| S | T | E | V | E | N |
| E | D | W | A | R | D |
| M | C | G | A | N | N |
| there is no ad here | ||
BUBBLE THEORY
MODELING
FABRICATING
BUBBLE THEORY
It has been long known that spheres are the most efficient way to enclose a single space. In 1990 it was proven by Foisy, Alfaro, Brock, Hodges and Zimba that the
standard double bubble is the most efficient way to enclose two spaces of the same size. 10 years later, Frank Morgan led a team
to the proof that the double bubble is also the most efficient way to enclose two spaces of differing sizes.
For the purposes of this study, I assume that just as tension and pressure act to optimize these simple examples, bubble configurations of any size and configuration will achieve a similarly minimal surface with the same results. In other words, for any given arrangement of spaces, bubble geometry will yield the most efficient method of enclosure. | |
This chart shows the percent savings of using bubble geometry over standard rectilinear geometry for various ratios of spaces. The total area remained the same in each instance, only the proportions of the two spaces changed from 1:10 to 1:1. (the first instance is simply a circle and a square) | |
 Based on the rule that bubble membranes always meet each other at 120 degrees, I began experimenting with 2 dimensional bubble plans. As I began studying the bubbles in 3 dimensions I noticed that the arcs along the intersections of the bubble membranes met with a tangential radial symmetry similar to that of the intersections between the membranes themselves. This held true even for the more complex bubble groups. 
Studying this symmetry led to a node-frame-infill language that helped create a heirarchy that organized the modeling of the final project in a coherent way. 
|