Instant Buildings - Just Add Water

lawrencekhoo writes "Wired has an article about the newly invented Building in a Bag. The structure is made from cement impregnated fabic, that is sealed in an easily transportable plastic bag. You literally just add water, and then inflate. Twelve hours later, you have a ready to use building. Possible uses include shelter for disaster areas, and instant field hospitals."

Comments

Time to advance.

[dauthur]

This sounds like the building process from the Jetsons. Maybe now we can move on from the trailer homes, manufactured homes and traditional building and move onto "Ziplock Construction Co."

Re:Time to advance.

[thepotoo]

No. I'd bet that this will replace only temporary shelters, like the ones soldiers build, and Red Cross aid. But, they haven't even got a patent yet... Anyway, who the hell wants to live in a giant egg-shaped thing? Not to mention thin walls...read TFA.

Re:Time to advance.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm not too mistaken...I think he was trying to make a joke? Which as an aside - I found worthy of a chuckle...

Re:Time to advance.

[idlake]

The fact that much of the US still builds by nailing drywall and siding to a bunch of wooden beams is not for a lack of new building techniques--it's simply still cheaper and easier, mostly simply because it's what everybody else does (=economies of scale).

Re:Time to advance.

[Rei]

It doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be 2k$ impromptu shelters, either. There are factory-development methods out there for building custom homes. You can have machines cut and assemble almost arbitrary floor plans, and ship out prebuilt sections of the house to assemble on spot.

Unfortunately, there's this stigma of "prefab housing" being small, low-quality, one-design "housing for the poor". It's kind of annoying seing such stereotypes standing in the way of progress to cheaper, higher quality housing. I mean, large buildings have been shifting a lot more to automated construction, and houses lend themselves even more readily to it because the sections are smaller and easier to transport.

Re:Time to advance.

[idlake]

Well, I agree, technically, it doesn't have to be. But if you try to buy or build a new home, you will find that, in reality, in the US, most of your choices for something average-to-nice come down to traditional construction. Furthermore, you'll have problems with resale value if you buy prefab.

Re:Time to advance.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Sears & Roebuck used to do this. See http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/

Re:Time to advance.

[the_mad_poster]

I'd say you were a troll, but that would be an insult to me.

At any rate, you are as clueless in the matter of housing and building design as you are in DNS, since you apparently like BIND.

There's nothing wrong with prefab housing except you. I would strongly suggest looking into alternative methods of removing your genes from the pool. Try, perhaps, the bleach and ammonia cocktail.

Re:Time to advance.

[SunFan]

Unfortunately, there's this stigma of "prefab housing" being small, low-quality, one-design "housing for the poor".

It all depends on the finishing contractor. Modular housing is built to the same standards as regular housing, but if you have a crappy contractor come in to do the finish work, you might as well have bought a trailer. Just like regular construction, you have to really stay on top of the process (e.g., visit the site, double check things after important milestones, etc.)

Re:Time to advance.

[lezerno]

If you live near Chicago check out this
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/housing_tempex hib.htm

Re:Time to advance.

[afidel]

The problems with prefab housing are twofold, first and most importantly is that anything which is light enough to allow for economical transport of economically buildable subsections is going to be chinsy compared to a real timber and 3/4" plywood plus 3/4" hardwood floors. The second problem is that preparing the site and combining the pieces takes almost as much labor as rough framing an equivilant structure, and all of the labor besides the site prep and rough framing is done by skilled laborers that will charge about the same for their work whether it is done onsite or as part of assembling prefab blocks.

Re:Time to advance.

[DNS-and-BIND]

My father builds and sells houses for a living. He won't touch prefab housing with a 10-foot pole. You know why? There's no buyers for it. Here is a list of people who buy prefab housing:

1. White trash

I suggest trying to convince a buyer that a $(not as cheap as you'd think) prefab house is a good idea and will keep its value for years to come.

Re:Time to advance.

[Fat Cow]

www.yurtworks.com - an excellent, cheap, prefabbed house (cedar siding, no less)

Re:Time to advance.

[Gordonjcp]

Aren't all houses in the US more-or-less prefab, though?

All the ones I've seen have just been cheap crappy sheeting tacked over a wooden frame. First decent gale would blow that away if you tried it here.

Re:Time to advance.

[DoctorMO]

Why do people always think of houses as money, you ruin the market for the rest of us!

Re:Time to advance.

[fizze]

haha :)

in good old europe, most houses are made of bricks. yes, that clay stuff.
And, yes, comparing a pre-fab or semi-pre-fab house to a brick house makes sense. But not to a "rough framed wooden structure".
Besides, preparing the site and assembling the parts took 5 people a single day. Not for a huge house, granted, but a 2 storey house that can nicely accomodate 4 people.

Not to offend anyone's craftmanship, but I highly doubt anyone with similiar manpower can "roughly frame" that anywhere within that timeframe.

Re:Time to advance.

[symbolic]

in the US, most of your choices for something average-to-nice come down to traditional construction

I'd have to disagree. Traditional construction was quality work. From what I've heard, Most of the new homes built today are very expensive pieces of crap. Chalk it up to builders who have mastered the art of moving into an area and within a matter of a few months, filling it with low quality cracker-box houses built on small lots. Consider it the fast food of the construction industry. You can get a quality home built by a custom builder, but you will pay dearly for the privilege.

Re:Time to advance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prefab houses have moved on with time. Check out the Huf Haus

Re:Time to advance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do with the contractor.

I've seen crap prefab and really nice ones.

The diffrence being that the really nice ones cost more than standard construction. But go up quicker.

If prefab wants to compete with standard construction homes. They either need to get cheaper in cost overall. Or better quality on the low ends.

Re:Time to advance.

[xSauronx]

it also depends on the modular builder. i know two people who have bought modular homes recently and neither of them were impressive. my dad was one, and he had several doorways that didnt line up, electrical wiring not up to code, the roof pieces didnt line up at 4 different joints, the company had left out a multitidue of supplies they were supposed to provide to finish the house, among other things.

My dad designed the house based on one of their plans, and every time hed change something hed note it and fax everything to the builder....and it took him 3 months to get them to note all his changes...and some of them didnt even make it to the final build. They were very helpful in *fixing* the problems, but when you're building a house like this, you should get it right the *first* time, not the second. For the record he bought his from Professional Building Systems.

My aunt's friend built one, and the kitchen wasn't level on any counter, doorways were misaligned, the roof leaked (and *not* in places where the finishing crew was working on it like at joints, but in the middle of the roof) and some of the electrical outlets weren't even well secured as they should be. I do not know the name of the company that made his home.

Builder is just as important as the finishing crew. If you're building a modular home, work with a company nearby that has done homes in your area that you can check out yourself, or talk with the owners about.

Re:Time to advance.

[gaijinsr]

in good old europe, most houses are made of bricks. yes, that clay stuff.

Are you trying to say you find pre-fab houses more advanced than brick houses ?
I have lived in both and I have a very strong preference ...
Have you ever lived in a brick house ?

Re:Time to advance.

[dtk13]

This is great!!! Now I can move out of my parents basement and have my own house!!!!

Re:Time to advance.

[fizze]

yes I did.
I even lived in a 100+ year old house made of bricks and stones.
Im not saying one is more advanced than the other, but they are most certainly nice to live in, and the amount of manpower involved in building either is certainly beyond comparision.

I agree though, that comparing brick houses and pre-fabs is like comparing apples and peas.
Pre-Fab houses are made of wood, mostly. So they should imho be compared to wood houses.

Re:Time to advance.

[DavidAtkinson]

High quality prefab houses in Germany: http://www.huf-haus.de/de/

Re:Time to advance.

[dauthur]

And I can finally move into my own house too! And with all of the money not spent on rent, I can get a computer that's just a little faster than this 286!

Re:Time to advance.

[the_mad_poster]

Since you're father apparently caused your defects, show him my last post and suggest he take the instruction seriously.

Re:Time to advance.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

You forgot:

2. Retirees.

What I'm seeing around Toledo OH are a bunch of complexes springing up with these things. One complex I went into didn't have the appearance of white trash, either, so don't try the "aha, retired white trash" angle on us, fella.

Re:Time to advance.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

That all depends on the level of "pre-fab" that triggers your overall definition. For example, you just can't find a door for sale nowadays that also doesn't come with a frame. Hence, every door we see installed today is a pre-fab.

There sure are quite a few pre-fab trusses being used, too.

Other than things like that, walls (block, brick, wood+insulation+drywall) must still be constructed onsite. Concrete must still be poured. Those kinds of things are not pre-fab.

Re:Time to advance.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problems with prefab housing are twofold, first and most importantly is that anything which is light enough to allow for economical transport of economically buildable subsections is going to be chinsy compared to a real timber and 3/4" plywood plus 3/4" hardwood floors.

Er... "Real timber" doesn't just magically poof into existence at the building site; it has to be shipped there. It makes little difference whether it is shipped in pieces or in pre-fab subsections; ultimately, the same amount of material is used. (Of course with traditional building, you have a lot more spare/scrap material left over, which means that you pay twice to have it shipped in and back out even though it was never used.)

Re:Time to advance.

[greed]

filling it with low quality cracker-box houses built on small lots.

But the construction isn't much better on those "monster home" subdivisions you see in places like western New Jersey. $700,000 houses, cheap frame construction, no corners left un-cut. Decent-sized lots, though--but there won't be any shade trees for a couple of decades at least.

The ones with brick veneer only have it on the front, the rest of the house is plastic siding. That would never sell here in Canada; you brick the front of the house, you'd better brick the other 3 sides. (Not that our new home builders are much better, but at least you get a crappy house an hour and a half from the big city for under $200,000. Heck, that far from the city it'd probably be under $100,000. But who wants to be that far away?)

Re:Time to advance.

[ivrcti]

I have a friend who recently built a prefab. It's quite nice and unless they told you, you wouldn't guess. They said the big problem with pre-fab is financing. Most lenders want to treat prefabs (here in the US) as mobile homes, with much lower spending caps and repayment terms.

Re:Time to advance.

[N1ck0]

Check out the recent This Old House project houses. Several times they have purchased premade concrete foundations and "real timber" external wall sections (pre-filled with rigid insulation) that allow them to have higher energy savings, better overall strength, and are all perfectly plum and square. True it costs more for the materials but they can finish a massive house foundation in one afternoon (no setting time, no forms, etc). So factoring in labor your overall cash expense is roughly the same, but you save time on site.

Complete finished prefab rooms systems (which are popular in Japan these days) have problems in the US. Mainly because the size of many of the rooms are so large that having modular sections would then require you to some finishing on floors, walls, etc to remove any of the seams.

So prefabricating is not all bad, it just depends on the situation, how much you have prefabricated, and the quality offered by the prefabrication company.

Re:Time to advance.

[Rei]

That is what I stated was the fundamental problem with them: there's a stigma associated with prefab. Yet, modern techniques don't produce houses that are, like one earlier poster stated, "living in a giant plastic butter dish".

Popular Science carried an article a couple years back about someone trying to promote increased automation for building sections of traditional wood-framed houses using the same sort of techniques used in modern shipbuilding, skyscraper-building, etc: robotic assembly of components offsite which are then shipped to their destination. It builds the pieces just like humans would, and while there is a much higher initial cost, the incremental cost of construction is little more than the cost of timber, insulation, etc, and the power to run the plant. You get a whole pieces of walls - traditional sturdy wood-frame with insulation, windows, etc installed, and completely custom - shipped out to the site on flatbeds, and assembled in days. The houses actually end up higher quality than when humans make them; however, the "prefab" stigma has been a severe hindrance.

Re:Time to advance.

[Ansonmont]

Maybe in the future, they will find a bunch of these things somewhere and call it Easter Egg Island and wonder what the heck was going on?
-A

Re:Time to advance.

[stonecypher]

Not so much anymore, at least in the United States. Take a look at the fortunes of prefab manufacturers such as General Steel - they're growing at an astonishing rate.

Much of the problem was that prefab building designs' manufactury setups don't generally mix well, since they're so reliant on specific-fit steel panels; because places like fast food chains and industrial sites were the few companies which would consider prefab, and since their particular needs led to peculiar shapes which didn't well suit home design, the costs of prefab which are extremely heavily dependant on economy of scale just didn't suit home design.

That said, some manufacturers found a fair amount of work in expanding existing buildings (to look at their commercials, it seems that religious buildings are a good market; all of the companies mention them explicitly at least once down here in Southern California.) Those buildings tend to be less peculiar in design (most people don't want homes which look like Taco Bell.) As a result, home-appropriate parts began manufactury.

Now, the prefab costs for what most of us would consider normal buildings are beginning to be reasonable. The home industry is by far and away the shiny golden ring in construction; whereas on individual jobs a contractor will take down more money for a skyscraper, housing is more plentiful, more regular, has a much larger market for expansion, is lower risk, and the margins are comparatively huge. As the prefab market is now able to start moving reasonably into homes, we're going to see costs plummet (if there isn't a market cornering, but given the heavyweights in traditional construction I doubt that'll happen) and designs proliferate.

We're already getting used to homes which look like one another; standard issue joke about Orange County. Why should it matter what the underlying materials are? If someone spends appropriately, you can't even tell a prefab steel building is steel; they get surfaced in exactly the same way that wooden frame and girdered buildings do. The economics are better, the homes have the potential to last longer, the installations are faster and less problem prone, and the metal sheets block out mind control rays from Martians.

You ask me, prefab is something we're going to see a hell of a lot of in the near future. Steel is already starting to surmount the economic difficulties, and with cemented fabrics, memory alloy plastics and potentially even nanites in the near future, I expect that before the average slashdotter dies (daystar fearing burrito hogs aside) we'll all be shaking our heads in bemusement telling our grandchildren (daystar fearing burrito hogs aside) how people actually used to put buildings together out of nails, rivets and screws, that we saw construction sites set up next to the road which took more than a week, and that yes, we really lived through earthquakes which could take buildings down.

Yay for progress.

Re:Time to advance.

[kurzweilfreak]

People like you are the reason there are no buyers for prefab housing.

Re:Time to advance.

[DeputySpade]

As someone who has recently purchased doors that were not pre-hung, I would have to disagree with this statement. You are mostly right in your basic point, though. Most people don't build their cabinets by hand, they buy prebuilt ones and have them installed into the house after it is built. Most people don't build their own trusses, they have them prefabbed and put up with a crane. There are still lots of folks who build their own cabinets, build their own roofs, and hang their own doors, though, so you can't just say "you just can't find a door for sale nowadays that also doesn't come with a frame."

There is a difference between what is common and what is possible.

Re:Time to advance.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Hmm. Perhaps I should have clarified? I know old doors of any type are sold frameless as used items. But my impression about new exterior doors today was from:

1. I'd never seen a door for sale at Home Depot et al unless it was framed. Some screen doors and inner doors are still sold frameless for obvious reasons.
2. We've tried to get contractors to install secondhand exterior doors for us. All refused.

If new, frameless exterior doors are still sold "somewhere in the back", then I stand corrected.

Re:Time to advance.

[nospam007]

>As someone who has recently purchased doors that were not pre-hung, I would have to disagree with this statement. You are mostly right in your basic point, though. Most people don't build their cabinets by hand...
---

There was a time when non-custom built cars were frowned upon by the snobs too.

Only white trash buys prefabricated cars.

Re:Time to advance.

[DNS-and-BIND]

You ever lived in a neighborhood of prefab houses? I've seen 'em. If you want to save a few bucks on materials so you can live next to people with junked cars in the front yard, be my guest. Sure, try turning them in for code violations...the city will get right on that pressing issue, I'm sure.

Re:Time to advance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you really need to get out man. The stereotypes are just not true. Maybe in your backwater, but not in the rest of the country.

but how.....

[EmptyBuffalo]

So, once I get my mother-in-law to go into the building, how do I get the whole thing back into the bag?

Re:but how.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're funny, but you're raising a valid point. They're thinking of using this for shelter for disaster areas, and instant field hospitals... Personally I think tents are better for these purposes, since you can actually dismantle them and reuse them in the future. Why would you for instance want to smack up 10,000 of these in a disaster area, just to have to tear them down a couple of months down the road?

Re:but how.....

[Rei]

People will use them after the aid agencies leave. Probably not for themselves, mind you, but they'll find *some* use.

I've seen several pictures of those mass-built concrete houses that various aid agencies have built in earthquake-hit parts of Iran to provide shelter and make it so that the locals won't get killed in the next quake. Nobody was living in any of them - instead, they used them to hold their livestock. Apparently they were a lot more uncomfortable to live in than traditional housing in the climate (in addition to being an eyesore).

Re:but how.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to bag your mother-in-law?

Re:but how.....

[Anonymous Coward]

somebody on slashdot actually has a mother in law?

Consider yourself one of the luck ones...

Re:but how.....

[putaro]

UCSD had a section of the campus (when I was there it belonged to Third College) that consisted of Quonset huts left over from WWII. I don't know if they're still there but they lasted at least into the early '90's. These things will be used for something for a long time after they're put up.

Re:but how.....

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Star Trek, your mother-in-law puts the bag on you!

Re:but how.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why tear down what is worth keeping, especially when replacement buildings will take time to construct.
Now, to tents, in which I have a couple of years deployment time. :)

Tents get moldy.
Tents come apart.
Few tents have aerodynamic shapes, thus wind can hurt them.
Tents burn and melt.
Tents usually do not have efficient interior spaces.
Large tents are not viable storm shelters.
Military tents are expensive. Concrete is not.
Concrete attenuates shrapnel better than most fabric, and Kevlar tents would be too expensive to deploy in quantity.

Re:but how.....

[argent]

How many times can you put up a tent, let a bunch of desperate people use it for six months to a year, and take it down again and use it somewhere else?

What!

[Anonymous Coward]

Instant building. I cannot believe it.

Instant water

[Anonymous Coward]

Just add water! Err, wait.

