From: joshua geller (dclxvi_at_best.com)
Date: 04/19/98
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 19:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804200213.TAA14602@shell5.ba.best.com> From: joshua geller <dclxvi_at_best.com> Subject: Re: Been kinda quiet, lately...
The Butterfly writes:
> OK, enough materials properties lecture. It's just that, after a
> decade of studying the "more with less" principles of Design Science, it
> really irks me to see people equate "strong" with "reinforced concrete."
> :-)
there's something else that reinforced concrete is, besides being
reasonably strong. two more things, actually.
> To redesign for flight means to step away from all that is
> traditional in building construction, and to rethink everything. It's
> necessary, and worth it.
this is true.
> :-)
^^^|
-why do you use this stupid thing?
> Yes, and also, it's good to keep in mind that technology is
> advancing at an ever-accellerating rate. To design something for the future
> using todays standards is to build in obsolescense from the get-go.
it's also good to keep in mind that what goes up must come down, and
that technology is not (and never has been) evenly distributed across
the planet.
> Instead, I like to employ the technique of looking ahead to when
> you want your finished product, and design to take advantage of
> technological advances as they come. Essentially, you pick your point in
> time, and design to *intercept* that point, rather than designing to carry
> forward some old tech from what is now current time.
these are good words.
> See what I mean? If you generalize the principle, you know you'll
> need gas bladders and rigid frames and outer skins that are UV-tolerant. Up
> until the actual time of construction, though, the moment when you decide
> to cast the design in matter, not digital models or strategic planning like
> we're now doing, you probably want to avoid committing to one specific
> material, since something new will come along.
these are also good words, pat. what have you built?
best,
josh