From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Jun 15 10:09:14 2004 Return-Path: Received: from acsu.buffalo.edu (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.57]) by linux00.LinuxForce.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with SMTP id i5FE8Za6007846 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:08:35 -0400 Message-Id: <200406151408.i5FE8Za6007846@linux00.LinuxForce.net> Received: (qmail 14829 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2004 14:08:03 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 15 Jun 2004 14:08:03 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:08:03 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at University at Buffalo (1.8e)" Subject: File: "GEODESIC LOG0201" To: Chris Fearnley X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.71, clamav-milter version 0.71 X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO Content-Length: 709937 Lines: 17055 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:36:34 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: scanned photos Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I believe this is the tensegrity tower you are referring to: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Pics/Tower-Tenseg-Vert-Sky-color-14k.gif ============================== 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 31, 2001 4:46 PM Subject: re: scanned photos > From: "Ernie Aiken" > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:25:36 -0800 > > I made an oct-tet truss and photos of the cheapy web cam but > does not show it too well. The tripod might help. Will have > pictures from the 35mm later. > http://www.gardendome.com/oct_tet1.html > Unfortunately I did not see the tensegrity mast when I was > in DC. Did see some great museum exhibits. I'd like to use > your tensegrity pictures for a future space frame > screensaver downloadable in a zip exe file. I will have > several, some free and some cost a few $. > Maybe could pay you small limited use fee to charge for it > in a screensaver with more photos from other places. I only > have a few space frame photos so need to add to the > collection. On the other hand I have some pretty good dome > photos rescanned and enhanced for cool screensavers. Will > have them downloadable when I change over to a new shopping > cart system. > Will be large high resolution, photoshopically enhanced. > Here is sample- > 181k > http://www.gardendome.com/nl/albeq.JPG > 251k > http://www.gardendome.com/nl/clima1.JPG > Ernie > happy new year! > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Thank you all for your kind replies. > > > > JMR has offered his services and I sent the prints to him > > today. If you like them on the website, I would be happy to > > send anyone the negatives for blow-ups with the provisio > > that they would be returned. > > snip:-) > > > .:'':. > .::::::::. 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, 31 Dec 2001 23:42:57 -2000 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: teeniesuckathhon324d84@MSN.COM Subject: BLOWJOB ACADEMY (FREE) WV Comments: To: "Undisclosed Recipients"@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 

Do not reply to this e-mail message

To= be taken off this list please go to the link below and enter your e-mail ad= dress.
"Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress = this letter
cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender includes contact <= br> information and a method of removal."
WE HONOR ALL REMOVES. PLEASE SUBMIT ONE EMAIL AT A TIME OTHERWISE = YOU WILL NOT BE REMOVED. PROFANITY SERVES NO PURPOSE.

Pl= ease allow for 24-72 hours to be removed from this list.


TO BE TAKE N OFF THIS LIST CLICK HERE
========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 00:00:01 -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 Tue Jan 1 00:00:00 PST 2002. If you are tired of receiving this message once per month, and are reading bit.listserv.geodesic through USENET news, then you can enter this subject into your KILL/SCORE file. If you're reading through email, you can set up a filter to delete the message. Both of these tricks are WELL worth learning how to do, if you don't know already. And isn't it about time to learn something new? Isn't it always? :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GEODESIC is a forum for the discussion of the ideas and creations relating to the work of R. Buckminster (Bucky) Fuller. Topics range from geodesic math to world hunger; floating cities to autonoumous housing, and little bit of everything in between. Other lists that focuses more specifically on some of these topics can be found on the Reality Sculptors Website: http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html On topic discussion and questions are welcome. SPAM and unsolicited promotions are not. (Simple, eh?) ----------------------- To subscribe, send mail to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SUB GEODESIC A web page to signon is available here: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/user/sub.html When you want to post, send mail to GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU ******NOT***** to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU! LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is for subscriptions, administrivia, archive requests, etc. GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU is the actual discussion group. Anything sent to GEODESIC will go to all members. (And you don't want to look like a jerk having everyone see your "SUB GEODESIC John Q. Public" command! ;^) ) This list is also linked to USENET in the group bit.listserv.geodesic If you want to receive copies of everything you send to the list, use the command SET GEODESIC REPRO. If you DON'T want copies, use SET GEODESIC NOREPRO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO SIGN OFF THE LIST: Simply send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU and in the body of your letter put the line: SIGNOFF GEODESIC You should receive a confirmation note in the mail when you have been successfully removed. A web page to signoff is available here: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/user/signoff.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIST ARCHIVES: Listserv itself is keeping archives of the list, dating back to June, 1992. Send a note to listserv@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu with this message in the BODY of the note: INDEX GEODESIC You can get help on other Listserv commands by putting the line HELP into the body of the note. (Can be in the same message.) Web-searchable archives for the lists are available at: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/geodesic.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (You may want to save this file to forward on to people who are interested, as it tells what the list is about, and how to subscribe and unsubscribe.) Pat _____________________________Think For Yourself______________________________ Patrick G. Salsbury http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ ----------------------- Don't break the Law...fix it. ;^) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:11:16 -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 - 30 Dec 2001 to 31 Dec 2001 (#2002-1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > > --- John Brawley wrote: > > _OOh_... _Voronoi_ diagrams! Ah. Yes. I see the > > Yes. Nature is using these > approximately-equal-distance-apart vertex arrangements all > over the place. I figure tverse is the 3D version of > voronoi cells.(?) Less energy investment scenerios. I haven't been back to that site yet, to dig deeper, but yes, the way you've phrased it, it at least closely resembles a 3D version of Voronoi cells. > > > will be right, but the model will be missing its > > compression. > > In bubble packing, compression exists but it is not very > strong. That's what I am thinking here. I wanted to start > the weave from the outside and work inward, the opposite of > starting with a nucleus. That's a good idea. Tverse originates itself in something like that manner, feeding pionts into itself from its (by now, remote) spherical "boundary," but the first activity in its "origin sequence" is pionts incoming from the "boundary," which would be similar to what you intend to do. I'll be interested to see what you come up with, if you build this. > > that 12-around-1 config is that they're compressed > > together. > > But wouldn't they also take on a 12 around one > configuration if the piont were repulsive and held together > with tension instead of compression? I think so but not > sure. Yes, that's fair (uncomfortable, but fair), they surely do, and I've tried to use the Struck program that way. In Struck, "springs" are used as connectors between "joints." (Your effort: "string" between "knots"; if you were using rubber bands instead of string, you'd be making a _physical_ version of a Struck computer-graphical object made with "Pull-Only" springs.) (For what follows, to Struck-aware people I apologize, for saying what y'all already know...) These "springs" come in several different flavors, the default flavor being "Natural Log Spring," which has a "rest length" (neither pushing nor pulling), over which length (longer than) it pulls back toward 'rest,' and under which (shorter than) it _pushes_ back toward 'rest.' The "impulse formula" used to calculate these "forces" is logarithmic, so that the closer two joints come, the stronger they are pushed apart, and vice versa --the farther apart, the more strongly they're pulled back toward the median, "rest" length of the spring between them. (Thus, obviously enough, geometric explorations using this idea/application are "Elastic Interval Geometry." Very nice for Bucky Fuller students; "tensegrity" is half-built in (but, there are no _rigid_ springs; one cannot have a "strut" or "compression member" that doesn't change length). If Struck's nexes/vertices, called "joints," model my always-repulsive pionts, then there would be 12 springs between a piont and its 12 closest neighbors. (There would be 12 spring-ends attached to each piont.) The program (the application) calculates all these springs' lengths, and adjusts them in realtime, to come as close as possible to 'rest' length. It's always trying to "regularize" all tetrahedra, and if using one springset for all intervals, is always trying to make every spring in one's structure the same length. (Of course, if I've built a nucleated icosahedron, it's impossible for all springs to be at "rest" length, so the program does its best to come as close as it can. The program also _colors_ springs, defaults being red if compressed (shorter than rest), blue if tensioned (longer than rest), and white if exactly AT rest (within .005, where standard rest length is "1".) Thus, if the shorter-than-rest-length condition, in which the spring _pushes_ on the joints at its two ends, models pionts' repulsive quality, then the longer-than-rest-length condition, in which the spring _pulls_ on those joints, sort of inversely models compression. I've never liked to use this system, even though it seems to work pretty well, because I've never liked to give pionts _attraction_ properties; they don't have such properties in Tverse's network --they're all 100% repulsive only. > > impervious to barbs as duranium plating. > > What is duranium? Sounds impervious. .) (*grin*) Star Trek word. Some ship hulls sometimes referred to by "duranium plated" or "duranium alloy." BrianH asks if it's D-epleted -uranium, a thought I'd never considered, but fitting. > > > > so, if one does a Delauney tetrogonation of space, > > > it will not be regular, and will not have just (or > > > even mainly) 12-way vertices. of course, > > How many on average? 14? (As you maybe saw my response to him/that, he's wrong in the case where there are no "empty" icosahedrons of nexes --"12-around-none"s. The default condition is 12-around-1, _period_.) Nonregularity shows up in a Struck model of a 12-around-1, as you close up the object so it has all its 42 struts (Bucky IVM/VE students only see 36 of these; they don't put a strut/interval/spring between two of the four corners in each of a VE's six squares). As you close the nucleated icosa, all 30 of the outer, "surface" struts turn blue (go under tension), and all 12 of the interior ones turn red (go under compression). No spring is white (no "rest" length struts exist in this). If all tets in this object were able to be regular, all 42 struts/springs would be white. Thanks, Dick. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:09:18 -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 - 30 Dec 2001 to 31 Dec 2001 (#2002-1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Brian Hutchings > > I still get the impression that a lot of this tversal stuff > has very little basis, but it could be a beeg mystaque, > with an underlaying uncovery of interest; > that's for you to know, appaerently, and > the rest of us to find "out!" The discoverer, or the RE-discoverer-with-new-insights, is always the one who grasps his own creation better than anyone else does, originally. So of course I know, and others may --or may not, depending on how interested they really are-- find out. Two things must happen to break this bottleneck/deadlock: #1) The discoverer must _tell_ the discovery (hopefully accurately and carefully) so that it can be reproduced exactly in the minds of others (if they want it to be), thus enabling _independent_confirmation_ (or _dis_proving) to occur. This is one of Science's beating hearts. #2) The listener/student/reader must come to conclude that what's being presented to him/her is _worth_the_time_spent_to_learn_ it fully, accurately, in reproduction of the creator's original concept-structure. (This can be hard, if one has a pre-existing but very similar ideation that occupies the mental space needed by the new concept-structure....) My "tetrahedraverse" is a simple concept to describe geometrically/topologically/behaviourally, but it is _not_ a simple concept in which to awaken in others, strong _belief_ in its 'inevitability.' It's "origin sequence" is extremely hard to describe to others, and the deepest, root concept --that of what "NoThing" Is(n't)-- is one of those damnably hard-to-get-to "AHA!" experiences that can only be "felt," not "understood." Total lack of any kind of "thingness" (to begin with(out)) is as near an impossible-to-grasp thoughtform as I have ever come near. Thus, trying to do #1), above, falls into two categories: a) Do it WITH the "origin sequence," and risk losing the listener while also having a small chance at the listener "believing," and b) Do it WITHOUT the sequence, using the standard math-axiomatic 'trick' of providing the "givens," thus greatly reducing the chance of wholesale misunderstanding, but also not having any impact on the listener's "belief" at all. #2) above is of course not under _my_ control. (*grin*) > You would be correct if there were no such condition; if nothing is > forcing the system to be as small in volume as it can be, you can have > all sorts of vertex orders running though it. (But then, of course, it > > http://www.beloit.edu/~biology/zdravko/vor_history.html > > the IVM is simply an ideal reference, and > in that it is similar to a "descartesian" grid, but > it isn't really "orthogonal." I understand it as a reference, but it's used that way primarily by Bucky students. It's the only 12-around-one, multiple-sphere packing (that I know of) in which, in each 13-sphere set--a VE, no sphere can move at all. It's a _rigid_ pattern, but its rigidity does not arise from within itself; it comes from the "packing forces" being used, and these packing forces are _orthogonal_ (three-axis maximum/minimum, mutually at right angles to each other). But I use Tverse's flexible 12-around-1 pattern as a base reference, thus I see the IVM, made of interlocking VEs, as only one --and a rare one at that-- of the near-infinite number of ways one can arrange the outer 12 spheres in a 12-around-1 packing. For me, this 12-around-1 is my "icosahedro(not)," which is intended to be a name for the _class_ of _all_ possible 12-around-1 13-sphere packings in which no outer sphere loses contact with the center sphere while one is shoving the outer 12 around this way and that. (Thus, all VEs are icosahedro(not)s, but not all icosahedro(not)s are VEs.) So, I've been told, an IVM that _isn't_ orthogonal, isn't an IVM (if you flex an IVM, spheres depart from perfect VE patterning). Yes, of course it has other patterns than the orthogonal, but as a rule, if you build a perfect IVM, it will be built --it can only BE built-- _as if_ it were spheres packed tightly in a rectangular box whose dimensions are multiples of unit sphere diameters, and that, my friend, is "orthogonal." > note that one can have any number of "regular" edges > at a vertex in hyperbolic space, if it is true that > you can dualize n-gons (n-hedra) in the usual way, > which can be taken as a dystorted "real" space. Many of these references to early --or even contemporary-- researchers are useful, to me as well at to all of us, but I have to stay "locked" into what Tverse's "origin sequence" has left me with, and I can't "allow" hyperspatial-istic maunderings to speak much on Tverse's patterning/form. I know it's hard to accept (it still is, for me), but Tverse's "origin sequence" rather unambiguously _creates_ the reference-space in which later, activities I'm trying to determine/explore, take place. In short, starting with "nothing," it creates first the notion of one dimension, then concatenates this notion into a structure which "looks like" a three-dimensional, "irregular tetspace" field of points ('pionts'). One can do all the mathematically interesting things one wants to, once one has such a space, but one has to remain aware of the roots of the structure one is playing in. Hyperspatial, parabolic spatial, "multi-dimensional" patterns and other such "permissive" geometric/topological/mathematical fun-and-games simply do not (can not) alter the basic patterning, which rests on the originating sequence of "meta-logic" used. Tverse has to be understood as I understand it, to have any power over other investigators' tendencies to fly off in all directions. (Interesting directions, perhaps, but not pertinent to what's what here in my little 'Verse. (*grin*)) I further grant/realize the "crackpot index"-raising effect of wording something like I just said, but then, I may _be_ a crackpot, and again, I may not be. Only time and further, more definitive investigation, _adhering_tightly_to_the_Rules_Tverse_creates_, is likely to mark the difference. Thanks for the (slowly changing?) interest. It's always been my contention that if the "origin sequence" were accepted, either as itself OR as a set of "givens," the Tverse-patterning _must_ result. If that's true, then anyone who seriously tries --and succeeds-- in grasping what's being said, will end up in agreement with me. Fight on, BuckyStudents; one day we'll be working in the same concept-structure, you in Universe free space and perhaps some crystallographic places, me around anything spherical in Universe. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 09:08:46 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 30 Dec 2001 to 31 Dec 2001 (#2002-1) In-Reply-To: <003001c192e0$07c89500$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > So, I've been told, an IVM that _isn't_ orthogonal, isn't > an IVM (if you > flex an IVM, spheres depart from perfect VE patterning). > Yes, of course > it has other patterns than the orthogonal, but as a rule, > if you build a > perfect IVM, it will be built --it can only BE built-- > _as if_ it were > spheres packed tightly in a rectangular box whose > dimensions are > multiples of unit sphere diameters, and that, my friend, > is > "orthogonal." > Bucky always said that there is no parallel anything in Universe. He also said Nature never "stops" at the VE phase. She is always in transformation. (I see IVM as the zero-phase of inside-outing. I think he said that, too)). Tverse makes sense, in these regards, as a model for how Nature does what She does. I bought a carton of bb's. I thought I'd repeat your jumble-packing experiment with them. I never understood Brian's objection a randome, i.e. the stochastic assembly of vertex elements(which are at minimum tetrahedral) into a geodesic structure. All elements can be identical. Their spacings are all different. He and I went on for weeks but apperently he thought what I was doing was impossible. He _did_ force me into investigating the difference between stretched and non-stretched surfaces, for which I thanked him. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -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: Sat, Dec 29, 2001, 7:27 PM > I revisited the calculation I did for you back in Summer '99, and I think it's > been about that long since I've worked with this software, so I'm a bit > rusty. It was kind of a shot in the dark since given the elasticities of > steel wire the kind of loads you were using should have distorted the > structure very little if the elasticity of the wire were the only thing > driving the distortion of the structure. I think you and I finally decided it > was driven by other things, like torqueing and bending of the struts. Yes. I was using 14 gauge steel wire then (.064" diameter - or is it .083") and now I'm using 17 gauge (.045" or .058"?) and in both cases I think the wire stretch was negligible, compared to inaccuracies in the length as I tied it. The first attempt tensegrity for which you calculated in '99 had heavier struts, and they were too flexible, so they bowed noticeably when tendon tensions got too high. Since the struts effectively shortened when they bowed, we guessed that had a similar effect to tendons stretching. This time the struts are slightly longer (4.00 meters), lighter, and more symmetrical. I peeled the bark off, cut slabs off the thick ends, and let them dry out. The torqueing happened in '99 because after multiple retyings some wires wrapped around their strut instead of looping neatly. That kind of detail never mattered in models I built, but when the scale got big enough it was an obvious problem. Also, the details of the knots in the wire meant sometimes there was a sharp bend that was likely to break. This time I made wire hubs that fit over the end of each strut and provided loops thru which the tendons were threaded, so there are no extraneous torques or sharp bends, and the tendons are kept from slipping more than .03 meters from the end of the strut. > Anyway, > my shot-in-the-dark computation assumed perfectly elastic behavior, but with a > value more elastic than steel. I think all the loads can be interpreted in > relative terms, so 20 lbs vs. 9 lbs wouldn't make any difference in relative > values for this particular calculation. > > So my approach was to assume with zero external load, the average tendon was > elongated by .27%. I chose this value so that when the external load due to > gravity was applied, the tips of the three "problem" struts were brought right > to ground level. Today the three struts that were a "problem" in '99 (because they touched the ground) are not a problem; they are definitely off the ground. They are higher than strut ends 1,2,3 by .13 , .26 and .13 meters. That's sagging, I think they should be about .33 meters above the ground. (By the way, going out to measure that in a cold stiff breeze, I hear it singing -- it's an aeolian harp!) In '99 I could not get the problem struts off the ground unless I put supports about 15" high under the 3 struts that were supposed to be the only contact points. That put a dimple under the tensegrity, so the problem struts were floating but they were below strut ends 1,2, & 3. If 1, 2, and 3 were at ground level, the problem struts also hit the ground, in '99. In '99 you rendered a picture stage2ld_0027.gif that looked like the sagging tensegrity when 1,2,3 and the 3 problem struts were on the ground, but at the same time you wrote: >So given what you've told me, here's my estimate of the stresses in >various parts when you had the structure on the 15" supports. To get >values in pounds you can use the conversion factor .557754 = the weight >of your struts. This is my best guess which may not be very good. >Notice it indicates three of the square tendons (they must be symmetric >about the central axis) are slack. > > strut01: -5.20307 sqrten01a: 0 > triten01b: 3.19864 sqrten01b: 3.69242 > strut02: -7.04775 triten02a: 2.54175 So I'd say no, it is not the same configuration today, particularly if the calculation includes the 15" supports from '99. You can see lo-res jpgs at http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=78 http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=81 The second one is taken with the viewpoint along the intersection of the plane of the equator and the plane of one other triangle of struts. > In the zero-G state, the average magnitude of the force in > the tendons was .557754. The average magnitude of the force in the struts was > -1.24442 (negative indicating it is a compressive rather than tensile force). Do I understand: if you assumed that even with gravity the tendons would not stretch at all (and the struts wouldn't bow at all) then the zero-G forces on tendons and struts could be zero, and the shape wouldn't change with gravity. Actually I think there is virtually zero stretching and bowing this time, or at least much less than the inaccuracy of my tendon lengths. I stopped adjusting when it was stable standing on 3 points, leaving one tendon (sqrten09a) about 2" too short, and two (sqrten09b, sqrten02b) about 2" too long. The others are probably nominally correct +/- 1". That's about 1% accuracy; I bet I never got that close in small models, but they don't sag as much. This is puzzling. > Then I applied an external load of magnitude .278878 to each point of the > structure. (This would be equivalent to half the weight of the strut, or 4.5 > pounds.) I could have just as well chosen a higher value for this number and > a lower % elongation in the zero-G state and gotten the structure in a similar > configuration. I don't really have a reason for preferring the numbers I used > to another configuration and I don't know how much the results would be > affected since I haven't experimented with other pairs of values. So that's > why I'd call this kind of a shot in the dark. > > So, when the load was applied, the average tendon force was 2.59263 and the > average strut force was -5.87457. The tension in the slack tendons is zero of > course, so the tendon force is averaged over the non-slack tendons. So, > scaling these values by 4.5/.278878, I get an average tendon force of 42 lbs > and an average strut force of -95 lbs. > > Is this in the ballpark? My guess is tendon force is more like 80 pounds but I haven't figured out how to measure! You suggested comparing the pitch when I twang a tendon to the pitch of a same-length wire in a jig where I can hang various weights from the wire. That's complicated now by the backup nylon tendons. Some of them twang at about the same pitch as their parallel wire. (The nylon isn't as tight, but it's less massive, so the pitches can match for similar lengths.) I could hang weights from nylon too and add the tensions of wire and nylon, except the pre-stretch length of the nylon is unknown. I tied it loosely about a meter in from the end of the strut, without measuring, then slid it out as far as I could. Does anybody have any suggestions for how to measure tendon tension? I think knowing that, the strut compression is 1/2 * sum of 8 tendon tensions x cosine of 8 tendon angles? Er, make that 16 tendons, counting the nylon. I think if I measured the force required to deflect a 2.39 m tendon by .005 m at its middle, the tension is(?) that force x.5 x 2.39/ .005. Before I try to build a rig to do that measurement, I hope somebody has a simpler idea. One other complication is that the top 18/48 tendons are too high for me to reach their midpoint. > For your reference, the member by member breakdown of the force magnitudes > followed by the geometry is as follows (the base points are p01, p02 and p03 > -- these are the ones which are supposed to be touching the ground -- from > that I hope you can trace which members are which -- the labeling should help > some as well - sqrten indicates the tendons which form squares; triten > indicates the tendons which form triangles -- the data exhibit the three-fold > symmetry inherent in the model): > > strut01: -5.20307 > sqrten01a: 0 > triten01b: 3.19864 > sqrten01b: 3.69242 > strut02: -7.04775 ... Here's a summary of your results, with my labelling scheme. Struts 1,2,3 touch the ground. Calculated compression: 84 pounds Struts 4,5,6 are most nearly vertical; "problems" in '99. cc: 113 pounds Struts 7,8,9 are horizontal, in the equator. 97 pounds Struts 10,11,12 are above the equator. 85 pounds So the struts touching the ground have the lowest compression. The vertical struts carry 1/3 more load. Each one of those 3 "problem" struts is compressed with more than the weight of all 12 struts, 12 x 9=108. The short tendons (.5168 as long as a strut) form 8 triangles. One is horizontal on the bottom and you don't calculate that one because your method assumes the ground contact points are anchored. Actually they're not anchored here. One triangle is horizontal on the very top, calculated tension 29 pounds in each of the 3 wires. 3 triangles point down from the equator. Their near horizontal top edge has calculated tension of 48 pounds ; the other two edges are 40 and 52 pounds. 3 triangles point up from the equator. Their near horizontal bottom edge has calculated tension of 34 pounds ; the other two edges are 40 and 42 pounds. 3 squares (long tendons, .5983 as long as a strut) are below the equator. The bottom tendon which runs from the ground contact point to one of the "problem" strut ends has the highest tension, 60 pounds. The top tendon is 53 pounds. One vertical side goes from an equator strut to the bottom end of a problem strut; that is 48 pounds. The other vertical side goes from a ground contact point to the non-contact point of another of the ground contact struts -- that tendon is slack. These 3 elements are in about the same plane: a "problem" strut, a ground contact strut, and a slack tendon. The slack tendon is on the opposite side of the tensegrity from the sagging problem strut. 3 squares are above the equator. The bottom tendon is 37 pounds; the top tendon is 55 pounds, the two sides are 34 and 52 pounds. Total tension load -- over 1900 pounds! Total compression load -- 1137 pounds. Actual weight -- 108 pounds. (wire weight is <1 pound.) Is that right? Would you please recalculate, knowing the problem struts ARE floating now? JB, thanks for describing Struck. It sounds like something I should be using but maybe I can get Bob to do it! My problem was to get the "internal pressure" of the tensegrity pumped up like a basketball high enough so that it would stand on only 3 strut ends. Weaker materials would not work; just below their breaking point they still left a flat spot on the bottom of the basketball big enough that 3 more struts also hit the ground. Or was it HEAVIER materials that would not work? I built small models using very light materials and 4% precision (sloppier than the big one) and those smaller models easily got up on 3 points. I am suspecting the dependence of pressure on precision is MORE than directly proportional to gravity. That would be disturbing to model builders, and mysterious to me, implying that models can't be scaled up! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:40:12 -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: <200201012052.g01Kq6p24067@ns1.planetc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Does anybody have any suggestions for how to measure > tendon tension? I think > knowing that, the strut compression is 1/2 * sum of 8 > tendon tensions x > cosine of 8 tendon angles? Er, make that 16 tendons, > counting the nylon. I > think if I measured the force required to deflect a 2.39 > m tendon by .005 m > at its middle, the tension is(?) that force x.5 x 2.39/ > .005. > Before I try to build a rig to do that measurement, I > hope > somebody has a simpler idea. I measured the point load at a vertex of my dome with an ordinary in-line spring scale. like the ones used in a hardware store to weigh nails. I wonder if you can bypass a cord/wire with this type of devise. When the wire goes slack the scale which is rigged parallel to it has all the strain. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:38:57 -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: Re: tensegrity tension Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >> Does anybody have any suggestions for how to measure >> tendon tension? I think > > I measured the point load at a vertex of my dome with an > ordinary in-line spring scale. like the ones used in a > hardware store to weigh nails. I wonder if you can bypass a > cord/wire with this type of devise. When the wire goes > slack the scale which is rigged parallel to it has all the > strain. > > Dick Thanks, I'll think more about that. I have spotted a $5 spring scale at Walmart, but it only goes to 50 pounds. (hmmm... rigging a pulley would double that range.) I'd need to recognize that the wire had gone slack quickly, before I pulled the strut ends closer together. The .27% stretch Bob referred to: >>So my approach was to assume with zero external load, the average tendon was >>elongated by .27%. I chose this value so that when the external load due to >>gravity was applied, the tips of the three "problem" struts were brought right >>to ground level. is only about 1/4" on a long tendon. I don't understand Bob's calculation or "external load" but maybe shortening all tendons by .27%, 1/4", could lift the three problem struts all the way from on the ground to 1 foot above. !?! Anyway I think I must measure tension while the struts are not pulled together by as much as 1/4" during measurement. Pulling them together even slightly may change the overall configuration, and the tension would be greater than the equilibrium I'm trying to measure. But Bob is calculating with perfect-length tendons, and I'm sure there are many errors > 1/4" in the distance between real strut ends. If I make one tendon 3/4" too short, does that add lots of excess tension to the net? Maybe that tension would be "wasted", serving no useful purpose, just tending to crush the struts (altho it seems to also productively lift problem struts?) Wasted tension would be reduced to zero if all tendon lengths were perfect. What is not scaling up here is the precision required. To achieve a given roundness, the massive tensegrity must be built with much greater precision than a model (plastic straw) tensegrity. I suspect elasticity multiplication, a purely geometric property of diamond tensegrities, is involved but I'm not sure how. Does this mean that a city-covering tensegrity, while it would be as light as advertised, would have to built with nano precision? If the average strut is a few atoms too long or short, wasted stresses crush giant tensegrities? I think I'll have to abandon the backup nylon tendon (by sliding it down the strut until it is slack) in order to get a measurement; it won't go slack when the wire goes slack. Maybe I don't need nylon backup tendons now that the tensegrity is approximately tuned and I'm not rolling it. When a particular steel tendon or two broke during construction, pre-nylon, the top end of a vertical strut came flying out like a big fly swatter. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 23:46:18 -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 - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > > > So, I've been told, an IVM that _isn't_ orthogonal, isn't > > an IVM (if you > > flex an IVM, spheres depart from perfect VE patterning). > > Bucky always said that there is no parallel anything in > Universe. He also said Nature never "stops" at the VE > phase. She is always in transformation. (I see IVM as the > zero-phase of inside-outing. I think he said that, too)). > Tverse makes sense, in these regards, as a model for how > Nature does what She does. This is good news. No one's told me that before. It's nice to think (again) of Bucky as the genius he was, instead of fighting some of his students over how rigid the VE/IVM complex is. Yes, I think both systems, mine and his, or mine as a subset of his, or vice versa (whatever) should work together rather than at loggerheads. > I bought a carton of bb's. I thought I'd repeat your > jumble-packing experiment with them. (*grin*) BBs are pretty small, and their sphericity isn't as precise as the 1/2" acrylic balls I used, but they should work OK. It might be a little hard on the eyes (*grin*), but you can surely get a LOT of BBs into a small balloon. Recommend you use a magnifying lens when you get around to watching the collection melt apart, and looking for the packing-patterns. Have some fun with the compressed ball of BBs in the balloon (you pull a vacuum-cleaner vacuum on it) before you fill it with water and freeze it. The sudden shifts the collection makes as you mash it around (carefully) are interesting to feel. I was thinking yesterday about a way to make a 13-sphere movable model large enough to play with in the hands (demonstrate "partial" jitterbugging in a 13-sphere packing), but since the balls can't be tied to each other in any way, the only way I could figger was a balloon with ping-pong balls (cheap), or billiard balls (not so cheap), or 'bozo' marbles (cheap) in it, filled with enough _oil_ to make them all very slippery before pulling the vacuum. If I get a round tuit, I'll do it, but even if I don't, it might be a decent demonstrator toy for anyone else here to make. > I never understood Brian's objection a randome, i.e. the > stochastic assembly of vertex elements(which are at minimum > tetrahedral) into a geodesic structure. All elements can be > identical. Their spacings are all different. He and I went > on for weeks but apperently he thought what I was doing was > impossible. He _did_ force me into investigating the > difference between stretched and non-stretched surfaces, > for which I thanked him. I gotta tell ya': sometimes it seems inescapable that when proposing some of these things to Fuller students, one runs into what can only be described as a _prejudice_. If posed as a class of response, it'd run: "if Bucky didn't say it, do it, think it, imagine it or write about it, I don't wanna know about it." That may be a _little_ harsh, but then, I've been arguing this for many years, and I've occasionally run into a Fullerite I didn't know was a Fullerite during the early part of the discussion, and I can recall in each case thinking 'why is this guy _resisting_ this simple concept so viciously?' In general, and after all these years it seems still to be true, tet-patterns that don't contribute to strong structures, but instead seem too flexible and insecure for construction purposes, tend to set Fuller students' teeth on edge. I don't know why, other than a normal characteristic of people in general: they like things neat, solid, strong, ordered, reliable, predictable. Most irregular tetspaces, including mine, are instead sloppy, mushy, weak in places and strong in others, disordered, unreliable, unpredictable and hard to calculate. (*grin*) Good cheer, Dick. For Lee: > > JB, thanks for describing Struck. It sounds like something I should be using > but maybe I can get Bob to do it! It's got a lot of nifty features I didn't mention, like VRML output as well as PovRay, and an output for files used by Active Worlds. You can use it Crosseyed or Walleyed, and you can share files (Struck outputs ".eig" files, which are text, like .wrl (VRML) and .pov) these days with the other good Fuller-student program out there, Alan Ferguson's "SpringDance," which is a Windows executable (.exe file) requiring no accessory files. Graphic links (icons) to both program's URLs are on my splash page (index.html) at my site. But it's a semi-major project to get it installed: it's Java, so you have to have either the Java Development Kit (Sun; JDK) or the Java Runtime Environment (Sun; JRE) installed on your machine, and a fast graphics card and processor is very, very helpful: the springs do their bouncing, wiggling thing "live" in realtime. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:20:16 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) In-Reply-To: <000d01c19350$cf642c80$d675d918@jb2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 1/1/02 9:46 PM, John Brawley at jgbrawley@EARTHLINK.NET wrote: >> I never understood Brian's objection a randome, i.e. the >> stochastic assembly of vertex elements(which are at minimum >> tetrahedral) into a geodesic structure. All elements can be >> identical. Their spacings are all different. He and I went >> on for weeks but apperently he thought what I was doing was >> impossible. He _did_ force me into investigating the >> difference between stretched and non-stretched surfaces, >> for which I thanked him. A picture is worth a thousand words. Building a model with your own hands is worth many times more. Brian refused to do any hand's-on work, so you two had to expend many thousands of words. Talking is what many people do best, but it doesn't always get anywhere. He was leveraging word meanings while you were trying do describe your experience. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 10:14:29 -0700 Reply-To: Joe S Moore Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Organization: [Retired] Subject: Re: geodome information Comments: To: PeteNShanna@aol.com Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Shanna, Any self-contained dwelling machine ("house") located far from conventional support systems (utilities, roads, etc) would require at least three basic systems in order to be practical: A. 2-wireless multimedia communications, B. A personal transportation machine that didn't need roads, and C. A package of technologies that would harvest & store renewable energies from the environment. At least one company is working on "A", but their system won't be ready until 2005; see http://www.teledesic.com/about/about.htm At least one company is working on "B", and their "car" probably will be available by 2005; see http://www.moller.com/skycar/ Quite a few companies are working on various aspects of "C", and hopefully someone will put it all together in a dome by 2005; see http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/IcosDomeHomeHiTech.htm ============================== Joe S Moore joemoore27@home.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: Re: geodome information > Thank you for your reply. I hope that you had a wonderful holiday. Should > you hear anything about this autonomous geodome or the "Noah's Ark" geodome, > please email me with the information. This is the type that I want to use > for my lot. I would really like to preserve the beauty of this unspoiled > island as it is accessible only by boat or plane and there are many wild > animals on the island. The birds may be scared away if I have utility > companies come out and drill a well for water and put in a septic tank. I > do not want to have ugly power lines and electric transformers. Most people > that own property on this island, have only built if they are on the front > due to the cost being prohibitive. The mode of transportation is by golf > cart. I am on the very rear of the island which is the most beautiful & the > most expensive to transport men and materials to. Any advice would be > greatly appreciated! > > Shanna Holt-Edwards > petenshanna@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:31:19 -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 - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 6:31 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us so, herr docktor-professor Fischstichk, do you still think that you faked Steve Miller out, with your personal "hands-on" visit? the randome concept is as absurd as the concept of randomness, itself, which is just a throwing-up of one's hands; you're just waving them! it's very plain that you (and perhaps monsieur Brawley) do not know elementary "euclidean" geometry, and I don't mean insofar as being able to construct a proof therein. "Energy hath shape!" --RBF thus quoth: >> impossible. He _did_ force me into investigating the >> difference between stretched and non-stretched surfaces, >> for which I thanked him. A picture is worth a thousand words. Building a model with your own hands is worth many times more. Brian refused to do any hand's-on work, so you two had to expend many thousands of words. Talking is what many people do best, but it doesn't always get anywhere. thank you, I think. --Pardonnez-George! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:39:29 -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] An article fron 1998 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 6:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us "President Bush is currently at his ranch, reading a biography of Teddy the Arf Rider Roosevelt." you should be afraid, in a putative wartime, that he is reading a rosy view of this arch-imperialist, and anglophile. there are other views, which includes the idea that, in spite of *many* of our presidents having been nasty statesmen, an American Empire is an anethema, and only exists as an Anglo-american influence, in known fact. God save the Queen; she can do that (according to the State Church !-) thus quoth: writes Mr. Kurth. Liberalism, he writes, has helped explain international relations under a free-market system, but fails to acknowledge that U.S. hegemony makes such a system possible, he says. As the United States uses its superpower status to promote American cultural values, other cultures will reject them, he predicts. We are poised to "enter into a great clash of civilizations," says Mr. Kurth, but many international-relations theorists are blind to the coming cataclysm, he concludes. The magazine's World-Wide Web address is http://www.nationalinterest.org --Pardonnez-George! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:47:43 -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: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 30 Dec 2001 to 31 Dec 2001 (#2002-1) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 6:47 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us contsrtaint by a "rectangular parallepiped" is not a condition that is necessary, although it is sufficient for what you propose. so, What? thus quoth: So, I've been told, an IVM that _isn't_ orthogonal, isn't an IVM (if you flex an IVM, spheres depart from perfect VE patterning). Yes, of course it has other patterns than the orthogonal, but as a rule, if you build a perfect IVM, it will be built --it can only BE built-- _as if_ it were spheres packed tightly in a rectangular box whose dimensions are multiples of unit sphere diameters, and that, my friend, is "orthogonal." I didn't refer to "hyperspace," either; but to *hyperbolic* space, which you can just think-of as a "fish-eye view," if you wish, of space, as in the work of Klein, Poincare etc. Coxeter is good for this stuff. --Pardonnez-George! >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 06:51:18 -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: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 30 Dec 2001 to 31 Dec 2001 (#2002-1) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 6:51 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us as in your reference, Voronoi cells are all known, for regular lattices, in the "3 orthogonal dimensions," as well as for 2D and (at least abstractly) ND. the packing of rhombic dodecahedra is one such, I think, and obviously related to the "IVM" of crystalography. thus quoth: I haven't been back to that site yet, to dig deeper, but yes, the way you've phrased it, it at least closely resembles a 3D version of Voronoi cells. --Pardonnez-George! >>>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:20:52 -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: More <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 7:20 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us to wit, the simplest conceptual "box" or constraint for a pile o'spheres, is tetrahedral -- unless you mean the unihedron (sphere). a lot of this stuff has not been explored, to my knowledge, and is thus a matter of speculation (or fantasy, or handwaving). one can see Newton's conjecture about the impossibility of adding a 13th sphere around the central one, as just another rip-off from Kepler by the Master o'the Mint (see the famous pre-millennial joke, the 2-pound coin commemorative, with the edge-engraved saying, "On the shoulders of giants" -- and that was a commonplace emblem of modesty, in this case quite false, because he was a cock-eyed alchemist, viz "The Sorceror's Stoned" .-) in any case, the way in which the balls shift, should probably be investigated with more "levels" than just the 12-around-one, in order to get anything out of it! --The Blair Withc Project! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 15:26:47 -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: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) In-Reply-To: <200201021431.g02EVJ427822@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 02-JAN-2002 6:31 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > so, herr docktor-professor Fischstichk, > do you still think that you faked Steve Miller out, > with your personal "hands-on" visit? I don't know. Let's ask him. Steve, have I faked you out? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:36:24 -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: [Quaker-P] GLOBAL CITIZEN: Stealing the Sun <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 13:36 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, deosn't that depend upon the efficiency of the photovoltaics -- the photoelectrical effect -- and the efficiency of the lightbulb underneath it, and the cultivar of hemp that you're trying to run your stupid, Economy with? thus quoth: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12153 According to a new study, humans gobble up 32 percent of the total solar energy captured by land plants. How much more can we steal without upsetting the Earth's ecology? --The Blair Withc Project! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 14:06:17 -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: More <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 14:06 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us as always, I recommend the ultimate book of synthetic geometry, which is completely elementary and predates Bucky's own game-plan, which I follow: _Modern Pure Solid Geometry_ by Nathan Altshiller-Court (Copyr.'35, U.of Oklahoma Press). --We're not in Kansas, anymore; someone inform Toto! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:40:58 -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 - 1 Jan 2002 to 2 Jan 2002 (#2002-3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Excuse, please; record straight-setting: I didn't write that (John Brawley). Dick Fischbeck wrote that. ( > on 1/1/02 9:46 PM, John Brawley at jgbrawley@EARTHLINK.NET wrote: > > >> I never understood Brian's objection a randome, i.e. the > >> stochastic assembly of vertex elements(which are at minimum > >> tetrahedral) into a geodesic structure. All elements can be Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:21:57 -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: Re: squashed ellipse Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com Comments: cc: joemoore27@home.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Dear Adam, The original graphic was spherical; I modified it with my handy-dandy graphics program. Since none of the books listed as references are online, you will probably have to use an inter-library loan service to borrow the books. Or you might find copies at one of the used-books websites. See the bottom of this page: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Biblio/1Biblio.htm >From: The DomeHome List >Reply-To: >To: >Subject: re: squashed ellipse >Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 06:19:17 -0600 > >From: "Adam G. Smith" >Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:56:19 -0500 > > > From: "Joe S Moore" > > > Quite a few companies are working on various aspects of > > "C", and hopefully someone will put it all together in a > > dome by 2005; see > > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Ideas/IcosDomeHomeHiTech.htm > > > > ============================== > >I note that the graphic you have with this url of Fuller's >design is a squashed ellipse. Is that an accurate portrayal? >How can I access your references since I don't own any of >those books? >Thanks > > .:'':. >.::::::::. 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 _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:54:52 -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: Re: geodome information Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html

I should make the following clarifications:

Modify "A" to say 2-way GLOBAL wireless

"B" should say MULTI-MEDIUM (land, air, water)

Re item "C", I don't have the know-how to put it together myself.  I just want to buy/rent a "Black Box" and plug it in.

>From: The DomeHome List
>Reply-To:
>To:
>Subject: re: geodome information
>Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:18:03 -0600
>
>From: "Adam G. Smith"
>Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:51:19 -0500
>
> > From: "Joe S Moore"
>
> > Dear Shanna,
> >
> > Any self-contained dwelling machine ("house") located
> > far from conventional support systems (utilities, roads,
> > etc) would require at least three basic systems in order
> > to be practical:
> >
> > A. 2-wireless multimedia communications,
> > B. A personal transportation machine that didn't need
> > roads, and
> > C. A package of technologies that would harvest & store
> > renewable energies from the environment.
> >
>
>A. Already exists:
>http://www.starband.com
>
>B. Already exists:
>Known as the Willy's Jeep... doesn't need roads... never
>did... also usable as a tractor, forklift, bulldozer and
>whatever else you wish to add the attachments for. I can
>just see myself trying to plow a field with that skycar.
>Also comes in an amphibious version if you live on an
>island.
>
>C. The technologies exist. It's just up to you to put
>together what works best for your home.