Re:Instant water

[Fastball]

You would double the water in your possession or add to the amount of water you added to the instant water the amount of instant water you had to begin with.

Really, I don't see the problem here.

Re:Instant water

[shawb]

Or in some parts of the world, instant drinkable water might be kinda convenient.

Strength?

[slinky259]

How sturdy are they?

Re:Strength?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've only build a tiny scale model, looks to me like it will collapse under its own weight if larger!

Re:Strength?

[Rei]

Well, they're unreinforced concrete. I wouldn't want to be in an earthquake in one, but it should be pretty sturdy in ordinary circumstances.

I wonder what the next step will be - taking advantage of local aggregate as well, so that you only have to have cement in the bag? Something like that would be interesting for moon/mars bases, although you probably wouldn't want a water/concrete mix, especially for the moon which lacks water in most (if not all) places. Perhaps using a powdered epoxy and liquid catalyst, or something

Re:Strength?

[John Hasler]

> Well, they're unreinforced concrete.

It's reinforced by the fabric. In any case if properly designed and erected the load will be entirely compressional.

> I wonder what the next step will be - taking
> advantage of local aggregate as well, so that
> you only have to have cement in the bag?

You don't use aggregate for this sort of thing.

Re:Strength?

[Rei]

It's reinforced by the fabric

I can't imagine this being significant reinforcement.

You don't use aggregate for this sort of thing.

Concrete is aggregate plus cement plus water. Aggregates are 60-75% of the total volume of concrete. They're not necessarily coarse crushed stone or gravel; usually, they're just sand.

Re:Strength?

[hurfy]

Plaster alone can barely hold itself up but put some gauze in it to make a cast ....

With cement being better than plaster and the fabric certainly stronger than the gauze in casts sounds like it should work fine.

Only problem i see is if you want to put up shelters for drought victims/refuges!!!
500lb bag of concrete is gonna need more than a thermos of water i bet :(

I can see it all now...

[telstar]

Thousands of refugees adding water and ingesting their "building in a bags" thinking they were MRE's.

Re:I can see it all now...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Thousands of refugees adding water and ingesting their "building in a bags" thinking they were MRE's.

That's an easy fix - put the buildings in round packages and the MREs in square ones. What could possibly go wrong.

Re:I can see it all now...

[Rii]

Based on my MRE experience (chicken patty theoretically) I'd rather eat the concrete. Hand me a round one.

Re:I can see it all now...

[Guppy06]

I'd wager that the inflatable houses taste better while the MRE's can be used to make sturdier shelter.

Re:I can see it all now...

[prockcore]

Thousands of refugees adding water and ingesting their "building in a bags" thinking they were MRE's.

It's an easy mistake. They taste almost identical.

Re:I can see it all now...

[UCFFool]

Read TFA... Last time I checked, I'd notice opening a 500lb bag... now, if you have a little cajun spices...
never mind, still a 500lb bag.

Re:I can see it all now...

[atr0p1s]

Step three in setting up your cement shelter: "Lean against rock or something."

Re:I can see it all now...

[austad]

MRE's are actually quite tasty. The beef stew and the Ham and Potatoes are pretty good. There's a ton of nutrition in them though, so if you're looking for something to take on a camping trip, or to throw into your car for survival, these things are perfect.

Re:I can see it all now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1- Eat MRE, but with two packs of MRE peanut butter.
Step 2- Inflate pneumatic shelter form.
Step 3- Defecate brown concrete mix into form, trowelling as you go.

I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[drinkypoo]

If we're just talking about instant structures for specific needs, why not fiberglass? 3M makes a casting material (as in, for setting broken bones) that is fiberglass with a resin that is activated with water and sets very rapidly. Why not use something just like that? You can then spray it with an epoxy to make it watertight. It wouldn't be as rigid as a concrete structure, and you would have to anchor it somehow, but it would also be a whole hell of a lot lighter and easier to customize (by cutting holes in it with any kind of saw before you sprayed epoxy on it.)

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[tomhudson]

why not fiberglass?

Fire? Last I looked, fibreglass burns. Nastily.

Would make a good mother-in-law house, though - what better way to "cement" a relationship than with a load of flammable epoxy ...

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[drinkypoo]

Wood burns too, quite hot I might add, but it doesn't stop us from building houses out of it.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Anonymous Coward]

3M makes a casting material (as in, for setting broken bones) that is fiberglass with a resin that is activated with water and sets very rapidly. Why not use something just like that?

The article says it's fabric impregnated with cement and the cement is a resin. It doesn't really say what kind of fabric it is, but I doubt it's much different from your idea. The article does use "concrete" a number of times, but I stronly doubt they are using sand or rock to make this concrete.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Anonymous Coward]

Wood doesn't turn into a burning hot polymer liquid napalm...

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[gavinjolly]

Cost is one factor:

A bag weighing 230 kilograms (approximately 500 pounds) inflates into a shelter with 16 square meters (172 square feet) of floor space. Cost is estimated at £1,100 ($2,100), while an equivalent-size Portakabin (a type of portable building widely used in the United Kingdom) costs about £4,000 ($7,700). The same-size tent costs about £600 ($1,150).

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Noose For A Neck]

Well, speaking as an engineering student, the main problem I can see with making a structure where all load-bearing components are strictly made out of fiberglass is that fiber-reinforced plastics (the catagory into which fiberglass and carbon fiber composites, among others, fall) are only really strong in tension, and even then, only along the axes parallel or close to parallel to the fiber orientations. If you add in compressive loads to the structure (as is sure to happen in any structure I can think of), the material's strength is dramatically reduced, meaning you either have to use a whole lot more material (and thus add more weight that the structure has to support) or switch materials.

Concrete just happens to be very effective at handling compressive loads, and when reinforced with steel rebar or the like, can handle tensile loads in a reasonable manner as well. This is probably the reason that cement is used in lieu of epoxies and other plastics - it has better load-bearing characteristics under compression.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[jcr]

Concrete's pretty easy to cut, too. You just need an abrasive blade.

-jcr

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[tomhudson]

Wood burns too, quite hot I might add, but it doesn't stop us from building houses out of it.

... which is why walls and ceilings are covered in gyproc, sheetrock, plasterboard, etc.

Also, when wood is under compression, it's a LOT harder to ignite. Take a look at any older (+75 years) building after a fire - the wood main beams will be charred, but probably not burnt through, whereas steel beams would have buckled under the heat.

Also, when fibreglass resin burns, the resulting fumes are more toxic.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[John Hasler]

> Last I looked, fibreglass burns.

Fiberglass doesn't burn. It's _glass_. The plastic component of fiberglass reinforced plastic burns.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[smart_ass]

Also an engineer ...
In that case, why not marry the concepts.
Build walls of concrete, and roof structures from fibre glass.
Could also put fibreglass sections inside the concrete, since concrete is quite bad in tension ... the fibreglass portions could re-inforce the concrete sections where they may be subject to bending (tension and compression depending on what side you look at).

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[JoeMerchant]

Why not fiberglass? Fiberglass would be lighter - more subject to blowing away in a stiff breeze. As you say, anchor it, but that's additional, non-trivial work. Fiberglass certainly wouldn't smell very good 12 hours after setup. The basic ingredients of fiberglass (glass fibe, resin, sprayed on epoxy) are rather high-tech as compared to concrete. I wondered about windows, I imagine the concrete form can have some pre-arranged holes like the door in the photo. Would be easier to customize fiberglass, though if you've ever done it, it's not fun (itchy, need respirator, careful not to overheat cutting blade, etc.). In fiberglass, you'd get natural light through the walls, anyway. Fiberglass composites are neat things, expecially when mixed with carbon fiber and/or kevlar - but I wouldn't want to live in a fiberglass house, unless it was floating, preferably in the Carribean.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Guppy06]

"If we're just talking about instant structures for specific needs, why not fiberglass?"

Personally, I'd say the itch factor (assuming it only gets on your skin and not, say, your eyes or inhaled). And having that miracle resin you mention on all the fibers can't make things all that much better.

"You can then spray it with an epoxy to make it watertight."

That kind of takes away from the all-in-one aspect of the quickcrete stuff. Also, you're talking about transporting noxious chemicals (or, at least, more noxious than lime).

"(by cutting holes in it with any kind of saw before you sprayed epoxy on it.)"

Cutting concrete doesn't require half the hazmat handing procedures that cutting fibreglass does, and (again) that's before you soak the stuff in the miracle resin.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Anonymous Coward]

if we're talking about a military deployment... i'd much rather be in a concrete structure than a fiberglass one when the mortar rounds start dropping. exploded fiberglass would yield a nightmare amount of needle-like shrapnel.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[wwwillem]

Also, when wood is under compression, it's a LOT harder to ignite. Take a look at any older (+75 years) building after a fire - the wood main beams will be charred

Your observation is right, but the reason is different. When a thick beam starts to burn, the charcoal that forms itself on the outside will start to protect the inner wood from burning, as soon as it is more then 5 cm / 2 inches thich. Charcoal is funny enough a fire retardent.

As an example, in most (probably all) countries, steel structures must be protected against fire, which is normally done with plaster, concrete, etc. However, at least in Holland, the building code allows you to wrap the steel in 5 or more cm of wood instead.

So back to your 75+ year old house. What protects those beams against the fire is the fact that the pieces of wood used are much thicker than the current 2x6 studs. Or the current "construction beams" that are just strips of plywood with some wood laminated at the ends.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[servognome]

Could also put fibreglass sections inside the concrete, since concrete is quite bad in tension ... the fibreglass portions could re-inforce the concrete sections where they may be subject to bending (tension and compression depending on what side you look at).
Also an engineer:
Such materials are being worked on, the problem is you can't just throw materials together and expect them to work. The concrete is alkaline, which can degrade the glass fibers, also CTE mismatch can lead to seperation of the phases leading to fatigue failures. I believe there are already some applications of such composites, though they are probably expensive.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Anonymous Coward]

"fiber-reinforced plastics (the catagory into which fiberglass and carbon fiber composites, among others, fall) are only really strong in tension"

I guess you didn't read the chapter on sandwich construction yet. Look at the numbers for balsa-core composites, and you might be surprised at the compressive strength. NB : I am referring to end-grain core.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[tomhudson]

Good explanation. Sort of the same way that aluminium forms a coating of aluminium oxide (the molecules of which are larger than aluminium, sealing the surface from further corrosion). Iron oxide molecules, on the other hand, are smaller than iron molecules, so as iron oxidixes, the oxide forms cracks in the skin, allowing further corrosion.

One good reason to NEVER wash a cast-iron frying pan. It'll end up looking like a brake roter on a car that's been sitting on the lot for half a year :-)

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Nonsense about washing a cast-iron frying pan.

If you wash it by hand, dry it thoroughly, and wipe some rape seed oil on it, it won't rust. And if it does rust a bit, fine sandpaper and oil are your friends.

I have cast iron frying pan that I use from time to time when I feel like cooking myself a good ol' steak. As far as I've been told, it's been in my family for more than 75 years. Still looks as good as new, though the wooden handle needed a fixin' ;)

(Cast iron frying pan geek)

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Jononon]

Epoxy based glassfibre reinforced plastics don't burn strongly. Polyester resins, otoh, are both flammable and toxic.

This plan demonstrates that nothing has been learnt from the Tsunami, in the aftermath of which areas where flooded with materials they didn't need and couldn't use when local alternatives were readily available. Every locality has its own building techniques, the area's economy could be reinforced in the aftermath of disasters by providing locally appropriate materials, rather than a one size fits none solution.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Anonymous Coward]

Wood, in thick sections, is harder to light then you'd imagine. You need to have a pretty good fire going already to get thick logs burning.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[hackstraw]

Software piracy is victimless theft.

So is taking $20 from someone's wallet if they don't notice.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[tomhudson]

Real cooks *never* wash their cast-iron pans. Season it once, then use it forever. Wipe clean with a rag after use, but no soap and water. Try it some time.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[tomhudson]

Every locality has its own building techniques, the area's economy could be reinforced in the aftermath of disasters by providing locally appropriate materials, rather than a one size fits none solution.

I remember watching a report on Canada's aid program for bringing water to local villages, and how it seemed more important that the Canadian manufacturer get to peddle their specific solution than to find a simpler pumping system that could be maintained easily by locals.

So much for "no-strings-attached".

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Charcoal is funny enough a fire retardent.

You know, it doesn't seem that funny. After all, which trees are going to survive for a hundred million years? The ones whose charcoal protects the rest of the tree from being burnt, or the one whose charcoal explodes with the force of a billion suns? (which I assume is the only other choice)

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[Caltheos]

I couldn't bring myself to feel bad for stealing $20 out of Bill Gates wallet. Morality is a measure of the size of the wallet.

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[pete-classic]

Right, but what if you take $20 out of his wallet, but you also leave it there?

That would be a more accurate analogy. And would seem to leave no victim.

-Peter

Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different

[DeputySpade]

Noose says: I'm an engineering student. Fiberglass is great in tension along the axis of the fiber, but can't handle compressive loads.

Smart ass says: I'm an engineer also! Why not use fiberglass for the roof?

Uh, dude... What kinds of loads do roofs take?

Glad you're an engineer. I was going to mod you down for this, but there's no -1 dumbass so I decided to just respond.

A housing solution for slashdotters

[The I Shing]

Finally, I can move out of my parents' basement!

Re:A housing solution for slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

'+5, Insightful'? Wow. Only on slashdot.

Re:A housing solution for slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

... and into their back yard!

Re:A housing solution for slashdotters

[Hoch]

Yea, but it might block wifi?!?!

When will they make housing for the slashdotter that is wifi approved?

Won't somebody think of the (30 yr. old) children?

Re:A housing solution for slashdotters

[DustMagnet]

Yea, but it might block wifi?!?!

I'm sad to say my first reaction to reading this, "No, it won't. Didn't you read the article." This stuff is very thin and once dry it wouldn't absorb much RF. It only took another second for me to realize it was a joke. Anyway, don't most Slashdotters want to block all RF from leaving their domicile? If I want to receive RF, I'll put up a Pringles can.

reminds me of a t-shirt I once had....

[wileycoyoteacme]

Instant asshole, just add alcohol

Re:reminds me of a t-shirt I once had....

[toxcspdrmn]

Honest John's Instant Ice - just add water and pop it in the freezer.

Re:reminds me of a t-shirt I once had....

[PalmMP3]

Or how about that guy in the drugstore who misunderstood what "baby powder" was - he thought you just add water to it, and presto! Instant baby! ;-)

Great!

[biggerboy]

An inflatable building to house my inflatable...er...friend.

Re:Great!

[Tablizer]

An inflatable building to house my inflatable...er...friend.

Lucky dog. My wife is not poppable.

Re:Great!

[Ohreally_factor]

Is that the Washington Monument in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky dog. My wife is not poppable.

Yea, that's the downside to inflating your wife's ego. Instead of an insecure pain in the ass, you've got one who thinks she's better than you.

Obg: I love my non-existent wife.

Re:Great!

[carlmenezes]

no that's just an inflatable....

Somewhere...

[Penguinshit]

..Dr. Schlock just got a hard-on...

Re:Somewhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

really? was that inflatable technology too?

Re:Somewhere...

[KhaZ]

(For those not in the know, a reference to a good online comic: Sluggy Freelance (www.sluggy.com)).

(Offtopic Bias: Sluggy's gotten too wordy lately.)

Transportable?

[FiReaNGeL]

Yeah, ok, cool for emergencies. But I won't be carrying one on my back anytime soon, cause I'm sure it weight a ton, literally :)

Do they come in multiple flavors, too?

Re:Transportable?

[EmptyBuffalo]

According to the article somewhere around 500 lbs actually. Not bad at all!

Re:Transportable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess not all /.-ers are wimps after all... You can carry 500 lbs on your back? ;^)

Re:Transportable?

[jcr]

500 pounds, according to TFA. One man can handle that on a hand-cart, quite easily.

-jcr

Re:Transportable?

[mzieg]

The article didn't say, but I think 500lb of concrete would want ~5 gallons (50lb) of water, too.

What do you add...

[EmptyBuffalo]

...to get your cement building to grow a door?

Re:What do you add...

[Joey Patterson]

Ch-ch-ch-ChiaDoor, of course!

Re:What do you add...

[Anonymous Coward]

A tree of course! Just make sure it's kept watered.

Re:What do you add...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since cement can be dissolved with it..

MORE WATER!!!

Re:What do you add...

[EmptyBuffalo]

-Obligatory Monty Python butchering-

What do we add when we're not adding water?
MORE WATER!!!

One drawback...

[bpuli]

While the product is innovative and interesting, the comparison (cost-wise) with other "portable" structures is not correct. This looks to be (from the article) a non-portable semi-permanent structure.

Re:One drawback...

[T-Ranger]

Its portable....... once!

Re:One drawback...

[John Hasler]

The comparison with "portable" buildings is correct because they are the available alternative for the proposed uses.

why the concrete?

[qwasty]

Why not dispense with the concrete and just make it inflatable? I doubt the concrete will make it all that much more permanent of a shelter than it would otherwise be. Besides, if it's good enough for space, it's good enough as a temporary shelter. Check out the inflatable space habitats

Re:why the concrete?

[Tyler Eaves]

Ever pop a hole in a ballon?
Ever pop a hole in a sidewalk?

Re:why the concrete?

[Anonymous Coward]

but surely with an air-filled structure due to the difference in pressure, an almost complete re-design would be required, in space you can use the vacuum to assist in inflation, and all internal pressure is directed out helping to retain rigidity, however on earth, the pressure on the inside will be nearly equal to the external pressure, thus verry little rigidity would be noticable (think how rigid a bouncy castle is)

Re:why the concrete?

[qwasty]

Actually, being inflatable doesn't imply it needs lots of pressure. Also, the inventors of the concrete version obviously intended it to be a glorified medical tent. Tents, hospitals, and clean rooms all utilize positive internal pressure to keep microbes and dust out. On top of that, the inflatable structure I would envision, would have inflatable WALLS, not necessarily an inflatable interior, though, for medical purposes, positive pressure is a plus.

