Very much thanks for telling us so great stories behind the magic 3D structure, DOME, and very much respect those senior generations on the road of exploring the wonder of the world!
As a dome builder enthusiast of 40 years, this was invaluable insight into the real history of the geodesic dome. Thanks to yourself for these excellent videos, and to Lloyd Khan for releasing the chord factors so we can all build them..!
I've never seen anything about the origins, or backstory, of Buckminster Fuller and the Geodesic domes. So this was a very interesting film series. Thank you for making and sharing this series 😊
Thanks, it really is an interesting tale about Bauersfeld, the Bauhaus, and Fuller, and how they all interacted. Thanks for watching the videos. John Hurt
I really enjoyed this documentary (except I wince when you put the ephasis on the wrong syllable in "tensegrity" and pronounce "Buckminster" as "Buckminister", with a second 'i'). Thank you for preserving this history and knowledge. I want to point out an insight of Buckminster Fuller in his dome design that you never addressed in your videos. Please take a look at the domes shown at 23:54 and at 26:22, particularly when zoomed in. In Fuller's Triacon configuration dome, the 10-way and 12-way connectors have a feature that lends tremendous strength to the dome that you didn't acknowledge. At 26:22, you can see that the 10-way connector has short struts on the outer shell of the dome, but longer thinner struts that connect to the 12-way connectors. These longer struts cross under the shorter struts, and do not touch them; they are not in the same shell. Observe the image at 26:47. The dome shown there appears to be made of two domes connected at the vertices, with the short struts forming a dome of higher frequency and the long struts forming a lower frequency dome inside it. What this effectively does is to break up the shell of the dome into shallow tetrahedra. Look at this image carefully, and you'll see that every strut is an edge of a shallow tetrahedron. At 23:54, if you examine the dome, you can see that same subdivision of the shell of the dome into tetrahedra, with shorter struts on the outside, and longer struts (under the fabric or covering) connecting the 12 and 10 way connectors. Again, the shorter struts form a dome with a higher frequency, and the longer struts form a dome with a lower frequency, sharing their vertices at the 12 and 10 way connectors.. This is a unique feature of Fuller's domes that Bauerfeld's dome lacked. This was a genuine innovation that makes Fuller's domes much more rigid. If you do this method of reinforcing a dome with another lower frequency dome sharing vertices at the multi-way connectors, you essentially turn his dome shell into a spherical form of his octet truss. I wish you would have addressed this. This design of using a lower frequency inner shell of longer struts appears to have been forgotten; nobody seems to do domes like that anymore. In fact, I contend that you should make connectors that can re-produce this sort of dome. It would let you make even larger and more rigid domes that can be self-supporting as they're assembled, since the shell consists of rigid 3D shapes-those shallow tetrahedra. A large dome like this can be built and raised from the edges being built outward, but a single shell dome cannot be built this way beyond a certain size, because at large sizes the single layered dome would be liable to buckle.
You have a lot of good points. For the larger domes, like the Montreal Bio Sphere, Fuller's design is superior to Bauersfeld's design. For the smaller domes, the Class 1 is more practical. I do not know of any company that manufactures a hub that would handle Fuller's dome designs. There are very few triacon domes in the world today. Fuller's Class 2 designs for the larger dome construction was "over the top" and an indication of his genius. Sorry about my speech patterns, I was barely able to get the words out at all. Thanks for watching the video. I hope someone can really reveal on UA-cam what Fuller did with his Class 2 designs. I lack the background to do this successfully, but you seem to be very knowledgeable. Thanks, John Hurt
Thanks, I really appreciate your words of encouragement. It did take a lot of work, but I found the research fascinating, and once I found out about Walter Gropius and his role in all of this, everything made perfect sense. Thanks for watching the videos. John Hurt
very good series - it reminds me of the difference between Edison and Tesla - we know how that turned out - thanks for the series - Wow - so informative also - now I want to get Lloyd Kahn's book - and/or look into the chord formulas - --- I see a lot of generosity on youtube - the sharing of info is great! How sad when knowledge is hidden for the sake of money
Yes, I agree. The real Thomas Edison is not the same Edison they taught in school. Tesla was the greatest inventor of his time, and a decent person too, which is an unusual combination. The DomeBook 2 is no longer in print, but you can download a PDF version on the web. Lloyd Kahn changed a lot of things just by publishing a book. Yes, when we freely share information, the world is a better place. Thank you for your comments. John Hurt
Hello, I am an architecture student and i do my research about the domes. Your video is really interesting for me, how can I join you to know where do you find the informations in the video ? Please feel free to contact me, it will really help me
I agree with all the supporting comments, and would like to add these two Thoughts: Could you make 2 alternative pieces; 1 that includes all 5 Parts, in a Long Form Documentary, and one that is 6-8 minutes long, as a "Super Condensed Version" of the Long Form piece!
That is an excellent idea! I have all of the pictures and script, so all I need to do is cut out the "excess" and shorten it. Thank you for your comments. John Hurt
@@ZipTieDomes Great documentary. Yes, that would be cool. Take the script and cut out everything that is not essential to the primary chain of logic and jettison it. Also repeat nothing, let the audience pay attention. Check the interesting feedback you have received and incorporate any that seems valid into your new condensed version. Instead of a long 3 hour version you could create a play-list for the 6 videos that people can auto-play.
@@ZipTieDomes - John, Thank you for the Reply, and considering the Idea! I just felt there are two types of Audiences: Those with a Casual Interest, and those that want the Whole Story and Details! Hence the 2 formats.
@@KallePihlajasaari - Or, have both, a Play List of the current pieces, AND a Long Form, that reduces some of the repeated bits. Links to those sources in the description helps, too. As well as to the short form Option.
I just finish watching every one of the videos in this series! You have graced us all with Wonderful research, amazing insights, and phenomenal lessons to be learned!!! It seemsprovidential that I just found this series as I was wanting to talk to you about inventing and combining technologies which is exactly what you say here!!! I hope it'll be able to talk to you soon!! Jerry Diamond IMPERIUM
From early 1973 through 1979, I worked in Buckminster Fuller's office at the University City Science Center (UCSC) in Philadephia. I was aware of the first geodesic dome Dr. Walther Bauersfeld built for the Carl Zeiss optical works in Jena, Germany. I might have seen it in Lloyd Kahn's "Domebook" publication. It is an interesting hypothesis that Buckminster Fuller may have been informed by Walter Gropius about the Bauersfeld dome while they were both at Black Mountain College, even though you found no record of Gropius having communicated with Fuller about it. The other place to look for evidence would be in Fuller's archives, located at Stanford University in California. I will review a draft of Alec Nevala-Lee's biography of Buckminster Fuller, due to be published on August 2nd, 2022, to see if he came across any references Fuller may have made to Walter Gropius regarding the Bauersfeld dome. I enjoyed watching your video series. Thank you for taking the time to do it.
