|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:48 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
I will regroup and attempt to make myself more clear.
-dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Dgt -- the whole issue simply ask for strong oppinions ,I told many times that I am not an architect, I spended 3 years at the architect acadamy and had a few projects but I guess my drive is different . I participate in various groups where the problems about how to use the computer is the issue ,but all the way I find the same and same problems that to profit from the new options, it\s about rewriting the way things alway\s been done, into computer code ------ now with the projects I done I found that this only bring what we already know maby faster and more accurate but that is only when everything work.
I find it very difficult to advocate for different way\s different materials and a way where the designer take more responsibility, and during the time I spended with designers and architects I found that there are plenty of visions ------ but to little overall knowleage and skills about what fantastic options just a bit different an aproach can bring.
My only book about architecture is a block about sovjet architecture and I wonder how anyone can read book after book while I never come thru just this one ---- but very often the thought about what these pioneers could have achived with a bit understanding about direct Link production and a computer, tell me that today\s architecture seem to have ended in a dead end road.
When I say this please don\t think that I don\t like all modern architecture, but I find to much of it being talk rather than expression, to much being academics rather than detail and beauty and way to much being silli in terms od develobment and cost of materials, --- now when I enter a discussion I alway\s make my point clear, but I make sure that there are just a bit humor ,still this don\t mean that I am not dead serious about what I provoke --------- when I talk about Direct Link production my picture proberly is different than yours ,but I do put all the experience and skills I can into it ,into the vision that these are new tools tools that shuld not work rewritten but on their own terms ,terms of develobment of new production technikes and realising that for once the architect can be arogant as now the measures will work in a generous new technology.
----------- Please se it this way, that whenever I se a new fantastic project or a enginous solution , then I open my book about sovjet architecture and among just those graphics in that book, I will find the exact same, just done 1923 : realy it\s like we reinvented and reinvented the past 40 years , computeration seem to mean more trouble not more freedom and the Icons will never spark new family houses only museums and Icons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLWalkerAIA
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 129
Location: Seattle Washington, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:27 am Post subject: Powerful Graphics |
|
|
You have captured my imagination. I have the following questions about the forms you have modeled:
Is this a structural model and if so is there anything new about it?
Are you sugesting that buildings be constructed in the same manner as you have modeled these buildings?
The model indicates cut forms or forged forms, of some unknown material, the pieces would indeed be huge, and the structure you suggest would be quite massive as modeled. This is not a steel structure or concrete. Do you propose a structure that is as inefficient as the one indicated as your model appears to indicate, as being some manner of economic solution?
If this is a "new" building technology it is more likely to be an application of composite structural technology like that used to construct aircraft etc. and I know how to actually do this. I doubt that it will be less expensive. It does not appear that you have any clue as to how to build this structure at this point so pick a material and tell us what it is we will help you to tr transend your generalities, we applaud your creation of a very exciting form here at Terry L. Walker, Architects. Feel free to email me.
GOOD LUCK !!!
_________________
Terry L. Walker, AIA
Terry L. Walker, Architects
terry.walker20@verizon.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
You are quite right ---- the best way to understand this new method, is as you say that you as you can , model in 3D : then when you done the details you would normaly ask an engineer to take the drawing apart and translate it with standard materials such as profiles and panels ,but no here you just press the button ,and what you modeled is sliced intp an assembly of just sheets cut with higest accuractcy.
But this also mean that nomatter you project the structural members for a highrise or a small plane fuselage ,you do the same.
Now FAA did already describe the method as a very exiting new method fit for small areoplanes, but the problem promoting this new concept is infact, that it cover so many different objects : laser cutters work both small and big , water cutters and N.C. guided plasma cutters already proven how efficient you can have sheet materials manufactored , and please remember that this method replace profiles ,hangers, girders bolts and nuts with just one material ----- sheet material as such.
Then when you make a search for 3D-HoneyComb please remember that if you had 5 designers doing the project, one could do what you mostly se in my graphics, the main structure. But before you combine the structures I show with other maby tradisional materials or my choice other frameworks in other sheet materials and other scales or cut directions, not before you do that the real wonder will show.
Eh ----- what is difficult about the method , is to understand how walls and floors even stairs can grow inside the structure as by magic, without anyone acturly placing the wall or floors, this method acturly prove it\s own revolusionary aproach by doing things compleatly different with compleatly different materials and --- the manufactoring tools of tomorrow.
Now you will find small problems such as how do you make the magic trick to make two rings assemble, --- but there are multible way\s to overcome the small problems ,and in fact develobing the gadgeds that would be smart ,also develob both jobs and the technike as such.