Re:why the concrete?

[Phoex]

In space, keeping a structue inflated is quite easy, just put more pressure inside than outside. And STP is much higher than vacuum, allowing people to be comfortable. On earth keeping enough pressure to make the structure rigid is a whole different beast, involving airlocks to keep pressure in and discomfort from the higher air pressure.

This is especially evident when you look at the materials used in the space habitats, they'd weigh as much if not more than the concrete shelters and have very little internal structural support.

Re:why the concrete?

[qwasty]

On earth keeping enough pressure to make the structure rigid is a whole different beast, involving airlocks to keep pressure in

Actually, that's not true. I've been inside inflatable structures 100 meters long and 30 meters high (I'm guessing) that didn't have enough pressure in them to be all that noticeable. My ears didn't even pop. As far as air locks go, that's totally unnecessary. Either double doors, regular doors, or one of those turnstile-type doors work fine. Now, they'll require fans to keep them inflated, but that's no biggy, it's just a big fan, not really even a "pump". Once again, if it's the WALLS that are inflated, no fan is necessary, just fill to the appropriate pressure (say, 5-10 PSI above atmospheric), and it'll stay inflated and relatively rigid, even in a hurricane. You can inflate it with chemical cannisters, much like airbags in cars are inflated, so still, no pumps needed.

Re:why the concrete?

[Noose For A Neck]

I would imagine in space you will be entering and exiting the structure a whole lot less than you would at 1 atm of air. Mechanisms for controlling pressure loss and for keeping pressure above ambient have to be taken into consideration. These are devices that will likely make the structure less portable.

Which isn't to say that positive internal air pressure isn't an integral part of some earth-bound structures. Several large sports domes (the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, NY, for example) use positive internal pressure to keep the roofs inflated. But, of course, these structures are quite a bit more permanent than the sort of "field hospital" structures being discussed in the article.

Re:why the concrete?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever pop a hole in a ballon?

Ever pop a hole in a sidewalk?

Ever pop that coochie?

Re:why the concrete?

[jcr]

Why not dispense with the concrete and just make it inflatable?

Probably because you'd need power to keep it inflated, and because inflatable buildings have to be anchored to the ground, which is rather more labor-intensive.

-jcr

Re:why the concrete?

[FleaPlus]

Ever pop a hole in a multi-layered material that's stronger than kevlar?

Re:why the concrete?

[WormholeFiend]

are you making a subtle reference to that inflatable space hotel project?

Re:why the concrete?

[shawb]

I dunno, seems like it would still be a bit more expensive to build and maintain than basically: a fabric tent, a couple bags of quickrete and some water.

Re:why the concrete?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet that costs more than the concrete.

Re:why the concrete?

[evilviper]

Ever pop a hole in a ballon?
Ever pop a hole in a sidewalk?

While I agree that a real concrete building is FAR better than a glorified tent, your analogy is horrible.

A BALLOON has a skin that is less than 1/32" thick, and under intense air-pressure.

A SIDEWALK is generally about 6" thick, supported by packed dirt, and only having 1 atmosphere of pressure on it.

As a matter of fact, if you excavate the dirt out from under a thin slab of concrete, then hit it with a hammer, it will shatter easily. More easily than a balloon will, because of the elasticity of rubber.

PAINTBALL!

[Look KG486]

Finally, an environment that can change as needed and prevent Freddy the Fascist Paintball Commando from camping in all of the good spots.

Re:Pretty soon

[op12]

I've always thought about marketing an empty box that says "Dehydrated water...just add water!"

Hey, if people will pay for water in bottles, who knows :)

Issues with Disposal

[Laivincolmo]

The one question I have is how do you dispose of it? Once you are done with it, you'd probably have to destroy it. Perhaps there could be a way to remove the concrete (dissolving?) and then reuse the inflatable structure.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[Doctor Crumb]

Ten minutes with a big enough hammer and you've got gravel. Problem solved.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[MickLinux]

Well, the basic form of disposal is probably close to what we do with waste concrete pilings, at the prestressed concrete company where I work. We pile them on the ground near the water, and let them act as landfill that extends our land. No joke. It's not too bad -- as the concrete very slowly decays due to the freeze-thaw cycle, it pretty much doesn't pollute anything. Everything there is also found in natural rock that comes into the ocean with rivers.

However, if that's not good enough for you, you can do as we do with our waste wet concrete. Expose it to acid (muratic acid, for example), and it will break down faster.

But for me?

I rather suspect that this stuff would be good for burying in the ground, covering with dirt, and planting grapevines over it.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[Barbarian]

You don't throw them out, you let the local disaster victims fight over them after you leave.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[Penguinshit]

or ten seconds with a big enough explosive (nine to get to Minimum Safe Distance, and one to punch the button...).

Re:Issues with Disposal

[Penguinshit]

Or drop them in the ocean near my house and make a nice custom-tailored reef. I'd prefer a right-hand break; the southern sand-flow will set up nicely in one or two seasons and then I won't have to go hunt down elusive sandbars.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the best. sig. ever.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[SirCyn]

muratic acid

Most geeks will call this hydrochloric acid. BTW: It's spelled muriatic.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[iamlucky13]

Cheap signature.

Re:Issues with Disposal

[smithmc]

or ten seconds with a big enough explosive (nine to get to Minimum Safe Distance, and one to punch the button...).

I sure hope you're not on foot...

Doorways?

[timeOday]

That is my question, how do you get in?

Re:Doorways?

[datafr0g]

I's a half cylindar.
Doorways? we don't need no stinkin' doorways!

Re:Doorways?

[GrandLeo]

It's a cylinder, come on everyone knows it comes with a giant who picks it up for you and when you're inside he puts it back down!!!! :-) Geez silly questions!!!

Re:Doorways?

[rgmoore]

This should be easy. The building is made of three components: an inner airtight layer, cloth, and concrete in the cloth. To make a door, you'd just have a section in which the inner layer wasn't covered by the cloth and concrete. You'd still be able to inflate the building, and when the concrete set you could cut through the uncovered inner layer with a knife to make a doorway.

Re:Doorways?

[bodrell]

Nope. No cutting necessary with a half-cylinder. It comes with two openings.

Re:Doorways?

[John Hasler]

It isn't a half-cylinder. It's a flattened egg shape. You cut doors and windows after the cement has cured.

Re:Doorways?

[bodrell]

It isn't a half-cylinder. It's a flattened egg shape. You cut doors and windows after the cement has cured.

I stand corrected re. cylinder vs. egg (so I guess that's the big difference between Quonset and Nissen huts), but in the pictures one of the structures is drying and you can see the inflated bag. It clearly is not necessary to cut a door after the cement has cured. In the second picture, it shows a back door, as well.

How much if manufactured in China?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do you reckon the instant building would cost if it was manufactured in China?

I am thinking it would be a great way to help poor people in Third World countries have a cheap roof over their heads that is actually high quality. I can imagine a slum in Mumbai filled with thousands of these instant buildings. What are the economics and advantages of an instant building as replacement for flimsy shelters in slums across the world?

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the third world already lives in slums. Someone ought to figure out how to move slums out of the first world and into the third world.

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[Laivincolmo]

How would a structure like this, designed for temporary use, stand up to the test of time? I'd imagine that over time things would start to fatigue. Perhaps if the building was dome shaped it would be more resistant to earthquakes though.

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[iminplaya]

How much do you reckon the instant building would cost if it was manufactured in China?

Check your local Walmart.

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[Nefarious Wheel]

If it broke, reduce it to walkway gravel and buy another one.

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[JoeMerchant]

Now, picture them piled one on top of the other like a giant hive, fill in the floor with straw or other padded material and you've got a great 4th world hotel.

I don't think humans have ever habitated in anything quite that hideous - though it would be better than no shelter at all.

I imagine they stopped at 172 square feet because of some technical limitations (strength of the bladder, for one.) Might be a lot more expensive to scale up to a decent size for living.

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Common to popular belief, the reason that shantytowns are so shoddily built is not due to lack of resources or hot climates, but do the fact that shantytown occupants rarely lack formal title to the land.

In the first world, you buy a plot of land, start building on it, then move your crap there and finally occupy the place. In these third world shantytowns, they do not have formalized rights to the land. Therefore, they have to occupy the plot of land to "own" it. They squat on the land, maybe put up a tent, move their crap there, then start building an actual domecile. All the while they worry about getting kicked off the land, paying bribes. All these issues increase the risk/reward ratio of investing time and money into dwellings. For more info, read The Mystery Of Capital.

Simply being able to throw together a shack out of instant concrete instead of tin will not solve the underlying problems of these slums. For the most part, these people already have access to cement and other building supplies. The reason that they don't use them as much as they would otherwise is because of more pressing issues... why spend a lot of money on concrete if you might get kicked off the building site in a month?

That is assuming that this instant concrete doesn't reduce the costs of building a building to the cost of a piece of tin. Then they are on to something.

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[Guppy06]

"How much do you reckon the instant building would cost if it was manufactured in China?"

Probably not much cheaper. IIRC, the US is still a big producer/exporter of concrete as it is.

Re:How much if manufactured in China?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's easy. dump the inhabitants of the 1st world slums into the 3rd world. That's where they or their ancestors came from anyway, so it would be an act of "restoring cultural identity".

Military applications

[RoTNCoRE]

The military will be all over this. Think about airdropping an advance team in some clearing, give them 12 hours, and they have a defendable base with concrete walls. Portable bunker. If it could be adapted to making other shapes of concrete surfaces, drop a large number of them, and make a concrete landing strip. Rapid deployment operations and base fortification would have days cut off their time.

Re:Military applications

[byronblue]

yeah this would work great for a Middle-East or an African deployment where military operations are most likely to take place and where water is plentiful. I guess the soldiers could all drink a boat load of water and just piss in the thing when they arrive.

Re:Military applications

[mi]

a defendable base with concrete walls. Portable bunker.

I doubt these walls will be able to withstand even a Kalashnikov bullet, much less an RPG...

Eventually -- maybe. But for now it is unlikely to be usable as a bunker, even if other military applications are possible -- the walls ought to be stronger than a tent's, for example.

Re:Military applications

[EvilIdler]

This also means we're one step closer to the fast building of today's
real-time strategy games :)

Re:Military applications

[Anonymous Coward]

The only catch is that it's not reinforced with steel, so you would be able to penetrate it with small arms fire.

Re:Military applications

[silentbozo]

Actually, if you reinforced the inflatable portion with multiple layers of Kevlar, you could have near-instant defensible fortifications against small arms fire. And, if you compartmentalize, you might even provide some limited survivability against RPGs and other explosive weapons. Of course, doing this would dramatically increase the amount of weight you'd be lugging around.

Re:Military applications

[Jeff Benjamin]

Or if that doesnt work, they could just fly high over the target area and drop a medum sized insta-building on the target area

Re:Military applications

[jcr]

Think about airdropping an advance team in some clearing, give them 12 hours, and they have a defendable base with concrete walls.

I think you're overestimating the strength of the walls. Concrete isn't all that strong when it's thin.

Of course, if they used inflatable kevlar structures, it might be a different story..

-jcr

Re:Military applications

[mzieg]

I think that what they prefer to do is airdrop near a pre-existing facility, which already has:

• electric power
• running water
• air conditioning
• copious fuel reserves
• convenient airstrip
• aerial transmitters
• administrative office space
• facilities usable as barracks, warehouses, jails, etc
• etc

...and take it over.

Re:Military applications

[ArbitraryConstant]

"I doubt these walls will be able to withstand even a Kalashnikov bullet, much less an RPG..."

You could always pile dirt on them. Better yet, you could dig a hole, deploy the structure, then pile the dirt on it.

"Eventually -- maybe. But for now it is unlikely to be usable as a bunker, even if other military applications are possible -- the walls ought to be stronger than a tent's, for example."

In the case of something like a limited number of smaller explosions (like that car bomb in Iraq that blew up that cafeteria), I'd rather be in one of these than a tent, which is essentially transparent to the shockwave and debris. And if they've got kevlar or some other high-tensile material in them, they hopefully won't go completely to pieces even then. That is, they would hopefully just fall down rather than becoming more flying debris.

Re:Military applications

[xenocide2]

That would be awesome. We can drop guys behind enemy lines, and then they can make semi-permanant and eye catching structures to defend while they wait patiently for reinforcements to break through. Because, I mean, that's the sort of structure I'd want to hide in while the enemy surrounds me and blasts the structure sky high.

Re:Military applications

[gstoddart]

I guess the soldiers could all drink a boat load of water and just piss in the thing when they arrive.

Hmmm, concrete mixed with pee in a hot-climate. Why can't I see that being popular? =)

Re:Military applications

[Guppy06]

Yes, but would the concrete dry faster if you put more peasants on the task?

Re:Military applications

[RoTNCoRE]

I'm not saying that it'd work with the current 1/5th scale mockups they've done, obviously it'd need modifications. But the principle, and many of the replies have suggested good ideas, like kevlar layering, and piles of soil. Hell, 8 feet of packed snow can stop small arms fire. http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=6997 Military prefab buildings and facilities make sense for long term bases, but for a small team to assemble with limited equipment it would make sense. And clean water isn't needed to mix with cement, brackish standing water would work too.

Re:Military applications

[Anonymous Coward]

this is real funny.

Re:Pretty soon

[tomhudson]

Why not? People buy dehydrated ice cream.

Revenge of the dome people

[neltana]

From the article: "The inventors filed a patent, which covers the concept of creating structures using a cement-impregnated cloth bonded to an inflatable inner surface." Yup, got to make sure you lock up the monopoly! So basically, this is glorified paper mache? I remember they used to do this during the 70's, but they used UFI foam instead of concrete. Made for damn ugly buildings....fit the decade perfectly.

Just use a LaserJet recycle label

[Anonymous Coward]

Take one of those handy pre-paid UPS labels that come with HP LaserJet toner cartridges and slap it on that puppy when you are done.

Works like a charm.

I've used it to get rid of old car batteries too!

Yeah...

[kryogen1x]

... but does it run on Linux?

Forgive me

...cement impregnated fabic

Does that statement raise anyone else's eyebrows?

Re:Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

...cement impregnated fabic

Does that statement raise anyone else's eyebrows?

it raised something else fer me...

Re:Yeah...

[ethx1]

...cement impregnated fabic

Does that statement raise anyone else's eyebrows?

No one ever gave you the speech?! Oh well, here goes. You see son, when two people love each other...

Re:Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid asshole, stop with the predictable posts. It's not even worth reading this site anymore

Re:Yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but does it run on Linux?

No, silly, it's hardware. Linux will run on it.

Wasn't there an article on Slashdot about Debian moving away from some obsolete architectures like Sparc and mainframe like for up-and-comings like the Building-in-a-Bag?

There's also an independent group porting the kernel across to this new architecture.

Interesting quote from the article

[ian rogers]

...a sack of cement-impregnated fabric. To erect the structure, ...

I thought it went

1) Erect the structure
2) Impregnate
3) Profit?

Re:Interesting quote from the article

[phillk6751]

you don't get it...the structure is turned on by pregnant fabric :-|

I don't think the military needs this

[QuantumG]

In a world with millions of refugees, numerous war zones and huge areas devastated by natural disaster, aid agencies and militaries have long needed a way to quickly erect shelters on demand.

"agencies" maybe, but the military already has a way to erect shelters quickly: lots and lots of man power. Ever watched how quickly soldiers setup and take down a camp?

Re:I don't think the military needs this

[BHS_Turf]

Ever watched how quickly soldiers setup and take down a camp?

Yes, I have, and they do it at approximately 1/4 the speed of the forest service setting up a fire camp for a project fire... Those are the guys you should learn from.

Re:I don't think the military needs this

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think those are highly temporary, non-insulated structures? At some point, near-permanent structures do need to be made, and for some operations, I imagine time can be critical.

Re:I don't think the military needs this

[paul_pick1]

Ever watched how quickly soldiers setup and take down a camp?

One interesting point from the article was that these buildings would be sterile, allowing medical procedures to be carried out immediately. I don't know if the portable army structures would also allow that.

what about tents?

[vitamine73]

Twelwe hours later.... instant...

??? what's wrong with a good old tent?? I can put one up in just a few minutes! Are these thing sturdier? Ligther?

Appart from the fact that this is cool, is it really going to be of any use? i wonder!

Re:what about tents?

[pg110404]

I suppose these would be better where things might get a bit frigid at times. Suppose a devastating earthquake hit moscow in october or november.

Instead of popping up tent city and trying to keep these things warm which is very hard to do, these things would provide a durable shell that holds the snow and acts like insulation.... kinda like an instant igloo.

Of course if it happened in the middle of winter, you might have a hard time getting the cement to cure.

a structure like that would be reasonably adequate until spring when they could finally deal with the original problem.

Other than an application like this or, as someone else pointed out, semi-permanant habitat for developing countries, I don't see a point to this type of structure...

What happens if it's used for so long the UV breaks down the plastic bag and the environment instantly destroys the shell? Lawsuit, probably, if it collapses on someone's head?

Re:what about tents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why oh why does slashdot not have a "Didn't read the article -1" moderation option?

Re:what about tents?

[John Hasler]

> What happens if it's used for so long the UV
> breaks down the plastic bag and the environment
> instantly destroys the shell?

The plastic bag is on the inside and doesn't matter once the cement has cured. The outside is _cement_. Neither UV nor "the environment" break concrete down "instantly". Or even slowly.

Re:what about tents?

[John Hasler]

> what's wrong with a good old tent?? I can put one
> up in just a few minutes!

Never actually lived in a tent, have you? Do you like dry feet? Not having your home blow away?

> Are these thing sturdier?

Much, much sturdier.

> Lighter?

Much heavier. That's a _plus_.

Re:what about tents?

