The human recipe.

Benchmarking the value of human life – Cultural, Economic & Geographic Considerations

Centuries ago, Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith attempted to assign a concrete value to human life. He, ultimately, landed on a wage-based valuation because, in his mind, this wealth represented “the ease or hardship, the cleanliness or dirtiness, the honorableness or dishonorableness of the employment.”

Though many still prescribe to the wage-based view of human valuation, the debate continues with, likely, no real answer. How can a person, group or economic indicator truly assign an accurate “price tag” to a single human’s life? And, more importantly, how could these individuals or parameters indicate this person’s life has more value than that person’s life?

Anchoring the Conversation: Wealth vs. Health vs. Location

Despite the seemingly endless loop of the human life valuation conversation, countless thought leaders have attempted to frame the back-and-forth in tangible, tactile terms. While arguments abound about how to value one human’s life from another’s, many of the most prominent debates are anchored in wealth — how much a person has or could have versus another — health and age and, finally, geographic location.
Valuing Life in Dollars and Cents
The wealth debate is fairly straightforward because quantifying values are relatively black and white. By this benchmark, a billionaire’s life would be worth exponentially more than someone living below the poverty line. For example, consider billionaire Warren Buffett and a minimum wage worker in Malawi:


$77.6 billion net worth

$12.7 billion annual revenue


$0 net worth

K15,000 per month (based on a six-day work week) = $248.16 annual salary

By this measure, at any given moment in time, Buffett’s life would be valued exponentially higher than the minimum wage worker. In a given year, the latter has no more than 2/1,000,000% value of Buffett based purely of their respective — and projected — earning potential. Layer in existing wealth or lack thereof and the balance is skewed even more.

Health & Age Considerations

That said, there’s also the health and age considerations which many weigh heavily when assessing the value of human life. While Buffett is a billionaire he’s also, currently, 86 years old, already exceeding the U.S. life expectancy by close to eight years. Side-by-side with a younger billionaire or, even, high momentum entrepreneur, investor or business leader, it’s hard to say his life has more value.

For example, Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg has a net worth of $70.5 billion — about 10% less than Buffett. However, Zuckerberg is 53 years younger than Buffett and, based on published accounts, in very good health. Because, presumably, Zuckerberg has decades longer to live and generate wealth than Buffett, one could make the leap that his life has greater value despite the elder’s economic superiority.

And it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who fall into these consideration sets. When thinking age and the value of life, many physicians, ethicists and academics have long debated the value of a terminally ill elderly patient versus a terminally ill child. One seems inherently more devastating as we console ourselves with reminders than the former “lived a good life.” It’s as if someone in their 60s, 70s or 80s life no longer holds the same value of a child or 20something.

Perhaps it’s the fact that they’ve already “spent” their years or, from a purely value perspective, that their earning potential and quantifiable value seems to be winding down or, even, obsolete. A child, on the other hand, is just getting started. Their life holds seemingly limitless possibilities and potential — potential to create tangible value for themselves and the world around them.

The valuation gap widens when health gets layered in. The terminally ill elderly patient versus the young, healthy child — most would argue the healthy child’s life has greater value when put head to head. This child not only has health on their side by, also, decades of potential contributions, earnings and more. The value, in this example, seems to far outpace the ill senior.

Geographic Value

Finally and, often, in conjunction with financial, age and health considerations, is the notion of geography and the role in plays in valuing a human’s life. More stable, wealthy countries tend to have citizens with higher household incomes and overall net worth.

Presently, the U.S. has the highest average salaries at $42,050. This high income is paired with the highest disposable income in the world, giving Americans’ lives significantly high tangible value. After the U.S. is Ireland ($41,170) where a well-educated workforce and relatively low tax rate contributes to their earning power and then Luxembourg ($37,997) anchored by a massive investment fund center that fuels the economy.

On the other end of the spectrum Malawi, again, has the lowest gross net income at approximately $250 per year followed by Burundi ($270), Central African Republic ($320), Liberia ($370) and the Democratic Republic of Congo ($380). Using geography and the economics that come with, the average Liberian’s life would be valued at 0.9% of an average American’s life.

Layer into this valuation other geographic considerations such as safety and security, freedom, opportunities for growth and development, education and general happiness/satisfaction and that number would, likely, adjust. For example, Liberia has a higher happiness score than the U.S. — 22.2 versus 20.7 — while the U.S. outpaces Liberia in life expectancy, well-being and equality. All of these geographic qualities would, then, adjust the valuation even more, likely giving U.S. lives even greater value over their Liberian counterparts.

Another potential geographic valuation point? The Fragile State Index. These countries are rife with political, social and economic challenges, with low GDPs, high unemployment and overall upheaval from war, famine and government unrest.

Top 10 States, Fragile States Index:

  1. South Sudan
  2. Somalia
  3. Central African Republic
  4. Yemen
  5. Sudan
  6. Syria
  7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
  8. Chad
  9. Afghanistan
  10. Iraq

For comparison purposes, the United States ranks 158th out of 178 countries on the index, meaning it’s economic and foundational elements are strong.

Cultural Considerations

In the geography vein, there’s also the notion of different regions and cultures and the value they traditionally place on human life. A good example? The divide between men and women in some nations. In Nepal, for example, young women who aren’t married may be sold to traffickers in their teen and, even, pre-teen years. In Saudi Arabia, women are seen as lifelong dependents of their husband or close male relative. They can’t drive and can’t publically interact with men outside their families.

Given these existing frameworks, it’s clear the value of a woman’s life in these countries is significantly less than a man’s life — granted, this may be seen as extreme or, even, inappropriate benchmarking considering the human rights violations that surround.

On the other end are the wealthy nations where women are not only social equals but, also, outearn their male counterparts. In Ireland, Australia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, happiness ratings are high and childless women outearn men by upwards of 17%. One could argue the value of a woman’s life in these countries exceeds that of a woman in segregated societies. This, though, would be purely based in cultural considerations and regional inequalities in these nations.

Putting it Together: How the World Values Life

In the U.S., for example, many agencies have attempted to assign a value to human life. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) values human life at $9.1 million, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) puts a $7.9 million price tag on a single life and the Department of Transportation lands around $6 million. Each bases their calculations on economic theories of cost-benefit analysis surrounding wages and the value workers place on avoiding the risk of death. By these standards, those in more dangerous, more developing and less wealthy nations would, still, have much lower values assigned to their lives.

This debate is, likely, one that will wage on for generations, with some arguing putting a concrete value on a person’s life is impossible — it’s the “priceless” argument, which many continue to hold onto. However, as New Scientist explains, “Your life might feel priceless to you and your loved ones, but society needs to know its value.” Why? Because, simply, “If we were to embrace the idea that life has immeasurable value,” they write, “there would be no ceiling on how much we would be prepared to spend to reduce the chance of dying, even by an infinitesimal amount. That may seem morally right, but it is economic madness.” So, for now, the discourse and debate continues, as economists, academics, philosophers and countless others weigh the factors that contribute to our individual lives and their valuations.


Renewable power invention replaces thermal power

Thermal Power Station: A thermal power station is a power plant in which heat energy is converted into electric power. In most part of the world the prime mover is steam driven. Water is heated, turns into steam that spins a steam turbine which drives an electrical generator.


The process seems simple, let us heat some water and create steam to turn turbines. Thanks to this simple enough sounding process as per pro-coal agencies websites, we are skeptical of consuming seafood that are on the top of the food chain because they are laced with mercury and lead.

Coal is not the only emitter. We have natural carbon emitters such as wildfires that pump million of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. According to Natural Resource Canada, large wildfires average 27,000,000 million metric tons of CO2 annually. United States and Alaska wildfires release 290 million metric tons of CO2  annually.  Have you considered how much CO2 is emitted from a standard coal power plant? lets use the state of Texas for comparison only. Texas, which is ranked third in the nation in coal-fired power production. Texas is also ranks as the highest-emitting state or province in the world for CO2 emissions, producing 290 million tons of the greenhouse gas per year alone, just one state, on its own.


