HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS

[geo]

There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS

http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html

"Richard RIley" > wrote in message
...
> The latest storm tracks show Charlie set to skim Pinellas County
> around noon tomorrow. That's not good news for Lakeland, since it
> will be hit by the north east corner of the storm. Lakeland will get
> the worst rain and winds.
>
> I'll have a candle lit for all the folks there.

[Juan Jimenez]

I have always wondered why people would be stupid enough to build out of
wood after the last hurricane takes the wooden home and enlarges it to a
few acres maybe an inch tall.

What's even more amazing is how many people in Punta Gorda stayed in their
RV's and TRAILER HOMES just YARDS from the water while facing a Cat 4 storm
coming straight for them. I heard that many refused to leave because
shelters would not take animals. ???

Somebody explain to me why the Shrub's brother thinks he has the right to
stick his damn nose in the business of people having to deal with spouses
turned into vegetables who never wanted to live that way...

....but doesn't deal with body-temperature IQ's who refuse to leave
hurricane paths by empowering law enforcement to handcuff and take them to
safety after a mandatory evac order.


"geo" > wrote in news:mVVTc.5287$Zh3.2475@trndny02:

> There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
>
> http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html
>
> "Richard RIley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The latest storm tracks show Charlie set to skim Pinellas County
>> around noon tomorrow. That's not good news for Lakeland, since it
>> will be hit by the north east corner of the storm. Lakeland will get
>> the worst rain and winds.
>>
>> I'll have a candle lit for all the folks there.

[Vaughn]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> I have always wondered why people would be stupid enough to build out of
> wood after the last hurricane takes the wooden home and enlarges it to a
> few acres maybe an inch tall.

Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden structure
will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
structure. For proof, take a trip to Key West and check out some of those old
homes. The biggest advantage of concrete homes in Florida has nothing to do
with hurricanes; termites don't eat concrete.

Did you know that they even make airplanes out of wood? (aviation content)

Vaughn

[Kyle Boatright]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> I have always wondered why people would be stupid enough to build out of
> wood after the last hurricane takes the wooden home and enlarges it to a
> few acres maybe an inch tall.
>
> What's even more amazing is how many people in Punta Gorda stayed in their
> RV's and TRAILER HOMES just YARDS from the water while facing a Cat 4
storm
> coming straight for them. I heard that many refused to leave because
> shelters would not take animals. ???

Because the media fixated on the idea that the hurricane was going to hit
Tampa, despite information from the NWS and the other weather services that
Tampa was just a best guess.

>
> Somebody explain to me why the Shrub's brother thinks he has the right to
> stick his damn nose in the business of people having to deal with spouses
> turned into vegetables who never wanted to live that way...
>
> ...but doesn't deal with body-temperature IQ's who refuse to leave
> hurricane paths by empowering law enforcement to handcuff and take them to
> safety after a mandatory evac order.

Because it is a free country, and one freedom it to take risks that would be
unacceptable to others. Some folks even think it is unacceptably risky to
fly small airplanes.

>
>
> "geo" > wrote in news:mVVTc.5287$Zh3.2475@trndny02:
>
> > There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
> >
> > http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html
> >
> > "Richard RIley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> The latest storm tracks show Charlie set to skim Pinellas County
> >> around noon tomorrow. That's not good news for Lakeland, since it
> >> will be hit by the north east corner of the storm. Lakeland will get
> >> the worst rain and winds.
> >>
> >> I'll have a candle lit for all the folks there.
>

[BllFs6]

" The biggest advantage of concrete homes in Florida has nothing to do
with hurricanes; termites don't eat concrete.

Did you know that they even make airplanes out of wood? (aviation
content)

Vaughn"

Yeppers...

But do they make airplanes outa concrete? :)

Makes you wonder if it would even be remotely possible with a really big, way
overpowered airplane...anybody gotta couple million to waste just to do
something thats never been done before?

take care

Blll

[RobertR237]

>
>There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
>
>http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html
>

Hurricane resistant, maybe...Hurricane Proof, never.

Unless everything around it is tied down and the wind is from the right
direction, any building is vulnerable to damage from a strong hurricane. One
of the biggest sources of damage in every hurricane is blowing debris causing
the initial damage to a building and the resulting winds finishing the work.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>> I have always wondered why people would be stupid enough to build out of
>> wood after the last hurricane takes the wooden home and enlarges it to a
>> few acres maybe an inch tall.
>
> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
>structure
>will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
>structure. For proof, take a trip to Key West and check out some of those
>old
>homes. The biggest advantage of concrete homes in Florida has nothing to do
>with hurricanes; termites don't eat concrete.
>
> Did you know that they even make airplanes out of wood? (aviation
>content)
>
>Vaughn
>

A lot of concrete block buildings were destroyed by the hurricane while well
built wood structures were left standing. For that matter, many mobile homes
were left standing right next to the flattened ones. Often times, its just a
matter of luck.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Juan Jimenez]

"Vaughn" > wrote in
:

> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
> structure will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly
> designed concrete structure.

Sorry, but I won't buy that for one second. Concrete doesn't blow out when
a window gives way and air pressure builds up inside the house, not at
hurricane speed winds. Safe rooms built inside wooden homes in tornado
alley are not build out of wood -- they are built out of reinforced
concrete.

> Did you know that they even make airplanes out of wood?
> (aviation content)

Sure, and very few people find them suitable for permanent habitation.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
:

> Because the media fixated on the idea that the hurricane was going to
> hit Tampa, despite information from the NWS and the other weather
> services that Tampa was just a best guess.

That's a Gene Pool Elimination Lottery reason.

> Because it is a free country, and one freedom it to take risks that
> would be unacceptable to others.

Free does not mean free-for-all. The governor has the power to force people
to leave their homes and move them to safety when there is a clear and
present danger to them. He should used it.

[Juan Jimenez]

(RobertR237) wrote in
:

>>
>>There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
>>
>>http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html
>>
>
> Hurricane resistant, maybe...Hurricane Proof, never.
>
> Unless everything around it is tied down and the wind is from the
> right direction, any building is vulnerable to damage from a strong
> hurricane. One of the biggest sources of damage in every hurricane is
> blowing debris causing the initial damage to a building and the
> resulting winds finishing the work.

That must explain why every home in the neighborhood I grew up in is still
standing, -intact-, 60+ years after they were built, and several hurricanes
later, while one hurricane pretty much wiped out entire cities and
neighborhoods in a few hours in Florida. It doesn't take a genius to figure
out that when it comes to protecting people from things like hurricanes,
concrete beats wood 99% of the time.

[BllFs6]

>Free does not mean free-for-all. The governor has the power to force people
>to leave their homes and move them to safety when there is a clear and
>present danger to them. He should used it.
>

Yep, and next thing you know your guilty of thought crimes and goose stepping
down the street....

Blll

[Ken Finney]

Two comments.

1. If I lived in hurricane country, I'd have at least one Gunnite-type
quonset hut to put my valuables in and hide in.

2. I've seen safe rooms built out of wood, but IIRC, they were made of two
sheets of 1 and and eighth plywood laminated together.



"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> "Vaughn" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
> > structure will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly
> > designed concrete structure.
>
> Sorry, but I won't buy that for one second. Concrete doesn't blow out when
> a window gives way and air pressure builds up inside the house, not at
> hurricane speed winds. Safe rooms built inside wooden homes in tornado
> alley are not build out of wood -- they are built out of reinforced
> concrete.
>
> > Did you know that they even make airplanes out of wood?
> > (aviation content)
>
> Sure, and very few people find them suitable for permanent habitation.
>

[Vaughn Simon]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> It doesn't take a genius...

Yep, you are right about that Juan.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in
:

> Two comments.
>
> 1. If I lived in hurricane country, I'd have at least one
> Gunnite-type quonset hut to put my valuables in and hide in.

Oh, that explains it. Well, I was born and live in hurricane country (the
Caribbean) and very few people here have quonset huts to hide in. We just
stay indoors.

> 2. I've seen safe rooms built out of wood, but IIRC, they were made
> of two sheets of 1 and and eighth plywood laminated together.

I've seen thicker wood complete run through by a flying piece of debris,
but never concrete.

[Juan Jimenez]

(BllFs6) wrote in
:

>>Free does not mean free-for-all. The governor has the power to force
>>people to leave their homes and move them to safety when there is a
>>clear and present danger to them. He should used it.
>>
>
> Yep, and next thing you know your guilty of thought crimes and goose
> stepping down the street....

That sounds like a personal problem of which you need to speak to your
chaplain.

[BllFs6]

>>>Free does not mean free-for-all. The governor has the power to force
>>>people to leave their homes and move them to safety when there is a
>>>clear and present danger to them. He should used it.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, and next thing you know your guilty of thought crimes and goose
>> stepping down the street....
>
>That sounds like a personal problem of which you need to speak to your
>chaplain.
>

Ahhh,,,,,,the people here who cherish FREEDOM will get my point......and Juan
will still be Juan.....