Here is an answer to whether Walter Gropius had mentioned the Bauersfeld dome to Bucky Fuller at Black Mountain College in 1948 or 1949. I found it in a draft of Alec Nevala-Lee's biography of Buckminster Fuller. Here is the relevant quote from his book "Inventor of the Future: The Visionary Life of Buckminster Fuller." The book will be published on August 2nd, 2022. On August 16, 1949, Myron Goldsmith, an architect in the Chicago office of Mies van der Rohe, sent a letter to Fuller to follow up on a recent conversation. In a description of the photograph that he had enclosed, Goldsmith wrote, “As nearly as I can tell it is a photo of the German planetarium. I was able to find another photo which clarified the pattern somewhat.” The building in question was probably the Zeiss Planetarium in Jena, which featured a domed roof with a design that the engineer Walther Bauersfeld had demonstrated in 1922. It was a patented geodesic structure, and it predated Fuller’s work by a quarter of a century. The Zeiss dome was twenty-five meters across, with a thin concrete shell over an iron framework, using a triangulated pattern derived from the icosahedron. Bauersfeld had been more interested in the projection system that displayed the stars inside the hemisphere than in the dome itself, and Goldsmith’s sketch gave only a vague sense of its geometry, which Walter Gropius and László Moholy-Nagy had studied closely while it was still under construction. Whether Fuller had known about the Zeiss dome was a question that would persist for decades, but the evidence indicated that he was unaware of it until he saw Goldsmith’s letter. Fuller’s dome had arisen independently from his interest in great circles, and it had yet to occur to him to base it on the icosahedron, which he had already rejected as a cartographic projection. It would have been simpler and sturdier than the designs that he had used so far, and he would have been unlikely to deliberately ignore such an obvious solution. All the same, it complicated his claim of discovery. Fuller wrote much later to Snelson, “If the Zeiss engineer had in 1922 anticipated geodesic domes’ unlimited spanning capability, Goering would have used geodesic domes for his Luftwaffe hangars during World War II....No one was the inventor of geodesic structure. I was the conceiver of the engineering theory which showed that they had no limit of clear span enclosing capability and of their practical and economic realizability.” I hope this passage from Alec Nevala-Lee's forthcoming biography of Buckminster Fuller answers the question.
@@timwessels853 Tim, that is very interesting. Fuller demonstrated his "Flopahedron" dome made from venetian blind materials in 1948 at Black Mountain, but by the spring of 1949, he had a working dome prototype that he took to the Pentagon and to Black Mountain that summer. It appears that the winter of 48-49 is when Fuller created his first working dome. Fuller spent the winter of 1948-1949 teaching at the Chicago School of Design, which was directed by the Bauhaus master Lazlo Moholy Nagy. I believe this was when Fuller was adopted by the Bauhaus - with all of the contacts and support that came with that association. This probably opened the door to Fuller meeting with Goldsmith and having their "recent conversation" as you said, in the Chicago office of van der Rohe. This is what the Bauhaus school did - it would enable the creativity of people like Fuller - and give them the contacts they needed to be successful. The Bauhaus helped Fuller reach his true potential, and he is a product of that school. Fuller's great circle domes are very rare today, as they are too complicated to be practical. Everyone uses the Bauersfeld dome design. So the Geodesic dome you see on the playground, or a geodesic house, or geodesic greenhouse, that is Bauersfeld's invention, not Fuller's. No one really uses Fuller's design. But Fuller did invent the great circle dome, or at least reduce it to practice. And I have never seen an aircraft hangar made from a geodesic dome, as the width of the entrance to accommodate the aircraft wings would require a very tall dome, with a lot of wasted volume. A dome is always half as tall as it is wide, which is a great handicap for certain types of buildings, like a hangar. Fuller's claim that domes have an "unlimited spanning ability" is incorrect. When you increase the frequency of the dome, the hexagons and pentagons will become nearly "flat" which will allow the hubs to invert to the inside if enough stress is placed on a single hub. That is why there will never be a "dome over Houston" or these other ideas. Fuller envisioned "floating cities" made from large geodesic spheres where the heat of the sun would expand the air inside the sphere and cause it to rise. This is impossible, as there will not be a large enough angle between the struts or vertices to provide structural integrity. They will be too flat. A geodesic dome 5 miles wide would have the strength of a soap bubble. Fuller's Montreal Biosphere is magnificent - but it is really a spherical truss. He had to add create two interlocking domes to make a large span. And it is so large, it is not practical. There is a lot of wasted volume in a dome this large. The Bauersfeld 2v or 3v dome - around 25 to 30' in diameter, this is the perfect size for a dome. Strong, lightweight, and easy to build. Fuller was quite the salesman, and the rest of us pale in comparison this his ability in this area. But he had a personality flaw in that he would never admit that he was wrong, or that he got his inspiration from other people, as in the case of tensegrity from Snelson, or the octet truss from Bell. Of his three Dymaxion cars - two have crashed, and the 3rd is never driven above 30 miles per hour,. The Dymaxion car is an extremely unsafe design. This car design, with the steering in the rear, is deadly - yet very few people can see this problem, including the driver that was killed. But it was Fuller's response to this wreck - that it was someone else's fault for "rubber necking" and causing the car to crash - that is what I cannot accept. Thomas Edison also had some issues, as he really did not invent the light bulb, and practically waged war against Nikolai Tesla. He also electrocuted an elephant to show that Tesla was wrong. Fuller is a much greater person than Edison. In a way, it is refreshing to know that our "Idols" - the "great men" of the world, are really just men, with faults like the rest of us. If we look at ourselves, we see inside us the same kinds of problems they had. And this should give us hope, that as we deal with ourselves, we can still give good things to the rest of humanity. Fuller did that. The geodesic dome would have been forgotten without Fuller. Fuller's ideas have helped a lot of people. Thanks for sharing. John Hurt
Fuller's "adoption" by the Bauhaus school was likely given his presence at the Chicago School of Design. And it would explain Fuller's meeting with Goldsmith and their subsequent exchange of letters. Fuller was an autodidact (self-taught), although he collected many "honorary degrees" later in his life. Bauersfeld did patent his invention for the Zeiss planetarium but did not license it for other commercial structures. A German patent was issued for twenty years and required an annual fee to maintain it in force. As Alec Nevala-Lee mentions in his Fuller biography, Bauersfeld was looking for an interior surface to project his planetarium images. Yes, you need to use a truss design to go large in domes, so the dome structure does not dimple in on itself. Of course, great circle domes are too complicated to produce, and eventually, Fuller realized that too. The U.S. Expo '67 dome was initially designed to be bolted together to be moved. Instead, it was welded together, which unfortunately resulted in a fire when workmen attempted to close the tram opening. There was a project in Fuller's office at the University City Science Center (UCSC) to investigate the properties of building a very large diameter spherical tensegrity structure to "float" in the upper atmosphere. A physicist at the UCSC was intrigued and agreed to work out the atmospheric physics of "floating" such a large structure in the upper atmosphere. The project was named STARS for Spherical Tensegrity Atmospheric Research Station. Yes, the design shortcomings of the Dymaxion Car design are understood. It would have been better if the driver was also a sailor like Fuller. The annual U.S. highway death total peaked in the late 1960s to the early 1970s, with over 50K deaths per year. In the 21st Century, annual highway deaths have varied from the low 30K per year to the low 40K deaths per year. Of course, the population has also increased along with the number of vehicles on the road. Thomas Edison inspired Elizabeth Holmes, who founded the blood-testing company Theranos in 2003, where her invention of a "blood lab-in-a-box" was called the Edison. Unfortunately, Theranos Edison was essentially a fraud, and the company was forced out of business in 2018 after blowing through nearly $1B in funding. Ms. Holmes was recently convicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. I agree entirely with your last paragraph's sentiments about "great men."
