|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
david fonseca
Joined: 15 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
    |
|
as i see it you had a head start of more than 10 years. did you take that chance? it sure doesn't look like you did.
do you have a patent on the method? or on the engineering solution? i never saw you mentioning that, so I guess not.
i had projects stolen from me. what did i do? i researched ways of not being stolen anymore.
what i am trying to say is that i see u being to inactive. you had 14 years. in that time you could have built a small shack with your system, and made some tests on it, or as you say put the model in a engineering program and prove that it is really better than the others. RUN AFTER IT!!! don't wait for other people to do it for you! it wont happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still I fully understand what you say but ; I to had several patents , ofcaurse I allmost add, but is it worth the trouble --- spending years and a thousands and thousands focused on one issue , a vision that have been fixtated an idea being the intire substance of a lifetime learning, develobing playing and trying to cope with the social issues that to often are what the thing is about.
It is called intelectural property and this cover my claims , Im'e not in it to spend my life with words or presice spelling , in fact I don't like the idea that a wonderfull new method shuld be protected by patent still something so unique sort of prove it's own uniqueness and I rather share a good idea knowing that all it mean if you cheat someone is that you will think anyone will cheat you and following the criminal mindset in architecture will at some point leave you, in a very sad situation compared the one who honestly share and expect just a few lines for credit.
Bside talking about patents to an artist make very little sense , while an artist want a better world for anyone not just for himself , therefore he make art. So as my strong skills is not the skills you need as an inventor seeking a patent, I rely on the fact that I have published this for the past 10 years --- sure I waited a few years before I realised ,either to spend the rest of my life on a patent noone would get to know about, as I would be occupied with patent issues and firther debts , beside there are acturly a lot of laws protecting artists as I.
Hope you see my point, and , this is unique. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
P.s.
Exactly this unique quality is what define it as new and visionary. Now maybe artists are suspected to deliver what the academic world dictate as othervise they will not be realised as the artists that their unique work prove they are, but I am not going to exchouse anything ,and I do not think any artist who work serius is supposed to exchouse his results, in particular not , just becaurse his art are different and unique, share a vision and have the potential and promises everyone have shouted for, since the computer was engaged in architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
P.p.s
And by publishing I make sure no one else can go patent a brilliant new building method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
For a long time I have wanted to plade a picture of the fuselage of one of the most famous WW# bombers.
This had an unique construction where other planes was based on a fuselage with the trtadisional skin, rib, skin structure, where each rib as in a boat was individual rings , there this design concept added a neat and rugid feature by allowing each frame to support eachother. That way the forces was better distribuated than in the simpler ring-frame structure used even today.
Now please don't take this as a 3dh structure, --- it have simularaty, but is produced very different, and work different to, beside as being a geostatic structure, it only cover the "surface" . It maby take detail study to realise the great difference between 3dh and this geostatic structure, but the strength follow the likeness, these planes was known as the most rugid of the WW2 bombers, they survived serious dameage by structural abilities, where other designs sadly was those who made even today's trend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: An Unquenchable Thirst for Perfection |
|
|
Sorry --- when I think about a plane, of course I think about the calculations leading up to that particular shape, where a multiple issues decide the outcome, --- but If you really want to see a plane as a form, then please consider, how the first planes was realized as engine and wings, later and please understand what I say, the available techniques was used to the limits to form a fuselage , there I find it so very important what techniques was available as if you take apart the fuselage, you will find everything based on boat building techniques M ribs and skin , stringers and paneling ---- what went wrong though, was that later on it became rings and skin , where the major stress was distributed to the skin , as the frames, the ribs, rings was individual parts just connected to the outher and inner skin as seperate ribs, just like in a row boat.
--------With one design exception, an WW2 rigid bomber --- sorry I don't remember it's name --- but in that, the frames was interconnected very much as an 3dh structure though manufactored in a very different way, then this rib system added an enormous structural strength to the fuselage.
Sadly the frame concept was not further developed, as in those times they thought it to be to expensive unless for mass production , as the calculation for other designs, and the way manufactored ment extra weight , with the sort of frames as these was made.
Now even today, deep hidden in the plane fuselage production concept, you will find an entrance towerds the plane fuselage, originating in wooden boats building ; ribs and skin, the fuselage as a ships hull but over time develobed into light weight still carrying the same design idears of the first metal fuselages --- now please guess one way one concept that could make plane fuselages same weight, but double strength.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/fig5.jpg
I think forming an aeroplane are much more than just the shape, and the methods are way the greatest barrier."
In this sense, form is a structural study of the ultimate design to achieve the function that the plane must perform with the greatest strength.
The elements of the Order of Architectural Thought are present
1. A Problem. Planes, boats and buildings with inadequate structural integrity.
2. A context. Many good solutions developed, but few taken seriously or explored to the ultimate of their possibilities.
3. A function. To design a more rigid structure that will serve for various applications.
4. A concept. A lattice work, taken from boat building and airplane building, that can be applied to various construction typologies and create a more rigid frame and support a direct production from cad to machine shop.
