Filippo Brunelleschi Vol-4

[@davidpierce5413]

Indeed THE BEST video on how this masterpiece was created. I could not figure it out in any other explanations.

[@LS-gh1ez]

(Speaking Italian) I appreciate the amount of work translators and producers put into this video.

[@velortolan]

Si

[@shirleyf4808]

The dome is an amazing masterpiece. Brunelleschi was my icon. Couldn't understand how it was built until I watch this video. I finally got what I want to finish my assignment.

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

you putting pantheon over this? you need your head checked. that was built before AC. this one around 16 th century! think about it.

[@jbraMoVal]

finally! video I've been searching for that describes how the Dome was created.

[@zoonibubba8804]

Srinivasan don't leave us hanging on 4. Thanks for putting this up.

[@JuanGarnicaVera]

8:56 God bless you...

[@robertlimestone6248]

The web of ropes and strings that stretched across the chasm of the dome cross at a single point in the center of the space being created. That point floating in space was what Brunelleschi would see every day, way up high, during construction. And when he tried to draft the lines on paper (lines that converge on a single point) he realized the key to perspective. in his treatise on perspective, he describes perspective effects in two dimensional terms because he doesn't yet have the words to describe something in 3D.

[@MilciadesAndrion]

Great video. The explanations are easy to follow and logical. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I liked the video and subscribed to the channel.

[@thoricha6312]

I need way more info, data and illustrations on this thing! It's f... awsome

[@bartbley1269]

It looks to me from the old drawing an octagon with a circle on the out side of the octagon intersecting the points on the octagon 5:58. Less arch than the flower pattern but would most likely work just the same

[@carmelpule6954]

What I find more than amusing is what what said at 8:14, " One small miscalculation repeated hundreds of thousand times would lead to disaster." I would say that would be an obvious conclusion! I calculate that there were about 500,000 cubic feet of material in that dome so making a mistake repeated hundreds of thousand time would mean that a mistake would have been made every cubic foot, which is hardly a reasoned guess as the skilled people were not that foolish looking at the mortar used in the real dome. Also I feel that there is too much fuss being made about the importance of the inverted arch and also too much fuss being made about how difficult it was for the walls to meet at the top. It is all a case of simple geometry using straight lines and a long chord would be accurate to the nearest inch or centimetre. Filippo Brunelleschi was clever because he saw the imperfection in the conventional arch in that when one outside surface of the arch is compressed in, the opposite outside surface will open up. So what he did was not only to overlap the horizontal circles in the dome, but he tied the horizontal circles one above the other together by overlapping the bricks in a vertical manner as shown at 2:03 2:04 This effectively was analogous to covering the dome with a sheet of fibreglass or carbon fibre which can take the tension. This is the secret of this dome where the outside surface can take "some tension" and not only compression. So the compression is taken by the thickness of the stone wall while the tension is taken by overlapping the vertically placed bricks. I think a better effect would have been to build the walls of the Two domes with a series of domes shelled one inside another laid and touching each other , one dome surface layer would be all horizontally overlapped bricks while the next dome layer next to it would be all vertically overlapped. So one would cater for the radial forces while the other would cater for producing better vertical beams through introducing tension as well as compression in the dome. The dome layers would be tied together periodically. All this interlacing, plus a few circles of chains within the walls of the domes would bring about so much reinforcements that the dome could be made much thinner than what is being shown at 7:40. I would say that the dome could have been built with a wall layer of one metre thickness. I believe that Sir Christopher wren made St Paul's dome in London using about half a metre wall thickness to support 850 tons. Great people who had much greater insight of the universe than any philosopher. Both Brunelleschi and Wren were humble enough to share their difficulties with mathematicians............... it is teams like this which make the modern world what it is, and not emotional professions.

[@carmelpule6954]

To cover Filippo Brunelleschi thoughts of using an inverted arch when he was building the straight horizontal parts of the octagon dome, well that is an interesting concept and I believe this is what Filippo Brinelleschi had in mind. If he raised the straight parts of the octagon in a horizontally manner then as they are straight, their central zone could show a tendency to cave in, due to the fact that a bent straight line, lengthens, the bricks loosen and separate. So what he did was to raise the sloping in corner edges of the octagon to a higher level each flanked by two effective triangles and as these eight edges of the octagon each had two flat triangular sides subtended by an angle of 135 degrees then the sloping in, peaked corners, of the octagon were well supported not to cave into the centre. The inverted arches thus created in between the octagon corner edges are not flat and have their inverted peaks further out than the higher peaks of the octagon raised corner edges. Hence, if the central zone of the straight part between the corner edges of the octagon tend to cave in, the curve will shorten and the bricks would be compressed. This would mean that the central part of the straight zone in the straight parts between the octagon edges would not cave in, simply because the inverted arch is just not flat. A brilliant idea indeed. Brunelleschi found a method where he would not have a flat arch anywhere in that dome and with a spherical arch he could arrange that on tilting a spherical arch, its curve will shorten, tightening the bricks together. This does not happen in a flat arch. Filippo Brunelleschi might have destroyed and torn all his drawings, but if we get together, I am sure that we shall be able to work out all his secrets 800 years after he used them. He was indeed a brilliant Italian man whom the world should respect, even if he destroyed his secrets but left us the puzzle. The secret is how deep the inverted arches should be with respect to the 135 degree angle between the flat sides of an octagon.

