X-Message-Number: 13531 From: "Trygve B. Bauge" <> Subject: VS: New cryonics facility in Arizona. SV:SV: Response to Letter "Terrain integrated cryonics facility, yes or no?" Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:07:20 +0200 Dette er en flerdelt melding i MIME-format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CE_01BFA43C.FB535A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I am on the Board of Scientific Advisors Society For Experimental Gerontological Research. The latter society has about 3 million dollars, that is in the process of being committed to the construction of a new cryonic research facility in Arizona, together with a similar amount from a Florida cryonics organization. Sincerely, Trygve Bauge. I thought the Cryonet & the Cryonics-Euro list might be interested in the attached e-mail. Life-Extension Systems, the Norwegian Icebathing Assoc. & Action 88. To borrow a VHS presentation of my work, send $50 to Trygve Bauge c/o Aksjon 88, Pb. 59 Hovseter, 0705 Oslo, Norway,Ph 47-2214-8078 E-mail: http://www.powertech.no/~trygveb/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Trygve B. Bauge To: ; faloon, william ; Saul Kent Cc: Charles Platt ; david pizer ; Yvan Bozzonetti ; Kevin Brown ; Linda Chamberlain ; Greg Fahy ; don Kleinsek ; Tom Matthews ; Ralph C. Merkle ; Kitty Raastad ; Mikhail Soloviev ; Bruce Waugh ; Jim Yount ; Roy Yowell ; ; ; Ben Best ; G.N.Productions ; Kjersti Sortland ; Channel 2 ; ; Kapital redaksjonen - ; Trygve B. Bauge (Html) ; ; ; Bo Shaffer ; 'Walter Goedecke' Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 4:09 AM Subject: SV: Response to Letter "Terrain integrated cryonics facility, yes or no?" To William Faloon, If you need my approval to release the money then you have that. However, the way I understood the conditions under which I was invited onto the board, the board was only to exist in an advisory capacity. and someone else was to make the actual decisions. That is why I hadn't responded with a yes or no yet, I didn't think you needed my approval. I still think that Formworks terrain integrated solution is best, in the longrun, and to attract clients. People like to see that what they invest in or will be stored in, is sturdy enough to survive all eventualities, including a host of dangers that hopefylly will never materialize. I also think you are paying to much for the design, and not getting your money's worth, it is not a criticism of your arcitect, but a criticisme I would have against most architects and against any conventional above ground facility, and any earthen bermed box structure (facility with flat roof or slightly vaulted roof ). I don't think that is the way to go for longrun cryonic storage. I have not received any indication that you have contacted Formworks or Dale Pearcey. Ph(970)-247-2100. However, the project is yours, and I have promissed to let you use the money you have collected, any way you want. I myself have recently been busy programming a new Meta portal: Trygve's Meta Portal http://www.powertech.no/~trygveb/ I am offering to host (under the meta portal) a home page for your new Arizona cryonic facility. If there is anything you want me to post about the project, e.g. drawings, cost overviews, maps, a venture plan, investment invitations, correspondance, press releases, etc. etc. etc. then please let me know, and I will be glad to add this to the menu I have set up for your project. Sincerely, Trygve Bauge. I haven't seen any email about your project for several weeks now, so what is the latest? I assume that as soon as the money is transfeered from the European trust to the US project, your plans for a European facility is dead, so to speak. That is something I regret, especially when one take into account that 150.000 people are deported from the US every year, and many Europeans are not permitted to visit or settle in the United States. I myself was deported back in 1994. The United States has at least 3 large cryonic facilities, Europe has none, that is why I liked your original idea of building something here. If for some reason your Arizona project does not pan out, then I suggest you challenge the Europeans to come up with matching funds to match your funds, so that a European facility can be built somewhere within the Schengen countries. Then I and other Europeans could be more actively involved, and would be able to both search for land, and visit and even move to the facility and work and live at this. Or do you have any other use for the members of the European board? One other consideration: You are planning a 20 million dollar project and has only 6 million dollars or so, to start with. Then it is better to build the best 6 million dollar facility you can get for the money, and later build additional facilities,- than to spend so much money on land, architects, design & land improvements for a 20 million dollar