Talk:Geodesic dome

message: aren't encyclopedia articles always in 3rd person? I think this should be edited  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.116.124 (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: use of 1st person in the Chord Factors area

message: More detail on the dome and the snowplow would be helpful; it reads like a web-rumor, though it may well be true. Is it in fact associated with the University? Disambiguation uncertain, choosing Princeton, New Jersey. Septentrionalis 20:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Princeton

message: Can someone explain this? 
:The dome shape leaves most of the interior surface unusable because of the sharply sloping roof lines. For example, in a 20 foot tall dome, only the bottom 8 feet or so are really usable.
'Cuz I don't get it. In a 20-foot-tall room, only the bottom eight feet or so are really usable—that's about as high as I can reach, how 'bout you? We use the rest of the space by dividing it into two floors, and obviously the second floor in a dome is going to be much smaller than the first—but that is because the roof angles are shallow near the apex, not because they're steep. Am I even on the right track toward a clarification here, or did the author mean something completely different? eritain 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The curse of the dome is that rectangles fit together in ways that circles don't. I've had a go at clarifying this. ...dave souza 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space usability, slope of roof 

message: Every technology has its own quirks.
Perhaps we should collect and summarize the problems with geodesic domes.
--DavidCary 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of geodesic domes 

message: The article keeps stating that cost is a major issue but if I understand geodesic domes correctly construction costs should be considerably lower than a regular home. Am I correct?
Yes, you are correct... the bigger a Geodesic Dome gets, the cheaper it becomes per amount of volume compared to a regular building.--Bridgeengineer05282 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: One might want to mention here other buildings like Kresge Auditorium whose architecture is derivative of the geodesic domes.  Anyone knows exactly?  Mhym 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Related buildings

message: Just a heads-up - two of the links point to pages on www.desertdomes.com --Benplaut 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant links 

message: Someone added this comment to the article. Disputes should be on the talk page, not in the article, so I moved it here until it can be checked out:
www.telacommunications.com/geodome.htm Dr. Walter Bauersfeld Chief Designer of the Carl Zeiss works at Jena, East Gemany designed the Geodesic Dome in 1922 for a Planetarium. The Fuller Patent is a Photocopy with Fuller's name substituted.
--Heron 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited URL doesn't mention any patents, and may have been revised since the comment was added. I don't know if the part about the Fuller patent is true, but it wouldn't be surprising, since it's well known that the Allies confiscated (~ stole) much German industrial knowledge and intellectual property after both World Wars, even going so far as to assign "patents" to such purloined knowledge.  For those familiar with the history of Revolution Helicopter, it's clear that such shenanigans occur even outside the context of war spoils, when an inventor is slow or hasn't the funds to register his design internationally. —QuicksilverT @ 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bauersfeld claim 

message: there's some confusion here between chord factor (having to do with the length of each strut) and frequency (having to do with how many times the platonic solid is being subdivided)
It's easy to get bogged down in a lot of detail: does the user want to know the math involved in constructing a geodesic dome? Would it be sufficient to just get the 'recipe', a list of chord factors? Or does it even matter that one can build a dome out of tetrahedrons, octahedrons, or icosohedrons?
Anansi133 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chord factors and frequency 

message: This article contains a list of large geodesic domes according to the Buckminster Fuller Institute.  However, at least one of the domes on that list, the Tacoma Dome, is definitely *not* a geodesic dome.  (Check out the Tacoma Dome article.)  The BFI list is labeled only as being the ten largest domes -- not "geodesic domes" -- in the world.
So... Wikipedia says this is a list of geodesic domes, BFI says it's a list of not-necessarily-geodesic domes.  Wikipedia is implying that the Tacoma Dome is geodesic; it is not.
I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages.  What is the right way to resolve this misleading implication?  19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously no one responded to this, but the user must have misread the verbiage in the article, because one look at the interior of the Tacoma Dome is sufficient to show someone that it is built as a geodesic dome. 12.207.212.130 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of geodesic domes 

message: I am new to working with Wikipedia but this article has some startlingly incorrect information in it, particularly under the "Disadvantages" section.  I'd like to know what process to go through to remove and correct information in this section without stepping on someone's toes.  I am a geodesic dome expert with 30+ years designing / building domes.  I have been involved in well over a thousand dome projects, and I feel I could more accurately author this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Okvomit (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2007
Please, have at it.  I would appreciate it if you log any significant changes and their justification to this discussion page, so that you can get a discussion of any caustic topics.  Your expertise would be appreciated. --Phays 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information in this post 

