Live data from Hacker News

Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

twistedsifter.com

221–230 of 278 posts

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just like, your opinion man. Worm is a cool word. Maybe we can compromise and call it a wyrm fence.

Wyrm fence is a great name! I'd use one to keep my hoard of treasure safe

Sounds like the name of a startup thats going to put fence contractors out of business in a few years before getting sued for not classifying their workers as employees.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is so bad at naming things! A Serpentine Wall sounds better than a Worm Fence or Snake Fence. Crinkle Crankle Wall is a bit more fun than ZigZag Fence. A Ribbon Wall seems like a nice thing to have on your property vs a Battlefield Fence.

I'd've called it a chazzwozzer.

[deleted]

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most will stand unless they need high wind resistance (or are buttressed). There are many practical cases for a straight wall of bricks, it's not an "impractical case."

> > If a one brick thick straight wall can't stand Caveat there is quite significant. > There are many practical cases for a straight wall of bricks Indeed the vast majority of cases yes.

[deleted]

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#225

> these wavy walls actually use less bricks than a straight wall because they can be made just one brick thin, while a straight wall— without buttresses —would easily topple over. And what about a straight wall with buttresses? Can we make them just as sturdy with fewer bricks?

No, that’s sort of the point? There are fewer extra bricks used to make the curve than would be required to buttress / reinforce a straight wall.

> There are fewer extra bricks used to make the curve than would be required to buttress

Where does it say that?

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#227

Another "article" summarizing a reddit post. They even took the top comment and put it at the end > wavy walls that lawnmowers surely detest!

Lawn edges that can't be mowed, because of a house wall or something, are an issue at my place. If just leave the grass at the edge, it grows long, then grows to seed, and the long grass seems to expand in width inexorably over time.

I don't want to use a plastic-shedding line trimmer or herbicides. I end up pulling out the grass near the edge, leaving a bare strip that takes a while to grow back, but it's a bit labour-intensive.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary point is that you can't make an equivalently thin straight wall due to natural (wind and gravity, primarily) forces. Kinda weird to summarize it without the crux of why .

> Kinda weird to summarize it without the crux of why. I agree, the headline did a very poor job of summarizing.

Yet, you did an even worse job expounding.

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most will stand unless they need high wind resistance (or are buttressed). There are many practical cases for a straight wall of bricks, it's not an "impractical case."

> > If a one brick thick straight wall can't stand Caveat there is quite significant. > There are many practical cases for a straight wall of bricks Indeed the vast majority of cases yes.

> Caveat there is quite significant

and missing from the title

Re: Wavy walls use fewer bricks than a straight wall (2020)

#230

Would it be stronger for the same amount of bricks if it didn't have the inflection point where there is no curvature, and instead had intersecting arcs like: ︾︾︾︾ ?

If you made the arcs deeper than the curves of the wave I think yes. If you just sliced and flipped the arcs from the original wave, no. It'd be a straightforward calculation for the moment of inertia but I'm too lazy to do it. It's all about placing the most mass farthest from the centroid line.
Post reply on HN