Bllll

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Vaughn" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
>>structure will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly
>>designed concrete structure.
>
>
> Sorry, but I won't buy that for one second. Concrete doesn't blow out when
> a window gives way and air pressure builds up inside the house, not at
> hurricane speed winds. Safe rooms built inside wooden homes in tornado
> alley are not build out of wood -- they are built out of reinforced
> concrete.

That's because you are not an engineer and haven't a clue. Almost all
common building materials can be used to build a structure of a given
strength. It is just that some materials are more cost effective in
certain circumstances. A safe room built from 10" thick oak timbers
would be quite strong. It is just that few people know how to properly
build with timber these days and reinforced concrete is easy and cheap.
Nothing to do with strength, it is economics.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> (RobertR237) wrote in
> :
>
>
>>>There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
>>>
>>>http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html
>>>
>>
>>Hurricane resistant, maybe...Hurricane Proof, never.
>>
>>Unless everything around it is tied down and the wind is from the
>>right direction, any building is vulnerable to damage from a strong
>>hurricane. One of the biggest sources of damage in every hurricane is
>>blowing debris causing the initial damage to a building and the
>>resulting winds finishing the work.
>
>
> That must explain why every home in the neighborhood I grew up in is still
> standing, -intact-, 60+ years after they were built, and several hurricanes
> later, while one hurricane pretty much wiped out entire cities and
> neighborhoods in a few hours in Florida. It doesn't take a genius to figure
> out that when it comes to protecting people from things like hurricanes,
> concrete beats wood 99% of the time.

No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a daily
basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up rather well.
It is a matter of what loads the structure is designed for, not the
materials used in the construction.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Ken Finney" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Two comments.
>>
>>1. If I lived in hurricane country, I'd have at least one
>>Gunnite-type quonset hut to put my valuables in and hide in.
>
>
> Oh, that explains it. Well, I was born and live in hurricane country (the
> Caribbean) and very few people here have quonset huts to hide in. We just
> stay indoors.
>
>
>>2. I've seen safe rooms built out of wood, but IIRC, they were made
>>of two sheets of 1 and and eighth plywood laminated together.
>
>
> I've seen thicker wood complete run through by a flying piece of debris,
> but never concrete.
>

Comparing 2" of wood to 6" or more of concrete is simply dumb. It is
easy to poke a hole through concrete that is only 2" thick ... I've done
it several times.


Matt

[Blueskies]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
> On 16 Aug 2004 14:24:02 GMT, (RobertR237)
> wrote:
> :
> Apparently most of them survived the huricane fine, unless
> they were hit by flying cars and oak trees.


Flying cars and oak trees! So it takes a hurricane to make our wishes come true!

[Blueskies]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have always wondered why people would be stupid enough to build out of
> > wood after the last hurricane takes the wooden home and enlarges it to a
> > few acres maybe an inch tall.
>
> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden structure
> will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
> structure. For proof, take a trip to Key West and check out some of those old
> homes. The biggest advantage of concrete homes in Florida has nothing to do
> with hurricanes; termites don't eat concrete.
>

The concrete homes are cooler also...


> Did you know that they even make airplanes out of wood? (aviation content)
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

[RobertR237]

>>
>>>>There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
>>>>
>>>>http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hurricane resistant, maybe...Hurricane Proof, never.
>>>
>>>Unless everything around it is tied down and the wind is from the
>>>right direction, any building is vulnerable to damage from a strong
>>>hurricane. One of the biggest sources of damage in every hurricane is
>>>blowing debris causing the initial damage to a building and the
>>>resulting winds finishing the work.
>>
>>
>> That must explain why every home in the neighborhood I grew up in is still
>> standing, -intact-, 60+ years after they were built, and several hurricanes
>
>> later, while one hurricane pretty much wiped out entire cities and
>> neighborhoods in a few hours in Florida. It doesn't take a genius to figure
>
>> out that when it comes to protecting people from things like hurricanes,
>> concrete beats wood 99% of the time.
>
>No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
>designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a daily
>basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up rather well.
> It is a matter of what loads the structure is designed for, not the
>materials used in the construction.
>
>
>Matt
>

Matt,

You are wasting your time trying to reason with Jaun, he is a self proclaimed
expert in all things and nothing will ever change his mind.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Del Rawlins]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:17:26 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> wrote:


>1. If I lived in hurricane country, I'd have at least one Gunnite-type
>quonset hut to put my valuables in and hide in.

Yup, quonset huts do good in the wind. Four winters ago the small
rural fishing town in Alaska where I lived was hit by a typhoon and
hurricane force winds were measured in the small boat harbor. Trees
went down all over town (fortunately most of the power lines were
underground), and many people lost roofs. One building in particular
literally exploded and its roof was carried away, out over the inlet,
never to be seen again. Our commercial buildings consisted of a
large, wood framed quonset hut and a timber framed shop and adjoining
warehouse built with 12x12 timbers (my dad didn't know the meaning of
the word overkill). Our total damage consisted of a couple chimney
caps that got blown off. One was rusted out and needed replacement
anyway, and the other, after the stoorm ended I picked it up off the
ground and put it back where it belonged. I felt kind of bad
considering the damage some of our friends suffered but oh well.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, RobertR237 says...
>You are wasting your time trying to reason with Jaun, he is a self proclaimed
>expert in all things and nothing will ever change his mind.
>

Boy you got that right ,it didn't take jaun long to start ragging on people
over material for a building. I guess a cement BD-5 will fly as good as his
perpetual BD-5 project LOL!!

Flame shorts on !!

See ya

Chuck (the guy that designed wood is a pretty good designer) S

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:31:20 -0700, Richard Riley >
wrote:

>>> Apparently most of them survived the huricane fine, unless
>>> they were hit by flying cars and oak trees.
>>
>>Flying cars and oak trees! So it takes a hurricane to make our wishes come true!
>
>Not at all! Tornadoes do it too.

Yeah, but when a tornado hits Kansas, you don't get a lot of surfers
running around yelling, "Dirt's up!" :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Natalie]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message . com...
> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
> > On 16 Aug 2004 14:24:02 GMT, (RobertR237)
> > wrote:
> > :
> > Apparently most of them survived the huricane fine, unless
> > they were hit by flying cars and oak trees.
>
>
> Flying cars and oak trees! So it takes a hurricane to make our wishes come true!
>
I think I saw Moller down there looking at the oak trees.

[geo]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
structure
> will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
> structure.

I'm not talking about cinder blocks. Reinforced concrete is by FAR the
strongest building material generally available and in the shape of a dome
it's much stronger still. Given the same forces a stick home will be a pile
of splinters while the dome is unscathed. The numbers have been done; it's
not a mystery. http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/survive/index.html

> For proof, take a trip to Key West and check out some of those old
> homes. The biggest advantage of concrete homes in Florida has nothing to
do
> with hurricanes; termites don't eat concrete.
>

It has everything to do with hurricanes. And fire. And floods. And rot.

[geo]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >There's a simple solution: build HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
> >
> >http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/hangars/index.html
> >
>
> Hurricane resistant, maybe...Hurricane Proof, never.

>
Which of the numbers do you disagree with?
http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/survive/index.html

[Matt Whiting]

Blueskies wrote:

> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I have always wondered why people would be stupid enough to build out of
>>>wood after the last hurricane takes the wooden home and enlarges it to a
>>>few acres maybe an inch tall.
>>
>> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden structure
>>will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
>>structure. For proof, take a trip to Key West and check out some of those old
>>homes. The biggest advantage of concrete homes in Florida has nothing to do
>>with hurricanes; termites don't eat concrete.
>>
>
>
> The concrete homes are cooler also...

Until they get warmed up and then they stay hotter.


Matt

[Vaughn]

From: "geo" >
Subject: Re: HURRICANE PROOF BUILDINGS
Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 2:20 PM

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
structure
>> will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
>> structure.

>I'm not talking about cinder blocks.

And I am not talking about reinforced concrete dome houses. I am talking
about the real-life code-compliant housing that fills up neighborhoods here in
south Florida. In fact, my post above was not even in response to you, and
certainly not to some weird structure that lives in your imagination or on a on
a web page somewhere.

Last time I checked; here in south Florida, a code-compliant wooden house
will get the same insurance rate for storm coverage as a comparable concrete
home. Proper storm shutters and/or Dade approved window and door systems are a
major item and insurance companies may someday force 100% retrofit in storm
counties. After window protection, the next most important item for storm
resistance is roof design, not the building material of the walls.

Ten years ago, I toured hurricane Andrew's devastation and saw many failed
structures, wood, concrete block, and yes; even reinforced concrete.