GRAPH http://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/



Portable Loo – A simple, dignified solution

This invention was an inspiration from my trip to the slum areas of South Asia. I have seen many families living there and particularly a family of five that had settled in the middle of a highway with less than a 100 sq/ft area of living space and to me, that forged an everlasting impression.

But all you really can do is observe these individuals survive in their countries without the basic and have a lifestyle of a refugee and then not be declared as one by international standards.

I have invented this product to help with one of the many challenges that people are facing. The scarcity of toilets or latrines in the underprivileged areas of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria, Iraq and Africa is unquestionably a humanitarian affair.

If you could consider just one of the least populated country from the list above, it would be Syria and that according to the UN Refugee Agency’s website, has about 3.8 million refugees around the borders of the country alone, from which 51.2% are female. You must also consider 6.5 million individuals dislocated within Syria that are facing food shortages, water and sanitation.

Screen Shot 2015-01-15 at 6.28.53 PMCabanaPortable Loo Inc. pledges to donate 1 million units to the affected areas of the world and would like your support on social media to help create awareness. Through social media, I am also reaching out to NGO’s that can contribute to this project. Sponsoring parties would have the option to advertise space on the cabanas if requested. It’s a great way to get your brand to support a humanitarian cause and give back to the world community.

Disposable Squat Seat Portable Cabana

Copyright © 2015 All Rights Reserved | 62/807,898 Patent Pending

Space Elevator Assembly


The present invention generally relates to a space elevator for transporting payload, goods and people from earth’s surface to outer space, and more particularly relates to a space elevator assembly supported from its base grounded on earth’s surface.


The key concept of space elevator was first published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, who proposed a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of Earth to the height of geostationary orbit. Similar to high-altitude buildings and towers, Tsiolkovsky’s structure was under compression, supporting the tower’s own weight from below. However, since 1959, most ideas for space elevators have focused on tethering using purely tensile structures, with the weight of the elevator system being held up from above. A space tether reaches from a large mass or a counterweight stationed beyond geostationary orbit to a base support anchored on the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the counterweight like an upside-down plumb bob.

Earth-based space elevator would typically consist of a cable with one end attached to the surface near the equator and the other end in space beyond geostationary orbit. The competing forces of gravity, which is stronger at the lower end, and the upward centrifugal force, which is stronger at the upper end, would result in the cable being held up under tension, and stationary over a single position on Earth.

Once the space elevator is installed, climbing devices will clamp on to the tether and will be driven up or down the tether to deliver a payload to a desired altitude using a driving means such as electric or mechanical drive. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, and orbital elevators.

Current space transport and launch systems, with the advent of chemical rockets and improved guidance systems facilitates in overcoming the primary technical inability to transport materials and payload from the surface of the earth to the outer space. However, factors including huge costs, propellant energy resources, and safety during launch, still prevails as major concerns. In addition, the need for, countering gravity during flight, overcoming atmospheric drag and robust propulsion system poses further limitations to the existing rocket systems.

Since 1971, NASA has launched 135 missions, with each mission costing approximately $1.3 billion. Rockets have been an expensive undertaking and unlike any other mode of transportation, a rocket has a 40% vehicular failure rate and 1.5% flight failure rate.

Throughout the years there have been concepts of a space tether made of carbon nanotubes while sending a counterweight far beyond the geostationary orbit. Although the nanotubes technology is still in its infancy, it would require cables with widths of several miles to reach heights of 144,000 kilometers (89,000 miles) into space for a counter weight, the cost of which would be enormous.

Therefore, there still exist a need for an improved space elevator system, which can be used for transporting payload, materials and people from earth’s surface to outer space or planetary surface.


The present invention relates to a space elevator assembly supported from a base grounded on surface of the earth, the space elevator can be used for transporting payload, goods and people from earth’s surface to outer space.

The space elevator assembly of the present invention comprises an inner shaft comprising a plurality of interlocking segments composed of cylindrical bits vertically stackable to a plate, to form a rigid structure and an outer shaft comprising a plurality of telescoping cones extendable synchronously with the inner shaft, in order to elevate a platform attached to an upper end. The space elevator assembly further comprises a drive system consisting of an actuator for extending the inner shaft by enabling stacking of the plurality of interlocking segments.

In an embodiment, the inner shaft comprises a plurality of interlocking segments, wherein the each interlocking segment comprises a combination of cylindrical bits stackable on a rigid plate, which interlocks the bits in place and also prevents buckling effect during extended position. The number of bits per interlocking segment progressively increase during extension of the inner shaft from the base.


Fig.1 Illustrates a perspective view of the space elevator assembly according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Space Elevator

Space Elevator


Fig.2 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Inner Shaft + Telescopic Exo Shell

Inner Shaft + Telescopic Exo Shell


Fig.3 Illustrates a base frame with stay cables attached to a support rail according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Cable Rail System

Cable Rail System


Fig.4 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft comprising the inner shaft in a vertically stacked position.

Inner Shaft / Bits

Inner Shaft / Bits


5A-5C Shows interlocking segments of the inner shaft.

Bits locking mechanism

Bits locking mechanism

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.22.23 PM

Fig 6. Schematically illustrates exemplary lift stages for extension of inner shaft in conjunction with outer shaft.


Initial stages of the tower

Initial stages of the tower

9 Illustrates lift stage four during extension of inner shaft in conjunction with outer shaft.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.23.01 PM

15 Illustrates lift stage ten during extension of inner shaft in conjunction with outer shaft.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.23.11 PM

Tower fully extended


16 Shows an image illustrating self-weight of bottom cones.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.43.30 PM

17 Illustrates a shows a seismic hazard map. 

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.43.48 PM 

 18 Shows a model of dynamic earthquake testing.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.43.58 PM


19 Illustrates modelling of earthquake force on the X direction using ETABS software.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.44.21 PM

20 Illustrates ETABS Building model for natural period.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.44.33 PM

21 Illustrates a graph showing change in shear forces with number of lift stages.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.44.44 PM

22 Illustrates distribution of seismic lateral forces.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.44.57 PM

23 Shows non-cumulative distribution of seismic forces.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.45.06 PM

24A Shows the latitude angle of rotation of object from earth’s centre of matter.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.45.16 PM

24B Shows a graph of gravity force in relation to centripetal force and component force.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.45.25 PM

25A-25L Shows images of finite element method modelling of the tower structure using ETABS software.


Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.46.45 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.46.56 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.47.07 PMScreen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.47.28 PM

  Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.47.38 PM  Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.47.17 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.48.40 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.48.28 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.47.54 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.48.51 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.48.17 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.48.06 PM


26A-26E Shows a second model of the tower structure at different elevations.

 Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.49.03 PMScreen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.49.15 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.49.25 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.49.36 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.49.47 PM 


 27A Illustrates axial forces in the lowest cone.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.49.58 PM

27B Shows bending moment in the lowest cone during simulation of a minor earthquake.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.50.08 PM

27C Shows axial force in one of the bits at the bottom of the tower structure.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.50.19 PM

28 Illustrates distance calculation for tower axis from the point of cable ground support.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.50.31 PM

29A Shows cable supporting the tower structure until 6th storey or level.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.50.43 PM

29B Shows seismic deformation of the tower structure.


Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.50.57 PM

29C Shows moment diagram in the tower structure.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.51.08 PM

30 Illustrates deformation due to bending moment in the tower structure.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.51.20 PM

31A Illustrates Columns made by interlinked bits.

 Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.51.29 PM

31B. Shows deformation due to buckling and internal forces appear in the connection between bits.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.51.38 PM

31C And FIG. 31D =Illustrates anchors expending from the bit core in to the bit notch.

 Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.51.48 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.51.58 PM

 32 Shows force distribution in the joint between bits.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.52.08 PM 

33A And FIG. 33B Shows extra lateral anti-buckling support provided by the columns joined to the cons.

 Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.52.17 PM Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.52.28 PM

 34 Shows connection between supporting bits.

 Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.52.38 PM

 35 Shows buckling stability from both anti-buckling support and connection between supporting bits.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.52.49 PM 

 36 Shows an interlocking segment comprising cylindrical bits interlocked in position by a rigid plate.


Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 9.53.02 PM


The following detailed description of the preferred embodiments presents a description of certain specific embodiments to assist in understanding the claims. However, the present invention is intended to cover alternatives, modifications and equivalents, which may be included within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Furthermore, in the following detailed description of the present invention, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details.

Referring to 1, which shows a space elevator assembly 100, comprising an inner shaft 110 comprising a plurality of interlocking segments 112 consisting of cylindrical bits vertically stackable on a rigid plate in order to extend into a tower like structure. An outer shaft 120 comprising a plurality of telescoping cones 122 extendable synchronously with the inner shaft 110, in order to elevate a platform 130 which is attached to an upper end of the inner shaft 110 and outer shaft 120. The space elevator assembly 100 further comprises a drive system consisting of an actuator 140 for extending the inner shaft 110 by enabling stacking of the plurality of interlocking segments 112 from a winded position.

Each interlocking segment comprising a plurality of cylindrical bits stackable on a rigid plate as shown in 36. The number of bits progressively increase in numbers for each segment during extension. The rigid plate helps to hold the bits in interlocked position after extension and prevents buckling effect, which is described further in later part of this specification.

The space elevator assembly 100, further comprises a base frame structure 150 comprising a plurality of stay cables 160 for supporting the outer shaft 120 in an extended position. More particularly, the stay cables 160 are adapted to support not all but some successive telescoping cones 122 from the bottom. The rest of the top telescoping cones 122 do not require the support of the stay cables 160. The stay cables 160 are winded on a stay cable support rail 152 of the base frame structure 150 in a retreated position wherein, the stay cables 160 are extended as the outer shaft is upwardly extended.

In an embodiment, interlocking segments 112 are winded on a spool in the retreated coiled position 114 and stacked to form a vertically rigid shaft in the extended position. The spool can be positioned above ground or underground in a coiled structure, providing access to the drive system comprising an actuator 140 to enable extending of inner shaft 110 by stacking of numerous interlocking units during different stages of extension. The actuator 140 is driven by a controllable motor comprising electrical engine or a mechanical or hydraulic driving means. The actuator 140 uploads the bits or interlocking units 112 and locks them and then it unloads them and unlocks them to be stored in any position such as stored vertically or coiled up once again.

In an embodiment, the interlocking segments 112 of inner shaft comprises a plurality of bits which are unlocked and stacked to form a rigid inner shaft during extension from a winded position. The number of bits for each telescoping cone substantially increases with vertical extension of telescoping cones. For example during 1st expand: first extended cone comprises 1 bit; 2nd expand: second extended cone comprises 2 bits; 3rd expand: third extended cone comprises 3 bits. The bits can be stacked in different combinations during further extension of telescoping cones, as exemplified above.

The platform 130 at the upper end is supported by the inner shaft 110 and outer shaft 120 extending from the ground, the platform allows payloads or materials or people to be elevated to outer space or earth orbit or any level of elevation lower than the geostationary orbit. In an embodiment, the top platform weighs 5 tons and comprises 2500 square meter area.

2 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft according to an embodiment of the present invention. The outer shaft 120 comprises a plurality of telescoping cones 122, also known as telescopic exo shell constructed with cylindrical cones of progressively decreasing diameters, with the outermost cone having a greater diameter and the inner most cone at the core having a lowest diameter. The telescoping cones 122 are configured to extend to a predetermined height and are made of atmospheric drag resistant material, which confers greater stability to the overall structure.

The inner shaft 110 forms a rigid structure due to vertically stacking of interlocking segments. The outer shaft provides exoskeletal support by extending synchronously with the inner shaft in order to elevate the platform fixed at the upper end of the shafts. Similarly, the outer shaft comprising telescoping cones retreats synchronously along with the inner shaft.

3 Illustrates a base frame with stay cables attached to a support rail according to an embodiment of the present invention. The base frame 150 comprises a star-like or cross-like platform which supports the vertical tower structure and comprises a plurality of stay cables 160with one end attached to first few cones of the outer shaft and other end of the stay cable attached to a stay cable support rail structure 152.The stay cables 160 can be winded in a direction 104 during retreat and unwounded in a direction 102 during extension.

The stay cables 160 support the outer shaft and provides stability while in synchronously rotation towards or away from the overall vertical structure as required. The stay cables 160 can be independently coiled as an individual unit into a winded position or are supported autonomously by an overall coiling and uncoiling system for all the cables to work synchronously within the stay cable support rail 152.

4 Illustrates a sectional view of the outer shaft comprising the inner shaft with interlocking segments in a vertically stacked position. The outer shaft comprises telescoping cones in an extended position, which supports the inner shaft 110 consisting of interlocking units 112 stacked to form a vertical rigid structure.

The inner shaft 110, when uncoiled from the spool, extends by stacking of interlocking segments 112 and provides lift to the space elevators by extending the overall vertical structure towards any elevation including lower Earth orbit or beyond geostationary orbit. Similarly the interlocking segments 112 are un-stacked and coiled during descending.

5A Shows interlocking segments 112 vertically stacked above each other to form a rigid inner shaft 110. FIG. 5B and FIG. 5C respectively shows stacking and un-stacking of interlocking segments of inner shaft.

In an embodiment, the base size would be 50% of the overall height. For example, if the structure extends up to 99 miles or 160 km, then it would be required that the base size should be half of that distance, approximately 49.5miles or 80km.

The space elevator would be constructed using super strong and lightweight metal alloys that would provide the structure immense strength-to-weight ratio. It would be constructed using materials such as Titanium alloys that are currently being used by the aviation industry.

The inner shaft is constructed from a material with an ultimate bearing strength preferably in the range of 170,000 to 200,000 PSI. Materials for manufacturing inner shaft can be selected from a group consisting of Titanium, Kevlar or other strong but relatively lightweight materials. In an embodiment, Titanium alloy Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al is used. Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al is a fully beta Titanium base alloy, which is harder and stronger than many Titanium alloys. It is a heat-treatable alloy, wieldable, easily formable and commonly used in compressor blades, airframe components, disks, wheels and spacers.

Ti 10V-2Fe-3Al being an all beta alloy, it is more difficult to machine than most of the Titanium alloys.The following Table. 1 shows structural properties of Titanium alloy Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al.

Compressive yield strength (fyc) 1200 Mpa
Ultimate Bearing Strength (fuc) 1700 Mpa
Compressive Yield Strength (fyc) 1080 Mpa
Ultimate Bearing Strength (fuc) 1530 Mpa
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 107 Gpa
Elongation at Break (εu) 10 %
Specific Weight (γ) 45.6 kN/m3

Table. 1

In another embodiment the inner shaft comprises of plurality of cylindrical bits or columns adapted to extend in progressive combinations according to height. The bits synchronously extend with outer shaft comprising telescoping cones, in progressive expand stages or lift stages during vertical extension. 6-15 schematically illustrates exemplary lift stages 1-10 showing progressive increase in the number of bits during extension of inner shaft in conjunction with telescoping cones.

Structural system: The main structural system has to be designed to carry the biggest load that is the self-weight of the system. The tower extension basically comprises of two steps: 1. Uplifting- during which the column takes the weight of the cones too; and 2. Fully expended locked structure- during which the columns will not take the weight of the cones.

Determining the height of the columns:

Exemplary calculations

Having only the axial force (compression or tension doesn’t matter), the axial stress, called sigma “σ” will be equal to:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 11.03.13 PM[1]

Where, N – axial force and A- the cross section area

But when considering only the axial force from self-weight, the N will be:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 11.02.52 PM[2]

Where, V – is the volume [meter cube] and the γ – specific weight

The Volume will be:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 11.03.58 PM[3]

Where, A – cross section area and L – length

Now substituting [3] in [2]:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 11.00.27 PM[2 ‘]

Substituting [2’] in [1]:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.59.51 PM[1’]

And now, the ‘A’ will simplify and this is the formula for stress, when considering only self-weight.