5. A form. 3DH, interconnected rigid bomber frames, space frames, architectural frames of all types, domes, multi-polygon structures etc etc etc Some of these are merely skin structures, whereas others are integral parts of the unit one is building, such as in boat and airplane building.
Now the question is whether architecture should adopt a structure that, similar to a boat frame, will multiply itself in all directions and create the layout for the building. There are many technologies that can be considered, as I have already pointed out, that would allow for more LIQUID, plastic structures and architecture.
Each proposition has it's strength and weakness. There are those who ridicule great designs without considering the full ramifications of what is being proposed, as we have seen on these forums recently.
Project Liquid Universe is a fantastic design and project. It is requesting no money, only global participation. It is not a commercial venture, but a community driven, participative project. It promotes the causes of all involved in a free open way, without favoring any single company, as all develop it together. It provides the framework for a new architecture, a new world, new technology, new internet, the new computers of the future, the new structures, the new software, the new transportation systems, the new cities, the new inventions, the new communications systems, and ultimately every reality in our current world will be affected in some way. And there are those who go on to call it scy-fi illusion, a dream of "flying saucers" that have nothing to do with architecture or the world we live in. They would rather go on and boast about their Neo past architect designs, and how they are focused on meeting basic needs now, then think about or dream about the future possibilities that this project will bring.
To be a visionary, one must have a thirst for perfection, an unquenchable desire to produce something revolutionary, to be willing to adjust one's strategies according to the need at hand, while maintaining one's vision. It requires a delicate balance of incorporating the existing, re-shaping it, using one's ideas of the past but be willing to re-shape them to fit the current technological reality. This process is continuous and must never end. A truly creative individual will be constantly re-arranging the reality inside and in the external world, with an incessant desire to reach perfection in every detail.
Last edited by usarender on Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:29 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have this amazing vision for changing the world. Please come visit me at WORLDVISION@GIVEMEMONEY.COM Now I realize this forum isn't necessarily the proper place to promote my commercial venture but everyone else seems to be doing it...................... so I guess it's ok. And beware, if you question my motives in doing this........ I will call you bad names.
thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: The Methodology of current thought |
|
|
| Rather then referring to "concept" in architecture, we should use the language of architecture, and speak of what "vocabulary" we wish to use and what is the language of our design. It is the language of architecture that conveys the meaning, the intent and can create a world before our eyes. "Concept", on the other hand, is vague, more related to philosophy, to the the mind. It does not express the true vocabulary of architecture. If we analyze the history of the word, the use and application and it's confusion can be understood. In architecture, it seems we tend to be carried by pre-conceived ideas and these tend to get carried on by generations and the terms are mis-applied or ill fitted to express the nature of the architectural thought and language. When we began to speak the language of architecture, we will begin to ask : What VOCABULARY or LANGUAGE of architectural thought have you adopted to guide your design idea, not what CONCEPT have you chosen ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: Further Thoughts |
|
|
This has the potential to be revolutionary, as this new vocabulary will help to guide every design decision, from inception to completion.
The VOCABULARY and LANGUAGE of architecture has the power to create anything we can dream ! No need for another vocabulary and language.
The term concept, however, is ill applied, inadequate, confusing and full of contradictory definitions that have nothing to do with architecture.
We have elaborated a vocabulary that will guide every design decision. Now, if we simply use the image of a jet airplane, it will not carry the same weight as the VOCABULARY and LANGUAGE we have created, which leads to an infinite world of sculpture as architecture, to a city divided by zones as determined by the shape of the jet.
A concept, on the other hand, could be expressed as the image of the whale. It would remain vague and thus not clear. As stated previously, it can be seen the vocabulary of architecture is what should guide our design ideas, our intent, and express in a clear manner an overall architectural vision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: Food for thought, fuel for the future |
|
|
How about some fancy new ideas pc? Got any in mind?
How about this -->>
Magnetic Cancellation Theory -->>
http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3266324#3266324
Basic notions of magnetic cancellation necessary for the new transportation systems of the future, and also energy generators to power our cities in space and our buildings of the future.
By Mr. Nelson
Architect, Inventor, Scientist, Visionary, Futurist, Artist, Mechanic, Poet, Writer, Researcher.
A world of possibilities power by global connectivity.
The Architecture of the Future at our doorstep.
Soon new architectural ideas to come, based on these new structural and energy systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh but there are new idears and new fancy graphics to --- all these experiments in the Silver Screen Galleri did prove one fact ; that even in old technikes, there still be niches where none other realised some small or big adventure , found something new as I did with these old projectors and these projecting technikes.
Not a huge discovery not at all, but a technike I newer seen before ,a technike that make me see becaurse of others faliour in detail, how they used projecting technikes in another way than I found to paint after projected pictures ---- but I guess the quality and fact that someone could suddenly manufactor these Silver Screen pictures in a new fasion show this clearly.