project, that you don't get to complete any facility, or just get to complete a much smaller facility. Even if you can parlay the dollar six million in equity into a construction loan and morgage for another 14 million dollars, you might still be better off by building 3 smaller projects at 7 million dollars each, than one big at 20 million. Three facilities could be done in steps, so that you would secure an income to serve the debt before taking on the debt. And you would limit your overhead expenses to no more than what the project and its owners already have available. If you want a larger project, why not try to increase the equity by inviting others to invest in the project or to buy and own parts of it, or to pay for separate facilities within the total project, so that you don't have to go with a construction loan or morgage? NB!!!! Please see below for a few comments as well, that I have inserted into what your architect Stephen Valentine wrote. It is clear to me, based on many years research into technology that can survive nuclear war, that his proposed house within a house, with earthen berms and earthen roof, can best and cheapest provide protection against nuclear blasts and radiation, if Formworks technology is chosen rather than the one he has outlined below. Furthermore studying the Formworks technology before the project programming is done, would much easier enable a fair comparison of the two technologies, and prevent a computer program that is biased. Knowing the technology would make it much easier to utilize and capitalize on its advantage during the programming stage, e.g. when setting up what variables and relations and functions to build into the program. If one doesn't know the technologies' requirements and advantages one would not be able to set up a program that correctly reflects and calculates the costs. NB!!!! Important comments inserted below!!! > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- (A letter from Stephen Valentine to a long list of cryonisists, with Trygve Bauge's later comments.) > > > 23 March 2000 > > > > > Bill, > > After seeing my recent letter dissected in such an odd way, I am sure > there are some great misunderstandings of the intent of my letter. In > no way was this letter presently directed towards any criticism of the > system named "Formworks" or any individuals associated with this > product. I thought that was very clear in my closing sentences of this > letter. For reference, I have again inserted the relevant sentence at > the end of this document. > > >From the onset of getting involved with the preliminary concept design > for a cryonics research & storage facility more than two years ago, my > personal goal was for designing a building with high security and > protection from both manmade and natural disasters. Anyone who may have > attended this presentation witnessed the many slides explaining the > research behind what was intended as the basis for the concept design. > Actually, some of my first considerations would have been to take over > an abandoned missile silo or even a railroad tunnel well within a > mountain, which has been suggested by some cryonicists. > > However, no site was given. I chose a location that avoided natural > disasters and I had days rather than months to pick a hypotheoritcal > location. Conventional wisdom had me select a slightly raised flat > site. I was grateful to be allowed a lot of freedom in developing the > concept design, but one of the criteria's that was early decided was > that the project was not to be buried, but instead to make a presence as > if a "spaceship" had landed. As for the later appropriate title, the > "Time Ship", a machine to make a safe journey through time. A space ship is mobile, and can move away from dangers, a raised, above ground box structure, on the other hand, is not a safe place for longrun cryogenic storage. What about fallout, background radiation or even brush fires? Large parts of the West burns every year, and over a few centuries almost everything burns at least once, at least in the bondoocks. Just look at Yellowstone, or Boulder county Colorado for that matter. And I assume similar fire statistics apply to Arizona. Just check the statistics for the last 150 years. And with cryonics we might have to be stored for much longer than that. And have we already forgotten about Hiroshima, and Chernobyl, and India/Pakistan, or China/Taiwan, or our own nuclear tast programs, and the likelihood that background radiation again might be a problem? > > The concept design that was presented in Las Vegas in 1997 is actually a > large elevated "sandbox", with proposed modular concrete fortified walls > (as in a castle) with earth filled around and on top of the entire > facility for reducing both cooling & heating demands and more > importantly, for an explosive/bomb resistance structure. This can be accomplished