[pg110404]

The plastic bag is on the inside and doesn't matter once the cement has cured. The outside is _cement_. Neither UV nor "the environment" break concrete down "instantly". Or even slowly.

??????

The structure is made from cement impregnated fabic, that is sealed in an easily transportable plastic bag

Sounds to me like the structural part of the shelter is a combination of a fabric and cement sealed inside a plastic bag. A lot like those instant casts doctors use for broken bones. If you *CAN* remove the plastic bag when it's hard, I'd bet the unexposed cement impregnated fabric will crumble come enough freeze/thaw cycles. Once it's hard, I suppose you could coat it with a fairly thick layer of real concrete, but what would be the point of those 'just add water' shelters?

It's not the concrete itself that would deteriorate, it's the fabric that would disintegrate/absorb water/be consumed by microorganisms and through its deterioration destroy the shelter through weakening from the inside out.

Spelling and grammar troll

[WillerZ]

Sorry, but I can't help myself...

The English language has some rules about the correct placement of commas in a sentence. It's not a case of "Instant grammar just, add commas!!!1"

May I take this opportunity to recommend Lynne Truss's "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" to the author of the above summary?

Oh, and the word you were looking for was F-A-B-R-I-C, fabric; not fabic. Fabic sounds like an eastern-european football player.

</rant>

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[WillerZ]

I realise that the above isn't very constructive; here's what the summary should have said:

Wired has an article about the newly invented Building in a Bag. Just add water and inflate: Twelve hours later you'll have a ready to use building. This is ideal for use where tents are too flimsy and conventional buildings are too unwieldy.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a colon really proper there? How about:

"Just add water and inflate. Twelve hours later you'll have a ..."

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a hyphen or semicolon? In situations like these the English language can be a little ambiguous.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[Nefarious Wheel]

Placement of a comma in a sentence may indicate a pause. The comma does not exist merely to fulfill a rule of grammar.

Exempli Gratia: "Oh, how I wish I had an /ignore switch on Slashdot as effective as the one in Everquest."

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[xcfx]

Yeah, but wouldn't you agree that a great amount of slashdotters are not from native-english speaking countries? They do great, learning 2 or 3 different languages (besides your native one) is not an easy thing... but, it's always easier to criticize isn't it? Eh?;) I know you're just trying to help... but I think it would've been better if you do it in a more subtle way.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[theJackalnz]

Probably something to do with there being a few too many programmers lurking round here (like me)... many of which loathe the english language (although they speak it natively), due to it not being terse and consise enough... (cents=2)

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[fbform]

The original article fares worse. Here's my peeve:

Crawford and Brewin, who are both engineers and have worked, respectively, for the Ministry of Defense and as an officer in the British Army, were also...

I know of a Department of Defense and I know of a Ministry of Defence, but what the hell is a "Ministry of Defense"?

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[808140]

I agree with the spirit of what you're trying to say -- most native English speakers have never seriously tried learning another language and have no appreciation for how difficult it is.

However, as someone who speaks 4 languages, may I say that I very much appreciate grammar nazis. Of course it depends on the delivery -- if the post simply ridicules the parent's english and makes no attempt to correct or explain his mistakes, then it is worth less than the space it takes up. If, however, the delivery is abrupt (or even rude) but corrects the mistake and (perhaps more importantly) explains the rationale behind the grammatical rule in question, it is, quite simply, invaluable. Of course, if they can do all that and not be rude, that's a plus -- but this is Slashdot, let's not set our standards too high.

The truth is that Americans, Brits and Aussies are far, far too polite. The result is that people who live in one of those countries can speak broken English for their entire stay and never be told by any of the smiling natives that they're speaking like a retard. The result? Your year or two abroad doesn't help your English anywhere near as much as you hoped it would.

Now, take France. The French will happily tell you, in no uncertain terms, and to your face, that you are butchering their language. They will correct you, often impatiently, and act as if you're a retard for not speaking correctly. This is considered "rude" by many people, but you know what? I have met a few Americans/Brits that have lived in France for a few years, and they speak nearly perfect French (I am a natively bilingual in French and English). I mean they have good pronunciation, good grammar (French grammar is reasonably difficult), and are conversationally adept.

Now it may be that I just had the fortune of meeting a few people that were graced with unusual linguistic talent. It may be that the numerous people I've met that lived in the US, for example, for a few years, just couldn't learn English because they truly were retarded. But I think there's more to it than that.

Grammar nazis provide an invaluable service, especially to ESL learners. They most annoy native speakers, who feel that their English is adequate (though it most often is not) and find a GN's pedantic attention to detail obnoxious.

If you are a non-native speaker, you should thank English speakers that are direct enough to correct your English -- you should not harbour any assumption whatsoever that your English is correct or adequate, no matter how long you've been studying it, and you should take any knowledgeable correction as someone helping you take one more step towards complete, native-level fluency.

I always tell friends whose language I cannot speak too well to correct me anytime I make a mistake, and to not be concerned with my feelings -- after all, I know I'm not stupid. The favour they do me is invaluable when they tell me that I've made a mistake -- they offer me the opportunity to not make that same mistake again.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[808140]

many of whom, not which :)

Seriously though, if you take the time to learn a few other languages you'll realize that English is pretty terse and concise. Communicating in programming languages is rather limiting, as we humans aren't computers. The Lojban people made a good go at it, but they mostly did that by taking a complex language and removing ambiguity as much as possible, thus allowing a computer to simply "throw out" the information that it doesn't need.

I mean, cents = 2, for example, relays far less meaning than my 2 cents. Consider, for example, that cents is actually a unit of measure, not a variable. Think about how much information a typical English sentence communicates -- do you honestly think there is any easy way to make it more terse, more concise?

I think we humans have figured out how to maximize our signal to noise ratio when it comes to aural transfer of meaning. Programming languages are far more suited to recipe-writing.

You'd be limiting yourself rather much if you tried to communicate only in recipes.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[pcgabe]

May I take this opportunity to recommend the New Yorker's review of Lynne Truss's "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" to the author of the above comment?

It's not the ultimate authority some of its fans would have you believe.

IAAET (I Am An English Teacher), your mileage may vary.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[PsiPsiStar]

It's a matter of standards relevant to the given medium.

If I'm writing a research paper, I cite my sources. If I'm having a conversation, I don't say "according to the New York times..."

Grammar Nazis who criticize typos are the worst, since it's a red herring. "I can't attack his argument, but look. He made a typo."

Sometimes it's a question of whether the person coming to America wants to speak perfect English or whether they simply want to communicate and be understood. If they're not acomplishing the second, I always comment. But if they're not doing the first (ex. I'm going to take some medicines.) I usually let it go. Unless of course they ask me to correct their grammar or let me know that its acceptable.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[gibson_81]

but what the hell is a "Ministry of Defense"?

It's a "Ministry of Defence" as spelled by a USian ...

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[bap]

Yeah, and that's why French is taking over the world and English is a fringe language spoken in only a few fringe countries. Also everyone in Germany and Scandinavia speaks perfect French and doesn't know any English. Also the Chinese are all busy learning French, and don't care about English.

Wait, maybe being polite to people learning a language has some value? If you want a grammar nazi get a sleeping dictionary; you don't really need a lecture each time you ask how to get to the bus station.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[808140]

Goodness, you're daft.

Tell me, what on earth does the popularity of a language have to do with how friendly the people that speak it are? Because I was always under the impression that people learned languages primarily because they were useful.

English has become the de facto international language because the last two dominant world powers -- the English and now we Americans -- speak it. There is no other reason.

I don't know why I bother responding to these sorts of poorly thought out comments. Perhaps you were just so taken by your own dislike for the French that you couldn't hold yourself back, accuracy be damned? Honestly, for the sake of everyone here, try to at least use that one brain cell you surely own and consider what you're saying before you hit that "Submit" button. It would go a long way to advance the cause of intelligent discourse here.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[WillerZ]

It seems that American grammar is very different from British grammar. That, or Louis Menand really doesn't have a clue. He writes:

The preface, by Truss, includes a misplaced apostrophe ("printers' marks")

But that apostrophe is not misplaced. If there are a plurality of printers (which there are), and they have common marks (which they do), it follows that those marks are printers' marks. It's a plural-possessive apostrophe.

I can't check what was written because I have the foreword- and preface-less UK hardback edition.

PS: IAAB (I am a Brit)

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[untaken_name]

...to not be concerned...

Although technically correct, this phrase would be less awkward if rendered 'not to be concerned'. I'm not correcting, simply suggesting. 'Not to' flows much better than 'to not', and that holds true under every example I can think of.*

*Yes, it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition. Truly, it is.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[Anonymous Coward]

XML rants also have a specification, and I do believe you've clearly forgotten the opening tag on your rant.

-Steve Gray

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[mpe]

I know of a Department of Defense and I know of a Ministry of Defence, but what the hell is a "Ministry of Defense"?

Right next to the "World Trade Centre" :) The results of idiot "journalists" (or more likely their software) not understanding that the spelling of proper nouns should not be "corrected".

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[mpe]

It seems that American grammar is very different from British grammar.

American "English" is rather different from other forms of English. Thus it wouldn't be that suprising were it to use a non standard grammar as well as non standard spellings.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Englishman I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the rest of the world. My ancestors did not take proper care of our North American colonies and thereby inflicted the USA on the world. At the time we English we far more concerned with fighting the French and frankly India looked like the better prospect anyway. Sorry.

We would like our long-term and continued mistreatment of the French taken into account when you pass judgement.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[Anonymous Coward]

In England, the native speakers are butchering the language. Foreigners often speak better English than the natives.

"I was going down the town and I seen John" is not too extreme an example.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[geekoid]

Such as:
1) Use only 1 exclaimation mark.
2) The number one is not a puctuation mark.
3) HTML like tags are not proper grammer.
4) Sentences end with a period.
5) Proper names are capitalized.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[randyest]

Well, a Grammar-Nazi post invites others. So I guess I can let you know that you're wrong (or at best, incomplete.) Here's the post in correct form:

Wired has an article about the newly invented "Building in a Bag." Just add water and inflate; twelve hours later you'll have a ready-to-use building. This is ideal for use where tents are too flimsy and conventional buildings are too unwieldy.

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[theJackalnz]

yes, but unfortunately, english is not a static language.

( english != static)

and theres constant variables wich dont have constant meanings

( var word.meaning!=word.meaning )

a prime example: i deserted my desert in the desert.

( desert != desert !=desert )

as you may notice, such occurences really dont seem to happen in programming.

in english, we have a rule, that for every rule, there is an exception, (and theres an exception to that occasionally), this means that theres frequently cases where things that should make sence,... dont. As a result, english is recognized as THE hardest language to learn.

(rule.contains(exceptions), if !(rule.contains(exceptions) then rule = exception. language.makeSence=rand(),
english.isHard == TRUE, english.difficulty > set otherlanguages[].maxdifficulty )

(btw... im learning German at the moment, much nicer than english :P)

( languages += german ) :P

Re:Spelling and grammar troll

[808140]

It's interesting to see who takes issue with this post. It was posted at a time when most of North America was asleep, and quickly climbed to +5 Insightful, presumably being moderated primarily by Europeans/Asians.

Then, I went to sleep (I live in Asia) and when I wake up, it's been modded Troll and Overrated by a lot of people (presumably) in the North American timezones. Overrated, perhaps... Troll is an interesting spin, though.

I'm actually not complaining about the moderation, as I have karma to burn. But what I do think is interesting is that it seems as though North Americans -- that is, a bunch of people who are primarily a) monoglots and b) English speakers -- are far more prone to finding my observations insulting or inaccurate than people who very likely speak English as a second language.

I wonder if that helps or hurts my point.

*Second* prize?

[Futaba-chan]

Supposedly, the building-in-a-bag won second prize in the Cement Association contest that it was originally designed as an entry for. I'd love to see what the winner came up with....

Re:*Second* prize?

[Anonymous Coward]

A doorway in a bag.

Re:*Second* prize?

[finnhart]

I know parent is modded funny, but I wondered the same thing. From the British Cement Association site:

First prize of £3,000 went to Il Hoon Roh for his reinforced concrete organic modular system that impressed the judges for its visually exciting construction potential. The second prize of £2,000 was awarded to Peter Brewin and Will Crawford for their joint entry of portable emergency concrete tents. The humanitarian potential of this entry was very evident. Phoebe Cummings and Stine Vesperson were awarded the third prize of £1,000 for their delicate pieces that combined lace with concrete. The effect gave concrete, usually seen to be a robust material, a more soft and fragile character.

Re:*Second* prize?

[Lady Jazzica]

The name of one of the third-place winners is Stine Jesperson, not "Vesperson" as in the quote above.

Anyway, I found some photos of their lace-concrete lampshades:
1
2

Re:*Second* prize?

[AndroidCat]

When I saw lace and concrete, I thought of wedding dresses for some reason. "You may now chip out the bride."

Re:*Second* prize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think it would be better for prom dresses, if you're a worried parent :-)

Re:*Second* prize?

[AndroidCat]

"You're not going to the prom with that engineering student, and that's final!"

Prefab shelters?

[adolfojp]

Meh, I've been using prefab shelters for ages...

... in computer strategy war games that is.

Cheers,
Adolfo

bah!

[agent0range_]

I would hardly consider '12 hours' to be 'instant.'

Re:bah!

[kryogen1x]

Heh, buildings in Levittown were supposedly built on average in 15 minutes.

Quite a haul

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine this:
You've in the jungle (US Army) and you've just been assigned to carry 'base camp' on your shoulders. With 30 miles of walking remaining all of a sudden it starts to rain...

Re:Quite a haul

[Aloekak]

Imagine this:

You're in the jungle (US Army) and you're carrying your 500lb base camp on your shoulders. With 30 miles of walking remaining, it starts to rain...

Who the hell cares...you can carry 500lbs!!11

this reminds

[Anonymous Coward]

me of my stucko. its great! your house will be insulated 150% better than brick. you will save $$. nevermind the 1.5 year lawsuit.

-nash

Re:ABUSIVE MODERATORS READ THIS

[Lehk228]

mods may or may not lack humor,GP DEFINITELY lacked humor.

This product will soon be acquired by Acme Co.

[Travoltus]

One of their first customers will be Wile E Coyote.

Mark my words! :)

Re:This product will soon be acquired by Acme Co.

[chl]

Quote: One of their first customers will be Wile E Coyote.

Victim, you mean.

chl

Revenge of the [Anti-monopoly] people.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yup, got to make sure you lock up the monopoly!"

Monopoly on what? Housing in general, or this specific implimentation?*

*Yeah, yeah. You all hate monopolies, until it's your ideas on the line. Then you love it like a son.

"Insightful"?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Oh well, back to the basem...oh, wait...

Re:Pretty soon

[Zen Punk]

Hey! That's freeze-dried ice cream, you insensitive clod!

Obligatory

[op12]

What also floats in water?

Bread! Apples! Uh, very small rocks!

Yeah...Mob Rainwear.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Forgive me ...cement impregnated fabic

Does that statement raise anyone else's eyebrows? "

The Mob has gone from concrete golashes, to cement overcoats.

fabic

[eclectro]

No thanks. I will stick with bicks and concete.

Re:fabic

[datafr0g]

you gotta sort out that "r" key problem. :)

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What's fabic?

Rock, paper, condom.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I thought it went

1) Erect the structure
2) Impregnate
3) Profit?"

Paternity suits usually are profitable.

It'll be ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

(puff puff) in (puff puff) just (puff puff) a (puff puff) ... oh bugger, it's set already. got a mallet?

technique used for several decades now

[idlake]

Hard-shelled structures created from inflatable templates are actually quite common. Usually, they are made by spraying concrete or polymer onto the inflatable shell. Alternatively, you first pour on the concrete, then inflate (it takes fairly little pressure to do so). The lining is some combination of fabric and water/air-proof plastic. Some of the templates are reusable, others become part of the structure.

Have a look at Domtec and Binishells.

Re:technique used for several decades now

[Abcd1234]

Hard-shelled structures created from inflatable templates are actually quite common.

Yup. It's called Papier Mâché + a balloon.

Re:technique used for several decades now

[mightymik2]

Also http://monolithicdome.com . And...what about all those biuldings in the dragonball/z/gt series? Put 'Capsule Corp' on the side...

Re:technique used for several decades now

[Mal-2]

Problem with the Binishell is that it looks like a half-buried helmet. I can imagine a brigade of stormtroopers standing around it, singing "Share and Enjoy".

The Domtec construction isn't all that bad, but it can't be done with just a fire hose. If you're hundreds or thousands of miles from the nearest contractor, you need something that will do that work for you.

Mal-2

Re:technique used for several decades now

[Anonymous Coward]

All I was saying is that the idea isn't new; that's relevant for many reasons, including because the description of their patent sounds like it would cover Bini and Domtec. I'm not sure whether scaling it down to these small structures is even new, but it is at best an incremental improvement.

Re:technique used for several decades now

[TheSync]

Several of the Binishells have collapsed...

Concrete curing is a very complex business.

more permanent.

[Anonymous Coward]

for moving soldiors theese would be totally unsuitable.

i can see for those who intend to stay some time they could be better though (probablly better insulating and probablly toucgher against the elements)

but how.....Bag lady.

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, once I get my mother-in-law to go into the building, how do I get the whole thing back into the bag?"

Get her to inhale.

Anyone got an image?

[BlackMagi]

I'd love to see one, and also to know more about the structural statistics of this thing...

Re:Anyone got an image?

[op12]

The goal: http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/nhsequence_f .jpg

The model: http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/642_f.jpg

Re:Anyone got an image?

[mbrewthx]

Dear God how are the children going to fit in that second one. It needs to be at least .. um twice that size!!!

this is hardly new...

[ezonme]

domes have been built with the help of inflatables since 1930's... read here http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0122/building _1-1.html

Re:this is hardly new...

