|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:36 am Post subject: A brief description of the 3D-Honeycomb concept |
    |
|
When Innovation is a must Efficiency come as a side effect.
In the continuous process refining the building process, design is today only partly profiting, the efficiency we must add, soon face serious barriers, it is not so easy to transcribe the methods from before the computer into fast code, without at some point realizing, that to do that “seven mile jump”, it really matter that you know the crafts, and you know the progressive new methods are the only right answer to the call for new efficient design, you’ll know what I mean, when you see it; this is new, different, and unique. These qualities make it a vision, more than just refining the old methods.
There will be no greater answer to efficiency, than when a new, unique method, question the old methods, pointing to the fact that too often, software is just the old methods rewritten into fast computer code.
The new technology made to support old techniques, instead of the obvious innovation that must go into it to make the real change, the new architecture, the new techniques. The real progress start in the details, it must be carried by a true feel and true innovation, because today’s production must be more efficient, there’s a need for true new visions, something really different something that will build the house, at a third the cost, four times as strong, furthermore it should progress a new technology, and develop new techniques, opening the world of opportunities in a completely new way, same old methods can be further refined into a whole new lead. The best measures for this in architecture are beauty and innovation. The vision is the proof.
For that purpose I developed 3D-Honeycomb: A new exiting building method, a system that is simple and at the same time, involves the entire design process, it makes a direct link from 3D drawing to the CNC cutter. That produces the individual construction part in a complex but very logical new building method. The best designs - the most beautiful things, are made in a process where the artist have hands-on as much as possible. The most efficient designs are those based on a simple production line with as few materials as possible and the process is CNC controlled. Projected and made in a direct link from plans to manufacturing.
Now, this 3D-H method explains many of these issues, even the idea and method, is still at experimental state. Several attempts been made to prove the method and several structures is already projected just from the graphics you will recognize, when shown displaying the new architecture. What you project with the 3D-H concept, is a computer generated structure, sort of a woven structure consisting of sheet materials, cut to form an assembly structure, where each frame are supported by all other frames in the structure. The design process for such 3D-Honeycomb structure is quite simple, it involves a CAD program, and a simple CNC controlled laser or water cutter. But first I must explain why most architect applications in this genre, ended in sort of a dead end, and what could be wrong with the traditional attitude consisting of projecting the old 2D way, compared to the obvious gains of real Direct-Link 3D projecting - how 2D projecting simply is another world than, a Direct-Link production opportunity. Staying with the traditional BOM is the attitude, which makes an architect application into just doing things, as they always have been done, just rewritten into computer code. When projecting a modern building structure, you work with many different materials but as we saw with the WTC collapse was, that all structures have a weak point. With the twin towers that weak spot was the hangers and girders that gave away in the fires. Then to learn from the this you can take different stands - you can further refine and secure those parts of a building, if you want to build again like this, or you can develop a method that simply do not carry hangers and girders. This is the attitude of 3D-H. An attitude that makes it possible to make the foundations for floors, and internal walls in a way that replace 20 different steel profiles, special fittings, and other building parts with a assembly structure cut from the simplest material, just sheet materials. On top you now work directly with a true 3D model of the lattice or rather framework.
You now work directly with the actual structural model, and then you can combine it with the traditional projecting systems; the basic 3D model is now what carry the actual CNC codes.
The individual building frames as you can see in the 3D drawing, is now real construction parts, with the correct coordinates, cut directly out of the information in the 3D model drawing. What is surprising is when floors, and walls magically appear while assembling the structure, from the ready cut frames; with this method the WTC for example wouldn’t have been supported by these hangers, beams and girders, while the sections are cut from other planes, crossing perhaps multiple floors, walls, and so on. the individual frames will redefine a structure acting, against forces, like wind, weakened points, all parts supporting each other, instead of some beams holding a floor, and others the walls, the whole building can now be one unit, consisting of all these assembled parts.
