zero net energy

oleanderwasp  asked:

what are your thoughts on dynamic architecture? such as the designs of David Fisher?

I can’t stop laughing as I read the website which is filled with hyperbole and self-aggrandization, the only thing missing is a couple of “it’s going to be great” and “what do you have to lose”. From the Dynamic Revolutions website:

After thousands of years in which buildings were static, David Fisher’s Dynamic Skyscraper is an important step ahead towards Future Architecture.  The Rotating Tower brings three main futuristic aspects, three revolutions.

  • The first revolutionary aspect is related to the shape of the building, which changes continuously.  It is “Architecture as Part of the Environment”, adjusting to the sun and the wind, to the view and to our momentary requirements.
  • The second revolution that the Dynamic Skyscraper brings is the method of construction. To this futuristic design solution, David Fisher has added another unique innovation:  Prefabrication.
  • The third revolution is born from combining technology and luxury with environment.  The skyscraper’s wind turbines, positioned horizontally between each floor, and solar ink on its many roofs will produce energy making the tower the first self-powered building.

These three so called “revolutions” are not new but I guess you need a sales pitch that will differentiate you in this market.

I might be old-fashioned but moving building and dynamic facades already exist (granted not at this scale but I don’t see a real need for it) do you really want to be in a moving building? Just off the top of my head, wouldn’t the energy and equipment required to move floor plates independently consume any energy benefits gained by watching the sunset from your living room?Prefabrication is used everyday from small building components to full buildings and net-zero or energy positive buildings also exist already.

I think there is room for dynamic architecture to improve our built environment taking into consideration scope and benefits. Moveable facades, adaptable buildings, temporary architecture all have dynamic elements to them that can be utilized and improved upon. I am not sold on the example you mentioned because the result does not seem to merit the effort but I am convinced that some flexibility and adaptability of buildings would help in many cases.

Originally posted by silicongarden


garbagealec  asked:

ok set something straight for me. how is the universe flat? i mean is it like flat in the sense that our solar system is on a plane but still has room for "up and down" motion or what? personally i think this is something we can't accurately determine, not in this day and age. i feel like the universe is just space and at some point you would reach space where matter has yet to go, in any direction in relation to a point and would continue to travel infinitely through empty space. help pls

Don’t feel bad - this is one of the most difficult concepts in science to understand (and if I fail to make it clear that means I don’t understand it either!).

What’s meant by a ‘flat universe’ is basically the type of math that the universe is governed by. In a flat, or ‘zero-net energy’ universe that math is called Euclidean Geometry. The sum of angles of triangles will always equal 180˚.

For a curved universe, this wouldn’t be the case.

To go over it again briefly, a zero-net energy is a flat universe: matter (positive energy) and gravity (negative energy) cancel each other out.

A saddle shaped universe is a negative-net energy one, dominated by gravity.

A spherical universe is a positive-net energy dominated by the energy of matter.

We live in a ‘flat universe’ or, one where Euclidean Geometry applies. If you superimpose an equilateral triangle on a flat surface the sum of its angles is 180˚ in our universe.

How would our universe seem different to us if we had a curved universe, let’s say negatively (shaped like a saddle)?

Our field of view would shrink rapidly as we looked out with our telescopes.

This is because the way geometry would work is that a triangle would have angles measuring up to a sum of less than 180˚.

Here’s a decent visual:

Just as the angles of an equilateral triangle got shrunk, our field of view as we look way out into deep space would shrink.