Now that method ,even it is simple, I will keep to myself a bit longer, but I promise to display the results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: 3dh Does not work |
|
|
WHY 3DH DOES NOT WORK -->>
pc, it is high time someone put you in line. Your mind is big as you believe you are an expert and you have created some marvelous system of 3dh. Nobody cares to criticize this as it is quite irrelevant, due to many technical problems with it's implementation. So who are you to criticize me for placing ideas of others I wish to discuss in these threads? If you really wish for me to give objective feedback on 3dh, I shall do so, and you will not like to hear it. So why do you keep promoting something that others care not to discuss, and continue to harass my posts as well? Now, you think you are such an expert pc, but you write nothing new. Instead, you keep spewing about the same old tired ideas over and over. You post irrelevant art images in topics which are completely irrelevant. You promote 3dh in all topics, in topics were it is irrelevant and off topic completely. You oppose topics so that you can turn and introduce 3dh. Your opposition frequently has nothing to do with the topics at hand, but rather a means you have devised to introduce 3dh. You criticize me and ridicule my posts, who do you think you are pc? It is high time someone put you in line and unmask your duplicity at once. I know who I am talking to yes. It is you who have not realized what you are becoming. Please stop harassing my posts and stop constantly pushing this 3dh stuff which is completely irrelevant to the design process and how architects today compose architecture. Why? Here is why -->>
3dh is not adequate in many ways as -->>
1. Sheet metal is not so environmentally friendly as you claim.
2. I have not seen any structural calculations to show how sheet metal composed in tubes or square profiles this way would be able to replace steel girders. I have not seen anything to convince they will carry huge loads. This is absurd to assume thin sections of steel plates will be able to replace heavy steel girders.
3. Your system cannot be easily fire-proofed.
4. It is absurd to assume 3dh is a all out solution for all architecture and to keep bombing these forums insisting it is the only way. Architects design in different ways and opt from different structural systems based on the materials chosen, and the design. To assume 3dh would replace all structural systems is ludicrous.
5. It is nothing more then a nice structure for boats and planes but truly architects would not like to be locked into allowing a structure to form a backbone of everything they design.
6. Your 3dh terminology is quite humorous. A 3d honey comb ? So you got the ideas from bees? And why "3d" honey comb? Why even the word 3D? Any architecture is 3d, so why specify 3d for this?
7. To try to apply 3dh to many of the designs I posted earlier, or to many other designs would seriously limit those designs and the selection of materials would not match. One system cannot simply be expected to provide a solution to all designs.
8. Ever try to do any calculation of on-site time that would be needed for cnc cutters to cut all those profiles for huge structures? It would not make for an efficient work site. Even if they were pre cut, and brought to the site, many many elements and some even small would all need to be numbered and placed in stacks in a way they could be easily found. It would create an enormous organizational task. And not to mention even the task of assembling them together. Would they be welded at joints? This would be a huge amount of work. And how are the steel plates joined on ends to form girders? The ends are welded as well? Too much work. As they say, "too much sugar for a dime."
9. We cannot simply rely heavily on sheet metal in the same way we cannot rely heavily on brick. How much energy is needed to extract the material, produce the sheet metal and deliver it to the site?
10. To allow computers to simply automatically distribute a system of structural members in a framework leads to design limitations as well. Buildings designed this way would be seriously restricted in certain aspects, as the structural grids would be dominant and thus certain areas could not be simply open or have large open spans, but would rather be consumed by multi-directional grids of structure. In large structures, it would lead to many cavity time spaces and even small structural corners and elements that would seem to hang in space. Therefore, complete control of the variation of architectural features possible by mixing structural systems would not be possible. Thus, the architecture would be determined to a degree by the structural system, and the range of architectural options would thus be diminished accordingly. If you cannot see this, I will need to explain further. It is quite obvious to me.
11. To assume 3dh could be easily assembled in poor African countries with no computers, no cnc cutters, no sheet metal is somewhat absurd. Many poor countries do not have ready access to computers or a machine to assemble structures.
12. 3dh was developed at the start of the 3d thing and of computers. It is then, somewhat outdated in terms of the way we design today with computers and what they are capable of doing in terms of calculations. It is a nice computer code of calculations that distributes structural elements in a grid using algorythms of matrix calculations, but is quite a simple system actually and designed at the time when autocad and other programs were quite limited. At the time, it was a nice development, but in practice is not such a uniform system for all types of design, as shown.
13. There are many other reasons as well. Really want to know?
And your responses to this? None of it made any sense -->>
You have not made one rational response as answers to my questions. Rather, you continue in your irrational thinking and then proceed to say you pity me. It is by posting your irrational systems and arguments that this type of situation has developed.
So if you propose to use another sheet material, what would that be specifically? All I hear of up until now is sheet metal and cnc cutters.
You did not answer my question nb. 2 at all!
I am not trying to claim the architect will do the job of an engineer. Do you not understand? Good architects must also understand engineering and how to apply structural systems. There cannot be a detachment between the two.
I do not care to point out if there is another constructive method that can work with today's modeling programs. In fact, I have already made suggestions on the improvement of 3dh, but you keep reverting back to the same course, and applying the same type of thinking, over and over again, in a wild obcession.
Now, you say my criticism of the term 3dh is based on ignorance. I question why the term 3dh is used and you revert to calling this ignorance? Try a more reasonable rational response, this intimidation technique does not work with me.