All in one piece with no knees or weak points, on their way crossing other frames and in that way being carried and acting as structural support for other frames that transverse the structure.
Now projecting such structure, you work with a simple 3D CAD system that support Solid modeling. You form and shape the building, as solids and give the walls and floors, the actual projected thickness, but not with the goal to end with an architectural rendering or just floor plans, the result is not just to display or sell the project, no, you work in detail and use the Solid modeling to actually shape the walls and floors, the basic structure in detail. The reason is, that the solid model when showing the thickness of the walls and floors, the inner walls and even stairway's and elevator shafts, are used to calculate the sections for the real framework assembly this done by simply sectioning, but sectioning from two new planes, 90 deg to each other but independent compared to the traditional 3 construction planes. This is a very different attitude from just using the solid model for a walkthrough, using the digital options just to create nice renderings.
After processing the new sections, being the frames, the basic structure, the actual framework is now the 3D model where each section can go strait from 3D drawing, to the manufacturing machines. You can say that this expand the Lego way of thinking, but where the traditional blocks are equal of fit in a grid, there now are a grid with all different blocks, that fit together by being processed from same solid model. You could call it a more flexible "Lego construction" where each block shape to form the framework, shaping the model/structures final shape and at the same time, interlocking every frame at each cross point, distributing the forces to all sections, Leading the forces down any frame, which now supports its own weight, carries the forces by traditional vertical shape due to gravity etc., each frame distributes the forces by the entire framework. The framework do not consist of 20 different profiles and special fittings, each requiring their own production line, but one simple material cut to form and replace these parts, in plain sheet material, the individual section is accurately measured and its position in the building numbered exactly, the structure’s now, not just vertical and horizontal frames, but form a honeycomb structure, a structure where forces are equally distributed, and each frame can be directly manufactured to support any other section you want to add the structure.
Necessaries like water pipes, power grid, and so on, also requires a new point of view - you now have a nice side effect to profit of, this unique 3D modeling method allows, that for example simply subtract a long cylinder or Solid box from the Solid model, where you want to place water pipes or wires, and when frames are cut, you will see leading ways for cables and pipes, cut out in the frames at same instance as the frames form are cut.
The author of this paper, are fully aware that this is a great challenge, but this new method not only promise a stronger and cheaper structure, one that invoke a new technology, this is simply a new tool, from simple rules both draw out each building frame, and offer the designer visual real-time modeling, the method will produce a much stronger basic structure, and amongst other attractive side effects, the method learns the designer/architect to use the computer in a way that show a result instantly on the screen, a model that allow a much better detail projecting and a better entrance to the modern technology.
Efficiency then come in new ways, you don't need 20 different production lines one for each standard profile or special fitting, as these profiles and fittings are replaced with a building framework, made from plain sheet steel or other sheet materials by your choice - this point to development of even green new materials. You already have the CNC flame cutters, water and laser cutters, but realize that these work in the traditional techniques, The only minor challenge now, is getting these machines to produce 3D-Honeycomb frame assembly, which is very easy to fit together, because shaping/cutting plain material have been done, for many years now, by CNC machines.
An innovation is often not just a new perception, but also the means. As 3D-H is a structural method you can ask why it have not been tried before the answer is simply, that the calculations are to complicated, to being efficiently done "by hand", no one would try make the calculations from the traditional front, side and top plans of a traditional construction drawing, the outcome would, with traditional projecting have a doubtful outcome, as the traditional plans do not carry the Direct-Link opportunity, which is offered with modern CAD/CAM systems, it simply would be irrational to try project a 3D-H structure before the computer, as the calculation of the sections that make a 3D-H would be so complicated and numerous, that an engineer would turn to the traditional construction planes, and produce the sections from these in the traditional way.
Now a 3D-H structure is sections on two construction planes in 3D, two planes that meet differs at 90 deg. From each other but none of them follow any of the traditional planes. How this little trick can mean so much, which it revolutionizes the construction and architecture is better seen in the graphics, but the way efficiency profit, must be explained by the attitude of the method, is the Direct-Link method, the method that links together the computer drawing, and the CNC manufacturing machine.
