| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Nanotechnology Forum » Slightly OT: Cloud Nines
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bootstrap Bill |
 Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I was googling Buckminster Fuller and found this. Unfortunately, I couldn't
find any real details.
Are these things doable? If so, why hasn't one been built yet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_nine_%28Tensegrity_sphere%29
Cloud nine (Tensegrity sphere)
Quote: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cloud nines are airborne habitats first proposed by Buckminster Fuller.
Fuller proposed that giant geodesic spheres might be made to levitate by
heating the air inside.
Geodesic spheres (structures of triangular components arranged to make a
sphere) become stronger as they become bigger, due to how they distribute
stress over their surfaces. Because of this, they may be imagined on
colossal scales.
As a sphere gets bigger, the volume it encloses grows much faster than the
volume of the enclosing structure itself. Fuller suggested that the mass of
a mile-wide geodesic sphere would be negligible compared to the mass of the
air trapped within it. He suggested that if the air inside such a sphere
were heated even by one degree higher than the ambient temperature of its
surroundings, the sphere could become airborne. He calculated that such a
balloon could lift a considerable mass, and hence that 'mini-cities' or
airborne towns of thousands of people could be built in this way. These
'cloud nines' could be tethered, or free-floating, or perhaps maneuverable
so that they could 'migrate' in response to climatic and environmental
conditions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perry E. Metzger |
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bootstrap Bill" <admin@NOSPAMfabsboards.com> writes:
Quote: I was googling Buckminster Fuller and found this. Unfortunately, I couldn't
find any real details.
Are these things doable? If so, why hasn't one been built yet/
Bucky Fuller came up with all sorts of ideas, some of them even
practical, but usually produced them faster than he could actually do
anything with them.
There is nothing per se wrong with the idea of giant floating geodesic
spheres -- even with fairly conventional construction materials, it
should be possible to build such things.
However, whether such habitats would be particularly in demand or even
practical financially is another question. Buildings a mile across are
not particularly cheap to build. On the other hand, there are places
in the U.S. where land is remarkably cheap, reflecting that
conventional places to build have not yet been played out. I suspect
no one has been interested in building floating cities out of geodesic
spheres because there is no demand for it.
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bootstrap Bill |
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:13cjf7jmm7osu15@news.supernews.com...
Quote: It would also be very hard to have such a thing do anything other
than drift with the wind which would not please air traffic controllers,
So
no matter how feasible they may be they really do not seem at all
desirable.
Fuller seems to think they could be tethered to a mountain.
I think they'd be very desirable. The first cruise ship company to build one
will make a fortune.
These things could also be used for condos, hotels and theme parks (imagine
what Disney could do with this).. The possibilities are endless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perry E. Metzger |
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bootstrap Bill" <admin@NOSPAMfabsboards.com> writes:
Quote: Fuller seems to think they could be tethered to a mountain.
I think they'd be very desirable. The first cruise ship company to
build one will make a fortune.
The world of venture capital is open to anyone that has a good enough
pitch to make.
If you're convinced that the scheme is feasible, you are free in our
society to go off and try it. That's the great thing about capitalism
-- there are no central planners you have to clear your idea
with. (Another great thing, which most people don't get, is that you
are also free to lose a fortune -- resources don't remain with those
who can't use them effectively, and instead flow to those with
talent demonstrated in the objective sphere of the market.)
Quote: These things could also be used for condos, hotels and theme parks
(imagine what Disney could do with this).. The possibilities are
endless.
I suspect the expense is also endless, as well as the potential
financial losses, while the potential for profit is slight and likely
nonexistent, but again, the great thing about our world is you don't
have to convince us that you're right, you can just go out and prove
it and make (or lose) a fortune in the process.
I suggest that if you're really sure this is an idea worth billions,
you should go out and make yourself billions at it. Nothing proves
you're right about what will make money quite like making money.