[MatthewNewberg]

I think the import thing about this is the packaging. Small and Easy to use package that can be sent anywhere in the world.

Re:this is hardly new...

[mbrewthx]

And the question is ...
What does the average Slashdotter says on his first??

Re:this is hardly new...

[mbrewthx]

What does the Average slashdotter say on his first date?

messed up above
My son hit the keyboard!!!

Re:this is hardly new...

[MatthewNewberg]

Well since you have a son, the line must of worked once for you.

Re:this is hardly new...

[mbrewthx]

Actually 3 times. With the same woman!!!

Re:this is hardly new...

[MatthewNewberg]

You mean Women let you do that kind of thing more then once (just joking).

Re:this is hardly new...

[ArtStone]

There goes the patent!

I struggle a bit with the idea that a 500 pound bag of concrete is "easy to transport". Okay, it may be easy to transport on a truck/plane, but getting that bag to its final resting place is another matter - do we need a forklift as well? Does it have handles so 20 people can carry it up a slope?

The article mentions that all they've built so far is a 1/8th scale model. A 1/8th scale model only has 1/512th the volume of the real thing... meaning their model probably weighed around 1 pound and is 1 foot x 1 foot... now that I believe IS easy to transport.

German word of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Besserwisser

For all of you who don't know what it means... here's a translator.

Re:German word of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

are you trying to call me an idiot?

Yes this will work wonders in disasters

[[cx]]

We can take all our valuable water and use it for building little houses!

Better yet, let's just throw thousands of these bags in the ocean and create an underwater city instantaneously!

Re:Yes this will work wonders in disasters

[irg1231491]

The problem in disasters usually isn't lack of water, it's lack of drinking water -- water that hasn't been contaminated by something or other during the course of the problem. This is the problem with the tsunami - no regulation > raw sewage dumped into ocean > all the water has raw sewage in it now. But unsafe water would probably be okay in this kind of application, although IANAD (doctor).

Where can you buy?

[jsimon12]

Thats great, anyone have an idea of where I can get one?

What if its raining?

[ff1324]

What happens if you drop it in the middle of a monsoon? Do you wind up with a large puddle of building?

Field hospitals??? Please...wait until Wal-Mart gets ahold of this stuff. There will be a SuperCenter every 10 miles.

Truly portable?

[Lord_Dweomer]

I wonder if you can possibly make it so you could rewet it and collapse it again for reuse. Then in order to keep it dry while erect, you can cover it with a tarp or something.

Also, I wonder if there are some possibilities for using this process to aid in offworld habitat construction like on mars. This could save a lot of space on a shuttle.

Re:Truly portable?

[UlfGabe]

try again.....

porting up some CEMENT building and some water(the water would already be going, so its a non-pluesse
but the tons and tons of cement would not be good, it costs a lot of money to send things up in teh shuttles!

or are you thinking about some sort of concrete space tower to move this concrete into orbit?

cause you'd still be wrong.

Re:Truly portable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you can possibly make it so you could rewet it and collapse it again for reuse.

I think it would be about as easy as unfrying an egg.

Great News!

[Tablizer]

This means that Coyote's ACME Spray-On Hole cannot be far behind!

Re:Great News!

[Anonymous Coward]

This means that Coyote's ACME Spray-On Hole cannot be far behind!

I hear they are beta-testing it on some guy named Goat Se.

I can't be the only one...

[Icarus1919]

Who sees the potential for glorious abuse? Just stick it in someone's car, put a hose in, and run like hell.

The real question slashdotters are asking

[willmeister]

Does it come with ethernet hookup?

This is

[cainpitt]

the coolest article I've ever seen on Slashdot. Even cooler than this one http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/14/143254

Julian May and Decamole

[Mage66]

The Author Julian May in many of her books talks about a similar concept called "Decamole". Cool to see it in reality...

Minor details...

[v1]

One has to wonder, such a building in a bag must be fairly large, and if the fabric is impregnated with concrete, that must weigh quite a lot. (1000's of lbs?)

Add water to that and it just gets all that much heavier. This is not your inflatable lake raft, you'd need some serious air power to inflate it, since you'd be lifting a good portion of the (heavy) structure many feet into the air to inflate the building. The illustration I saw showed a guy with a foot pump. You could go at it all day and all night with that kind of pump, and not even be half-way done with a building of any size. Also, by then the building would have started to set.

I think they need a reality check.

Re:Minor details...

[MatthewNewberg]

The figured out the problems associated with doing this on the large scale awhile ago. http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/building _2-1.html I assume that these big ones are not using too much air pressure since they are only using hotair balloons. On the smaller scale I'm forsure it doesn't take much air pressure at all. I know it doesn't make sense, but clearly this methods works.

Re:Minor details...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... The article claims that the whole thing weighs 500 pounds...and that it can be inflated in about 40 minutes.

Re:Minor details...

[back_pages]

I think they need a reality check.

Uh yeah, or maybe some random guy on the internet who has never actually laid eyes on the thing isn't the leading expert in how it works. I'm just, you know, tossing that out there. No offense, I'm just saying..

It's fabric drenched in cement. I don't know how much cement you've laid, but I've laid quite a lot. Reinforced concrete is a modern marvel - literally. I believe The Discovery Channel has an episode of Modern Marvels specifically about concrete.

By the way, which weighs more, 500 lbs. of feathers or 500 lbs. of lead? Guess how much a 98 lb. bag of concrete weighs. Guess how much that 98 lbs. of concrete weighs after you use it to impregnate a piece of fabric? I'll answer the next one myself: What do you call a piece of fabric impregnated with 98 lbs. of concrete? Reinforced concrete.

So my take on this is that they're making a very thin shell of concrete, much like you're traditional paper mache, except far more durable. It probably wouldn't survive the erosion of a few heavy rains, but if you crashed a car into it, it would crumple but not be demolished.

I KNOW that somewhere I've seen someone else constructing buildings with this inflation method but I can't recall where. Maybe it was grain storage sheds or something. Anyway, reinforced concrete is truly remarkable - if this stuff made a shell 1/4" thick, you could bust it up with a hammer or a baseball bat but it would take you all day to actually tear the thing down. The cool thing about reinforced concrete is that it doesn't really matter if you crack it. You end up with two pieces of concrete that are bonded by the reinforcement so tightly that the crack is inconsequential. Adjust that concept for 1000 cracks or thin sheets of concrete, but the principle still holds.

Re:Minor details...

[serbanp]

You obviously did not RTFA. They mention that a bag for a 16 square meters building weights about 500lb.

Pretty light, maybe even lighter than a canvas tent of the same size, due to the lack of skeleton, which the tent needs.

Re:Minor details...

[bodrell]

One has to wonder, such a building in a bag must be fairly large, and if the fabric is impregnated with concrete, that must weigh quite a lot. (1000's of lbs?)

I find it ironic that your subject line says "minor details" when it's obvious you didn't go through the trouble to find any of those minor details, in a relatively short article. It is heavy, but not 1000s of pounds:

A bag weighing 230 kilograms (approximately 500 pounds) inflates into a shelter with 16 square meters (172 square feet) of floor space.

I think they need a reality check.

I think you need to actually read the article before you say that.

Re:Minor details...

[chinakow]

So let us think about this 172 square feet is about 13 feet on a side, so lets say it is a 14 foot by 14 foot square floor, and let us assume that the floor is the diameter of a circle so the distance over the top would be 14*PI/2 or 14*3.14/2= 21.98 so round to 22 feet, so that is a piece of canvas that is 22 feet by 14 feet which is 308 square feet or 44352 square inches. Now since I made the fabric larger I will error on the side of caution and quadruple the weight of this building to 2000 pounds so if you have a inflatable bag that when inflated will touch every inches of this piece of canvas you would need .045 PSI beyond the pressure need to inflate the bladder to lift the canvas off the ground so a foot pump in this case not only sounds reasonable but also easy, all you would need is a high volume pump and maybe a couple hours of work, so get started inflating early and drape the wet cloth over the almost inflated bladder, sounds easy enough that even I could do it with ease.

Even if I am off by 2 orders of magnitude, it would still only take 4 PSI to inflate this structure. Simple eh? Just my thoughts, I am by no means a math whiz I wouldn't even go so far as to say I was good at math or engineering, but it seems simple enough to me.

Re:Minor details...

[1_interest_1]

Well, don't you have a response?

back_pages basically just stuck his hand in your face and said "BIATCH!"

Well? We're waiting. Come on, this is /. I know you have a response. Sucka.

Re:Minor details...

[Anonymous Coward]

I KNOW that somewhere I've seen someone else constructing buildings with this inflation method but I can't recall where.

I remember seeing an episode of "Extreme Engineering" that talked about a city in a pyramid, and during the episode they showed a way to raise the four outer supports of a pyramid by inflating a balloon underneath them. I think they also showed concrete domes being erected with inflation. Maybe that's where you saw it -- just a shot in the dark.

Re:Minor details...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are referring to Dometech, who make Concrete Domes by inflating under them. This was on Discovery a while back I believe.

Is this what you thought you saw?

Regards,
-Steve Gray

Re:Minor details...

[Cyn]

No. I'm sorry, but I don't think "fabric drenched in cement" gives you reinforced concrete - it gives you concrete, that happens to have fabric inside to save the setup crew from fussing around shaping it.

The intention of reinforced concrete is that the tensile strength / structure of the piece is actually reinforced by something - http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+reinforce d+concrete
"Concrete that is strengthened by the insertion of rods of steel, wire mesh or strands of glass reinforced plastic or similar materials."

I agree that you've got more than concrete there, and it would stand up to a beating better than just concrete, but I question using the term "reinforced concrete". Damned generic term that has a specific meaning - my complaint is really more that the term is too loaded I suppose. Oh well.

What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Tau Zero]

It's a shell that's strong in compression. Pile earth on it, and you've got your sound and thermal insulation. The one issue I can see is the small size; 172 square feet isn't much. You'd need a lot of them for any kind of refugee situation, and at $2100 each (about $12/square foot) it's probably as expensive as local housing in most of the world if not more so.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Capt'n Hector]

The army will eat this up. They don't care about the costs, and it's perfect for them. This could be a sturdy (relative to a tent) frontline building; a small mess hall, infirmary, officer's quarters, hummer garage... the list goes on.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[peachpuff]

If it's a refugee situation, it might make sense to use a few of these for storing medicine, food, and the like. The concrete would help keep out thieves and bugs.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

16 square meters is too little for a Hummer's garage - you would certainly need more. Also, they say about being sterile - you could keep it sterile only by inflating it with sterile gas, not air from the area

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Olix]

As they said in the article, its about twice the price of a similarly sized tent, but significantly less cost than a portacabin. As a tent doesn't really offer very good protection from the weather etc, one of these Egg things is probably worth the extra £500/$950.Before this invention they have required one of those significantly more expenive portacabins if they wanted to create shelter that had a bit of substance - for instance if they were working in a cold, wet enviorment rather than the warm, dry African enviorment we usually imagine these sort of aid missions going on in.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[salec]

This is just a proof of principle. Later on, HMV garage probably will be designed.

Building sterility shouldn't be a problem. If you deliver it with precompressed gas in a bottle, no need to start a compressor either. Once again, armies will love that - silent construction.

I wonder if it could be placed directly underground thru narrow shaft (or, underwater, if attached to heavy anchoring weight?) and expand by supplying enaugh pressure from the surface? You get instant underground/underwater bases (i.e. on other planets as well)

Other modified uses for this technology I can think of:

• Military (these applications may pose certain preferences in choosing the right fabric - say, kevlar(R)?):
  • fast hard-hull boat manufacturing as needed (army forced river crossing)
  • light armour for trucks, for armored personel carrier improvisation.
  • additional, expendable, "skirt" light armour (well, deflector for cumulative shells) for tanks
• Civil (disaster relief):
  • fast manufacturing of wide crossection, low pressure pipeline (i.e. sewer system)
  • fast floodwalls manufacturing

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it's hard to rely on local housing in the middle of the fscking desert. Or in an island where ALL infrastructures have been totally destroyed by a tsunami. Or in a post-earthquake scenario. Or...

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Mudcathi]

"It's a shell that's strong in compression. Pile earth on it, and you've got your sound and thermal insulation."

Back on the farm, we called that a "cave".

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect the main motivator here is housing for disaster relief that offers more protection from weather than a tent, and is a bit more long term. In this context 172 square feet, as an initial implementation, isn't too bad. Also clustering of multiple 172 square feet units could create the effect of a larger house built around a small central open area that could be covered with a tarpaulin. The cost may be the cost with a small production run rather than final costs. If the manufacture could be done locally in areas likely to suffer disasters then the cost would likely be lower. The balancing act would then be between tents (cheap, not very durable, ideal only in the short term but often refugees ending up living in them for months) versus shanty buildings (often structurally unsafe and take a while to erect), more secure dwellings built locally (take even longer to erect) and the blow up concrete units. Tent cities, if in situ for a while may spawn shanty dwellings, or may be replaced by more permanent dwellings, so the cost of this needs to be looked at versus the health and safety issues of the likely lifetime of each of these types of dwelling. The other thing to look at is what happens if quickly erectable but fairly durable buildings are used instead of tents: will refugee camps then be converted into semi-permanent cities almost immediately delaying the return of inhabitants to their homes, and what would be the implications of this?

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Also it might provide the facility for creating temporary barriers and light cover for troops. The building won't offer cover from shells the way a sandbag emplacement would, but it would provide cover from observation in the fraction of the time it would take to create a sandbagged area, and with more durability to small arms fire than a simple fabric inflated building would (these would deflate!).

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[AndroidCat]

I dunno Capt'n. I mean, would the army really like blowing up buildings?

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[advocate_one]

you could easily add further protection to the shell once it has set using a backhoe and or dozer blade to cover it with soil.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[AndyChrist]

The army does care about the costs. But they will eat this up because it is cheaper than some of the buildings they currently use.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Bonhamme Richard]

A while ago I saw an article on housing for disaster relief. Someone figured out that about the only thing all disaster areas have in common is some kind of soil.

The solution was to use it. They came up with a method of building decent houses with almost nothing other than dirt. Take a large tubular piece of material. (think a really long sock) and fill it with dirt. Take your sock o' dirt and build a kind of beehive looking structure. (lay it out in a cirlce 10-15 ft in diameter, and then add layers on top of that foundation that slowly get smaller and smaller.)

It is litterally dirt cheap, and if you reinforce it with some barbed wire you have a building that's really tough. (they built a few tests in California and they've dealt with a few earthquakes just fine....)

not as quick / easy, but cheaper, and much easier to mass produce (where will we fine barbed wire and cloth....)

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the shell is only the thickness of the canvas used, it would not be strong enough to support very much weight on top of it. It could hold weight if it were added carefully, but that couldn't be assured.

The building could be made much stronger by adding layers before or after inflation. One way to add strength would be to place a cement-impregnated net over the top of the building with another canvas layer above that.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? They tried an inflatable airplane

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it could be placed directly underground thru narrow shaft (or, underwater, if attached to heavy anchoring weight?) and expand by supplying enaugh pressure from the surface? You get instant underground/underwater bases (i.e. on other planets as well)

I think you might find that there is a slight problem with getting the cement to dry underwater.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

(i.e. on other planets as well)

only on Slashdot...

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[mkw87]

"If you deliver it with precompressed gas in a bottle, no need to start a compressor either. Once again, armies will love that - silent construction. "

the army would prefer the term "stealthy construction" it would make them feel a bit smarter, safer, and stealthier :)

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[smithmc]

fast hard-hull boat manufacturing as needed (army forced river crossing)

Or erect a bunch of them end-to-end, as a bridge.

Re:What's not to like? (The cost?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Cement doesn't "dry", it "cures" -- how do you think they build those huge concrete "footers" for bridges; dam-up or divert the river while the gigantic slab of concrete "dries"? Nope, concrete will harden just fine under many feet of water; all you have to do is stop stirring it (which is why the cement mixer is always turning while it contains some; so the guy doesn't have to climb inside and chisel it out!!)

Been done before, in the middle ages...

[natersoz]

When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

For the dehydrated

[Xeo 024]

Instant water, just add water.

Sterile?

[proteonic]

They say the tent can be delivered sterile to allow surgical procedures to be performed from day one..

Wouldn't that require clean, sterile water? I'd imagine that's something that would be hard to come by in the situations that one would want to use such a tent. (Short of boiling it, but even then it may not be sufficient in some cases, nor practical to boil the quantity required, which is probably a lot, and it would drastically slow things down.)

I did read TFA, but didn't notice how much water these required, anyone?

Re:Sterile?

[nzkbuk]

It's not hard to sterilize water. You can buy water sterilization tablets at most supermarkets and pharmacies (they are usually in the baby section). The Sterile air, well if it's needed then they will have to use compressed gas. My thought was how to keep the thing sterile beyond the first few days.

Re:Sterile?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes because viruses and bacteria live happily in concrete

Re:Sterile?

[Feanturi]

Nah you just have to fill it with really HOT water.

Some people have advanced

[Tau Zero]

Check out structural insulated panels.

Re:Some people have advanced

[mbrewthx]

Where I work we just put up a new one story office building with structural insulated panels. It went up fast and wast easy run the utilities through. The were used on the entire exterior of the building and then steel framing for the interior.

Re:Some people have advanced

[slickwillie]

SIPs are basically styrofoam with plywood or OSB exteriors. Don't let them get too hot (i.e. like in a fire) or the foam will melt/burn/produce toxic fumes/etc.

BTW, the article mentions this (i.e. the inflatable structures) won second place in a competition.

I wonder what got first?

Welcome to my inflateable life.

[Charcharodon]

Welcome to my inflateable life. Come sit on my inflateable furniture in my inflateable house, and oh say hello to my inflateable wife Betty.

Response to local climate

[aaarrrgggh]

The "Flimsy Slums" you speak of are often a response to local climate. A lightweight structure is better in a hot climate since it doesn't trap the heat; it just provides shelter.