As you now, don't have 20 different lines of production for the various profiles and fittings, but can focus on calculating the right dimensions for the framework, and focus on constructing the right assembly slot fitting.
When you look in detail at this framework, you would think that the rigid overlap, where two frames meet could be a cause of trouble - now please remember that in huge steel structures like ship hulls, you also have a sort of honeycomb structure, and there a tight weld are obvious, but with a framework structure for a building, there would be several reasons to add standard fittings, allowing the ability for the structure to damp minor vibrations and forces within certain amounts, maybe even make the basic structure more or completely earthquake safe.
--
Adding such assembly slot fittings, also profit the efficiency while building up the framework, as in hands-on works, to avoid too much “stiffness” in the structure, fittings can be inserted at the points the frames are assembled, a standard fitting will in this case solve several purposes.
--
In this application it is also very simple to ensure that the frame that is cut, will hold this fitting, as when at each cross point in the framework, the 3D model of the fittings are subtracted from the frames, you will see that material are cut away, to make room for the fitting, and even holes for bolts or rivets will be made, while the shape of each frame are cut.
Efficiency in terms of manufacturing is not the whole issue, you also must consider that this method offer a brand new perception of the structure. That detail projecting will profit when floors and walls appears suddenly, and projecting will be expanded with 3D tools, that ensure that the measures hold, and when you question the method, consider how the traditional methods have been refined and developed throughout centuries, before the capacity computers and software offered, running a system like this would be unthinkable. - Now every entity in a 3D computer drawing, already contain enough information to show the object on the screen, and when this information is enough to feed the manufacturing machine, the CNC flame, laser cutter, the water cutter or pouching machine, this put the traditional architect application in a new light, - the "block" is already there as a 3D entity, that, in the basic CAD program will make the link to the production, now each part is not described by the information added the block insert, the production machine do not need any additional information, but the information you will add can still be contained the 3D drawing. Each frame numbered, calculated for weight mass and geometric information can even produce holes for attaching the wires, transporting the frame, its place in the structure and "number" can still be added the entity name, and the information yielded when you point to the entity, the frame. Still try to compare this with the approach you see in most architectural renderings - this make both the renderings and the detailed structure assembly, not just the pictures, it make the foundations for floors and walls, the 3D model follow the building process, from start to finish but it represent a new architecture, and a new perception. Which doesn’t hide its structural appearance, one that create a new architectural vision.
In terms of computer skills, what I suggest with this method is to add a new dimension, while the program keep on an accurate account, just by the drawing database the architect can freely shape a geometric, or organic shaped building, the rooms within a rounded building can be kept square, it is a return to qualities in architecture that was almost forgotten, the difficulty combining the architects and the engineers skills, now is eased by offering solutions to structural challenges, in a way that carry it's own form language, a method that more smooth will make the visions true with a structure you don't need to hide as it carry it's own structural beauty. A structure you know will not be possible to draw in 3D unless it can be made in real, opposed to the 2D projecting that make no guarantee that the architects vision can be made in 3D.
In fact you don't need to take one single measure with 3D-H, you draw 3D one-to-one and the production machine cut the frames one to one - no centimeters no Inches or feet, this is a complete new world and a new architecture that work with computers, without being the old methods re-written into computer code, but you can still make each frame into a block and project the structure from a traditional architect application, this way you can store calculated values and properties in attributes within each frame block.
Still this is technology on the technology's own terms, making new techniques, creating a curved building not by fighting rigid steel profiles that never was made to be curved, just adding cost and waste of effort, curves are simply shaping the original solid model to generate simple cut frames with a different attitude than how you traditionally change the materials to meet your demands, not one single frame in a 3D-H need to be bended to form a rounded structure, you cut flat sheets you don't bend anything.
