lilarry

As to one of the bloggers commenting about Socialism being an insult, calling someone a Socialist is not pejorative. Socialism is both a political and economic view of the world which can be summed up by the line (made famous in the Star Trek movie, Wrath of Khan), "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Socialism is the antithesis of Capitalism. That doesn't make either "better" or "worse." It depends on your view of the world. But to be clear, Socialism can only work long term in a police state. So absent ivory-tower discussions after holiday meals, there is no way to get to a Socialist society without Big Brother. And that is "worse."

As to the comment, "the morality of such a decision (building a big house) is open to debate" is absurd. It's a house. Morality has nothing to do with it!

But the writer misses the point. When he says, "While Mr. Chase is legally entitled to build this monster house..."

That, dear reader is exactly the only thing that does matter. It was legal. The zoning board, (made up of locally elected or appointed members of the community) said it was ok, so it was ok. If it was a steel mill, odds are it would have been rejected because it was not zoned for industrial use. And, although I can't be absolutely sure about this, if the approval process was like every other community I've lived in, abutting neighbors and/or neighbors within a certain distance from the lot lines would have had to approve (usually a majority) the building.

I find it amazing that there are so many people who feel that others should live like they do. "We couldn't afford to build that house, so they shouldn't be allowed to either."

Just nuts. I'm reminded of that stupid period in our (U.S.) history called Prohibition. Or people who tell other people they can't have guns, or shouldn't work on a certain day of the week.

And if you think this house is "immoral" what do we think of Biltmore?

Finally there is the original article in USAToday. The reporter states, "There are homeless people. There are impoverished people. There are serious social concerns, and we are not addressing that."

Do you realize, on so many levels, how idiotic those statements are? They suggest that if Chase hadn't built his house, people wouldn't be homeless - or impoverished. Or maybe that he should be (forced to?) give most of that money to the homeless and impoverished. That's Socialism. That's what it is, plain and simple. When someone else tells you what to do with your money, your time, your efforts, that's Socialism.

Here's what I suggest. Next time one of the those bloggers who feel that Chase had no "right" to build a house that big, decides to buy anything - anything - they should look themselves in the mirror and ask their reflection, "Could I buy cheaper." A cheaper car that still gets you to point B from point A, no Starbucks Vente, Macchiato with extra foam, (just buy a cup of jo at the corner diner) no big screen HD TV, (sit closer) and on and on. Then take all that money and give to the homeless. Why? Because it's yours to do with what you want. Just a suggestion.

Meanwhile, I need to go back to my FHB pile and decide if I want to build up or out...or both...

I'm still recommending a 20 page spread...with all of his different rooms and all the amenities, infrastructure ...Can't wait...

To say that "Our homes, and the way we build them resonates beyond property lines," makes no sense. Resonates? What does that mean? Has an effect? Maybe, maybe not. Just because the house is large doesn't mean it will have a greater effect on the environment than a house that is much smaller and poorly built. Chase says he's using R-50 in the walls and using Geothermal. He says that a lot of out buildings happen to be inside the home's envelope instead of outside the envelope. It's clear to me that the "common sense" green approach is often not. Take for example my community's efforts to collect recyclables. The trucks they use, diesel powered, generate lots of particulate pollution, noxious gases and use up our dwindling supply of fossil fuel. And what do they collect? Paper, a product that is renewable and glass, a product that is a very significant portion of the earth's crust (sand). Yes, they collect plastic and aluminum which can be and should be recycled (it takes far less energy to reuse aluminum cans than to smelt bauxite - on the other hand, most aluminum is produced by means of hydroelectric power, so I'm not sure that even that makes sense. As to real waste and damage to the environment look at golf courses. They single-handedly generate enormous pollution of underground water supplies with all of the fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, petroleum products used to keep the courses manicured and so on. But I don't see lots of people pushing to close golf courses.

The house, by itself proves nothing. Jumping to conclusions is dangerous. I am reminded of the Ox-Bow Incident. Analysis should always be considered over "common-sense" or "it's obvious that" or "it's only reasonable to assume that..."

Resonate? What resonates with me is thoughtful, careful analysis and a respect for other points of view. Yur initial questions, although appearing to be tongue-in-cheek suggest that, if given the chance, you would have prevented this fellow from building his house.

Yes, sure make note of the house, but not to poke fun, but an article on how it was build, how it was designed, its infrastructure, its layout. I for one would read that article.

But that's just me....
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Green often isn't.

I think what's scary about some of the comments is that they are truly heartfelt....and obviously socialist.

A friend once lamented to me that his wife was redecorating another room that nobody spends any time in. We both smiled and shrugged.

The fact is that most people who could, would. Note I said most. That's just the way it is in this-here U.S of A. Warren Buffet, last time I looked, still lived in the same smallish house he has lived in for over 40 years. And it is legend that Getty, one of the richest men in the world, brown-bagged it. And Walton drove a pickup truck.

But they're the exceptions, not the rule.

Thank the Great Pumkin, that these envious, angry, holier-than-thou types rarely get into political office.

I recently decided to buy my own little piece of the world. Lots of trees, a preserve abutting the property and a smallish house that I dared to enlarge. I'm no spring chicken, kids are grown, just me and my dogs. So when my brother asked why am I moving when I live in a very nice, recently renovated (by me, thank you FHB)house, my answer was simple: Because I can.

I don't begrudge Mr. Chase. I only wish he lived closer...maybe I could get invited to one of his pick-up baseball games...indoor field, of course.

Larry
Oyster Bay, NY

Actually, the post by Mr. Moreau describes a cycloid and not an ellipse.

See Wikipedia for details.

As to the original video, it's an example of the curve that has appeared in both FHB and FWW a number of times, where, knowing the height of the curve and the distance needed, the formula for finding the radius of the circle necessary to produce the curve is: [(b x b) + (a x a) ] / 2a where a is the height and b is half the distance of the base line of the curve (the chord).

You can get all sorts of calculations including the above at:
http://www.1728.com/circsect.htm,

but most job sites don't have an internet connection (yet)...

If you're slightly OCD like me, you can measure the drawing on page 20 of FHB 204 (June/July 2009) and measure, approximately, a = .75 inches and b = 1.95. Doing the math you get a radius of 2.9, which matches pretty closely to the almost exactly 3 inches I got when I (painfully) traced the curve from the picture repeatedly until I completed the circle.

Everything you never wanted to know about ellipses is here:
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/math/ellipse.htm

Larry

I don't swing a hammer for a living, but have been known to do "some" work around the house. I am doing a major renovation and as a birthday present, decided to get the 14 oz Stiletto for my birthday present to me.

I'll never go back. There is no doubt in my mind - and my arm - that the titanium hammer is "deader" then a steel one. The nails drive more quickly and my elbow/forearm doesn't hurt at the end of the afternoon. As to energy, the formula is very simple as I recall, it's .5M*v*v. So momentum varies as the mass and the square of the velocity. There's no doubt there's less mass, but I also think that I am swinging faster, which more than makes up for the mass loss. It's the same concept when aging golfers transfer to fiberglass to increase the speed of their swing...

just my opinion...

Larry