ARUP AGU (Advanced Geometry Unit) = academic robbery

Some conversations are really not meant - or shouldn't be meant - for the whole design community, even though they may be posted that way...

Postby P.C. » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:56 am

Now I don't try to deny fact --- and I also agrea that the way I shared this 3dh ,was like sharing the happy messeage, so a new way to put things together could profit so much. But there are a huge difference borrowing an idear plus hundreds of drawings explaining clearly how and what, without giving the credit or doing it and give the credit.

You see here are plenty of prove that no one thought about that, before I started publishing 3dh examples , examples that for most are self explaining ,3dh is not that complicated. --- And the records for that is easy to be found on the web.

But the strange thing about it is, that several architects suddenly after having done something quite opposide in both theori and pracis, won contests and started building 3dh structures --- but what is even more funny, was that in these there was newer one single word about what made it all, even everyone can see a 3dh structure are so much different, then not one single word about how to come to a conclution to compleatly change the structure into that, not one word about the process that led to the discovery of a brand new way to put things together, newer one single word about what the thing obviously was made of and --- not one word about claiming right to it.

It would be obvious to do either that or give the credit.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

this is true what you say

Postby usarender » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:48 pm

It can be clearly seen that in robbing the ideas, they wish to take the entire credit for the method. And no doubt, there are traces of the method being published, so why couldn't this be proof of intellectual property. Of course, patents today require one not publish some things on the web. But to get ideas out, one has to publish. So it is a double edged sword. One can have systems and ideas nobody knows of and wait until one has a patent to claim authorship, or one can publish and later prove the intellectual property to the same. This is the same for all who are coming up with new systems and ideas.

Even my grandfather invented the automatic transmission before it existed, but as he did not make a patent, others claimed it as theirs. But he invented it and now how can one prove this. At that time, there was no internet, no computers and information traveled slowly compared to the lighting speed of modern communication.

As times change, so also change the ways ideas are disseminated and how intellectual property can be claimed and assured, in cases of a dispute of property. As times change, more and more extraneous evidence can be examined and also support the authorship of ideas.

Perhaps some experts on the subject could contribute as well with suggestions to you on this matter.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:01 pm

I am positive sure to be on the safe side according this, --- these property rules that extended the copyright agreament concept, totaly cover anything that is published the way I did --- in fact some people put some thought into those agreaments, knowing the drawbacks as you described , what most who is not used to this idear making seldom realise, is how patent issues can be as destructive as they can be profitable , also some of the reson of the very wide fomulated intelectural property rights, is just that to prevent the bad influence a life long patent right fight and spending money on that, make sure there are no room for new idears, so yes I do know I am well covered.

But please understand how what you might interper as anger, is in fact something else ; frustration that some fame hounting architect who , as he did not spend years to investigate, just pick the easy fruit the looks of it, without realising what that destroy.
How clumpsy these structures behave as solid 3dh framework, where if knowing 3dh by structure, proving knowing it by inventing it, --- how that little knowleage of this structure let to two different unbaken types of design ; the full plated like this german guy who won a contest with the most primitive 3dh possible , (and who answered my complains with only prove that he didn't have a clue about it, blabbeling about what is totaly irelavant lookalike structures made in cast concrete) and refusing to tell how he came to develob something I had been promoting for years allready. Anyway --- what sadden me is how these robbers of intelectural property, being fame hounting architects looking for newspaper fame, had been able to rob what's the real value -- it's potential further develobing, and btw. without having to answer silli questions about design details.

But if you understand, then what I say , is that this is the same as the apprantice robbing the masters magic stick ; it can blind your eyes with astunding wonders, but if you havn't develobed it, then you don't understand it's potential, and if you don't understand the potentials well --- then you havn't invented it.

I happily deliver pictures, but these are so sad designs, and that would mean I once again had to explain the obvious foults -- those you instantly understand knowing the method.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:55 pm

WHY 3DH DOES NOT WORK -->>

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.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:24 pm

This is the second huge text a person who call himseld usarender post in a tread becaurse this guy is obsessed with Per Corell.

I copy and paste this ,becaurse usarender is obviously sickly obsessed with Per Corell, and one day act friendly but the next day post hate mails and hate crime mails, --- as there are an edit button , this is my way to tell you what this sickly obsessed person originaly posted --- I tell you to read it as what it is, the text itself uncover this sad obsession ;

Usarender ;





Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 851
Location: San Diego, Ca

New postPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: Reply with quoteFind all posts by usarender
WHY 3DH DOES NOT WORK -->>

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.
Back to top
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:28 pm

I am going to sue you for SLANDER Mr. PEARL CORE. You will be hearing from my lawyer very soon. We know your name, who you are, where you live and you will not escape.