message: Anyone willing to undertake the rather unromantic task of cleaning up the Largest domes section?  My chief concern is that the text appears to refer to , where there are only 10 domes listed.  Of course, this information may be quite dated, and if there is a more recent source available, then it should be referenced.  (And the domes should be put into decreasing order of size, which they appear not to be.)  If a source cannot be found, then I suggest that the list be restored to its original form.  Silly rabbit (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the list. The original list from BFI had somehow missed the Polyhedron in Caracas, built in 1974. Was it deliberately left out because it does not have a circular base? Two other domes built later are also large enough to be in the top 10 now. I also switched the order of two of them based on information on other wiki pages that appears to be more accurate. The BFI site no longer has this list current, but I did not want to remove the reference because other than a Youtube video, I could find no other reliable authoritative list of largest geodesic domes. If some other editor prefers, the list could just be completely redone and referenced to as many other wiki pages as possible, instead of the Fuller Institute. For now it is really a 'top 13', but there are even a few other domes that could surpass the last 3 on the BFI list. Rather than a top 10, a new list might consist of any verified domes of 400 feet diameter or more. That would keep it around a dozen.12.207.212.130 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest domes section 

message: There is what appears to be off-topic material in the Methods_of_construction section — references to concrete and foam plastic domes.  This is construction that is typically used on non-geodesic domes. —QuicksilverT @ 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic material 

message: Awhile back there were some skeptical comments about the article's claim that geodesic domes get stronger as they get larger (and indeed that they are the only man-made structures with this property). There was quite a bit of arm-waving, but no one really answered the question (as far as I can tell). On the face of it, the claim that geodesic domes get stronger as they get larger doesn't even make sense. It would have to be clarified before it could even achieve the status of being wrong. I suggest that if no one can back up that statement, it should be removed.  Any objections? 63.24.57.198 (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'A fuller explanation: The Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller' by Amy C Edmonson supports this claim on page xv of the introduction. From a brief skim through the rest of the book, it appears accurate but I haven't seen any direct justification for the claim. Robin S (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stronger as it gets larger? 

message: Hi. Just wondering how the Climatron dome, built in 1960, could be inspired by a 1972 science-fiction film. I imagine this caption needs to be changed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willie D (talk • contribs) 06:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climatron caption 

message: The "Methods of construction" section begins "Wooden domes have a hole drilled in the width of a strut. A stainless steel band locks the strut's hole to a steel pipe."  Well, no.  That's one way to do it, but hardly the only or best way.  And the claim that stainless steel bands are "the way" that wooden domes are locked together is absurd; there's an infinite number of materials that could be used.  The entry goes on to also make such definitive claims about domes made from other materials.  To wit: "Panelized domes are constructed of separately-framed timbers covered in plywood."  No, again.  Panelized domes can be made of any one of countless materials, from  styrofoam covered with paper to solid gold covered with titanium.  Someone needs to go in and Wikify this section.  Anyone? Bricology (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Methods of construction" -- oddly definite claims 

message: "The shape of a dome house makes it difficult to conform to code requirements...."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.113.165 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What code would this be?

message: I can get a picture of the building at Forest & Cherry in Carbondale, IL for this article. Feedback?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.139.238 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: picture of dome home on Forest&Cherry