much cheaper with Form works thin shell vaulted reinforced shotcrete technology. To achieve the same safety with reinforced box structures takes much more concrete and steel, and is much more expensive. Ultimately you do not get the same safety with box structures that you get with the vaulted arched beam technology. > In essence, I > cleverly designed a buried building within a building without actually > appearing that way. Four separate seasonal parks or gardens were > placed on the top surface surrounding the laboratories, which was an > idea inspired by the great Swiss modernist architect, Le Corbusier. > With limited time of approximately two months and a tight budget, the > most one could expect is an architect's best guess to a solution and > then later when there was to be more time, each aspect of the design > would be carefully pulled apart and then scrutinized in detail. There > was no doubt, that all of this would have to be engineered at the next > phase if the design went further. > > When I say 60's technology with regard to concrete domes, that doesn't > mean it is bad, there is just nothing revolutionary about building one > and that perhaps there are other better building techniques or methods > that may exist now and should be explored for this particular project. > In matter of fact, I just returned from Hong Kong having given a lecture > to both structural & civil engineers on dome construction for in > concrete, steel geodesic (Bucky Fuller) and membrane building > materials. As probably you don't know, I was the co-inventor of the > first perfect hydronic tension dome and vaults using water, space frames > and membranes as building materials. It is considered today as one of > the most advanced experimental earthquake resistant structural/building > systems in the world. I am currently helping to establish a research > program at Hong Kong University's Civil Engineering Department to > evaluate seismic conditions in these hydronic type structures. > Unfortunately, this system could not be considered for this project due > to the large quantities of water required while within the proximity of > liquid nitrogen. > Neither would it seem to give any radiation protection. 2.2 inches of concrete or 3.3 inches of soil cuts radiation in half. It takes about 2 feet of concrete or about 3 feet of soil to cut radiation to about 1/1000 One can easily build Formworks facilities that can survive 210 pounds per square inch or 14 athmospheres over pressure, or half a mile from ground zero of a one megaton bomb, that is. Most bombs are one megaton or less. To survive even closer to ground zero of smaller bombs, becomes a question of surviving the radiation, and of reducing the inner radiation not to 1/1000th but to 1/millionth of the outer radiation. It is much cheaper to get such protection with 7 feet of soil than with 4 feet of concrete. This protection one can get with Formworks technology, at an affordable price. With box structures on the other hand it costs much more to get only a fraction of the above safety. Please consult an engineer who knows what it takes to survive nuclear war. He would tell you that most box structures cave in under similar shock and pressures, and that the distance between the walls have to be drastically reduced and the thickness and reinforcement of the roof drastically increased to create some resemblance of safety with box technology. And that Formworks technology takes far less concrete and steel to accomlish much butter protection. Formworks has access to such engineers. > As far as the concept of integrated design that is indigenous to the > environment, my career spans almost three decades of promoting this type > of construction. Unfortunately, interest in these ideas had lost its > momentum in the US by the early 80's with the end of the energy crisis, > except for some remaining survivalists. However, at the early stages of > this project, I brought in two of the most prominent and recognized > professionals in ecological design for the built environment, Prof. > Brent Porter and Dr. Anthony Dominski (former Professor at Yale > University and now the Director of an Environmental Impact Group for the > State of Florida). We spent a weekend just discussing some of the issues > that pertains to an integrated environmental design (including > alternative energy systems), which later helped determine some of the > design concepts. For the record, in 1991, I had won perhaps the largest > architectural competition commission awarded to a single architect, > "Super Paradise" a five billion dollar project in Japan for it's > innovation for a building design built within a mountainous environment > (unfortunately the economy collapsed shortly thereafter and was never > realized). > > As for design of secure buildings, while with the offices of I.M. Pei, I > was a Senior Design Architect for the