducing the time and energy they can devote to their kids. Although stories of the impact of business life on children rarely appear in the business press, debate rages in the broader community, and many parents fear that their children may be paying the price for their success. Is that price too high? http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/prod_detail.asp?R0110C FIND YOUR SCHOOL Use this map to get information on any of the approximately 92,000 public schools in the Department of Educations 1999-2000 school year database. Get its address, find out how many students attend, and learn other school characteristics. Just click on a state, or choose one from the pull down menu beneath the map. Then select a city and click on the name of the school when the list appears. http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/school.asp TESTING DISSIDENTS: SCHOOL LEADERS AT THE FRONT OF THE HIGH-STAKES FIGHT As a new generation of high-stakes tests begins to yield consequences for schools and students, many school leaders in the United States are conflicted. Administrators across the country who disagree with their state's testing policies are looking for ways to fight back without putting their students in academic limbo or running afoul of the law themselves. Parents, students and a few educators have led high-profile protests and boycotts against the tests in California, Massachusetts, New York and elsewhere. Others are working with state administrator associations or legislators to try to modify the testing systems or are even filing lawsuits to overturn them. http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2001_12/riede.htm LINKING SERVICE-LEARNING AND SCHOOL-TO-WORK Ultimately, the goal of a partnership that supports a school-to-work and service-learning initiative is to build integrated systems that combine the economic and organizational focus of school-to-work with the passion and moral purpose of service learning to improve learning for all students. This publication depicts the thinking of advocates and policymakers at the state and local levels on the complementary nature of policymakers at the state and local levels on the complementary nature of service learning and school-to-work. http://www.partnersineducation.org/kellogg.htm PUSHING POETRY: MAKING POETRY COOL FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS The poet laureate of the United States--an official appointed by the Library of Congress to promote the reading and writing of poetry in America--seems an odd and irrelevant functionary for a Britney Spears-obsessed, bottom-line-loving society to sponsor. The newest laureate, Billy Collins, says he wants to make poetry "cool" for high school students. How? By getting schools to read a poem a day to students, and discouraging teachers from interpreting the meaning. http://www.edweek.com/tm/tmstory.cfm?slug=03interview.h13 TEACHING TO THE CORE: READING, WRITING, AND MATHEMATICS This website highlights findings from key recent research related to reading, writing, and mathematics instruction. Not surprisingly, many state accountability systems focus on these as initial areas to be monitored. What conditions are necessary to create standards-based schools and classrooms? How can we ensure that all students meet high learning goals? Using examples from schools that have adopted research-based practices, this online report focuses on making changes where we know they matter most--in the classroom. http://www.mcrel.org/products/noteworthy/teaching_to_core.asp MESSAGE from =newsblast@lyris.publiceducation.org --Opium for Tea? http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:58:02 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: chilling machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lee, It looks fine to me. It displayed correctly on my system. ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Bonnifield" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: Re: chilling machine > >> In Domebook 2 there is a half page titled Fuller Item > >> 'M' that shows a diagram of the cooling set up we are > >> discussing. It is by Fuller himself. > > > > I scanned that and posted it: > > > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P > hotoID=79 > > Did that picture come out whole for anybody? The preview shows that the > whole diagram was uploaded, but so far when I look at the picture the bottom > is cut off. It should say Domebook 2 page 82 at the bottom. > (snip) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:44:03 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Subject: Autonomous Dwelling Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" Fuller designed a self-contained home that harvested energy from the surrounding environment. It had wind turbines built into its walls that compressed air which was stored in the walls to be used to power various appliances. It had solar collectors built into the walls that heated water. It had solar collectors built into the walls that converted sunlight to electricity. It had a special dry toilet that converted "waste" into methane and fertilizer. See: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/IcosDomeHomeHiTech.htm http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/IcosHouseToiletScientific.htm _BuckyWorks_ pages 207-16 ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:33:00 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: lecouey Organization: CATT/FXi Subject: Re: chilling machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lee, I have problems seeing the picture. It starts to appear, slowing building up and (I assume) as it finishes, . . . it disappears! All I get is: how to cool a dome from Domebook 2 , page 82 Fuller Item M.GIF Posted by Lee on 12/7/2001, 465KB That's with Netscape 6. In IE, it appeared properly (i suppose.) I finally got the picture by using to fetch the picture. It did not appear the first time (I received a "error during download" message" as it got to the end.) But when I 'back arrow'ed from the error message, vola, there it was! Lee Bonnifield wrote: > >> In Domebook 2 there is a half page titled Fuller Item > >> 'M' that shows a diagram of the cooling set up we are > >> discussing. It is by Fuller himself. > > > > I scanned that and posted it: > > > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P > hotoID=79 > > Did that picture come out whole for anybody? The preview shows that the > whole diagram was uploaded, but so far when I look at the picture the bottom > is cut off. It should say Domebook 2 page 82 at the bottom. > > Another thought -- there is nothing easier to cool than what was inside the > DDU -- air. Anything massive at ambient temperature inside a dome is not > only going to obstruct flow, it will add heat that will tend to counter the > involution air flow. The higher specific heat and the much higher mass > of furniture vs air means it will be harder to get an involving flow in an > occupied dome than in an empty DDU. > > > The addition I am building will be my best chance to see if I can make a > >cooling machine out of a dome. I think a 31 ft. dome with one floor and > >almost no obstructions, with what I think is a good ventilator design, the > >top vent, and big base vents, should work. Ask me in June how it works out. > > I'm glad to hear you're trying it! -- What I think is What I Think What my Company Thinks is What my Company Thinks Sometimes there is a Union of Thought Sometimes there is an Intersection of Thought And sometimes there is an Empty Set! -- My Name is MINE It belongs to ME not to someone else If it is a Product It is Mine And may not be sold or given away by anyone BUT ME -- remove ".bypass" to email ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 06:30:08 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Recommended: \"Getting at the roots of terrorism\" <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-DEC-2001 6:30 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us dangitall, I missed "A Teach In and Speakout on the Current World Crisis" with Rep. Barbara Lee; last night, by the time I made the second bus, I was already a quarter-hour late for the *end*, so I just got a transfer to go back. here's the preceding panel that I missed: Rev.Jim Lawson; Danielle Babineau; Hussam Ayloush; Eisha Mason; Moderated by Warren Olney, "plus Pres.dStephen Rhode of ACLU." it was sponsored by the Agape Church and the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace, http://www.ICUJP.org and http://www.nonviolenceworks.com. --Opium for Tea? http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:09:03 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: LoL and the WTC? <> Brian Quincy Hutchings 10-DEC-2001 12:09 r007883@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us LoL and the Nude Scientist: How to Bilk the American Names, Again? Copyr. December 2001 CE by Brian Quincy Hutchings In seeking a suitable way of breaking this news, again, I was hit over the head with the December 8th issue of New Scientist, the British pop-sci magazine that should perhaps, now, be known as Royal Full Monty Scientist. That is, assuming that what I read is what is in the other copies that are extant! What I wanted to broach was contained in an old EIR exposi, but the meat of it has been sort-of dressed in an interview of a science-guy who's doing forensic work for Lloyds Re of London on the WTC dusaster (apparently, the reinsurance is not handled by the Members direct underwriting, but by LoL as a hole (sik)). All that I should say is, virtually everything that is relavent to the actual case, and the scam that was unburied, years ago, is embedded into this interview, which starts with the laughable premise that this professional clown was chosen because he was on State Television (the BBC). Ah, here's the article: http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns23205. --Pardone-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:59:21 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 8 Dec 2001 to 9 Dec 2001 (#2001-327) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 02:27:57 -0500 > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: chilling machine > > (Quotes from various people in GEODESICS) > > > In Domebook 2 there is a half page titled Fuller Item > > 'M' that shows a diagram of the cooling set up we are > > discussing. It is by Fuller himself. > > I scanned that and posted it: > > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPho to&P > hotoID=79 [dels] Like you I'm skeptical. Round objects tend to have confused convective currents, with the sole exception that if they are designed to use convective currents, they're cylindrical. I can only contribute two small items: First, with a round dome, Coriolis forces (bathtub whirlpools) have to have an effect on the convection, whether its inside the dome or outside. Here where I live by the river, on quiet (no wind) nights that are cold after a sunny warm day the air right above the river surface is warm, while the air up higher (say, fifteen feet or so) is colder. When these conditions are just right we get "mist tornadoes." One can paddle with a flashlight out into the river, which will be very misty, with rather thick wisps of fog rising from the surface, and in places, if you're lucky, you can see perfect little models of tornadoes made of the mist. Most are only a few feet tall and three or four inches thick, but every now and then you see one that's fifteen or twenty feet high and a foot or more thick. They are extremely eerie to see, and there is no force at all in them; they dissipate immediately if you paddle into one. Second, also peculiar to this location, the tree-covered hillside behind my place cools before the lower areas by the river do, and on warm summer evenings just after dark there is a perceptible flow of cool air that simply flows down the hillside, through the yard, and out onto the river. One would simply build a cabin with wide rear doors, open them at that time, and funnel the cool air flow right through the cabin. Now, I noted it said that this second kind of thing doesn't work well with a dome, that upward convection seems to be the way to go (as Bucky's drawings show), but I don't see any reference in Bucky's drawing or in the messages here about the first situation: Coliolis forces putting "spin" on the cylindrically-convecting air inside (and presumably, surface-wise) the outside, of a geodesic dome with an "air vent" in the top. Would Coriolis forces have any impact on the design discussed, or would they even have some _use_ up there near the peak/arc of the dome? Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:17:24 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: VF and NY always don't suck! <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 11-DEC-2001 12:17 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us Why Don't Vanity Fair and The New Yorker Always Suck? Copyr. December 2001 CE by Brian Quincy Hutchings Of course, they don't usually. A Case in point is the current (T.Cruise on the cover) issue of VF, which has a great article about Sudan's attempts to "give us the information" on Uncle bin, for years and, even, before the embassies were bombed in Africa. However, there was no mention (I'm pretty sure) of the animus that was created by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, "Christian Solidarity" et al advomitorium, concerning a bunch of putative slaves that they created a huge bounty for, relative to the local economy. (This has been bandied-about in the LATimes op-eds, without much bothering to check-up on it.) My real concern, herein, is the last pair of NYs, the first of which used an interview with a poor, old Quaker, to run the usual "Lone Nut Theory" about the murder of a President. The following issue is just as bad, in two respects (articles). [to be continued] --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:06:07 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: VF and NY always don't suck! In-Reply-To: <200112112017.fBBKHOx17845@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 11-DEC-2001 12:17 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > Why Don't Vanity Fair and The New Yorker Always Suck? > Copyr. December 2001 CE by Brian Quincy Hutchings > > Of course, they don't usually. A Case in point is the > current (T.Cruise > on the cover) issue of VF, which has a great article > about Sudan's > attempts > to "give us the information" on Uncle bin, for years > and, even, > before the embassies were bombed in Africa. However, > there was no mention (I'm pretty sure) of the animus > that was created > by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, "Christian Solidarity" > et al > advomitorium, concerning a bunch of putative slaves > that they created a huge bounty for, relative to the > local economy. > (This has been bandied-about in the LATimes op-eds, > without much bothering to check-up on it.) > My real concern, herein, is the last pair of NYs, > the first of which used an interview with a poor, old > Quaker, > to run the usual "Lone Nut Theory" about the murder of a > President. > The following issue is just as bad, in two respects > (articles). > [to be continued] > > --Pardonez-George! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ Brian- I realize you must see some connection between this post and Bucky's work. What is it, dare I ask? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:26:14 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: VF and NY always don't suck! <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-DEC-2001 7:26 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us darest thou ask? that depends upon your definition of I, Yusef and "Dick Fischstick!" seriously, I haven't finished the thing, yet. but maybe "you" can configure *other* connections, firstly. thus quoth: Brian- I realize you must see some connection between this post and Bucky's work. What is it, dare I ask? Dic > advomitorium, concerning a bunch of putative slaves > that they created a huge bounty for, relative to the > local economy. > (This has been bandied-about in the LATimes op-eds, > without much bothering to check-up on it.) > My real concern, herein, is the last pair of NYs, > the first of which used an interview with a poor, old > Quaker, > to run the usual "Lone Nut Theory" about the murder of a > President. > The following issue is just as bad, in two respects > (articles). > [to be continued] > > --Pardonez-George! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:23:43 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Fw: Dome kit for sale Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Baehr" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:36 AM Subject: Dome kit for sale > We have a Cathedralite 45 ft. dome kit for sale. Anyone interested? > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:00:22 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: serials of record <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-DEC-2001 14:00 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us here's the finished little essay, "Why Dont Vanity Fair and The New Yorker Always Suck?" http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/Suck.htm --Boulez-vous Pardonez-George, CE Millenium? http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:56:37 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: chilling machine Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Welcome to GEODESICS, John! John and I used to discuss physics lots on Fidonet. We got in touch again after the badtrans worm invaded my computer and found his address and tried to slime him. Luckily he was prepared for the worm and not mad at me. If you have any questions about sphere packing, he will answer with enthusiasm. >From: John Brawley >To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 8 Dec 2001 to 9 Dec 2001 (#2001-327) >Date: Mon, Dec 10, 2001, 10:59 PM > First, with a round dome, Coriolis forces (bathtub whirlpools) have to > have an effect on the convection, whether its inside the dome or > outside. Coriolis "force" on air (actually not a force, the molecules would be seen to be moving in a straight line by an observer who was not on the revolving earth) increases with wind speed and the sine of the latitude. So an observer at the North Pole would see the maximum effect as a strong wind blows objects not straight south, but in a path curved toward the right. The apparent deflection will exist, I agree, tho the small speeds and the small distances involved in dome venting would make the "force" very small I think. But I'm surprised Coriolis is strong enough to affect water draining as much as it does. In very still air, I think it would add a spiral motion to the vertical motions Bucky sketched inside the dome. Maybe a bird flying nearby or an 18-wheeler doing 60 mph within 100 yards would overwhelm any coriolis effect. > Here where I live by the river, on quiet (no wind) nights that are cold > after a sunny warm day the air right above the river surface is warm, > while the air up higher (say, fifteen feet or so) is colder. When these > conditions are just right we get "mist tornadoes." One can paddle with > a flashlight out into the river, which will be very misty, with rather > thick wisps of fog rising from the surface, and in places, if you're > lucky, you can see perfect little models of tornadoes made of the mist. > Most are only a few feet tall and three or four inches thick, but every > now and then you see one that's fifteen or twenty feet high and a foot > or more thick. They are extremely eerie to see, and there is no force > at all in them; they dissipate immediately if you paddle into one. Neat! I suppose they're draining cold air from the inversion layer down to river level, but they're only visible in the bottom few feet. Or is the mist swirling up instead of down? "Field Guide to the Atmosphere" describes modeling tornadoes with a vacuum cleaner sucking air up inside a drum whose bottom is covered with hot water. I guess that's an upside down tornado, narrow at the top. "If a chunk of dry ice is placed in the hot water, the vortex tube becomes quite spectacular. A similar effect occurs when a large number of condensation nuclei are provided, which can be done by striking a kitchen match." hint hint. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:39:00 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: spaces-into- -into-spaces <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-DEC-2001 8:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us like, do you have a spere-packin' page? someone on geodesic-l mentioned you in this regard, although I do recall some mention of you from H2Oboy, I think! --Boulez-vous Pardonez-George? >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:44:55 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: when they do suck, or not <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-DEC-2001 8:44 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us sorry, but I added this postscript to http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/Suck.htm: Post Script: firstly, Levins quoted comments should be filled-out: In speaking about the medias role in the war against terrorism, Levin spoke of the changing responsabilities of corporations For the physical & psychological security of their employees. He called. Secondly, the man in charge of President Clintons security detail, in the Secret Service, has been hired by AOL/Time-Warner, perhaps per those comments. On a nearly amuzing note, after an irate merchant seemed to have torched some belongings in a grocery cart (mine, and apparently put it out with an extinguisher, after pushing it out from under an awning; this was in an alley, aside of The Promenade), I found a little satire that Id clipped from an occulty Jewish publication from the Learning Centre folks, Haim Potterovitch and the Sorcerors Kiddush standing-in for Quidditch, which, clearly, stands-in for Cricket in the Holy Brutish Umpire (sik) which draws a parallel between the Hogwarts Academy (sic) and an orthodox yeshiva. Of course, the analogy is not in the least strained, concerning Perfidious Albus Dumbledore and the doctrines of the State Church, and the interview with Dame Jo is somehow plausible in its tone of winking deniability! (More at http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html !-) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:48:54 -0500 Reply-To: newsletter@starchefs.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: StarChefs Newsletter Subject: StarChefs December Newsletter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" StarChefs.com Newsletter December 13, 2000 - Issue 40 IN THIS ISSUE 1. Holiday Baking 2. Favorite Family Holiday Recipes 3. Ina Garten's Holiday Breakfast and New Year's Lunch 4. Ask the Sommelier, Stephen Beckta of 11 Madison 5. Fit the world on your plate: EthnicGrocers.com's featured products 6. Top Ten Recipes on StarChefs 7. Chris Broberg, Pastry Chef of Petrossian tells us the secret of GingerBread Houses 8. November Chocolate Lovers 9. Find your dream employee or dream job in StarChefs Culinary JobFinder 10. Culinary Institute of Culinary Education (formerly Peter Kumps) wins big 11. Recipe by Chef Tom Colicchio chef of Craft and Gramercy Tavern in New York City If you like food. A lot. Visit http://www.starchefs.com FIT THE WORLD ON YOUR PLATE EthnicGrocer.com has searched the world - from Asia to Latin America and all points in between - to bring you the highest quality authentic foods the world has to offer, delivered right to your home. Click on one of our 15 featured countries to embark on an international culinary shopping spree, or check out our authentic recipes and get cooking! Now the world is so small it fits on your plate! http://www.ethnicgrocer.com/eg/cp/wr.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=715681&FOLDER%20%3C%3Efolder_id=334903 http://www.ethnicgrocer.com/cm/rp/rcp.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=64023&FOLDER%3C%3EbrowsePath=64023&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=715681 Receive $5 off your next purchase of $50 or more. You must register to become an EthnicGrocer.com member and enter promotional code STARCHEF during checkout to receive this special offer. http://www.ethnicgrocer.com/ 1. HOLIDAY BAKING Sixteen favorite recipes from some of the best bakers and pastry chefs around, plus some all-time winners. Remember to leave some milk and cookies for Santa by the tree because, after all, he's the one deciding who's naughty or nice http://starchefs.com/HolidayBaking/xmascookies99/xmasCookies/menu.html 2. FAVORITE FAMILY HOLIDAY RECIPES We've asked some StarChefs to share their treasured family holiday recipes with us. We hope that you enjoy the recipes as much we do. From all of us at StarChefs, may your holidays be filled with good cheer, good food, and good memories http://starchefs.com/HolidayIdeas96/holiday.html 3. INA GARTEN'S HOLIDAY BREAKFAST AND NEW YEAR'S EVE LUNCH Learn to entertain from the master. Ina Garten, aka the Barefoot Contessa, offers us a perfect holiday breakfast and a wonderfully casual New Year's Day lunch. http://starchefs.com/Holidays/contessa99/menu_contes.htm 4. Ask the Sommelier, Stephen Beckta of 11 Madison Stephen Beckta of 11 Madison Park answers your wine questions http://starchefs.com/cgi-bin/wine.pl 5. FIT THE WORLD ON YOUR PLATE Shop EthnicGrocer.com and receive $5 off your next purchase of $50 or more. You must register to become an EthnicGrocer.com member and enter promotional code STARCHEF during checkout to receive this special offer. Featured products: White Truffle Oil - This intensely fragrant oil is infused with the earthy, transcendent flavor of the white truffle, an Italian delicacy. Native to northern Italian forests, white truffles grow at the base of certain varieties of oaks, and must be sought after by well-trained dogs or pigs. This fine oil should be used in small quantities to "finish" dishes; the delicate flavors would be destroyed if exposed to high heat. Serve white truffle oil in a mushroom risotto or drizzled over salads or grilled vegetables. http://www.ethnicgrocer.com/cm/pd/pg.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=206655&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=331247 Italian Treat Gift Basket - Can't get reservations at that great little Italian place? Make it your place! It's all here in a charming wicker basket. Start with fusilli pasta (l lb.), its fun corkscrew-shape is perfect for holding this natural, no-sugar-added marinara sauce (16 oz.). To round out your meal, we've tossed together a rich and fruity extra virgin olive oil (8.5 oz.) with the mellow sweetness of aged balsamic vinegar from Modena (8.5 oz.). Just add a bottle of Chianti, a red-checkered tablecloth and good friends! http://www.ethnicgrocer.com/cm/pd/pg.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=715681&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=334903 6. TOP TEN RECIPES ON STARCHEFS Mario Batali Grilled Lamb Chops "Scottaditti" with Pom Pom Mushrooms, Garlic Confit and Mint http://www.starchefs.com/MBatali/html/recipe_04.shtml Joachim Splichal Chocolate Croissant Pudding With Wild Turkey Sauce http://www.starchefs.com/JSplichal/html/recipe_04.shtml Ina Gartner Vegetable Lentil Soup http://starchefs.com/Holidays/contessa99/recipe_04.html Waldy Malouf Wood Roasted Trout with Chervil Vinaigrette http://www.starchefs.com/WMalouf/html/recipe_03.shtml Hubert Keller Stuffed Artichoke Heart Barigoule http://www.starchefs.com/HKeller/html/recipe_02.shtml Jean Georges Vongerichten Roast Chicken Breasts with Pine or Rosemary http://www.starchefs.com/JGVong/html/recipe_06.shtml Bradley Ogden Barbecued Shredded Pork with Corn Crepes and Avocado Salsa http://www.starchefs.com/BOgden/html/recipe_05.shtml José de Meirelles Lamb Shanks with Fruited Couscous http://starchefs.com/holidays/2000/hanukkah/html/recipe_03.html Christian Delouvrier Turkey Croquettes http://starchefs.com/thanksgiving/2000/html/recipe_27.shtml Craig Shelton Cervena Loin of Venison with Smoked Beets, Clove Gelée and Black Pepper Gastrique http://www.starchefs.com/CShelton/html/recipe_04.html 7. CHOCOLATE LOVERS This month's new recipes include Classic Fudge, Spritz Cookies II, Chocolate Decadence II, Espresso-Sour Cream Brownies. http://starchefs.com/chocolate_lovers/2001/html/december/index.shtml 8. GINGERBREAD WORKSHOP Chris Broberg, Pastry Chef of Petrossian tells us how to keep the walls from tumbling down. Get the tips on how the pros do it. http://starchefs.com/holidays/2000/christmas_02/html/index.shtml 9. CULINARY JOBFINDER ON STARCHEFS Find the exciting culinary jobs on posted StarChefs. See below a few examples of what you will find in our improved Culinary JobFinder. https://www.culinaryjobfinder.com/ Private Yacht Club in Florida looking for an Executive Chef Management company needs a progressive executive chef to guide the growth and development of a high quality food program. Five star restaurant five minutes from NYC looking for an experienced pastry chef Historic Country Inn featuring fine dining seeks a working head chef Company looking for a new product development manager of specialty cheeses Houston restaurant which won 'Best New Restaurant' and 'Best Interior Design' looking for a sous chef 10. THE INSTITUTE OF CULINARY EDUCATION ICE (formally Peter Kumps) won first place and two of three awards in the 2001 Food & Wine Magazine School Jam competition for "Best Overall Team" and "Best Dish". The New England Culinary Institute won for "Best Use of Technique". See winning recipes next month at http://www.iceculinary.com. 11. NEW RECIPE >From Think Like A Chef, by Tom Colicchio, Chef at Craft and Gramercy Tavern in New York City, adapted by StarChefs Salmon Braised with Mushrooms Yield: 4 Servings 2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil 4 (6-ounce) center-cut salmon fillets, about 1_ inches thick Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper 1 cup chicken stock 1 recipe Marinated Mushrooms (see recipe below) 1 tablespoon unsalted butter Heat the oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat until it shimmers. Season the salmon with salt and pepper on both wider (cut) sides. Add the pieces to the skillet, with the seasoned sides down. Adjust the heat so the oil sizzles but does not smoke. Cook for about 3 minutes without turning (the cooked side will be golden), then transfer the salmon to a plate. Wipe out the skillet. Add the chicken stock and the marinated mushrooms to the skillet and bring to a simmer over medium heat. Nestle the salmon, cooked-side up, among the mushrooms. Gently simmer, basting frequently, until the salmon is cooked, 2 to 4 minutes for medium rare. Transfer the salmon to serving plates. Stir the butter, salt, and pepper into the mushrooms. Spoon the mushrooms onto each plate and serve. Marinated Mushrooms 1/4 cup plus 2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil 2 leeks, white part only trimmed, halved lengthwise and thinly sliced 1 small onion, peeled, quartered lengthwise and thinly sliced ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:33:33 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: what in Hell ever <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-DEC-2001 12:33 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us um, I just looked at JGBrawley's pionts, icosahedronots etc., and am completely mystified. http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley/images/1glonot.jpg e.g.! --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:13:49 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Rolf H. Parta" Subject: Re: what in Hell ever In-Reply-To: <200112132033.fBDKXXM32355@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Icosahedron, figure 536.03 (A) in Synergetics (Vol I). 20 equilateral triangles organized into a pentagonal dodecahedron. Regards, At 12:33 PM 12/13/2001 -0800, you wrote: ><> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 13-DEC-2001 12:33 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > um, I just looked at JGBrawley's pionts, icosahedronots etc., > and am completely mystified. > > http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley/images/1glonot.jpg > > e.g.! > > --Pardonez-George! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:50:20 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: tensegrity tension Comments: To: John Brawley Comments: cc: bobwb@channel1.com Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I posted this URL 11/26/01 in GEODESICS, to a picture of a 12-strut cuboctahedron tensegrity I built. The struts are 4 meters long, and weigh about 9 pounds each. http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=78 The 48 steel wires are tight enough that only 3 strut ends touch the ground, with the other 9 struts suspended by the tendons. The 3 struts that are closest to vertical clear the ground by about a foot. I challenged anybody to guess within 20 pounds the tension in the tendons. Nobody guessed in GEODESICS, but later I sent the URL and challenge to John Brawley and he posted it in synergeo@yahoogroups.com . He forwarded to me one guess: > Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 23:29:53 -0000 > From: "dick_fischbeck" > 80 pounds. That's right! I think. Actually I have not tried to measure the tension very closely, but that's the center of my estimate. The #17 gauge steel electric fence wire breaks at about 95 pounds. Several times while I was pulling the last dozen wires to the right length, typically while rolling the tensegrity, a wire broke. To prevent getting clobbered by flying struts I reinforced the wire with nylon cord. The nylon is about the same diameter as the steel, but it is considerably stronger. However the nylon stretches, and is harder to tie precisely. So the wire establishes the correct length, and the nylon is pulled as tight as I could get it, relieving stress and shock on the steel. After I got the 48 nylon tendons added, no more steel tendons broke. But having two tendons sharing each load makes it harder to measure the tension. Actually there are 3 tendons with zero tension, they're slack. Those run from the 3 points touching the ground to the other ends of the same 3 struts. There are probably regular differences in the tensions of the other tendons, based on their location and length. Bob Burkhardt calculated tensions and compressions for each member of a similar tensegrity, with a precision better than my measurements. He did identify which 3 tendons must be slack. What does this mean for the strength of the compression members in this sort of tensegrity? At each strut end, two wires pull at close to right angles, so they do not put a compression load on the strut, they just pull against other wires. But two more wires do pull at an acute angle. I think each strut could easily be supporting a 100 pound load. Every strut is having to support the weight of the whole structure! In zero-G, the tension in the wires and the compression in the struts could be zero. In all the smaller tensegrities I've built the weight of the struts is so small I never had to pay attention to the tension in the tendons, and it was easy to get the 9 struts in the air. But with struts of this weight, it looks to me like a significant part of their strength must be used to hold the tensegrity in shape. When the tension in the tendons is not high enough, the near-vertical struts also touch the ground. It is only when all the tendons are within about 2% of their ideal length that the vertical struts lift off. If the same 12 struts were used in a rectangular post and beam design I bet they would support an additional 1200 pounds that is "wasted" in this tensegrity design. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:47:50 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Rolf H. Parta" Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <200112140451.fBE4p4p02526@ns1.planetc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Lee B. is talking about tensegrity structures: At 11:50 PM 12/13/2001 -0500, you wrote: >In zero-G, the tension in the wires and the compression in the struts could >be zero. Not so. Even in zero-G, the wires will be under tension and the struts under compression. It is the continuous tension that gives the whole the ability to hold its shape. {"Continuous tension = tension integrity = tensegrity"} Ideally, the tension members, in zero-G, would all be under exactly the same tension; likewise the struts would all be under exactly the same compression force. Were this not so, Fuller could not have designed a "floating city" structure. {PS: the solar system consists of invisible gravity tensions and visible compression star Sol and visible compression struts called planets and moons and asteroids.