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 06:40:20 -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: More <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 03-JAN-2002 6:40 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us SUBJECT: More MESSAGE from ="List 02-JAN-20 14:06 <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 02-JAN-2002 14:06 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us as always, I recommend the ultimate book of synthetic geometry, which is excruciatingly elementary and predates Bucky's own game-plan [*], which I follow: _Modern Pure Solid Geometry_ by Nathan Altshiller-Court (Copyr.'35, U.of Oklahoma Press). * in the sense of his "thesis," _Synergetics_, copyr.'78, although the "method" supposedly dates to his pre-glasses-wearing era at teh Milton Academy (Hahvahd prepatory) -- including the undysclosed "Classical" elements of his math.ed. of course, that also relates to his hang-up on unit-struts, and trigons made of them; perhaps, that play should be re-done as a musical, along the lines of "Tommy" -- but without the child-abuse aspect! --We're not in Kansas, anymore; someone inform Toto! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:00:26 -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: More <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 03-JAN-2002 7:00 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us Arafat: Hamas Are Sharon's Children Dec. 21, 2001 (EIRNS)In interviews with leading Italian publications, Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat went into some detail regarding the genesis and operation of Hamas. To Corriere della Sera on Dec. 11, he said, "We are doing everything possible to stop the violence. But Hamas is a creature of Israel which, at the time of Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Shamir [the late 1980s, when Hamas arose], gave them money and more than 700 institutions, among them schools, universities and mosques. Even [former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin ended up admitting it, when I charged him with it, in the presence of [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak." In an interview with L'Espresso on Dec. 19, Arafat said: "Hamas was constituted with the support of Israel. The aim was to create an organization antagonistic to the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]. They [Hamas] received financing and training from Israel. They have continued to benefit from permits and authorizations, while we have been limited, even [for permits] to build a tomato factory. Rabin himself defined it as a fatal error. Some collaborationists of Israel are involved in these [terrorist] attacks. We have the proof, and we are placing it at the disposal of the Italian government." When asked what he thought of "these sons of Palestine who blow themselves up and spread death among Israeli civilians," Arafat answered: "Israel does not allow us to live a normal life. Youth who have nothing to eat, who don't see any future in front of them, are easy prey of the Islamist movements, which have large amounts of financing at their disposal. And where the money comes from is known. President Bush froze in one bank in Texas alone, $61 million. Where does this money come from?" The interviewer asked: "Where?" Arafat: "Ask the U.S. administration, which knows all the details. Ask the Italian government too, and some Arab countries." http://www.larouchepub.com/ --We're not in Kansas, anymore; someone inform Toto! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 22:38:53 -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: Re: Missing half: Bucky's Synergetics Coordinates Clifford, I'm using microsoft's latest browser (IE 6.0) and I couldn't read either file. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= "Clifford J. Nelson" wrote in message news:B85B62B0.704%cnelson9@gte.net... > http://homepage.mac.com/cnelson9/FileSharing3.html > > has an explanation of Synergetics coordinates as AppleWorks 6.2 and > MicroSoft Word6 word processor files. I can't read the Word6 file. Can > anybody readit with the graphics in it? > > Cliff Nelson > > > in article 9ebeecc0.0111182149.5423978e@posting.google.com, Clifford J. > Nelson at cnelson9@gte.net wrote on 11/18/01 9:49 PM: > > > The plane can be tiled with squares, equilateral triangles, and > > regular hexagons. There are two unique perpendiculars to the mid > > points of the sides of a square, three unique perpendiculars for the > > triangle, and three for the hexagon. The triangle and hexagon are both > > the same in that respect. So, there are only two obvious choices for > > coordinate systems, the square and the triangle. The square becomes > > the cube in three dimensions and the triangle becomes the tetrahedron. > > A mathematician might want to add this fact to: > > > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/CoordinateGeometry.html > > > > by doing a write up of the contents of "Synergetics Coordinates" > > documented in the Mathematica notebooks on MathSource linked to at: > > > > http://mathforum.org/epigone/geometry-research/brydilyum > > > > As far as I know, my version of the Synergetics Coordinate System is > > new, but, it is obvious that R. Buckminster Fuller invented it and > > described it in his books Synergetics and Synergetics 2. The trilinear > > and quadriplanar and barycentric coordinates are different. > > Synergetics coordinates can be transformed to and from Cartesian > > coordinates very easily. > > > > They do not mention the "missing half" of the likely coordinate > > systems on their site. > > > > Cliff Nelson > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 11:23:01 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rick Engel Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: partial jitterbugging of 13 sphere IVM Visit http://www.polymorf.net/jitterbug.htm to see an animated gif image of a 12 vector IVM I built with Polymorf, a new geometric manipulative model building set I have invented. It demonstrates that a 13 sphere IVM probably does exhibit slight jitterbugging if the spheres positioned opposite each other on the diagonals bisecting the square arrangement of spheres in the cluster are alternately forced inwards towards each other and then forced outwards away from each other. It should be understood that each vertex point of this model represents a sphere center of the IVM (including the centermost vertex ). Each panel is edge bonded to adjacent panels to form a complet= ely flexible hinge joint which maintains the absolute radial and circumferent= ial =20 displacement of the vertices (sphere centers) while allowing the entire structure to flex if there is any innate potential to do so. Polymorf panels are manufactured to exacting tolerances for true form and a tight = fit so it is unlikely that this observed flexibility is due to any misshaping of the p= ieces or "slop" in the way the pieces are joined together. Rick Engel - Polymorf, Inc. morfun@polymorf.net =20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Brawley Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 9:50 PM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) =20 > From: Dick Fischbeck > > > So, I've been told, an IVM that _isn't_ orthogonal, isn't > > an IVM (if you > > flex an IVM, spheres depart from perfect VE patterning). > > Bucky always said that there is no parallel anything in > Universe. He also said Nature never "stops" at the VE > phase. She is always in transformation. (I see IVM as the > zero-phase of inside-outing. I think he said that, too)). > Tverse makes sense, in these regards, as a model for how > Nature does what She does. This is good news. No one's told me that before. It's nice to think (again) of Bucky as the genius he was, instead of fighting some of his students over how rigid the VE/IVM complex is. Yes, I think both systems, mine and his, or mine as a subset of his, or vice versa (whatever) should work together rather than at loggerheads. > I bought a carton of bb's. I thought I'd repeat your > jumble-packing experiment with them. (*grin*) BBs are pretty small, and their sphericity isn't as precise as the 1/2" acrylic balls I used, but they should work OK. It might be a little hard on the eyes (*grin*), but you can surely get a LOT of BBs into a small balloon. Recommend you use a magnifying lens when you get around to watching the collection melt apart, and looking for the packing-patterns. Have some fun with the compressed ball of BBs in the balloon (you pull a vacuum-cleaner vacuum on it) before you fill it with water and freeze it. The sudden shifts the collection makes as you mash it around (carefully) are interesting to feel. I was thinking yesterday about a way to make a 13-sphere movable model large enough to play with in the hands (demonstrate "partial" jitterbugging in a 13-sphere packing), but since the balls can't be tied to each other in any way, the only way I could figger was a balloon with ping-pong balls (cheap), or billiard balls (not so cheap), or 'bozo' marbles (cheap) in it, filled with enough _oil_ to make them all very slippery before pulling the vacuum. If I get a round tuit, I'll do it, but even if I don't, it might be a decent demonstrator toy for anyone else here to make. > I never understood Brian's objection a randome, i.e. the > stochastic assembly of vertex elements(which are at minimum > tetrahedral) into a geodesic structure. All elements can be > identical. Their spacings are all different. He and I went > on for weeks but apperently he thought what I was doing was > impossible. He _did_ force me into investigating the > difference between stretched and non-stretched surfaces, > for which I thanked him. I gotta tell ya': sometimes it seems inescapable that when proposing some of these things to Fuller students, one runs into what can only be described as a _prejudice_. If posed as a class of response, it'd run: "if Bucky didn't say it, do it, think it, imagine it or write about it, I don't wanna know about it." That may be a _little_ harsh, but then, I've been arguing this for many years, and I've occasionally run into a Fullerite I didn't know was a Fullerite during the early part of the discussion, and I can recall in each case thinking 'why is this guy _resisting_ this simple concept so viciously?' In general, and after all these years it seems still to be true, tet-patterns that don't contribute to strong structures, but instead seem too flexible and insecure for construction purposes, tend to set Fuller students' teeth on edge. I don't know why, other than a normal characteristic of people in general: they like things neat, solid, strong, ordered, reliable, predictable. Most irregular tetspaces, including mine, are instead sloppy, mushy, weak in places and strong in others, disordered, unreliable, unpredictable and hard to calculate. (*grin*) Good cheer, Dick. For Lee: > > JB, thanks for describing Struck. It sounds like something I should be using > but maybe I can get Bob to do it! It's got a lot of nifty features I didn't mention, like VRML output as well as PovRay, and an output for files used by Active Worlds. You can use it Crosseyed or Walleyed, and you can share files (Struck outputs ".eig" files, which are text, like .wrl (VRML) and .pov) these days with the other good Fuller-student program out there, Alan Ferguson's "SpringDance," which is a Windows executable (.exe file) requiring no accessory files. Graphic links (icons) to both program's URLs are on my splash page (index.html) at my site. But it's a semi-major project to get it installed: it's Java, so you have to have either the Java Development Kit (Sun; JDK) or the Java Runtime Environment (Sun; JRE) installed on your machine, and a fast graphics card and processor is very, very helpful: the springs do their bouncing, wiggling thing "live" in realtime. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:35:54 -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: Re: [Quaker-P] \Defiant\ and the media <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JAN-2002 4:35 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, my experience with the local press -- excluding the L.A.Times, which has never published any of my letters -- is that the reporters know exactly how to censor themselves, of course including not being interested (apparently) in certain stories. editorially, there is a lot of room for quick-and-dirty excision, which is more than enough to throw-off the tone, and even the reality of the story (and this is probably not wholly conscious, because of the deadline stresses; the fact is that *some* stories *have* to be edited for length-constraints, apparently -- I never finished the Journalism 1 course at the local CC -- and one may never know, what has been axed, unless a reader catches it *and* he writes it "up" *and* it is published, more or less intact). as for the "liberal" or "conservative" slanting, this is about as useful (and real) as the sseating of the Jacobinite Revolutionary Council arrangements; whose Left and Right was is supposed to be? I try to write them letters, though, because they seem to get read by *some* body at the papers. thus quoth: appropriate section. Yes, fitting the paper's general philosophy will be one of the things that goes into the editing but it probably is not at the top of the list. --The Blair Withc Project! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:53:13 -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: Missing half: Bucky's Synergetics Coordinates <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JAN-2002 4:53 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I got it to dysplay by opening it in Word (all file types). however, it also said taht the 331Kb file was "too big to display," and the text is interspersed with tons o'blank boxes, which are presumably the "notebook" format, about which I do not know. the method appears to be some sort of homogenous coordination, which has many sorts "in the lit." thus quoth: The agglomeration keeps the same shape when more and more layers of closest packed spheres are added. The shape is called a cuboctahedron. It is the Vector Equilibrium. It is an equilibrium of vectors from equal diameter objects when the centers of the objects are connected to the centers of their nearest neighbors by vectors, and the spheres removed. It has six square faces and eight triangular faces. If you know the formulas for the square numbers ( ) and the triangular numbers ( ) you can compute the shell growth rate of closest packed spheres. Bucky Fuller published the formula in 1941(?) and it can be used to find the number of protein nodes on the outer shell of a virus. Objects under consideration can be assumed to act in equal amounts in all directions sometimes, i.e. like spheres. If you know the Avogadro constant that 22.4 liters of ANY gas at one atmosphere at zero degree Celsius contains 6.02252 times molecules, then you can compute the size of a tetrahedron with a volume of 22.4 liters and think of the molecules as being like stacked cannon balls in a court yard. is the formula for the number of balls in a tetrahedron of edge length n-1, because it is the sum of the triangular numbers, . So, you can figure out the spherical influence of any molecule of gas. never heard it phrased in quite that way! --The Blair Withc Project! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 04:55:42 -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: Missing half: Bucky's Synergetics Coordinates <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JAN-2002 4:55 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops, that was: http://homepage.mac.com/cnelson9/FileSharing3.html --The Blair Withc Project! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:00:28 -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: Missing half: Bucky's Synergetics Coordinates <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 05-JAN-2002 5:00 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us this is alos true of the homogenous coordinates, that you mention. thus quoth: > > described it in his books Synergetics and Synergetics 2. The trilinear > > and quadriplanar and barycentric coordinates are different. > > Synergetics coordinates can be transformed to and from Cartesian > > coordinates very easily. --The Blair Withc Project! >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:39:11 -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: Lattice Comments: To: tverse@fluidiom.com Comments: cc: Synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please who's seen this lattice, and knows what it is? http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/latt_S.jpg (86kb) Image apologies: ---large structure, hence poor detail ---much detail, hence large file size Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 23:44:31 -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 - 3 Jan 2002 to 5 Jan 2002 (#2002-5) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Automatic digest processor" > From: Joe S Moore > Subject: Re: Missing half: Bucky's Synergetics Coordinates > Clifford, > I'm using microsoft's latest browser (IE 6.0) and I couldn't read either > file. I'm using 6.0 also, but the reason we can't read the file is it's not an URL; it's an email address. (See the @ sign buried in there?) 9ebeecc0.0111182149.5423978e@posting.google.com news:B85B62B0.704%cnelson9@gte.net (I've never seen my browser behave that way, on the "news:" address; maybe it's something new to the net?) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 00:04:45 -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 - 3 Jan 2002 to 5 Jan 2002 (#2002-5) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian, you're not watching closely enough. "Thus quoth" in the below, quoth a wrong statement. Have a look at what he says: > From: Brian Hutchings > Subject: Re: Missing half: Bucky's Synergetics Coordinates [drastic snips] > thus quoth: [more snips] He starts out promisingly enough: > > Objects under consideration can be assumed to act in equal amounts in all > directions sometimes, i.e. like spheres. If you know the Avogadro constant But here's where he goes wrong: > that 22.4 liters of ANY gas at one atmosphere at zero degree Celsius (note carefully, he said any "GAS" --[emphasis mine]) > contains 6.02252 times [10^23] molecules, then you can compute the size of a > tetrahedron with a volume of 22.4 liters and think of the molecules as > being like stacked cannon balls in a court yard. is the formula for the Catch it? "like stacked cannon balls in . . ." ? Avogadro's number doesn't refer to stacked atoms, but to atoms bouncing around like crazy (0 Celsius, not 0 Kelvin/Absolute; 1 atmosphere pressure), so why would 22.4 liters of gas atoms stack when contained by a tet with a volume of 22.4 litres? Besides, if they were stacked like that, the GAS would have to be a solid, right? Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:34:43 -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: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 3 Jan 2002 to 5 Jan 2002 (#2002-5) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:34 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I did not take the time to analyze it, but it didn't look "right" to me. on the other hand, your analysis leaves a bit to dezire. thus quoth: Catch it? "like stacked cannon balls in . . ." ? Avogadro's number doesn't refer to stacked atoms, but to atoms bouncing around like crazy (0 Celsius, not 0 Kelvin/Absolute; 1 atmosphere pressure), so why would 22.4 liters of gas atoms stack when contained by a tet with a volume of 22.4 litres? Besides, if they were stacked like that, the GAS would have to be a solid, right? that sounds like a nonsequiter; you tell us! --Pardonnez-George! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:39:34 -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: Lattice <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us looks like a plain, old "IVM" o'Bucky et al; you can see the tetrahedra and half-octahedra, near the ends of the toothpick-model. if I looked more closely, I'd probably see the 4 "rows" of trigona, and the 3 rows of tetrgona (that is, parallel arrays of triangles and squares). thus quoth: Please who's seen this lattice, and knows what it is? http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/latt_S.jpg (86kb) --Pardonnez-George! >> http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:42:36 -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] Announce: Underground Railroad lectures (free) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:42 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I wonder if folks from CSI will attend, in order to make a more convincing "Arab slavery" in Sudan? thus quoth: The result is a team-taught, interdisciplinary course which will address topics such as the history of slavery, slavery today, abolition, civil disobedience, anti-slavery societies, racism, slavery and religion, slavery and ethics, Quakers and slavery, the historiography of the Underground Railroad, the psychology of slavery, women and slavery, science and slavery (social Darwinism), slave revolts, and institutionalized apartheid. --Pardonnez-George! >>> http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:54:05 -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 - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:54 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I don't know what you're trying to say, because the "jitterbug" model doesn't have any internal structure, as your thing doth. I'd definitely conjecture that the tiny "jitter" is due solely to the tolerances -- and the fact that the half-octahedron is flexible. (as dystinguished from the "jotterbug" etc., your model actually had dobubled-up edges, another confounding factor .-) thus quoth: Visit http://www.polymorf.net/jitterbug.htm to see an animated gif image of a 12 vector IVM I built with Polymorf, a new geometric manipulative model building set I have invented. It demonstrates that a 13 sphere IVM probably does exhibit slight jitterbugging if the spheres positioned opposite each other on the diagonals bisecting the square arrangement of spheres in the cluster are alternately forced inwards towards each other and then forced outwards away from each other. It should be understood that each vertex point of this model represents a sphere center of the IVM (including the centermost that's a sort of "quantume flux" argument; what if the spheres are "perfect in every way, for the sake of some gedanken experiment?" --The Blair Withc Project! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:55:19 -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: Re: [Quaker-P] GLOBAL CITIZEN: Stealing the Sun <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:55 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > GLOBAL CITIZEN: Stealing the Sun > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12153 I found the story interesting and so went to Science, December 21, which has two articles, pp 2490-1 and 5549-52. Basically, out of all the photosynthesis that occurs on Earth, land and water, some 4%!!!!! of the product is directly consumed by people, fed to animals, or used in building or cooking. More than that is co-opted by people, including agricultural land, managed lands, and so on. Some 1/3 of photosynthesis occurs in these areas, with huge error bars and a need for greater study. Climate change is expected to have an unknown but major effect. Unstated but understood were the following: human population is increasing. Per capita consumption is increasing. Land is being degraded. As oil becomes more expensive, biofuels use will increase. As coal and natural gas power becomes less attractive, biopower use will increase. Absent technology change (and genetically engineered crops are it for now) and even with technology change, more land will be consumed for crop production. Best wishes, Karen Street --The Blair Withc Project! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:49:45 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It looks like a multilayor octet truss to me. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 18:00:02 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rick Engel Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jim If you are referring to my post yes the *IVM is cut out of two adjacent octet truss layers. Rick Engel morfun@polymorf.net * original image at http://www.polymorf.net/jitterbug.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: jim fish Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 4:48 PM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 31 Dec 2001 to 1 Jan 2002 (#2002-2) It looks like a multilayor octet truss to me. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 20:45:56 -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 > Today the three struts that were a "problem" in '99 (because they touched > the ground) are not a problem; they are definitely off the ground. They are > higher than strut ends 1,2,3 by .13 , .26 and .13 meters. That's sagging, > I think they should be about .33 meters above the ground. > Sounds like you did much better with this latest structure, although it should exhibit three-fold symmetry right? The .26 standing out from the .13 is due to assembly inaccuracy I assume. It is a different configuration from what I was dealing with last time. Should be easy enough redoing the calculations with the new configuration when I get the time. So I imagine a lot of the elasticity still comes from the joints, knots tightening or whatever. The other thing about my shot in the dark is I assume I can neglect the elasticity of the struts. This was certainly reasonable for my assemblies of hardwood stakes and nylon twine, but could be less so for your situation. And I think my software can handle it. Well I think I'll try the old way first and see how I do. > Do I understand: if you assumed that even with gravity the tendons would not > stretch at all (and the struts wouldn't bow at all) then the zero-G forces > on tendons and struts could be zero, and the shape wouldn't change with > gravity. Actually I think there is virtually > zero stretching and bowing this time, or at least much less than the > inaccuracy of my tendon lengths. I stopped adjusting when it was stable > standing on 3 points, leaving one tendon (sqrten09a) about 2" too short, and > two (sqrten09b, sqrten02b) about 2" too long. The others are probably > nominally correct +/- 1". That's about 1% accuracy; I bet I never got that > close in small models, but they don't sag as much. This is puzzling. > If nothing can change length, than yes at zero-G there could be zero force in the tendons and when you apply gravity the structure should not distort, though non-zero forces will certainly appear in the members. > > > Then I applied an external load of magnitude .278878 to each point of the > > structure. (This would be equivalent to half the weight of the strut, or 4.5 > > pounds.) I could have just as well chosen a higher value for this number and > > a lower % elongation in the zero-G state and gotten the structure in a similar > > configuration. I don't really have a reason for preferring the numbers I used > > to another configuration and I don't know how much the results would be > > affected since I haven't experimented with other pairs of values. So that's > > why I'd call this kind of a shot in the dark. > > > > So, when the load was applied, the average tendon force was 2.59263 and the > > average strut force was -5.87457. The tension in the slack tendons is zero of > > course, so the tendon force is averaged over the non-slack tendons. So, > > scaling these values by 4.5/.278878, I get an average tendon force of 42 lbs > > and an average strut force of -95 lbs. > > > > Is this in the ballpark? > > My guess is tendon force is more like 80 pounds but > I haven't figured out how to measure! You suggested comparing the pitch when > I twang a tendon to the pitch of a same-length wire in a jig where I can > hang various weights from the wire. That's complicated now by the backup > nylon tendons. Some of them twang at about the same pitch as their parallel > wire. (The nylon isn't as tight, but it's less massive, so the pitches can > match for similar lengths.) I could hang weights from nylon too and add the > tensions of wire and nylon, except the pre-stretch length of the nylon is > unknown. I tied it loosely about a meter in from the end of the strut, > without measuring, then slid it out as far as I could. > > Does anybody have any suggestions for how to measure tendon tension? I think > knowing that, the strut compression is 1/2 * sum of 8 tendon tensions x > cosine of 8 tendon angles? Er, make that 16 tendons, counting the nylon. I > think if I measured the force required to deflect a 2.39 m tendon by .005 m > at its middle, the tension is(?) that force x.5 x 2.39/ .005. > Before I try to build a rig to do that measurement, I hope > somebody has a simpler idea. One other complication is that the top 18/48 > tendons are too high for me to reach their midpoint. > > > For your reference, the member by member breakdown of the force > magnitudes > > followed by the geometry is as follows (the base points are p01, p02 and p03 > > -- these are the ones which are supposed to be touching the ground -- from > > that I hope you can trace which members are which -- the labeling should help > > some as well - sqrten indicates the tendons which form squares; triten > > indicates the tendons which form triangles -- the data exhibit the three-fold > > symmetry inherent in the model): > > > > strut01: -5.20307 > > sqrten01a: 0 > > triten01b: 3.19864 > > sqrten01b: 3.69242 > > strut02: -7.04775 > > ... > > Here's a summary of your results, with my labelling scheme. > Struts 1,2,3 touch the ground. Calculated compression: 84 pounds > Struts 4,5,6 are most nearly vertical; "problems" in '99. cc: 113 pounds > Struts 7,8,9 are horizontal, in the equator. 97 pounds > Struts 10,11,12 are above the equator. 85 pounds > > So the struts touching the ground have the lowest compression. The vertical > struts carry 1/3 more load. Each one of those 3 "problem" struts is > compressed with more than the weight of all 12 struts, 12 x 9=108. > > The short tendons (.5168 as long as a strut) form 8 triangles. One is > horizontal on the bottom and you don't calculate that one because your > method assumes the ground contact points are anchored. Actually they're not > anchored here. One triangle is horizontal on the very top, calculated > tension 29 pounds in each of the 3 wires. > Yes, anchoring was the easiest way to make the structure determinate, but I can use some geometrical constraints which allow the base points to move in a plane so we can get data for the tension in the base tendons. But it could be later in January before I get around to all this. I do appreciate the opportunity. I should look into Struck as well. I just got into this because I wanted to do tensegrity designs and I couldn't find design info that made sense to me. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:13:05 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 3 Jan 2002 to 5 Jan 2002 (#2002-5) In-Reply-To: <200201061734.g06HYhI16146@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable on 1/6/02 9:34 AM, Brian Hutchings at r001806@PEN2.CI.SANTA-MONICA.CA.US wrote: > <> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:34 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >=20 > I did not take the time to analyze it, but > it didn't look "right" to me. on the other hand, > your analysis leaves a bit to dezire. >=20 > thus quoth: > Catch it? "like stacked cannon balls in . . ." ? > Avogadro's number doesn't refer to stacked atoms, but to atoms bouncing > around like crazy (0 Celsius, not 0 Kelvin/Absolute; 1 atmosphere > pressure), so why would 22.4 liters of gas atoms stack when contained by > a tet with a volume of 22.4 litres? Besides, if they were stacked like > that, the GAS would have to be a solid, right? >=20 > that sounds like a nonsequiter; you tell us! >=20 > --Pardonnez-George! >> http://quincy4board.homestead.com The sphere describes the domain of the gas molecule. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:22:29 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Subject: eBay item 1404743364 (Ends Jan-12-02 202912 PST ) - Geodesics, Edward Popko, 19 Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A copy of _Geodesics_ by Popko is presently for sale on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3D1404743364 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:30:18 -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 - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:34 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > I did not take the time to analyze it, but > it didn't look "right" to me. on the other hand, > your analysis leaves a bit to dezire. I don't understand. If Avogadro's number is number of gas atoms in a volume of 22.4 litres, why would a volume of 22.4 litres contain "stacked" atoms, no matter _what_ it's shape is? It's a loud flaw in his reasoning. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:34:24 -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 - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:39 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > looks like a plain, old "IVM" o'Bucky et al; > you can see the tetrahedra and half-octahedra, > near the ends of the toothpick-model. if Thanks! I hadda be sure.... Here's an image (cyclops; not stereo; sorry) of a piece of that, rendered differently, with all the necessary edges in place. Aside from the spheres being smaller than they'd be (so one can see into this), this is an IVM, right? http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/CCPiece.jpg Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 10:43:37 -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: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:54 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > I don't know what you're trying to say, because > the "jitterbug" model doesn't have any internal structure, > as your thing doth. I'd definitely conjecture that He's got the right idea, where he says: > the spheres positioned opposite each other on the diagonals bisecting > the square arrangement of spheres in the cluster are alternately forced > inwards towards each other and then forced outwards away from , but his model isn't doing that enough to call it "jitterbugging." I think you're right; the tolerances are allowing the parts to move a little. Doing what he describes, using 13 spheres (nucleating the intended "jitterbug"), is what turns a VE into an icosahedron and back, and you can use either of the "missing" diagonals he mentions, to cause the 'partial' jitterbugging, but I note that things behave differently in Synergetics' geometries depending on whether you make the model with sticks or with spheres: a stick VE jitterbugs, all the way to octahedron, if you want; a sphere VE stops cold at the icosa shape, then returns back to VE. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:00:42 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I don't understand. > If Avogadro's number is number of gas atoms in a volume of 22.4 litres, > why would a volume of 22.4 litres contain "stacked" atoms, no matter > _what_ it's shape is? It's a loud flaw in his reasoning. No, just your reasoning. You are stuck with a static model of sticks and gum-drops. We're talking about the internal dynamics of a large statistical base of vectors. The fact that it comes out rational in Buck-world is delightful. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:45:40 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) In-Reply-To: <002f01c19799$2c5d7f80$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- John Brawley wrote: > > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 06-JAN-2002 9:34 > > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > > > I did not take the time to analyze it, but > > it didn't look "right" to me. on the other hand, > > your analysis leaves a bit to dezire. > > I don't understand. > If Avogadro's number is number of gas atoms in a volume > of 22.4 litres, > why would a volume of 22.4 litres contain "stacked" > atoms, no matter > _what_ it's shape is? It's a loud flaw in his reasoning. True. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:54:34 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) In-Reply-To: <003801c1979a$76b95620$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii (JB) > Doing what he describes, using 13 spheres (nucleating the > intended > "jitterbug"), is what turns a VE into an icosahedron and > back, and you > can use either of the "missing" diagonals he mentions, to > cause the > 'partial' jitterbugging, but I note that things behave > differently in > Synergetics' geometries depending on whether you make the > model with > sticks or with spheres: a stick VE jitterbugs, all the > way to > octahedron, if you want; a sphere VE stops cold at the > icosa shape, then > returns back to VE. That is clear. Good point. I never thought about that. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:00:05 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) In-Reply-To: <3C39D437.4AA97FE8@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- jim fish wrote: > > I don't understand. > > If Avogadro's number is number of gas atoms in a volume > of 22.4 litres, > > why would a volume of 22.4 litres contain "stacked" > atoms, no matter > > _what_ it's shape is? It's a loud flaw in his > reasoning. > > No, just your reasoning. > You are stuck with a static model > of sticks and gum-drops. > > We're talking about the internal dynamics > of a large statistical base of vectors. > The fact that it comes out rational in > Buck-world is delightful. > > - jim I would say IVM is the static of the two lines of reasoning, not tverse, which is _always_ in transformation. Bucky said the VE is never witnessed in Nature. It exists only in pure principal. Where did I hear that? On one of the videos, I think. The one by Snyder. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:37:48 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: John Belt Subject: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII fyi/john belt Considering some of the list discussion about Polyhedra and the Jitterbug I thought some of you might enjoy the web site of my friend Robert W. Gray who presented a program on the subject in October of 2001 at our 62nd annual conference. His entire program on polyhedra and the Jitterbug is now on his web site and worth the download to view the concepts presented. There are several animated concepts presented within the presentation. He has recently installed his own server and the downloads may take a few minutes but think you will appreciate the presentation. His background is 'ABD'/Doctorate in nuclear physics. I have a twelve in model in the studio of the multi-form model made as a hard model using 1/8" colored dowel as shown in the presentation. He desires to make a five to six foot model and we are trying to find an interested student to take on the problem of making the large model. Also on the web site is the thirty foot dome we did with him in '97. If you explore his site you might find many other topics of interest. ROBERT W. GRAY web site: Best Regards to All, john belt ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:03:27 -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: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JAN-2002 12:03 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us wow, great site. it was a bit annoying, though, skimming through it, as the page kept shifting when knew inloads got done; on the other hand, it properly laoded all of the text, firstly! also, you have to go way into the appendix, I think, to see the icosakaihectohedron (?); I was meanwhile looking (at the library) for _Polyhedra Primer_, to see if I'd recalled taht there is a trigon-faceted one, but that was not "in," alas. anyway, naturally, it turns out that it isn't convex; else, you couldn't get everything packed into it, using only powers o'phi. this is sort of the Wholly Grale, as it is put with the jitterbugging, although there are some things still to be added. back on syn-Hell (sik), I had a similar construction that utilized a bunch of dodecahedra (I think, it's "autohexual," to have coined a term, as is the icosah.), which amounts to the same thing, although I didn't see the trigonal hecto-kai-icosahedron in it. I like this quote: It is interesting to note that in the 120 Polyhedron, the Icosahedron edge length is equal to the Cube edge length. The Icosahedron edge length is also equal to the distance from the center of volume to an Octahedron vertex. also, what Gray says about Fibonnaci was uncovered by Lucas, a preeminent numbertheorist (Lucas sequences). and this is atrip: Lynnclaire Dennis had several near death experiences and "brought back" several interesting bits of geometric information which I am helping to identify and describe. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/ I linked it in my MiltonAcademy.html page; tried to put it onto a 120-point star, but it only goes to 100, so went for 60. --The Blair Witch Project! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:07:46 -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] abrupt climate change <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JAN-2002 12:07 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us Last month, the National Research Council (http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/), part of the National Academy of Sciences, issued a report on the likelihood and consequences of abrupt climate change. Basically, the details and likelihood are not well understood, it is likely that the changes we are making to the climate will trigger dramatic abrupt climate changes regionally, and the implications could be significant: "Put differently, some current policies and practices may be ill advised and may prove inadequate in a world of rapid and unforeseen climatic changes." >From the Publication Announcement (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309074347?OpenDocument) Possibility of Abrupt Climate Change Needs Research and Attention --The Blair Witch Project! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:10:45 -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 - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JAN-2002 12:10 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what ever. when we say "domain," we are necessarily referring to a snapshot of the "system;" the dirichlet domains are not spherical, but dodecahedral (rhombic). additional hypotheses on the "dynamics" are welcome, of course. thus quoth: > If Avogadro's number is number of gas atoms in a volume of 22.4 litres, > why would a volume of 22.4 litres contain "stacked" atoms, no matter > _what_ it's shape is? It's a loud flaw in his reasoning. --The Blair Witch Project! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:24:34 -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: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JAN-2002 12:24 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops; I should also say, refer to my cosmometry.doc flyer, which covers it somewhat. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:29:27 -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: Your Website <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JAN-2002 13:29 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oh, wow. and here, I thought, it was "Bucky for the Extrememly Slow!" thus quoth: cluttered that I think people might be discouraged from exploring it, which would be a shame, because I think you have some interesting information and insights to offer the world. 

Sincerely,

Joe

===========================================================< /STRO NG>

Joe  S. Moore           &nb sp;&n bsp;           &nbs p;&nb sp;     Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute

joe_s_moore@hotmail.com       ;       http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/


MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
heh-heh. --Pardonnez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:35:38 -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: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 07-JAN-2002 13:35 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us actually, I'd think that that was closer to a near-life experience; on the other hand, the next one may finish'im "off!" I guess that getting through to the New Age crowd requires some dramatics; eh? thus saith: and this is atrip: Lynnclaire Dennis had several near death experiences and "brought back" several interesting bits of geometric information which I am helping to identify and describe. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/ I linked it in my MiltonAcademy.html page; tried to put it onto a 120-point star, but it only goes to 100, so went for 60. --The Blair Witch Project! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 06:11:31 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rick Engel Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable According to my model a sphere VE will not "jitterbug" enough to attain t= he =20 icosa configuration. Also completing just one of the octahedra of the ha= lf- octahedron faces causes the model to stop even partial flexing. =20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Brawley Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:48 AM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) =20 > <> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 06-JAN-2002 9:5= 4 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > I don't know what you're trying to say, because > the "jitterbug" model doesn't have any internal structure, > as your thing doth. I'd definitely conjecture that He's got the right idea, where he says: > the spheres positioned opposite each other on the diagonals bisecting > the square arrangement of spheres in the cluster are alternately forced > inwards towards each other and then forced outwards away from , but his model isn't doing that enough to call it "jitterbugging." I think you're right; the tolerances are allowing the parts to move a little. Doing what he describes, using 13 spheres (nucleating the intended "jitterbug"), is what turns a VE into an icosahedron and back, and you can use either of the "missing" diagonals he mentions, to cause the 'partial' jitterbugging, but I note that things behave differently in Synergetics' geometries depending on whether you make the model with sticks or with spheres: a stick VE jitterbugs, all the way to octahedron, if you want; a sphere VE stops cold at the icosa shape, then returns back to VE. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:15:00 -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: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug In-Reply-To: <200201072024.g07KOY324261@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > > oops; I should also say, > refer to my cosmometry.doc flyer, > which covers it somewhat. I can't find the paper. Can you provide the link? I'd like to read it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:04:58 -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 - 6 Jan 2002 to 7 Jan 2002 (#2002-7) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: jim fish > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) > > > I don't understand. > > If Avogadro's number is number of gas atoms in a volume of 22.4 litres, > > why would a volume of 22.4 litres contain "stacked" atoms, no matter > > _what_ it's shape is? It's a loud flaw in his reasoning. > > No, just your reasoning. > You are stuck with a static model > of sticks and gum-drops. (*chuckle*) Boy, is _that_ far from the truth. Pictures are static. Their subjects need not be. My subjects are definitely not static. If you take a static picture of a dynamically-moving sphere-packing that shows the vectors involved, you only get "sticks and gum-drops." My images are made with a 3D-stereoscopic-vision program that's as far from "static" as Avogadro's concept is from a suggestion about tetrahedrally-"stacked" gas atoms. Take a picture, it's "static." One should not confuse a static picture with it's realworld subject. _Fuller's_ stuff, as presented by most students of VEs and IVMs, is static. (Of course, his stuff's no more static than mine, in principle, the VE almost never appearing in Nature, according to Bucky. I confirm.) > We're talking about the internal dynamics > of a large statistical base of vectors. > The fact that it comes out rational in > Buck-world is delightful. The fact that it comes out _at_all_ as representable by icosahedral sphere-packings, is delightful. That it comes out rational in Buck-world is merely coincidence. There are more dynamically-moving and comprehensive sphere-packings than Bucky's. My work is centered in exactly what you phrased: "...the internal dynamics of a large statistical base of vectors." It's just not limited by Bucky's particular, formalized interpretations thereof. (*grin*) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:42:24 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Avogadro... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > That it comes out rational in Buck-world is merely coincidence. JB, I thought it all came down to the stellar octahedron, which, if you connect the points, makes a cube, but with respect to the straws that make the SO, the cube edge lines are off by root-3, so if you diddle Avagadro's number by that factor, it comes out to a happy rational, in Bucky space. I don't think that's coincidence at all. I think that speaks directly to fundamental structuring. Please correct me if 'taint so. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:54:12 -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: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JAN-2002 8:54 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us actually, I changed it to "cosmo.PCX," when I lost the file and had to scan it, but that's in the /files/ system; I gave the URL for the button, which is clearly labeled "cosmometrical constance," as well as at the top of /MiltonAcademy.html. here it is, again. --Platform 9-3/4! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html thus quoth: > refer to my cosmometry.doc flyer, > which covers it somewhat. I can't find the paper. Can you provide the link? I'd like ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:09:46 -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 - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JAN-2002 9:09 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us one should really say, in some "average" or "stochastical" sense, the domains of the "ideal gas molecules" are rh.dodecahedral, if the interactive forces are spherical. thus, one "should" grok the dual to the packing of rh.dodecahedra, the "IVM," and not just that of the hexahedra (although they share vertices etc.) no, the IVM as a frame of reference doesn't appear, even in snapshots of gas. however, since one has to deal with "uncertainty" of measurement, even if one absolutely positioned the "molecules" (as particles) with respect to each-other (and the coordinate frame), you'd have absolutely no clue, apparently, to where the ensemble was "going" (as waves, even). so, what'd be a more-representative "snapshot" of the domains of gas-molecules, than rh.dodecahedra? note that the hexahedral (infinite) network is autodual. the following isn't really true; there's plenty of room for the 12-around-one tso shift, between the VE and any one of the icosahedral conformations, "left or right." thus quoth: According to my model a sphere VE will not "jitterbug" enough to attain t= he =20 icosa configuration. Also completing just one of the octahedra of the ha= --Platform 9-3/4! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 23:45:06 -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 - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Rick Engel > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) > > According to my model a sphere VE will not "jitterbug" enough to attain the icosa configuration. Pardon my bluntness, but your model must be either flawed or incomplete. How many spheres? 13 total? How identical in radius? Spheres only? Contained in a flexible skin? (example: 13 oily marbles in an air-deprived kids' balloon) You can "jitterbug" from perfect VE to perfect icosahedron (a little dexterity's required to achieve the icosa; no outer ball touches another outer ball). I'm in the process of making a computer model of not just a VE, but an entire IVM, which twists all throughout its interior self easily from IVM lattice pattern to Tver... uh... to a lovely icosahedrally-based pattern. (And back) Sphere-pack based VE models most assuredly do twist easily from 6-square-8-triangle to 20-triangle. But they stop there; no octahedron possible. > Also completing just one of the octahedra of the half- > octahedron faces causes the model to stop even partial flexing. I'm not sure that's right, but it's irrelevant. Points are: it goes from VE to icosa and back (without reversing the direction you're rolling the balls); it does _not_ have the ghost of a chance of becoming an octahedron ('fully collapsed'); VE-rigid is not its natural state, the icosa semi-free flexibility is its natural state. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 00:34:56 -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 - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Re: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 08-JAN-2002 9:09 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > one should really say, > in some "average" or "stochastical" sense, > the domains of the "ideal gas molecules" are rh.dodecahedral, if > the interactive forces are spherical. thus, That makes no sense. What, in a spherical field interacting with other, same-size spherical fields(*) in a generally-average 12-around-1 (icosahedral) network of such fields, would cause the zone of mutual repulsive(*) interaction to look like a diamond? Or even a square? It should be a pentagonal area, if anything. You'd need a polygon with 12 pentagonal sides. What would such a thing be named? A "pentic dodecahedron?" ((*) One assumes the atoms' electric fields, and that they are mutually repulsive more or less spherically. In reality, that's probably not exactly true; patterns of electron probability domains vary with the number of electrons in the atom you choose to use.) > one "should" grok the dual to the packing of rh.dodecahedra, > the "IVM," and not just that of the hexahedra (although > they share vertices etc.) Would you please explain to me, "dual?" As in, "the dual of (or 'to')..."?) What parts of an IVM share vertices with an hexahedron? > no, the IVM as a frame of reference doesn't appear, > even in snapshots of gas. however, (*grin*) > since one has to deal with "uncertainty" of measurement, > even if one absolutely positioned the "molecules" (as particles) > with respect to each-other (and the coordinate frame), > you'd have absolutely no clue, apparently, > to where the ensemble was "going" (as waves, even). > so, what'd be a more-representative "snapshot" > of the domains of gas-molecules, than rh.dodecahedra? I think my above. You seem to be assuming the gas atoms will most naturally fall into VE-like form. I assume the (jitterbugged) opposite. I think tendency toward VE-patterning would be swamped by energetic motion, and lack of a compressive force (Avogadro's atoms are at "room" temperature and one atmosphere pressure) strong enough to overcome it. Mutual, basically spherical repulsivity ought to produce maximum evenness in all 13-atom regions, and maximum evenness equates to most spherical symmetry --which spherical symmetry says "icosahedral," not "cuboctahedral." > the following isn't really true; > there's plenty of room for the 12-around-one to shift, > between the VE and any one of the icosahedral conformations, > "left or right." Excuse me (if that was me; I think so). I'll make it right: Delete "...plenty of..."; insert "... _more_than_enough_..." (room for the ...(etc.)) What's "really true" tends to gain strong veracity when you hold it and move it physically in your hands. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 02:37:11 -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: long reply to John re sphere packing....Summary: whatever. Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Here is one long post responding to multiple posts from John Brawley. >> is from me, > is John. ---------- >From: John Brawley >Date: Thu, Dec 25, 2001, 3:20 PM > 1) The shrinking sphere and the IVM: > This gedankenexperiment assumed: > > *** 30,000 "perfect," frictionless, incompressible, same-diameter > spheres. (No other properties. ... > > Adding what you needed: make the midpoint of the long IVM coincide with > the centerpoint of the compressor; it is aligned along a diameter. > > Shrinkage: as you note, the first touched in the IVM will be the eight > on the ends. >...there is > ambiguity about which way a sphere will "slide" when pushed on > _straight_toward_the_center_ by another sphere. What does "perfect" mean? The ambiguity you describe makes sense with real objects. With continuous mathematical objects, ambiguity does not make sense, like "2 + 2 = 4 sometimes, and sometimes something else" does not make sense (to me.) I can imagine (maybe) discrete mathematical objects where ambiguity would make sense. When you say "straight toward the center", is that perfectly straight, or are we supposed to assume nothing is perfectly straight? > This makes our little phrase "quantum fluctuation" useful, It confuses me. Quantum fluctuations make sense with real "objects", which were revealed (early 20th century) not to be "objective" -- that is, they don't exist, strictly speaking, independently of perception. But when physicists show how quantum non-objects can combine with observers to produce the appearance of an objective classical world, they are assuming many more properties and interactions than you list. Quantum is mysterious to many, so if your use of the phrase is just intended to mystify people so they won't have confidence in what they think they know about your "perfect" spheres, giving yourself room for arbitrary indisputable predictions, OK. But if you are trying to give the impression of being scientific or precise, as if what physicists mean by "quantum fluctuations" is AT ALL related to your "perfect" spheres, shame on you. >... at which time the shrinking will _stop_. > > My question was what would we see there? You seem to think the IVM will > re-form itself, Quote me! I'm sure I've never said that, it's stupid. But even way back with your admirable balloon packing experiment you seemed to think you were proving the rareness of VE's to somebody, I never could figure out who. In this 10x10x300 IVM experiment, you have allowed yourself so much slop in the definition of "perfect" that I won't argue with ANYTHING you want to say will happen. When I predicted a result, using what I thought was a more common definition of "perfect" (as in 2 + 2 perfectly = 4), what I actually said was: >>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. I was not saying the IVM would buckle and reform as another IVM; I said it will not deform to begin with. The final state is the 10x10x300 IVM you started with. Of course now I realize that what I was imagining is irrelevant because of your flexible definition of "perfect". > 2) The four-sphere squares. > We need some definitive numbers, which I don't have but will try to get. Have you got those numbers yet? I suggest you quantify the distance from the center of a VE to the center of a ball on the other side of a square pocket, and to a ball in a triangle pocket. These numbers can be calculated with simple trig, and are no doubt listed anywhere the dimensions of CCP (IVM) are specified. Also compute the distance to a ball in a gappy 3 ball pocket outside an icosahedron, and outside a non-nucleated icosahedron, and outside a fully stretched icosahedronot. > a) These six balls (balls==spheres; shorter word to type), sitting in > their four-ball pockets, are settled into those pockets LESS closely to > the central ball than would be _one_ ball settled into a > "fully-stretched" icosahedro(not)'s single four-ball pocket. Of course. >... We need to know, > for issues about how likely the system is to twist (partly jitterbug) > when a ball is deleted, the amount of resistance to this twisting > imposed by the six balls in the IVM, as opposed to the one ball in the > jumble-packed I(not). It should be obvious that it would be > _much_harder_ to move that ball in a 12-a-1 fully-stretched I(not) , > than it would be to move any of the six balls in their four-ball pockets > in the IVM. You haven't specified the surroundings of this inot. If it is initially a VE surrounded by IVM, then all 6 balls in their four-ball pockets must move when the VE twists into an icosahedron. (Or if you allow the center of the VE to move, 3 of the balls could stay in their original positions, but the other 3 would have to move twice as far.) If the inot is surrounded by a jumble pack, or by a bunch of identical inots, there may not be any 4-ball pockets. I would not attempt a prediction without more info. If what you're saying is just that it is harder to move a real ball which is in a deep pocket than to move one in a shallow pocket, sure. But with "perfect" balls which you say have "no resistance to being moved", I don't understand your claim. > 3) Watermans: ... > c) If it passes through a center, that sphere is part of that WP, and is > noted/drawn/represented. If it does not pass through a center, that > sphere is ignored, but not, in principle, deleted. Not all the spheres smaller than that radius N are ignored; some of them at N-1 and N-2 are also vertices of some WPs. > e) The large _holes_ in some WPs are _there_ contrary to what you said, > and here is one for example: > > http://www.dsuper.net/~tinom/ph2000/wp20.html > > ("Stereo view of 24 spheres at exact root distance") That is not a WP! The WP is drawn to the right, it is edges and faces. The holes you see in the jpg on the lower left are just the spaces between the latest vertices. Sometimes (when there are no N-1 or N-2 vertices) what you call "holes" are what are conventionally called "faces". That is what I was drawing your attention to when I asked way back on Dec 15: >>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. Now of course I know you DO expect buckle, and I'll make no predictions regarding your sloppily "perfect" spheres. LOTS of ensuing text could have been avoided if you had just recognized my question where I used the term "faces" instead of your term "holes". This issue is another consequence of your notion of fluctuating perfection. Back to the issue of what happens to the 6 balls in 4-pockets: >> The walls WILL be forced outward by any interior VE jitterbugging. > > Perhaps. I lack definitive proof either way. That will be easy to prove. Get those numbers. >> 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? > > I understand that. Do you understand that every one of these balls > supposedly keeping the four-ball pockets as perfect squares is also, > itself, the central sphere in another VE? Of course. >> all 6 of those squares to close up, the balls in their pockets must >> move outward, in 6 orthogonal directions. > > As they "close up," they close up to two triangles base-to-base, so the > ball in them does _not_ move straight outward; it shifts sideways as it > moves outward, I agree they don't necessarily move orthogonally; I only intended to make the point that there is no way to avoid expansion in all 3 dimensions. > and it randomly has to pick -which- of the two forming > triangles it'll end up in. You think it will end up in a triangle, rather than perched in the valley between 2 balls on its way to the triangle? Or perched in contact with only one ball? With real balls in a compressed IVM, before the jitterbugging those balls were also in a second 4-pocket on the other side, which they don't necessarily move out of. Saying they will necessarily move all the way into one of the two forming triangles implies you ignore how that messes up their fit with the rest of the IVM. With your "perfect" balls which have no resistance to movement, I won't argue with whatever you say, except if you imply it is unavoidable. It looks arbitrary to me. > The square holes do not 'close up'; they tranform into two triangles. > The amount of required expansion you refer to is much less than you seem > to have been imagining. What?! Get those numbers. What do you imagine I imagine? This is simple trig. >> You haven't defined "vertex order" > > "Vertex order" is one of the perfectly "standard" terms, from standard > topology, that I've used. It's not "special." > "Order" is the number of linesegments terminating on (or in) a vertex. > A vertex with four linesegments terminating on it has "order" = "4". > A "network" (standard topology again) is a set of vertexes connected by > linesegments. A "network" with only one stated "vertex order" is > thereby a network of points (vertices) with the same number of > linesegments terminating on _each_vertex_. Aren't you asking us to consider structures where there are NOT exactly 12 balls contacting one (eg, non-nucleated icosahedrons, Buckyballs, balls adjacent to gaps?) I understand how the interior of an IVM has vertex order 12, but don't know how you would count vertex order in a jumble pack. Given two arbitrary balls, how do you decide whether or not to draw a segment between them? > If _not_ compressed or "tight," any number of vertex orders is possible > for any of the two Euclidean places to work (two-axes, plane; three > axes, volume). A tightly compressed jumble pack has gaps, it is not globally vertex order 12. >> how do YOU define "spherical"? > > Structurally: all possible points(sp) commonly distant from a single > chosen point. > Symmetrically: most evenly distributed around a sphere-approximation > surface. I recognize what you write after "Structurally:" as a good definition of "spherical". I understand the concept you are getting at after "Symmetrically:", and I don't know if there is already a single word that means that. I encourage you to invent one rather than misuse "spherical". ---------- >From: John Brawley >Date: Thu, Dec 27, 2001, 11:27 AM > It's my thought that wherever there are > "round" things in Universe, there are Tverse-type patterns (no true > IVMs), and wherever there is no matter (no physical "things" round or > otherwise), there are probably interconnected/interpenetrated IVMs. I don't understand what you're saying, or what relevance real matter has to Tverse, but remember that there are very specialized situations (crystallization) where real matter spontaneously forms an IVM rather than a jumble pack. Of course real matter does not make BIG IVMs without imperfections. A real crystal like your 10x10x300 IVM would typically have 3 - 30 vacancies, and other distortions like extra atoms, or inclusions of foreign atoms. There are small perfect natural IVMs, and bigger artificial ones are planned. Astounding properties are predicted for perfect diamonds, IIRC. ---------- >From: John Brawley >Date: Mon, Dec 31, 2001, 2:00 AM (>>=Brian) >> so, if one does a Delauney tetrogonation of space, >> it will not be regular, and will not have just (or >> even mainly) 12-way vertices. of course, > > The latter is not correct. > If there are no "around-nones" in the network, and the network is > compressed ( -- he's trying to model Tverse, not a sloppified IVM), > there will be _mainly_ --probably there will be _only_-- 12-order > vertexes in there; neighbors all 12-around-ones, just like in an IVM, > but not as orthogonally biased. > You would be correct if there were no such condition; if nothing is > forcing the system to be as small in volume as it can be, you can have > all sorts of vertex orders running though it. (But then, of course, it > would no longer present a "packing problem.") I'm not clear on what a Delauney tetrogonation is, but if it is like a jumble pack then even when it is compressed, there will be gaps, as you know. You haven't told us how to choose whether a segment in the network connects two balls that are separated by a gap. (I know you count one gap (diagonal) across each square of a VE, but it isn't clear which one, or why only one, or which gaps you count in a jumble pack. If you count any of them, I think the 12-ness is not global, even if there are no around-nones. ---------- >From: John Brawley >Date: Tue, Jan 1, 2002, 11:09 AM > It's the only 12-around-one, multiple-sphere packing (that I know of) in > which, in each 13-sphere set--a VE, no sphere can move at all. Minor point, I think you know: there's another rigid and equally dense packing (hcp vs ccp ?) that looks almost identical except a different choice is made about which 3-ball pocket to start layer 3 in. Where a VE with a triangle on the bottom has an oppositely pointing triangle on top, the alternative has a top triangle pointing in the same direction as the bottom. I think Steve Waterman was equally interested in finding WP's based on that configuration but Kirby thought it was too trivially similar to write the algorithm. >... this 12-around-1 is > my "icosahedro(not)," which is intended to be a name for the _class_ of > _all_ possible 12-around-1 13-sphere packings in which no outer sphere > loses contact with the center sphere Huh! I thought that every ball in a jumble pack is the center of an icosahedronot, like every ball in an IVM is the center of a VE. But obviously every inot has multiple surface gaps, and every ball adjacent to a gap cannot be the center of an inot, since it "loses contact" with an adjacent ball. I thought you were concentrating on inots with zero central gap for introductory simplicity, but you also considered them inots even if they had central gap. So, with your current definition, every inot is surrounded by (how many? at least 9?) non-inots. What do you call those approx-13-ball assemblies which contain at least one central gap? A nucleated icosahedron (and many irregular icosahedronots) would be surrounded by 12 non-inots. It would even be possible to have a compressed jumble pack containing ZERO inots, with every ball adjacent to at least one gap. Given how many non-inots there must be for every inot, I suppose there is a threshold -- maybe around 150 balls -- below which most compressed jumble packs contain no more than 1 inot. And above that threshold maybe about 1/13 of the balls are inot centers. Under my old assumption, your balloon-stuffing experiment conclusion made sense to me: (Jan '96 PHYSICS) > 'Icosahedro(not)s': the thing's practically _all_ I-nots. Now I don't believe it, or you've blown #1 again! >#1) The discoverer must _tell_ the discovery (hopefully accurately and >carefully) I thought every ball was a surface ball in ~12 different inots. Do you say a ball can be part of only one inot? ---------- >From: John Brawley >Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 12:46 AM > It's nice to think (again) of Bucky as the genius he was, instead of > fighting some of his students over how rigid the VE/IVM complex is. I may not be aware of the fights you refer to. I wasted many years arguing with you assuming you meant by "perfectly spherical compression" that NO expansion in ANY direction was possible. MANY basic points about rigidity and how balls would move when expansion is impossible became irrelevant because you changed your description to allow stiff but NOT rigid walls. I think that was another major type #1 screwup. Now you are allowing completely flexible walls with no resistance to movement, so that the whole IVM can twist when an interior VE jitterbugs. You have so much arbitrariness built in (and you add more as needed) that I can't imagine grounds to dispute (or support) any of your claims. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 06:54:31 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) In-Reply-To: <001901c198d7$c4f892e0$d675d918@jb2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 1/8/02 10:34 PM, John Brawley at jgbrawley@EARTHLINK.NET wrote: > You'd need a polygon with 12 pentagonal sides. What would such a thing > be named? A "pentic dodecahedron?" It is usually called a dodecahedron. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:42:53 -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: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug In-Reply-To: <200201081654.g08GsCX30183@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii How do I view a .pcx file? Dick --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 08-JAN-2002 8:54 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > actually, I changed it to "cosmo.PCX," > when I lost the file and had to scan it, but > that's in the /files/ system; > I gave the URL for the button, > which is clearly labeled "cosmometrical constance," > as well as at the top of /MiltonAcademy.html. > > here it is, again. > > --Platform 9-3/4! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html > > thus quoth: > > refer to my cosmometry.doc flyer, > > which covers it somewhat. > > I can't find the paper. Can you provide the link? I'd like __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:52:41 -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: Re: Synergetics Coordinates Comments: To: "Clifford J. Nelson" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cliff, I have no problem reading the gte.net URL below; understanding it is another problem. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifford J. Nelson" Newsgroups: alt.bucky-fuller Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:22 AM Subject: Synergetics Coordinates > This web site might be readable: > > http://HOME1.GTE.NET/cnelson9/index.htm > > I wrote: > > The plane can be tiled with squares, equilateral triangles, and regular > hexagons. There are two unique perpendiculars to the mid points of the > sides of a square, three unique perpendiculars for the triangle, and three > for the hexagon. The triangle and hexagon are both the same in that > respect. So, there are only two obvious choices for coordinate systems, > the square and the triangle. The square becomes the cube in three > dimensions and the triangle becomes the tetrahedron. A mathematician might > want to add this fact to: > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/CoordinateGeometry.html > > by doing a write up of the contents of "Synergetics Coordinates" > documented in the Mathematica notebooks on MathSource linked to at: > > http://mathforum.org/epigone/geometry-research/brydilyum > > As far as I know, my version of the Synergetics Coordinate System is new, > but, it is obvious that R. Buckminster Fuller invented it and described it > in his books Synergetics and Synergetics 2. The trilinear and quadriplanar > and barycentric coordinates are different. Synergetics coordinates can be > transformed to and from Cartesian coordinates very easily. > > They do not mention the "missing half" of the likely > coordinate systems on their site. > > Cliff Nelson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 06:35:28 -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: Synergetics Coordinates <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 09-JAN-2002 6:35 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us that was much better -- no "Mathematica noteblooks" to bother with. But, I still have to say that, although it may not be quite like quadriplanar coords., there are several similar methods of "homogenous coordinating." thus quoth: > in his books Synergetics and Synergetics 2. The trilinear and quadriplanar > and barycentric coordinates are different. Synergetics coordinates can be > transformed to and from Cartesian coordinates very easily. http://HOME1.GTE.NET/cnelson9/index.htm --Pardonnez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/1007knights.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 06:48:12 -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: Robert W Gray / Polyhedra & the Jitterbug <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 09-JAN-2002 6:48 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I'm not actually sure, but, like anything else, it requires the proper "plug-in" to the browser. I'd have used the .JPEG, if I'd known better, at the time. I tried at first to use .PNG, which I thought was the pub-domain .GIF, but Homestead had it listed as an option, which didn't actually work, so I went with .PCX. guess I'll have to bust-down and look it "up." users at this library *were* able to view it, but the plug-in was apparently removed by some jerkatron! I'd originally had the Word file on Xdrive.com, but they dyscontinued the "free" storage, and I lost the floppy. however, I'm sure that *some* one copied the document, who is on this list; n'est-ce pas? thus quoth: How do I view a .pcx file? Dick --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings > 08-JAN-2002 8:54 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > actually, I changed it to "cosmo.PCX," > when I lost the file and had to scan it, but > that's in the /files/ system; > I gave the URL for the button, > which is clearly labeled "cosmometrical constance," > as well as at the top of /MiltonAcademy.html. > > here it is, again. > > --Platform 9-3/4! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Funny.html > > thus quoth: > > refer to my cosmometry.doc flyer, > > which covers it somewhat. http://quincy4board.homestead.com/Files/Curriculum/Cosmo.pcx -- I think. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:03:21 -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: tverse and bubbles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Some may say tverse and soap bubbles are two seperate domains. Soap bubble are in the domain of tverse. Am I right, JB? Check the link below(two minute loadtime by phone). Six sides isequilibrium. Five sides disappear. Seven sides grow. This is the reverse process of adding spheres to tverse and watching the surface grow! Each new vertex requires a new polar something, the unit one. Or, a polar somethings disappear, as in the film bubbles disappear. A piont is a point, is a vertex, is a tetrahedron, at minimum. This film shows what the surface of a one million-verton(that is, an omnitriangulated polyhdron with one million vertexes) looks like in tverse as spheres are removed. Dick http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/festava/cells/soap.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:08:48 -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: GEODESIC Digest <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 09-JAN-2002 14:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it's a pentagonal dodeahedron, but can be referred to as just dodecah., because it's the regular one; if you *really* mean the rhomboderal one, you've just got to say, So! thus quoth: > You'd need a polygon with 12 pentagonal sides. What would such a thing > be named? A "pentic dodecahedron?" --Pardonnez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/1007knights.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:34:29 -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 Jan 2002 to 9 Jan 2002 (#2002-9) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's a long one, all right. Let me first answer with a crosspost from Synergeo that I wrote in response to a couple of questions from Tom Ray. This was well-received over there, and I think clarifies most of what you object to, as briefly as I've ever managed it: > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: long reply to John re sphere packing....Summary: whatever. > Here is one long post responding to multiple posts from John Brawley. The post: Message: 1 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:22:27 -0600 From: "John Brawley" Subject: Re: Digest Number 544 Hi, Tom; > Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 01:04:58 -0000 > From: "intermontane" > Subject: Re: Digest Number 543 > > Hi John, > > I followed your description of your closest-packed > configuration. Thanks for the explanation. No prob. It's great to have someone get me on the first read. (*grin*) > You wrote [in synergeo message 4471]: > > > Thus, a single specific isolated > > member of a category cannot be primal to the immense number > > of other possible patterns in that category. > > Can you define 'primal' in this context? "All VE arrangements are icosahedral, not all icosahedral arrangements are VEs." By "primal" I intended to mean the class/type (icosahedral, here) includes any specific instance (a VE or my tightest-packed-13, here) of the type; the class is primal (underlying; generative; original; inclusive) to any individual instance of the class. Thus, to me, Fullerites' use of the VE as a standard reference for distortions/derivations thereof, and claim for it as the class from which other forms are derived, is in error. The standard reference should instead be the icosahedral class as a whole, and the most-symmetric (spherically) of that class --the regular icosahedron-- specifically. (Spherical symmetry is the most 'perfect' symmetry in the sense that it is the only symmetry which lacks _any_ directonal biases. All possible directions (an infinite number) away from a single point are equally likely/possible; all possible directions inwardly toward a sphere's geometric center from anywhere on its surface are also equally likely/possible, thus only a point (first) and a sphere (second) have 'perfect' (unbiased) symmetry, and in my argument above, the point would be primal to the sphere, the point being inclusive of all possible spheres with any specified radius constructable with it as center.) (Of course, this may be tautological, since the point is primal to _any_ object one can construct. (*grin*)) > In any case, once your closest-packed version has been > identified, what comes next? Does it have applications? (*grin!*) (Y'all saw this coming) : "Tetrahedraverse!" My position on sphere-packings is that it is not only necessary to adhere to "closest packing" (in which an IVM/CCP is the tightest packing for _many_ --not for only 13-- same-sized spheres, but also it is important to adhere to the shape of the container being used to pack spheres "into." My system requires that spheres packed near the inner surface of an hypothetical "hard," perfectly spherical container must pack so as to accommodate the curvature of that inner surface, thus it's impossible (I claim) to pack a perfect VE into that container, _regardless_ of the fact that the CCP is supposedly the tightest-possible packing. Moreover, with reference to my own all-space-filler, if there are any "missing" spheres in the packing, the IVM will also not perfectly form; something distorted from it will form, and for many years I have been describing (or trying to describe) the implications of this stance, where the spheres packed are "packed" because the collection of spheres is compressed together: such a 12-around-_none_, 12-sphere, perfect regular icosahedron occupies less circumscribed volume than any 12-around-_1_ packing does, thus if such a "missing" sphere occurs in an IVM, there will locally be a tendency in that locality to reduce the packing volume even further, which would require the now-non-nucleated VE to _twist_ ("jitterbug") into a regular icosahedron, in order to achieve this even slightly tighter packing. So, given both premises: 1) the shape of the container impacts the packing pattern "from the outside inwardly," and 2) the presence of one or more "holes" (missing spheres) within the packing "lattice" alters the pattern of the packing "from the inside outwardly," it's my contention that if _both_ these effects are present, then the packing seen in this system will not be CCP/IVM, but instead icosahedral (again, regardless of the CCP/IVM's supposed tighter packing). Coming back to your question, the large accumulation of "gap" in the side of my tightest-packed-13-only, _when seen in such a packing as described above_, is where the 'next' (a 14th) sphere would pack itself, thus as the object grows in size with added spheres, the IVM/CCP never manages to appear, and the system thus constructed has properties of flexibility and an inherent bias toward sphericity, not possessed by a CCP/IVM-type inflexible and orthogonally-biased packing. (You asked.... (*g*)) --------endXpost------- If that doesn't explain it, I don't know what will.... (I'll still re-read, and perhaps respond to, some points you raise in the long post.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 11:05:13 -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 Jan 2002 to 9 Jan 2002 (#2002-9) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Lee Bonnifield > Here is one long post responding to multiple posts from John Brawley. >> is > from me, > is John. Attempt at 'brief reply'...: > What does "perfect" mean? The ambiguity you describe makes sense with real > objects. With continuous mathematical objects, ambiguity does not make I treat my pionts --with their spheres-of-repulsive-influence-- as "real." I don't treat them as "physical" or "material." Quantum mechanics treats "nonlocality" as a real effect. It is neither physical not material, and must be inferred from hardware experiments using physical/material stuff. (I'd rather not get into an argument about what the meaning of the word "real" is... I perhaps should find another word than "perfect" to use where I need it?) > sense, like "2 + 2 = 4 sometimes, and sometimes something else" does not > make sense (to me.) I can imagine (maybe) discrete mathematical objects > where ambiguity would make sense. When you say "straight toward the center", You differentiate between "real" and "mathematical" objects. I point out that the precision of measurement of real objects is imperfect (dang! that's the word), because our tools for measurement have uncertainties in whatever is the last (rightmost) decimal place given for that tool ("real" object-measuring tools have ambiguous precision). Also, _mathematical_ objects suffer from the imperfection of our calculation machines, which themselves have error factors, thus there is ambiguity in even those. 2 + 2 does not usually equal "4," but rather something like "3.999. . .(extend nines infinitely)." "Real" calculations either round off, or provide plus-or-minus error amounts in their answers. is that perfectly straight, or are we supposed to assume nothing is > perfectly straight? A line drawn between two of my pionts in closest possible 'contact' would be "perfectly straight." Nothing else is. > > This makes our little phrase "quantum fluctuation" useful, > > It confuses me. Quantum fluctuations make sense with real "objects", which My Tverse is not just a mathematical (or geometric, or topological) object. I consider it "real." Thereby, arguments from idealized mathematics don't apply. We can use idealized math to investigate what Tverse may say about some things, but as above-noted, we ought not to think the math "is" the objects, since both the math and the objects can have realworld ambiguities, and I don't happen to believe that idealized mathematical objects can be "real." > were revealed (early 20th century) not to be "objective" -- that is, they > don't exist, strictly speaking, independently of perception. But when This is bullshit. Perceptive creatures exist. A quantum pheomenon observed by one preceiver may also be observed by another. If one dies, the other still perceives the phenomenon. Thereby quantum phenomena _exist_ independent of perception _or_perceivers_. They may _act_ differently, according to differing perceivers and differing experimental or perceptual methodologies, but to say that because quantum phenomena differ from perceiver to perceiver, this equates to _absence_ of causes for them which are independent of their perceivers, is ludicrous. > many more properties and interactions than you list. Quantum is mysterious > to many, so if your use of the phrase is just intended to mystify people so It is specifically used in its proper sense. I have no need to --nor have I ever, knowingly, tried to-- grab legitimacy by illegitimate means. > But if you are trying to give the impression of being scientific or precise, I have always, and still today, tried merely to _describe_ what I've visualized and modelled, in terms and using words that I _think_ (too often wrongly, it seems) will most accurately reproduce the concept-structure in another person, in other people. ]I need no "give the impression," nor do I want it. Tverse stands on its own, and it's long been my contention that if anyone with the brain to do it started over from the one basic premise that one must start from _nothing_at_all_, Tverse as I have attempted to describe it would be the inevitable result. That's _very_ consistent with scientific thinking. It must be _reproducible_. If I _can't_ reproduce it, and no one else can, with or without my help, then it's probably bullshit, but to date no one has failed to "get" what I've said --mostly in part, rarely in whole-- from sometimes short (most often long) discussions with me. Even you "get" parts of this. Whether you _agree_ or not is not the issue. Whether I have _explained_ it well enough for you to "get" at least some of it, is. And you have. That's at least partial reproducibility, a strong requirement for anything "scientific." > as if what physicists mean by "quantum fluctuations" is AT ALL related to > your "perfect" spheres, shame on you. Lessee.... Physicists. Real ones. Like Steven Hawking? "Quantum fluctuation in nothing?" _That_ example of a real physicist? I've read physicists writing from shakier ground than even _me_. (*grin*) > > My question was what would we see there? You seem to think the IVM will > > re-form itself, > > Quote me! I'm sure I've never said that, it's stupid. But even way back with Didn't say you did. Said "seem to think." your admirable balloon packing experiment you seemed to think you were Quote me! I'm sure I never sai.... (Oh. Sorry. "seemed to think." (*grin*)) > proving the rareness of VE's to somebody, I never could figure out who. Those who claimed tightest packing demanded VE/IVM in all possible situations. (Mostly self-brainwashed BuckyFullerites.) > I was not saying the IVM would buckle and reform as another IVM; I said it > will not deform to begin with. The final state is the 10x10x300 IVM you > started with. Of course now I realize that what I was imagining is > irrelevant because of your flexible definition of "perfect". Was irrelevant not because of word-use "perfect"; was irrelevant because I placed no restrictions on (in fact carefully avoided placing restrictions on) movement of balls out of the IVM. Between "irresistible force" and "IVM," when there was available space for the IVM to depart from it's (sorry: depart from its 'perfect') pattern, I simply claimed the IVM must yield to the nonorthogonal forces being placed on it by the curvature of the shrinking circumscribing sphere. I had such faith that you would automatically see this as true, that I was very surprised that you assumed the IVM would not deform because of this nonorthogonal compressive force. It seemed you thought the IVM would be internally held in its form, as it if its balls were superglued together. > > 2) The four-sphere squares. > > We need some definitive numbers, which I don't have but will try to get. > > Have you got those numbers yet? I suggest you quantify the distance from the No, I'm working on a visual demonstration of an IVM twisting itself into a Tverse network. I haven't forgotten, and will keep this list of other measurements you'd like to see, but for now, mathematics is on the back burner and Struck, SpringDance, PovRay, and hours and hours of pixel-by-pixel mouse-pointer work are on the front burner. If the final model works as I've already seen the first version work, these measuements will become secondary, if not merely irrelevant to my claim. > > 3) Watermans: ... (We clarified this privately) > regarding your sloppily "perfect" spheres. LOTS of ensuing text could have > been avoided if you had just recognized my question where I used the term > "faces" instead of your term "holes". This issue is another consequence of > your notion of fluctuating perfection. No, it's a product of me not being able to grant "face" status to a concave, but _drawn_ planar, area in the Watermans. To me, those N-2 and N-3 ballcenters were not in contact with any plane "face," so I didn't grasp why you'd use the word. To me, they were "holes." They're still "holes," where no ball-center touches what you called "faces." > Back to the issue of what happens to the 6 balls in 4-pockets: > >> The walls WILL be forced outward by any interior VE jitterbugging. > > Perhaps. I lack definitive proof either way. > That will be easy to prove. Get those numbers. One day. For now, my earlier, Xpost here, explains my position on this. > > and it randomly has to pick -which- of the two forming > > triangles it'll end up in. > > You think it will end up in a triangle, rather than perched in the valley > between 2 balls on its way to the triangle? Or perched Of course. Wherever packing occurs, to be "tightest," balls will try to get into any 3-ball pocket they can get into. IF there's a 4-ballpocket, they'll try to get into that. If there's not, the only choice left is 3-ball pockets. > the jitterbugging those balls were also in a second 4-pocket on the other > side, which they don't necessarily move out of. Saying they will necessarily > move all the way into one of the two forming triangles implies you ignore > how that messes up their fit with the rest of the IVM. With your "perfect" (*grin*) That's one reason why, IF the IVM is not artificially constrained to remain in its form by some rectangular container, the _whole_IVM_ will twist itself around internally, and that's what my current Struck computer model shows. That the IVM is compressed is not enough. One must describe the shape of the compressing "container." If a VE starts trying to twist, that attempt gets communicated all the wat throughout the IVM, even unto its furthest reaches, where the compresive container's _sphericity_ accommodates--perhaps even encourages-- the whole IVM to twist to allow a bit of nonorthogonality. More missing balls, more twisting. > > "Vertex order" is one of the perfectly "standard" terms, from standard > > topology, that I've used. It's not "special." > > Aren't you asking us to consider structures where there are NOT exactly 12 > balls contacting one (eg, non-nucleated icosahedrons, Buckyballs, balls Only where a ball is missing from the packing, thus forcing a regular, non-nucleated icosahedron to form, and to remain formed because the compression keeps it "tight" that way. Space can be described. Space with a particle in it can also be described. Just because space is by _far_ mostly free of particles, is not reason to have to say "space with no particles in it" every time we talk about "space." Likewise, Tverse is _by_far_ mostly an order twelve network, so I don't _always_ speak of it as "Tverse-without-any-missing-spheres." > adjacent to gaps?) I understand how the interior of an IVM has vertex order > 12, but don't know how you would count vertex order in a jumble pack. Given > two arbitrary balls, how do you decide whether or not to draw a segment > between them? How close are they? There have to be 12-around-1, even if it's a jumble-pack. Tightest packing is 12-around-1, regardless if it's a J-P or an IVM. Remember also that Tverse has no struts; it's all "sheres" (pionts, and their relationships with their neighbors). Which sphere is contacting which, may change, if enough disturbance is produced in any area. So although all these programs I'm using to explore it attach linesegment ends to vertices and _never_let_go_ unless the user deliberately switches attachments, Tverse's balls don't have this restriction. > > If _not_ compressed or "tight," any number of vertex orders is possible > > for any of the two Euclidean places to work (two-axes, plane; three > > axes, volume). > > A tightly compressed jumble pack has gaps, it is not globally vertex order > 12. Wrong. It is globally vertex order twelve. The IVM, made with _spheres_, has gaps (which Buckystudents ignore because hardly anybody shows them), and is a network of vertex order twelve. A jumble-packing _has_ all its gaps present, and is a network of vertex order twelve. > >> how do YOU define "spherical"? > > > > Structurally: all possible points(sp) commonly distant from a single > > chosen point. > > Symmetrically: most evenly distributed around a sphere-approximation > > surface. > > I recognize what you write after "Structurally:" as a good definition of > "spherical". I understand the concept you are getting at after > "Symmetrically:", and I don't know if there is already a single word that > means that. I encourage you to invent one rather than misuse "spherical". The last thing I'm going to do is go back to creating neologisms just to keep purists from bitching at me for nonstandard usage of standard terms. "Piont" was enough of that. (*grin*) Sorry; no more neologisms. My crackpot index is already 'way too high. Have a NICE day! (And you need, I think, to fix your opinion of whether a jumble-packing is (or is not) an order twelve vertex network. I assure you, it is.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:44:30 -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 Jan 2002 to 9 Jan 2002 (#2002-9) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Dick; > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: tverse and bubbles > > Some may say tverse and soap bubbles are two seperate > domains. Soap bubble are in the domain of tverse. Am I > right, JB? In a limited sense, hypothetically, topologically, yeah, I suppose so. However, they'd be artificial, not "actually present," and would represent a general 'surface' area of equal-repulsion between pionts. Thus their domains, if seen as _3D_ Voronoi patterns, would be closed, pentagon-faced dodecahedral regions. (I've not yet seen any Voronoi diagrams that are tilings; all that I've seen have one open side that presumably opens out forever.) > Check the link below(two minute loadtime by phone). Six > sides isequilibrium. Five sides disappear. Seven sides > grow. This is the reverse process of adding spheres to > tverse and watching the surface grow! That's a fascinating thing to watch. Wish the loop was longer. But let's try to keep physical effects from too heavily guiding thoughts about Tverse; those effects seem to happen for physical reasons, the soap-bubble effect due to gases passing across domain boundaries, the crystallizing effect due to other forces, but physical ones. I do find it pleasing that the equilibrium state is hexagonal. But note also that's essentially _2_dimensional; bubbles sandwiched between two panes of glass. If it were 3D, thus modelling Tverse's domains better, I wonder if the hexagonality would become dodecahedrality, or some other thing? I don't see how a 3D version could keep its hexagonality, any more than a hexagonal 2D plane drawing can maintain it when expanded into 3D: we know a 6-around-1 (hexagonal, 7 spheres) layer (one layer) on a table looks the same, but we also know that when you up that into 3D, a _pentagonal_ arrangement results for the 12 spheres thus involved. Great reference URL though. Thanks! > bubbles disappear. A piont is a point, is a vertex, is a > tetrahedron, at minimum. One could maybe image that. Mentally, it'd be Tverse's 12-around-1 icosahedral packing, where if the pionts were separated enough to see between them (as in some of my recent PovRay work where I've left in the struts), we'd see pionts sitting in hollow dodecahedral spaces, which tiled space, but I doubt many of their faces would be regular pentas. > This film shows what the surface of a one > million-verton(that is, an omnitriangulated polyhdron with > one million vertexes) looks like in tverse as spheres are > removed. When I saw what you wrote here, I thought I was going to get to see a sphere, Delaunay-tetragonated (is that a word?(*g*)) all throughout its interior, with one million vertices involved.... (*whimper*) I'm longing to see something like that. In fact, any tetragonation of a sphere's interior, which obeys "meshing" rules similar to Tverse's pionts' behavioural rules, would greatly inform me and others, I think. Thanks for the URL and the mind-opener. I may be able to _find_ some 3D soap-bubble images on the net. (I'll try later.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 08:25:14 -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 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 8:25 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I don't think that anyone believes that Bucky thought of the IVM as anything but a static reference for "4D co-ordination," a framework. of course it is true that any 'defect,' such as 20 spheres in anicosahedral (or shifted away from that, not quite al the way to "VE") formation, cannot be the seed for any "perfect" IVM (although it could approach that, the further away one goes form it). I think it's an intersting question, how all o'these slide around each other, though. thus quoth: Moreover, with reference to my own all-space-filler, if there are any "missing" spheres in the packing, the IVM will also not perfectly form; something distorted from it will form, and for many years I have been describing (or trying to describe) the implications of this stance, where the spheres packed are "packed" because the collection of spheres is compressed together: such a 12-around-_none_, 12-sphere, perfect regular icosahedron occupies less circumscribed volume than any 12-around-_1_ packing does, thus if such a "missing" sphere occurs in an IVM, there will locally be a tendency in that locality to reduce the packing volume even further, which would require the now-non-nucleated VE to _twist_ ("jitterbug") into a regular icosahedron, in order to achieve this even slightly tighter packing. So, given both premises: 1) the shape of the container impacts the packing pattern "from the outside inwardly," and 2) the presence of one or more "holes" (missing spheres) within the packing "lattice" alters the pattern of the packing "from the inside outwardly," it's my contention that if _both_ these effects are present, then the packing seen in this system will not be CCP/IVM, but instead icosahedral (again, regardless of the CCP/IVM's supposed tighter packing). --AOL Ghostscript! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:16:14 -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: GEODESIC Digest In-Reply-To: <200201101625.g0AGPEo12544@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings > I don't think that anyone believes that Bucky thought > of the IVM as anything but a static reference > for "4D co-ordination," a framework. I agree. >of course > it is true that any 'defect,' such as 20 spheres > in anicosahedral (or shifted away from that, > not quite al the way to "VE") formation, > cannot be the seed for any "perfect" IVM Well put. >(although > it could approach that, the further away one goes > form it). I think it's an intersting question, > how all o'these slide around each other, though. You lost me. Dick > > thus quoth: > Moreover, with reference to my own all-space-filler, if > there are any > "missing" spheres in the packing, the IVM will also not > perfectly form; > something distorted from it will form, and for many > years I have been > describing (or trying to describe) the implications of > this stance, > where the spheres packed are "packed" because the > collection of spheres > is compressed together: such a 12-around-_none_, > 12-sphere, perfect > regular icosahedron occupies less circumscribed volume > than any > 12-around-_1_ packing does, thus if such a "missing" > sphere occurs in an > IVM, there will locally be a tendency in that locality > to reduce the > packing volume even further, which would require the > now-non-nucleated > VE to _twist_ ("jitterbug") into a regular icosahedron, > in order to > achieve this even slightly tighter packing. > > So, given both premises: 1) the shape of the container > impacts the > packing pattern "from the outside inwardly," and 2) the > presence of one > or more "holes" (missing spheres) within the packing > "lattice" alters > the pattern of the packing "from the inside outwardly," > it's my > contention that if _both_ these effects are present, > then the packing > seen in this system will not be CCP/IVM, but instead > icosahedral (again, > regardless of the CCP/IVM's supposed tighter packing). > > --AOL Ghostscript! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:47:24 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Rick Engel Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable By a sphere VE I mean one with 13 equiradius spheres. The VE has radial vectors that are equal in length to its cord vectors. The icosa's radial vectors (i.e. centerpoint to vertex) are shorter than its chord vectors (= i.e. vertex to vertex length). Therefore the sphere VE will not jitterbug to = the =20 sphere icosa arrangement because the center sphere of the icosa cluster would necessarily have to have a smaller diameter that the VE's center sphere. I am presuming, of course, that all spheres must be of equal radius and that all surface spheres must remain in contact with the cente= r sphere during the jitterbug so that we are talking about apples and apple= s not apples and oranges. An IVM, by definition, must be made up of equal radius spheres and equal length vectors. Any distortion of the IVM where the spheres/vertices do = not meet this condition is no longer an IVM. Rick =20 ----- Original Message ----- From: John Brawley Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:19 PM To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) =20 > From: Rick Engel > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 5 Jan 2002 to 6 Jan 2002 (#2002-6) > > According to my model a sphere VE will not "jitterbug" enough to attain the icosa configuration. Pardon my bluntness, but your model must be either flawed or incomplete. How many spheres? 13 total? How identical in radius? Spheres only? Contained in a flexible skin? (example: 13 oily marbles in an air-deprived kids' balloon) You can "jitterbug" from perfect VE to perfect icosahedron (a little dexterity's required to achieve the icosa; no outer ball touches another outer ball). I'm in the process of making a computer model of not just a VE, but an entire IVM, which twists all throughout its interior self easily from IVM lattice pattern to Tver... uh... to a lovely icosahedrally-based pattern. (And back) Sphere-pack based VE models most assuredly do twist easily from 6-square-8-triangle to 20-triangle. But they stop there; no octahedron possible. > Also completing just one of the octahedra of the half- > octahedron faces causes the model to stop even partial flexing. I'm not sure that's right, but it's irrelevant. Points are: it goes from VE to icosa and back (without reversing the direction you're rolling the balls); it does _not_ have the ghost of a chance of becoming an octahedron ('fully collapsed'); VE-rigid is not its natural state, the icosa semi-free flexibility is its natural state. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:25:16 -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: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 13:25 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, it'd be apples and *an* orange, if you removed the big apple in the middle & replaced it with a smaller orange, so you could "jitter" it. (actually, it's a hypothesis that they'd remain in contact, which may be easily proven, or not.) but we were just referring to the *shape*. it' the same as the Newtonian restatement if Kepler's conjecture on the grocer's packing o'balls; the question is, whether it is possible to stuff a 13th ball amongst the 12, to kiss the center one (and you can see how iffy it is, perhaps becauses of the weird symmetry -- and that no-one was ever able to do it, in practice). as with John's graphics, there usually is some sort of gap; always, if you distribute the gaps? thus quoth: An IVM, by definition, must be made up of equal radius spheres and equal length vectors. Any distortion of the IVM where the spheres/vertices do = not meet this condition is no longer an IVM. --AOL Ghostscript! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:26:28 -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 - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 13:26 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 9:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us given a tightly-embracing bubble around your balls, however many of them there are, can you show that they do *not* intend to "buckle" toward an IVM, particularly with "nice" numbers of balls, like aquadude shapes (or just two ?-) this, I'd guess, was your primary "QF," since you refuzed to define it other than the handwaving act -- or was it a semaphore? if you want a perfect example of Quantum sophistry, look at the "Quantum Schmantum" article/interview with David Deutsch (aside from the current *NS* and *E* mags) which is linked on my page, below. thus quoth: Now of course I know you DO expect buckle, and I'll make no predictions regarding your sloppily "perfect" spheres. LOTS of ensuing text could have been avoided if you had just recognized my question where I used the term "faces" instead of your term "holes". This issue is another consequence of your notion of fluctuating perfection. --AOL Ghostscript! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:27:42 -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 - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 13:27 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops. <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 8:58 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us "you lost me" is a nonsequiter, thus unanswerable. "icosahedral" only applies to 20 spheres, alone, since the five-fold symmetry doesn't "pack," except in a nonperiodical way. it's an interesting question, but I don't see how you've gotten any where, there, and I don't see the point of pionts! by handwaving at some any-old-shape of "container," or QBS flux, and so forth, you join the current issues *NUde Scientist* and *THE Economist -- Let Us Worship Her*, which are exemplars of The Thinly Veiled Solopsist! thus quoth: So, given both premises: 1) the shape of the container impacts the packing pattern "from the outside inwardly," and 2) the presence of one or more "holes" (missing spheres) within the packing "lattice" alters the pattern of the packing "from the inside outwardly," it's my contention that if _both_ these effects are present, then the packing seen in this system will not be CCP/IVM, but instead icosahedral (again, regardless of the CCP/IVM's supposed tighter packing). --AOL Ghostscript! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:39:09 -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 - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 13:39 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I really hate to say this (boo-hoo-hoo), but your lack of know-how in elementary geometry is painful (actually, it's a recent injury from swingin'on the rings), and although it is almost matched by the typical Buckynaut, who never even bothered with HSMCoxeter. the packing of rh.dodecahedra is "dual" to the packing of tetrahedra & octahedra that is the "IVM," and you should learn how that is. another erratum is that the center-to-center "vectors" in the sphere-packing, which also constitute the IVM, are in diameter-long segments, obviously. your statements re icosahedral packing or nonsequiters; you can't even get one more layer around them, such that all of them touch (anything like the 12-and-one); you are getting into "aperiodic tiling," which takes a different tack, although highly amuzing! thus quoth: I think tendency toward VE-patterning would be swamped by energetic motion, and lack of a compressive force (Avogadro's atoms are at "room" temperature and one atmosphere pressure) strong enough to overcome it. Mutual, basically spherical repulsivity ought to produce maximum evenness in all 13-atom regions, and maximum evenness equates to most spherical symmetry --which spherical symmetry says "icosahedral," not --AOL Ghostscript! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 23:47:53 -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 - 9 Jan 2002 to 10 Jan 2002 (#2002-10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Rick. Re: > From: Rick Engel > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) > > By a sphere VE I mean one with 13 equiradius spheres. The VE has radial > vectors that are equal in length to its cord vectors. The icosa's radial > vectors (i.e. centerpoint to vertex) are shorter than its chord vectors (= The _non-nucleated_ icosa's radial vectors are shorter. I said nothing about removing or reducing the radius of the central sphere. Otherwise, correct, but unless we're still not on the same page, you lose it here: > i.e. > vertex to vertex length). Therefore the sphere VE will not jitterbug to the > sphere icosa arrangement because the center sphere of the icosa cluster > would necessarily have to have a smaller diameter that the VE's center > sphere. I am presuming, of course, that all spheres must be of equal > radius and that all surface spheres must remain in contact with the center > sphere during the jitterbug so that we are talking about apples and apple= > s not apples and > oranges. You are also presuming that the icosa form has to have its outer-12 spheres in contact with each other. The icosahedron that the VE jitterbugs to is an icosa of _vertexes_. That is, its outer-12 spheres are arranged in regular icosahedral form, but *none* of them will contact another outer-12 sphere. Do you understand this? When I say the VE jitterbugs easily into the icosahedron, I presume there's nobody switching center spheres on me, so the end result of the partial jitterbugging is an _icosahedron_, a _regular_ icosahedron, and an icosahedron of spheres in which every outer-12 sphere touches _only_ the central sphere. The thing is full of "gaps," evenly distributed amongst all the outer-12 shperes. Thus, the "gaps" that are also in the VE, but which everybody seems to prefer to look at from their viewpoints deep beneath the sand where they've put their heads, are 30 little bitty "gaps," one between each pair of neighbor spheres. My closest-packed (for _only_ 13 spheres) sphere-using object merely maximizes this self-same "gap"'s visibility by moving the out-12 spheres in such a way that they are closest packed, leaving a rather large piece of "gap" and some smaller ones, all on one side of the 13-sphere construct. The VE _jitterbugs_ --twists away from perfect orthogonalized VE form-- and it passes through a stage where the spheres are arrayed as the vertices of a _regular_icosahedron_ on its way back to another perfect VE form. I don't understand how you can fail to see this. Do you have balls? (*grin*) Do you have a rubber balloon (or a _rubber_, fer Pete's sake?)? Well, put the damn balls in the damn balloon and _look_at_it_ while you manhandle it and see how many millions of ways there are to shove those balls arround without any of them leaving contact with the center one, and without the whole collection staying _stuck_ as a VE. > An IVM, by definition, must be made up of equal radius spheres and equal > length vectors. Any distortion of the IVM where the spheres/vertices do = > not > meet this condition is no longer an IVM. Quite, quite so. In case you missed it, and are thus operating from a misconception, in the message I wrote: > You can "jitterbug" from perfect VE to perfect icosahedron (a little > dexterity's required to achieve the icosa; no outer ball touches another > outer ball). See that? "...; no outer ball touches another outer ball)." It's a friggin' icosahedron, and it jitterbugged its way out of the VE without breaking any of the 13-sphere problem's rules. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:36:46 -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 - 9 Jan 2002 to 10 Jan 2002 (#2002-10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > From: Brian Hutchings > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) > > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 10-JAN-2002 13:25 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > well, it'd be apples and *an* orange, if > you removed the big apple in the middle & replaced it > with a smaller orange, so you could "jitter" it. (actually, (*sigh*) Are you gentlemen of the erroneous opinion that once a VE is formed using 13 equ-radius spheres, it is 'locked' and _has_to_stay_that_way_? If so, disapprise yourselves of that ludicrous stance by doing the *!$#* _work_ and making a *!$#* model you can use in your hands to prove yourselves wrong. You do NOT need to replace the center sphere with a smaller one, to jitterbug the sphere-VE into any of thousands of different patterns, one of which is a perfectly regular icosahedron, and another of which is my large-gapped lopsided object. If you _did_ reduce the center sphere size, you'd end up with a regular icosahedron which _was_ 'locked.' No sphere could move without losing contact with the center sphere. > it's a hypothesis that they'd remain in contact, > which may be easily proven, or not.) And, sirs, once the claimant (me) has proven it, and once the reader (you) has been shown how to re-prove it (to yourself), whose responsibility is it to remove false assumptions and replace them with true facts? Mine? I don't think so. > whether it is possible to stuff a 13th ball > amongst the 12, to kiss the center one (and It ain't. (*g*) > you can see how iffy it is, > perhaps becauses of the weird symmetry -- and that > no-one was ever able to do it, in practice). > as with John's graphics, > there usually is some sort of gap; always, if > you distribute the gaps? Absolutely, and especially importantly in the sphere-VE, where Fuller students don't see the gap, thus making an intellectual error that seems to mislead them into woefully erroneous conclusions.... > oops. "oops?" Oops, what? (Side note; it's sometimes hard to tell who you're responding to, so if I go off on you without cause, I don't intend to...) > given a tightly-embracing bubble around your balls, > however many of them there are, > can you show that they do *not* intend > to "buckle" toward an IVM, > particularly with "nice" numbers of balls, > like aquadude shapes (or just two ?-) Just two? That's a joke, right? Otherwise: Absolutely. In fact, with the embracing _spherical_ bubble, the tendency is to twist toward some of both forms, neither perfectly. These are different, and conflicting, principles: 1) sphericity uppermost in the packing, 2) _tightness_ uppermost in the packing. A hard-surfaced enclosing sphere tends to make icosas. A hard-surfaced enclosing _box_ tends to make VEs. A real balloon model tends about halfway between the two, the sphericity affecting the pattern more or less as much as the compression. If this were not true, my physical experiment with 500 acrylic 1/2-inch spheres would have come out either totally randomized (from the sphericity) or totally in IVM form (from the compression). It actually came out 100% icosa-forms, but a number of them were very close to VE. > since you refuzed to define it other than the handwaving act > -- or was it a semaphore? (*grin*) Trivia, for those from later than the early 1960s: The "peace symbol," what some fanatical religious types once called an "upside-down broken-armed cross," is actually a pair of _semaphore_ letters superimposed, one for " N " and one for " D ". The symbol originally rose in the late 1950s, the N and D standing for Nuclear Disarmament. > with David Deutsch (aside from the current *NS* and *E* mags) > which is linked on my page, below. I've seen much. I've also been accused of not understanding what I've seen, many times in the past. It's near-impossible to convince people at remote, that although huge numbers of people don't grasp it at all, and a smaller number grasp it just enough to sound like they know (but really don't) there are a few of us (I am one) who do understand it well enough to emply it correctly in their reasoning. That Lee is one of those who assumes nobody understands it (he could quote Feynman on that, if he liked), is sometimes hard to stomach. I like Lee. Though I've never met him in person, we've 'argued' for going on eight or ten years now. > "you lost me" is a nonsequiter, thus unanswerable. > "icosahedral" only applies to 20 spheres, alone, since > the five-fold symmetry doesn't "pack," Uh... you mean 13 spheres, right? 20 is the number of faces on an icosa. > except in a nonperiodical way. it's an interesting question, but > I don't see how you've gotten any where, there, and > I don't see the point of pionts! Well, that'd be another long month of messages, I'm sure. My "pionts" are what I believe spacetime to be made of, but I don't really feel like trying to explain all that in an hostile environment.... (*grin*) My container is specifically and only, perfectly spherical. No other container applies to my work. My father was solipsistic. I am not. (Though the older I get, the less I get understood, and the more strange coincidences I experience, the more tempting solipsism becomes....(*g*)) > I really hate to say this (boo-hoo-hoo), but > your lack of know-how in elementary geometry is painful > (actually, it's a recent injury from swingin'on the rings), and > although it is almost matched > by the typical Buckynaut, who never even bothered > with HSMCoxeter. You're right as far as it goes. Although geometry was an 'A' subject for me in high school, I didn't study it in depth when I found myself consumed with the Tetrahedraverse idea and staring at this wonderful puzzling 13-sphere phenomenon. I did, however, educate myself deeply on its specific needs. It's just too simple a concept, involving so few other geometric aspects, that I didn't have any need to learn, for example, what "dual of" meant, or to memorize that immense pantheon of fused-word geometric object designations, like "cuboctahedron" and "rhombic dodecahedron." Heck, I'm still trying to get a computer model large enough to accommdate enough pionts (modelled as spheres) to find out what of the vast number of other geometric shapes may be needed, for explaining what's found in it. > the packing of rh.dodecahedra is "dual" > to the packing of tetrahedra & octahedra that is the "IVM," and Yes, thank you. I'm now a bit more educated in the terminology.... > you should learn how that is. another erratum is that > the center-to-center "vectors" in the sphere-packing, > which also constitute the IVM, are in diameter-long segments, > obviously. In the VE and IVM, yes. Not in the system of my main interest. This does, though, have great impact in my system, where a sphere must occasionally be able to slide between two others, the distance between the two must be (natch) a sphere-diameter, and there's that odd resonance between this necessity and the double-radius-like mathematical phrasing of Planck's qauntum of action ( h / (2 * Pi) ), which can be thought about not just as a number ('twice Pi'), but also as a description: a circle or sphere of indeterminate radius, and a circle of exactly twice that radius. > your statements re icosahedral packing or nonsequiters; > you can't even get one more layer around them, such that > all of them touch (anything like the 12-and-one); > you are getting into "aperiodic tiling," > which takes a different tack, although highly amuzing! Quite right. It's a consuming interest. The vast field of possible arrangements for various numbers of spheres in compression-resistant patterns attracts me greatly, and I think always will. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:15:40 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 9 Jan 2002 to 10 Jan 2002 (#2002-10) In-Reply-To: <001601c19a6a$5aea4d00$d675d918@jb2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 1/10/02 10:36 PM, John Brawley at jgbrawley@EARTHLINK.NET wrote: > If so, disapprise yourselves of that ludicrous stance by doing the *!$#* > _work_ and making a *!$#* model you can use in your hands to prove > yourselves wrong. Try to remember that some listserv members are from faraway places. Real far. Only earth people have hands. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:14:33 -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: Re: opinion Comments: To: frank zubek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Frank, Referring to your website http://www.clowder.net/zubek/zubek.html , do your tetrahedra fill "Allspace"? Fuller's "Mites" do. Your blocks are similar to ones that I have thought about in the past: Please refer to http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/figs/f5310.html . If a vertical line is drawn through the middle of the bottom template, it is divided into 3 positive and 3 negative triangles. If a positive magnet is placed into the middle of each positive triangle, and a negative magnet is placed into the middle of each negative triangle, then the mites will automatically stick to each other. I've been waiting for years for someone to produce "Mighty Mites" kits that people could use to explore the geometry. The "A" and "B" Module portions would be appropriately colored and marked. I've dreamed of hollow, non-toxic plastic Mites large enough that a child couldn't swallow one. They could play with them in the tub! ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "frank zubek" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:03 AM Subject: opinion > Hi Joe, > > Did you checked out the elusive cube. > Go to google type in elusive cube. > Similar concept of Fuller's mites, just a different > plane of cuts. > These blocks are connected with magnets which is > unique in it self. > Let me know your opinion. > > regards frank ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:27:29 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) In-Reply-To: <200201102125.g0ALPGu14387@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii perhaps becauses of the weird symmetry -- and that > no-one was ever able to do it, in practice). > as with John's graphics, > there usually is some sort of gap; always, if > you distribute the gaps? > > thus quoth: > An IVM, by definition, must be made up of equal radius > spheres and equal > length vectors. Any distortion of the IVM where the > spheres/vertices do > = > not > meet this condition is no longer an IVM. I don't quite see how the IVM _order_ is not maintain angularly when different size spheres are used in the packing. Just because the distance between the spheres/vertexes varies as IVM becomes distorted, the IVM _order_ is not still there. It didn't up and vanish; an irregular tet is still a tet. Let's call it the irregular-IVM or iIVM. As it distorts, it still spans the some volume of space. It still has the same number of vertexes or spheres(as long as I can define the bag). Think about that. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:07:11 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > VE-rigid is not > its natural state, the icosa semi-free flexibility is its > natural state. Whoa. Your CI (crackpot index) just went through the roof! I agree. But what about IVM versus tverse? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:15:51 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Seth Itzkan Subject: Haverhill Premium Power Study Complete and Posted Comments: cc: uhcl-futures@lstsrvr.cl.uh.edu Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi All, I'm pleased to announce that the Haverhill Premium Power Study, that among other things, looked at the option of a fuel-cell based data center, is now completed and posted on the sponsoring organization's web site, The Massachusetts Technology Park Collaborative (www.mtpc.org). MTPC is a state agency empowered with helping to promote the "innovation economy" in Massachusetts. They have prominently posted the announcement of the report on the very front center of their web site. Go to http://www.mtpc.org Planet-TECH Associates was contracted to conduct this study and many of you have helped with ideas and support. Thank you. I am already aware of positive actions that are being taken as a result of our findings and recommendations. Best, - Seth -- Seth J. Itzkan Planet-TECH Associates http://www.planet-tech.com sitzkan@planet-tech.com 781-874-0206 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:35:55 -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, Jan 6, 2002, 8:45 PM > >> Today the three struts that were a "problem" in '99 (because they touched >> the ground) are not a problem; they are definitely off the ground. They are >> higher than strut ends 1,2,3 by .13 , .26 and .13 meters. That's sagging, >> I think they should be about .33 meters above the ground. >> > > Sounds like you did much better with this latest structure, although it should > exhibit three-fold symmetry right? The .26 standing out from the .13 is due to > assembly inaccuracy I assume. Yes, I think so. It also may be partly due to the fact that 1,2,3 are not level. I haven't done a careful measurement but I think 2 is higher than 3 by .05 m. The elevation of 1 is in between, maybe. I could experiment stacking rocks under 1,2,3 to see if I could get them more level if that helps. I suppose the elevation of 4,5,6 (my numbering) over 1,2,3 SHOULD vary when the 1,2,3 plane isn't horizontal. Maybe you can ignore the specifics, just taking the average elevation (which I think should be about .33 in zero-g) as indicating how much sag there is. > It is a different configuration from what I was > dealing with last time. Should be easy enough redoing the calculations > with the new configuration when I get the time. Great! I look forward to it. > So I imagine a lot of the elasticity still comes from the joints, knots tightening > or whatever. The other thing about my shot in the dark is I assume I can neglect > the elasticity of the struts. This was certainly reasonable for my assemblies of > hardwood stakes and nylon twine, but could be less so for your situation. Kenner's elasticity multiplication calculation for the 6 strut makes me think that the slightest stretching of knots or tendons would be multiplied 100s of times by the geometry. I think his calc also assumed perfectly rigid struts, but obviously the slightest compression of a strut would be similarly multiplied. I don't notice any bowing or stretching, but if it were at the millimeter scale I wouldn't. And assembly slop is much larger. So I'd think neglecting strut elasticity is fine. There is one strut that bows about .15 m away from a straight line, but it bowed like that BEFORE I cut it to 4 m length. The fact that it did not noticeably increase in bowing after assembly makes me think bowing is not a problem. The struts that were straight before assembly are still straight. >> The short tendons (.5168 as long as a strut) form 8 triangles. One is >> horizontal on the bottom and you don't calculate that one because your >> method assumes the ground contact points are anchored. Actually they're not >> anchored here. One triangle is horizontal on the very top, calculated >> tension 29 pounds in each of the 3 wires. >> > > Yes, anchoring was the easiest way to make the structure determinate, but I can use > some geometrical constraints which allow the base points to move in a plane so we > can get data for the tension in the base tendons. I think those 3 tendons (the horizontal triangle around the bottom 1,2,3) have the lightest load, except for the 3 that are slack (which also connect to 1,2,3.) Actually those bottom 3 wire tendons are often slightly slack when I check them. The nylon tendons are no doubt pulling a bit, and the friction between the strut ends and the rocks they sit on also may relieve the wire. Once I've lifted it, it takes very little force to move one of those ends horizontally inward .01 m on its rock. That surprises me but it's a fact on the ground. :-) The tightest tendons also connect to 1,2,3: longs running to 4,5,6, pulling slightly down on the bottom of the ~vertical low-floating problem struts. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:41:21 -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 - 9 Jan 2002 to 10 Jan 2002 (#2002-10) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 11-JAN-2002 10:41 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us but, then, it's easy to see where the confususion arises, becase the "jitterbug model" has no central ball, to get in the way of (nonexistent) outer balls. thus quoth: You are also presuming that the icosa form has to have its outer-12 spheres in contact with each other. The icosahedron that the VE jitterbugs to is an icosa of _vertexes_. That is, its outer-12 spheres are arranged in regular icosahedral form, but *none* of them will contact another outer-12 sphere. --The Blair Witch Project! http://quincy4board.homestead.com by the way, does anyone else dyslike the heading of "Digest XXXX-XX" ?? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:50:29 -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: icosas, nature, gases... Comments: To: tverse@fluidiom.com, Synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Recent discussions, reference. Paper located: Google, keywords "Mackay icosahedra," link found from search, Google, keywords "icosahedral packing." >From the parent paper: http://www-wales.ch.cam.ac.uk/~jon/PhD2/node11.html A link deeper in: http://www-wales.ch.cam.ac.uk/~jon/PhD2/node6.html#fig:fid Several sentences below the image, an interesting statement about rare gas clusterings. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:56:40 -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: The gaps in the JB-13 icosa Comments: To: tverse@fluidiom.com Comments: cc: Synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, well; at least one someone else may have been interested in the gaps.... Looks to me like a plywood model, so we can't see if there's gaps on the back side, also. http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/FrustrationCurvature/ Enjoy Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 22:09:20 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Joe S. Moore" Subject: Re: mites Comments: To: fzubek@yahoo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html

Frank,  see comments below:

===========================================================

Joe  S. Moore                               Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute

joe_s_moore@hotmail.com            http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/

>From: frank zubek
>To: "Joe S. Moore"
>Subject: Re: mites
>Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:00:12 -0800 (PST)
>
>--- "Joe S. Moore" wrote:

>Dear Frank,>

My "Mighty Mites" idea was placed into the public

>domain several years ago.   If you wish to

>use it, please feel free to do so.

In the system I described, 2 positive or 2 negative

>magnets would never meet!  That's the beauty of

>it.  I don't understand why some Bucky

>fan hasn't produced the "Mighty Mites" by

>now.  Your system is the closest I have yet

>seen.  No one has even trademarked the name

>"Mighty Mites". 

>
>Thank you for your generosity I would like to check it

>out. So you only have four shapes in your set? Do you

There is only one shape: A tetrahedron called a "MITE" (MInimum TEtrahedron). 

All other shapes can be constructed from this tet by putting mites together in various ways.  See http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/p5100.html

The mite is a model of what the physicists call a "quark".  See http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s10/p5000.html#1052.360

>have a image of the whole set?

See plates 17-25 http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html

> I'm retired and have a comfortable income. 

>I'm no longer interested in patenting and trademarking a product. 

>
>I am sure, you went through a long frustration period

>within the educational system it's self, as it is

I think we all did.

>considered to be the world worst. I know I do.

> However, I am still willing to consult for a limited

>amount of time (for free) using, preferably, email.

>
>Sure, I do understand. I need all the help I can get.
>I wondering my self how long I stay persistent, not
>being the youngest my self.
>
>regards frank >

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:48:32 -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: icosas, nature, gases... Comments: cc: synergeo In-Reply-To: <000701c19b0c$e8785e80$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- John Brawley wrote: > Recent discussions, reference. > Paper located: Google, keywords "Mackay icosahedra," link > found from > search, Google, keywords "icosahedral packing." > > From the parent paper: > > http://www-wales.ch.cam.ac.uk/~jon/PhD2/node11.html Are these models equilalent to tetrahedral watermanspheres(at least the convex ones)? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:02:50 -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: eBay item 1688861269 (Ends Jan-20-02 154733 PST ) - Geodesic Dome Kit Comments: To: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A 39' diam Cathedralite dome shell kit with 3' riser wall is currently = up for bid at eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3D1688861269 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 09:26:04 -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: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It would appear that we are making progress: Year......People/Day Dying from Hunger 1980..................................................41,000 1990..................................................35,000 2000..................................................24,000 Source: UN =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:01:46 -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 - 10 Jan 2002 to 11 Jan 2002 (#2002-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (This message fir Dick F., but I could not pass this up): > From: The Millers > > Try to remember that some listserv members are from faraway places. Real > far. Only earth people have hands. In jest, no doubt. Now: > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 7 Jan 2002 to 8 Jan 2002 (#2002-8) > > > > VE-rigid is not > > its natural state, the icosa semi-free flexibility is its > > natural state. > > Whoa. Your CI (crackpot index) just went through the roof! > I agree. But what about IVM versus tverse? I'm in (laborious, eye-searing, precision-tiny) process of making a computer model that shows the Tverse and IVM forms of the packing in question twisting wholesale into one another. I made a partial version of this last week. It starts on-screen as an IVM, then twists into a Tverse packing, then back again. It's amazing to watch. The important thing to know about it is that it's not specially made to do that: the twisting comes from rules internal to _both_ the IVM and the Tverse patterns; the struts (intervals, vectors, whatever you call them) are the same in both the IVM state and in the Tverse state. All that I do to get this transformation is to add one invisible, relaxable (in Struck or SpringDance: "slack"-able) vector across the other diagonal of every square in the VE/IVM, thus when the vector is activated (made _not_ slack), it pushes the square into proper squareness (the IVM forms), and when it's relaxed (slacked) again, the squares all distort to their icosahedral equivalent forms (two base-to-base equilateral triangles; the Tverse network forms). It'll take time to make this visible to all: after getting the model working right, I must incrementally stop the motion, shoot a PovRay export, restart the motion and stop it, shoot another Pov-pic, etcetera, for at least 20, probably more like 30 frames, then render each in PovRay, then combine them all into a .GIF animation. If I do this large enough to be impressive on-screen, the file size will be (unfortunately) huge. On Tverse modelling universe: Given my earlier writing in which I note (and you so kindly agreed) that for Tverse both spherical compression from the outside-inward, and spherical influence at the 12-around-none size level inside-outwardly prevents IVM from forming, in _that_ (which I, with my crackpot index, think is the universe), the most natural state for all 12-around-1s is the icosahedral form, not the VE, thus, the IVM (being merely a collection of interlocking VEs) is much less "stable" than the Tverse packing (being merely a collection of inter"lock"ing 13-piont (modelled as 13-sphere) icosahedra. Moreover, I think I sent a link earlier, to a site where packings related specifically to _atoms_ (scientific work, unlike my more philosophical/metaphysical work) are discussed. Many references to _icosahedral_ packing in real Nature (physics) are there. Many X-ray diffraction patterns show icosahedra. There's even a reference to noble _gas_ atoms (recall Avogadro's number discussion) showing a preference for icosahedral packing. Now, granted, my study is of items vastly smaller than atoms, but if one considers the possibility that underlying (small-units) patterns tend to influence larger patterns built up from them, one might be willing to grant at least "likely" status to the idea that if 'spacetime' is most naturally icosahedral rather than IVM-packed, one would expect to see icosahedrally-influenced patterns in things in spacetime that are much larger. (This principle is, I think, called 'isotopic'(?) in mineralogy, where large-scale crystals reflect/adopt the patterns of their small-scale atomic-lattice arrangements.) In a spherically-bounded (Tverse's compressor), sphere-containing (Tverse's 12-a-none "protons") system, an IVM would be a "metastable state," one in which the IVM patterning could as readily twist either left, or right, either direction of twist leading to more spherical-like icosahedral patterning. Thus the IVM, while UNnatural to Tverse-as-universe-model, can contribute in yet another way: if there's a piece of IVM sitting there around a "hole" (a missing sphere), compressed and wanting to twist so that part of it can get a little denser, then the _slightest_imaginable_ (think: "quantum fluctuation") push from one direction as opposed to the other, would start the twisting in that direction rather than the other, thus causing perhaps vast rearrangements all around that area to go one way, rather than the other way. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com *************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:35:26 -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: Aircar Comments: To: "Wilson, Jay M" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jay, Here's the info about Moller's air cars: http://www.moller.com/skycar/m150/ (1 passenger) http://www.moller.com/skycar/m400/ (4 passenger) They are currently in the process of being certified by the FAA: http://www.moller.com/skycar/operation/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:16:44 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Joe, as usual, you keep in mind the biggist picture. I have tried over the years to attach a number to our collective world wealth. I am not sure but I think it must be approaching a quadrillion bucks(thousand trillion). I am sure the numbers you found here are closely related to the number I speak of. Dick --- Joe S Moore wrote: > It would appear that we are making progress: > > Year......People/Day Dying from Hunger > 1980..................................................41,000 > 1990..................................................35,000 > 2000..................................................24,000 > > Source: UN > > ============================== > Joe S Moore > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > ============================= __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:35:39 -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: Re: opinion <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JAN-2002 3:35 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us if you press the "double corner," you'll see that it is (left and right) sixths of a hexahedron, which is a quadrirectangular tetrahedron that is the "orthoscheme" (per Coxeter et al) of the cube. as Bucky (and Coxeter) drew it, it was 48 of the same shape, meeting at the center; that is, 6 times a "2-cubed" factor. I found the same thing, some y.a. ... I'm forgetting Bucky's names for these, if not the "mite." thus quoth: Referring to your website http://www.clowder.net/zubek/zubek.html , do your tetrahedra fill "Allspace"? Fuller's "Mites" do. Your blocks are similar to ones that I have thought about in the past: Please refer to http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/figs/f5310.html . If a --Pardonnez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:25:03 -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: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick, How would one measure "Collective World Wealth"? How to attach a number to the hundreds (thousands?) of examples of "Doing more with Less"? It has occurred to me that what the economists call "Productivity" might be used as a measure of wealth. Is your research available on a website? I know that the World Game people used to track all the various global stats. Since all global problems eventually come down to energy availability, I've been following the energy/capita stats of various countries. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Fischbeck" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Starvation > Joe, as usual, you keep in mind the biggist picture. > > I have tried over the years to attach a number to our > collective world wealth. I am not sure but I think it must > be approaching a quadrillion bucks(thousand trillion). > > I am sure the numbers you found here are closely related to > the number I speak of. > > Dick > > --- Joe S Moore wrote: > > It would appear that we are making progress: > > > > Year......People/Day Dying from Hunger > > > 1980..................................................41,000 > > > 1990..................................................35,000 > > > 2000..................................................24,000 > > > > Source: UN ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 03:55:27 -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: mites <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JAN-2002 3:55 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, I guess that I'm the only one on this list who's using telnet; eh? thus quoth: I'm retired and have a comfortable income. 