highly acclaimed US Holocaust > Memorial Museum in Washington where security became obviously a great > concern with regard to terrorism and many building components and > systems were carefully integrated within the design. Another project, > in which I was the Project Architect, is the classified top-secret > design for the Gruman E2/C2 Aircraft radar assembly facility in Long > Island that was designed in case of nuclear war. > > Again, as I had mentioned at the beginning of this document and as > quoted from my March 18th letter with regard to "Formworks" Nest Eggs: > > "If you have a serious consideration of using this system, I would be > willing to research this product further once the programming phase has > been completed to evaluate this system's possible merits for use with > the project's defined requirements. Please specify what you mean with the programming face? Is this creating a computer program that lists a set of building requirements, and costs of each? Like a spread sheet that automatically upgrades the total cost when one changes some of the variables? If so, I suggest you compare the square footage cost of conventional blast shelters, with the square footage cost of Formworks technology, and the latter will win hands down. It is not just a question of creating a roof that can hold some soil,- to get some real protection, the roof has to hold 7 feet of soil even under 210 lbs per square inch in sudden over pressure. To accomplish that with conventional flat or slightly arched roofs, become cost prohibitive. Formworks system on the other hand accomplishes the same at no added cost. > Right now without any further > investigation my gut feeling is it won't be applicable to this specific > project, however I will still keep an open mind to this concept." > Trygve's response: Your gut feeling is wrong, and I hope you take the time to look into Formworks technology, so to not let your gut feeling trick you. I haven't seen Stephen Valentine's suggested design for the cryonic facility in Arizona, However, based on what he said above about creating a house within a house and having earthen berms between the walls and over the roof, it is clear to me that this can much cheaper be accomplished with Formworks vaulted technology than with any box structure or flat roof or slightly arched roof technology, particularly if the objective is to give protection against the blast and radiation from nearby nuclear explosions, but also if the objective is only to protect against fallout. Personally, if I had the money, I wouldn't hesitate to select Formworks technology. I do not have any economic interest in Form works, it was just the best affordable technology I found when I looked for technology that could be used to survive nuclear war, Sincerely, Trygve Bauge Ps. If you build something that is nuclear war-proof, then it is also earthquake proof, and storm and fire proof, and safe against a host of lesser dangers. So why not go for the best, when it is affordable, and clearly cheaper than any attempt at storing soil around and on top of any box structure, which seems to be your present design. > > Most sincerely, > > > > Prof. Stephen Valentine, RA (NCARB) > > ------=_NextPart_000_00CE_01BFA43C.FB535A00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3401" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=2>I am on the Board of Scientific Advisors Society For Experimental Gerontological Research.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>The latter society has about 3 million dollars, that is in the process of being committed to the construction of a new cryonic research facility in Arizona, together with a similar amount from a Florida cryonics organization.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Sincerely,</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Trygve Bauge.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>I thought the Cryonet & the Cryonics-Euro list might be interested in the attached e-mail.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face="Times New Roman">Life-Extension Systems, the Norwegian Icebathing Assoc. & Action 88.<BR>To borrow a VHS presentation of my work, send $50 to Trygve Bauge<BR>c/o Aksjon 88, Pb. 59 Hovseter, 0705 Oslo, Norway,Ph 47-2214-8078<BR>E-mail: <A href="mailto:"></A> <A href="http://www.powertech.no/~trygveb/">http://www.powertech.no/~trygveb/</A><BR> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A href="mailto:" title=>Trygve B. Bauge</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:" title=></A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>faloon, william</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Saul Kent</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A href="mailto:" title=>Charles Platt</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>david pizer</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Yvan