|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:48 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Hi
Now what you say is that as I am not working as Edison then I am no inventer ?
That as Edison worked this way every inventer must work like that, can't you se how silli an argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
"Are we talking 5 years, 10 years, 100 or 1000 years?"
How shuld I know 5-10-20 years before what ?
Before architecture is not just rewriting how things alway's been done, but some innovation go in to it, so what is on the screen don't need to be "translated" into brance specific applications , fiddled as the engineer and the primitive mesh entities "speak" different languages , bended as from the start "seen" 2D projected 2D but bended as even strings in a wire mesh in a computer is strait, then fiddled curved it change the intire structure ,making a building that is out of measures ; guess _you call that high-tech where I call it fiddeling. As your intentions is not to get the ansver you ask.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
What you ask can already be seen not in words but in the pictures, I mean it is so obvious that from the thousands that realise it, you are the only one that don\t "se" it, also you will never get the ansver you want, ------- I mean that ansver would spell somthing like that ;
Sorry it work
Sorry it is Digital
Sorry it make a direct link from computer to the mashin that produce the building part.
Sorry no one realised it before, but you se it ask a computer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:50 pm Post subject: P C |
|
|
Beneath the seductive (if simplistic) graphics, and behind the garbled English, there appears a core idea: that forms, and the pieces that realize them, can be more easily, simply and directly produced by adopting fully the new technology. If this rather simple truth -- already in use today at a somewhat smaller scale -- is divorced, for the moment, from all that has been added to it, in these tortured descriptions and pointless defenses of as-yet incomplete methodology, maybe a point of agreement could be reached.
Just as the production of a real-world chair was radically simplified when the one-piece injection-molded ABS product (stackable) was introduced (and sold profitably at one-third the price of the cheapest folding wood chair), so it can be assumed that (some) future architectural products will someday benefit from the same sort of clean-slate radical simplification. Whether the solution (?) proposed here is to be a form of that future solution remains to be seen. Trying to "stamp it out" while still in the embryonic state seems a pointless exercise to me.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
I been around workshops and artist groups dedicated in furniture design been within workshops known people who make design spelled Design.
Can you do a frensh varnish gloss shellack and set up the furniture scraper you also must know, that in a workshop you don\t walk around in sawdust up your knees.
Furniture is perfect for Digital manufactoring and everyone need a chair, but the issue is the Digital aproach not to discuss 60 year old designs, but to make new designs into a future. Realistic the manufactoring process is as important as the material and as before you had dive tails then mashined joins ,then epoxy. Once you had plywood, then pressed sawdust sheets then hollow nothing covering a core of paper ,vorse and vorse quality ballanced with just the design that became more and more lame, the vorse materials. Today you pay a farm for a designed chair and hope for some quality of life.
Why not change it with a promise of new jobs and a lot exiting Designs, why not make it all change with a new form language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I dont think anyone is against new ways of thinking. I dont think anyone is against easier, safer, inexpensive and better architecture. Of course they are welcome. But the claims you make are unsubstantiated and even ludicrous. But thats ok, I find your posts at worst, humorous, even inspiring. I'm going to develop a technology known as 4D Wasp-Nest design. It will replace all known forms of construction. It can be built for 1/10th the cost. Direct from the brain to the construction site. NO computer necesary, just think it, and it will occur. You Romans know knothing of design and cannot comprehend my idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Please do that, make sure it\s somthing everyone will say "why havn\t anyone thought about this before", make sure it is your own idea, that you don't replace it with a wish of being famous and don't forget when you experienced , not to put your own reflections into others mind.
But don't forget that if you want to invent anything just to become famous then you will just not invent anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In reading your last reply I realize that even when you try to say something simple, it sounds stupid. You write "not to put your own reflections into others mind". If I think what you meant is correct, Isnt this what you do on a daily basis? If you left out all of your bad metaphors and meaningless descriptions there be nothing left of your empty concepts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
No I point to the fact that 3D-H is a direct link to producing the building element, that oposed the trend in architectural applications ,this is not rewriting the known rutines into just computer code to get the exact same projecting as if you done it without a computer, I say what a lot of people outside the academics say, that architecture need innovation and visions .
Mayby you should read what it say in this link, ---- now I don't agree that if building compoments was delivered by air, then the trouble is over, I think that the bad figures you will read depend on quite other things ,among these that architecture been stuck with lame architect applications that do nothing but what was already there and that the missing thing is in the production in as written the missing innovative aproach, but I also say that it is bad that arts been replaced by social skills ---- you se the vorse problem for academics alway's was all those autodidact but combine the Jante Law with what it say in this link ;
http://www.tooperfect.dk/pdf/04.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
This is what is the trouble with today's architecture
1. Lack of productivity
2. Lack of innovation and development
3. Too much waste
4. Craftsmanship is the spine of the industry
5. Complexity/organisationally overloaded
6. Lack of competition
7. One-off production
8. Too many mistakes
9. Health and safety issues
10. Environmental issues
about Lack of Innovation and develobment ,try look at how the computers are used, ------ check this tread and tell what is put up against 3D-H ,what other visionary new building methods is there , but ontop these 10 , please add arogance and Jante Law . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P.C.,
Question #1- Where is the cladding for the exterior and interior located, and where does the electrical and HVAC run?