>I'm no longer interested in patenting and trademarking a product. 

>
>I am sure, you went through a long frustration period

>within the educational system it's self, as it is

I think we all did.

>considered to be the world worst. I know I do.

> However, I am still willing to consult for a limited

>amount of time (for free) using, preferably, email.

>
>Sure, I do understand. I need all the help I can get.
>I wondering my self how long I stay persistent, not
>being the youngest my self.
>
>regards frank > --Pardonnez-George! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:52:14 -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: tverse to IVM and back In-Reply-To: <001201c19b8b$b2feffa0$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > VE-rigid is not > > > its natural state, the icosa semi-free flexibility is > its > > > natural state. > > > > Whoa. Your CI (crackpot index) just went through the > roof! > > I agree. But what about IVM versus tverse? > > I'm in (laborious, eye-searing, precision-tiny) process > of making a > computer model that shows the Tverse and IVM forms of the > packing in > question twisting wholesale into one another. > > I made a partial version of this last week. It starts > on-screen as an > IVM, then twists into a Tverse packing, then back again. > It's amazing > to watch. > The important thing to know about it is that it's not > specially made to > do that: the twisting comes from rules internal to _both_ > the IVM and > the Tverse patterns; the struts (intervals, vectors, > whatever you call > them) are the same in both the IVM state and in the > Tverse state. All > that I do to get this transformation is to add one > invisible, relaxable > (in Struck or SpringDance: "slack"-able) vector across > the other > diagonal of every square in the VE/IVM, thus when the > vector is > activated (made _not_ slack), it pushes the square into > proper > squareness (the IVM forms), and when it's relaxed > (slacked) again, the > squares all distort to their icosahedral equivalent forms > (two > base-to-base equilateral triangles; the Tverse network > forms). > > It'll take time to make this visible to all: after > getting the model > working right, I must incrementally stop the motion, > shoot a PovRay > export, restart the motion and stop it, shoot another > Pov-pic, etcetera, > for at least 20, probably more like 30 frames, then > render each in > PovRay, then combine them all into a .GIF animation. If > I do this large > enough to be impressive on-screen, the file size will be > (unfortunately) > huge. > > On Tverse modelling universe: > Given my earlier writing in which I note (and you so > kindly agreed) that > for Tverse both spherical compression from the > outside-inward, and > spherical influence at the 12-around-none size level > inside-outwardly > prevents IVM from forming, in _that_ (which I, with my > crackpot index, > think is the universe), the most natural state for all > 12-around-1s is > the icosahedral form, not the VE, thus, the IVM (being > merely a > collection of interlocking VEs) is much less "stable" > than the Tverse > packing (being merely a collection of inter"lock"ing > 13-piont (modelled > as 13-sphere) icosahedra. > > Moreover, I think I sent a link earlier, to a site where > packings > related specifically to _atoms_ (scientific work, unlike > my more > philosophical/metaphysical work) are discussed. Many > references to > _icosahedral_ packing in real Nature (physics) are there. > Many X-ray > diffraction patterns show icosahedra. There's even a > reference to noble > _gas_ atoms (recall Avogadro's number discussion) showing > a preference > for icosahedral packing. > > Now, granted, my study is of items vastly smaller than > atoms, but if one > considers the possibility that underlying (small-units) > patterns tend to > influence larger patterns built up from them, one might > be willing to > grant at least "likely" status to the idea that if > 'spacetime' is most > naturally icosahedral rather than IVM-packed, one would > expect to see > icosahedrally-influenced patterns in things in spacetime > that are much > larger. (This principle is, I think, called > 'isotopic'(?) in > mineralogy, where large-scale crystals reflect/adopt the > patterns of > their small-scale atomic-lattice arrangements.) > > In a spherically-bounded (Tverse's compressor), > sphere-containing > (Tverse's 12-a-none "protons") system, an IVM would be a > "metastable > state," one in which the IVM patterning could as readily > twist either > left, or right, either direction of twist leading to more > spherical-like > icosahedral patterning. > Thus the IVM, while UNnatural to > Tverse-as-universe-model, can > contribute in yet another way: if there's a piece of IVM > sitting there > around a "hole" (a missing sphere), compressed and > wanting to twist so > that part of it can get a little denser, then the > _slightest_imaginable_ > (think: "quantum fluctuation") push from one direction as > opposed to the > other, would start the twisting in that direction rather > than the other, > thus causing perhaps vast rearrangements all around that > area to go one > way, rather than the other way. Now, if I pour bb's into a box, most bb's will be patterned after the IVM. Some in the same box, the ones nearest the sides, are tverse because unless the box is exactly x-diameters in both direstions, some bb's will spill into the extra space. Is spill a scientific word? Anyway, doesn't this simple model show how tverse and IVM are compatible? When you deform an IVM, does it expand? It must, right? When bb-packing begins on the inside of a sphere, it begins packing as tverse. Can it ever transform in to IVM as the packing builds toward the center? I don't see how, because the bb's will always take up the _most_ amount of space available, not the least. If the packing starts at a central point, then the spheres will always find the easiest spot to settle into and that is _not_ the IVM, unless the sphere are forced tight, like if they were attrached to each other. If they have no choice, they will assume the IVM. Otherwise, tverse is the natural packing order for these spheres. Any friction or repulsing they experience while packing will bring on that much faster the tverse "disorder." And they will not resume the IVM packing because, once additional space is introduced into the IVM packing(in the form of distortion), the possibility of the spheres moving closer together than they _have_ to is zero. They will always take the easiest position. Maybe we are talking about sphere packing outside in(tverse) and sphere packing inside out_IVM). Bucky recognized radiation and gravity as compliments, but not mirror images. Maybe IVM is in the radiational phase of universe(inside-out packing) and tverse is the gravitational phase(outside-in packing). Not that they happen at different times, really. Just that one can dominate the other, depending on the special case. In one case space(room-to-move) is in deficit, the other space(room-to-move) is in excess. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 04:07:10 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 10 Jan 2002 to 11 Jan 2002 (#2002-11) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JAN-2002 4:07 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us if the IVM is made of rigid struts, then it is rigid, so that "putting elastic intervals across the squares (sic; octahedral cross-sections, and there are three of'em)," won't do any thing -- unless the IVM is also flexible. in center-to-center network of packed spheres, all of the eedges will necesserily be of diameter length, with some dysappearing as the spheres shift (and stop kissing). the IVM is just an idealized lattice of well-known symmetry; please, don't use "space-time" for any static construction, or snapshot! the links that you just gave are not packings, as was noted in one of them, but simple clusters, like the icosahedron itself (but were you referring to "self-similarity, not "isotopic?") thus quoth: In a spherically-bounded (Tverse's compressor), sphere-containing (Tverse's 12-a-none "protons") system, an IVM would be a "metastable state," one in which the IVM patterning could as readily twist either left, or right, either direction of twist leading to more spherical-like icosahedral patterning. Thus the IVM, while UNnatural to Tverse-as-universe-model, can contribute in yet another way: if there's a piece of IVM sitting there around a "hole" (a missing sphere), compressed and wanting to twist so that part of it can get a little denser, then the _slightest_imaginable_ (think: "quantum fluctuation") are we starting to define our QBS, now? --Pardonnez-George! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 04:14:38 -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 - 9 Jan 2002 to 10 Jan 2002 (#2002-10) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JAN-2002 4:14 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us SUBJECT: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 9 Jan 2002 to 10 Jan 2002 (#2002-10) MESSAGE from ="List 12-JAN-20 3:16 <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 11-JAN-2002 10:41 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us but, then, it's easy to see where the confususion arises, becase the "jitterbug model" has no central ball, to get in the way of (nonexistent) outer balls. thus quoth: You are also presuming that the icosa form has to have its outer-12 spheres in contact with each other. The icosahedron that the VE jitterbugs to is an icosa of _vertexes_. That is, its outer-12 spheres are arranged in regular icosahedral form, but *none* of them will contact another outer-12 sphere. --The Blair Witch Project! http://quincy4board.homestead.com by the way, does anyone else dyslike the heading of "Digest XXXX-XX" ?? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:01:55 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Joe S Moore wrote: > Dick, > > How would one measure "Collective World Wealth"? How to > attach a number to > the hundreds (thousands?) of examples of "Doing more with > Less"? Yes, the number would be growing exponentially and it would be hard to take a snapshot of. But, since wealth is real(forward days, etc,) one could quantify it somehow. The world bank has some numbers. They are including human capital now, like literacy and education levels. What I am after is a number that would help communicate to people that we collectively are fabulously wealth already. All ready enough to go around. A number like the per capita planetary wealth index. > It has > occurred to me that what the economists call > "Productivity" might be used as > a measure of wealth. Is your research available on a > website? I know that > the World Game people used to track all the various > global stats. Since all > global problems eventually come down to energy > availability, I've been > following the energy/capita stats of various countries. This is right. Do you have a graph on it? Dick > > --- Joe S Moore wrote: > > > It would appear that we are making progress: > > > > > > Year......People/Day Dying from Hunger > > > > > > 1980..................................................41,000 > > > > > > 1990..................................................35,000 > > > > > > 2000..................................................24,000 > > > > > > Source: UN __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 04:16:56 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 9 Jan 2002 to 10 Jan 2002 (#2002-10) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JAN-2002 4:16 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us don't say "ain't," youn man, when you haven't proven your (Newton's silly) conjecture; thank you! thus quoth: > whether it is possible to stuff a 13th ball > amongst the 12, to kiss the center one (and It ain't. (*g*) --The Blair Witch Project! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:30:51 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: [synergeo] Re: icosas, nature, gases... Comments: To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20020112144832.52107.qmail@web20505.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Are these models equilalent to tetrahedral >watermanspheres(at least the convex ones)? > >Dick Not sure what you mean by tetrahedral watermanspheres. Watermans are convex polyhedra. None of them are tetrahedral. These icosahedral packings aren't watermans because they're non-IVM. Kirby ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:00:07 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How to judge wealth? I'm still liking the IMR. Energy is cool, but we're not there yet. Besides, look at those of us who have too much available, and how opaque we are to efficiency. Bucky was always more heard in the have- not world. What is enough? What is too much? How bad does it have to be for us to discover true wealth? I don't know. I watch Buffy for at least two hours a day. Move along, nothing to see here. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:04:29 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I still like the credo, First eat, then talk. If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k weren't so token. I don't know why we buy into a happy ending there. We can't even solve east LA. - j ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:46:47 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: [synergeo] planes of symmetry Comments: To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Randomes do not have planes of symmetry. Am I on the same page? What >does "b <> c" mean/ > >Dick Check out this excellent page by George Hart, which is pretty clear on the subject: http://www.georgehart.com/radiolaria/radiolaria.html In particular, this graphic: http://www.georgehart.com/radiolaria/fig-5.gif shows the Class III skew icosa pattern which Coxeter was discussing, and which Goldberg's expression accommodates (Fuller's 10ff + 2 did not). It's tilting (skewness) is what's described by "b <> c". It's not that Michael Goldberg's stuff was irrelevant (it wasn't), just that Fuller's research was relevant too, and came from a whole different direction (as Goldberg himself acknowledged to E.J. Applewhite -- they knew each other). Fuller was still smarting from 'Scientific American' leaving his part out (Horne episode -- similar to his being cut out of the Epcot scenario, despite 'Spaceship Earth') but he wrote a gracious thank you to Coxeter for that Macromolecules article, which at least restores a piece of Fuller's thinking, if only to point out its limitations (which it was -- limited that is (isn't everyone's?)). Ivars Peterson later brought Fuller back into the history of the virus narrative in his 'Jungles of Randomness', although he wasn't entirely clear about it. I wrote to Ivar about that, and he thanked me (he's always been polite to me): http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/jungle.html Hart, on the other hand, seems to share Conway's view that Fuller was muchly a kook, which seems way to harsh and uncomprehending to me (likewise I take issue with Aldersey-Williams' characterization of 'Synergetics' in his 'Most Beautiful Molecule' (we argued about that by email). Kirby See: http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/virus.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:08:24 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: <3C40C0FC.5B308E27@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Free food -- a recipe for more mouths next generation. Free knowledge -- a recipe for more competitors next generation **** If you were competition oriented, Which makes your children more likely to dominate the world? {The political game is about power; it is not about success for all.} [At a deeper level, there is no success without challenges, without competitors.] Best regards, At 03:04 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: >I still like the credo, >First eat, then talk. > >If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k >weren't so token. > >I don't know why we buy into a happy ending >there. We can't even solve east LA. > >- j Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:03:18 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: [synergeo] freezing Comments: To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >5.Tetrahedral packing is denser than the spherical close >packing of ice . I don't understand this statement. What is tetrahedral packing? Since the resolution of a lawsuit which kept Wolfram Research for sharing its excellent math research website (Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics), we now have access to those info-packed, often illustrated, highly cross-indexed, web pages. Here's the one on sphere packing: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePacking.html Note that "tetrahedral packing" (mentioned thereon) is *less dense* than the ordinary cubic close packing, as I'd expect, and which leads me to further question what these ice water people are really telling us. See also the linked: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Space-FillingPolyhedron.html which doesn't get into the topic of irregular space-fillers such as the MITE (tetrahedral space-filler), arguably the simplest (in terms of number of faces, edges, vertices). Pursuant to the "what irregular tetrahedra fill space" question, we're pointed by (by Conway himself, an authority in this area) to the research of Michael Goldberg (mentioned above). For more, see this thread: http://www.mathforum.com/epigone/geometry-research/choifrerdcheh Kirby ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:53:12 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Before you form an opinion like that, or rather, since you already have, try to distance yourself long enough to face the facts. The data indicates that when the IMR drops below a certain level, which I think is 18 deaths per hundred, but don't quote me on that, birth rate drops. And it doesn't rise again unless there is a war or famine. So, bite me. - jim "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > > Free food -- > a recipe for more mouths next generation. > > Free knowledge -- > a recipe for more competitors next generation > > **** > If you were competition oriented, > Which makes your children more likely to dominate the world? > > {The political game is about power; > it is not about success for all.} > > [At a deeper level, there is no success > without challenges, without competitors.] > > Best regards, > > At 03:04 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: > >I still like the credo, > >First eat, then talk. > > > >If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k > >weren't so token. > > > >I don't know why we buy into a happy ending > >there. We can't even solve east LA. > > > >- j > > Rolf H. Parta > Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:39:49 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: <3C40E886.65A17A19@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed jim: What data indicate is all fine and well. And, without theory to guide it, spurious correlations abound and lead many into concluding that causal relationships exist where both data sets are simply symptoms of some more basic underlying cause. Example: increases in available electricity per person [megawatthours] are also correlated with declines in the birth rate. To conclude that the one causes the other without further evidence is poor logic. Btw, the obscenity ill becomes you. --rolf p. At 05:53 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Before you form an opinion like that, >or rather, since you already have, >try to distance yourself long enough >to face the facts. > >The data indicates that when the IMR >drops below a certain level, which >I think is 18 deaths per hundred, >but don't quote me on that, >birth rate drops. > >And it doesn't rise again unless >there is a war or famine. > >So, bite me. > >- jim > > >"Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > > > > Free food -- > > a recipe for more mouths next generation. > > > > Free knowledge -- > > a recipe for more competitors next generation > > > > **** > > If you were competition oriented, > > Which makes your children more likely to dominate the world? > > > > {The political game is about power; > > it is not about success for all.} > > > > [At a deeper level, there is no success > > without challenges, without competitors.] > > > > Best regards, > > > > At 03:04 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: > > >I still like the credo, > > >First eat, then talk. > > > > > >If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k > > >weren't so token. > > > > > >I don't know why we buy into a happy ending > > >there. We can't even solve east LA. > > > > > >- j > > > > Rolf H. Parta > > Imagination comes before Accomplishment. Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:47:38 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Obscenity is moot in an obscene situation. My trendy assertions come from established data. Must I look them up for you? jim "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > > jim: > What data indicate is all fine and well. And, without theory to > guide it, spurious correlations abound and lead many into concluding that > causal relationships exist where both data sets are simply symptoms of some > more basic underlying cause. > Example: increases in available electricity per person > [megawatthours] are also correlated with declines in the birth rate. To > conclude that the one causes the other without further evidence is poor logic. > > Btw, the obscenity ill becomes you. > > --rolf p. > > At 05:53 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: > >Before you form an opinion like that, > >or rather, since you already have, > >try to distance yourself long enough > >to face the facts. > > > >The data indicates that when the IMR > >drops below a certain level, which > >I think is 18 deaths per hundred, > >but don't quote me on that, > >birth rate drops. > > > >And it doesn't rise again unless > >there is a war or famine. > > > >So, bite me. > > > >- jim > > > > > >"Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > > > > > > Free food -- > > > a recipe for more mouths next generation. > > > > > > Free knowledge -- > > > a recipe for more competitors next generation > > > > > > **** > > > If you were competition oriented, > > > Which makes your children more likely to dominate the world? > > > > > > {The political game is about power; > > > it is not about success for all.} > > > > > > [At a deeper level, there is no success > > > without challenges, without competitors.] > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > At 03:04 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: > > > >I still like the credo, > > > >First eat, then talk. > > > > > > > >If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k > > > >weren't so token. > > > > > > > >I don't know why we buy into a happy ending > > > >there. We can't even solve east LA. > > > > > > > >- j > > > > > > Rolf H. Parta > > > Imagination comes before Accomplishment. > > Rolf H. Parta > Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:06:16 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, since you insist, here's just one... http://www.swissconsultinggroup.com/publication2.php?secID=Publications&secOne=07 When the IMR drops below 18 per 1000, [I was off by x10, so shoot me] the birthrate drops as well. How many kids did your mom have? Why? Go away. Leave me alone. [!@#$%^*] - jim ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:07:42 -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: non-inots Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > mainly From: John Brawley , various dates >>= misc > Let me first answer with a crosspost from Synergeo that I wrote in > response to a couple of questions from Tom Ray. > This was well-received over there, and I think clarifies most of what > you object to, as briefly as I've ever managed it: Uh oh! I couldn't see any bearing on my objections. I like the idea of sphere packing from the outside in -- that's a good way to take maximum advantage of container shape. When somebody thinks IVM always packs more balls into ANY container, I'll guide them toward recognizing the superiority of a designed jumble pack by letting them stack balls in IVM form from the center out, then point out the gap between their outer planes and the container. But if somebody offers me $ for every extra ball I can design into a curved container, I'll pack balls against the inside wall of the container first, and work inward, as you suggest. That way a maximum of slack is brought together in the center. >> Can you define 'primal' in this context? > > "All VE arrangements are icosahedral, not all icosahedral arrangements > are VEs." > > By "primal" I intended to mean the class/type (icosahedral, here) > includes any specific instance (a VE or my tightest-packed-13, here) of > the type; the class is primal (underlying; generative; original; > inclusive) to any individual instance of the class. I see how it could be useful for you to start with the more general class that includes true icosahedrons (regular and irregular) and VEs as one special case of that class. "Icosa" means 20, and lots of members of the class have 20 triangular faces. But any(?) number of faces from 14-20 can happen, depending on how many perfect squares there are on the surface. This would have been relevant to one of my objections if you had confirmed or corrected this partial specification of the class "icosahedral": All interior gaps are zero. Do I misinterpret, isn't that what you said Jan 1: >... this 12-around-1 is > my "icosahedro(not)," which is intended to be a name for the _class_ of > _all_ possible 12-around-1 13-sphere packings in which no outer sphere > loses contact with the center sphere Please excuse my obtuseness if that means exactly what it says -- it does not look ambiguous to me. It is just hard for me to believe you're saying it because I've gotten so used to thinking of every ball in a jumble pack as being the center of an icosahedro(not), the way every ball in an IVM is the center of a VE. But if the icosahedro(not) class (same as icosahedral class?) really excludes 13 ball assemblies with interior gap, then by far most of the balls in a compressed jumble pack are NOT centers of icosahedro(not)s. (Does anybody besides me see this?) Every ball adjacent to a gap is NOT the center of an icosahedro(not)? What do you call the larger class of 12-around-1s where there can be interior gaps? I think you called it "icosa-forms" Jan 11: >These are different, and conflicting, principles: >1) sphericity uppermost in the packing, >2) _tightness_ uppermost in the packing. > >A hard-surfaced enclosing sphere tends to make icosas. >A hard-surfaced enclosing _box_ tends to make VEs. >A real balloon model tends about halfway between the two, the sphericity >affecting the pattern more or less as much as the compression. >If this were not true, my physical experiment with 500 acrylic 1/2-inch >spheres would have come out either totally randomized (from the >sphericity) or totally in IVM form (from the compression). >It actually came out 100% icosa-forms, but a number of them were very >close to VE. Your reports of your balloon experiment said it came out about 100% icosahedronots, but that was long ago -- have you changed the name for the more general class that includes interior gap? If it weren't for this inconsistency I would assume icosahedro(not), inot, icosa-form, and icosahedral were synonyms. The awful alternative is that you didn't realize that every inot is surrounded by many non-inots. > where the spheres packed are "packed" because the collection of spheres > is compressed together: such a 12-around-_none_, 12-sphere, perfect > regular icosahedron occupies less circumscribed volume than any > 12-around-_1_ packing does, thus if such a "missing" sphere occurs in an > IVM, there will locally be a tendency in that locality to reduce the > packing volume even further, which would require the now-non-nucleated > VE to _twist_ ("jitterbug") into a regular icosahedron, in order to > achieve this even slightly tighter packing. An even tighter packing would occur if the hole migrated to the surface, reducing the volume of the whole jumble pack by 1 ball instead of leaving that non-nucleated icosahedron behind, wrapped around 95% as much empty volume as the missing ball. Jitterbugging reduces the volume by 5% of a ball; migration reduces the volume by 1 whole ball. Hole migration can't happen if the compression is strong enough to prevent the temporary expansion required for a ball to squeeze into the hole; but temporary expansion is also required for jitterbugging. As to there being a "tendency" to jitterbug, I think that is a property not found in real IVM crystals. If there is a vacancy, the balls around the vacancy are still attracted by van der waals to the walls. So a real crystal that is nearly an IVM but has a vacancy keeps the vacancy. Each one of the 12 around the vacancy is more attracted to the other 11 it is touching than it is to the empty space, so it does not move away from the walls, it doesn't jitterbug. Real IVM crystals have vacancies, not icosahedrons. > So, given both premises: 1) the shape of the container impacts the > packing pattern "from the outside inwardly," and 2) the presence of one > or more "holes" (missing spheres) within the packing "lattice" alters > the pattern of the packing "from the inside outwardly," it's my > contention that if _both_ these effects are present, then the packing > seen in this system will not be CCP/IVM, but instead icosahedral (again, > regardless of the CCP/IVM's supposed tighter packing). Why emphasize "_both_" effects? 1) by itself guarantees the packing won't be CCP/IVM. And here "icosahedral" surely must include interior gaps. One inot's surface gap is another inot's interior gap. > regardless of the CCP/IVM's supposed tighter packing). By "tighter" do you mean higher density? If so, I think Kepler's claim is NOT that IVM is TIGHTER packing than anything else, just that no packing is tighter than IVM. Equal density is compatible with Kepler. Of course Kepler (restricted his descriptions to)/(defined volume only for) specific container shapes, so his concept of density is not relevant to the spherical container you're interested in. Where you mentioned "tightness" as a principle of packing above I think you did not mean density, you meant freedom to move. Actually I don't think there is any difference in tightness between an IVM in a rigid "box" and a jumble pack in a rigid sphere. If the sphere is not full, I can see that surface balls could move out to the container. Interior balls in a jumble pack are just as tight (immobile) as interior balls in an IVM. You mentioned compression as a factor in the tightness, but if the balls are touching and rigid they don't have to be compressed. A one-dimensional force like gravity is enough to guarantee they'll all touch each other and the curved bottom of the container (and be immobile.) You got movement in your balloon only with vigorous mushing during which you changed the shape of the container. You say above that compression promotes IVM >sphericity) or totally in IVM form (from the compression). Real crystal IVMs are formed when each atom slowly approaches a previously existing IVM and steers into the coziest pocket. Compression has nothing to do with it. Compressing a tight jumble pack will not move anything as long as the container and the balls don't deform. However if the pack is heated up so the balls bounce around and don't touch each other and then cooled down slowly, that is "annealing" I think, and it promotes IVM growth. Back to your balloon experiment: >It actually came out 100% icosa-forms, but a number of them were very >close to VE. Wasn't that number zero? Earlier I copied your first balloon experiment to this list, but my archives contain two more balloon experiments you reported. Here are your conclusions for experiments 1,2, and 3: ---------- #1 (this is the one I've quoted here before) 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. ------------------ Second Iteration ... Procedure same, but less mushing and mashing: ... Observe: Exact four-ball squares: none. Near-exact four-ball squares: eight (in widely different places). Exact V-Es: none, zip, zero, nada. _Near_ V-Es: none, zip, zero, nada. Wildly permissive potentially _vague_ V-Es: _maybe_ two. Icosahedro(not)s of various degrees of integrity: everywhere. 7-ball planar units: a few, all on the outer two layers. 7-ball non-planar units: many, again, all on the outer layers. ----------------- #3 ... Then I pushed the balloon down against the table, to make the bottom as flat as possible over as wide an area as possible. (The area was about eight inches in diameter.) I tapped, and rattled on this assembly, attempting to make as many vector equilibria as would "settle in" to the now _flat_ area beneath the balls. ... Observed, upon watching it melt: Outer layer: Perfect 4-ball squares: zero. _Close_ to perfect 4-ball squares: one. Outer three layers: Perfect V-Es: none, zero, zip, nada. _Near_ perfect V-Es: none, zip, zero, nada. Rest of the frozen thingie: Perfect 4-ball squares: two. _Near_-perfect 4-ball squares: about six. Perfect V-Es: none, zip, zero, nada. _Near_ perfect V-Es: none, zip, zero, nada. Grossly permissive almost-V-Es: one; questionably. Icosahedro(not)s: You guessed it; everything else is an I-not or variation thereof. ------------------------ Of course if you want I'll zip the source, 800K of prime PHYSICS I collected in Jan '96, and email it to you. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:26:03 -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: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At the risk of revealing my true ignorance, what does "IMR" stand for? ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "jim fish" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 10:06 PM Subject: Re: Starvation > Well, since you insist, here's just one... > > http://www.swissconsultinggroup.com/publication2.php?secID=Publications&secO ne=07 > > When the IMR drops below 18 per 1000, [I was off by x10, so shoot me] > the birthrate drops as well. How many kids did your mom have? Why? > > Go away. Leave me alone. [!@#$%^*] > > - jim ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:14:51 -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: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick, Re global energy/capita see the following stats from the US Energy Information Adm (EIA): http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls (Excell spreadsheet format) Haven't converted the annual world totals to a graph. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Fischbeck" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Starvation > --- Joe S Moore wrote: > > Dick, > > > > How would one measure "Collective World Wealth"? How to > > attach a number to > > the hundreds (thousands?) of examples of "Doing more with > > Less"? > > Yes, the number would be growing exponentially and it would > be hard to take a snapshot of. But, since wealth is > real(forward days, etc,) one could quantify it somehow. The > world bank has some numbers. They are including human > capital now, like literacy and education levels. What I am > after is a number that would help communicate to people > that we collectively are fabulously wealth already. All > ready enough to go around. A number like the per capita > planetary wealth index. > > > > It has > > occurred to me that what the economists call > > "Productivity" might be used as > > a measure of wealth. Is your research available on a > > website? I know that > > the World Game people used to track all the various > > global stats. Since all > > global problems eventually come down to energy > > availability, I've been > > following the energy/capita stats of various countries. > > This is right. Do you have a graph on it? > > Dick ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:27:26 EST Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Michael Round Subject: 100 MPH on 3-Wheels? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the recent edition of Popular Science, this car (http://www.corbinmotors.com/) is under the article title, "100 mph on Three Wheels"..., getting 60 miles per gallon. The title "The Most Beautiful Roadster in the World" ... accompanies a picture of the car. Hmmmmmm Michael Round ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:04:59 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: <3C41115F.71FDB5@earthlink.net> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This attitude is a real kick in the head to anyone doing the hard work of raising children (the regenerative process as Bucky would say). Human beings are not masses of hungry mouths for you to feed. The universe of human minds is vast beyond all comprehension. Human beings not only consume resources, we are resources. > From: jim fish > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:47:38 -0800 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Starvation > >>> >>> "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: >>>> >>>> Free food -- >>>> a recipe for more mouths next generation. >>>> >>>> Free knowledge -- >>>> a recipe for more competitors next generation >>>> >>>> **** >>>> If you were competition oriented, >>>> Which makes your children more likely to dominate the world? >>>> >>>> {The political game is about power; >>>> it is not about success for all.} >>>> >>>> [At a deeper level, there is no success >>>> without challenges, without competitors.] >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> At 03:04 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: >>>>> I still like the credo, >>>>> First eat, then talk. >>>>> >>>>> If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k >>>>> weren't so token. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know why we buy into a happy ending >>>>> there. We can't even solve east LA. >>>>> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 07:17:40 -0800 Reply-To: tellin_112358@hotmail.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Jason Organization: DRI Subject: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I"d have to agree to the Millers on the humans as resource thing. We're the best resource we've got. To think that a human starving to death is in any way good, simply becasue it means you get a private room with a bath, so to speak, is ludicrous. The resources are here to feed the world population and still have a resource. The problem isn't the sheer amt of resources or the number of people, or the birth rate. The problem is the much more insiduous and immediatley challenging one of resource allocation: Being less rich so someone else can eat. As for: "[At a deeper level, there is no success without challenges, without competitors.]" The greatest success comes from overcoming the challenge of seeing the world. yourself, and others for what they really are: all the same thing. There are many competing viewpoints to this. We dont have to make it harder than it already is... be well, jason The Millers wrote: > This attitude is a real kick in the head to anyone doing the hard work > of raising children (the regenerative process as Bucky would say). Human > beings are not masses of hungry mouths for you to feed. The universe of > human minds is vast beyond all comprehension. Human beings not only consume > resources, we are resources. > > > From: jim fish > > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > > works" > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:47:38 -0800 > > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > > Subject: Re: Starvation > > > >>> > >>> "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Free food -- > >>>> a recipe for more mouths next generation. > >>>> > >>>> Free knowledge -- > >>>> a recipe for more competitors next generation > >>>> > >>>> **** > >>>> If you were competition oriented, > >>>> Which makes your children more likely to dominate the world? > >>>> > >>>> {The political game is about power; > >>>> it is not about success for all.} > >>>> > >>>> [At a deeper level, there is no success > >>>> without challenges, without competitors.] > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> At 03:04 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: > >>>>> I still like the credo, > >>>>> First eat, then talk. > >>>>> > >>>>> If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k > >>>>> weren't so token. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know why we buy into a happy ending > >>>>> there. We can't even solve east LA. > >>>>> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:13:01 -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 - 11 Jan 2002 to 12 Jan 2002 (#2002-12) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: tverse to IVM and back > > Now, if I pour bb's into a box, most bb's will be patterned > after the IVM. Some in the same box, the ones nearest the [dels] > doesn't this simple model show how tverse and IVM are > compatible? Sure. They'd have to be compatible in _some_ way anyhow: both are close-packed (not closEST-packed) networks of vertex order twelve. The inverse, as you note, could also be true, pouring BBs into a spherical container. I think interactions between these two systems, examined with various "impurities" in either, should lead to a more complete picture of sphere-packings in general. Apparently, I'm in good company: the Google search we did on "random sphere packing" turned up many references to the recent paper on "random jammed packing," in which (although it's not easy to see this directly in the articles) it's suggested that "jammed" packing densities can be anywhere from the 64% of the purely icosahedral packing (Tverse's) to the 74% of the IVM packing. The only way that could be true is if in packings along the range, both systems' packings are present in varying amounts. I, however, would maintain that in any "combined" packing like this, there could not be _perfect_ ortho-regular IVM anywhere. (Since Tverse's packing includes every possible other packing than IVM (and IVM also, if it appears), requiring only that it be vertex order twelve, it'd be silly to make the same statement about _it_; Tverse's packing isn't capable of being "perfect" in the same sense.) > When you deform an IVM, does it expand? It must, right? It does. It must. In a combined packing, expansion would be in varying amounts, depending on how much IVM one begins with. (A packing 90% Tverse / 10% IVM won't expand very much compared to 90% IVM / 10% Tverse.) > When bb-packing begins on the inside of a sphere, it begins > packing as tverse. Can it ever transform in to IVM as the > packing builds toward the center? I don't see how, because > the bb's will always take up the _most_ amount of space > available, not the least. (Assumption: you mean when bb-packing begins on the inside [surface] of a sphere.) I don't see how either. > If the packing starts at a central point, then the spheres > will always find the easiest spot to settle into and that > is _not_ the IVM, unless the sphere are forced tight, like > if they were attrac[t]ed to each other. If they have no (My comment below based on you meaning "starts at a central point [in space]," not at a point on the inside surface of the sphere in your example just above that.) Yes, and this is a critical issue. If one packs spheres _one-by-one_, starting with one (as I've read Bucky describing this process), the resulting pattern is different than if one begins with, say, 33 spheres simultaneously and squeezes them tight all at once from three (orthogonal) pressure-directions. The former gives you my lopsided 13-sphere object and Tverse; the latter gives you a VE-centered IVM. > choice, they will assume the IVM. Otherwise, tverse is the > natural packing order for these spheres. Any friction or > repulsing they experience while packing will bring on that > much faster the tverse "disorder." And they will not resume > the IVM packing because, once additional space is > introduced into the IVM packing(in the form of distortion), > the possibility of the spheres moving closer together than > they _have_ to is zero. They will always take the easiest > position. > > Maybe we are talking about sphere packing outside > in(tverse) and sphere packing inside out_IVM). Well put. Over these last few weeks, Dick, I have to say that you've grasped my stance, and understood what I've tried to say about Tverse's packing problems, better than nearly anyone I can remember. You keep phrasing things your own way, and sounding quite right, from my Tverse-'observational' point of view. It's gratifying. > Bucky recognized radiation and gravity as compliments, but > not mirror images. Maybe IVM is in the radiational phase of > universe(inside-out packing) and tverse is the > gravitational phase(outside-in packing). Not that they > happen at different times, really. Just that one can > dominate the other, depending on the special case. In one > case space(room-to-move) is in deficit, the other > space(room-to-move) is in excess. Hypothetically speaking, > of course. Hypothetically. (*g*) I find several things that should be obvious: IVM is very bad at accommodating high sphericity, Tverse is very bad at accomodating high orthogonality. Observing real space (real physics), we see both in the universe, but we see sphericity in gross material terms (planets, stars, atoms, etc.), and orthogonality in gross energetic terms (spacetime's effect on light's complementarity-- polarization, electron band energies in crystal forms, etc.). We also see "natural" sphericity on a large scale, as _gravity_ affects things (they tend to get spherical), while seeing "natural" orthogonality on smaller scales (stable 3-axis structures; lattices; crystal planes). Thus yet again I agree with your assessment. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:42:45 -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 - 11 Jan 2002 to 12 Jan 2002 (#2002-12) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JAN-2002 4:07 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > if the IVM is made of rigid struts, then it is rigid, so that Sure. Same would be true of a Tverse packing with rigid struts connecting sphere-centers. The only difference: struts in IVM would be equal-length, struts in Tverse would be different lengths. Point being, the rigidity is imposed by the struts themselves, not by the spheres. Sphere-packing looks at Tverse and IVM are thereby different than strut-end-tyings are. (As most obviously shown by the jitterbug, which "closes all the way down" to octahedron in strut-tied form, but goes only to icosahedron in sphere form.) > "putting elastic intervals across the squares (sic; > octahedral cross-sections, and there are three of'em)," > won't do any thing -- unless the IVM is also flexible. Correct. A non-flexible IVM is great for making floors, towers, building stabilizers, and lots of other human-usable structural thingies. It's rotten at modelling anything whose parts have to _move_. There isn't much in Nature that doesn't move --at every size level imaginable. > the IVM is just an idealized lattice of well-known symmetry; > please, don't use "space-time" for any static construction, > or snapshot! Absolutely not. > the links that you just gave are not packings, > as was noted in one of them, but simple clusters, I don't see a whole lot of difference between "packing" and "cluster," where clustering is icosahedral and the pieces are thought to be closely associated. I grant the difference, but the URLs didn't make much of that. > like the icosahedron itself (but > were you referring to "self-similarity, > not "isotopic?") The word I was looking for, and didn't find, was "isomorphic." The icosahedral packing, if tight, is a packing. It is also a cluster. Likewise a VE (same 13 spheres, different pattern) is both a packing and a cluster. Loosen either of them up (lose some "kissing points") and you have clusters, not packings. > that part of it can get a little denser, then the _slightest_imaginable_ > (think: "quantum fluctuation") > > are we starting to define our QBS, now? Nah. I'd rather have a better word, but QM provides that pair.... (But you understood my example, up that point, right?) Point being, there can be sets of two-way-possible patterns, the choice between which way the system "falls out" (or, perhaps, "collapses" as if it were a wavefunction) can be 50-50 --perfectly balanced. All that "quantum fluctuation" does (and, Brian, I don't _like_ the idea any more than you do) is to provide a way to speak about why such a balanced system fell _either_ way, when there's no detectable force or influence locatable for why it went _that_ way instead of the _other_ way. If you could stack a "perfect" sphere on top of a second "perfect" sphere, so that it's "perfectly" balanced in a stable gravitational field, then in theory --without any quantum spookiness involved-- it should stay there forever. _Why_ does any attempt to model this not work that way? _What_ force or change in surface properties causes the upper sphere to roll off the lower? When we can't _find_ any such force or change, we have to have some word to use to describe what happened. "....and then a miracle occurs!" is less preferable to me than " ....and then a quantum fluctuation takes place." (*grin*) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:56:12 -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 - 11 Jan 2002 to 12 Jan 2002 (#2002-12) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 12-JAN-2002 4:14 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > but, then, it's easy to see where the confususion arises, > becase the "jitterbug model" has no central ball, > to get in the way of (nonexistent) outer balls. It has struts, and it's derived (by Bucky) directly from the sphere-packed model in which there is a central same-sized sphere. (You mislead the reader with a paragraph like that one. See Bucky's own works on the matter, with his drawings of the VE inscribed into a sphere-packing.) I gotta make a little animated-gif version of the sphere-jitterbug using only one VE, or this argument's gonna go on MUCH longer than it has to. I can't see any way now, that words are gonna tell the tale. > by the way, > does anyone else dyslike the heading of "Digest XXXX-XX" ?? I dislike both the length of the title, and the "raw" HTML and other codes that keep being stuffed in here by whomever-it-is that doesn't have control of his "rich text" functions. > don't say "ain't," youn man, > when you haven't proven your (Newton's silly) conjecture; > thank you! > > thus quoth: > > > whether it is possible to stuff a 13th ball > > > amongst the 12, to kiss the center one (and > > > It ain't. > > (*g*) Most mathematical and logical "proof" systems allow an 'escape clause' called "trivially obvious." 14 realworld, equal-sized, decently hard-surfaced balls will tell this tale in a trivially obvious manner. (*g*) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:12:25 -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: Fwd: Deeper into Starvation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >As I read Critical Path {see the Introduction, page xvii, second >paragraph's first sentence}, Bucky places "cosmic evolution" within the >set of his generalized principles of Scenario Universe. > >The news that isn't discussed is: Evolution is not done with the human >race. We are still experimental subjects within the confines of an >experiment grander than any we can devise for ourselves. > >Therefore, I fully expect that the usual subsets, local laws, and events >of other evolutionary scenarios will occur to humanity. > >Right now, humanity appears to be experiencing a "coming together into one >phase"; which is the natural successor to a "dispersing into many separate >elements" phase [which may have begun N's of 10,000's of years ago as >humanity broke out of Africa and into Europe and Asia]. > >If this evolution scenario has any validity, we can then expect that the >following phase will be an "Emergence through Emergency"; which will be >the apparent cause of the following "dispersing into many" phase. > >Evolution has no soul and cares not who survives. Since it has no >directing intelligence, the concept of patience does not apply. Whether >humanity survives the coming evolutionary test or not is immaterial -- >some species somewhere will survive the test and evolve into the next >required [more efficient] stage; thus advancing evolution toward some >purpose beyond our vision. > >Systems work to fulfill some purpose that comes from without the system; a >purpose that is not deducible from the parts of the system taken >individually and may not be deducible from the whole system. Which >implies that we humans are very unlikely to see the real "whys" behind >what happens to us -- and therefore are in no position to determine >whether any particular "what" advances the whole or retards it. > >Starvation is a "what". We see it and take such action as we can locally >to avoid it. On a larger scale, who are we to decide that the local >conditions that create starvation should be solved by providing food? It >may be that the evolutionarily advantaged solution is for the people to >move away, or for the people to alter their government, or for the people >to develop a new social organization of property ownership. [A case could >be made for any of these three.] > >It does seem to me that simple gut reflexing {"feed everyone everywhere"} >is unlikely to be an evolutionarily advantaged solution. Prior advantaged >solutions for human problems have tended to involve indirect means >{"precession"} which had the effect of increasing the ability of the human >group to apply brain power and control the environment. > > >Best regards, > > > >At 07:17 AM 1/13/2002 -0800, you wrote: >>I"d have to agree to the Millers on the humans as resource thing. We're the >>best resource we've got. To think that a human starving to death is in any >>way good, simply becasue it means you get a private room with a bath, so to >>speak, is ludicrous. >> >>The resources are here to feed the world population and still have a >>resource. The problem isn't the sheer amt of resources or the number of >>people, or the birth rate. The problem is the much more insiduous and >>immediatley challenging one of resource allocation: Being less rich so >>someone else can eat. >> >>As for: >> >>"[At a deeper level, there is no success >> without challenges, without competitors.]" >> >>The greatest success comes from overcoming the challenge of seeing the world. >>yourself, and others for what they really are: all the same >>thing. There are >>many competing viewpoints to this. We dont have to make it harder than it >>already is... >> >> >>be well, >> >>jason >> >>The Millers wrote: >> >> > This attitude is a real kick in the head to anyone doing the hard work >> > of raising children (the regenerative process as Bucky would say). Human >> > beings are not masses of hungry mouths for you to feed. The universe of >> > human minds is vast beyond all comprehension. Human beings not only >> consume >> > resources, we are resources. >> > >> > > From: jim fish >> > > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's >> > > works" >> > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >> > > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:47:38 -0800 >> > > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >> > > Subject: Re: Starvation >> > > >> > >>> >> > >>> "Rolf H. Parta" wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Free food -- >> > >>>> a recipe for more mouths next generation. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Free knowledge -- >> > >>>> a recipe for more competitors next generation >> > >>>> >> > >>>> **** >> > >>>> If you were competition oriented, >> > >>>> Which makes your children more likely to dominate the world? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> {The political game is about power; >> > >>>> it is not about success for all.} >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [At a deeper level, there is no success >> > >>>> without challenges, without competitors.] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Best regards, >> > >>>> >> > >>>> At 03:04 PM 1/12/2002 -0800, you wrote: >> > >>>>> I still like the credo, >> > >>>>> First eat, then talk. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> If only the food drops in Afgani-clusterf**k >> > >>>>> weren't so token. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> I don't know why we buy into a happy ending >> > >>>>> there. We can't even solve east LA. >> > >>>>> Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:30:18 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Fwd: Deeper into Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yeah, let's let people starve. Let's start with Rolf. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:30:25 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Joe-My question then is, isn't energy consumption going to decrease as efficiency increases? In the long run, at least. As we get wealthier collectively, we will use less energy per person at some point. That leaves me to wonder what another similar but more inclusive measure of wealth might be. Dick --- Joe S Moore wrote: > Dick, > > Re global energy/capita see the following stats from the > US Energy > Information Adm (EIA): > http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls > (Excell > spreadsheet format) > > Haven't converted the annual world totals to a graph. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:35:27 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Fair play MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Did y'all catch the article "The Economics of Fair Play" in January 2002 Scientific American? - jim ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:41:12 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: <20020113173025.8807.qmail@web20506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Health. > From: Dick Fischbeck > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:30:25 -0800 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Starvation > > Joe-My question then is, isn't energy consumption going to > decrease as efficiency increases? In the long run, at > least. As we get wealthier collectively, we will use less > energy per person at some point. That leaves me to wonder > what another similar but more inclusive measure of wealth > might be. > > Dick > > --- Joe S Moore wrote: >> Dick, >> >> Re global energy/capita see the following stats from the >> US Energy >> Information Adm (EIA): >> > http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls >> (Excell >> spreadsheet format) >> >> Haven't converted the annual world totals to a graph. >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:53:58 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- The Millers wrote: > Health. How do you measure that? That's good. Longevity, mental/physical/emotional. I want to be objective if possible. How many vacation days/year/person? In eutopia(that's like euphoria), every day is a vacation day. Like everyone being a trustfunder. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:04:27 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: <20020113175358.63609.qmail@web20507.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit With a Health-O-Meter > From: Dick Fischbeck > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:53:58 -0800 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Starvation > > --- The Millers wrote: >> Health. > > How do you measure that? That's good. Longevity, > mental/physical/emotional. I want to be objective if > possible. How many vacation days/year/person? In > eutopia(that's like euphoria), every day is a vacation day. > Like everyone being a trustfunder. > > Dick > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:39:38 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: <20020113173025.8807.qmail@web20506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Discretionary time > From: Dick Fischbeck > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:30:25 -0800 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Starvation > > Joe-My question then is, isn't energy consumption going to > decrease as efficiency increases? In the long run, at > least. As we get wealthier collectively, we will use less > energy per person at some point. That leaves me to wonder > what another similar but more inclusive measure of wealth > might be. > > Dick ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:10:14 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Subject: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rolf, To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done a scientific study to prove or disprove the relationship of energy/capita and the birth rate. There seems to be an inverse correlation but that observation is based on statistics that may or may not have a true relationship. I've been waiting years for a qualified person to do a real study that would pass peer review. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolf H. Parta" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re: Starvation > jim: > What data indicate is all fine and well. And, without theory to > guide it, spurious correlations abound and lead many into concluding that > causal relationships exist where both data sets are simply symptoms of some > more basic underlying cause. > Example: increases in available electricity per person > [megawatthours] are also correlated with declines in the birth rate. To > conclude that the one causes the other without further evidence is poor logic. > > Btw, the obscenity ill becomes you. > > --rolf p. (snip) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:17:25 -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: Re: Starvation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick, Good point! How do we separate out the energy efficiency effect from the energy/capita stats? ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Millers" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic To: Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:41 PM Subject: Re: Starvation > Health. > > > From: Dick Fischbeck > > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > > works" > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:30:25 -0800 > > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > > Subject: Re: Starvation > > > > Joe-My question then is, isn't energy consumption going to > > decrease as efficiency increases? In the long run, at > > least. As we get wealthier collectively, we will use less > > energy per person at some point. That leaves me to wonder > > what another similar but more inclusive measure of wealth > > might be. > > > > Dick > > > > --- Joe S Moore wrote: > >> Dick, > >> > >> Re global energy/capita see the following stats from the > >> US Energy > >> Information Adm (EIA): > >> > > http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls > >> (Excell > >> spreadsheet format) > >> > >> Haven't converted the annual world totals to a graph. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:51:47 -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: The gaps in the JB-13 icosa In-Reply-To: <000801c19b0c$e8eddca0$d675d918@jb2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The radius of an icosahedron is shorter than the edge length 1.07:1 so regular tetrahedra can't nestle properly. > From: John Brawley > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:56:40 -0600 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: The gaps in the JB-13 icosa > > Well, well; at least one someone else may have been interested in the > gaps.... > > Looks to me like a plywood model, so we can't see if there's gaps on the > back side, also. > > http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/FrustrationCurvature/ > > Enjoy > > Peace > JB > jgbrawley@earthlink.net > http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 15:52:42 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: The Millers Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 10 Jan 2002 to 11 Jan 2002 (#2002-11) In-Reply-To: <001201c19b8b$b2feffa0$d675d918@jb2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit We mean no harm to your planet > From: John Brawley > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:01:46 -0600 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 10 Jan 2002 to 11 Jan 2002 (#2002-11) > >> From: The Millers >> >> Try to remember that some listserv members are from faraway > places. Real >> far. Only earth people have hands. > > In jest, no doubt. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:30:23 -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: Starvation In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Joe: I also don't know of a proper study documenting the cause-effect relationship, if any, between energy availability per capita and the birth rate. Neither do the academics I know who also follow Bucky's thoughts. I looked through the developmental economics literature for something like this about 1995 or so -- no useful results. I too am waiting. Best regards, At 12:10 PM 1/13/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Rolf, > >To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done a scientific study to >prove or disprove the relationship of energy/capita and the birth rate. >There seems to be an inverse correlation but that observation is based on >statistics that may or may not have a true relationship. I've been waiting >years for a qualified person to do a real study that would pass peer review. > >============================== >Joe S Moore >joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >============================= > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rolf H. Parta" >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >To: >Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 9:39 PM >Subject: Re: Starvation > > > > jim: > > What data indicate is all fine and well. And, without theory to > > guide it, spurious correlations abound and lead many into concluding that > > causal relationships exist where both data sets are simply symptoms of >some > > more basic underlying cause. > > Example: increases in available electricity per person > > [megawatthours] are also correlated with declines in the birth rate. To > > conclude that the one causes the other without further evidence is poor >logic. > > > > Btw, the obscenity ill becomes you. > > > > --rolf p. >(snip) Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:52:42 -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 - 10 Jan 2002 to 11 Jan 2002 (#2002-11) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JAN-2002 9:52 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it's using a tongue-stick! thus quoth: We mean no harm to your planet --AOL Ghostscript! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:07:34 -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 - 11 Jan 2002 to 12 Jan 2002 (#2002-12) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JAN-2002 10:07 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us "isomprphic" means "one-to-one mapping" between sets, so doesn't quite apply to self-similarity; was that what you meant? now, "a miracle occurs" certainly was the usage of "QF" that you've been using, and doesn't really pertain to a testable hypothesis; when I find the best word, QBS'll mean "quantum S. solopsism." in particular, re the Kepler (/Newton) conjecture, it is meaningless to have stuts between nonkissing spheres, or why not have them totally networked, to each-other?.. really, particularly, the "jitterbug" model has no struts that connect the 12 outer vertices to the inner one. I guess, when you said that only one "square-crossing elastic" contracts, you meant that the rest were just slack -- not rigid -- and allowed to shorten or lengthen. a lot of the Copenhagen interpretation boils-up to a confusion of the probabilites of an observation, and the problems thereto, than to the model or "reality" itself; hence, "QF" refers to your rolling of the dice (or having the computer pick a "random" number), not to some mysterious "-not." the "clusters" that you refeenced a) have no interior atoms and b) have no exterior ones, either; it's a nonsqequiter to this alleged dyscussion! thus quoth: Loosen either of them up (lose some "kissing points") and you have clusters, not packings. --AOL Ghostscript! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:11:43 -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: Re: [Quaker-P] Unilateral, Multilateral, Imperialist, or <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JAN-2002 10:11 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us that article (Saturday's NYT?) was dysgusting, presenting the typical "imperium or else" argument of Bernard Lewis et al ad vomitorium, which is totally unamerican! (I did see an interesting volume that he collected of poetry from religions, but it's framed in the same thesis, still.) thus quoth: What Is America's Place in the World Now? January 12, 2002 By ALEXANDER STILLE Ask the most prominent strategic thinkers around, and they will all agree that pretty much every cherished notion about America's role in the world must be revised. --AOL Ghostscript! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:37:34 -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 Jan 2002 to 13 Jan 2002 (#2002-13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Lee! > From: Lee Bonnifield > Subject: non-inots > > > mainly From: John Brawley , various dates > >>= misc > > > Let me first answer with a crosspost from Synergeo that I wrote in > > Uh oh! I couldn't see any bearing on my objections. Sorry. I was inordinately happy with that piece, thinking it a better condensation than any I'd previously tried to accomplish. But there was much more in you post I didn't get back to (I still have the digest); I get confused where the end of a post is, and thought I'd reached yours, but later looked again and was wrong. > I like the idea of sphere packing from the outside in -- that's a good way > to take maximum advantage of container shape. When somebody thinks IVM It's the way Tverse is originated (built) anyway. I have another unfortunate apology to make: > > the type; the class is primal (underlying; generative; original; > > inclusive) to any individual instance of the class. > > I see how it could be useful for you to start with the more general class > that includes true icosahedrons (regular and irregular) and VEs as one > special case of that class. "Icosa" means 20, and lots of members of the > class have 20 triangular faces. But any(?) number of faces from 14-20 can > happen, depending on how many perfect squares there are on the surface. > > This would have been relevant to one of my objections if you had confirmed > or corrected this partial specification of the class "icosahedral": > > All interior gaps are zero. > > Do I misinterpret, isn't that what you said Jan 1: In short, I've been so heavily focussed on trying to explain the packing difference between VE and icosahedro(not) (13 spheres only) that I misled you (and others). Of course, given a very large field of pionts (we'll use spheres), _no_ i(not) is likely to have all 12 'outer' balls touching the central one. This is a consequence of tiling the entire space with irregular tets, and that every sphere is the center sphere of another i(not). Only in the case where we are looking at this large field, the field is spherically compressed evenly and there're no "protons" in it, and we pick the exact center sphere to use as our "base" sphere, will we see all 12 in contact with that center one. Everywhere else, there will be i(not)s with varying contacts amongst their balls _inside_and_outside_ the 13-sphere pack. (But, *** always there will be 12-around-1 ***, in this example.) I'm sorry. It's hard for me to explain specifics, without partially violating something general about Tverse. When talking packing, and talking 13, obviously no sphere loses contact with the center ball, but after you've added a billion spheres to the pack, and the compression on the outside of this collection is generally spherical (not perfectly, because it's not the absolute-outermost layer), almost every 13-pack looked at will have gaps in the interior 12 potential contacts as well as the exterior 30 potential contacts. (Does that fix your visual?) > it because I've gotten so used to thinking of every ball in a jumble pack > as being the center of an icosahedro(not), the way every ball in an IVM is It is. I'm sorry. This ain't easy. > icosahedral were synonyms. The awful alternative is that you didn't realize > that every inot is surrounded by many non-inots. Above, I hope, explains. Hey, some day _you_ try to explain this monster to someone, without bending any of its rules.... It gets complicated in there. Every i(not) in Tverse is 12-around-1 (has a center sphere); most i(not)s have gaps in their interior 12 potential contacts. > > where the spheres packed are "packed" because the collection of spheres > > is compressed together: such a 12-around-_none_, 12-sphere, perfect > > regular icosahedron occupies less circumscribed volume than any > > 12-around-_1_ packing does, thus if such a "missing" sphere occurs in an > > IVM, there will locally be a tendency in that locality to reduce the > > packing volume even further, which would require the now-non-nucleated > > VE to _twist_ ("jitterbug") into a regular icosahedron, in order to > > achieve this even slightly tighter packing. > > An even tighter packing would occur if the hole migrated to the surface, > reducing the volume of the whole jumble pack by 1 ball instead of leaving > that non-nucleated icosahedron behind, wrapped around 95% as much empty > volume as the missing ball. Jitterbugging reduces the volume by 5% of a > ball; migration reduces the volume by 1 whole ball. Quite so. Early on, intuiting that these 12-around-nones would make the rest of the network around them "uncomfortable," I thought (still think) that these would migrate away from regions sparsely populated with their brethren, toward regions more heavily populated with them. ("Protons" seek their own; sphericities collect together because they're forced away from emptinesses.) This immediately resonated with a known astronomical phenomenon, in which vast, semi-spherical "empty places" (voids) are found in galaxy surveys, with most galaxies (most matter) in the universe seeming to be spread in thin sheets and drifts around these huge voids, like the boundary layers between soap bubbles. > Hole migration can't happen if the compression is strong enough to prevent > the temporary expansion required for a ball to squeeze into the hole; but > temporary expansion is also required for jitterbugging. I now suspect it doesn't migrate that way, but wholesale, as a closed icosahedral unit. Remember: Tverse isn't synergetic-like, so there are no vectors with point(sp)-allegiances that can't change. Thus if the compression allows, pionts(sp) can move past each other, with what looks to me like a sort of half-rotatory motion. (Wait, wait, I'm workin' on the VE-to-TverseI(not) transition model. Hopefully, you'll see this rotatory motion.) Thus to move a "proton" --a 12-around-none "hole," I don't think any three-ball triangle has to open up enough to admit a ball. (Which ball wouldn't go into it anyway: "hole" too small.) > As to there being a "tendency" to jitterbug, I think that is a property not > found in real IVM crystals. If there is a vacancy, the balls around the > vacancy are still attracted by van der waals to the walls. So a real crystal > that is nearly an IVM but has a vacancy keeps the vacancy. Each one of the I agree for the most part. (I don't think even in a crystal the _tendency_ is totally absent; I think it would be thoroughly "swamped" by the other physical forces involved in keeping crystals' atoms locked into their latticed patterns.) Two different subjects: Tverse's behaviour from its rules (axioms), where spheres have only one inter-sphere property --perfectly spherical repulsion-- and realworld sphere-packings done with objects which have inter-sphere properties (Van der Waals forces, nonperfect-spherical electron cloud distributions, covalent bonding potentials, multi-atom --molecular-- nonsphericities, etc.). Liquids and gases should show jitterbug effects, more so with "noble" atoms (inert; filled outer electron shells; no Van der Waals or other electrostatic forces to speak of), but dense matter --solid-state-- physics should not show jitterbug effects, as you note. > > So, given both premises: 1) the shape of the container impacts the > > packing pattern "from the outside inwardly," and 2) the presence of one > > or more "holes" (missing spheres) within the packing "lattice" alters > > Why emphasize "_both_" effects? 1) by itself guarantees the packing won't be > CCP/IVM. And here "icosahedral" surely must include interior gaps. One > inot's surface gap is another inot's interior gap. Exactly. I again apologize for misleading, in service to 13-packed explanatory clarity. (hah! 'clarity.'..) I emphasize both because both are aspects of Tverse. Without the "protons," Tverse would be ca. 99% near-perfect IVM (and there'd be no matter, hence no Us); without the sphericity of the compressor, it would be disturbed around any "proton," but would pack as IVM going outward toward an _infinity_ that Tverse denies exists. > surface balls could move out to the container. Interior balls in a jumble > pack are just as tight (immobile) as interior balls in an IVM. I don't think that's completely true: In an IVM, every ball is in a pattern that holds it from any possibility of movement. But in a jumble pack, it should be possible to find a few places where a ball may be very precariously balanced in place. Thus in general, an IVM is more "locked" as a whole, than a jumble pack would be. > You mentioned compression as a factor in the tightness, but if the balls are > touching and rigid they don't have to be compressed. A one-dimensional force > like gravity is enough to guarantee they'll all touch each other and the > curved bottom of the container (and be immobile.) You got movement in your > balloon only with vigorous mushing during which you changed the shape of the > container. I agree, but 1) only one direction of 'packing force' (gravity, for ex.) prevents you from packing anywhere a ball could "fall off the sides" (it's a "stack" not a "pack"), and 2) anywhere a ball could stack one-way-or-the-other, there'd be no directional forces to make it 'choose.' (I'm not perceiving where you were going with this anyway...?) > Real crystal IVMs are formed when each atom slowly approaches a previously > existing IVM and steers into the coziest pocket. Compression has nothing to Addressed above: Tverse isn't about atoms. Atoms can _attract_ each other. Tverse pionts cannot. (And, note, that not all crystals are IVMs.) > Back to your balloon experiment: > > >It actually came out 100% icosa-forms, but a number of them were very > >close to VE. > > Wasn't that number zero? Earlier I copied your first balloon experiment to > this list, but my archives contain two more balloon experiments you I said "very close to." _None_ of them were VEs, a VE being (I believe) _only_ that packing described by Fuller, a symmetrical cuboctahedron. (Right?) Thereby, 100% icosahedro(not)s, these being the general class, doesn't mean some of them weren't _almost_ perfect VEs. Some were. > reported. Here are your conclusions for experiments 1,2, and 3: [3 iterations of experiment] Yeah? So? I said nothing fundamentally different, did I? > Of course if you want I'll zip the source, 800K of prime PHYSICS I collected > in Jan '96, and email it to you. I think that would be very, very nice, Lee. Thanks for the offer and yes, I'll take you up on that. Please do. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:57:48 -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: Packings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 13-JAN-2002 10:07 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > "isomprphic" means "one-to-one mapping" > between sets, so doesn't quite apply to self-similarity; > was that what you meant? Imagine a pantograph. Little bitty picture gets _copied_ up large without changing geometric relationships amongst its parts. (Or vice versa.) I believe mineralogists use it this way: the pattern in the small is the same as the pattern in the large. "Isomorphic" means "same-shaped." It's one-to-one mapping in that sense, but you can _scale_ up or down so long as the shape is retained. Some mineral crystals' "shape" ('morph') is the same ('iso') whether you're looking large or looking all the way small, to their atomic lattices. > now, "a miracle occurs" certainly was the usage > of "QF" that you've been using, and (*grin*) No, I haven't. Almost; not quite. 'Quantum fluctuations' have, in my book, 'real' sources. They don't qualify as "hidden variables," just unaccounted-for aspects of reality acting locally on the phenomenon in question. "Miracles" have no scientifically-acceptable (not ecessarily -_detectable_, just "-acceptable") sources. ("God" is not a scientifically-allowable source....) I grant your dislike for this kind of thinking; I share it--just perhaps not to the same extent. > in particular, re the Kepler (/Newton) conjecture, > it is meaningless to have stuts between nonkissing spheres, or I agree.... But Tverse doesn't have any struts. (It rocks, it rolls.) Fuller students are those that "strut" their stuff. > particularly, the "jitterbug" model has no struts > that connect the 12 outer vertices to the inner one. I guess, Considering its origin in a sphere-packing _with_ a center sphere, the jitterbug model doesn't show its interior struts, but they might as well be there. The jitterbugging looks the same with or without them. >when you said that only one "square-crossing elastic" contracts, > you meant that the rest were just slack -- not rigid -- and > allowed to shorten or lengthen. Unfortunately, theres' no such thing as "rigid" in these EIG programs. That's a wishlist item long listed, never satisfied. (It's inherently opposite to EIG philosophy, to have a "rigid spring.") There are muscles, capable of expanding and/or contracting, but there are no "bones." The rest are all --always-- dynamically trying to get to "rest length," but never can, due to the well-known difference in vector-lengths between the interior 12 and the exterior 30, in 12-aorund-1 packing which this models in struts (springs). "Rest length" is not the same as "slack." "Slack" neither pulls nor pushes no matter how long or short the spring gets. It's the same as turning "off" all push or pull forces in that spring. You can stretch it or compress it, and it won't resist either way until you turn it back "on," whereupon it goes back to trying to reach its "rest length." (Go get SpringDance: http://www.shapeofspace.org/springdance --a demonstration is worth a thousand words...(*g*)) It actually works by making a 42-spring 'nucleated' icosa, in which all the springs are in principle the same length. The inner 12 end up slightly compressed, the outer 30 end up slightly stretched (the icosa "balances" itself and distributes its forces smoothly). Then I put a spring across the long axis of each of six specific surface rhombii. That spring, trying to balance just like the others, pulls these six rhombii into squares, which forces the icosa into VE shape. (_All_ the springs change length very slightly when I do this. This system --EIG-- is like a mess of interconnected double-ended pendula swinging in a locked-in 3D configuration; change one thing, and the entire construction rebalances its forces 'automatically' and in real time (if your processor and video card are fast enough). That's one reason Fuller students love playing with it; apart from the lack of "bones" --compressed springs serve that purpose-- it's like a 'tensegrity playground.' In Struck/Fluidiom, but not in SpringDance, it's also in real stereoscopic (crossed- or wall- eyed) 3D.) I make these six square-forcing springs "hidden," so you don't see _them_ as they act, but since the icosa already has a spring across these squares --the short axes of the rhombii chosen-- you do see _that_ spring. That one, not my invisible square-makers, is the "missing" edge/strut/vector --six of them-- in the VE. In _my_ VE shape, it's not "missing." (*grin*)) If I _slack_ all these six invisible springs later, the rhombic shape returns to these six squares, and the icosa returns to existence due to all 42 visible springs acting at once to return to as close to "rest length" as they can. So, the only springs to go slack-or-active under my selective control, are the invisible six that force the VE's squares into existence, and what you _see_ is a regular icosa twisting --without gaining or losing any edges at all-- from icosa to VE shape and back. It's lovely to watch.... > a lot of the Copenhagen interpretation boils-up > to a confusion of the probabilites of an observation, and > the problems thereto, than to the model or "reality" itself; > hence, "QF" refers to your rolling of the dice (or > having the computer pick a "random" number), > not to some mysterious "-not." That's a fair way to put it, I guess. > the "clusters" that you refeenced a) > have no interior atoms and b) > have no exterior ones, either; it's a nonsqequiter > to this alleged dyscussion! I missed seeing that. If so, I apologize. The images _looked_ very like they were _aggregates_--and were described as such. To me, an "aggregate" has interior pieces, and is also a "cluster." Sorry. > thus quoth: > Loosen either of them up (lose some "kissing points") and you have > clusters, not packings. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:10:18 -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: tetraverton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hey Brian- Maybe this page address you objection to the tetraverton, or the-thing-made from 4-180 angular deficit cones. Is it? Yes, I think there is a little bit of deformation of the surface. I don't see it as a big problemo. http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:33:14 -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: tetraverton <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 8:33 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I don't see how it could rescue your "randome" confusion; the only stress that is involved in simple curvature -- that of cones and cylinders -- is that of the thickness of the material, trying to bend. thus quoth: Hey Brian- Maybe this page address you objection to the tetraverton, or the-thing-made from 4-180 angular deficit cones. Is it? Yes, I think there is a little bit of deformation of the surface. I don't see it as a big problemo. http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html --AOL Ghostscripts! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:34:02 -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 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 8:34 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I don't see how it could rescue your "randome" confusion; the only stress that is involved in simple curvature -- that of cones and cylinders -- is that of the thickness of the material, trying to bend. thus quoth: Hey Brian- Maybe this page address you objection to the tetraverton, or the-thing-made from 4-180 angular deficit cones. Is it? Yes, I think there is a little bit of deformation of the surface. I don't see it as a big problemo. http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html --AOL Ghostscripts! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:33:49 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 10 Jan 2002 to 11 Jan 2002 (#2002-11) In-Reply-To: <200201131752.g0DHqgI27822@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable How could you possibly have known that? Alert!Alert! > From: Brian Hutchings > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 09:52:42 -0800 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 10 Jan 2002 to 11 Jan 2002 (#2002-11) >=20 > <> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 13-JAN-2002 9:52 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >=20 > it's using a tongue-stick! >=20 > thus quoth: > We mean no harm to your planet >=20 > --AOL Ghostscript! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:58:18 -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: Re: Packings <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 8:58 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us icosahedra are inherently unnucleated, per the IVM/VE construct of same-size balls (I can also tell you the precise diameter of an icosah., having worked it out, many times); the "jitterbug/VE" will *not* contract, therefore, to an icosah., *if* it had 12 unit struts to the center. when you say "a 10x10x30" IVM, it is meaningless, because there are two "congruent" and alternating stacks of balls, starting on square base of'em. I found an interesting dyscussion of Kepler's problem and Newton's and so forth, although the pictures are wrong (in that he seems to be unaware of the "ABC" stacking alternative to the "AB" one, just-mentioned) and a good deal of it is very handwavey and ill-stated. anyway, according to this, random packings (settled) have an aver density of about 64%, whereas the grocer's delight is at about 74% ... oh, this was in Casti's latest pop-math book. you don't seem to notice a lot of assumoptions taht you make, often in association with extravegances like using the Struck program; I know all about the "elastic interval geometry," or enough, but you can't assume that everyone does. for example, how do you dystinguish between "hidden variables" and "unaccounted-for aspects of reality" -- or invisble "square- making springs," perhaps? thus quoth: 'Quantum fluctuations' have, in my book, 'real' sources. They don't qualify as "hidden variables," just unaccounted-for aspects of reality acting locally on the phenomenon in question. what I've said, for quite a long time, is that the Copenhagenschoolers don't have the right to "reify" their probabalistic algebra, into all sorts of virtual phenomena, but perhaps you r5eally are so superqualified; eh? as it is, this stuff goes all the "way out" into "serial universes" and "universal hyperinflation" -- which may just be a metaphor for the fiancial markets, now, as in post-Versailles Treaty Germany. if you're going to posit some spongey "QF" that goes beyond what you've stated about ideal spheres or real marlbes, then, you should make a hypothesis to accomodate that. capiche? --AOL Ghostscripts! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:13:11 -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: opinion <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 9:13 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us yes, his basic shape (a sixth of a hexahedron, or what is the same thing, a 48th of "doubled" hexahedron, eight times as large -- I dyscovered this 10 y.a., I think -- is the same as Bucky's "mite". I recalled it with the construction of the hexahedron by putting 4 octants of an octah. onto the facets of a tetrah., giving "2 As and 1 B" per mite, when disected through the center (the tetrah. can also be divided into just 4 "orthoschemes," as with just 6 for the hexahedron. one can also create an "R-module" from the rhomic dodecah., as I recall from way-back, when! thus saith: if you press the "double corner," you'll see that it is (left and right) sixths of a hexahedron, which is a quadrirectangular tetrahedron that is the "orthoscheme" (per Coxeter et al) of the cube. as Bucky (and Coxeter) drew it, it was 48 of the same shape, meeting at the center; that is, 6 times a "2-cubed" factor. I found the same thing, some y.a. ... I'm forgetting Bucky's names for these, if not the "mite." thus quoth: Referring to your website http://www.clowder.net/zubek/zubek.html , do your tetrahedra fill "Allspace"? Fuller's "Mites" do. Your blocks are similar to ones that I have thought about in the past: Please refer to http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/figs/f5310.html . If a --Pardonnez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:17:16 -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: Re: Packings <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 9:17 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us there are a lot of simple conjectures that one can make about sphere-packings. here's an easy one: no cnetrally-symmetrical cluster (not shell) of balls will ... I mean, that is sphere-centered, will have an even number of them. you never answered my main query: can you prove that most ot the times taht your "random mugging" of the balloon o'spheres, when it made a noticable QF, wasn't clicking into IVM formation, or closer to it? --Pardonnez-George! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:40:30 -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: tetraverton In-Reply-To: <200201141633.g0EGXEn01242@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I still don't get your confusion. --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > I don't see how it could rescue your "randome" > confusion; > the only stress that is involved in simple curvature > -- that of cones and cylinders -- is that > of the thickness of the material, trying to bend. > > thus quoth: > Hey Brian- Maybe this page address you objection to the > tetraverton, or the-thing-made from 4-180 angular > deficit > cones. Is it? Yes, I think there is a little bit of > deformation of the surface. I don't see it as a big > problemo. > > > http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:26:37 -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: Re: [Quaker-P] Globalization <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 13:26 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it is like a charade, in that PBS, NPR, PRI et al, rely to a vast extent on British (UK and Commonwealth) programming, particularly with regard to The World (sik). of course, this is ampyl reflected in the joke of AOL/Time-Warner/CNN/HBO/etc., franchizing both of the products of the "Blair Witch Projekt," *Harry and the Philosopher's Stone* (or *l'Ecole de Sorcieres* en francais) and *the Lord of the Rings* (with 22 books to go for the massively state-funded pantheon o'British myhos). when ever you see Reuters/Yahoo!, that is also the same (ye olde coloniale wire service). thus quoth: Second, I hope a number of you had access to BBC TV news as distributed in the USA. The end of year review included an extended feature on the employment opportunities in a third world country and the desperate efforts of locals to get their daughters employed in a foreign owned factory. --AOL Ghostscripts! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:30:49 -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: tetraverton <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 13:30 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us look, your silly reference referred prominently to the stress or strain of the "ridges," down to various scales, and that means it's not "simple curvature," but may even involve rips & tears. your concept is fully aborted, but you can still make use of the protein! "Energy hath shape, Stupid!" --Buckafka Fullofit thus quoth: I still don't get your confusion. --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > I don't see how it could rescue your "randome" > confusion; > the only stress that is involved in simple curvature > -- that of cones and cylinders -- is that > of the thickness of the material, trying to bend. http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html --AOL Ghostscripts! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:31:37 -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: Re: geodesic <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 13:31 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us look, your silly reference referred prominently to the stress or strain of the "ridges," down to various scales, and that means it's not "simple curvature," but may even involve rips & tears. your concept is fully aborted, but you can still make use of the protein! "Energy hath shape, Stupid!" --Buckafka Fullofit thus quoth: I still don't get your confusion. --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > I don't see how it could rescue your "randome" > confusion; > the only stress that is involved in simple curvature > -- that of cones and cylinders -- is that > of the thickness of the material, trying to bend. http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html --AOL Ghostscripts! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:01:11 -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: Packings <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 14-JAN-2002 14:01 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I don't know what sort of reviews monsieur Casti gets for his pop-math, but, as far as his last _Mountaintops_ book goes, he can't be trusted. I mean, it's still an interesting overview, but I was looking at it from the beginning, not just the sphere-pack stuff, and he's rife with handwaving mystaquery! --Pardonnez-George! > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:29:25 EST Reply-To: DoNotReplyByEmail@yahoo.com Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Comments: Authenticated sender is From: 93282910@BIGCASHTODAY.COM Subject: *****ADVERTISE TO 12 MILLION PEOPLE FREE! Comments: To: geodesic@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu Dear geodesic@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu, Would you like to send an Email Advertisement to OVER 12,000,000 PEOPLE DAILY for FREE? Do you have a product or service to sell? Do you want an extra 100 orders per week? NOTE: (If you do not already have a product or service to sell, we can supply you with one). ========================================================= 1) Let's say you... Sell a $24.95 PRODUCT or SERVICE. 2) Let's say you... Broadcast Email to only 500,000 PEOPLE. 3) Let's say you... Receive JUST 1 ORDER for EVERY 2,500 EMAILS. CALCULATION OF YOUR EARNINGS BASED ON THE ABOVE STATISTICS: [Day 1]: $4,990 [Week 1]: $34,930 [Month 1]: $139,720 ======================================================== To find out more information, Do not respond by email. Instead, Please visit our web site at: http://www.bigcashtoday.com List Removal Instructions: We hope you enjoyed receiving this message. However, if you'd rather not receive future e-mails of this sort from Internet Specialists, send an email to removalstoday2002@yahoo.com and type "remove" in the "subject" line and you will be removed from any future mailings. We hope you have a great day! Internet Specialists ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 15:44:10 -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: tetraverton In-Reply-To: <200201142130.g0ELUn102970@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii So, you're saying, if the surface of the verton is near zero, it will _almost_ be simple curvature. It is because of the thickness of the skin that we are forced into compound curvature? Dick > look, your silly reference referred prominently > to the stress or strain of the "ridges," > down to various scales, and that means it's not "simple > curvature," > but may even involve rips & tears. your concept is > fully aborted, > but you can still make use of the protein! > > "Energy hath shape, Stupid!" --Buckafka Fullofit > > thus quoth: > I still don't get your confusion. > > --- Brian Hutchings > > wrote: > > > I don't see how it could rescue your "randome" > > confusion; > > the only stress that is involved in simple curvature > > -- that of cones and cylinders -- is that > > of the thickness of the material, trying to bend. > > > http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html > > --AOL Ghostscripts! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:21:38 -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 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 15-JAN-2002 11:21 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us <> Brian ?Quincy! Hutchings 15-JAN-2002 11:19 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us no. I'm saying that, if you try to induce simple curvature into real, flexible stuff, like paper, eventually the inner-radius compression and the outer-radius tension will cause it to fail, in some way. everything that you are trying to impose, like some sort of professional clown of material science, is going to be *additionally* stressful, because the "Gaussian curvature" is zero only for "simple curvature." getting back to stuff, it may be that Casti has a generic boilerplate "So sue me!" -- where he says, I make no representations as to grotesque mystaques, serious pratfalls, dangerous dyllusions and horrible bodily harm for taking what I've written on Faith -- I haven't checked all o'this ****, man. So, pretend it's a work of fiction, "the semblance of anything that is real, is strictly coincidental," and don't even *try* to sue me. the exact value of the density of the IVM packing, is pi times the second-root of 18, which is the volume of the sphere over it's embracing rh.dodecah., which you should be able to check by construction (although I have not .-) thus quoth: So, you're saying, if the surface of the verton is near zero, it will _almost_ be simple curvature. It is because of the thickness of the skin that we are forced into compound curvature? http://jfi.uchicago.edu/~tten/rainbow/Crumpling/Alex.Science.html > > --AOL Ghostscripts! > >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:54:17 -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: Power Sector Development-India Comments: cc: "Meisen, Peter" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Blueprint for Power Sector Development" by=20 Ministry of Power, Government of India Aug-Nov 2001 http://powermin.nic.in/mop-blueprint.pdf (See pages 20-27, or thumbnails 30-37) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:05:16 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: info@GENI.ORG Subject: Re: Starvation -- Kwh vs. Quality of Life MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Joe, > Years ago, I was meeting with one of my engineering professors at UCSD (Dr. > Penner is also the editor of the Energy Journal) and he referred me to the study > listed below. > > I was making the point that energy consumption per capita drives the basic > quality of life needs: water pumping, filtration and disposal, refrigeration and > lighting. He completely agreed and suggested the article from the Bangledesh > engineers. > > This is a model -- and statistical comparison of 112 countries in 1991. You'll > see the same correlation that Bucky writes about in Critcal Path. I think > you'll find this study offers a strong argument that increasing kwh/capita/year > is fundamental to improving one's quality of life in a developing society. > > see: > http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/global/quality_of_life/QualityOfLifeVsEnergyConsumption.html > > Thanks again, > Peter Meisen > Global Energy Network Institute, GENI > www.geni.org > > Joe S Moore wrote: > > > Rolf, > > > > To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done a scientific study to > > prove or disprove the relationship of energy/capita and the birth rate. > > There seems to be an inverse correlation but that observation is based on > > statistics that may or may not have a true relationship. I've been waiting > > years for a qualified person to do a real study that would pass peer review. > > > > ============================== > > Joe S Moore > > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > > ============================= > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rolf H. Parta" > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 9:39 PM > > Subject: Re: Starvation > > > > > jim: > > > What data indicate is all fine and well. And, without theory to > > > guide it, spurious correlations abound and lead many into concluding that > > > causal relationships exist where both data sets are simply symptoms of > > some > > > more basic underlying cause. > > > Example: increases in available electricity per person > > > [megawatthours] are also correlated with declines in the birth rate. To > > > conclude that the one causes the other without further evidence is poor > > logic. > > > > > > Btw, the obscenity ill becomes you. > > > > > > --rolf p. > > (snip) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:01:03 -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: Power Transmission east of Denver, CO, USA In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Another fine snafu brought to you by your regulatory authorities -- FERC, in this case. [What? You didn't realize that the West Coast US grid does not connect to the grid for the East Coast/Southern/Central states? They don't. The technically feasible transmission distance for electric power is about 4000 miles. Denver and Kansas City are about 600 miles apart, but their power systems do not connect.] {California found this out last year when northern California couldn't get any more power from anywhere while Indiana and Ohio had huge surpluses.} (-; Let's have a big hand for our politicians and bureaucrats. At 08:54 PM 1/15/2002 -0700, you wrote: >"Blueprint for Power Sector Development" > by >Ministry of Power, Government of India > Aug-Nov 2001 > > http://powermin.nic.in/mop-blueprint.pdf > >(See pages 20-27, or thumbnails 30-37) > >============================== >Joe S Moore >joe_s_moore@hotmail.com >http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ >Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute >============================= Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:57:44 -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: random close packing Comments: cc: synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Interesting article on random sphere packing. http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/papers/paper-176.pdf Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:47:46 -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: Economic Growth -- Kwh vs. Quality of Life In-Reply-To: <3C44FBFB.423756CE@geni.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Peter and Joe: My point, which the study Peter cites illustrates, is that "there is a strong correlation" between Kwh/capita and quality of life. This is very far from being able to say that increases in Kwh/capita cause increases in quality of life [or reductions in the birth rate]. Another, and perhaps more useful, study on developing economies was done by Kim and Lau of Stanford [appearing in multiple journals with similar article titles around 1994+, usually as something like Causes of Economic Growth in Four SE Asian Nations]. Kim and Lau found that four factors accounted for all of the growth in per capita income experienced by the then fastest growing economies in the world. These factors are: a. jobs in the exchange economy [as opposed to subsistence farming, fishing and herding] b. increases in knowledge per worker [measured as attained educational level in SE Asia] c. increases in the working lifetime of the average worker [life expectancy] d. increases in real capital formation [real investment per worker]. The Kim and Lau study has stood up to the closest examination in the economics journals from all serious [data-based] contenders to date. {Non data-based objections are all subject to Fuller's comments about the gestational lag in fields dominated by opinion as opposed to science -- see page 283+ in Critical Path.} My tentative conclusion from the Kim and Lau study is that under the right conditions [which Kim and Lau did not study, other than to note that the "Asian tiger" economies obviously had them, at least temporarily] increases in Kwh/capita is an outcome of economic development, as are increases in "quality of Life" and decreases in the birth rate. It remains to be seen whether, in the Information Age [these countries were primarily occupied with Industrial Age development], the observed causation of economic growth continues to hold. {For a fascinating discussion of some of the "right conditions", Hernando de Soto of Peru writes a very useful book titled The Mystery of Capital. Others of the "right conditions" may be inferred from comparative studies of Ghana and South Korea (their economies were very similar in the 1960's) or Singapore and Zanzibar (very similar trading based economies, also in the 1960's) -- these include the absence of actual warfare and an inherent sense of responsibility for one's economic outcome at the family level (the "Asian tigers" all inherited this from Confucian thought patterns).} Best regards, At 08:05 PM 1/15/2002 -0800, you wrote: > > Joe, > > Years ago, I was meeting with one of my engineering professors at UCSD (Dr. > > Penner is also the editor of the Energy Journal) and he referred me to > the study > > listed below. > > > > I was making the point that energy consumption per capita drives the basic > > quality of life needs: water pumping, filtration and disposal, > refrigeration and > > lighting. He completely agreed and suggested the article from the > Bangledesh > > engineers. > > > > This is a model -- and statistical comparison of 112 countries in > 1991. You'll > > see the same correlation that Bucky writes about in Critcal Path. I think > > you'll find this study offers a strong argument that increasing > kwh/capita/year > > is fundamental to improving one's quality of life in a developing society. > > > > see: > > > http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/global/quality_of_life/QualityOfLifeVsEn > ergyConsumption.html > > > > Thanks again, > > Peter Meisen > > Global Energy Network Institute, GENI > > www.geni.org > > > > Joe S Moore wrote: > > > > > Rolf, > > > > > > To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done a scientific study to > > > prove or disprove the relationship of energy/capita and the birth rate. > > > There seems to be an inverse correlation but that observation is based on > > > statistics that may or may not have a true relationship. I've been > waiting > > > years for a qualified person to do a real study that would pass peer > review. > > > > > > ============================== > > > Joe S Moore > > > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > > > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > > > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > > > ============================= > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rolf H. Parta" > > > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 9:39 PM > > > Subject: Re: Starvation > > > > > > > jim: > > > > What data indicate is all fine and well. And, without > theory to > > > > guide it, spurious correlations abound and lead many into > concluding that > > > > causal relationships exist where both data sets are simply symptoms of > > > some > > > > more basic underlying cause. > > > > Example: increases in available electricity per person > > > > [megawatthours] are also correlated with declines in the birth > rate. To > > > > conclude that the one causes the other without further evidence is poor > > > logic. > > > > > > > > Btw, the obscenity ill becomes you. > > > > > > > > --rolf p. > > > (snip) Rolf H. Parta Imagination comes before Accomplishment. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:28:50 -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] Third World? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JAN-2002 5:28 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it isn't American *per se*, although there are plenty of imperialist American bidnessfolk and politicians, "Theodore Rex," e.g. the technical term for the relations of an empire to its colonies is, (British Liberal) Free Trade; we didn't write that particular book, and slavery is its ultimate form! (viz _The Wealth of Nations_, publ.1776 by Penguin, Ltd. -- an "American" subsidiary of it, using American trees !-) thus quoth: (again, the US wrote the book on this, our model of the corporate ruled "free market democracy" is what is being pushed all over the world- it is the few courages global south countries, like venezuala, what, you nean the jacobin nutcase, President Chavez?... do you reacall when the *Wall Street Journal* loved him, so badly, because of his putative reforms? why say, Conservative, when you really mean, Tory? --AOL Ghostscripts! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:04:56 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JAN-2002 6:04 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us a "maximally reandom jammed state" may be the ticket! note that, if I didn't misquote Casti on the density being "pi times the second-root of 18," then he made a rather large boner (has to ~= 74% .-) thus quoth: Interesting article on random sphere packing. http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/papers/paper-176.pdf --AOL Ghostscripts! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:51:10 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Seth Itzkan Subject: Tribute to Dana Meadows published on Sustainability Institute web site Comments: To: uhcl-futures@lstsrvr.cl.uh.edu Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I just found out that my tribute to Dana Meadows is published on the Sustainability Institute web site. This is the organization that she started. This is unexpected, and needless to say, I'm honored that it made it there, although I'm still dismayed at the tragic loss. I'd rather have Dana. If you aren't familiar with her work, I highly recommend it. She probably did more for Future Studies and Sustainability than anyone. She died a year ago in February http://sustainer.org/meadows/tributes.html - Seth -- Seth J. Itzkan Planet-TECH Associates http://www.planet-tech.com sitzkan@planet-tech.com 781-874-0206 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 18:24:39 -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: 12-around-1 Comments: To: Synergeo Comments: cc: dick0611@juno.com, Jessie , "Yelwarb@aol.com" , Steve Waterman , Alan Ferguson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (Please pardon cc:s; I'd like to be sure all who were in the discussion or saw it, may see these if they wish.) Subject(s): discussion, Synergeo, surrounding 12-around-1, 13-sphere packs, random "jammed" packing, Tetrahedraverse spherical influence dominant (in this construct, anyway). Image: large ball of 12-a-1s (approx; 60 spheres). Rendering: "Brass" balls, sized approximately to touch each other where they can, medium-high reflectivity (for Pov users, texture T_Brass_4E ). Guaranteed to be 100% 12-around-1, except (of course) outermost layer. (Building method in Struck97 describable, not included here). Artifacts: compression is both too tight and not as evenly distributed as I'd like, but the principle is clear. Image notes: 640x480, 16 colors. Both .GIF and .JPG provided. The .GIF has a transparent background (this might help your stereopsis) and is _half_ the size (33kb) of the .JPG . (I have no idea why; they're identical images.) Generated in X-eye stereo within PovRay, the only post-processing used, to reduced colors from 16 million and size from 800x600. PovRay 3.5 used, "shadowless" keyword on three of four lights used, which enabled light to enter inside the collection and get "trapped" there. It's not prefectly accurate to say this, but some of this interior light approximates energetic "gap" between spheres, as Tverse requires. The transparent-background .GIF: http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/Lightest1.gif The .JPG (66kb): http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/Lightest1.jpg Hope you enjoy and are assisted in visualization. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:34:51 -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: 12-around-1 <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JAN-2002 12:34 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us so, you're saying that 12-on-1 includes everything without any recourse, no matter if the 12 are not all kissing the one? I still don't know what t-verse is supposed to be. in Casti's book he covers that Chinese guy's attempt and Hale's alleged proof, both using good ol'Voronoi cells and Delauney [tetragonation], but says nothing about the octahedra. is that because the would-be provers didn't, either? http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/Lightest1.gif --AOL Ghostscripts! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:04:06 -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: random close packing Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit it's pi / sqrt(18) ---------- >From: Brian Hutchings > note that, if I didn't misquote Casti > on the density being "pi times the second-root of 18," > then he made a rather large boner (has to ~= 74% .-) > > thus quoth: > Interesting article on random sphere packing. > > http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/papers/paper-176.pdf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:58:12 -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 - 15 Jan 2002 to 16 Jan 2002 (#2002-16) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Subject: Re: 12-around-1 > > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 16-JAN-2002 12:34 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > so, you're saying that 12-on-1 includes everything > without any recourse, no matter if the 12 are not all kissing the one? Both. 12-a-1 touching the 1, and 12-a-1 some not touching the 1. BUT: _All_ 12-a-1s are tight enough not to permit a 13th to wiggle its way into the 12. We have to be sure we know which of the two categories we're discussing. Mostly here we've been discussing 12-a-1 _touching_ the 1. As to the other category: no packing as large as Tverse's (Universe-large) can possibly adhere to the rule that 12-a-1s cannot be wiggled into by a 13th, yet everywhere be 12-a-1s touching the 1. Since _every_ sphere ("piont," in Tverse) is a center sphere in a 12-a-1, and since 12-a-1s all have some "gap" in their outer 12, then obviously when moving focus to any of the outer 12 to use it as a center for another 12-a-1, there will be some "gap" in some of the interior sphere-to-sphere neighbor relationships, as well as more "gap" in _its_ outer 12. The images whose URLs I just (they're in this digest copy; you quote one) posted here show this latter category, 12-a-1s not all touching the 1 (albeit, the very center 13 group --too far down inside the pack to see-- is a 12-a-1 touching the 1 regular icosahedron of spheres). All the 13-ONLY sphere-pack images I've shown have been the former category, 12-a-1 _touching_ 1. > I still don't know what t-verse is supposed to be. Attempt to model all Universe aspects using dimensionless noncoalesceable points under a form of outermost-boundary spherical compression. I no longer expect people either to understand it without serious attention, nor do I expect them to become interested enough to find out. (I figure, if anyone thinks it's worth grasping, they'll poke around on my website and then if they're still interested, email me with questions.) > in Casti's book he covers that Chinese guy's attempt and > Hale's alleged proof, both using good ol'Voronoi cells and > Delauney [tetragonation], but says nothing > about the octahedra. is that because the would-be provers didn't, > either? Don't know. Irregular octahedra in a sphere-pack might be all over the place. Irregular tetrahedra certainly are. _Regular_ octahedra therein, are either obvious to those who study CCP/FCC packing, or exist only in Fuller's work, inside the IVM (which is the same thing as a CCP/FCC). Do you have "that Chinese guy"'s full name, so we can do websearches? Voronoi cells are interesting analogues; Delaunay tertagonations also, both if carried into 3D. But they don't help much to illuminate Tverse's structural and behavioural aspects; Tverse is 100% points, no struts, no spheres, no soap-bubble boundaries, very few regularities. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:29:29 -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: 12-around-1 In-Reply-To: <200201162034.g0GKYpQ19158@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/Lightest1.gif John- What did you see this is? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:30:13 -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: 12-around-1 In-Reply-To: <200201162034.g0GKYpQ19158@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/Lightest1.gif What is this, John? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:18:28 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 15 Jan 2002 to 16 Jan 2002 (#2002-16) In-Reply-To: <001201c19f1c$211e0240$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Tverse is 100% points, no struts, no > spheres, no > soap-bubble boundaries, very few regularities. > JB Instead of thinking about what tverse is, I have been coming at it from the other side, that is, what tverse is not. It is not the empty space between the points. I can fill that space with "stuff", like spheres or tets. There are twenty spaces around each point in tverse. It is the "duel" of tverse, in Bucky speak. Tverse, I think, is the gap that's left. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:22:39 -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: The VE and the GIF Comments: To: Synergeo , geometry@fluidiom.com Comments: cc: dick0611@juno.com, "Yelwarb@aol.com" , Joe Terry , Steve Waterman , Kirby Urner , Alan Ferguson , tverse@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Recent discussion regarding tightness of the VE (within, or without, its parent IVM) made with _spheres_, in connection with how this would "jitterbug," and to the limits on jitterbugging in a sphere model as opposed to a stick model, led me to make one. This file is HUGE. I apologize for this, but it's the very first transmissible moving-stereo3D model of this, and it has flaws. However, the motion of spheres while jitterbugging is abundantly clear. Please observe the gaps at the beginning, between outer-12 balls, which close up as the VE appears. Notice also there are gaps in the interior. The former is actual, the latter is an _artifact_ of the way Struck's rubbery springs change length to redistribute forces. I could get rid of the interior gaps, but it would take extremely fine tuning of the Struck model, which wasn't worth the effort in _this_ particular model (which is as much a test/proof-of-concept as it is an argument). The same rotatory motion would be seen, without the interior gap artifact. ---Struck97, nexes only, output 13 .pov files, one for each incremental positioning. ---PovRay rendered, manual file-massaging (lots of cut/paste text), output .bmp files. (X-eyed stereo made inside PovRay) ---MGI Photosuite reduced colors to 256, size to 640x480 (hence the large download file size). ---"BMP2GIF.EXE" used with wildcard and 'transparent' option, to convert all the .bmps to .gifs wholesale. (DOS program; freeware) ---Micro$oft GIF Animator put these together. Transparent background, eternal looping. ---Animation starts at icosahedron, pauses (2 extra frames, same filename) at the VE position, and continues onward to its "other end" icosahedron, then snaps back to the start of the loop. (Ugly, ugly, sorry; I intend to show a continuous rotation of balls around the waist of this 13-sphere object, but that's going to take a _whole_ lot more Struck-work.) Those not specifically interested need not bother downloading the file. As I said, it's huge and has flaws (artifacts introduced by M$oft GIFAnimator; white spots on the balls), but please bear in mind, this is my very first web-accessible large-format color animation. http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/Animate/VE2TVani.gif (914 KB ....(!)) Thanks for looking, those who do, and since I'm learning, I would appreciate knowing how the animation looked on your various screens, and what the _frame_rate_ was. (Frames here are set to 1/10th of a second each, so those with fast machines might see it 'way too fast. On my 200MHz machine screen-draws take about a half-second per frame; it's not smooth.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:50:12 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Kirby Urner Subject: Re: [synergeo] The VE and the GIF Comments: To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com Comments: cc: Synergeo , geometry@fluidiom.com, tverse@fluidiom.com In-Reply-To: <001201c19f84$30158260$d675d918@jb2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > >Thanks for looking, those who do, and since I'm learning, I would >appreciate knowing how the animation looked on your various screens, and >what the _frame_rate_ was. I checked it -- downloads fast on my line. The whole thing cycles about every 2 seconds on my relatively fast box. Fun fun (the VE looks tighter). Kirby ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:38:42 -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] Does Globalization Help the Poor? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JAN-2002 8:38 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, I found only one section of the NYT this mroming, the "World Business," and it told of Pres. Fox newfound interest in a "protectionist" measure against ADM et al, to support the sugar plants that he'd expropriated, by putting a 20% tarrif on imported corn syrup. (I know; who needs sugar ?-) thus quoth: Interestingly, one of the biggest monopolies in this world is CARGILL, a food company that controls a large part of the wheat production in the world and is owned by ONE family. --AOL Ghostcripts? http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:45:52 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JAN-2002 8:45 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us thanks, as I'd though, but I'm not going to believe it, til I "do the geometry." if Casti made that error, did he do it on prupose? thus quoth: it's pi / sqrt(18) ---------- >From: Brian Hutchings > note that, if I didn't misquote Casti > on the density being "pi times the second-root of 18," > then he made a rather large boner (has to ~= 74% .-) > > thus quoth: > Interesting article on random sphere packing. > > http://cherrypit.princeton.edu/papers/paper-176.pdf --AOL Ghostcripts? >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:10:57 -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: Re: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JAN-2002 9:10 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I guess, you're groping for those closest-12 to any one sphere. we can say for the sake of "jamming," taht that it has to touch at least 4 (?) other spheres, but may need more to stop "rattling." this is the problem. far be it from me to not take points to be defined as points, meaing pionts, but, so, What? you don't see to have made much of an attempt to get anyhting out of this circular reasoning, undoubtedly because you don't know enough geometry; not that there may not be some thing fruitful to be found, but I sure didn't find it on your site. Voronoi cells are *dual* to Delaunay tetrahedronization, and the IVM is a throughly special case (because wnat *lloks* like 8 rhombohedral dodecahedra meeting at one point, easily can be seen as an unstable thing; 4-way connections are the "general-position" cases, whose duals are tetrahedral ... and, where have we seen *that*, before ?-) thus quoth: Don't know. Irregular octahedra in a sphere-pack might be all over the place. Irregular tetrahedra certainly are. _Regular_ octahedra therein, are either obvious to those who study CCP/FCC packing, or exist only in Fuller's work, inside the IVM (which is the same thing as a CCP/FCC). --AOL Ghostcripts? >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:15:19 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JAN-2002 9:15 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what is the concept that you are trying to "proof of," if one may ask? thus quoth: particular model (which is as much a test/proof-of-concept as it is an argument). The same rotatory motion would be seen, without the interior gap artifact. --AOL Ghostcripts? >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:16:59 -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: [Quaker-P] Does Globalization Help the Poor? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 17-JAN-2002 9:16 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us wow, great to know! thus quoth: Well, the US doesn't seem to be in favor of more choices. After all, they are against the starving families of Colombia supporting themselves with THE CHOICE OF GROWING COCA AND CANNABIS AND POPPIES. Meanwhile, the english are getting rich growing the poppies in India that supply morphine for EVERY hospital in the world. So IF they are FOR choices, let them be for ALL choices, not just the ones THEY dictate. --AOL Ghostcripts? >>>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:00:14 -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: Promised Comments: To: Synergeo , Steve Waterman , Dick Fischbeck , Kirby Urner , geometry@fluidiom.com, tverse@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Waterman suggested I make a side-by-side "comparison pair" of the same network in the Tverse, and in the IVM, patterns. Here it is. http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/claps8_VETV.jpg (113?kb) Structure: The IVM is 8 VEs welded together at their squares. Tverse is those 8 transformed by removing the orthogonal pressure from the IVM, thus allowing spherical pressure to dominate. Apologies Absolutely nothing visible in the IVM changes in any way except position, as it transforms into the Tverse NoVO12. Invisibly, springs which force the icosahedral network into IVM form are simply relaxed, effectively taking them out of the force-vector network. Bucky students may object, and I apologize, but in this model there _is_ one visible diagonal across most of the squares ---the waistlines of the octahedra in the IVM. You should look at the IVM's squares, and just ignore the diagonal that you see across them. It has influence in the network only in Tverse, and is perfectly balanced out by un-slacking the 'Verse's invisible spring crossing it in the square. In this way the IVM's orthogonal-compression requirements are modeled by balanced tensioning forces within the spring network, very like Tverse's are modelled by interpentrated-icosahedral tensioning. respects, Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:24:28 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Mark Siegmund Subject: Articles Invited Comments: To: Peace , Peace Studies , TetCenter-Topica , Ecol-Econ , "Whole Systems Design Assoc." , World Systems Network , John Walsh , Buckminster Fuller Institute , "Geodesic Listserve GEODESIC"@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU, Ashoka Karin Hillhouse , Solar Electric Light Fund Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Greetings! You are cordially invited to submit articles for publication in The International Journal of Humanities and Peace (IJHP), Vol.18, No.1, 2002. The general topic for the issue is - Dialogue Continued: Sustainability and Peace. Please visit the IJHP website at http://www.ijhp.net for submission guidelines/requirements. Deadline for submissions is April 30, 2002. Thank you... Cordially, Mark Siegmund Associate Editor Tetworld@highstream.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:16:45 -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 Jan 2002 to 17 Jan 2002 (#2002-17) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: 12-around-1 > > > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/Lightest1.gif > > What is this, John? About 120 spheres packed as Tverse. (I said 60, earlier, then Iooked at what PovRay said was there....(*g*)) Without you being familar with Struck's construction techniques it'd be hard to describe why its guaranteed to be 100% 12-around-1s in there, but I'll try: Suppose you take a nucleated icosahedron (13 balls, one in center), and you take another one, and then you _merge_ them in such a way that an outer-12 ball in one coincides with the center ball of the other, and an outer-12 ball in the latter simultaneously coincides with the center ball in the former. You will then notice that these are not the only two sets of two balls that are congruent; there are five more such pairs. ( You now have an icosa halfway merged with another one, seven balls in the one paired closely with seven balls in the other. ) Now you _fuse_ each pair of the seven pairs of balls that are overlapping or congruent, so each pair becomes one ball. This "guarantees" that you have fused one 12-a-1 icosa into another such that neither icosa loses or gains any balls. Keep doing this, icosa after icosa after. . . --and do it as symmetrically as you can-- and you end up with an approximation (it's a miniscule piece, after all) of Tverse's network, in which you are _sure_ that every ball but the outermost ones is a center ball in a 12-around-1. I had to try this, since building it by merely adding tets (it can also be done that way) makes it _extremely_ hard to make sure you have only 12-around-1s everywhere; it gets nearly impossible to eyeball-see, let alone _count_, the number of "contacts" each ball has with its neighbors. One can mistakenly get 10-around-1s, 11-a-1s, 13-a-1s, 14-a-1s, and so forth. Working with only tets and adding them to the growing structure, when the structure gets big, makes it nearly impossible to be sure it's a Tverse network and not just a rat's-nest of partially erroneous intervals. (*grin*) The purpose behind this is to make a good, workable, many-ball transformation model, that shows the IVM form twisting correctly into the Tverse form. There are two ways to do this: 1) Make an IVM (this is easy; it's regular, you can see and build correctly 12-a-1), and twist it into the Tverse, or 2) Make a Tverse (described above) and twist it into the IVM. I first did #1). It had places in it that retained IVM patterning because I could not build it without overlapping some of the "transformation springs." When I tried to correct that, by changing some springs, it kept twisting so kept losing track of which springs were doing what where. So, I tried (still working on it) #2), and am currently doing same, adding springs to stretch rhombi into squares. The object is the same (live-animate show the transformation), the direction of construction different (start with IVM, modify to twist to Tverse or start with Tverse, modify to twist to IVM. Both methods, if properly done, should behave exactly the same way. I have not so far achieved that, but I wanted to show at least a guaranteed 12-a-1 Tverse patterning (the 12-a-1 equivalent IVM is well-known). Answer your question? Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:00:18 -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: octaball MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is anyone familiar with a structure made out of twenty octahedrons? See http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=82 Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 18:09:33 -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: 13, the ball-pack Comments: To: Synergeo , tverse@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tetrahedraverse origins The 13-sphere tightest ball-pack, front and rear ('front' rotated 160 degrees) views. (Not a stereo pair) PovRay imagery of the first step in my journey, re-discovery of the problem of the 13 spheres. All gap that can be moved, is moved, gathered together in the "front." Silver balls on a black background, 800x600, 256 colors, 62kb: http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/BallGap1.jpg Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:31:37 -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: Re: octaball <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 9:31 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us just say, Duh! thus quoth: Is anyone familiar with a structure made out of twenty octahedrons? See http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto &Phot oID=82 --"Dick" --The RDU; the truth is "up" there! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/1007knights.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:38:02 -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 questions <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 9:38 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us GLOBALISATION is an acronym; follwo this trail: British Liberal Free Trade (opium wars, slave trading etc.) a.k.a. imperialism (the sun doesn't rise on the Brutish Umpire for technical reasons not involving spherical trig.) a.k.a. the North Atlantic Free Trade Accord (CAFTA-plus-plus) a.k.a. the World Trade Organization a.k.a. G.L.O.B.A.L.I.S.A.T.I.O.N. THUS QUOTH: Does globalization exist? If so, how do you define it? When did it start? --The RDU; the truth is "up" there! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/1007knights.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:51:42 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 9:51 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us if you ever learn to follow a simple proof, such as in "grade-school geometry," let us know. you have made a bunch of querulous assumptions -- 7 balls a re shared by the merged 12-on-ones, and so on -- that probably don't pan-out for very long, or maybe not for one whole attempt at surrounding *one* 12-on-one with others (is that what you supposedly just did ?-) if you start tuning these twisted models into hypotheses, you'll soon get some where -- or abandon certain lines of "research." as it is, if Newton's con-jecture about no-more-kissing- o'balls took til 1874 (?) to prove, then you shuold probably look into it (I guess, you have; eh?) for, if it was not entirely obvious --as I believe you suggested that it was, silly dude-- then it's still obvious that a rather slight shift toward non-kissing could bring enough room for another ball to get just as close; dig? thus quoth: This "guarantees" that you have fused one 12-a-1 icosa into another such that neither icosa loses or gains any balls. Keep doing this, icosa after icosa after. . . --and do it as symmetrically as you can-- and you end up with an approximation (it's a miniscule piece, after all) of Tverse's network, in which you are _sure_ that every ball but the outermost ones is a center ball in a 12-around-1. what if we want our money back (we've spent quite a lot of valuable time on this stuff, you know) ?? --The RDU; the truth is "up" there! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/1007knights.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:01:30 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 10:01 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what does it mean, "orthogonal compression-requirements," in relation to the IVM?... do you realize, in adding *one* diagonal across an octahedron, you are "polarizing" it? what in Hell are you trying to do? thus quoth: spring crossing it in the square. In this way the IVM's orthogonal-compression requirements are modeled by balanced tensioning forces within the spring network, very like Tverse's are modelled by interpentrated-icosahedral tensioning. --The RDU; the truth is "up" there! >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/1007knights.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:04:10 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 10:04 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what is the concept that you are trying to "proof of," if one may ask? thus quoth: particular model (which is as much a test/proof-of-concept as it is an argument). The same rotatory motion would be seen, without the interior gap artifact. --AOL Ghostcripts? >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:04:58 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 10:04 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I guess, you're groping for those closest-12 to any one sphere. we can say for the sake of "jamming," taht that it has to touch at least 4 (?) other spheres, but may need more to stop "rattling." this is the problem. far be it from me to not take points to be defined as points, meaing pionts, but, so, What? you don't see to have made much of an attempt to get anyhting out of this circular reasoning, undoubtedly because you don't know enough geometry; not that there may not be some thing fruitful to be found, but I sure didn't find it on your site. Voronoi cells are *dual* to Delaunay tetrahedronization, and the IVM is a throughly special case (because wnat *lloks* like 8 rhombohedral dodecahedra meeting at one point, easily can be seen as an unstable thing; 4-way connections are the "general-position" cases, whose duals are tetrahedral ... and, where have we seen *that*, before ?-) thus quoth: Don't know. Irregular octahedra in a sphere-pack might be all over the place. Irregular tetrahedra certainly are. _Regular_ octahedra therein, are either obvious to those who study CCP/FCC packing, or exist only in Fuller's work, inside the IVM (which is the same thing as a CCP/FCC). --AOL Ghostcripts? >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:15:54 -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: Re: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 10:15 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us wow; it's about time! thus quoth: PovRay imagery of the first step in my journey, re-discovery of the problem of the 13 spheres. All gap that can be moved, is moved, gathered together in the "front." Silver balls on a black background, 800x600, 256 colors, 62kb: http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/BallGap1.jpg --AOL Ghostscripts? http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:39:53 -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: Pretty pictures Comments: To: Synergeo , tverse@fluidiom.com, Kirby Urner Comments: cc: "Yelwarb@aol.com" , Steve Waterman , dick0611@juno.com, Dick Fischbeck , Jessie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tetrahedraverse; The Lady and her Dual Just for fun, no real piont to this.... Nucleated Icosahedron of Jade balls, her gold pentagonal dodecahedron dual within her. (One might think about the stresses in her dual were one to torque this into a VE. . .) 1024x768 (smoothest Jade) http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/IcAnDod1x7.jpg (~97kb) 800x600 (.jpg quality, 80%) http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/IcAnDod8x6.jpg (~66kb) Do not use this link unless you want to check this file extension out. " .JPS ," I just discovered, is the JPEG group's proposed standard and file sepcification for stereo-pair (X-eyed) images compressed to .jpg format. (It's a .jpg, displays like a .jpg, etc.; to view it as a .jpg you merely change the last letter in the file extension. It's in here so _I_ can test it when my copy of this comes back, to see if my browser (IE6) recognizes it as an image.) http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/IcAnDod1x7.jps (~66kb) (Anybody want the 1.7 megabyte raw bitmap file? (*g*)) Thanks to Dick Fischbeck for prying (accidentally) in this direction. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:41:01 -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: Earthscope Presentation Demo v1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BFI's new EarthScope at SpaceshipEarth.org: http://www.spaceshipearth.org/EARTHSCOPE/escope_popup.html =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:17:23 -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 - 17 Jan 2002 to 18 Jan 2002 (#2002-18) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 9:51 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > if you ever learn to follow a simple proof, > such as in "grade-school geometry," let us know. > you have made a bunch of querulous assumptions > -- 7 balls a re shared by the merged 12-on-ones, and so on -- > that probably don't pan-out for very long, or Hey, I _build_ the damn things while I'm watching with my naked eyes. I know _precisely_ what happens, why, where, and when. It pans out forever. You seem merely unwilling to replicate my findings. No prob. If you don't want to cook, get out of the kitchen. > maybe not for one whole attempt at surrounding *one* 12-on-one > with others (is that what you supposedly just did ?-) Suppositions come from those who don't trust. Those who don't trust need 'proving methods.' One excellent 'proving method' is the Scientific method, in which you _replicate_ (or fail to) a claimant's findings. This method usually requires precision tools. You have as much access to those as I do. (Six-digit decimal percision good enough for you?) Why not get active, download, and use those tools? > if you start tuning these twisted models > into hypotheses, you'll soon get some where -- > or abandon certain lines of "research." (*Haw!*) (*rofl!*) When you get your internal visualizer re-trained, let me know. Better, get a copy of Struck or SpringDance, and re-do the damn work yourself. That's how science, math, and geometry convince the visualization-challenged. > then it's still obvious that a rather slight shift > toward non-kissing could bring enough room > for another ball to get just as close; dig? Dig what? A grave for your counterposition? Use the tools. Find the truth. I already have it. This is Tetrahedraverse, which has compression. _Any_ ball can come out of contact slightly with its partners, and a) still will not be enough room to stuff another ball in between the 12, and b) still will the compression on the other 11 balls in any one 12-a-1 prevent this invasion. It is a metastable topological state, which may edify some while boring the hell out of others. One hopes it irritates some people enough that they try to disprove my contentions, with _models_. The needed computer modellers are free. You must be lazy. > what if we want our money back > (we've spent quite a lot of valuable time on this stuff, > you know) ?? Voluntary contributions are not refundable. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:44:10 -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 Jan 2002 to 18 Jan 2002 (#2002-18) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 10:01 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > what does it mean, "orthogonal compression-requirements," > in relation to the IVM?... do you realize, > in adding *one* diagonal across an octahedron, > you are "polarizing" it? Right. And if you add another one that exactly balances it, you are "UN-polarizing" it again. It doesn't make any difference how you build an IVM so long as all its vertices are where they're supposed to be in an IVM. Me, I'm trying to show that Tverse is the rule, and IVM is the specific, unique exception, in Universe. What the Hell are _you_ trying to do? An IVM is held in shape by external forces --_orthogonal_ forces. Hence "orthogonal compression requirement." The Tverse network is held in _its_ shape also by external forces, _spherical_ forces. Orthogonal == three axes. Spherical == infinite axes. > what is the concept that you are trying to "proof of," > if one may ask? That the Tverse network and the IVM, when ball-modelled, are topologically equivalent. The models in the image are imperfect for that purpose, but demonstrate the possibility of such a transformational model. Hence "proof-of-concept," not yet definitive-visual proof-of-proposition. > I guess, you're groping for those closest-12 > to any one sphere. we can say for the sake of "jamming," > taht that it has to touch at least 4 (?) other spheres, but > may need more to stop "rattling." For the sake of Tverse, to say "has to," one says "two." Any ball _has_to_ touch two. In order to conduct the compression through a ball, it must touch at least two outer-12 balls. One easily intuits that it's going to touch more than two, but two is the minimum, and usually, in this network, those two will be one on each side of the ball being touched. For the sake of "jamming," who knows? 4, 5, 6, 10? > to get anyhting out of this circular reasoning, undoubtedly because > you don't know enough geometry; You keep repeating this insult. Why? I mean, why bother? > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 18-JAN-2002 10:15 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > wow; it's about time! > > Silver balls on a black background, 800x600, 256 colors, 62kb: > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/BallGap1.jpg Oh, you _liked_ that one, eh? (Hey, Mikey! He likes it!) What other imagery would help you underst.... No, No, I think maybe it'd be better if you simply downloaded and used the elastic interval geometry program that outputs the math to those PovRay files. I can talk and show all year, and you won't get enough out of it to cause you to stop yankin' my chain.... (*g*) This one, which you probably already saw, partly for you and your opinion of my geometry skills. The pentagons' planes are halfway between the center ball and its matching partner. > 800x600 (.jpg quality, 80%) > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/IcAnDod8x6.jpg > (~66kb) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 05:00:51 -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: Pretty pictures In-Reply-To: <000701c1a09b$00f7cf20$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii e the last letter in the file extension. > It's in here so _I_ can test it when my copy of this > comes back, to see > if my browser (IE6) recognizes it as an image.) > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/IcAnDod1x7.jps > (~66kb) > > (Anybody want the 1.7 megabyte raw bitmap file? > (*g*)) > > Thanks to Dick Fischbeck for prying (accidentally) in > this direction. > JB What accident?? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 11:55:28 -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 - 16 Jan 2002 to 17 Jan 2002 (#2002-17) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 15 Jan 2002 to 16 Jan 2002 (#2002-16) > > > Tverse is 100% points, no struts, no > > spheres, no > > soap-bubble boundaries, very few regularities. > > Instead of thinking about what tverse is, I have been > coming at it from the other side, that is, what tverse is That's productive, and interesting for me to observe you doing. > not. It is not the empty space between the points. I can Well, it is, actually. "Tetrahedraverse" translates to "John Brawley's idiosyncratic description of the Universe at its finest-grained size level." The pionts may define the structural pattern thereof, but Tverse includes everything within its spherical boundary, meaning that it includes the gaps I've talked of being between pionts as well as the gaps "in the middle of" the tets of pionts. > fill that space with "stuff", like spheres or tets. There _You_ can. _I_ can't. Tverse doesn't allow stuff smaller than a dimensioness piont, and since four of these compressed makes a tet, there's no room inside the tet for anything --not even another dimensionless piont. So if you fill that 'space' with "stuff" like spheres or tets, have all the fun you like doing so, but please don't refer to the process as having anything to do with Tverse. > are twenty spaces around each point in tverse. It is the Technically, paradoxically, there are no such spaces in Tverse, packed pionts and violations of close-packing that occur directly between neighbor pairs of pionts being the only locations for "gaps." One can visualize this intra-tet "space" if one wishes to, but it ain't Tverse's. > "duel" of tverse, in Bucky speak. Tverse, I think, is the > gap that's left. FYI: Tverse is: 1)) An infinite number of dimensionless, _noncoalesceable_ pionts, less than half of which are in the 3D volume of Tverse, the rest (infinite number) being "in 2D," located in Tverse's bounding sphere. 2)) A compressive force on all those _inside_ the volume, caused by those in the bounding sphere trying to GET into the inside volume. 3)) An inevitable, unavoidable, isocahedrally-based pattern of pionts resulting from the first and second (above) properties, which, according to our well-known "problem of the 13 spheres," produces "gaps" everywhere within it. 4)) A posited, but not proven from "first principles," undefined (but low) number of closed, 12-around-none regular icosahedra of pionts, where there _is_ a little "gap" in the interior, but not enough room for another piont. Thus, if sticking to these few axiomatic principles creates something besides what's baldly stated above (such as you, Dick, have been investigating), that, too, is within Tetrahedraverse. "Piont": a) A mathematician's or geometer's point(sp) has no size (is dimensionless); has "location" (demands a coordinate system already in existence); and can be superposed (has no property preventing coalescence: two points or fifty or an infinite number may sit in the same location). b) Tverse's pionts(sp) likewise have no dimension; but they pre-exist "location": are entities unto themselves, not requiring a coordinate system in or upon which to be placed or marked; and can NOT sit in the same location as another member of their family. c) A topologist's points(ps) may or may not be dimensionless; have variably describable location (usually within a pre-existing coordinate system); and, as in Tverse, can NOT sit in the same spots. This lays out the differences between "point"(sp) and "piont"(sp), which were sufficient in some people's minds as to disallow me to write "point"(sp) when I meant something only a wee bit different (as above). In math/geom, placing two points(sp) together does not prevent coalescence--they can become one, and if they are placed in exactly the same location, they for all practical purposes do become one. In Tverse, trying to place two pionts together in the same location simply _fails_(as in topology it does): you instead get a two-piont "line segment." They can be sat right next to each other (infinitesimally close), but can not be fused into one another, to lose individual identity. With respect to each other, they act like dimensionless magnetic monopoles all of the same polarity, their individual field strength just short of infinite. Thus, math and geometry allow you to create whatever you like within structures that you make or perceive, much as Fuller does with his infinitely-upward/downward recursive tets and other patterns, inscriptions within inscriptions within. . . ad infinitum. Tverse does not allow you that sort of freedom. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 04:12:30 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JAN-2002 4:12 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us so, I finally found some thing that you can't squirm out of (although you can ignore it, like my past queries .-) your supposition about a "geometer's points" being "coalescable," are rather to do with the abstract "mappings" (isomprphisms) of a space "onto itself." in this respect, you could use the same grouptheoretical stuff to grok the shape -- as in "Energy hath shape, Stupido!" -- of your alleged tversal scheme. your unique set-up of "undefineds, axiomatically," also has Dirichlet domains (V-cells) and tetragonations (3D Delaunay trigonations), and some of the problems to which you refer, have probably been solved. thus quoth: In math/geom, placing two points(sp) together does not prevent coalescence--they can become one, and if they are placed in exactly the same location, they for all practical purposes do become one. a-hem (sic !-)... that, my friends, is QBS. --Pardonnez-George! http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 04:24:11 -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: [Quaker-P] Does Globalization Help the Poor? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JAN-2002 4:24 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us right-on. there's academic hear-say that Locke's writings are key to the Constitution, whereas he actually wrote the S.Carolina Constitution, which was adopted by the Confederacy. the Declarational phrase, "life, liberty and the purfuit of happineff," was specifically excluding the Lockean "and property," and this was a source of contention, which probably would've been kept as "property," if Tom Jefferson'd had his druthers (although he may've agitated for antislavery language). the phrase actually comes from a well-known treatise that takes the "and happiness" part with Leibniz. thus quoth: Wolterstorff, professor at yale, which speaks of God's justice, and clearly says that respect for private property is a philosophy invented by Locke, and is NOT from the Bible! He says that God's justice is that all should have the shalom, the chance to grow and give fruit. " 2 days ago, I was contacted buy someone from the president's social work office, and I may get to speak to the leader soon! I made sure he got to read this article! --Pardonnez-George! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 04:36:02 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JAN-2002 4:35 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us all I said was, you have to follow at least one, simple proof of a theorem in synthetic geometry (or any other geometry), in order to grok Leibniz' "neccesity & sufficiency" of hypothesis (and proof). it is clear to me that you haven't quite "gotten" there, yet. a perfect example is this stuff about orthogonal compression; the IVM is simply an idealized & infinite lattice, that can serve as a co-ordinate system, and is infact coterminous with the hexahedral (cubic) lattice of good, ol'X, Y and Z. on the other hand, "infinite axes" has another precedent of which you haven't made the slightest use (and neither would I, being largely unqualified to .-) actually, you may just be doing this as a big joke, or for some nefarious reason; eh? thus quoth: An IVM is held in shape by external forces --_orthogonal_ forces. Hence "orthogonal compression requirement." The Tverse network is held in _its_ shape also by external forces, _spherical_ forces. Orthogonal == three axes. Spherical == infinite axes. --Pardonnez-George! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 04:43:23 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JAN-2002 4:43 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the symmetry of an icosahedron (dodecagon) does not allow for your "pan out forever;" you have to prove that. you have to make it into a hypothesis that can be "shown," with or without the handwaving graphics. and, no, becasue the floating-point specifications (IEEE-755, -855) are *inherently chaotic*. speaking of vizualization, I recall when I gave some "tetrahedral inequalities" on Syn-hell (sik), and de Jong then set madly about to "prove" this via a Struck model, which he eventually did. yeeha! thus quoth: (Six-digit decimal percision good enough for you?) Why not get active, download, and use those tools? > if you start tuning these twisted models > into hypotheses, you'll soon get some where -- > or abandon certain lines of "research." (*Haw!*) (*rofl!*) When you get your internal visualizer re-trained, let me know. Better, get a copy of Struck or SpringDance, and re-do the damn work yourself. That's how science, math, and geometry convince the visualization-challenged. --Pardonnez-George! >>>http://quincy4board.homestead.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:55:56 -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: octaball MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii New better picture. http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=83 Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:53:41 -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: Re: domes Comments: To: dawn kobber Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Andrew, See http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Domes-P.htm (scroll down to "Pinecone"). See http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Domes-H.htm (scroll down to "Hexapent"). BTW, The Pop Sci article was June 1972, pp 80-1. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "dawn kobber" To: Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 4:53 AM Subject: domes > I am interested in the 3f pine cone dome. I know that a japanese student > designed it. I would like to know everything about it because I would > like to build one. Are there any pictures of the parts that make up the > dome. > Also I would like to know if anyone has a copy of the bucky fuller > hexapent plans issued for popular science 1972. Any help would be > appreciated. > > Andrew Jackson > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:17:25 -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 Jan 2002 to 19 Jan 2002 (#2002-19) Comments: cc: Jessie , tverse@fluidiom.com, dick0611@juno.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All right, let's get a little more serious here: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JAN-2002 4:35 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > all I said was, > you have to follow at least one, simple proof of a theorem > in synthetic geometry (or any other geometry), I haven't used geometric proofs since high school. There, I made "A"s in the course; geometry was one of my best subjects. Oddly, I hated math and still do, thus didn't get good marks in things like trigonometry and algebra. Occasionally these days I have to use both. ]I have texts with formulas that I plug numbers into and use a calculator to get answers. There's no reason to _memorize_ formulas; one needs only to understand them, and the ones I use, I do. The answers are most often correct and I know how to check them by redoing the calcs by different paths. There's nothing wrong with my math use (except that I don't like the stuff) or the geometry put out by the calculation-and-display programs I use to get some of those images. Speaking of which: > the symmetry of an icosahedron (dodecagon) does not allow > for your "pan out forever;" you have to prove that. > you have to make it into a hypothesis that can be "shown," > with or without the handwaving graphics. (Find your answer about "pan out forever" at end of this tirade.) You are saying I have to show the mathematical formulae? Wrong. I make a visualizable claim, derived from mathematically correct geometry software, and someone _else_ (like YOU, Bud) is then challenged to disprove my claim. That's how Science works; that's how good logical or mathematical argument works, that's how _I_ work. If you don't want to do it, say so. If you don't want to do it, stop bitching at me, whether you say so or not. If you don't want to do it, why should I bother reacting to _your_ handwaving? I'm not interested in "proving" things to people with the math. People in general don't understand the math in the first place, so even though if necessary I can plough my way through the needed formulae and show it, by so doing I _reduce_, not expand, my audience. When I make a strucure with one of these programs --Struck97, Struck99j, Fluidiom, SpringDance-- I know (and so would you if you had the energy to download and use them) that the math is correct because the programs' authors aren't stupid, and there are lots of people out here using them for semi-critical arguments, so if there were serious flaws in the math, they'd have been turned up by now. Elastic Interval Geometry makes structures that relax themselves by redistributing energetic forces throughout a structure. (This is both a good thing and a bad thing: bad, because one can't control the exact lengths of edges as if they were rigid bars, good because one doesn't have to manually adjust previously-entered edges when adding new ones; a regular tet is regular because it is _actively_ adjusting all its edge lengths to be equal in force-transmitted, thus a regular geometric object _defaults_ to perfectly regular; it _self-regularizes_.) Which brings us to: YOU were the one poking at me about not knowing what a "dual" was. Well, it being such a simple idea and me never before having had occasion to use it, I found out, and used it. 1) A pentagonal dodecahedron is the dual of the icosahedron. (YOU said this, not me.) 2) Space is regularly tiled (tesselated) by same-sized pentagonal dedecahedra; this tiling "pans out forever." (Trivially obvious. "Proved" by 'argument from authority'; no one doubts pentagonal dodecahedra completely tile space without gaps.) 3) THEREFORE, since the dual of the icosa tiles space, and since I can enclose every Tverse piont/sphere in space _inside_ same-size regular pentagonal dodecahedra, then the icosahedral pattern "pans out forever." (If A pans out forever, and B is geometrically equivalent to A, then B also pans out forever.) Now, besides me building a Tverse space by "welding" interpenetrated icosas together at _seven_ of their apices, there are probably other ways to do this "proof." If you still disagree and want to argue about it, after reading my above and looking (if you didn't already) at the below graphic illustrations of it, don't. I'm not interested in altercations that closely resemble arguments with religious creationists. Here, I handwave such an obvious example of the above argument, that only a fool would continue to argue against it: The inscribed dodec, here shown in gold, encloses the center sphere. Each regular pentagonal face is halfway along a perpendicular line (not shown here) between the central sphere's center and the center of one of the other spheres. It should be trivially obvious that if you tile space with regular pentagonal dodecahedra, and place a sphere representing one of Tverse's pionts entirely inside each one, and the resulting pattern of spheres is icosahedral, then the icosahedral pattern of spheres "pans out forever." http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/IcAnDod1x7.jpg And its equivalent, in the IVM: (note the distortion, but not destruction, of the faces of the pentagonal dodecahedron; it has become an _irregular_ dodec, still tiling allspace). http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/VeAnDod1x7.jpg Now, the only possible objection you could have to this "proof" would be that I have only enclosed _one_ sphere-center in the dodecahedron/dual, and therefore it's invalid for greater extensions. To that, I can only repeat: do the friggin' work your own self, Bud. _I_ can "prove" _nothing_ to those who refuse to use their own brains and own hands, to replicate (or fail to replicate) claimed results. _Don't_ replicate the work, and you might as well be _chief_ of the handwavers. And, by the way, there's nothing so critically ambiguous in any of these structures, as to require even _three_ decimal place precision to show it. Computer double-precision math is WAY more than enough to be certain the math is accurate. Heck, single precision, which goes out to nine decimal places, is more than enough, and _I_ only said that _six_-digit precision was normal for these programs and their structural outputs. (thus quoth: > and, no, becasue the floating-point specifications (IEEE-755, -855) > are *inherently chaotic*.) I think your gripes are matters of lack of trust, which is not a biggie, but when you can't grasp even the obvious, despite the apparent depth of your geometric knowledge, one begins to suspect there must be something else wrong with your head. Do the work yourself, if you don't trust mine; you will (I predict) come up with the same answers, if not the same conclusions. It's my self-assigned task to envision, to model that, to fine-tune the vision, to model _that_, and to present for examination. It's _your_ task to replicate, or in the absence of this basic scientific principle, to attempt to disprove my claims with whatever math you care to employ. But if the latter, you will be arguing counterpoint _beside_ me --to others who are reading-- not to _me_. I don't use the stuff any more than I absolutely have to, and these elastic interval geometry programs free me from it. And, one more thing: > I recall when I gave some "tetrahedral inequalities" > on Syn-hell (sik), and > de Jong then set madly about to "prove" this > via a Struck model, which he eventually did. yeeha! If you accepted a "proof" from deJong using a Struck model, then why-the-F*** are you dumping on "proofs" gotten from the _same_program_? All of my PovRay images are originally outputs from Struck, no angular modifications made. This is inconsistent of you, to say the least. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 08:26:44 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Jan 2002 to 19 Jan 2002 (#2002-19) In-Reply-To: <001c01c1a1ce$1e937640$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > 2) Space is regularly tiled (tesselated) by same-sized > pentagonal > dedecahedra; this tiling "pans out forever." (Trivially > obvious. > "Proved" by 'argument from authority'; no one doubts > pentagonal > dodecahedra completely tile space without gaps.) You sure about this? Is a pentagonal dodeca the same as a regular dodeca? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:28:18 -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 Jan 2002 to 19 Jan 2002 (#2002-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: octaball > New better picture. > > http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPho to&PhotoID=83 (*grin!*) "smaller" == "better?" You could try a close-up, eh? Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:05:47 -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: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Jan 2002 to 19 Jan 2002 (#2002-19) In-Reply-To: <002401c1a1cf$7a385960$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sorry. It got smaller. Go to synergeo photo album, pictues 5&6. It IS bigger there. http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/synergeo/lst Dick > > (*grin!*) "smaller" == "better?" > You could try a close-up, eh? > > Peace > JB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:10:06 -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: octaball In-Reply-To: <002401c1a1cf$7a385960$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii See # 5&6. http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/synergeo/lst Maybe I should call it Gapball. Each octa is missing 1.46666 degrees. The whole thing is missing 29.33 degrees. If the faces were really face to face, if would not close. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:19:11 -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 Jan 2002 to 19 Jan 2002 (#2002-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 19-JAN-2002 4:12 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > so, I finally found some thing that you can't squirm out of (although > you can ignore it, like my past queries .-) _What_??! You get more attention from me than you deserve, given your attitude. _What_ queries got ignored? Are you not receiving my messages in the list? > your supposition about a "geometer's points" being "coalescable," Coalesceable is a perfectly standard word in topology. (My spelling may not be.) Get a basic topology text. > are rather to do with the abstract "mappings" (isomprphisms) > of a space "onto itself." in this respect, > you could use the same grouptheoretical stuff to grok the shape > -- as in "Energy hath shape, Stupido!" -- > of your alleged tversal scheme. your unique set-up of "undefineds, (*chuckle*) It ain't _me_ not grokking the shape, Bud. I'm a visual thinker. It's served me well. Often enough, I've described visually-understood objects that others, later, in attempts to disprove, instead confirmed. This ain't no new thing with me. Fifteen years' study, more or less, is in this. I have neither need, nor desire, to absorb group theory, in all it's complicated glory, to grok what I already grok without it. Spherical harmonics might also be pertinent, or matrix mechanics. I don't _need_ them, Brian; _you_ need them, since you prefer those kinds of tools, to disprove my contentions (which, by the way, you won't be able to do; they're usually correct). Every system has axioms --"givens" that rest on pretty much nothing beyond "it's so because I say it's so." All of math rests on basic _metaphysical_ assumptions, laid out by Peano and others, and all math derived therefrom partakes of those assumptions. Euclid, Euler, Atistotle, you-name-them, all make reference either to someone else's foundational metaphysical assumptions, or to their own. Mine may be just as valid, may rest on just as sturdy a foundation. (*chuckle*) Cantor went crazy examining infinities; Planck 'saw' physical relationships and put them in math language; Einstein claimed to be able to "see" his math-patterns, later to place them in standard terms. Every one who chooses to explore something he's been led to by some event, observation, or meditative thought, is subject to a choice: stick with what went before, or use what went before only if it doesn't restrain, corrupt, or mislead. You seem to have some math knowledge (you certainly drop enough names and terminology), yet you also seem to lack much internal- subjective visualization ability. That's an unfortunate combination, if so. I would admit to the opposite: quite good visualizer; lack-of-math. Fortunately, neither lack is terminal, for doing what's done. You maybe don't _need_ the visual ability; I don't _need_ to have the math stored in my head (it's in the books if I need it). > axiomatically," also has Dirichlet domains (V-cells) and > tetragonations (3D Delaunay trigonations), and > some of the problems to which you refer, have probably been solved. _3D_ 'Voronoi cells,' _closed_ ones, yes, IF one is using math in Tverse where it otherwise can't be used. The V-cells'd have generally pentagonal areas marking median distances halfway between pionts, 'quod erat demonstrandum.' So? Do you think that if a person doesn't use terminology familiar to you, that person must not grok what he's doing? Who're you, the local terminology-consistency police? Tverse is a concept-structure. All geometries and topologies are concept-structures, and they all have precepts and "rules." If one tries to do something impermissible in a concept- structure (something that violates a rule), one should note that one is violating the c-structure's principles in so doing. In that light: There are no Voronoi cells in Tverse, and no Delaunay tetragonations, because these are also structures, made in principle by placing math/geom points in a space that allows an infinite number of points between any two neighbor points. Tverse does not allow such. Its pionts are the smallest "things" in existence, and since they're already maximally packed, there's no _room_ left, to draw Voronoi boundaries or tetragonal edges "between" them. One can discuss patterns and Voronoi-cell boundaries and all sorts of other things, in one's attempt either to understand, or to negate, Tverse, but one should not make the mistake of thinking that the propositions one makes about geometries visible within it are any more true about the 'thing-in-itself' than one should assume a coordinate system is somehow really inscribed into real space. These are fictions, thoughtforms used to understand, not properties of the systems themselves. (Do not confuse the model with the thing it models.) So gripe, or examine, or bitch or learn, as you choose, but if you're going to make Tverse-specific objections, and if those objections involve Tverse-rule violations because you didn't grok them in the first place, there's not much point(lit;sp) in responding. Understand a thing before you criticize that thing. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:21:59 -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: dodeca stacking MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii See: http://home.wtal.de/mengerit/ Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:54:54 -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: Dodecs Comments: To: Synergeo , Dick Fischbeck MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I take back everything I said that involved _regular_ pentagonal dodecahedrons being all-space-fillers. My mistake, not being as familiar with them as other forms. I read somewhere they were; I find they may not be; I _recant_ the statement, and all things derived from it, inscluding the "proof" I sent to Brian and the lists. (Damn. That was a mess of work.) Pleaee disregard that erroneous post. Thank you. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 18:15:35 -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: recantation with conditions Comments: To: synergeo@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I repeat, by the way, for the record, 'though it's not likely to stop the inevitable crowing: > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:54:54 -0600 > From: "John Brawley" > Subject: Dodecs > > I take back everything I said that involved _regular_ pentagonal > dodecahedrons being all-space-fillers. My mistake, not being as > familiar with them as other forms. I read somewhere they were; I find > they may not be; I _recant_ the statement, and all things derived from > it, inscluding the "proof" I sent to Brian and the lists. (Damn. That > was a mess of work.) > > Please disregard that erroneous post. > Thank you. I make one additional note: This crappy interchange originated from me claiming that fusing interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices _guaranteed_ anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as shown in the image that sparked the issue. _That_ has not changed_. It remains true, despite my completely wrongheaded attempt to comply with Brian's challenge that I "prove" it with something beyond "handwaving" imagery. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:37:33 -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: The Lady ages Comments: To: Synergeo , tverse@fluidiom.com Comments: cc: Dick Fischbeck , Kirby Urner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Time passes.... The Lady Icosa is 45. (spheres) http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/SheIs45.jpg (56kb, 800x600, Xeye Stereo pair) This, on the way to demonstration that irregular icosas tile allspace, by my methods and with all vertices representing Tverse pionts. She is Jade, her surrounding retinue another greenish stone. (If one keeps the colors similar throughout, one doesn't lose detail when reducing from 16 million colors to 256.) Note that, apart from the outermost, _every_ sphere is the center of an icosa of more spheres. (From here, things get rather difficult.) ( * Overdue note to Gerald deJong: _THANK_YOU_ for excellence in programming sanity: each _concentric_layer's_ spheres are grouped together in the Struck97 PovRay output file, making it very easy to separate spheres into groups for different texturing or radius. Springsets are so identified and given individual texture and radius keywords, but all nexes are in one big group with one texture and radius. I was afeared I'd be picking through _every_sphere_ and changing something about it, looking for which ones were where. Fine, fine, thinking, regardless of the fact it's an old (1997) program, long superseded by others. ) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:57:03 -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 - 19 Jan 2002 to 20 Jan 2002 (#2002-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: Dick Fischbeck > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Jan 2002 to 19 Jan 2002 (#2002-19) > > > > 2) Space is regularly tiled (tesselated) by same-sized > > You sure about this? Is a pentagonal dodeca the same as a > regular dodeca? No, I take the whole post back. It was stupid, ill-thought-out, and reactionary. I was _wrong_. IRRegular pentagonal dodecahedra can tile allspace if balls can pack allspace-filling 12-around-1, but no big deal: so can irregular tetrahedra and irregular icosahedra (a VE is an irregular, if trilaterally symmetrical, icosahedron). SORRY. Delete, retreat, repeat. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 05:40:01 -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: 12 @ 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > I think this is dedeca packing. Gap city. > > > > http://home.wtal.de/mengerit/en/edge.html > > One can imagine each dodec around a ball, hence these > packings are > equivalent to some extent. > This is an excellent 'find,' Dick. > > Did you see the rest of his site, by using his "home" > link and > re-clicking on the 'continue' link in the first box? > > If densely _face_-packed (as are most of his; you found > the only "edges" > section), this should produce the same gaps as Tverse > does, but with > these face-bonded dodecs, gaps would be invisible except > as distortions > of the regularity of the dodecs. > > JB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:46:14 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 19 Jan 2002 to 20 Jan 2002 (#2002-20) In-Reply-To: <000701c1a240$75bfdf40$d675d918@jb2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thank you for admitting error. It is a rare quality. > From: John Brawley > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:57:03 -0600 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 19 Jan 2002 to 20 Jan 2002 (#2002-20) > >> From: Dick Fischbeck >> Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 18 Jan 2002 to 19 Jan 2002 (#2002-19) >> >> >>> 2) Space is regularly tiled (tesselated) by same-sized >> >> You sure about this? Is a pentagonal dodeca the same as a >> regular dodeca? > > No, I take the whole post back. > It was stupid, ill-thought-out, and reactionary. > I was _wrong_. > IRRegular pentagonal dodecahedra can tile allspace if balls can pack > allspace-filling 12-around-1, but no big deal: so can irregular > tetrahedra and irregular icosahedra (a VE is an irregular, if > trilaterally symmetrical, icosahedron). > > SORRY. > Delete, retreat, repeat. > > Peace > JB > jgbrawley@earthlink.net > http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:53:07 -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: Re: domes Comments: To: vze3j3rp@verizon.net Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew, The only thing I can think of is to try to contact the fellow in Japan. See: http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~aly/dome/dome.html If you can't find what you are looking for in the refs, then I don't know what to tell you. The hexapent plans are no longer for sale, and I don't think I've ever seen a set of plans for the pinecone domes. The Hexapent patent may help you: http://209.196.135.250/geodesic_hexapent.htm and the pinecone is a variation of the Plydome; see patent http://209.196.135.250/plywood_dome.htm ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Joe S Moore" Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:14 AM Subject: Re: Re: domes > I appreciate your quick response to my email. I knew of these two weblinks however the limks to the pine cone dome are no longer active. I thought you might know where I could > get copies of plans for the hexapent dome and the pine cone dome. > > Thank you, > > Andrew Jackson > > > > From: "Joe S Moore" > > Date: 2002/01/19 Sat PM 10:53:41 CST > > To: "dawn kobber" > > CC: "List, The DomeHome" , > > "List, The Geodesic" > > Subject: Re: domes > > > > Dear Andrew, > > > > See http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Domes-P.htm (scroll down to > > "Pinecone"). > > > > See http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Domes-H.htm (scroll down to > > "Hexapent"). > > > > BTW, The Pop Sci article was June 1972, pp 80-1. > > > > ============================== > > Joe S Moore > > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > > ============================= > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "dawn kobber" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 4:53 AM > > Subject: domes > > > > > > > I am interested in the 3f pine cone dome. I know that a japanese student > > > designed it. I would like to know everything about it because I would > > > like to build one. Are there any pictures of the parts that make up the > > > dome. > > > Also I would like to know if anyone has a copy of the bucky fuller > > > hexapent plans issued for popular science 1972. Any help would be > > > appreciated. > > > > > > Andrew Jackson > > > > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:48:34 -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] Does Globalization Help the Poor? <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 22-JAN-2002 4:48 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I was going to quote a reference to the current role of real estate in hte bubble.gov economy, but I did find this, for now: In sum, it should be "a Europe clearly of nations, which supranationalizes the essential and leaves aside what is not essential." Another issue of conflict, even if not spoken, between the Italian government and the international financial oligarchy represented by Ruggiero, has been the question of privatization. The Berlusconi government has shown no hurry in completing the privatization of state-owned enterprises started by its predecessors, supposed to include the national oil company ENI and the national electricity company ENEL. Economic Minister Tremonti, said to be the strongman in the government after Berlusconi, has emphasized in the past that ENI, already partially privatized, is an instrument of Italian foreign policy, and therefore one should be cautious with further privatizations. Berlusconi himself went further. In his year-end press conference, he declared: "With the problems we have in the energy fieldwe are the European country where energy costs the mostI do not believe that Italy could drop a major role in the supply of energy. Therefore I believe that no balanced person could think of privatizing such a fundamental entity in this sector, as ENI." Argentina: The Switch Factor? http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2902ruggiero.html thus quoth: > since our pres is all for preserving land. The case are lands that are being > kept especially to be sold for a greater price later, since it is well known > that during extreme inflation and currency devaluation, this can make you > VERY rich. --Go to Hell, Harry! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 05:08:46 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 22-JAN-2002 5:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I'm going to reply to this, but I'm going to have to "take it offline," for the first time -- I want that warranty cleared! thus quoth: If you accepted a "proof" from deJong using a Struck model, then why-the-F*** are you dumping on "proofs" gotten from the _same_program_? All of my PovRay images are originally outputs from Struck, no angular modifications made. This is inconsistent of you, to say the least. oh, wait a second. I'll see if it's on his site, but, as I recall, it was either the same thing that I'd found, by hand-drawn schematics, or was an elegant restatment. it's just a statement about the two 3-strut "zig-zag-zugs" that make-up a tetrahedron per Bucky's "quanta:" what is the maximal length of one, compared to the other (thus, an inequality, just alike to the triangle inequality of Schwarzie (?)). --Go to Hell, Harry! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:05:30 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 22-JAN-2002 7:05 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us well, I can't find any links to the Syn-l archive, and BFI et al have defunct links to Kirby's old address, http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d -- what was his new one, Grunch.net?... I couldn't find it, there, either, before. anyway, the inequality of the 3-stroke "zig-zag-zogs" (two of'em fitting together like yin & yang in a tetrah.) is very easy to see, by drawing it. the point of embarrassment, perhaps, for monsieur Jong, was that his "proof" did not involve any sort of hypothesis, nor even a "prgram development" process that he could remember, as to the proof; it looked great, though it was just a restatement of my inequality! so, I'm glad to see that you've proven some thing about the shape of space, for yourself. interestingly, there is no mention, whatsoever, of the regular (pentagonal) dodecah. in any of Bucky's work, ecept for the addendum by Loeb in _S_. thus saith: oh, wait a second. I'll see if it's on his site, but, as I recall, it was either the same thing that I'd found, by hand-drawn schematics, or was an elegant restatment. it's just a statement about the two 3-strut "zig-zag-zugs" that make-up a tetrahedron per Bucky's "quanta:" what is the maximal length of one, compared to the other (thus, an inequality, just alike to the triangle inequality of Schwarzie (?)). --Go to Hell, Harry! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:11:02 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 22-JAN-2002 7:11 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us these are edge-connected. the dual icosahedra can also be so- connected, because one can select 3 pairs of edges that are orthogal to ecah-other -- there will certainly be gaps! > > I think this is dedeca packing. Gap city. > > > > http://home.wtal.de/mengerit/en/edge.html > > One can imagine each dodec around a ball, hence these > packings are > equivalent to some extent. > This is an excellent 'find,' Dick. > > Did you see the rest of his site, by using his "home" > link and > re-clicking on the 'continue' link in the first box? > > If densely _face_-packed (as are most of his; you found > the only "edges" --Go to Hell, Harry! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:17:02 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 22-JAN-2002 7:17 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the Gawdz hee-haw at your complacence, dude. per your partiually-retracted two prior diatribes, Struck et al are just fine for testing possibilites, but they are not quite "there" for a proof (although I recall that you can get a "read-off" as to length etc.) thus quoth: This crappy interchange originated from me claiming that fusing interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices _guaranteed_ anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as shown in the image that sparked the issue. _That_ has not changed_. --Go to Hell, Harry! >> http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:19:01 -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 - 21 Jan 2002 to 22 Jan 2002 (#2002-22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Brian; > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 22-JAN-2002 7:11 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > these are edge-connected. the dual icosahedra can also be so- > connected, because one can select 3 pairs of edges > that are orthogal to ecah-other -- > there will certainly be gaps! Those gaps are my joy and my burden. (*grin*) I tried to connect pentagonal dodecs containing icosahedra of points inside, thinking I could make the construction job easier, but the gaps are the gaps; I just managed to move them into a higher size-plane: If one stellates a nucleated icosa (this gives 20 exterior tets, bases being the icosa's 20 sides), then connects the apices of the stellation, making pentagons, one gets a pentagonal dodecahedron containing 33 vertices. (vertices: 1 in center, 12 in the icosa, 20 for the stellations.) Struck allows selecting multiple springsets, each of which can be made "hidden" (invisible). If one builds the icosa and its stellations with one set, and the pentagonal connections amongst the stellation's apices with another set, one can make the interior lines invisible, leaving only the dodec's pentagonal face lines (edges) and all of the apices. One can then fuse pentagonal dodecs to others, thus making a 12-around-1 tetspace. But, unfortunately it's regular and under tension; the gaps have been artificially squeezed out, which is not a good thing for a Tverse model. > the Gawdz hee-haw at your complacence, dude. The Gawdz, Brian, don't hee-haw at me; they instead bitch at me for being so lazy. > per your partiually-retracted two prior diatribes, _"partially"_ ?? _Double_ retracted. Now tripled. > Struck et al are just fine for testing possibilites, but > they are not quite "there" for a proof (although > I recall that you can get a "read-off" as to length etc.) Both inside and outside the program. Marking nexes lights up the intervals between them, and a little black six-decimal-place number appears over the line thus lit. (This number constantly changes until the structure has "settled down," at which time it ceases to change. One can thus build a thing, let it settle, and read off the lengths of the intervals (to six dec.places). One can also adjust lengths of some springs manually, say, so that the outer 30 intervals on a nucleated, 13-nexus icosa are all "1.000000" and then read off the exact lengths of the internal 12 intervals ---or vice versa.) Also when spitting its native .EIG file or a PovRay scene file out to disk, all the x,y,z locations of all the nexes are listed, along with the x,y,z rotations and translations necessary to get the lines into proper place for the object constructed. Yes, the numbers are all available, both "live" and in the output files. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:00:19 -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: [Quaker-P] Re: Thinktank Frankensteins <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 23-JAN-2002 5:00 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us speaking of Frankies, here's my favorite link -- oh, and their new building (plan) is in the shape of that little Greek fishy, as I noted at Council: http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/rr.12.00/ --Fresh Hobbit Stew! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPottermustdie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:08:29 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 23-JAN-2002 5:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us here is the file that I wrote in response to John's mania, followed by the plaintext of it: http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/Curriculum/RandomClosePacking.htm A Beautiful Behind oops, wrong essay On So-called Random Close Packing and/or T-verse or What Ever Firstly, it is hard to say, really, what is "axiomatically allowed" or not in this "model," because a) a lot of it seems to assume good, ol'deFermatian 3-space, and b) the model apparently isn't based-on exploiting some "mathematical physical" phenomenon, but is just an abstruse sort of alternative look at space ("pionts are uncoalesable, in that they have an absolute limit of getting close to each-other"). On the other hand, you may be able to make a case in a hyperbolic space (so-constructed, say, as to make 4 dihedral edges of regular dodecahedra meet, evenly, so as to be face-bound to fill space). Back on the first hand, use of "rubbersheet geometry" or topology is a nonsequiter, without a proper hypotheses as to why to use it! That is, the "rest of us on this list," the few who've bothered to follow this longwinded (semaphore-flapping/butterfly-effect-like) dialog, are simply thinking about good, ol'euclidean space, the kind that one uses in constructive geometry (no co-ordinate frames are required) - or show, else! (Oops. I should say it's limited to "Bucky-space," what ever they think that is, although Bucky nowhere went outside of constructive or synthetic and, further, "axiomatically euclidean" geometry.) Secondly, programs like Struck, that are not designed as proof-systems, cannot be relied on for a proof, although they may be suitably exploratory. The recent "proofs-with-aid-of-computer" of the 4-color Conjecture, and so on, don't rely on the precision of the arithmetic in the machine, as they are mosly doing "accounting," I think, with an elaborate protocol to (apparently) show that they are just "checking" for the proof. If not, then they'd better be using algorithms that are OK (the free Ubasic e.g.) - just checking the math for you - to "arbitrary-if-never-quite-infinite" precision. One cannot assume, Mama Chaos will not wreck havoc with the IEEE spec, considering, it is implimented differently by manufacturers, even if consistently within a company's prodeuct-line. If you want to see such artifacts, just look at the "Mandelbrot set" and its "magnification." So, if you're going to use a formula to prove a piont (sik), it'd better be an exact solution (say, integral), in that you can show that "4.9999969" is just a round-off error of the hardware or software, attibutable to "five." (Usually, we can count that high, but that is one that was "mystaquen" by Bucky .-) In a gross (and often impractical) sense, it is +not+ OK to use formulae that you've never proven, or derived from other formula, and that is the sine qua non of synthetic geometry, navigation, surveying et al, of course! One more question: Did you use compasses in your geometry class, to construct a pentagon etc.? Thus quoth: http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/IcAnDod1x7.jpg And its equivalent, in the IVM: (note the distortion, but not destruction, of the faces of the pentagonal dodecahedron; it has become an _irregular_ dodec, still tiling allspace). http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/VeAnDod1x7.jpg --Fresh Hobbit Stew! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPottermustdie.html --Welcome to Milton Academy, my little pretties . http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html A Beautiful Hiney: the 'WAND' Corp.'s Cmte.to Reklect a George and QBS; what's Magic? John Q. Adams on Dame Jo, Don jrrt and Sir ('the OG') George: Prince Potter's Blowback? (Free Pres. George from Sir George's "Ct.o'St.James/West," Cabinet, Contras: www.Tarpley.net.) Http://quincy4board.homestead.com - curriculum/campaign/locapolitique; BOX 701, 90406 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:33:50 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 23-JAN-2002 8:33 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us in case that it wasn't clear, the edge-connected icosahedra or dodecahedra are "rectilinear arrays" of them, because you use any of the five sets of 6 "orthoganal" edges to connect them; all of the shapes are just "translates" in the 3 "XYZ" directions. stellation adds nothing to the symmetry; look at Coxeter et al's _59 Icosahedra_, which are most of the basic possibilities. the following is the part that you didn't retract, the entire premise that go you into this mess; when you say "guarantee," then you must have proved it -- or where's my money, Honey? > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices _guaranteed_ > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as shown in > the image that sparked the issue. > > _That_ has not changed_. > > --Go to Hell, Harry! > >> http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:47:13 -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: Re: Peter Tower's Tower Pictures... Comments: To: DomeHome-H@h19.hoflin.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter, Very nice pics of one of the very few tensegrity towers in existence--so far. ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "The DomeHome List" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 7:39 PM Subject: Peter Tower's Tower Pictures... > ...are now viewable online at: > > http://www.domegroup.org/tower/ > > Sorry it's taken me so long to get these scanned > in and posted. I've scaled these down for a browser, > but the full-size ones are also available. > > Thanks, Peter. > > .:'':. > .::::::::. 