Bozzonetti</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Kevin Brown</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Linda Chamberlain</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Greg Fahy</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>don Kleinsek</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Tom Matthews</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Ralph C. Merkle</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Kitty Raastad</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Mikhail Soloviev</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Bruce Waugh</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Jim Yount</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Roy Yowell</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=></A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=></A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Ben Best</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>G.N.Productions</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Kjersti Sortland</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Channel 2</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=></A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Kapital redaksjonen -</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Trygve B. Bauge (Html)</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=></A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=></A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>Bo Shaffer</A> ; <A href="mailto:" title=>'Walter Goedecke'</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 12, 2000 4:09 AM</DIV> <DIV><B>Subject:</B> SV: Response to Letter "Terrain integrated cryonics facility, yes or no?"</DIV></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>To William Faloon,<BR><BR>If you need my approval to release the money then you have that.<BR><BR>However, the way I understood the conditions under which I was invited onto<BR>the board,<BR>the board was only to exist in an advisory capacity.<BR>and someone else was to make the actual decisions.<BR><BR>That is why I hadn't responded with a yes or no yet, I didn't think you<BR>needed my approval.<BR><BR>I still think that Formworks terrain integrated solution is best, in the longrun,<BR>and to attract clients.<BR>People like to see that what they invest in or will be stored in, is sturdy<BR>enough to survive all eventualities, including a host of dangers that<BR>hopefylly will never materialize.<BR><BR>I also think you are paying to much for the design, and not getting your<BR>money's worth,<BR>it is not a criticism of your arcitect, but a criticisme I would have<BR>against most architects<BR>and against any conventional above ground facility,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>and any earthen bermed box structure (facility with flat roof or slightly vaulted roof ). <BR>I don't think that is the way to go for longrun cryonic storage.<BR><BR>I have not received any indication that you have contacted Formworks or<BR>Dale Pearcey. Ph(970)-247-2100.<BR><BR>However, the project is yours, and I have promissed to let you use the money<BR>you have collected, any way you want.<BR><BR>I myself have recently been busy programming a new Meta portal: Trygve's<BR>Meta Portal<BR><A href="http://www.powertech.no/~trygveb/">http://www.powertech.no/~trygveb/</A><BR><BR>I am offering to host (under the meta portal) a home page for your new<BR>Arizona cryonic facility.<BR><BR>If there is anything you want me to post about the project, e.g. drawings,<BR>cost overviews,<BR>maps, a venture plan, investment invitations, correspondance, press<BR>releases, etc. etc. etc.<BR>then please let me know, and I will be glad to add this to the menu I have<BR>set up for your project.<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>Trygve Bauge.<BR><BR>I haven't seen any email about your project for several weeks now,<BR>so what is the latest?<BR><BR>I assume that as soon as the money is transfeered from the European trust to<BR>the US project,<BR>your plans for a European facility is dead, so to speak.<BR>That is something I regret, especially when one take into account that<BR>150.000 people are deported from the US every year, and many Europeans are<BR>not permitted to visit or settle in the United States.<BR>I myself was deported back in 1994.<BR>The United States has at least 3 large cryonic facilities, Europe has none,<BR>that is why I liked your original idea of building something here.<BR>If for some reason your Arizona project does not pan out,<BR>then I suggest you challenge the Europeans to come up with matching funds<BR>to match your funds, so that a European facility can be built somewhere<BR>within the Schengen countries.<BR>Then I and other Europeans could be more actively involved, and would be<BR>able to both search for land, and visit and even move to the facility and<BR>work and live at this.