Talk:Gilman's tetrahedral truss

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Gilman's tetrahedral truss, non-existant sourcing for current title Mike Cline (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lorimerlite → Gilman truss – There is a referenced body of work supporting the invention of this truss structure by Gilman around 1980. There is an unreferenced claim in this article alone for independent invention by Lorimer (who would not appear to be in any position for a novel patent, the prior art being quite evident). There is no sourcing, other than self-published, for the name "Lorimerlite" being applied to this structure. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was wondering the same. The L name feels uncomfortably commercial whereas Gilman did serious work much earlier, so there's no doubt about name precedence. If we change the name we can in any case leave a redirect in case L-lite has any value as a search term. But the topic is definitely of interest wrt patterns as well as engineering. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Alexander Lorimer, I wrote this article with an account under my girlfriend's name. I understand that this does not comply with certain wikipedia regulations, and I appologise. I filed a patent application in April of this year, and my application is due for publication on 10th September 2013. I have received the results of a search request, and this is how I came to learn about Gilmans earlier patent application. After reading through his application and noticing that there is no distinction made between the kinds of stresses the structure would resist, I assumed that the reason this structure is not used and was not successful was that it becamed confused with Buckminster Fuller's Octet-Truss, which was patent shortly before and was hugely successful but with slightly different applications. The Octet-Truss is composed of a repeating pattern of tetrahedrons, and is frequently referred to as a tetrahedral truss; the exact name that Gilman called his. I believe that this structure failed to be popularised and implemented due to a misunderstanding with regards to its applications. I never tried to cover up Gilman's original invention, but certainly the structure needs a new name other than tetrahedral truss. May I please suggest the Lorimer-Gilman truss, or the Gilman-Lorimer truss. Other structures named after two people include the Weaire-Phelan Structure. Until now there has been no published information about this structure, other than Gilman's application. I have already made several prototypes and tested their strength, which under compression, is indeed stronger than any other known structural geometry.

I would be more than happy to rename all previous information I have uploaded, including images and information on other sites, and as I have said I never had an intention of hiding Gilman's previous work; I have a printed copy of his application and very much respect him.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Bennett (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Advice: get your own account, because otherwise WP will eat you up and spit you out for a trivial infraction of the rules, not for any content reason.
 * Mind you, there's no policy against you naming your own account after your girlfriend. It's only a problem if you share one, which you don't appear to have done. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is best not described as a "tetrahedral truss", because that's already well known from other structures (based on the enclosed shapes), not for the less-dense truss design here, based on the internal angles of a tetrahedron. NB - the commonplace half-octahedron truss isn't the same thing.
 * "is indeed stronger than any other known structural geometry." I'm not seeing this at all (the tetrahedral truss being stronger, AFAIK). If you mean that it's the strongest per weight (which is indeed possible), then that's a different claim (and I've not done the calculations, but it's credible).
 * Now the crucial points:
 * How does your Lorimer truss differ, if at all, from Gilman's?
 * What sourcing by WP:RS is there for the "Lorimer truss"?
 * Without both those, I'm seeing a real problem for calling this a "Lorimer truss". From the sources here, I can justify a "Gilman truss", even though he didn't use the term. It would still need independent sourcing for use of names before this could be called a "Gilman-Lorimer truss". If, in four year's time, we're all sitting on Lorimerlite stools watching the Olympic swimming from Lorimerlite pools, then we'd have sourcing for calling this "Lorimerlite". In the meantime though, this is still just (in WP terms) a load of WP:MADEUP, even though it's obviously better worked than the usual. WP isn't in the business of giving credit for hard work and invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * More advice: DO NOT refactor other editor's comments, certainly not to imply that they espouse a position different to the one they actually support. You will get rapidly blocked for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support move to Gilman truss, which seems to be the proper name for this structure. There do seem to be a lot of brand new users who like to add links to this article.