If you want to project a house, is not very efficient first to build an outer shell, and to get the floors and walls, then build another house inside - the first computer mesh structures was a fight to make use of the traditional steel rods and profiles, the polygon meshes 20 years ago was made from straight lines, but when the workers translated the drawings into the real thing, the straight lines went curved and from that point, you couldn’t even unfold any huge surface to cover the rods and stringers. 3D-H requires no "translation" from sketch to manufactured building frame, you do not build a house inside a shell to get the floors and walls, you don't build two houses when you want to build one, the whole basic structure is there, with floors and walls and you can continue the detail projecting from each well defined space, - measures will hold. So this is a method that answered the challenge, and delivered the missing structure of the early computer mesh structures, it is not just a thin shell that need to be formed with available rods and stringers, even if you form a completely round structure, you never bend any of the structure.
For many architects it is a natural attitude, to envision the spaces and forms, but it has always been a problem to communicate this, and very often the tool for this have been the architects sketches, the architect being more artistic minded and the engineer being the technically minded who must translate the vision, in this way they shared a very limited "language" as the sketches and details can be a great challenge, while the architect tend to envision the great scene where the engineer must make the scene work in detail and in systems.
While more architects with the CAD options possess a greater hands-on opportunity to form and shape out environments.
The computer, digitizer and keyboard do not always fit smooth in the hands of the architects, this was obvious to me, to focus on the main issue, the structure the wish to form and shape with no thought of the structure as you see how the early computer meshes sketched.
To answer the demand - my own and other designers demands, for a relevant tool that ensure the structures integrity that also leave room for structural beauty, was to make sure that when the designer point to a certain form, that there also will be a reliable structure underneath, that this should be generated by the program or method, which should not be a trouble for the architect but a challenge, when the architect understand the concept and see the nice side effects of this method understand the form language.
Understand the side effects as the options to add spaces, and frameworks in other scale or materials, the incredible new form language and ways to develop a new exiting tool that brings exactly the spaces you imagine, as soon you understand the method and how easy it shape both geometric and organic forms, not just as the outside expression but also the internal attitude.
With 3D-Honeycomb you are as near to what many architects would wish; you can form the solids as clay on the screen and besides that the "clay" will hold it's form on the screen, and not collapse under it's weight in reality, you can shape and hollow, knowing that the mass will be replaced with a reliable framework showing the exact form and internal spaces, the ideal tool for shaping not just the organic forms but will add spaces for more trivial items, such as water pipes and electrics, foundations that fit exactly to heavy loads, just any angle wall, just any window frame will melt into the framework.
The standard window or the specially designed window-wall will just subtract it's shape into the framework and be locked into the structure that will fit around, and support as you plan it to, even the foundations for stairs or "build-in furniture” or floors at various levels is among the fantastic yet smooth options.
Now this can be a challenge for some architects, but guided and working together with CAD experienced designers, this open for a brand new architecture where in future the feel and understanding of the 3D digital environment will produce wonders. It will produce the strong "new Lego-block", the new production line and a new architecture, but please understand, that I am just the designer I am not the architect to shape these wonders, but the designer who create the tools that make this possible.
My role as artist and designer have been to spend 12 years, to offer the world this new opportunity. This have been a continuous development on top my education in traditional crafts, my years at the architect academy in Copenhagen and in particular, the projects I worked at the States workshops for Arts and Crafts in Copenhagen and during all this time, listening to the wishes and demands of visionary architects, of furniture designers, many different designers and architects all with their perception of the new digital options, demands that I refined into a new tool, a tool that must be so different, that when uncovered, though seems so easy when you know it, still requires an innovative approach.
Remember that this is also just a framework, for further development, keep in mind that this is the basic idea, what I show must be simple as the whole attitude are so different from the traditional structural thinking, still, it reveals a relevant answer, a direct link from projecting to producing the individual building element and it does not fight, but shape itself under the demands of other building components, - the standard window frames will not ask altering, you can place a traditional huge steel profile in the center of the structure, it will just shape around and even lock the profile in place. When you place the engine in the engine room, the foundations will shape exactly around the engine foundations, when you add a tank the framework shape around and support it, this framework work in maxi and micro size it work with many other structures than just those of buildings, the limitations are only in your mind and the manufacturing is digitally controlled.