Vaughn (a guy who lives in a concrete house)

[Matt Whiting]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> In article >, RobertR237 says...
>
>>You are wasting your time trying to reason with Jaun, he is a self proclaimed
>>expert in all things and nothing will ever change his mind.
>>
>
>
> Boy you got that right ,it didn't take jaun long to start ragging on people
> over material for a building. I guess a cement BD-5 will fly as good as his
> perpetual BD-5 project LOL!!
>
> Flame shorts on !!
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck (the guy that designed wood is a pretty good designer) S
>

Yes, wood is the original composite material.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

geo wrote:

> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
>
> structure
>
>>will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
>>structure.
>
>
> I'm not talking about cinder blocks. Reinforced concrete is by FAR the
> strongest building material generally available and in the shape of a dome
> it's much stronger still. Given the same forces a stick home will be a pile
> of splinters while the dome is unscathed. The numbers have been done; it's
> not a mystery. http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/survive/index.html

Define strongest? Tensile strength? Compressive strength? Stiffness?


Matt

[DBlumel]

>> The concrete homes are cooler also...
>
>Until they get warmed up and then they stay hotter.

Its called thermal mass.

[Matt Whiting]

DBlumel wrote:
>>>The concrete homes are cooler also...
>>
>>Until they get warmed up and then they stay hotter.
>
>
> Its called thermal mass.

Yes, and it works both ways. Keeps cool longer once cooled, but also
keeps hot longer once heated.


Matt

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:01:18 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
>designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a daily
>basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up rather well.
> It is a matter of what loads the structure is designed for, not the
>materials used in the construction.
>
>
>Matt

Matt, this sounds a like hyperbole. "Old wood sailing ships took a
lot more beating on a daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane"?
Really? Catagory 1 storms begin at 74 miles per hour. Have you ever
been in deepwater in a wooden sailing ship when it was blowing at only
74 mph? Because that's the lowest windspeed of the least violent
classification of hurricane.

I've been on a fiberglass sloop on a large lake when it was blowing
steady at 30 knots and gusting to 50 knots. I don't ever want to do
that again, and I for SURE would not want to be out at sea in a wooden
sailing vessel while a category anything hurricane was blowing.

Those old wooden ships demasted on a regular basis and the sea bottom
is littered with their wrecks.

Corky Scott

[geo]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> And I am not talking about reinforced concrete dome houses. I am
talking
> about the real-life code-compliant housing that fills up neighborhoods
here in
> south Florida. In fact, my post above was not even in response to you,
and
> certainly not to some weird structure that lives in your imagination or on
a on
> a web page somewhere.

You don't know what you're talking about. Those weird structures have been
built for the last 25 years throughout the world as homes, gyms,
auditoriums, churches, bunkers, storage silos, airplane hangers. They can
and have withstood most natural disasters including hurricanes, fire,
earthquakes and tornadoes. And they're 50%-70% more energy efficient. Given
similar costs why anyone would choose to build a flimsy stick and tar
stylish deathtrap is beyond me.

> Last time I checked; here in south Florida, a code-compliant wooden
house
> will get the same insurance rate for storm coverage as a comparable
concrete
> home. Proper storm shutters and/or Dade approved window and door systems
are a
> major item and insurance companies may someday force 100% retrofit in
storm
> counties. After window protection, the next most important item for storm
> resistance is roof design, not the building material of the walls.
>
> Ten years ago, I toured hurricane Andrew's devastation and saw many
failed
> structures, wood, concrete block, and yes; even reinforced concrete.

And I'm sure many of them were code-compliant. That's a false sense of
security. When a cat-5 hits a code compliant house it'll be in splinters.
Code-compliant doesn't mean that's the best that's possible it represents
somebody's idea of what can reasonably be done for the least cost given
commonly used building techniques without upsetting too many people while
making contractors happy.

All those planes (not to mention people) that were damaged or destroyed
would have been untouched in a monolithic dome. It's that simple.
>
>
> Vaughn (a guy who lives in a concrete house)

What kind of concrete house?

[DBlumel]

>Vaughn (a guy who lives in a concrete house)
>
>What kind of concrete house?

I guess people who live in concrete houses can throw stones.

[Matt Whiting]

Corky Scott wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:01:18 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
>>designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a daily
>>basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up rather well.
>> It is a matter of what loads the structure is designed for, not the
>>materials used in the construction.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Matt, this sounds a like hyperbole. "Old wood sailing ships took a
> lot more beating on a daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane"?
> Really? Catagory 1 storms begin at 74 miles per hour. Have you ever
> been in deepwater in a wooden sailing ship when it was blowing at only
> 74 mph? Because that's the lowest windspeed of the least violent
> classification of hurricane.

I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at 15-20
knots is a LOT of force. I'd have to do some research to find the
equivalent wind speed to provide the same force as hitting water at 20
knots, but it would be a lot of wind given the density difference
between wind and water.


> I've been on a fiberglass sloop on a large lake when it was blowing
> steady at 30 knots and gusting to 50 knots. I don't ever want to do
> that again, and I for SURE would not want to be out at sea in a wooden
> sailing vessel while a category anything hurricane was blowing.
>
> Those old wooden ships demasted on a regular basis and the sea bottom
> is littered with their wrecks.

Again, I was talking hull, not masts, sails, etc.


Matt

[Vaughn]

"geo" > wrote in message news:VUKUc.46144$US4.22088@trndny01...
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And I am not talking about reinforced concrete dome houses. I am
> talking
> > about the real-life code-compliant housing that fills up neighborhoods
> here in
> > south Florida. In fact, my post above was not even in response to you,
> and
> > certainly not to some weird structure that lives in your imagination or on
> a on
> > a web page somewhere.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about and I think I made myself quite
clear. Apparently my reality does not match your reality, so this will serve as
a friendly end our conversation. You may now withdraw to your dome-shaped
hanger with my complements.

Regards,
Vaughn

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Corky Scott wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:01:18 -0400, Matt Whiting
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't
>>> so designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a
>>> daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up
>>> rather well. It is a matter of what loads the structure is designed
>>> for, not the materials used in the construction.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt, this sounds a like hyperbole. "Old wood sailing ships took a
>> lot more beating on a daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane"?
>> Really? Catagory 1 storms begin at 74 miles per hour. Have you ever
>> been in deepwater in a wooden sailing ship when it was blowing at only
>> 74 mph? Because that's the lowest windspeed of the least violent
>> classification of hurricane.
>
>
> I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at 15-20

I meant to type waves, not ways!

Matt

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:09:00 -0400, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at 15-20
>knots is a LOT of force. I'd have to do some research to find the
>equivalent wind speed to provide the same force as hitting water at 20
>knots, but it would be a lot of wind given the density difference
>between wind and water.

Granted, hitting a wave at 15 to 20 knots does produce a lot of force.
But no sailing vessel reached that speed in the water until the advent
of the Clipper ships of the early to mid 1800's. Boats didn't need to
be clipping along at that speed to suffer severe and even terminal
destruction from wave action.

I think I've forgotten what we were debating. ;-)

Corky Scott

Corky

[Juan Jimenez]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> That's because you are not an engineer and haven't a clue. Almost all
> common building materials can be used to build a structure of a given
> strength. It is just that some materials are more cost effective in
> certain circumstances. A safe room built from 10" thick oak timbers
> would be quite strong. It is just that few people know how to
> properly build with timber these days and reinforced concrete is easy
> and cheap.
> Nothing to do with strength, it is economics.
>
> Matt

Tell me something I don't know, Matt. It's called "taking the cheapest
route and not worrying about the consequences." And it's precisely what I
am addressing. You say I don't have a clue? Tell you what, tell me, when
was the last time you saw a safe room built out of 10" thick oak timbers in
your average wood home?

Juan

[Juan Jimenez]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
> designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a
> daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up
> rather well.

Source, please. Daily beating on the order of what category hurricane?

[Juan Jimenez]

Corky Scott > wrote in
:

> Matt, this sounds a like hyperbole. "Old wood sailing ships took a
> lot more beating on a daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane"?

First you tell Matt not to argue with me because you think I'm an expert on
everything and now you agree with my assessment of Mark's comments. Hmm.

Juan

[Juan Jimenez]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

>>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
>
> I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
> 15-20 knots is a LOT of force.

Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood sailing
ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the business side of
a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...

Juan

[Juan Jimenez]

Richard Riley > wrote in
:

>:Flying cars and oak trees! So it takes a hurricane to make our wishes
>:come true!
>
> Not at all! Tornadoes do it too.

When I was 9 yr old I was fishing off the bridge about half a mile from the
approach end of rwy 27 at TJIG. I looked up and saw what appeared to be a
huge fire, things going around in circles and debris flying, all at the
other side of the airport. A policeman was coming towards me on the bridge,
I pointed out the fire, his eyes grew big as saucers and he hauled me off,
running, to the nearby marina building. Over the next few minutes, a
"tromba marina" or waterspout hit land, became a tornado and tore up the
place. I saw a Huey and a Cessna 172 flying backwards after trying to land.
I dont know what happened to them. An entire flight line of planes at Isla
Grande Flying school took flight for short distances and was totally
destroyed, and cars were found hundreds of feet where they were parked.
When it was all over, I walked back outside and realized I still had my
fishing line, and it was still in the water. I went to where it went over
the bridge and a large piece of corrugated metal had flown to where I had
been standing.