On my point 8 - why is it that I must produce the calculations to prove it will not work? If you are the engineer and designer who produced this system, you must produce the calculations yourself to prove it works. This is absurd, and rather a technique you use to skirt the issue and avoid the responsibility if it fails in the calculations.
9. On my point nine. So 3dh is "stacked" ,as if it were a lego system of interlocking pieces? Your answer there is not very coherent or comprehensible.
10. My point 10 - you argue against the air, not understanding at all what I am referring to, obviously.
Your claim my experience is nill. What experience have you in building a skyscraper with 3dh? It is nill as well. To assume I have not looked at any of your graphics is an assumption as well, based on what fact?
Now, why would I hate you to be publishing this? This is absurd. I have even made suggestions on how to improve 3dh. I do not hate for you to publish it. It is just that you are obcessed with it, and cannot see it's weaknesses.
You proceed to call me coward, to me like the Nazzis harrassing. This again, shows your imagination at work. Rather then deal with my objections in a rational way, you turn it into a game of calling names and assuming I am persecuting you like the Nazzis. This is absurd. I am a rational being who is looking at this from an objective point of view. Finally. Before, I was not posting my comments in an attempt to be kind. But I see you never had any kindness towards my way of posting, but rather continuously revert to criticize my means of posting topics, for no reason. What started all this opposition in your mind? Look at what it has led to !
So you say you pity me. It is I now, that pity you. Poor pc, an oppressed guy that is so down that he cannot stand to have his system analyzed objectively by architects, to see if it holds water..... I pity you.
So my comment 12 proves I do not know Autocad? Why should I know Autocad anyways? Is an understanding of 3dh precluded on a knowledge of Autocad? I have much knowledge in cad yes, but Autocad is not a program I like. In fact, I seriously dislike Autocad. It is a heavy monster.
You claim now I have brains of liquid? What a convenient emotional response. I can see in fact your brains are quickly melting into liquid pc, you are becoming a scatter brain, with no logical sense to what you write. You write rather out of an emotional response.... quite comical....
It is easy for you to claim ignorance on my part, rather then prove and defend you system in logical way that makes sense to architects. As you do this, everyone will begin to see it does not hold water. Place liquid in it and it will gush out in every direction. Thus, your system is full of holes.
Why should I look for a real argument I do not understand myself? If I post topics, it is up for each to dwell on the subject and comment on the same. This you do not care to do. You assume those topics are all irrelevant, and the only relevant thing is 3dh. This is where you error. Why do this to yourself?
I have already pointed out what is wrong with that system as you posted in that image above. -->>
1. Small structural modules at corners that do not make sense. There are as remnants of a grid layed out by a computer.
2. A complex system of angles and pieces that would create un necessary assembly complexities.
3. A system of pieces of sheet metal that are difficult to assemble together, to weld, to create the joints.
4. A structure that could be easily achieved by starndard construction systems.
5. A maze of pieces that are not necessary to make the structure stand.
6. A maze of remnant unecessary pieces.
7. Simply, a structure that may make sense for a boat, but why does it need to be designed this way for a building?
Now, if I am wrong on any of these points, that is ok. Feel free to correct me and prove why I am wrong.
The problem is, you keep posting this same image on this forum, asking everyone what is wrong with it, and nobody cares to respond. Perhaps I am the first to attempt to respond to it in a logical way.
But please, why should I be expected to deliver a structural system that works with solids or computer programs?
You are the one who should provide the calculations, not me.
I am not trying to make a fool of language issues. It is you who has attempted to make a fool of me, by criticizing the way I choose to compose posts and place material online for discussion. You do not see this. It is your myopia of thinking you are the only right, and who has been attempmting to ridicule me. You started this, not me.
Now, you ask for sincerity and objective analysis of this 3dh thing? It is you who should provide the objective answers and structural calculations to prove it works, not me.
I am not obcessed with harming others. You are reverting to insanity pc. You imagination is creating fantasies in your mind. Stop imagining things about me. And stop criticizing the way I post.
Now, if you feel I am harming you, is it that your system is not able to stand up to criticism? If is is, please give objective responses, not emotional responses, please. Just prove what you have to say, don't resort to retoric.
I can see that the problem has been, all these years, that everyone can see these problems, but everyone is being kind and does not wish to offend this system you have been so obcessed in defending.
Now, I myself have always been defending your system, and even proposed many ways to improve it. Can you not see this? Are you so blinded? Why then can you not stand for me to analyze it objectively and post some criticism for once and for all?
Also, why is it that you are so bent on painting an ugly picture of my and trying to ridicule me and the way I post, all of a sudden? You are full of contradictions in your behavior. One day you are friendly, and the next you start to ridicule me style of engaging discussion and of posting topics of interest. So can you not see it is you who is the source of this dis agreement?
Now, you claim to have met many "nice" guys, and also claim you are a "nice guy", then you claim I am not a "nice guy", simply because I wish to analyze this 3dh thing in an objective way?
