From: Kennita Watson (kwatson@netcom.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 1997 - 16:48:42 MST
This message looped back for some unknown reason. Let's try again.
Kennita
> Berrie wrote:
> > Kennita: what I don't understand is, why when it's length is
> > going up, the same has to be true for the diameter. Do you need
> > this for the strength?
>
> If you want a stronger structure, you either build it out of stronger
> material or, if you have no stronger material (available at an acceptable
> price), you build it thicker. Do you think people building multi-story
> parking lots would take up valuable parking space with those big fat
> pillars otherwise? And would suspension bridges use big fat cables
> instead of slender ones?
>
> > Also, what do you think of the "open"-structure.
> > Is that still not wind-proof :-)
> > I can't imagine the forces on the structure, but isn't there any
> > material today that could be woven to a "net", that can stand
> > these winds. Is it also a particular height, were these winds are
> > at top-speed. ?
>
> An open structure would probably help, because you can often get just
> as much strength with less material by arranging it in an open lattice
> (the Eiffel Tower is an example, as are geodesic domes).
>
> I don't know about the top-speed height, but remember that the air
> gets thinner higher up, so even if the winds are faster there may be
> fewer molecules trying to push your structure over. I'm not sure the
> analogy is exact (I'm sure I'll be told), but I'd imagine (say)
> that rain gets going pretty fast by the time it falls a thousand feet
> or so, but half an hour's worth doesn't push on you nearly as hard as
> one large bucket of water tossed on you from a few feet away in one
> second (she says, remembering her last white-water rafting trip).
>
> Hope this helps,
> Kennita
attached mail follows:
The original message was received at Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:45:18 -0700
from siteadm@ha1.rdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.0.66]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<extropians@extropy.com>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
553 extropy.com. config error: mail loops back to me (MX problem?)
554 <extropians@extropy.com>... Local configuration error
attached mail follows:
Berrie wrote:
> Kennita: what I don't understand is, why when it's length is
> going up, the same has to be true for the diameter. Do you need
> this for the strength?
If you want a stronger structure, you either build it out of stronger
material or, if you have no stronger material (available at an acceptable
price), you build it thicker. Do you think people building multi-story
parking lots would take up valuable parking space with those big fat
pillars otherwise? And would suspension bridges use big fat cables
instead of slender ones?
> Also, what do you think of the "open"-structure.
> Is that still not wind-proof :-)
> I can't imagine the forces on the structure, but isn't there any
> material today that could be woven to a "net", that can stand
> these winds. Is it also a particular height, were these winds are
> at top-speed. ?
An open structure would probably help, because you can often get just
as much strength with less material by arranging it in an open lattice
(the Eiffel Tower is an example, as are geodesic domes).
I don't know about the top-speed height, but remember that the air
gets thinner higher up, so even if the winds are faster there may be
fewer molecules trying to push your structure over. I'm not sure the
analogy is exact (I'm sure I'll be told), but I'd imagine (say)
that rain gets going pretty fast by the time it falls a thousand feet
or so, but half an hour's worth doesn't push on you nearly as hard as
one large bucket of water tossed on you from a few feet away in one
second (she says, remembering her last white-water rafting trip).
Hope this helps,
Kennita
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:04 MST