[Juan Jimenez]

"geo" > wrote in news:80sUc.3789$de4.1561@trndny07:

> I'm not talking about cinder blocks. Reinforced concrete is by FAR the
> strongest building material generally available and in the shape of a
> dome it's much stronger still. Given the same forces a stick home will
> be a pile of splinters while the dome is unscathed. The numbers have
> been done; it's not a mystery.
> http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/survive/index.html


I saw a really cool documentary the other day showing a company building
concrete domes by inflating a bladder, waiting for the concrete to dry and
then deflating the bladder. It was really impressive.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Vaughn" > wrote in
:

> You may now withdraw to your dome-shaped hanger with my complements.

If he has a dome-shaped hangar, he probably also knows that it's easier to
put more airplanes into it than into a square or rectangular hangar.
Particularly if he has that rotating platform floor. :)

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:42:31 GMT, Juan Jimenez > wrote:

>First you tell Matt not to argue with me because you think I'm an expert on
>everything and now you agree with my assessment of Mark's comments. Hmm.
>
>Juan

Actually I think I suggested EVERYONE not argue with you, but it
wasn't because I thought you were "an expert on everything". It was
because you seem to enjoy bickering so much.

Corky Scott

[Matt Whiting]

Corky Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:09:00 -0400, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at 15-20
>>knots is a LOT of force. I'd have to do some research to find the
>>equivalent wind speed to provide the same force as hitting water at 20
>>knots, but it would be a lot of wind given the density difference
>>between wind and water.
>
>
> Granted, hitting a wave at 15 to 20 knots does produce a lot of force.
> But no sailing vessel reached that speed in the water until the advent
> of the Clipper ships of the early to mid 1800's. Boats didn't need to
> be clipping along at that speed to suffer severe and even terminal
> destruction from wave action.
>
> I think I've forgotten what we were debating. ;-)
>
> Corky Scott
>
> Corky

If you compute the velocity (vector) of a hull that is moving forward at
8-10 knots and dropping down into a wave in rough seas, I think you'll
find the impact velocity is higher than the speed of the ship.

The topic was can wood structures we built such that they can withstand
hurricane force winds. I'm arguing that a boat hull is very likely
strong enough. It is amazing how strong 8" thick timbers are.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>That's because you are not an engineer and haven't a clue. Almost all
>>common building materials can be used to build a structure of a given
>>strength. It is just that some materials are more cost effective in
>>certain circumstances. A safe room built from 10" thick oak timbers
>>would be quite strong. It is just that few people know how to
>>properly build with timber these days and reinforced concrete is easy
>>and cheap.
>> Nothing to do with strength, it is economics.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Tell me something I don't know, Matt. It's called "taking the cheapest
> route and not worrying about the consequences." And it's precisely what I
> am addressing. You say I don't have a clue? Tell you what, tell me, when
> was the last time you saw a safe room built out of 10" thick oak timbers in
> your average wood home?
>
> Juan
>

I've never seen a safe room as where I live we have safe basements!
However, that wasn't the point. The point was that some here have
claimed that concrete is somehow inherently stronger than wood and that
is simply rubbish.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
>>designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a
>>daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up
>>rather well.
>
>
> Source, please. Daily beating on the order of what category hurricane?
>
>

Sorry, I don't get paid to educate you. Do a Google search and look at
the psi that say 150 MPH wind generates than then figure out what
pressure is generated from smacking into water at 20-25 MPH.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
>>
>>I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
>>15-20 knots is a LOT of force.
>
>
> Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood sailing
> ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the business side of
> a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...
>
> Juan
>

I didn't say the ship was traveling at 15 - 20 knots. Ships have a
certain speed. Waves also have a certain speed. Ships also rise and
fall in heavy seas. It is the vector sum of all of these that
determines the impact velocity. If a ship is traveling at 8 knots, and
falls 8' into a wave that is traveling at 6 knots in the opposite
direction, the impact force is much greater than the just the 8 knots
speed of the ship. Is this really that hard a concept to understand?


Matt

[Juan Jimenez]

Corky Scott > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:42:31 GMT, Juan Jimenez > wrote:
>
>>First you tell Matt not to argue with me because you think I'm an
>>expert on everything and now you agree with my assessment of Mark's
>>comments. Hmm.
>>
>>Juan
>
> Actually I think I suggested EVERYONE not argue with you, but it
> wasn't because I thought you were "an expert on everything". It was
> because you seem to enjoy bickering so much.
>
> Corky Scott

It's a pity that you're so hung up on calling "bickering" what most other
people know as "debate.' That's what usenet is about. Get with the program.
:)

[Juan Jimenez]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:cg355421sa3
@enews1.newsguy.com:

> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
>>>designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a
>>>daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up
>>>rather well.
>>
>>
>> Source, please. Daily beating on the order of what category hurricane?
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't get paid to educate you.

Neither do I get paid to humor fools.

<plonk!>

[Juan Jimenez]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
>>>
>>>I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
>>>15-20 knots is a LOT of force.
>>
>>
>> Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood
>> sailing ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the
>> business side of a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...
>>
>> Juan
>>
>
> I didn't say the ship was traveling at 15 - 20 knots. Ships have a
> certain speed. Waves also have a certain speed.

20 knot waves. Unhuh. Clueless doesn't do you justice.

Juan

[B2431]

>From: Matt Whiting
>Date: 8/19/2004 4:16 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
>>>
>>>I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
>>>15-20 knots is a LOT of force.
>>
>>
>> Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood sailing
>> ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the business side of
>> a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...
>>
>> Juan
>>
>
>I didn't say the ship was traveling at 15 - 20 knots. Ships have a
>certain speed. Waves also have a certain speed. Ships also rise and
>fall in heavy seas. It is the vector sum of all of these that
>determines the impact velocity. If a ship is traveling at 8 knots, and
>falls 8' into a wave that is traveling at 6 knots in the opposite
>direction, the impact force is much greater than the just the 8 knots
>speed of the ship. Is this really that hard a concept to understand?
>
>
>Matt

It is to juan. If you really want to confuse him explain how a sailboat can
ride over a 400 kt tsunami in mid ocean without really noticing.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:cg355421sa3
> @enews1.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, concrete designed to withstand hurricans beats wood that wasn't so
>>>>designed. The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a
>>>>daily basis than is dished out by a hurricane. And they held up
>>>>rather well.
>>>
>>>
>>>Source, please. Daily beating on the order of what category hurricane?
>>>
>>
>>Sorry, I don't get paid to educate you.
>
>
> Neither do I get paid to humor fools.
>
> <plonk!>
>

Success at last!


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Whiting > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
>>>>
>>>>I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
>>>>15-20 knots is a LOT of force.
>>>
>>>
>>>Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood
>>>sailing ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the
>>>business side of a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...
>>>
>>>Juan
>>>
>>
>>I didn't say the ship was traveling at 15 - 20 knots. Ships have a
>>certain speed. Waves also have a certain speed.
>
>
> 20 knot waves. Unhuh. Clueless doesn't do you justice.
>
> Juan
>

I never said anything about 20 knot waves. Now I know why you can't
Google for yourself. You can't read the results.


Matt

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:22:33 +0000, RobertR237 wrote:

> expert in all things and nothing will ever change his mind.

I hate to say it, but getting a BD5 ready to fly seems to have changed his
mind, as well as leaving our country.

[bci]

> >> Wood is an amazing building material. A properly designed wooden
> structure
> >> will stand up to a hurricane just as well as a properly designed concrete
> >> structure.

Do you think they know the code varies by county?
...........
In 1994, Broward and Miami-Dade counties adopted the nation's toughest
wind-speed codes, forcing new construction to withstand gusts up to
150 mph. It took another seven years of negotiations with building
industry lobbyists to enact a somewhat watered-down version with
significant upgrades largely confined to coastal areas.

Building industry leaders argued for less regulation for several
reasons -- primarily risk and expense.

Along most of the coast, including Charlotte and Lee counties, the new
code calls for 130-mph protection, the strength of a Category 3. It's
10 mph less in neighboring DeSoto County, home to Arcadia, and another
10 mph less in Orlando. Charley exploded on the coast like a 145-mph
bomb.
.......

If your house was designed for 100 mph and you get 145 mph, I don't
think concrete or wood will make a big difference.

Betsy ( in Apollo Beach with 70 % of windows still covered by
shutters)

[geo]

> geo wrote:
> > I'm not talking about cinder blocks. Reinforced concrete is by FAR the
> > strongest building material generally available and in the shape of a
dome
> > it's much stronger still. Given the same forces a stick home will be a
pile
> > of splinters while the dome is unscathed. The numbers have been done;
it's
> > not a mystery. http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/survive/index.html
>
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Define strongest? Tensile strength? Compressive strength? Stiffness?

Look it up. It's on the website.