To find the maximum length, from the [1’] equation:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.58.45 PM[4]

Using the formula σ= γ*L, with known strength limit γ and weight factor L, Where is equal to “fy” =material tension design value, which is the ultimate tensile strength, the limit state design is assumed as 1500*1000. The maximum height of 1 bit can be calculated as:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.57.49 PM

In certain circumstances the maximum height of one bit for the inner shaft would be required to be 30 km in height in order to sustain its own weight. But the axial forces will have the Cones weight too and the top load.

Ultimate strength only from the axial force would mean that the tower would reach the strength capacity when ascending and would need to split the tower into 20 pieces for the length of 160 km:

With this above calculated length, the stress from self-weight can be calculated as:

Wherein is 22% of its capacity from self-weight,

1600*0.22 = 352, so about 364.

As mentioned above, the tower extension basically comprises of two steps: 1. Uplifting- during which the column takes the weight of the cones too; and 2. Fully expended locked structure- during which the columns will not take the weight of the cones. When the tower is fully expended and locked in, the telescoping cones and bits will carry the weight but during lifting process, the weight will have to be carried only by the bits, hence the bits are designed at full axial force.

The tower is being split into 20 parts, each part is calculated to sustain itself from the weight of other parts above it. Between the parts, a rigid plate is placed to form a support for bits and cones, and interlocked or glued to create a rigid joint.


Design of bits: In an embodiment, the cross-sectional shape of the bit is circular. The area of circle can be calculated as:

Area of the circle (A) = PI * D^2 /4

Choose the diameter (D) = 55000 [mm] or 55 [m]

Area (A) = 2.4E+09 [mm2] or 2375.8 [m2]

Volume = Area * height

=2.4*10^9 mm square * 8000*1000 mm

=1.92*10^16 mm cube

=19200000 meter cube


Self-weight of bits:

Self-weight is represented as Nself =volume * specific weight

The specific weight for Titanium is 45.6 kN/m cube

Hence, Nself = 19200000 m^3 * 45.6 kN/m^3

=866702581.3 [kN]


Compression force:

The stress from axial force σ = N / A

Height of the cone: 8000 [m]

For the maximum length of 160 km, the self-weight will be:

From the top platform 5 tones = 50 kN

Nself = 866702581.3  [kN]

Ntop plat=50  [kN]


Since σ = N self / Area

For 1.5 stress SUM: N1 = 866702631.3        [kN]

Hence, the stress is calculated as: σ = N/A

= 866702631.3/2375.8

= 364.8 [MPa]

The rate of actual stress/allowable stress (design stress for um) =σ / fyc

= 364.8/1080

= 0.3378


CONE Material Properties:

Specific weight γ = 45.6 [kN/m3]

Exemplary dimensions of CONE are given in the following Table. 2.


Thickness (t) 10000 [mm]
Height (H) 7000 [m]
Outside diameter D’ 68000 [mm]
Volume of the cones (V) 12754866.2 [mc]

Table. 2


Here volume is Area * Height

Area = πR^2-πr^2

= π (34^2-29^2)

=1980 m^2

Hence V = area*height

= 1980*7000

V=13860000 m^3


Self-weight is represented as Nself = volume * specific weight

Nself=13860000 m^3*45.6 kN/m^3

Thus, the self-weight of the cone is calculated as, Ncone = 632016000[kN]

Total weight for the cone:

For example, during lift stage 1, there will be only one column and there is no axial force exerted from the above columns. Whereas from lift stage 2, axial force from first column will have to be added. Similarly during lift stage 5, there will be more columns (5 columns), the axial force calculated from weight of the cone and the whole weight from above columns should be split by the number of column, i. e. divided by 5 in this case.

So the stress will be: σ = Ncone/Area

=632016000 * 10^3 N / (1980 * 10^6 mm^2)

=319.1 Mpa, which is the stress from weight of the cone.

 The total stress in the cone can be calculated using:

  1. Adding the two axial forces for finding σ.
  2. Finding σ from self-weight (weight of the column) and then find σ from the weight of the cone and then adding both the stress to calculate total stress as shown below:

When the tower is uplifting, the weight of the cone will also be supported by the bits, so for a predesign dimension of the bits, the stress from the cone is added.

Total Stress=stress from the self-weight + Stress from the Bit’s Weight

=319.1 Mpa + 364.8 Mpa

= 683.9 Mpa

The rate actual stress/allowable stress (design stress for Titanium): σ / fyc


= 0.63324

The axial force for different levels of the vertical tower during each stage of extension is given in the following 3, where

D = the diameter of the cone,

V = volume of the cone,

Ncon = the axial force given by the cone weight,

Nr BITS = number of bits inside the cone,

N BITS = axial force given by the bits weight,

N TOTAL = the total axial force (bits + con),

Area cone = area of the cone section,

Area total = area of the cone section plus the bits section;

σ= N/A (axial stress in the bits); and

stress/fyc shows percent capacity of the bits used when the tower structure is lifted (for example 0.425 means 42.5% is used)


Level D[mm] V [m3] N cone [kN] Nr. BITS N BITS [kN] N total [kN] Area cone [m2] Area total [m2] N/A [Mpa] stress/fy
20 105000 3259402 148628748 1 458421200 607049948 407.425297 1256.637061 483.075 0.40256
19 135000 16336282 744934450 5 2292106000 3.037E+09 2042.03522 6283.185307 483.36 0.4028
18 165000 20106193 916842400 5 2292106000 3.209E+09 2513.27412 6283.185307 510.72 0.4256
17 195000 23876104 1.089E+09 5 2292106000 3.381E+09 2984.51302 6283.185307 538.08 0.4484
16 225000 27646015 1.261E+09 5 2292106000 3.553E+09 3455.75192 6283.185307 565.44 0.4712
15 255000 31415927 1.433E+09 9 4125790800 5.558E+09 3926.99082 11309.73355 491.46667 0.40956
14 285000 35185838 1.604E+09 9 4125790800 5.73E+09 4398.22972 11309.73355 506.66667 0.42222
13 315000 38955749 1.776E+09 9 4125790800 5.902E+09 4869.46861 11309.73355 521.86667 0.43489
12 345000 42725660 1.948E+09 13 5959475600 7.908E+09 5340.70751 16336.2818 484.06154 0.40338
11 375000 46495571 2.12E+09 13 5959475600 8.08E+09 5811.94641 16336.2818 494.58462 0.41215
10 405000 50265482 2.292E+09 13 5959475600 8.252E+09 6283.18531 16336.2818 505.10769 0.42092
9 435000 54035394 2.464E+09 17 7793160400 1.026E+10 6754.42421 21362.83004 480.14118 0.40012
8 465000 57805305 2.636E+09 17 7793160400 1.043E+10 7225.6631 21362.83004 488.18824 0.40682
7 495000 61575216 2.808E+09 17 7793160400 1.06E+10 7696.902 21362.83004 496.23529 0.41353
6 525000 65345127 2.98E+09 21 9626845200 1.261E+10 8168.1409 26389.37829 477.71429 0.3981
5 555000 69115038 3.152E+09 21 9626845200 1.278E+10 8639.3798 26389.37829 484.22857 0.40352
4 585000 72884950 3.324E+09 21 9626845200 1.295E+10 9110.6187 26389.37829 490.74286 0.40895
3 615000 76654861 3.495E+09 25 11460530000 1.496E+10 9581.85759 31415.92654 476.064 0.39672
2 645000 80424772 3.667E+09 25 11460530000 1.513E+10 10053.0965 31415.92654 481.536 0.40128
1 675000 84194683 3.839E+09 25 11460530000 1.53E+10 10524.3354 31415.92654 487.008 0.40584


Table. 3

Design checking of the cones:

  1. Bottom cone design check:
  2. i) Axial force from self-weight at the bottom of the tower, estimated from the ETAB modelling software as shown in 16.

