John Ochsendorf wants to tear down Rome's iconic Pantheon. He wants to pull apart its 2,000-year-old walls until its gorgeous dome collapses. Destroying it, he believes, is the best way to preserve it.
But the Pantheon that Ochsendorf, a professor of engineering and architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has in mind to destroy is less than 20 inches high, and it's made of 492 3-D-printed blocks. It's designed from laser scans of the real building. A gaggle of MIT engineering students will place it on a table with a sliding base and pull the walls apart, then put it back together and tilt it until it crumbles.
It's hard to see how razing a doll-sized Roman monument will help protect the real thing. But Ochsendorf, whose easy smile and self-effacing humor belie confidence and determination, has a serious goal: to prove that historical structures like the Pantheon are more stable than we give them credit for. "By every measure of success of a building—from an architectural, from an artistic, and from an engineering standpoint—I would argue that the Pantheon is the greatest that was ever built," Ochsendorf says. "There's no greater definition of success for a building than it's been standing for 20 centuries."
It also represents a masterwork of engineering and a repository of ancient technical knowledge—the structural equivalent of the Mona Lisa. Ochsendorf is working to halt what he sees as unnecessary interventions in historical buildings, in which engineers try to fix cracked or slumping walls with steel bars and supports. "We see a crack in a structure and we do a major intervention, but that's akin to dipping the Mona Lisa in epoxy because one section of the painting has faded a bit," he says.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:14AM
Isn't the Mona Lisa displayed in a purpose-built, climate-controlled enclosure behind bulletproof glass [wikipedia.org]? The comparable solution is to enclose the Pantheon in a protective dome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:19AM
They don't display the real painting.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:21AM
The real painting no longer exists. It was eaten by space aliens from beyond Uranus.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:57AM
I was there when the built the Pantheon. I thought it was a great exercise in engineering. They thought it might last for 40 years. Now anything that exceeds human expectations by that much deserves special consideration. If we have to destroy a model to see how the actual building might fail, I say go for it. We put a lot more into failed engineering projects, like the Leaning Tower of Pisa or the Glen Canyon Dam. So even if the gods may be dead, we should preserve their temple, as a recognition of human ingenuity. (Where I am now, concrete construction is spalling, and cracking, and it is only fourty years old! If only we had Roman engineers!)
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:01AM
It's the rebar that causes spalling and cracking? Romans left that out..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:21PM
No, it's not just rebar that causes spalling and cracking in concrete. Today's concrete will do that all by itself. Go look at some older sidewalks in a northeast town: there's no rebar in those I'm pretty sure, just plain poured concrete. What's ruined the surface of the concrete is probably saltwater, from years of having salt poured on it during winter snows. Roman concrete, however, can actually sit in seawater for thousands of years with no ill effects. The real difference is the formulation of the concrete: ours is crap.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:34PM
Is Roman type of concrete unavailable to us? or will it not fit our demands?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:25PM
Roman concrete uses volcanic ash from a particular volcano, and on top of that, we're not exactly sure of the formula. Finally, I believe their method of making the concrete was much more laborious than what we do now.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @06:46PM
More laborious than having to regularly make repairs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:27PM
Repairs come years after the popular mayor got the sidewalks installed cheap and under budget, or after the construction company that built the building has already closed down and reincorporated as an untraceable new entity.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday May 24 2015, @02:19AM
A modern take of the roman version.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Floathouse/comments/2nq6b7/here_is_the_recipe_for_making_geopolymer_concrete/ [reddit.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:37PM
Construction companies need to stay in business. If things were built to last then it would cost jobs and hurt profits.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:33AM
I'm glad they are tearing down a model in the hopes of learning/confirming things, and I both commend them for the non-destructive technique using accurate scale models, and scientific methods, instead of harming the structures being studied. I truly wish them well, and hope they have success.
Now imagine a few years from now, along with other VR(Virtual Reality), augmented reality, more advanced version of the above scanned model, all combined with some soon to be developed 'automagical, interactive(at least freely move around observing at the desired angle, distance, and detail), thrown into a Virtual R & D lab with peers and colleagues 'telecommuting in to the VR lab' from across the globe coming up with stuff the layman will have to wonder about magic being real...and becoming normal enough to be taken for granted.
Changing the way we watch/interact with Movies, where you can 'ghost-like' explore the set, preferred POV's for scenes, get that REAL closeup could be real fun. (imagine Star Trek: TNG holodeck, but no ability to influence or interact with the holoset and holograms. Like a ghost spectator, mobile, but invisible, 'no physical substance'(in this context), no influence on the events. That would be the camera view/movie screen/ how you watch it.
I've fantasized about when movies reached this stage. I don't want to be sucked into the movie and become part of it, most of the time I just want to watch it(lurk), but have the ability to explore the set, watch it from different perspectives, etc. The truly interactive holodecks of Star Trek:TNG require 'real interaction' and involves way more sweat and work than I want to invest in casual entertainment. At other times when I wanted more realism and challenge/training, then I could turn it up to that level of capability and realism. (40 years ago as a young man, I'm sure that viewpoint was different-I would have wanted to jump in with both feet to the full realism mode)
So far in my opinion, the Holodeck of Star Trek:TNG is the ultimate gamer's setup, and I can't wait! This sounds like a mind-blowing experience that I would joyfully risk mind and life to try.
Please pardon any confusion in my comments. I will cowardly blame it on the home-made Apple Jack I have been enthusiastically Q & A testing this weekend. I can fully vouch for the delightfully potent and tasty quality of the Apple Jack, but make no claims on anything else. ;-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Saturday May 23 2015, @08:50AM
The 'one section of the Mona Lisa has faded a bit' analogy doesn't seem take account of the 'chain reaction' effect, and the fact that 'a stitch in time saves nine'.
A cracked wall in a building might be the start of much more serious damage, if it is left without attention. So perhaps the analogy should be: one section of the Mona Lisa getting some mould? It might then be worth taking quite drastic measures to protect the rest of the painting.
I hope Mr. Ochsendorf attains a very high level of confidence in his work before anyone holds off on any building protection works. We don't want to be the selfish generation that let these buildings degrade rapidly merely to avoid having to put up with the ugly presence of steels bars and supports and so on.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:20AM
When I was there, they had roped off the area under the big hole in the center, because a German tourist was killed by a falling piece of stone a few years before.
It's a pity, because of the deep significance of constructing a domed temple to the gods, and then leaving open a big hole in the center of the dome for the rain and wind to come in, making the entire structure an interaction between human culture and the natural elements.
How many other significant buildings are there that have a big hole in the ceiling on purpose? I can't think of any. The St. Peter is closed off at the top (beautiful view!). The Duomo of Florence is closed off at the top.
(Score: 2, Informative) by BigJ on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:05PM
Texas Stadium
All Hail the Cowboys!!
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @05:21PM
All Hail the Cowboys!!
We were talking about big holes, not a-holes.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Meepy on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:16PM
I'm not impressed by this argument of durability by age. We recently saw what can happen to some quite old temples in Nepal
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @03:31PM
Stupid opening statement
Ridiculous comparisons
Yep - dumb click bait
This is so bad it is making Slashdot look good!
Fuck it is even making Hugh fuck head Pickens look good!