[@meliss36]

So interesting, I would LOVE to go see his masterpiece in Florence.. the Americans did a fabulous job of making and working and figuring out how Brunelleschi built this gorgeous dome. ♥️🇺🇸

[@weehudyy]

Ummm , Ricci did the work and the figuring out , the Americans were just following his plan

[@solismasonry1807]

Check the bóveda catalana technique used in Spain and Mexico, also used in Nubia Egypt in ancient times, no support needed, Brunelleschi use this technique in a large scale, the herringbone bricks are just to lock in the corses, and “a just in case” sliding in as he moved up the dome, and also to keep the correct angle. What secret? It’s simple All those strings at that height will be a nightmare, it’s simpler than that, from column to column, with an arch with a span x dimension and spring line in proportion with the span, the dome will go up together with the columns. Each complete circle/ corse will stay in place once is set, leaving the herringbone ribs sticking up for the next corse and so on. It seams like he used the rounded windows below the dome as a radius point for each section on the opposite side, the masons will aim from the dome to the designated window for each section, using a straight stick to check specially the vertical brick that will stick up for the next corse, an amateur will set the brick in between each rib.

[@wakeupalice2065]

Spina di pesce = herringbone

[@shawnamcclaflin4752]

8:57 what's up with that? Also love the video!

[@OmniGuy]

Laid brick from age 14 to age 56 69 now. Have a trip planned to Florence this coming September.. I would absolutely love to lay some brick on your scale project. If anyone knows how we could make that work, PLEASE let me know..

[@billmccoy3666]

Masons and stone masons back then were ingenious.

[@zafarjoiya]

Kmal

[@yeetyeet2751]

brunelleschi was a bad bitch he really did THAT

[@sayshinobi951]

I like domes and i have a big passion to make one if the biggest domes o the world even it will cost me my fortune.

[@jbraMoVal]

where is this taking place?

[@niccolonardi5760]

Josue it's inside the park near the new aqueduct of Florence, at via Villamagna. It is quite far from the "original" ones. It is still unfinished and I think it is closed to the public!

[@nirbhay_raghav]

I would say this is close but not exact. Closer than anything I have come across. In the original design, the the octagon's diagonals did not meet at a single centre. But here they have set up the ropes such that they meet a single point at the bottom. So it's not exact. A "model" indeed

[@kjellg6532]

Why all that noise in the background? Disturbing.

[@stefanoamato1714]

pizza

[@dreeevor]

Florenz

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

It is not a big deal if mortar can hold it. Pantheon done 500 years ago than that. From the base of some, cross rails are laid and then you can build sector by sector and complete a foot of some at a time like ring within that sector you cab enclose both outside and inside for support till mortar solidifies. It took 16 years so they might have done a foot of ring per year. Today it would be done in a year for some serious dough. You can see holes on the dome to lay rails held at the centre. Base need not cover full circle line a cover while rails can run all along. For that time it Is impressive but not more than pantheon. Golgumaz in bijapur has bigger masonry second largest dome and it is sitting on inclined arch and not vertical ones that us incredibly impressive and it echoes 14 timesb. and to be fair it was done in 16 century by moghal bhamini king. The Muslim's were impeccable in their architecture. Unlike roman's who have had issues with them. The leaning tower, this one, Peters basilica and Spain church which have taken forever. May be they wanted to push the limits. The tag Mahal took 20 years and no mistakes allowed. The golgumaz aka whispering gallery took 30 and perfect it is. Muslim's have had high minars too. But Italians aka rome have numerous blockbusters.and putting lantern on the top mastered by Hindu architecture who were something else. Built palaces in the mountains! What? But masonry arch is owned by roman's I think.so as impressive as this is it is not the only game in town

[@weehudyy]

Brunelleschi wasn't a trained architect and apparently spent a lot of time in Rome checking Roman bricklaying techniques . He was very secretive about his methods , and his contemporaries said it couldn't be done .

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

@@weehudyy the wooden lattice was built at the top around the base frame like stair case rather than ground up. it works as dome is not heavy. the moghul did one better. they had arche on inward inclining walls( octagon wall which taper inside not like straight walls over which dome is sitting). this is from byzantine empire. a superior technology i have no idea how without a sticky material it is possible( they had no iron). but roman did it first like pantheon. did they have cover tecnology that is not clear. like pantehon is not covered. because top stone is a crown stone and it just cant be plasted. it has to be trying be prestressed and pushing others outside like an arch trying to straighten. ------------ these days they use iron rims and i am not sure they have a clue how they built in those days. because they are not given a 3 months small project to build a small dome using those tools and skills like build a replica 1/10 of it! Even italy seems to have moved on.