@@timwessels853 Tim, thanks for sharing this information. What Fuller had, that a lot of inventors do not, is the ability to captivate an audience. I think Whitman said, "No great thing has ever been accomplished without enthusiasm. Fuller had a subtle enthusiasm inside him that magnetized so many people to follow him and his ideas. Other people, like Elizabeth Holmes, have the magnetism, but not the ability, or even the honesty to back up and start over when their ideas fail. I look forward to the book on Fuller's life. Thanks again for information. John Hurt
Yes, back in the day, Fuller would occasionally talk about "everything I know," which could take him forty hours to complete. His last "everything I know" lecture occurred in January 1975 at a Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania studio in Philadelphia. I recall that for ten days, Fuller would lecture for four hours each evening before a small studio audience of invited guests. The event was recorded on 2-inch broadcast quality tape and later reproduced on VHS tapes. I was in the control room queueing up 35mm slide visuals for his use. The actual recording time was 42 hours. You can find Fuller's "everything I know" lecture series on UA-cam.com, archive.org, and openculture.com websites.
I was told by Fullers Architect partner in Raleigh, N.C. that he discovered his dome structure from a deep sea animal that was called the Bucket Ball. Is there any truth to this?
Randy, I could find no information on a sea creature called a "bucket ball." There are carbon molecules that form in the shape of a truncated icosahedron, or "soccer ball" shape, that they now call "Fullerenes" and are named after Bucky Fuller, but these molecules were in existence long before Fuller was born. I think Fuller discovered his geodesic dome design from Walther Bauersfeld, through the help of someone like Walter Gropius. And his Class 2 design is identical to that of Hermann Schwartz, who discovered it in 1883. The Class 1 design that Fuller has received complete credit for discovering is really the Bauersfeld Design, which everyone thinks that Fuller invented as well. As someone said a long time ago, "There is nothing new under the sun." This should give us hope to look at older designs and re-invent them for the benefit of everyone, which is what I believe that Fuller did. That is true genius. Thank you for your comment. John Hurt
brain corals like acanthastrea,favites/favia ,micromussa and otthers, have this shapes.They are no deep sea creatures thogh.They live in shallow water because they need as much light they can get ,because they are photosynthetic like plants.Those are stony corals but there are soft corals too that grow in those shapes ,like the zoanthus corals.Great series about geodesic domes and thank you for it.Im a Buckminster fan myself but i dissagree that he was a business man like Edison when in fact the guy was a dreamer trying to save the world and not to make monney from his inventions.
Mihai - Thank you for your comment. Fuller really did not try to make a lot of money, his passion was to make his dreams a reality. If he had worked more openly with other people, and willingly shared credit with others for how they influenced his ideas, he would have had the impact of Walter Gropius, because more people would have worked with him. Gropius is relatively unknown to most people, but influenced architecture more than any other person in the 20th century - all by working through other people. You see buildings that were someway influenced by Gropius and the Bauhaus school everywhere. It is rare to see a geodesic dome, and the other Fuller inventions are practically unknown today. In comparing Fuller to Gropius, we see the outcomes of their two different approaches. If Fuller had not been so independent, he would have surpassed Gropius in changing the world for the better. Thank you for watching, and for your very interesting comment. Yes, I am awed by Bucky Fuller, just as many other people are. Thanks again, John Hurt
Hello Jim, The Wikipedia article on the Montreal Biosphere is at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Biosphere It states this about the Biosphere: " It is a Class 1 (icosahedral, as differentiated from Class 2 domes, which are dodecahedral, and Class 3 ones, which are tetrahedral), 32-frequency, double-layer dome," The author of the Wikipedia article does not know the difference between Class 1 and Class 2 triacon domes. The class is not based on the type of platonic solid that used, it is based on the orientation of the chords. I don't have my notes in front of me, but my original research showed the Montreal Biosphere was a class 2. Other evidence would be the sheer number of strut lengths required to create a 32 frequency class 1 dome. If the Biosphere was class 1, then there would be hundreds of different sized strut lengths, and it would be nearly impossible to manufacture and put it all together correctly. What Fuller did, was to find a way to create very large dome structures, using the Class 2 triacon solution, which he derived from the German mathematician, Schwartz, and his Schwartz triangles for covering a sphere. That was an absolutely brilliant solution for building large domes. So, with a 32 frequency Class 2 Triacon under Fuller's design, there would be only 32 different strut lengths, not several hundred strut lengths as in a Class 1. The class 2 triacon innovation makes building domes like the Biosphere possible. I don't have a good picture of the Montreal Biosphere, but one way to tell if it is Class 1 or Class 2 is this: Find two of the 5-way connection points. One will be at the "north pole" of the dome, and the others will be 72 degrees around the top of the dome. If there is a straight line of struts that runs between two of the 5-way connection points, then it is a Class 1 dome. If the struts are perpendicular to a line drawn between two of the 5-way connection points, then it is a Class 2 triacon dome. In all of the pictures of the Montreal Biosphere, I cannot see a straight line of struts between any of the 5-way connection points. I think if I was actually on the ground looking at the dome, I could easily tell the difference. The largest Class 1 domes usually end around 8 frequency, as they become too complex to build. Anything above a 10 frequency dome really should be a Class 2 triacon. For a large dome like the Biosphere, you would need a higher frequency to keep the struts short enough to be strong. The Wikipedia author said it was a 32 frequency dome, but I really don't believe that either, with what else he said. Wikipedia authors are just average people that volunteer to write a large number of articles, many of these articles are outside their own experience, and so a lot of things on Wikipedia are just not true. So, I think that the Montreal Biosphere should be a class 2. And I am pretty sure I read that in my research for the video. But I could be wrong. If you find something, let me know. See if you can find a picture of the Biosphere that is clear. The double layer of struts makes it difficult to see what is actually happening. Thanks again for your comment. It made me remember some of the things I had researched. John Hurt
@@ZipTieDomes Thank you for a very concise and tightly done documentary. I agree even though you didn't use the word "ego" that is why Fuller did the way he created things so that he would be the only one receiving accolades or profit. You on the other hand only care about people as even though you've received a patent on your hub design you haven't kept it a secret but share it openly. This way, many more people can benefit from the dome design. The only thing I've had a difficult time finding is how to easily fit a door into a zip tie dome. I've more to watch but I'd like to see how to build a narrow tube that has a tall center.
