[nick@ece.vill.edu: Re: Domes lighter once built than their component parts? (Need a reference)]

From: joshua geller (dclxvi_at_best.com)
Date: 05/14/98


Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199805141805.LAA26079@shell5.ba.best.com>
From: joshua geller <dclxvi_at_best.com>
Subject: [nick_at_ece.vill.edu: Re: Domes lighter once built than their component parts? (Need a reference)]

The Butterfly writes:
> Still looking for the actual reference, but here's some math from one guy
> on the GEODESIC list...

> Nick Pine <nick_at_ece.vill.edu> writes:

PS > >Does anyone remember the reference for how a dome weighs less
PS > >once it's build than its component parts, due to the lifting
PS > >force of the air mass inside it? I think it's probably mainly
PS > >for larger buildings, like the 450' one in Southern California.

> I don't recall reading that anywhere, but it makes sense. If the dome
> is airtight at the top and warmer and/or more humid than the outdoors,
> the air inside will have a bouyant force, like a hot air balloon.

notice the two caveats; the dome must be airtight. I will add that it
if it is transparent you will get a greenhouse effect and the air will
be hotter.

> 70 F moist air weighs 0.073 lb/ft^3, and 30 F moist air weighs 0.081, and
> a 450' hemisphere contains 47.7 million cubic feet of air, so a 70 F dome
> might weigh 47.7x10^6(0.081-0.073) = 360K pounds or 180 tons less on an
> average 30 F January day in Philadelphia.

there you have it: if your 450 foot dome can be built weighing less
than 180 tons, it will have some static lift. I would guess that the
dome in LA weighs several orders of magnitude more than this.

now perhaps you have some understanding of the scale of the problem.

best,

josh



Brought to you by Reality Sculptors
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6.