info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
SF Idea - Mega Cities
316 views
Skip to first unread message
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly
Apr 6, 2015, 10:49:39 AM4/6/15
to
'MEGA-CITIES'
The idea of Mega-Cities is to put aside a suburb of about a square kilometre. You build huge skyscrapers in the suburb - 2 dozen or so - going up 3 or 4 miles or even more. One of the scrapers is a food production scraper. You have a sewerage system in the basement, you use a series of mirrors to reflect the natural light from outside on each level, you have solar powered sheets on the walls of the scraper for energy, and wind turbine energy generator on the roof. On the hundreds of levels you have aquaculture, horticulture and farming industry. Use soil - the world has plenty of it - and place earth and grow grass on the soil within each level. The natural lighting from the mirrors helps it grow and with the energy from the solar and wind generators you can use additional lighting if necessary. There needs to be appropriate air conditioning and appropriate water recycling systems used for the food tower. In the remaining scrapers you simply house people. With the huge height of the mega city scrapers we can now build, potentially millions of people or more could fit in a standard suburban mega city.
http://noahidebooks.angelfire.com
The idea of Mega-Cities is to put aside a suburb of about a square kilometre. You build huge skyscrapers in the suburb - 2 dozen or so - going up 3 or 4 miles or even more. One of the scrapers is a food production scraper. You have a sewerage system in the basement, you use a series of mirrors to reflect the natural light from outside on each level, you have solar powered sheets on the walls of the scraper for energy, and wind turbine energy generator on the roof. On the hundreds of levels you have aquaculture, horticulture and farming industry. Use soil - the world has plenty of it - and place earth and grow grass on the soil within each level. The natural lighting from the mirrors helps it grow and with the energy from the solar and wind generators you can use additional lighting if necessary. There needs to be appropriate air conditioning and appropriate water recycling systems used for the food tower. In the remaining scrapers you simply house people. With the huge height of the mega city scrapers we can now build, potentially millions of people or more could fit in a standard suburban mega city.
http://noahidebooks.angelfire.com
Greg Goss
Apr 6, 2015, 11:07:45 AM4/6/15
to
You're reflecting it into the interior and ALSO using it for solar
cells. Choose one.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
William December Starr
Apr 6, 2015, 11:14:39 AM4/6/15
to
In article <d341d33c-fc4e-440a...@googlegroups.com>,
-- wds
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly <noahidebo...@gmail.com> said:
> 'MEGA-CITIES'
>
> The idea of Mega-Cities is to put aside a suburb of about a square
> kilometre. You build huge skyscrapers in the suburb - 2 dozen or
> so - going up 3 or 4 miles or even more. One of the scrapers is a
> food production scraper. You have a sewerage system in the
> basement,
And in the sub-basement, and in the sub-sub-basement, and...
> 'MEGA-CITIES'
>
> The idea of Mega-Cities is to put aside a suburb of about a square
> kilometre. You build huge skyscrapers in the suburb - 2 dozen or
> so - going up 3 or 4 miles or even more. One of the scrapers is a
> food production scraper. You have a sewerage system in the
> basement,
-- wds
lal_truckee
Apr 6, 2015, 12:35:01 PM4/6/15
to
School of Architecture.
Shawn Wilson
Apr 6, 2015, 2:16:16 PM4/6/15
to
On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 7:49:39 AM UTC-7, Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly wrote:
> 'MEGA-CITIES'
> The idea of Mega-Cities is to put aside a suburb of about a square kilometre...
> 'MEGA-CITIES'
Yeah, OK. Why? We aren't short of land. Also, elevators are expensive.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 6, 2015, 2:19:37 PM4/6/15
to
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:40aa4dd6-f797-42be...@googlegroups.com:
And take up an increasing percentage of the building as the height of
the building goes up. IIRC, the World Trade Center buildings were 25%
elevator, and that was a revolutionary new design that cut the space
needed down quite a bit.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:40aa4dd6-f797-42be...@googlegroups.com:
the building goes up. IIRC, the World Trade Center buildings were 25%
elevator, and that was a revolutionary new design that cut the space
needed down quite a bit.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Mike Dworetsky
Apr 7, 2015, 3:27:12 AM4/7/15
to
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly wrote:
mechanical or power failure so the elevators stop working*, or there is a
fire, or a terrorist attack, or even an accident where an aircraft crashes
into the building?
*Not only can they not get down, or return to their homes, but food and
other supplies cannot reach them.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
J. Clarke
Apr 7, 2015, 5:39:07 AM4/7/15
to
In article <xqOdnTlX1tZRG77I...@supernews.com>, platinum198
@pants.btinternet.com says...
There is this invention which you might find to be of interest. It is
called "stairs". Not recommended for every day use going from street
level to the top floor of the Burj Khalifa, but will get you down in a
pinch.
@pants.btinternet.com says...
called "stairs". Not recommended for every day use going from street
level to the top floor of the Burj Khalifa, but will get you down in a
pinch.
Quadibloc
Apr 7, 2015, 6:02:12 AM4/7/15
to
On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 12:16:16 PM UTC-6, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> We aren't short of land.
Cities tend to be located where there is something for the people in them to do.
> We aren't short of land.
At natural transportation hubs like harbors, for example. Thus, it has indeed
been a problem that when they expand, they tend to do so into the best prime
farmland, which is increasingly scarce.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Apr 7, 2015, 6:04:26 AM4/7/15
to
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 1:27:12 AM UTC-6, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> What happens to the people living hundreds of stories up when there is a
> mechanical or power failure so the elevators stop working*, or there is a
> fire, or a terrorist attack, or even an accident where an aircraft crashes
> into the building?
In The Future, such things seldom happen, except when a mad scientist provides
> What happens to the people living hundreds of stories up when there is a
> mechanical or power failure so the elevators stop working*, or there is a
> fire, or a terrorist attack, or even an accident where an aircraft crashes
> into the building?
a plot for a novel about Ralph 124C41+ or a comic book about Magnus, the Robot
Fighter, stopping the mad scientist's evil plot.
John Savard
pete...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2015, 1:18:14 PM4/7/15
to
The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
Pt
Pt
Mike Dworetsky
Apr 8, 2015, 2:21:18 AM4/8/15
to
(millions?). Once people near the top climbed down thousands of flights of
stairs, the sheer numbers of emergency situations will overwhelm providers
of food, medical services, temporary accommodation, etc. And anyone not fit
to do this (anything from wheelchair users to people with crutches or
sprained ankles, or heart conditions) will be stuck.
If there is a fire, the stairs might not be useable.
For towers this high, using stairs to get back up is not a realistic
proposition, except for Olympic athletes, and even then maybe not.
>
>> *Not only can they not get down, or return to their homes, but food
>> and other supplies cannot reach them.
J. Clarke
Apr 8, 2015, 6:32:14 AM4/8/15
to
In article <WOmdnXuyOuJGVbnI...@supernews.com>, platinum198
@pants.btinternet.com says...
We'll see. Buildings are getting taller and we're going to adapt one
way or another. There do seem to be residents of the Burj who would
rather walk up than pay for services.
However as an emergency escape for multi-mile-high buildings the
parachute beomes a very viable option.
Dealing with refugess is another issue, but areas with large numbers of
residents have been rendered uninhabitable before and we dealt.
@pants.btinternet.com says...
way or another. There do seem to be residents of the Burj who would
rather walk up than pay for services.
However as an emergency escape for multi-mile-high buildings the
parachute beomes a very viable option.
Dealing with refugess is another issue, but areas with large numbers of
residents have been rendered uninhabitable before and we dealt.
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly
Apr 8, 2015, 11:42:15 AM4/8/15
to
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:18:14 AM UTC+10, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
> Pt
I wasn't trying to rip off Robert Silverberg, who is a writer I have read and respect. It was some of my own thinking, but I do know that the concepts have been around before and likely used by various SF writers. I felt the idea, though, was a good one for discussion, and could be utilized again in writings of various kinds. I'm not trying to offend anybody, or rip off anybody. Thanks. Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly.
> The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
> Pt
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly
Apr 8, 2015, 11:48:28 AM4/8/15
to
Daniel Thomas Andrew Daly
http://noahidebooks.angelfire.com
David DeLaney
Apr 8, 2015, 6:22:54 PM4/8/15
to
and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
(But yeah, he does seem to have that "Look at this bright shiny new idea which
nobody else has ever had! Surely this will drive views to my website, whose
URL is appended, THIS time!!" attitude.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
Apr 8, 2015, 6:48:01 PM4/8/15
to
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 6:22:54 PM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
>
> (But yeah, he does seem to have that "Look at this bright shiny new idea which
> nobody else has ever had! Surely this will drive views to my website, whose
> URL is appended, THIS time!!" attitude.)
>
> Dave
> --
..but I recognize "noahide," and flee! flee! flee!
> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
>
> (But yeah, he does seem to have that "Look at this bright shiny new idea which
> nobody else has ever had! Surely this will drive views to my website, whose
> URL is appended, THIS time!!" attitude.)
>
> Dave
> --
Kevin R
Greg Goss
Apr 9, 2015, 12:50:23 AM4/9/15
to
David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
>> Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
>> the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
>> Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
>Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
>and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
>
>(But yeah, he does seem to have that "Look at this bright shiny new idea which
>nobody else has ever had! Surely this will drive views to my website, whose
>URL is appended, THIS time!!" attitude.)
I would say that arcology design changed dramatically in the
>On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
>> Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
>> the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
>> Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
>Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
>and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
>
>(But yeah, he does seem to have that "Look at this bright shiny new idea which
>nobody else has ever had! Surely this will drive views to my website, whose
>URL is appended, THIS time!!" attitude.)
seventies, so would point to books after that point. I'm a
Niven/Pournelle fan, so I point to Oath of Fealty, but I'm sure that
there many other post-Soleri examples.