@@cynicalrabbit915 Here is a Silo Dome that has a tall center: www.ziptiedomes.com/customers/genedavis.htm Here is a Silo Dome with a rectangular doorway: www.ziptiedomes.com/customers/dougsikora.htm If you have any questions, please contact me at this link: www.ziptiedomes.com/contactus.htm
1:50 This is because, as revealed by 3 time teacher of the year award winner and public education whistleblower John Taylor Gatto, only those who promote the indoctrination and propaganda the ruling class wishes to impose upon the public may be allowed to teach. Look up Mr. Gatto's interview entitled "the ultimate history lesson" if you truly want the horrifying big picture of the true objectives of public (government controlled) education.
By having cities under a dome humans will live longer by default they are not exposed to elements like wind n water n bad air no asma less stress on bones cause of the gravity pull will not be like itnis now
Then only electric car trains bus can enter the dome others commute now u pay dome tax to live n the dome for solar roads ect homes outside the domes need 2b recycle plasti or container homes we got to clean the earth then we'll have great weather
Yes! My 4 year degree is in Political Science and it is absolutely worthless. I would have been a LOT better off to have taken the money I wasted on a college degree and started my own business in my twenties, instead of doing it now. I learned everything I needed to know to develop my geodesic dome hubs from my own research, and not from some boring college class. College degrees, and every school, teaches us to be a slave to the system - to raise our hands before we speak, to stand in line, and do whatever we are told to do. People like Fuller and other school teachers take the ideas from their own students and use them to make themselves wealthy. That is another good reason to avoid college. And don't forget, it is called a "liberal arts" degree for a reason. If you are a conservative or "even worse" - a Christian libertarian that treasures your own freedom and independence, you will be persecuted relentlessly in these stupid colleges that are run by liberal teachers and bureaucratic faculty. Liberals are failures can only feed off other people, as they can't do it on their own. They hope by raising taxes on "the rich" that it will in turn make themselves rich. That is a very sick mind set that is being taught "as fact" in our colleges, just like "evolution" is a "fact" in college. I am glad to read your comments, it made my day. Take care, and stay away from liberal education. John Hurt
I think that you did a great job. You either do not know much about RBFuller's Synergetic Geometry or avoided it. As one can see in the photos you use there is the Jitterbug model, and great circle models. It is obvious to me that one can rediscover these principles. I enjoy the connectivity your videos show, but am a bit leery of your seeming ignorance of pronunciation of Buckminster, not Buckminister, Tensegrity not tensen-gritty. Nor do you get into Fuller's overall philosophy of making the whole world work with humanity as a player. You make your chicken coops and I like who you are and what you do, but really, you sort of trash Fuller and I do not know why.
We are all "good" and "bad". When we analyze Fuller, we see he is human, just like the rest of us. Thomas Edison had a "war" with Nicolai Tesla that showed Edison's "bad" side, and he even electrocuted an elephant to disprove Tesla. Edison took most of his ideas from other people, just like Fuller. But Edison was still a genius, like Fuller. We should not be afraid to "harvest" an earlier idea, and promote it to the world, as Edison and Fuller did. That is where Fuller was truly great. And if Fuller did not give credit to others, or show where his ideas originated, is that really so bad? The Geodesic Dome of Bauersfeld had been forgotten. So Fuller did us a great service. That Fuller did not credit the living inventor of Tensegrity was a mistake on Fuller's part, but Fuller did invent the word "Tensegrity", just like he invented the word "geodesic". The marketing that Fuller so effortlessly achieved for his ideas eludes most inventors. I think when you shine a light on Fuller's activities, all of them, good and bad, that is when you can really learn from history. It shows us we can be like Fuller, but maybe just a little bit better in our personal relationships. How we treat other people is the true meaning of success in this life. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your viewpoint. John Hurt
Will they ever learn? Somebody actually has to do the the "work" for the hippie colleges to live. And no one can use a degree from a college that does not teach a practical skill, like the crazy idea of making a dome out of window shades, etc. Thanks for watching the video. John Hurt
Very much thanks for telling us so great stories behind the magic 3D structure, DOME, and very much respect those senior generations on the road of exploring the wonder of the world!
Thanks again, John Hurt
As a dome builder enthusiast of 40 years, this was invaluable insight into the real history of the geodesic dome. Thanks to yourself for these excellent videos, and to Lloyd Khan for releasing the chord factors so we can all build them..!
Thanks, I appreciate your comments. Have a great day in NZ! John Hurt
I've never seen anything about the origins, or backstory, of Buckminster Fuller and the Geodesic domes. So this was a very interesting film series. Thank you for making and sharing this series 😊
Thanks, Katherine. I really appreciate your comments. John Hurt
Terrific job @ziptiedomes thank you for sharing this story I’d never heard before
Thanks, it really is an interesting tale about Bauersfeld, the Bauhaus, and Fuller, and how they all interacted. Thanks for watching the videos. John Hurt
Fantastic video and story. Thank you. Learned so much.
Thanks! John Hurt
Thank you for you good efforts and education on the geodesic dome. It helps me understand why I love them so much.
Thank you for your reply, I really appreciate it. John Hurt
Great simplification of the differences in a complex geometry. Kudos to you sir!
Thanks, I appreciate your comments. John Hurt
I have received the information which I should know for the next step in my innovative journey. Thanks
Thanks for watching the videos. John Hurt
This has been an awesome series. Thank you.
Thanks, Leonard. I appreciate your words of encouragement. That means a lot! Thanks again. John Hurt
Wow, extensive research has been done here! Your presentation is brilliant, and thank you for reviving this piece of forgotten history ♡
Thanks, I appreciate your comments. John Hurt
Wow, you did an amazing job with this series, congratulations.
Thanks, I appreciate your comments. John Hurt
I really enjoyed your series and thank you for spending the time to put it all together. Congratulations on a job well done.
