Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

wikihouse.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 223 posts

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#81

Post by cyberax »

cpursley wrote: post #21
bawolff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type are you supposed to use to represent total cost when spending infinite money for 0 days?

It seems the Romans took their concrete type secrets to the grave.

Modern concrete with superplasticizers is far superior to Roman concrete.

The greatest limiting factor is not the concrete itself, but rebar. It will eventually rust, causing the concrete to spall and crack. So in most cases it makes no sense to really optimize the concrete lifetime, because why bother?

If you're willing to build structures that rely only on compression and gravity, then we can totally do stuff that the Romans never dreamt of. Just look at any modern concrete gravity dam as an example.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#82

Post by westurner »

sjfjsjdjwvwvc wrote: post #24

There is a pretty cool project for a complete open source village: - https://www.opensourceecology.org/ Supposed to be all the machines you need to supply a whole village, made from low cost basic materials. I think it’s from 2014 not sure if it’s still being worked on or if anyone actually has used the blueprints in a real world scenario.

TIL about The Liberator: The world's first open source compressed earth brick press. https://www.opensourceecology.org/back-to-compressed-earth-b...

A multiple-CEB unit that makes interlocking blocks that don't require mortar could build on work from this project.

Add'l notes on CEB, Algae, Sargassum, Hemp in the 2024 International and US Residential Building Code, LEGO-like Hempcrete block: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37693225

FWIU Round homes fare best in windstorms: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37175721#37188180

And curvy half walls one brick wide don't fall down

[CEB] "Crinkle crankle wall" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle_crankle_wall

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#85

Post by quickthrower2 »

bawolff wrote: post #17
cpursley wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lesson here: Lay your foundation with strong types.

What type are you supposed to use to represent total cost when spending infinite money for 0 days?

You need refinement types. Psuedocode:

    timespandays : int, timespandays > 0
your program can then be proven by the compiler not to NaN.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#86

Post by jtriangle »

class3shock wrote: post #73

I like the ethos but to me it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Why not just make standard sections of 2x4 or 2x6 framing? Start standardizing window sealing details? Literally anything that will actually get some use? Instead we get opensource plywood boxes? Using plywood for all of the structural components means if you get a leak, which all houses get, you are in danger of much more significant damage tha…

It's a flawed solution based on a misunderstanding of how houses are actually built/designed/engineered. Most of what you see being built today is dimensioned based on available timber. It's part of why all the houses look the same, because it's the most efficient way to build. Everything structural gets built with 2x4's or prefab trusses (which are also made of 2x4's), windows are all standard sizes, as are cabinets and flooring, and siding, and trim, and if you weren't terribly concerned with building homes that were interesting to look at, you could probably optimize all of this further on the design side of things and then prefab things like walls and door frames then lego them together and wind up with something much nicer and likely cheaper than what they're doing.

The premise isn't terribly flawed though, prefab everything into 4x8ft panels, standardize your roof trussing, standardize your layout, and you can probably dig up a little more margin for builders to put directly in their pockets, and have perfectly cookie cutter houses with no regard to the environment they're placed in. Not really a neighborhood I'd like to live in, but, also not too dissimilar from what most of america lives in, so, I suppose it's tolerable.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#88

Post by francis_t_catte »

class3shock wrote: post #73

I like the ethos but to me it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Why not just make standard sections of 2x4 or 2x6 framing? Start standardizing window sealing details? Literally anything that will actually get some use? Instead we get opensource plywood boxes? Using plywood for all of the structural components means if you get a leak, which all houses get, you are in danger of much more significant damage tha…

wait until you learn about 'engineered beams'

I shudder thinking about all the structures built with those things that're one undetected bathtub drain leak away from serious structural failure.

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#89

Post by hkt »

class3shock wrote: post #73

I like the ethos but to me it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Why not just make standard sections of 2x4 or 2x6 framing? Start standardizing window sealing details? Literally anything that will actually get some use? Instead we get opensource plywood boxes? Using plywood for all of the structural components means if you get a leak, which all houses get, you are in danger of much more significant damage tha…

Marine plywood is a thing that obviates the problem somewhat. Admittedly though, a very very expensive thing.

When that's factored in, you may as well build with straw bales. (really, it is great, and much cheaper)

Re: Wikihouse: Open-Source Houses

#90

Post by rzl1235 »

cyberax wrote: post #81
cpursley wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the Romans took their concrete type secrets to the grave.

Modern concrete with superplasticizers is far superior to Roman concrete. The greatest limiting factor is not the concrete itself, but rebar. It will eventually rust, causing the concrete to spall and crack. So in most cases it makes no sense to really optimize the concrete lifetime, because why bother? If you're willing to build structures that rely only on compression and gravity, then we can totally do stuff that…

[dead]
Post reply on HN