Re: ball connection

From: J. Michael Rowland (rowley_at_telalink.net)
Date: 03/21/00


Message-Id: <200003220624.AAA03624@mail.telalink.net>
Subject: Re: ball connection
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 00 00:22:02 -0600
From: "J. Michael Rowland" <rowley_at_telalink.net>


Pat and Chuck conversed thusly:

>> (Domes get stronger the more elements you have to
>> disperse stresses, so a 4 is stronger than a 3, a
>> 5 stronger than 4, etc.)...
>
> ...
> I happen to agree with you...higher frequency is better.
> But, there comes a point of diminishing returns.

I've also been told (and have demonstrated for myself) that
higher-frequency geodesics are less prone to catastrophic failure (due to
local buckling), but are more prone to dimpling -- unless the thickness
of the skin is enhanced by inter-vertexial chords. Which means, to the
hub designer, that some additional sockets -- maybe two "layers" of them
in each hub -- are in order, the second "layer" at a different angle than
the first.

Hmmm... I read back over this, and even I don't understand what I'm
trying to say here. I'll do a drawing....

jmr



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