School has begun and today was the first day of studio.  I'm so glad to have something interesting to take up all those brain cells that have been hibernating all summer.  First day we get our first project, take a paragraph of metes and bounds instructions with height variations listed as changes in gravitational potential energy and determine a site plan to be used for the designing of a series of rapidly designed houses.  Whee.  What's the big deal, bitches?  Glad you asked.  height variables listed as GPE are dependent upon mass.  Greater mass, less height, so you have heights that are either 11ft or 25ft above or below a zero height, depending on the weight of the person who took the measurements.  Fun.

The project is designed to show us how words and reality are not always the same thing.  Our site plan has to somehow dig into the subtext of this.  My solution, show all the potential heights of the site.  It'll look all dynamic and stuff.  Since it's late and I'm tired, I'm just going to post my notes.  Man, where's my bong.

Notes

Interesting to note its continued use in the eastern US.  Places a sense of history and timeliness to the type of data that is gathered and presented.  Fallible, open to interpretation, subject to dispute.  Not intended to clarify, but seems to maintain a status quo of some previously acceptable system.  Why is this still in use?  Is there a migration towards GPS-based land plotting for these surveys?

Gravitational Potential Energy varies upon the height of a mass.  Gravity is a constant and therefore height and mass will vary in proportion to one another in relation to a value of PE.  The given equation is rearranged to yield the value desired, in this case height, and a range of masses is selected based on average human weights.

Ä Potential Energy

U=mgh

h=U/mg

U= 24,320; 18,240; 12,160; 6,080 (values both – and +)

m= 100-200lbs (determine extremes for these values)

m= 220lbs (my mass)

g=9.8 m/s²

Determine height extremes and mean.

m=100  U=24,320          h=24.82

122                               20

m=150  “                       h= 16.54ft

m=200  “                       h=12.41

220                               11.29

m=100  U=18,240          h=18.24

122                               15

150                               12.41ft

200                               9.31

220                               8.46

m=100  U=12,160          h=12.41

122                               10

150                               8.27ft

200                               6.20

220                               5.64

m=100  U=6,080            h=6.20

122                               5

150                               4.14ft

200                               3.1

220                               2.82

Why these values?  Why the correlation between various heights at different weights?  A logical assumption is that because this is an exercise and not a real world scenario, the values should have an originating weight to equal a height variation that is a real number and a common unit of increase.  This type of measurement is dependant upon who took the measurements and this exercise is to show us the variation in human components and/or language when creating precise measurements.

Determine the possible weight of the surveyor

m=U/gh

h=20     U=24,320          m=121.6lbs

h=15     U=18,240          m=121.6

etc…

My assumption based on a simple height value is that the site surveyor was approximately 122lbs.  As this document was compiled by our TA, I am assuming the heights were calculated according to her own weight.

Placement of a House

This type of measurement for variances in height creates an increasingly flat site as a person’s mass increases.  My own mass (220lbs) creates a landscape of almost indistinguishable variance (3-11ft above or below base), while the mass of a smaller student (100lbs) would yield a landscape more than double in height (6-25ft).

This degree of variation would create significant problems for planning a house unless a standard mass can be determined or accurate height determined.  This type of imperfection would necessitate a house that is flexible in its construction and layout, or else a house situated within a flat part of the site.  This variance would create potential strains on budgets for excavations and foundation considerations.

Any map of this site should convey the potential variation in elevation.  Areas with the least degree of variation based on difference in mass should be given preferential consideration in house placement if budget is a concern.  This is assuming there is no means of recalibrating the site, such as a secondary site survey with an accurate and absolute measure of height.