D.F. Manno
Apr 18, 2015, 8:29:52 PM4/18/15
to
In article <MPG.2f8ecdbc2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
surrounded by smoke and/or flames, are going to have the time and the
presence of mind to properly don a parachute and jump out of a building
without getting entangled with any other jumpers, without getting sucked
into the roaring inferno.
BASE jumpers slam into the sides of buildings when something goes wrong,
and you'll have thousands of people far less skilled and prepared diving
at once.
(It will be a roaring inferno because it's impossible to fight a fire
that high up. Firefighters won't be able to climb hundreds of flight of
steps weighed down by equipment and hose. And even if they could, where
are they going to get the water?)
And you've twice ignored the fact that not everybody in the building
will be physically able to evacuate.
And relying on parachutes means most if not all windows in the building
will have to be capable of being opened. When living in these miles-high
Skinner boxes starts driving people crazy, it'll start raining men. And
women. And teens.
Not to mention the toddlers who accidentally fall.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However as an emergency escape for multi-mile-high buildings the
> parachute beomes a very viable option.
Because thousands of people, panicked, frightened, and perhaps
> However as an emergency escape for multi-mile-high buildings the
> parachute beomes a very viable option.
surrounded by smoke and/or flames, are going to have the time and the
presence of mind to properly don a parachute and jump out of a building
without getting entangled with any other jumpers, without getting sucked
into the roaring inferno.
BASE jumpers slam into the sides of buildings when something goes wrong,
and you'll have thousands of people far less skilled and prepared diving
at once.
(It will be a roaring inferno because it's impossible to fight a fire
that high up. Firefighters won't be able to climb hundreds of flight of
steps weighed down by equipment and hose. And even if they could, where
are they going to get the water?)
And you've twice ignored the fact that not everybody in the building
will be physically able to evacuate.
And relying on parachutes means most if not all windows in the building
will have to be capable of being opened. When living in these miles-high
Skinner boxes starts driving people crazy, it'll start raining men. And
women. And teens.
Not to mention the toddlers who accidentally fall.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!
Robert Carnegie
Apr 21, 2015, 11:00:17 PM4/21/15
to
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:22:54 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
I was trying to remember the word for a self-sufficient
> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
>
> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
mass dwelling - "mall, no that's wrong..."
Structurally, if you're going "real big", there's still
a lot to be said for pyramids...
You can do hydroponic gardening inside, under electric
lights...
I think there is a reasonable question "why". It's still
cheaper to live somewhere else. And there are advances
in telepresence.
Paul Colquhoun
Apr 21, 2015, 11:49:17 PM4/21/15
to
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:00:13 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
| On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:22:54 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
|> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
|> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
|> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
|> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
|> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
|>
|> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
|> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
|
| I was trying to remember the word for a self-sufficient
| mass dwelling - "mall, no that's wrong..."
Arcology?
| On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:22:54 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
|> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
|> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
|> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
|> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
|> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
|>
|> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
|> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
|
| I was trying to remember the word for a self-sufficient
| mass dwelling - "mall, no that's wrong..."
| Structurally, if you're going "real big", there's still
| a lot to be said for pyramids...
Niven & Pournelle had a big rectangular block, with inverted pyramids
cut into the roof as light wells (IIRC) in "Oath of Fealty". Still left
enough flat space on the roof for sports fields and other recreational
areas.
| You can do hydroponic gardening inside, under electric
| lights...
|
| I think there is a reasonable question "why". It's still
| cheaper to live somewhere else. And there are advances
| in telepresence.
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Greg Goss
Apr 22, 2015, 12:25:48 AM4/22/15
to
Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>| Structurally, if you're going "real big", there's still
>| a lot to be said for pyramids...
>
>
>Except for no flat roof space.
>
>Niven & Pournelle had a big rectangular block, with inverted pyramids
>cut into the roof as light wells (IIRC) in "Oath of Fealty". Still left
>enough flat space on the roof for sports fields and other recreational
>areas.
Yeah, but the designer figured that the huge walls created a
>| Structurally, if you're going "real big", there's still
>| a lot to be said for pyramids...
>
>
>Except for no flat roof space.
>
>Niven & Pournelle had a big rectangular block, with inverted pyramids
>cut into the roof as light wells (IIRC) in "Oath of Fealty". Still left
>enough flat space on the roof for sports fields and other recreational
>areas.
under-the-fortress mentality among the people who surrounded the
arcology, and figured he would do some other shape for his next one.
Dimensional Traveler
Apr 22, 2015, 1:50:04 AM4/22/15
to
shadow for half the day?
--
Veni, vidi, snarki.
David DeLaney
Apr 22, 2015, 5:56:52 AM4/22/15
to
On 2015-04-22, Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
Dave, will align stars for food
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>| Structurally, if you're going "real big", there's still
>| a lot to be said for pyramids...
>
> Except for no flat roof space.
Well, make it a ziggurat then. Presto, ALL flat roof space.
>| Structurally, if you're going "real big", there's still
>| a lot to be said for pyramids...
>
> Except for no flat roof space.
Dave, will align stars for food
Lynn McGuire
Apr 22, 2015, 4:11:30 PM4/22/15
to
> Not to mention the toddlers who accidentally fall.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/21/nyregion/eric-clapton-s-son-killed-in-a-49-story-fall.html
"The 4 1/2-year-old son of the rock guitarist Eric Clapton was killed yesterday morning when he fell out an open bedroom window on
the 53d floor of a Manhattan apartment building."
"The boy, Conor, who was dressed in red pajamas and slippers, landed on the roof of a four-story building next to Galleria
Condominiums, a 57-story building where the boy was staying with his mother, the police said."
Lynn
Robert Carnegie
Apr 23, 2015, 5:00:06 PM4/23/15
to
On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:11:30 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > Not to mention the toddlers who accidentally fall.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/21/nyregion/eric-clapton-s-son-killed-in-a-49-story-fall.html
Y'know, if someone says "not to mention" a thing,
> > Not to mention the toddlers who accidentally fall.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/21/nyregion/eric-clapton-s-son-killed-in-a-49-story-fall.html
it's worth considering that you could not mention it.
All kids in my arcology will be in a permanent bungee
cord harness. Then if the kid does fall out a window,
they come back.
Robert Carnegie
Apr 23, 2015, 5:20:25 PM4/23/15
to
On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 04:49:17 UTC+1, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:00:13 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> | On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:22:54 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> |> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> |> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
> |> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
> |> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
> |> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
> |>
> |> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
> |> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
> |
> | I was trying to remember the word for a self-sufficient
> | mass dwelling - "mall, no that's wrong..."
>
> Arcology?
It's on the tip of my tongue... no, don't tell me...
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 20:00:13 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> | On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 23:22:54 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> |> On 2015-04-07, pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> |> > The OP is ignorant is SF history. This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The
> |> > Machine Stops, in 1909. Many others too, I'll just mention Asimov as perhaps
> |> > the most famous. The OPs description is also close to a direct ripoff of
> |> > Silverberg's 1971 The World Inside.
> |>
> |> Well, give him credit - he _may_ just be ignorant about the word "arcology"
> |> and how to look up SF that uses that concept, which is closely related.
> |
> | I was trying to remember the word for a self-sufficient
> | mass dwelling - "mall, no that's wrong..."
>
> Arcology?
Dimensional Traveler
Apr 23, 2015, 11:40:03 PM4/23/15
to
windows open.
--
Veni, vidi, snarki.
Cryptoengineer
Apr 24, 2015, 12:09:05 AM4/24/15
to
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:5539bad4$0$36580$742e...@news.sonic.net:
That's a recent innovation. The office windows of the Empire State Building
open (at least they did when it was built - I don't know about now).
pt
news:5539bad4$0$36580$742e...@news.sonic.net:
open (at least they did when it was built - I don't know about now).
pt
Steve Coltrin
Apr 24, 2015, 12:50:25 AM4/24/15
to
begin fnord
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't let
> the windows open.
You can _always_ open the windows. Just ask Garry Hoy.
> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't let
> the windows open.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
Dimensional Traveler
Apr 24, 2015, 11:40:04 PM4/24/15
to
On 4/23/2015 9:50 PM, Steve Coltrin wrote:
> begin fnord
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't let
>> the windows open.
>
> You can _always_ open the windows. Just ask Garry Hoy.
>
Somehow I don't think his method of opening windows would work as well
> begin fnord
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't let
>> the windows open.
>
> You can _always_ open the windows. Just ask Garry Hoy.
>
as a toddler. :)
--
Veni, vidi, snarki.
D.F. Manno
Apr 25, 2015, 10:00:53 PM4/25/15
to
In article <5539bad4$0$36580$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > All kids in my arcology will be in a permanent bungee
> > cord harness. Then if the kid does fall out a window,
> > they come back.
> >
> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't let the
> windows open.
Since this subthread offered the idea of evacuating a burning arcology
by parachute, sealing the windows is not an option.
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 4/23/2015 2:00 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:11:30 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >>> Not to mention the toddlers who accidentally fall.
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/21/nyregion/eric-clapton-s-son-killed-in-a-4
> >> 9-story-fall.html
> >
> > Y'know, if someone says "not to mention" a thing,
> > it's worth considering that you could not mention it.
The war on idioms continues.
> On 4/23/2015 2:00 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 21:11:30 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >
> >>> Not to mention the toddlers who accidentally fall.
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/21/nyregion/eric-clapton-s-son-killed-in-a-4
> >> 9-story-fall.html
> >
> > Y'know, if someone says "not to mention" a thing,
> > it's worth considering that you could not mention it.
