|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:25 am Post subject: |
    |
|
| YOU SAY THAT I DONT USE ANY REAL ARGUMENTS. See Post: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:50 am - Line by line response to your false claims - even colored!!! Why dont you respond to those? What kind of designer are you anyway? I see that term thrown around so loosely in the profession. To me, it is anyone who never finished college or cant get an architecture license. Anyone can call himself a designer. I've been practising architecture for only 15 years and I know little. But I refuse to have someone come along and tell me that they have a better way when they make nonsense claims on a very difficult and technical subject. Anyone with a computer can make drawings and claim that its the way of the future. Maybe it is but moist likely its not. So you have the questions, now please answer them. See Post: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:50 am |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
You se I don't need to point to what I did in architecture, I did not put that many windows down on paper and noted them in an account . I did not do all the boring work architects real architects acturly do you never ansvered any of my questions, like what did you put up.
You seem not to ask anything but refere to some other post instead of pronting down your questions , anyway mine are not ansvered in words but in pictures and Le.Corb ; most others acturly read the ansvers from the pictures where words as you tread them, make no houses no new technology, but only a quite old boring arts of hate, deal with what you think and is quite a lot more boring, than looking at a picture, look at your words and my pictures and read what I say, then you wouldn't wonder we make different things.
Or did you ansver and comment on my last graphic ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
If you want to profit from a new method, you must show some attitude, if what you want is to project a splendid building and do it a third the cost, and the production is there in water and laser cutters, not to mention pounching mashines, then ofcaurse it is tool nothing more, you put in it what you find nice, but it\s a new tool and you can make hell as heaven ,make it just as bad as you can or the best you can beside 4 times as strong, as most other building technikes. it\s Digital you Romans, go strait into new jobs in an exiting new form language, making you a building the shape of a lion or a box , this framework just form those othervise made in way weaker materials and will build a new world, with just nice houses, at a third the cost but what if the cost is the same then are you then chiken how the hell will you then gain a revard .
World is not about revards but beautifull houses, make them nice and the people will grow up nice, --- then why do it like yestoday instead of in a way that is acturly digital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Thank's for your wise words, but when you must focus on one subject then what is the most important --- to make sure houses can restand weather ,to visualise the promise of future in big scale, combine this in sustainable building, develob new or just ensure the means for cheap housing.
My wish is that a revolution in manufactoring from buttom up ,from the simplest shed and the cheapest house ,can show the lead and develob new trends not just for the fasion of it but to change the view about housing and spaces.
The simplest building that can be expanded when the need is there, materials that reflect the skills and still point to a way to build ontop or a way to transform a huge structure into a compleatly different design .
You know my naive aproach about sheds maby this is the most realistic one , as nomatter how things have to start somwhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Realy this shuldn\t be difficult, placing the spaces so that a framewofk can build the most and modt expensive of an assembly of standard solids made hollow, and fixed to fround ,made debrie safe and in vorse case be restored at most one third the intire cost, able to survive a fire or a gale, hols auxileries and maintained from original spareparts.
Guess a number od unioned or subtracted boxes, fitted with floors holes in walls holes for windows and interiouer that profit from being part of the structre shuld produce that.
Is this realy all anyway it will be different in3D-HoneyComb combined with a few tradisional gadgeds, ----- jest need one information ; what direction is prefered in terms of light passing into the house, what functions ask sun from cirtain directions and what rooms shuld hold the best share . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
I don\t know if anyone will profit from some very early 3D/HoneyComb structures, if what you ask is simplicity then this groups foto\ds folder offer a lot of folders with graphics. Simpler structures often show details that would be exiting in bigger structures, but realy if the goal is a simple structure , the Pavilion group here is a good start point, --- remember to be a Yahoo member to sign in to the group to reach the graphics.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pavilions/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Donald, I appreciate your simplified approach to understanding this fellow. Hope you are successful, as architects we are problem solvers, and this is a puzzle that seems to be missing too many pieces. Love to write more, but have to run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
You whoever hide behind the name LeCorb , architects do their money on the persenteage , they have boring work placing windows , but they must have just a bit skills othervise they are just a laugh when they meet the craftmen .
Your skills don't seem to high in terms of construction, but your skills throwing dirt excess what is needed being an architect, now all you need to learn is after you throw your dirt, to claim that the one you hit stink.
Why don't you put somthing better up, instead of displaying your dirty mind. Can't you do anything but throw dirt is that the problem ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly ,but a vision is also nice as a gain ,one that bring the promise show the right attitude and today that attitude must provide the jobs. This can only be done in a different way, when you expect somthing new don\t se it as somthing you already know how can it then be new. Don\t protect the old from the new ask yourself if somthing new today, shuldn\t be digital.
Again sorry it work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So have you created a cross sections of the joints between the roof members yet? Is it just a rectangle? Seems very primitive to me.
Here is real engineering, with an emphasis on the economy of material and maximum strength. All of which you've proven a lack of understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
You are quite right, but still I must ask you to consider.
Think about what you have here, a tool that when you have acturly formed the Solids, subtracted others so your 3D model reflect the real walls thickness, floors or rather the structure that will hold the floor panels, by a @press of a button will generate somthing that replace the ingenering issues, the floor beams the foundations --- that is the gain.
You proberly say you heard this already but did you realise what this mean ?