Perry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CoffeeBuz |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Try "Dyson Spheres"
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:12:12 -0000, "Bootstrap Bill"
<admin@NOSPAMfabsboards.com> wrote:
Quote:
I was googling Buckminster Fuller and found this. Unfortunately, I couldn't
find any real details.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CoffeeBuz |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whoops... sorry, ignore my last post. I just tried it and got all the
wrong stuff. I seem to recall Dyson postulating something similar, i
just can't seem to find the reference.
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:12:12 -0000, "Bootstrap Bill"
<admin@NOSPAMfabsboards.com> wrote:
Quote:
I was googling Buckminster Fuller and found this. Unfortunately, I couldn't
find any real details.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Toby Kelsey |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Quote: However, whether such habitats would be particularly in demand or even
practical financially is another question. Buildings a mile across are
not particularly cheap to build.
I imagine the occupied structures would be suspended from the sides or base of
the lifting volume, not forming the surface itself. You could control the
heating and lift by varying the surface reflectivity or venting, which could
also allow grounding in case of hurricanes or for repairs.
If land prices or air traffic is a problem you could build at sea with an anchor
or floating base, with water tanks allowing easy adjustment of ballast.
A judicious use of trade winds may be the most efficient method of relocation.
Cheap nanotech construction methods and materials could make a cloud-nine hotel
financially viable. Even a simple temperature- or light-sensitive surface which
switches colour between black and white would be useful for this project and
more generally for insulation or temperature-control applications. Even this
type of almost-dumb or slightly-smart material has great potential. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perry E. Metzger |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Toby Kelsey <toby.kelsey@gmail.com> writes:
Quote: Perry E. Metzger wrote:
However, whether such habitats would be particularly in demand or even
practical financially is another question. Buildings a mile across are
not particularly cheap to build.
I imagine the occupied structures would be suspended from the sides or base of
the lifting volume, not forming the surface itself.
A buckysphere a mile across, with appropriate strength of materials,
produced by conventional construction techniques, could not be
significantly less expensive to build than, say, a suspension bridge a
mile across. (In fact, it would almost certainly be many times more
expensive.) A suspension bridge a mile or more across is a
multibillion dollar item. So, we're talking about billions of dollars
in expense, even before you start putting in the houses etc.
I do not see many of these things being built while there is still
so much cheap and empty land out there.
Quote: Cheap nanotech construction methods and materials could make a
cloud-nine hotel financially viable.
Cheap nanotech would likely make all sorts of things possible. I agree
that you could build mile-wide floating buckyspheres given cheap
nanotechnology. However, the original poster asked "why hasn't this
been done yet", which implies "given current technology", and the
answer is likely that it is too expensive given current technology.
Of course, given cheap nanotech, it isn't clear that there would be
people (in the current sense), or hotels for people to stay in (in the
current sense) for very long.
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0.o |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 19, 11:33 pm, "Perry E. Metzger" <pe...@piermont.com> wrote:
Quote: "Bootstrap Bill" <ad...@NOSPAMfabsboards.com> writes:
I was googling Buckminster Fuller and found this. Unfortunately, I couldn't
find any real details.
Are these things doable? If so, why hasn't one been built yet/
Bucky Fuller came up with all sorts of ideas, some of them even
practical, but usually produced them faster than he could actually do
anything with them.
There is nothing per se wrong with the idea of giant floating geodesic
spheres -- even with fairly conventional construction materials, it
should be possible to build such things.
However, whether such habitats would be particularly in demand or even
practical financially is another question. Buildings a mile across are
not particularly cheap to build. On the other hand, there are places
in the U.S. where land is remarkably cheap, reflecting that
conventional places to build have not yet been played out. I suspect
no one has been interested in building floating cities out of geodesic
spheres because there is no demand for it.
--
Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.com
with current cross-discplinary studies making strides and advances
(This is OT but in my head, relevant) and applying them to specific
fields based on the
background of the single researcher/applier or some personal focal of
whatever group is working with cross-discipline studies, perhaps it
just hasn't popped up along the lines of 'being useful' /yet/. taking
the relevancy arguement into account, I imagine B. F. would have had
unique viewpoints based upon his background and paradigm. The gods'
only know what he was inspired by besides what it listed in his
biographies and what "can be derived via context" from his works.