> > All kids in my arcology will be in a permanent bungee
> > cord harness. Then if the kid does fall out a window,
> > they come back.
> >
> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't let the
> windows open.
by parachute, sealing the windows is not an option.
William December Starr
Apr 27, 2015, 7:27:16 PM4/27/15
to
In article <55373484$0$36522$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nanotech-skylight-looks-just-like-sun-shining-overhead/
-- wds
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> said:
> Wasn't it also a problem that it kept half of the rest of the city
> in shadow for half the day?
But see:
> Wasn't it also a problem that it kept half of the rest of the city
> in shadow for half the day?
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nanotech-skylight-looks-just-like-sun-shining-overhead/
-- wds
William December Starr
Apr 27, 2015, 7:37:30 PM4/27/15
to
In article <m2tww6q...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
the Dark Tower books did it deliberately in a "death is _far_ better
than what'll happen when these monsters that have me cornered finish
gloating and grab me" scenarios.
(How to catch a roomful of gloating evil monsters flat-footed: run
_towards_ them.)
-- wds
Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't
>> let the windows open.
>
> You can _always_ open the windows. Just ask Garry Hoy.
Or, ObSFnally, Stephen King's Father Don Callahan, who in one of
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> Or you could just do what modern high-rise buildings do. Don't
>> let the windows open.
>
> You can _always_ open the windows. Just ask Garry Hoy.
the Dark Tower books did it deliberately in a "death is _far_ better
than what'll happen when these monsters that have me cornered finish
gloating and grab me" scenarios.
(How to catch a roomful of gloating evil monsters flat-footed: run
_towards_ them.)
-- wds
Cryptoengineer
Apr 28, 2015, 11:03:26 PM4/28/15
to
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
news:mhmgki$n8i$1...@panix2.panix.com:
Relevant to the OP:
http://www.oxoarch.com/front/project/la-tour-des-sables
if you need english:
http://www.gizmag.com/city-sand-tower-oxo-architectes/36964/
pt
news:mhmgki$n8i$1...@panix2.panix.com:
http://www.oxoarch.com/front/project/la-tour-des-sables
if you need english:
http://www.gizmag.com/city-sand-tower-oxo-architectes/36964/
pt
Tim McDaniel
May 5, 2015, 1:06:36 AM5/5/15
to
In article <c284d7fa-0d52-41c7...@googlegroups.com>,
Well, to be precise, "The Machine Stops" had the buildings
underground, not aboveground.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Well, to be precise, "The Machine Stops" had the buildings
underground, not aboveground.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
William December Starr
May 5, 2015, 5:12:50 PM5/5/15
to
In article <mi9j4q$1jn$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
-- wds
tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) said:
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The Machine Stops, in
>> 1909.
>
> Well, to be precise, "The Machine Stops" had the buildings
> underground, not aboveground.
Once you stop having (external) windows, does it really matter?
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This trope is old. EM Forster did it in The Machine Stops, in
>> 1909.
>
> Well, to be precise, "The Machine Stops" had the buildings
> underground, not aboveground.
-- wds
monte...@gmail.com
May 5, 2015, 11:01:06 PM5/5/15
to
You run into serious issues of the safe compressive stress limits of concrete well before you get to 5 miles tall.
Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit economic reason.
In genera
http://www.sustasis.net/Tall-Buildings.pdf
Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit economic reason.
In genera
http://www.sustasis.net/Tall-Buildings.pdf
Steve Coltrin
May 6, 2015, 12:06:55 AM5/6/15
to
begin fnord
And in a world without Windows, who needs Gates?
...uh...
Sorry, wrong newsgroup.
...uh...
Sorry, wrong newsgroup.
Greg Goss
May 6, 2015, 8:57:19 AM5/6/15
to
real estate prices result in "practical" buildings being affordable up
to about 55 stories, and that any buildings taller than that are
justifying someone's ego.
Robert Carnegie
May 6, 2015, 4:44:20 PM5/6/15
to
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 04:01:06 UTC+1, monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> You run into serious issues of the safe compressive stress limits of concrete well before you get to 5 miles tall.
>
> Aside from that it is not economical to build that high.
> It is hard to economically justify taller buildings that
> exist now. Tall modern office buildings have a hard
> time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and
> with no explicit economic reason.
The economics probably change a bit if it isn't the
> You run into serious issues of the safe compressive stress limits of concrete well before you get to 5 miles tall.
>
> Aside from that it is not economical to build that high.
> It is hard to economically justify taller buildings that
> exist now. Tall modern office buildings have a hard
> time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and
> with no explicit economic reason.
sort of building that people enter and leave, or vice
versa, every day. That people just live inside
permanently.
But I suppose that doesn't really address the question
of height.
_Red Dwarf_ is a sci-fi comedy TV show - and books -
mostly set in a gigantic deserted former "mining ship"
from the Solar System, with a handful of survivors
from vanished human civilisation... once, the team
embarked on an elevator journey that took several
hours, with in-flight catering and movie; just as
a joke, of course.
Crew, 169 (when first stated) - not the elevator,
the whole ship;
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dwarf_spacecraft>
blames budget cuts in the space industry, and
wilful disregard of story continuity.
As usual in spaceship shows filmed on Sol Three,
the artificial gravity is /extremely/ reliable.
David DeLaney
May 7, 2015, 1:06:08 AM5/7/15
to
On 2015-05-06, monte...@gmail.com <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You run into serious issues of the safe compressive stress limits of concrete
> well before you get to 5 miles tall.
>
> Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
> economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office
> buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit
> economic reason.
Plus which, the reason nearly nobody expects, which the xkcd what-if book went
> You run into serious issues of the safe compressive stress limits of concrete
> well before you get to 5 miles tall.
>
> Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
> economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office
> buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit
> economic reason.
into: an increasing percentage of the building's floor plan gets taken up by
elevators as it gets taller, and you reach a point where some of the floors
have to be ENTiRELY devoted to elevator space, at which point it doesn't make
sense to try to make it any taller...
Dave
monte...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 9:26:12 AM5/7/15
to
Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators? The original world trade center had a good system using express elevators that would stop only every 20 (as I recall) floors, and were very fast, and local elevators that used the same floor space as local elevators on any group of 20 floors.
This guy's claim of 5 mile high buildings is absurd, so let us restrict it to a say 4800 foot building with 12 foot stories or 400 floors. Express elevators travel top to bottom with local elevators for every say 40 floors. 10 possible stops for the express elevator, 40 stops for a local elevator. Say five express and five local shafts. If the building is 800 foot by 800 foot square, this works fine.
My point is -- how is this building going to be economically justified? Why would investors pay to have it built? It would be hidiously expensive.
This guy's claim of 5 mile high buildings is absurd, so let us restrict it to a say 4800 foot building with 12 foot stories or 400 floors. Express elevators travel top to bottom with local elevators for every say 40 floors. 10 possible stops for the express elevator, 40 stops for a local elevator. Say five express and five local shafts. If the building is 800 foot by 800 foot square, this works fine.
My point is -- how is this building going to be economically justified? Why would investors pay to have it built? It would be hidiously expensive.
leif...@dimnakorr.com
May 7, 2015, 9:35:15 AM5/7/15
to
monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?
Because the ground-floor is a bottle-neck: no matter what floor you're going
> Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?
to (or coming from) you have to pass through the ground floor. In other
words, the maximum flow of people into the whole building is limited to the
maximum capacity of the elevators on the ground floor -- regardless of how
the elevators are organized further up in the building.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Scott Lurndal
May 7, 2015, 10:21:30 AM5/7/15
to
monte...@gmail.com writes:
>Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?=
> The original world trade center had a good system using express elevators=
> that would stop only every 20 (as I recall) floors, and were very fast, an=
>d local elevators that used the same floor space as local elevators on any =
>group of 20 floors.
>
>This guy's claim of 5 mile high buildings is absurd, so let us restrict it =
>to a say 4800 foot building with 12 foot stories or 400 floors. Express el=
>evators travel top to bottom with local elevators for every say 40 floors. =
> 10 possible stops for the express elevator, 40 stops for a local elevator.=
> Say five express and five local shafts. If the building is 800 foot by 8=
of the elevator shaft - the ropes get heavier as they get longer.
It wouldn't be feasible to run a single shaft from "top to bottom".
And as pointed out by lief, the ability to move people to the
elevators requires space as well.
"Elevators travelling distances of more than 500m [1,640 ft] were not
feasible as the weight of the [steel] ropes themselves become so large
that more ropes were needed to carry the ropes themselves."
"After nine years of rigorous testing, it [Kone] has released Ultrarope - a
material composed of carbon-fibre covered in a friction-proof coating.
It weighs a seventh of the steel cables, so is more energy efficient, has
twice the lifespan, and most notably, it makes lifts of up to 1km (0.6 miles)
in height a lot easier to build."
>Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?=
> The original world trade center had a good system using express elevators=
> that would stop only every 20 (as I recall) floors, and were very fast, an=
>d local elevators that used the same floor space as local elevators on any =
>group of 20 floors.
>
>This guy's claim of 5 mile high buildings is absurd, so let us restrict it =
>to a say 4800 foot building with 12 foot stories or 400 floors. Express el=
>evators travel top to bottom with local elevators for every say 40 floors. =
> 10 possible stops for the express elevator, 40 stops for a local elevator.=
> Say five express and five local shafts. If the building is 800 foot by 8=
>00 foot square, this works fine.
For overhead traction elevators, there is a limit on the overall height
of the elevator shaft - the ropes get heavier as they get longer.
It wouldn't be feasible to run a single shaft from "top to bottom".
And as pointed out by lief, the ability to move people to the
elevators requires space as well.