I have friends in higher places and we know very well what we need to do to take care of this.

I will also join all those in other forums who you have been slandering and there will be one law suit against you. It has been set in motion and you are in BIG TROUBLE PC.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:49 am

Copy and paste of the above post, usarender compleatly obsessed with Per Corell has posted such and vorse mails totaly off-topic , all over the fora.
I copy anf paste them to make sure usarender can not delete these, by using the edit button ;


usarender:

"usarender



Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 884
Location: San Diego, Ca

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: Reply with quoteFind all posts by usarender
I am going to sue you for SLANDER Mr. PEARL CORE. You will be hearing from my lawyer very soon. We know your name, who you are, where you live and you will not escape.

I have friends in higher places and we know very well what we need to do to take care of this.

I will also join all those in other forums who you have been slandering and there will be one law suit against you. It has been set in motion and you are in BIG TROUBLE PC."
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:50 pm

Go ahead and copy and paste. It does not bother me. You are only making sure my message get's across.

You can spread it across a thousand posters if you wish, this way everyone will know your delusion and be sure to see what you are doing in slandering others.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby fuel26 » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:54 am

P.C. seems to be obsessed with P.C. from all the ranting going on.

It would be possible that with complexity of computation and the large volume of interest in coding and digital tectonics that similar ideas may emerge almost simultaneously. Take a look at the evolution and complexity of outcomes at the AA, Berkley, Columbia, etc and you may find very similar traits in design direction.
fuel26
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:47 am

Postby P.C. » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:42 am

"It would be possible that with complexity of computation and the large volume of interest in coding and digital tectonics that similar ideas may emerge almost simultaneously."

I find it strange, that just this issue seem more important than investigating into what this is about. --- Speculations about this issue , would be relevant if other projects was published ; and published are the measure not speculations about dull words in some paper, words that might might not indicate, that speculations have or have not delivered what is very clear described about 3dh.

Seem this issue is even more important than even understanding the method, that I find strange.

But I can ensure you fuel26, that when 3dh was published, no one was investigating this structural issue --- in those times it was about polymesh surfaces and what could be rendered on a screen. The whole concept to allow the computer to generate an assembly framework to be cut easy by a n.c. cutter was to trivial an issue for academics -- the handa-on aproach the knowleage about what is needed when you acturly has to build, was of little interest in architecture. In those day's it was the renderings, the polymesh structures, and no place was this issue realised. --- I had years to search for simular, and wouldn't you think such idear would be published.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:46 am

P.s :

"It would be possible that with complexity of computation and the large volume of interest in coding and digital tectonics that similar ideas may emerge almost simultaneously."

Quite opposite, the complexity and large volume of interest do not create newthinking. Computing what is will newer make any innovation, in fact the more complex and the more volume of interest within the academics, would in fact make newthinking more rare.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:26 am

And this is one reson I so often point to the fact, that when 3dh was published , everything in architecture in structural engineering, was the exact opposite of 3dh ; most of these issues was hardly understood by most architects, design was things where I instantly claimed my right to display Design as a new building method opening for unseen possibilities, in a time where no such thing as pressing a button and that way generating all building parts for a structure were out of reach simply becaurse this was so new and unique and newer seen before -- newer seen before just by the fact that this can only be done with a computer, and thruout knowleage of very difficult CAD programs such as AutoCAD.

Such a thing as 3dh simply couldn't be emagined or thought, without extensive knowleage about the functions in the most difficult CAD program ; now how many academics has that, how many of these has a so hands-on aproach, that they would realise a method such as 3dh -- as such method do not evolve without a concrete need for just that.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:53 pm

In the topic on architectural history, I have demonstrated that there are various architects and various sample projects that have been produced over time that resemble his "3dh". Thus, this "3dh" thing he does is not so unique as this guy claims. In fact, this guy proceeds to slander any architect who produces anything similar to "3dh", or that demonstrate that 3dh does not work, as I have done. He now has created this topic in an attempt to slander me.

Discussion on architectural history

(To view the topic, click on the blue letters above.)
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:59 pm

"he proceeds to attempt to slander me"
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:28 pm

It is very clear this guy has nothing new to say, nor does he respond to the fact that many architects and engineers have developed their own beautiful structural systems, that, in his vision, may resemble "3dh" but were developed independently of this "3dh" thing. One only needs to conduct a small search on the web, as I have done, and posted on the topic in architectural history, to realize that the spider will reveal that he is not unique.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

PreviousNext

Return to Echo Chamber

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Control Panel

Login

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 508 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:21 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.