You are the one who is not the nice guy, as you proceed to ridicule me on many occasions, and ridicule the way I have chosen to post topics, referring to it as a "copy and paste". You are the one copying and pasting the same images over and over again on these forums, these images of yours of 3dh. You copy and past the same comments that come to your mind on 3dh, in a desperate attempt to promote it. You keep reverting back to the same thinking, painting pictures of others as " Nazi persecuters", "pc haters" , "nice guy haters" and on and on you go... I pity you pc....you are quite predictable.... and at times, illogical, emotional, fearful of your own shadow....
You feel now you are an expert in structures, in architecture, in debate on these forums, and proceed to criticize others and ridicule their ways of posting and vision. This is an arrogant attitude you have. You never care to engage in any meaningful discussion. Rather, you bomb all topics that are completely unrelated with promotion of your 3dh system.
You go off on tangents and think everyone is persecuting your thinking and suggest others say things that they do not even say, and then you start defending yourself against your own shadow and against things nobody even said, that you imagine in your mind.
Pc, I had much respect for you, but I am quickly loosing my respect, seeing how you have been behaving and how you are quick to ridicule my chain of posts and ways I desire to engage discussion. Who are you to criticize me for posting any material I wish to post? Or to criticize the method I have chosen to present topics of interest?
You are really full of yourself pc. Now I have to admit the truth. This 3dh system of yours nobody cares to employ as it is quite irrelevant and full of technical problems even if one wished to implement it. I don't know why or how nobody else has seen this. Probably they are tying to be kind and not say anything. I was doing the same, until now. It is time to speak my mind. Your system is full of holes pc. Admit it. Stop pushing a system like this in every thread on these posts. If people truly believed it was feasible, they would or could post a response here on why they feel 3dh is in fact a good system. I doubt anyone will do this, as simply, it is not a system that can hold water in practice. There are many technical problems with it's implementation.
Another problem is that you are not willing to work with anyone on anything. You work alone, and even if someone like me comes along to try to make 3dh work, and help fix it's problems, you are not willing to listen and work with others. Rather, you insist your solution is a marvel of technology and a solution for all architecture and the most beautiful system ever designed. You proceed to ridicule my ideas, ways of posting and desire to participate in the ideas of others. This is completely unjustified. Your arrogant attitude has led now to this situation. I am not the type of person you want to start opposing 3dh. So please learn a lesson and stop harassing others and maybe somehow some way we can still save your 3dh before it sinks completely.
Also, your posts are all destroying the topics of discussion. Don't know if we can still save these threads before they all revert to a discussion on the practically of 3dh.
Pc, you claim I have not understood your system, but you do not give clear answers to my points. You rather defend that it is a good system, because it is, because everything there is essential and nothing is non essential. This is retoric. It is not a claim, only a claim.
Why are all those structural members needed at the corners? Why all those remnant pieces?
You have still not provided any evidence that these profiles could replace steel girders in large buildings. Where are the calculations?
So one needs to understand the calculations of your computer program, to prove your system makes sense? This again is retoric, not based on proof that in fact this system is as strong as you claim it is. You are making various assertions not based on experience as well. Have you built a sky scraper with this? You claim it will do a better job. But where is the beef?
Further, if I get dizzy or not this is irrelevant. I just want to see the beef is all. Not claims but facts.
You claim there are fewer pieces, and that it would be very easy to find all those pieces, weld them together, and that the on-site work would be simplified. Where's the beef? There is no proof to your claims.
Now, even that structure you posted looks nice when assembled by computer graphics. But have you ever tried to actually build that or any 3dh structure for that matter? Try to build it and you will realize many of my points make sense. It is where the rubber meets the road.
Further, why do you keep criticizing me of ignorance? Your scare tactics and emotional responses do not work with me. It may work with others, but not with me. I am an incredibly creative individual and will not let people like you despise me. People like you appear to be hero's but in effect you are acting as the invaders of these forums, who invade their way into every discussion and then try to invade their way into every one's head and claim they are the only "right" and all others are "wrong", "ignorant", "Nazi persecuters", "pc haters". Your tactics don't work with me. I am here to prove you are wrong, and quite wrong, and your arguments to not stand the test of architecture.
You are full of fancy dress pc. It is all talk and fancy dress and retoric. I have not seen the beef. Now you say my ideas are not constructive, and your ideas are more constructive then mine. Again, pure retoric. Then you claim your paintings are great and then mine are trash? How can you be sure you are a better artist then me, for that matter? How can you assume I know nothing of computers or software? Assumption is a dreaded disease. You give us so much retoric pc, but not one solid calculation to show this 3dh thing is a strong as steel. Where's the beef? Now, who cares about waterline curves? That is for boat builders. I am not a boat builder. Now, each person has his own god given abilities, so who is one to say he has more then another or is a greater artist then another, a greater writer then another, a greater scientist then another, a greater inventor then another? Your pride and presumption is reaching astronomical proportions. You have no idea of the types of talents, skills, abilities I have, and obviously your falling back to presumption is your greatest disease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
As there are an edit button that usarender --- a guy totaly obsessed with Per Corell --- recently has been very busy to use, to edit his hate crime mails , I copy and paste this long and proberly very boring obsessed text above ; .. usarender think there are an audience whom he address often , still take my advise and read the next as what it is, an obssive persons blabble.