"Elevators travelling distances of more than 500m [1,640 ft] were not
feasible as the weight of the [steel] ropes themselves become so large
that more ropes were needed to carry the ropes themselves."
"After nine years of rigorous testing, it [Kone] has released Ultrarope - a
material composed of carbon-fibre covered in a friction-proof coating.
It weighs a seventh of the steel cables, so is more energy efficient, has
twice the lifespan, and most notably, it makes lifts of up to 1km (0.6 miles)
in height a lot easier to build."
Scott Lurndal
May 7, 2015, 10:21:56 AM5/7/15
to
monte...@gmail.com writes:
>Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?=
> The original world trade center had a good system using express elevators=
> that would stop only every 20 (as I recall) floors, and were very fast, an=
>d local elevators that used the same floor space as local elevators on any =
>group of 20 floors.
>
>This guy's claim of 5 mile high buildings is absurd, so let us restrict it =
>to a say 4800 foot building with 12 foot stories or 400 floors. Express el=
>evators travel top to bottom with local elevators for every say 40 floors. =
> 10 possible stops for the express elevator, 40 stops for a local elevator.=
> Say five express and five local shafts. If the building is 800 foot by 8=
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30930513
>Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?=
> The original world trade center had a good system using express elevators=
> that would stop only every 20 (as I recall) floors, and were very fast, an=
>d local elevators that used the same floor space as local elevators on any =
>group of 20 floors.
>
>This guy's claim of 5 mile high buildings is absurd, so let us restrict it =
>to a say 4800 foot building with 12 foot stories or 400 floors. Express el=
>evators travel top to bottom with local elevators for every say 40 floors. =
> 10 possible stops for the express elevator, 40 stops for a local elevator.=
> Say five express and five local shafts. If the building is 800 foot by 8=
>00 foot square, this works fine.
>
>My point is -- how is this building going to be economically justified? Wh=
>
>y would investors pay to have it built? It would be hidiously expensive.
forgot the link:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30930513
monte...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 11:56:59 AM5/7/15
to
That would be incorrect in that commonly you can have entrance from several floors near the bottom of the building. Several layers of basement parking access, or basement subway access, and second through say fourth floors that can be accessed by escalators.
So your comment is simply incorrect. Several buildings use techniques like that.
So your comment is simply incorrect. Several buildings use techniques like that.
Mark Zenier
May 7, 2015, 12:47:44 PM5/7/15
to
In article <1aa1e5af-d18b-489e...@googlegroups.com>,
or have the oxygen content increased.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
<monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You run into serious issues of the safe compressive stress limits of
>concrete well before you get to 5 miles tall.
>
>Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
>economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern
>office buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than
>2000 foot tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no
>explicit economic reason.
And anything higher than about 8,000 feet would have to be pressurized,
>You run into serious issues of the safe compressive stress limits of
>concrete well before you get to 5 miles tall.
>
>Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
>economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern
>office buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than
>2000 foot tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no
>explicit economic reason.
or have the oxygen content increased.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Greg Goss
May 7, 2015, 12:48:44 PM5/7/15
to
your two-storey local elevators take separate loads to even numbered
or odd-numbered floors, and your two-storey express elevators take a
double load to the odd and even sky lobby.
The more efficient things get, the more confusing they get for the
tourists.
Aren't there odd/even double elevators already in use?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 7, 2015, 12:59:42 PM5/7/15
to
monte...@gmail.com wrote in
news:ea6c5ab1-920d-46f2...@googlegroups.com:
> Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by
> elevators? The original world trade center had a good system
> using express elevators that would stop only every 20 (as I
> recall) floors, and were very fast, and local elevators that
> used the same floor space as local elevators on any group of 20
> floors.
And the elevators still took up 25% of the total building space.
Rather than the 35%+ the older design would have taken. Without that
revolutionary (at the time) design, the twin towers would never have
been built, because no economic case could have been made for them.
The architectural truth is that the taller a building, the most _as a
percentage_ of the internal space has to be devoted to moving people
(and air, and other supplies) to the higher floors. I suspect there's
a break even point, after which, adding more floors results in _less_
available office space.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:ea6c5ab1-920d-46f2...@googlegroups.com:
> Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by
> elevators? The original world trade center had a good system
> using express elevators that would stop only every 20 (as I
> recall) floors, and were very fast, and local elevators that
> used the same floor space as local elevators on any group of 20
> floors.
Rather than the 35%+ the older design would have taken. Without that
revolutionary (at the time) design, the twin towers would never have
been built, because no economic case could have been made for them.
The architectural truth is that the taller a building, the most _as a
percentage_ of the internal space has to be devoted to moving people
(and air, and other supplies) to the higher floors. I suspect there's
a break even point, after which, adding more floors results in _less_
available office space.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Mike M
May 7, 2015, 1:17:22 PM5/7/15
to
and down then it doesn't matter how many floors you can enter from - only
x*(60/y) people per hour can go up that elevator and occupy higher storeys.
Sooner or later you run out of flow.
--
So much universe, and so little time. - Sir Terry Pratchett
monte...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 2:02:24 PM5/7/15
to
Your statements are incorrect. The express elevators can be double or triple decker and larger otherwise than standard elevators, and move a lot faster than a standard elevator, so they can move a lot more people further and faster.
The technical issues are solvable up to maybe 2-3 miles tall with a large building base. The real issues are economic. Why build a building that huge and tall when spending far less money you can build vastly more floor space in a multitude of shorter buildings. It makes zero economic sense to do this.
The technical issues are solvable up to maybe 2-3 miles tall with a large building base. The real issues are economic. Why build a building that huge and tall when spending far less money you can build vastly more floor space in a multitude of shorter buildings. It makes zero economic sense to do this.
pete...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 2:11:58 PM5/7/15
to
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 2:02:24 PM UTC-4, monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your statements are incorrect. The express elevators can be double or triple decker and larger otherwise than standard elevators, and move a lot faster than a standard elevator, so they can move a lot more people further and faster.
>
> The technical issues are solvable up to maybe 2-3 miles tall with a large building base. The real issues are economic. Why build a building that huge and tall when spending far less money you can build vastly more floor space in a multitude of shorter buildings. It makes zero economic sense to do this.
The better elevator solutions I've heard for mega skyscrapers involve cabs
> Your statements are incorrect. The express elevators can be double or triple decker and larger otherwise than standard elevators, and move a lot faster than a standard elevator, so they can move a lot more people further and faster.
>
> The technical issues are solvable up to maybe 2-3 miles tall with a large building base. The real issues are economic. Why build a building that huge and tall when spending far less money you can build vastly more floor space in a multitude of shorter buildings. It makes zero economic sense to do this.
which don't use ropes, but carry their electric motors with them, getting power
from a 'third rail' inside the shaft. This eliminates the weight of the cables
as a limiting factor, and permits several cabs to occupy the same shaft at
different heights and directions. Add 'passing lanes', and the efficiency
of the system increases significantly.
But agreed, the rational for such buildings is limited. In Silverberg's 'The
World Inside' its to free land for agriculture, but you could much more easily
farm the roof of a one-story acrology, while greatly reducing point to point
distances for city dwellers.
pt
Lynn McGuire
May 7, 2015, 2:15:56 PM5/7/15
to
On 5/7/2015 11:59 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> monte...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:ea6c5ab1-920d-46f2...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by
>> elevators? The original world trade center had a good system
>> using express elevators that would stop only every 20 (as I
>> recall) floors, and were very fast, and local elevators that
>> used the same floor space as local elevators on any group of 20
>> floors.
>
> And the elevators still took up 25% of the total building space.
> Rather than the 35%+ the older design would have taken. Without that
> revolutionary (at the time) design, the twin towers would never have
> been built, because no economic case could have been made for them.
>
> The architectural truth is that the taller a building, the most _as a
> percentage_ of the internal space has to be devoted to moving people
> (and air, and other supplies) to the higher floors. I suspect there's
> a break even point, after which, adding more floors results in _less_
> available office space.
And those "revolutionary" designs in the Twin Towers got a lot of people killed since they could not escape the upper stories. The
> monte...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:ea6c5ab1-920d-46f2...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by
>> elevators? The original world trade center had a good system
>> using express elevators that would stop only every 20 (as I
>> recall) floors, and were very fast, and local elevators that
>> used the same floor space as local elevators on any group of 20
>> floors.
>
> And the elevators still took up 25% of the total building space.
> Rather than the 35%+ the older design would have taken. Without that
> revolutionary (at the time) design, the twin towers would never have
> been built, because no economic case could have been made for them.
>
> The architectural truth is that the taller a building, the most _as a
> percentage_ of the internal space has to be devoted to moving people
> (and air, and other supplies) to the higher floors. I suspect there's
> a break even point, after which, adding more floors results in _less_
> available office space.
stair walls used wallboard instead of cinder block so both upper stairs were severed for the top 12??? stories. Plus the stairs were
in the center of the buildings rather than in the extreme corners so more likelihood of both getting severed / blocked.
Lynn
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 7, 2015, 2:26:17 PM5/7/15
to
monte...@gmail.com wrote in
news:c8981019-3fb9-468a...@googlegroups.com:
I'm curious: where did you get your civil engineering degree? What
state issued your PE license? (If the answer to those is "I don't
have one" then the followup question is "Then why should anyone
accept that you know more than people who do?")
news:c8981019-3fb9-468a...@googlegroups.com:
state issued your PE license? (If the answer to those is "I don't
have one" then the followup question is "Then why should anyone
accept that you know more than people who do?")
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 7, 2015, 2:28:43 PM5/7/15
to
Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
news:miga2p$nh9$1...@dont-email.me:
None of the specific points you mention are inherent to the design.