[@chrismaggio7879]

@@king_has_no_clothskul8635 You seem intent on "yours being better" like a small child on the playground. You need to appreciate what he did here, with the training he had not being as an architect, his idea untested, his sales pitch being "trust me" and his scale being immense! Yes, the dome you speak of is a marvel, but until YOU, kingy-poo, actually create something of this scale, with these unknown parameters and issues, with the lack of machines and supports, then you have no reason to be so immature. Here, the way you are protesting this achievement, you just sound like a spoiled child who won't accept the dome as an incredible feat. It is not a contest but an architectural wonder, of which there are many. So be gracious and not so petty, and appreciate the beauty of the dome. Cheers

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

@@chrismaggio7879 it is not unknown fool. this is application eng. are italians bosses now? usa built sky-scrappers which cant be built that old technology. the pantehon which is bigger than this dome already established that! I am not sure they had the technology to cap it like modern ones! ------- this was built long after pantheon so better tools were available. they nearly goofed up leaning tower as well. it sunk and even today cant be fixed. what it would cost if you built from scratch? 250 mil max! and they cant even fix it. italy barring their food, cloths, tourism and their 2 cars have been low-budget in the modern era. everything about them is fancy! the byzantine empire also built magnificent buildings and even the russian czars and not to mention mughal architecture( the taj mahal built during same era without much fuss and it is more magnificent than anything italians ever built!) --------------- the mughuls built dome over inclined walls( ridiculous! ever heard of that?) GOLD GUMBAZ IS THE SECOND LARGEST DOME IN THE WORLD( IT ECHOES MORE THAN 14 TIMES) BUILT WITH THAT STYLE! mid 16 th century. ---------------- PANTHEON IS A REAL DEAL AS DOME WAS BUILT IN BC. and it looks SOLID EVEN TODAY! so whatever they did later still is not gonna beat that dome! ------------------- As an engineer i have habit of observing rather than the end product like a normal tourist. though i have to put a tourist hat as i was there for that reason first( if i go to italy) ------------------------ so AFTER THE PANTHEON, it looks SKY-SCARPPER OR HANGING BRIDGES( GOLD STATE ONE OR BROOKLYN) AFTER RCC CAME IN QUALIFIES AS BIGGEST BREAKTHROUGH! THOUGH QUALITY OF CEMENT HAS IMPROVED SAY 10 TIMES SINCE SKY-SCRAPPERS WERE BUILT( NOT SURE WHAT THEY MIX THESE DAYS) -------------------------- OTHER TECHNOLOGIES NON CEMENT HAVE BEEN USED. LIKE DAMS BUILT WITH EARTHEN MOULD WHICH HAVE STOOD MORE THAN 200 TO 300 YEARS. --------------------- THE DOME TECHNOLOGY IS NOT CLEAR KNOWN TO ONLY ITALIANS OR ELSEWHERE IS NOT CLEAR. -------------------- IT WAS DISCUSSED A LOT IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNELS IN USA( TALKING ABOUT ROMAN EMPIRE) ------------------- THIS LATEST VISIT WAS 20 YEARS I SAW THE FIRST PROGRAMME. ---------------- AN ITALIAN MAN GAVE A JACKET FOR 60 DOLLARS TO MY FRIEND WHO GIFTED TO MY FRIEND. IT WAS REDDISH BROWN DARKER FERRARI JACKET. CANT BE FOUND IN VERSACE OR ARMANI. I WAS SWEATING PROFUSELY AND IT WAS STOLEN IN A BAR. ------------- I MISS THAT JACKET DESPITE HAVING BROUGHT PLENTY OF OTHER ITALIAN PRODUCTS. SURELY IT WAS LIKE 150 DOLLARS AT LEAST. HE JUST HAD TO SELL IT. ------------------ IN USA I EVEN WENT TO PURCHASE A LAMBHORG FOR 65K STRAIGHT UP CASH BUT IT WAS GREEN( AMERICAN DO ANYTHING). GREEN LAMBHORG? --------------------- YOU POOING ON MY KINGDOM YOU WONT HAVE ARSE TO POO. BEWARE WHAT YOU WISH FOR FOOL.

[@chrismaggio7879]

@@king_has_no_clothskul8635 First off, no one is pooing on anyone's kingdom. This started as a conversation about engineering and a dome. I am truly sorry you have become so heated and offended but you are wayyyyyy to emotional about things which have no direct connection to you (as in, you did not build or design any of these things). If you want to get angry about something let's talk FIFA and the matches this week! Relax. There are two things you need to know. 1: Yes, anyone who paints a Lamborghini green is a dumb-ass! Terrible color for that car. and number 2: Your comment "italy barring their food, cloths, tourism and their 2 cars have been low-budget in the modern era." is absolutely hilarious and TRUE! haha I think if you calm down we can be friends, as I believe you are a clever person. Please have a peaceful day and back off on the anger when you don't agree with someone, because it means we can't have a dialogue, just a screaming match. Be well, king.

[@caiopagano606]

WHY THAT ANNOYING BAD MUSIC ALL THE TIME????????Great video, though.

[@petercrossley1069]

Stop saying “deceiving” it is “deceptive”.

[@jonathanwinsper9928]

C