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: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:18:31 -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: Re: Don Tilley's musings--was Articles Invited Comments: To: Mark Siegmund MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Mark, Last I heard you had hurt yourself. Hope you are feeling better. The Geodesic list is still functioning--but a bit slow lately. I try to keep the momentum going by posting something from time to time. I think the automation of education via the internet is proceeding at a very quick pace. That's one of the trends I track. The military & the universities are pushing distance learning very hard. Business Week had an excellent article in the Dec 3, 2001, issue on pages 76-80. See also http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Ed-Eir.htm (scroll down to "Education") ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Siegmund" To: "Joe Moore" Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 6:30 AM Subject: FW: Don Tilley's musings--was Articles Invited > Hi Joe, > > Haven't heard from you in awhile--is the Geodesic List still operating? > > Hope all is well... > > mark > ---------- > > From: Mark Siegmund > > Reply-To: tetcenter@topica.com > > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:04:40 -0800 > > To: tetcenter@topica.com > > Subject: Don Tilley's musings--was Articles Invited > > > > Don, I thoroughly "enjoyed" your holiday musings--yet was left feeling a bit > > melancholy--maybe those musings should have ended with the dog tale--which > > was upbeat (we live with 2 dogs--brother littermates--Pancho and Cisco--who > > will turn 4 years old on March 8th). > > > > It's a sad commentary that children in our schools receive no more > > individualized attention than during my own public school days of the 40's > > and 50's. One would have hoped that Fuller's Education Automation would by > > now be fully in place--freeing teachers from needless & endless > > "parroting"--enabling them to facilitate individualized learning and ongoing > > eduction--teachers morphing from being "educators" (filling the empty > > vessel) into "eductors" (drawing forth that which is within--each person). > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:25:38 -0700 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: Joe S Moore Subject: Fw: Dymaxion House article MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spencer W Hunter" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Dymaxion House article > The December 2001 edition of _domus_, the Italian periodical of > architecture/design/art/communication, has a wonderful nine-page > spread of "La casa di Bucky/The house that Bucky built," by Michael > Webb beginning on page 54. The article "celebrates the reconstruction > of Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion House in Dearborn's Ford Museum." > > Quoting from the article: "The shock of the new is as palpable now as > it was 55 years ago, for the Dymaxion still offers a vision of the > future and reminds us how archaic most housing still is. > [...] > "In retrospect, it seems unlikely that the Dymaxion House, even if > thousands had been sold and performed tolerably well, could ever have > been more that a short-lived novelty. > [...] > "The construction industry, the building trades, banks, realtors and > local review boards are all wedded to the status quo, which is why the > house has changed less over the past century, in appearance and > structure, than almost any other thing we own. ...The Dymaxion would > have less a chance of winning acceptance today than it did a half > century ago." > -- > Spencer Hunter, Tucson, AZ > gopher://www.u.arizona.edu:80/hGET%20/%7Eshunter ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:27:52 -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: Fw: Rejected posting to GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ============================== Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute ============================= ----- Original Message ----- From: "L-Soft list server at University at Buffalo (1.8d)" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:30 PM Subject: Rejected posting to GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > You are not authorized to send mail to the GEODESIC list from your > joemoore27@HOME.COM account. You might be authorized to send to the list from > another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program which > generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no way to associate > this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have > any question regarding the policy of the GEODESIC list, please contact the list > owners: GEODESIC-request@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU. > > ------------------------ Rejected message (44 lines) -------------------------- > Received: (qmail 1571 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 05:30:58 -0000 > Received: from oe48.law14.hotmail.com (HELO hotmail.com) (64.4.20.20) > by listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 05:30:58 -0000 > Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; > Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:30:57 -0800 > X-Originating-IP: [24.4.254.7] > From: "Joe S Moore" > To: "List, The Geodesic" , > "List, The DomeHome" > Subject: Re: How to build domes book? > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:23:08 -0700 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 > Message-ID: > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2002 05:30:57.0559 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CEBCA70:01C1A498] > > Fletcher, > > Take a look here: > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Biblio/AboutBFBooks-Domes.htm > > ============================== > Joe S Moore > joe_s_moore@hotmail.com > http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ > Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute > ============================= > > "Fletcher O'" wrote in message > news:3c4e55aa_10@news.newsgroups.com... > > > > Are there in Buckminster Fuller books that explain how to build his > > domes? > > > > Thanks! > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > > Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! > > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==----- > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:10:17 -0500 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: "Brent A. Verrill" Subject: Re: Chilling Machine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Hi all, I was sorting through a backlog of email and was taken by the discussion of the chilling machine effect in domes. I realize that this thread was about a month ago, but I thought I would contribute anyway. There is one point that I found missing from the discussion. I don't know where I got this point from, whether it was my own insight, or whether it was from one of Bucky's descriptions. I would guess it was from Bucky. I am not a physicist, so bear that in mind. The point is this: The two domes that exhibited this effect most strongly were the DDU and the "Ice House" dome in India. It is my understanding that both of these domes are 100% metal. One of the primary physical characteristics of metal is its conduction of heat. This means that in an uninsulated metal dome, that a significant amount of heat would be radiated to the inside of the dome. Would this not affect the flow of air inside the dome at least as much as the movement of air outside the dome? Once you insulate the interior of a dome, would not the effect be eliminated or at least severely hampered? Perhaps this is why the plydome with reflectix insulation doesn't exhibit the effect very well. You are reflecting that radiated heat back out of the dome, besides which, wood is not a very good conductor of heat. I would love it if someone could experiment with this effect. Perhaps the aluminum randome would be a good and inexpensive vehicle for this experiment. Aluminum is also about 8 times more conductive with respect to heat as steel. My $.02. -- Brent A. Verrill ------------------------------------------------------------ Graduate Teaching Assistant, Industrial Design Department Georgia Institute of Technology 404-894-4874 gt7922b@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:14:56 -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: Peter Tower's Tower Pictures... Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks for posting those tower pics! Can anybody tell me -- what are the dimensions of this tower, and its elements? What do the struts weigh? What is the tension in the cables? Does it lean one way in the morning and another in the evening due to uneven heating/expansion of the cables? What precision was required to get it to balance? How was it built? > Very nice pics of one of the very few tensegrity towers in existence--so > far. > >> ...are now viewable online at: >> >> http://www.domegroup.org/tower/ >> .::::::::. The DomeHome Email List . http://www.domegroup.org ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:58:10 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201231633.g0NGXoc01414@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 23-JAN-2002 8:33 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > in case that it wasn't clear, > the edge-connected icosahedra or dodecahedra are > "rectilinear arrays" > of them, because you use any of the five sets of 6 > "orthoganal" edges > to connect them; > all of the shapes are just "translates" in the 3 "XYZ" > directions. > stellation adds nothing to the symmetry; > look at Coxeter et al's _59 Icosahedra_, > which are most of the basic possibilities. > > the following is the part that you didn't retract, > the entire premise that go you into this mess; > when you say "guarantee," then you must have proved it > -- > or where's my money, Honey? > > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices > _guaranteed_ > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as > shown in > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > _That_ has not changed_. JB- This is the same thing I am talking about. That interpenetrating overlap is the 20 verton. I don't know its diameter yet. The overlapping of 20 regular tets around a point is a sphere with 20 vertexes(little spheres) equidistant from that point. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:48:03 -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 The overwhelming factor with the plydome I live in is the inadequacy of the base ventilation to produce the chilling effect. It is a complete ball, and there is just one large door at the bottom, and four opening windows upstairs at the 'beltline'. This is not enough base ventilation. > From: "Brent A. Verrill" > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:10:17 -0500 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: Chilling Machine > > Hi all, > > I was sorting through a backlog of email and was taken by the > discussion of the chilling machine effect in domes. I realize that > this thread was about a month ago, but I thought I would contribute > anyway. > > There is one point that I found missing from the discussion. I don't > know where I got this point from, whether it was my own insight, or > whether it was from one of Bucky's descriptions. I would guess it > was from Bucky. I am not a physicist, so bear that in mind. The > point is this: > > The two domes that exhibited this effect most strongly were the DDU > and the "Ice House" dome in India. It is my understanding that both > of these domes are 100% metal. One of the primary physical > characteristics of metal is its conduction of heat. This means that > in an uninsulated metal dome, that a significant amount of heat would > be radiated to the inside of the dome. Would this not affect the > flow of air inside the dome at least as much as the movement of air > outside the dome? Once you insulate the interior of a dome, would > not the effect be eliminated or at least severely hampered? Perhaps > this is why the plydome with reflectix insulation doesn't exhibit the > effect very well. You are reflecting that radiated heat back out of > the dome, besides which, wood is not a very good conductor of heat. > > I would love it if someone could experiment with this effect. > Perhaps the aluminum randome would be a good and inexpensive vehicle > for this experiment. Aluminum is also about 8 times more conductive > with respect to heat as steel. > > My $.02. > -- > Brent A. Verrill > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Graduate Teaching Assistant, Industrial Design Department > Georgia Institute of Technology > 404-894-4874 gt7922b@prism.gatech.edu > ------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:52:08 -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: Chilling Machine Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > characteristics of metal is its conduction of heat. This means that > in an uninsulated metal dome, that a significant amount of heat would > be radiated to the inside of the dome. Would this not affect the > flow of air inside the dome at least as much as the movement of air > outside the dome? Once you insulate the interior of a dome, would > not the effect be eliminated or at least severely hampered? That sounds reasonable to me. Even ignoring the air flow outside, Bucky's diagram of involution inside (air flowing up along the inside surfaces of the walls) makes sense with warm walls. Thermally insulating walls would shut off the inside half of the "motor". Of course warm walls would also work against the alleged cooling effect. The elements that make the least sense to me are the claims that a cold draft will be drawn clear down from the stratosphere, and (what I take to be the main claim) that the pressure inside will be reduced enough for expansion cooling to occur. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 05:32:46 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 24-JAN-2002 5:32 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us what is your point?... these 20 tets'd be nonregular, and ... pionts? thus quoth: > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices > _guaranteed_ > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as > shown in > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > _That_ has not changed_. JB- This is the same thing I am talking about. That interpenetrating overlap is the 20 verton. I don't know its diameter yet. The overlapping of 20 regular tets around a point is a sphere with 20 vertexes(little spheres) equidistant from that point. --AOL Ghostscript? http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 05:46:01 -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 24-JAN-2002 5:46 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us are you saying that your dome has two stories, with the "beltline" being at standing on the second? for anyone to get a broad survey of passive heating, see _Passive Annual Heat Storage_ by John Hait and the Rocky Mtn. Rsrch. Inst. thus quoth: The overwhelming factor with the plydome I live in is the inadequacy of the base ventilation to produce the chilling effect. It is a complete ball, and there is just one large door at the bottom, and four opening windows upstairs at the 'beltline'. This is not enough base ventilation. --Dos Equis: Why'd Scty.Stimson Nuke Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Two? > > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/WTC.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:02:17 -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: [Quaker-P] environmental advocacy <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 24-JAN-2002 6:02 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I liked this one, if only for the NASA links; of course, none of them really reflect the recent "null" findings from Antarctica, and always present hydrocarbons as a) "petroleum" and b) fossilised -- just ask our #1 dystributor of "petrol," BP! http://www.climateark.org/links/Advocacy/ ms.Street's dyscussion of hydro & nuke-yellar is really neat, two. thus quoth: Some of the anti-hydro postings on this list have included errors. For example, one anti-hydro organization said in its preliminary report that hydroelectric power in low latitudes results in a larger greenhouse gas generation than do fossil fuel plants. I heard a speaker from this organization say that they took that line out of the final report because they had no reason to believe that it was true. Much of what Diane is talking about is of course political wrangling, American Indian issues, and so on. I know nothing of the particulars, environmental or political, of the current fight. Climate Change Impacts on the United States (http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment/) looks at more than just climate change this century. It also includes a chapter on Native Peoples and Homelands. Many natives live in areas of the US that will be especially harmed this century (particulary the West and inland Alaska). Additionally, there is the problem of the reservation. As Kansas because unproductive, people there will move further north. But when land in the reservations because of "global" warming?... it doesn't say, in your synopsis!... of course, the vast & profoundly unkown experience of the Indians with climate changes, here, has been largely buried with its civilization, by the Smithsonian et al. --Dos Equis: Why'd Scty.Stimson Nuke Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Two? http://quincy4council.homestead.com/WTC.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:04:55 -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: Don Tilley's musings--was Articles Invited <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 24-JAN-2002 6:04 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us good reference; care to say a few words on it, Joe? thus quoth: I think the automation of education via the internet is proceeding at a very quick pace. That's one of the trends I track. The military & the universities are pushing distance learning very hard. Business Week had an excellent article in the Dec 3, 2001, issue on pages 76-80. See also http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Ed-Eir.htm (scroll down to "Education") --Dos Equis: Why'd Scty.Stimson Nuke Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Two? >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/WTC.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:56:32 -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: Chilling Machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > That sounds reasonable to me. Even ignoring the air flow outside, > Bucky's > diagram of involution inside (air flowing up along the inside > surfaces of > the walls) makes sense with warm walls. Thermally insulating walls > would > shut off the inside half of the "motor". Of course warm walls would > also > work against the alleged cooling effect. This has always been my take on the effect. It was mentioned in one of the Bucky books, BuckyWorks (J. Baldwin) I think, that the effect was first noticed in a DDU grain bin, with skin too hot to touch. As to the warm walls working against the effect, consider this: Fact: Hot air rises, creating a vacuum into which cooler air is drawn. Fact: Air is a fairly poor conductor of heat. Premise: Air against the uninsulated skin would be unusually warm, heated by conduction, creating a powerful updraft -- the curved surface of the dome keeps that warm air in contact with the interior skin as it rises, increasing the temperature and strengthening the effect. Given the motion of the air, I don't know that the hot air would actually contribute significantly to the overall interior temperature, since the hot air is exhausted at the end of a cycle, and is not trapped inside the dome. -- Chuck Knight ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:08:16 -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 - 22 Jan 2002 to 23 Jan 2002 (#2002-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BH wrote: > here is the file that I wrote in response to John's mania, (*sigh*) Why do I bother? > is just an abstruse sort of alternative look at space Nice. Thanks. Why not? > use of "rubbersheet geometry" or topology is a nonsequiter, > without a proper hypotheses as to why to use it! "Proper hypothesis?" No point in me defending Nature's inherent rubberiness, I suppose, without something your excessively restrictive requirement-set will tolerate, eh? > to follow this longwinded (semaphore-flapping/butterfly-effect-like) Oh, would I _ever_ be happy to think any of my stuff capable of the Butterfly Effect...! > programs like Struck, that are not designed as proof-systems, > cannot be relied on for a proof, although they may be suitably > exploratory. Ah. So. Numbers output from Struck geometry that match numbers output from a calculator used on the same geometry are faulty because they're output from Struck.... How interesting. > to "arbitrary-if-never-quite-infinite" precision. One cannot assume, > Mama Chaos will not wreck havoc with the IEEE spec, considering, > it is implimented differently by manufacturers, even if consistently > within a company's prodeuct-line. If you want to see such artifacts, > just look at the "Mandelbrot set" and its "magnification." So, If mama chaos' effects begin to show up in the fifth decimal place, the fourth will be relatively safe, the third more so, the second even more so. If mama chaos's effects only show up in the tenth or twelfth, in double-precision math, then it'd be one hell of a lot of calculation iterations before cumulative chaos-error ever showed up in the second or third decimal places. As well bitch about the error rate in a hand calculator, 'cause Bud, _nobody's_ making a chaos-free calculation machine of any sort capable of reliable ten-decimal precision over re-iterative calculations like those required to get deep into a Mandelbrot set. You're either chao-phobic paranoid (fear of imprecision *g*) or just argumentatively recalcitrant. > if you're going to use a formula to prove a piont (sik), > it'd better be an exact solution (say, integral), in that you can show > that > "4.9999969" is just a round-off error of the hardware or software, (*HAW!*) Well, I guess I can't use Pi, or e, or even the Golden Section.... In fact, complying with your (as noted: thoroughly over-restrictive) requirements eliminates use of _any_ non-rational or transcendental number. No circles or spheres in _your_ world, eh? > In a gross (and often impractical) sense, > it is +not+ OK to use formulae that you've never proven, or > derived from other formula, and that is the sine qua non > of synthetic geometry, navigation, surveying et al, of course! So, every person who uses formulas, to be proper about it, has to re-do and/or re-calculate every formula he's using, even though long-proven by others that came before him? That what you mean by "impractical?" > One more question: > Did you use compasses in your geometry class, > to construct a pentagon etc.? What purpose does that question serve? Of course I used compasses, and still do. I don't, however, use them to construct pentagons. For that, I use a circular protractor. > the following is the part that you didn't retract, > the entire premise that go you into this mess; > when you say "guarantee," then you must have proved it -- > or where's my money, Honey? > > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices _guaranteed_ > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as shown in > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > _That_ has not changed_. The kind of "proof" you want, utterly certain and done with integers, you will not get from me. I have no need to comply with _your_ requirements. (*chuckle*) Those interested will be interested _enough_ to do the work themselves, to try to DIS-prove my work. (Well, anyone interested _besides you_, who appear neither interested nor willing to do the work.) All nucleated icosahedra are 12-around-1s, and can be deconstructed into tets (four sides, four apices, six edges) and pentagonal prisms (ten sides, seven apices, fifteen edges). If one starts with a nucleated icosa, and interpenetrates it with one of the pentagonal prisms in a second nucleated icosa such that that pentagonal prism coincides with one of the first icosa's, fusing all seven apices of the prism to the seven apices of a pentagonal prism in the first icosa, then one has fused one icosa into another in such a way that there are two interpenetrated icosas. If one keeps this up, and never varies the method, then one can be certain one has created nothing but icosahedra, hence every apex in the structure except those on the outside of it, will be surrounded by twelve neighbors --all 12-around-1s in there, as I said. Now, this is not what _you_ want to see, but it's all you're going to get from _me_. Anybody who does _not_ require your abstruse mathematical symbolic written "proof" can argue with me about it, but I think they'll have to agree this method _guarantees_ a totally (except the outermost, of course) icosahedral 12-around-1 space-tiling. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:05:15 -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 > As to the warm walls working against the effect, consider this: > > Fact: Hot air rises, creating a vacuum into which cooler air is > drawn. I think you're right about cooler air flowing into a volume from which hot air is rising, but I don't think it should be attributed to vacuum. All around a chimney, air at ambient pressure and temperature is pushing down (due to gravity) on the air near the ground. Inside the heated chimney the air is less dense, and it does not push down as heavily as the air outside the chimney. So at the bottom of the chimney ambient air is pushed up by the ambient air around it. Like, if you close one end of a plastic straw (full of air) with your finger and stick the other end down into a glass of water, and then remove your finger, the water will flow up into the straw. That isn't because there is a vacuum, it's just the less dense fluid (air) being pushed up by the more dense water. I don't think there is vacuum (ie reduced pressure) in this dome either, where the rising hot air is confined only on one side. As air near the wall picks up heat, the air molecules become more energetic, they move faster, they push each other apart more, the air becomes less dense. But it has not changed pressure; it changes in temperature, volume, and density. Still maybe your point stands, hot air rises along the inside wall. > > Fact: Air is a fairly poor conductor of heat. > > Premise: Air against the uninsulated skin would be unusually > warm, heated by conduction, creating a powerful updraft -- the > curved surface of the dome keeps that warm air in contact with > the interior skin as it rises, increasing the temperature and > strengthening the effect. I don't think it is going to be very "powerful", but I agree about the curved surface -- it seems to me the updraft would be stronger on the inside of a dome than the outside. Of course the DDU didn't have a surface curved this way, the walls were vertical. > > Given the motion of the air, I don't know that the hot air > would actually contribute significantly to the overall interior > temperature, since the hot air is exhausted at the end of a > cycle, and is not trapped inside the dome. > > -- Chuck Knight Fuller's diagram http://communities.msn.com/BuckminsterFuller/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&P hotoID=79 does not show hot air exhausting at the top vent altho that seems like reasonable behavior to me. He only shows air flowing in at the top. I have a problem believing air is going to be simultaneously flowing both ways thru the same vent. Again my main doubt is that a structure with these huge vents is going to have a significantly lower pressure inside than out. I think there will be convection currents due to change in density, not pressure. I see ambient pressure inside and out, and ambient temperature too -- there is heated air, and flowing air, but I don't see the claimed source of cooler air. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:49:15 -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 24-JAN-2002 12:49 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us that's a good take on Boyle's law, that the pressure is not actually different. on the other hand, you'll notice no geodesic membrane separating teh atmosphere from the relative vacuum of interplanetary space; eh? although there's no vacuum per se --only the distance between matter as concepted to be "atoms"-- it may be better to think of a virtual vacuum in this case (and nevermind about the QBS "virtual particles" .-) thus quoth: I don't think there is vacuum (ie reduced pressure) in this dome either, where the rising hot air is confined only on one side. As air near the wall picks up heat, the air molecules become more energetic, they move faster, they push each other apart more, the air becomes less dense. But it has not changed pressure; it changes in temperature, volume, and density. Still maybe your point stands, hot air rises along the inside wall. --Tolkein that funny weed? http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:21:17 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 24-JAN-2002 13:21 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us whether you mean it, or not, your default of the "digest" tittle breaks the dialog into a thousand daily pieces, on the achive. for instance, you asked me about what you'd refuzed to answer, and I'd resent two or three of those, on one day, with still no reply. on the other hand, it seems that no-one is following this dialog, unless they're lurking & don't want to commit to any position; so, this will be my last reply, I hope, on the so-called random close-packing thread (http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/Curriculum/RandomClosePacking.htm -- beyond what I've staed, therein. firstly, your use of "pentagonal prism" must be wrong, because those have ten apices, not seven; a pentagonal (based) pyramid has six apices -- I dig that word, though -- and ten edges. this mini-construction doesn't do anything in the long-range, because five-foldness just does no tile, periodically; eventually, you're going to have space for the 13th ball! yes, I regard this as being somewhat settled, and to be rather dyspositive of your "model." but don't take my word for it; see if you can get any *professional* geometer to comment, but you may have to go a ways beyond Buckysapce for that, since so few of'em have taken Bucky's clue about Coxeter. myself, I've made dyscoveries in geometry, so I don't feel the need for that degree, just now. of course, I came to that because I finally "did the constructions," which are proofs-in-principle using circular action, after I'd been cheated of them in my 9th-grade Geometry course (it was all theorems & proofs, for a year, with problems). the use of transcendental constants is no-more problematic than the use of integers, with the floating-point stuff; after all, 1.000000 = 0.999999 to six places, but the number "goes," for ever, and that's just another way of saying the same thing: as far as the CPU is concerned, that is 1.0000009999999847563, or 0.000000999999385475762; eh? (amuzingly enough, this whole idea of there "being no spheres in Universe" is something that Bucky asserted, at least as a polemic, and I've argued on Syn-l, against it; don't take it, just because it was from a self-possessed Transcend- entalist !-) specifically, and I have straight from teh horses mouth-hole, Mandelbrot at a talk at UCLA, to which a few of us BFI nuts went, the "mini-Mandelbrots," also known as "universality," are artifacts of the "magnification" -- that is of the rounding-off errors of the FPU/IEEE-755 suite, howsoever implimented. a calculator just uses McClaurin's series, as implimented in transistors -- faster than you can! yes, you do have to have some good hypothesis, if you want anyone other than a bunch of Domebook freaks to grok what you mean. it is all wound up in Leibniz's "neccesity and suffuciency," which is largely attributable to a dictionary, and the working of a few proffs, to remind oneself of those long-ago school daze. thus quoth: (Well, anyone interested _besides you_, who appear neither interested nor willing to do the work.) All nucleated icosahedra are 12-around-1s, and can be deconstructed into tets (four sides, four apices, six edges) and pentagonal prisms (ten sides, seven apices, fifteen edges). If one starts with a nucleated icosa, and interpenetrates it with one of the pentagonal prisms in a second nucleated icosa such that that pentagonal prism coincides with one of the first icosa's, fusing all seven apices of the prism to the seven apices of a pentagonal prism in the first icosa, then one has fused one icosa into another in such a way that there are two interpenetrated icosas. If one keeps this up, and never varies the method, then one can be certain one has created nothing but icosahedra, hence every apex in the structure except those on the outside of it, will be surrounded by twelve neighbors --all 12-around-1s in there, as I said. Now, this is not what _you_ want to see, but it's all you're going to get from _me_. Anybody who does _not_ require your abstruse mathematical symbolic written "proof" can argue with me about it, but I think they'll have to agree this method _guarantees_ a totally (except the outermost, of course) icosahedral 12-around-1 space-tiling. --Tolkein that funny weed? >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:28:59 -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: Chilling Machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Fact: Hot air rises, creating a vacuum into which cooler air is > > drawn. > > I think you're right about cooler air flowing into a volume from > which hot > air is rising, but I don't think it should be attributed to vacuum. Sorry...it was a vast oversimplification, and a rather poorly worded one. It has to do with the hot air being buoyant, the denser cold air pushing it out of the way, etc. It's the same reason that balloons float -- differences in density. We don't need to go into that level of detail for this discussion. Suffice it to say, energy from the hot walls would be transferred to the air next to the wall. This sets up an effect in which air next to the walls starts to rise, the cold air moves in and replaces it in its position, and in turn gets heated, itself. A continuous cycle, we hope. > Still > maybe your point stands, hot air rises along the inside wall. And, because of the shape of a dome, the air remains in contact with the wall for a long time, relatively speaking. > curved surface -- it seems to me the updraft would be stronger on the > inside > of a dome than the outside. Of course the DDU didn't have a surface > curved > this way, the walls were vertical. And, consequently, the colder air would also move more strongly inside the dome. Bucky's diagrams show a column of "cool" air descending through a vent in the top of the dome. Let's assume this is true. Assume that there is a "smallish" inlet at the top, and large vents at the bottom, at floor level. Assume further that the downward moving column of cool air is coming through the top inlet, into the center of an otherwise empty dome. The column of air is moving straight down -- it will hit the floor. Since the air must continue to move, it will spread out along the floor, travelling horizontally, radially along the floor, towards the hot walls of the dome. Big vents at the perimeter of the dome allow much of it to escape, straight out the sides of the dome. The remainder is "caught" by the hot walls, and is used to feed the remainder of the "doughnut" shape -- the hot air rising at the edges causes the cold air to rush towards the outer walls more efficiently than it would, otherwise. I'm not sure what happens to the hot air, though. It will meet the cool stream at the top -- will it mix with the cool stream of air, raising its temperature? Will it remain in separate "layers," i.e. rise out of the top vent, but remain separate from the stream of cool air? Will it cause a mini vortex to occur, something like the tornado boxes that are so well documented on the web? (You bring together cold and hot air at a "hole" and it creates a vortex...the more extreme the differential, the more pronounced the vortex effect. You familiar with Viktor Schauberger's (sp?) theories and turbine designs?) It's not a perfect theory, but it does seem plausible, given certain assumptions. Do those assumptions actually hold true in the real world? That's what experimentation is for. -- Chuck Knight P.S. Anyone know the sizes of the vents used in the Afghan dome? I'd love to have the details available. According to all accounts, it worked as it was supposed to, providing cool air with no electrical power requirements. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:41:04 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201241332.g0ODWkC07325@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 24-JAN-2002 5:32 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > what is your point?... > these 20 tets'd be nonregular, and ... pionts? > > thus quoth: > > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices > > _guaranteed_ > > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as > > shown in > > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > > > _That_ has not changed_. > > JB- This is the same thing I am talking about. That > interpenetrating overlap is the 20 verton. I don't know > its > diameter yet. The overlapping of 20 regular tets around > a > point is a sphere with 20 vertexes(little spheres) > equidistant from that point. > > --AOL Ghostscript? > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:42:20 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201241332.g0ODWkC07325@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > what is your point?... > these 20 tets'd be nonregular, and ... pionts? No. Regular. If not regular, where is the overlap? > thus quoth: > > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices > > _guaranteed_ > > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as > > shown in > > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > > > _That_ has not changed_. > > JB- This is the same thing I am talking about. That > interpenetrating overlap is the 20 verton. I don't know > its > diameter yet. The overlapping of 20 regular tets around > a > point is a sphere with 20 vertexes(little spheres) > equidistant from that point. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 05:38:32 -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: cones MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Here is someone else building with cones. Brian, don't you say randomes can't work because of something about compound curvature? This guy bends sheets of plywood, one cone into the next. http://fishrock.com/conics/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 07:47:06 -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: surfaces Comments: cc: synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The site below describes a paper concerning the vector resolution between a sphere and its polyhedron. http://www-viz.tamu.edu/faculty/ergun/research/raypolynomials/distance/ This goods further to indict to me that systems should be considered as a collection of vertexes rather than a collection of openings(faces). Edges and faces blur together to create an approximately smooth surface. Vertexes are best defined according to their curvature(angular deficit) where the sum of a systems curvature always equals 720 degrees. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:11:08 -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: quasicrystals Comments: To: synergeo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Here are some very interesting pages on Nature's own packing designs. http://asma7.iamp.tohoku.ac.jp/EMILIA/html/eg/emgal/quasi/quasi_lt1.html Random and IVM patterns intersect. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:14:12 -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 - 23 Jan 2002 to 24 Jan 2002 (#2002-24) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dick Fischbeck quotes-and-writes: (Brian) > > the following is the part that you didn't retract, > > the entire premise that go you into this mess; > > when you say "guarantee," then you must have proved it > > or where's my money, Honey? > >(JB) > > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices > > _guaranteed_ > > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as > > shown in > > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > > > _That_ has not changed_. > > JB- This is the same thing I am talking about. That > interpenetrating overlap is the 20 verton. I don't know its > diameter yet. The overlapping of 20 regular tets around a > point is a sphere with 20 vertexes(little spheres) > equidistant from that point. I don't think so. I'm talking about _welding_---one icosa halfway (more or less) into another, both the same size. This is only about how to make a large collection of spheres, _all_ of which are in 12-around-1 relationships. Yes, during the interpenetration phase, _before_ I weld (fuse) the seven (SEVEN, Brian, _seven_) points, there are seven pairs of points at some of the first icosa's vertices, but no, I don't ever leave them like that. (I've worked out an icosa of icosas that I think is what you're describing, but I haven't finished it yet or posted it to my website for URL access.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:40:07 -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 > Suffice it to say, energy from the hot walls would be transferred to the air > next to the wall. This sets up an effect in which air next to the walls > starts to rise, the cold air moves in and replaces it in its position, and in > turn gets heated, itself. A continuous cycle, we hope. Let's say "ambient air moves in and replaces it"; it is colder than the heated wall, but (at least initially) it is at the same temperature (ambient) that the wall was before the heating started. I don't want to assume there is "cold" air available. > Bucky's diagrams show a column of "cool" air descending through a vent in the > top of the dome. Let's assume this is true. This is a key assumption. Nobody answered when I asked if there are any glider pilots reading this; I am pretty ignorant about thermal behavior but I bet the facts are well known by glider pilots. Bucky's caption says "low pressure cone above dome draws down a central cold air core countering major rising thermal spiral column" This does not look reasonable to me, unless the dome is 5-10 miles in diameter. But if it works, I agree it is an ingenious solution for cooling a building -- find a mass of cold air out there somewhere and cause it to move into the building. > Big vents at the perimeter of the dome allow much of it to escape, straight > out the sides of the dome. I figure this is not a problem. :-) If 90% escapes, just target a bigger mass of cold air to begin with. There is lots of cold air above the Arctic; maybe we could use some of that. :-) > I'm not sure what happens to the hot air, though. It will meet the cool > stream at the top -- will it mix with the cool stream of air, raising its > temperature? I think the heated air will raise the temperature of the air it mixes with in the vicinity of the top vent. I think that vicinity is filled with ambient air, not a "cool" stream. So there will be a net exhaust from the top vent, of warmed air. Some of the heating will remain inside, it would be better not to let the walls get hot. But again, if we have the power to direct a cool breeze to flow in, great. > Will it remain in separate "layers," i.e. rise out of the top vent, but remain > separate from the stream of cool air? That's possible, I think, but I'm betting on one-way flow out. Maybe it could rise out of one side of the vent while the cool breeze flows in the other. The details of the vortexes inside and out are interesting and perhaps they are relevant to the cold-air-attracting power. I think once you assume there is cool air descending above the dome you've got the cooling problem solved. At this small scale the idea of a dome being able to attract a "core cone downdraft" (Bucky's phrase) smacks of pyramid power. Hmmm... maybe Bucky's bottom drawing shows he's contemplating a mountain-size dome? I can believe that WOULD work. > Will it cause a mini vortex to occur, something like the tornado boxes that > are so well documented on the web? (You bring together cold and hot air at a > "hole" and it creates a vortex...the more extreme the differential, the more > pronounced the vortex effect. You familiar with Viktor Schauberger's (sp?) > theories and turbine designs?) No, I don't know about turbine designs. The volume and speed of air heated as it flows up the inside wall may be low enough for laminar flow over most of the volume of the vent, but there will always be mini vortexes at least at the edge of the flow. The volume filled with vortexes will increase with the speed of the cool breeze, and with the differential temperature. I guess if other things were equal we'd prefer laminar flow, since the vortexes will mix the temperatures more. But if we can locate a REALLY COLD mass of air and cause it to blow in REALLY FAST, that will do a good job of cooling and we can probably not worry about the mixing vortexes. > It's not a perfect theory, but it does seem plausible, given certain > assumptions. Do those assumptions actually hold true in the real world? > That's what experimentation is for. I agree, experimentation will be valued. We're supposed to remind Steve Miller next June. The assumption of the cool air source doesn't seem plausible to me, but maybe I'm using the wrong theories or I misunderstand them. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:52:46 -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 - 23 Jan 2002 to 24 Jan 2002 (#2002-24) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 24-JAN-2002 13:21 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > whether you mean it, or not, > your default of the "digest" tittle breaks the dialog I don't mean it; I take what steps I can. I'm tired of having to edit out all stuff but the one message I'm responding to. I'm going to change both lists from "digest" to "individual messages" anyway. > this will be my last reply, I hope, > on the so-called random close-packing thread Your choice, of course. Pity, though: arguing with such an obstinate nonvisionary has been at worst irritating, at best, educational. > firstly, your use of "pentagonal prism" must be wrong, because > those have ten apices, not seven; Not a "pentaprism" like one has in a 35mm camera; a wedge prism shaped like a pentagon. Seven. Five around its perimeter, one above and one below center. Five slightly irregular tets sharing a common edge. The "closed" form of the five-tet-sharing-common-edge figure that Bucky noted had a wedge-gap in it of about seven degrees. It's a prism (it also, were it in glass, would cast five mutually crossing independent rainbows in sunlight). Every nucleated icosa has many of these interpenetrated within it. (Lemme see... ...12 of them, all sharing one (the center, the nucleating) central vertex, and each of them having as its other side central vertex one of the 12 outer vertices.) (Do I hafta make another model? Geez... This is so _simple_.) > yes, I regard this as being somewhat settled, and > to be rather dyspositive of your "model." but don't take my word for it; Not a problem: you're by far not the first to be either too lazy, or too limited in vision, to understand what I've been saying all this time. (And I doubt you'd ever understand it anyway: you've been bitching at me about some of its simplest aspects. Never even mind getting into the real meat of it.) Fortunately, though, I'm less incomprehensible than Rybo... (*grin* Sorry, Rybo; your stuff's 'way to idiosyncratically presented for me to get anything clearly out of it.) > I came to that because I finally "did the constructions," > which are proofs-in-principle using circular action, Great. You just don't have time for anyone else who has done similarly, but found different things thereby. No prob. I can understand that. > (amuzingly enough, this whole idea of there "being no spheres > in Universe" is something that Bucky asserted, I assert there are no ideal _curves_ of any kind in Universe--all is straight line-segments. (Why does Pi never come out even? Simple: there's no such thing as the curve you'd have to have, to stop it from continuing. You can't make a circle with straight line-segments; you can only approximate one.) This results from using _points_ ((sp); geometers', not mine) to make lines. In the infinitesimal, without limit, one cannot make curves with points: every two neighbor points have a straight linesegment between them which, if you use the geometers' and mathematicians' rules, you can further subdivide (every two neighbor --"kissing"-- points have an infinite number of points between them). Thus you never can reach --even in infinitesimality-- a state where you can say "there are only two points in this linesegment," and all you can do is follow the damn turtles "all the way down." Tverse eliminates that infinite recursion, but by so doing, absolutely prevents any ideal curves from existing. > specifically, and I have straight from teh horses mouth-hole, > Mandelbrot at a talk at UCLA, to which a few of us BFI nuts went, > the "mini-Mandelbrots," also known as "universality," are artifacts > of the "magnification" -- that is I can easily believe that. However, it would be perverse to bring that level of error out of the highly magnified depths of the Mandelbrot set, and suggest that the main set's shape (that bloated, two-sectioned fatman) suffers from sufficient calculational error as to disregard it. You keep missing (or ignoring) my point that these errors show up in the extreme fractional ends of numbers, not in the few decimal places just right of the decimal point, and surely not in the integer portions of numbers output by programs like Struck, or in hand calculators or in computer calculations. I'll go so far as to agree with use of "confidence levels," if you want, saying that Struck outputs to the sixth decimal place have 99.9 percent confidence levels, and outputs to the third, 99.999 percent. > yes, you do have to have some good hypothesis, if > you want anyone other than a bunch of Domebook freaks > to grok what you mean. it is all wound up (*chuckle*) This is unusual, and amost accidental. Mostly, I've argued with religionists. It was inevitable, though, that I'd sooner or later have to take on the Buckynauts, since they've been doing tetrahedralities for a very long time, and Tverse is, if anything, _more_ tightly based in tetrahedrality than what Buckynauts swim around in. > in Leibniz's "neccesity and suffuciency," ( Leibniz. Gimme a break. He's the one I had to fight off to get my piont(sp) across to some smart, smart people heavy in math. Leibniz isn't/wasn't the final authority, nor Peano, nor Euclid, nor any who've started with different (no matter how slightly) originating precepts than I have.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:42:55 -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: Fullerene Comments: To: Synergeo Comments: cc: tverse@fluidiom.com, geometry@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Three step link from, of all things, a piece of QuickTime email spam. Thought BuckFullerites might like it. http://www.susx.ac.uk/Users/kroto/FullereneCentre/main.html Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:43:52 -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: GEODESIC Digest - 22 Jan 2002 to 23 Jan 2002 (#2002-23) In-Reply-To: <003101c1a534$f7766b20$d675d918@jb2> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I have been following this long term argument off and on for several months. It seems to come down to definition of compound curvature. According to classic geometry, geodesics (and Dick's randomes) are cleverly worked flat areas that sometimes use simple curvature, but only reach a semblance of compound curvature. Even the plydomes have no real compound curvature. Fuller used the term compound curvature loosely, but was quite clear that the geodesics only approximated compound curvature. > From: John Brawley > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:08:16 -0600 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 22 Jan 2002 to 23 Jan 2002 (#2002-23) > >> use of "rubbersheet geometry" or topology is a nonsequiter, >> without a proper hypotheses as to why to use it! > > "Proper hypothesis?" > No point in me defending Nature's inherent rubberiness, I suppose, > without something your excessively restrictive requirement-set will > tolerate, eh? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 20:00:49 -0800 Reply-To: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works From: jim fish Subject: Re: Chilling Machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I love this conversation, because, well, there it is. How could it be? I recommend opening the horse's mouth and actually counting the teeth. - jim ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:18:41 -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: Chilling Machine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I bet the facts are well known by glider pilots. Bucky's caption > says > > "low pressure cone above dome draws down a central cold air core > countering > major rising thermal spiral column" This is a reasonable description of a tornado vortex. Might Bucky have designed a way to use a weak tornado to cool a building? Seems like it wouldn't be a good idea, but it might be plausible. > Hmmm... maybe Bucky's bottom drawing shows he's contemplating a > mountain-size dome? I can believe that WOULD work. By all reports, the US dome in Afghanistan worked, and was actually too cool for the locals. What was its scale? Since we have photos and technical diagrams of a prototype that supposedly worked, I suggest that we work from it, and hopefully derive the equations experimentally. > > Will it cause a mini vortex to occur, something like the tornado > boxes that > > No, I don't know about turbine designs. The volume and speed of air > heated > as it flows up the inside wall may be low enough for laminar flow > over most > of the volume of the vent, but there will always be mini vortexes at > least > at the edge of the flow. The volume filled with vortexes will I meant "miniature" tornado vortices. I noticed, when I had a copy of BuckyWorks, that the ground level outlets were ducted, as were the inlets at the top of the dome. I wonder if these ducts directed the air in any way, that contributed to the flow? I don't have web access at the moment, so I can't give you an exact URL, but do a web search for "tornado vortex box generator" and you should find a wealth of information on ways to combine comparatively warm and cool air, and produce a "tornado" style vortex. Might this be the secret? Causing rotation? > I agree, experimentation will be valued. We're supposed to remind > Steve > Miller next June. We are? I must have missed that memo. > The assumption of the cool air source doesn't seem plausible to me, > but > maybe I'm using the wrong theories or I misunderstand them. Well, cool air is available everywhere -- it's just at a higher layer in the atmosphere. The trick is to get it down into the dome. Question -- assume that the "cool" air is simply cooler than the hot walls, and the exhausted hot air. What type of cooling could we expect from a system like the one we're describing, assuming simple expansion cooling, but driven by the forces we've described? Yeah, I know, far too many variables...I don't know enough about HVAC theory to make the necessary assumptions. -- Chuck Knight ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:46:49 -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: Re: Chilling Machine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Let's say "ambient air moves in and replaces it"; it is colder than the > heated wall, but (at least initially) it is at the same temperature > (ambient) that the wall was before the heating started. I don't want to > assume there is "cold" air available. > > > Bucky's diagrams show a column of "cool" air descending through a vent in > > the top of the dome. Let's assume this is true. > > This is a key assumption. Nobody answered when I asked if there are any > glider pilots reading this; I am pretty ignorant about thermal behavior but > I bet the facts are well known by glider pilots. Bucky's caption says > > "low pressure cone above dome draws down a central cold air core countering > major rising thermal spiral column" > > This does not look reasonable to me, unless the dome is 5-10 miles in > diameter. But if it works, I agree it is an ingenious solution for cooling a > building -- find a mass of cold air out there somewhere and cause it to move > into the building. > > > Big vents at the perimeter of the dome allow much of it to escape, straight > > out the sides of the dome. > > I figure this is not a problem. :-) If 90% escapes, just target a bigger > mass of cold air to begin with. There is lots of cold air above the Arctic; > maybe we could use some of that. :-) > I've always understood it as cooler air due to the Venturi Effect http://web.wt.net/~gecofact/ASTP17B.htm which states: "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." Those large vents are critical for this. You have 6-10 (or more) vents around the bottom for air to escape from. This creates a forceful draw on the single, smaller vent at the top. That increases the velocity of the incoming air, and the Venturi Effect does the cooling, even though it's drawing from what is hot air outside. > > I'm not sure what happens to the hot air, though. It will meet the cool > > stream at the top -- will it mix with the cool stream of air, raising its > > temperature? > > I think the heated air will raise the temperature of the air it mixes with > in the vicinity of the top vent. I think that vicinity is filled with > ambient air, not a "cool" stream. So there will be a net exhaust from the > top vent, of warmed air. Some of the heating will remain inside, it would be > better not to let the walls get hot. But again, if we have the power to > direct a cool breeze to flow in, great. > > > Will it remain in separate "layers," i.e. rise out of the top vent, but rem > ain > > separate from the stream of cool air? > > That's possible, I think, but I'm betting on one-way flow out. Maybe it > could rise out of one side of the vent while the cool breeze flows in the > other. The details of the vortexes inside and out are interesting and > perhaps they are relevant to the cold-air-attracting power. I think once you > assume there is cool air descending above the dome you've got the cooling > problem solved. At this small scale the idea of a dome being able to attract > a "core cone downdraft" (Bucky's phrase) smacks of pyramid power. > > Hmmm... maybe Bucky's bottom drawing shows he's contemplating a > mountain-size dome? I can believe that WOULD work. > Nope. See above. More from the URL I listed: "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." Has nothing to do with being mountain-sized, and everything to do with velocity. More examples: An aerosol can, a can of compressed air for dusting your computer, a can of spray paint, or one of the little CO2 cartridges that they use to make soda water. All of them are dealing with gas expansion. And gas expansion makes things colder. > > It's not a perfect theory, but it does seem plausible, given certain > > assumptions. Do those assumptions actually hold true in the real world? > > That's what experimentation is for. > > I agree, experimentation will be valued. We're supposed to remind Steve > Miller next June. Agreed. In light of all this discussion, two words keep leaping to mind: "Smoke Test". :-) If I can get my act together, I'll have some domes I can experiment with by this summer, and perhaps even a nice sunny field for warm weather testing. No promises, but we'll see... > > The assumption of the cool air source doesn't seem plausible to me, but > maybe I'm using the wrong theories or I misunderstand them. > I think you perhaps didn't know about the Venturi Effect and cooling effect of expanding gasses? -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury - http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ Comprehensive, Anticipatory, Design Science: http://reality.sculptors.com/ --------------------------------------------------------- Many years ago, I first drank from the Well of Knowledge. Now, I maintain the pumps on that Well, so that others may also quench their thirst. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:11:01 -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: Re: Chilling Machine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Question -- assume that the "cool" air is simply cooler than the > hot walls, and the exhausted hot air. What type of cooling could > we expect from a system like the one we're describing, assuming > simple expansion cooling, but driven by the forces we've > described? Yeah, I know, far too many variables...I don't know > enough about HVAC theory to make the necessary assumptions. > > -- Chuck Knight > I don't know enough HVAC, either, but I just found this site while researching the Venturi Effect this morning: http://web.wt.net/~gecofact/cas.htm Which is actually a fairly daunting, but highly informative looking collection of stuff. A bit more personable is this subsection: http://web.wt.net/~gecofact/EN3TRAN.htm which details different types of compressors, cooling systems, etc. I'm certain if we dig around in there long enough we'll get the charts & tables we're looking for on cooling effects vs. flow rates, etc. -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury - http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ Want to learn about Floating Cities? http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html --------------------------------------------------------- There is nothing harder in the world to understand than the income tax. --Albert Einstein ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 07:55:33 -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: Re: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 26-JAN-2002 7:55 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us do you have a hypothesis as to *how* they'd overlap, or why you'd want them to do so?... in essence, this is the same problem of symmetry that John's been having fun with; viz, "energy hath shape, Dudes!" on the wayside, a regular dodecahedron is the same thing as a regular icosagon, or "20-verton" to use your gross neologism! thus quoth: No. Regular. If not regular, where is the overlap? > thus quoth: > > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices > > _guaranteed_ > > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, as > > shown in > > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > > > _That_ has not changed_. > > JB- This is the same thing I am talking about. That > interpenetrating overlap is the 20 verton. I don't know > its > diameter yet. The overlapping of 20 regular tets around > a > point is a sphere with 20 vertexes(little spheres) > equidistant from that point. --AOL Ghostscript? http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:52:55 -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 >> I agree, experimentation will be valued. We're supposed to remind Steve >> Miller next June. > Agreed. In light of all this discussion, two words keep leaping to > mind: "Smoke Test". :-) > If I can get my act together, I'll have some domes I can experiment > with by this summer, and perhaps even a nice sunny field for warm weather > testing. No promises, but we'll see... Great! >> The assumption of the cool air source doesn't seem plausible to me, but >> maybe I'm using the wrong theories or I misunderstand them. >> > I think you perhaps didn't know about the Venturi Effect and cooling > effect of expanding gasses? The "cool air source" I'm doubting above is not from expansion cooling (which I discussed in my first posts, extracted below) -- I'm doubting the ability of a dome to attract a pre-existing mass of cold air, which (Steve alleged) could come from the stratosphere (6-10 miles up.) I wrote a computer simulation of a solar powered air conditioner (ammonia absorption) which maybe gave me some insight (assuming the program was correct, I never built the machine) into how much of what needs to expand over what pressure difference to produce how much cooling in what ambient temps. ---------- >From: Lee Bonnifield >To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >Subject: Re: Synergetics Coordinates >Date: Sat, Dec 1, 2001, 4:47 PM > ... > 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. >... ---------- >From: Lee Bonnifield >To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic >Subject: chilling machine >Date: Sun, Dec 9, 2001, 2:27 AM >... >> 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. >... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:28:56 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 26-JAN-2002 8:28 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us you didn't follow "Dick" and his "verton" stuff too well, as he was absolutely insistent that what I (and most folks since Gauss, who has a simple mathematical definition of it) call "compound" curvature, is really "simple" in some abstruse way, which he's never adequately defined. this only comes into play in Bucky's stuff, where membranes are useed *struturally*, as in plydomes; there, it must be stressed that the plywood panels are *forced* into compliance with the compound curvature of the dome, although it's not enough to tear the plys --at least not straight-away, although they may delaminate over time & weathering-- in essence, they are "post-stressed" structures, thus quite strong and rigid! "Dick" gave us a URL for some comical (sik) method, which I will just have to suppose, for now, is the real thing. however, it doesn't do a darn thing to rescue his from his vertoniacs. thus quoth: Here is someone else building with cones. Brian, don't you say randomes can't work because of something about compound curvature? This guy bends sheets of plywood, one cone into the next. http://fishrock.com/conics/ thus quoth: I have been following this long term argument off and on for several months. It seems to come down to definition of compound curvature. According to classic geometry, geodesics (and Dick's randomes) are cleverly worked flat areas that sometimes use simple curvature, but only reach a semblance of compound curvature. Even the plydomes have no real compound curvature. Fuller used the term compound curvature loosely, but was quite clear that the geodesics only approximated compound curvature. > From: John Brawley > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:08:16 -0600 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: GEODESIC Digest - 22 Jan 2002 to 23 Jan 2002 (#2002-23) > >> use of "rubbersheet geometry" or topology is a nonsequiter, >> without a proper hypotheses as to why to use it! > > "Proper hypothesis?" > No point in me defending Nature's inherent rubberiness, I suppose, > without something your excessively restrictive requirement-set will > tolerate, eh? --AOL Ghostscript? > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:51:15 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 26-JAN-2002 8:51 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us forsooth, the Knaive continues to batter agin the Great Rampart o'Ancient Geometers. looketh-it, how he insists upon his novelties, as to be proven- by-contraption, thereby circumventing the shape of space --which he doth not deny to be concepted, Euclidean (additional hypotheses as to that, are not offered ... er, other than "Nature's inherent rubberiness;" doth he mean, latex?... nevermind)-- in the course of manfuly accepting most of his errors, thus far, with supreme equanimity ... and yet, he refuseth to make any better hypothesis, out of which we may gain some new & interesting technology. seriously, this has been too-much fun, for me to stop, now. as a matter of fact, you may have solved a related problem bey accident, in that a solution that is tetrahedral (not icosahedral) is, just the dual to one that was recently solved (and ne'er percieved in that way, til now, to my knowledge). the shape, I guess, taht is heptagonal (7-apiced), that you seek, is the "pentagonal dipyramid;" that is to say, that's the accepted nomenclature. now, merely, making a simple cpompound of icosahedra is still a very long ways from tweaking the shape of space (that is, energy), itself; it's no proof. you have a rather vast conceit, that everyone --that is, the very few who've been foolhardy enough to try to interpret this on your own (apparently holy) terms-- should *dysrpove* your poorly-stated hypothesis, rather than you having to prove it, or state in such a way as to make an effort, plausible, to anyone using language (logic, grammar & rhetoric, a.k.a. the 3 Rs, more or less) but, hey, evey one has their quirks, except for John! thus quoth: Anybody who does _not_ require your abstruse mathematical symbolic written "proof" can argue with me about it, but I think they'll have to agree this method _guarantees_ a totally (except the outermost, of course) icosahedral 12-around-1 space-tiling. --Tolkein that funny weed? >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:30:16 -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: Re: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 26-JAN-2002 10:30 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oops; I just rememberd, on reading what I wrote, that Steve Miller's page finds the definition for what plydomes do: induced strutting. that is to say, they naturally tweak into simple, cylindrical forms (with zero gaussian curvature) around flat regions (which tend to be trigonal "by construction with a bunch o'Domebook Freaks" .