| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Brablo" |
| Date: |
07 Dec 2005 11:58:33 AM |
| Object: |
Building homes deep underground... |
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
.
|
|
| User: "Dastardly Fiend" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
07 Dec 2005 03:33:18 PM |
|
|
"Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133978313.136854.194420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
All night long. You really are an idiot, aren't you? Go build your own
igloo.
*plonk*
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
07 Dec 2005 12:28:57 PM |
|
|
"Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1133978313.136854.194420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
Fiber optics to passively introduce your light and
heavy pumps to actively expell your ... ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
07 Dec 2005 12:23:34 PM |
|
|
Brablo wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
Expensive to dig in rock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 06:23:11 AM |
|
|
In article <GMFlf.603140$x96.371108@attbi_s72>,
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Brablo wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
Expensive to dig in rock.
In the desert? The problem is water...a lot of it, all at once.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 10:33:14 AM |
|
|
Brablo wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
Simpler to stay on the surface, and use heat pumps to move heat
into/out of the deep rock. If you're lucky, you'll hit a slow aquifer,
and you can use the same heat over and over again... Just dump the
summer heat 6 months upstream of the winter heat extractor.
Oh... They're already doing this...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 11:47:23 AM |
|
|
Brablo wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
This is actually quite common in some parts of the midwest. But it's
obvious easier to dig into the side of an existing slope than to
excavate hard, flat terrain. And yes, creative skylighting, including
"light tunnels" with mirrored channels, is also quite common. Native
Indians in New Mexico, such as the Anasazi, did excavate their
dwellings, though they did much of their daily routines on the roof.
Without a soft, sloped terrain, though, the easier solution is to pile
the earth on top of you, which is the adobe approach, featuring thick
earthen walls and roofs, high ceilings to let hot air rise above the
heads of the occupants (or conversely, let cold air settle lower than
the bunk beds at night), closable low air tunnels to let cooler air be
drawn into the house by the fire, and corner stoves that radiate heat
more effectively to a room.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
09 Dec 2005 08:50:44 AM |
|
|
See for example http://www.daviscaves.com/index.shtml
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 12:00:04 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Brablo
<gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 7 Dec 2005 09:58:33 -0800
<1133978313.136854.194420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
There's a fair number of issues here, which I for one would
have to analyze. For starters, if one takes an average
subdivision and digs all of the houses into the rock,
one is changing the density of the rock, which among other
things changes its heat conduction properties. There are
also issues on how one effectively manages the air problem;
the incoming air is going to be hot no matter what one
does, unless the air gives up its heat to something,
most likely the surrounding rock, thereby warming it.
(One interesting side issue, though; the air can be
cooled and humidified by passing it through water sprays.
Whether this is desirable may depend on how much water
one has to throw at the problem, and what else is in said
water, such as E. coli and carbamic acid -- urine.)
You are correct that daytime lighting could be done using
fiber optics or light tubes; such are even now being
contemplated or used for some energy-smart buildings,
as I understand it. However, at night, one has to fall
back on that old standby, the electrically-powered light
bulb or perhaps flashlights with LEDs (though one rather
humorous episode of _Who's Line Is It Anyway_ suggested a
solar-powered torch with a lightfeed thousands of miles
long).
The obvious question now arises as to where one gets
the electric power in that case. (The answers are the
standard ones: coal, some oil, natural gas, and if one's
lucky, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, or tidal
flow power. Fission power is an option for a few places --
but in the US everyone thinks "atom bomb" and "poisonous
radioactive solid remnants" [never mind that coal fly ash
is rather radioactive], and nowadays, the new boogeyman,
the dreaded evil terrorist plutonium pilferer, ready to
make a deadly dirty bomb by waltzing up to a nuclear power
plant and nipping a few pounds. At least here in the US,
though, he'd have to get by the guards first.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 06:36:40 AM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 09:58:33 -0800, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
the view sucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 06:41:39 AM |
|
|
In article <h6agp19f5kb29jm8me3p1t38rthni3d94i@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 09:58:33 -0800, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
the view sucks.
Desert rats know that one should live on a hill. When a desert
rat moves to snow country, they find a residence on a steep
hill. Then they discover that coping with desert living does
not work when trying to cope with northeastearn winter living.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 07:00:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 12:41:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <h6agp19f5kb29jm8me3p1t38rthni3d94i@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 09:58:33 -0800, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
the view sucks.
Desert rats know that one should live on a hill. When a desert
rat moves to snow country, they find a residence on a steep
hill. Then they discover that coping with desert living does
not work when trying to cope with northeastearn winter living.
/BAH
It doesn't work too well in So. Cal either. Hills tend to slide down
into the valleys all too often.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 07:49:24 AM |
|
|
In article <tgbgp1pcph4675hp3a8252luquoam0m8jk@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 12:41:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <h6agp19f5kb29jm8me3p1t38rthni3d94i@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 09:58:33 -0800, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
the view sucks.