<BR><BR>Or do you have any other use for the members of the European board?<BR><BR>One other consideration:<BR>You are planning a 20 million dollar project and has only 6 million dollars<BR>or so, to start with.<BR>Then it is better to build the best 6 million dollar facility you can get<BR>for the money, and later build additional<BR>facilities,- than to spend so much money on land, architects, design & land<BR>improvements for a 20 million dollar project, that you don't get to complete<BR>any facility, or just get to complete a much smaller facility.<BR>Even if you can parlay the dollar six million in equity into a construction<BR>loan and morgage for another 14 million dollars, you might still be better<BR>off by building 3 smaller projects at 7 million dollars each, than one big<BR>at 20 million.<BR>Three facilities could be done in steps, so that you would secure an income<BR>to serve the debt before taking on the debt. And you would limit your<BR>overhead expenses to no more than what the project and its owners already<BR>have<BR>available.<BR>If you want a larger project, why not try to increase the equity by inviting<BR>others to invest in the project or to buy and own parts of it, or to pay for<BR>separate facilities within the total project, so that you don't have to go<BR>with a construction loan or morgage?<BR><BR>NB!!!! Please see below for a few comments as well, that I have inserted<BR>into what your architect Stephen Valentine wrote.<BR>It is clear to me, based on many years research into technology that can<BR>survive nuclear war,<BR>that his proposed house within a house, with earthen berms and earthen roof,<BR>can best and cheapest provide protection against nuclear blasts and<BR>radiation, if Formworks technology<BR>is chosen rather than the one he has outlined below.<BR>Furthermore studying the Formworks technology before the project programming<BR>is done,<BR>would much easier enable a fair comparison of the two technologies, and<BR>prevent a computer program that is biased.<BR>Knowing the technology would make it much easier to utilize and capitalize<BR>on its advantage during the programming<BR>stage, e.g. when setting up what variables and relations and functions to<BR>build into the program.<BR>If one doesn't know the technologies' requirements and advantages one would<BR>not be able to set up a program that correctly reflects and calculates the<BR>costs.<BR><BR></FONT><FONT size=2>NB!!!! Important comments inserted below!!!</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><BR><BR>> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2> (A letter from Stephen Valentine to a long list of cryonisists, with Trygve Bauge's later comments.)<BR>><BR>><BR>> 23 March 2000<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Bill,<BR>><BR>> After seeing my recent letter dissected in such an odd way, I am sure<BR>> there are some great misunderstandings of the intent of my letter. In<BR>> no way was this letter presently directed towards any criticism of the<BR>> system named "Formworks" or any individuals associated with this<BR>> product. I thought that was very clear in my closing sentences of this<BR>> letter. For reference, I have again inserted the relevant sentence at<BR>> the end of this document.<BR>><BR>> >From the onset of getting involved with the preliminary concept design<BR>> for a cryonics research & storage facility more than two years ago, my<BR>> personal goal was for designing a building with high security and<BR>> protection from both manmade and natural disasters. Anyone who may have<BR>> attended this presentation witnessed the many slides explaining the<BR>> research behind what was intended as the basis for the concept design.<BR>> Actually, some of my first considerations would have been to take over<BR>> an abandoned missile silo or even a railroad tunnel well within a<BR>> mountain, which has been suggested by some cryonicists.<BR>><BR>> However, no site was given. I chose a location that avoided natural<BR>> disasters and I had days rather than months to pick a hypotheoritcal<BR>> location. Conventional wisdom had me select a slightly raised flat<BR>> site. I was grateful to be allowed a lot of freedom in developing the<BR>> concept design, but one of the criteria's that was early decided was<BR>> that the project was not to be buried, but instead to make a presence as<BR>> if a "spaceship" had landed. As for the later appropriate title, the<BR>> "Time Ship", a machine to make a safe journey through time.<BR><BR>A space ship is mobile, and can move away from dangers,<BR>a raised, above ground box structure, on the other hand, is not a safe place<BR>for longrun cryogenic storage.<BR><BR>What about fallout, background radiation or even brush fires?