Most of the places that I have been to with such "slums" work much better than a concrete structure ever would!

Re:Response to local climate

[Penguinshit]

There are whole towns in Michoacan that are built of not much more than sticks. They're not much for privacy, but the breeze goes right through (a must for life in that area). If a Chubasco comes through, you just pick the sticks up, jam them back into the dirt, slap the tin siding back up as your roof, and you've rebuilt your house in a day.

The concrete dwellings down there don't fare nearly as well.

Re:Response to local climate

[afidel]

No, the indians of the SW US and N Mexico proved centuries ago that LOTS of mass is the best solution to a hot climate. Build several foot thick walls of stone or stone like material and you have a natural cooling material. Of course a concrete structure which is designed to go up around an inflatable form probably isn't thick enough to recieve the necessary benifits =)

Re:Response to local climate

[Anonymous Coward]

The Navajo adobe buildings are just clay and straw bricks, not stone. The people in Africa and other places build with the same material, but I'm not sure if they build them as thick

Re:Response to local climate

[afidel]

Some built into stone like the Manatou cliffs in the four corners area, others used straw and clay bricks such as the Navajo and Taos. Either way the principal is the same, use a metric shitload of mass to act as a heatsink for the heat of the day =)

Re:Response to local climate

[Oriumpor]

I wonder how many of the current concrete structures have the aerodynamics of a near perfect dome.

Re:Response to local climate

[mollymoo]

No, the indians of the SW US and N Mexico proved centuries ago that LOTS of mass is the best solution to a hot climate. Build several foot thick walls of stone or stone like material and you have a natural cooling material.

It's not an active cooling material of course, it's an insulator and has high thermal mass. It resists changes in temperature rather than activley cooling. The modern equivalent to 3-foot thick walls is a reservoir of water beneath the house. Similar idea, but the cycle is more like a year than a day. The water is pumped around the house, cooling it in summer and warming it in winter (always pulling it towards some slowly varying median value). The water only changes temperature by a few of degrees over the course of a year, but water can hold so much heat and there is so much of it you get a significant reduction in heating/cooling costs.

Re:Response to local climate

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, that's something of an oversimplification. Navajo culture extended across much of the US southwest and adobe was used in many different kinds of building as it still is today. It's true that adobe doesn't necessarily have to be used as a mortar for stone and could be used to make bricks directly much as we now have modern cement blocks
However,in the case of, say a pueblo --again, that's a generic term meaning "town" that covers a wide range of habitats-- large stones were mortared together with adobe much as cement is used today.
Interestingly, these stones were not simply collected from those lying about, but were often quarried and cut into square blocks. Many ancient cultures mastered the art of stone cutting and something a lot of people don't realize is that stone quarrying doesn't require metals. In fact, rope such as that produced by the twining of hemp or sisal fibers is all that is necessary to cut relatively hard stones such as limestone and rope is still used for stone cutting in many parts of the world. The actual abrasive used for the cutting is typically silicate sand slurry and the rope simply serves as the guide to carry the abrasive slurry across the cutting edge.

Re:Response to local climate

[Anonymous Coward]

Although this design isn't a dome, this would be the structural requirements for a hurricane zone.

Inuit

[stephenMF]

The Inuit people have been doing this for thousands of years. Making buildings out of water, that is.

Consider the obvious

[Tau Zero]

Keeping an inflatable building inflated requires power. Guess what a disaster area is likely not to have, even if it is nominally within civilization?

The cement-rigidified fabric building only requires inflation while it cures, and does not need doors into a pressurized space. This gets around the power problem, mostly; you're going to need a vehicle to haul the bag to the site anyway, and you can use its exhaust to inflate the support bag. After that, no power required.

Astroturf alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're just talking about instant structures for specific needs, why not fiberglass? 3M makes a casting material ...

Me thinks me smells a 3M casting material salesman in our midst! Begone you casting material salesman (unless you tally your monthly sales figures using OpenOffice. Then you're perfectly welcome here!)

Re:but how..... Let WAMU make a fan out of you?

[davidsyes]

How 'bout making a fan out of WAMU (Washington Mutual)? Now, THEY can have those instant banks and pop them up at lower cost (unless the states and counties charger higher property taxes....)

Just the thing...

[AJWM]

Just the thing for backpacking in bear country.

Well, except for the weight...

Re:Just the thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm instant cave for hibernating. The bears will love it.

War, War, and War

[vandan]

Interesting technology.

It's not much of a solution to any of the problems listed, however. Each one of them can only be solved by a substantial shift in global perception, leading to a complete reversal of US foreign policy ... the most common cause of war.

Anything less is a band-aid solution.

Re:War, War, and War

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, hippie.

How about keeping your dullwitted politics in one of the roughly three billion other places on the internet that have been set up especially for that purpose, rather than trying to drag this thread about cool new technology off onto your anti-US/anti-Bush hobbyhorse?

You probably don't even realize how stupid and obsessive you sound.

Re:War, War, and War

[Anonymous Coward]

"You probably don't even realize how stupid and obsessive you sound."

And you ? You're obviously a genius who has been studying world affairs for at least fifteen minutes.

And the technology described isn't new, or even particularly cool.

There is a pattern here. Can you discern it with your obviously limited mind ?

I'll help you : you don't know what you are talking about, in matters of politics OR engineering.

Re:War, War, and War

[argent]

You probably don't even realize how stupid and obsessive you sound.

Sauce for the goose, my friend.

IKEA

[Anonymous Coward]

Just Add Brain.

You'd need different technology

[Tau Zero]

If you're going to go that way, you need different tech. For instance, instead of making an eggshell structure you make an air-mattress formation (parallel tubes) and use a pump to fill it full of mud with a bit of Portland cement added. This gives you an adobe structure on which you can pile more dirt once it's cured. Dirt does a great job of stopping small-arms fire.

Being able to find mud in e.g. deserts is a difficulty.

Re:Pretty soon

[Lord Kano]

You're 20 years too late.

Stephen Wright once said that he bought a box of powdered water, but he didn't know what to add.

LK

That's nothing...

[Tau Zero]

If you have 270 women, you can make a baby on average in a day.

Dragonball

[oldman1080]

Does this remind anyone of the Dragonball cartoons? You know those pills that Bulma always carries around and throws em on the ground... and POP! There's a building! POP! There's a car! That's the first thing that popped in my mind. Maybe we'll have inflatable cars one day :)

Re:Dragonball

[eexlebots]

Hell yeah! Good 'ol Capsule Corporation-I always wanted a bag full of kickin' transforming pills.

Oh, for pete's sake... RTFA!

[Tau Zero]

If you drop it in the middle of a monsoon, nothing happens. It's inside a sealed waterproof plastic bag, you silly git. If it wasn't sealed against humidity, the cement would set up all by itself while it was in storage.

Re:Oh, for pete's sake... RTFA!

[ff1324]

Oh for pete's sake...
I was JOKING. Do you really think I think a building could turn into a puddle?

Re:Oh, for pete's sake... RTFA!

[putaro]

You're posting on /. - YES!

not very big?

[nickgrieve]

from the pic its looks a little small... (about the size a a small dog kennel) sure, its a concept demo, but you may run into trouble when you need a full size one, thats a LOT of weight, you'll need fork lifts, high pressure air compressors, and generators to run the compressors... stuff that is hard to come by in a hurry in a disaster zone...

still cool tho

Re:not very big?

[nzkbuk]

Read the article. 230kg (about 500lbs), ok not something you'd want to lift yourself, but I'd hardly call it ALOT of weight.

That much weight, hey even triple it to include the water, and now think of it the size of a family tent. No way are you going to require fork lift's or high pressure air.

Where do you get the water?

[madshot]

Don't people usually have problems with water during disasters? If you place contaminated water into the structure are you going to have problems?

What about areas where the problem is they have no water? Just some thoughts..

Re:Where do you get the water?

[nzkbuk]

People usually have problems with the water because it's contaminated. Most disasters tend to have plenty of water, just none of it can be drunk. But assuming the cases where lack of water is an issue.
The question that the article doesn't answer is how much water is needed and if any other liquids can be used.

What if the water didn't smell that good, would you be left with a structure that smelt bad too ?

Re:Where do you get the water?

[hey!]

Well, it so happens I had reason to read the standards used by humanitarian organizations some months ago for a project I had. You generally site your camp near a water supply. The problem is decontaminating the water so it can be used to drink and wash with. If the water source isn't contaminated to start with, ifyou put a refugee camp next to it, it will be.

Using contaminated water in a concrete structure is probably not going to be a problem, because you aren't going to ingest it. Drinking even very slightly contaminated water is a huge health risk.

In any case, I can't see the humanitarians going for something heavy,expensive and inflexible like this. It might be a better permanent structure than a tent, but it isn't going to be good as a regular structure. In a pinch, they do temporary repairs to existing damaged structure. These guys pretty much use plastic sheeting for everything.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[Anonymous Coward]

About the only thing that will hurt concrete water wise is high acid content. Concrete is rather basic, but after it hardens the acidity affects it less.

As to the problem of no water, if there's absolutely no water available, including rain, then they probably don't need a concrete shelter. I would imagine concrete shelters only being useful for deflecting high winds with rain. Tents work for most other purposes.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[dubiousmike]

just make use of the included powdered water...

Re:Where do you get the water?

[AaronStJ]

> If you place contaminated water into the structure are you going to have problems?

Errr.... you don't eat the building.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[Anonymous Coward]

but what if you're really, REALLY hungry? huh? huuh?

Re:Where do you get the water?

[Anonymous Coward]

the making of concrete requires the use of potable water.

the yeasties and microbes need the water, cement grains need the water to hydrate. concrete will be weaker since it won't have enough water to hydrate.

then the cement paste on the molecular scale will have voids and internal pressures due to decomposing organics.

not a good thing...

Re:Where do you get the water?

[khallow]

I'm not seeing the problem. Remember even contaminated water is mostly water. OTOH, I bet that you could still make a usable structure even if the idiots doing it didn't bother to pick out the sticks, bat dung, and chicken bones first. It doesn't have to last forever.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[khallow]

Maybe wind shelter too. A concrete bubble sounds like it could handle stronger winds than a tarp or a tent.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[ZorbaTHut]

Urine.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[Vegeta99]

yeah, but you don't want to pour your building full of say, water contaminated with toxic waste. Who knows what's in it and what CAN seep out of the concrete. The water has to be relatively safe.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about...

Urine? It's mostly water.

I have a caver buddy who once had to urinate into his carbide lamp to get out of a cave, because he forgot his water supply.

It gave new meaning to the term "helmet mounted stinky".

And everyone else on that trip will never let him forget it.

Urine is a great replacement for water in some cases.

Like the raindeer in Iceland who consume Amanita muscaria to alter their state of mind, and then urinate, and the other deer fight to consume the urine so they too, can get high.

See? No water involved at all...

Re:Where do you get the water?

[argent]

but it isn't going to be good as a regular structure.

Depending on the part of the world you're in it is a regular structure.

It seems to be pretty similar to an uninsulated gunite dome, without a foundation, or adobe construction. If you surround the base with packed earth after it sets it should be every bit as good as matchstick construction.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[mpe]

Don't people usually have problems with water during disasters? If you place contaminated water into the structure are you going to have problems?

Depends what the water is contaminated with. Salt is more likely to affect cement than bacteria.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[quisph]

Good point. The article mentions delivering these kits "sterile" to be used for performing surgeries. This is of course pointless if you're just going to contaminate them at the site with unclean water.

Then again, it's really not that hard to make water sterile. What's hard is making it sterile and potable, but since no one's going to eat them, that's not an issue. Dump enough chemicals into it, and problem solved. They could probably even ship the bag with some kind of chemical disinfectant pre-mixed into the cement.

Disaster sites without any water at all would pose more of a problem, but I think those would be pretty rare. More likely there would be too much water (precipitation) to allow the cement to dry.

Re:Where do you get the water?

[AaronStJ]

Joke.

can we have *ANY* non-gizmodo/engadget stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

please?

One little problem with that idea

[Tau Zero]

Portland cement reacts chemically with water as part of its hardening process. It can't be re-softened by wetting it, and the building wouldn't be terribly useful in most climates if it could.

but then they couldn't win the prize

[bodrell]

Seeing as they came up with the idea as an entry in a "innovative concrete uses" contest, they probably didn't want to use fiberglass.

There is also the issue of wind. I'm sure concrete structures don't blow away as easily, and many disaster areas are going to have lots of wind and water. Plus, concrete doesn't need to dry to set. Apparently it sets up quite nicely underwater.

My father has been building unique houses for about thirty years. One was an earth-covered house ("underground" is a bit misleading, but that's what I would normally call it) and he's been looking into a very modular building material called 3-D Panel which is basically styrofoam between wire meshes. After you assemble the building, using rebar or something to connect wire meshes together, you spray it with shotcrete, and you're done. I mean, if we're allowed to have a spraying apparatus, why not? The specs for this panel system are impressive. They say the insulating value is R-18 to R-33--better than the new homes they throw up these days in my neighborhood.

Re:but then they couldn't win the prize

[PalmMP3]

better than the new homes they throw up these days in my neighborhood

Oh boy! And I thought the food at MY cafeteria was bad!

Still, how do you fit the whole thing in the toilet bowl once you finish throwing up? ;-)

Re:but then they couldn't win the prize

[argent]

PS: Thanks so much for pointing me to the "3-D Panel" website. I've been looking for this for months now.

Re:but then they couldn't win the prize

[bodrell]

PS: Thanks so much for pointing me to the "3-D Panel" website. I've been looking for this for months now.

It actually took me a few minutes to find it. I think they changed domains, which threw me off. I don't know about the tendency for the shotcrete to crack. I imagine climate plays a big role.

Re:but then they couldn't win the prize

[argent]

It's not really a problem specific to gunite/shotcrete, it's mostly because there's two layers of concrete both bonded to the insulation. It looks like the 3D-panels have a slightly different construction.

I think the church I watched them build may have using a different vendor, but I don't recall the name now.

Re:but then they couldn't win the prize

[tmtresh]

My in-laws have one of these styrofoam houses. The main problem they have is woodpeckers building homes in their walls. The peck right through the shotcrete and pull out the styrofoam. The in-laws use some spray foam goop to fill up the holes. I think they used foam block with rebar coming up through the middle.

so its like a tent that you can't move?

[the_REAL_sam]

and weighs more cuz its impregnated with cement?

i dont get it.

Re:so its like a tent that you can't move?

[Anonymous Coward]

sometimes you want something as easy to set up as a tent, yet can't be moved easily once it is in place. for those situations, this would work well. For others, they can continue to use tents since they are cheaper.

Re:Pretty soon

[tomhudson]

Hey! That's freeze-dried ice cream, you insensitive clod!

Oops - what next - dehydrated coffee? Oh, they already have that? Poor things who have to drink it :-)

Further on the topic of dehydrated water - has anyone checked their ice cubes lately? See how they shrink when left in the freezer?

Re:Help

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you found the collection container for my drug test!

At Last!

[ackthpt]

This sounds like the building process from the Jetsons. Maybe now we can move on from the trailer homes, manufactured homes and traditional building and move onto "Ziplock Construction Co."

At last, affordable housing in Santa Cruz!

Too bad it still has a dirt floor, but hey, it's a hovel.

yeah, why not skip the concrete?

[bodrell]

Then we can have shelters that double as kites!

if it's raining...

[pizzarobot]

Twelve hours later the Nissen-shaped shelter is dried out and ready for use.

But what if it's raining? Wouldn't it be possible for it to be severely raining in an emergency situation? And would that prevent the shelter from properly forming?

Re:if it's raining...

[Scratch-O-Matic]

This has been covered elsewhere in the discussion, but concrete doesn't "dry out," as the article states. It actually "hydrates," meaning that it uses water to harden, but doesn't need the water to go away or evaporate when it's done doing its thing. In fact, concrete can harden under water.

it's a freaking Quonset hut

[bodrell]

Actually a "Nissen" hut, and apparently the Quonset hut is an improvement on the Nissen,, but they're both half-cylinders. They come with a front and back door.

Sterile?

[dysk]

"The shelter can also be delivered sterile," said Crawford. "This allows previously impossible surgical procedures to be performed in situ from day one of a crisis."

Sounds pretty useless, unless it is shipped with sterile water, and sterile air to inflate it with. Just shows that the inventors haven't fully thought through their ideas.

Re:Pretty soon

[StikyPad]

They already have that.. it's called Kool Aid.

MoonBase Alpha

[KaeloDest]

So that's How the built Moonbase Alpha. And all these years I thought is was classic (pitiful) U.K models.

On the serious side I dont trust an inflatable anything in case of a CME or other Solar *event* but this design beats the standard inflatable. The current gas bas use a compound like foam sealant/ minsulation replace that with soil, maybe dope the mix with some metal to radiation-harden it. In space it is weightless. If it were build from low grav available materials i.e. the Moon it could ship anywhere.

Kalashnikov bullet?

[bodrell]

I can't tell whether you are
a) Trying to show off that you know what "AK" stands for, or
b) Trying to badmouth the AK-47 because it uses less powerful rounds than an M-16, or
c) Use "Kalashnikov bullet" to mean "wimpy bullet," even though for most people it would have been clearer if you talked about caliber, or grain, or something more relevant than the manufacturer, or
d) Attempting to be humorous

So which was it?

(I do agree these would make lousy bunkers; I doubt it's possible to make a good portable bunker, unless you start getting into sci-fi stuff like force fields)

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[hobbesmaster]

e) Making no distinction between the AK-47 and AK-74 and noting that the odds of an M-16 being shot at an American structure are low.

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[bodrell]

e) Making no distinction between the AK-47 and AK-74 and noting that the odds of an M-16 being shot at an American structure are low.