-) thus saith: this only comes into play in Bucky's stuff, where membranes are useed *struturally*, as in plydomes; there, it must be stressed that the plywood panels are *forced* into compliance with the compound curvature of the dome, although it's not enough to tear the plys --at least not straight-away, although they may delaminate over time & weathering-- in essence, they are "post-stressed" structures, thus quite strong and rigid! --AOL Ghostscript? > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:45:22 -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: Re: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 26-JAN-2002 10:45 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I've bracketed John's comments (pruned of some ad-hominemania) by two of "Dick's" "random URLs," that I address, firstly (and whether his name is Dick, he may have a bigger one than any two of us, end-to-end, or any seven in a "facses" !-) Look, and he seems to be trying to get at the same, Buckafkaism about "no pi, no points; try to find'em yosef!" that John has arrogated unto himself, as well. Is it quaint, or is it Memorex? It's a load o'words, without looking at what has been done for centuries - the words are, thus, taken entirely out of context. Of course, they only exist in an axiomatic & mathematical way, as much as the rest of euclidean & neo-euclidean systems exist, although they can be useful for measuring physics. The last citation about "Random and IVM patterns intersect," seems to be a nonsequiter; so, How is that? John's dividing of a pentagonal bipyramid into five tetrahedra (not regular), is very astute; most Buckafkan's do it into ten as "LCD" tets, although the five are not such. (For the record, the octahedron is also a "tetragonal [square] antiprism," and its dual is called a "hexagonal trapezoidal prism" (or regular hexahedron or cube). The stuff about squaring the circle (or "tetrahedroning the sphere" in Buckyspeak) was solved by Nicholas of Cusa in the 14th CCE, long before the algebraists in England got around to it - at the risk of being called a Cardinal ass-kissing practitioner by John and his minions (if any); the "point" is that points, lines and planes must be taken as "undefineds," but they are no-more real than circles, spheres & tetrahedral, as I've successfully argued on Syn-l, I think. But, then, that's rather mainstream; eh? The bottom line is that a curve is of a different "species" than a line, unless you feel as if you have to agree with Euler and his "Letter to a Princess;" many, do! (In essence, the argument about the allowability of pi etc., boils-down to the same problem of floating-point arithmetic and FPUs, which Mandelbrot never bothered with, in spite of being the "IBM Fellow" with the ultimate means to do so, just down the hall at the Watson Centre !-) I was not arguint to the authority of Leibniz; It's just that most folks are so saturated with that of Newton, and His lying "hypothesis non fingo," that it does well To cite him at every possible turn. And, although Most folks didn't know that it was Leibniz Who took "logic" beyond syllogisms with "iff," Most of'em wouldn't argue with its use. Do you? Thus quoth: http://www-viz.tamu.edu/faculty/ergun/research/raypolynomials/distance/ This goods further to indict to me that systems should be considered as a collection of vertexes rather than a collection of openings(faces). Edges and faces blur together to create an approximately smooth surface. Vertices are best defined according to their curvature(angular deficit) where the sum of a systems curvature always equals 720 degrees. Thus quoth: Five around its perimeter, one above and one below center. Five slightly irregular tets sharing a common edge. The "closed" form of the five-tet-sharing-common-edge figure that Bucky noted had a wedge-gap in it of about seven degrees. It's a prism (it also, were it in glass, would cast five mutually crossing independent rainbows in sunlight). Every nucleated icosa has many of these interpenetrated within it. (Lemme see... ...12 of them, all sharing one (the center, the nucleating) central vertex, and each of them having as its other side central vertex one of the 12 outer vertices.) Fortunately, though, I'm less incomprehensible than Rybo... I assert there are no ideal _curves_ of any kind in Universe--all is straight line-segments. (Why does Pi never come out even? Simple: there's no such thing as the curve you'd have to have, to stop it from continuing. You can't make a circle with straight line-segments; you can only approximate one.) This results from using _points_ ((sp); geometers', not mine) to make lines. In the infinitesimal, without limit, one cannot make curves with points: every two neighbor points have a straight linesegment between them which, if you use the geometers' and mathematicians' rules, you can further subdivide (every two neighbor --"kissing"-- points have an infinite number of points between them). Thus you never can reach --even in infinitesimality-- a state where you can say "there are only two points in this linesegment," and all you can do is follow the damn turtles "all the way down." Tverse eliminates that infinite recursion, but by so doing, absolutely prevents any ideal curves from existing. I can easily believe that. However, it would be perverse to bring that level of error out of the highly magnified depths of the Mandelbrot set, and suggest that the main set's shape (that bloated, two-sectioned fatman) suffers from sufficient calculational error as to disregard it. You keep missing (or ignoring) my point that these errors show up in the extreme fractional ends of numbers, not in the few decimal places just right of the decimal point, and surely not in the integer portions of numbers output by programs like Struck, or in hand calculators or in computer calculations. I'll go so far as to agree with use of "confidence levels," if you want, saying that Struck outputs to the sixth decimal place have 99.9 percent confidence levels, and outputs to the third, 99.999 percent. This is unusual, and amost accidental. Mostly, I've argued with religionists. It was inevitable, though, that I'd sooner or later have to take on the Buckynauts, since they've been doing tetrahedralities for a very long time, and Tverse is, if anything, _more_ tightly based in tetrahedrality than what Buckynauts swim around in. ( Leibniz. Gimme a break. He's the one I had to fight off to get my piont(sp) across to some smart, smart people heavy in math. Leibniz isn't/wasn't the final authority, nor Peano, nor Euclid, nor any Leibniz isn't/wasn't the final authority, nor Peano, nor Euclid, nor any who've started with different (no matter how slightly) originating precepts than I have.) SUBJECT: quasicrystals MESSAGE from ="List 26-JAN-20 7:48 Here are some very interesting pages on Nature's own packing designs. http://asma7.iamp.tohoku.ac.jp/EMILIA/html/eg/emgal/quasi/quasi_lt1.html Random and IVM patterns intersect. --AOL Ghostscript? > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:50:15 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201261830.g0QIUGE20581@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit "My present invention arises in the discovery that when perfectly flat rectangular sheets are shingled together in a three way grid pattern and are fastened together where they overlap in the areas of the geodesic lines of the pattern, a new phenomenon occurs: there are induced in each flat rectangular sheet, elements of five cylindrical struts by inductive action so that, when the sheets are fastened together in the particular manner described, the struts are created in situ. Thus the flat rectangular sheets are triangulated into an inherently strutted spherical form to produce what we may for simplicity term a self-strutted geodesic plydome. The flat sheets become inherently geodesic; they become both roof and beam, both wall and column, and in each case the braces as well. They become the weatherbreak and its supporting frame or truss all in one. The inherent three-way grid of cylindrical struts causes the structure as a whole to act almost as a membrane in absorbing and distributing loads, and results in a more uniform stressing of all the sheets. The entire structure is skin stressed, taut and alive. Dead weight is virtually nonexistent. Technically, we say that the structure possesses high tensile integrity in a discontinuous compression system." R. Buckminster Fuller U.S. Patent #2,905,113 > From: Brian Hutchings > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:30:16 -0800 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: random close packing > oops; I just rememberd, on reading what I wrote, that > Steve Miller's page finds the definition > for what plydomes do: induced strutting. that is to say, >they naturally tweak into simple, cylindrical forms > (with zero gaussian curvature) around flat regions > (which tend to be trigonal "by construction > with a bunch o'Domebook Freaks" .-) > > thus saith: > this only comes into play in Bucky's stuff, > where membranes are useed *struturally*, > as in plydomes; there, it must be stressed that > the plywood panels are *forced* into compliance > with the compound curvature of the dome, although > it's not enough to tear the plys > --at least not straight-away, although > they may delaminate over time & weathering-- > in essence, they are "post-stressed" structures, > thus quite strong and rigid! > > --AOL Ghostscript? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:17:35 -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: List posting change to reduce spam Comments: To: FNORD-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU, xtropy-l@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Just so folks know, I made some changes to the configuration of the lists so that they no longer accept any posts from people who aren't subscribed. This should eliminate the random spams that were making their way to the list from non-member posters. I honestly don't know why I didn't do that years ago, since I now run all lists that way by default. But I suspect it's because these lists were formed 12-13 years ago, and the internet was a much different and more trustworthy place then. :-) Anyway, just wanted you to know... -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury - http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ Like geodesic domes? See http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html --------------------------------------------------------- The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves. -- Dr. Mark C.E. Peterson ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 22:19:19 -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: Re: chilling machine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> The assumption of the cool air source doesn't seem plausible to me, but > >> maybe I'm using the wrong theories or I misunderstand them. > >> > > I think you perhaps didn't know about the Venturi Effect and coolin > g > > effect of expanding gasses? > > The "cool air source" I'm doubting above is not from expansion cooling > (which I discussed in my first posts, extracted below) -- I'm doubting the > ability of a dome to attract a pre-existing mass of cold air, which (Steve > alleged) could come from the stratosphere (6-10 miles up.) > I agree that this sort of effect is unlikely. I always considered it coming from directly over and outside the dome. > I wrote a computer simulation of a solar powered air conditioner (ammonia > absorption) which maybe gave me some insight (assuming the program was > correct, I never built the machine) into how much of what needs to expand > over what pressure difference to produce how much cooling in what ambient > temps. Very cool! I've actually been looking for someone with some knowledge about these sorts of systems. I want to build some sort of solar-powered (either ammonia absorption, or solar-electric) refrigeration unit that I could use in an atmospheric condenser. I have a mailing list called "clean-water" where we discuss this. I invite you (and any other interested parties) to join in the discussions there. Instructions at: http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html The paper I wrote about atmospheric condensing is at: http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Articles/atmospheric-condensing.html I'd like to pick your brain about ammonia absorption. I understand the basic concept, but am not as fluent in refrigeration, or how to build such a system. > > 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 BOILIN G > > 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 muc h > > higher specific heat and much more mass than air. > >... This does make sense. I wonder if a constant flow would help? Also, is this a general temperature reduction within the dome, or just an evaporative cooling as the air moves over the skin of the occupants? I was under the impression that it was an overall cooling. -- Pat ___________________Think For Yourself____________________ Patrick G. Salsbury - http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/ Have you made (or are you about to make) a life-changing move? Got a story to tell or advice to share with others about to do the same? Join the UpSpin Project: http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html --------------------------------------------------------- The only smart thing to do is to get smarter. -- Timothy Leary, The Intelligence Agents ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:21:53 -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: atmospheric condensing Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit OK, I read your paper on atmospheric condensing and subscribed to clean-water; I'll write more there. Looks like fun! >> I wrote a computer simulation of a solar powered air conditioner (ammonia >> absorption) which maybe gave me some insight (assuming the program was >> correct, I never built the machine) into how much of what needs to expand >> over what pressure difference to produce how much cooling in what ambient >> temps. > > Very cool! I've actually been looking for someone with some knowledge > about these sorts of systems. I want to build some sort of solar-powered > (either ammonia absorption, or solar-electric) refrigeration unit that I could > use in an atmospheric condenser. > I have a mailing list called "clean-water" where we discuss this. I > invite you (and any other interested parties) to join in the discussions > there. Instructions at: http://reality.sculptors.com/lists.html > The paper I wrote about atmospheric condensing is at: > http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Articles/atmospheric-condensing.html > I'd like to pick your brain about ammonia absorption. I understand the > basic concept, but am not as fluent in refrigeration, or how to build such a > system. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 15:09:10 -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 >> 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. >>... > This does make sense. I wonder if a constant flow would help? I imagine the downdraft flow would be constant as long as there's no breeze and the sun is bright. A breeze would suck air out the top vent, disrupting the flow. The inside vortex patterns Bucky drew are interesting, but I don't think they have any effect on the expansion cooling; the air will be cooled by the same amount as long as the same volume of air is dropping across the same pressure differential at the top vent. On the other hand maybe the vortexes uninterrupted by floors, walls, people, furniture do promote more air volume movement. The empty suspended DDU was probably ideal for setting up stable vortexes. The photo on p.210 of Critical Path of the dome at Kumasi, Ghana is apparently one of the successful chilling machines, and it also looks like it's a big empty shell. > Also, is > this a general temperature reduction within the dome, or just an evaporative > cooling as the air moves over the skin of the occupants? I was under the > impression that it was an overall cooling. Expansion cooling lowers the temperature of the air that comes in the top vent (just not by much, I'm afraid.) Any air movement will help with evaporative cooling of skin, so fast vortexes would be useful. But I'm also afraid there would not be a noticeable draft in most places. Maybe with well established vortexes there will be a draft blowing straight down the center. Assuming the vortexes don't contribute to cooling, any building could be used to get an impression of how much cooling is available from expansion. Close all the windows except one sealed around a window fan which is blowing outward; and somewhere else a window is slightly open. With a sensitive barometer you could probably detect that the air pressure inside the building is slightly decreased when the fan is on, and a sensitive thermometer would tell you the air coming in the slightly open window is cooler (barely) than it was outside. The smaller the opening in the window, and the more powerful the fan, the more the temperature will drop. Of course making the opening smaller means a smaller volume of air comes in. Typically there are so many air leaks in a building that the fan won't cause the pressure to drop by much. The temperature drop (in degrees Kelvin) is proportional to the pressure drop. If the volume of air blown out by the fan is the same as the volume exhausting around the base of a chilling machine dome, and the slightly open window has the same area as the dome top vent, the same amount of air will come in both and be cooled by the same amount. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 09:31:08 -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] pollution and males <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 27-JAN-2002 9:31 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us do you know the latter-day (sik) work of doctor Bruce Ames o'Berkeley?... it's interesting to compare it with (say) his article on "genetic toxicity" in *Co-evoloution Quarterly* (or, "before he became a shill for the agrochem interests, as many'd put it .-) thus quoth: Please, note that chemistry was my major and I was organic chemistry lab teacher (assistantm, but I did everything) at age 17. why aren't you dead, girl? --Frodo's Ring Stew! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 09:43:18 -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: Re: [Quaker-P] What Went Wrong - NYT Book Review <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 27-JAN-2002 9:43 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I wish I could take the time to read Lewis' hermeneutics, but I'd like to add what may be his even-more significant book, with the proviso that I guess him to be one, who actually promoted the results of Sept.11th, and for quite a long time. my immediate hypothesis is that he got the germ of the idea "abroad in his studies," but that it may've been inflamed by the attacks of LaRouche and his friends, and their long-standing use of classical poets as the creators of civilizations. the book was one that I found at Borders, on a table in the cafe, of poetry (and comments upon it) from the "Abrahamic" religions, I think it was. thus quoth: Bernard Lewis is a distinguished historian of the Islamic, Arabic and Middle Eastern worlds and was for many years the Cleveland E. Dodge professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton. Reviewing Lewis's newest book, Paul Kennedy, the author or editor of 15 books, including "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," says that "Now he has produced what may be his most significant work for a contemporary audience." The book "is a concise study of the Muslim world's responses to the West and of its own long, sad decline." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/books/review/27KENNEDT.html?rd=hcmcp?p=0 4266 J04266$45haM012000mBW4XBW8C --Frodo's Ring Stew! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 10:13:38 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 27-JAN-2002 10:13 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I've revized my last posting re "RCP," a bit, as follows (or page twice in http://quincy4board.homestead.com/MiltonAcademy.html to the group of green & yellow bottons: "EvenMoRCP.") thaks to someone for the quote of Bucky's patent on "induced cylindrical strutting;" the only thing needed (in lieu of the patent diagrams or furtner quoting) is to note that the induced cylinders don't really meet, but dysappear into a gap at the vertex ("Dick" and his putative "verton"), so that there's no compound curvature, or not that much -- it's a worry, though, and the plans have to be designed to reduce it. there's actually enough "post-stressing" to the fact that the plywood has thickness -- different diameters o'bending for the inner & outer surfaces; whether Bucky mentions it, the outside is more in tension, the inside in compression,generally speaking. Bucky fixated upon trigona, but the plys of the plywood actually could be "induced" in the "hexapent" form, just as well; after all, the "struts" herein are secondary. I can't view inlines from this service, John. thus quoth: _Assuming_ the images make it to you inline (in the message), is this your pentagonal dipyramid? (Attachment A, top; stereo pair) Is this one of the 12 places it can fit? (Attachment B, below it; stereo pair, buzz-eyes) Wanna tell me how, if I only fuse these this way, pentas into icosas (even if the pentas are _in_ icosas, I'm gonna end up with anything but interpenetrated icosas? thus quoth: U.S. Patent #2,905,113 thus saith: I've bracketed John's comments (pruned of some ad-hominemania) by two of "Dick's" "random URLs," that I address, firstly. (Whether his name is Dick, he may have a bigger one than any two of us, end-to-end, or any seven in a "facses;" sorry/gross !-) Look, and he seems to be trying to get at the same, Buckafkaism about "no pi, no points; try to find'em yosef!" that John has arrogated unto himself, as well. Is it quaint, or is it Memorex? It's a load o'words, without looking at what has been done for centuries - the words are, thus, taken entirely out of context. Of course, they only exist in an axiomatic & mathematical way, as much as the rest of euclidean & neo-euclidean systems exist, although they can be useful for measuring physics. The last citation about "Random and IVM patterns intersect," seems to be a nonsequiter; so, How is that? John's dividing of a pentagonal bipyramid into five tetrahedra (not regular), is very astute; most Buckafkans'd do it unto ten "LCD" tets, although the five are not such. (For the record, the octahedron is also a "tetragonal [square] antiprism," and its dual is called a "hexagonal [?] trapezoidal prism" (or regular hexahedron or cube). The stuff about squaring the circle (or "tetrahedroning the sphere" in Buckyspeak) was solved by Nicholas of Cusa in the 14th CCE, long before an English algebraist got around to it - butt, I risk being called a Cardinal ass-kissing practitioner by John and his minions (if any); the "point" is that points, lines and planes must be taken as "undefineds," but they are no-more real than circles, spheres & tetrahedra, as I've argued on Syn-l. But, then, that's rather mainstream; eh? The bottom line is that a curve is a different "species" of a line, unless you feel as if you have to agree with Euler and his Letters to a Princess; many, do, as well as to have "argued with religionists" about the limit to pionts in a pin-prick! (In essence, the argument about the allowability of pi etc., boils-down to the same problem of floating-point arithmetic and FPUs, which Mandelbrot never bothered with, in spite of being an "IBM Fellow" with a pen-intimate means to do so, down any hall at any Watson Centre !-) John, I wasn't arguing to the authority of Leibniz; it's just that most folks are saturated with Newton's, and his lying "hypothesis non fingo;" it does well to cite Gottfried at every possible turn. And, although most folks didn't know that it was he, who took "logic" beyond tautology & syllogism with "iff," they also don't argue with its use. Do you dare? That's the importance of following - not creating, neccesarily - a few geometrical proofs, with a "pair" o'compasses, in order to see-through one's hypothesis; that's sufficient for establishing a conjecture that may be proven, at leisure. Viz, the construction of a regular bigon, trigon, pentagon, 17-gon - just kidding - etc. Thus (sic) quoth: http://www-viz.tamu.edu/faculty/ergun/research/raypolynomials/distance/ This goods further to indict to me that systems should be considered as a collection of vertexes rather than a collection of openings(faces). Edges and faces blur together to create an approximately smooth surface. Vertices are best defined according to their curvature(angular deficit) where the sum of a systems curvature always equals 720 degrees. Thus quoth: Five around its perimeter, one above and one below center. Five slightly irregular tets sharing a common edge. The "closed" form of the five-tet-sharing-common-edge figure that Bucky noted had a wedge-gap in it of about seven degrees. It's a prism (it also, were it in glass, would cast five mutually crossing independent rainbows in sunlight). Every nucleated icosa has many of these interpenetrated within it. (Lemme see... ...12 of them, all sharing one (the center, the nucleating) central vertex, and each of them having as its other side central vertex one of the 12 outer vertices.) Fortunately, though, I'm less incomprehensible than Rybo... I assert there are no ideal _curves_ of any kind in Universe--all is straight line-segments. (Why does Pi never come out even? Simple: there's no such thing as the curve you'd have to have, to stop it from continuing. You can't make a circle with straight line-segments; you can only approximate one.) This results from using _points_ ((sp); geometers', not mine) to make lines. In the infinitesimal, without limit, one cannot make curves with points: every two neighbor points have a straight linesegment between them which, if you use the geometers' and mathematicians' rules, you can further subdivide (every two neighbor --"kissing"-- points have an infinite number of points between them). Thus you never can reach --even in infinitesimality-- a state where you can say "there are only two points in this linesegment," and all you can do is follow the damn turtles "all the way down." Tverse eliminates that infinite recursion, but by so doing, absolutely prevents any ideal curves from existing. I can easily believe that. However, it would be perverse to bring that level of error out of the highly magnified depths of the Mandelbrot set, and suggest that the main set's shape (that bloated, two-sectioned fatman) suffers from sufficient calculational error as to disregard it. You keep missing (or ignoring) my point that these errors show up in the extreme fractional ends of numbers, not in the few decimal places just right of the decimal point, and surely not in the integer portions of numbers output by programs like Struck, or in hand calculators or in computer calculations. I'll go so far as to agree with use of "confidence levels," if you want, saying that Struck outputs to the sixth decimal place have 99.9 percent confidence levels, and outputs to the third, 99.999 percent. This is unusual, and amost accidental. Mostly, I've argued with religionists. It was inevitable, though, that I'd sooner or later have to take on the Buckynauts, since they've been doing tetrahedralities for a very long time, and Tverse is, if anything, _more_ tightly based in tetrahedrality than what Buckynauts swim around in. ( Leibniz. Gimme a break. He's the one I had to fight off to get my piont(sp) across to some smart, smart people heavy in math. Leibniz isn't/wasn't the final authority, nor Peano, nor Euclid, nor any who've started with different (no matter how slightly) originating precepts than I have.) SUBJECT: quasicrystals MESSAGE from ="List 26-JAN-20 7:48 Here are some very interesting pages on Nature's own packing designs. http://asma7.iamp.tohoku.ac.jp/EMILIA/html/eg/emgal/quasi/quasi_lt1.html Random and IVM patterns intersect. --Frodo's Ring Stew! >>http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:20:28 -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: Chilling Machine In-Reply-To: <20020125.223625.976.5.c.knight@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > By all reports, the US dome in Afghanistan worked, and > was > actually too cool for the locals. What was its scale? > > Since we have photos and technical diagrams of a > prototype > that supposedly worked, I suggest that we work from it, > and > hopefully derive the equations experimentally. Excellent idea. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:33:58 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201261555.g0QFtX220036@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > do you have a hypothesis as to *how* they'd overlap, or > why you'd want them to do so?... in essence, > this is the same problem of symmetry that John's been > having fun > with; viz, "energy hath shape, Dudes!" > on the wayside, > a regular dodecahedron is the same thing > as a regular icosagon, or "20-verton" to use your gross > neologism! No. The regular dodecahedron's vertexes are not omnitriangulated. The 20verton is made of 20V+36F=54E+2. The regular dodecahedron has 20v+12F=20E+2. I am sure you can see the difference. Sort of like the difference between a tetpack and the IVM. > > thus quoth: > No. Regular. If not regular, where is the overlap? > > > thus quoth: > > > > interpenetrated icosahedra at seven vertices > > > _guaranteed_ > > > > anything made that way would be 12-around-1, > as > > > shown in > > > > the image that sparked the issue. > > > > > > > > _That_ has not changed_. > > > > JB- This is the same thing I am talking about. That > > interpenetrating overlap is the 20 verton. I don't > know > > its > > diameter yet. The overlapping of 20 regular tets > around > > a > > point is a sphere with 20 vertexes(little spheres) > > equidistant from that point. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:06:01 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 28-JAN-2002 6:06 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us let's do the math: if you mean tthat your icosaverton (sic) has 36 trigonal facets, then that means it has 36 times 3 divided by 2 edges; does that equal 54? thus quoth: > do you have a hypothesis as to *how* they'd overlap, or > why you'd want them to do so?... in essence, > this is the same problem of symmetry that John's been > having fun > with; viz, "energy hath shape, Dudes!" > on the wayside, > a regular dodecahedron is the same thing > as a regular icosagon, or "20-verton" to use your gross > neologism! No. The regular dodecahedron's vertexes are not omnitriangulated. The 20verton is made of 20V+36F=54E+2. The regular dodecahedron has 20v+12F=20E+2. I am sure you can see the difference. Sort of like the difference between a tetpack and the IVM. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:09:21 -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] Enron remains (noun) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 28-JAN-2002 6:09 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us yeah, but do you know who (what) grabbed the business of commodifying e?... in this respect, it is no different from the junkbond frenzy that Milken took the fall for. thus quoth: Enron's demise has discredited a vicious market ideology and given a boost to the anti-corporate cause http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,640513,00.html --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:26:27 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201281406.g0SE61030152@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > let's do the math: > if you mean tthat your icosaverton (sic) > has 36 trigonal facets, then > that means it has 36 times 3 divided by 2 edges; > does that equal 54? Yes __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:41:10 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 28-JAN-2002 10:41 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us OK; now, I can't tell what the shape is, without further information, since the apices of the trigona meet in different numbers (there're 3x36 apices, divided by some number(s)). but it surely ain't random, in any case. also, in any case, the dodecahedron's apices are "trigonated," in the sense that they are 3-way; it is just that you Buckyfools always see things in terms of *trilaterals*. thus quoth: No. The regular dodecahedron's vertexes are not omnitriangulated. The 20verton is made of 20V+36F=54E+2. The regular dodecahedron has 20v+12F=20E+2. I am sure you can see the difference. Sort of like the difference between a tetpack and the IVM. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:13:41 -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: Re: geodomehomes Comments: To: michael0 Comments: cc: "List, The DomeHome" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Michael, I am not absolutely sure, but I have several reasons to believe that = Geodomes is no longer in business. I don't get their literature any more, their email no longer works, = their web page seems to be down and, as you say, they don't answer their = phone. I think you should consider another manufacturer; see: http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/Index/Dome-Dt.htm (scroll down to = "Manufacturers"). =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Joe S Moore joe_s_moore@hotmail.com http://www.cruzio.com/~joemoore/ Buckminster Fuller Virtual Institute =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D ----- Original Message -----=20 From: michael0=20 To: joemoore@cruzio.com=20 Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:41 PM Subject: geodomehomes Mr. Moore, I had a Geodomes Homes book several years back and am very = much interested in building a geodome home, in fact I had the one picked = out that I wanted to build. It was in the Geodomes Woodworks catalog = but I have tried calling that number and that is not a good number for = them. I have tried to get on the internet to contact them by e-mail and = am having no luck. Can you help me? My e-mail address is = michaelo@setel.com. Any information would be greatly appreciated. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:59:18 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201281841.g0SIfAK32264@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 28-JAN-2002 10:41 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > OK; now, > I can't tell what the shape is, > without further information, since the apices > of the trigona meet in different numbers > (there're 3x36 apices, divided by some number(s)). > but it surely ain't random, in any case. You are right that there probably are some "preferred" sizes, or distances between the vertexes. However, I am only interested in the general case. I am only considering angles, not distances. The 20verton is not special case. It is general case. Every "edge" can be different. Angles persist. It is an irregular critter. When I say tetrahedron, I am not saying regular tetrahedron in the same breath. Get it? give me the average length of one edge of a verton and I can give you the surface area and the volume. The edge length is related to the "radius"(actually the radius is the distance from the center to a vertex, edge or face) by the formala Sin beta=1-alpha/360, where alpha is the curvature or angular deficit at each vertex, and beta is the central angle. > also, > in any case, the dodecahedron's apices are "trigonated," > in the sense that they are 3-way; > it is just that you Buckyfools always see things > in terms of *trilaterals*. So you admit you don't see the necessity in only building with triangles? I saw we only build in tetrahedrons. > > thus quoth: > No. The regular dodecahedron's vertexes are not > omnitriangulated. The 20verton is made of > 20V+36F=54E+2. > The regular dodecahedron has 20v+12F=20E+2. > > I am sure you can see the difference. Sort of like > the > difference between a tetpack and the IVM. > > --les ducs d'Enron! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:34:11 -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: [Quaker-P] pollution and males <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 29-JAN-2002 10:34 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us the "joke" is that, per Ames' later realization, the vast bulk o'mutagens (carcinogens, teratogens etc.) occur in the phenotype o'the foodplants that we grow, as to make "pesticide residues" on them appear rather tame (this also goes for the ridiculous advertizing deal of "having NO PRESERVATIVES," as if that's a good idea). thus quoth: I don't get the joke... > do you know the latter-day (sik) work of doctor Bruce Ames > o'Berkeley?... it's interesting to compare it > with (say) his article on "genetic toxicity" > in *Co-evoloution Quarterly* (or, > "before he became a shill for the agrochem interests, > as many'd put it .-) > > thus quoth: > Please, note that chemistry was my major and I was organic chemistry lab > teacher (assistantm, but I did everything) at age 17. --Frodo's Ring Stew! > http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:46:51 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 29-JAN-2002 10:46 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us your supposedly general case is nothing, but an over-extended hypothesis, for shich you have done nothing toward a proof. it doesn't appear that you'll ever be able to do so, but miracles do happen (and peristalsis occurreth !-) and, of course, it has nothing to do with conics, yet, either. so, all you have to prove is that there is a 36-trigon spheric, that has the same angular deficit at every vertex (or even that there is *any* other regular icosagon, other than the pentagonal dodecahedron). thus quoth: You are right that there probably are some "preferred" sizes, or distances between the vertexes. However, I am only interested in the general case. I am only considering angles, not distances. The 20verton is not special case. It is general case. Every "edge" can be different. Angles persist. It is an irregular critter. When I say tetrahedron, I am not saying regular tetrahedron in the same breath. Get it? give me the average length of one edge of a verton and I can give you the surface area and the volume. The edge length is related to the "radius"(actually the radius is the distance from the center to a vertex, edge or face) by the formala Sin beta=1-alpha/360, where alpha is the curvature or angular deficit at each vertex, and beta is the central angle. let's here it, for "looking 'up' formulae" (into the rectal dysplay unit !-) --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:49:54 -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: Re: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 29-JAN-2002 10:49 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us oh, and making some slap-dash model with a fuzzy webcam look-see, does not qualify as a proof. if there *were* a 36-gon with identical apices, I'd probably already have known about it; you're merely asserting it into QBS existance. --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/whyHarryPotterMustDie.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:21:29 -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: S.G.Warburg handles Enron "commodities" business (news) <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 29-JAN-2002 11:21 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us "When Steve Met Harry," Who? --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:10:51 -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: random close packing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > > I can't view inlines from this service, John. Sorry late responding. "Rats." I wrote the GEODESIC listserv owner, asking why there was a geometry list that didn't allow _pictures_ inside messages, or even as attachments. He explained; I agreed; it's still a stupid idea, not being able to put back-of-napkin-type sketches into a visually oriented listserv. If you want to see the images, ask me again, please; I been busy, but can put them on my site and give the URL if it's important to you. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:07:26 -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] pollution and males <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 29-JAN-2002 13:07 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us perhaps this will clear it, "up." qua the Ames Assay, which is a clone of salmonella sp. that is surveyed for mutations, after culturing with the isolated agent or chemical, many of these natural plant stuffs rate quite large in their effect -- but that's in isolation. for example, I heard him refer to indoles (?) in brocolli and in other cruciferae, as being able to match the cell-receptor to which many dioxins attach for their toxic effect, thus blocking the dioxin. however, it was also very reactive in the Assay -- making it, in effect, a potent carcinogen (or teratogen). that is true for a broad range of natural chemicals, that are eaten by the pound in a typical "good" diet, over the course of a life-time. thus quoth: > the "joke" is that, > per Ames' later realization, > the vast bulk o'mutagens (carcinogens, teratogens etc.) occur > in the phenotype o'the foodplants that we grow, > as to make "pesticide residues" on them appear rather tame > (this also goes for the ridiculous advertizing deal > of "having NO PRESERVATIVES," as if that's a good idea). > I don't believe that for a moment.Regards, --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:09:35 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 29-JAN-2002 13:09 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us don't make me suffer, John! thus quoth: If you want to see the images, ask me again, please; I been busy, but can put them on my site and give the URL if it's important to you. --When Steve Met Harry! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:30:06 -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: random close packing Comments: cc: Synergeo , geometry@fluidiom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Brian Hutchings > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > > don't make me suffer, John! > > thus quoth: > If you want to see the images, ask me again, please; I been busy, but > can put them on my site and give the URL if it's important to you. Assuming you're serious, http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentpris.gif (both are stereo pairs) http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentprisIn.gif (stereo-ing this one will buzz your eyes) First is the penta, second is it welded into an icosa. Since every icosa has the pentas as components, one can weld a penta into an icosa without changing the icosa, and, IF the penta happens to be in another icosa already, matching/welding it into a second icosa changes neither icosa, but adds part part of an icosa to the growing collection of 12-around-1s. Thus, since A is 12-a-1, and B is 12-a-1, and the fusion leaves both as 12-a-1s, I'm _certain_ a ball of icosas made this way will be 100% 12-a-1s, so long as I never vary the addition process. No math for you, Brian, just images. You may accept them as "strongly suggestive," if you like, but in the words of an anti-creationism witness at the Arkansas creationism trial, "it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:04:18 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201291846.g0TIkpo07808@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 29-JAN-2002 10:46 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > your supposedly general case is nothing, > but an over-extended hypothesis, > for shich you have done nothing toward a proof. > it doesn't appear that you'll ever be able to do so, > but miracles do happen (and > peristalsis occurreth !-) > and, of course, > it has nothing to do with conics, yet, either. > > so, all you have to prove is that > there is a 36-trigon spheric, that has the same angular > deficit > at every vertex (or even that > there is *any* other regular icosagon, > other than the pentagonal dodecahedron). I am not saying regular! I may not have the proof but I do have the models. They come out beautifully. And not one edge length needs to be repeated. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:06:44 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201291849.g0TInsV07834@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings wrote: > <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings > 29-JAN-2002 10:49 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us > > oh, and making some slap-dash model with a fuzzy webcam > look-see, > does not qualify as a proof. if there *were* a 36-gon > with identical apices, I'd probably already have known > about it; > you're merely asserting it into QBS existance. What is QBS? Again, I am not saying the triangles are the same shape. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:11:41 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <001301c1a957$913fa200$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentpris.gif > (both are stereo pairs) > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentprisIn.gif > (stereo-ing this one will buzz your eyes) > > First is the penta, second is it welded into an icosa. > Since every icosa has the pentas as components, one can > weld a penta > into an icosa without changing the icosa, and, IF the > penta happens to > be in another icosa already, matching/welding it into a > second icosa > changes neither icosa, but adds part part of an icosa to > the growing > collection of 12-around-1s. Thus, since A is 12-a-1, and > B is 12-a-1, > and the fusion leaves both as 12-a-1s, I'm _certain_ a > ball of icosas > made this way will be 100% 12-a-1s, so long as I never > vary the addition > process. > > No math for you, Brian, just images. You may accept them > as "strongly > suggestive," if you like, but in the words of an > anti-creationism > witness at the Arkansas creationism trial, "it would be > perverse to > withhold provisional assent." > > Peace > JB > jgbrawley@earthlink.net > http://tetrahedraverse.com John- What is the diameter of the little sphere at the vertex? Or doesn't it matter? Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:08:43 -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: random close packing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dick Fischbeck" > > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentpris.gif > > (both are stereo pairs) > > http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentprisIn.gif > > (stereo-ing this one will buzz your eyes) > > > > witness at the Arkansas creationism trial, "it would be > > perverse to > > withhold provisional assent." > > John- What is the diameter of the little sphere at the > vertex? Or doesn't it matter? In -these- images, it doesn't matter. Those are the "nexes" that Struck97 shows if you ask it to, and that have to be showing if it's to put out a PovRay file showing only spheres. In PovRay, I merely ramp up the size of those 'little spheres' until one sees them as such. I can make them any size I want. The lines can be output to the PovRay file if they're showing --as in these Struck97 partial screen-shots-- but I generally don't do that: Struck97's focus, and EIG's focus, is on the intervals (lines you see), which are "springs" that are actively pulling or pushing, while my focus is on the sphere-packing. Struck97 only uses the nexes as attachment-points for spring-ends. The later versions of Struck didn't even offer the option of listing them in the PovRay output file. (That's why I'm "stuck" in Struck97.) All of the spheres you have seen in my URLs to PovRay images were once those 'little spheres.' Were there to be a model of your verton-using construct, there would be (what? six? seven?) of those little spheres at each of the 12 outer vertices of the icosa, and 20 of them at the center vertex. (I think.) Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:57:56 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <004401c1a9a0$078988c0$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Were there to be a model of your verton-using construct, > there would be > (what? six? seven?) of those little spheres at each of > the 12 outer > vertices of the icosa, and 20 of them at the center > vertex. (I think.) > > Peace > JB Five at the outer corners. That leaves room for 15 more, which come from the missing 15 tets that would continue the in the packing. Eventually, ever vertex would have 20 spherical tet corners, except for the outer surface of the cluster. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:49:11 -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: random close packing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dick Fischbeck"> > JB > > Five at the outer corners. That leaves room for 15 more, > which come from the missing 15 tets that would continue the > in the packing. Eventually, ever vertex would have 20 > spherical tet corners, except for the outer surface of the > cluster. Understood. I keep getting mixed up; wanting to retain the icosa's vertices. There are none of these in your construct; it's all tets joined at their vertices. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:42:58 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 30-JAN-2002 5:42 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I'd comprehended what you were proposing, quite a ways back, on "merging icosahedra," so that those pictures are not terribly astonishing (good thing, I don't need to "fuze" the stereogram; eh ?-) without the stereo your "Pentaprisms" look like would-be Necker's pentagonal bipyramids; if you insist upon your own quaint terminology, though, people without the proper plug-ins are going to bamboozled by the dictionary, for lack of being Struck, vissssually! here's my guess as to what your conjecture amounts to: a hypothesis that could show an aperiodical tiling of space, because it certainly doesn't fit into the "237 space groups," I think was the number (obviously, I haven't checked them all, out). of course, though, you have to *make* such a tenable hypothesis, or at least one that is testable. I mean, it sort of is and, apparently, you've had no luck in trying to jam the elements together in a way that you can make sense out of, beyond a layer or two. I say, it's very unlikely, and the proof is in the pudding that is hardening into an inedible mass on the table. this is what happens when one tries to be polite; one suffers, anyway! thus quoth: http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentpris.gif (both are stereo pairs) http://tetrahedraverse.com/images/other/pentprisIn.gif (stereo-ing this one will buzz your eyes) First is the penta, second is it welded into an icosa. Since every icosa has the pentas as components, one can weld a penta into an icosa without changing the icosa, and, IF the penta happens to be in another icosa already, matching/welding it into a second icosa changes neither icosa, but adds part part of an icosa to the growing collection of 12-around-1s. Thus, since A is 12-a-1, and B is 12-a-1, and the fusion leaves both as 12-a-1s, I'm _certain_ a ball of icosas made this way will be 100% 12-a-1s, so long as I never vary the addition process. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:51:30 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 30-JAN-2002 5:51 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us it's amuzing that you don't even have the basic shape of your "what ever 20-gonal and 36-trigonal" thing-a-ma-jig; that is, the numbers of various n-way apices, and their relation to each-other; that is to say, a "graph." or, did you say you made a model? now, you're saying that the *only* regularity is that of the apical take-outs (deficits) -- each of the 20 apices has identical angular deficit? hey, good luck with your fantasy, dude! (yes, "triangulated graphs" are some thing that is well-developed within graphtheory, by Erdos e.g.; it's particularly Buckafkan, because he focussed so much energy onto the toothpick/line-segment/struts. well, I don't *know* any graphtheory .-) thus quoth: > so, all you have to prove is that > there is a 36-trigon spheric, that has the same angular > deficit > at every vertex (or even that > there is *any* other regular icosagon, > other than the pentagonal dodecahedron). I am not saying regular! I may not have the proof but I do have the models. They come out beautifully. And not one edge length needs to be repeated. --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:57:57 -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: Re: [Quaker-P] Dubya's dream <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 30-JAN-2002 5:57 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us do you think the President'd use the British spelling, like VP Quayle, did? thus quoth: documents: the last Prez to do that was Dick Nixon, and we all rememberise --Chapter -XII- Chairman George in Watergate! http://www.tarpley.net/bush12.htm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:51:01 -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: [Quaker-P] Dubya's dream In-Reply-To: <200201301357.g0UDvvi13406@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Who said 'rememberise'? > From: Brian Hutchings > Reply-To: "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's > works" > Newsgroups: bit.listserv.geodesic > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:57:57 -0800 > To: GEODESIC@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: [Quaker-P] Dubya's dream >=20 > <> Brian =BFQuincy! Hutchings 30-JAN-2002 5:57 > r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us >=20 > do you think the President'd use the British spelling, > like VP Quayle, did? >=20 > thus quoth: > documents: the last Prez to do that was Dick Nixon, and we all rememberis= e >=20 > --Chapter -XII- Chairman George in Watergate! > http://www.tarpley.net/bush12.htm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 06:08:34 -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] Dubya's dream <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 30-JAN-2002 6:08 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us that was the Guardian pundit, at thet least. thus quoth: Who said 'rememberise'? > do you think the President'd use the British spelling, > like VP Quayle, did? > > thus quoth: > documents: the last Prez to do that was Dick Nixon, and we all rememberise > > --Chapter -XII- Chairman George in Watergate! > http://www.tarpley.net/bush12.htm ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:15:58 -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: random close packing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian Hutchings" > > I'd comprehended what you were proposing, > quite a ways back, on "merging icosahedra," so that I'd thought you had. You posted a commentary that _could_ have been misread as a compliment to me... (*g*) > if you insist upon your own quaint terminology, though, Hey, I don't have a heavy investment in my 'quaint' terms, other than the few I've used for too many years to alter them now. "Pentaprism" isn't one of those. > here's my guess as to what your conjecture amounts to: [dels] > you've had no luck in trying to jam the elements together > in a way that you can make sense out of, > beyond a layer or two. I say, it's very unlikely, and That's a problem with the program I use, not with my ability. The program re-sizes the object one is working on, to fit it into the screen window. Those .gifs you saw fit nicely; it's easy to get a mouse pointer targeted on a nexus to mark it. If there were two, the object would be half the size, thus all the parts are shrunk. With four, even smaller, etc, etc, etc. By the time I'm up to twenty or thirty interpenetrated icosas, I'm squinting with one eye, moving the (I use a touch-pad) cursor by millimeters, and having a hell of a time being sure I've marked the correct nexes. There's nothing in principle to stop me from making icosa-glued structures thousands and thousands of icosas large; I'm stopped by the _practical_ aspects: can't see the dang nexes any more (too small), and keep hitting nexes I don't mean to hit. ONE not-undo-able (this version of Struck appears to have no "undo") mistake and it's all over; I can't be sure after that that I still have 100% 12-around-1s. > this is what happens when one tries to be polite; > one suffers, anyway! I've been polite. Have you? Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:45:04 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 30-JAN-2002 11:45 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us actually, I was joking, but your last reply (at least) didn't contain an ad-hominem, so you get thte Brownie Point, as well. apparently, most of your conjecture hangs upon your belief in some thing that you cannot get thte program to do; whereas, if you set it up as problem *of* programming, then you'd quickly prove your conjecture, one way or the other. on the other hand, that'd require enough of a refinement of your conjecture, perhaps as to make the programming unneeded. since your putatively forever-overlapping- with-no-extra-space-ever-to-get-a-13-around-one problemma can be anlyzed on terms of pentagonal bipyramids, let's look at that. since every ball is one of the polar apices of a number of overlapping bipyramids, which'd be a "covering" rather than a tiling problem, it's just as sell to look at the the parts that overlap, which are just the ten "LCD" tetrahedra (in RBFian term) that make one. so, you have to find a symmetry-argument for all-space-filling of those, when none of'em are neccesarily the same; what a bitch! it might make more sense to use your division of the bipyramid into *5* tetrah., but that seems to assume that the central ball and the 2 polar balls are on a line; eh? thus quoth: By the time I'm up to twenty or thirty interpenetrated icosas, I'm squinting with one eye, moving the (I use a touch-pad) cursor by millimeters, and having a hell of a time being sure I've marked the correct nexes. There's nothing in principle to stop me from making icosa-glued structures thousands and thousands of icosas large; I'm stopped by the _practical_ aspects: can't see the dang nexes any more (too small), and --Chapter -XII- Chairman George in Watergate! > http://www.tarpley.net/bush12.htm ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:55:45 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <003701c1a9c7$3186fa00$d675d918@jb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- John Brawley wrote: > From: "Dick Fischbeck"> > JB > > > > Five at the outer corners. That leaves room for 15 > more, > > which come from the missing 15 tets that would continue > the > > in the packing. Eventually, ever vertex would have 20 > > spherical tet corners, except for the outer surface of > the > > cluster. > > Understood. > I keep getting mixed up; wanting to retain the icosa's > vertices. > There are none of these in your construct; it's all tets > joined at their > vertices. > > Peace > JB I guess the virtual icosa's vertexes would be anywhere in the inside of the 20verton. The verton would be always moving and shifting in a fluid tetpacking, but would not lose its integrity. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:12:04 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201301351.g0UDpUA13361@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings > > it's amuzing that you don't even have the basic shape > of your "what ever 20-gonal and 36-trigonal" > thing-a-ma-jig; > that is, the numbers of various n-way apices, and > their relation to each-other; Well, I know 12 vertexes have 5 triangles around them and 8 vertexes have 6 triangles around them. What else do you want to know about it? > that is to say, a "graph." or, > did you say you made a model? > now, you're saying that the *only* regularity is that > of the apical take-outs (deficits) -- > each of the 20 apices has identical angular deficit? Yes, I've always said that. > > hey, good luck with your fantasy, dude! > (yes, "triangulated graphs" are some thing > that is well-developed within graphtheory, > by Erdos e.g.; it's particularly Buckafkan, because > he focussed so much energy onto the > toothpick/line-segment/struts. > well, I don't *know* any graphtheory .-) I'll look into it. Thanks. How would I go about a proof? Why not help me on this? Dick > thus quoth: > > so, all you have to prove is that > > there is a 36-trigon spheric, that has the same > angular > > deficit > > at every vertex (or even that > > there is *any* other regular icosagon, > > other than the pentagonal dodecahedron). > > I am not saying regular! I may not have the proof but I > do > have the models. They come out beautifully. And not one > edge length needs to be repeated. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:22:54 -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: random close packing In-Reply-To: <200201301945.g0UJj4G16294@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Brian Hutchings > since your putatively forever-overlapping- > with-no-extra-space-ever-to-get-a-13-around-one > problemma > can be anlyzed on terms of pentagonal bipyramids, > let's look at that. > since every ball is one of the polar apices > of a number of overlapping bipyramids, > which'd be a "covering" rather than a tiling problem, > it's just as sell to look at the the parts that overlap, > which are just the ten "LCD" tetrahedra (in RBFian term) > that make one. > so, you have to find a symmetry-argument > for all-space-filling of those, > when none of'em are neccesarily the same; > what a bitch! > it might make more sense to use your division > of the bipyramid into *5* tetrah., but > that seems to assume that the central ball and > the 2 polar balls are on a line; eh? Can you refer me to the section in Synergetics on LCD tets? I can't find it. Dick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:36:24 -0500 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: random close packing On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:22:54 -0800, Dick Fischbeck wrote: >--- Brian Hutchings > >> since your putatively forever-overlapping- >> with-no-extra-space-ever-to-get-a-13-around-one >> problemma >> can be anlyzed on terms of pentagonal bipyramids, >> let's look at that. >> since every ball is one of the polar apices >> of a number of overlapping bipyramids, >> which'd be a "covering" rather than a tiling problem, >> it's just as sell to look at the the parts that overlap, >> which are just the ten "LCD" tetrahedra (in RBFian term) >> that make one. >> so, you have to find a symmetry-argument >> for all-space-filling of those, >> when none of'em are neccesarily the same; >> what a bitch! >> it might make more sense to use your division >> of the bipyramid into *5* tetrah., but >> that seems to assume that the central ball and >> the 2 polar balls are on a line; eh? > >Can you refer me to the section in Synergetics on LCD tets? >I can't find it. > >Dick Never mind, I found it. 901.01 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:55:21 -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: random close packing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Dick Fischbeck" > > I keep getting mixed up; wanting to retain the icosa's > > vertices. > > There are none of these in your construct; it's all tets > > joined at their > > vertices. > > > > Peace > > JB > > I guess the virtual icosa's vertexes would be anywhere in > the inside of the 20verton. The verton would be always > moving and shifting in a fluid tetpacking, but would not > lose its integrity. Understood. I think I can Struck-model this, but it'd not be a trivial task. Peace JB jgbrawley@earthlink.net http://tetrahedraverse.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:25:28 -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] \"Trading Democracy\" - PBS documentary on NAFTA's <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 31-JAN-2002 5:25 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us I propose a new, faux-pejorative usage, to match that of referring to the "Democrat Party," which avoids the lovely adjectival name: let them be known as the "Republic Party," til such time as they learn the meaning thereof (and that applies to the Gore faction of the Ds, as well !-) thus quoth: giving facts. Of course, there are problems, but in general NAFTA has provided tremendous help to poorer nations (my judgment) such as Mexico and will help the rest of Central America when it goes into effect. Concurrently it has helped American workers in the long run -- yes it may have temporarily drawn off work from the US to foreign countries. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:38:10 -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: random close packing <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 31-JAN-2002 5:38 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us you merely *assert* that this shape exists? since the hexahedron can nest its 8 apices into the 20 of an icosagon (dodecahedron), can you find a way to twist it, so that your alleged condition occurs? that is, "12 5-way vertices and 8 6-way vertices." oops; I was thinking of the dodecagon (icosahedron) having the 12 apices. now, although the cube doesn't nest in it, it does nest within the octahedron (dually, 8 of its faces in 8 of the icosahedron's), and the cube is the dual to *that*; so, maybe you can configure it with that in mind. if you don't think that I'm helping you, then, go take a long swim in a short desert ocean! thus quoth: Well, I know 12 vertexes have 5 triangles around them and 8 vertexes have 6 triangles around them. What else do you want to know about it? --les ducs d'Enron! >http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:54:15 -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] Re: New York! -- Yes! <> Brian ¿Quincy! Hutchings 31-JAN-2002 11:54 r001806@pen2.ci.santa-monica.ca.us pehaps, not, but maybe there should be a *poll* test, for citizenship in a republic -- you silly "Republicans" R Jacobins! thus quoth: When Bill says "Of course, I doubt if many of the participants are significant taxpayers anyhow" he seems to be implying that there should be a property test for citizen participation in a democracy. I thought that went out with the 19th century. and so, I guess, is Starhawk, but we should ask him. --les ducs d'Enron! http://quincy4board.homestead.com/clownsugarSkotsmagic.html