Axial force in the bottom cone, Nbase = 7.26E+10 kN or 7.26E+13 N

  1. ii) Cone dimensions:

Outer diameter D = 6800 m

Wall thickness t = 10 m

Thus, Area A= 106735.6104 m2 or 1.06736E+11 mm2

iii) Stress check: Stress σ = 680.19 MPa

  1. iv) Material Properties: Titanium Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al

Compressive Yield Strength fyc = 1200 Mpa

Ultimate bearing strength fuc = 1700 Mpa

Here, the condition for the checking cone dimensions is that calculated stress should be less than strength of the cone material.

Simulating a small earthquake:

FIG. 17 Shows a seismic hazard map of Canada. When such a tower is designed for real construction, an advanced analysis should be done such as machete on scale (like wind in turbine analysis), model that will be subjected to dynamic earthquake tests, as illustrated in FIG. 18. The intent for the small structural analysis is to simulate a small earthquake (because, in Canada the tower can be built in 0 seismic region, but just in case the seismic hazard changes or a new fault plane form in that zone) and to see how the structure manifest.

FIG. 19 Illustrates modelling of earthquake force on the X direction using Etabs software. From the figure, the coefficient of 0.01 mean that the seismic force will be only 1% of the structural mass, a coefficient that is very small compared with a medium earthquake in active seismic zone. For example, in zone near a fault, medium seismic activity means an acceleration of the ground of 0.2..0.35 g and for usual buildings that give an seismic coefficient of 0.1-0.2 (compared to 0.01) -> 10..20% of the mass.


Another very important characteristic of earthquake waves is their period or frequency, that is, whether the waves are quick and abrupt (or) slow and rolling. This phenomenon is particularly important for determining the building seismic forces. All objects have a natural or fundamental period; this is the rate at which they will move back and forth if they are given a horizontal push. In fact, without pulling and pushing it back and forth, it is not possible to make an object vibrate at anything other than its natural period.

For example, when a child in a swing is started with a push, to be effective this shove must be as close as possible to the natural period of the swing. If correctly gauged, a very small push will set the swing going nicely. Similarly, when earthquake motion starts a building vibrating, it will tend to sway back and forth at its natural period.

Period is the time in seconds (or fractions of a second) that is needed to complete one cycle of a seismic wave. Frequency is the inverse of this, i.e. the number of cycles that will occur in a second, and is measured in “Hertz”. One Hertz is one cycle per second.

When using the basic formula for the usual buildings, the natural period will be around:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.53.57 PM

H= 160*1000=160000m

T= 800 s

The above value is what we expect from the finite element program if the formula was true for special building like this. From the ETABS Building model the natural period is shown in FIG. 20. The value of 36755 s, is about 50 folds bigger than what was expected with the formula presented in the seismic building design. The following Table. 4 shows seismic lateral forces for 1-20 storeys or levels.

Story Load SHEAR FORCE       N SEISMIC FORCE           N
20 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 17954249.89 17954949.9
19 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 60950641.7 179547600
18 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 141171227.7 145556577
17 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 254280141.1 113108913
16 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 375872165 121592024
15 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 522918417 147046252
14 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 691059068 168140651
13 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 859619149 168560081
12 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 1041777065 182157916
11 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 1233143584 191366519
10 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 1416774920 183631336
9 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 1602057454 185282534
8 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 1784570587 182513133
7 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 1951103614 166533027
6 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 2107249811 156146197
5 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 2248558096 141308285
4 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 2365550363 116992267
3 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 2456263879 90713516
2 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 2521234358 64970479
1 EARTHQUAKE COMBO 2555970364 34736006

Table. 4

21 Illustrates a graph showing change in shear forces with number of storeys 1-20. FIG. 22 Illustrates distribution of seismic lateral forces. FIG. 23 shows non-cumulative distribution of seismic forces.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.26.54 PM

Base Shear:

Seismic forces in the structure and stresses:

The following Table. 5 shows in the first column, the Moment M in every story given by the effect of overturning produced by seismic lateral forces. The second and third columns shows the section properties – moment of inertia I and the D/2 – that are involved in determining the stress in the section.

The formula from which the normal stress SIGMA deduced is:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.51.51 PM

With the value of sigma, we have to compare to the material design limit (fy for yield of fu – for rupture) and from the table. 5, it is clear that the structure will not hold (fy = 1200MPa). At a normal project bigger sections can be made as an iterative process, by choosing larger and larger dimension until this checks in (or change the material but clear this is not the case). The problem is that, lack any tools to verify these numbers, hence it’s only an approximate view. But with this approximate values, it can be see that the earthquake will be a big problem so, for installing such as structure in a seismic zone, additional support cables or stay cables can be used to help the structure to resist the lateral forces.

M3 [kN] I z Sigma MPa
4.63E+09 5.48273E+17 52500 442.96
1.86E+11 4.32018E+18 67500 2910.82
3.29E+11 8.05033E+18 82500 3368.53
7.84E+11 1.34769E+19 97500 5672.63
1.51E+12 2.09181E+19 112500 8142.47
1.87E+12 3.06919E+19 127500 7755.88
3.04E+12 4.31164E+19 142500 10057.14
2.76E+12 5.85097E+19 157500 7432.23
4.11E+12 7.71899E+19 172500 9178.11
9.66E+12 9.94751E+19 187500 18208.08
7.97E+12 1.25683E+20 202500 12847.65
1.26E+13 1.56133E+20 217500 17524.51
1.04E+13 1.91141E+20 232500 12650.32
1.36E+13 2.31027E+20 247500 14516.14
1.41E+13 2.76109E+20 262500 13424.06
1.72E+13 3.26704E+20 277500 14618.07
2.11E+13 3.8313E+20 292500 16108.76
2.60E+13 4.45706E+20 307500 17937.83
2.94E+13 5.1475E+20 322500 18388.30
3.44E+13 5.9058E+20 337500 19641.51

 Table. 5


The Earth centripetal force:

Rotational velocity ω due to the Earth’s rotation :

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.30.55 PM

Earth radius – the surface of the Earth :
Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.33.14 PM




=> v = 465 [m/s]

On the top of the tower we will have the radius of R ‘= R + 160* 1000, as 160km height. The linear velocity for the surface of the Earth.

=> v = 465 [m/s]
R’= 6530000 [m]

The linear velocity on the 160 km height will be :

v ‘= 477 [m/s]

Centripetal force Fc:

      In the case of an object that is swinging around on the end of a rope in a horizontal plane, the centripetal force on the object is supplied by the tension of the rope. The rope example is an example involving a ‘pull’ force. The centripetal force can also be supplied as a ‘push’.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.36.45 PM






The distribution of centripetal force in the tower is shown in the following Table. 6. The tower can be built around the Canadian zone the angle of latitude will be around 50 degree. FIG. 24A shows the latitude angle of rotation of object from earth’s center of matter and FIG. 24B shows a graph of gravity force in relation to centripetal force and component force.

Story Height [m] Mass [kg] R [m] v [m/s] Fc [kN]
20 160000 65745031.7 7E+06 476.69 2287.82
19 152000 165793859 7E+06 476.106 5762.29
18 144000 326487261 7E+06 475.522 11333.4
17 136000 487427443 7E+06 474.938 16899.3
16 128000 556729102 6E+06 474.354 19278.3
15 120000 718162844 6E+06 473.77 24837.8
14 112000 879843366 6E+06 473.186 30392.1
13 104000 949885366 6E+06 472.602 32771
12 96000 1112059448 6E+06 472.018 38318.6
11 88000 1274480310 6E+06 471.434 43860.8
10 80000 1345262649 6E+06 470.85 46239.4
9 72000 1508177071 6E+06 470.266 51774.8
8 64000 1671338273 6E+06 469.682 57304.8
7 56000 1742860953 6E+06 469.098 59682.8
6 48000 1906515715 6E+06 468.514 65205.7
5 40000 2070417257 6E+06 467.93 70723.2
4 32000 2142680276 6E+06 467.346 73100.2
3 24000 2215190076 6E+06 466.762 75479.6
2 16000 2379831958 6E+06 466.178 80988
1 8000 2544720620 6E+06 465.594 86490.9

Table. 6

The horizontal component that give the overturning moment is given in Table. 7

Angle Fcentr [kN] Fhoriz [kN]
50 2287.8199 1922.5
5762.2879 4842.3
11333.387 9523.9
16899.34 14201.1
19278.327 16200.3
24837.813 20872.1
30392.058 25539.5
32770.994 27538.7
38318.582 32200.5
43860.835 36857.8
46239.435 38856.7
51774.841 43508.3
57304.818 48155.3
59682.799 50153.6
65205.739 54794.7
70723.155 59431.2
73100.233 61428.8
75479.558 63428.2
80988.047 68057.2
86490.886 72681.4

Table. 7


The following Table. 8 shows comparison between the seismic lateral forces and centripetal forces. The forces from earthquake are about 10,000x times bigger than the forces from moving the Earth. At this values of lateral forces and compared with the stresses analysis, it can be seen clear that the structure has no problem taking this extra overturning moment.