IN fact, deficiencies in the _stairway_ design and construction
aren't part of the _elevator_ design at all.
news:miga2p$nh9$1...@dont-email.me:
IN fact, deficiencies in the _stairway_ design and construction
aren't part of the _elevator_ design at all.
Greg Goss
May 7, 2015, 2:47:18 PM5/7/15
to
Greg Goss
May 7, 2015, 2:54:53 PM5/7/15
to
Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>And those "revolutionary" designs in the Twin Towers got a lot of people killed since they could not escape the upper stories. The
>stair walls used wallboard instead of cinder block so both upper stairs were severed for the top 12??? stories. Plus the stairs were
>in the center of the buildings rather than in the extreme corners so more likelihood of both getting severed / blocked.
The blockage was minor in one of the towers. The problem there was
>And those "revolutionary" designs in the Twin Towers got a lot of people killed since they could not escape the upper stories. The
>stair walls used wallboard instead of cinder block so both upper stairs were severed for the top 12??? stories. Plus the stairs were
>in the center of the buildings rather than in the extreme corners so more likelihood of both getting severed / blocked.
that everyone expected helicopter rescue from the roof and didn't try
the walk-down.
There's a story (or was) on the web somewhere by someone who walked
down from above the crash floor in one of the towers.
monte...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 2:56:38 PM5/7/15
to
Poppycock. Those people were murdered by the fanatics flying the planes.
The building surviving the impact of a jet airliner moving at several hundred MPH and combustion of many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in no way part of the design spec.
IIRC the stairwells were in the central core of the building anyway which was reinforced concrete and took a huge fraction of the compressive load. The outer steel members were taking bending loads.
It would be totally uneconomical to design office buildings to survive airliner impact. If you need to worry about that buy some SAM missile sites and radar to direct them to shoot down such airliners.
The building surviving the impact of a jet airliner moving at several hundred MPH and combustion of many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in no way part of the design spec.
IIRC the stairwells were in the central core of the building anyway which was reinforced concrete and took a huge fraction of the compressive load. The outer steel members were taking bending loads.
It would be totally uneconomical to design office buildings to survive airliner impact. If you need to worry about that buy some SAM missile sites and radar to direct them to shoot down such airliners.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 7, 2015, 2:58:01 PM5/7/15
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:cr1q9i...@mid.individual.net:
I'm curious: Do such things actually exist in the real world? Or are
they just an idea from people who do not actually build skyscrapers?
news:cr1q9i...@mid.individual.net:
they just an idea from people who do not actually build skyscrapers?
pete...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 3:40:23 PM5/7/15
to
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 2:56:38 PM UTC-4, monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> Poppycock. Those people were murdered by the fanatics flying the planes.
>
> The building surviving the impact of a jet airliner moving at several
> hundred MPH and combustion of many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were
> in no way part of the design spec.
Actually, it was. But it was specced to the largest airliners available
> Poppycock. Those people were murdered by the fanatics flying the planes.
>
> The building surviving the impact of a jet airliner moving at several
> hundred MPH and combustion of many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were
> in no way part of the design spec.
when the design was finalized in 1962. This was before the wide body era;
the contemporary 727 weighed 38 tons. The AA Flight 11 767, 95.
> IIRC the stairwells were in the central core of the building anyway which
> was reinforced concrete and took a huge fraction of the compressive
> load. The outer steel members were taking bending loads.
The stairwells were in the core area (outside the steel), also surrounded
by sheetrock. This was pretty lethal - the North Tower had all 3 staircases
destroyed at the impact point, and the South Tower had two destroyed, but one
remained passable - 18 people escaped that way, ignoring the 911 operators
who told them to stay put. Those who did what they were told died.
> It would be totally uneconomical to design office buildings to survive
> airliner impact. If you need to worry about that buy some SAM missile sites
> and radar to direct them to shoot down such airliners.
staircases. I don't know about a hit from an Airbus A380, but it would do
a lot better than the old towers.
A lot of my information comes from "American Ground: Unbuilding the World
Trade Center" by William Langewiesche.
I worked for 5 years across the street from the old towers, and spent quite
a bit of time inside them, for both business and pleasure. There was a nice
bar half way up the north side of tower one. I spent lunch hours in the
mall at its base, and took dates to Windows on the World.
My wife was nearly on Flight 11 - a co-worker was substituted at the last
minute. To say this shook her (and me) up is an understatement.
pt
pete...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 3:44:44 PM5/7/15
to
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 2:58:01 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:cr1q9i...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > Mike M <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
> >
> >><monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> That would be incorrect in that commonly you can have entrance
> >>> from several floors near the bottom of the building. Several
> >>> layers of basement parking access, or basement subway access,
> >>> and second through say fourth floors that can be accessed by
> >>> escalators.
> >>>
> >>> So your comment is simply incorrect. Several buildings use
> >>> techniques like that.
> >>
> >>But if the elevators each only hold x people and take y minutes
> >>to cycle up and down then it doesn't matter how many floors you
> >>can enter from - only x*(60/y) people per hour can go up that
> >>elevator and occupy higher storeys. Sooner or later you run out
> >>of flow.
> >
> > Multi-storey elevators multiply x by the number of entry floors.
>
> I'm curious: Do such things actually exist in the real world? Or are
> they just an idea from people who do not actually build skyscrapers?
Yes, they exist:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:cr1q9i...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > Mike M <mi...@xenocyte.com> wrote:
> >
> >><monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> That would be incorrect in that commonly you can have entrance
> >>> from several floors near the bottom of the building. Several
> >>> layers of basement parking access, or basement subway access,
> >>> and second through say fourth floors that can be accessed by
> >>> escalators.
> >>>
> >>> So your comment is simply incorrect. Several buildings use
> >>> techniques like that.
> >>
> >>But if the elevators each only hold x people and take y minutes
> >>to cycle up and down then it doesn't matter how many floors you
> >>can enter from - only x*(60/y) people per hour can go up that
> >>elevator and occupy higher storeys. Sooner or later you run out
> >>of flow.
> >
> > Multi-storey elevators multiply x by the number of entry floors.
>
> I'm curious: Do such things actually exist in the real world? Or are
> they just an idea from people who do not actually build skyscrapers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-deck_elevator
pt
Lynn McGuire
May 7, 2015, 4:33:14 PM5/7/15
to
On 5/7/2015 1:56 PM, monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> Poppycock. Those people were murdered by the fanatics flying the planes.
True. But the buildings should have protected them better.
> Poppycock. Those people were murdered by the fanatics flying the planes.
> The building surviving the impact of a jet airliner moving at several hundred MPH and combustion of many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in no way part of the design spec.
>
> IIRC the stairwells were in the central core of the building anyway which was reinforced concrete and took a huge fraction of the compressive load. The outer steel members were taking bending loads.
(three layers of sheetrock!). Plus the floor clips in the outer steel framing got hot and failed. He specifically stated that they
should have bolted the floors to the steel framing instead of clipped them. He thinks that would have given them enough time to get
most of the uninjured people out from the top floors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/nyregion/06collapse.html?_r=0
> It would be totally uneconomical to design office buildings to survive airliner impact. If you need to worry about that buy some SAM missile sites and radar to direct them to shoot down such airliners.
believe that the new building has four armored stairwells to the top, each at a corner.
Lynn
mstephen51
May 7, 2015, 5:36:52 PM5/7/15
to
"Spiders sprayed with water containing carbon nanotubes and graphene
flakes have produced the toughest fibers ever measured, say materials
scientists. "
The problem is, of course, that the fibre produced is of tiny diameter.
Do we breed bigger spiders? The problems of mega-cities infested with
giant spiders equipped with nano-tech boggles the mind.
YASID: Some time in the 60's I read a book in which the Earth and moon
were tethered in spider web - possibly JG Ballard. Can anyone give
better information than my 50-year old memory?
pete...@gmail.com
May 7, 2015, 9:03:40 PM5/7/15
to
Brian Aldiss, 1962
pt
leif...@dimnakorr.com
May 8, 2015, 6:38:49 AM5/8/15
to
monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> That would be incorrect in that commonly you can have entrance
> from several floors near the bottom of the building. Several
> layers of basement parking access, or basement subway access,
> and second through say fourth floors that can be accessed by escalators.
But anyone who enters through the parking garage has to pass _through_
> That would be incorrect in that commonly you can have entrance
> from several floors near the bottom of the building. Several
> layers of basement parking access, or basement subway access,
> and second through say fourth floors that can be accessed by escalators.
the ground floor to get to where they want to be. As for escalators,
you've just moved the bottleneck to the upmost floor reachable by the
escalators: all the people in the floors higher up than floor X has to
pass through floor X to get in and out of the building.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
monte...@gmail.com
May 8, 2015, 8:28:08 AM5/8/15
to
With double or triple stack express elevators your concern of having to "pass through" a single floor is moot. The issue is how many floors can people walk into or out of elevators to enter or leave the building. That is the bottleneck, as the movement "through" a floor can be at 10 meter per second express elevator speeds.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 8, 2015, 8:29:53 AM5/8/15
to
On Fri, 8 May 2015 05:28:06 -0700 (PDT), monte...@gmail.com wrote:
>With double or triple stack express elevators your concern of having to "pass through" a single floor is moot. The issue is how many floors can people walk into or out of elevators to enter or leave the building. That is the bottleneck, as the movement "through" a floor can be at 10 meter per second express elevator speeds.
Dude, this is all well researched and modeled stuff. Go read the
>With double or triple stack express elevators your concern of having to "pass through" a single floor is moot. The issue is how many floors can people walk into or out of elevators to enter or leave the building. That is the bottleneck, as the movement "through" a floor can be at 10 meter per second express elevator speeds.
literature.