Thank you so much for your comments. I really appreciate them. Thanks again. John Hurt
I truly injoyed your series about "the dome" and fuller. Thank you
Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate it. John Hurt
I really enjoyed this documentary (except I wince when you put the ephasis on the wrong syllable in "tensegrity" and pronounce "Buckminster" as "Buckminister", with a second 'i'). Thank you for preserving this history and knowledge.
I want to point out an insight of Buckminster Fuller in his dome design that you never addressed in your videos. Please take a look at the domes shown at 23:54 and at 26:22, particularly when zoomed in. In Fuller's Triacon configuration dome, the 10-way and 12-way connectors have a feature that lends tremendous strength to the dome that you didn't acknowledge. At 26:22, you can see that the 10-way connector has short struts on the outer shell of the dome, but longer thinner struts that connect to the 12-way connectors. These longer struts cross under the shorter struts, and do not touch them; they are not in the same shell. Observe the image at 26:47. The dome shown there appears to be made of two domes connected at the vertices, with the short struts forming a dome of higher frequency and the long struts forming a lower frequency dome inside it. What this effectively does is to break up the shell of the dome into shallow tetrahedra. Look at this image carefully, and you'll see that every strut is an edge of a shallow tetrahedron.
At 23:54, if you examine the dome, you can see that same subdivision of the shell of the dome into tetrahedra, with shorter struts on the outside, and longer struts (under the fabric or covering) connecting the 12 and 10 way connectors. Again, the shorter struts form a dome with a higher frequency, and the longer struts form a dome with a lower frequency, sharing their vertices at the 12 and 10 way connectors.. This is a unique feature of Fuller's domes that Bauerfeld's dome lacked. This was a genuine innovation that makes Fuller's domes much more rigid. If you do this method of reinforcing a dome with another lower frequency dome sharing vertices at the multi-way connectors, you essentially turn his dome shell into a spherical form of his octet truss.
I wish you would have addressed this. This design of using a lower frequency inner shell of longer struts appears to have been forgotten; nobody seems to do domes like that anymore. In fact, I contend that you should make connectors that can re-produce this sort of dome. It would let you make even larger and more rigid domes that can be self-supporting as they're assembled, since the shell consists of rigid 3D shapes-those shallow tetrahedra. A large dome like this can be built and raised from the edges being built outward, but a single shell dome cannot be built this way beyond a certain size, because at large sizes the single layered dome would be liable to buckle.
You have a lot of good points. For the larger domes, like the Montreal Bio Sphere, Fuller's design is superior to Bauersfeld's design. For the smaller domes, the Class 1 is more practical. I do not know of any company that manufactures a hub that would handle Fuller's dome designs. There are very few triacon domes in the world today.
Fuller's Class 2 designs for the larger dome construction was "over the top" and an indication of his genius.
Sorry about my speech patterns, I was barely able to get the words out at all.
Thanks for watching the video.
I hope someone can really reveal on UA-cam what Fuller did with his Class 2 designs. I lack the background to do this successfully, but you seem to be very knowledgeable.
Thanks,
John Hurt
Thank you, this was really interesting series, a real documentary you have made! Excellent! I admire your passion for the subject.
Thanks, I really appreciate your words of encouragement. It did take a lot of work, but I found the research fascinating, and once I found out about Walter Gropius and his role in all of this, everything made perfect sense. Thanks for watching the videos. John Hurt
Very nice series. Thanks for creating it. I enjoyed it very much.
Thanks, Jucie. I appreciate your comments and support, it is very encouraging to get good feedback. John Hurt
best explanation!
Thanks, John. John Hurt
very good series - it reminds me of the difference between Edison and Tesla - we know how that turned out - thanks for the series - Wow - so informative also - now I want to get Lloyd Kahn's book - and/or look into the chord formulas - --- I see a lot of generosity on youtube - the sharing of info is great! How sad when knowledge is hidden for the sake of money
Yes, I agree. The real Thomas Edison is not the same Edison they taught in school. Tesla was the greatest inventor of his time, and a decent person too, which is an unusual combination. The DomeBook 2 is no longer in print, but you can download a PDF version on the web. Lloyd Kahn changed a lot of things just by publishing a book. Yes, when we freely share information, the world is a better place. Thank you for your comments. John Hurt
@@ZipTieDomes 🤔👍👍👍👍👍😃🙏😇🙏😇
@@e.stgo.7998 Thanks!
Hello, I am an architecture student and i do my research about the domes. Your video is really interesting for me, how can I join you to know where do you find the informations in the video ? Please feel free to contact me, it will really help me
I agree with all the supporting comments, and would like to add these two Thoughts: Could you make 2 alternative pieces; 1 that includes all 5 Parts, in a Long Form Documentary, and one that is 6-8 minutes long, as a "Super Condensed Version" of the Long Form piece!
That is an excellent idea! I have all of the pictures and script, so all I need to do is cut out the "excess" and shorten it. Thank you for your comments. John Hurt
@@ZipTieDomes Great documentary. Yes, that would be cool. Take the script and cut out everything that is not essential to the primary chain of logic and jettison it. Also repeat nothing, let the audience pay attention. Check the interesting feedback you have received and incorporate any that seems valid into your new condensed version.
Instead of a long 3 hour version you could create a play-list for the 6 videos that people can auto-play.
@@ZipTieDomes - John, Thank you for the Reply, and considering the Idea! I just felt there are two types of Audiences: Those with a Casual Interest, and those that want the Whole Story and Details! Hence the 2 formats.
@@KallePihlajasaari - Or, have both, a Play List of the current pieces, AND a Long Form, that reduces some of the repeated bits. Links to those sources in the description helps, too. As well as to the short form Option.
@@KallePihlajasaari That is a very good idea.
I also enjoyed your series. Thank you!
Thank you so much for your comment. I put about 3 months of work into these 5 videos, so your positive feedback is very encouraging. John Hurt
You are VERY thorough. I liked how you set up the mystery of whether Fuller got his ideas from someone else. That's why I watched. I wanted to know.
Thanks!
I love your videos, thanks!
Thanks, I appreciate your kind words, and for watching the videos. John Hurt
I just finish watching every one of the videos in this series!
You have graced us all with Wonderful research, amazing insights, and phenomenal lessons to be learned!!!
It seemsprovidential that I just found this series as I was wanting to talk to you about inventing and combining technologies which is exactly what you say here!!!
I hope it'll be able to talk to you soon!!
Jerry Diamond
IMPERIUM
Thanks for watching!