message: First things first:  This is a really good GIF.  I enjoyed watching it spin until I put the brakes on and tried to use it to explain geodesic domes to the uninitiated.  Now I see the curious "twisted" in the file information.  I checked the companion illustration and it is also twisted.  I wonder how they got twisted but more importantly, why?  I was trying to use the frames of the animation for educational purposes and found myself hanging by a thread and losing the respect of my students when nothing I told them about geodesic domes was borne out by the illustration.  I think this should be removed from the geodesic dome page.  It simply is not an illustration of a geodesic dome.  It is a bad joke in a serious encyclopedia.  You will not immediately see what I am complaining about unless you can stop the animation and trace from the center of one of the pentagons (which are the apexes of the basic icosahedron) along the line which exits the pentagon at any of the five apexes.  You should encounter the center of another pentagon, but you will not in this illustration.  If you look carefully as your tracing passes three triangles, you will see you have arrived at an edge of another pentagon.  This is how the geodesic sphere is "twisted".  It is not an illustration of a geodesic dome.  
Anewcharliega (talk)
:Geodesic domes are often described as Class I, II, or III according to their relationship with a base polyhedron. The animation is a Class III model based on an icosahedron. The parameters of 3 and 1 mean that you can travel between the base vertices (the 5-way vertices) by stepping 3 edges in one direction then 1 edge in another. Class III domes don't seemed to be used much in construction (e.g. Skylights Types), nor even mentioned very much. There is overlap with the T Number in virology, the table in the Capsid article shows Class I (k=0), Class II (h=k) and Class III (h=/=k with k=/=0) geodesic spheres.Antiprism (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated Illustration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130319084511/http://www.physics.princeton.edu:80/~trothman/domes.html to http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/domes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100412163621/http://www.bfi.org:80/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes to http://bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100412163621/http://www.bfi.org:80/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes to http://www.bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102171002/http://www.mero-tsk.de/uploads/tx_cwtcartoongallery/Eden_Project_english.pdf to http://www.mero-tsk.de/uploads/tx_cwtcartoongallery/Eden_Project_english.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505104923/http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/matinee.cfm?Film=aus-pow2&File=world to http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/matinee.cfm?Film=aus-pow2&File=world
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the Cinesphere from the account of notable geodesic domes.  Yes, writers who don't know better do often describe it as a geodesic dome, when it was described as a "radial dome", when it was built, and is now called a "triodetic dome".
The Cinesphere has a pole, and its triangles are stacked, in layers, similar to the lines of latitude on a geography Globe.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction 

message: Not far into the article's History section, this sentence occurs—what should it actually say?  Should it be two sentences?  Should the info be unraveled and put into two different paragraphs?
"Some 20 years later, R. Buckminster Fuller named the dome "geodesic" lattice of interlocking icosahedrons that could be skinned with a protective cover."Joel Russ (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the revision that caused that sentence: . Before that revision, it read "Some 20 years later, R. Buckminster Fuller named the dome "geodesic" from field experiments with artist Kenneth Snelson at Black Mountain College in 1948 and 1949.  Snelson and Fuller worked developing what they termed "tensegrity," an engineering principle of continuous tension and discontinuous compression that allowed domes to deploy a lightweight lattice of interlocking icosahedrons that could be skinned with a protective cover." The edit comment is "tensegrity has nothing to do with geodesic domes", so I think they were trying to delete the second sentence and missed. I've restored the first sentence. -Apocheir (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence reads wrong - please decipher & correct 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001256/http://www.kristallsalzwelt.com/KristallSalzWelt%20ARCHITEKTUR.html to http://www.kristallsalzwelt.com/KristallSalzWelt%20ARCHITEKTUR.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just cut out...
“The first site in the UK to use them was Ekopod  in North Cornwall in 2009.”
...as it looks ill-fitting and anachronistic and I can’t see what purpose it might serve except as an advertisement. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic archived reference 

message: It seems the last layout change has taken it's toll on the presentability  and comprehensibility of many articles, some should look into it. عبدالرحمن بن ركن الدين (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Update after the last layout change. 

message: Yeah, this is something I've DEFINITELY seen a dome like this in Super Mario Odyssey. If you look closely at the background of the Wooded Kingdom, you can spot one of these domes. Obscure reference, but definitely crazy. 2603:7080:DC02:5FB5:793E:DA00:BD3E:B40C (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the game, but an image search brings up this screengrab.  I'm not sure this dome is geodesic — it appears to be just a triangular grid, like this.  I'd have to see a vertex somewhere that is not hexagonal to know for sure.  --Lasunncty (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel like I've seen this befo... WAIT A MINUTE! 

message: The article states that a geodesic dome is based on a geodesic polyhedron, and such a polyhedron is in turn made of triangles. Does this mean that a geodesic dome also should be made of triangles in order to be called a geodesic dome? What about domes that are made of hexagons and the occasional pentagon, such as those in the Eden Project? —Kri (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are based on the Goldberg polyhedra, which are dual to the geodesic polyhedra.  So they are closely related.  A Google search for "Goldberg dome" returns only a handful of results, so I'm not sure if that would be the correct term or not.  --Lasunncty (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tile shapes?