201–210 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, this is the same technology used to make....... bricks. We used to make homes out of bricks, and we could do that again, now that lumber is expensive.
Are you suggesting that this whole building be set on fire? Because unfired bricks are crap.
Lots of unfair negativity here. I think this is wonderful. HN is full of random hacked-up tech that will never solve the worlds problems but nonetheless give a glimpse at what alternatives could look like. Experiments. This is what this is, and in my opinion it's stunning and I would move into one in an instant.
The negativity is no more unwarranted than positivity. Each depends on what problem a person values. In terms of housing the unhoused this doesn’t do anything. In terms of aesthetic possibilities for people with money it provides another option where a wide array of options already exist. In HN terms, this is a “rewritten in Haskell.” It demonstrates someone understands a bit about 3D printing. It demonstrates some i…
"It doesn’t demonstrate a better solution to existing problems."
"They are bread or nothing."
And this guy starts off his reply with "The negativity is no more unwarranted than positivity."
Why do I always see these kind of comments on the top?
Does HN scrutinize everything based on the "practicality of things"? This article is multiple galaxy away from making such a claim. Why do people respond like the next million dollar housing solution is being advertised here?
Lots of unfair negativity here. I think this is wonderful. HN is full of random hacked-up tech that will never solve the worlds problems but nonetheless give a glimpse at what alternatives could look like. Experiments. This is what this is, and in my opinion it's stunning and I would move into one in an instant.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negativity is no more unwarranted than positivity. Each depends on what problem a person values. In terms of housing the unhoused this doesn’t do anything. In terms of aesthetic possibilities for people with money it provides another option where a wide array of options already exist. In HN terms, this is a “rewritten in Haskell.” It demonstrates someone understands a bit about 3D printing. It demonstrates some i…
"In terms of housing the unhoused this doesn’t do anything" "It doesn’t demonstrate a better solution to existing problems." "They are bread or nothing." And this guy starts off his reply with "The negativity is no more unwarranted than positivity." Why do I always see these kind of comments on the top? Does HN scrutinize everything based on the "practicality of things"? This article is multiple galaxy away from maki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. Having worked in building construction, both classes of coatings would have relevant applications. I was going to complain that Mapei has not released any technical details, but it appears they have: https://www.mapei.com/it/en/news-and-events/event-detail/201... However, that their "water-repellent" provides "waterproofing" does not clear things up.
The actual products that make it work: Mapesoil 10.[1] "High-performance, fibre-reinforced powdered stabilising agent for sports sub-base contruction surfaces".The amount of Mapesoil 10 required is 3%-5% of the dirt weight. Comes in 500kg bags, on pallets. Dynamon SR4 [2] "Superplasticizer based on acrylic polymer for concrete with long slump retention". About 1%-2% of the mix. That gets the material through the 3D p…
I would call that a feature. Building forms is basically building the entire building out of wood (or metal), then building it again out of concrete. Single family homes or multi-unit low rises don't require low void high compressive strength. They need speed. Residential prefab never caught on in North America. Maybe this will. If it is cheap.
Lots of unfair negativity here. I think this is wonderful. HN is full of random hacked-up tech that will never solve the worlds problems but nonetheless give a glimpse at what alternatives could look like. Experiments. This is what this is, and in my opinion it's stunning and I would move into one in an instant.
If you go onto the various engineering and construction subreddits, along with subscribe to various construction trade magazines, these "experiments" pop up all the time. "New" methods. "New" materials. They're "new" if you've never seen them before. However, there's a good chance a real scientific approach to this was done half to a full decade earlier and abandoned for a good reason, which is never mentioned. Unrealistic, fanciful designs are great ways to hide the flaws and look cool because of uniqueness. Too many of these projects detract from more practical methods all in the name of, "We're out to save the world, throw money at us and question nothing!" Basically, think Theranos. Detracting from real, practical, truly well-meaning but unsexy projects is where I get angry.
There are 3D concrete printers out there. There's an Aussie one that escapes me that's just about commercially viable if it isn't already. There are plenty others, but the Aussie one was in the lead last I knew. Another company does an arm that can pick/place brick/blocks. While a bit slow, in like a 36 some odd hour non-stop cycle, it can build a regular, practical, normal, everyday, conventional 2 bed-room house. There are other solutions that are proven. Past experimentation. Past testing. Past prototyping. In production. Ready to go... except attention and investment is given to art projects. Which then hurts the image further for REAL projects because investors will immediately categorize them with these doomed to fail art projects. Remember, construction folks don't really care about form, it's all about function. Cost-effective, practical construction methodology for cost-effective, practical buildings that meet up to local building codes and requirements. Not art projects.
As a separate example of the silliness I'm describing: There's a really fun "innovative material" made from mycelium (fungus) that pops up as "brand new" every quarter. The main substrate does change every now and then, but generally it's a sawdust brick with a fungus allowed to spread into it and form chitin. This new magical brick is biodegradable and uses waste material... except no one likes to mention that they can only maintain ~40 PSI of compression while a standard cement block is rated for a minimum of 3,000 PSI. That's why it's always used in very artsy-fartsy designs to hide the limitations. Oh, and the one thing a building shouldn't be is "biodegradable". Also known as engineered-failure in about a 2 year timespan. We haven't even gotten to viability in windy, swampy, monsoon, seismic, freezing, high freeze/thaw cycles or any other special building conditions.
I so incredibly hate these art projects with a fiery passion because normies imagine, "This will help the poors". No, it won't.
So yes, in the end, negativity is warranted. It's a nice line of logic and experimentation... but earthen homes are a niche and 200 hours isn't that impressive (8+ days). A handful of people can build an impact earth home of the same size in a week by hand with no machinery. Just hand tools. This is on the scope of a cannon against a mosquito level of practicality.
In all of these demos, they never show you the resulting bathroom, shower, or kitchen. It's always "here's a shell we made". I'd like to see the finished house, with fixtures in place and working.
Not sure that fitting a bathroom or kitchen is the difficult part of the concept, though. It reminds me a little of an old Grand Designs episode. [0] Different, in that (AFAICT) the 3D-printed house isn't designed to have high thermal mass (the 'earthship' concept) but it gives an idea how a fully-functional house can be crafted from a lot of earth and work quite well. [0] https://www.granddesignsmagazine.com/grand-d…
That looks like good substrate for some kind of fat polymer coating.
Needs windows.
How does it stand up to the wet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negativity is no more unwarranted than positivity. Each depends on what problem a person values. In terms of housing the unhoused this doesn’t do anything. In terms of aesthetic possibilities for people with money it provides another option where a wide array of options already exist. In HN terms, this is a “rewritten in Haskell.” It demonstrates someone understands a bit about 3D printing. It demonstrates some i…
"In terms of housing the unhoused this doesn’t do anything" "It doesn’t demonstrate a better solution to existing problems." "They are bread or nothing." And this guy starts off his reply with "The negativity is no more unwarranted than positivity." Why do I always see these kind of comments on the top? Does HN scrutinize everything based on the "practicality of things"? This article is multiple galaxy away from maki…
And that’s perfectly valid insofar as nutritional content is not a consideration. Insofar as a person has plenty of access to fresh fruit and vegetables.
Not everyone is so far up Madlow’s pyramid. Their needs are also legitimate. My comment is a response to the scolding of people who consider them in their judgment of the project’s merit.