Story Fcentr [kN] Fseism [kN]
20 1922.5 17954249.9
19 4842.3 60950641.7
18 9523.9 141171228
17 14201.1 254280141
16 16200.3 375872165
15 20872.1 522918417
14 25539.5 691059068
13 27538.7 859619149
12 32200.5 1041777065
11 36857.8 1233143584
10 38856.7 1416774920
9 43508.3 1602057454
8 48155.3 1784570587
7 50153.6 1951103614
6 54794.7 2107249811
5 59431.2 2248558096
4 61428.8 2365550363
3 63428.2 2456263879
2 68057.2 2521234358
1 72681.4 2555970364

Table. 8


25A-25L Shows images of finite element method modelling of the tower structure using ETABS software. Similarly, FIG. 26A-26E shows a second model of the tower structure at different elevations such as levels or storeys 20, 17, 10, 5 and 1.

Axial forces in the lowest cone, for example axial forces at pier 20 is shown in 27A. Bending moment in the lowest cone during simulation of a minor earthquake is shown in FIG. 27B. Axial force in one of the bits at the bottom of the tower structure is shown in FIG. 27C. From the model figures, it can be seen that the axial load is smaller in the bits as cones take almost all of the axial weight.

Lateral forces from small seismic force:

  1. Moment from lateral force: The seismic force will produce a moment that has maximum value at the base of the tower.

M= 8.04E+10 kNm, from small earthquake (seismic coefficient of 0.01)1% of its weight.

  1. Moment of inertia:

I= 6.16E+11 [m^4]

  1. Stress check (seism only):

Stress  σ = 887.05MPA

  1. Stress check (seism + self-weight):

Seism + self-weight = σ t =1567.24 MPA


Design of Cables:

Cables will be added to add extra lateral stability for the tower. The cables are designed to carry their own weight at about 40% of capacity so the rest of 60% is purposed to be used in case of emergency situations, such as, an earthquake, or the like. The axial force in the outside cable is 2.72 * 10 ^11 units [kN] for only a 1m thick cable, so the use of the cable that goes from the ground to the top of the tower at 160 km it’s not possible. Because the stress will be bigger greater than design value, it might not hold.

Choosing the distance between the tower and cable support on the ground:

The distance between the tower axis and the point of cables ground support will be 2x the height of one story (8km X 2=16km). As shown in FIG. 28, distance calculation for tower axis and point of cable ground support.

From the figure, on decomposing the forces by the angle alpha, angle that depends on the X (the distance) and the height (H – the height is where the cables are fixed on the tower). The force in the cable “FCABLE” is the lateral force (the seismic force) divided by the sin of alpha:

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.39.50 PM

The force in the tower (and by force I mean the extra axial force given by equilibrium):

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.40.38 PM

Three different heights (8000, 16000 and 24000) are tested with three types of distance between tower and cable support (8000, 16000 and 24000) and the results are given in Table. 9.

X Height α [degree] SEISM FCABLE FTOWER Fc-Ft
8000 8000 45 1 1.4 1 0.4
16000 27 1 2.2 2 0.2
24000 18 1 3.2 3 0.2
16000 8000 63 1 1.1 0.5 0.6
16000 45 1 1.4 1 0.4
24000 34 1 1.8 1.5 0.3
24000 8000 72 1 1.1 0.3 0.7
16000 56 1 1.2 0.7 0.5
24000 45 1 1.4 1 0.4

Table. 9


From the table. 9, if X (the distance between the tower and the support for the cables) is equal to 8000m, then the cables will take 40% more than the tower, if X is chosen at 16000m, the cables will take 60% and for 24000m 70% . The more the distance between the tower and the cable support, the more force will be absorbed in the cable and thus the more use for them. However because of the extra cost for this, 16 km distance for X is preferred.

29A shows cable supporting the tower structure up until the 6th storey or level. FIG. 29B shows seismic deformation of the tower structure. FIG. 29C shows moment diagram in the tower structure showing the decreasing slope and cables help with the overturning moment. From the pictures, it can be seen that the biggest axial force is in the topmost cable at it has the value of 9.8*10^8 kN.

Cable cross section:

The biggest axial force in the top most cable has the value of 9.8*10^8 kN. Aramid fibers which have high strength to weight ratio equal to force per unit area at failure/density can be used for stay cables.

Stress=force/area (1m diameter)

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.41.43 PM

For determining necessary diameter,

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.42.17 PM

So, for the cables to help and take the load from the earthquake, the cable diameter should be greater than 25m. In the event of a small 0.01 earthquake, an accidental earthquake in the zone were hazard maps indicates 0 seismic. It’s clear that this tower cannot withstand a large seismic event and for that reason there are tall buildings in Dubai, New York and not in California or Chile or Japan for that matter. It’s clear that the seismic zone determine the height of the buildings so this type of construction can be only made where seismic hazard is considered 0 and the structure can have extra cables that ensure stability to an hypothetical small earthquake C=0.01, Earthquake that is not on the hazard maps.


Buckling is caused by a bifurcation in the solution to the equations of static equilibrium. At a certain stage under an increasing load, further load can be sustained in one of two states of equilibrium: an un-deformed state or a laterally-deformed state. There is a need to prevent buckling in the tower bits (columns) when the structure is lifting (in this stage because it is here that the maximum axial force is applied to the columns).

Buckling is caused be geometrical imperfections of the column vertical ax, imperfections that when the axial force is applied will cause a bending moment and this bending moment will cause the deformation of the ax, more deformation will result in increasing the bending moment and so the column will lose stability and fail before the axial capability is reached.

Buckling in the main reason for structural columns failure so this matter is very important in the rising stage of the structure. In the usual structure’s buckling is prevented by decrease the height or adding extra support that prevent the buckling deformed shape to appear.

In present case bits (columns) are not made from a single material, is made from a lot of parts that adds up, bits.


Solution 1

As buckling appear because of the deformation given by the extra bending moment that forms in the column, but because the column is made by multiple parts joined together, use of a system that prevent forming the deformed shape from the start will cancel that bending moment that cause problems as shown in FIG. 30. Columns made by bits are shown in FIG. 31A.

When the buckling appear (the deformed shape) in the connection between bit internal forces will appear, as shown in FIG. 31B. As seen in the figure, the forces that counter the bending moment (this internal forces) are concentrated on small area (points) and this force concentration will lead to structural failure (force concentration will involve very high stress that will produce material failure). One of the solution for this is to spread or distribute these internal forces on more area so that it will decrease the stress by the use of anchors that expend from the bit core in to the other bit notch as shown in FIG. 31C and FIG. 31D. A new force distribution in the joint between bits can carry a lot more forces that came from bending moment produced by buckling effect is shown in FIG. 32.


Solution 2

The extra lateral support provided by joining all the columns together and “weld” the support that joins them to the cones as shown in FIG. 33A and FIG. 33B. This “anti-buckling supports” will be assembled on the height of the column having a step between them that will be the result of the buckling calculations. For example, there will be 20 supports with the height of 8000m => the step between them will be 8000/20 = 400m. Supporting bits connection is shown in FIG. 34. By combining solutions 1 and 2, as shown in FIG. 35, extra buckling stability can also be provided.

