On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:56:27 -0500, Tyler Eaves wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:33:09 +0100, Apache wrote:
> 
>> Probably better and faster to use an isosurface instead of height field.
> 
> Any links or doc pointers as to how one would do this? (That don't require
>  higher math...)
> 
>> And
>> with just a little bit of wind this narrow bridge will start moving forth
>> and back and possibly break.
> 
> I disagree, for two reasons.
> 
> It could be/is built of futuristic materials (The IRTC theme is 'Future')
> like carbon nanotubes, etc, that have strength that is orders of magnitude
> past anything used today.
> 
> Also, it's 200ft wide, with the 3 arch tubes being 40ft in diameter. I
> think it could work. The New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia is 4
> lanes (Maybe 60ft wide?) and has a single arch span of just under 2000ft.
> This bridges width/length ratio may be about 3 times that, but the West
> Virginia bridge was done in the 1970's with regular steel, and not
> something with many times the tensile strength. I really think it could be
> done.

Here's a pic:

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/dahl/Climbing/one.jpg

Post a reply to this message