http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persimmon
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=water+holding+tasmanian+trees&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Establishing which are native plant species.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=carpobrotus+rossi&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v9&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=carpobrotus+edulus&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
In the past i have just assumed that Iceplants were all introduced species. I assumed this as they are sometimes very bright crimson and people go for that in a plant. No this was not correct in the case of carpobrotus r which is Australian native.
The lemon and sometimes lilac coloured carpobrotus e which is a very similar succulent Iceplant is not Australian native. It is South African native established widely as a pest elsewhere.
Iceplants or Pigface plants are featured at the above links.
Scroll down to the images of 2 pigface types at the above links, both of which appear similar. Yet the lemon and lilac coloured one- carpobrotus e is not Australian native whilst the crimson one-carpobrotus r is. *lux1930 is not a science site.
carpobrotus e has become an established(not native) in California where it was introduced and is now a pest plant.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=carpobrotus+edulus&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
In the past i have just assumed that Iceplants were all introduced species. I assumed this as they are sometimes very bright crimson and people go for that in a plant. No this was not correct in the case of carpobrotus r which is Australian native.
The lemon and sometimes lilac coloured carpobrotus e which is a very similar succulent Iceplant is not Australian native. It is South African native established widely as a pest elsewhere.
Iceplants or Pigface plants are featured at the above links.
Scroll down to the images of 2 pigface types at the above links, both of which appear similar. Yet the lemon and lilac coloured one- carpobrotus e is not Australian native whilst the crimson one-carpobrotus r is. *lux1930 is not a science site.
carpobrotus e has become an established(not native) in California where it was introduced and is now a pest plant.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Truth in Sting's poetry
Contemplating the words of Sting - they build machines that they cant control-
Are alternative forms of power generation so accident prone? many people may ask.
Are alternative forms of power generation so accident prone? many people may ask.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Earth's satellite appears bigger.
The astronomical news is that the Moon next week will be closer to the Earth and so will appear bigger than usual to us here on Earth. Since it is both claimed and denied that this -Supermoon-phenomena can cause earthquake, I looked up a few sites to check as the moon does pull the tides across the planet and thats a lot of water so it is pretty strong. Incidentally this might cause King tides in the next week apparently. So is the moon's pull powerful enough to move Earth's tectonic plates? Or displace water on the planet's surface of sufficient weight to move the tectonic plates?
On the morning of February 22 2011 I was driving to Launceston and as I drove up a hill through Goshen, I noticed a round daylight moon quite large in the sky. I also remember that the road after Little Plains Lookout was thick with butterflies. Just before Scottsdale, I stopped for a bite and glanced at my watch-it was almost 12noon. I continued on my journey and at sometime while I was driving from Scottsdale to Launceston the Earth under Christchurch New Zealand was moving radically. The butterflies and I oblivious.
The same afternoon, on the return journey I pondered the butterfly volcano theory as I drove through the butterflies again, the poignancy in the earthquake aftermath as yet meaningless to me as I only learnt of the quake when I got home and switched on the radio.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/14-03-2011/117184-supermoon-0/#
On the morning of February 22 2011 I was driving to Launceston and as I drove up a hill through Goshen, I noticed a round daylight moon quite large in the sky. I also remember that the road after Little Plains Lookout was thick with butterflies. Just before Scottsdale, I stopped for a bite and glanced at my watch-it was almost 12noon. I continued on my journey and at sometime while I was driving from Scottsdale to Launceston the Earth under Christchurch New Zealand was moving radically. The butterflies and I oblivious.
The same afternoon, on the return journey I pondered the butterfly volcano theory as I drove through the butterflies again, the poignancy in the earthquake aftermath as yet meaningless to me as I only learnt of the quake when I got home and switched on the radio.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/14-03-2011/117184-supermoon-0/#
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Quake resistant architecture
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/DH17Dh01.html
The pagoda as a quake resistant architectural structure is explored at the above link.
It seems the pagoda design is a good structure as the tiers are able to move independently in their joints in response to the shaking whilst being stabilized around the central column.
Other traditional Japanese buildings with wooden block roofs are cited elsewhere on the net as having collapsed in quakes more readily than modern buildings. These roofs were likened to a small book placed on a house of playing cards. Too heavy for the structure to avoid collapse when shaken. Also these buildings were not anchored or attached to the ground but merely self supporting structures placed upon the ground.
Constructions which have air space under the building, have been cited as not quake resistant as they are on supporting posts, poles,pillars or columns which rely on the stability of the ground into which they are placed.