I don\t know if this asnver ,but please remember how different and challancing this acturly is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dgt
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P.C.
Do not take this personnally in anyway. This is a friendly dialogue.
Mr. Walker has stated very clearly some of my less than clear statements earlier. YOU MUST CHOOSE A MATERIAL.
If it is steel, the frame will automatically be much smaller due to the higher load capacity of steel, on the scale of (as you say) common profiles. In this case why not just use profiles and save the money of the CAM (computer-aided-manufacturing) process? You say that electrical, HVAC, and plumping can just be subtracted from the material. This is very naive. Every cut and hole dramatically decreases the strength of steel depending on where it is in the member.
If it is wood, then you are right, it will be much stronger. However, it will be much more expensive. You must find trees large enough for the members, draw the custom shapes in the computer, export them to the manufacturing plant, and then have a machinist mill them for you. If they are composite wood frames, then you have the added cost of custom fabrication.
Perhaps it is a new material? There are interesting composite fiberglass materials. However, these are very expensive for the amount of material you are using. Also they still require a very rigorous manufacturing process due to the extreme variance in each member. You must eliminate all new Pultrusion and Extrusional composites because the molds could not make such extravagant shapes.
With any material, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TWO OF YOUR MEMBERS MEET. Does each of them have a notch to interlock? Does one continue making the other discontinuous? What holds them together? THERE HAS TO BE A CONNECTION OR THE BUILDING WILL FALL DOWN? A square grid like the one you made can collapse with very little lateral load if there are no connections or shear walls.
The CAD, CAM, CAE, NC, and CNC processes are very rigorous. They are very time consuming and expensive due to the expertise required on the comptur/design side as well as the machinist/manufacturing side. Do you know what the NC stands for? NUMERICALLY CONTROLLED. The computer model must be translated into code and fed to a machine by a technician to get the part correct. It takes a long time and mistakes are often made. The precision is perfect though.
You say that this is a new process and the airline industry is excited. NC was developed at MIT in 1952 for the U.S. airforce to speed up high precision no tolerance part production on fighter jets as well as large cargo planes. This is why it is so expensive. High precision, no tolerance, time consuming, and high technical components are all reasons why this is difficult to use in architecture with any material.
Your answers seem a little naive. Do some research as to why these processes are difficult. Your honey comb is interesting, but it does not revolutionize the process. If you would present a new software tool or a machine that analyzes 3d information in a diffrent way to make the process cheaper and quicker then it would be revolutionary.
Your honey comb is nice to look at. Given some connections and the simple fact there is much more material it would be much stronger than a similar building. However, the fact that there is more material makes it more expensive.
I hope this helps and is more clear,
dgt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
I think me and Mr.Walker have a bit trouble becaurse I forgot to add an irony , but I am very glad whenever a discussion is serious and we use real arguments --- now where to start :
The material is ofcaurse important but please remember that keeping the issue theoretic will cover a number of different materials, I just say "sheet material" as that cover the type fit for the relativly simple manufactoring equipment the production ask. But steel as you suggest will as you quote ,offer the strength and the option many have asked ,to lessen the scale or mass of the framework. You then say that this type of pattern could turn out weak --- well I think this is just the point where a real model have to show as if you place just a few transverse members the intire structure will change abilities compleatly. Now I keep saying that this is just the basic concept and that the real gains will come as soon as just a bit develobment go into it, this shuld be obvious also as this also affect the other points you quote. You se at first view the structure could seem weak, but isn\t fact that our tradisional steel profile lattrice used all over the world ,in fact also without just a few additions is rather card house like where all depending what directions you chose for the slicing, the honeycomb structure even without transverse members, can be projected WWWW like and in theori much more stable then the tradisional HHHHH -- guess you se my "illustration".
Now with a new method you start behind the race and must fight for each gain --- the reson the method have not been in use in the way I perform, is quite simple it ask a poverfull computer and special software, --- even with the in fact wonders of computing mashines in most households mashines many many times faster and bigger than the dates you mention ,simple Solids seem to ask that much from even a modern standard computer, that if you project with a drawing with more than 120 entities, things will start make trouble. --------- This is bad as it make Solids a bad choice if you plan for structures with thousands of assemblies ,the trouble come as even I can sit and make the interfering solid where two frames meet ,I still have to divide that interfering solid in two and subtract each one for each assembly volume from the opposite frame ,to make the notch. So I hope you already know that when I say @press a button@ then ofcaurse in my mind and with my shuld I say myself, quite advanced knowleage about AutoLisp, is shuld be possible to put a few of the small applications I made to handle this process together, to get that program that do it @with a press of a button@ ---- as you know it can be done "by hand" so it can be automated.