Desert rats know that one should live on a hill. When a desert
rat moves to snow country, they find a residence on a steep
hill. Then they discover that coping with desert living does
not work when trying to cope with northeastearn winter living.
/BAH
It doesn't work too well in So. Cal either. Hills tend to slide down
into the valleys all too often.
That's a different problem. Removing local flora and fauna
so that the landscape looks like English castle grounds is
contrary to Mother Nature. Since nature is efficient over
the long term, the aberration gets fixed.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 07:56:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 13:49:24 GMT, wrote:
In article <tgbgp1pcph4675hp3a8252luquoam0m8jk@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 12:41:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <h6agp19f5kb29jm8me3p1t38rthni3d94i@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 09:58:33 -0800, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I heard the temp about 10+ feet below the surface of the earth is much
cooler than the ambient, or it's warmer if it's very cold outside. Why
aren't more homes in the desert built 10-20 feet underground to take
advantage of the cool temperature there?
If lighting is an issue, than fiber optics can passively introduce
lighting down there.
the view sucks.
Desert rats know that one should live on a hill. When a desert
rat moves to snow country, they find a residence on a steep
hill. Then they discover that coping with desert living does
not work when trying to cope with northeastearn winter living.
/BAH
It doesn't work too well in So. Cal either. Hills tend to slide down
into the valleys all too often.
That's a different problem. Removing local flora and fauna
so that the landscape looks like English castle grounds is
contrary to Mother Nature. Since nature is efficient over
the long term, the aberration gets fixed.
/BAH
Nah, it slides where people haven't messed with it as well. As long
as people stay away from the slopes of flat parts, it is mostly okay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 08:15:02 AM |
|
|
In article <jpegp15b3co963ooi6700acd3jkapkuvei@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 13:49:24 GMT, wrote:
In article <tgbgp1pcph4675hp3a8252luquoam0m8jk@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 12:41:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <h6agp19f5kb29jm8me3p1t38rthni3d94i@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
<snip>
It doesn't work too well in So. Cal either. Hills tend to slide down
into the valleys all too often.
That's a different problem. Removing local flora and fauna
so that the landscape looks like English castle grounds is
contrary to Mother Nature. Since nature is efficient over
the long term, the aberration gets fixed.
Nah, it slides where people haven't messed with it as well.
Really? I don't remember hearing about slides before
the land got stripped. Note that putting a road in weakens
a middle support.
/BAH
As long
as people stay away from the slopes of flat parts, it is mostly okay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
08 Dec 2005 08:55:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <jpegp15b3co963ooi6700acd3jkapkuvei@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 13:49:24 GMT, wrote:
In article <tgbgp1pcph4675hp3a8252luquoam0m8jk@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 12:41:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <h6agp19f5kb29jm8me3p1t38rthni3d94i@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
<snip>
It doesn't work too well in So. Cal either. Hills tend to slide down
into the valleys all too often.
That's a different problem. Removing local flora and fauna
so that the landscape looks like English castle grounds is
contrary to Mother Nature. Since nature is efficient over
the long term, the aberration gets fixed.
Nah, it slides where people haven't messed with it as well.
Really? I don't remember hearing about slides before
the land got stripped. Note that putting a road in weakens
a middle support.
/BAH
As long
as people stay away from the slopes of flat parts, it is mostly okay.
A landslide without houses falling down is not news.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Building homes deep underground... |
09 Dec 2005 05:34:02 AM |
|
|
In article <h1ul63-abe.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, wrote:
wrote:
In article <jpegp15b3co963ooi6700acd3jkapkuvei@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 13:49:24 GMT, wrote:
In article <tgbgp1pcph4675hp3a8252luquoam0m8jk@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Dec 05 12:41:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <h6agp19f5kb29jm8me3p1t38rthni3d94i@4ax.com>,
Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
<snip>
It doesn't work too well in So. Cal either. Hills tend to slide down
into the valleys all too often.
That's a different problem. Removing local flora and fauna
so that the landscape looks like English castle grounds is
contrary to Mother Nature. Since nature is efficient over
the long term, the aberration gets fixed.
Nah, it slides where people haven't messed with it as well.
Really? I don't remember hearing about slides before
the land got stripped. Note that putting a road in weakens
a middle support.
/BAH
As long
as people stay away from the slopes of flat parts, it is mostly okay.
A landslide without houses falling down is not news.
We studied conservation in fifth grade...for about 3 months.
We did field trips and studied land that was used for farming,
forestry, meadow, and swamps. It was in the midwest so we
didn't get to see mountains. However that kind of topography
was studied vicariously. Now, I may have forgotten but land
slides, especially any kind of erosion, was of great interest
to us who had farming relations and experience.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
