Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday June 08, @07:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the So-no-skinny-dipping? dept.

I first happened upon this marvel of engineering on this recent CNN Travel video story. Digging around the internet, I then found this late April story on CNN.

London's new see-through Sky Pool is first of its kind:

The Sky Pool is a 82-foot (25-meter) transparent swimming pool stretched between the 10th stories of two residential skyscrapers in southwest London's Nine Elms neighborhood -- and it's only open to the apartment complex's lucky residents[*].

[...] The pool was put through extensive strength testing at the Reynolds factory [in Colorado] before making its journey to the UK by road and sea. It was then lifted into place by a 750-tonne mobile crane, supported by a 50-tonne crane.

[...] "After a series of technical drawings and behavioral analyses, the dimensions of the pool were decided," says the Embassy Gardens website."

With sides 200 millimeters [(7.9 inches)] thick and 3.2 meters [(10.5 feet)] deep, and with a bottom 300 millimeters [(11.8 inches)] thick, the 50-tonne acrylic pool will span the 14 meters [46 feet] between the buildings, with steps and filtrations systems sitting either end, and five modes of lighting to add to the feeling of magic."

[...] "Once you swim off, you can look right down. It will be like flying," says Brian Eckersley, director of Eckersley O'Callaghan.

[*] a two-bedroom unit starts at just over £1 million (~$1.4 million).

Entry on Wikipedia.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @07:51AM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @07:51AM (#1143057)

    I think it's a great idea, and I actually thought about it before: I would actually like to see overlapping transparent pools. well. I'd like to afford daily visits to such pools, but I don't really have the million pounds on hand.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @09:52AM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @09:52AM (#1143079)

    You mean like a giant, Dyson-sphere-pool around the earth?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @11:26AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @11:26AM (#1143092)

      Like a big fish tank?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @11:54AM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @11:54AM (#1143098)

        > Like a big fish tank?

        Exactly, tfl says, "aquarium designers Reynolds."

        But perhaps more interesting is "architects Arup Associates". Lest you forget, Arup was responsible for this entertaining disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London [wikipedia.org]

        Londoners nicknamed it the "Wobbly Bridge" after pedestrians experienced an alarming swaying motion on its opening day. The bridge was closed later that day and, after two days of limited access, it was closed again for almost two years so that modifications and repairs could be made to keep the bridge stable and stop the swaying motion. It reopened in February 2002.
        ...
        They concluded that making the bridge stiffer, to move its resonant frequency out of the excitation range, was not feasible as it would greatly change its appearance.[9] Instead, the resonance was controlled by retrofitting 37 viscous fluid dampers to dissipate energy. These include 17 chevron dampers – long V-shaped braces under the deck panels – to control lateral movement, 4 vertical to ground dampers to control lateral and vertical movements, and 16 pier dampers to control lateral and torsional movements.[12][13] Additionally, 52 tuned mass dampers add inertia to control vertical movement. The work took from May 2001 to January 2002 and cost £5M. After a period of testing, the bridge was reopened on 22 February 2002 and has not been subject to significant vibration since. In spite of the successful cure, the affectionate "wobbly bridge" (sometimes "wibbly-wobbly"[citation needed]) epithet remains in common usage among Londoners.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 08, @12:38PM (6 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday June 08, @12:38PM (#1143105)

          I think the viscous damper solution is a good one, even if they will require maintenance.

          Now, if these buildings get into an oscillation mode during a wind storm, that could be much more exciting than a relatively trivial pedestrian bridge.

          --
          John Galt is a selfish crybaby [huffpost.com].
          • (Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday June 08, @01:28PM (5 children)

            by looorg (578) on Tuesday June 08, @01:28PM (#1143111)

            Now I'm starting to wonder about other things such as the one you mention, or if it starts to pour down rain (after all this is England). Will there be a marked splash zone on the ground for the excess water or is there some kind of roof or drainage system that can handle this so there won't be any street splashing?

            • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday June 08, @01:35PM (4 children)

              by isostatic (365) on Tuesday June 08, @01:35PM (#1143114) Journal

              You're asking if it's raining, will people underneath it get wet?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 08, @01:44PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 08, @01:44PM (#1143118) Journal
                There's a difference between rain drops and getting hit with a large blob of water all at once. The latter could cause serious injury.
                • (Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 08, @04:06PM

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday June 08, @04:06PM (#1143177)

                  could cause serious injury.

                  Yes, but more likely serious TikTok coverage.

