Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Kirby's excuse? so where are we
Posted:
Aug 9, 2013 4:36 PM


My conclusions based on the Alanprovided charts is some people went with the 1/3rd volume of the tetrahedron inside the Redged cube (R = radius of sphere), and multiplied through by 3, to get a unit tet, which these people then identified with the unit volume tet in Synergetics.
This is wrongheaded and contradicts what's in Synergetics.
In actual fact, you MUST build the unit tetrahedron of Synrgetics using four Rradius spheres (diameter = D = 2R). Anything deviating from this is wrong, if you want to play in the synergetics sandbox.
You cannot pack spheres densely enough to be on every corner of the cube, that will not be CCP (= FCC). So pick one set of corners or the other for your spheres. The tetrahedron defined by four balls of radius R will have all six edges D. That's the unit volume in Synergetics.
This is not just something I made up. This is clearly spelled out by Bucky himself. There is zero ambiguity here.
I think Frank Zubek had the misfortune to absorb a lot of confused wrongheaded memes, like a sponge. Ever since, he's been spewing a lot of misinformation about synergetics. A few people tried to point out his mistakes, including me. But others were secretly or not so secretly tired of Fuller and just wanted to see the misinformation spread around. It worked to their advantage (in the short term).
Zubek was their pawn.
This all backfired though, as I continued to remain clear and to spell out in great detail where Zubek was confused. I will have no problem continuing to counter the misinformation. As a result, more and more people will get clear on the basics, so inadvertently / precessionally, synergetics is getting a boost.
Kirby
 End of Forwarded Message