[geo]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>
> I've never seen a safe room as where I live we have safe basements!
> However, that wasn't the point. The point was that some here have
> claimed that concrete is somehow inherently stronger than wood and that
> is simply rubbish.
>
>
OK, build a hurricane proof, tornado proof, fire proof, earthquake proof
wood home for the going rate (about $85. sq/ft).
http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html,
http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/FEMA/index.html. None are so blind...

[geo]

"bci" > wrote in message >
> If your house was designed for 100 mph and you get 145 mph, I don't
> think concrete or wood will make a big difference.

You're wrong.

Designed to survive winds of up to 250 mph. Probably more depending on
design. http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/FEMA/index.html

[B2431]

>From: "geo"
>Date: 8/22/2004 10:56 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <SVdWc.900$rT1.203@trndny02>
>
>"bci" > wrote in message >
>> If your house was designed for 100 mph and you get 145 mph, I don't
>> think concrete or wood will make a big difference.
>
>You're wrong.
>
>Designed to survive winds of up to 250 mph. Probably more depending on
>design. http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/FEMA/index.html

You keep posting links to that manufacturer's brochures. You have yet to
provide proof any have been built. Are you shilling for them? If so you should
be able to provide proof of it's toughness under storm conditions. Driving a
vehicle into one just isn't the same thing.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[alexy]

"geo" > wrote:

>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> I've never seen a safe room as where I live we have safe basements!
>> However, that wasn't the point. The point was that some here have
>> claimed that concrete is somehow inherently stronger than wood and that
>> is simply rubbish.
>>
>>
>OK, build a hurricane proof, tornado proof, fire proof, earthquake proof
>wood home for the going rate (about $85. sq/ft).
>http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html,
>http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/FEMA/index.html. None are so blind...
>

Just from observing this little spat, I have never seen Matt claim
that _dollar-for-dollar_ wood construction is as strong as concrete
construction for similarly-designed buildings. And the concrete
proponents seem bent on combining the dome design with the concrete
material in making their claim.

I suspect (but have seen nothing here to support or counter my
suspicion) that for similarly-designed buildings:
1) either material could make it just as strong, but
2) concrete might be more economical for a given strength of building,
particularly in areas without abundant lumber.


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[nooneimportant]

Ah... great as monolithic construction is... and as affordable as it
looks... it HAS to be a good deal right? It mentions being cheaper than
standard construction... but how big of a structure do you need for it to be
a break even point? Its a problem people run into a lot when considering
dome construction, they find that the finish out costs are going to be
significantly higher due to the curved interior surfaces, and high scrap
counts for carpet linoleum etc. Creates the same scenario that Log homes
do. Sure they are cheaper per square foot for the structure itself, but in
log homes by the time you add up all the specialty construciton inside you
run anywhere from 30%+ higher than frame construction. You run into a
similar situation with domes. Think about how you have to hang a window in
a dome, first you need to cut a hole in the shell, then somehow build in or
build out a "flat spot" for the glass (unless you want to lay LOADS more for
a custom built curved window), now that flat spot will likely be lumber
construction, and 100% custom. Interior framing, curved walls on the
perimeter of the shell, that are not only curved in a vertical aspect, but a
horizontal aspect as well, more custom construction. Tile flooring... no
simple straignt cuts on edge of tilefield, must carefully nip a curve into
the edge tiles. Carpet, you won't belivehow much carpet you pay for and
waste when carpet comes in square/rectangular sheets and you have to cut it
into a room wiht at least one curved wall (not to mention the installation
costs considering they have to lay many segments of tackstrip, and can't use
a simple straightedge to cust the scrapend of carpet. Same for linoleum
flooring. I personally thougth that they were very nice looking homes, and
a great concept, but when you sit down and really do the math, unless you
are building a fairly large structure (definately larger than a typical
single family home) you will pay a noticable ammount more for a monolithic
dome. (unsure about geodesics, but i personally think they are beyond
ugly). Also look at the homes on that website... those that are cheap look
like crapholes, the rest define homes that are beyond the financial means of
most families!)

Now then. Lets build a properly rated frame home, lumber in this stance.
Primary point of failure is either roof seperating and allowing walls to
collapse, or overpressure blasting in windows doors, and the supsequent
internal overpressure haveing disasterous effects on the home. Roofs are
easy to keep attatched now, hurricane ties have been required in home
construction in coastal areas for years now, and add very little cost to the
home. Simply anodized straps that grab the premade truss structure of roof,
or the rafters of build on site roofing, and tie it in to the sillplate of
perimiter walls, and many have one further tie down to the studs of that
wall. A surprisingly strong result, and hurricane prooven provided there is
not a window/door failure. (sure a few homes do fail anyway, but these
simple ties worked wonders for many people!) Now about the doors and
windows.... going to be a weak point in ANY home, I don't care how its
built. Thats why there are runs on plywood as hurricanes come in, and why
many people in hurricane areas spend the extra money on steel storm
shutters, and if desinged at construction time, the mounting brackets are
often built integrally to the wall for surprising strength. Other people
have moderate results with plywood, stops all but a direct 90deg hit by
debris (almost anything traveling at an angle will certainly gouge the
plywood, but usually be deflected away). The big problem is when people
build manufactured housing or mobil homes, especially the mobile homes where
skirting can get blown out, winds can get UNDER the structure and rock it
violently, sometimes rolling the structure over, walls are paper thin, even
outside walls, thickest i've seen has been 2x4 on the outside and vulnerable
to overpressure. Yet people still buy/build them right here in hurricane
alley. Thats what blows my mind. Most structural failures, fatalities
occur in mobile homes, yet any legistlation demanding improvements in
construction are typically very mild and useless overall. I have
personally seen areas where a tornado destroyed a trailerpark, the housing
edition next door suffered little more than shingle/window/tree damage, and
the next trailer park was obliviated as well. Its not cus trailers are
tornado magnets, but becaus they just can't stand the wind. Those frame
homes endured faster, more violent winds than experienced in a cat5
hurricane, yet damage was relatively minor. Looking at the damage footage
here in florida (and yes I do live in florida on the atlantic side, between
Cape Canaveral and Ft Lauderdale), winds and rain here were minor, but just
a couple of hours away it was much worse, the majority of structural
failures occured where older homes were, and where manufactured/mobile homes
were. I feel very bad for the people that lost everything, but at the same
time they took the same risk living in florida that I do. I am above worst
case storm surge (by about 5 feet!) but the sustained winds can easially
destroy my apartment (wind rating 110) but i choose to stay here and run the
risk, and if it gets blown to hell and all my stuff destroyed ( I won't be
here for it, I plan on leaving if anything stronger than a cat2 comes my
way) thats the risk I take.


"geo" > wrote in message news:GMdWc.3343$VY.37@trndny09...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > I've never seen a safe room as where I live we have safe basements!
> > However, that wasn't the point. The point was that some here have
> > claimed that concrete is somehow inherently stronger than wood and that
> > is simply rubbish.
> >
> >
> OK, build a hurricane proof, tornado proof, fire proof, earthquake proof
> wood home for the going rate (about $85. sq/ft).
> http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html,
> http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/FEMA/index.html. None are so
blind...
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

geo wrote:
>>geo wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not talking about cinder blocks. Reinforced concrete is by FAR the
>>>strongest building material generally available and in the shape of a
>
> dome
>
>>>it's much stronger still. Given the same forces a stick home will be a
>
> pile
>
>>>of splinters while the dome is unscathed. The numbers have been done;
>
> it's
>
>>>not a mystery. http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/survive/index.html
>>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Define strongest? Tensile strength? Compressive strength? Stiffness?
>
>
> Look it up. It's on the website.
>
>

I know, but concrete isn't stronger than wood in all modes so I'm
wondering what you are talking about.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

geo wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I've never seen a safe room as where I live we have safe basements!
>>However, that wasn't the point. The point was that some here have
>>claimed that concrete is somehow inherently stronger than wood and that
>>is simply rubbish.
>>
>>
>
> OK, build a hurricane proof, tornado proof, fire proof, earthquake proof
> wood home for the going rate (about $85. sq/ft).
> http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html,
> http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/FEMA/index.html. None are so blind...
>
>

I did. I live in a log house. It cost more than $85/sq ft, but then
around here every method costs more than that.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

alexy wrote:

> "geo" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>I've never seen a safe room as where I live we have safe basements!
>>>However, that wasn't the point. The point was that some here have
>>>claimed that concrete is somehow inherently stronger than wood and that
>>>is simply rubbish.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>OK, build a hurricane proof, tornado proof, fire proof, earthquake proof
>>wood home for the going rate (about $85. sq/ft).
>>http://www.monolithic.com/thedome/index.html,
>>http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/FEMA/index.html. None are so blind...
>>
>
>
> Just from observing this little spat, I have never seen Matt claim
> that _dollar-for-dollar_ wood construction is as strong as concrete
> construction for similarly-designed buildings. And the concrete
> proponents seem bent on combining the dome design with the concrete
> material in making their claim.

You are precisely correct. I think I even said once that it was an
economic issue, not a strength of materials issue, but a number of folks
seem unable to comprehend that distinction.