"WHY 3DH DOES NOT WORK -->>
pc, it is high time someone put you in line. Your mind is big as you believe you are an expert and you have created some marvelous system of 3dh. Nobody cares to criticize this as it is quite irrelevant, due to many technical problems with it's implementation. So who are you to criticize me for placing ideas of others I wish to discuss in these threads? If you really wish for me to give objective feedback on 3dh, I shall do so, and you will not like to hear it. So why do you keep promoting something that others care not to discuss, and continue to harass my posts as well? Now, you think you are such an expert pc, but you write nothing new. Instead, you keep spewing about the same old tired ideas over and over. You post irrelevant art images in topics which are completely irrelevant. You promote 3dh in all topics, in topics were it is irrelevant and off topic completely. You oppose topics so that you can turn and introduce 3dh. Your opposition frequently has nothing to do with the topics at hand, but rather a means you have devised to introduce 3dh. You criticize me and ridicule my posts, who do you think you are pc? It is high time someone put you in line and unmask your duplicity at once. I know who I am talking to yes. It is you who have not realized what you are becoming. Please stop harassing my posts and stop constantly pushing this 3dh stuff which is completely irrelevant to the design process and how architects today compose architecture. Why? Here is why -->>
3dh is not adequate in many ways as -->>
1. Sheet metal is not so environmentally friendly as you claim.
2. I have not seen any structural calculations to show how sheet metal composed in tubes or square profiles this way would be able to replace steel girders. I have not seen anything to convince they will carry huge loads. This is absurd to assume thin sections of steel plates will be able to replace heavy steel girders.
3. Your system cannot be easily fire-proofed.
4. It is absurd to assume 3dh is a all out solution for all architecture and to keep bombing these forums insisting it is the only way. Architects design in different ways and opt from different structural systems based on the materials chosen, and the design. To assume 3dh would replace all structural systems is ludicrous.
5. It is nothing more then a nice structure for boats and planes but truly architects would not like to be locked into allowing a structure to form a backbone of everything they design.
6. Your 3dh terminology is quite humorous. A 3d honey comb ? So you got the ideas from bees? And why "3d" honey comb? Why even the word 3D? Any architecture is 3d, so why specify 3d for this?
7. To try to apply 3dh to many of the designs I posted earlier, or to many other designs would seriously limit those designs and the selection of materials would not match. One system cannot simply be expected to provide a solution to all designs.
8. Ever try to do any calculation of on-site time that would be needed for cnc cutters to cut all those profiles for huge structures? It would not make for an efficient work site. Even if they were pre cut, and brought to the site, many many elements and some even small would all need to be numbered and placed in stacks in a way they could be easily found. It would create an enormous organizational task. And not to mention even the task of assembling them together. Would they be welded at joints? This would be a huge amount of work. And how are the steel plates joined on ends to form girders? The ends are welded as well? Too much work. As they say, "too much sugar for a dime."
9. We cannot simply rely heavily on sheet metal in the same way we cannot rely heavily on brick. How much energy is needed to extract the material, produce the sheet metal and deliver it to the site?
10. To allow computers to simply automatically distribute a system of structural members in a framework leads to design limitations as well. Buildings designed this way would be seriously restricted in certain aspects, as the structural grids would be dominant and thus certain areas could not be simply open or have large open spans, but would rather be consumed by multi-directional grids of structure. In large structures, it would lead to many cavity time spaces and even small structural corners and elements that would seem to hang in space. Therefore, complete control of the variation of architectural features possible by mixing structural systems would not be possible. Thus, the architecture would be determined to a degree by the structural system, and the range of architectural options would thus be diminished accordingly. If you cannot see this, I will need to explain further. It is quite obvious to me.
11. To assume 3dh could be easily assembled in poor African countries with no computers, no cnc cutters, no sheet metal is somewhat absurd. Many poor countries do not have ready access to computers or a machine to assemble structures.
12. 3dh was developed at the start of the 3d thing and of computers. It is then, somewhat outdated in terms of the way we design today with computers and what they are capable of doing in terms of calculations. It is a nice computer code of calculations that distributes structural elements in a grid using algorythms of matrix calculations, but is quite a simple system actually and designed at the time when autocad and other programs were quite limited. At the time, it was a nice development, but in practice is not such a uniform system for all types of design, as shown.
13. There are many other reasons as well. Really want to know?
And your responses to this? None of it made any sense -->>
You have not made one rational response as answers to my questions. Rather, you continue in your irrational thinking and then proceed to say you pity me. It is by posting your irrational systems and arguments that this type of situation has developed.
So if you propose to use another sheet material, what would that be specifically? All I hear of up until now is sheet metal and cnc cutters.
You did not answer my question nb. 2 at all!
I am not trying to claim the architect will do the job of an engineer. Do you not understand? Good architects must also understand engineering and how to apply structural systems. There cannot be a detachment between the two.
I do not care to point out if there is another constructive method that can work with today's modeling programs. In fact, I have already made suggestions on the improvement of 3dh, but you keep reverting back to the same course, and applying the same type of thinking, over and over again, in a wild obcession.