 * I wonder why that is? - MrOllie (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I refuse to wonder about such issues at all, for reasons somewhere between AGF and trying to achieve the best result content-wise.
 * Which isn't to say that you're not right. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The structure that Gilman patented is identical to this one, the one I sought patent approval for before becoming aware of his previous patent. However if you read through his paper, you will see that he does not establish an application for the structure i.e. as to whether it would be used for cantilevering, or holding things up under compression. For the former it is not as strong as Buckminster Fuller's Octet-truss or tetrahedral truss, for the latter however it is stronger and this information is not established in his patent application. This is why the structure is not currently used despite it being more than 30 years on from his application. My patent application will be published on the IPO website next year, but I decided to popularize this structure immediately. It is also worth noting that Buckminster Fuller's Octet-Truss was also invented 50 years before him by Alexander Graham Bell, also his Geodesic Dome was first invented by Walther Bauersfeld 30 years prior to Buckminster Fuller. However Buckminster Fuller received credit for these inventions because they were not realised for their significance earlier on. I have copies of my correspondance with the IPO for anyone that would like me to send them. As of yet this structure does not have a name, and it is only that I have independently developed it without knowledge of Gilman, and put the information on the internet, that we are all considering what it should be called. The name of the structure should establish the contributors to its establishment. Gilman's work alone was not enough. (Melissa Bennett (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Mmm, we are at risk of getting into a tangle here. You're probably right that Gilman truss won't do, as it isn't exactly known under that name; but G-L truss is completely unknown, and we are expressly forbidden to invent here. I suggest that the best bet will be to call it Gilman's tetrahedral truss which uses his name but does not claim he called it that. I am afraid that we have no mandate for calling it L's truss until and unless independently published materials exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand, I seems I didn't fully consider the implication of setting up an article in an encyclopedia before my work had been published. I will contact the IPO and ask them to fast-track the publication. For now may I request that this page be entitled 'Compression Structure' which establishes exactly what it is and what it does, and that the information within the page about Gilman and I remain. Without the information I have contributed there would be no basis for this framework being understood as structural support for resisting compression. The site Isotropicstructure.com is one that I own, but the information on it is self evidently correct. I can change the name on the site from Lorimerlite to Compression Structure until the IPO publishes my work, I will also request that before publication the name of the paper be changed to Gilman-Lorimer Structure. For the sake of accuracy of information, it seems that this would be the best option; Compression Structure is ambiguous enough to not establish a concrete title, while being enough to establish what it is and its purpose. (Melissa Bennett (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

I've contacted the IPO today, and they have fast tracked my application; it will be published in 6 weeks. The information supplied in this article is my intellectual property, Gilman did not specify the advantages of this structure for resisting solely compression. All of the information pertaining to this quality has come from myself and my research. Again, this is why the structure was not used or known about for this purpose until my publishing the information. To call this article the Gilman-Truss would be to label the work under his name that I have developed independently and contributed. Read through his application. The information regarding the specific merits of this structure pertains solely to the research that I have conducted and subsequent patent that I have filed. Gilman's patent does not include any such information. May I suggest that this page be suspended (if that is possible) for six weeks until my patent application has been made publicly available.

'''Nobody in this thread has the right to assign a title to this structure. In such case it seems reasonable to request that this information be removed until a decision has been reach following further investigation by the IPO, which I have requested. I would appreciate your co-operation. Thank you''' (Melissa Bennett (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.45.169 (talk)


 * Um, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." All content on Wikipedia is essentially given away freely under a Creative Commons licence, and such a gift is generally irreversible; so it's no longer your intellectual property. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Even after your patent is published, it will not help your case because it will not be an independent source. Wikipedia guidelines tell us that this article should be titled with the 'most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources'. Can you furnish us with some sources that mention Lorimerlite that were written and published independently of you? Newspaper articles, scholarly articles, trade magazines, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Gilman's application was not written and published independently of him either yet you are happy to accept this as a reliable source? The information about the structure's uses for resisting compression is completely original, and cannot be referenced from sources other than those I have written - given what you are saying should this not make the information unsuitable for wikipedia? Once a patent has been filed, the inventor is free to share the information, all that matters is that this information was not revealed before the filing date. With regards to the name of this article, should it not be Compression Structure, until judgement by the IPO? (Melissa Bennett (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Re your first question, If you are the only person who has written about this, then we probably should not have an article on this at all.
 * Re your second question, I think it's important for me to state clearly that any judgments the IPO might make are not relevant to this discussion. As to your suggestion that we title the article 'Compression Structure', Can you furnish us with some sources that mention call this structure by that name which were written and published independently of you? Newspaper articles, scholarly articles, trade magazines, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No I cannot, but can you find any sources that make any other titles more credible? It seems that this is a topic, currently, unsuitable for wikipedia? (Melissa Bennett (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.45.169 (talk)

Also by titling the article Compression Structure you are not giving the structure a definitive name but describing the nature of the content of the article. This complies neatly with the wikipedia requirement for article titles. No title pertaining to the name of the structure is suitable as this would be made up, invented by whoever saw fit here to change it, and they also would not be able to 'furnish us with some sources that call this structure by that name'. Surely this has to be the only acceptable title by wikipedia standards? (Melissa Bennett (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC))


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source for lorimerlite structure
I requested a source for 'also known as a lorimerlite structure' and got isotropicstructures.com, which is Lorimer's self published site. Do we have any sources at all from reliable third parties? If not, I think we should remove all mention of Lorimerlite and/or Lorimer. - MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we can do that, if you feel we need an independent source just for that mention. I suggest we move it to a footnote, in fact I'll boldly do that now so we can see how it feels. I think it appropriate given the context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand you're decision to rename the article. My patent application is due for publication on the 14th of November, with a filing date of 16 of April, this is the earliest date of published information regarding the compressive qualities of the structure on this page. Once it is published would it be deemed acceptable to reference my body of work, as this information is not present in the Gilman application? Melissa Bennett (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the rule is that we can use things such as patents and self-published sources, with caution, for information and to show existence, but not to help prove notability, nor to argue one side or another where matters may be contested. It seems fine to reference your site for engineering facts; it's the name that is currently being challenged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We should also distinguish between patents and patent applications. An application is good for little more than primary evidence that a particular person has been working on the topic. A granted patent should count as RS, having been reviewed by the patent office (although I wouldn't personally put much faith in the USPTO these days). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

sure, I would only be suggesting this to show existence of new information; not to dispute existing information. Once my article is published I will offer it as a reference. Melissa Bennett (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