Or make your billions setting up an architecture firm that can get
around the laws of space-time. That would also be good.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds
language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because
I no verbs." - Quoted by Peter Ellis, afp
leif...@dimnakorr.com
May 8, 2015, 8:43:45 AM5/8/15
to
monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> With double or triple stack express elevators your concern
> of having to "pass through" a single floor is moot.
No, it's not. Regardless of how you run the elevators, there
> With double or triple stack express elevators your concern
> of having to "pass through" a single floor is moot.
is a hard limit on the maximum number of people who can move
through a given area per second -- at least if you want to
keep them as people and not turn them into red mulch in the
process.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Scott Lurndal
May 8, 2015, 9:49:52 AM5/8/15
to
Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>On 5/7/2015 1:56 PM, monte...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Poppycock. Those people were murdered by the fanatics flying the planes.
>
>True. But the buildings should have protected them better.
>
>> The building surviving the impact of a jet airliner moving at several hundred MPH and combustion of many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in no way part of the design spec.
>>
>> IIRC the stairwells were in the central core of the building anyway which was reinforced concrete and took a huge fraction of the compressive load. The outer steel members were taking bending loads.
>
>Wrong. I watched a Discovery channel show where the architect specifically regretted the stairwell design in unarmored columns
>(three layers of sheetrock!). Plus the floor clips in the outer steel framing got hot and failed. He specifically stated that they
>should have bolted the floors to the steel framing instead of clipped them. He thinks that would have given them enough time to get
>most of the uninjured people out from the top floors.
The Discovery network, the network that brings such programming
>On 5/7/2015 1:56 PM, monte...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Poppycock. Those people were murdered by the fanatics flying the planes.
>
>True. But the buildings should have protected them better.
>
>> The building surviving the impact of a jet airliner moving at several hundred MPH and combustion of many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in no way part of the design spec.
>>
>> IIRC the stairwells were in the central core of the building anyway which was reinforced concrete and took a huge fraction of the compressive load. The outer steel members were taking bending loads.
>
>Wrong. I watched a Discovery channel show where the architect specifically regretted the stairwell design in unarmored columns
>(three layers of sheetrock!). Plus the floor clips in the outer steel framing got hot and failed. He specifically stated that they
>should have bolted the floors to the steel framing instead of clipped them. He thinks that would have given them enough time to get
>most of the uninjured people out from the top floors.
as "Fast 'n Loud", "I almost got away with it", "Airplane Repo",
"Naked and Afraid" and "Bering Sea Gold"?
I don't consider Discovery much of an authoratitive reference, I'm afraid.
In fact, I don't consider Discovery at all. Science channel
and history channel are also useless repositories of mindless
reality.
pete...@gmail.com
May 8, 2015, 12:43:42 PM5/8/15
to
find stuff with actual content mainly on PBS (Nova), Smithsonian,
and sometimes HBO.
However, if the actual architect says something, and is quoted correctly and
in context, it doesn't matter if the medium was the Discovery Channel or the
Weekly World News, it's Word Of God from someone who has a first hand,
authoritative viewpoint.
That appears to be the case here.
pt
pete...@gmail.com
May 8, 2015, 12:48:50 PM5/8/15
to
proper setup. I know of many buildings which have entrances on multiple
levels - even the WTC towers could be entered at both the plaza and
mall levels. If people going to even numbered floors (in the US convention)
enter at the top level, and those going to odd numbered floors on the lower,
then the number of people handled per elevator run is doubled.
Any system can be maxed out, but that doesn't mean improvements can't
be made.
pt
Quadibloc
May 8, 2015, 2:45:43 PM5/8/15
to
On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:06:08 PM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:
> into: an increasing percentage of the building's floor plan gets taken up by
> elevators as it gets taller, and you reach a point where some of the floors
> have to be ENTiRELY devoted to elevator space, at which point it doesn't make
> sense to try to make it any taller...
But all of this is very much dependent on *present-day* technology.
So in an SF novel about the far future...
instead of elevators, people just walk into antigravity tubes to go up and down (when the power is on, you can see a sort of pink plasma in the tube, so you have confidence you won't just fall down)...
and of course they're built of future materials with incredible strength (even if that strength isn't yet *quite* incredible enough for a space elevator)...
and there are other economic reasons to build things high. Perhaps the entire
European population of North America resides on Manhattan Island, the rest
being given back to the Indians - beause, if we *can* do the morally right
thing, then we *must*. Or the population of North America is such that the
whole continent is covered by mile-high skyscrapers so that everyone has
someplace to live... and the oceans are farmed to help feed them, although the
major source of food is hydroponic gardens in underground caverns that extend
downwards several miles.
Oh, and those underground caverns are kept cool by a refrigeration system that
has a giant radiator standing atop the North Pole, its fins starting about
thirty miles above the ground and continuing up to about 120 miles or so up.
This also disposes of the waste heat from the nuclear reactors that supply some
of the power to run all this (although they're present simply to supply a
minimum of emergency power if something goes wrong with the solar power
satellite system).
Needless to say, the Oort cloud has been raided for volatiles so as to *permit*
such a quantity of biomass in human form to exist on Earth. The total
population of O'Neill-style space colonies which did this may well exceed
Earth's population by a large factor.
John Savard
> On 2015-05-06, monte...@gmail.com <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
> > economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office
> > buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> > tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit
> > economic reason.
> Plus which, the reason nearly nobody expects, which the xkcd what-if book went
> > Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
> > economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office
> > buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> > tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit
> > economic reason.
> into: an increasing percentage of the building's floor plan gets taken up by
> elevators as it gets taller, and you reach a point where some of the floors
> have to be ENTiRELY devoted to elevator space, at which point it doesn't make
> sense to try to make it any taller...
But all of this is very much dependent on *present-day* technology.
So in an SF novel about the far future...
instead of elevators, people just walk into antigravity tubes to go up and down (when the power is on, you can see a sort of pink plasma in the tube, so you have confidence you won't just fall down)...
and of course they're built of future materials with incredible strength (even if that strength isn't yet *quite* incredible enough for a space elevator)...
and there are other economic reasons to build things high. Perhaps the entire
European population of North America resides on Manhattan Island, the rest
being given back to the Indians - beause, if we *can* do the morally right
thing, then we *must*. Or the population of North America is such that the
whole continent is covered by mile-high skyscrapers so that everyone has
someplace to live... and the oceans are farmed to help feed them, although the
major source of food is hydroponic gardens in underground caverns that extend
downwards several miles.
Oh, and those underground caverns are kept cool by a refrigeration system that
has a giant radiator standing atop the North Pole, its fins starting about
thirty miles above the ground and continuing up to about 120 miles or so up.
This also disposes of the waste heat from the nuclear reactors that supply some
of the power to run all this (although they're present simply to supply a
minimum of emergency power if something goes wrong with the solar power
satellite system).
Needless to say, the Oort cloud has been raided for volatiles so as to *permit*
such a quantity of biomass in human form to exist on Earth. The total
population of O'Neill-style space colonies which did this may well exceed
Earth's population by a large factor.
John Savard
Quadibloc
May 8, 2015, 2:49:35 PM5/8/15
to
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 12:58:01 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:cr1q9i...@mid.individual.net:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
> news:cr1q9i...@mid.individual.net:
> > Multi-storey elevators multiply x by the number of entry floors.
>
> I'm curious: Do such things actually exist in the real world? Or are
> they just an idea from people who do not actually build skyscrapers?
Oh, yes, they do. However, while one can enter a building from the parking
>
> I'm curious: Do such things actually exist in the real world? Or are
> they just an idea from people who do not actually build skyscrapers?
garage elevator, we still don't have cities where there are elevated roads and
sidewalks, and only low-lifes like the Gophs live at ground level.
John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 8, 2015, 3:46:24 PM5/8/15
to
pete...@gmail.com wrote in
news:6c67a3cf-5284-4b3b...@googlegroups.com:
Including The Science Channel, which is mostly ghost hunters and
UFO wingnuts these days. Usually on the same programs. (Ancient
alien ghosts as professional wrestlers, or something.)
>- I find stuff with actual content mainly on PBS (Nova),
> Smithsonian, and sometimes HBO.
Smithsonian has their moments of wingnuttery these days, too.
sometimes are, wingnuts even within their own fileds. But your
interpretation is the way to bet.
news:6c67a3cf-5284-4b3b...@googlegroups.com:
UFO wingnuts these days. Usually on the same programs. (Ancient
alien ghosts as professional wrestlers, or something.)
>- I find stuff with actual content mainly on PBS (Nova),
> Smithsonian, and sometimes HBO.
>
> However, if the actual architect says something, and is quoted
> correctly and in context, it doesn't matter if the medium was
> the Discovery Channel or the Weekly World News, it's Word Of God
> from someone who has a first hand, authoritative viewpoint.
>
> That appears to be the case here.
>
On the other hand, architecst, engineers and scientists can, and
> However, if the actual architect says something, and is quoted
> correctly and in context, it doesn't matter if the medium was
> the Discovery Channel or the Weekly World News, it's Word Of God
> from someone who has a first hand, authoritative viewpoint.
>
> That appears to be the case here.
>
sometimes are, wingnuts even within their own fileds. But your
interpretation is the way to bet.
J. Clarke
May 8, 2015, 6:07:45 PM5/8/15
to
In article <YqOdnSY4_4KR99bI...@giganews.com>,
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
> to (or coming from) you have to pass through the ground floor. In other
> words, the maximum flow of people into the whole building is limited to the
> maximum capacity of the elevators on the ground floor -- regardless of how
> the elevators are organized further up in the building.