From early 1973 through 1979, I worked in Buckminster Fuller's office at the University City Science Center (UCSC) in Philadephia. I was aware of the first geodesic dome Dr. Walther Bauersfeld built for the Carl Zeiss optical works in Jena, Germany. I might have seen it in Lloyd Kahn's "Domebook" publication. It is an interesting hypothesis that Buckminster Fuller may have been informed by Walter Gropius about the Bauersfeld dome while they were both at Black Mountain College, even though you found no record of Gropius having communicated with Fuller about it. The other place to look for evidence would be in Fuller's archives, located at Stanford University in California. I will review a draft of Alec Nevala-Lee's biography of Buckminster Fuller, due to be published on August 2nd, 2022, to see if he came across any references Fuller may have made to Walter Gropius regarding the Bauersfeld dome. I enjoyed watching your video series. Thank you for taking the time to do it.
Here is an answer to whether Walter Gropius had mentioned the Bauersfeld dome to Bucky Fuller at Black Mountain College in 1948 or 1949. I found it in a draft of Alec Nevala-Lee's biography of Buckminster Fuller. Here is the relevant quote from his book "Inventor of the Future: The Visionary Life of Buckminster Fuller." The book will be published on August 2nd, 2022.
On August 16, 1949, Myron Goldsmith, an architect in the Chicago office of Mies van
der Rohe, sent a letter to Fuller to follow up on a recent conversation. In a description of
the photograph that he had enclosed, Goldsmith wrote, “As nearly as I can tell it is a photo
of the German planetarium. I was able to find another photo which clarified the pattern
somewhat.” The building in question was probably the Zeiss Planetarium in Jena, which
featured a domed roof with a design that the engineer Walther Bauersfeld had
demonstrated in 1922.
It was a patented geodesic structure, and it predated Fuller’s work by a quarter of a
century. The Zeiss dome was twenty-five meters across, with a thin concrete shell over an
iron framework, using a triangulated pattern derived from the icosahedron. Bauersfeld
had been more interested in the projection system that displayed the stars inside the
hemisphere than in the dome itself, and Goldsmith’s sketch gave only a vague sense of its
geometry, which Walter Gropius and László Moholy-Nagy had studied closely while it
was still under construction.
Whether Fuller had known about the Zeiss dome was a question that would persist for
decades, but the evidence indicated that he was unaware of it until he saw Goldsmith’s
letter. Fuller’s dome had arisen independently from his interest in great circles, and it had
yet to occur to him to base it on the icosahedron, which he had already rejected as a
cartographic projection. It would have been simpler and sturdier than the designs that he
had used so far, and he would have been unlikely to deliberately ignore such an obvious
solution.
All the same, it complicated his claim of discovery. Fuller wrote much later to
Snelson, “If the Zeiss engineer had in 1922 anticipated geodesic domes’ unlimited
spanning capability, Goering would have used geodesic domes for his Luftwaffe hangars
during World War II....No one was the inventor of geodesic structure. I was the conceiver
of the engineering theory which showed that they had no limit of clear span enclosing
capability and of their practical and economic realizability.”
I hope this passage from Alec Nevala-Lee's forthcoming biography of Buckminster Fuller answers the question.
@@timwessels853 Tim, that is very interesting.
Fuller demonstrated his "Flopahedron" dome made from venetian blind materials in 1948 at Black Mountain, but by the spring of 1949, he had a working dome prototype that he took to the Pentagon and to Black Mountain that summer. It appears that the winter of 48-49 is when Fuller created his first working dome. Fuller spent the winter of 1948-1949 teaching at the Chicago School of Design, which was directed by the Bauhaus master Lazlo Moholy Nagy. I believe this was when Fuller was adopted by the Bauhaus - with all of the contacts and support that came with that association. This probably opened the door to Fuller meeting with Goldsmith and having their "recent conversation" as you said, in the Chicago office of van der Rohe.
This is what the Bauhaus school did - it would enable the creativity of people like Fuller - and give them the contacts they needed to be successful. The Bauhaus helped Fuller reach his true potential, and he is a product of that school.
Fuller's great circle domes are very rare today, as they are too complicated to be practical. Everyone uses the Bauersfeld dome design. So the Geodesic dome you see on the playground, or a geodesic house, or geodesic greenhouse, that is Bauersfeld's invention, not Fuller's. No one really uses Fuller's design. But Fuller did invent the great circle dome, or at least reduce it to practice.
And I have never seen an aircraft hangar made from a geodesic dome, as the width of the entrance to accommodate the aircraft wings would require a very tall dome, with a lot of wasted volume. A dome is always half as tall as it is wide, which is a great handicap for certain types of buildings, like a hangar.
Fuller's claim that domes have an "unlimited spanning ability" is incorrect. When you increase the frequency of the dome, the hexagons and pentagons will become nearly "flat" which will allow the hubs to invert to the inside if enough stress is placed on a single hub. That is why there will never be a "dome over Houston" or these other ideas. Fuller envisioned "floating cities" made from large geodesic spheres where the heat of the sun would expand the air inside the sphere and cause it to rise. This is impossible, as there will not be a large enough angle between the struts or vertices to provide structural integrity. They will be too flat. A geodesic dome 5 miles wide would have the strength of a soap bubble.
Fuller's Montreal Biosphere is magnificent - but it is really a spherical truss. He had to add create two interlocking domes to make a large span. And it is so large, it is not practical. There is a lot of wasted volume in a dome this large.
The Bauersfeld 2v or 3v dome - around 25 to 30' in diameter, this is the perfect size for a dome. Strong, lightweight, and easy to build.
Fuller was quite the salesman, and the rest of us pale in comparison this his ability in this area. But he had a personality flaw in that he would never admit that he was wrong, or that he got his inspiration from other people, as in the case of tensegrity from Snelson, or the octet truss from Bell. Of his three Dymaxion cars - two have crashed, and the 3rd is never driven above 30 miles per hour,. The Dymaxion car is an extremely unsafe design. This car design, with the steering in the rear, is deadly - yet very few people can see this problem, including the driver that was killed. But it was Fuller's response to this wreck - that it was someone else's fault for "rubber necking" and causing the car to crash - that is what I cannot accept.
Thomas Edison also had some issues, as he really did not invent the light bulb, and practically waged war against Nikolai Tesla. He also electrocuted an elephant to show that Tesla was wrong. Fuller is a much greater person than Edison.
In a way, it is refreshing to know that our "Idols" - the "great men" of the world, are really just men, with faults like the rest of us. If we look at ourselves, we see inside us the same kinds of problems they had. And this should give us hope, that as we deal with ourselves, we can still give good things to the rest of humanity. Fuller did that. The geodesic dome would have been forgotten without Fuller. Fuller's ideas have helped a lot of people.
Thanks for sharing.
John Hurt
Fuller's "adoption" by the Bauhaus school was likely given his presence at the Chicago School of Design. And it would explain Fuller's meeting with Goldsmith and their subsequent exchange of letters. Fuller was an autodidact (self-taught), although he collected many "honorary degrees" later in his life.
Bauersfeld did patent his invention for the Zeiss planetarium but did not license it for other commercial structures. A German patent was issued for twenty years and required an annual fee to maintain it in force. As Alec Nevala-Lee mentions in his Fuller biography, Bauersfeld was looking for an interior surface to project his planetarium images.
Yes, you need to use a truss design to go large in domes, so the dome structure does not dimple in on itself. Of course, great circle domes are too complicated to produce, and eventually, Fuller realized that too. The U.S. Expo '67 dome was initially designed to be bolted together to be moved. Instead, it was welded together, which unfortunately resulted in a fire when workmen attempted to close the tram opening.
There was a project in Fuller's office at the University City Science Center (UCSC) to investigate the properties of building a very large diameter spherical tensegrity structure to "float" in the upper atmosphere. A physicist at the UCSC was intrigued and agreed to work out the atmospheric physics of "floating" such a large structure in the upper atmosphere. The project was named STARS for Spherical Tensegrity Atmospheric Research Station.
Yes, the design shortcomings of the Dymaxion Car design are understood. It would have been better if the driver was also a sailor like Fuller. The annual U.S. highway death total peaked in the late 1960s to the early 1970s, with over 50K deaths per year. In the 21st Century, annual highway deaths have varied from the low 30K per year to the low 40K deaths per year. Of course, the population has also increased along with the number of vehicles on the road.
Thomas Edison inspired Elizabeth Holmes, who founded the blood-testing company Theranos in 2003, where her invention of a "blood lab-in-a-box" was called the Edison. Unfortunately, Theranos Edison was essentially a fraud, and the company was forced out of business in 2018 after blowing through nearly $1B in funding. Ms. Holmes was recently convicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
I agree entirely with your last paragraph's sentiments about "great men."
@@timwessels853 Tim, thanks for sharing this information.
What Fuller had, that a lot of inventors do not, is the ability to captivate an audience.
I think Whitman said, "No great thing has ever been accomplished without enthusiasm. Fuller had a subtle enthusiasm inside him that magnetized so many people to follow him and his ideas.
Other people, like Elizabeth Holmes, have the magnetism, but not the ability, or even the honesty to back up and start over when their ideas fail.
I look forward to the book on Fuller's life.
Thanks again for information.
John Hurt
Yes, back in the day, Fuller would occasionally talk about "everything I know," which could take him forty hours to complete. His last "everything I know" lecture occurred in January 1975 at a Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania studio in Philadelphia. I recall that for ten days, Fuller would lecture for four hours each evening before a small studio audience of invited guests. The event was recorded on 2-inch broadcast quality tape and later reproduced on VHS tapes. I was in the control room queueing up 35mm slide visuals for his use. The actual recording time was 42 hours. You can find Fuller's "everything I know" lecture series on UA-cam.com, archive.org, and openculture.com websites.
I was told by Fullers Architect partner in Raleigh, N.C. that he discovered his dome structure from a deep sea animal that was called the Bucket Ball. Is there any truth to this?
Randy, I could find no information on a sea creature called a "bucket ball." There are carbon molecules that form in the shape of a truncated icosahedron, or "soccer ball" shape, that they now call "Fullerenes" and are named after Bucky Fuller, but these molecules were in existence long before Fuller was born. I think Fuller discovered his geodesic dome design from Walther Bauersfeld, through the help of someone like Walter Gropius. And his Class 2 design is identical to that of Hermann Schwartz, who discovered it in 1883. The Class 1 design that Fuller has received complete credit for discovering is really the Bauersfeld Design, which everyone thinks that Fuller invented as well. As someone said a long time ago, "There is nothing new under the sun." This should give us hope to look at older designs and re-invent them for the benefit of everyone, which is what I believe that Fuller did. That is true genius. Thank you for your comment. John Hurt
brain corals like acanthastrea,favites/favia ,micromussa and otthers, have this shapes.They are no deep sea creatures thogh.They live in shallow water because they need as much light they can get ,because they are photosynthetic like plants.Those are stony corals but there are soft corals too that grow in those shapes ,like the zoanthus corals.Great series about geodesic domes and thank you for it.Im a Buckminster fan myself but i dissagree that he was a business man like Edison when in fact the guy was a dreamer trying to save the world and not to make monney from his inventions.
Mihai - Thank you for your comment. Fuller really did not try to make a lot of money, his passion was to make his dreams a reality. If he had worked more openly with other people, and willingly shared credit with others for how they influenced his ideas, he would have had the impact of Walter Gropius, because more people would have worked with him. Gropius is relatively unknown to most people, but influenced architecture more than any other person in the 20th century - all by working through other people. You see buildings that were someway influenced by Gropius and the Bauhaus school everywhere. It is rare to see a geodesic dome, and the other Fuller inventions are practically unknown today. In comparing Fuller to Gropius, we see the outcomes of their two different approaches. If Fuller had not been so independent, he would have surpassed Gropius in changing the world for the better. Thank you for watching, and for your very interesting comment. Yes, I am awed by Bucky Fuller, just as many other people are. Thanks again, John Hurt
@@mihaiilie8808 I'm thinking his claim may be a reference to diagnose.
You can easily see the parallels there.
5*Great series
Thanks for watching! John Hurt
Does the Epcot center use the same or a similar design?
Yes it does, here is more information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth_(Epcot)
Thanks for watching the video. John Hurt
Amazine!
Thanks, Victor. I appreciate your comment. John Hurt
At 22-50, the Montreal Biosphere is displayed and is referred to as a "Class 2" tricon. I'm pretty sure it's Class 1.
Hello Jim,
The Wikipedia article on the Montreal Biosphere is at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Biosphere
It states this about the Biosphere: " It is a Class 1 (icosahedral, as differentiated from Class 2 domes, which are dodecahedral, and Class 3 ones, which are tetrahedral), 32-frequency, double-layer dome,"
The author of the Wikipedia article does not know the difference between Class 1 and Class 2 triacon domes. The class is not based on the type of platonic solid that used, it is based on the orientation of the chords.
I don't have my notes in front of me, but my original research showed the Montreal Biosphere was a class 2. Other evidence would be the sheer number of strut lengths required to create a 32 frequency class 1 dome. If the Biosphere was class 1, then there would be hundreds of different sized strut lengths, and it would be nearly impossible to manufacture and put it all together correctly.
What Fuller did, was to find a way to create very large dome structures, using the Class 2 triacon solution, which he derived from the German mathematician, Schwartz, and his Schwartz triangles for covering a sphere. That was an absolutely brilliant solution for building large domes. So, with a 32 frequency Class 2 Triacon under Fuller's design, there would be only 32 different strut lengths, not several hundred strut lengths as in a Class 1. The class 2 triacon innovation makes building domes like the Biosphere possible.