Now, you say my criticism of the term 3dh is based on ignorance. I question why the term 3dh is used and you revert to calling this ignorance? Try a more reasonable rational response, this intimidation technique does not work with me.
On my point 8 - why is it that I must produce the calculations to prove it will not work? If you are the engineer and designer who produced this system, you must produce the calculations yourself to prove it works. This is absurd, and rather a technique you use to skirt the issue and avoid the responsibility if it fails in the calculations.
9. On my point nine. So 3dh is "stacked" ,as if it were a lego system of interlocking pieces? Your answer there is not very coherent or comprehensible.
10. My point 10 - you argue against the air, not understanding at all what I am referring to, obviously.
Your claim my experience is nill. What experience have you in building a skyscraper with 3dh? It is nill as well. To assume I have not looked at any of your graphics is an assumption as well, based on what fact?
Now, why would I hate you to be publishing this? This is absurd. I have even made suggestions on how to improve 3dh. I do not hate for you to publish it. It is just that you are obcessed with it, and cannot see it's weaknesses.
You proceed to call me coward, to me like the Nazzis harrassing. This again, shows your imagination at work. Rather then deal with my objections in a rational way, you turn it into a game of calling names and assuming I am persecuting you like the Nazzis. This is absurd. I am a rational being who is looking at this from an objective point of view. Finally. Before, I was not posting my comments in an attempt to be kind. But I see you never had any kindness towards my way of posting, but rather continuously revert to criticize my means of posting topics, for no reason. What started all this opposition in your mind? Look at what it has led to !
So you say you pity me. It is I now, that pity you. Poor pc, an oppressed guy that is so down that he cannot stand to have his system analyzed objectively by architects, to see if it holds water..... I pity you.
So my comment 12 proves I do not know Autocad? Why should I know Autocad anyways? Is an understanding of 3dh precluded on a knowledge of Autocad? I have much knowledge in cad yes, but Autocad is not a program I like. In fact, I seriously dislike Autocad. It is a heavy monster.
You claim now I have brains of liquid? What a convenient emotional response. I can see in fact your brains are quickly melting into liquid pc, you are becoming a scatter brain, with no logical sense to what you write. You write rather out of an emotional response.... quite comical....
It is easy for you to claim ignorance on my part, rather then prove and defend you system in logical way that makes sense to architects. As you do this, everyone will begin to see it does not hold water. Place liquid in it and it will gush out in every direction. Thus, your system is full of holes.
Why should I look for a real argument I do not understand myself? If I post topics, it is up for each to dwell on the subject and comment on the same. This you do not care to do. You assume those topics are all irrelevant, and the only relevant thing is 3dh. This is where you error. Why do this to yourself?
I have already pointed out what is wrong with that system as you posted in that image above. -->>
1. Small structural modules at corners that do not make sense. There are as remnants of a grid layed out by a computer.
2. A complex system of angles and pieces that would create un necessary assembly complexities.
3. A system of pieces of sheet metal that are difficult to assemble together, to weld, to create the joints.
4. A structure that could be easily achieved by starndard construction systems.
5. A maze of pieces that are not necessary to make the structure stand.
6. A maze of remnant unecessary pieces.
7. Simply, a structure that may make sense for a boat, but why does it need to be designed this way for a building?
Now, if I am wrong on any of these points, that is ok. Feel free to correct me and prove why I am wrong.
The problem is, you keep posting this same image on this forum, asking everyone what is wrong with it, and nobody cares to respond. Perhaps I am the first to attempt to respond to it in a logical way.
But please, why should I be expected to deliver a structural system that works with solids or computer programs?
You are the one who should provide the calculations, not me.
I am not trying to make a fool of language issues. It is you who has attempted to make a fool of me, by criticizing the way I choose to compose posts and place material online for discussion. You do not see this. It is your myopia of thinking you are the only right, and who has been attempmting to ridicule me. You started this, not me.
Now, you ask for sincerity and objective analysis of this 3dh thing? It is you who should provide the objective answers and structural calculations to prove it works, not me.
I am not obcessed with harming others. You are reverting to insanity pc. You imagination is creating fantasies in your mind. Stop imagining things about me. And stop criticizing the way I post.
Now, if you feel I am harming you, is it that your system is not able to stand up to criticism? If is is, please give objective responses, not emotional responses, please. Just prove what you have to say, don't resort to retoric.
I can see that the problem has been, all these years, that everyone can see these problems, but everyone is being kind and does not wish to offend this system you have been so obcessed in defending.
Now, I myself have always been defending your system, and even proposed many ways to improve it. Can you not see this? Are you so blinded? Why then can you not stand for me to analyze it objectively and post some criticism for once and for all?
Also, why is it that you are so bent on painting an ugly picture of my and trying to ridicule me and the way I post, all of a sudden? You are full of contradictions in your behavior. One day you are friendly, and the next you start to ridicule me style of engaging discussion and of posting topics of interest. So can you not see it is you who is the source of this dis agreement?
Now, you claim to have met many "nice" guys, and also claim you are a "nice guy", then you claim I am not a "nice guy", simply because I wish to analyze this 3dh thing in an objective way?