Matt

[sandy barber]

The old sail boats were faster than you think.
http://www.bluenose2.ns.ca/public_html/english/faq.html
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/flinn/bluenose/dimensions.html

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
> >>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
> >
> > I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
> > 15-20 knots is a LOT of force.
>
> Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood sailing
> ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the business side of
> a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...
>
> Juan
>

[Matt Whiting]

sandy barber wrote:

> The old sail boats were faster than you think.
> http://www.bluenose2.ns.ca/public_html/english/faq.html
> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/flinn/bluenose/dimensions.html
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Whiting > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
>>>
>>>I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
>>>15-20 knots is a LOT of force.
>>
>>Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood sailing
>>ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the business side of
>>a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...
>>
>>Juan
>>
>
>
>

Don't try to confuse Juan with the facts. He can't read well enough to
pick the information out of the link in any event.


Matt

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:45:33 -0300, "sandy barber" >
wrote:

>
>"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>>The old wood sailing ships took a lot more beating on a...
>> >
>> > I was talking about the hull hitting the ways. Hitting a wave at
>> > 15-20 knots is a LOT of force.
>>
>> Excuse me, but who is truly clueless here? Since when did old wood sailing
>> ships travel at anywhere near 15-20 knots? Maybe down the business side of
>> a tsunami with a cat 5 hurricane tailwind...
>
>The old sail boats were faster than you think.
>http://www.bluenose2.ns.ca/public_html/english/faq.html
>http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/flinn/bluenose/dimensions.html

"Clipper ships, built for speed, might reach 17 knots...."
- John Harland, _Seamanship in the Age of Sail_, page 46

Yes, it takes a lot of wind. But the tea clippers were *very* competitive,
and shortening sail was only done in dire circumstances. One captain used
to padlock the halyards before going to bed "so no coward of a mate can
shorten sail."

The later steel-hulled sailing ships were even faster due to the longer
hulls. Harland states that one logged 20.75 knots, and another averaged 14
knots over a full day's run.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dave Hyde]

Ron Wanttaja wrote...

> The later steel-hulled sailing ships were even faster due to the longer
> hulls. Harland states that one logged 20.75 knots, and another averaged
14
> knots over a full day's run.

Is that speed measured with respect to a fixed reference or
a moving water mass? A ship at 20 knots 'ground'speed
hitting a mass of water moving 5 knots in the opposite
direction has a speed with respect to the water of 25
knots. And for a point of reference, dynamic pressure
at 100 knots in standard-day air is less than the dynamic
pressure at 5 knots in water (clean, not salt).

Dave 'wave drag' Hyde

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 03:44:12 GMT, "Dave Hyde" > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote...
>
>> The later steel-hulled sailing ships were even faster due to the longer
>> hulls. Harland states that one logged 20.75 knots, and another averaged
>>14 knots over a full day's run.
>
>Is that speed measured with respect to a fixed reference or
>a moving water mass? A ship at 20 knots 'ground'speed
>hitting a mass of water moving 5 knots in the opposite
>direction has a speed with respect to the water of 25
>knots. And for a point of reference, dynamic pressure
>at 100 knots in standard-day air is less than the dynamic
>pressure at 5 knots in water (clean, not salt).

The 20.75 knots would be relative to the moving water mass ("Water speed").
Until the late 19th century, speed was measured using a "log chip" and "log
line." The log chip (also known as a log ship) was a flat piece of wood,
usually a triangle like a half-scale "Yield" sign. The log line was a
600-foot rope with knots at ~42-foot intervals, attached to the three
corners of the chip. The log chip (weighted and the log-line rigged to
make it float in max-drag position) would be thrown overboard, and the
number of knots that passed within 28 seconds (or 14, if the speed were
high) were counted.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~mosmd/logln.htm

The Herzogin Cecile (the ship that set the 20.75 knot mark) was a
20th-century ship, so it probably had a taffrail log similar to this:

http://www.arcticcorsair.f9.co.uk/spurn/taffrail_log.html

I suspect the 14-knot average (achieved by the Pruessen) was "ground
speed," since it probably was calculated from the amount of travel between
the master's noon navigational fixes.

Ron "Turn!" Wanttaja

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:49:07 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>I suspect the 14-knot average (achieved by the Pruessen) was "ground
>speed," since it probably was calculated from the amount of travel between
>the master's noon navigational fixes.

During it's inaugaral voyage, the "extreme" clipper ship "Flying
Cloud" managed one stretch of it's Sandy Hook to San Francisco of 375
miles in 24 hours.

Corky Scott

[Juan Jimenez]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>I didn't say the ship was traveling at 15 - 20 knots. Ships have a
>>certain speed. Waves also have a certain speed. Ships also rise and
>>fall in heavy seas. It is the vector sum of all of these that
>>determines the impact velocity. If a ship is traveling at 8 knots,
>>and falls 8' into a wave that is traveling at 6 knots in the opposite
>>direction, the impact force is much greater than the just the 8 knots
>>speed of the ship. Is this really that hard a concept to understand?
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
> It is to juan. If you really want to confuse him explain how a
> sailboat can ride over a 400 kt tsunami in mid ocean without really
> noticing.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dannyboy, you need to picture a wave travelling at 400 kts but just a
fraction of an inch tall. Maybe then you'll get it. :)

[Juan Jimenez]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in
ray.net:

> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:22:33 +0000, RobertR237 wrote:
>
>> expert in all things and nothing will ever change his mind.
>
> I hate to say it, but getting a BD5 ready to fly seems to have changed
> his mind, as well as leaving our country.

Another product of superior mainland education who doesn't know that PR has
been part of the US for more than 100 years...And then people wonder why
immigrants from asian countries do so much better in college....

[B2431]

>From: Juan Jimenez
>Date: 8/26/2004 8:21 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in
:
>
>>>I didn't say the ship was traveling at 15 - 20 knots. Ships have a
>>>certain speed. Waves also have a certain speed. Ships also rise and
>>>fall in heavy seas. It is the vector sum of all of these that
>>>determines the impact velocity. If a ship is traveling at 8 knots,
>>>and falls 8' into a wave that is traveling at 6 knots in the opposite
>>>direction, the impact force is much greater than the just the 8 knots
>>>speed of the ship. Is this really that hard a concept to understand?
>>>
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>> It is to juan. If you really want to confuse him explain how a
>> sailboat can ride over a 400 kt tsunami in mid ocean without really
>> noticing.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Dannyboy, you need to picture a wave travelling at 400 kts but just a
>fraction of an inch tall. Maybe then you'll get it. :)

Juan, I knew that before I posted it. Did it take you this long to look it up?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in
ray.net:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:22:33 +0000, RobertR237 wrote:
>>
>>> expert in all things and nothing will ever change his mind.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but getting a BD5 ready to fly seems to have changed
>> his mind, as well as leaving our country.

PR is a part of the U.S. just so ya know.

The questions has juan actually finished that BD-5 or is he just saying so?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Del Rawlins]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:22:37 GMT, Juan Jimenez > wrote:

>"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in
ray.net:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:22:33 +0000, RobertR237 wrote:
>>
>>> expert in all things and nothing will ever change his mind.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but getting a BD5 ready to fly seems to have changed
>> his mind, as well as leaving our country.
>
>Another product of superior mainland education who doesn't know that PR has
>been part of the US for more than 100 years...And then people wonder why
>immigrants from asian countries do so much better in college....

Unless everybody got new flags and I somehow missed it, PR is *owned*
by the US, and has been for more than 100 years.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[geo]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did. I live in a log house. It cost more than $85/sq ft, but then
> around here every method costs more than that.
>
It's fireproof and can withstand 2000 psf? The answer is NO. In the first
case it would be a pile of ashes in the second it would be a pile of
toothpicks. In both cases the MD would be unscathed. Next.

[geo]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

> You keep posting links to that manufacturer's brochures. You have yet to
> provide proof any have been built. Are you shilling for them? If so you
should
> be able to provide proof of it's toughness under storm conditions. Driving
a
> vehicle into one just isn't the same thing.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Why don't you buy a plane ticket like I did and go see for yourself? But if
you're not interested why not just ignore it instead of demanding to be
spoonfed? The info is all there, all you have to do is open your mind and
read. http://monolithicdome.com/dometour/index.html

[B2431]

>From: "geo"
>Date: 8/27/2004 7:42 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <txQXc.141$Tq.138@trndny02>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You keep posting links to that manufacturer's brochures. You have yet to
>> provide proof any have been built. Are you shilling for them? If so you
>should
>> be able to provide proof of it's toughness under storm conditions. Driving
>a
>> vehicle into one just isn't the same thing.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Why don't you buy a plane ticket like I did and go see for yourself? But if
>you're not interested why not just ignore it instead of demanding to be
>spoonfed? The info is all there, all you have to do is open your mind and
>read. http://monolithicdome.com/dometour/index.html

I read that, sonny, but it's still a brochure for the company. Have any
actually been built? Has an independent activity tested it for huricane
ruggedness using a more reliable method than running landscape machinery into
it?

