My WAG: It was used for testing that involved very small (or the potential for) small explosions. Something would be put in, it would be set off, the output would be measured, etc.
It didn’t have to be a really perfect vacuum-like seal. Just enough to contain a brief overpressure. Hence the overkill of many small pieces bolted together. Note the pipe with the t-trap type end. This is typical of piping intended to smooth out bursts of pressure. (As well as the ridiculously large size of the pipes compared to the size of the ball.)
This might explain the hole in the pipe. After years of use, one day there was a failure. Time for it to go to the scrapyard.
Good point. Or perhaps there is a sharp spike protruding from each piece pointing toward the center. Or maybe each piece has a sensor on it (though I do not see any wires). But still, that doesn’t explain why the pipes would be segmented.
I don’t like the art hypothesis because, short of finding out who made it, it’s unfalsifiable. We can say things like “it couldn’t have been a vacuum chamber; it’s too leaky”, but we can’t ever say “it couldn’t have been art”, because no matter what trait or feature we point out, maybe the artist just wanted it that way.
I wonder whether the entire object would have been scrapped due to that one hole, though - it looks like replacing just that one section and perhaps the end cap next to it would have the device as good as new. It might be that whoever first built this was no longer around to fashion a replacement piece, but it seems to me that a major benefit of modular devices is that you can replace individual pieces relatively easily.
Yes, but, it is truifiable if somebody finds the artist. I have to criticize Crafter-Man here because he ruined a perfectly appealing conjecture, but we will keep trying.
A hypothesis is plenty useful if it spurs some line of investigation that pays off.
Given the second picture, I will easily withdraw my ‘concrete form’ suspicion, but I will still say it’s a form of some sort. The first picture had the bottom ‘tubes’ concealed behind the flat panel.
It looks like it is made from cast magnesium. If that is the case, it was made to be light and strong. Maybe used in something where weight is a consideration? The hardware looks like it is stainless steel. It doesn’t look like there are any lock washers, or any washers, and the nuts don’t appear to be self locking. If it was a pressure chamber it would likely be vacuum as due to the design atmospheric pressure could help to seal it together. Hmm.
If there was something on the inside of each segment, a geodesic design would make more sense - as the segments would be evenly distributed - in the grid design, the segments are greatly more tightly-spaced toward the ‘poles’ of the sphere.
Clearly said. So clearly, in fact, that it is reminding me of a principle laid out by archaeologists: shouldn’t we be assuming it is some sort of religious artifact as our null hypothesis? Are there any skeletal remains near it?
It reminds me a little of the acoustic baffles placed above symphonic venues like the Hollywood Bowl. I doubt that’s the answer but such baffles are an example of devices that are intended to have BOTH a practical and a decorative function. Perhaps, this too, is a rather mundane device that also had to be decorative/ interesting looking.
As a general rule of thumb in engineering, if one part unexpectedly fails after many years of use, you should assume that the other components are also nearing the end of their lifetime. This would be especially true if my conjecture that this was a container for small scale bursts were true. It’s also possible that after the failure they did X-rays or some such on other parts and found small cracks. At that point it’s no longer repairable from a safety or economics point of view.
My best non-art guess is still a mold for rotational casting of a hollow sphere with a grid of ribs molded on the outside. The casting process doesn’t require the form to hold significant pressure, so the fact that you can’t seal it very well isn’t an issue. The may small squares the outside is made up of impart the grid of ribs on the molded part. It has to be made up of many small pieces because the ribs would make a few large pieces impossible to remove. The tubes off the side are also made in segments so they can be taken apart after the plastic inside them has solidified.
The one downside to this theory is that I can’t figure out how the entire mold was supported during the casting process, when the mold would need to be spun around 2 axis to distribute the plastic evenly. Maybe that’s what the two open holes on the surface were for?
Rotational moulding crossed my mind this morning, but I dismissed it again on the basis of all the small sections - but you make a good point - if (for example) the inside edges of each of those sections is chamfered, the resulting moulded form would have a grid of ribs on the outside. It would probably not be necessary to disassemble every single joint to remove the moulded piece - maybe only take it apart into 8 or 16 pieces.
However, after a few uses, roto moulds normally get caked with carbonised spilt plastic - this thing looks a bit clean.