You are the one who is not the nice guy, as you proceed to ridicule me on many occasions, and ridicule the way I have chosen to post topics, referring to it as a "copy and paste". You are the one copying and pasting the same images over and over again on these forums, these images of yours of 3dh. You copy and past the same comments that come to your mind on 3dh, in a desperate attempt to promote it. You keep reverting back to the same thinking, painting pictures of others as " Nazi persecuters", "pc haters" , "nice guy haters" and on and on you go... I pity you pc....you are quite predictable.... and at times, illogical, emotional, fearful of your own shadow....
You feel now you are an expert in structures, in architecture, in debate on these forums, and proceed to criticize others and ridicule their ways of posting and vision. This is an arrogant attitude you have. You never care to engage in any meaningful discussion. Rather, you bomb all topics that are completely unrelated with promotion of your 3dh system.
You go off on tangents and think everyone is persecuting your thinking and suggest others say things that they do not even say, and then you start defending yourself against your own shadow and against things nobody even said, that you imagine in your mind.
Pc, I had much respect for you, but I am quickly loosing my respect, seeing how you have been behaving and how you are quick to ridicule my chain of posts and ways I desire to engage discussion. Who are you to criticize me for posting any material I wish to post? Or to criticize the method I have chosen to present topics of interest?
You are really full of yourself pc. Now I have to admit the truth. This 3dh system of yours nobody cares to employ as it is quite irrelevant and full of technical problems even if one wished to implement it. I don't know why or how nobody else has seen this. Probably they are tying to be kind and not say anything. I was doing the same, until now. It is time to speak my mind. Your system is full of holes pc. Admit it. Stop pushing a system like this in every thread on these posts. If people truly believed it was feasible, they would or could post a response here on why they feel 3dh is in fact a good system. I doubt anyone will do this, as simply, it is not a system that can hold water in practice. There are many technical problems with it's implementation.
Another problem is that you are not willing to work with anyone on anything. You work alone, and even if someone like me comes along to try to make 3dh work, and help fix it's problems, you are not willing to listen and work with others. Rather, you insist your solution is a marvel of technology and a solution for all architecture and the most beautiful system ever designed. You proceed to ridicule my ideas, ways of posting and desire to participate in the ideas of others. This is completely unjustified. Your arrogant attitude has led now to this situation. I am not the type of person you want to start opposing 3dh. So please learn a lesson and stop harassing others and maybe somehow some way we can still save your 3dh before it sinks completely.
Also, your posts are all destroying the topics of discussion. Don't know if we can still save these threads before they all revert to a discussion on the practically of 3dh.
Pc, you claim I have not understood your system, but you do not give clear answers to my points. You rather defend that it is a good system, because it is, because everything there is essential and nothing is non essential. This is retoric. It is not a claim, only a claim.
Why are all those structural members needed at the corners? Why all those remnant pieces?
You have still not provided any evidence that these profiles could replace steel girders in large buildings. Where are the calculations?
So one needs to understand the calculations of your computer program, to prove your system makes sense? This again is retoric, not based on proof that in fact this system is as strong as you claim it is. You are making various assertions not based on experience as well. Have you built a sky scraper with this? You claim it will do a better job. But where is the beef?
Further, if I get dizzy or not this is irrelevant. I just want to see the beef is all. Not claims but facts.
You claim there are fewer pieces, and that it would be very easy to find all those pieces, weld them together, and that the on-site work would be simplified. Where's the beef? There is no proof to your claims.
Now, even that structure you posted looks nice when assembled by computer graphics. But have you ever tried to actually build that or any 3dh structure for that matter? Try to build it and you will realize many of my points make sense. It is where the rubber meets the road.
Further, why do you keep criticizing me of ignorance? Your scare tactics and emotional responses do not work with me. It may work with others, but not with me. I am an incredibly creative individual and will not let people like you despise me. People like you appear to be hero's but in effect you are acting as the invaders of these forums, who invade their way into every discussion and then try to invade their way into every one's head and claim they are the only "right" and all others are "wrong", "ignorant", "Nazi persecuters", "pc haters". Your tactics don't work with me. I am here to prove you are wrong, and quite wrong, and your arguments to not stand the test of architecture.
You are full of fancy dress pc. It is all talk and fancy dress and retoric. I have not seen the beef. Now you say my ideas are not constructive, and your ideas are more constructive then mine. Again, pure retoric. Then you claim your paintings are great and then mine are trash? How can you be sure you are a better artist then me, for that matter? How can you assume I know nothing of computers or software? Assumption is a dreaded disease. You give us so much retoric pc, but not one solid calculation to show this 3dh thing is a strong as steel. Where's the beef? Now, who cares about waterline curves? That is for boat builders. I am not a boat builder. Now, each person has his own god given abilities, so who is one to say he has more then another or is a greater artist then another, a greater writer then another, a greater scientist then another, a greater inventor then another? Your pride and presumption is reaching astronomical proportions. You have no idea of the types of talents, skills, abilities I have, and obviously your falling back to presumption is your greatest disease." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am going to sue you f | |
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