Still please remember the state and attitude of this method --- it is still in it\s experimental state, I agrea that there are miner problems but I strongly suggest that solving these fairly small problems open new way\s.
Now about cost I find it very important to look just a few years ahead and ask if it is not so, that the more water laser and N.C. pounching mashines ,the cheaper it will become pr. cut feet . It is already not that expensive a year ago I could find shops that calculated 1 Us. $ pr 3 feet ,one millimeter steel sheet cut . But the real advanteage come as the equipment don\t need to be set up for a new production but do whatever the N.C. codes tell making the only expense the amount of feet cut in how thick sheet the main expense , --------- beside Gcodes and applications that transform Polylines into Gcodes is standard software, anyway back 8 years ago I borrowed a small Rolan 3axis without software : it was no problem to make software to feed the paralell port with translated instructions --- But back to the issue about materials , I think that to spark the develobment of say new organic based sheet materials this method simply is as made for this.
So my point is that you must se how the method promise a very different way to acturly manufactor many objects , but it do some of the things that realy need a new solution in a new way -------- now I know that by first sight you could find other structures that could seem simular, but they are different they will not work as smooth with a computer and will not fill the gab between projecting and manufactoring as easy as this method do. You can find WW2 planes that at first view show somthing simular but going closer you will find that even it look alike it is two compleatly different technikes.
Sorry have to leave ,get back later.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Sorry about the interuption, I hope you know that I am very glad that you participate in the discussion spend your time ,so I ansver the best I can.
I find it important to se how different the method work. How you othervise use CAD from a very different point of view and how the option of a Direct Link to production can make a difference ---- the "cost" could soon become a gain as when you realise how many things can profit from a different manufactoring process ,one that handle the digital aproach on it\s own terms , then remember that the tradisional methods had centuries to develob where this method only had a few years ,that I in all terms have limited oppotunities.
But this is not the issue. What realy count is as Walker also agrea ,that now Solids offer another exiting oppotunity. The details about assembling is on it\s own a science , so many different solutions soon show : replace the intire assembly notch with a standard corner fitting that lock the frames at each assembly , you will be able to use the same fitting all over the structure and you can decide if this mean a rigid or flexible assembly.
Now that is just one issue --- if you want the frames to cover longer than the workspace og the water or laser cutter, then I already made a few suggestions about how to cut a lock while the frame anyway are produced.
Realy if you made a group of skilled engineers develob this method further ,with the hard and software avaible today, you would not only solve the barriers you once faced but you will se a new horison ,one where you have to re define the role of the architect and designer, in fact this bring enginering more into the creative process.
Still I must ask you to open your mind ,I try explain :
When you ask somone what shuld be the top of digital performance ,most will point to 3D routers. Now please read my words ,I put forth a critic I think you shuld think about twice, as my critic relate a direction in digital manufactoring --- my argument is that this could end in a dead end road.
Why ---- well if you se what huge 3D routers do ,you will find that often they support an old fasion technology. My argument is that just 3D-H where you cut somthing 2D to form a 3D object work much more efficient but it must perform on it\s own terms . In the boat industrie you make a plug a boat in foam ,and you use that to produce a form to mass produce the same design over and over. -------- But whatever craft involved ,work nomatter it was a model builder or a 3D router that made the plug, it\s the same old technikes and the new digital options only work within a very limited part of the process, it replace just a fraction of the process.
--------- With 3D-H you could intheori build 10 different boats and the cost doing a one/off would be a fraction of the cost of one foam boat plus the expences to make a form from that.
Do you se how different Digital technikes work, that it is difficult to compare and that to often the digital methods just support an old fasion technology. Now compared an expensive huge 3D router, the relativly simple sheet cutter is both easyer in use many many times faster, and fact is that it is realistic to make the building parts on site, --- the digital drawing work much more smooth just cutting the actural piece. So not just the materials will become cheaper the manufactoring will be different .
This is different than the robots at the assembly line, those that just tigh a nut or do a weld , here if you try look 10 years ahead ,you could emagine the program remove material that don\t need to be there maby even making the frame stronger like a tube is stronger than a solid tube, you can emagine that the program would suggest sheet in another thickness or a more dense structure.