You must understand that it must be my attitude; even I agree that I would like to use my knowledge and feel about these new options to shape and form, but to be the designer have already been a huge task, to listen and develop to take apart the 3D computer meshes, and figure out what they were missing. If this could be compensated, a completely new attitude was the only true vision. I find my critic about the early polygon mesh structures well described, to offer the architect and designers a relevant tool, you must ensure that this must generate the structure, and not just produce a thin shell moving the trouble to the engineer, to make everything except the outer shell the responsibility of the engineer, but to make sure that the production will be as efficient as what the digital projecting promises. My critic and attitude is about that it requires a new approach not just a re-write of the old method, those even used before the computer - even these offers a more reliable account. My claim is that 3D projecting must be more than an account with on-screen symbols or small isometric drawings, referring the inserted block, but that calculating and volumes must be available, and possible in the basic 3D drawing - But mainly my approach is, that the digital opportunity in production, requires a new architecture a new vision about the build works, the projecting and the way we envision the enormous changes in perception and production.
There are a few practical things to consider; CNC controlled cutters are not just restricted to the work plane, you can move the work plane, recalibrate and this way expand the work plane as you wish, beside this don't mean that a frame have to be cut in one piece, you can easily place the frame contours on a standard size plate in a CAD system on a screen, joining several pieces together can be done, in the drawing on top a grid of standard sheets, making you prepare assembly of these, making you place calibration points to be made with the cutter - not only do you at the same time as cutting the frame in shape cut holes for whatever fittings the frame must carry, you can at the same time prepare for several sheets to form one frame. Now some of these issues are just standard CAD work for some, but it is often asked questions.
This is a new architecture, a new perception and a very different structural approach in engineering the structure engineering, you will find structures that at first view, can show similarity, but remember that this is a structural concept, no single part ever bends to shape the framework, they do in other structures still these are not 3D-H Every piece are cut from sheet materials and if any piece are forced in shape or bend, then this is no 3D-Honeycomb structure - the concept was developed 12 years ago where I was first authorized application developer with the AutoCAD platform. The method and description have been published in public architect contests, most important at a contest about IT and architecture the digital options in the building industries in Denmark year 2000.
Further developed at the Danish States workshops for Arts and Crafts for furniture design, but originally developed as a method to produce a framework for ships and boats; in this application as a tool to profit naval design, as a mean to generate the structure for any shape you can shape a craft ,by Math.or traditional skills, at that point FAA, the Federal Aviation Agency, suggest the method as: "an attractive method to build small commercial aero planes", but beside this and the obvious use in general building construction, the method works in so many other applications.
The fact that the framework itself replace multiple special fittings if you would build with tradisional methods and you avoid the weak spots describe the method as innovative and make an ansver for the call of further digital controlled manufactoring and efficiency , the ability to form around and carry loads, the flexibility in combining different scale structures and the enormous freedom in designing, and the new architecture, the method point to will together with the many further developments, ease the breakthrough of the method. In near future you will se how this new approach will shape wonders, as Innovation is a must Efficiency come as a side effect.
This method was developed by the Danish designer Per Corell.
Best regards
Per Corell |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is one page of these papers translated to chinese and published by ECC
- Essential Collection of Construction - Dec 2005.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLWalkerAIA
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 129
Location: Seattle Washington, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love the forms arising from your geometry. I want to see a real building constructed by such methods.
Terry,
_________________
Terry L. Walker, AIA
Terry L. Walker, Architects
terry.walker20@verizon.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
danirich
Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
We've just purchased a 3D printer for the fabric and i'm amazed by the precision of this machine.