I say the things you point to is details, reson I do that, is that if an architect want these problems solved, it is obvious to ask an engineer to find the best way,--- you se the halve notches can ( said this many times before ) . be replaced totaly , you can project a block ,an universal join that will be prepared fit with holes , a join that is placed wherever two frames meet , a join that will allow the frames to move or expand if this is your vorry. -------- but why ; isn't it only in very huge structures this will cause a problem, don't you think it is wierd that a super tanker that contain the double of frames and cross panels even in huge thickness , do not show the expantion problems you forse.
I rather hold on tho the vision and ask if you don't think that develobment and refining already with the tradisional means, changed the original methods ---- then why shuldn't it change this method that as the only one, offer a "material" instead of your brick walls, a material with so many applications that cover what a steel profile, a brick wall, a sheet structure, a lattrice or a pipe mesh all in one, but before made intiligent from your choice of material and scale.
--------- Don't use the argument that sheet material don't offer any structural strength a nail don't do either, a steel profile on it's own don't a floor plank without the structure under don't either, but when assembled cross vise you se the maximum strength, exactly how 3D-H work , infact it is over structural reinforced all over the structure.
Did you se the wood lock , the tradisional genious one I made I don't know how many of these, still no one suggested the vedge that is missing, the vedge that by forcing the parts apart, acturly make them even tighter ?
 [/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Another thing to consider is why you think this shuld be and "problem" not the opposite a gain compared other huge structures. Now I could find links of huge steel structures all welded together where expantion don't cause any problem even from your argiument these structures shuld show much greater "problems" . Rigid structures that cover acres of land with no problem.
Now se the gains --- assembling frames where notches ensure that the thing can not be assembled, unless the pieces are exact where they are supposed to be, unless they are, the notches simply will not fit, adding tolerance making sure you control it, An exact copy of what is calculated in 3D points that will not assemble unless what is made in real follow the drawings.
Now this is no road deck, and nomatter if you make a road deck in whatever material , you have to calculate the expantion, ------- how long do you think a deck in a Super tanker reach, why don't this cause a problem that is not maneaged, 3D-HoneyComb form small structures within same concept, why shuld all the possible structures be alculated from how road decks in bridges respond ? ---- 3D-H is even making sure you can't fiddle you can't take the easy way out things need to fit, but isn't this just the option with today's digital manufactoring ?
Now I hope you know the difference and don't take "digital manufactoring" as a whole as if there is no dfference, but not all "digital manufactoring" is alike. There is a great difference in instructing a robot to make a weld or tigh a nut compared intiligent to project a material that will form a vowen structure that allow for no fiddeling or is ruined if you try bend any piece.
I think you blinded yourself for the obvious options, I think you shuld trust somoen who build in real all his life, we make different things I develob new building methods but I can weld, I can make you a boat, I can draw free hand 3D in way's you never emagined but first of all, I draw with the tools that is not just pencil lines but reflect the manufactoring process and I draw in a way that go strait to the mashin to produce the actural building compoment. Beside I been thru all of that unfoldable surfaces thing, I even made the programs myself to maneage but realised, that to shape a form, the foundations is what count, reson I know is hands on experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomas Edison was the greatest inventor of all time. He was busy for years working on the telegraph when he finnally got around to building the first "talking machine". So in retrospect the world just waited for him to get around to creating this thing that would reshape the world as we knew it. It took him a month to create the human voice from a bunch of extra parts laying around his shop. - So, Lets just get some perspective on this, you've been designing this "method" for all these years, when will it see the light of day? Are we talking 5 years, 10 years, 100 or 1000 years? Because from the looks of your lofty expectations, that we can essentially just push a button and have this incredible, when will this technology be attainable? The world is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Exactly --- the trouble transfering points from top and side views to get the front view ( frames or ribs in shipsbuilding ) as how you _do_ with top front side views in ships construction, when "calculating" doing the front view from the two other views side and top , you can acturly "construct" how the points you know from side and top, will transfere to the front view and this way show you the ships frames, but this still follow the rigid 3 views even you _can_ manualy "calculate" with a pair of compasses to any plane you then describe from the other known planes .
Guess you know that the xy plane don't show the z and the xz plane don't show the y but this is how you maneage even without calculating just by transfering measures.
Anyway you are quite right, sudden things just show and I reconise and realy use to forget about things knowing the solution will suddenly be there this work ,and worked a few times for me ; forget about it and you solve it. Exactly as how 3D-H suddenly was the only natural way to do, now it would not be an endless amount of calculations by hand, but can be done instantly by matrix calculations.
But there are another thing about it, ------ you se a good idear can be ahead aswell as to late of the times ; I invented and tested a method that made tradisional wooden boats building a childs play by simply by computer do the ends of the boat and just bolt or rivit the planking onto ready made aluminium ends ------ now if you had done so during WW2 you would have had the double amount landing crafts, but as no one ask wooden dinghies anymore , this invention came to late ; as with the 3D-H the concept here, also showed in an instant ----- why have all that trouble doing the difficult ends of a small boat, when you can just unfold the ends from a 3D model wels it in Aluminium unfold the planking ,cut it and bolt it onto the metal ends .
I se what you mean, but you se innovative people are not the same, we are not a box shaped personality ,acturly first time I tried somthing innovative was 1967 or thereabouts where I was very activ skindiving, then doing underwater foto ,why not add the red light instead of blocking the other blue and green light and get even less light, why not keep the light avaible by adding what the water filter the red.
Now don't expect everyone to be alike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey sociopathic megalomaniac, answer the above question.
Are we talking 5 years, 10 years, 100 or 1000 years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