Question #2- Why does the wall, roof, and cieling members have the same width and depth? To be extremely economically feasible they should reglect the load dispertion and path.
Question #3- Have you done any material comparisons of one of your 3d honey-comb structures to a comparable structure and does it just 'replace' the structure?......If so, then you should consult structural engineers.
Question #4- What are the benefits of innovation with this design? Is the innovation the design itself or does it contribute to the architect's ability to design innovation (I doubt it)?
Comment #1- Going straight from CAD to manufacturing is being done as we speak (see Frank Gehry, airline industry, car industry etc.).
Comment #2- If you are proposing a replacement of structure as we commonly know it, then you must investigate connections. A hierarchy of members is necessary for economy. Strength is not the only issue. If that were the case, structure books would be one page long.
Comment #3- A metal honey-comb would be only as strong as the connections. If this proposal is mostly for wood, then you must investigate the types of wood: cedar, pine, glue-lam, built-up etc.
There are more problems but I will leave you with this; do not take this as negative closemindeness. I just thought that if you answer these issues that you will have a much more intriguing proposal. It is a friendly critique....nothing more.
Regards,
dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
seems to me that quite a few people are having trouble thinking 'outside the box'.
the criticisms are on a level with saying that the image hasn't got permission from the city authority to build so it won't work.
so much for the notion of architects 'thinking visually'.
does it matter or affect the contribution that architecture makes to your city today ? look around you.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Dgl --- the structures I publish need to be quite simple structures, just to make sure that the basic idea show. Fact is shat working this way with Solids ,offer you to subtract tubes , intire rooms, whatever ---- the leadway's for aux. for electrics water plumbing work just fine with this concept as when you start with the Raw solid without leadway's subtracted it is no problem to place hollow tubes within the structure ; 3D-HoneyComb form Around these, if you placed a long cylinder within the building solid mass and subtract the cylinder, the 3D-H will not fill that volume but offer you to hollow any shape leadway wherever that is best.
-------- I just shown the raw quite primitive designs, but if this is what you want, you can form the framework around anything, as long as you also draw that as solids and subtract it. You realy shuld liik into detail with some of my primitive examples ,then you will se that this method surely ask you to spend more time projecting but the projecting will be forming the spaces, making sure you subtracted Solids so your electrics can find a way , but on the other hand ,when that is done ,say you have a standard stairway Solid then the framework will also add that you will be sure exactly where the steps will later fit the intire frame structure will transform just placing the horisontal surfaces ,then there be floors with foundations under ,the stairs can only be there and the steps will fit.
Now you mention that there shuld be a difference in wall and floor thickness ---- sure it's already so why shuld it be different with 3D-Honeycomb ; you decide that you decide when you subtract the room from the raw house block , ---------- this change projecting change design down to a much more hands on aproach, still that don't mean that you can't place holes in each frame just to take out material but also to leave a possibility to lead new pipes or whatever.
Steel sheets is my first choice not that much plywood ---- as soon the individual frame are cut it can be placed, then why not cut it at site ?
-------- Do you emagine what this mean, that the individual building compoment can be produced with the cheapest N.C. equipment on site ?
Sorry if I skip some of your questions and only take the most important but I come back to those later, still you say that Direct Link is already in place now please, will you give me the credit if I prove to you , that what is "in it's place" is _not_ Direct Link production ?
I ask you if you think a Robot instructed to tigh a nut is what you mean, as then Direct Link is not there. I ask you if you think that today's aircrafts that still is build with ribs and ships frames making the fuselage skin carry the load reflect any Direct Link production --- well just interconecting the "ribs" will form a honeycomb structure that will point the stress from the thin skin to the intire fuselage structure ,realy they build planes as rowboats just refined rowboats, please look at them while build !!!! --- If you do that and from a craftsmans point of view shuld determine what will hold better, it will be 3D-H not just placing ring after not-interconnected ring this shuld be obvious.
Then why isn't it used before --- well somthing is so simple that when you realise you say "why havn't anyone thought about this before" 3D-HoneyComb simply was not possible before you had a computer and somone asked "why not this way". Automation is not just involving Robots the robots must not just tigh a nut or do a single weld this is just as how it could be done wothout Robots --- The real new vision is to make the Design process intiligent like I suggest producing a whole new concept omitting the hangers and bolts ,special fittings and fiddeling ,there simply are no room for fiddeling with 3D-H.
Yes the models I put forth is very primitive and maby that is not good, as then you don't se the obvious features that as side effect show, features that surprise me to, things that show as by magic ,but quite natural gains when you grasp the concept ; now when I say Direct Link production I don't say "semi Direct link production" I say that after a different Design process that you can _not_ judge from how things are done today, a very different product show. You can scrap the factory and make it a storehouse for steel sheet ,do the individual building elements on spot, ----- and use the water or laser cutter for other building compoments on spot to, now that is different it make different houses, but they will be stronger cheaper and last longer in a new architecture offering new jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
"Question #1- Where is the cladding for the exterior and interior located, and where does the electrical and HVAC run?"
