Queens Zoo Aviary

[Dondalah]

Can anyone tell me what the frequency count is at the Queens Zoo
Aviary. From the pictures I've seen

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/sets/72157621606582140/detail/

it looks like a modified dome.

Thanks, Dondalah

[TaffGoch]

You're right, it does look like some kind of hybrid design.

I'll see if I can make out the subdivision; method & frequency....

Anyone else already tackled this one?

-Taff

[Dick Fischbeck]

http://randytreadway.com/007_-_The_Pavilion_dome.jpg

http://www.westland.net/ny64fair/map-docs/churchill.htm

[Dick Fischbeck]

Synergetics, Inc.

Raleigh, NC

Designed by 

TC Howard

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergetics-Inc-Architecture-and-Engineering/191074047574927

[Dick Fischbeck]

No one ever said the pent have to be evenly distributed. As a matter of fact, there is no reason they all have to be in the same hemisphere! Frequency takes on a slightly different meaning in that case.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, TaffGoch <taff...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ken G. Brown]

My count/guess is freq. = 12.

What do you think?

Ken

>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Geodesic Help" Google Group
>--
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GeodesicHelp...@googlegroups.com
>--
>To post to this group, send email to geodes...@googlegroups.com
>--
>For more options, visit <http://groups.google.com/group/geodesichelp?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/geodesichelp?hl=en
>
>Content-Type: image/png; name="QueensZoo(1).png"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="QueensZoo(1).png"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_gs9mmvgn0
>
>Attachment converted: MacProHD0:QueensZoo(1).png (PNGf/«IC») (08AA05D4)
>Content-Type: image/png; name="QueensZoo(2).png"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="QueensZoo(2).png"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_gs9mn6qw1
>
>Attachment converted: MacProHD0:QueensZoo(2).png (PNGf/«IC») (08AA05D9)
>Content-Type: image/png; name="QueensZoo(3).png"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="QueensZoo(3).png"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_gs9mnbfx2
>
>Attachment converted: MacProHD0:QueensZoo(3).png (PNGf/«IC») (08AA05DB)
>Content-Type: image/png; name="QueensZoo(4).png"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="QueensZoo(4).png"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_gs9mnftb3
>
>Attachment converted: MacProHD0:QueensZoo(4).png (PNGf/«IC») (08AA05DC)
>Content-Type: image/png; name="QueensZoo(5).png"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="QueensZoo(5).png"
>X-Attachment-Id: f_gs9mnk5t4
>
>Attachment converted: MacProHD0:QueensZoo(5).png (PNGf/«IC») (08AA05DE)

[Dick Fischbeck]

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=178541418850855

See "Charter-Sphere", by Thomas C. Howard

His daughter writes:

Katrina Howard Fairley 

Buckminster Fuller patented the geodesic dome. He did not design the domes by Synergetics, Inc - The ASM Dome, the Climatron, or the Queens Zoo Aviary. They were designed by Thomas C. Howard. And the Vitra dome is not geodesic; it has a different geometry- a Charter-Sphere Dome.

http://www.dwell.com/articles/touring-the-vitra-campus-.html#comment71966331

"This dome on the Vitra campus is not a geodesic dome. Buckminster Fuller's patent is on geodesic domes ( greater circles ). Thomas C. Howard of Synergetics, Inc designed this dome - Charter-Sphere dome ( lesser circle). 

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, TaffGoch <taff...@gmail.com> wrote:

[TaffGoch]

In my estimation, it looks to be a 7v, triacon subdivision.

-Taff

[TaffGoch]

Sorry about the large file size. I should have optimized it before posting the gif animation.

-Taff

[TaffGoch]

...or, would naming convention label that as 14v ?

[Paul Kranz]

Maybe the video at the bottom of this page will help: http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_history/zoos/queens.html

 

Paul sends...

[Blair Wolfram]

There is some incorrect info running on this thread. Bucky always owned Synergetics, Inc. Synergetics was his engineering firm and he assigned them the ASM Project in Cleveland. Bucky totally designed this dome, and his memorial was held there. The head architect on this project, either Schwartz or Kelly, had nothing to do with creating the dome.

 

Blair

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Paul Kranz <pa...@revivetheflame.com> wrote:

Maybe the video at the bottom of this page will help: http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_history/zoos/queens.html

 

Paul sends...

--

[TaffGoch]

Thanks, Dick, for "The Pavilion" image. It helped me a great deal, when I was modeling the bottom tier of triangles.

The Queens Zoo aviary dome is a class-II, frequency 14v, modified tessellation. Only the bottom two tiers of triangles have to be modified, to produce a flat, planar footprint. (A class-II tessellation is also known as a "triacon" subdivision.)

Image from my SketchUp model of the Aviary, with the model overlaid on an aerial photograph.

-Taff

[homespun]

Hi Taff and all,

   This thread brings back nice memories since I worked at the World's Fair both seasons for HERTZ Rent-a-Baby-Stroller.  I was all over that place.  My favorites were General Electric and Johnson's Wax.  I got to see them both many times because Fair employees got to go to the head fo the long lines.

   However, I don't remember the Churchill Pavillion dome at all; guess I wasn't that interested in those days.  I'm glad to see that it still lives as the Queens Zoo Aviary.

   Attached are some old pictures I found by Googling.

             Dan

----- Original Message -----

From: TaffGoch

To: geodes...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: Queens Zoo Aviary

 

[TaffGoch]

Hey, Dan, you're dating yourself! :)

There were some fantastic building built for the 1964-65 fair. I went
to the 1984 World's Fair, in New Orleans, and was sorely disappointed.
Mostly short-lifetime constructs. The currently-remaining buildings
are now consolidated into a mall & aquarium, but they're not much more
than a big-box warehouse. If you've seen a mall (anywhere in the
U.S.,) then the New Orleans buildings won't impress you at all.

No "signature" building(s), as produced in Montreal, Flushing Meadows
or Seattle. Pity....

-Taff

[Dondalah Proust]

The sketchup of the aerial photo and the GIF animation helped us to understand the dome.  Thanks.

Here are three articles yet to be written in Wikipedia:

Queens Zoo Aviary

Thomas C. Howard

Synergetics, Inc.

TC's daughter claims her father designed the Aviary, so who is right?  Bucky partnered with a another architect in the Montreal Expo dome, so it would have been consistent for him to partner with TC on some projects.  My question for TC's daughter would be:  if Bucky patented the geodesic dome, did TC have to pay royalties to Bucky?

Can anyone extrapolate the equatorial diameter from the 175 foot diameter of the Aviary?  My program calculates strut lengths based on equatorial diameter.  There are 44 strut lengths in this dome with a difference factor of 1.33 from shortest to longest.

Early domes, like the Aviary and the Wood River Union Tank Car domes, were built before computers became commonplace.  I can just imagine the architects calculating strut lengths with sine and cosine tables and slide rules.

:) Dondalah

---

From: TaffGoch <taff...@gmail.com>
To: Geodesic Help Group <geodes...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 2:40 PM

Subject: Re: Queens Zoo Aviary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Geodesic Help" Google Group
--

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GeodesicHelp+unsub...@googlegroups.com

[TaffGoch]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Dondalah Proust wrote:
>
> Can anyone extrapolate the equatorial diameter from the 175-foot 

> diameter of the Aviary?  My program calculates strut lengths based

> on equatorial diameter....

__________________________________________________

87.5' radius (175' diameter) aviary "ground" plane...

...yields a 97.83' radius (~195'8" diameter) sphere equator.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Perhaps, the sphere radius was set at 100' (200' diameter,) and the resulting aviary "ground" plane diameter is NOT precisely 175', but closer to 179'

You have to wonder who measured the aviary diameter, and how precisely. Were measurements made to the endpoints of the strut centerlines? I rather doubt it.

-Taff

[TaffGoch]

Depending on the subdivision method used, different strut lengths are produced. In my sphere model, there are...

... 34 strut lengths, of ...

... 1.17 ratio; short-to-long, ...

... (not including the modified struts, near the aviary "ground" cut-plane.)

______________________

I used "Method 2," as described on page 107 of Domebook2; "Geodesic Math" (Joe Clinton.) Note that the page number may vary, since there were page changes in the different Domebook2 edition printings.

-Taff

[Paul Kranz]

Why can't we call this a 14-frequency docecahedron?

-Taff

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Geodesic Help" Google Group
--

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GeodesicHelp...@googlegroups.com

[TaffGoch]

You could call it a 7-frequency dodecahedron, but...

...I'm not surprised to find triacontahedron symmetry. The triacon subdivision was clearly Bucky's favorite, as he used it most often.

-Taff

[TaffGoch]

You could also call it a 7-frequency pentakis-dodecahedron subdivision, of which Bucky was also fond.

Fuller clearly indicated that Spaceship Earth, at Epcot, was a pentakis-dodecahedron subdivision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentakis_dodecahedron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth_(Disney)

-Taff

[Dondalah Proust]

I incorporated the logic of Kenner(1976) in my program.  Please tell me if it is off.

c2i14.png is the visual that results from this output.

c2i14.txt contains the details of the 200 foot dome that produced the photo.  The summary is at the end.

Hugh Kenner's interview before he died was interesting.  He thought he understood geodesic domes better than Bucky did.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100103161939/http://bookwire.com/bookwire/bbr/reviews/March2001/hugh_kenner_thegrandtour.htm

--------------------------------
HB: I don't know anyone else, except for your old friend Marshall McLuhan, who sees those connections as clearly.
HK: People are afraid of technology, especially in my field. I had an interesting background. I had a grandfather after whom I'm named, Hugh Williams. He was relatively uneducated but it's clear he was a mathematical genius; the trait turns up in the family periodically. And I had to decide, when I left university, if I would go into language or mathematics. I decided I would be a competent mathematician but a much better writer. I think I made the right decision. That's why the technology permeates my writing. I wrote a book called "Geodesic Math and How To Use It."

HB: That's not the book about Buckminster Fuller, is it?
HK: There is the book about Buckminster Fuller, but "Geodesic Math" is about geodesic domes, which I think I understand better than he did.
--------------------------------

Dondalah

---

From: TaffGoch <taff...@gmail.com>
To: geodes...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 5:26 PM

Subject: Re: Queens Zoo Aviary

[TaffGoch]

Dondalah,

It's not "off" or wrong -- it's just a different subdivision method. (There are several.)

Hugh Kenner's subdivision method is not in Domebook 2, I don't think. If I recall correctly, Kenner describes several of the more-common subdivision methods, in addition to his own.

Each method has its pros & cons. Which method to use will be driven by the end objective. Do you want fewer unique struts? Instead, are you seeking a small divergence ratio (between longest-to-shortest struts,) and don't care about unique-strut count? The answer to these questions will direct the user to which subdivision method to use.

Temcor employs a customized triacontahedron subdivision method that produces a (unique) strut count; equal to the frequency. For a Temcor dome, comparable to the Aviary pavilion, there are only 14 unique strut lengths, for the 14-frequency triacon subdivision. This is important for Temcor, since they mass-produce domes, and want as few unique parts as possible.

I discussed the Temcor subdivision method, as I progressed through my "dissection" to figure out how they did it. (All my erroneous assumptions, as I proceeded, are included.) I don't think the Temcor subdivision method is described or published anywhere but here:

http://groups.google.com/group/geodesichelp/browse_thread/thread/849dd5f4d7e9de41

(Note that there are 57 posts to that discussion thread, and you have to click on the "Newer" link, at the bottom of each 25-post page.)

Bottom line: There's more than one subdivision method (i.e.; "there's more than one way to skin a cat.")

-Taff

[Dondalah Proust]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  As you say it depends on your goals.  I should think that an important goal would be to balance out the "tensegrity" throughout the dome.  I understand that to mean, that forces are evenly spread throughout the dome.

Dondalah

---

From: TaffGoch <taff...@gmail.com>
To: geodes...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 9:09 PM

Subject: Re: Queens Zoo Aviary

[TaffGoch]

True, that is the primary objective, but the differences between subdivision methods, and the strut lengths they produce, affect the force/load distribution by a reasonably-small factor. The strut-length variabilities between methods is, typically, minor. (I'd expect that a lower strut-length disparity ratio would provide the best results.)

Testing the benefits of load-distribution, when different subdivision methods are employed, can be easily done, nowadays, with the computer power available. I haven't seen such a comparison, though. It would be interesting, but may turn out to be merely academic.

If a lower load-distribution result needs to be increased, thicker tube walls or "fatter" tubes can be used. (Even then, I expect only small accommodation would be needed to match "better" load results, produced by another subdivision method.)

I prefer objective results, rather than subjective, but some characteristics of domes can be rather counter-intuitive. Start to throw in other factors, regarding panel stiffness, wind loading, etc., and it can be quite befuddling.

When the Eden Project domes were computer modeled, the engineers found that wind would produce a surprisingly-large lifting force (as on an airplane wing.) The foundation had to be revised -- to resist lift, rather than to support weight. Additionally, building the domes in the bottom of an old clay quarry helped in shielding the domes from wind-lift forces.

Try explaining all this to a building code inspector! Many builders (including the military) employ sand-bag or water-bucket vertical loading to the vertices, to simulate snow load. Bucky did it, too, so, I guess it's good enough for me. I just hope that I wouldn't run into a rigid, bureaucratic inspector.

-Taff

[Gerry in Quebec]

Interesting thread. If the Epcot dome/sphere is based on the pentakis
dodecadhedron, then there will be two radius lengths. Those at the
vertices in the centres of the pentagons will be 97.4% of the other
vertices. I suspect, though, that all vertices are equidistant from
the dome's centre ... so that it's a true geodesic sphere.
- Gerry Toomey in Quebec

>  Epcot-SE2.jpg
> 121KViewDownload

[Dondalah Proust]

Please excuse me, the tessellation needs to be doubled for Spaceship Earth.  It is a class 2 frequency 16 icosahedron.  Hugh Kenner's algorithm uses the half frequency for computing the face.  (By the way, the chord lengths for method 1 in Domebook 2 match the strut lengths in Hugh Kenner's algorithm.)

Attached is a picture of what a class 2 frequency 16 icosahedron looks like (c2i16.png).

c2i16.txt shows the strut lengths for a 165 foot dome with the summary at the end.

In the algorithm, all radii are length 1.0.  All vertices touch the sphere with radius 1, including the center of each pentagon in the pentakis dodecahedron.  Hugh Kenner calls it a class 2 icosahedron, while Wikipedia and Bucky called it a pentakis dodecahedron.  Same thing, since one is the dual of the other.  The algorithm is very elegant, the way the 60 faces of the pentakis dodecahedron fit together.  When I programmed it and watched it assemble, it was astounding.

Dondalah

---

From: TaffGoch <taff...@gmail.com>
To: geodes...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 5:26 PM

Subject: Re: Queens Zoo Aviary

[Gerry Toomey]

I e-mailed this message & attachment yesterday but it didn't come through. Apologies if anyone ends up seeing it twice.