Very thin layers of PolyJet (photopolymer resins) drops are jetted in super-thin layers (16 microns) and the end product comes up as an ultra-smooth surface, even though we have very complex geometrical models. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That must be an exiting adventure --- please tell more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danirich I can suggest you incestigate what is called "Eggcreate" --- it has a visual resemblance and if you plan bigger objects , also a structural resemblance to 3D-H. Now it is not 3D-H as it is not made , projected, assembled as 3D-H is, but make it possible to fill an instant prototype with a cube like structure. The gains shuld be obvious , you save resins and get a lightweight object with a cube core . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rain
Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does everyone know Chinese???....
_________________
Time is a distance that you can't return by miles.
ipod software
ipod software |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
--- ofcaurse that would be nice, but on the other hand ,if just a few skilled carpenters realise there are other way's to put things together; I try explain that there are a simple way to section the things, but it is different than how we want to see things , -- and then wonders happen ; I was just as surprised as anyone else when by chance I tried if this crazy idea would work --- I knew that a 3D drawing is as good a gurantie as a build in real , but I knew that what everything need is not the surface but the structure, every building is a structure, architects tend to see it as a surface.
The side effects will be those of a new way to put things together with the computer to guide what you can't understand before you see it, sorry I been there realised it, but bringing the happy messeage is not about a unified world it is simply about a new way to put things together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: Technological Integration |
|
|
We do not seek to simply "unite the world" in the sense some understand. We seek technological integration, not political, religious, monetary or cultural integration.
It can also be considered a "self-generating system", as once the building blocks are in place, the infill is carried out by global cooperation.
Mr. Nelson
Project Liquid Universe Coordinator
http://www.globaldeveloper.net/
Inventor, Architect, Artist, Scientist, Writer, Poet, Mechanic, Musician, Philosopher, Researcher.
"The theory of Gravitational Kinnetics of Motion".
"Terrestrial Transportation System X".
"The Gravitational Cancellation Theory".
"Energy States and Their Relation to Renewable Energy".
"The Model of an Atom as a Source of Renewable Energy"
"Magnetic Cancellation Theory".
"A Blue-Print For the Computer of the Future"
"The New Internet and Data Transmission System"
"The New Global Connectivity Platform"
Scientific theory with a universe of possibilities in mind.
"Concept Follows Context"
Our greatest strength is not in our individuality of effort, but in our unity of ideas, global connectivity and force of mass collaboration.
Those who fight this global power will be left in the ruins of post-technology civilization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
3DH IS THE BIGGEST SHAM ON THESE FORUMS -->>
Why, I will show you why.
It's founder is slandering me for no reason, simply because I have show the system's fallacies.
It is high time someone put this Pearl Core in line. He has proceeded to slander me for no reason, when I have demonstrated why 3dh is not such a good system, for the following reasons -->>
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.
Pearl Core, I have had enough of your lies and spreading of false information about me. 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 me and stop constantly pushing this 3dh stuff which is completely irrelevant to the design process and how architects today compose architecture.
You will be hearing from my lawyer very soon Pearl. I will sue you for slander and defamation.
I know who you are and I know your name. We will find you.
I have friends in higher places and you will have no place to hide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I copy and paste the above post made by usarender, a person deeply obsessed with Per Corell. Sickly I must sadly add , and please see this as a way to document the doings of this obsessive charecter , the post above I here repeat has an edit button, this is the issue --- and when this obsessive charecter have posted a hate crime mail , he now started to edit the hate mails he posted, copying and pasting the above is my documantation for this obsessive persons doings ;
usarender ;
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 853
Location: San Diego, Ca
New postPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: Reply with quoteFind all posts by usarender
3DH IS THE BIGGEST SHAM ON THESE FORUMS -->>
Why, I will show you why.
It's founder is slandering me for no reason, simply because I have show the system's fallacies.
It is high time someone put this Pearl Core in line. He has proceeded to slander me for no reason, when I have demonstrated why 3dh is not such a good system, for the following reasons -->>
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 | |
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
