Posted by Warm Worm on December 13, 2009, 6:07 pmPlease Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
> 61ab1c537...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> >> ...
> >> > > Yeah the structural proof for the snow load might be a problem.
> >> > > A well constructed 'pyramid' type roof is a bit simpler and are
> >> > > very strong in my experience.
> >> > I'm still wrapping my head around roofs. The pyramid rooftype (hip?)
> >> > might seem simple while the reciprocal complex, but sometimes some
> >> > things can be counterintuitive.
> >> Can you give a ball park snow load depth?
> >http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/rfa/rfa.pdf
> > I'm just about to head out, but I've uploaded the book (pdf reader
> > needed) for you, if you wish, to peruse before I do. Chapter 5 may
> > have something.
> > I presume you're still on dialup, but the books' only about 3 pop
> > songs'-worth, so it may not take you more than about 10-15 minutes.
> > Back later.
> Thanks Ken & co - interesting stuff. No problem here with snow load but
> potentially useful method where wind loads are concerned - eg 61-74
> metres/second, high/low/high pressure shift. Of course I'd need an engineer
> with an enquiring mind and time on his/her hands :-)
Apparently the reciprocal roof is very smooth with load distribution
and transference, if I'm reading correctly, which is good if it is
also prone by its very design to catastrophic failure (redundancies,
such as an in-tandem reverse RF, notwithstanding). :)
The term 'catastrophic failure' cracks me up. (Ouch ;)
Posted by RicodJour on December 8, 2009, 5:00 pm
> > ...
> > > > Yeah the structural proof for the snow load might be a problem.
> > > > A well constructed 'pyramid' type roof is a bit simpler and are
> > > > very strong in my experience.
> > > I'm still wrapping my head around roofs. The pyramid rooftype (hip?)
> > > might seem simple while the reciprocal complex, but sometimes some
> > > things can be counterintuitive.
> > Can you give a ball park snow load depth?
> http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/rfa/rfa.pdf
> I'm just about to head out, but I've uploaded the book (pdf reader
> needed) for you, if you wish, to peruse before I do. Chapter 5 may
> have something.
> I presume you're still on dialup, but the books' only about 3 pop
> songs'-worth, so it may not take you more than about 10-15 minutes.
> Back later.
Have you run across the boveda roof yet? Very cool.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Ue13SgShkvE/SfCq-W47NvI/AAAAAAAAAik/MZQI4iHqciY/CIMG4=
923.JPG
http://www.vacationrentalpeople.com/Images/Prop/18259/8-2009128191258.jpg
http://www.diputaciondevalladolid.es/imagenes/img_cultura/Exposiciones_2006=
/forma_y_luz/bovedaG.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/boveda/farooksh/palmeada.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/boveda/tuckboysmom/CIMG1925.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/boveda/eplbobsam/Casita%20Linda%20Day%20=
4/IMG_3123.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/boveda/lukachuki/boveda/0804-GarageBoved=
a3.jpg
R
Posted by Warm Worm on December 13, 2009, 6:09 pm
> > > ...
> > > > > Yeah the structural proof for the snow load might be a problem.
> > > > > A well constructed 'pyramid' type roof is a bit simpler and are
> > > > > very strong in my experience.
> > > > I'm still wrapping my head around roofs. The pyramid rooftype (hip?)
> > > > might seem simple while the reciprocal complex, but sometimes some
> > > > things can be counterintuitive.
> > > Can you give a ball park snow load depth?
> >http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/rfa/rfa.pdf
> > I'm just about to head out, but I've uploaded the book (pdf reader
> > needed) for you, if you wish, to peruse before I do. Chapter 5 may
> > have something.
> > I presume you're still on dialup, but the books' only about 3 pop
> > songs'-worth, so it may not take you more than about 10-15 minutes.
> > Back later.
> Have you run across the boveda roof yet? Very cool.
Yes I think so. I'll look more into it too.
Posted by creative1985@gmail.com on December 9, 2009, 10:39 pm
> > > > A dot org domain is supposed to be used for not-for-profit
> > > > organizations. Since you wouldn't be able to offer discounts if you
> > > > were operating at the break-even point, you are intending to make
> > > > money. Which means you are a weasel who cuts corners and misleads
> > > > people. Pony up the extra money, deep pockets, and make like you're a
> > > > real company.
> > > I looked it up out of curiosity, and while it looks like that was its
> > > original intent, profit can use it.
> > Hence the phrase "supposed to be used for not-for-profit".
> > The company name is something different, so they squat on a non-profit
> > domain. Weasels.
> It's funny how this whole money/greed thing seems to creep its way
> into everything and somehow pollute it in the process... Coca Cola
> called me the other day and asked if I would be interested in creating
> a viral message/ad on here. Can you believe it?! I told them where to
> stick it, of course, but then they offered me a fair sum of money...
> ...So, drink Coke, Rico. Things just somehow go better with it. Your
> life will change for the better-- you'll see-- if you pop open a tall,
> cold, refreshing frosty bottle of Coke. *pshshshssssss.s.s s...
> gloogloogloogloog... Ahhh...*
> To change the subject, I was wondering how/how-easy a rounded roof
> might be to be added to a small timber-frame post-and-beam home. So
> last night I went looking online for some round-roof post-and-beam
> structures and found some lovely pics of round-roof barns. I got
> carried away at looking at a lot of them and sort of forgot my
> original intent of seeing if I could find the actual structural
> details. But at least I'm a little bit better-off thanks to Coke.
What you'll find is a typical roof rafter/truss system with curved
*shims* sistered along the top chord.
Unless money is no object.
My old 50's era high school had a curved roof gym built with giant
laminated curved beams, maybe 24" tall x 8" wide that spanned roughly
80 feet or so.
It was built with stolen money so cost wasn't an issue.
Its still standing.
Posted by creative1985@gmail.com on December 9, 2009, 10:44 pm
Warm Worm> wrote:
> It's funny how this whole money/greed thing seems to creep its way
> into everything and somehow pollute it in the process...
I don't find it funny at all.
We live in a culture of greed which necessitates the aquisition of
money.
You can't live without it.
Something that cost $1.00 back in 1913 now costs $98.00, what
happened?
Or, another way to look at it, if you had a dollar in 1913 it would be
like if you had $98 today.
If you had $1000 then it would be like $98,000 today.
Where did it all go?
Re: Construction Proposals
Re: Construction Proposals
XML Sitemap
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
> >> ...
> >> > > Yeah the structural proof for the snow load might be a problem.
> >> > > A well constructed 'pyramid' type roof is a bit simpler and are
> >> > > very strong in my experience.
> >> > I'm still wrapping my head around roofs. The pyramid rooftype (hip?)
> >> > might seem simple while the reciprocal complex, but sometimes some
> >> > things can be counterintuitive.
> >> Can you give a ball park snow load depth?
> >http://www.sfu.ca/~rmacinty/rfa/rfa.pdf
> > I'm just about to head out, but I've uploaded the book (pdf reader
> > needed) for you, if you wish, to peruse before I do. Chapter 5 may
> > have something.
> > I presume you're still on dialup, but the books' only about 3 pop
> > songs'-worth, so it may not take you more than about 10-15 minutes.
> > Back later.
> Thanks Ken & co - interesting stuff. No problem here with snow load but
> potentially useful method where wind loads are concerned - eg 61-74
> metres/second, high/low/high pressure shift. Of course I'd need an engineer
> with an enquiring mind and time on his/her hands :-)