I don't have a good picture of the Montreal Biosphere, but one way to tell if it is Class 1 or Class 2 is this:
Find two of the 5-way connection points. One will be at the "north pole" of the dome, and the others will be 72 degrees around the top of the dome.
If there is a straight line of struts that runs between two of the 5-way connection points, then it is a Class 1 dome.
If the struts are perpendicular to a line drawn between two of the 5-way connection points, then it is a Class 2 triacon dome.
In all of the pictures of the Montreal Biosphere, I cannot see a straight line of struts between any of the 5-way connection points. I think if I was actually on the ground looking at the dome, I could easily tell the difference.
The largest Class 1 domes usually end around 8 frequency, as they become too complex to build. Anything above a 10 frequency dome really should be a Class 2 triacon.
For a large dome like the Biosphere, you would need a higher frequency to keep the struts short enough to be strong. The Wikipedia author said it was a 32 frequency dome, but I really don't believe that either, with what else he said. Wikipedia authors are just average people that volunteer to write a large number of articles, many of these articles are outside their own experience, and so a lot of things on Wikipedia are just not true.
So, I think that the Montreal Biosphere should be a class 2. And I am pretty sure I read that in my research for the video. But I could be wrong.
If you find something, let me know. See if you can find a picture of the Biosphere that is clear. The double layer of struts makes it difficult to see what is actually happening.
Thanks again for your comment. It made me remember some of the things I had researched.
John Hurt
@@ZipTieDomes
Thank you for a very concise and tightly done documentary.
I agree even though you didn't use the word "ego" that is why Fuller did the way he created things so that he would be the only one receiving accolades or profit.
You on the other hand only care about people as even though you've received a patent on your hub design you haven't kept it a secret but share it openly. This way, many more people can benefit from the dome design. The only thing I've had a difficult time finding is how to easily fit a door into a zip tie dome. I've more to watch but I'd like to see how to build a narrow tube that has a tall center.
@@cynicalrabbit915 Here is a Silo Dome that has a tall center:
www.ziptiedomes.com/customers/genedavis.htm
Here is a Silo Dome with a rectangular doorway:
www.ziptiedomes.com/customers/dougsikora.htm
If you have any questions, please contact me at this link:
www.ziptiedomes.com/contactus.htm
we culd buld faster city on mars?
That would be cool.
I will build geo dome for myself! Wanna see it?
Sure!
So we have 7 deserts u dome them all now j got 7 garden cities
We are supposed to have tropical weather rain came from under the earth at one time not from the sky gen 2-6
1:50 This is because, as revealed by 3 time teacher of the year award winner and public education whistleblower John Taylor Gatto, only those who promote the indoctrination and propaganda the ruling class wishes to impose upon the public may be allowed to teach. Look up Mr. Gatto's interview entitled "the ultimate history lesson" if you truly want the horrifying big picture of the true objectives of public (government controlled) education.
I have read some of Gatto's writings, and they truly are trying to dumb us down. We homeschool our children. Thanks for watching the video. John Hurt
Good curating, compelling narrative. I've been operating in this same space. Check my UA-cam channel for more, on Bucky's Synergetics etc.
Thanks, Kirby.
John Hurt
By having cities under a dome humans will live longer by default they are not exposed to elements like wind n water n bad air no asma less stress on bones cause of the gravity pull will not be like itnis now
That is neat!
Then only electric car trains bus can enter the dome others commute now u pay dome tax to live n the dome for solar roads ect homes outside the domes need 2b recycle plasti or container homes we got to clean the earth then we'll have great weather
That is a great idea!
Rediscovered...lol
Yes. And Fuller did improve the design. Thanks for watching. John Hurt
More proof that degrees are greatly overrated!
Yes! My 4 year degree is in Political Science and it is absolutely worthless. I would have been a LOT better off to have taken the money I wasted on a college degree and started my own business in my twenties, instead of doing it now. I learned everything I needed to know to develop my geodesic dome hubs from my own research, and not from some boring college class. College degrees, and every school, teaches us to be a slave to the system - to raise our hands before we speak, to stand in line, and do whatever we are told to do.
People like Fuller and other school teachers take the ideas from their own students and use them to make themselves wealthy. That is another good reason to avoid college. And don't forget, it is called a "liberal arts" degree for a reason. If you are a conservative or "even worse" - a Christian libertarian that treasures your own freedom and independence, you will be persecuted relentlessly in these stupid colleges that are run by liberal teachers and bureaucratic faculty. Liberals are failures can only feed off other people, as they can't do it on their own. They hope by raising taxes on "the rich" that it will in turn make themselves rich. That is a very sick mind set that is being taught "as fact" in our colleges, just like "evolution" is a "fact" in college.
I am glad to read your comments, it made my day. Take care, and stay away from liberal education. John Hurt
I think that you did a great job. You either do not know much about RBFuller's Synergetic Geometry or avoided it. As one can see in the photos you use there is the Jitterbug model, and great circle models. It is obvious to me that one can rediscover these principles. I enjoy the connectivity your videos show, but am a bit leery of your seeming ignorance of pronunciation of Buckminster, not Buckminister, Tensegrity not tensen-gritty. Nor do you get into Fuller's overall philosophy of making the whole world work with humanity as a player.
You make your chicken coops and I like who you are and what you do, but really, you sort of trash Fuller and I do not know why.
We are all "good" and "bad". When we analyze Fuller, we see he is human, just like the rest of us. Thomas Edison had a "war" with Nicolai Tesla that showed Edison's "bad" side, and he even electrocuted an elephant to disprove Tesla. Edison took most of his ideas from other people, just like Fuller. But Edison was still a genius, like Fuller. We should not be afraid to "harvest" an earlier idea, and promote it to the world, as Edison and Fuller did. That is where Fuller was truly great. And if Fuller did not give credit to others, or show where his ideas originated, is that really so bad? The Geodesic Dome of Bauersfeld had been forgotten. So Fuller did us a great service. That Fuller did not credit the living inventor of Tensegrity was a mistake on Fuller's part, but Fuller did invent the word "Tensegrity", just like he invented the word "geodesic". The marketing that Fuller so effortlessly achieved for his ideas eludes most inventors. I think when you shine a light on Fuller's activities, all of them, good and bad, that is when you can really learn from history. It shows us we can be like Fuller, but maybe just a little bit better in our personal relationships. How we treat other people is the true meaning of success in this life. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your viewpoint. John Hurt
Hippie colleges... debt crisis... lol
Will they ever learn? Somebody actually has to do the the "work" for the hippie colleges to live. And no one can use a degree from a college that does not teach a practical skill, like the crazy idea of making a dome out of window shades, etc. Thanks for watching the video. John Hurt
Inventor?
More of a cult leader con man.
You are "right on" with that one. A lot of investors lost a lot of money on all of his original ideas that did not work at all.