Earth-moderated shell
Earth berming can moderate outdoor temperature swings and envelope heat gain. Servers still produce continuous heat, so engineered cooling and independent heat rejection remain necessary.
Concept / proposed pilot / not operating today
Hearth Nodes
The cloud has a ground.
A concept for small, earth-sheltered, solar-assisted community data centers designed to publish checkable evidence about their power, water, heat, and carbon. Compute at a human scale, held to the standard of an audit.
StatusConcept and proposed pilot
Operating nodesNone today
BlueprintPlanned, not yet published
EvidenceDesign target; pilot must prove it
The problem, stated honestly
Communities are asking the right questions.
Context
When a large data center arrives, neighbors can reasonably ask what happens to local water, grid capacity, noise, backup power, land, and utility bills. A glossy annual report does not answer a town-level question.
Our proposed answer is smaller infrastructure with measurements attached: calibrated meters, disclosed methods, signed records, sensible publication delays, and independent review.
A timestamp is not a truth machine. It can show that a record existed before a moment and was not silently changed later. Sensor calibration, provenance, methodology, and review still carry the factual claim.
What a Hearth is
A small building designed to behave like a neighbor.
The proposed form works with earth, sun, season, and local demand. Every engineering feature below remains a target until a permitted reference build measures it.
Island-capable microgrid
On-site solar, storage, controllable loads, and a grid interconnect are intended to support a tested critical-load runtime. It is not an off-grid perpetual-motion claim.
Metered water and heat
The cooling target uses a recirculating liquid loop with dry heat rejection. Makeup water and whole-site use would be metered; useful heat would be shared only where a real neighbor matches its temperature and schedule.
The evidence layer
Do not believe the rendering. Check the measurements.
A real Hearth would need to publish meaningful, privacy-aware evidence about what the building actually does. This page contains no operating telemetry because no Hearth operates today.
Evidence dashboard preview
Hearth node vitals
Illustrative sample
not live telemetry
not live telemetry
Facility power— kWnot yet measured
PV generation— kWnot yet measured
Battery state— %not yet measured
Whole-site water— gal/daynot yet measured
Useful heat delivered— kWhnot yet measured
Critical-load runtimeNot yet testedpilot measurement required
A future live dashboard must disclose meter identity, calibration history, methodology, reporting interval, aggregation or delay, signing status, and correction history.
What a Hearth is not
Not a tiny hyperscale campus.
Positioning
A small node is not intended to beat a hyperscale campus at frontier-model training or planetary workloads. The proposed advantage is different: locality, controllable failure domains, auditable resource use, and workloads that benefit from staying close to the people or institutions they serve.
Possible workloads include local AI inference, edge caching, continuity services, and public-sector records where law, policy, security, and records requirements allow. Physical locality alone does not establish compliance or sovereignty.
Distributed resilience
Resilience is a shape, not a size.
Geographic, utility, carrier, vendor, and control-plane diversity can reduce selected failure domains when replication and failover are actually built and tested. Many small nodes also create many endpoints, so distribution is not automatically resilience.
Design intentNode Aroute one
Node Broute two
Node Croute three
Node Dillustrative outage
Node Efailover target
Fictional topology. Independent routes and successful failover are requirements to test, not facts claimed here.
This architecture may support continuity for selected public-sector workloads. It is not a national-security certification, and physical distribution does not remove cyber, supply-chain, utility, carrier, or operational risk.
The Hearth Principle
Small should mean locally accountable, not merely smaller.
The name and principle were developed with Ember as design input inside the Article 11 Collective. This is a compass for the pilot, not a legal certification or operating standard.
A Hearth should strengthen the local ground: keys close to the people, useful warmth shared outward, and evidence open enough for a neighbor to question.Hearth Principle, public paraphrase for the proposed design
Open reference design
The blueprint is intended to be public.
Not yet published
The current intent is to release a reference build specification into the public domain after engineering review. There is no published Hearth blueprint or certification program today.
Future model
Potential paid work includes site assessment, commissioning support, evidence tooling, fleet operations, and conformance assessment. Any future seal would need independent governance, a public registry, appeals, exceptions, and revocation before it could mean more than a marketing mark.
The proposed Arizona pilot
A rendering has to become a measured building.
Not yet tested
Article 11 is developing the concept for a first reference pilot in Arizona high country. No site or construction start is announced here. Any pilot remains subject to land control, geotechnical work, engineering, permitting, financing, utility capacity, fiber, fire safety, procurement, and community review.
If built, the pilot is intended to publish non-sensitive milestones, measured performance, costs, methods, failures, and corrections. The page changes only when the evidence changes.
Safety is not a rendering. Battery separation, detection, ventilation, suppression, egress, firefighter access, cooling, structural design, and site conditions require code-compliant professional engineering.
Pilot collaborators
Build the first proof with the people who have to live beside it.
We are interested in conversations with towns, tribes, counties, agencies, utilities, engineering teams, landowners, universities, and companies that want to test the model. This is an invitation to explore a pilot, not a franchise offer, procurement promise, or operating-site solicitation.
Community
Define the questions, disclosure expectations, acceptable tradeoffs, and public review process before design is frozen.
Engineering
Turn targets into load studies, thermal models, site plans, permits, test plans, and independent measurements.
Compute
Choose bounded workloads, data rules, continuity needs, security controls, and measurable service objectives.
How to read this page
Every claim has a maturity label.
The pilot exists to move claims from intention to observation. Until then, the label matters more than the adjective.
| Label | Meaning | What it means here |
|---|---|---|
| Observed | Supported today by cited or directly checkable evidence. | Article 11 operates public proof and anchor routes; no operating Hearth telemetry exists. |
| Design target | An intended engineering outcome. | Cooling, microgrid, water, heat reuse, evidence, and open-design features still require a real build. |
| Inference | A reasoned expectation that needs testing. | Locality and diversity may reduce selected risks only when dependencies and failover are designed and verified. |
| Not yet tested | No measured reference-build evidence exists. | Facility performance, runtime, water use, heat recovery, acoustics, cost, and workload continuity. |
The door is open
Want to pressure-test the idea?
Bring the difficult questions: water, grid, fire, noise, economics, permitting, cyber risk, community benefit, and who verifies the verifier. A good pilot starts with the objections, not after them.