Re: Droyne Architecture

 ...Scott Kellog wrote:
>>Hum.  I don't see much of human anatomy in something like say:  The
>>Space Shuttle.  Nor do I see it in a Saturn V.  Nor do I see it in a
>>Sapwood ICBM...  Ariane...  Mir... Skylab... Abrams MBT... F-14 Tomcat
>>Nimitz class carrier...  Los Angeles class fast attack sub...  MiG-29
>>Fulcrum...

 ...and George Herbert replied:
>Of those, the Saturn V, the Sapwood, and Arianne are the only ones
>not significantly affected by human anatomy and anthropometrics.
> <Rest of text deleted for brevity's sake>

First, I believe the original comment was (to paraphrase): there is a
correlation between architecture and anatomy.  However, none of the
items that Scott listed are architecture in the classical sense, but
vehicles.  I think the original comment was specifically referring to
buildings, not to vehicles...

Second, the examples that George used to rebut Scott were all based
on ergonomics.  I certainly won't argue that form must/should/does
follow function (to quote a famous deceased architect), because I
agree.  But I believe that the original comment of
        <building arch> = <human arch/torsal structure>
was _not_ making the connection between form and function.
Instead, I viewed it as a simple connection between shapes;
the point made was that a species' architecture would be based on
some structural aspect of that species' shape.

        Myself, I think that the connection between building arch and
human arch is stretching it a bit.  It's only one example, and there
don't seem to be any more (not that I can think of, but hey, I'm just
a brain dead grad student...).  Not only that, but the sum total of
human architecture is extremely diverse.  Zulu and Mongols built
round "houses" with conical tops.  Iraquois built the origianl "quonset
huts," which we so copiously copied during WWII here in the States.
Plains Indians built Teepees, which are conical.  Egyptians, Aztecs
and Incas built pyramids.  It seems that most simple geometric shapes
get used by humans.  The examples are more numerous than I want to
put in a post...
        So I will stir the pot some more...  ;->  ;->  ;->  I would argue
that architectural shape of buildings has far more to do with the
building materials available than anything else.  Think about it:
the original quonset huts are half cylinders bacause that's the shape
you get when you bend a bunch of saplings and cover them with birch.
When you live in places where trees are abundant (and the culture has
advanced past the bronze age) you get square houses (with peaked roofs
in areas where it snows) - like most of Europe.  The arch is found
whenever people are building with stone, because it solves the problem
of tension failure in rocks - it's a shaped based on the property of the
material, no more, no less. Let's skip the rest of the examples, as I'm
sure everyone can figure them out for themselves.  :->

        I'm not going to touch vehicular design with a ten foot pole.    ;->
Besides, I agree essentially with George.

ttfn!
Catie, brain dead grad student
Catie Helm
Stable Isotope Lab, Geology Dept, UC Davis
[email removed]