<BR>Large parts of the West burns every year, and over a few centuries almost<BR>everything burns at least once,<BR>at least in the bondoocks. Just look at Yellowstone, or Boulder county<BR>Colorado for that matter.<BR>And I assume similar fire statistics apply to Arizona. Just check the<BR>statistics for the last 150 years.<BR>And with cryonics we might have to be stored for much longer than that.<BR><BR>And have we already forgotten about Hiroshima, and Chernobyl, and<BR>India/Pakistan,<BR>or China/Taiwan, or our own nuclear tast programs, and the likelihood that<BR>background radiation<BR>again might be a problem?<BR><BR>><BR>> The concept design that was presented in Las Vegas in 1997 is actually a<BR>> large elevated "sandbox", with proposed modular concrete fortified walls<BR>> (as in a castle) with earth filled around and on top of the entire<BR>> facility for reducing both cooling & heating demands and more<BR>> importantly, for an explosive/bomb resistance structure.<BR><BR>This can be accomplished much cheaper with Form works thin shell vaulted<BR>reinforced shotcrete technology.<BR>To achieve the same safety with reinforced box structures takes much more<BR>concrete and steel,<BR>and is much more expensive. Ultimately you do not get the same safety with<BR>box structures<BR>that you get with the vaulted arched beam technology.<BR><BR><BR>> In essence, I<BR>> cleverly designed a buried building within a building without actually<BR>> appearing that way. Four separate seasonal parks or gardens were<BR>> placed on the top surface surrounding the laboratories, which was an<BR>> idea inspired by the great Swiss modernist architect, Le Corbusier.<BR>> With limited time of approximately two months and a tight budget, the<BR>> most one could expect is an architect's best guess to a solution and<BR>> then later when there was to be more time, each aspect of the design<BR>> would be carefully pulled apart and then scrutinized in detail. There<BR>> was no doubt, that all of this would have to be engineered at the next<BR>> phase if the design went further.<BR>><BR>> When I say 60's technology with regard to concrete domes, that doesn't<BR>> mean it is bad, there is just nothing revolutionary about building one<BR>> and that perhaps there are other better building techniques or methods<BR>> that may exist now and should be explored for this particular project.<BR>> In matter of fact, I just returned from Hong Kong having given a lecture<BR>> to both structural & civil engineers on dome construction for in<BR>> concrete, steel geodesic (Bucky Fuller) and membrane building<BR>> materials. As probably you don't know, I was the co-inventor of the<BR>> first perfect hydronic tension dome and vaults using water, space frames<BR>> and membranes as building materials. It is considered today as one of<BR>> the most advanced experimental earthquake resistant structural/building<BR>> systems in the world. I am currently helping to establish a research<BR>> program at Hong Kong University's Civil Engineering Department to<BR>> evaluate seismic conditions in these hydronic type structures.<BR>> Unfortunately, this system could not be considered for this project due<BR>> to the large quantities of water required while within the proximity of<BR>> liquid nitrogen.<BR>><BR><BR>Neither would it seem to give any radiation protection.<BR><BR>2.2 inches of concrete or 3.3 inches of soil cuts radiation in half.<BR>It takes about 2 feet of concrete or about 3 feet of soil to cut radiation<BR>to about 1/1000<BR><BR>One can easily build Formworks facilities that can survive 210 pounds per<BR>square inch or 14 athmospheres over pressure, or half a mile from ground<BR>zero of a one megaton bomb, that is.<BR>Most bombs are one megaton or less.<BR><BR>To survive even closer to ground zero of smaller bombs, becomes a question<BR>of surviving the radiation,<BR>and of reducing the inner radiation not to 1/1000th but to 1/millionth of<BR>the outer radiation.<BR>It is much cheaper to get such protection with 7 feet of soil than with 4<BR>feet of concrete.<BR><BR>This protection one can get with Formworks technology, at an affordable<BR>price.<BR><BR>With box structures on the other hand it costs much more to get only a<BR>fraction of the above safety.<BR>Please consult an engineer who knows what it takes to survive nuclear war.<BR>He would tell you that most box structures cave in under similar shock and<BR>pressures,<BR>and that the distance between the walls have to be drastically reduced and<BR>the thickness and reinforcement of the roof drastically increased to create<BR>some resemblance of safety with box technology.<BR>And that Formworks technology takes far less concrete and steel to accomlish<BR>much butter protection.<BR><BR>Formworks has access to such engineers.