After editing this article to show the existence of my patent application, pertaining to the shortest path geometry and compressive qualities of this structure which has not been addressed in other documents (despite this being the leading theme of this wikipedia article), I've noticed that the edit has been removed. Does anyone know why this is the case? Melissa Bennett (talk)
 * I removed it because a patent application is not an independent source, and I think the addition of your material results in an article that gives undue prominence to a very small viewpoint - so far as I can tell the viewpoint is held only by yourself. I really think that we need some independently written and published sources on the modern reinvention, so that we can get some clear understanding of how important the rest of the architectural world thinks this is. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gilman's application is also not an independent source. In the theory section of this article the shortest path geometry is discussed, also this structure is presented on this page as one that resists compression. Both of these attributes are not at all described in Gilman's application, and other than his and my applications there is no other information out there. If you are at odds with my viewpoint then surely the theory, applications, and construction section should be deleted, the qualities described here cannot be referrenced from any other source than my application. I understand you concern about the prominence placed on the reinvention in the last edit, but surely the application needs referencing?Melissa Bennett (talk)

I hope this more modest edit will be deemed acceptable, it seems unfair that you would accept Gilmans patent application as a reliable resource while it is not in itself an independent source. The specific information on this page needs to be substantiated, and it cannot be found in any other document. Is there perhapse a third opinion on this matter?Melissa Bennett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that patents aren't reliable, they just have to be considered to be primary sources. I have no issue with citations to Gilman being allowed in the article on Gilman's truss. We do need some kind of independent reference for the Lorimer material, though. Surely you can see that if we don't have some kind of bar to meet for these kind of mentions, anyone could put up a website or pay a patent filing fee and claim to have independently reinvented just about any technology. - MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I do completely understand what you're saying about the primary sourcing, and I would agree that in general circumstances material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. However beyond the history subtitle in this article, all of the information in the theory, application and construction subtitles would be considered original research material that does not exist in any other document than my application, and the same guideline for avoiding primary research also pertains to avoiding original material. You accept Gilmans application on the basis that self evidently there exists no mention of this structure before that date, and I suppose this constitutes some kinds of bar to be met? (infact there is no mention after that date either until my application); but the same is true of my application in that self evidently you can see that the attributes of shortest path geometry (which is indeed the true source of the structures strength) and the application for compression, as opposed to rigidity (as gilman proposed), exist in my application as original research that cannot be seen in any other document. The same bar, again self evidently, has been met. Surely you would agree that either the original information that constitutes the majority of the wikipedia article (which can only be sourced from my application) needs to be deleted, or it needs to be referenced? - Melissa Bennett —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify the specific content that is unsourced? You keep adding this link as a reference to new content about Lorimer, which is undue weight. If you really want to use it as a citation for content that's already in the article, as you are saying here, please identify that content. - MrOllie (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The theory section talks about the shortest path geometry being the reason for the structures strength, also the indication that the structure is a highly efficient structure for compression, as opposed to a ridged structure. None of this information exists anywhere else than in my application; which is why it needs to be referenced and should be noticed in the history section. There has not even been a wiff of information about this structure for more than 30 years since Gilmans application, precisely because of the fact that he misinterpreted it's function as a ridged structure. Surely you must see my point? - Melissa Bennett —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, when you wrote this article, you cited that sentence to Oleg Mushkarov, In Search of Shortest Paths. Was that an error? Does that citation not actually contain that information? - MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The citation was referring to two dimensional hexagons, this was what it was placed after. In the document the only discussion is of 120 degree angles, found in hexagons. Again, the compressive qualities based on shortest path geometry can only be sourced from my application, this is also the reason that I'm still in correspondence with the IPO to determine the outcome of this research. I think I can see where the misunderstanding has arisen. Surely you can understand this significance which deserves to be noted at least in the history section? ( Melissa Bennett (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC) )
 * Per Wikipedia policy my understanding of the significance is irrelevent. We need independent sources to explain the significance for us. - MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, so in such circumstances why does this information remain in the article? If it is not referenced, and you are not willing to accept the primary source. Melissa Bennett (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire 'application' section Melissa Bennett (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already removed some of it. Are you saying the Kumar and Kumar reference is misleading as well? - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure why it has been placed there, if it was me that did that then it must have been a mistake. Melissa Bennett (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge to John J. Gilman
It's becoming apparent that although this article had appeared to be referenced, most of the references do not actually support the content, and the only possible source is a patent application. Given this, I think that what reliably sourced content is here should probably be merged to John J. Gilman. Thoughts? - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I agree, though I do find it peculiar. If a patent application is not deemed acceptable then really the page should just be deleted. Melissa Bennett (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)