If you have ever seen tornadic scouring you'd know what I'm talking about.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Juan Jimenez]

(Del Rawlins) wrote in
:

> Unless everybody got new flags and I somehow missed it, PR is *owned*
> by the US, and has been for more than 100 years.

Oh, gee, that must be why the Navy tucked tail and left Rosey Roads and
Vieques. Yes, you must have missed that.

[Juan Jimenez]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>> It is to juan. If you really want to confuse him explain how a
>>> sailboat can ride over a 400 kt tsunami in mid ocean without really
>>> noticing.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>Dannyboy, you need to picture a wave travelling at 400 kts but just a
>>fraction of an inch tall. Maybe then you'll get it. :)
>
> Juan, I knew that before I posted it. Did it take you this long to
> look it up?
>

Oh, but of course you did, Dannyboy, that's why your posting makes no sense
to the thread, isn't it? :) I grew up on an island, kiddo.

[Juan Jimenez]

(B2431) wrote in
:

> The questions has juan actually finished that BD-5 or is he just
> saying so?

The real question is, who cares what Dannyboy thinks about anyone? :)

[Juan Jimenez]

"geo" > wrote in news:txQXc.141$Tq.138@trndny02:

> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> You keep posting links to that manufacturer's brochures. You have yet
>> to provide proof any have been built. Are you shilling for them? If
>> so you
> should
>> be able to provide proof of it's toughness under storm conditions.
>> Driving
> a
>> vehicle into one just isn't the same thing.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Why don't you buy a plane ticket like I did and go see for yourself?
> But if you're not interested why not just ignore it instead of
> demanding to be spoonfed? The info is all there, all you have to do is
> open your mind and read. http://monolithicdome.com/dometour/index.html

Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a pig to
sing? :)

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "geo" > wrote in news:txQXc.141$Tq.138@trndny02:
>
>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>You keep posting links to that manufacturer's brochures. You have yet
>>>to provide proof any have been built. Are you shilling for them? If
>>>so you
>>
>>should
>>
>>>be able to provide proof of it's toughness under storm conditions.
>>>Driving
>>
>>a
>>
>>>vehicle into one just isn't the same thing.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>Why don't you buy a plane ticket like I did and go see for yourself?
>>But if you're not interested why not just ignore it instead of
>>demanding to be spoonfed? The info is all there, all you have to do is
>>open your mind and read. http://monolithicdome.com/dometour/index.html
>
>
> Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a pig to
> sing? :)
>

Yes, it changes its name to Juan and leaves the country! :-)

Matt

[geo]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> Blueskies wrote:
> > The concrete homes are cooler also...
>
> Until they get warmed up and then they stay hotter.
>

Who in their right mind would build an uninsulated concrete home in a
tropical (or freezing) environment? The Monolithic Dome technology utilizes
polyurethane insulation (the most efficient insulation generally available).
Then they're 50% - 70% more energy efficient.
http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/rfairy/
http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/polyurethane/

[geo]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message

> Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a pig to
> sing? :)

Speaking of pigs I'm beginning to understand the biblical quote: "cast not
your pearls before swine". Progress is ever thus: ridiculed, decried,
grudgingly accepted, mainstream. What a drag on civilization a closed mind
is.

[B2431]

>From: "geo"
>Date: 8/28/2004 12:26 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <sf3Yc.9642$qY.1642@trndny05>
>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Blueskies wrote:
>> > The concrete homes are cooler also...
>>
>> Until they get warmed up and then they stay hotter.
>>
>
>Who in their right mind would build an uninsulated concrete home in a
>tropical (or freezing) environment? The Monolithic Dome technology utilizes
>polyurethane insulation (the most efficient insulation generally available).
>Then they're 50% - 70% more energy efficient.
>http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/rfairy/
>http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/polyurethane/

You keep posting the company brochures. If you are going to continue to push
their products how about coming up with an independent citation from a
verifiable source.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "geo"
>Date: 8/28/2004 12:32 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6l3Yc.2815$B91.692@trndny08>
>
>"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
>
>> Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a pig to
>> sing? :)
>
>Speaking of pigs I'm beginning to understand the biblical quote: "cast not
>your pearls before swine". Progress is ever thus: ridiculed, decried,
>grudgingly accepted, mainstream. What a drag on civilization a closed mind
>is.

In other words you accept the company's claims as fact since you can't produce
one case of an independant study or of one of these being built let alone
having survived a major storm.

Bought any bridges lately?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Whiting]

geo wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Blueskies wrote:
>>
>>>The concrete homes are cooler also...
>>
>>Until they get warmed up and then they stay hotter.
>>
>
>
> Who in their right mind would build an uninsulated concrete home in a
> tropical (or freezing) environment? The Monolithic Dome technology utilizes
> polyurethane insulation (the most efficient insulation generally available).
> Then they're 50% - 70% more energy efficient.
> http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/rfairy/
> http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/polyurethane/
>
>

Then they aren't cooler becaues they are concrete, they are cooler
because of the insulation. You can insulate any form of construction,
not just concrete.


Matt

[Morgans]

"B2431" > wrote

> You keep posting the company brochures. If you are going to continue to
push
> their products how about coming up with an independent citation from a
> verifiable source.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

What gets me, is the idea that they would make a great shelter for
aircraft. Some of the pictures I saw, showed the building in one piece,
with the doors blown off. How would you put big doors in one of the domes,
anyway? Seems like all the strength would be gone, then you still have to
worry about the strength of the doors.
--
Jim in NC

[B2431]

>From: "Morgans"
>Date: 8/28/2004 2:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote
>
>> You keep posting the company brochures. If you are going to continue to
>push
>> their products how about coming up with an independent citation from a
>> verifiable source.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> What gets me, is the idea that they would make a great shelter for
>aircraft. Some of the pictures I saw, showed the building in one piece,
>with the doors blown off. How would you put big doors in one of the domes,
>anyway? Seems like all the strength would be gone, then you still have to
>worry about the strength of the doors.
>--
>Jim in NC
>

Another concern would be the wasted space and difficulty in cleaning the floor
near the edges of the floor. I'm 6' 2" and don't relish the idea of not being
able to stand up straight in most of it. Just doing rough math in my head I'd
say that if the dome was 10 feet high on the inside I'd be unable to stand up
straight in 2/3 of the place.

I wonder if any have been built as hangars and if they have ever been severe
weather tested.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[geo]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> > Who in their right mind would build an uninsulated concrete home in a
> > tropical (or freezing) environment? The Monolithic Dome technology
utilizes
> > polyurethane insulation (the most efficient insulation generally
available).
> > Then they're 50% - 70% more energy efficient.
> > http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/rfairy/
> > http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/polyurethane/
> >
> >
>
> Then they aren't cooler becaues they are concrete, they are cooler
> because of the insulation. You can insulate any form of construction,
> not just concrete.

And the Monolithic Dome would be 50-70% more efficient.

[geo]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> Another concern would be the wasted space and difficulty in cleaning the
floor
> near the edges of the floor. I'm 6' 2" and don't relish the idea of not
being
> able to stand up straight in most of it. Just doing rough math in my head
I'd
> say that if the dome was 10 feet high on the inside I'd be unable to stand
up
> straight in 2/3 of the place.
>
Depends on the angle of curvature Dan. Don't you know that?

[B2431]

>From: "geo"
>Date: 8/28/2004 5:52 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <318Yc.7568$Yo2.6196@trndny01>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>>
>> Another concern would be the wasted space and difficulty in cleaning the
>floor
>> near the edges of the floor. I'm 6' 2" and don't relish the idea of not
>being
>> able to stand up straight in most of it. Just doing rough math in my head
>I'd
>> say that if the dome was 10 feet high on the inside I'd be unable to stand
>up
>> straight in 2/3 of the place.
>>
>Depends on the angle of curvature Dan. Don't you know that?

The site you are flogging has partial spherical domes. I don't know if they are
true hemispheres, but I based my rough calculations on a hemisphere.

In any event, despite repeated requests you have provided no proof of
survivability or even that and have been built. As far as I am concerened they
are a waste of money.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Whiting]

geo wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>Who in their right mind would build an uninsulated concrete home in a
>>>tropical (or freezing) environment? The Monolithic Dome technology
>
> utilizes
>
>>>polyurethane insulation (the most efficient insulation generally
>
> available).
>
>>>Then they're 50% - 70% more energy efficient.
>>>http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/rfairy/
>>>http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/polyurethane/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Then they aren't cooler becaues they are concrete, they are cooler
>>because of the insulation. You can insulate any form of construction,
>>not just concrete.
>
>
> And the Monolithic Dome would be 50-70% more efficient.
>
>

More efficient that what? Certainly not very space efficient. When did
you get your dome distributorship?