Using space elevators for deployment of space-related technologies would cost much less than rockets. The estimated cost of sending a pound of material into space using a rocket is estimated at $10,000 and a mere $100 using a space elevator (any kind). In an embodiment, the Space elevator towers extends up to the lower earth orbit at about 99 miles or 160 kilometres into space. The space elevator, once extended, provides a launch pad that allows large and heavy space materials to extend into orbit without the need to carry millions of gallons of fuel.

The present invention has been described with a preferred embodiment thereof and it is understood that many changes and modifications to the described embodiment can be carried out without departing from the scope and the spirit of the invention that is intended to be limited only by the appended claims.

 (Patent Pending..) 



The Dark Side of Wikipedia

As a rising singer and actor in Bollywood, I decided to do something we all have done — and probably not just once. I Googled myself.

I landed on Wikipedia, where an entire article had been written about me. Flattered, I read it from top to bottom and was excited to see a few details about myself that I had almost forgotten. Cool!, I thought.

A couple years later, I invented a space elevator design, which is basically a structure that would help space programs by making them cost effective (it’s called a Telescopic Exo Shell, if you’re into that “space” part of science). One night, I decided to use Wikipedia to search the name of a city where I would be traveling to for a solar exhibition on the following day to learn a little bit more about it and the companies that would exhibit there. After reading some cool history, I decided to look up the article about me on Wikipedia again. I found that an editor there, Skyway, who is a fan of (or employed by) an eager project called SpaceShaft, nixed my invention from the article about space elevators and then decided that I had invented a “space tower” (whatever that is) instead of a “space elevator”. I guess Wikipedia knows more about me and my work than I do!

It didn’t stop here however.

Another editor named Ronz then decided that my singing and acting careers were just “hobbies,” because he said so. I guess again, Wikipedia was teaching me new things about myself. I mean, who cares what The Times of India has to say right? After slicing and dicing my biography, Ronz put up a giant alert at the top of the article exclaiming that the article was an exaggeration. Even worse, he was backed up by an administrator there named Bilby, so he apparently felt like he could do anything he pleased. This resulted in one genuine user, who tried to help me out, getting banned and in turn that scared away others who were also trying to help me.

A bit annoyed, I decided to hire an editor to see if he could address Ronz’s concerns about the Wikipedia article. A giant alert on the first link that comes up about me in a preferred search engine could be potentially damaging, especially since I frequently look for investors for my inventions. The editor I hired promised that he’d try his best to talk to Ronz and see if they could work together to make some changes so the article could meet Wikipedia’s guidelines – which it probably did in a way as the article was stable without any issues for the last 24 months.

When I saw their interaction, it was obvious that Ronz was uninterested in addressing what he saw as problems in the article. Whenever the editor I hired would try to discuss issues and propose changes with Ronz, this know-it-all would just filibuster in order to try to keep the damaging alerts regular — maybe because he’s paid to? That being the case, my article, which once had 25,268 characters and 43 citations (involving links to an official online article from a leading newspaper), now was sliced almost in half, to 13,204 characters and 23 citations. This was the result of 60 edits made in order to attempt to discredit me and my work.

This compelled me to do some research of my own on one of the world’s most least-examined and most often-used sources. I had no idea of the can of worms I would open. Influential lobbies control a great number of the articles at this so-called encyclopedia. I guess this answers Sarah Pulliam Bailey’s July 2014 article in The Huffington Post about why articles relating to religion on Wikipedia are so biased. The Kellogg School of Management also reported that Wikipedia was heavily biased in other areas, such as politics. In the area of Women’s Studies, Professor Hannah Bruckner from New York University and Professor Julia Adams of Yale conducted research that found Wikipedia “underrepresented female academics and their work.”

What’s even more shocking is the fact that many of the individuals who participate in these organized tribes on Wikipedia are not mere users, but administrators (1,402 are active) as well. One administrator, User:Piotrus, organized an Eastern European mailing list (EEML) to promote nationalism, as well as an anti-Russian interpretation of history on a slew of Wikipedia articles. Remember, this is what many of your kids rely on when they write research papers in middle and high school.

Anyone, yes anyone, can create an account on Wikipedia and start editing there (possibly as a recruit of a larger lobby). On Wikipedia, each user is allowed three reverts. If you cross three reversals, you’re banned. However, if you have an email list or organized lobby of editors (and sometimes administrators) to help, you can be sure that your point of view will emerge as the victor in an article, for hundreds of thousands of people to see. And if you’re on the losing team, you might get banned altogether.

Most people take Wikipedia for granted, depending on it for such topics as science and history, especially since it always ranks first in searches around the globe. Would the Wikimedia Foundation accept responsibility if pupils learn a biased version of history that promotes one group of people above another? Would the Wikimedia Foundation pay for damages caused to individuals whose articles are slanderous? If not, I think it’s time to invest in something more reliable, or at least ensure genuine people are editing the articles, people with real names taking responsibility for their content and their actions.

In the current situation of my page, it has become a war-zone of edits and reverts and continues to remain that way. Unless perhaps an administrator would intervene to cast his “fair judgment” on this perpetual problem that readers of the future would one day unassumingly read as true fact.

Interested to know how it works? Wikipedia Q & A

Q: How do editors add more edits to their credit? What are edits and how does an editor get rated because of the number of edits they possess?

A: Every article on Wikipedia are “enabled” to be modified by those with a Wikipedia account, as well as by anonymous editors. However, some articles are protected in order not to allow anonymous editors to edit and furthermore, some articles are only modifiable by administrators. Each edit a user makes on Wikipedia gets logged in his/her contributions, increasing the number of edits that they have in their record. Different service awards are available for editors on Wikipedia, based on the number of their edits. A registered editor must have one edit on their account and the highest service award is that of a Vanguard Editor, a user who has 132,000 edits and around 16 years of experience.

Q: When are they considered a senior editor?

A: On Wikipedia, a Senior Editor has crossed 24K edits and has edited for approximately four years.

Q: What powers do they have compared to a junior editor?

A: A Senior Editor does not have more power unless they possess certain user rights or administrative privileges. However, these user rights and privileges are generally granted to experienced users while those with little editing experience do not have these powers. Examples of user rights include the ability to review and patrol articles and move templates. Administrators have the power to block users, view content of deleted articles, among other privileges.

Q: Who bans an editor? Reasons to get banned?

A: An administrator is the usual person in charge of blocking an editor from editing. Blocks are usually imposed for edit warring, especially violating the three revert rule. In addition, editors can be blocked for using sockpuppets, being disruptive, plagiarism, canvassing other editors to vote a certain way on articles, and for being uncivil. A ban is a more grievous form of punishment in which an editor is prohibited from editing some or all Wikipedia pages. Usually bans are levied by the Wikipedia Community, after discussing a certain user, by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and in some cases, administrators.

Q: Things editors usually do to log in more than usual edits, could one action usually solve the issue? Do they deliberately edit articles to falsely increase edit numbers and what are the signs. Is a single alteration counted as an edit? How do they come across articles? Or do they randomly search for some? Is it random?

A: Most users do not seek to boost their edit count intentionally, although there might be some editors who do. Of course, the more articles a user edits, the more his/her edit count will increase. A single alteration to an article, policy page, or talk page increases a user’s edit count. An individual can find more articles to edit by simply clicking on a piped link (available in blue) on one article to jump to another one. However, individuals can reach other Wikipedia articles by entering a subject of their interest in the search bar there. There is a link that enables users to go to a random article too.

Q: Explain edit war. When does an admin step in? Can an admin favor someone and be biased?

A: An edit war is when one editor reverts another editor repeatedly. An admin steps in whenever one editor reports another editor who has crossed three reverts on the same article, typically within twenty-four hours, although it could be less reverts or more time if the editor has been warned not to edit war before or has been blocked for some time for committing this offense. Although admins are not allowed to show favouritism, it could happen and an unassuming user could get blocked. It should be noted that administrators are appointed by the Wikipedia community (Wikipedia users) that votes to accept or decline the application of a user to become an admin.