Ah, I see what you meant. But you're forgetting that although the Soviets gave tons of arms to Afghani fighters, the US supplied arms all over the Middle East during Reagan's regime. I seem to recall something about Oliver North . . . Given that most active American troops are in Iraq, and the US certainly supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons, I'd guess it is more probable that an M-16 would be shot at an American structure than an AK. But then, bunkers don't work that well against guerillas and landmines, so the point is moot.

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all your points, *you're* the one trying to show off. Are you always such a hypocrite?

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[Anonymous Coward]

nope. Iraq had tons of AK-47s and ammo to go with them. In some cases, instead of carrying an M-4, some US personnel would opt for an easily acquired AK and not have to worry about cleaning it every day.

Also, it is more likely that North was supplying Iran with spare parts and other materials to go with their F-14s that the Shah obtained while he was in power. Most of what Iraq had was Russian in origin with some French aircraft. I think you also need to look up the definition of bunker.

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[mi]

I not only know, what 'Kalashnikov' means, I was the fastest in my high-school class to disassemble the weapon and put it back together with my eyes closed. (With open eyes another guy won.)

So which was it?

I used the name because it is the weapon of choice of most of the armed forces opposing regular militaries world wide.

Kalashnikov's design was brilliant in its simplicity -- although 'the real thing' is expensive, a crude, but deadly and efficient imitation can be made in a village smith shop.

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[bodrell]

With all your points, *you're* the one trying to show off.

I'm no firearms encyclopedia, but neither am I ignorant when it comes to guns. Still, I reread his post several times and didn't understand what the guy meant--was there a reason for saying "Kalashnikov bullet" instead of "bullet?" I didn't know what kind of rounds an AK takes, because I've never shot one. I didn't know they were less powerful until I tried to figure out what the poster was saying. Ammunition is not generally specific to a particular gun manfacturer, because that's annoying and causes high prices. I did a minute or two of research, still couldn't figure it out, so I asked. I had a lot of points because I actually stopped to think about what I was asking before I clicked on "submit." And the answer to my question was something I hadn't thought of. I'm not perfect, and I certainly could have been more tactful (though that would stick out like a sore thumb around here), but I stand by what I wrote.

Are you always such a hypocrite?

Are you always such a coward, making judgments behind your protective cloak of anonymity?

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[bodrell]

I not only know, what 'Kalashnikov' means, I was the fastest in my high-school class to disassemble the weapon and put it back together with my eyes closed. (With open eyes another guy won.)

I'm glad you know what you're talking about. How available are rounds for the AK-47? How powerful are the rounds compared to a .223? A .308? I've seen what a .308 can do. I'm just looking for a qualitative comparison.

I've done (crude) experiments shooting polycarbonate, wood, etc.--your question got me thinking because I'm sure that (standard) .22 ammo couldn't go through these concrete huts, but what about a .38? How bullet resistant would these things be, really? Better than a tent, for sure.

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[mollymoo]

It's not just the size of the bullet, but the size of the charge behind it too. Handgun rounds tend to be big and slow (relativley speaking). Rifle rounds go a whole lot faster, so while a .22 pistol may barely put a dint in a Coke can the 5.56mm NATO round your average squaddie has in his weapon (5.56mm = 0.219 inches) will go through a car door and still have plenty of oomph left to kill you.

Of course, if you go for both a large caliber and a big charge you end up with artillery pieces like the Barrett .50s. Now there's a toy I'd love to play with!

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[bodrell]

It's not just the size of the bullet, but the size of the charge behind it too.

Yes, I am aware of that. An AR-15/M-16 round is .223 caliber, almost the same as a .22, but the .223 not only has a huge bullet, but a whopping charge behind it.

So I was asking if this guy (mi) had any personal experiences with the AK-47 that might be enlightening to someone who has never fired one. I've seen what a .50 caliber rifle can do, and a .308, .223, and several handguns. But not an AK.

Rifle rounds go a whole lot faster, so while a .22 pistol may barely put a dint in a Coke can . . .

Do you mean because the ammo is different, or would a given .22 round go faster when shot from a rifle? I know rifles are much more accurate, and less deafening, but does the longer barrel make bullets faster, too? (And btw, a .22 is not that wimpy--it can still go through a skull, or at least into a skull.)

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[mikeee]

the US certainly supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons, I'd guess it is more probable that an M-16 would be shot at an American structure than an AK

Nonsense. Almost all of Hussein's weapons were Russian and French, with a small amount of Chinese and US equipment. Why do you think the US imported AK-47s from Poland to equip the new Iraqi army? Because that's what everyone in Iraq with military experience had trained with!

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[antirename]

Ok, I'm going to reply to this since I haven't seen one post get it right. The M16 fires .223 caliber bullets. That's a small, light (62 grain), .223" diameter bullet (5.56 mm) going fairly fast. It is NOT a powerful round. In many states it is illegal to hunt deer or other large game with this caliber of weapon because it lacks the power to ensure a clean kill. That said, the military stuff has a hardened steel penetrator core that is really good at penetrating things, even if it does leave a tiny little hole. The bullets are designed to tumble in flesh to cause more damage. They would almost certainly leave holes in these hut things. An AK-47, on the other hand, fires a much more powerful round. 7.62x39 mm, usually with ~125 grain bullets. That's .308 caliber, with about the same power as a 30-30. They also use steel penetrator cores, and would certainly make swiss cheese out of one of these concrete huts. The U.S. didn't switch to .223 because of power, they did it because it's wimpy ammo doesn't weigh much. That lets a soldier carry more of it. And since the average soldier can't hit anything by aiming anyway (the Army doesn't have the money to let them fire real bullets in training all that often) that gives them more chances to hit something when they are spraying ammo at the bad guys. On a side note, soldiers don't like the M16 much. They are flimsy, jam a lot, and generally stop working when you get sand in them. I know a lot of guys who used AK-47s in Vietnam for that reason. My dad got rid of his M16 as soon as he got his hands on an M14 (.308, much more power).

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[smithmc]

Ok, I'm going to reply to this since I haven't seen one post get it right... 7.62x39 mm, usually with ~125 grain bullets. That's .308 caliber...

Oh, the irony. (7.62 mm is .30 even, not .308)

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[bodrell]

Thanks for your reply. I realize the .223 ammo is dinky compared to a .308, but it's a monster compared to the .22. I don't think I'd like to meet a deer that can take a .223 round without dying ;)

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[mi]

How available are rounds for the AK-47? How powerful are the rounds compared to a .223? A .308? I've seen what a .308 can do.

Hey, it was high school. We only got to shoot these babies once. 7 shots per pupil at paper targets 50m away -- under very strong supervision.

I'm sure that (standard) .22 ammo couldn't go through these concrete huts

Really? I did not think, these huts are strong at all. Wind/water protection, that's all I'd expect...

If regular steel Humvees don't cut it in Iraq, requiring armor plates, I doubt this concrete will do. And the hut is even easier to shoot at, than a Humvee, which is a moving vehicle.

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[mi]

They also use steel penetrator cores, and would certainly make swiss cheese out of one of these concrete huts.

There are different bullets. The ones you describe are, probably, more expensive than others.

In Afghanistan, Soviet Army was filing off sides of the bullets to make them unstable. They were still flying straight because of the rotation, but the moment they hit anything, they'd go "beserk" tearing things apart.

It was, I'm told, to destroy the clay walls, which were too strong for regular bullets, but too soft for artillery (the pieces would fly through without exploding). But then they discovered, that these bullets do a lot more damage to living things too...

Re:Kalashnikov bullet?

[bodrell]

I'm sure that (standard) .22 ammo couldn't go through these concrete huts

Really? I did not think, these huts are strong at all. Wind/water protection, that's all I'd expect...

I'm pretty sure. There are the .22 CB caps (I have no idea what that means) which are subsonic BBs, basically. They make a dent in a pine board from across a room. A decent dent. There are Greentags (?) which are manufactured with fairly high precision for competition shooting. But they're only moderately powerful. Then there are the CCI Stinger hollowpoints, which are by far the most powerful .22 rounds I've seen. But I still doubt they'd go through more than 5 mm of this concrete / fabric stuff. Just a guess. But I think a .38 would go through 5 mm concrete. However, I once knew a pitbull that had been shot in the head with a .38, but the bullet bounced off the dog's skull. That's why I'm curious. These huts seem just strong enough to be at that hazy interface between bulletproof and not.

you can get all your friends to sign it, too

[bodrell]

So basically, this is glorified paper mache?

No, it's a glorified plaster cast. They even mentioned they "were also inspired by the plaster-of paris-impregnated bandages used to set broken bones."

you misunderstand concrete

[bodrell]

What happens if you drop it in the middle of a monsoon? Do you wind up with a large puddle of building?

Concrete can set underwater.

Re:you misunderstand concrete

[aXis100]

The wiki article isnt that usefull, but it is one the right track.

Regular concrete (with portland cement) requires water to set - it uses H2O in many steps of a chemical reaction.

The best way to make a strong concrete foundation is to spray or flood the freshly finished area with water - this ensures that the concrete sets a bit slower and gets enough water for it's chemical reactions. You can make concrete harden a bit faster by having less water around, but it ends up being weak and powdery if you go too far.

The only issue with water during concrete setting is if you agitate the material too much - the water dilutes the cement and everything just turns to mush.

Re:Prior Art

[Darth23]

Someone beat you to it.

How could they tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating MREs gave me gas so bad I doubt I could tell the difference.

And I got so damn constipated it felt like I had eaten a bag of cement.

Besides, the inflatable house probably tastes better.

Re:How could they tell the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I got so damn constipated it felt like I had eaten a bag of cement.

That's the whole idea, they're designed to do exactly that, even though the Army says otherwise. The chicle that comes with the MRE is not only tasty and chewy, but it's a damn powerful laxitive.

Wow

[justaddwater]

Wow I never thought I'll ever be on the front page of slashdot.

Halfpipe anyone?

[Mal-2]

This ithing is in the shape of half a cylinder. What else can you do with a half cylinder -- if you flip it over? Skateboard halfpipe maybe?

Mal-2

Did someone say WAMU?

[kevcol]

Important Security Issue

Dear Wamu Member,

We recently have determined that different computer have logged into your Online Banking
account, and multiple password failures were present before the logons.

We now need you to re-confirm your account information to us. If this is not completed
within 24h , we will be forced to suspend your account as it may have been comrpomised.

We thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

https://internetbanking.wamu.com/index.html

Thank you for your promt attention to this matter. Please understand that this is a security
measure meant to help protect you and your account.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

If you choose to ignore our request you leave us no choice but to temporarily suspend your
account.

Thank you for using WAMU! The WAMU Team

what about...

[Anonymous Coward]

parties? you could totally wreck the place, then crush it and sweep it into a river the next day!

just add water

[rob_squared]

I can't wait for someone to eat the stuff as a snack and then get thirsty.

"Peter, that was enough food for a year!"
*drinks water*
"Everybody out! NOW!"

What kind of material is this?

[Noose For A Neck]

Are we talking boron fibers? S-type glass fibers? High strength carbon fibers? Most of those seem rather heavy to be sending into orbit...

Re:What kind of material is this?

[FleaPlus]

Vectran

Haven't I seen this somewhere before.....

[Brad1138]

I am sure I saw this in an episode of "SuperFriends" some time ago.

We could use one of those in the Vaults...

[Swifti]

"Make life a-new with the Garden of Eden Creation Kit! Also known as G.E.C.K.! Just add water!"

old tech, been done before

[drwho]

There's a company in Texas, I can't remember its name, that does similar - builds large buildings by inflating a blaoon, straying it with resin from the inside, and then uses the as basis for a concrete shells. These are hue buildings like aircraft hangars.

Re:old tech, been done before

[Anonymous Coward]

The French have been doing this since the 1970s.

Re:old tech, been done before

[argent]

Monolithic Domes?

Similar concept, but much more labor-intensive. It's the "set up in 40 minutes" factor that's really interesting here.

Reminds me of something Bill Moss once showed me

[hey!]

Bill Moss was one of the founders of Moss tents and the inventor of the modern dome tent. I met him about ten years ago through a guy I worked with.

Anyhow, he showed me this invention he had, it looked like one of those tiny bicycling or backpacking tents, but it was made of cleverly prestressed and folded cardboard. Basically it folded flat, then instantly popped up into a small shelter. It bulged in the middle and had a small hole in one end you crawled through. It wouldn't be much of the shelter, but it could make the difference between freezing to death and surviving. He had designed it to address the problem of homeless people dying of hypothermia on cold nights in the city. You could pile hundreds of them in the back of pickup, and since they were basically cleverly designed cardboard boxes it would cost next to nothing.

In any case, I don't think it ever went into production, possibly becasue it may not have made enough of a difference to be worthwhile. But it was an interesting idea, cleverly executed.

University of Manitoba

[Darth Cider]

Mark West at the University of Manitoba has created a department specializing in applications of flexible fabric formworks in architecture. Here's an excerpt:

The natural tension geometries given by formwork fabrics simplify the production of lightweight, high efficiency structural shapes. The formworks themselves are extraordinarily light and very inexpensive. The flexibility of a fabric formwork membrane makes it possible to produce a multitude of architectural and structural designs from a single, reusable mold. The use of permeable formwork membrane fabrics produces improved surface finishes and strength as a result of a filtering action allowing air bubbles and excess mix water to bleed through the formwork membrane.

I saw examples at the National Building Museum in Washington D.C. last summer and was impressed by the smooth finish of the cement surfaces and also the potential to create very elaborate, beautiful and sturdy structures using really really cheap fabric casings. These new approaches to housing construction are not trivial.

A gift from Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Niven, 1967. Architectural coral... Life imitates art, I guess.

Cheaper?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

I don't think so.

Check out housing in Japan sometime. People important Canadian lumber and build western style dry-wall-on-wooden-frame, and it comes out costing less than the prefab.

And, having lived in prefab over here for over ten years, I'm not impressed with the quality. It's like living in a giant plastic butter dish.

Some people like it that way, because when the kids fall, plastic can be somewhat softer than wood. Or something. I dunno.

Re:Pretty soon

[Mitijea]

It's called sublimation. It's like melting-to-evaporation, but skipping the liquid stage. Just goes from a solid to a gas. What, did you think the freezer fairies were licking it up?

Re:Pretty soon

[tomhudson]

It's called sublimation

No, it's not. What's actually happening is that frost-free fridges reverse their cycle for about 6 minutes out of every hour (you can buy replacement timers for about $15 - all they do is reverse the current), and actually pump heat into the freezer, to melt accumulated ice off the coils.

This is also why you get "freezer burn" - the outer layer of stuff in the freezer is subjected to repeated thawing and refreezing.

Compare it to the older freezers, that don't have a "frost-free" function. The ice cubes don't "disappear".

Now if you had been talking about CO2, that would be a different story. CO2 *does* sublimate at 1 atmosphere.

Just add water ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bummer if you want to use them as temporary shelter in a drought.

yep

[Anonymous Coward]

They do that. When you order truck loads of wet, you can ask for "fiber", it gets mixed in, costs extra. Makes it stronger. Fairly well known,too, they been doing it like forever.

Already been done

[CRepetski]

I believe something like this was tried in the 1940's and 1950's. Entire communities were built, rather cheaply, from a balloon that was inflated and around which concrete was poured. All right, so it's not exactly the same, but a very similar idea.

One of the reasons it was abandoned (other than being very difficult to make any bigger - the concrete needed to build increases with the square of the house diameter, not even taking stress and strain into account - but the accoustics were horrible: everything echoed and made daily life quite ... unique.

Ah yes, here's the link: http://www.usc.edu/calendar/events/19404.html

The airform house was a unique form of low-cost housing he developed between 1934 and 1941. It was a dome-shaped structure made of reinforced concrete that was cast in place over an inflatable balloon. Although the design did not find favor in the United States it was used for mass housing projects in West Africa, Egypt and Brazil during the 1940s and 1950s.

Drought?

[Zigbigadoorlue]

Wouldn't want to send them to drought victims.

Even More Prior Art...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone Else has also begun marketing this idea as well.

This one I spotted on several billboards in Toledo last year...

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

But does it run Linux?

a slum is SUPPOSED to be flimsy

[Suchetha]

basically, a slum is an aggregation of cheap and above all temporary housing. at USD 2100 (about LKR 210,000 - a LOT of money where i live) per unit the housing is more expensive than most slum dwellers can afford. also i believe there is a high population turnover in slum areas. people come and people go.and the parts are scavenged to make the other slum dwellings better.

further, the land that slums are on become more desirable as the city develops. which gives the impetus for the governments to move people out of the slums and into multi story housing projects (which end up becoming vertical slums, but i digress), thereby reclaiming the land for public use. a cement based housing system would make this process more difficult

Suchetha

Picture goodness

[bezuwork's friend]

here

Oh, and under gallery 2004, there is a pdf of the top contenders with discussions of the philosophies behind their works.

Ever pop a hole in a sidewalk?

[bezuwork's friend]

Yup. (scroll down somewhat.)

Edison tried this. (Well sort of)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/even t.php?taid=&id=3456959&lid=1

Didn't work for him either. (Sorry about the long
URL)

What's more important?

[carlmenezes]

That they typed syntactically correct English or that their meaning got across?

Lake bombs

[bananahead]

(idioticblather)This reminds me of those old ads for dehydrated water. You know, just add water... If they weigh so much, just what exactly have you saved over an inflatable building? How did the dehydrated version get to where it is supposed to go? And how much water does it really need? I do like the idea of dropping the capsules into a lake somewhere just to see what happens. Kind of like dropping new tampons into the toilet just to watch them explode.(/idioticblather)

A better option...

[Infinityis]

Maybe during the Vietnam War era this would have been ideal, but given the current state of affairs, it might work better if they made a "just add sand" concrete structure...

WHOOOOOOSH!

[britneys 9th husband]

That giant sucking sound you hear is all the air being let out of the housing bubble. $2,100 for 172 square feet? Why not just buy four of these, for less than the cost of a year's rent, rather than paying $400,000+ for a tiny 688 ft2 condo?