                  --
                  John Galt is a selfish crybaby [huffpost.com].
              • (Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday June 08, @02:34PM (1 child)

                by looorg (578) on Tuesday June 08, @02:34PM (#1143136)

                No I'm wondering if there is a splash zone around or below just from excess water. Not that water is wet or if you get a little rain on you. There is lets say a bit of a difference if there is a little rain a massive rain storm or a bunch of people 14m up in their sky pool decide to jump in to the pool bomb-style or something else that would make the water in the sky pool increase faster then it could be naturally or systematically drained away.

                • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday June 09, @07:19PM

                  by isostatic (365) on Wednesday June 09, @07:19PM (#1143648) Journal

                  I'd expect the pool overflow would go through normal grey water disposal. I don't see how rain would make a difference

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday June 08, @01:59PM (7 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 08, @01:59PM (#1143121) Journal

      You mean like a giant, Dyson-sphere-pool around the earth?

      Dyson-swarm. A bunch of smaller fish tanks.

      A Dyson Sphere only has 1G at the equator. As you move more North/South-ward, gravity decreases. The ocean at those latitudes, not to mention the atmosphere, would float into the center of the sphere where you may not have intended it to go.

      --
      Employers should not mandate wearing clothing. It should be a personal choice. It only affects me. Junk can't breathe!
      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday June 08, @02:26PM (4 children)

        by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday June 08, @02:26PM (#1143134)

        Gravity would slightly increase, not decrease, as you move away from the equator. You weigh slightly more at the poles.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday June 08, @04:45PM (3 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 08, @04:45PM (#1143192) Journal

          On a Dyson sphere, you are on the inside. Gravity is due to the spin of the sphere. At higher (and lower) latitudes the "pull" of the "gravity" (due to spin) is at an increasing angle from "straight down" where you are standing, and at lower and lower force as you near the poles. At a pole the force is zero and at 90 degrees from "down" (eg where you are standing).

          --
          Employers should not mandate wearing clothing. It should be a personal choice. It only affects me. Junk can't breathe!
          • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 09, @05:12AM (2 children)

            by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday June 09, @05:12AM (#1143439)

            Dyson spheres are built around stars, which have gravity. Yes, you could spin it, to bring effective gravity to or below zero at the equator, but then it would be unbalanced and require even stronger materials. Gravity at the poles would still be full force in either case.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @07:50PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 09, @07:50PM (#1143669)

              Gravity from the star yes, but that would pull you into the "sky" of the Dyson sphere. Even with the massive structure of the sphere itself the gravity inside would be zero because the rest of the sphere not directly under your feet would exert an equal force. So centrifugal fake gravity is all you could use unless we figure out some better science.

              • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 09, @09:57PM

                by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday June 09, @09:57PM (#1143723)

                You are assuming the observer to be on the inside, which makes no sense. You could only stand on the inside if it's spinning faster than needed to cancel it's weight, and then only near the equator. That would make most of the sphere useless. Spinning it would also require far stronger materials, making it even less practical. Make it stationary, and you only need moderately magical materials, and you can use the whole outside of the sphere.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday June 08, @05:45PM (1 child)

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Tuesday June 08, @05:45PM (#1143219)

        A Dyson Sphere only has 1G at the equator.

        Assuming it is rotating to create centripetal force to simulate gravity.. Which would not be necessary for the sphere to perform it's primary purpose of collecting all possible energy from the star it encloses. At best it would only need enough spin to stabilize it's position around it's enclosed star, which wouldn't be anywhere the speed needed to simulate a 1G field.

        If a mega structure was needed for habitation then a ring would be all that would be needed, much simpler to build, less material needed and you wouldn't have to worry about the structural issues of having the Dyson sphere's "North" and "South" regions "hanging" over the parent star with zero outward momentum to keep them from trying to fall into the star while the equatorial zones were trying to fly away from the star at 10m/s due to the spin.

        As Larry Niven pointed out in his novel "Ring World" a ring with a radius of 1AU (~93 million miles) and a width of 1million miles would provide nearly 3 million times the habitable area of the Earth on it's inner surface. So it would probably be a long time before anyone complained about over crowding.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @06:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, @06:07PM (#1143229)

          > As Larry Niven pointed out in his novel "Ring World"

          A little more probable is Arthur Clarke's ring around the earth, with elevators up to it -- in this 2001 sequel:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3001:_The_Final_Odyssey [wikipedia.org]

          Well worth reading if you enjoyed the earlier books in the series.