[lifesaviors] Re: [Palaces4People] Re: Current members list: Palaces For The People Discussion Group
- From: <lionkuntz@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Palaces4People@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Hello, Jim
Thanks for the introduction.
A lot of this Palaces For The People is totally
arbitrary choices made by myself to get a "what if"
train-of-thought progressing, and then examine the
implications. If I could clone myself to follow
mutiple "what if" trails simultaneously, then all the
clones could get together after a point and compare
results and see which one of the "what if"
possibilities had the most advantages.
I say "clone myself" rather than say set a group off
on the tasks, because, as you can see, it is darned
hard to get a group even talking, let alone working as
a team. If I was rich, I would say "set a series of
employees hired for the purpose to examine a series of
'what-if" scenarios".
The job has to be done. There is no set of employees
anywhere in the world reporting serious progress (but
who knows what is going on in "Top Secret" projects,
but why would housing the global population be secret
in the first place?) on this chore. It just takes
dilligence, plodding, wading through reams of webpages
and library books and patent archives. I do it
because (1) I am on a disability role due to physical
health problems, and this is something I CAN DO, (2) I
am interested in solving difficult problems by
dissecting them into a batch of small solvable
problems, then integrating the small solutions into a
whole solution, and (3) because the many people paid
high wages to accomplish this task have been goofing
off and not doing the job they are paid to do, and I
want to rub their faces in it by showing that leaving
human misery unsolved is a bastardly thing to do, so
get cracking and earn them paychecks, or I'll do it
and "yer fired"!
With all that said, I picked right angles, instead of
hexagonal or other shapes, because I am familiar with
the results of right angles, I can fit more pieces
together in ways that have fewer headaches, I have a
hard enough job getting people to consider different
materials let alone different shapes, and it was a
convenient starting place.
Just taking the "starting hypothesis":
(1) One Hectare Building Foundation Footprint, (2.54
acres, 10,000 m^2, 107639.1 ft^2),
(2) 2nd story same size as first,
(3) 3rd through 6th stories each set back 10 meter all
around in a ziggurat terrace pyramidal form to provide
outdoor patio balcanies to as many residents as
possible,...
I came up with 3.2 hectares indoor space under roof,
0.96 hectares outdoor terrace patio/deck space, 2.2 ha
residential.
I used a totally arbitrary 1,100 ft^2 residential
private indoor area, and 900 ft^2 public indoor areas
(stairwells, elevator shafts, utility closets in an
11:9 ratio, corridors, etc.). dividing the total area
by 2,000 ft^2 I came up with about 118 family units.
Everything was arbitrary from a blue-sky starting
point. However it was all rooted in reality: hectares
exist and people need to learn what that particular
size looks like if it is going to be used as a
constant area measure globally; I lived 11 years in a
seven room San Francisco flat of 1,100 ft^2 and have a
deep feel for how that space can be divided by
roommates in bedrooms and common spaces; 10 meter
setback of terraces is just about exactly the setback
distance from my present front door to the curb, so I
have a good idea of how many people can use this
"patio" space or "lawn".
Even starting with a few givens, the task is not
trivial. 118 units sharing 0.96 total hectare of
rooftops patios is more than a math problem. One can
figure how many meters per unit each unit should get,
but actual dividing is a problem. The second floor
occupants have no setback, no terrace deck space. If
they are going to get their share, then two-story
apartment/condos are required, at least on the 2nd-3rd
floors, but the problem cascades upwards, so that
many, most, units must be two-story units. This both
creates some problems while adding others: sky
appatures (skylights, lightpipes) opening on the deck
above to bring in more natural light solve some
privacy issues when the appature opens on YOUR deck
instead of opening to the deck of your upstairs
neighbor. But on the other hand...
So hexagonal units add complexity without actually
offering easily perceived benefits. Octet Trusses have
so much reserve strength made of carbon fiber
composite materials that concealed triangulation
within the walls and floors/ceilings/roofing provides
a great surplus. See the recent illustrations:
http://www.ecosyn.us/Ecovillage/Structure/Palace_Structure_01.html
Honeycomb is promoted as strong by manufacturers who
find it easy to mass fabricate. These same
manufacturers have not figured out how to mass
fabricate Octet Trusses, although Bucky showed them
how in a 1979 book illustrating paper, metal ribbon,
continuous wire variations. Honeycomb is not close to
the structural integrity of octets: diamond is the
hardest known substance exactly because it uses the
octet structure in the carbon bond.