The ground floor, however many sublevels there are, how many bridges or
ramps there are into the upper levels, the number of runways on the
airport on the roof, the number of railroad tracks coming into the sub-
basement, . . .
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
>
> monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?
>
> Because the ground-floor is a bottle-neck: no matter what floor you're going
> monte...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why would you think that more & more floor space will be used by elevators?
>
> to (or coming from) you have to pass through the ground floor. In other
> words, the maximum flow of people into the whole building is limited to the
> maximum capacity of the elevators on the ground floor -- regardless of how
> the elevators are organized further up in the building.
The ground floor, however many sublevels there are, how many bridges or
ramps there are into the upper levels, the number of runways on the
airport on the roof, the number of railroad tracks coming into the sub-
basement, . . .
Stephen Graham
May 8, 2015, 6:32:18 PM5/8/15
to
moderately steep hillside. Or downtown Minneapolis, with the Skyway
system. Or downtown Toronto, or...
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
May 8, 2015, 6:53:00 PM5/8/15
to
"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2fb6fe19d...@news.eternal-september.org:
The permiter of the building increases linearly with the increase
in overall dimensions. Even with entrances on multiple levels, the
space available for entrances can only increase with the square of
dimenions. The internal space increases with the cube.
Thus, if you double the dimensions of a building, you double the
amount of wall that can contain doors to go in and out. But you
quadruple the amount of floor space, and, presumably, the number of
people who need access. If you double the number of floors, as
well, you still have only double the number of space for doors, but
have _nine_ times the amount of internal space.
If you add entrances on the second floor, you can, _at most_,
quadruple the amount of wall space available to put doors in, but
you've still have nine times the amount of internal space.
Now, as an excercise in Shawn Wilson's abilities at mathematics
(and everythinge else), continue the progression to a 250 story
building.
And keep in mind, you cannot have entrances on _every_ floor.
Yes, designs can be improved upon efficieny can be improved, but
_only up to a point_. It isn't even theoretically possible for the
ability to move people in and out of the building (and up and down
the floors) to be increased at the same rate as the need to do so
as more and more floors are added. That is why at least 25% of a
100 floor skyscraper is devoted to elevators. The higher the
building, the higher than percentage goes, and there is only so
much you can do to compensate.
Now stop acting like a retard. Or people will realize it's not an
act.
news:MPG.2fb6fe19d...@news.eternal-september.org:
in overall dimensions. Even with entrances on multiple levels, the
space available for entrances can only increase with the square of
dimenions. The internal space increases with the cube.
Thus, if you double the dimensions of a building, you double the
amount of wall that can contain doors to go in and out. But you
quadruple the amount of floor space, and, presumably, the number of
people who need access. If you double the number of floors, as
well, you still have only double the number of space for doors, but
have _nine_ times the amount of internal space.
If you add entrances on the second floor, you can, _at most_,
quadruple the amount of wall space available to put doors in, but
you've still have nine times the amount of internal space.
Now, as an excercise in Shawn Wilson's abilities at mathematics
(and everythinge else), continue the progression to a 250 story
building.
And keep in mind, you cannot have entrances on _every_ floor.
Yes, designs can be improved upon efficieny can be improved, but
_only up to a point_. It isn't even theoretically possible for the
ability to move people in and out of the building (and up and down
the floors) to be increased at the same rate as the need to do so
as more and more floors are added. That is why at least 25% of a
100 floor skyscraper is devoted to elevators. The higher the
building, the higher than percentage goes, and there is only so
much you can do to compensate.
Now stop acting like a retard. Or people will realize it's not an
act.
J. Clarke
May 8, 2015, 9:01:26 PM5/8/15
to
In article <FJudnf5pXtCsD9HI...@giganews.com>,
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
So? How long does it take for an ocean-liner-sized elevator to pass
through the ground floor? Stop thinking small.
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
through the ground floor? Stop thinking small.
J. Clarke
May 8, 2015, 9:04:06 PM5/8/15
to
In article <nvapkapp06h8f5161...@4ax.com>,
jai...@sometimes.sessile.org says...
stuff", please provide a link to the well researched models for several-
mile-high arcology.
jai...@sometimes.sessile.org says...
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2015 05:28:06 -0700 (PDT), monte...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >With double or triple stack express elevators your concern of having to "pass through" a single floor is moot. The issue is how many floors can people walk into or out of elevators to enter or leave the building. That is the bottleneck, as the movement "through" a floor can be at 10 meter per second express elevator speeds.
>
> Dude, this is all well researched and modeled stuff. Go read the
> literature.
>
> Or make your billions setting up an architecture firm that can get
> around the laws of space-time. That would also be good.
Well, since you assert that "this is all well researched and modeled
> On Fri, 8 May 2015 05:28:06 -0700 (PDT), monte...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >With double or triple stack express elevators your concern of having to "pass through" a single floor is moot. The issue is how many floors can people walk into or out of elevators to enter or leave the building. That is the bottleneck, as the movement "through" a floor can be at 10 meter per second express elevator speeds.
>
> Dude, this is all well researched and modeled stuff. Go read the
> literature.
>
> Or make your billions setting up an architecture firm that can get
> around the laws of space-time. That would also be good.
stuff", please provide a link to the well researched models for several-
mile-high arcology.
J. Clarke
May 8, 2015, 9:05:37 PM5/8/15
to
In article <BpudncsCEbzkMtHI...@giganews.com>,
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
So? Show us that that "hard limit" has some relevance to life in an
arcology. The proposal here is not for the entire population of the
building to leave it at night and reenter it in the morning. Everybody
is supposed to live there.
leif...@dimnakorr.com says...
arcology. The proposal here is not for the entire population of the
building to leave it at night and reenter it in the morning. Everybody
is supposed to live there.
hamis...@gmail.com
May 9, 2015, 1:12:01 AM5/9/15
to
and of course people who want to go between levels in the same building may well throw a bit wrench in things.
I'd say the doubled throughput is pretty optimistic although there could well be an increase.
Robert Carnegie
May 9, 2015, 1:43:42 AM5/9/15
to
feature of a multi-floor elevator hall. I was so pleased
when I thought of it just now.
It implies an amount of cooperation that is unfamiliar
to me in elevator use, or, alternatively, a lack of
individual choice that also is unfamiliar to me in
elevator use. Although the elevator that only makes
express stops clearly limits the user's choices.
And then there are those paternoster things.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster>, animation.
I work 14 floors above ground level, and the elevator
seems to take the same time to travel between any two
floors, which doesn't seem quite right. I personally
accept stopping and sometimes starting at least one
floor either side of where suits me best when sharing
a journey; I suppose if everyone compromised like that
then most of the time would be negotiating before
pressing any buttons. Or, you could fix the elevator
to accept your destinations and then assign actual
stops randomly. Wait, I don't mean randomly...
Greg Goss
May 9, 2015, 10:16:50 AM5/9/15
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>I suppose that a multi-floor elevator car is a logical
>feature of a multi-floor elevator hall. I was so pleased
>when I thought of it just now.
>
>It implies an amount of cooperation that is unfamiliar
>to me in elevator use, or, alternatively, a lack of
>individual choice that also is unfamiliar to me in
>elevator use. Although the elevator that only makes
>express stops clearly limits the user's choices.
Lack of choice. The concept wouldn't work at all under negotiation.
>I suppose that a multi-floor elevator car is a logical
>feature of a multi-floor elevator hall. I was so pleased
>when I thought of it just now.
>
>It implies an amount of cooperation that is unfamiliar
>to me in elevator use, or, alternatively, a lack of
>individual choice that also is unfamiliar to me in
>elevator use. Although the elevator that only makes
>express stops clearly limits the user's choices.
There would also be a small number of "local" elevators willing to
stop at any floor - for wheelchair people unable to take the escalator
to the upper (or lower) elevator hall, or for people transiting
between odd and even floors.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
May 9, 2015, 12:56:38 PM5/9/15
to
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 7:05:37 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> So? Show us that that "hard limit" has some relevance to life in an
> arcology. The proposal here is not for the entire population of the
> building to leave it at night and reenter it in the morning. Everybody
> is supposed to live there.
Inncidentally, while they're not hundreds of stories high, arcologies do exist in
> So? Show us that that "hard limit" has some relevance to life in an
> arcology. The proposal here is not for the entire population of the
> building to leave it at night and reenter it in the morning. Everybody
> is supposed to live there.
Sweden - I remember reading about them somewhere.
John Savard
Quadibloc
May 9, 2015, 12:58:15 PM5/9/15
to
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 11:43:42 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> It implies an amount of cooperation that is unfamiliar
> to me in elevator use, or, alternatively, a lack of
> individual choice that also is unfamiliar to me in
> elevator use. Although the elevator that only makes
> express stops clearly limits the user's choices.
The idea is that you get to your desired floor in two stages - use a fast
> It implies an amount of cooperation that is unfamiliar
> to me in elevator use, or, alternatively, a lack of
> individual choice that also is unfamiliar to me in
> elevator use. Although the elevator that only makes
> express stops clearly limits the user's choices.
elevator that doesn't stop at every floor, then a short-range one to go to your
exact floor.
It doesn't mean there are floors you can't get to because you entered the
building at the wrong level.
John Savard
Quadibloc
May 9, 2015, 1:05:08 PM5/9/15
to
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 10:56:38 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> Inncidentally, while they're not hundreds of stories high, arcologies do exist in
> Sweden - I remember reading about them somewhere.
Couldn't Google them up, found the Begich Towers in Whittier, Alaska, though.
> Inncidentally, while they're not hundreds of stories high, arcologies do exist in
> Sweden - I remember reading about them somewhere.