Brick buildings readily collapse when shaken.
Concrete has no ability to move with shaking and responds by crumbling, collapsing and breaking.
This seems to leave wood as preferred option and it seems crucial that the building is able to move about in it's joints sufficiently when shaken.
The pagoda link mentions an expressed opinion that ancient builders of this structure would not have known why the design was quake resistant. This means they were making visual assessments about what looked stable when designing. The pagoda base being larger than consecutive upper tiers does make the pagoda appear stable. Pyramids also have this effect on the viewer and have probably survived quakes. The pagoda like the pyramid, sometimes has been constructed with an underground story for tombs and relics. Pagoda underground chambers were lined with stone and sometimes leaked water up to the surface from quake disruption, perhaps having some structural function to contain underground water displacement.
The buildings in Tasmania for the most part do not seem particularly quake resistant in appearance. One exception might be the Scottsdale Ecocentre building which appears as larger at the base and tapering upwards. Although the exterior and interior materials might be hazardous if detached and falling. I cannot guess what the buildings frame or scaffold would perform like if shaken. The appearance gives no indication.
Other disasters such as floods have effected Tasmanian buildings badly in the case of those built directly onto concrete slabs.
Fires are also a risk to houses built very close together as they jump from house to house. Some countries are concerned about defining minimum distance rules. 10 feet between houses and fences is suggested as a minimum distance but it is not proven this is sufficient. Houses in Australia are being built closer to the fence than this.
Density has obvious implications in quakes and the death toll is obviously higher in built up areas as falling buildings are a risk and reduced open space means nowhere safe outdoors to flee to.
* There is much speculation in this. Lux1930 is not a science site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_engineering
Earthquake engineering science is at the above link and largely applies to building standards for large structures which conform to quake resistance building regulations. Domestic housing may not have to conform to such standards so the home builder has to make their own choices.
The pagoda as a quake resistant architectural structure is explored at the above link.
It seems the pagoda design is a good structure as the tiers are able to move independently in their joints in response to the shaking whilst being stabilized around the central column.
Other traditional Japanese buildings with wooden block roofs are cited elsewhere on the net as having collapsed in quakes more readily than modern buildings. These roofs were likened to a small book placed on a house of playing cards. Too heavy for the structure to avoid collapse when shaken. Also these buildings were not anchored or attached to the ground but merely self supporting structures placed upon the ground.
Constructions which have air space under the building, have been cited as not quake resistant as they are on supporting posts, poles,pillars or columns which rely on the stability of the ground into which they are placed.
Brick buildings readily collapse when shaken.
Concrete has no ability to move with shaking and responds by crumbling, collapsing and breaking.
This seems to leave wood as preferred option and it seems crucial that the building is able to move about in it's joints sufficiently when shaken.
The pagoda link mentions an expressed opinion that ancient builders of this structure would not have known why the design was quake resistant. This means they were making visual assessments about what looked stable when designing. The pagoda base being larger than consecutive upper tiers does make the pagoda appear stable. Pyramids also have this effect on the viewer and have probably survived quakes. The pagoda like the pyramid, sometimes has been constructed with an underground story for tombs and relics. Pagoda underground chambers were lined with stone and sometimes leaked water up to the surface from quake disruption, perhaps having some structural function to contain underground water displacement.
The buildings in Tasmania for the most part do not seem particularly quake resistant in appearance. One exception might be the Scottsdale Ecocentre building which appears as larger at the base and tapering upwards. Although the exterior and interior materials might be hazardous if detached and falling. I cannot guess what the buildings frame or scaffold would perform like if shaken. The appearance gives no indication.
Other disasters such as floods have effected Tasmanian buildings badly in the case of those built directly onto concrete slabs.
Fires are also a risk to houses built very close together as they jump from house to house. Some countries are concerned about defining minimum distance rules. 10 feet between houses and fences is suggested as a minimum distance but it is not proven this is sufficient. Houses in Australia are being built closer to the fence than this.
Density has obvious implications in quakes and the death toll is obviously higher in built up areas as falling buildings are a risk and reduced open space means nowhere safe outdoors to flee to.
* There is much speculation in this. Lux1930 is not a science site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_engineering
Earthquake engineering science is at the above link and largely applies to building standards for large structures which conform to quake resistance building regulations. Domestic housing may not have to conform to such standards so the home builder has to make their own choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Domestic post modernist architecture
Door design circa 2009