Re:WHOOOOOOSH!

[mikeee]

Because it's the land that's expensive, not the structure. In my (suburban) town, a buildable lot, assuming you can find one, will run around $400k.

Time to advance-The Fab Four.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problems with prefab housing are twofold, first and most importantly is that anything which is light enough to allow for economical transport of economically buildable subsections is going to be chinsy compared to a real timber and 3/4" plywood plus 3/4" hardwood floors."

*looks around prefab house*

You might want to recheck that.

"The second problem is that preparing the site and combining the pieces takes almost as much labor as rough framing an equivilant structure, and all of the labor besides the site prep and rough framing is done by skilled laborers that will charge about the same for their work whether it is done onsite or as part of assembling prefab blocks."

Well first of all site preperation is the same for both. Second, the amount of labour to assemble depends on the initial design. Frefab can range from wall and floor panels, to prebuilt roof trusses all the way to complete rooms craned into place. While professionals cost the same per a unit of time. Prefab saves you in total amount of time to completion.

This was demonstarated awhile back on that TV show were they knock down the old one and rebuild a new one in a given amount of time, say a week. Simon had a prefab brought in from Canada, and the crew put it up with a very tight deadline.

Use Seament instead of cement - mineral acretion

[whitis]

Better yet, let's just throw thousands of these bags in the ocean and create an underwater city instantaneously!

Excess water would probably yield very poor quality concrete and ocean currents would probably wash the concrete away before it set. Also, the baloons would need to be well anchored or they would float to the surface.

Another technique for this (although not as quick) is to just deploy a metal mesh (think window screen size). Then you apply electricity to the mesh and the minerals in sea water acrete onto the structure. This technique was described in article in the Mother Earth News 25 years ago although it apparently wasn't pursued enough. More recently, this technique has been used to restore coral reefs and one group plans to use it to create an underwater habitat .

There is some research at Standford and a Wikipedia entry . Apparently, there is some confusion about how much energy is needed to produce such structures and a structure similar in size to the inflatable one would probably use around $500 worth of electricty.

Manna..

[LilGuy]

Sounds like the buildings of the poor in the book Manna</ a>.

In the future only the wealthy 1% will live in actual buildings/houses. The rest of us get this inflatable bag of cement.

Sounds fun.

gunite domes

[argent]

I KNOW that somewhere I've seen someone else constructing buildings with this inflation method

Not quite the same, but it's similar to gunite or shotcrete domes. Check out the Monolithic Dome website.

shotcrete/gunite over foam panels

[argent]

They built a church nearby out of this shotcrete/gunite over foam panel mechanism. It was really amazing to watch it go up. The only problem I'd see would be cracking over time... since the inside and outside layers of concrete are going to have quite different temperateure environments you may have the same kinds of differential cracking problems the Monolithic Dome people reported with the 2-layer concrete domes.

Yeah...

[PsiPsiStar]

... and into their back yard.

Since when does Glass / SiO2 burn???

[cnvrtus]

Are you sure fiber glass burns dude? It's made of amorphous silicon dioxide! What's the chemical reaction? It's already oxidized!

Re:Since when does Glass / SiO2 burn???

[argent]

It's made of amorphous silicon dioxide!

Structural fiberglass is held together by epoxy - a plastic resin. It doesn't burn strongly, but it does burn.

Problem is property rights, not buildings

[pjc50]

Over time, people do build quite solid buildings to replace the shelters. Their problem is stopping the government demolishing their slums and telling them to "go away". In an ideal world the governments would provide somewhere for them to go, but they often aren't interested.

The bigger question is...

[suman28]

What happens to the building after its use is over? More trash or leave it for the residents of whereever it is to clean up?

patent

[Anonymous Coward]

they must not have gotten the memo:
microsoft already owns the patent for that.

Cartoon?

[Dogtanian]

Sounds like something from Tom and Jerry.

Tom eats the house-in-a-bag thinking it's an MRE. A couple of seconds later, he balloons into a massive house-shaped cat (or a catskin house?!)

After a short pause, a chimney pops out of his ear.

Yeah, it has to be a real chimney. This is Tom and Jerry we're talking about here, folks.

Possible uses

[first.last]

Possible uses include shelter for disaster areas, and instant field hospitals...a killer tent.

Got hot air? Get some Politicians

[ebvwfbw]

The only concern is that you make sure the politicians don't suck, they all have to blow.

Wording...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they really have to use "erect" right after "impregnate"? :P

Re:Wording...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - usually it's the other way around. . .

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is great news...

[Anita Coney]

... It's nice to see that eminent scientist Wile E. Coyote, PhD, has finally put the past behind him and is concentrating on real work nowadays.

What about the environment?

[carlmenezes]

So you have a cement-impregnated tent that can be erected really fast and real quick. What happens after it's use is over? How will they be disposed of? They don't seem very environment friendly to me.

No!!!

[AndyChrist]

Call it "Capsule Corp"!

How is this cheaper or faster than Quonset huts

[Peyote Pekka]

It's cool and high tech to be sure. But how is this cheaper faster or better than regular quonset huts. Don't tell me it's the acoustics. All kinds of modern insulating or defensive material can be added to the outside of a quonset.

I can think of prior art, that's for sure.

[ahfoo]

The patent thing really sort of ticked me off being a student of the history of alternative building and a fan or mixing cement with all sorts of things. It just so happens that this idea of soaking fabric such as burlap in cement was, at one time, a very common building technique. It was so common that it had a trade name. It was referred to as "staff". Probably a derivation of "stiff" which it certainly is. I happen to have some planters made of just the stuff in the backyard and I built a small shed of it at one time.
Here's a bit of trivia that you can verify yourselves that should add a bit of authority to my contention that this is a well known and common practice. Do I sound like Jeff Albertson AKA Comic Book Guy or what? Well, what can I say, I was pissed. Patent . . fucking wankers.
Alright, on to the issue at hand.
If you've ever been to San Francisco, it is likely you might have checked out the Golden Gate Bridge and perhaps even went to the delightful little park filled with neo-classical architecture featuring the world-famous Palace of Fine Arts near the Exploratorium.
Well, if you have been to the Palace of Fine Arts, perhaps you are aware that it is the remnant of what was a huge international exposition around the turn of the century to showcase the prosperity of western America. This exposition was called the Panama Pacific Exposition of 1915.
The Expo was an enormous event and it involved the construction of what was at the time the largest wooden structures in history. And, in fact, the original Palace of Fine Arts was also built partially of wood. The columns which you now see rebuilt in steel reinforced concrete in the 60s were originally built of wood in the nineteen tens.
If you haven't seen it, this thing is a giant dome set atop columns about five stories high and covering several acres of land. It is huge.
Now aside from the columns which were made of wood and some other wooden reinforcing bits, the structure was built primarily of cement soaked burlap fiber or staff as it was known. Indeed, the Palace of Fine Arts was the largest structure ever built of staff, but again I emphasize that if you've seen it you would know that this is truly an enormous piece of architecture and a major monument of the city of San Francisco. This massive monument stood for over forty years built primarily of cloth soaked in cement.
Could you possibly come up with a more in-your-face example of prior art?
And now these boy geniuses are going to attempt to patent this well known and commonly practiced historical building technique in the year 2005?
Fuck. This is a fine example of what I see as the real bubble. It wasn't the Internet, it wasn't telecoms and it isn't IT or ICs or semis, it's something that encompasses all of these and more. Intellectual property is the real bubble. And it's still absolutely full of hot air. This is yet another fine example.

good long term solutions like this one are needed

[ekan]

I read a statistic somewhere (can't find where :-( that said the average refugee lives 2-4 years (or something like that) in "temporary" housing--not just a couple months. Imagine living in a tent for 2-4 years...anyways, the point is there need to be good, long term solutions that last--and tents aren't it. Buckminster Fuller talked a lot about this, and how we can do it now if we want to.

From this article:

Janet Ginsberg: how many camps and average size? How long do they last?

Larry Thompson: 10,000 people is an average size. Some have up to 600,000 people. Some camps exist for around 15-20 years. In Palestine some have been there 40-50 years. We tend to put people in camps and forget about them. In Kosovo--UNHCR had plans on orderly return--the refugees all went home in a number of days. The thought is that many Afghans will go home this spring. But, unless there are demonstrated economic incentives to go home, they won't leave.

Well, duh . . .

[hawk]

. . . she'll follow the cat in, of course.

:)

hawk

I lived in one.

[hawk]

When I got to Iowa State in '94, the Kwonset huts were still in use.

They were put in for the GI bill for the flood of returning soldiers. They were meant to be scrapped in the 50's.

In all fairness, I had one of the worst ones, which was already scheduled for demolition--it was just a temporary assignment while they suffled people in and out.

The water heater was in the living room. It made percolating sounds. When the maintenance guy showed up, he told me it was normal for a heater that old--it was limestone buildup being carried up as the water boiled, and falling back down.

But when I called about the crumbling tiles, I was less amused: he measured the tiles and announced they were asbestos. (The stuff is perfectly safe until it gets into the air--by things like crumbling.)

THey started tearing them down as people moved out--or as trees took them out in a storm. Even when I arrived, there were several foundation slabs used as picnic shelters and play areas.

I believe that they're now all gone save for a "museum piece."

hawk

Keep this away from the stockade!

[hawk]

We'll get hardened criminals!

And from my youth:

Little Willie, at a passing gent,
through a batch of wet cement.
"Just wait until it dries--
then you'll be a real hard guy!"

hawk

Would need a big bottle

[Anonymous Coward]

>> If you deliver it with precompressed gas in a
>> bottle, no need to start a compressor either.

Using a low-pressure, high-volume compressor would be better than compressed gas. A large size high-pressure (4500 psi) scuba cylinder holds 120 cu.ft. of air, which is only enough to fill 1.5 - 2 portable outhouses. Inflating the building-in-a-bag would require a very large bottle, or many smaller ones. A low-pressure, high-volume compressor would take up less space, and would be re-usable.

that's not why

[hawk]

English has become the de facto international language because the last two dominant world powers -- the English and now we Americans -- speak it. There is no other reason.

That's not the reason at all.

It has become the international language not becouse the US and Britain are *powers*, but because they are dominant in trade. At this point, the use of English in international trade is proably sufficient that it would continue even if the US and England suddenly started speaking Etruscan . . .

hawk

Re:that's not why

[sgtrock]

It has become the international language not becouse the US and Britain are *powers*, but because they are dominant in trade.

Strange. I thought being "dominant in trade" was a perfectly sufficient reason to define a nation as a "power". :)

Re:that's not why

[hawk]

The usual reference to a "power" or "superpower" is military, not trade.

hawk

Re:that's not why

[808140]

For what it's worth, at least with respect to the English and the Americans, both are true (they are/were powers both in terms of trade and military capacity).

Hawk makes a very good point regarding the way the words are typically used, though. In this case, though, I primarily meant mercantile prowess, not military prowess... but I can see how my post may have been ambiguous.

Note for example that while the USSR was indisputably a world power, the use of Russian as an "international language" only ever gained any currency in those areas (communist countries) where they were a major trade presence. Because of their rather isolationist policies regarding the west, Russian was never an important language anywhere else. So I think Hawk's point certainly stands... I just don't think it was any different from my point ;)

Monolithic Dome Institute....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.monolithicdome.com/

Military applications

[natoochtoniket]

Even in relatively thin layers, concrete is much more bullet-resistant than any kind of canvas tent. Bullet-resistance is a very desirable feature for military applications.

Layers of something like gunite (used in swimming pools) might be added to make it thicker, if needed, for particular applications. The combination of very rapid construction with bullet-resistance should be very attractive from a military point of view.

That is the advantage of english

[geekoid]

You can speak it many different ways, and still be understood.
Depending on the culture, 'proper English' may not be the best to use.
Many people, including grammer Nazis, don't understand all the rules of the english language either; So those correction may not be correct.

Finally:
"... native-level fluency." is not the same as by the book English, not by a long shot.

The math is wrong.

[wfroese]

16 square meters is way more than 172 square feet. Now judging that the conversions seem to be in parens I would take the 16 square meters to be correct - that would be over 2700 square feet.

Re:The math is wrong.

[oninojudo]

No, it's not.

16 (square meters) = 172.222567 square feet

More fabric-formed concrete... fastfoot.com

[argent]

http://www.fastfoot.com/

Re:Wood is for tooth picks

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live anything less than 30cm on steel reinforced concrete is considered a flimsy building.
-really-

You're home is your bunker!! -- should be the motto of Finnish builders.

Brick is unsafe in Earthquake Country

[billstewart]

I grew up in a brick house on the US East Coast, and brick and stone were fairly popular building materials - or woodframe with brick facing. But out here in California, it's not a useful material, because it doesn't behave well in earthquakes. Too many parts of the world do use brick or stone houses in earthquake country - leading to tens of thousands of deaths when there's a big quake in places like Iran or Armenia. Cement works ok, because you can put lots of rebar in it.

BOFH like madness

[r3tude]

I think this is cool. For the BOFH like folk out there what better to wrap dead bodies in. just add water and they've got cement shoes too.

Earthquakes

[MonkeyCookie]

In California, wood and drywall structures are often preferred because they hold up to earthquakes pretty well. Brick and stone tends to collapse in an earthquake.

There are of course steel beam and concrete structures that supposedly hold out pretty well in earthquakes, but as you said, those are a lot more expensive than wood and drywall.

Prefab vs. Stick-built Wood Frame Houses

[billstewart]

People who live in different areas seem to have different prejudices about housing construction types. Almost any construction type can be done well or shoddily, and how long an adequately built house lasts often depends more on maintenance than on construction materials. A decently-maintained woodframe house can last centuries in the appalling weather of New England, as long as fire and termites don't get it (which can be a problem, since termites had a long head-start over modern pesticides and modern barrier techniques.) I've done reconstruction on 150-year-old houses where the termites were winning (e.g. a 20cm x 10cm beam was about 3/4 chewed away.) The outer sheeting's important - my clapboard cedar house didn't strictly need paint, though it helped a bit, and too much modern construction uses materials than may not last. But the inner sheetrock is more cosmetic - it's easier to replace or repair than plaster, but I've lived in apartments where the sheetrock was coming off ten years after they were built.

I grew up in an area of the US Middle Atlantic East Coast where most houses were brick or stone - they last a long time unless they get foundation problems, but they're often hard to insulate and if water ever starts leaking into the basement, the basement becomes unfixable. Here in California, you can't safely build with those materials because of earthquakes - adobe houses worked ok, but wood-frame is a really good technology, as long as you do a few things correctly.

I've also lived in well-built wood-frame houses, and in badly-built wood-frame houses. In many coastal areas, where hurricanes and floods are a problem, the standard construction is to drive a bunch of piles into the ground and build the house on them, elevated however high you need to for average floods. In a really bad hurricane, yeah, they'll blow away, but the sandy ground can't support a brick/stone house, and it's much easier to replace the damaged parts than to repair a stone house that's been filled with seawater and had the foundation undermined.

Human vs. Robotic Assembly for Prefab

[billstewart]

Humans can do good work building prefab housing components also - working in a factory, it's dry, with consistent temperatures, you've got more control over your materials and less waste, you can use better tools because they don't have to be as portable, you can do more of the work standing on the ground, and the workers are doing more consistent tasks (which is useful for skill development and product consistency, though that also means that you can hire lower-skilled workers and it can be boring.)

Also, robots are much better at working with predictable consistent materials than they are at working with things that require adaptability and judgement. Steel pretty much does what you expect, and sheetrock does if you're careful. Wood isn't always that consistent, depending on the aging process, twistiness, dampness, etc. It's really interesting to work on a construction project with Old Guys - they'll say things like "Hmm, that wood's still a bit green and it's got a bit of a twist to it, so push it over a bit this way while I drive a nail in from this direction, and as it dries it'll be less likely to split." Robots aren't likely to do that.

Then of course, you have to compare the risks of giant mecha robots going berserk vs. bored construction workers with power tools.

Concrete doesn't keep stuff out

[billstewart]

If you've got a door, bugs and thieves can still get in. It's not clear from the article whether this thing has a cement floor or not, though it's still probably more sturdy than a tent.

Snow loading? Fans/Energy?

[billstewart]

How do they deal with snow load?
I've seen inflatable tennis courts in cold country, but I'm pretty sure they required fans to keep them inflated, which is fine if you've got consistent electricity, which disaster areas usually don't.

You guys kill me

[newpath4comVersion2]

I invented this process a long time ago and wrote about it somewhere, probably in my novel... Although I didn't come up with that nice catchy name. I've been so busy taking down OPEC I had to just write some of my stuff out for free, that's all. http://tinyurl.com/66u6b, http://tinyurl.com/5u3nu, http://free.seekon.com/RileyAskInventor/ . You guys. You don't have ANY IDEA how much stuff I've written out for others to make so I could get to my destination on time. Well, no sense trying to list it all but I sent the idea to the MRI people 7-8 years ago that they could split a frequency in two so it could be aimed harmlessly thru the skin to cross paths underneath, melt subcutaneous fat and sculpt the human body. They did build it but they're not using it for the Masses of obese people as I suggested them to do. They made it to burn inoperable cancers inside the brain. They did good work but they chose the limelight instead of "cosmetic" (Boo). You have to maximize your effort, even if it means LOSING FORTUNES. Worldwide Health has to be PRIORITY NUMERO UNO, not pursuit of Riches like SlashDot. My last engine that does anti-gravity will pay me well enough to make up for all the give-aways... http://tinyurl.com/4sgnk . Woodrow Riley, http://www.newpath4.com/ . It's true, my delivery is amateur. Doesn't mean my inventions aren't real though.

do you LIKE the sound of a jackhammer?

[the_REAL_sam]

its not a pleasant sound. anything that's temporary but requires a jackhammer to remove shouldn't be used in the first place.