As many other structural methods the primary goal is the structure, but this structure is very different - you can subtract solids with the measures of standard compoments such as windows and doors and surface panels will be locked in the structure if you project it so, beside that , -- are you complaining that the structure don't offer the surface aswell well is some applications this is even possible but I better take small steps.
"Question #2- Why does the wall, roof, and cieling members have the same width and depth? To be extremely economically feasible they should reglect the load dispertion and path. "
They have that as they are designed so in the examples I show --- you want it different then maby with a better experience you maby could add the right dimentions, I just know that with the dimentions I added it will not fall.
"Question #3- Have you done any material comparisons of one of your 3d honey-comb structures to a comparable structure and does it just 'replace' the structure?......If so, then you should consult structural engineers."
Up round the start of past century, it was quite common that a ships or boatsbuilder from experience could determine the dimentions of structural issues, it worked in Barcelona it worked in shipsbuilding ,but let me ask you if you think a honeycomb structure are weaker than a rib structure ?
"Question #4- What are the benefits of innovation with this design? Is the innovation the design itself or does it contribute to the architect's ability to design innovation (I doubt it)? "
It change architecture compleatly, it offer you to use the computer as a design tool instead of an account tool, it give full freedom in the design process and automaticly add the actural framework as a full-scale assembly cut with numbers ,calculated for cost before the building made.
If you doubt what innovative aproch this bring look at how things work today ; trouble everywhere. Please this is like putting a motor in the cart, this is like interducing a brand new craft , it must be "different" what else shuld it be it replace 20 different steel profiles with one material onle, a material that will form honeycomb cubes much stronger structuraly than steel beam lattrice.
"Comment #1- Going straight from CAD to manufacturing is being done as we speak (see Frank Gehry, airline industry, car industry etc.). "
Please don't let them brag --- don't let 20 year old primitive computer meshes that carry all the foults and show no progress replace real innovation and new jobs ; now if you want to discuss primitive mesh structures fact show that this work not very smooth with rigid steel profiles, it leave a house with nothing inside, and that maby gave digital building options a bad reputation, that just to hold tiny metal sheets in the air, the craftmen need to fiddel somthing _not_ in the planes ,making 500 tons of steel in four layers do it. Please you could have done that at a third the expences a third the weight, with a more natural digital design tool, one that ask no fiddeling and leave the structure with the exact measures projected.
"Comment #2- If you are proposing a replacement of structure as we commonly know it, then you must investigate connections. A hierarchy of members is necessary for economy. Strength is not the only issue. If that were the case, structure books would be one page long. "
I talk about a honeycomb structure that as a side effect form, with such the strength is not about the strength of the single element it never is in a structure if the structure are designed right..
Yes when some enginering go into the programming structure books maby get one page long.
"Comment #3- A metal honey-comb would be only as strong as the connections. If this proposal is mostly for wood, then you must investigate the types of wood: cedar, pine, glue-lam, built-up etc."
No a metal Honeycomb is way stronger than the connections ask an engineer, acturly the connections can be simple spot weld, you se the forces are distribuated all over the honeycomb shell and structure.
"There are more problems but I will leave you with this; do not take this as negative closemindeness. I just thought that if you answer these issues that you will have a much more intriguing proposal. It is a friendly critique....nothing more. "
If you realy want a new architecture, new tools that make the computer acturly work different than what it infact do in today's architect applications, you need a new technike a new way that make all the new jobs and at the same time tread the computer as that fantastic design tool it is. Fact is that before the computer, no one would think in 3D-Honeycomb as the calculations seem endless ,but with the computer it shuld be obvious to calculate each single element in full size and change production with what is a brand new aproach. Try give it a chance look at some more graphics and then remember that the tradisional way's develobed for decades, then emagine what this could develob to.
Regards,
dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Richard Haut,
I hope you were not speaking to me. If you were, then I think you misunderstand the nature of a forum. A forum is about conversation, questions, and discussion. I was questioning images that were posted not because I cannot think 'outside of the box', but because we, as architects, are trained to ask questions.
P.C.
As I said above, architects are trained to question things. Do not assume that I think your proposal is rubbish. Quite the contrary, I would not have questioned it had I not been interested.
As far as your answers are concerned, do not be defensive. I am not being negative. I guess you do not understand my comments. Every architect uses the computer as a design tool. This is the purpose of rendering software. It provides massing diagrams and presentation images at the very least, to relate ideas about the building. And architects designing in computers and going straight to manufacturing. It happens every day. Norman Foster gave the contracter a series of points in space from a computer model of the structure. This is common.
Are you an architect? A structure like yours can be made of titanium, but if the connections are made of bubble gum it will not matter.
I have grown tired of this response as I am sure everyone has in reading it. My original post was in a friendly, inquisitive manner. Apparently there are people on this board who are too defensive or quick to jump to negative conclusions if something is questioned.
Regards,
dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