<BR><BR>> As far as the concept of integrated design that is indigenous to the<BR>> environment, my career spans almost three decades of promoting this type<BR>> of construction. Unfortunately, interest in these ideas had lost its<BR>> momentum in the US by the early 80's with the end of the energy crisis,<BR>> except for some remaining survivalists. However, at the early stages of<BR>> this project, I brought in two of the most prominent and recognized<BR>> professionals in ecological design for the built environment, Prof.<BR>> Brent Porter and Dr. Anthony Dominski (former Professor at Yale<BR>> University and now the Director of an Environmental Impact Group for the<BR>> State of Florida). We spent a weekend just discussing some of the issues<BR>> that pertains to an integrated environmental design (including<BR>> alternative energy systems), which later helped determine some of the<BR>> design concepts. For the record, in 1991, I had won perhaps the largest<BR>> architectural competition commission awarded to a single architect,<BR>> "Super Paradise" a five billion dollar project in Japan for it's<BR>> innovation for a building design built within a mountainous environment<BR>> (unfortunately the economy collapsed shortly thereafter and was never<BR>> realized).<BR>><BR>> As for design of secure buildings, while with the offices of I.M. Pei, I<BR>> was a Senior Design Architect for the highly acclaimed US Holocaust<BR>> Memorial Museum in Washington where security became obviously a great<BR>> concern with regard to terrorism and many building components and<BR>> systems were carefully integrated within the design. Another project,<BR>> in which I was the Project Architect, is the classified top-secret<BR>> design for the Gruman E2/C2 Aircraft radar assembly facility in Long<BR>> Island that was designed in case of nuclear war.<BR>><BR>> Again, as I had mentioned at the beginning of this document and as<BR>> quoted from my March 18th letter with regard to "Formworks" Nest Eggs:<BR>><BR>> "If you have a serious consideration of using this system, I would be<BR>> willing to research this product further once the programming phase has<BR>> been completed to evaluate this system's possible merits for use with<BR>> the project's defined requirements.<BR><BR>Please specify what you mean with the programming face?<BR>Is this creating a computer program that lists a set of building<BR>requirements, and costs of each?<BR>Like a spread sheet that automatically upgrades the total cost when one<BR>changes some of the variables?<BR><BR>If so, I suggest you compare the square footage cost of conventional blast<BR>shelters, with the square footage cost of Formworks technology, and the<BR>latter will win hands down.<BR><BR>It is not just a question of creating a roof that can hold some soil,-<BR>to get some real protection, the roof has to hold 7 feet of soil even under<BR>210 lbs per square inch in sudden over pressure. To accomplish that with<BR>conventional flat or slightly arched roofs, become cost prohibitive.<BR>Formworks system on the other hand accomplishes the same at no added cost.<BR><BR>> Right now without any further<BR>> investigation my gut feeling is it won't be applicable to this specific<BR>> project, however I will still keep an open mind to this concept."<BR>><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Trygve's response:<BR>Your gut feeling is wrong, and I hope you take the time to look into<BR>Formworks technology,<BR>so to not let your gut feeling trick you.<BR><BR>I haven't seen Stephen Valentine's suggested design for the cryonic facility<BR>in Arizona,<BR>However, based on what he said above about creating a house within a house<BR>and having earthen berms between the walls and over the roof,<BR>it is clear to me that this can much cheaper be accomplished with Formworks<BR>vaulted technology<BR>than with any box structure or flat roof or slightly arched roof technology,<BR>particularly if the objective is to<BR>give protection against the blast and radiation from nearby nuclear<BR>explosions,<BR>but also if the objective is only to protect against fallout.<BR><BR>Personally, if I had the money, I wouldn't hesitate to select Formworks<BR>technology.<BR><BR>I do not have any economic interest in Form works,<BR>it was just the best affordable technology I found when I looked for<BR>technology that could be used to survive<BR>nuclear war,<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>Trygve Bauge<BR><BR>Ps. If you build something that is nuclear war-proof, then it is also<BR>earthquake proof, and storm and fire proof,<BR>and safe against a host of lesser dangers.<BR>So why not go for the best, when it is affordable, and clearly cheaper than<BR>any attempt at storing soil around and on top of any box structure, which<BR>seems to be your present design.<BR><BR>><BR>> Most sincerely,<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Prof. Stephen Valentine, RA (NCARB)<BR>><BR>><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_00CE_01BFA43C.FB535A00-- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13531