John Savard
Shawn Wilson
May 9, 2015, 1:23:50 PM5/9/15
to
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 9:56:38 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> Inncidentally, while they're not hundreds of stories high, arcologies do exist in
> Sweden - I remember reading about them somewhere.
There is a US arcology in Alaska. Former military building, housing I think. Military left, and basically the entire (small- 200ish I think) community lives in the same building. I saw it in a Cracked article.
> Inncidentally, while they're not hundreds of stories high, arcologies do exist in
> Sweden - I remember reading about them somewhere.
J. Clarke
May 9, 2015, 8:57:17 PM5/9/15
to
In article <dda0cfaa-f788-48a4...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
For certain values. They aren't completely self-contained--food gets
imported for one thing. But they are rather complete communities in a
single building. Here's the official sign for Fermont, QC, which is
based on the Swedish designs. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723
@N00/1010239382/in/album-72157600974340267/>
Very good design for Canadian winter because you don't have to go
outside to get to any services.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
imported for one thing. But they are rather complete communities in a
single building. Here's the official sign for Fermont, QC, which is
based on the Swedish designs. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723
@N00/1010239382/in/album-72157600974340267/>
Very good design for Canadian winter because you don't have to go
outside to get to any services.
Martha Adams
May 10, 2015, 12:15:13 AM5/10/15
to
This "Mega Cities" topic is so full of possibilities and subtopics, how
about a new newsgroup? rec.arts.sf.megacities?
Martha Adams [Sun 2015 May 10]
about a new newsgroup? rec.arts.sf.megacities?
Martha Adams [Sun 2015 May 10]
J. Clarke
May 10, 2015, 5:04:56 AM5/10/15
to
In article <1e74b8a5-6869-43c5...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
elevators? They have the advantage of random entry and exit without
waiting for a car, but they have to move the passengers slowly enough
that the passengers can get off without injuring themselves. Then
there's the matter of how one really does get out of such a thing--are
there bars going all the way across that one grabs or what? One of
those ideas that I suspect works much better in fiction than in reality.
> and of course they're built of future materials with incredible strength (even if that strength isn't yet *quite* incredible enough for a space elevator)...
Or maybe it is. Heck, consider the structural uses of the Eigth
Barsoomian Ray.
> and there are other economic reasons to build things high. Perhaps the entire
> European population of North America resides on Manhattan Island, the rest
> being given back to the Indians - beause, if we *can* do the morally right
> thing, then we *must*.
Or the Indians somehow or other managed to put the palefaces on a
reservation?
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:06:08 PM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:
> > On 2015-05-06, monte...@gmail.com <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
> > > economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office
> > > buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> > > tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit
> > > economic reason.
>
> > Plus which, the reason nearly nobody expects, which the xkcd what-if book went
> > into: an increasing percentage of the building's floor plan gets taken up by
> > elevators as it gets taller, and you reach a point where some of the floors
> > have to be ENTiRELY devoted to elevator space, at which point it doesn't make
> > sense to try to make it any taller...
>
> But all of this is very much dependent on *present-day* technology.
>
> So in an SF novel about the far future...
>
> instead of elevators, people just walk into antigravity tubes to go up and down (when the power is on, you can see a sort of pink plasma in the tube, so you have confidence you won't just fall down)...
But can antigravity tubes really match the throughput of express
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:06:08 PM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:
> > On 2015-05-06, monte...@gmail.com <monte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Aside from that it is not economical to build that high. It is hard to
> > > economically justify taller buildings that exist now. Tall modern office
> > > buildings have a hard time paying for themselves now at less than 2000 foot
> > > tall, yet you propose 20,000 foot + tall buildings and with no explicit
> > > economic reason.
>
> > Plus which, the reason nearly nobody expects, which the xkcd what-if book went
> > into: an increasing percentage of the building's floor plan gets taken up by
> > elevators as it gets taller, and you reach a point where some of the floors
> > have to be ENTiRELY devoted to elevator space, at which point it doesn't make
> > sense to try to make it any taller...
>
> But all of this is very much dependent on *present-day* technology.
>
> So in an SF novel about the far future...
>
> instead of elevators, people just walk into antigravity tubes to go up and down (when the power is on, you can see a sort of pink plasma in the tube, so you have confidence you won't just fall down)...
elevators? They have the advantage of random entry and exit without
waiting for a car, but they have to move the passengers slowly enough
that the passengers can get off without injuring themselves. Then
there's the matter of how one really does get out of such a thing--are
there bars going all the way across that one grabs or what? One of
those ideas that I suspect works much better in fiction than in reality.
> and of course they're built of future materials with incredible strength (even if that strength isn't yet *quite* incredible enough for a space elevator)...
Barsoomian Ray.
> and there are other economic reasons to build things high. Perhaps the entire
> European population of North America resides on Manhattan Island, the rest
> being given back to the Indians - beause, if we *can* do the morally right
> thing, then we *must*.
reservation?
William Vetter
May 10, 2015, 9:13:33 AM5/10/15
to
I have a question now that this thread has gone on to more and more
extended rationales for multi-mile skyscrapers....
I thought that modern LAN telecommunications had moderated the need for
extremely large and consolidated office buildings. Can't these 22nd
Century paper-pushers send documents to each other by email, and have
teleconferences with each other?
extended rationales for multi-mile skyscrapers....
I thought that modern LAN telecommunications had moderated the need for
extremely large and consolidated office buildings. Can't these 22nd
Century paper-pushers send documents to each other by email, and have
teleconferences with each other?
pete...@gmail.com
May 10, 2015, 10:53:03 AM5/10/15
to
of Anchorage, separate by a high ridge. There's a tunnel through the
ridge. It's a jumping off point for wilderness and fishing expeditions, and
also docks cruise ships - it cuts a hundred miles from the route down the
coast.
pt
J. Clarke
May 10, 2015, 12:30:28 PM5/10/15
to
In article <minlfo$m5h$1...@dont-email.me>, mdha...@gmail.com says...
They can but what does that have to do with anything? They still need a
warm place to sleep and something to keep the rain off of their
computers and some source of sustenance. They can't just sit in the
empty wilderness with a laptop pecking away 24/7.
And who said anything about "office buildings"? I don't think you're
grasping the concept here. This isn't a deal where one gets up in one's
house in Fairfield, takes the train in to Manhattan, rides umpteen
stories up to one's office, and goes to work, then repeats in the
reverse direction at the end. It's a deal where one gets up on the
390th floor and takes the elevator to the 750th floor. Or just walks
across the hall.
Large office buildings are far from obsolete--more than 5000 people work
in the same one I do. Further, the whole "work from home" thing still
has a few bugs.
warm place to sleep and something to keep the rain off of their
computers and some source of sustenance. They can't just sit in the
empty wilderness with a laptop pecking away 24/7.
And who said anything about "office buildings"? I don't think you're
grasping the concept here. This isn't a deal where one gets up in one's
house in Fairfield, takes the train in to Manhattan, rides umpteen
stories up to one's office, and goes to work, then repeats in the
reverse direction at the end. It's a deal where one gets up on the
390th floor and takes the elevator to the 750th floor. Or just walks
across the hall.
Large office buildings are far from obsolete--more than 5000 people work
in the same one I do. Further, the whole "work from home" thing still
has a few bugs.
William Vetter
May 10, 2015, 12:54:44 PM5/10/15
to
building to another. I don't get the need for ultra-verticality.
lal_truckee
May 10, 2015, 1:46:05 PM5/10/15
to
On 5/9/15 5:58 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> Very good design for Canadian winter because you don't have to go
> outside to get to any services.
In that sense, Crystal City, Virginia is an arcology.
> Very good design for Canadian winter because you don't have to go
> outside to get to any services.
From Wekipedia:
"Crystal City is an urban neighborhood in the southeastern corner of
Arlington County, Virginia, south of downtown Washington, D.C.. Due to
its extensive integration of office buildings and residential high-rise
buildings using underground corridors, travel between stores, offices,
and residences is possible without going above ground, so that a large
part of Crystal City is an underground city."
J. Clarke
May 10, 2015, 2:10:37 PM5/10/15
to
In article <mio2eg$84b$1...@dont-email.me>, mdha...@gmail.com says...
OK, so why do all the people in Manhattan live in Manhattan instead of
telecommuting from, say, Omaha? An arcology is just a city writ larger.
telecommuting from, say, Omaha? An arcology is just a city writ larger.
J. Clarke
May 10, 2015, 2:11:48 PM5/10/15
to
William Vetter
May 10, 2015, 4:18:09 PM5/10/15
to
from North Jersey, Westchester, Long Island, etc. because Manhattan is
too expensive.
Adamastor Glace Mortimer
May 10, 2015, 5:17:51 PM5/10/15
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
In article <3L-dnZW5-uHSRtPI...@giganews.com>
alt.sf.creative.
Adamastor Glace Mortimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iEYEAREKAAYFAlVPQtoACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2oWwCg0iX4LV+AzPaytEfDt4SljdWg
MXQAn0o+fdqmiPocaT5fo+Rdh2HaPQge
=QObg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA512
In article <3L-dnZW5-uHSRtPI...@giganews.com>
Martha Adams <mh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> This "Mega Cities" topic is so full of possibilities and subtopics, how
> about a new newsgroup? rec.arts.sf.megacities?
I predict that after six months it will be as lively as
>
> This "Mega Cities" topic is so full of possibilities and subtopics, how
> about a new newsgroup? rec.arts.sf.megacities?
alt.sf.creative.
Adamastor Glace Mortimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iEYEAREKAAYFAlVPQtoACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2oWwCg0iX4LV+AzPaytEfDt4SljdWg
MXQAn0o+fdqmiPocaT5fo+Rdh2HaPQge
=QObg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages