From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13tdv5roj0m3fc0@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Don"  wrote in   
   > news:fqvfmp01bh7@news5.newsguy.com:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   >> news:13t67gb49aj5q43@corp.supernews.com...   
   >>> "Don"  wrote in   
   >>> news:fqtvob01f4k@news1.newsguy.com:   
   >>>   
   > [Edited]   
   >   
   >>> As far as earthquake stuff goes, my knowledge is   
   >>>> limited to general science stuff I've seen on the toob but I believe   
   >>>> flexibility is the key.   
   >>>   
   >>> Felxibility, yup, that does seem to be a main, or poss. *the* main,   
   >>> point.  I saw one thing (let's face it, if thre is somehting on about   
   >>> earthquakes, i watch it...) which showed buildings in Turkey - new   
   >>> houses that were monolithing construction (cinderblock) fell apart,   
   >>> btu traditional houses, which started with timber frames taht   
   >>> included diagonal supports (not so differnt from old ENglish   
   >>> half-timber methods), which then were filled in with bricks, remained   
   >>> standing, with only a rew exceptions.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your point re: the trusses is also a good one.  So, yup, it seems   
   >>> that a building has to be a *system* to survive unusual conditions,   
   >>> as opposed to merely being a collection of disparate parts...   
   >>>   
   >>> Let's hear it for cells (as in the biological/living things) ;)   
   >>>   
   >>> Actually, only half a joke - are you catching any of the new series   
   >>> about the Body?   
   >>   
   >> No, but I'm going to.   
   >> (short story: My wife and I have gotten into the habit of watching   
   >> that show, 'How It's Made' on Discovery while eating supper and   
   >> invariably they'll show a commercial about 'The Body' and eveytime   
   >> they do I say, 'One of these days I'm gonna watch that show'. Its sort   
   >> of a joke. So far I haven't watched it. We don't watch much.)   
   >   
   > Both are intresting, although sometimes the "how it's made" topics are   
   > less interesting to me than teh biology-related things - such as, I   
   > wasn't fascinated with how pencil erasers are made ;)  Mechanical topics   
   > are interesting, tho'.   
   >   
   >>> Last week, they discussed bones, and the high degree to which   
   >>> bones are cellular is structure (as opposed tosolid) and *flexible* -   
   >>> it was maazing to see how far a bone could bend before failing   
   >>> (breaking). Biology has had millions of years to "experiment" and   
   >>> offers intersting examples.  Makes me wonder whether,a t some point,   
   >>> we'll be able to *grow* buildings - although that's an entirely   
   >>> different topic.   
   >>   
   >> According to Per Corel that exactly how its going to happen, sort of.   
   >> He envisions his 3DH buildings constructed at the molecular level by   
   >> microscopic robots and after a building is completed the robots will   
   >> be reprogrammed to perform constant maintenance.   
   >   
   > THe problem is that I never could get a handle on what "3DH" actually   
   > *means*.  I also never caught the bit about the mini-robots, either, so   
   > thanks for pointing that out...  I had a hard time understanding the   
   > explanations.  I looked at the pics of models, but i guess I didn't get   
   > out of them what was intended...   
   >   
   > Anyway, re: "grow buildings", I mean, biologically, not using robots.   
   > More along the lines of breeding a tree, for example, that stays under a   
   > certan height, and grows in a way that creates hollow chambers.  Not even   
   > my own idea, really, but somehting I came across in a "scifi" novel.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> Meanwhile, the interactions between materials, and structures, and   
   >>> the resulting resistance to stresses, is an interesting thing.  I'm   
   >>> thinking that the "weaklink" in wooden structures, as far as   
   >>> earthquake resistance goes, might be the nails, since wood itself   
   >>> seems far superior.  SO I'm wondering whether it'd be "sturdier" (to   
   >>> use the term a bit inaccurately but hopefully the meaning is clear)   
   >>> to use fitted joints, as were used in the "pre-nails" days...?   
   >>   
   >> Here's a prediction, which I originally predicted some 10 years ago.   
   >> Under the right conditions the wood trusses will fail because the   
   >> number of nails required will effect the stability of it.   
   >   
   > Not surprising - the strength and flexibility of wood, like that of bone,   
   > is not a funciton merely of the existence of verious types of cells and   
   > "biological glue" so to speak, it's a funciton of the   
   > *interconnectedness* of the cells and any other materials.  THink abotu   
   > the qualities of cartelege, and then think what would happen if it were   
   > punched full of holes.  People think of wood as "hard", more than they   
   > think of it as "flexible", and same is true of bone.  But part of the   
   > strength *is* the flexibility, and that flexibility is comprimised once   
   > the material is made discontiguous so to speak.   
   >   
   >> Right now, something like 18 nails are *required* at each   
   >> truss/hurricane anchor and to me that many holes in the wood isn't a   
   >> good thing. Ever seen a piece of wood with 18 nails in close   
   >> proximity? It ain't pretty - the wood is horribly splintered.   
   >   
   > Yes, and true.   
   >   
   >> I'd rather see 12 guage angle steel reheaded into the top/side of the   
   >> concrete tiebeam and through bolted through the truss heels - the   
   >> angle steel would go up and over the top chord and be bolted from both   
   >> sides. This would be less strain on the wood in the truss. The plywood   
   >> roof sheathing, not OSB, 3/4" plywood, would be installed with #12 x   
   >> 3" screws @ 8" o/c along the perimeters of the sheets and all plywood   
   >> seams would receive 2x4 deadwood. These things would add about 15-20%   
   >> to the cost of the roof but would add considerably to the overall   
   >> integrity of it. **No inspector is ever going to count all the nails   
   >> in every hurricane anchor on every house.   
   >   
   > Hmm.  Interesting idea.  I'm saving that one.   
   >   
   > ((Isn't the largest cost of most houses actually the land, rather than   
   > the structure...?))   
      
   Probably the most expensive single piece of land I've been involved with was   
   $850k for less than 1/4 acre on Useppa Island and the house that was built   
   on it was valued at over $2 mil.   
   Most of the stuff I've done was a far less ratio.   
   My own property in the Cape cost $3500 in 2001 for 1/4 acre and in 2006 I   
   sold it with a house on it for $300k and the original cost of the house was   
   $155k + add-ons.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)