[sci.space] SPACE Digest V7 #30

MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (10/31/86)

Gary Allen's buckling-sphere argument seems convincing at first, but
can one really prove that a shpere is indeed the best geometry?  Gary
says, "The geometry that can best withstand compression is a sphere."
However, I suspect that this is only "locally" true for homgenous
materials, and the theorem does not apply to inhomogeneous - let
alone, fractile - materials.

For example, if you made a pressure-bearing container of solid
polystyrene, I don't doubt that the best you could do would be to form it into a sphere.  But wouldn't it be vastly more resistant to buckling if you
made it into a much thicker spherical shell composed of styrofoam?

MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (11/01/86)

(Addition to previous note.)  I did not mean to suggest that Gary
Allen's argument is incorrect, but only to wonder whether the
classical derivation considers every possibility.  Presumably, it uses
a variational method that finds the extremum for variations in the
mass distribution of deviations from a spherical form and (correctly)
finds the shell to be optimal.  Very likely, this is correct, but I
wonder if the variational method extends to distributed variations in
density/porosity.

Eric Drexler showed me a draft calculation that showed that it is
feasible to make a lighter-than-air object with perfect carbon fibres.
However, this is entirely in accord with Gary's argument since (1)
those ideal fibres are indeed a couple of orders of magnitude better
than steel and (2) Drexler's calculation did not suggest any large
margin beyond that.  Drexler's construction involved a dense
tetrahedral lattice that supports a spherical, airtight shell.  As I
recall, Drexler was not maintaining that the hollow lattice was
superior to the uniform shell in regard to preventing buckling.  What
he did argue was that the lattice could be constructed with so fine a
grain that the fibres would be smaller than wavelengths of light.  The
resulting floating object, then, might also be invisible!  Very cute,
if true, but I don't know enough wave theory to know whether it would
end up with a substantial refractive index, in any case.