Q: Wikipedia looks down upon paid editors and has made recent changes to their policy stating paid editors must declare they are working for the client but, are they creating an environment that forces corporations and notable individuals to hire paid editors and defend their articles since Wikipedia links take precedence over official websites?

A: In cases where notable persons and companies have an article, it could be understandable that they wish to improve their image, especially when Wikipedia articles rank number one on search engines for many topics. If certain editors are flagging certain articles and are adding defamatory content to those articles, it makes sense that the subject of the article would want to hire an editor to correct any misunderstanding. However, notable persons or corporations could also hire paid editors to remove factual scandals that have occurred in order to improve their self-image. It’s a two-sided coin.

Q: Trick to create an encyclopedic content and make it stick. What does one need to do?

A: In order to create a solid Wikipedia article, it must meet the notability guideline. After this is in order, the article must be written neutrally, in an encyclopedic tone. In addition, an article must have several references which are formatted into in line citations and must not include content that is the editor’s opinion or synthesis, i.e. no original research is allowed.

Q: Why Wikipedia cannot be sued. What law was passed?

A: From my understanding, it is possible to sue the Wikimedia Foundation or individual editors. A Wikipedia article actually exists documenting these cases, although it is somewhat outdated:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigation_involving_the_Wikimedia_Foundation This happens all the time! The following are some links to recent cases: http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-lawsuit-yank-barry-10-million/ & http://popdust.com/2014/08/07/photographer-suing-wikipedia-for-using-his-monkey-selfie-david-slater/

Q: On what grounds can someone win a case against Wikipedia if ever? Would it be first?

A: One might be able to win a case against Wikipedia on the grounds of defamation (slander/libel), receiving threats, and copyright infringement, possible among other criminal acts. One notable case is that of Louis Bacon, whose case resulted the London High Court forcing the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal the names of editors who had defamed him (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/louis-bacon-wikipedia-defamation-lawsuit_n_859499.html for the full story).

 Q: How much would a corporation have to spend on paid editors to defend their tarnished image because of influential paid editors and admins that work against an article?

A: The answer to this question depends—it could be a dollar or it could be an infinite amount of money. If a group of editors are bent on damaging the reputation or an individual or corporation, it may be difficult for a paid editor to make progress on the article. In most cases, however, editors are understanding and are willing to better the encyclopedia—a paid article can usually bring an article to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for about $500.

Q: Can your page get deleted because you have spoken against Wikipedia? Provide examples.

A: If an individual/company who/that is notable (meets WP:N) should theoretically not have his/her/their article deleted. However, the fact that they sued the Wikimedia Foundation would most probable enter the Wikipedia article of the individual/company. For example, Louis Bacon’s article on Wikipedia still exists, although it contains mention of his lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation. The FBI, Fuzzy Zoeller, and American Academy of Financial Management have also tried to (unsuccessfully) sue or threaten to sue the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia contains references to these cases either on these articles, or on a collective list.

[[ After looking at the history of my page, the article has been stable since 2012. This was the version of my article before editors (SkywayRonz )were hired to disrupt this page by putting up alerts, deleting content and discrediting my work https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nofel_Izz&direction=prev&oldid=615600760 ]]




A new Solar Panel concept !

Perspective_CallOuts Perspective_Section-CallOuts Perspective2_CallOuts Section_with_skirt_tilted-Callouts Solar_Field_CallOuts

Let me introduce to you ePods, my latest patent. These electro pods are three times more efficient than any solar panels out there. ePods work with wind, solar and dynamos in motion. All it requires is 15 mph wind speed for these pods to fully function and become three times more efficient (60%) or four times with the wind speed of 20+ mph, and they also work during the nights, unlike your standard solar panel.

How are ePods different?

They work as regular solar panels when it’s sunny and with a combination of wind speeds of at least 15 mph, they work on three levels of electrical charge generation that includes; four vertical axis wind fans, oscillating dynamos, and a ball-gear system that rotates a powerful dynamo with movements caused by the wind.

I am currently working on six patents  for solar farms and for individual homes in regions such as Africa and South Asia where the bulk of people live without power.

The IAE estimates that earth’s population will top 8 billion by 2030 and 1.3 billion people will still live without electricity. Of those 700 million will be in Africa and 490 million in South Asia that do not have power and depend on alternative power sources such as kerosene lamps. Innovative solutions and adequate funding from various governments and NGO’s around is required urgently to provide these people with the basics.

Since ePods require less space than regular solar panels, the estimated cost to power an average home in Africa and South Asia would be approximately $1.20 per watt. That is the lowest in the industry.

E.g.: 100 square feet of ePods (8 pods) can generate up to 5000 Wp (enough to power a home in North America) provided the average wind speed is about 15 mph or higher. Each ePod is equipped with its own battery and they work collectively as a power source. Which means, it can store enough power to work during the off-peak hours.


Solar 101

Where it all began: Photoelectric dates back to the Bacquerel family, nineteenth-century French physicist who first experimented with electrochemistry in 1839 and created a “voltaic cell” that first produced current. In the nineteenth century, numerous pioneers working with photochemistry in their laboratories discovered that light had an effect on certain solids such as selenium, creating a flow of current.

Photovoltaic: Also referred to, as “PV”, is a common term used these days instead of calling them solar panels or modules.

PV is best known as a method for generating electric power by using solar cells to convert energy from the sun into a flow of electrons. The photovoltaic effect refers to photons of light exciting electrons into a higher state of energy, allowing them to act as charge carriers for an electric current. The latest in PV technology is a combination of UV and Infrared technologies, which means, if its cloudy, the system will still be able to generate power efficiently.

Understanding efficiency: The sunlight hits the earth at a constant 1,350 watts per square meter and with the atmospheric disturbances we end up with a 1000-watt per square meter. PV can capture only a fraction of this power.

Modern crystal-silicon cells can capture anywhere from 15% – 30% of this power. So when you hear the term 20% efficient, it means 20% of a 1000 watts = a 200 watts efficient PV.

“Watt peak”, or Wp is the total output when the sun is at its max. On an average a typical home would have 3 to 7 hours of Wp. So a typical 50-Wp PV will reach that output during peak sun.

Countries with the most amount of sunlight:

Highest Sunlight

PV size: The average residential panel is 41 to 61 inches wide with depth of 1.4 to 1.8 inches. Each module or panel has about 60 to 96 cells standard for residential application. The cells are about 3 to 7 inches in size depending on the manufacturer and these panels can generate anywhere from 230 to 275 watts. For example, you would need 10 panels to generate 2700 watts.

Historical Cost: 1958 at $ 286 per watt, Bell Laboratory estimated it would cost an average homeowner $1.5 million to power a home.

It’s a tremendous drop in cost in just the last few years, all the way down to a buck ($1 per watt) if PV purchased online directly from China but it does not include instillation.

The average cost for 1 watt is approximately $2.50 these days and a complete system for your entire home can cost about $12,500. (Average home in North America uses 5000 watts – 5000 * $2.50 = $12,500) The PV has a lifespan of an average 30 years or more and the system will pay for it self in four to seven years.

A 1-megawatt PV array will light up most of the power needed for two hundred homes in North America with energy efficiency and conservation.

In North America 99% of homes that have solar instillations are tied to the grid. They feed power directly into the utility grid and so the electric meters run backwards when the sun is shining. And during the nights, since there are no batteries in the system, the power is drawn from the utility power lines.

Seamens role: Charles Fritts, an inventor sent his experimental “photoelectric plate” to Werner von Siemens who proclaimed that photoelectricity was to be of great importance.

In 1876 Siemens himself reported to the Berlin Academy of Sciences on light’s impact on selenium’s electrical conductivity. A hundred years later, it all began when Siemens, the global manufacturing giant injected millions of dollars into its subsidiary once known as Siemens Solar. Siemens exited the market in 2013 after suffering billions of dollars in losses.

Top PV manufacturers of the world :

  • Yingli — China.
  • First Solar — US.
  • Trina Solar — China.
  • Canadian Solar — China.
  • Suntech — China.
  • Sharp Solar — Japan.
  • Jinko Solar — China.
  • SunPower — US.