Now often when discussing 3D-HoneyComb there are pointed to Bilbao or Disney concert hall --------- please understand that I must be and must be allowed to be critic. You se my picture of this type of structures is, that they are organic shaped ,that this overshaddow the realistic issues those that deal with walls and floors. I know I can be outmost critic as I find it bad that this direction within the digital options is thought to be the only possible lead , that if a building shuld reflect state of the arts building technology ,then you build two houses for each one you build one to make the surface and one to make the interiours, these two structures then fit together as fiddled , you se 500 tonn walls in four layers just to hold thin sheets in the air, -------- yes I am critic ,not about Bilbao but critic about the fact that this only go in one direction, omit the structure, make the building a shell and : make strait wire mesh bended.
With 3D-H you never bend one single piece you don\t fiddle anything you make the support for floors and walls be a part of the building not somthing you add a building visualised as a shell, 3D-HoneyComb bring structure and offer the surface just as good and even better, than 3D meshes do, beside what build will hold the measures .
Now you must remember that it is a difficult possision to critic esp. when you promote somthing you claim to be better, but there are a world in difference between computer mesh structures translated into the strings and bended frames that need to be manualy bended ,and a method where you absolutly must not try bend anything but must form and shape the original 3D model . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does this make any sense to anyone besides him? Its all very nice futuristic speak, but lets keep this in its proper place, fantasyland.
Whatever sense it may make, its diluted by its own self concience
rambling. I want to believe but, It is STill not clear to me. It seems to still be in a chaotic dream state, where feasibility cannot even be considered. A building is not a plane or a boat, it has different needs and qualities, I understand the usefullness of a "new" technology, but why do we need 3d-H again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Le Corb --- then tell me what is a house : a cave a cotteage, a futuristic dream or somthing with straw roof, is it made out of wood or bricks or concrete plywood or mud bricks , --- now you talk as if a house is "one thing" then what is it ,you shuld know you even seem to know about the future then tell how to make it with computer , please I realy would like to know all alternatives you say you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I already do shape the world with a computer. Indeed it doesnt have the capability that you suggest it should. And even the means by which we use it is disagreeable to you, But If you worked in the field you would realize that a building is much more complicated than to have been designed by a push of a button. Because its hard doesnt mean you shouldnt try though, so dream on, [ gratuitous aside removed by moderator ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Le Corbusier your concrete buildings ask renovation each 20\ year.
In the old eastern contries those who lived there and payed their rent, now own the collossals. ---- To make them survive ,even they are manufactored in steel concrete and bottles is a huge task ,the only ones to do it is those who live there and they don\t know ---- that is what you left us Le Corb.
Now you don\t want future to be modern and in particular not made with mashines : Le Corb want future to be build underground .
As sure as there are gates before hell -- computer drawings must be made with pencils, and as you say you can paint a nice picture you say the computer work in building application and made what you paintet after , now please tell me if you can produce a plan for after the building is done, and maintainment start : just show me an application that do this will tell what you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Le Corb --- is it friday in Hell , are you occupied responding or don\t you know the answer. If you think the crab you left us is not loved think again ,any designer just love bare steel windows and cold but beautifull structures.
Today they can be made better, they can become wonders of emagine and last as long as it take steel to rust : don\t we already spend more renovating than building new . Wouldn\t it just be wonderfull to make it all better .shuldn\t we atleast be able to make it last longer with computers .Don\t you think it\s on time to realy make architecture . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeCorbusier
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather you speak, because the more you do, the more you prove your ignorance. What you don't say, exemplifies your empty concepts. Also, you delusional freak, I am not LeCorbusier. I have never claimed to be. So, If you have ways to make our lives as architects easier, by all means please do. I even applaud your efforts to bring innovation to the industry (even though you are not the revolutionary that you think you are). So Go Ahead, Make better computers, streamline production, do it all, make it better, Im not stopping you, you may know something about means and methods but you really know so very little about architecture,
your drawings are awful, they make little sense. They look like a 2nd year architecture student learning 3 VIZ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
So I don\t reflect your image of an architect, well if you read what I said not what you think I said you would know I told, I am not an architect. I never said my drawings is nothing but 3D drawings that make a more direct link to production than lame paper but why is you so hysteric about it, I don\t even claim that 3D-HoneyComb is the final develobment I don\t even as you seem to belive ,say that architecture is a static thing somthing that reach to the state where we can rewrite what we already achived into computer code, and say this is innovation.
Sorry but I know there are an english word for this to blind yourself for obvious truth, to reject that somthing is better than what we already know, I know there are several english words for what you pray, for what it bring or rather don\t bring , ---- if my drawings are so lame why don\t you show somthing better ,if future is about social skills why did we then ecape the caves . When did you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
