Geekspeak: Why Life + Mathematics = Happiness. Graham Tattersall
× 50 mm. Taking an average figure gives a volume of wood of about 6 cubic metres, which is about 5 tonnes in weight.
Lastly, there’s the steel. The amount of steel in a house depends on its design. Some houses use almost none; others use steel in place of wood and concrete for structural components, or for reinforcing the foundations. It’s quite easy to use 1 km of steel reinforcing rod in a complex foundation, so adding a couple of tonnes to the total weight of the house would be fair.
Altogether, the total weight of the house stands at 75 tonnes. But every builder knows that more material is needed than we have so far counted. It’s something to do with the fiddly corners, stubs and overhangs that aren’t shown on the drawings. Increasing the weight estimate by at least 25% will not be too much. That gives us a grand total for the house of around 100 tonnes.
So, if you’re now alarmed about all those carbon-killing building materials, you may be wondering how many holiday flights could you offset by living in a tent. We’ll make the numbers easy by assuming that your house has the equivalent of 50 tonnes of concrete in its structure. Making the concrete will release around 37 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s the same as 37,000 kg.
When you fly to Rome for a weekend break, the plane will burn aviation fuel at about the same rate as when you drive your car: 30–40 miles per gallon (10–14 km per litre). Of course, that’s just for you and your baggage; the plane actually does about 0.2 mpg (less than 0.1 km/litre), but fortunately it holds more people than your car, so the consumption per person is much less.
Flying the round trip of 2,000 miles (3,000 km) to Rome and back will use 50 gallons (240 litres) of fuel on your personal account, and each litre of aviation spirit burnt releases about 2.5 kg of CO2. Overall, your return trip will put approximately 600 kg into the atmosphere.
Will you forgo your new house for a tent so that you can have 37,000/600 = 61 weekend breaks in Rome and still hold your carbon-neutral head up high?
SPEAK GEEK
AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING WINDOW HAS A HEIGHT THAT IS 1.618 TIMES GREATER THAN ITS WIDTH.
Some houses look right and some look wrong. It often depends on the ratio of the length and width of the building’s facade, and of the windows and doors and their positioning in the walls.
To many people, windows and other rectangular shapes look ‘right’ only when their width-to-height ratio is close to 1.618. This number is based on a mathematical rule called the Golden Section that has been used by everyone from the Ancient Greeks to Norman Foster. Using the Golden Section ensures an eye-pleasing harmony in the shape of the window.
Check your house-harmony by measuring the height and width of its window frames; divide the numbers, and give the result to your estate agent.
WELL CONNECTED
Do you nkow the Queen?
When I was about seven or eight, I went to play with my elder brother on a railway track. My brother, deliberately winding me up, announced that he was going to derail the next train by placing an old penny on the rail. I believed him, and silently prayed for the imminent disaster to somehow be averted. Penny in place, we hid at the bottom of the embankment. The sound of the steam locomotive grew louder as it approached. There was a terrifying sound of steel on steel, of the snorting smoke box, and the train arrived… and passed by, oblivious to our presence. There were no newspaper headlines. The only evidence of our misdemeanour was the penny, now a flattened piece of copper about two inches by one inch, with a slight curl, lying quietly on the ballast between the rails. To this day I still feel a tingle of relief.
I tell this story because we, like other children of our generation, were pretty free of adult supervision. There were paedophiles, transformer yards and rail tracks waiting to catch the unwary child, but the sense of anxiety about strangers and the world’s danger barely registered.
One cause of our present-day unease is maybe down to not knowing who is who in our community. In a village of three hundred people a hundred years ago, you would probably know which men had a predatory eye for children. What’s more, you would know their name, and their parents and their brothers and sisters. Nowadays, you might not even know who lives two doors away in your street.
If we look at the number of children born to each couple and do some simple arithmetic, we can see why this has happened, and consequently why we are now faced with the prospect of identity cards, biometric devices and databases with information about our DNA.
The story goes like this.
How often has someone you know done some name-dropping by telling you about a friend of a friend who has met someone famous, or an eighth cousin twice removed who’s starred alongside Tom Cruise? Maybe you know someone whose friend has a relative who works at Buckingham Palace and has spoken to the Queen.
I come from a middle-class family, but went to a secondary modern school. I have no obvious links to the aristocracy. But now I come to think of it, I do know a woman who was married to a man whose father was General Montgomery’s adjutant during the Second World War, and who as a result was invited to tea with the Queen. That’s just four links between me and the throne.
Try to forge those links for yourself, and you’ll almost certainly succeed in finding a connection. In fact there’s a good chance of making a chain of personal connections between you and anyone else on Earth using no more than six links in the chain. That means that a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend knows anyone you care to name – George Bush, Naomi Campbell, Osama bin Laden…
Osama bin Laden probably doesn’t have mates that he meets in the pub, but he certainly has lots of other personal relationships that eventually lead back to you.
The fact that anyone on the planet is at most only six links away in a chain of relationships seems unlikely until you think about how many people you know on first-name terms. It’s simple to estimate the total by dividing them into a few broad groups that can be enumerated. For example, family, friends, casual acquaintances and work colleagues probably cover most of the people you know by their first-name.
Start with an average family in which parents have about two children. We’ll assume that grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins are included in the extended family. After all, you’ll almost certainly be on first-name terms with all those people. The list will look something like this:
Relative | Number of people |
---|---|
Your mother’s parents | 2 |
Your father’s parents | 2 |
Mother and her sibling | 2 |
Father and his sibling | 2 |
Uncles’/aunts’ partners | 2 |
Cousins | 4 |
You and your sibling | 2 |
Total | 16 |
So,