Not even I know what I just said, but what I meant was, he was a
unique and singular individual from what I can gather, and as his
works continue to inspire many professionals and amateurs across the
board, his Vision seems rather occult or obfuscated to us all; ala
"Wow, that guys is mysterious, he excelled greatly in many fields, I
wonder how I could do that" leading to arch-typing him; putting him on
a pedestal may interfere with other's works that are in progress, as
"I dont know what he was thinking, or how he could've come out with
such a simple, elegant solution" would lead to those exposed to that
particular novel approach not doing the work to come to the same
conlusion; merely artificing and detracting/adding what they can.
Thomas Delphiki - 0.asuka...@gmail.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Toby Kelsey |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Quote: A buckysphere a mile across, with appropriate strength of materials,
produced by conventional construction techniques, could not be
significantly less expensive to build than, say, a suspension bridge a
mile across. (In fact, it would almost certainly be many times more
expensive.) A suspension bridge a mile or more across is a
multibillion dollar item. So, we're talking about billions of dollars
in expense, even before you start putting in the houses etc.
A conventional self-supported structure like a bridge or skyscraper requires
higher technology and gets more expensive per unit volume with size due to
well-known scaling laws relating strength and mass. That is why your bridge is
expensive. However a skin supported by buoyancy need not get more expensive per
unit area with size once an adequate level of collision and wind protection is
reached, so the cost does not increase in the same way. The available
accommodation, and overall materials quantity and cost, should both vary as r^2.
To a first approximation then, the cost per occupant should be the same
independent of size. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perry E. Metzger |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Toby Kelsey <toby.kelsey@gmail.com> writes:
Quote: Perry E. Metzger wrote:
A buckysphere a mile across, with appropriate strength of materials,
produced by conventional construction techniques, could not be
significantly less expensive to build than, say, a suspension bridge a
mile across. (In fact, it would almost certainly be many times more
expensive.) A suspension bridge a mile or more across is a
multibillion dollar item. So, we're talking about billions of dollars
in expense, even before you start putting in the houses etc.
A conventional self-supported structure like a bridge or skyscraper
requires higher technology and gets more expensive per unit volume
with size due to well-known scaling laws relating strength and mass.
That is why your bridge is expensive. However a skin supported by
buoyancy need not get more expensive per unit area with size once an
adequate level of collision and wind protection is reached, so the
cost does not increase in the same way.
A buckysphere on the order of a mile across has something on the order
three square miles of steel trusswork.
I suggest that you sit down with a calculator and figure out how much
money the steel alone will cost.
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bootstrap Bill |
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote in message
news:13cs9f6klfq2587@news.supernews.com...
Quote: A buckysphere on the order of a mile across has something on the order
three square miles of steel trusswork.
I suggest that you sit down with a calculator and figure out how much
money the steel alone will cost.
How does that compare with the price of real estate in an urban area like
Orange County, California, or NYC?
Does an acre of steel cost more than say an acre of Irvine, California?
If not, I think it might be worth considering. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Perry E. Metzger |
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bootstrap Bill" <admin@NOSPAMfabsboards.com> writes:
Quote: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote in message
news:13cs9f6klfq2587@news.supernews.com...
A buckysphere on the order of a mile across has something on the order
three square miles of steel trusswork.
I suggest that you sit down with a calculator and figure out how much
money the steel alone will cost.
How does that compare with the price of real estate in an urban area like
Orange County, California, or NYC?
It does not compare very well, as it happens. New York City is not
nearly so dear in most locations. Yes, some sections of midtown would
probably be more expensive, but not by a lot, and probably if you
judged by volume rather than area New York would still be cheaper.
I also would humbly suggest that a sphere floating in a random spot is
unlikely to be nearly so desirable as a chunk of Midtown Manhattan.
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:47 pm
|
|