- Gerry

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Gerry Toomey <toomey...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Dondalah,

The pentakisdodecahedron is the dual of truncated icosahedron. It differs very slightly in shape from a class II, 2-frequency geodesic sphere. Rather than having all 32 vertices equidistant from the polyhedron’s centre, the pentakisdodecahedron’s 12 vertices at the centres of the pentagons are a bit closer to the centre. So, if Bucky referred to the underlying polyhedron of some of his domes as a pentakis dodecahedron, then I expect he was using the term loosely.

 

Another shape very similar to those two polyhedra is the rhombic triacontahedron. Just think of each rhombus as two adjacent triangles which happen to lie in the same plane. The attached diagram shows it better than words.

- Gerry in Quebec

 

 

Dondalah's earlier message, Sept. 9, 6:35 p.m....

[TaffGoch]

As you already know, Gerry, even the triacontahedron requires that the (lessor) triacon vertices be projected out to the surface of a sphere (defined by the greater radius of the triacontahedron.)

The same applies to the pentakis dodecahedron, so I can understand Bucky's reference to Spaceship Earth being based on the pentakis dodecahderon.

Either way, triacontahedron or pentakis dodecahedron, the 16-frequency end results come out the same. I consider the issue to be an academic argument.

But, as I said, you already know all this.

Consider this post as instruction to others (i.e.; un-enlightened readers.)

-Taff

[TaffGoch]

Or, am I wrong about the triacontahedron vertices not sharing the same radius?

-Taff

[Gerry in Quebec]

Hi Taff,
Yes, you're right that the vertices of the rhombic triacontahedron
don't share the same radius. There are two distinct radii.

My diagram was intended to show the difference between the pentakis
dodecahedron and the class II, 2v icosa geodesic sphere. It also shows
that the rhombic triacontahedron, the source of the term "triacon
division" in geodesic dome jargon, differs from those two cousin
polyhedra.

Would you not agree that a simpler, more intuitive way to refer to
class II domes/spheres, as hinted at by Dondalah, is to talk about
them as projections of a dodecahedron.

- Gerry

[TaffGoch]

Dodecahedron subdivision, using projections, would also be an applicable description. 

Of course, you'd have to project the pentagon centerpoint out to the sphere surface, so you end up with the same results as the triacontahedron & pentakis dodecahedron projections (under the right triangular-subdivision conditions.)

-Taff

[Gerry Toomey]

Hi Dondalah,

The pentakisdodecahedron is the dual of truncated icosahedron. It differs very slightly in shape from a class II, 2-frequency geodesic sphere. Rather than having all 32 vertices equidistant from the polyhedron’s centre, the pentakisdodecahedron’s 12 vertices at the centres of the pentagons are a bit closer to the centre. So, if Bucky referred to the underlying polyhedron of some of his domes as a pentakis dodecahedron, then I expect he was using the term loosely.

 

Another shape very similar to those two polyhedra is the rhombic triacontahedron. Just think of each rhombus as two adjacent triangles which happen to lie in the same plane. The attached diagram shows it better than words.

Gerry in Quebec

 

 

[Katrina Howard Fairley]

Bucky sold his stock in Synergetics, Inc in 1958 when he stepped down
as president and moved to Carbondale. Bucky was not an architect for
Synergetics, Inc. Synergetics, Inc was an architectural firm always!
Bucky referred to them as engineers when they were constructing a
dome. None of the staff were engineers except TC Howard and Dr. M. E.
Uyanik ( consulting engineer on most geodesic domes). Bucky did not
design ASM dome either. Shoji Sadao had gone to school with one of
the associates with John T. Kelly who designed the Headquarters and
wanted a geodesic dome. Shoji sent them to TC Howard.Kelly totally
had everything to do with this dome. It was his concept. Bucky, being
Bucky went to see this dome being constructed and gave his long
speeches, but he had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this design! Yes,
Bucky's memorial was held at ASM and TC Howard was introduced as the
designer of the dome. Bucky loved TC's domes. He told TC as the ASM
was being finished "You beat me at my own game." And that was enough
for TC, but not me. - TC's daughter