} Best regards, Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 02:20:08 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: what in Hell ever Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > um, I just looked at JGBrawley's pionts, icosahedronots etc., > and am completely mystified. > > http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley/images/1glonot.jpg LOL! I haven't looked closely enough lately at John's thinking to comment on the specifics you saw but without even looking I bet John would agree with a lot of introductory sphere-packing that was covered here January 2001, for instance -- I claimed http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=10 29 that for most arbitrarily shaped containers, ccp "close packing" will not allow as many spheres to fit as "designed jumble packing". This is not a denial of Kepler's conjecture, which is about achieving highest density. The Jumble Advantage Claim is about highest number of spheres. There's a subtle point about the volume of an arbitrary container that reconciles higher number with lower density. subtle point about volume, with numerous examples: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=27 32 Kirby agrees: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=29 55 John's experiment stuffing balloons: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=23 139 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:29:55 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <200112140451.fBE4p4p02526@ns1.planetc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Lee Bonnifield wrote: > I posted this URL 11/26/01 in GEODESICS, to a picture > of a 12-strut > cuboctahedron tensegrity I built. The struts are 4 meters > long, and weigh > about 9 pounds each. > > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P > hotoID=78 > > The 48 steel wires are tight enough that only 3 strut > ends touch the ground, > with the other 9 struts suspended by the tendons. The 3 > struts that are > closest to vertical clear the ground by about a foot. I > challenged anybody > to guess within 20 pounds the tension in the tendons. > Nobody guessed in > GEODESICS, but later I sent the URL and challenge to John > Brawley and he > posted it in synergeo@yahoogroups.com . He forwarded to > me one guess: > > > Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 23:29:53 -0000 > > From: "dick_fischbeck" > > 80 pounds. > > That's right! > > I think. Actually I have not tried to measure the tension > very closely, but > that's the center of my estimate. The #17 gauge steel > electric fence wire > breaks at about 95 pounds. Golly, is there a prize? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 05:42:13 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20011213234134.00b04a50@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > Lee B. is talking about tensegrity structures: > > At 11:50 PM 12/13/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >In zero-G, the tension in the wires and the compression > in the struts could > >be zero. > > Not so. Even in zero-G, the wires will be under tension > and the struts > under compression. It is the continuous tension that > gives the whole the > ability to hold its shape. {"Continuous tension = > tension integrity = > tensegrity"} > > Ideally, the tension members, in zero-G, would all be > under exactly the > same tension; likewise the struts would all be under > exactly the same > compression force. Lee says "could be zero." If you don't like, that how about "could be almost zero?" I can see how one tensile element could be released gradually until the point where all the other elements would have almost no load, tension or compression elements. At zero, the form of the structure would begin to shift shape. Another scenario is, if the compression elements had enough mass, the thing could be set in oscillating in-out motion(expand/contract cycle). Then some tension element loads could range between some higher-than-equilibrium value and zero. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:09:53 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: what in Hell ever In-Reply-To: <200112140719.fBE7J1p03520@ns1.planetc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > John's experiment stuffing balloons: > > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=23 > 139 Take out, break balloon, and sit watching all over as ice melts and balls fall off, looking for four-ball planes in one-ball- centered orthogonal groups of six (Vector Equilibria). Observe: Exact, symmetrical Vector Equilibria: none, zip, zero, nada. Perfect four-ball planar square units: one. Seven-ball plane hex arrangements: none, zip, zero, nada. (_Non_ planar, IMperfect seven-ball hexes: LOTS.) 'Icosahedro(not)s': the thing's practically _all_ I-nots. Preliminary Conclusion: approximately spherical compression of ca. 500 identical 1/2-inch acrylic balls produces Icosahedro(not)s, not Vector Equilibria. I am not sure what the question is in this thread. However, it is reassuring to me that there is _some_ experimental evidence regarding Nature's least-energy-investment of sphere packing. This is no doubt related to covering a surface in randomly distributed points or vertexes, as in randome. Is there a formula that describes the closest-packing-of-spheres on a surface rather than in a volume? Another way to ask the question is, is there a way to determine the average spacing between some number of points distributed on a sphere? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:41:08 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Rolf H. Parta" Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <20011214134214.25004.qmail@web20508.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed My thought about this is: Dick Fischbeck comments: At 05:42 AM 12/14/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Lee says "could be zero." If you don't like, that how about >"could be almost zero?" I can see how one tensile element >could be released gradually until the point where all the >other elements would have almost no load, tension or >compression elements. At zero, the form of the structure >would begin to shift shape. > >Another scenario is, if the compression elements had enough >mass, the thing could be set in oscillating in-out >motion(expand/contract cycle). Then some tension element >loads could range between some higher-than-equilibrium >value and zero. The point of tensional integrity is exactly that -- there is a complete net of tension elements which together define a whole system. Unless the tension elements stretch, oscillating in-out motion isn't possible. {That oscillation motion could also be described as expansion-contraction, one of the 6 pairs of degrees of freedom Bucky found in any system.} While it is interesting to think of reducing the tension incrementally toward the limiting value of zero {think calculus}; in reality, the system's ability to absorb and redistribute deforming forces depends on the tension. As we reduce the tension, the amount of deforming force that the system can tolerate falls and eventually some incident {force application} destroys the system by breaking the tensional integrity. In Scenario Universe, where nothing independently of everything else, there are always impinging, would-be-deforming, forces. We are thus left with the situation that the frequency of system destruction would necessarily increase as we reduce the tension. {Might be very interesting to calculate an estimate of the destruction frequency per time unit curve as tension tends toward zero; and it depends on observed data about the frequency and size distribution of external forces, which I don't have (not that my calculus is good enough to do that anyway).} Best regards, Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 07:49:38 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Rolf H. Parta" Subject: Query -- 1950 published predictions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Group: I am looking for the magazine article in which Bucky published his "prognostications" in 1950. He states in Critical Path that this occurred in 1950, yet the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature lists Bucky as authoring no articles in 1950, nor as the subject of any articles in 1950. I was told near 20 years ago [while Fuller was still alive] that these predictions were for 50 years into the future [2000] and that 47 of them had already come true. I meant to ask for details about them when I next heard him speak and he died 2 weeks before that chance came up. Thanks for every response. Please point me to the article, the citation, or simply the list itself. Best regards, Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:20:47 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Dome Kit Comments: To: ROBERT VANCE Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robert, That was an 12-12-01 email that I forwarded from the = bit.listserv.geodesic newsgroup from a Mr David Baehr. The email = address was lindabaehr@earthlink.net . He indicated that they have an = old Cathedralite 45' diameter geodesic dome kit for sale. Please keep = in mind that Cathedralite went out of business in about 1988. The = design was a hubless 3 frequency icosa made from 2x4s and plywood. In = October of 1978 their basic (no options) 45' kit sold for about $6,600. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ----- Original Message -----=20 From: ROBERT VANCE=20 To: joemoore@qwest.net=20 Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:05 AM Subject: Dome Kit Joe,=20 I'm interested: where & how much is it? Bob Vance mailto:naptimeatv@msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:56:50 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 12 Dec 2001 to 13 Dec 2001 (#2001-331) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:56:37 -0500 > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: Re: chilling machine > > Welcome to GEODESICS, John! Thanks! > > Coriolis "force" on air (actually not a force, the molecules would be seen [dels] > as much as it does. In very still air, I think it would add a spiral motion > to the vertical motions Bucky sketched inside the dome. Maybe a bird flying > nearby or an 18-wheeler doing 60 mph within 100 yards would overwhelm any > coriolis effect. Probably, but they'd be insulated from other forces on the inside of the dome. Minor effect, regardless. > > or more thick. They are extremely eerie to see, and there is no force > > at all in them; they dissipate immediately if you paddle into one. > > Neat! I suppose they're draining cold air from the inversion layer down to > river level, but they're only visible in the bottom few feet. Or is the mist Depends which end you're dealing with. Both rising warm air and falling cold air are happening at once, I believe, with the rising-warm being both moisture-laden and visible. (If there's cold air sinking, twisting around, say, the inside of the funnel or falling around the perimeter to replace the air rising, you can't see it....) Perhaps, in both these and real tornadoes, the warm air that's rising is most of what you see (recall actual tornadoes are seen to lift-and-rotate things around the outside of the funnel), while the cold air sinking to replace it is a general-area sinking occurring relatively far from the tornado's center, thus itself also "pushing" the warm air, but along the ground (or water) toward the base of the funnel. Whatever it is in these mist tornadoes, they are worthy of words like the one I used: "eerie." Also "elfin" and "ephemeral", "delicate" and "rare," maybe even "ghostly" and "haunting." This section of the river has a few cabins, but downriver a bit below the bridge, there're nearby spots where you can't see anything but dark treelines, stars, mist, moonlit water, and these swirling white ghosts standing like translucent columns as you pass by.... (*grin*) I ain't goin' out there with a box of matches, though.... They're quite well-formed without additional condensation nuclei. > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:33:33 -0800 > From: Brian Hutchings > Subject: what in Hell ever > > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-DEC-2001 12:33 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > um, I just looked at JGBrawley's pionts, icosahedronots etc., > and am completely mystified. > > http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley/images/1glonot.jpg > > e.g.! That particular file has an accessory. It's what I _call_ an icosahedro(not) --(because it looks very like an icosahedron, but for several reasons, it's _not_ quite one; humor, get it?). What you see in 1glonot.jpg is the places in the icosahedron which cannot be regularized. If you take 13 equal spheres in your hand a try to squeeze them into their most-dense mode (tightest-packed _for_13_spheres_only_), that is what you get. If you look at "ssinot3d.jpg," you see the same thing, in mostly stainless steel and much larger (three feet across) where the fat-rusted bits of mild steel exist in the ssinot3d.jpg image, those are the same ones (same tight-pack of _only_13_ spheres) that you see in 1glonot.jpg, in which, for visibility and to focus attention on these _gaps_ in the object's outer 30 edges, only the gaps themselves are visible as short red lines. My hypothesis/construct is very simple in principle: If you take a "sufficiently large" --say, 300 or more-- equal ("frictionless," "incompressible") spheres and you stuff them into a _spherical_ container, you get what is essentially a visual-aid model of the Tetrahedraverse concept. Synergetics does not deal in this sort of thing (VEs in the IVM are "orthognally biased," and the squares in the VE do not show the diagonal struts across the squares that would be there if the VE were twisted --half-jitterbugged-- from an icosahedron, as Bucky in a few places mentions), but since both systems --Synergetics' and mine-- deal with packing spheres (in my work, using points ("pionts") as sphere-centers and rods as two radii between two of these), I suspect that to model the real universe with this sort of thing, both systems will be required, not _just_ mine or _just_ his. An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it OR one of the spheres in the center of a VE within it is deleted. Synergetics is not about sphericity, but the Universe appears to have sphericities throughout itself, so along with an orthogonally-biased way to structure things (Synergetics), one would need also a way to accommodate and work with sphericalized versions of the same packing problem (Tetrahedraverse). Help any? > > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:50:20 -0500 > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: tensegrity tension > > I posted this URL 11/26/01 in GEODESICS, to a picture of a 12-strut > cuboctahedron tensegrity I built. The struts are 4 meters long, and weigh > about 9 pounds each. (Am tossing this over to Synergeo.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:45:00 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: Query -- 1950 published predictions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rolf, Fuller had an article published called "Comprehensive Design 1" in about February, 1950, in a magazine called "trans|formation" (volume 1, number 1; published by Wittenborn & Holtzman, New York); however, no prognostications appeared in that article (see _Ideas & Integrities_ Chapter 9). But he did publish a list of 157 prognostications (written on 11-07-42) in _Ideas & Integrities_; see chapter 5, "I Figure", pages 85-118. I'm not aware of any ARTICLE where his prognostications appear. If you locate one, would you please let me know so that I can update my Bucky Bibliography? See: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Biblio/1Biblio.htm Thanks, ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolf H. Parta" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:49 AM Subject: Query -- 1950 published predictions > Dear Group: > I am looking for the magazine article in which Bucky published his > "prognostications" in 1950. He states in Critical Path that this occurred > in 1950, yet the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature lists Bucky as > authoring no articles in 1950, nor as the subject of any articles in 1950. > I was told near 20 years ago [while Fuller was still alive] that > these predictions were for 50 years into the future [2000] and that 47 of > them had already come true. I meant to ask for details about them when I > next heard him speak and he died 2 weeks before that chance came up. > > Thanks for every response. Please point me to the article, the > citation, or simply the list itself. > > Best regards, > > Rolf H. Parta > Imagination comes before Accomplishment. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 10:23:20 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20011214072921.00b00b20@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > My thought about this is: > > Dick Fischbeck comments: > > At 05:42 AM 12/14/2001 -0800, you wrote: > >Lee says "could be zero." If you don't like, that how > about > >"could be almost zero?" I can see how one tensile > element > >could be released gradually until the point where all > the > >other elements would have almost no load, tension or > >compression elements. At zero, the form of the structure > >would begin to shift shape. > > > >Another scenario is, if the compression elements had > enough > >mass, the thing could be set in oscillating in-out > >motion(expand/contract cycle). Then some tension element > >loads could range between some higher-than-equilibrium > >value and zero. > > The point of tensional integrity is exactly that -- there > is a complete net > of tension elements which together define a whole system. Complete does not mean always and everywhere equal. > Unless the > tension elements stretch, oscillating in-out motion isn't > possible. As far as I understand, because part of the tension net is slack, this does not mean the structure has lost its integrity. Whether the thing is experiencing gravity or not, if tension in the structure basically zero and I then stress it inward or outward, the structure tightens. >{That > oscillation motion could also be described as > expansion-contraction, one of > the 6 pairs of degrees of freedom Bucky found in any > system.} I said that. > > While it is interesting to think of reducing the tension > incrementally > toward the limiting value of zero {think calculus}; in > reality, the > system's ability to absorb and redistribute deforming > forces depends on the > tension. A slack tensegrity will begin to tighten when stressed. Even though a system is slack(like a soft soccer ball), is still has some ability to absorb energy. A soap bubble is a good example of a nearly slack tensegrity. >As we reduce the tension, the amount of > deforming force that the > system can tolerate falls and eventually some incident > {force application} > destroys the system by breaking the tensional integrity. A systems tensional integrity is not different when slack compare to tight. Its surface tautness is not to be confused with tensile strength. A tensegrity with all rigid tensile and compressive elements will resist inward and outward forces, but can be slack in tension when at rest/equilibrium > In Scenario Universe, where nothing independently of > everything else, there > are always impinging, would-be-deforming, forces. We are > thus left with > the situation that the frequency of system destruction > would necessarily > increase as we reduce the tension. Can you expand this point. >{Might be very > interesting to calculate > an estimate of the destruction frequency per time unit > curve as tension > tends toward zero; and it depends on observed data about > the frequency and > size distribution of external forces, which I don't have > (not that my > calculus is good enough to do that anyway).} > > > Best regards, > > > > > Rolf H. Parta > Imagination comes before Accomplishment. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:34:33 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Rolf H. Parta" Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <20011214182320.61448.qmail@web20502.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dick: Yes, I did have tension and tensile strength confused {I'd just read another post; the one about breaking the tension members through overstress}. This renders most of my meaning in error. Apologies. At 10:23 AM 12/14/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Subject: Re: tensegrity tension >To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > >--- "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > > My thought about this is: > > > > Dick Fischbeck comments: > > > > At 05:42 AM 12/14/2001 -0800, you wrote: > > >Lee says "could be zero." If you don't like, that how > > about > > >"could be almost zero?" I can see how one tensile > > element > > >could be released gradually until the point where all > > the > > >other elements would have almost no load, tension or > > >compression elements. At zero, the form of the structure > > >would begin to shift shape. > > > > > >Another scenario is, if the compression elements had > > enough > > >mass, the thing could be set in oscillating in-out > > >motion(expand/contract cycle). Then some tension element > > >loads could range between some higher-than-equilibrium > > >value and zero. > > > > The point of tensional integrity is exactly that -- there > > is a complete net > > of tension elements which together define a whole system. > >Complete does not mean always and everywhere equal. > > > Unless the > > tension elements stretch, oscillating in-out motion isn't > > possible. > >As far as I understand, because part of the tension net is >slack, this does not mean the structure has lost its >integrity. Whether the thing is experiencing gravity or >not, if tension in the structure basically zero and I then >stress it inward or outward, the structure tightens. > > >{That > > oscillation motion could also be described as > > expansion-contraction, one of > > the 6 pairs of degrees of freedom Bucky found in any > > system.} > >I said that. > > > > > While it is interesting to think of reducing the tension > > incrementally > > toward the limiting value of zero {think calculus}; in > > reality, the > > system's ability to absorb and redistribute deforming > > forces depends on the > > tension. > >A slack tensegrity will begin to tighten when stressed. >Even though a system is slack(like a soft soccer ball), is >still has some ability to absorb energy. A soap bubble is a >good example of a nearly slack tensegrity. > > > >As we reduce the tension, the amount of > > deforming force that the > > system can tolerate falls and eventually some incident > > {force application} > > destroys the system by breaking the tensional integrity. > >A systems tensional integrity is not different when slack >compare to tight. Its surface tautness is not to be >confused with tensile strength. A tensegrity with all rigid >tensile and compressive elements will resist inward and >outward forces, but can be slack in tension when at >rest/equilibrium > > > In Scenario Universe, where nothing independently of > > everything else, there > > are always impinging, would-be-deforming, forces. We are > > thus left with > > the situation that the frequency of system destruction > > would necessarily > > increase as we reduce the tension. > >Can you expand this point. > > >{Might be very > > interesting to calculate > > an estimate of the destruction frequency per time unit > > curve as tension > > tends toward zero; and it depends on observed data about > > the frequency and > > size distribution of external forces, which I don't have > > (not that my > > calculus is good enough to do that anyway).} > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Rolf H. Parta > > Imagination comes before Accomplishment. > >Dick > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of >your Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:47:11 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: what in Hell ever <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-DEC-2001 8:47 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us ah, So. let's see, now; although I've never been able to "fuse" those stereo-pics, even with the finger-watching device, yet, am I to grok that those red "gaps" are the intervals that'd open-up in the 13-ball assembly (icosahedronot), if the sticks between them had a red section spliced into their 30 middles?... like, wow (and yeeha .-) seriously, so far, this appears to be an exercise in erudition and philology, your "neologisms," and not too awfully of interest, physically or mathematically ... I'm including "pionts," thus far, although that name should be reserved for some thing (such as Bucky's "subtunable, minimally tetrahedral (or tetragonal) event"); eh? of course, I haven't examined your entire site; should I? the following might be appreciated in greater perspecuity, if you look at Waterman's Spheres, but I don't have his URL handy (unless it's at http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html .-) thus quoth: My hypothesis/construct is very simple in principle: If you take a "sufficiently large" --say, 300 or more-- equal ("frictionless," "incompressible") spheres and you stuff them into a _spherical_ container, you get what is essentially a visual-aid model of the Tetrahedraverse concept. Synergetics does not deal in this sort of thing (VEs in the IVM are "orthognally biased," and the squares in the VE do not show the diagonal struts across the squares that would be there if the VE were twisted --half-jitterbugged-- from an icosahedron, as Bucky in a few places mentions), but since both (from http://www.jcn1.com.) --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:54:06 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: tensegrity tension <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-DEC-2001 8:54 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us uh-oh; it's the Lee Witch Project! http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto &PhotoID=78 --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:45:25 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: what in Hell ever In-Reply-To: <200112141647.fBEGlBj04630@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > those red "gaps" are the intervals that'd open-up > in the 13-ball assembly (icosahedronot), if > the sticks between them had a red section spliced > into their 30 middles?... like, wow (and yeeha .-) > seriously, so far, > this appears to be an exercise in erudition and > philology, > your "neologisms," and not too awfully of interest, > physically or mathematically Brian, stick to the geometry, if you please. Forget about side tracks for a moment. > ... I'm including "pionts," > thus far, although that name should be reserved > for some thing (such as Bucky's "subtunable, > minimally tetrahedral (or tetragonal) event"); eh? I do believe they are the same thing. > of course, I haven't examined your entire site; > should I? > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:46:53 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <200112141654.fBEGs6904689@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 14-DEC-2001 8:54 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > uh-oh; it's the Lee Witch Project! What are you talking about now? Be relavent here for a change. > > > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto > &PhotoID=78 > > --Pardonez-George! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:07:03 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: what in Hell ever <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-DEC-2001 9:07 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I hope you don't think, I'm being too nasty, but you mofos seem to be barking up an old, dead tree (as I do recall this thread about the Fabulous Jumble Pack, which at least you can patent, when or iff you configure just what in Hell you are trying to get at. the easy "point" that can be made is: the "waterman sphere" numbers of balls are already --given the correctness of the Kepler Conjecture, which I don't assume from the abstruse proof that's been made, supposedly, but take for granted as the best-known value-- the tightest configurations in a sphere, properly radiused (integrally, if you just bother with the sphere-centers, or with the 2nd-power values of overall radius). thus quoth: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P =10 29 that for most arbitrarily shaped containers, ccp "close packing" will not allow as many spheres to fit as "designed jumble packing". This is not a denial of Kepler's conjecture, which is about achieving highest density. The Jumble Advantage Claim is about highest number of spheres. There's a subtle point about the volume of an arbitrary container that reconciles higher number with lower density. subtle point about volume, with numerous examples: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P =27 32 Kirby agrees: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P =29 55 John's experiment stuffing balloons: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P =23 139 --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 09:13:24 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: what in Hell ever <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-DEC-2001 9:13 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us uh, no Cigartron for Rolf! thus quoth: 20 equilateral triangles organized into a pentagonal dodecahedron. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/figs/f3603.html --Pardonez-George! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:54:14 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: tensegrity tension Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > Ideally, the tension members, in zero-G, would all be under exactly > the same tension; likewise the struts would all be under exactly the > same compression force. In unrealistically ideal conditions, that tension could be exactly zero and it would still hold its shape. If the tension were greater than zero, I think longer tendons would have higher tension than short tendons. > I can see how one tensile element > could be released gradually until the point where all the > other elements would have almost no load, tension or > compression elements. At zero, the form of the structure > would begin to shift shape. It begins to shift shape as soon as a tight tensile element is lengthened, and that reduces the tension and compression in all the elements. If a tendon gets long enough, additional strut ends touch ground. But you have to lengthen a couple dozen tendons to let all the other elements relax fully, so all struts lie on the ground. It doesn't shift shape if a slack tensile element is removed. But that's assuming it stays in the orientation where the element was slack --if you roll it, the removed element will be missed. At zero tension (for ideal materials in deep space) the shape would be stable, but only if there were no impinging forces. The tiniest shove from a wandering hydrogen atom would jiggle it, causing asymmetrical tensions and elongations. The higher the tension, the less any tendon will elongate for a given shove. >> The point of tensional integrity is exactly that -- there >> is a complete net >> of tension elements which together define a whole system. > Complete does not mean always and everywhere equal. Right, the near-vertical struts carry more load than the others, the long wires are tighter than the short wires, and the low wires are tighter than the high wires, iirc Bob Burkhardt's calculations. While building it I sometimes put a bathroom scale under the 3 ground touch points, and saw the weight jump around wildly as I jiggled it. Twanging the wires while it was jiggling let me hear by the changing pitch that the tensions were changing as it moved. > A slack tensegrity will begin to tighten when stressed. Yes. Each slack tendon is opposite one of the strut ends that floats about 1 foot above the ground. If I give the tensegrity a big shove, it tilts smoothly but then suddenly bounces back, as if one of those floating struts hit the ground. But looking more closely, it doesn't hit; the bounce happens when the slack disappears from the opposite tendon. > In Scenario Universe, where nothing independently of > everything else, there > are always impinging, would-be-deforming, forces. We are > thus left with > the situation that the frequency of system destruction > would necessarily > increase as we reduce the tension. Keeping in mind you meant "tensile strength" rather than "tension", I agree. This tensegrity is pushing the limit for tensile strength, since with rough handling a tendon will break. Another pushed limit is the extreme slenderness ratio (length/diameter) of the struts, about 64. An earlier attempt used heavier struts (20 pounds) and thicker (#14) wire. The wire didn't break, but the struts bowed, becoming effectively shorter. It was impossible to "pump it up" so only 3 struts touch the ground (like pumping more air into a basketball reduces the flat spot on the bottom.) It always sagged, so 6 struts touched. Tightening the wires just caused more strut bowing. There is a minimum stiffness/weight ratio for successful struts. The tension and the tensile strength in the tendons could be almost zero in almost zero-G. With real materials in a real place, there is always some gravity, some struts expand because they get more sunlight than others, etc. Any deviation from the ideal dimensions will cause some tension, possibly failure. If the tensions never exceed the elastic limit of the tendons, they stretch and recover, letting the tensegrity jiggle when some part of it gets pushed. It is harder to make it jiggle if the tendons are tighter than necessary to hold its shape, but even if the tendons are so tight that the struts are about to buckle, the "elasticity multiplication" built into the tensegrity design guarantees that it takes almost no force to make it move a little. Still the surprising point to me is that much of the strength of compression members in this tensegrity is "wasted". The members are trying to crush each other, rather than that strength being available to support a load. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:13:12 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Charles J Knight Subject: Brainstorm: Tensegrity design MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, guys. These tensegrity discussions are wonderful, interesting, and quite illustrative. Models, no matter how large, are also a lot of fun to build. So, I've come up with an idea that may prove to be practical, and a lot of fun to design/build. To start: Who ever said that tensegrity was only for buildings? One of the best known tensegrity structures is the bicycle wheel. Now...the current theme in bicycle design is suspension, i.e. a springy ride. And, the more advanced bicycles suspend the rider on a comfortable seat...they're known as recumbent bicycles. They're like recliner chairs with wheels and pedals. My personal favorites are the tricycles with the 2 wheels in front, and 1wheel in back, known as tadpole trikes. http://www.windcheetah.co.uk This URL is from memory, and should serve to illustrate the basic type of trike I'm talking about. I've had a brainstorm -- a 3-D tensegrity truss that would serve as a tricycle frame. If designed right, the "bounciness" would serve as a built-in suspension. With a bit more sophistication and complexity in the design, some of the more common moving parts might be able to be eliminated -- lean to the right, and the frame "twists" such that the wheels turn to the right, no bearings or steering knuckles needed. The rider's weight could also become part of the equation, as in when he sits down, he would provide the necessary stress to take the "slack" tension members to a tense condition. Pre-stress, if you will... Is this type of thing possible? Is this type of thing practical? (No, those 2 questions are not necessarily the same thing) I think a basic tricycle frame would be a good starting point, and then incorporate the more sophisticated changes, as time goes on. (trike rather than bike, because a bike is a nearly 2-D structure, with no room for horizontal movement, while a trike provides space for a 3-D truss) Now, for me, this is a problem. I'm awful at designing tensegrities...I can barely build a 6-strut icosa, so I'm going to need help. Would anyone be interested in helping with such a project? Who's good at designing tensegrities? -- Chuck Knight ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 00:57:40 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: tensegrity tension Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Actually I understood this one! Once before somebody was reminded of the 3?-stick logo for the Blair Witch movie. Here's another view, without so many sticks visible. http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=3DShowP hoto&PhotoID=3D81 > --- Brian Hutchings > wrote: >> <> Brian =F8Quincy! Hutchings >> 14-DEC-2001 8:54 >> r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >> >> uh-oh; it's the Lee Witch Project! > > What are you talking about now? Be relavent here for a > change. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 00:57:22 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 12 Dec 2001 to 13 Dec 2001 (#2001-331) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it OR one of the spheres > in the center of a VE within it is deleted. (IVM = an array of close-packed (ccp) spheres, right?) Aren't there exceptions to the first claim when the IVM is in the shape of a waterman polyhedra? Then the container contacts all the outermost vertexes of the WP IVM at once. At no place is there a gap between container and IVM big enough for an additional sphere, even with designed jumble pack. There are gaps between container and IVM, (biggest in the center of a large face of the WP) but I am not convinced that incompressible spheres in the center of a WP face would buckle up into the gap. Are you expecting buckle? If those flat planes don't buckle, I think the WP will be stable under compression from a shrinking spherical container. I don't see how any of the 12 spheres surrounding the disappeared center of a VE can move. I'm assuming those 12 are surrounded by another layer which can't move, and all are incompressible. Imagine we're looking at a VE with a missing center. It's sitting on a square ABCD, and there is another square on top, EFGH, and 4 spheres IJKL on the same horizontal plane as the missing center. Name any of the 12 spheres and describe what direction it can move in. I say they're all pinned, immobile. I think you could remove TWO adjacent spheres and still there is no sphere that could move without compressing others. And if you skipped a few layers, leaving all the spheres in those layers intact, you could remove two more spheres, and still all the other spheres would be pinned in their original positions. A WP could be pocked like Swiss cheese and still be stable. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 06:20:10 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <200112150556.fBF5uup13924@ns1.planetc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Lee Bonnifield wrote: > Actually I understood this one! Once before somebody was > reminded of > the 3?-stick logo for the Blair Witch movie. Here's > another view, > without so many sticks visible. > > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowP > hoto&PhotoID=81 Thanks for the clarification. I forget that BQH does have a sense of humor sometimes. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 06:16:30 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <200112150353.fBF3rCp18074@ns1.planetc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Still the surprising point to me is that much of the > strength of > compression members in this tensegrity is "wasted". The > members are > trying to crush each other, rather than that strength > being available > to support a load. Would this still be the case in a higher frequency structure? I imagine your observation here is sort of special case for certain dimensions and frequency. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 08:23:39 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Fw: 'Going Dome' in HOUSE & GARDEN MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The DomeHome List" To: Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 1:21 AM Subject: 'Going Dome' in HOUSE & GARDEN > From: John Belt > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:25:28 -0500 (EST) > > 'Going Dome' in HOUSE & GARDEN / Jan 2002 > > The January 2002 issue of HOUSE & GARDEN magazine > has a nice eight page article on a Pacific Dome > home for Shawn Hausman and Jessica Kimberley. > Nice color photographs. The dome is constructed of > one inch conduit with a powder coated in vibrant > orange with a canvas skin treated with rubberized > paint. The dome is located in California. Check > your newstands and libraries now for the current > issue. > > Happy Holiday Season to All, john belt > .:'':. > .::::::::. The DomeHome Email List . http://www.domegroup.org > > ** subscribe/unsubscribe to this list (under DOG LISTS) and subscribe to > DOME at http://www.hoflin.com > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 13:19:41 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 13 Dec 2001 to 14 Dec 2001 (#2001-332) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (Condensing...) > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: Re: what in Hell ever > > > um, I just looked at JGBrawley's pionts, icosahedronots etc., > > and am completely mystified. > > http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley/images/1glonot.jpg > > LOL! (*grin!*) I thought he was referring to the other image, in which the sticks are invisible and _only_ those red gaps are visible. Sorry. (http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley/images/3dglonot.jpg is the one I thought he was looking at, showing _only_ the red parts (in the dark; the red paint is blacklight-U-V-activated "da-glo"). This one's crossed-eyes stereo 3D. However, Lee's message: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=& P=1029 ....is a perfectly lovely description of the image's purpose: to _show_ the gaps (red = gap) in a 13-sphere tight-pack, where all possible spheres that can touch, touch. In this image (1glonot.jpg), as in my stainless steel model, the packing was allowed to have bilateral symmetry. I'm sure other tightest-packings for _13_spheres_only_ are possible. This one is both tightest, _and_ more easily understandable because the packing is pleasingly left-right balanced. > that for most arbitrarily shaped containers, ccp "close packing" will not > allow as many spheres to fit as "designed jumble packing". > This is not a denial of Kepler's conjecture, which is about achieving > highest density. The Jumble Advantage Claim is about highest number of > spheres. There's a subtle point about the volume of an arbitrary container > that reconciles higher number with lower density. Yes, which needs to be investigated. What you describe as "designed jumble packing" is almost identical to my claims for Tetrahedraverse's packings, with the sole exception that I make use _only_ of a perfect spherical container. It is this that you described in your linked message --the "problem of the 13 spheres"-- where it's impossible for all 13 to touch, that makes Tverse possible, and that led me to create the idea in the first place. I did not read about it; I _found_ it accidentally, independently ("rediscovered" would be correct), while contemplating absolute minimum existenceness and gluing/packing 13 half-inch acrylic spheres. > John's experiment stuffing balloons: > > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=& P=23139 I say: "wow." I've not seen those addresses (toadnet! no less, and my old FidoNet BBS "point system" I.D.s) for _years_. Golly, Lee, you've kept some nice track of those messages from those days! I have not repeated that experiment since. I felt it stood well enough, for what it was. THANK you for letting me see that old message. Fond memories of pre-internet-awareness (by the public) times. Brian writes: > From: Brian Hutchings > Subject: Re: what in Hell ever > > ah, So. > let's see, now; although > I've never been able to "fuse" those stereo-pics, (That's a pity; it should be automatic once the images align for you. Maybe the person who first exposed you to it didn't give you proper training? It's a natural ability; the eyes are in principle and in neural brain-wiring doing the same thing all the time your eyes are open. Introduced correctly, there should be NO two-eyed person who can't "get it.") > even with the finger-watching device, yet, > am I to grok that > those red "gaps" are the intervals that'd open-up > in the 13-ball assembly (icosahedronot), if > the sticks between them had a red section spliced > into their 30 middles?... like, wow (and yeeha .-) Precisely. See above, Lee's essay on why, and see my object, in which the red lengths show _by_how_much_ each "gap" exceeds the unit-length of the other 'edges', and _where_ in this particular 13-sphere (my version, wire-frame, same thing) object they appear. The stainless-steel version (ssinot3d.jpg, rest of URL same) shows these with an accuracy of plus-or-minus two millimeters over unit-length span of sixteen inches. As you may further guess, the black parts of each strut which has a red mark in the middle, add up to exactly one unit length. > this appears to be an exercise in erudition and philology, > your "neologisms," and not too awfully of interest, > physically or mathematically ... I'm including "pionts," Only that one, "piont," was _necessary_; the other two or three are just fun word-play, "Tetrahedraverse" being ugly even to me, but a) descriptive and b) WAY too old (ten-twelve years) now for me to change it without losing immense amounts of posting history. "Pionts" became the only way out for me, from never-ending arguments with mathematicians who hated me using the word "point" for my points, which differ SO slightly from the standard mathematicians'/geometers' "point" that I saw no reason to give them a completely different name. Hence my only real option was to merely misspell the word "point" in that specific way, achieving thus 1) retention of the majority of the meaning of "point," 2) freedom from constant hassling by the conservative perfectionists, and 3) letting the reader see and get "point" (with its standard definition) while flowing the eyes right past the respelling, "piont." I claim it, it's mine, I'll fight to keep it, and Bucky can't have it (*grin*) --it does _not_ equate to Bucky's "minimum tetrahedron" _at_all_: It's _dimensionless_; it's a _point_ (it just lacks a background space); is "real," in a sense opposed to "nonexistent," and has three properties: 1) existence, 2) noncoalesceability (as a topologist would say, it cannot be fused with another point), and 3) repulsion towards all other pionts. > of course, I haven't examined your entire site; > should I? Only if you wish to. The discussion about packing doesn't need creationism or nuclear/radioactive physics.... On Waterman polyhedra: I would love to apply Steve's method to a regular-icosahedron packing, to see what sorts of patterns would appear as those layers. Steve "sweeps out" only root-distance layers of balls, from _only_ a ccp/ivm/fcc packing (there is a perfect VE at a Waterman polyhedron's very center). Thus while I speak sphericity, and the Watermans look spherical, they are that only because they have been found within an otherwise rigidly orthogonalized sphere-packing (Fuller's Isotropic/Isometric Vector Matrix) Dick writes: > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: what in Hell ever > > > those red "gaps" are the intervals that'd open-up [dels] > > your "neologisms," and not too awfully of interest, > > physically or mathematically > > Brian, stick to the geometry, if you please. Forget about > side tracks for a moment. It's OK with me, I'll not react other than I have above; understanding what a _point_ in Tverse is (my "piont"), is very important, but as noted for the neologisms on my site, not vital for grasping the packing problems Tverse deals in. > > ... I'm including "pionts," > > thus far, although that name should be reserved > > for some thing (such as Bucky's "subtunable, > > minimally tetrahedral (or tetragonal) event"); eh? > > I do believe they are the same thing. No. I hope above the difference noted is clear. Bucky's "minimum tet" is not, in principle, actually mimimum. If one wanted to, one could go on subdividing tets and VEs and MITES into pieces forever, theoretically never reaching an "absolute" minimum size level. Thus Fullers structures all have potentially reachable SUBstructures. No such thing can be true for Tverse pionts; they are _dimensionless_. That which has zero dimensionality, cannot have substructure. Brian writes: > From: Brian Hutchings > Subject: Re: what in Hell ever > I hope you don't think, I'm being too nasty, but > you mofos seem to be barking up an old, dead tree (as [dels] > the easy "point" that can be made is: > the "waterman sphere" numbers of balls are already > [dels] > the tightest configurations in a sphere, > properly radiused (integrally, This is not correct. As noted, Watermans are found within an IVM, not within a sphere. They are merely a record of all the sphere-centers that can be found at root-distance (sqrt, cubert, 4thrt, etc.) radii from the exact center of the center sphere in a sphere-packed vector equilibrium. Waterman has found many spherical patterns, but he has found them within an _orthogonalized_ (FCC, CCP, IVM) packing. My system IS packed inside a sphere, but the packing possibilities are so variable and the system is so flexible (not "locked" like an IVM), that Waterman-style spheres could not be drawn from it. As noted, though, some might be found using a regularized icosahedron as the central object. Have a Happy (NY, Xmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan, whatever) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:37:43 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 13 Dec 2001 to 14 Dec 2001 (#2001-332) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: John Brawley >Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001, 2:19 PM > while contemplating absolute minimum existenceness That's an objectivist pursuit fraught with unwitting projections of the observer. > "Pionts" became the only way out for me I don't think I've ever grasped pionts, so I expect everything I say should be interpreted in terms of ordinary 3D Euclidean geometry and its continuous points. Your neologism will prevent a lot of confusion, for as long as you use standard definitions for "point" and your spelling is careful enough that we never see "point" where you meant "piont". > _at_all_: It's _dimensionless_; it's a _point_ (it just lacks a > background space); is "real," in a sense opposed to "nonexistent," and Geez, that didn't take long did it. Maybe I don't know what you mean by "background space" but if it is essential to the standard definition of "point" then your statement misuses "point". > On Waterman polyhedra: > I would love to apply Steve's method to a regular-icosahedron packing, That's confusing. Do you mean using regular icosahedrons instead of spheres? > to see what sorts of patterns would appear as those layers. > Steve "sweeps out" only root-distance layers of balls, from _only_ a > ccp/ivm/fcc packing (there is a perfect VE at a Waterman polyhedron's > very center). Every ball below the surface is the center of a perfect VE, not just the ball at the center. > _dimensionless_. That which has zero dimensionality, cannot have > substructure. My topology is weak, so I don't know if "substructure" is a standard term, but maybe there ARE mathematical distinctions that don't fulfill all the requirements for a dimension. Maybe your ontological quest begins with lack of distinction, but you're non-standardly calling it a lack of dimension. Dimension in its standard use is a more complex concept, I think, so dimensionless groups CAN have substructure (eg discrete vs continuous.) But I couldn't defend that point without googling gregorash. > As noted, Watermans are found within an IVM, not > within a sphere. They are merely a record of all the sphere-centers > that can be found at root-distance (sqrt, cubert, 4thrt, etc.) radii Is that right? I think "root-distance" means an integral number of sphere diameters. Kirby developed the algorithm here, maybe I misremember it, but I don't think cubert 4thrt etc are involved. A waterman polyhedron with n=4 is the ccp within 4 diameters of the center sphere, IIRC. Kirby's algorithm was elegantly designed to do it all with integer math. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:31:59 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: tensegrity tension Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >> Still the surprising point to me is that much of the >> strength of >> compression members in this tensegrity is "wasted". The >> members are >> trying to crush each other, rather than that strength >> being available >> to support a load. > > Would this still be the case in a higher frequency > structure? I imagine your observation here is sort of > special case for certain dimensions and frequency. I don't think size matters as long as the geometry is the same. I just never noticed it until I built one big enough that I could feel the forces. I think Pugh (Introduction to Tensgrity) calls this pattern "diamond" and shows examples of it with many higher frequencies. In all of them a strut lies in a cradle of 4 tendons that make about the same acute angles to it. I think it is that acute angle that results in the strut feeling so much compression. The small proportion of struts that touch the ground must be significant too; cf a 3 strut prism where every strut touches the ground. I chose this pattern because it jiggles so freely. It could be stabilized by adding more tendons, but that would not reduce the strut stress. I've seen a table supported on a stabilized 6-strut that uses the diamond pattern. My guess is that that table would support a lot more weight if the struts were all vertical legs. I think Bucky's later tensegrity domes used a pattern which produces a rigid structure and does not have the diamond cradle (or any tendons), more like what Pugh calls 'circuit". Maybe that pattern doesn't use up so much of the strength of the struts maintaining its shape under zero load. Snelson's mast made of about 26 levels of 3 strut prisms amazes me with its precision and strength; I forget the URL. I think the bottom level is made of thick steel I-beams, much stronger than required to support the weight of the upper level struts, but needed because of the tension in the bottom level tendons. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 00:20:23 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 14 Dec 2001 to 15 Dec 2001 (#2001-333) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Charles J Knight > Subject: Brainstorm: Tensegrity design > > To start: Who ever said that tensegrity was only for > buildings? One of the best known tensegrity structures is > the bicycle wheel. So, heck with the _frame_; why not build a bicycle _wheel_ with slightly stretchy spokes? Wouldn't you get a springier ride without the wheel collapsing? (*grin*) Hi, Lee! > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 12 Dec 2001 to 13 Dec 2001 (#2001-331) > > > An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > > compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it OR one of the spheres > > in the center of a VE within it is deleted. > > (IVM = an array of close-packed (ccp) spheres, right?) Right. All VEs in there. Also known as FCC ==Face Centered Cubic > Aren't there exceptions to the first claim when the IVM is in the > shape of a waterman polyhedra? Then the container contacts all the I think you're missing something about the WP. First, you know the WP is an IVM, right? That Waterman 'sweeps' a radial, more or less, of specified length ("root" length, meaning, I think, square roots) from the center, to see how many spheres fall with their centers exactly at that radial length? You know, I mean, that he's not using some other packing, right? OK, assuming you know that, then look again at the Watermans; all the spheres in the IVM are there; there are _no_gaps_. All he's done is _ignore_ the other spheres. (Those gaps you see have 'invisible spheres' or parts thereof, in them.) > If those flat planes don't buckle, I think the WP will be stable under > compression from a shrinking spherical container. Likely so, assuming we just modify Waterman's intent and claim there are no other spheres there other than the ones we can see. But then _any_arrangement --probably regular or semi-regular like a Waterman-- in which the spherical pattern of spheres is "locked" in such a way that no sphere can move into a gap, will be stable if wrapped with a spherical compressive container. A buckyball, for example, or one of my non-nucleated icosahedrons. There's thinking in Tverse on this, having to do with how big an "empty" shell of spheres can be without collapsing because one or more of the spheres can get shoved into a gap. You are, after all, just talking about other arrangements of spheres which, were they wire-frames with the nodes representing sphere-centers, would also support a compressive spherical wrapper, and a Geodesic dome, if extended around so it were a geodesic sphere instead of half of one, is just such a compression-resistant structure.... The thing to remember about a Waterman is that it is an artificial construct, not intended to be used as-is; its patterns are supported completely by the fact that its ALL inside a big IVM--a ccp, an fcc, a Bucky-style VE-subunit orthogonalized extended pattern integrity. None of the Watremans can be found anywhere but in an IVM. You just don't SEE all the other spheres supporting it, because Waterman ignores them--makes them invisible so you can see what he's on about: the patterns revealed by the radial sweeps from within the IVM; there are no actual gaps. > I don't see how any of the 12 spheres surrounding the disappeared > center of a VE can move. I'm assuming those 12 are surrounded by Depends on what the forces are. If the forces are purely orthogonal, like in a cannonball stack (IVM) with its bottom layer constrained not to move sideways, deleting a sphere may not cause the IVM to shift. But is there's even one non-orthogonal direction of compressive force, the IVM should (I say "will") distort, because no matter how many layers there are, (and assuming our spheres are "perfect" and frictionless), any non-orthogonality in it anywhere--from outside or from inside, will make the pattern shift and distort. When you delete that sphere, which was holding the outer 12 "out" while the surrounding pattern imposed the VE form on it, the outer 12's contacts with their neighbors will suffer great increase in pressure against those neighbors, and if the spheres are frictionless, they'll take advantage of even the _least_ little bit of non-orthogonality in those forces, to slide against each other, trying desperately to make themselves into a perfect regular icosahedron. (They'll try to "jitterbug" because nothing's providing the interior with support any more. Remember: even though you're basically correct, and if the IVM is flat-out perfectly rigid--as if it had been glued in place-- each individual VE (13-sphere cuboctahedron) within it has GAPS between some of its spheres. Fullerites _ignore_ these gaps, but you and I know they're there, and we know _where_ they are: one piece of gap in each of six diagonals across the six four-sphere squares in the VE. That gap _wants_to_disappear_, if the interior supporting sphere is removed, and unless the IVM is glued solidly (thus of course defeating Bucky's intent), something'll hafta give. > spheres and describe what direction it can move in. I say they're all > pinned, immobile. I modify my claim only as above. I do have to admit: it's very hard for me to think of packings that are not _compressed_. Even a compressed IVM might suffer my above distortions, if only in the same sense as "quantum fluctuation" is used by some physicists to mean "the merest, smallest, tiniest influence, coming from next to nowhere." (*grin*) As I've said before: an IVM is stable if it's closed on all six sides by flat planes. As you've said, nearly any other container doesn't produce an IVM. I extend that, to the presence/absence of --not just two or three-- but of even one sphere down inside the IVM. > I think you could remove TWO adjacent spheres and still there is no > sphere that could move without compressing others. And > if you skipped a few layers, leaving all the spheres in those layers > intact, you could remove two more spheres, and still all the other > spheres would be pinned in their original positions. A WP could be > pocked like Swiss cheese and still be stable. But, as noted, a WP ... ...._isn't_; it's still an IVM, with invisible spheres wherever you don't see spheres. (*grin*) (Responding to another of yours, same digest) > >From: John Brawley > >Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001, 2:19 PM > > > while contemplating absolute minimum existenceness > > That's an objectivist pursuit fraught with unwitting projections of > the observer. ...Wasn't easy, either. (*grin*) > > "Pionts" became the only way out for me > > I don't think I've ever grasped pionts, so I expect everything I say (moving down) > > _at_all_: It's _dimensionless_; it's a _point_ (it just lacks a > > background space); is "real," in a sense opposed to "nonexistent," and > > Geez, that didn't take long did it. Maybe I don't know what you mean > by "background space" but if it is essential to the standard > definition of "point" then your statement misuses "point". It's hard to speak in both languages simultaneously. (*chuckle*) The standard point doesn't exist without a background space. Standard def. has it that the point is a point _on_ (or 'in') that space. Or, on a plane with a grid marked on it, a point is a point _on_the_grid_. My pionts do not require anything pre-existing them, to exist. Another example of the difference: it's perfectly sensible to think of a "line" made of only two pionts (mine). Standard talk has it that the moment you have a "line" you have an infinite number of points. (This is complicated by the fact that the 'standard' definitions of "line" and "point" are recursive: you look for "point" and you get 'comprising a line,' you look for "line" and you get 'a series of points.') (*chuckle*) > > On Waterman polyhedra: > > I would love to apply Steve's method to a regular-icosahedron packing, > > That's confusing. Do you mean using regular icosahedrons instead of > spheres? No, Steve's polyhedra are within a complete, arbitrarily extended-in-space, IVM. Thus his central sphere (the 'pivot' on which his 'sweeping' radial distance turns) is the central sphere in a VE. (There's a VE at the center of all his polyhedra. As noted above; you don't see it, but its there.) I'd like to see the same thing done with a regular icosahedron there instead of a VE. > Every ball below the surface is the center of a perfect VE, not just > the ball at the center. Every ball _anywhere_ in an IVM, including Steve's, is the center of a perfect VE. Yes. > > _dimensionless_. That which has zero dimensionality, cannot have > > substructure. > > My topology is weak, so I don't know if "substructure" is a standard > term, but maybe there ARE mathematical distinctions that don't fulfill > all the requirements for a dimension. Maybe your ontological quest > begins with lack of distinction, but you're non-standardly calling it > a lack of dimension. Dimension in its standard use is a more complex > concept, I think, so dimensionless groups CAN have substructure (eg > discrete vs continuous.) But I couldn't defend that point without > googling gregorash. (Dang! I haven't heard from Darryl in years, either.) Yes, there are other ways to speak of "dimension." My way is basically geometric/topological. Zero dimension means zero extension in some artificially-imagined space. Points (standard) have zero dimension, lines have one, planes two, etc. My pionts also have zero dimension in that sense. "Substructure" ought to be obvious in definition.... > waterman polyhedron with n=4 is the ccp within 4 diameters of the > center sphere, IIRC. Kirby's algorithm was elegantly designed to do it > all with integer math. OK, I didn't understand his use of "root" very well anyway, but the point remains that WPs are all part of some partially invisible IVM. Happy Xmas/NYear Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 07:59:47 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Fw: Alternative to geodesic. Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forward from a newsgroup: ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Van Zeist" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 12:35 PM Subject: Alternative to geodesic. > Hi, > > As I'm new to this group I'll give a short intro: > I'm an architectural-, industrial designer and spend most of my time in > finding better solutions, as in more userfriendly, using less material, > stronger and cheaper "things". > > Since a few months I own a patent for a new construction/shape for > houses/tents/shelter. As an admirer of B.Fuller and F.Ll.Wright I came > to find a simpler and wider usable construction/shape, without the > disadvantages of the "round" floorplan. > > Does anyone here know of a company, or companies that are experienced in > prefab construction, working nationwide and open to new, advantageous > concepts? > > Thanks i.a., John. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 09:21:09 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Fw: Alternative to geodesic. In-Reply-To: <006b01c18642$4efab020$d2a92618@pima1.az.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is a copy of your patent available online? Dick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Van Zeist" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 12:35 PM > Subject: Alternative to geodesic. > > > > Hi, > > > > As I'm new to this group I'll give a short intro: > > I'm an architectural-, industrial designer and spend > most of my time in > > finding better solutions, as in more userfriendly, > using less material, > > stronger and cheaper "things". > > > > Since a few months I own a patent for a new > construction/shape for > > houses/tents/shelter. As an admirer of B.Fuller and > F.Ll.Wright I came > > to find a simpler and wider usable construction/shape, > without the > > disadvantages of the "round" floorplan. > > > > Does anyone here know of a company, or companies that > are experienced in > > prefab construction, working nationwide and open to > new, advantageous > > concepts? > > > > Thanks i.a., John. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:50:18 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Bob Burkhardt Subject: Re: tensegrity tension MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Lee, Since I only check into this list at most every week, I'm responding to several messages from this thread, not just the first instance, some of which I've quoted below. In regard to wasted force in tensegrity, I think your comparison is a bit unfair. In your sphere, I think the "wasted" compression force stems mostly from the self-tensioning component which is considerable given your desire to support the sphere on three points very close together. Like if you wanted the tires on your car to only touch a very small part of the ground, you'd have to pump them up to much higher pressures and probably have to buy a more expensive tire. In a tensegrity, even in a weightless context, certainly all the strength of the struts could be wasted by tensioning it to great amounts, just as with a tire, all its rated PSI could be used just to keep it from touching too much of the road though it would blow up at the first bump. A fairer comparison would be with a tensegrity dome which is a geometry much more suited to resisting the forces of gravity just as a cube supported on its side is much more suited for that purpose than a cube standing on one of its vertices. In a traditional structure, the struts down below have to support the weight of everything above. I'm not sure that's completely true for tensegrity. Maybe some of those wires below transmit the stress to struts above so the struts below don't have to support the entire weight of the struts above. Call that Burkhardt's conjecture which I'm afraid could turn out to be a complete fallacy. Tensegrity masts might be a good place to start in testing this conjecture. Is the compression in the lower struts more than it would be in a rigid prismatic compressively-supported structure of the same height and strut weights? I think I've seen masts by Snelson where all the struts have the same length and cross-section, and though some of the variation in strut cross-sections could be driven by variation in load-bearing, a lot of it could be aesthetics. He is an artist after all. In any case, I think the self-tensioning "wasted" load of the tensegrity dome would be much less than that required to set a tensegrity sphere on the ground and require only a small portion of it to touch the ground. On another issue, in my mathematical research, I've certainly seen a tendency for longer tendons to exhibit higher tension. Practically and theoretically I see this doesn't *have* to be the case since there are other contributing factors, but I think for utilitarian structures there will always be a strong correlation. In a zero-gravity situation I've found theoretically that, if I'm minimizing the sum of second powers of the tendon lengths to design my tensegrity, the tendon stress is *exactly* proportional to the tendon length. But I also know I can use non-uniform weights on the sum of second powers in the minimizing process and come up with a completely different result. I'm sure it would be easy to come up with situations where there are long tendons with smaller tensions than short tendons. With just about any high-frequency tensegrity one can loosen, or even remove, one highly stressed longer tendon and make the shorter tendons even shorter to take up the slack and wind up with a long tendon with practically zero stress. Anyway, I remember reading Kenneth Snelson saying, somewhere that in his experience longer tendons exhibited higher stress. I wanted to use his quote in my book, but was unable to find it again. Regards, Bob Lee Bonnifield wrote: > Actually there are 3 tendons with zero tension, they're slack. Those run > from the 3 points touching the ground to the other ends of the same 3 > struts. There are probably regular differences in the tensions of the other > tendons, based on their location and length. Bob Burkhardt calculated > tensions and compressions for each member of a similar tensegrity, with a > precision better than my measurements. He did identify which 3 tendons must > be slack. > > What does this mean for the strength of the compression members in this sort > of tensegrity? At each strut end, two wires pull at close to right angles, > so they do not put a compression load on the strut, they just pull against > other wires. But two more wires do pull at an acute angle. I think each > strut could easily be supporting a 100 pound load. Every strut is having to > support the weight of the whole structure! > > In zero-G, the tension in the wires and the compression in the struts could > be zero. In all the smaller tensegrities I've built the weight of the struts > is so small I never had to pay attention to the tension in the tendons, and > it was easy to get the 9 struts in the air. But with struts of this weight, > it looks to me like a significant part of their strength must be used to > hold the tensegrity in shape. When the tension in the tendons is not high > enough, the near-vertical struts also touch the ground. It is only when all > the tendons are within about 2% of their ideal length that the vertical > struts lift off. > > If the same 12 struts were used in a rectangular post and beam design I bet > they would support an additional 1200 pounds that is "wasted" in this > tensegrity design. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 14:41:36 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: tensegrity tension In-Reply-To: <3C1D090A.BC9DF559@channel1.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Bob Burkhardt wrote: > > Anyway, I remember reading Kenneth Snelson saying, > somewhere that in his > experience longer tendons exhibited higher stress. I > wanted to use his > quote in my book, but was unable to find it again. > > Regards, > > Bob > What book? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:40:43 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 14 Dec 2001 to 15 Dec 2001 (#2001-333) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: John Brawley >Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2001, 1:20 AM >> To start: Who ever said that tensegrity was only for >> buildings? One of the best known tensegrity structures is >> the bicycle wheel. > > So, heck with the _frame_; why not build a bicycle _wheel_ with slightly > stretchy spokes? > Wouldn't you get a springier ride without the wheel collapsing? > (*grin*) Sounds like a good idea to me! Spokes are no doubt using better metal than was available when they were first designed, but they are(?) still being designed to fulfill only the function that early material could do. Maybe today spring spokes are entirely practical! Maybe do away with the frame and one wheel, just put yourself in the center of one big wheel, a gyroscopically stabilized unicycle with spring spoke suspension. Motive power could be by computer controlled shortening of some spokes, pulling your weight up and forward. Or have two rims a few inches apart on the same axle; shrink one rim slightly to bank and turn. [John] >>> An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a >>> compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it [Lee] >> Aren't there exceptions to the first claim when the IVM is in the >> shape of a waterman polyhedra? [John] > I think you're missing something about the WP. > First, you know the WP is an IVM, right? [Lee] This is a familiar pattern: [John] >>> X. [somebody] >> Not X. [John] >You mean Y? and then John goes on for 100 lines debunking Y, which nobody said, but which John finds easier to deal with than retracting his claim X. Yes John everybody knows a WP is an IVM. Look how much of your message was wasted on that straw man! [John] > (Those gaps you see have 'invisible > spheres' or parts thereof, in them.) [Lee] WHO sees? A related straw man. I did not say anything about gaps within the WP. I warn people to be suspicious of claims John makes about other people's positions; if he didn't quote it, he probably got it wrong. [Lee] >> If those flat planes don't buckle, I think the WP will be stable under >> compression from a shrinking spherical container. [John] > Likely so, assuming we just modify Waterman's intent and claim there are > no other spheres there other than the ones we can see. There is no reason to modify Waterman's intent. Your compression instability claim is simply wrong. > The thing to remember about a Waterman is that it is an artificial > construct, not intended to be used as-is; I never imagined a WP had any use except as a pretty picture, until I realized it was a refutation of your compression instability claim. Your other claim (about the instability of an IVM when one ball is removed) is also wrong, and so is your attempted adjustment by allowing that it's stable under SOME forces. [Lee] >> I don't see how any of the 12 spheres surrounding the disappeared >> center of a VE can move. I'm assuming those 12 are surrounded by [John] > Depends on what the forces are. If the forces are purely orthogonal, > like in a cannonball stack (IVM) with its bottom layer constrained not > to move sideways, deleting a sphere may not cause the IVM to shift. But > is there's even one non-orthogonal direction of compressive force, the > IVM should (I say "will") distort, because no matter how many layers > there are, (and assuming our spheres are "perfect" and frictionless), > any non-orthogonality in it anywhere--from outside or from inside, will > make the pattern shift and distort. [Lee] No it won't! If what you said were true, you could only stack cannonballs on perfectly level ground (so the vertical force of gravity would be orthogonal to the planes of the stack.) In fact you can stack cannonballs on sloping ground, up to some limiting angle. And the tilted stack would remain stable if a ball disappeared, altho real balls are more likely to collapse than incompressible ones. [John] > When you delete that sphere, which was holding the outer 12 "out" while > the surrounding pattern imposed the VE form on it, the outer 12's > contacts with their neighbors will suffer great increase in pressure > against those neighbors, [Lee] No, the pressure will decrease on the neighbors below, and not change otherwise. I'm assuming you're thinking of gravity, incompressible balls, and 3D euclidean space -- I am not attempting to relate any of this to your metaphysical quest. I can't see that this has much to do with Buckminster Fuller, either. [John] > and if the spheres are frictionless, they'll > take advantage of even the _least_ little bit of non-orthogonality in > those forces, to slide against each other, trying desperately to make > themselves into a perfect regular icosahedron. (They'll try to > "jitterbug" because nothing's providing the interior with support any > more. [Lee] Baseless anthropomorphizing. They aren't desperately trying to do anything. They won't move. [John] > Remember: even though you're basically correct, and if the IVM is > flat-out perfectly rigid--as if it had been glued in place-- Why bring up "glue"? The IVM is rigid because the spheres are incompressible, not because they're glued. Even with the barely compressible balls you stuffed into the balloons, and the jumble pack, you noticed how rigid the assembly got. After a few attempts at spherical mushing, do you think further attempts moved any gaps except those on the surface? > each > individual VE (13-sphere cuboctahedron) within it has GAPS between some > of its spheres. Fullerites _ignore_ these gaps, but you and I know > they're there, and we know _where_ they are: one piece of gap in each of > six diagonals across the six four-sphere squares in the VE. That gap > _wants_to_disappear_, if the interior supporting sphere is removed, and > unless the IVM is glued solidly (thus of course defeating Bucky's > intent), something'll hafta give. I said NOTHING about gaps in the IVM, I don't agree they want to disappear, and I don't know why John only counts one diagonal. I have no idea what intent of Bucky's John refers to. Glue is an unnecessary complication. > Even a compressed IVM might suffer my above distortions, if only in the > same sense as "quantum fluctuation" is used by some physicists to mean > "the merest, smallest, tiniest influence, coming from next to nowhere." > (*grin*) If we're discussing real objects, balls made of some real material, they are not incompressible, and a tiny asymmetry can have large effects. If we're discussing ideal metaphysical objects that behave in or prior to an ideal 3D Euclidean space there is no need to consider quantum fluctuations. [Lee] >> spheres would be pinned in their original positions. A WP could be >> pocked like Swiss cheese and still be stable. [John] > But, as noted, a WP ... ...._isn't_; it's still an IVM, with invisible > spheres wherever you don't see spheres. (*grin*) [Lee] There is that "X | not X | you mean Y?" pattern again; nobody thought there were missing spheres in a WP, but raising that straw man is easier than defending John's second claim, that an IVM with a missing sphere is unstable. > def. has it that the point is a point _on_ (or 'in') that space. Or, on > a plane with a grid marked on it, a point is a point _on_the_grid_. My > pionts do not require anything pre-existing them, to exist. Another > example of the difference: it's perfectly sensible to think of a "line" > made of only two pionts (mine). Standard talk has it that the moment > you have a "line" you have an infinite number of points. You should probably say two pionts make a "leni". [John] > Yes, there are other ways to speak of "dimension." My way is basically > geometric/topological. [Lee] I think geometers and topologists would say the technical description for your use of "dimension" is "erroneous". ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 23:23:09 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: tensegrity tension Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: Bob Burkhardt >Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2001, 3:50 PM > bit unfair. In your sphere, I think the "wasted" compression force > stems mostly from the self-tensioning component which is considerable > given > your desire to support the sphere on three points very close together. I could take 3 struts (4 meters each) and tie them together at the top, and spread out the bottom ends in a tripod with the same footprint (a triangle 2 meters on a side.) I bet those 3 struts would support 5 times as much vertical load as the 12 struts in the tensegrity. It would be a tensegrity wire to break first, not a strut. With thicker wire, I bet a strut would break in the tensegrity before a strut in the tripod. > A fairer comparison would be with a tensegrity dome which is a geometry > much more suited to resisting the forces of gravity just as a cube > supported on its side is much more suited for that purpose than a cube > standing on one of its vertices. Or I could use the 12 struts in a cube on its side (triangulated with the same wire) and be able to support as much weight as 4 vertical struts can. My guess: 8 times the load bearing ability of the spherical tensegrity. (These guesses are wild blue sky.) > In a traditional structure, the struts down below have to support the > weight of everything above. I'm not sure that's completely true for > tensegrity. Maybe some of those wires below transmit the stress to > struts above so the struts below don't have to support the entire weight > of the struts above. Call that Burkhardt's conjecture which I'm afraid > could turn out to be a complete fallacy. It would be interesting to know. My guess -- low tensegrity struts support MORE than the weight above. I put a bathroom scale under each of the 3 ground-touching ends, and after it was tuned the results are as expected, 1/3 of the total weight on each end. But the compression on each strut is greater than the total weight of all the struts, I think. What would you compute the compression in each strut to be? I studied the calculation you did for me June '99, but I think you had deliberately tinkered with some tendon lengths in order to accurately represent the sagging configuration I was dealing with then (6 struts touching.) I don't think you ever sent me a relative stress calculation for when only 3 struts touch. And the way you told me to compute absolute stress from your table with 20 pound struts may also be inappropriate for 9 pound struts. I am curious about what tension you compute for the 3 tendons that are slack. The 3 near-vertical struts (that would hit the ground if it sagged as much as the previous one did) must not be as high as they would be if the sphere were "pumped up" enough to be perfectly symmetrical. I haven't tried to measure carefully how much they sag, I guess a few inches. I quit adjusting it, leaving a couple of tendons an inch too long, when those 3 were well clear of the ground. Raising them another few inches must require enormous tension in the other tendons. > minimizing the sum of second powers of the tendon lengths Is that a technique for reducing the differences in tendon lengths? In Kenner's "Geodesic Math" he does a calculation for the "elasticity multiplication" in a 6 strut. The struts sit in similar diamonds as the 12 strut, so I imagine a similar calculation would apply. The result for the 6 strut is that pushing 2 of its parallel struts apart by 1% would be 600 times harder to do if tendons went directly between them. The actual routing of the tendons means a tiny stretch in tendons all around the tensegrity allows a large displacement of a strut. That's why tensegrities of this design jiggle so well; it takes approximately zero force to move a strut in a small range around its equilibrium position because each tendon only has to stretch 1/600 as much as the 1% strut movement. Without doing the calculation, you get the point if I say a .1% strut movement (10 times smaller) requires tendon stretch 1000 times smaller. I wonder if a corollary is that it would take infinite tension in the tendons to pull a 12 strut (with gravity) into a perfect sphere. As you approach equilibrium (zero-G) positions, any distorting force (like gravity) makes it MUCH harder to get any closer to the equilibrium position, and the difficulty zooms up exponentially(?) the closer you get, just as dramatically as tendon stretch decreases with smaller displacements from equilibrium. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:55:22 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Dymaxion Trademark Comments: cc: "Moore, Joe S" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To Whom It May Concern: The word "DYMAXION" was registered as a trademark in the USA by: Ametek, Inc, Pittsburgh, PA, on Aug 15, 2000 Purina Mills, Inc, St Louis, MO, on Jan 23, 2001 How can the USPTO issue the same identical trademark to two separate = applicants? Why is there is no record of R Buckminster Fuller or his estate? See: http://patents.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 03:25:17 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: Dymaxion Trademark <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 3:25 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us that's interesting, but trademarks aren't exclusive, as I recall, so long as the product to which it is applied is not similar. the other question involves the active usage of the trademark, without which there's little defense of it. thus quoth: The word "DYMAXION" was registered as a trademark in the USA by: Ametek, Inc, Pittsburgh, PA, on Aug 15, 2000 Purina Mills, Inc, St Louis, MO, on Jan 23, 2001 How can the USPTO issue the same identical trademark to two separate = applicants? Why is there is no record of R Buckminster Fuller or his estate? See: http://patents.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 04:02:55 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: tensegrity tension <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 4:02 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us that's interesting. of course, the longest tendon'd be a diameter, as in the spokes of a wheel (if the spoke was threaded *through* the hub to the other side o'the rim .-) thus quoth: Anyway, I remember reading Kenneth Snelson saying, somewhere that in his experience longer tendons exhibited higher stress. I wanted to use his --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 04:11:14 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 13 Dec 2001 to 14 Dec 2001 (#2001-332) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 4:11 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us "2nd-root dystance" is simply gotten by applying the pythagorean theorem (3D), from the center of the center-ball to the center of one of the vertexial balls of the watermanspheric. thus, only those spheres whose vertices are in "layers" that are 2nd-power numbers ("squares"), give an integral dystance. thus quoth: Is that right? I think "root-distance" means an integral number of sphere diameters. Kirby developed the algorithm here, maybe I --Pardonez-George! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 04:20:18 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: bickerfest! <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 4:20 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us John's useage of pionts and liens ("leans" to pronounce) may be found in projective geometry, I think, where "finite geometries" are made-up for fun (yeeha .-) --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:39:37 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: [Quaker-P] Re: Old? is new again <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 12:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us ah, I was going to pass by that thread, but since I saw that you were taking umbrage at Jim (Booth?)'s take on "antiglobalization," I pasted the URL to take a peek at your "Zapatista encuentro in Barcelona" -borne "movement," to which we are supposed to thank the "People's Global Action" for this lot o'jacobinism. of course, this is the same problem, as George "Q." Bush, not knowing the meaning ot the word, republic, in that the proponents of this thing that is against nation-states & nationalism, always equate it with "National Socialism" -- at the same time as generally buying into the mainstream of historical accounting (viz, Churchill), and proferring Hitler as the Solo Nut of WW2. as quaint as that ideal may be, it's pure Bushit [*]. ----- * http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm. --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:08:16 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: [Quaker-P] Re: Old? is new again <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 13:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops; I meant to include your URL, since I wanted to look into it, further, later; very interesting! http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/09/2216253&mode=nocommen t&threshold --Pardonez-George! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:13:24 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: what in Hell ever <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 13:13 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I haven't really read enough of it to stick, but it may be that your "pionts" are akin to Leibniz's monads. I don't think, it'd be enough of a reason to exchange the terms, but it does nicely include the transcendental value of pi, and therefore of inherent roundness or "insideness & outsideness" of the monad. of course, Bucky may have started an "I hate that kind o'pie" Club, but he'll just have t'deal with it! thus quoth: Brian, stick to the geometry, if you please. Forget about side tracks for a moment. > ... I'm including "pionts," > thus far, although that name should be reserved > for some thing (such as Bucky's "subtunable, > minimally tetrahedral (or tetragonal) event"); eh? I do believe they are the same thing. --Pardonez-George! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 23:34:27 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: bickerfest! Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > John's useage of pionts and liens ("leans" to pronounce) may be found > in projective geometry, I think, > where "finite geometries" are made-up for fun (yeeha .-) I think so too. You're deputized to find out! :-) The reason I LOL'ed your claim to be "completely mystified" was A) serves you right, now you know how we feel about all of your non-geometric posts and B) if you respond to John, I think he may try hard to explain it to you. You may know more geometry than I do, and he's already heard what I think I know. I didn't mean to anticipate what he is going to say here, since I might get it wrong -- I never understood his animated geometry, and maybe it has changed in the years since I read him in detail. Maybe I'll understand it this time. I'm going to limit my comments to the simplest 3D-E issues (after this post, which brings you up to my speed on what I think the basic geometric issues are) and maybe you or somebody else will evoke a cogent description of his system. I am only familiar with a few spaces but I know that discrete geometries exist. Other special case geometries can be enormously useful for solving special problems (like Hilbert space for quantum, Minkowski for special relativity.) I do not know what metaphysical problem John wants to describe geometrically, but I would not be surprised if there is a well-developed branch of geometry where a line consists of 2 points. I'd have no problem with John calling his concepts points and lines if he could relate those concepts, even circularly, with the sort of consistency and productivity in the "generally accepted" geometries. I barely remember the "axioms of separation", I may even be misremembering that name, but I think that's a list of about 5 things to think about when starting a topology -- 5 different ways that could reasonably be meant or combined to define how one member of a set is "distinct" from another. If you can't tell one element from another, you're limited in what sorts of topologies you can construct; if you want to have distinct elements, these are questions that can be asked about what it means for one element to be separated (ie distinct) from another. You pick which axioms of separation you want to use, and develop a geometry with them. There are many more choices (besides axioms of separation) to make, and 3D Euclidean geometry is the result of taking a particular path thru those choices. The concept of "dimension" used in 3D-E, and the 3D-E metric, are consequences that follow from developmentally earlier choices. Unfortunately for John those particular choices are not compatible with a line consisting of 2 points. If I understood what John said years ago and he hasn't changed it, he does not develop his geometry the way I described above. He does not completely specify basic choices like axioms of separation. I am not convinced that there are consistent analogs of points and lines in his system (the way non-Euclidean points and lines ARE consistent analogs with 3D-E points and lines, the way consistent geometries can be developed with various substitutions for Euclid's parallel postulate.) But John is not deterred by having skipped those basic foundational distinctions, and has never developed a metric that makes sense (to me) for his space. Instead he uses the 3D-E metric whenever he needs a metric (eg, to define "spherical" compression.) He may be oblivious to the way alternative metrics are DEVELOPED for alternative geometries, to be consistent with the geometry's prior choices (like axioms of separation.) Real geometers do not imagine that in every conceivable geometry 12 spheres fit around 1 the way they do in 3D-E, but John may believe his metaphysical entities fit like 3D-E spheres. So that is a huge stumbling block in my path to understanding John's system, what conceivable relevance a 3D-E phenomenon like sphere packing has to his metaphysics. His system is perhaps more compatible with a discrete space. (Other blocks -- my not knowing his metaphysical motivation or goals or claims or testable consequences.) For whatever reason, he often makes statements about 3D-E phenomena, and if those simple 3D-E issues look wrong to me I'll comment. Otherwise I'll leave the exploration of Tetrahedraverse to the rest of you. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 06:37:35 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: bickerfest! <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-DEC-2001 6:37 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, that was long-winded, Lee (?). actually, I couldn't even grok, why he calls "it," tetrahedraversal. thus quoth: For whatever reason, he often makes statements about 3D-E phenomena, and if those simple 3D-E issues look wrong to me I'll comment. Otherwise I'll leave the exploration of Tetrahedraverse to the rest of you. --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:14:14 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 14 Dec 2001 to 15 Dec 2001 (#2001-333) > > >> the bicycle wheel. > > > > Wouldn't you get a springier ride without the wheel collapsing? > > Sounds like a good idea to me! Spokes are no doubt using better metal [dels] > spring spoke suspension. Motive power could be by computer controlled > shortening of some spokes, pulling your weight up and forward. Or have > two rims a few inches apart on the same axle; shrink one rim slightly > to bank and turn. If they can get some faster response times from "nitinol" (temperature-dependent shape-returning metal) or something similar, maybe so. (I'm still waiting for practical, available-to-the-consumer, electrically activated "muscle fibers." Some things allong those lines have appeared, but so far they all appear to be "laboratory curiosities.") > [John] > >>> An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > [Lee](***) > >> Aren't there exceptions to the first claim when the IVM is in the > >> shape of a waterman polyhedra? > [John] > > First, you know the WP is an IVM, right? > [Lee] > This is a familiar pattern: > [John] > >>> X. > [somebody] > >> Not X. > [John] > >You mean Y? > > and then John goes on for 100 lines debunking Y, which nobody said, > but which John finds easier to deal with than retracting his claim X. (?) Are you aggravated at me? You _said_ (marked above, ***), "...when the IVM is in the shape of... a Waterman polyhedra?" So in me appear: "Eh? There're no other shapes to an IVM... What's he talking about? Why would there be an exception for a WP, when there're none for an IVM, the _same thing_? Does he think the Waterman is different in _shape_ from an IVM? (I better clarify this....) " ....and then John (me) goes on for 100 lines operating on a false assumption. You at least got your "number error" ("is" [singular] doesn't go with "polyhedra" [plural] ) past my grammar flags. Are you actually as irritated as you sound? How'd I do _that_?? > Yes John everybody knows a WP is an IVM. Look how much of your message > was wasted on that straw man! Hey, _you_ differentiated them in your question! "...exceptions. . . _when_. . . in the shape..." of a WP? As if an IVM wasn't already in that shape? Something _different_ "when" in the "shape of" a Waterman poly, from when in an IVM? What's the dam' _difference_? What the heck was I _supposed_ to think? Wasn't _my_ friggin' fault I didn't "get it" right.... (*whimper*) > [John] > > (Those gaps you see have 'invisible > > spheres' or parts thereof, in them.) > > [Lee] > WHO sees? A related straw man. I did not say anything about gaps > within the WP. I warn people to be suspicious of claims John makes > about other people's positions; if he didn't quote it, he probably got > it wrong. Geez, man, I _apologize_. > There is no reason to modify Waterman's intent. Your compression > instability claim is simply wrong. Respectufully disagree. But no more "why"; I have no intention of getting slapped again for clarifying.... > I never imagined a WP had any use except as a pretty picture, until I > realized it was a refutation of your compression instability claim. Not. > Your other claim (about the instability of an IVM when one ball is > removed) is also wrong, and so is your attempted adjustment by > allowing that it's stable under SOME forces. SOME (directions of applied) forces. I give up. I thought you understood all this better than most. I was apparently wrong about that. > [Lee] > >> I don't see how any of the 12 spheres surrounding the disappeared > >> center of a VE can move. I'm assuming those 12 are surrounded by > > [John] > > Depends on what the forces are. If the forces are purely orthogonal, > > like in a cannonball stack (IVM) with its bottom layer constrained not > > to move sideways, deleting a sphere may not cause the IVM to shift. But > > is there's even one non-orthogonal direction of compressive force, the > > IVM should (I say "will") distort, because no matter how many layers > > there are, (and assuming our spheres are "perfect" and frictionless), > > any non-orthogonality in it anywhere--from outside or from inside, will > > make the pattern shift and distort. > > [Lee] > No it won't! If what you said were true, you could only stack > cannonballs on perfectly level ground (so the vertical force of > gravity would be orthogonal to the planes of the stack.) In fact you > can stack cannonballs on sloping ground, up to some limiting angle. > And the tilted stack would remain stable if a ball disappeared, altho > real balls are more likely to collapse than incompressible ones. Friction, Lee, friction. Friction and imperfect sphericity. Cannonballs, oranges, tennis balls, even greasy ball bearings, have some amount of friction keeping their surfaces from sliding perfectly freely against those of their heighbors. Frictionless balls would _not_ so stay in place if you popped one of them out of the stack. Only on level ground, and constrained not to collapse "out the sides" of the stack from the bottom layer, would _frictionless_, perfect-sphericity, same-size, equal-mass cannonballs stay stacked with one interior one removed. (So I claim; we have no such frictionless balls to work with, so it's kind of hard to prove.) Idealized parts are used, not physical "cannonballs," in Tverse's and presumably in Synergetics' structures, although I _state_ their properties and Bucky doesn't (nor do most of his spiritual children, the Fullerites). > [John] > > When you delete that sphere, which was holding the outer 12 "out" while > > [Lee] > No, the pressure will decrease on the neighbors below, and not change > otherwise. I'm assuming you're thinking of gravity, incompressible > balls, and 3D euclidean space -- I am not attempting to relate any of > this to your metaphysical quest. I can't see that this has much to do > with Buckminster Fuller, either. My mistake. I thought at least some comparison was going on; there were Tverse questions in all of this. Spherical compression or orthogonal (3-axis) compression both valid; nobody asked for the unidirectionality of _gravity_. Ended. Not interested in getting flamed. > [Lee] > >> spheres would be pinned in their original positions. A WP could be > >> pocked like Swiss cheese and still be stable. > > [John] > > But, as noted, a WP ... ...._isn't_; it's still an IVM, with invisible > > spheres wherever you don't see spheres. (*grin*) > > [Lee] > There is that "X | not X | you mean Y?" pattern again; nobody thought > there were missing spheres in a WP, but raising that straw man is > easier than defending John's second claim, that an IVM with a missing > sphere is unstable. (*sigh*) How the hell can you on the one hand speak of _Watermans_ being "stable" as if they were something different from the IVM from within which they are "swept out" by Steve's Kirby-helped algorithm, and on the other hand bitch at me for pointing out that Watermans are stable because they are _still_in_an_IVM_ and therefore held in their patterns by the rest of the spheres (that you don't see) ?!? I have to be missing something important here, or else your chosen English composition in your sentences isn't quite what you'd rather it were. I had, and have, NO intention of waving straw men at you. I honestly can't parse your sentences on this, any other way than I did. > [John] > > Yes, there are other ways to speak of "dimension." My way is basically > > geometric/topological. > > [Lee] > I think geometers and topologists would say the technical description > for your use of "dimension" is "erroneous". I doubt it. Clarification drills might ensue, though. But you haven't yet seen my use of "dimension" in Tverse. (Nor am I going to risk further heat by describing same in here.) Mellow _out_, man. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley > From: Brian Hutchings > Subject: Re: what in Hell ever > > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-DEC-2001 13:13 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > I haven't really read enough of it to stick, but > it may be that your "pionts" are akin > to Leibniz's monads. I don't think, "Akin," yes. The same, no. "Akin" also to monopoles, all one 'pole.' (Like little dimensionless points of all-North or all-South pole, they would be nicely visualizable as repulsive toward all other members of their set, separated from them (any; all) by at least the tiniest amount imaginable.) > it'd be enough of a reason to exchange the terms, but No, it would not. I've spent many, many years with this beastie; there are NO 'standard' or 'known' words to use for these pionts --not even "monads"-- that correctly describe them. Trust me; I'm the one who's been suffering (see above, unexpectedly from friend(?) Lee) attacks on this system for a very long time; I've tried _many_ times to find words that will let me past various people's "neologism sensors" without distortion of meaning. Can't be done. > it does nicely include the transcendental value of pi, > and therefore of inherent roundness or "insideness & outsideness" > of the monad. It does, and "monad"'s useful for approaching the real meaning of "piont," but pionts include, in addition to Pi's transcendental beauty, a _behavioural_ resonance with a length and two times Pi (Planck's quantum of "action"). Pionts themselves don't have "insideness." Their "spheres of influence" have "insideness" (between radius-of-action and the piont itself) and thereby "outsideness," but make no mistake: the piont itself is _dimensionless_. There can be no "insideness" to a dimensionless object. > of course, Bucky may have started an "I hate that kind > o'pie" Club, but he'll just have t'deal with it! (*Grin*) Bucky's dead; he doesn't have to deal with any of this, which is primarily the product of his variously-aged students trying to either (or both) stay faithful to his wordings and/or create new things from them. There are "fundamentalist Fullerites" loose in the world, who seem to get rather nasty toward perceived alternates rather easily, and to respond with closed-mindedness when presented with one or more of Bucky's writings interpreted differently than the "standard" Fullerite Way. (I disapprove of all sources of the "Priesthood Effect," be they lawyers, doctors, plumbers, TV repairmen, or BuckminsterFullerites.) > thus quoth: > Brian, stick to the geometry, if you please. Forget about > side tracks for a moment. > > > ... I'm including "pionts," > > thus far, although that name should be reserved > > for some thing (such as Bucky's "subtunable, > > minimally tetrahedral (or tetragonal) event"); eh? > > I do believe they are the same thing. Sorry; I';ll stick to the claim that Bucky's "subtunable minimally tetrahedral event"s are further subdividable at need or in imagination. Pionts are not. They could be thought of as Leibnitz's monads, or as monopoles, for that matter, but if there is _any_ subdividability in any of these other words' referents, then no, sorry, I'll stick with "pionts" of zero dimension, and zero subdividability. (This has been checked with a number of Bucky students over the years. There is _no_ "absolutely nonsubdividable" object in Synergetics.) [Lee responds to Brian:] [Brian] > > John's useage of pionts and liens ("leans" to pronounce) may be found > > in projective geometry, I think, > > where "finite geometries" are made-up for fun (yeeha .-) > > I think so too. You're deputized to find out! :-) The reason I LOL'ed > your claim to be "completely mystified" was A) serves you right, now > you know how we feel about all of your non-geometric posts and B) if > you respond to John, I think he may try hard to explain it to you. You > may know more geometry than I do, and he's already heard what I think > I know. (Except for the tone of your above, which I didn't expect....) > somebody else will evoke a cogent description of his system. Lotta years trying; lotta people didn't get it; not holding out much hope anyone else here will, no matter how I again rephrase... Don't know _why_; principles are too, too simple. > I barely remember the "axioms of separation", I may even be > misremembering that name, but I think that's a list of about 5 things Close enough. An axiom of separation is one requirement of a "metric." > If I understood what John said years ago and he hasn't changed it, he > does not develop his geometry the way I described above. He does not > completely specify basic choices like axioms of separation. I am not An axiom of separation may be spoken descriptively, or as math. Mine can't be spoken as math. (Or, more properly speaking, a math version makes no sense if minimum distance between pionts must be " 0+ " ; ---like, what-the-hey is "zero-plus?") As description, it's easy: globally, Minimum Distance is that distance between any two or more pionts, less than which, the two pionts would completely lose individual identity and become only one piont. As in topology, where a point is a point forever, no mashing of points into other points allowed(*), Tverse's pionts can't lose their individual identity as separated permanently from any/all other pionts. ((*) Think on it: if one could topologically mash points into other points, then ANY object could be transformed into ANY other object, by mashing all its points into one, then un-mashing them into the new object. "Topology" could not exist like that: no transformational rules.) As regards Tverse's "origin sequence" (remember _that_ phrase also?), I specify the very few things necessary to get Tverse off and running _completely_, all proceeds straight from "NoThing" by minimalist stepwise logical progression. UNfortunately, it's 'way too hard to get most others to agree that this is the _only_ way (_absolutely_ the only way) to do it. > convinced that there are consistent analogs of points and lines in his > system (the way non-Euclidean points and lines ARE consistent analogs > with 3D-E points and lines, the way consistent geometries can be > developed with various substitutions for Euclid's parallel postulate.) Good for you, but: > But John is not deterred by having skipped those basic foundational > distinctions, and has never developed a metric that makes sense (to That you didn't grasp it (nor most, inlcuding Gregorash, who at least agreed that IF it was as I described it, it would _behave_ as I described it behaving), does not mean it didn't --or doesn't-- have every needed foundational distinction required. > me) for his space. Instead he uses the 3D-E metric whenever he needs a > metric (eg, to define "spherical" compression.) He may be oblivious to I use the 3D-Euclidean metric as mental visual aid for others. One has to have a common language, or at least a common 3D "grid" or background space, to be able to describe things. That Tverse has no such background space is irrelevant to that; there must be a common mental/visual, so discussion can take place. > geometry 12 spheres fit around 1 the way they do in 3D-E, but John may > believe his metaphysical entities fit like 3D-E spheres. That, they do. They _create_ the metric that they live in. I'm not going back into the "origin sequence" again, to explain how and why. Merry Xmas, people. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:35:18 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Charles J Knight Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >> the bicycle wheel. > > > > > spring spoke suspension. Motive power could be by computer > controlled > > shortening of some spokes, pulling your weight up and forward. Or > > electrically activated "muscle fibers." Some things allong those > lines > have appeared, but so far they all appear to be "laboratory > curiosities The down side to "flexible springy spokes" is that the power is transmitted through the hub to the spokes to the rim -- the springiness would result in a MUCH less efficient transfer of power for the bicycle drivetrain. As for variable diameter wheel rims, that's not an approach that I've heard before. Ingenious, but how (keeping it smoothly round) could it be done? BTW: For a well maintained chain drive bicycle, efficiency is in the upper 90% range, depending on the amount of bend in the chain, and the type of lubrication. But, 95-98% efficient is extremely common for a maintained bicycle. Hard to improve on those numbers, within the human power range. That's why the suspension is usually placed in the frame, not in the wheel. Good ideas, though. As to "muscle fiber," have you looked at the pneumatically actuated "robot muscles" that were developed in England? Same basic principle as a Chinese finger puzzle. As it gets longer, it gets thinner -- inflate a bladder internally, and it gets fatter and shorter, and exerts a pull. Simplicity itself, and apparently they've achieved an extremely high power:weight ratio. -- Chuck Knight ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:08:19 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-DEC-2001 7:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us first of all, I forgot to dysagree to agree -- just because Bucky *said* that he was "apolitical" -- that political stuff is out of bounds of Buckyverse; you'd know that, with any reading of anything but _S_, and even with parts of that. secondly, your format for replying is annoying, even if it's somewhat traditional on conferences & maillists, the super-extensive quoting & point-by-piont replying, going back to the '70s, at least (I started in '85 .-) finally, your hermeneutics is a wee-bit dystraught, grasping at those pionts, liens and plena (pl. of plenum?), and I haven't seen anything that breaks you out of your box, whatever shape that it's in, to get it across this little, "Planck-constant-equals-2pi-etc." divide. certainly, you take liberties with Kepler's conjecture, which *has* supposedly been proven (by a Hale?), that some nameless configuration may be more dense than the closest-packing of grocers olde, without any supporting reasoning. that is, you have to "prove" the necessity & sufficiency of this stuff, supooising whatever axioms you wish to; as iff, dude! if it's any consolation, I also found some of Lee's quote-replying to be awfully devoid of any examples. so, why in Hell do you call it "Tverse," except to engender some fans amongst the "fundamentalist Fullofit folks?" thus quoth: That, they do. They _create_ the metric that they live in. I'm not going back into the "origin sequence" again, to explain how and why. Merry Xmas, people. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:38:08 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: what in Hell ever In-Reply-To: <200112172113.fBHLDON19657@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings > > I haven't really read enough of it to stick, but > it may be that your "pionts" are akin > to Leibniz's monads. I don't think, > it'd be enough of a reason to exchange the terms, but > it does nicely include the transcendental value of pi, > and therefore of inherent roundness or "insideness & > outsideness" > of the monad. > of course, Bucky may have started an "I hate that > kind > o'pie" Club, but he'll just have t'deal with it! What are the dues to this club? I want to join. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:06:30 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Fw: new photos of old domes Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Hartig" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:00 AM Subject: new photos of old domes > There are current photos of seven > large scale domes of the 50's and 60's > at this web site: > http://www.karlhartig.com/dome/dome.html > > I am looking for information about the > Kaiser Aluminum domes. > How many were built? Where are they located? > (I know some have been torn down) > Were they offered as kits? Were there dealers? > Were there promotional brochures? > How much did they cost? > The Hutchinson County Aluminum Dome is > a classic example of a Kaiser dome. > > Any Information or comments are welcome, > > Karl Hartig > > > List of domes in photos: > > - Hutchinson County Aluminum Dome > Borger, Texas > > - Casa Manana Theater > Fort Worth, Texas > > - Union Tank Car Company Dome > Baton Rouge, Louisiana > > - Wood River Dome > Wood River, Illinois > > - ASM International Dome > Burton, Ohio > > - Climatron Conservatory > St. Louis, Missouri > > - United States Pavilion Expo 67 > Montreal, Quebec ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:51:24 -0800 Reply-To: docbox@earthlink.net Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Fish Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm waiting for someone besides me to make the first nitinol tensegrity model with the batteries and stuff in the rods. I just want to watch it pulsate. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:14:39 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: elementary numertheory puzzle in HtP#1 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-DEC-2001 12:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us hey, I've got a cool puzzle that I found in the Harry-the-little-British-Potter *ouvre* of kiddy porn (that;s in the 5th installment, of course), which is rather humourous. the question is, did Dame Jo think of this, herself? --Pardonez-Geroge! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:16:19 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: elementary numertheory puzzle in HtP#1 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-DEC-2001 12:16 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >hey, I've got a cool puzzle that I found >in the Harry-the-little-British-Potter *ouvre* >of kiddy porn (that;s in the 5th installment, of course), >which is rather humourous. the question is, >did Dame Jo think of this, herself? > >--Pardonez-Geroge! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html SUBJECT: Thank you! MESSAGE from =guestbook@homesteadsupport.com 18-DEC-20 11:44 Thank you for signing the guest book at http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ! Here's a message from the person who created the page: Thank you for signing this Guest Book. You can sign up and get your own Web site and guest book at http://www.homestead.com/splash.html?481 . ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:13:56 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: John Brawley >Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2001, 4:14 PM > (?) Are you aggravated at me? I'm sorry, John. I did over react. It really had been my intention to be quiet while you elaborated Tverse here for others. It all came back when I refreshed my memory of late PHYSICS posts, and I got wound up. We have common interests and I really think you are inventive and curious. You're an inspiration to anyone worried they might be extreme in defending their own crackpottery. It always feels safe to put forward the wildest schemes, when you are around. I hope you'll stay. I am sure you will make interesting contributions on a variety of topics. And I like the point-by-point responses (I don't understand which of us Brian was replying to, or what he said. Good luck there!) >> [Lee](***) >> >> Aren't there exceptions to the first claim when the IVM is in the >> >> shape of a waterman polyhedra? > You _said_ (marked above, ***), "...when the IVM is in the shape of... a > Waterman polyhedra?" > So in me appear: "Eh? There're no other shapes to an IVM... I'm not talking about the VE unit which all IVM share, I'm talking about the shape of the boundary around the whole IVM. A box of oranges is packed like an IVM in a rectangular box. A stack of cannonballs is a pyramid shaped IVM. A waterman polyhedron is a spherical IVM. > You at least got your "number error" ("is" [singular] doesn't go with > "polyhedra" [plural] ) past my grammar flags. When an IVM is in the shape of one of the WPs, the spherical container will hit all the outermost vertexes at once. (My number error was in "a" "polyhedra".) We might have different expectations about how a WP made of ideal incompressible balls with a large flat face would behave under spherical compression. I think something would have to be asymmetrical for the face to buckle. With real balls I'm sure with enough pressure and quantum fluctuations the face would buckle if it is big enough to buckle. However there are WPs (eg, the VE n=1, and maybe more?) that have no flat faces big enough to buckle. It is not clear to me why you still think an IVM in the shape of one of those WP would be unstable under spherical compression. How could it possibly shift? >> [Lee] >> In fact you >> can stack cannonballs on sloping ground, up to some limiting angle. > Friction, Lee, friction. > Friction and imperfect sphericity. > Cannonballs, oranges, tennis balls, even greasy ball bearings, have some > amount of friction keeping their surfaces from sliding perfectly freely > against those of their heighbors. > Frictionless balls would _not_ so stay in place if you popped one of > them out of the stack. Go back to my example of the VE with the missing center, ABCD on the bottom, EFGH on top, and IJKL as spheres in the layer with the missing center. Make them frictionless and perfectly spherical. Name a sphere and describe how it can possibly move without disrupting the layer outside. There are two disputes here. One is whether a complete IVM is stable with frictionless incompressible balls when it is built on a slightly sloping surface. I say it is stable, contrary to your claim > But > is there's even one non-orthogonal direction of compressive force, the > IVM should (I say "will") distort, because no matter how many layers > there are, (and assuming our spheres are "perfect" and frictionless), > any non-orthogonality in it anywhere--from outside or from inside, will > make the pattern shift and distort. since gravity is non-orthogonal to the planes of the ideal-ball stack. The other dispute is whether that sloping ideal-ball stack would be stable if one of the balls disappeared. You say "if you popped one of them out of the stack". I assume "popped" means it is there while the balls above it are placed, and then it disappears without moving any other balls. I say that a slightly tilting holey ideal-ball stack would still be stable. > Only on level ground, and constrained not to > collapse "out the sides" of the stack from the bottom layer, would > _frictionless_, perfect-sphericity, same-size, equal-mass cannonballs > stay stacked with one interior one removed. (So I claim; we have no > such frictionless balls to work with, so it's kind of hard to prove.) It isn't friction that keeps incompressible balls from rolling over each other; it's the angle. Just think of 4 balls, 3 (A,B,C) in a triangle and 1 (D) on top in the pocket formed by A,B,C. It isn't friction holding D in, it is gravity. Tip the tetrahedron slightly, and D is STILL lower in the pocket than it would be if it started to roll out, say over the valley between A and B. If the bottom layer is constrained not to collapse "out the sides", then no ideal-ball in the layer above will roll up out of its pocket until the tilt is 60 degrees, friction has nothing to do with it. Real balls would compress slightly, have flat spots, and roll out at a slightly shallower angle. (Much shallower if the bottom layer isn't restrained.) Friction helps real cannonballs in the bottom layer not roll out (they'd have to slip against the second layer as they roll.) Incompressibility and gravity keep ideal-balls in their pockets even with non-orthogonal gravity. > An axiom of separation may be spoken descriptively, or as math. Mine > can't be spoken as math. (Or, more properly speaking, a math version > makes no sense if minimum distance between pionts must be " 0+ " > ; ---like, what-the-hey is "zero-plus?") IIRC the 5 axioms of separation ARE spoken descriptively, just more specifically than yours. > That you didn't grasp it (nor most, inlcuding Gregorash, who at least > agreed that IF it was as I described it, it would _behave_ as I > described it behaving), does not mean it didn't --or doesn't-- have > every needed foundational distinction required. I'm pretty sure (maybe I could prove it, I haven't checked) that Gregorash was being sarcastic, and I pointed that out at the time after you were obviously taking him seriously. Peace. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:17:48 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Missing spheres Comments: To: Synergeo , tverse@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (to Lee Bonnifield, others interested in this) Additional thought on why the IVM would distort: Given, that this discussion is irrelevant to Synergetics for the most part, because IVMs are not "compressed." The discussion turns on what would happen if they were. We visualize the following three 12-around-1 patternings: 1) a VE (we all know what that is). 2) a nucleated icosahedron (perhaps a partly jitterbugged VE) 3) a Tverse icosahedro(not) (basically same as (2), not required to be regular). Now, if we circumscribe each of these three with a perfect hollow sphere, that 'kisses' (is tangent to) all 12 of the 2nd layer spheres in them, we find the three circumscribing spheres have the same radius. That radius is, in all three cases, one-and-a-half times a packed- sphere diameter. We also know there are "gaps" between the 12 spheres in the 2nd layer, caused by the nucleating central sphere's presence. In the icosahedron and icosahedro(not), these gaps are obvious, and can be spread out as portions of a total amount of gap, anywhere in the set of 12 (from the nine places in a "fully packed" icosahedro(not), to the case of a regular icosahedron with a wee little bit of gap in each of its 30 intervals so that NO sphere of the 12 contacts another). In the VE, the gap is ignored by Fuller students, but is present as one of the two possible diagonals in the six four-sphere squares of the VE. (_Which_ diagonal of any one four-sphere square, is an interesting question, leading to issues about "polarity" in E-M energy passing through space, but that's a different story, irrelevant to the _important_ issue next following) : IF you delete the central sphere from any or all of these three patterns, what happens? (Given: there's more or less evenly distributed compressive "pressure" on the consructs.) All three will do the same thing: collapse slightly. To do this, the VE must "jitterbug" a little (but not too much; it'll be stopped when it becomes a perfect regular icosahedron). The icosahedron is already shaped correctly, so it will simply shrink a little in overall size, and the icosahedro(not) will, like the VE but without the VE's starting config, settle down into a perfect icosahedral form. NOW: as we circumscribed the three while they still had their central spheres in place, we circumscribe these three without their central spheres in place, to find that the radius of our circumscribing sphere has become _smaller_. It is now a wee bit _less_than_ one-and-a-half sphere diameters. The circumscribed NON-nucleated forms are, in all cases (except that of a VE artificially prevented from jitterbugging), _smaller_than_ their circumscribed nucleated counterparts. So, given an IVM with irregular --not purely orthogonal-- compressive pressures on it, and "idealized" frictionless incompressible spheres, there will have appeared deep inside its pattern a "hole" whose tensegritic (?) resolution requires a distortion of _some_ kind, whose effect will be to close up the hole as much as possible, and return the IVM to its normal, stable, resistant-to-change state. That distortion, in my opinion, MUST occur if the system is compressed other than orthogonally. (Lee once agreed; he's the one, after all, who reposted my long-ago experiment with the 1/2" acrylic balls, and is also the source of much of our recent info on "jumbled tight packings.") Lastly, of course, if there's _no_compression_ on an IVM (not even the compression imposed by gravity on a cannonball-stack), you might as well remove as many spheres as you care to from it, since all the rest of them will stay happily right where they are, having no "reason" to do anything but that. This is in principle how one gets a Waterman Polyhedron's spherical patterns (albeit without actually deleting the spheres, merely making them invisible or transparent; a Waterman without its invisible spheres would, under the same gravity as a cannonball stack, obviously and suddenly become a heap of spheres on the ground). But with compression, the IVM patterning around the sphere in question, that Lee believes would keep the above-described distortion from happening, is not the main issue. That the "hole" formed by removing a sphere can only be re-normalized against the pressure by an adjustment that _reduces_the_volume_ of the occupied space around the now-missing sphere, seems inescapable. If that happens, every sphere in the IVM should slightly --perhaps only barely detectably far from the deletion zone-- shift position, to accommodate the newly-appeared _smaller_volume_ requirement at the deleted sphere's former location. On the largest scale, and given a finite IVM, the _entire IVM's_ circumscribable volume has become very slightly _less_ than a perfect tight-packing would require, so why wouldn't it shift and collapse ever so slightly, to return to "tightest packed?" (I apologize for wordiness, and for not having included this crucial part of my explanation in my earlier discussion with Lee.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:32:47 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 17 Dec 2001 to 18 Dec 2001 (#2001-336) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: > Joe S Moore > joemoore27@home.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karl Hartig" > > > There are current photos of seven > > large scale domes of the 50's and 60's > > at this web site: > > http://www.karlhartig.com/dome/dome.html > > > > I am looking for information about the > > Kaiser Aluminum domes. I live in St. Louis, have visited the Climatron many times. I've passed the Illinois Wood River dome on the highway to Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. If Mr. Hartig wants another, albeit a smaller one: On that SIU campus (sorry, no picture) is a small (40 to 50 feet across?) aluminum 3/4 dome of the same type of construction as the Climatron's (if I remember aright), which sits over an open, finished-and-furnished pit in the ground. It is (was; this is 20 years ago) used for various purposes (we used it prior to theatrical plays, for rehearsals and research). Perhaps the SIU website may have a pic? It's an excellent example of the type, but it's not "large scale" like these other, massively huge domes, and I have no knowledge if it was a "Kaiser" aluminum project. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:43:37 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Bucky Dome Comments: cc: Synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This URL: http://www.admis.siue.edu/tour/ ...should end you up at a tour-of-campus window, where to see the dome I spoke of, you should click on "21" on the map. It is now the "religious center." If this link doesn't work for you, truncate it (to the SIU main page), choose "campus tour" from the top of the main picture, _then_ use the tour map to find building "21". Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:49:28 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 17 Dec 2001 to 18 Dec 2001 (#2001-336) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-DEC-2001 6:37 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > well, that was long-winded, Lee (?). > actually, I couldn't even grok, > why he calls "it," tetrahedraversal. I don't like the name; never did. "Too late" to change it now (one doesn't break 12-year chains of links and historical keywords lightly). It should be obvious. The "verse" from "universe" ('multiverse,' 'idioverse,' etc. etc.), and the fact it's based on, and mostly is all, tetrahedrons. It's in principle another attempt to define, create, explore, reason-out, the Universe. One maybe should be glad I didn't call it "Icosahedroverse".... (*g*) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:29:10 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 17 Dec 2001 to 18 Dec 2001 (#2001-336) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message from Brian, > (Re: "political": Eh? What?) onward: > secondly, your format for replying is annoying, even if > it's somewhat traditional on conferences & maillists, > the super-extensive quoting & point-by-piont replying, > going back to the '70s, at least (I started in '85 .-) I started around 1976, with an Apple][ and then a Franklin and FidoNet a year or two later Sorry it irritates; this, the first time I've heard that; I conduct my "business" emails in the same manner, no complaints from correspondents.... Habit, clarity, traceability, continuity, referenceability, etc. etc.... > finally, your hermeneutics is a wee-bit dystraught, > grasping at those pionts, liens and plena (pl. of plenum?), > and I haven't seen anything that breaks you out of your box, > whatever shape that it's in, to get it across > this little, "Planck-constant-equals-2pi-etc." divide. Hermeneutics? (Dang! the man sends me to the dictionary! congratulations; I like that!) What text would I be interpreting? You mean my attempts to explain my own odd geometric/topological system? What's the specific question, if there is one? I warn: to explain where Planck's quantum-of-action fits into Tverse, it'll be long, wordy, and hard to "get" even if I were as good a writer/explainer as Feynman. You still want me to try it? (Excuse me a moment: gotta release/renew my modem bindings; virus/worm now arriving through cable modem as we speak... ... OK, back now.) > certainly, you take liberties with Kepler's conjecture, > which *has* supposedly been proven (by a Hale?), > that some nameless configuration may be more dense > than the closest-packing of grocers olde, > without any supporting reasoning. Putting it kindly? (*grin*) I gave an hardware experiment description kindly reminded me by Lee Bonnifield; I gave (too much?) text on other reasons. What, exactly, would convince you that the recent "proof" applies either to my system, or to _any_ system with some restrictions on it not accounted for by the "provers" of the Kepler conjecture? This is not about "more dense" in the _abstract_; it's about more dense given certain specific conditions, chief among which is, in my system, the sphericity of the "container," but secondary to which, is the case(s) of "missing" spheres in the matrices under discussion. > that is, you have to "prove" the necessity & sufficiency > of this stuff, supooising whatever axioms you wish to; > as iff, dude! Can, but that'll be a few weeks of backs-and-forths betwixt you and I, not a tolerable thing for this list, I suspect. Care to go private?, or to join the Tverse@fluidiom.com mail list, so a few others can be bored to death by my repetitions? (*grin*) > if it's any consolation, > I also found some of Lee's quote-replying > to be awfully devoid of any examples. so, Well, Lee and I were "into this" some years back, on FidoNet. He understands better than most, but he still appears to have a few prejudicial or info-lacking misunderstandings. He did provide an excellent message, his own from those Fidonet days, laying out many arguments similar to my own and calling the system he describes "jumbled packing." Again, it's the _limitations_ on the system that separate it slightly from the recent "proof" of the FCC packing conjecture. > why in Hell do you call it "Tverse," except > to engender some fans amongst the "fundamentalist Fullofit folks?" Absolutely not. Short for "Tetrahedraverse." I called it that originally because it was the coldest-descriptive term I could manufacture. I never liked it. Too late now. (This question answered elsewhere here.) I knew next to nothing about Bucky (other than his domes) when I found, or 're-discovered' the "problem of the 13 spheres." Nothing of Tverse came from Fuller, Fuller's works, or Fullerites. I only found out about how Tverse impacted these other things when I began to try to describe what I had found. (I found then also, by the way, how nicely Fullerites react to challenges to their cherished system. Some of the flames aimed at me then ought to be enshrined in carved stone, as exquisite examples of their genre. (*g*)) > thus quoth: > That, they do. They _create_ the metric that they live in. I'm not > going back into the "origin sequence" again, to explain how and why. But I would, privately, if anyone were sufficiently --and honestly-- curious, and I were to be convinced that by so doing I could actually get the thing across to the 'students.' I don't, however, have many illusions about the likelihood of that. > Merry Xmas, people. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:47:21 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Revisiting the core Comments: To: tverse@fluidiom.com Comments: cc: Synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Periodically I attempt to rewrite Tetrahedraverse's "origin sequence." In light of recent activity re:my odd little system, here's another such. (Serious attempt at "terse" guides this; it may therefore be less understandable than "verbose" would be. (*grin*)) Origin Sequence, "terse" form: _______________ * "NoThing" --an impossible situation-- is obviated by presence of the _minimum_ amount of "thingness" necessary to prevent it. * Since there "was" no "before," anything which _can_be_, _must_ be. * This minimum amount of "thingness" --a pointlike entity-- can be both a singleton and an infinite number of superposed singletons, without changing in any way (yet) what this instance of "thingness" is, therefore it "is" both, forever to remain so. * To BE 'an infinite number," each piont(sp) must distinguish itself from --must separate from-- all others. * As it is (at the moment), there is only one pointlike object, which now divides itself infinitely, creating motion (of all pionts at once) away from the first "location." This is obviously, using 3D in our minds to imagine it, a "hollow" spherical shell. The shell is a single 2D "point"(sp), its interior is empty (but as we may see, this "empty" is for Tverse "matter and energy"), its contents an infinite number of potentially (but not yet) 3D pionts(sp) all trying to get away from each other (thus, the shell is _expanding_ "rapidly"). * When ambiguity arises as to how "curved" the shell is in any one tiny area, entry of pionts into a third dimensionality becomes possible, and pionts "discover" the interior of the shell --the volume that is "solid" mass/energy-- and flood into it (shell expansion may, or may not, pause; the question is metaphysical and hard to resolve). [(] * Ambiguity as to whether or not "empty" 12-point icosahedra (12-around-nones) can form during this period, exists. I personally do not know if these "empty" 12-around-none patterns may form, due to randomnesses in the violently active default "jumble" packing going on. I _assume_ so, and it is the only unjustified assumption that I make. However, note that lack of formation of these does not impact the rest of the formative events before or after. ])] * When the pionts flooding in from all areas of the "shell" begin to reach maximum containable by the shell, the Tetrahedraverse "order twelve network of dimensionless noncoalesceable points(sp)" forms. Default config for identical points(sp) filling any "3D" container is Kepler's 12-around-1 "problem of the 13 spheres." Arguments about "closest packing" forms are irrelevant here; _all_ tightest-packing candidates are 12-around-1 packings: IVM, CCP, FCC, etc. * Tetrahedraverse now mostly exists, but the shell, still containing an infinite number of 2D pionts(sp) which are still "discovering" the 3D interior --which is now filled up-- keeps trying to shove new 3D pionts into the interior. This, since there IS NO "exterior," provides Tverse with its spherical-inwardly-going "pressure" on all pionts already "inside." This action will _never_stop_. Tverse is an ongoing, continuous creation; it cannot ever cease to increase in piont-content, hence in 3D radius. * Tetrahedraverse now exists in full. It is a network of vertex order 12; it is _pressurized_; an inviolable rule derived from the original "explosion" of pionts forbids re-coalescence of pionts; and it contains an unspecified number of 12-around-none, "empty" spots. The "pressure" is only a hair less than "infinite," the noncoalesceability rule for each/every piont opposes it, and thus is established the "minimum distance" two or more pionts can come to one another. All else is conversation, exploration (such as via Struck/Fluidiom or SpringDance; Tverse is natively best expressible in computer simulation by means of Elastic Interval Geometry), or questions, about the above. (I have the time; do you have the curiosity?) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:55:53 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Dick Fischbeck Subject: Re: Missing spheres In-Reply-To: <001f01c1884c$93db4f40$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- John Brawley wrote: > (to Lee Bonnifield, others interested in this) > > Additional thought on why the IVM would distort: Another way to say it is; a non-nucleated IVM will contract under pressure because there is room for it to. The diameter if the VE is greater than that of the icosahedron. The contracting 12 balls will jitterbug into a smaller space. Am I stating the obvious? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 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: Lee Bonnifield Subject: thermal tensegrity Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > I'm waiting for someone besides me to > make the first nitinol tensegrity model > with the batteries and stuff in the rods. > > I just want to watch it pulsate. > > - jim I made a thermal/humidity-driven tensegrity jiggler about 18" high. It uses 2# monofilament for tendons, and 12 struts made of plastic straws (2 of them butted together for a slenderness ratio of ~84.) It's mounted on a plastic base that also holds a "drinking bird". When his head bobs back it hits a tendon and the whole thing jiggles. By the way, there's an easy way to wire a 12 strut cuboctahedron tensegrity when you can make the struts in two halves. Poke 4 holes in each side of a square box, and stick 24 straws into the holes. Wire a square around the ends sticking out of each face, and a triangle around each corner. That's easy because the tendons are slack while the straws are in the box. Then pull the straws out of the holes and butt the appropriate ones together -- presto, tensegrity! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:56:32 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-DEC-2001 5:56 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us since the aquadude shapes are all centrally symmetrical (as a function of the "isotropical vector matrix," itslef, it could be proven), how could it be that a (symeetrically) embracing membrane would cuase anything within it to "buckle?" perhaps, you are mystaquing the old problem, per Kepler's conjecture (and Newton's ), because the 12-kissing-1 configuration is not stable; the balls slide-around (although they won't all kiss each of the other 11 on the surface); but this isn't really germain to any larger packing; is it? and please, don't use handwaving fruitcakisms like "quantum fluctuations" -- bah, humbug! as for respoding to posts, I really prefer the letter-writing format, to compose the thoughts into an organic w/hole; at the other extreme is the chatroom. I try to break reply to seperate responses with an appended (succinct) quote from the replyee; dig? thus quoth: spherical compression. I think something would have to be asymmetrical for the face to buckle. With real balls I'm sure with enough pressure and quantum fluctuations the face would buckle if it is big enough to buckle. However there are WPs (eg, the VE n=1, and maybe more?) that have no flat faces big enough to buckle. It is not clear to me why you still think an IVM in the shape of one of those WP would be unstable under spherical compression. How could it possibly shift? --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/KNUschools.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:12:41 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 17 Dec 2001 to 18 Dec 2001 (#2001-336) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-DEC-2001 6:12 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us you really didn't get it, quite. I'm not going to try to *improve* something, namely Kepler's now-supposedly-proven conjecture, that has so little possibility of working. on the other hand, if you can reconfigure your "historical" argument into a form that constitutes a proof, I'll be happy to congratulate you, if I grok; dig? the fact is htat, now, most of us students o'Bucky have a *lot* of intuition about these things, without necessarily much engineering math to back that "up;" that's why your prospects are so dim, even if you came-upon the 13-ball problemma by your own experiments. thus quoth: This is not about "more dense" in the _abstract_; it's about more dense given certain specific conditions, chief among which is, in my system, the sphericity of the "container," but secondary to which, is the case(s) of "missing" spheres in the matrices under discussion. you see, since the watermen are centrally symmetrical, almost as much as a sphere, there's no *room* for improvement, with those integral numbers of spheres in a pack, although there may be in between those numbers (but, so, What ?-) --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:33:59 -0800 Reply-To: docbox@earthlink.net Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jim Fish Subject: Re: thermal tensegrity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > By the way, there's an easy way to wire a 12 strut cuboctahedron > tensegrity Elegant, Lee ! I'll have to try this soon. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:17:08 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: problems! <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-DEC-2001 13:17 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us new problem, got from thinking about John's (a-hem): see http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html, go to MiltonAcademy, and press the green trigon! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:11:45 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: Missing spheres Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: John Brawley >Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2001, 12:17 AM > Additional thought on why the IVM would distort: All the descriptive scenarios you put forward are about one isolated VE or other 13 ball assembly distorting. There IS a difference. Am I misusing a term? I think an IVM is a collection of VEs, and it's an IVM only as long as it is not distorted. > IF you delete the central sphere from any or all of these three > patterns, what happens? (Given: there's more or less evenly distributed > compressive "pressure" on the consructs.) This "more or less evenly distributed" qualification leads me to very different conclusions than the symmetrical compression you described Dec 14: >> An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a >> compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it I've always thought some of the movements you were describing were impossible because of the symmetrical compression preventing any part of the IVM from expanding. If you allow it to bulge here or there, or apply asymmetrical forces at particular places, I am not surprised at the possibility of any sort of movement. > All three will do the same thing: collapse slightly. You left out the possibility (MUCH more likely to my thinking) that one of the 12 outer balls will pop into the empty center hole. That makes a new hole, which is filled, and the hole migrates to the surface. I never considered that possibility before because the symmetrical pressure I thought you required would not allow that sort of movement, since it requires temporarily slightly moving other balls out while one pops into the hole. > The circumscribed NON-nucleated forms are, in all cases (except that > of a VE artificially prevented from jitterbugging), _smaller_than_ > their circumscribed nucleated counterparts. "Artificially prevented" -- I think that refers to the immobility of an IVM with rigid walls and/or symmetrical compression. If the VE is part of an IVM (rather than the VE as a single isolated assembly of 13 balls) then there are balls outside the VE fitting into every square pocket of the VE. The presence of a ball holding open any square prevents jitterbugging. Again, this is irrelevant now that you allow those 6 balls to be pushed out of the way by asymmetrical forces. If the IVM is in a rigid box, none of the balls can be pushed out, and no movement is possible when the center ball is removed. You can even remove 2 adjacent balls, and still there is no room for any other ideal-ball to move, if the IVM has rigid walls. > So, given an IVM with irregular --not purely orthogonal-- compressive > pressures on it, and "idealized" frictionless incompressible spheres, > there will have appeared deep inside its pattern a "hole" whose > tensegritic (?) resolution requires a distortion of _some_ kind, whose > effect will be to close up the hole as much as possible, and return the > IVM to its normal, stable, resistant-to-change state. That distortion, > in my opinion, MUST occur if the system is compressed other than > orthogonally. (Lee once agreed; Students, you are seated at the feet of the Master. If you learn well from John, you too will be able to -- with only TWO WORDS -- simultaneously a) misinform bystanders about your opponent's position; b) imply your opponent has changed his position; and c) confuse your opponent about what in hell you are talking about. John, please don't claim to be presenting my position without quoting me. Now what is it I supposedly once agreed to? For years I've always thought you were hypothesizing spherical compressive pressures; I'm sure I've never expressed an opinion about the result of "irregular" pressures. So what are you saying now -- there is suddenly a missing sphere, and that is a distortion which you say requires "resolution"? If the balls are ideally incompressible and the walls are rigid, the hole won't move. If the walls are flexible enough for the IVM to distort under the "irregular" forces, then by far the likeliest thing to happen, with ideal or real balls, is that the hole will migrate opposite the pressure gradient. Like, if the pressure were down (eg gravity), the hole would migrate up, to the surface. > he's the one, after all, who reposted > my long-ago experiment with the 1/2" acrylic balls, and is also > the source of much of our recent info on "jumbled tight packings.") Your experiment is irrelevant to the situation where you start with an IVM. > But with compression, the IVM patterning around the sphere in question, > that Lee believes would keep the above-described distortion from > happening Don't YOU believe that IVM patterning prevents the distortion from happening? All jitterbug examples I've seen are done with a free VE, not a VE in an IVM. In an IVM, there is a ball blocking every square of the VE. You must get the rest of the IVM or at least those 6 blocking balls out of the way before your chosen VE can jitterbug. Of course that is no problem now that you are allowing irregular forces. But still, you must have incredibly well-organized "irregular" forces to cause jitterbug; it would take much less coordination to simply have another ball pop into the hole from the direction of the strongest pressure. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:38:50 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: Brian Hutchings >Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2001, 8:56 AM > since the aquadude shapes are all centrally symmetrical > (as a function of the "isotropical vector matrix," itslef, > it could be proven), how could it be that > a (symeetrically) embracing membrane would cuase anything > within it to "buckle?" I finally figured out you were writing to me, and referring to Waterman polyhedrons, and agreeing with me -- there is nothing asymmetrical here, an IVM in the shape of a WP will not buckle under the compression of a spherical container. > thus quoth: > spherical compression. I think something would have to be asymmetrical > for the face to buckle. Of course with real balls, something always is asymmetrical -- they're not perfectly round, they're not exactly the same size, they develop flat spots, the compressing spherical container pushes harder on one corner than another. I am sure that with macro sized real balls and enough pressure, buckling would occur, and it could be traced to something much larger than quantum fluctuations. I have no quarrel with John's introduction of that term, he explained it: [John] > in the > same sense as "quantum fluctuation" is used by some physicists to mean > "the merest, smallest, tiniest influence, coming from next to nowhere." But, you've probably noticed that John has made a major shift from spherical compression to "irregular" "more or less evenly distributed" compression. I suppose he did this because he now realizes that an IVM in the shape of a WP is not destroyed by spherical compression as he claimed Dec 14: [John] > An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:53:24 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: Missing spheres 2 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From: Dick Fischbeck >Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2001, 1:55 PM > --- John Brawley wrote: >> (to Lee Bonnifield, others interested in this) >> >> Additional thought on why the IVM would distort: > > Another way to say it is; a non-nucleated IVM will contract > under pressure because there is room for it to. The > diameter if the VE is greater than that of the icosahedron. > The contracting 12 balls will jitterbug into a smaller > space. > > Am I stating the obvious? I think that's obviously what John says, but I think 1) you two should not say an IVM will contract when what you are describing is a VE contracting. Isn't an IVM a collection of many VEs locked together so none can jitterbug? 2) A free standing non-nucleated VE will contract under pressure because there is room for it to, and the diameter of the VE is greater than that of the non-nucleated icosahedron, but it is not at all obvious that therefore the VE will jitterbug. Another much more likely way for it to decrease in volume is for one of the 12 balls to slip into the empty center. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:03:53 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Dec 2001 to 19 Dec 2001 (#2001-337) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lee, et.al. : I'll try short ones, meaning I extract certain parts from a message, and not try to respond/write to _everything_. First, from Lee: > when I refreshed my memory of late PHYSICS posts, and I got wound up. That'd do it. Later you ask, if I'm gonna characterize something you said back then, I better quote it, so I'll stop that. I could _do_ that, I'm sure, after a week of rebuiilding a separate computer with which to put the tape drive and a 5-1/4" floppy (remember 5-1/4" floppies?) back into service. All my BioGenesis and Physics archives are on the tapes. (Those were the days before backup to CDs was possible.) > curious. You're an inspiration to anyone worried they might be extreme > in defending their own crackpottery. It always feels safe to put (*chuckle*) And here I thought I was being reasonable.... Oh, well. I admit to a high crackpot index, but not as high as some. Now to the meat: > >> [Lee](***) > >> >> shape of a waterman polyhedra? > > I'm not talking about the VE unit which all IVM share, I'm talking > about the shape of the boundary around the whole IVM. A box of oranges > is packed like an IVM in a > rectangular box. A stack of cannonballs is a pyramid shaped IVM. A > waterman polyhedron is a spherical IVM. Agreed to all but the last. A WP isn't what you see; its what has been defined, by sweeping a radial length around the central sphere's centerpoint in what you _don't_ see. That is, a WP is like an infinitely extended glass-sphere IVM. There's as much (far more, actually) IVM on the outside of one --and onward out to some unimaginably far distance, as there is _inside_ of one. It's just a pattern made by selecting certain spheres (using the Waterman/Urner algorithm) from a normal IVM, and coloring them in or otherwise pointing them out. (More on this below) As to your above reference to the containers, do I not recall you recently saying that in all of these, there would be some gaps between some of the spheres, and the walls of the containers?, the only caveat here being that if it's a rectangular box, these gaps are irrelevant to the packing problem because they're surrounded by spheres which _touch_ the container walls, hence nothing can move or shift in it. But you also pointed out (I'm _not_ going to quote you unless you re-provide that URL to that wonderfully insightful "jumble packing" message you wrote long ago --the one with my _toadnet_ and point addresses in it) that if th4e container were other than perfectly shaped to hold the IVM pattern in place, such as spherical container, these gaps would _not_ all be prevented from having some effect, because the container walls would be tangent to the outermost IVM sphere-surfaces in so many different ways. So, too, with the Watermans. It isn't productive to try to BOTH use the Watermans as "spherical IVMs," AND at the same time claim they can be stable objects all by themselves, even with the portion of the IVM _inside_ the Waterman still in place. In other words, if the Waterman is purely and only as I describe it --a pattern "swept" through a complete IVM, then this is a tautological argument; nothing's going to move, and there IS NO container circumscribed around the Waterman. ON the OTHER hand, though, if you want to pursue the idea that you can circumscribe a Waterman with a perfect spherical container tangentially touching the outer surfaces of all the spheres in the visible Waterman, then you have a problem: when you compress this spherical container, what's to stop interior spheres from simply squirting upward through all those wonderfully gaping holes in the Waterman? Remember about the Waterman: there are invisible spheres in there, that would hold it in its form (or so you claim), so compressing a Waterman spherically is no different than compressing an IVM spherically. They are the same. So which is it? Do you want to talk about the Waterman _as_it_is_ (an artificial picture taken within a true IVM), or do you want to talk about it as an isolated sphere-approximate structure, either with its interior spheres in place, or without them? (And yes, to clarify, as I grasp it also, a VE is merely any 13-sphere tight-packed, by default cuboctahedral, set found within an IVM; and all of the 13-sphere tight-packed sets except the ones on the outermost surfaces of a finite IVM, are VEs.) (More comin', in other "short" messages) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:42:51 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Dec 2001 to 19 Dec 2001 (#2001-337) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Two: > have no flat faces big enough to buckle. It is not clear to me why you > still think an IVM in the shape of one of those WP would be unstable > under spherical compression. How could it possibly shift? Assuming what? A) What you see is all there is, no other spheres? B) The Waterman with its interior spheres (glass) still there, but none on the outside? C) The Waterman as a spherical picture of which spheres' centers are at "x" distance, the IVM still fully in place as much outside the Waterman as inside it? If (B), then recall there are still spheres in those holes. Some of 'em stick out, some of 'em are sunken. Circumscribe that with a perfectly rigid spherical container, and something's gotta give. If (A), what's the beef? The whole thing could collapse completely, or maybe remain force-held as it is, with that perfectly rigid spherical/compressive container wrapped around it. If (C), there's nothing to discuss; no motion is possible, because no spheres are missing. What? Which? > Go back to my example of the VE with the missing center, ABCD on the > bottom, EFGH on top, and IJKL as spheres in the layer with the missing > center. Make them frictionless and perfectly spherical. Name a sphere > and describe how it can possibly move without disrupting the layer > outside. I name the central sphere, which when missing, fails to hold out the 12 around it as it did before, and the 12 should try to jitterbug to attain a smaller overall occupation of the space. They _will_ disrupt the layer outside, but not by forcing it outward. A twisting motion, in my view, would propagate throughout the whole IVM (provided, of course, you don't have this extended IVM imprisoned tightly in a rectangular box...) > There are two disputes here. One is whether a complete IVM is stable > with frictionless incompressible balls when it is built on a slightly > sloping surface. I say it is stable, contrary to your claim Given? : the IVM is neither infinitely extended nor contained? It is a cannonball stack on the hillside? Its bottom layer is constrained from sliding out from underneath? "Complete," and its bottom layer constrained against slippage, an IVM should be stable up to whatever its "critical angle" is --that angle where it behaves like the cartoons and slapstick comedy scenes where a grocer's helper is seen desperately trying to avoid all the oranges pouring down on him from what _was_ a nice pyramidal IVM stacking of oranges.... It is, broadly, my contention that the ONLY stable IVM is either: 1) an IVM inside its constraining rectangular container, OR 2) an IVM built tightly inside a container that can't change the IVM's shape by means of its own shape. I'm not even sure of the latter; I don't think an IVM can retain its perfect orthogonality anywhere BUT in the rectangular box. A cannonball stack is an unconstrained (except the bottom) IVM with some spheres missing, is all; it's still built as if it were in the box. Without the box, you merely can't place the second layer all the way out to the edges of the first layer. > > is there's even one non-orthogonal direction of compressive force, the > > IVM should (I say "will") distort, because no matter how many layers > > there are, (and assuming our spheres are "perfect" and frictionless), > > any non-orthogonality in it anywhere--from outside or from inside, will > > make the pattern shift and distort. > > since gravity is non-orthogonal to the planes of the ideal-ball stack. That (on the slope), and the fact that if you don't prevent any VE (or all of them) in the stack from trying to jitterbug on you if you remove a sphere, it will try to twist around and propagate the jitterbug effect right throughout the IVM. > The other dispute is whether that sloping ideal-ball stack would be > stable if one of the balls disappeared. You say "if you popped one of > them out of the stack". I assume "popped" means it is there while the > balls above it are placed, and then it disappears without moving any Yes. > other balls. I say that a slightly tilting holey ideal-ball stack > would still be stable. And I say no, given our ideal: incompressible, frictionless. I say the 12 around the missing one will try to jitterbug, and will succeed if the rest of the IVM is not tightly packed in its little rectangular box. Adjust the gravity: stack one here, stack one on the moon, stack one on Jupiter. The force of gravity will, as you suggest, force-hold the stack in place, but with a ball missing, the "desire to jitterbug" will be, I claim, directly proportional to the amount of pressure (of gravity) applied. Look, Lee, I grant that many of the Fullerite claims for the IVM are perfectly sensible, and that my system is not _supposed_ to be Synergetic or intentionally Fuller-related, but as y'all have spent years studying his, I've spent years studying mine. These claims are only partly disprovable; lacking the tools (frictionless spheres?) I can't "prove" some of what I say to you. All I/we can do is try this, with word-pictures, and we both sometimes fail to get them right. I'm sorry. (more....) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:53:57 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Dec 2001 to 19 Dec 2001 (#2001-337) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Three: > > An axiom of separation may be spoken descriptively, or as math. Mine > > can't be spoken as math. (Or, more properly speaking, a math version > > makes no sense if minimum distance between pionts must be " 0+ " > > ; ---like, what-the-hey is "zero-plus?") > > IIRC the 5 axioms of separation ARE spoken descriptively, just more > specifically than yours. Have you an URL where I can see those? > > described it behaving), does not mean it didn't --or doesn't-- have > > every needed foundational distinction required. > > I'm pretty sure (maybe I could prove it, I haven't checked) that > Gregorash was being sarcastic, and I pointed that out at the time > after you were obviously taking him seriously. I recall Gregorash _here_ in my house, and although he wasn't any more interested in Tverse then than before, he did reiterate his statement. He wasn't pulling my leg, he did accept the behaviour of the system as valid if the system were designed as I had it (have it). (I sensed what you're saying, online FidoNet, and I tried to insure I understood him, but when he was here, he didn't waffle or prevaricate about it. (By the way, Google turned up nothing on Darryl but some old FidoNet arguments and references to the bar(?) at the end of the universe, which I assume is a reference to Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy. --Do you remember that lovely coincidence there, by the way, in which the "answer to life, the universe, and everything" was " 42 "? How many sphere-center-to-sphere-center intervals are there in a 12-around-1? (*g*)) (more....) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:00:23 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Dec 2001 to 19 Dec 2001 (#2001-337) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: Missing spheres > > --- John Brawley wrote: > > (to Lee Bonnifield, others interested in this) > > > > Additional thought on why the IVM would distort: > > Another way to say it is; a non-nucleated IVM will contract > under pressure because there is room for it to. The > diameter if the VE is greater than that of the icosahedron. > The contracting 12 balls will jitterbug into a smaller > space. > > Am I stating the obvious? Looks fine to _me_, but I'd have said a non-nucleated VE.... The IVM is a collection of interlocking VEs. Other than that, you touch on a critical concept: that if there's a VE with a missing center in an IVM, my claim is that the _entire_IVM_ will distort, because the VEs are "locked" in it, and if one of them jitterbugs, every other sphere in the IVM should move slightly to accommodate it. The only caveat, of course and as mentioned, is that in which the IVM is itself "locked" by being inside a rigid rectangular box. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 02:15:56 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Dec 2001 to 19 Dec 2001 (#2001-337) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > From: Brian Hutchings > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) > > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-DEC-2001 5:56 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > since the aquadude shapes are all centrally symmetrical > (as a function of the "isotropical vector matrix," itslef, > it could be proven), how could it be that > a (symeetrically) embracing membrane would cuase anything > within it to "buckle?" Depends. Is there a hole in it somewhere? No? Then it can't distort. Is this embracing membrane perfectly smooth, such that no sphere can "poke out"? Yes? Then it can, and will, distort. > perhaps, you are mystaquing the old problem, > per Kepler's conjecture (and Newton's ), because > the 12-kissing-1 configuration is not stable; > the balls slide-around (although they won't all kiss each > of the other 11 on the surface); but > this isn't really germain to any larger packing; > is it? Again, depends. Fuller's packing (VEs) puts all the 'gap' you mention into six orthogonally separated places, and "locks" them in place by making the entire packing orthogonally biased. No other packing than that one (that I know of), does that. > and please, > don't use handwaving fruitcakisms like "quantum fluctuations" > -- bah, humbug! (*grin*) Hey, if Richard Feynman, Steven Hawking, and Alan Guth can use it, why can't we? (I'd prefer not to, also, but it can be convenient, eh?) > most of us students o'Bucky have a *lot* of intuition > about these things, without necessarily much engineering math > to back that "up;" Uh... I have years of "intuition" also, as well as some computer models.... It's just a bit of _different_ intuition "about these things." > that's why your prospects are so dim, even if > you came-upon the 13-ball problemma by your own experiments. (*chuckle*) I don't have any "prospects." I'm presenting (as always) an alternate way to use these 12-around-1 packings in an attempt to get at the roots of the universe. I don't actually care very much whether or not anyone accepts them. My task is to first get someone to _understand_ my system, _then_ we can argue about its virtues or lack thereof, intelligently. > thus quoth: > This is not about "more dense" in the _abstract_; it's about more dense > given certain specific conditions, chief among which is, in my system, > the sphericity of the "container," but secondary to which, is the > case(s) of "missing" spheres in the matrices under discussion. > > you see, since the watermen are centrally symmetrical, > almost as much as a sphere, there's no *room* for improvement, > with those integral numbers of spheres in a pack, although > there may be in between those numbers (but, > so, What ?-) Well, since a Waterman is just an IVM with some spheres colored in, any "improvement" to a Waterman would have to be an "improvement" to an IVM, and I'm not offering any "improvements"; I'm pointing out a _different_ way of seeing a sphere-packing that is very like, but is not, an IVM. I offer another way of using the packings, not an improvement on a rigidly unchangeable, dogmatized, thoroughly-explored structure like an IVM. (*grinning*) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:17:33 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Is it? Comments: To: Synergeo , tverse@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is it an IVM or is it Tverse? (Only your storyteller's muse knows for sure, and she's not telling....) There is an argument about whether an IVM would, or would not, deform when forced into a non-rectangular container. No resolution to the question has yet been seen. Last eve, I came up with a different way of asking the question: Suppose we made a perfect Fuller IVM, in space (microgravity). This IVM will be ten by ten spheres thick through its narrow dimension, and three hundred spheres long. (A very long, thin, rectangular IVM.) The spheres comprising it are special order: frictionless and absolutely incompressible. Suppose further that we make it without struts, so that it is _only_ spheres, and nothing is needed to hold it in shape since it's floating in microgravity with no forces applied to it at all. Now we imagine a very large, impenetrable, rigidly and perfectly spherical, shrinkable "container," which when we begin, is at least 400 sphere-diameters in diameter. (The long thin IVM is entirely inside it to begin with.) Now we shrink the big sphere. Evenly, smoothly, without allowing the slightest nonsphericity in it. Our intent will be to shrink it until its volume has room for _exactly_ --no more, no less-- as many spheres (30,000 of them) as are in our skinny IVM. Sooner or later the inner surface of our shrinking sphere will contact the two ends of the IVM, and begin to compress it. The IVM distorts and its spheres begin to pop out of place, because while there is IVM-style integrity to it lengthwise, there is a lot of room all around it, inside the volume of the shrinking, enclosing sphere. This continues, spheres forced to pass beside their neighbors, as the now-distorted IVM gets shorter while getting also wider. (This mashing should not be too hard to imagine...) After a while, the enclosing sphere will have shrunk to the point where its volume is equal to the volume occupied by all of the spheres of the former IVM, plus the non-sphere space one can't get rid of in any sphere-packing problem. ***** Here's the question: when all has stopped shifting, tumbling, and moving, because the former-IVM's spheres are now filling the compressing sphere completely so no further shrinkage is possible, _what_will_you_find_ inside that shrunken sphere? A new IVM, its outer surface looking something like a Waterman sphere? or a little chunk of Tetrahedraverse's irregular tetspace network of vertex order twelve? ***** This imagining avoids most of the issues here discussed so far and unresolved, to ask the question in a different form: if you start with a perfect IVM and allow it to crush (as above), so that its intermediate 'shape' is seen passing through what should obviously be a Tverse-type "jumbled" semi-randomization, to an end situation in which its spheres _must_be_ "tightest packed" ---but in a _spherical_ container, having gotten there in a randomized, but "complete" (not missing any spheres in VEs), manner, then will the end product be as I claim, or as Lee Bonnifield et.al. claim? ( I of course don't _know_ this answer, not having the described equipment and supplies. All I have is a poor-man's experimental model, done differently than described above, in which no original starting-stage IVM was made, and only the jumble-packing was used and manipulated to try to make the sphere of spheres be spherically tightest-packed, in which the answer came out "Tverse's." The above is a more "complete" thought-experiment than my hardware experiment was.) Any thoughts on how to find out? Start with an IVM "loose" in a sphere; shrink the sphere to make the IVM disassemble and rearrange; will the IVM _re-form_ once the available space for the spheres has run out?, or will it end up in some different pattern? (A short note to Lee B., on my balloon experiment: You mentioned the packing once the balloon had had a vacuum-cleaner vacuum pulled on it. I didn't mention, but an interesting, quantum-sudden-like phenomenon exists in such a ball of balls: You can try to further deform it, and it will resist you up to a certain amount of pressure, at which point it will SUDDENLY and all at once shift from its former shape into a new one, and stop. You can apply pressure in a different direction, and the same thing will happen: no motion, then one short snap!-like shift of much of the ball, then stoppage and resistance to further shifts. (Likely, there are whole strings, planes, and 3D patterns in there, that are comfy under the compression until too great a new directional pressure is reached, whereupon a whole lot of little tiny shiftings occur, adding up to one sudden massive shift from one compression-stable state to another.) Happy Holidays Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:14:59 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Dec 2001 to 19 Dec 2001 (#2001-337) Comments: cc: tverse@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: Re: Missing spheres > > >From: John Brawley > >Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2001, 12:17 AM > > > Additional thought on why the IVM would distort: > >> term? I think an IVM is a collection of VEs, and it's an IVM only as long as > it is not distorted. Yes. I contend that if spherically compressed, with a missing sphere in it, the _entire_IVM_ will distort as the one now-raped VE tries to jitterbug to occupy less space. (I apologize for "more or less evenly distributed." Substitute "perfectly spherically distributed.") > >> An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > >> compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it > > I've always thought some of the movements you were describing were > impossible because of the symmetrical compression preventing any part of the > IVM from expanding. If you allow it to bulge here or there, or apply > asymmetrical forces at particular places, I am not surprised at the > possibility of any sort of movement. I'm gratified. Please also see my other one today, "Is it?" > > > All three will do the same thing: collapse slightly. > > You left out the possibility (MUCH more likely to my thinking) that one of > the 12 outer balls will pop into the empty center hole. That makes a It can't. Not enough room in there. Only room enough in there when there is a ball IN there. Once one is removed and the 12-around-none compressed perfect regular icosahedron forms, the space for a ball inside, is smaller than a ball, and stays that way so long as the compression is applied and holding the regular icosa in shape. If it's still a VE (pre-jitterbugging), the angles of contact between balls will prevbent the hole from accepting one of the other 12 balls. (Look at a sphere-VE model; you'll see this.) > hole, which is filled, and the hole migrates to the surface. I never I don't think so. Once Tverse forms as a whole, the compression just won't allow balls to pass through the center of any triangles of balls. It's a subtle thing; the difference in interior volume isn't much, but, once again, the compression is seen to be very important for understanding why things don't just slip around in Tverse's network. A related issue is that odd situation of a _13_-around-none. > considered that possibility before because the symmetrical pressure I > thought you required would not allow that sort of movement, since it > requires temporarily slightly moving other balls out while one pops > into the hole. Quite correct. (Your memory graces me, sir.) This is much the same as saying there's not room in the 12-around-none for a ball to be put back in; the 12 would have to expand, but for Tverse what you say is correct: it would be _extremely_ difficult, perhaps just short of "impossible," to pry those three aside enough for the ball to go "back in." This is in fact, why, since I think a 12-around-none in Tverse is a "proton," that proton is the most stable object in it, or in any other packing where spherical compression is used. Once collapsed, always collapsed. I'm sure there might be exceptions, mostly related to what sort of temporary structure would appear (for an instant) if Tverse were "true" and we were trying to explain what happens at the point of impact in a particle accelerator. The global compression is complete, in that every ball is contacting another ball, which contacts another, (etc. etc.etc.). Moving one --or three-- outwardly (expansion) implies moving _all_ the contacted balls all the way out to the compressive boundary. That Tverse's pattern isn't an IVM, is why some slight _shifts_ (not expansions) are possible, to allow many other (but not the ball-put-back) transitions to take place. That the "crack in the cosmic egg" (irremovable gaps exist in all 13-sphere 12-around-1s) exists, allows this(these) gap(s) to be shifted, flowed, moved, transferred, such that some small adjustments are possible without requiring prohibitively radical movements in much of the powerful, pattern-integrity-preserving compression. > > The circumscribed NON-nucleated forms are, in all cases (except that > > of a VE artificially prevented from jitterbugging), _smaller_than_ > > their circumscribed nucleated counterparts. > > "Artificially prevented" -- I think that refers to the immobility of an IVM > with rigid walls and/or symmetrical compression. If the VE is part of Yes, and (three-axis, identical-strength) symmetrical, yes. > this is irrelevant now that you allow those 6 balls to be pushed out of the > way by asymmetrical forces. If the IVM is in a rigid box, none of the Yes, IN the box, the IVM is Immobile King. In the sphere, VEs' gaps rearrange (I claim), and Flexible Tverse is King. > for any other ideal-ball to move, if the IVM has rigid walls. Quite. So what good is a model that only retains its structural integrity if you enclose it in a hard shell? What applicability to "real space" would such a model have? Real space flexes and ripples and moves, and things move within it. Rigid, none of that is possible.... You could make _wonderful_ structures with it (Fuller-like, substituting struts for sphere-to-sphere-centers), but it couldn't be used to attack the questions of real Physics, where both sphericity and flexibility/deformability are everywhere. > > effect will be to close up the hole as much as possible, and return the > > IVM to its normal, stable, resistant-to-change state. That distortion, > > in my opinion, MUST occur if the system is compressed other than > > orthogonally. (Lee once agreed; > > Students, you are seated at the feet of the Master. If you learn well (*groan*) Sorry; sorry. I'll try not to put words in your mouth if you will try not to issue "warnings" about me to the readership. _Anti_-crackpottishness of this form isn't much better than crackpottishness itself.... I can't handily reinstall my tape drive to scan the earlier, FidoNet/DOS archives for your exact words, though I'm sure I could find them. I won't speak on your behalf again without quoting you. (Bypassing rest of flame) > you were hypothesizing spherical compressive pressures; I'm sure I've never > expressed an opinion about the result of "irregular" pressures. Whole system: spherical pressure. Down inside the system, whole-system spherical translates locally (12-around-1 size level) to 12-directional. Move one layer out, it's (? what? 20-directional?), and for every layer outward from the 12-a-1, more and more contacts exist to carry the penultimate-layer's spherical pressure down to the 12-a-1. It's for all practical purposes _spherical_pressure_, but you see, obviously, that for any _one_ sphere, there are only 12 linear directions from which this remote-spherical pressure can be conducted down to it. (Right? You see this?) Therefore, the "perfection" of the sphericity depends on how big a ball of balls you're working with, and for Tverse's non-regular possible arrangement shapes, it can be called "irregular" for anything less than Tverse's entire complement of spheres. OK? See this? (One could even make the argument that since Tverse and all sphere-packing problems, there is no such thing as "perfectly spherical"; all would be short, straight linesegments, no "perfect" curves could be found. Practically, "spherical" pressure means "no specific, biased directionality to overall compressive force," albeit at the level of 13 spheres, compression is obviously not "spherical." > So what are you saying now -- there is suddenly a missing sphere, and that > is a distortion which you say requires "resolution"? If the balls are > ideally incompressible and the walls are rigid, the hole won't move. We know this. We have two different descriptions running: an IVM, and an IVM --IN THE BOX. IN the box, you're right. Out of the box, you're not (so I claim). Let's break this impasse' and go halfway, eh?: make your box out of stiff rubber, so it will always try to return the IVM to form if twisted, but does not utterly prevent twisting if we poke at the box strongly enough, in one directional way or another. This also brings up yet another argument for my version: Suppose you rubber-shrink-wrap a large Waterman polyhedron. (Your "handicap": you get to choose one with the most spheres more or less evenly distributed, the least huge, gaping holes.) Do not _exclude_ --except visually-- the spheres that are in whatever holes there are in the chosen Waterman (since we know it's really an IVM anyway, and these holes really contain partial balls sliced through). Look at the shrinkwrapping up close: you see here and there a ball pokes the surface out, here and there a ball is sunken slightly. Both these effects are made by the invisible balls in the Waterman, not by the visible ones --which are all at a common 'root' distance from center. NOW you are asked to force any ball which pokes out, not to. You have to gently poke it back IN, so that it is at the same root distance from center as the others are. You also have to keep poking until all sunken balls have been forced to move outward a little. You poke and you prod and eventually you get ALL the spheres --both the visible and the invisible ones-- in the Waterman to be at exactly the same distance from the centerpoint of the Waterman. (This models Tverse's "perfect" spherical compressive shell.) Do you think, for one moment, that the _entire_interior_ --not just the balls you readjusted-- will not have slipped slightly out of registration as a perfect IVM? If you do, why? Can you justify no balls inside moving, when you move balls outside by forcing them down into and against the balls inside? So, too, in a different way, can the effect of a _missing_ ball or two (or three, or fou...) be thought about. Overall, large scale sphericity of the container (I claim) forces a non-rigidly, but strongly, held IVM out of perfection, from the outside-in. Likewise, an interior sphericity--a hole-- (I claim) does the same, from the inside-out, by the twisting mechanism of 'jitterbugging' its VEs to accommodate any twistING center-ball-missing VE. > If the > walls are flexible enough for the IVM to distort under the "irregular" > forces, then by far the likeliest thing to happen, with ideal or real > balls, > is that the hole will migrate opposite the pressure gradient. Like, if TOP-NOTCH! Good for you! Welcome to "proton" motion through the Tverse network! (I love it when a new thing occurs to one who's grasped enough Tverse, that is the same as Tverse predicts!) (See? Your Tverse insight is improving! (*grin!*) The crackpot effect wears off on you; aren't you disturbed? (*chuckle*)) There are some wonderful Physics-pertinent aspect to this. Example: what do you suppose makes matter move out of those huge empty areas in astronomical space? Galaxies and other visible matter seems to be distributed around, like strings and drifts, vast, mostly spherical regions of empty space. (Fact; sky galaxy surveys confirm.) Notice that this motion does not require any three-ball set to widen even to one ball's-width (the "hole" moving is smaller than a ball), and that this "proton" (12-around-none) should be able to retain its integrity as it "moves." The same spherical pressure that holds it as an icosahedron, if nonlinear, should also _move_ it according to, as you intuit, any overall pressure gradient. You also see that nothing but the empty space is moving; the network pattern is not required to move with it. Wonderful, Lee. Rarely do I recall someone coming up with one of Tverse's claims independently. You're good at this, even if you don't agree with it. > pressure were down (eg gravity), the hole would migrate up, to the surface. ( I love it; I love it ) YES. > > my long-ago experiment with the 1/2" acrylic balls, and is also > > the source of much of our recent info on "jumbled tight packings.") > > Your experiment is irrelevant to the situation where you start with an > IVM. Yes. But, I just posted a modification, the skinny-long IVM in space. Did you see it? > > But with compression, the IVM patterning around the sphere in > > question, > > that Lee believes would keep the above-described distortion from > > happening > > Don't YOU believe that IVM patterning prevents the distortion from ONLY in a rigid Box. > happening? All jitterbug examples I've seen are done with a free VE, > not a > VE in an IVM. In an IVM, there is a ball blocking every square of the VE. > You must get the rest of the IVM or at least those 6 blocking balls out of Not necessarily. Given some small nonrigidity to the BOX, it's my contention that compression on the system, with a sphere _missing_, would cause the _entire_IVM_ to deform --if only very, very slightly-- enough to allow the local VE with the missing center to jitterbug, taking all balls in contact with it, along with it (and the balls in contact with _it_, and the... (etc.)). Thus the missing sphere would act like a spot of disease (*grin*) in the IVM, propagating its anomalous effect throughout the rest of the IVM. ONLY if the box is in place and is _rigid_ (I contend) can this not happen. > the way before your chosen VE can jitterbug. Of course that is no > problem > now that you are allowing irregular forces. But still, you must have > incredibly well-organized "irregular" forces to cause jitterbug; it > would > take much less coordination to simply have another ball pop into the > hole > from the direction of the strongest pressure. Can't: overall global pressure too strong to open up a whole-ball hole. Look at your VE; remove the center ball (magically); the others are at angles to each other, they'd have to move outward by some small amount, to allow one to pop in there. (After jitterbugging, of course, this is even less possible.) But little, or no, organization is required to jitterbug the empty VE: the pressure is spherical at distance, and for all practical purposes when it gets divided-down to the balls pushing on the 12 around the hole, it's _dis_organized enough that the jitterbugging takes place as the entire IVM deforms along with the jitterbugger. (Or so I contend.) Remember: the jitterbug effect goes _from_ an orthogonal symmetry to a spherical one. The VE is inherently much more non-spherical than the icosahedron it's trying to jitterbug into. I claim that in this sphericized pattern the icosahedron (in the case of the missing sphere) or the icosahedro(not) (in the case of 12s-around-1), is/are the "native" forms, and the VE is a highly specific, unique, _anomalous_ pattern that _itself_ requires extremely tight control (orthogonal pressure-directions _only_) to keep its shape. (To Brian, you say) > But, you've probably noticed that John has made a major shift from spherical > compression to "irregular" "more or less evenly distributed" compression. I Not. Rewording attempt that failed, and the impossibility of there being "perfect" sphericity _anywhere_ in a system made of discrete pointlike units. Sorry for the confusion. The compression is generally spherical (meaning "no directional biases on the large scale"). It is locally, obviously enough, divided-down to 12 dirensio.... uh... 'directions' in the 12-a-1, more in larger layers, the larger the layer, the more divided-down (up?) the spherical shape of the incoming global compression. > suppose he did this because he now realizes that an IVM in the shape of a WP > is not destroyed by spherical compression as he claimed Dec 14: Not a bit of it. Given our various clarifications regarding what's in the Box and what isn't, by claim stands as written (and as specifically addressed above, re: the Waterman thought-experiment). Doing a Brian, thus quoth: > [John] > > An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > > compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:08:23 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Dec 2001 to 19 Dec 2001 (#2001-337) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-DEC-2001 6:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oy, this guy can type a lot faster than I can; faster than he can think? I think that I found the central dilemma, which I'd alomst given up on (but I sure as Hell could not read all of that stuff in your last posting), and that is because, probably, you don't grok the IVM like us longtime Buckynauts: the reason that the 12-around-one (or -none) configuration "jitters," is because it has square openings (or tetragonal bases to pyramids, if a ball at the center), not trigonal ones; now, as soon as you have another layer (which has 42 balls, as I recall) to the 13, the hakf-octahedra become whole -- although there are new half-octahedra on the outside. also, I take-back my conjecture about the 7-ball packing; the hexagon "plus one" configuration is probably the most dense, in terms of its "hull" (or shrinkwrap). thus quoth: > > An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > > compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:30:59 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 16 Dec 2001 to 17 Dec 2001 (#2001-335) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-DEC-2001 6:30 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, you've certainly grasped a more "concrete" reality in the crappola of the Copenhagen School -- as seen at a theater near you; it's a play -- than I have, concerning "quantun fluctuations;" congratulations, I guess! thus quoth: another. I am sure that with macro sized real balls and enough pressure, buckling would occur, and it could be traced to something much larger than quantum fluctuations. I have no quarrel with John's introduction of that term, he explained it: these are unnecessary additions to a model; if you made them, you'd have a differnt (nonshperical) system o' "balls!" --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 08:39:47 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Fwd: Job: SE Asian history/Internatl relations at U. British <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-DEC-2001 8:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us here is an example of British "empirical" methodology, in the presumption of a post-colonial era that is belied by the usual British difficulty in dystinguishing between that which *is* British, and that which is simply English. true, it is a somewhat academical dystinction! thus quoth: SUBJECT: Fwd: Job: SE Asian history/Internatl relations at U. British MESSAGE from =cseas@isop.ucla.edu 19-DEC-20 5:15 Please forward to potential applicants. >Ed Note: According to Alexander Woodside, the Search Committee is >particularly looking for Indonesianists or people doing "island" Southeast >Asian history. > >International Relations and Southeast Asian History > >The History Department, University of British Columbia invites applications >for a tenure-track appointment at the level of Assistant Professor in the >linked fields of International Relations and Southeast Asian history. The >successful candidate would contribute to the department's interest in >world/international history, and would be expected to teach required history >courses for the International Relations Program. The appointee would also >contribute to the department's interest in identity formation in the >colonial and post-colonial world. The successful candidate is expected to >have the intellectual breadth and flexibility commensurate with such an >appointment, and a research knowledge of a Southeast Asian language. > >Applicants should have a completed Ph.D. or doctoral degree, teaching >experience, competence in the languages of their primary sources, and a >commitment to scholarship reflected in published or forthcoming work. >Applicants should send a current c.v. and covering letter and arrange for >three letters of reference, all to be sent to Professor Alexander Woodside, >Chair, Search Committee in Southeast Asian History, History Department, >University of British Columbia, Room 1297, 1873 East Mall, Vancouver, B.C. >V6T 1Z1, Canada. Complete applications must be received by 1 March 2002. >This position is subject to final budgetary approval. The University of >British Columbia hires on the basis of merit and is committed to employment >equity. We encourage all qualified persons to apply; however, Canadians and >permanent residents of Canada will be given priority. ___________________________________ UCLA Center for Southeast Asian Studies Anthony Reid, Director Barbara Gaerlan, Assistant Director 11364 Bunche Hall On Campus Mailcode: 148703 Off Campus Mailing Address: Box 951487, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1487 Telephone: 310-206-9163 Fax: 310-206-3555 Website: http://www.isop.ucla.edu/cseas --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/KNUschools.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:43:04 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Article from The Nation <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-DEC-2001 12:43 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us wow; in skimming that posting, at first, I thought that it said "Sacred Green." having observed the promotions of the "Green Team" of the City of Santa Monica, on the SMC campus and at large (see http://santa-monica.org and you'll easily find it), over the years, I have to say that the so-called mainstream science that is promoted by the City Manager, the rest of City Hall, and the 'WAND' Corp. across the street, relies way, weigh too much upon computerized simulacra. my favorite exemplars are the asbestosis bandwagon, the Gulf War-cum-dpeleted uranium-cum-ALS bandwagon, and the related "linear-no-threshold" paradigm of the EPA et al (which applies to both of the above, and all of the putative below .-) oh, and the ridiculous labeling, "no preservatives," as if processed food shouldn't be kept from spoiling! the following is another perfect example of "the sky is glowing!" computerized crappola, and I know this from studying it since about '86, if you care to dyscuss it. it is nothing but an ad-hominem, although I am no fan of the Mellon-Scaife Foundations (e.g., as I cut-off the rest of the list). and, God forfend, that it "raises questions about environmental issues and environmental textbooks. Common beliefs about rainforests, endangered species and global warming are all challenged. A panel of over 30 "acknowledged experts" reviewed each chapter" -- they must be fascists; eh? thus quoth: What Facts, Not Fear leaves out is that many of its experts have ties to right-wing corporations and corporate polluters. Fred Seitz and Sallie Baliunas, for example, who review the chapter on ozone, have worked with the George C. Marshall Institute, which is funded by conservative foundations --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/KNUschools.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:55:19 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: Article from The Atlantic Monthly <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-DEC-2001 12:55 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us ah, have you seen the current *AM* ?? thus quoth: * It was Bernard Lewis who launched the hoax of the "Clash of Civilizations"in a September 1990 Atlantic Monthly article on "The Roots of Muslim Rage," which appeared three years before Brzezinski clone Samuel Huntington's publication of his Foreign Affairs diatribe, "The Clash Of Civilizations." Huntington's article, and his subsequent book-length treatment of the same subject, were caricatures of Lewis' more sophisticated British Orientalist historical fraud, which painted Islam as engaged in a 14-century-long war against Christianity. Huntington acknowledged that Lewis' 1990 piece coined the term "Clash of Civilizations." http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html --Pardonez-George! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/KNUschools.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:15:19 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Foerd Ames Subject: Re: Job: SE Asian history/Internatl relations at U. British In-Reply-To: <200112201639.fBKGdlL06586@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit These way-off topic ramblings are too much. Foerd <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 20-DEC-2001 8:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us here is an example of British "empirical" methodology, in the presumption of a post-colonial era that is belied by the usual British difficulty in dystinguishing between that which *is* British, and that which is simply English. true, it is a somewhat academical dystinction! thus quoth: SUBJECT: Fwd: Job: SE Asian history/Internatl relations at U. British MESSAGE from =cseas@isop.ucla.edu 19-DEC-20 5:15 Please forward to potential applicants. >Ed Note: According to Alexander Woodside, the Search Committee is >particularly looking for Indonesianists or people doing "island" Southeast >Asian history. > >International Relations and Southeast Asian History > >The History Department, University of British Columbia invites applications >for a tenure-track appointment at the level of Assistant Professor in the >linked fields of International Relations and Southeast Asian history. The >successful candidate would contribute to the department's interest in >world/international history, and would be expected to teach required history >courses for the International Relations Program. The appointee would also >contribute to the department's interest in identity formation in the >colonial and post-colonial world. The successful candidate is expected to >have the intellectual breadth and flexibility commensurate with such an >appointment, and a research knowledge of a Southeast Asian language. > >Applicants should have a completed Ph.D. or doctoral degree, teaching >experience, competence in the languages of their primary sources, and a >commitment to scholarship reflected in published or forthcoming work. >Applicants should send a current c.v. and covering letter and arrange for >three letters of reference, all to be sent to Professor Alexander Woodside, >Chair, Search Committee in Southeast Asian History, History Department, >University of British Columbia, Room 1297, 1873 East Mall, Vancouver, B.C. >V6T 1Z1, Canada. Complete applications must be received by 1 March 2002. >This position is subject to final budgetary approval. The University of >British Columbia hires on the basis of merit and is committed to employment >equity. We encourage all qualified persons to apply; however, Canadians and >permanent residents of Canada will be given priority. ___________________________________ UCLA Center for Southeast Asian Studies Anthony Reid, Director Barbara Gaerlan, Assistant Director 11364 Bunche Hall On Campus Mailcode: 148703 Off Campus Mailing Address: Box 951487, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1487 Telephone: 310-206-9163 Fax: 310-206-3555 Website: http://www.isop.ucla.edu/cseas --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/KNUschools.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:05:28 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: Re: Is it? Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > gotten there in a randomized, but "complete" (not missing any spheres in > VEs), manner, then will the end product be as I claim, or as Lee > Bonnifield et.al. claim? Note to et al -- did I miss the meeting where we told John some claim regarding this new vague thought experiment? I am not really necessary here, am I -- if I don't write fast enough, John will publish claims for me before I even think of them. I'm taking several days off this topic to do other things. I hope et al will use the time to make all the points that I'll otherwise cover when I come back to this topic, briefly. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:13:26 -0600 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Brawley Subject: Modelling Comments: To: all@fluidiom.com, Synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Haven't tried this, but for those who make polyhedra models, might be useful. Look at "poly" on the page. http://www.peda.com Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net Web: http://www.jcn1.com/jbrawley http://home.earthlink.net/~jgbrawley ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:11:16 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Brian Hutchings Subject: PEN Weekly NewsBlast for December 14, 2001 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 22-DEC-2001 9:11 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us PERFECT SCHOOLS IN 2013? Two decades of national debate over how to fix public schools have come down to this: Within 12 years, the federal government expects all eighth-graders to be fully proficient in math and reading. Such a goal, enshrined in a bill headed for the president's signature by Christmas, would be this decade's equivalent of landing a man on the moon. This grand national experiment in public education comes with increased funding for many urban schools, which need a leg up to meet the 2013 goal. One flaw in that funding is that it relies on tagging students by their race, ethnicity, gender, and English-speaking abilities. That kind of victim-by-category accounting could be complicated and end up causing unnecessary divisions. But course corrections will likely be needed as the US aims for one small step for a nation, one giant leap for every child. http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1213/p20s1-comv.html CANT BEAT EM? SUE EM! When it comes to school reform, President Bush backs high standards and high-stakes tests, which form the core of the education plans currently before Congress. By contrast, Michael Rebell believes in "throwing money" at schools, an objective that he's discovered can sometimes be accomplished by suing states to force them to spend more money on urban school districts, where per-pupil spending tends to lag far behind that of suburban schools. He's just won a victory in New York, and has set up a network of lawyers, professors, and politicians to press this case nationwide. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0112.gorman.html EDISONS SHARE OF PHILADELHIA SCHOOL DEAL: $101 MILLION Edison Schools Inc. wants to be paid more than $100 million over six years for consulting and other services to the cash-strapped Philadelphia School District. At the same time, the state proposes to reduce the district's $1.7 billion budget by cutting 500 teaching positions, eliminating many non-instructional jobs, reducing the cost of employee benefits, and charging community groups to use school buildings at night. City officials were upset that the state is already finalizing a contract with Edison even though they are still negotiating the terms of a takeover. The amount of money it proposes to pay the firm, which has yet to turn a profit, is "eye-popping," said Debra Kahn, Mayor Street's education secretary. Edison runs 136 schools in 22 states. http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/12/13/front_page/EDISON13.htm COMMUNITY VOICE OR CAPTIVE OF THE RIGHT? Several long-time voucher advocates are waging multi-million dollar public relations campaigns. "Community Voice or Captive of the Right?" is a critical look at the familiar faces and checkbooks behind one such effort, the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO). BAEO leapt onto the stage in 2000 with a print and television ad campaign supporting voucher television ad campaign supporting voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland and Florida. The organization is now in the process of creating local chapters. By casting the pro-voucher movement as one that benefits poor and minority communities, BAEO hopes to convince moderates and progressives to support school vouchers. But an examination of its board of directors and the organization's funding sources reveal that BAEO is closely tied to groups and individuals that have ignored the needs of these communities for decades. http://www.pfaw.org/news/press//2001-12-04.349.phtml EXAMINED LIFE: STANLEY KAPLAN & THE S.A.T. The S.A.T. is now seventy-five years old, and it is in trouble. Earlier this year, the University of California--the nation's largest public-university system--stunned the educational world by proposing a move toward a "holistic" admissions system, which would mean abandoning its heavy reliance on standardized-test scores. The school backed up its proposal with a devastating statistical analysis, arguing that the S.A.T. is virtually useless as a tool for making admissions decisions. This argument has been made before, of course. The S.A.T. has been under attack, for one reason or another, since its inception. But what is happening now is different. The University of California is one of the largest single customers of the S.A.T. It was the U.C. system's decision, in 1968, to adopt the S.A.T. that affirmed the test's national prominence in the first place. If U.C. defects from the S.A.T., it is not hard to imagine it being followed by a stampede of other colleges. Seventy-five years ago, the S.A.T. was instituted because we were more interested, as a society, in what a student was capable of learning than in what he had already learned. Now, apparently, we have changed our minds--and few people bear more responsibility for that shift than Stanley H. Kaplan. http://www.newyorker.com/PRINTABLE/?critics/011217crat_atlarge POOR STUDENTS, DROPOUTS MORE LIKELY TO GRADUATE TO JAIL More than one-third of children in the juvenile justice system read at a fourth-grade level, despite the fact that the median age of those in the system is 15. Between 70 percent and 87 percent of incarcerated youth suffer from learning or emotional disabilities. In the adult criminal system, 82 percent of prison inmates are high school dropouts. "The biggest finding is that school failure is one of the earliest and best predictors for future delinquent and criminal behavior," said coalition Executive Director David Doi. The report recommends that local school boards spend more money on special programs for students who have trouble learning in traditional classroom settings, and that community and business leaders create more internships and vocational training programs. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_st andar d.xsl?/base/cuyahoga/10077210092128923.xml CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION ACT PLANNING GUIDE No technology protection measure is or ever will be 100% effective in protecting young people from exposure to material that is potentially harmful. There is simply too much material on the Internet, with more material posted every second, for any technological system to be truly effective. However, a comprehensive new resource is available for school districts to guide the development of Internet policies and regulations to address the safe and responsible use of the Internet by students. http://netizen.uoregon.edu/documents/cipa.html BOOST STUDENT READING COMPREHENSION Effective literature instruction develops students' reading, writing, and thinking abilities. A new "research-to-practice" booklet from the National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement (CELA) offers some of the most effective classroom strategies doing so. It also includes a brief summary of the research on which the strategies are based. http://cela.albany.edu/publication/ilu.htm MESSAGE from =newsblast@lyris.publiceducation.org --Pardonez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/KNUschools.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 02:12:24 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: build a zig-zag tensegrity with straws and videotape MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a 12 strut that uses only 36 tendons. It looks like a cube with the corners cut off, where the 3 struts at a corner meet in a triangle. Bob Burkhardt showed me the dimensions and pattern. I made a kit to assemble one from plastic straws with videotape as tendons. Videotape (800' of it in a T-120 cassette) will slide thru the straws, and friction will keep it in place. That means you don't have to worry about how to tie the ends, just slide the straws so the proper length of tape is exposed between one straw and the next. ZIG-ZAG Tensegrity Strut: 204 mm 1 Short: 66 mm .3258 Long : 94 mm .4604 ----------- CONTENTS: 12 labeled straws (the ends of the straws are labeled with numbers 12 apart like 1===13 2===14 ... 12===24 ) 9 pieces of videotape labeled 4 x 58" AB CD EF GH 2 x 91" IJ KL 3 x 70" MN OP QR 1 needle (bamboo skewer with rubber cement glob on one end) 1 gauge for short tendons 66mm 1 gauge for long tendons 94mm ----------- TOOLS NEEDED: scotch tape scissors ----------- PROCEDURE: 1. Use scotch tape to stick videotape end A to the 1====13 straw a few inches from end 1. 2. Fold a couple of inches of end B over the end of the needle and crimp it around the rubber cement glob. 3. Poke needle with tape end B into straw end 1, and pull it out end 13 until it is tight. 4. Poke needle with B into straw end 11, and pull it out end 23. Pull it until end 11 is 94 mm from end 13. 5. Poke into end 16, pull out from end 4, until end 16 is 94mm from end 23. 6. Poke into end 1, pull out from 13, until 1 is 94mm from 4. Now you have one triangle of struts connected by long tendons and about 12" of slack at the B end of videotape AB. Cut off the excess and scotch tape the stub of end B to the straw near end 13. Here's an abbreviated description of what you just did: A 1====13 L 11====23 L 16====4 L 1====13 B m====n is a picture of a straw with ends m and n. 13 L 11 means a long tendon came out of 13 and went into 11. 7. Do it 3 more times, making 3 more triangles. C 2====14 L 12====24 L 17====5 L 2====14 D E 3====15 L 10====22 L 18====6 L 3====15 F G 7====19 L 8====20 L 9====21 L 7====19 H That is all the long tendons. 8. Thread videotapes IJ and KL. Hold on to the other tapes at the straw end where you poke in a new tape, so that the earlier tapes don't move. 16 S 12 means end 16 should be 66 mm from end 12. I 4====16 S 12====24 S 22====10 S 19====7 S 15====3 S 2====14 S 9====21 J K 9====21 S 16====4 S 7====19 S 17====5 S 13====1 S 3====15 S 4====16 L Those are all short tendons going counterclockwise around the 8 small triangles (looking at the outside of the triangle.) If you see a tangle or tendon that is obviously on the wrong side of a straw it may be simplest to cut the tape straight across, reroute it, and scotch tape it back together. 9. The final three videotapes will all be short tendons going clockwise around the triangles. M 6====18 S 20====8 S 13====1 S 2====14 S 6====18 N O 8====20 S 11====23 S 22====10 S 17====5 S 8====20 P Q 12====24 S 23====11 S 18====6 S 9====21 S 12====24 R 10. Adjust the lengths. If for example one side of a triangle is too long, find that tendon in the threading chart and see if the previous or next tendon on the tape is too short. If so, with one hand grasp the end of the straw where the too-long tendon comes out, clamping the OTHER two tendons that come out of that end so they don't move, and with the other hand pull on the too-short tendon at the other end of the straw. You might want to look all the way to the end of the videotape in both directions to find a compensating error. Or, cut the erroneous tendon and splice it with scotch tape to the correct length. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:56:19 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Bob Burkhardt Subject: Re: tensegrity tension MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >From: Bob Burkhardt > >Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2001, 3:50 PM > > > bit unfair. In your sphere, I think the "wasted" compression force > > stems mostly from the self-tensioning component which is considerable > > given > > your desire to support the sphere on three points very close together. > > I could take 3 struts (4 meters each) and tie them together at the > top, and spread out the bottom ends in a tripod with the same > footprint (a triangle 2 meters on a side.) I bet those 3 struts would > support 5 times as much vertical load as the 12 struts in the > tensegrity. It would be a tensegrity wire to break first, not a strut. > With thicker wire, I bet a strut would break in the tensegrity before > a strut in the tripod. > > > A fairer comparison would be with a tensegrity dome which is a > geometry > > much more suited to resisting the forces of gravity just as a cube > > supported on its side is much more suited for that purpose than a cube > > standing on one of its vertices. > > Or I could use the 12 struts in a cube on its side (triangulated with > the same wire) and be able to support as much weight as 4 vertical > struts can. My guess: 8 times the load bearing ability of the > spherical tensegrity. (These guesses are wild blue sky.) > Yes, as I said, I agree the spherical tensegrity is an awful way to go about supporting a load, but it shouldn't be used to indict the tensegrity technique in general. And even in a dome configuration, a single-layer tensegrity isn't going to do very well. Double-layer techniques (same strut count -- more tendons) I think hold some promise. One of the things about tensegrity is that you're substituting tendons where struts used to be, so you can encompass larger areas with less material. The members are organized such that loads are strictly segregated into tensile and compressive loads. When this is done, tendons can reliably be used for the members in tension and struts for the members in compression. This can't be done in a geodesic because a given member may be in tension or compression in different situations. > > > In a traditional structure, the struts down below have to support > the > > weight of everything above. I'm not sure that's completely true for > > tensegrity. Maybe some of those wires below transmit the stress to > > struts above so the struts below don't have to support the entire weight > > of the struts above. Call that Burkhardt's conjecture which I'm afraid > > could turn out to be a complete fallacy. > > It would be interesting to know. My guess -- low tensegrity struts > support MORE than the weight above. I put a bathroom scale under each > of the 3 ground-touching ends, and after it was tuned the results are > as expected, 1/3 of the total weight on each end. But the compression > on each strut is greater than the total weight of all the struts, I > think. > > What would you compute the compression in each strut to be? I studied > the calculation you did for me June '99, but I think you had > deliberately tinkered with some tendon lengths in order to accurately > represent the sagging configuration I was dealing with then (6 struts > touching.) I don't think you ever sent me a relative stress > calculation for when only 3 struts touch. And the way you told me to > compute absolute stress from your table with 20 pound struts may also > be inappropriate for 9 pound struts. > > I am curious about what tension you compute for the 3 tendons that are > slack. The 3 near-vertical struts (that would hit the ground if it > sagged as much as the previous one did) must not be as high as they > would be if the sphere were "pumped up" enough to be perfectly > symmetrical. I haven't tried to measure carefully how much they sag, I > guess a few inches. I quit adjusting it, leaving a couple of tendons > an inch too long, when those 3 were well clear of the ground. Raising > them another few inches must require enormous tension in the other > tendons. > Maybe I'll have time to revisit that calculation during my holiday break. I'll use 9 pound struts and self-stress enough so the structure is just supported on three struts. > > > minimizing the sum of second powers of the tendon lengths > > Is that a technique for reducing the differences in tendon lengths? > It's a technique that resulted in the most tractable formulas for designing general tensegrity structures. With uniform weighting it would tend to minimize length differences among the tendons being minimized. When I do a design, usually there are a fair number of tendons I treat as constraints. And I always use a weighted objective function when I'm doing a serious design. This is a completely general approach which can encompass any tensegrity I think. I cited the uniformly weighted objective function because of that curious exact proportionality between tendon length and stress. But mostly I like the (weighted) sum of second powers approach because it's mathematically tractable and it's completely general. Civil engineers like Ariel Hanaor use a "relaxation" technique which may be equivalent, but which I don't really understand. I have an economics and statistics background and worked quite a bit with optimization and it seemed to fit tensegrity design pretty well. > > In Kenner's "Geodesic Math" he does a calculation for the "elasticity > multiplication" in a 6 strut. The struts sit in similar diamonds as > the 12 strut, so I imagine a similar calculation would apply. The > result for the 6 strut is that pushing 2 of its parallel struts apart > by 1% would be 600 times harder to do if tendons went directly between > them. The actual routing of the tendons means a tiny stretch in > tendons all around the tensegrity allows a large displacement of a > strut. That's why tensegrities of this design jiggle so well; it takes > approximately zero force to move a strut in a small range around its > equilibrium position because each tendon only has to stretch 1/600 as > much as the 1% strut movement. Without doing the calculation, you get > the point if I say a .1% strut movement (10 times smaller) requires > tendon stretch 1000 times smaller. I wonder if a corollary is that it > would > take infinite tension in the tendons to pull a 12 strut (with gravity) > into a perfect sphere. As you approach equilibrium (zero-G) positions, > any distorting force (like gravity) makes it MUCH harder to get any > closer to the equilibrium position, and the difficulty zooms up > exponentially(?) the closer you get, just as dramatically as tendon > stretch decreases with smaller displacements from equilibrium. That's one particular structure. I find zig-zag tensegrities are the most jiggly and diamond ones slightly less so, and I don't think either configuration is suitable for a serious load-supporting structure. For a dome approach which I do think has some promise, see http://www.channel1.com/users/bobwb/tenseg/v8dome/release/release.htm Bob ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:01:48 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Bob Burkhardt Subject: Re: tensegrity tension MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dick, Thanks for asking. It's called A Practical Guide to Tensegrity Design. I self-published the first edition in 1994 and would like to put a revised edition at some point, and I may just put the whole thing on the net. It describes my constrained optimization and other techniques for designing and analyzing tensegrity structures. A knowledge of differential calculus and linear algebra are required to make any sense out of it. I'm sure it could use a critical evaluation by a civil engineer, but I think the stress situation in tensegrity is simple enough I may be able to get away with my fairly rudimentary knowledge in that sphere. My expertise is more mathematical. For more, see my response to Lee. Bob Dick Fischbeck wrote: > --- Bob Burkhardt wrote: > > > > > Anyway, I remember reading Kenneth Snelson saying, > > somewhere that in his > > experience longer tendons exhibited higher stress. I > > wanted to use his > > quote in my book, but was unable to find it again. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bob > > > What book? > > Dick ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:28:41 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Lee Bonnifield Subject: sphere packing Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This is one long reply to several posts from John Brawley Dec 20. It's ALL about sphere packing. ">>" is me, ">" is John. >> A waterman polyhedron is a spherical IVM. > > Agreed to all but the last. A WP isn't what you see; its what has been > defined, by sweeping a radial length around the central sphere's > centerpoint in what you _don't_ see. That is, a WP is like an > infinitely extended glass-sphere IVM. There's as much (far more, > actually) IVM on the outside of one --and onward out to some > unimaginably far distance, as there is _inside_ of one. It's just a > pattern made by selecting certain spheres (using the Waterman/Urner > algorithm) from a normal IVM, and coloring them in or otherwise pointing > them out. (More on this below) I believe that's wrong, unless you quote Steve Waterman. I think a WP is a polyhedron whose edges run between the centers of certain spheres. The WP does NOT include spheres outside that polyhedron. I doubt if Steve's definition includes the spheres at the vertexes and the spheres inside, but the structure I'm thinking of does include them -- I'll call it a "Filled Waterman Polyhedron", FWP, altho strictly speaking I'm thinking of a collection of spheres, not a polyhedron at all. By FWP I mean the colored parts of Steve's renderings, including all the spheres in the light blue. > As to your above reference to the containers, do I not recall you > recently saying that in all of these, there would be some gaps between > some of the spheres, and the walls of the containers? What I said was (about a FWP in a shrinking spherical container): >> At no place is there a gap >> between container and IVM big enough for an additional sphere, even >> with designed jumble pack. There are gaps between container and >>IVM, (biggest in the center of a large face of the WP) The only gaps inside a FWP are the diagonals of squares. In a spherical container, there are gaps between the container and the center of a face of the FWP, assuming the face is at least a 7 ball hexagon or bigger. Well, if there is any FWP with a rectangular 2x3 ball face, that would also have a gap over the central 2 balls. > the only caveat > here being that if it's a rectangular box, these gaps are irrelevant to > the packing problem because they're surrounded by spheres which _touch_ > the container walls, hence nothing can move or shift in it. I don't know why you put so much emphasis on the shape of the box without regarding its size. If the size of a rectangular box is not an integral multiple of ball size, the edge balls don't all touch the box, they CAN move. If the shape is not rectangular but it is shrinkwrapped around an IVM of any shape, the balls can NOT move. Kirby made the point (in the "Kirby agrees" URL, below) that tight containers can come in many shapes, they don't have to be rectangular. > But you also pointed out (I'm _not_ going to quote you unless you > re-provide that URL to that wonderfully insightful "jumble packing" > message you wrote long ago --the one with my _toadnet_ and point > addresses in it) I think you're confusing the first and last of the URLs to the January 2001 GEODESICS archives I listed, here they are again: >> I claimed http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=10 29 that for most arbitrarily shaped containers, ccp "close packing" will not allow as many spheres to fit as "designed jumble packing". This is not a denial of Kepler's conjecture, which is about achieving highest density. The Jumble Advantage Claim is about highest number of spheres. There's a subtle point about the volume of an arbitrary container that reconciles higher number with lower density. subtle point about volume, with numerous examples: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=27 32 Kirby agrees: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=29 55 John's experiment stuffing balloons: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0101&L=geodesic&F=&S=&P=23 139 >> > So, too, with the Watermans. It isn't productive to try to BOTH >use the Watermans as "spherical IVMs," AND at the same time claim >they can be stable objects all by themselves, even with the portion >of the IVM _inside_ the Waterman still in place. In other words, if >the Waterman is purely and only as I describe it --a pattern "swept" >through a complete IVM, then this is a tautological argument; >nothing's going to move, and there IS NO container circumscribed >around the Waterman. I don't know what you're talking about here. Nobody said a WP is "stable" without a container. A FWP is as close to spherical as an IVM can get. Steve routinely drew iirc all the inside spheres, under the drawing of the WP. I'm assuming all the inside spheres are in place when I say a WP does not lose its integrity when compressed by a spherical container. The WP is not as you describe it; the pattern swept thru the complete IVM is only the way to FIND the spheres whose centers are the vertexes of a WP. The sweep pattern is not a WP, the sweep pattern is a sphere. There is no container circumscribed around the Waterman in Steve's thinking. You said no IVM is stable inside a shrinking spherical container: > An IVM cannot survive--its pattern integrity is destroyed-- when a > compressive _spherical_ container is imposed on it That's wrong -- a FWP would not be destroyed, if made of ideal balls. > ON the OTHER hand, though, if you want to pursue the idea that you can > circumscribe a Waterman with a perfect spherical container tangentially > touching the outer surfaces of all the spheres in the visible Waterman, I did not say that -- the sphere will not touch ALL the WP vertexes for any N where Steve needed to show vertexes at N-1 or N-2. I forget the limit where he never found vertexes, maybe N-3 or N-4. Anyway for some WP there are vertexes that would not touch a circumscribing sphere; only the N vertexes touch. Do you need the URL to the WP pictures? I did say >> Then the container contacts all the >> outermost vertexes of the WP IVM at once. The difference is that when N-1, N-2 spheres are colored and visible in Steve's renderings, those are vertexes, but not outermost vertexes. > then you have a problem: when you compress this spherical container, > what's to stop interior spheres from simply squirting upward through all > those wonderfully gaping holes in the Waterman? What gaping holes? There are no gaps in a FWP except squares' diagonals. > Remember about the > Waterman: there are invisible spheres in there, that would hold it in > its form (or so you claim), so compressing a Waterman spherically is no > different than compressing an IVM spherically. They are the same. No they aren't. All FWP are IVM, but not all IVM are FWP. FWP are the special case of IVM that refute your claim about all IVM losing their integrity under spherical compression. Some IVM that are not FWP would lose their integrity due to asymmetrical contact with the shrinking spherical container. All FWP are contacted symmetrically. >> have no flat faces big enough to buckle. It is not clear to me why you >> still think an IVM in the shape of one of those WP would be unstable >> under spherical compression. How could it possibly shift? > > Assuming what? > A) What you see is all there is, no other spheres? > B) The Waterman with its interior spheres (glass) still there, but >none on the outside? > C) The Waterman as a spherical picture of which spheres' centers are >at "x" distance, the IVM still fully in place as much outside the >Waterman as inside it? B is OK, if by "glass" you mean what Steve drew as light blue, iiirc. The outside Steve rendered as black, I am sure it is not part of the WP. C may be OK, I'm not sure what you mean. Steve expected there to be as much room outside the WP as he would need if he wanted to draw a bigger WP. There are more potential sphere center positions in the IVM, extending as far as you want.The WP is just the vertexes and edges, the shell; is that what you mean by "spherical picture"? The rest of the IVM is not part of the WP. But I'm asking you about how a FWP could possibly shift. That's the collection of balls inside the vertexes and edges. > If (B), then recall there are still spheres in those holes. What holes? The light blue volume? Surely since you say "none on the outside" you don't mean pockets on the outside of the FWP, which would contain spheres if there were more IVM outside the FWP . So... huh? > Some of 'em stick out, some of 'em are sunken. > Circumscribe that with a perfectly rigid spherical container, and > something's gotta give. Ideally rigid balls don't give. >> Go back to my example of the VE with the missing center, ABCD on >>the bottom, EFGH on top, and IJKL as spheres in the layer with the >>missing center. Make them frictionless and perfectly spherical. Name >>a sphere and describe how it can possibly move without disrupting >>the layer outside. > > I name the central sphere, which when missing, fails to hold out the >12 around it as it did before, and the 12 should try to jitterbug to >attain a smaller overall occupation of the space. They _will_ >disrupt the layer outside, but not by forcing it outward. A twisting >motion, in my view, would propagate throughout the whole IVM >(provided, of course, you don't have this extended IVM imprisoned >tightly in a rectangular box...) The walls WILL be forced outward by any interior VE jitterbugging. I used to always assume you meant the spherical compression prevented movement outward of the walls around the IVM of whatever shape, so I never suggested interior movements that would require the walls to deform. I was assuming by spherical compression you were specifying an irresistable rigidity that for this purpose is identical in effect to rigid walls. If you allow semi-flexible walls, or asymmetrical compression, jitterbugging is possible but by no means the most likely movement for real balls. Do you understand that the balls of the IVM which fit in the square pockets of the VE cannot stay where they are when the VE jitterbugs? Jitterbugging requires all 6 of those squares to close up, the balls in their pockets must move outward, in 6 orthogonal directions. A non-nucleated icosahedron will not fit neatly in an IVM, it can not neatly replace a VE. The icosa is smaller, but not enough smaller to compensate for eliminating the square pockets the rest of the IVM was fitting in to. >> There are two disputes here. One is whether a complete IVM is >>stable with frictionless incompressible balls when it is built on a >>slightly sloping surface. I say it is stable, contrary to your claim > > Given? : the IVM is neither infinitely extended nor contained? It >is a cannonball stack on the hillside? Its bottom layer is >constrained from sliding out from underneath? > "Complete," and its bottom layer constrained against slippage, an >IVM should be stable up to whatever its "critical angle" is -- Yes, given all that. I think that's a retraction of your claim: > But is there's even one non-orthogonal direction of compressive >force, the IVM should (I say "will") distort, ... > It is, broadly, my contention that the ONLY stable IVM is either: 1) >an IVM inside its constraining rectangular container, OR 2) an IVM >built tightly inside a container that can't change the IVM's shape by >means of its own shape. I'm not even sure of the latter; I don't >think an IVM can retain its perfect orthogonality anywhere BUT in the >rectangular box. You need to pay more attention to the integral SIZE of the box. An IVM can be in many shapes, and if the box is built tightly around it, the IVM is locked. See Kirby's post, URL above. An IVM in the shape of a FWP is stable under symmetrical compression. > if you don't prevent any VE (or > all of them) in the stack from trying to jitterbug on you if you >remove a sphere, it will try to twist around and propagate the >jitterbug effect right throughout the IVM. The VE is prevented from jitterbugging by the balls that fill its square pockets. Even without those blocking balls it is incredible to me that it would try to jitterbug, instead of just filling the hole. If it DID jitterbug it would force the square-filling balls outward, and that expansion (simple linear motion, not jitterbugging) would propagate throughout the IVM. Your claim is so bizarre I wonder if I misunderstand it. Does it relate to Synergetics fig 465.01? Note that if there were a wheel in the position of the blocking ball, it would lock the 4 wheels around it. >> I say that a slightly tilting holey ideal-ball stack >> would still be stable. > > And I say no, given our ideal: incompressible, frictionless. > I say the 12 around the missing one will try to jitterbug, and will > succeed if the rest of the IVM is not tightly packed in its little > rectangular box. If the IVM is tightly filling any shape rigid box, it cannot jitterbug. Even if there is no box, like with the upper levels of a cannonball stack, jitterbugging seems a bizarrely complicated and unlikely motion. > Adjust the gravity: stack one here, stack one on the moon, stack one on > Jupiter. The force of gravity will, as you suggest, force-hold the > stack in place, but with a ball missing, the "desire to jitterbug" will > be, I claim, directly proportional to the amount of pressure (of > gravity) applied. The strength of gravity is irrelevant if the balls are ideally rigid. >lacking the tools (frictionless spheres?) I > can't "prove" some of what I say to you. Friction is a minor problem. Do you understand that jitterbugging an interior VE requires lifting the ball which is above the VE's top square pocket? And that other balls outside the VE must also rise against gravity when the square balls blocking the jitterbug are pushed out of the way? Geometry alone should be enough to convince you that gravity opposes jitterbugging. Gravity also opposes the simpler collapse of a ball popping in to the non-nucleated VE hole. For a ball to come straight down from above into the hole, it would have to push 4 balls around the hole sideways, and in order to move sideways they will have to move up. So they won't move, the weight of the one that could fall into the hole is not sufficient to lift the 4 that would have to rise to get out of its way. Friction is not the problem. Greasy steel bearings would convince you, if you could stack them. Maybe make one ball out of ice. I say you can put TWO ice balls adjacent deep in the stack, and you can STILL tilt the stack a little after the ice melts without any balls moving. (John to Dick:) > Other than that, you touch on a critical concept: that if there's a VE > with a missing center in an IVM, my claim is that the _entire_IVM_ will > distort, because the VEs are "locked" in it, and if one of them > jitterbugs, every other sphere in the IVM should move slightly to > accommodate it. I agree most (maybe all) other spheres in the IVM must move slightly to accommodate an internal jitterbug, which is one reason jitterbugging is so unlikely. They were tight packed, after moving outward they aren't any more, they take up MORE room, making jitterbugging even MORE unlikely if the IVM is being compressed. > The only caveat, of course and as mentioned, is that in which the IVM is > itself "locked" by being inside a rigid rectangular box. Or any shape tight box. > There is an argument about whether an IVM would, or would not, deform > when forced into a non-rectangular container. No resolution to the > question has yet been seen. Everybody else has seen it -- an IVM will distort when forced into a container that does not fit. That's a function of both the orientation of the planes of the container and the distance between them. A spherical container of diameter 3 would not distort a VE with ball diameter 1, but in general an IVM will distort if a container wall is not a plane. > Now we imagine a very large, impenetrable, rigidly and perfectly > spherical, shrinkable "container," which when we begin, is at least >400 sphere-diameters in diameter. (The long thin IVM is entirely >inside it to begin with.) This is vague because you didn't say whether the IVM is at the center of the container, or whether it is aligned on a diameter. Is the container going to hit one corner of the IVM before it hits the other corners on the same end? If it hits one corner first, the IVM will shear. > Sooner or later the inner surface of our shrinking sphere will contact > the two ends of the IVM, and begin to compress it. Well, it won't hit all 100 balls on each end. If the IVM was not centered, but it was on a diameter, the container will first hit the 4 balls at the corners of one end. > This continues, spheres forced to pass beside their neighbors, as the > now-distorted IVM gets shorter while getting also wider. (This mashing > should not be too hard to imagine...) It's easy to imagine with real balls. An IVM made of real balls would buckle, because one of the balls is not perfectly round, or not exactly the right size, or it has a flat spot. If you chase those details down to quantum scale you can't specify the position of the surface of a stationary real ball more precisely than fundamental uncertainty allows, so It's OK with me to expect quantum fluctuations to cause buckling if some other real effect doesn't do it first. But you said perfect incompressible balls, so if the IVM were initially centered, the shrinking sphere would hit the 8 corner balls simultaneously, pushing in on them perfectly symmetrically. You didn't say the compression is irresistable, so when the perfectly spherical container meets the perfectly incompressible balls, I guess it will stop. Your expectation that the container will end up at the same volume as the initial IVM will not be fulfilled. It is NOT OK with me to assume "quantum fluctuations" for metaphysical or for perfect incompressible objects, quantum has only been demonstrated with real objects. If the IVM was not centered, it will be distorted. Even if it is initially on a diameter, only the 4 corner balls move initially; the other 96 balls in the end layer will stay in place as the rest of the IVM moves, until those 96 are against the container. You didn't say whether the balls have inertia. If the 81 balls in the second layer (10x10 in first layer, 9x9 in next, then 10x10, etc) have no inertia, they will move parallel to the 4 corner balls as soon as the corner balls (and the whole 400 ball columns along the corners of the IVM directly in line with the 4 contacted corners) start to move. But if the balls have inertia, the 4 contacted corners will splay outward. > Here's the question: when all has stopped shifting, tumbling, and > moving, because the former-IVM's spheres are now filling the compressing > sphere completely so no further shrinkage is possible, > _what_will_you_find_ inside that shrunken sphere? A new IVM, its outer > surface looking something like a Waterman sphere? With real balls, of course not. With the ideal balls you specified and a centered starting point, the final product will be an IVM almost identical to the start, there will be no shifting or tumbling except for the 96 balls at each end which now contact the sphere, no longer contacting the second layer of the IVM. > or a little chunk of > Tetrahedraverse's irregular tetspace network of vertex order twelve? You haven't defined "vertex order", so I doubt that's what will happen either. Real balls will collapse into a random jumble pack. Any sphere adjacent to two or more gaps might have more or less than 12 neighbors, if a neighbor is a ball less than 2 diameters away center to center. > (A short note to Lee B., on my balloon experiment: > You mentioned the packing once the balloon had had a vacuum-cleaner > vacuum pulled on it. I didn't mention, but an interesting, > quantum-sudden-like phenomenon exists in such a ball of balls: You can > try to further deform it, and it will resist you up to a certain amount > of pressure, at which point it will SUDDENLY and all at once shift from > its former shape into a new one, and stop. You can apply pressure in a > different direction, and the same thing will happen: no motion, then one > short snap!-like shift of much of the ball, then stoppage and resistance > to further shifts. That's interesting, but it's what I expected, and of course it is a phenomenon strongly affected by the friction and compressibility of the real balls you used, and the asymmetrical force you applied. With greasy steel bearings it would still happen. The amount of asymmetrical force you have to apply to cause the easiest shift is of the same order of magnitude as the symmetrical compression force; some shifts will be much harder than that to start. The asymmetry of the total force makes this irrelevant to most of the situations I've considered in years past where I assumed you meant perfectly spherical compression. >> You left out the possibility (MUCH more likely to my thinking) >>that one of the 12 outer balls will pop into the empty center hole. > > It can't. Not enough room in there. Only room enough in there when > there is a ball IN there. Once one is removed and the 12-around-none > compressed perfect regular icosahedron forms, You're assuming that icosahedron will form, instead of a ball popping into the hole first. That looks extremely unrealistic to me with real balls, but who knows what metaphysical objects might do when they have been hypnotized to exist in a 3D-E metric. > If it's still a VE (pre-jitterbugging), the angles of contact between > balls will prevbent the hole from accepting one of the other 12 > balls. (Look at a sphere-VE model; you'll see this.) Sure, I agree. I never suggested a ball would pop in before because I thought your perfectly spherical compression prevented any outward movement of any balls. Now that you do allow outward movement, it seems much simpler for me to have a pop-in accompanied by distortion in 2, 3, or 4 adjacent balls (plus distortion in the rest of the IVM in the same direction) than to have the 6 jitterbug blocking balls move, plus distortion in the rest of the IVM in at least 5 directions, plus the coordinated jitterbugging 12. > A related issue is that odd situation of a _13_-around-none. Very unlikely, but I'm glad to see you recognize that it's not always 12. There can also be 11 around 1 in contact with it, plus 2, 3, etc more around the 1 that are not in contact with the 1, but less than 2 diameters away center to center. >> considered that possibility before because the symmetrical pressure >>I thought you required would not allow that sort of movement, since >>it requires temporarily slightly moving other balls out while one >> pops into the hole. > > Quite correct. (Your memory graces me, sir.) > This is much the same as saying there's not room in the 12-around-none > for a ball to be put back in; the 12 would have to expand, but for > Tverse what you say is correct: it would be _extremely_ difficult, > perhaps just short of "impossible," to pry those three aside enough for > the ball to go "back in." Not quite; I'm saying one of the 12 around a missing 1 will pop into the hole where the 1 was, without the 12 jitterbugging. You're saying the 12 will jitterbug, and then for a 13th to get inside it would have to pry apart one of the triangles formed by the jitterbugged 12 around none. No triangle needs to be pried apart my way. As I named them, the pairs FJ and HK are already separated, they just need to be separated maybe 20% further to allow G to pop into the hole. > This is in fact, why, since I think a > 12-around-none in Tverse is a "proton," Wow, what a leap. Utterly unconvincing and without foundation that I can see. > Yes, IN the box, the IVM is Immobile King. > In the sphere, VEs' gaps rearrange (I claim), and Flexible Tverse is > King. That's too general a claim; if the sphere container diameter is an integral multiple of the ball diameter, the IVM is immobile, like a tightly contained FWP. > So what good is a model that only retains its structural integrity if > you enclose it in a hard shell? No good at all, as far as I can see, just like Tverse. > What applicability to "real space" > would such a model have? Real space flexes and ripples and moves, and > things move within it. Rigid, none of that is possible.... Are you thinking somebody proposed IVM as a model of real space? Not me. Did Fuller? I don't think so. In general relativity it is spacetime that flexes, not space. And space doesn't get out of the way when something moves thru it. I am not aware of any applicability to physics of sphere packing or other space filling. > You could > make _wonderful_ structures with it (Fuller-like, substituting struts > for sphere-to-sphere-centers), but it couldn't be used to attack the > questions of real Physics, where both sphericity and > flexibility/deformability are everywhere. I haven't seen a single consequence of Tverse that has any relevance to physics either. > Down inside the system, whole-system spherical translates locally > (12-around-1 size level) to 12-directional. Always 12 in IVM; 12 or less in a jumble pack with gaps. > Move one layer out, it's (? > what? 20-directional?), and for every layer outward from the 12-a-1, > more and more contacts exist to carry the penultimate-layer's spherical > pressure down to the 12-a-1. There could be 12*n directions involved for n balls in a jumble pack. For an FWP, if the outside compression were perfectly spherical, every interior ball would feel 12 symmetrical pressures. >It's for all practical purposes > _spherical_pressure_, but you see, obviously, that for any _one_ sphere, > there are only 12 linear directions from which this remote-spherical > pressure can be conducted down to it. (Right? You see this?) Yes, at most 12, as long as we're talking about a 3D Euclidean metric. If these metaphysical objects used some other metric (you've never justified using 3D-E for metaphysical objects) then some other number of spheres could surround one, I think. > Therefore, the "perfection" of the sphericity depends on how big a ball > of balls you're working with, and for Tverse's non-regular possible > arrangement shapes, it can be called "irregular" for anything less than > Tverse's entire complement of spheres. OK? See this? (One could even > make the argument that since Tverse and all sphere-packing problems, > there is no such thing as "perfectly spherical"; all would be short, > straight linesegments, no "perfect" curves could be found. Practically, > "spherical" pressure means "no specific, biased directionality to > overall compressive force," albeit at the level of 13 spheres, > compression is obviously not "spherical." I'm not sure what you're saying here. With 500 balls jumbled in one balloon, the compression was slightly more spherically symmetrical than if there had been 499 balls. But that minor difference is irrelevant to the major asymmetrical force you had to use to shift it, right? > Let's break this impasse' and go halfway, eh?: make your box out of > stiff rubber, so it will always try to return the IVM to form if > twisted, but does not utterly prevent twisting if we poke at the box > strongly enough, in one directional way or another. Sure, whatever, what is one more complication at this point. I never would have said anything specific was wrong about such a general system, I don't need to say anything more. > This also brings up yet another argument for my version: > Suppose you rubber-shrink-wrap a large Waterman polyhedron. (Your > "handicap": you get to choose one with the most spheres more or less > evenly distributed, the least huge, gaping holes.) What holes? Do you mean large faces? In an FWP a large face is above or in a hexagonally packed plane. > Do not > _exclude_ --except visually-- the spheres that are in whatever holes > there are in the chosen Waterman (since we know it's really an IVM > anyway, and these holes really contain partial balls sliced through). There are no sliced balls in a FWP, there are no balls at all in a WP, there are no holes in either. > Look at the shrinkwrapping up close: you see here and there a ball pokes > the surface out, here and there a ball is sunken slightly. Both these > effects are made by the invisible balls in the Waterman, There are no balls in a WP, it's just vertexes and edges. IIRC Steve draws a FWP below the rendering of the WP. (geez am I really going to have to go back to that site, I'm working from memory) Some balls are hidden behind others in the FWP. Balls that aren't vertexes are not drawn in the WP. By "invisible" do you mean light blue? You should not mean the black field on which the WP and FWP are rendered; any balls at positions in the IVM within the black are definitely not "in the Waterman". The position of the vertexes in the WP, and the position of the visible balls in the FWP are determined by the interior balls in the FWP, some of which are hidden. Is that what you mean by "invisible"? >not by the > visible ones --which are all at a common 'root' distance from center. Well, for the larger WPs, there are visible balls at several distances from center -- N, N-1, N-2, maybe N-3, N-4. > NOW you are asked to force any ball which pokes out, not to. You have > to gently poke it back IN, so that it is at the same root distance from > center as the others are. You do understand that will disrupt the rest of the IVM within the FWP, right? So "the others" are no longer where they were, it is no longer an IVM. There is no guarantee you can get them all at the same root distance. In fact I am sure you can NOT, unless you move the others out. They were already packed tight. > You also have to keep poking until all > sunken balls have been forced to move outward a little. You poke and > you prod and eventually you get ALL the spheres --both the visible and > the invisible ones-- in the Waterman to be at exactly the same distance > from the centerpoint of the Waterman. (This models Tverse's "perfect" > spherical compressive shell.) That is no longer a FWP, and it is larger than the FWP. > Do you think, for one moment, that the _entire_interior_ --not just the > balls you readjusted-- will not have slipped slightly out of > registration as a perfect IVM? If you do, why? Well, it will be easiest to achieve your spherical shell by not attempting to poke the outermost vertexes in at all. Just lift the other balls outward. Then the interior balls could remain in their original IVM positions. If you poke anything inward, sure there will be distortions in the IVM. There's just no point in poking inward, there's no room there. > Can you justify no > balls inside moving, when you move balls outside by forcing them down > into and against the balls inside? Balls inside must move if you poke outer balls inward. > So, too, in a different way, can the effect of a _missing_ ball or two > (or three, or fou...) be thought about. > Overall, large scale sphericity of the container (I claim) forces a > non-rigidly, but strongly, held IVM out of perfection, from the > outside-in. You have a huge fudge factor in the difference between "non-rigidly" and "strongly". I would not quarrel with anything you say as long as you can adjust that difference to whatever value suits your argument. I would not have bothered making any claims at all if I knew you didn't mean perfectly spherical compression. > Likewise, an interior sphericity--a hole-- (I claim) does > the same, from the inside-out, by the twisting mechanism of > 'jitterbugging' its VEs to accommodate any twistING center-ball-missing > VE. Whatever, you have arbitrary forces so I won't argue. With random forces, there is a much simpler way than jitterbugging to fill a hole. >> If the walls are flexible enough for the IVM to distort under the >>"irregular" forces, then by far the likeliest thing to happen, with >>ideal or real balls, is that the hole will migrate opposite the >>pressure gradient. > > TOP-NOTCH! Good for you! Welcome to "proton" motion through the >Tverse network! > (I love it when a new thing occurs to one who's grasped enough Tverse, > that is the same as Tverse predicts!) > (See? Your Tverse insight is improving! (*grin!*) The crackpot effect > wears off on you; aren't you disturbed? (*chuckle*)) This looks like another example of your wishful thinking that somebody agrees with you. You said a proton was a non-nucleated icosahedron, right? I'm describing a non-nucleated VE. With perfectly symmetrical compression, or rigid walls, no ball can pop in to a non-nucleated VE; but with stiff rubber walls and asymmetrical pressure, the non-nucleated VE will migrate opposite the pressure gradient. Jitterbugging is much less likely, or at least it requires much more extensive distortions. > There are some wonderful Physics-pertinent aspect to this. I haven't seen any yet. Your examples do not convince me at all. [in order for an interior VE to jitterbug] >> You must get the rest of the IVM or at least those 6 blocking balls >> out of the way > > Not necessarily. Given some small nonrigidity to the BOX, it's my > contention that compression on the system, with a sphere _missing_, > would cause the _entire_IVM_ to deform --if only very, very slightly-- > enough to allow the local VE with the missing center to jitterbug, > taking all balls in contact with it, along with it (and the balls in > contact with _it_, and the... (etc.)). Thus the missing sphere would > act like a spot of disease (*grin*) in the IVM, propagating its > anomalous effect throughout the rest of the IVM. Like I said. How does your description above differ from getting those 6 blocking balls out of the way, distorting the rest of the IVM? Lots of what you write is simple assertion that jitterbugging is likely. I'm sure it is NOT likely for real balls. For metaphysical objects, whatever, sounds like a bunch of groundless assumptions, nothing I'm going to continue to argue about. >The VE is inherently much more non-spherical than the > icosahedron it's trying to jitterbug into. Huh? All centers of the outer 12 in a VE are exactly the same distance from the center; how do YOU define "spherical"? > I claim that in this > sphericized pattern the icosahedron (in the case of the missing sphere) > or the icosahedro(not) (in the case of 12s-around-1), is/are the > "native" forms, and the VE is a highly specific, unique, _anomalous_ > pattern that _itself_ requires extremely tight control (orthogonal > pressure-directions _only_) to keep its shape. The icosahedron and the VE are highly specific. I'm sure in your stuffed balloon there were none of either. But if a VE forms (for instance by crystallization, or by stacking cannonballs) it is stable against non-orthogonal forces up to a critical angle. The icosahedro(not) is common only because you define it so unspecifically. If you specified a particular set of angles, it would be just as unlikely to find that particular icosahedronot as it was to find a VE. >> suppose he did this because he now realizes that an IVM in the >>shape of a WP >> is not destroyed by spherical compression as he claimed Dec 14: > > Not a bit of it. > Given our various clarifications regarding what's in the Box and >what isn't, by claim stands as written (and as specifically addressed >above, re: the Waterman thought-experiment). Sorry John, you haven't clarified a thing for me, and I am terminally bored, I'm not likely to say more unless somebody else wants me to clarify something I said. I'm also interested to hear if anybody else has any argument that supports the likelihood of interior VEs jitterbugging when a ball disappears from an IVM, or any significance of Tverse or other sphere packing for physics, If I don't respond to your future arguments, don't assume it's because you've convinced me. I think you and I could pick nits for years. Given the major differences (jitterbugging inside an IVM, physical significance, metaphysical utility) I'm not going to bother with minor clarifications. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:56:57 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: helpingfamilies@LYCOS.COM Subject: 6.25% Fixed\ Refinance before rates Go Up! 16707 Comments: To: geodesic@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Loan Application

Refinance While Rates Last!

6.25%  Fixed

  • Payoff Debt or Home Improvement
  • Bad Credit Ok
  • Cash Out For Any Reason
     
    Clearly, refinancing is the smart solution for those who want the financial flexibility to use their equity to pay off debt or make improvements in life.

     

    • Loan Application (Fields Marked with * are required)
    Prefix:                Name:        *
    Middle Name:   Last Name: *
    Address  * City:         &n bsp;*
    State    * Zip Code:    *
    Home Phone:    Day Phone:  *
    Fax:         &nb sp;     E-Mail:        *
    < /TR>
    Length At Present Address:
    * Years  Months     		 Amount Owed on 1st / % Rate:   *  /  %*
    Amount Owed on 2nd / % Rate:   /   % Loan Type 1St / Loan Type 2nd:  *   / 
    Home Value:     * Yearly Income:    *
    Length of Current Employment:          *Years    *Months Are You Self Employed? 
    Credit Rating: Amount Requested: *
    What is the purpose of the loan?