5 ms·
I understand that this is more of a proof of concept than a bridge built to solve a practical problem ... but it feels like this structure was engineered NOT to
by jawns 3y ago
I understand that this is more of a proof of concept than a bridge built to solve a practical problem ... but it feels like this structure was engineered NOT to solve a problem.
Normally bridges allow you to cross over something that you could not otherwise easily cross, such as a stream, a gully, or a competing transport path.
But this bridge basically sits over some flat paths that are easy to traverse as-is, and it makes them harder to traverse, because now you need to go up and down the bridge.
Indeed, because of the bumpiness of the structure, I would not be surprised if it is inaccessible for wheelchairs and bicycles, where a flat path would have been adequate.
So as a technical feat, I guess it achieves its desired purpose, but it has negative practical value.
- bradly 3y ago> but it feels like this structure was engineered NOT to solve a problem. The problem they are trying to solve is how to quickly and efficiently build bridges. They built something to facilitate learning how to do that in the most practical means for them.
- shmichael 3y agoCan't wait to read your review of the Wright Brothers' first (utterly "useless" and dangerous) flight. :)
- idiotsecant 3y agoBridges are a somewhat solved problem at this point. Novelty for the sake of novelty when the end product is worse is not good engineering.
- Aurornis 3y agoThe bridge is just a demo piece for the manufacturing technology. I can’t believe this has to be said, but they’re not trying to invent bridges that go over flat land. It’s a demo piece. This is like when someone gets a 3D printer and prints a 3D Benchy boat. Making toy boats is a solved problem, but that’s not the point of the 3D printer.
- jrockway 3y agoI mean, that was an airplane that flew. This is a bridge that doesn't cross anything, and we already have a ton of bridges that cross things. At best this is an art installation, but we already have a ton of 3D printed art. So the novelty factor just isn't the same. At the end of the day, I'd be interested in what engineering challenges are being solved here. Does this no-tension-members design scale up to let vehicles pass over a river? If so, this is interesting.
- helpfulmountain 3y agoI agree. It may be primarily about integrating the new construction process and a proof of concept for more ambitious projects, but my overall impression is definitely that this is a poor showcase for the technology: it feels sort of embarrassingly academic.
- Nevermark 3y agoEmbarrassing? Researchers create many “toy” demos. There is often a progression of stages to a full “proof of concept”. Where is the downside to an intermediate research artifact that demos their current tech level — Which also happens to be a whimsical functional sculpture, adding interest to a grassy area? And very successfully creating awareness of their efforts? Nothing remotely “embarrassing” (or “academic”, in the negative use of that word) here.
- drewcoo 3y agoIt looked to me like the bridge goes over the low spot that always fills with water when it rains a lot. And in addition to the new bridge, there appears to be a French drain trailing off down the shallow gully toward a chain link fence. I looked at the secondary link someone else posted: https://www.designboom.com/technology/holcim-3d-prints-phoenix-reinforcement-free-concrete-bridge-12-14-2023/ https://www.designboom.com/technology/holcim-3d-prints-phoen...
- Aurornis 3y ago> But this bridge basically sits over some flat paths that are easy to traverse as-is It’s a tech demo. They’re showing the manufacturing technology for manufacturing things, not for building bridges where they aren’t needed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]