I make octet truss models out of cerealbox gray
cardboard in 1.5 inch side dimensions (that is all
vertices are connected to each other through equal
length sides, whose measurements are 1.5" each). The
resulting grid boards are extremely lightweight. I
give people two of these as a sandwich and tell them
to press them together HARD, HARDER -- without
exception people remark on how stong this construction
is. The material has not changed; just the geometry.
Go ahead and make some models yourself.
I make wire models of octet truss parts. Again, the
increase in rigidness and strength is obvious. A major
problem I have is sythentic fibers are sold as wiven
fabrics made out of yarns of bundles of fibers. I
cannot buy just the yarns. It has been impractical for
me to make resin-fiber composite octet truss models
because the yarns are not available. I could unravel a
woven fabric, and eventually I will have to do that,
but it is a very expensive way to get one's hands on a
relatively cheap raw material.
Using published strength data on the yarns, fibers,
fabrics, and rebars (reinforcement bars), I can get
fairly reliable strength data without making my own
models yet. A single hair thin copper wire, #28 guage,
has a tensile strenth of five pounds. A single carbon
fiber, thinner than copper is probably 10 times
stronger. Bundles of 1,000 fibers are woven as yarns
into fabric, and 12x12 fabrics have 12,000 fibers in
each direction of the weave. These fabrics have a
tensile strength of 560 ksi (or 560,000 psi), an inch
width of this fabric can be made into a rope that can
hang a sack of elephants: 840 elephants to be exact.
So how much does this wonder fabric cost? Betcha it's
a fortune! Nope: Tap Plastics sells it retail by the
cut yard at about $3/ft^2, and wholesale the price
goes down to US$ 0.94/ft^2. That's twelve of these
magic ropes per foot length, or US$ 0.08 per running
foot. Try buying steel chain for 8 cents per foot, and
see how much tensile rating you can buy!
The new materials, combined with little used
fabrication techniques opens up the door to new
fabrication technolgies for fastest strongest-ever
building construction.
Octet Trusses prefabbed in a clean climate-controlled
workshop replace on-the-site assembly of framing units
in hot summer sun or cold winter rain/snow. Weighing
only ounces or pounds, it takes only teenage girls to
place framing members instead of cranes and steel and
steel-workers with hairy chests and bulging biceps.
Using "pre-pregs", which can be kept in a deep freeze
for two years, taken to the job in ice-chests, these
resin-soaked fabric splicers cure when they rise to
room temperature. Using only gloved fingers as tools,
prefab truss pieces joined by pre-pregs become one
continuous monolithic unit. No power tools are needed
on the jobsite. Because of the superstrength and
super-lightweight, less heavy materials upstairs are
bearing down on load-bearing members below, yet the
loadbearing members below are stronger than any
previous material in the human inventory of known
materials. A new era has opened, and people have to
get their thinking upgraded -- they need a paradigm
transplant operation.
So your question was not a dumb question, just not
relevent to the "what if" scenario currently being
explored. A few simple ideas, a few modern materials
substitutions, and most of the constraints which might
have made hexagons advantagous do not exist.
Therefore, hexagons have to justify their inclusion on
some basis other than strength.
--- jim_casy wrote:
> "lion kuntz" wrote:
>
> > most persons who joined have not introduced
> > themselves nor entered any discussions yet.
>
> > jim_casy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> I guess I'll say a couple of words of introduction.
> I followed Lion
> here from the organic_architecture list and I've
> been lurking to get
> a feel for the list here. I don't have a lot of
> experience to
> contribute to conversation, but I'm very interested
> in sustainable
> cities and I've been especially impressed by the
> thoroughness of this
> approach. I'd like to learn more about octet trusses
> and their
> applications.
>
> I do have one possibly stupid question, though- why
> are the units
> square? Is this more efficient than using hexagonal
> units or a
> combination of squares and octogons?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
=====
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
Santa Rosa, California, USA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Palaces4People/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Palaces4Japan/
http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Proposal/Palaces_For_The_People.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Challenges/Asia_Floods/Wet/All_Wet.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/Interesting/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
- » [lifesaviors] Re: [Palaces4People] Re: Current members list: Palaces For The People Discussion Group
