Talk:Hyperboloid structure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
An entry from Hyperboloid structure appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 February 2006. |
 |
 |
Hyperboloid structure was (or will be) featured on the Architecture Portal as Selected article during week 22 of 2007. For more information or to participate, visit WikiProject:Architecture |
Contents |
[edit] Copyvio, but maybe ...
Apparently the text of the article is a copy of http://www.arches.uga.edu/~anikov/intel/abstracts.doc . But since you, User:Elizabeth English appear to be the author of the original text, I believe you might also make an explicit statement about its copyright status and that you agree for it to be used under wikipedia license. I know it seems self-evident if you are the same person who authored the orignal article, but this is better be said. --Lysytalk 08:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:DYK
I have nominated the article on WP:DYK. Please check the question at Template talk:Did you know#February 23 abakharev 00:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Great start!
But it seems to not discuss why the two modern Australian buildings use these roofs or what the advantages/disadvantages/engineering challenges are... ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I did a tour of the Sydney Opera House about a month ago. The guide said that the sails were meant to be parabolic, but when they wind-tunnel tested them, the structure collapsed. As a result they redesigned the whole thing and the sails are actually spherical cut-outs. Not knowing much about this topic, I thought to add a note here. I do not know if this makes the Opera House unsuitable for this article. Yewenyi 01:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Sydney Opera House does not look hyperboloid at all in this picture
In this picture, the curved surfaces look to me as if they have positive Gaussian curvature. Hyperboloid structures of course have negative Gaussian curvature. Am I missing something? Michael Hardy 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh, and why are most of the links to this page user pages? Michael Hardy 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- To the talk page? Or the article? If the latter, it's because the article is currently in the {{Did you know}} template, which many users include on their pages... Once it rolls off, most of the links will go away too, I expect. Hope that helps. PS, good sleuthing on the Opera House! ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
Oh: I've commented out the picture. See Sydney Opera House. Michael Hardy 03:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
...and now I've looked at more pictures of that building and consequently deleted all mention of it from this article. The assertions here are quite obviously incorrect. Michael Hardy 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, OK, we're not talking only about ruled surfaces, but also allowing hyperboloids of revolution. In that case, the Sydney Opera House could be a correct example. Michael Hardy 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
Please see my answer below to the 'hyperboloid of two sheets' section. also see http://www.dangermouse.net/povray/landmarks/. and if you want some of utzones original stuff, http://static.flickr.com/4/3987695_e3fe88f531_m.jpg and http://www.chiefengineer.org/images/news/1204feat5.gif Miscreant 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] non-Euclidean
I've edited the phrase "non-Euclidean" out of the following sentence:
- By applying his analytical skills to the doubly-curved, non-Euclidean surfaces Nikolai Lobachevsky named "hyperbolic," Shukhov derived a family of equations that led to new structural and constructional systems, known as hyperboloids of revolution and hyperbolic paraboloid.
I don't think whoever put that in understood the meaning of the term. The term "non-Euclidean" applies to an entire mathematical theory, not to a specific shape. It's true that there are models of non-Euclidean geometry that are constructed using two-dimensional surfaces embedded in a three-dimensional Euclidean space, but, e.g., we don't describe a sphere as non-Euclidean just because it can be used in this way.--Bcrowell 04:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree -- if they were non-Euclidean, they couldn't exist in the Euclidean (for all practical purposes) space they're built in! I've also corrected further comments: Lobachevskii didn't "disprove" the parallel postulate, and the pseudosphere is the surface of revolution of a tractrix, not a hyperbola, and is not a ruled surface, hence cannot be the shape referred to. Richard Pinch 06:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Sydney Opera House is Hyperboloid of two sheets
Sidney Opera House is Hyperboloid of two sheets, see Fig 2: http://www.nexusjournal.com/Didactics_v5n1-Consiglieri.html
This is wrong. Many People here are wrong about this. The Sydney Opera house IS NOT a Hyperboloid. It was DESIGNED ORIGINALLY as a hyperboloid, but this proved difficult/impossible to build. The final building is pure spherical shells, which proved far easier both for the structural engineers att the time (Arups), and for the construction process (using a sphere meant that the whole could be made as a series of repetitive elements rather than building each being individual.
If you want more proof of this, I will find it for you, but please dont guess. Miscreant 22:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disadvantages
Which are the disadvantages of hyperbolic structures? Why are most lattice towers no hyperbolic structures? (I believe they have a too big surface, which had to be painted)
[edit] 'Great' engineer Vladimir Shukov
I thought calling someone 'great' in the opening sentance ("first applied by great Russian engineer Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov (1853-1939)")was a little against the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. But when changed it was soon reverted back. I don't want to start a minor edit war so i'll put my thought here instead. I'm not too concerned if other people think its okay, but it seems quite blatant to me. Miscreant 11:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