Matt

[nooneimportant]

I'm with the others... post some relevant data from INDEPENDANT RESEARCH, of
course monolithic.com is gonna put a positive spin on the dome, the sell the
thing for cryin out loud. Get some REAL research done, ALSO look at the
TURNKEY COST PER SQUARE FOOT of building a monolithic dome, vs frame
construction, and if you want to add in concrete block and log construction
as well. YOU WILL SEE WHY THERE AREN"T MANY BEING BUILT. Those that are
being built are largely for the coolness factor (and i admit they are
freakin cool!) OR they are of such a size that they ARE cheaper per square
foot (and yes LOOK AT HOW BIG IT HAS TO BE TO BREAK EVEN!!)........



"geo" > wrote in message news:RX7Yc.3123$hq5.849@trndny09...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Who in their right mind would build an uninsulated concrete home in a
> > > tropical (or freezing) environment? The Monolithic Dome technology
> utilizes
> > > polyurethane insulation (the most efficient insulation generally
> available).
> > > Then they're 50% - 70% more energy efficient.
> > > http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/rfairy/
> > > http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/polyurethane/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Then they aren't cooler becaues they are concrete, they are cooler
> > because of the insulation. You can insulate any form of construction,
> > not just concrete.
>
> And the Monolithic Dome would be 50-70% more efficient.
>
>

[RobertR237]

>>
>> Another concern would be the wasted space and difficulty in cleaning the
>floor
>> near the edges of the floor. I'm 6' 2" and don't relish the idea of not
>being
>> able to stand up straight in most of it. Just doing rough math in my head
>I'd
>> say that if the dome was 10 feet high on the inside I'd be unable to stand
>up
>> straight in 2/3 of the place.
>>
>Depends on the angle of curvature Dan. Don't you know that?
>
>

Gee, no ****!


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Matt Whiting]

nooneimportant wrote:

> I'm with the others... post some relevant data from INDEPENDANT RESEARCH, of
> course monolithic.com is gonna put a positive spin on the dome, the sell the
> thing for cryin out loud. Get some REAL research done, ALSO look at the
> TURNKEY COST PER SQUARE FOOT of building a monolithic dome, vs frame
> construction, and if you want to add in concrete block and log construction
> as well. YOU WILL SEE WHY THERE AREN"T MANY BEING BUILT. Those that are
> being built are largely for the coolness factor (and i admit they are
> freakin cool!) OR they are of such a size that they ARE cheaper per square
> foot (and yes LOOK AT HOW BIG IT HAS TO BE TO BREAK EVEN!!)........

Just make sure it is per USEFUL square foot, not just enclosed space as
much of the space is not useful or marginally useful.

Matt

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
Juan Jimenez > wrote:
>"geo" > wrote in news:txQXc.141$Tq.138@trndny02:
>
>> "B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> You keep posting links to that manufacturer's brochures. You have yet
>>> to provide proof any have been built. Are you shilling for them? If
>>> so you
>> should
>>> be able to provide proof of it's toughness under storm conditions.
>>> Driving
>> a
>>> vehicle into one just isn't the same thing.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> Why don't you buy a plane ticket like I did and go see for yourself?
>> But if you're not interested why not just ignore it instead of
>> demanding to be spoonfed? The info is all there, all you have to do is
>> open your mind and read. http://monolithicdome.com/dometour/index.html
>
>Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a pig to
>sing? :)

You know, I _succeeded_ at it.


However, the little porker learned only *one* song.


It was:









(wait for it)













(you're gonna regret this!)









"Squealings, nothing more than Squealings...."

[geo]

"nooneimportant" <no.spam@me> wrote in message
news:IB9Yc.332959$%_6.4832@attbi_s01...
> I'm with the others... post some relevant data from INDEPENDANT RESEARCH,
of
> course monolithic.com is gonna put a positive spin on the dome, the sell
the
> thing for cryin out loud. Get some REAL research done,

I did. I went to their workshop, I worked on the construction, I spoke to
builders, designers, architects and homeowners. I spent a lot of time,
effort and energy. I did my homework. Show me INDEPENDANT RESEARCH for stick
built homes. Oh, here's one
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/inside-usfa/media/2004releases/070104.shtm

> ALSO look at the
> TURNKEY COST PER SQUARE FOOT of building a monolithic dome, vs frame
> construction, and if you want to add in concrete block and log
construction
> as well. YOU WILL SEE WHY THERE AREN"T MANY BEING BUILT.

They ARE BEING BUILT. As with any radical innovation the biggest obstacles
are closed minds and conformity.

Those that are
> being built are largely for the coolness factor (and i admit they are
> freakin cool!) OR they are of such a size that they ARE cheaper per square
> foot (and yes LOOK AT HOW BIG IT HAS TO BE TO BREAK EVEN!!)........

What are you talking about? At every size from the smallest 1bdrm to the
largest stadium they are more efficient than the conventional alternative. I
don't think they're particularly cool. They are extremely efficient. A word
to the wise is sufficient; a thousand words with glossy pictures and arrows
is wasted on the close minded.

[geo]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

> In any event, despite repeated requests you have provided no proof of
> survivability or even that and have been built. As far as I am concerened
they
> are a waste of money.
>
As far as I'm concerned you're close minded and too lazy to do your
homework.

[Dave Hyde]

geo wrote...

> As with any radical innovation the biggest obstacles
> are closed minds and conformity.

And in this example, a sense of style.

Dave 'our three weapons...' Hyde

[B2431]

>From: "geo"
>Date: 8/29/2004 8:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <jFvYc.11787$Yo2.4987@trndny01>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>> In any event, despite repeated requests you have provided no proof of
>> survivability or even that and have been built. As far as I am concerened
>they
>> are a waste of money.
>>
>As far as I'm concerned you're close minded and too lazy to do your
>homework.

I have tried looking. You are the one who made the claims YOU need to prove
them.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Juan Jimenez]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "geo" > wrote in news:txQXc.141$Tq.138@trndny02:
>>
>>
>>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You keep posting links to that manufacturer's brochures. You have
>>>>yet to provide proof any have been built. Are you shilling for them?
>>>>If so you
>>>
>>>should
>>>
>>>>be able to provide proof of it's toughness under storm conditions.
>>>>Driving
>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>vehicle into one just isn't the same thing.
>>>>
>>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>>Why don't you buy a plane ticket like I did and go see for yourself?
>>>But if you're not interested why not just ignore it instead of
>>>demanding to be spoonfed? The info is all there, all you have to do
>>>is open your mind and read.
>>>http://monolithicdome.com/dometour/index.html
>>
>>
>> Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a pig
>> to sing? :)
>
> Yes, it changes its name to Juan and leaves the country! :-)
>
> Matt

Rat tat tat... Stiiiiillll clueless! And boring as well.

<plonk!>

[Juan Jimenez]

(B2431) wrote in
:

>>From: "geo"
>>Date: 8/28/2004 12:32 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <6l3Yc.2815$B91.692@trndny08>
>>
>>"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a
>>> pig to sing? :)
>>
>>Speaking of pigs I'm beginning to understand the biblical quote: "cast
>>not your pearls before swine". Progress is ever thus: ridiculed,
>>decried, grudgingly accepted, mainstream. What a drag on civilization
>>a closed mind is.
>
> In other words you accept the company's claims as fact since you can't
> produce one case of an independant study or of one of these being
> built let alone having survived a major storm.
>
> Bought any bridges lately?

Dannyboy, you need to stop wearing pork suits.

[Juan Jimenez]

(Robert Bonomi) wrote in news:91c8a$4132510a
:

>>Geo, ever heard the story of what happens when you try to teach a pig to
>>sing? :)
>
> You know, I _succeeded_ at it.
>
>
> However, the little porker learned only *one* song.
>
> It was:
>
> (wait for it)
>
> (you're gonna regret this!)
>
> "Squealings, nothing more than Squealings...."

<groan> There ought to be a law.... ;)

Juan

[Jetgraphics]

"nooneimportant" <no.spam@me> wrote in message news:<IB9Yc.332959$%_6.4832@attbi_s01>...
> I'm with the others... post some relevant data from INDEPENDANT RESEARCH, of
> course monolithic.com is gonna put a positive spin on the dome, the sell the
> thing for cryin out loud. Get some REAL research done, ALSO look at the
> TURNKEY COST PER SQUARE FOOT of building a monolithic dome, vs frame
> construction, and if you want to add in concrete block and log construction
> as well. YOU WILL SEE WHY THERE AREN"T MANY BEING BUILT.

I disagree with the conclusion. Most new housing is built on
speculation, by developers who have a certain market in mind.

> Those that are
> being built are largely for the coolness factor (and i admit they are
> freakin cool!) OR they are of such a size that they ARE cheaper per square
> foot (and yes LOOK AT HOW BIG IT HAS TO BE TO BREAK EVEN!!)........

Concrete is fairly inexpensive. The trick is to get it to cure in the
shape of a house. My favorite is concrete EPS foam sandwich walls.

Habitat for Humanity has a track record of building low cost concrete
homes. They have used Tri-D Panels and EPS foam in form construction.

http://www.concretehomescouncil.org/p_room/Concrete%20Homes-Dec2001.pdf
http://www.concretehomesmagazine.com/monthly/art.php/137