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. » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:46 am

Usarender anyone who read your obsessed vain and jeloux words , see right thru it. Out of hundred of thousands you are the only one who say so, and the reson are your jeloux mind, why ---- well how many times has I asked you for real arguments, real pictures not just a link to one of your own mails, how many times has I asked you to display a nice painting, just some piece of work you created ?

It must be very frustrating for you to meet the real thing, but think about it, maybe it is you who shuld back off --- you see the difference betwen us is, that I fight for what I like where you fight becaurse you don't maneage to do just that. You replace two very different things.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:51 am

Oh --- strange btw all the things you newer answer asked directly , I answer but you avoide answering ; like when I state that now near 100 thousand has visited Silver Screen Galleri and twice that has visited "Hi all you fancy graphics lovers " treads , then your answer fail to show up, when I point to the fact that only two or tree out of maybe halve a million who visited various 3dh sites complained, and allway's without real arguments or by turning the issue into a personal thing , --- then again you fail to answer anything, but usealy complain about some silli issue.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:45 pm

For those who wish to know, the truth about this PC, his system, his personality, and what he has done, please visit this topic -->>

For those who wish to know, the truth about this PC, his system, his personality, and what he has done, please visit this topic -->>

The truth about 3DH and PC

(Just click on the link above).
==========================================================================================

Warning:

Cyber Stalkers on DC
Last edited by usarender on Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:38 am

Usarender -- have you notised that you are the only one with a different oppinion, that thousands read this tread and had nothing to complain ?

Have you notised how far you gone into this, into another man's work and thoughts without realy doing anything else, than saying your personal oppinion about this other man ?

No one else , think about it.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 pm

If 3dh were so relevant, and there were many thousands of visitors, surely some of them should be structural engineers and be able to give an opinion on 3dh. Why is it none of them have done this ? Apparently either nobody understands it or cares to understand, and many probably realizing it is irrelevant simply do not give any opinion at all. Why is it you see nobody showing from a structural point of view whether it is good or bad other then me? It is obvious something is wrong. I have already made a call to all the structural engineers on this forum to analyze 3dh in an objective way and so far nobody is heeding the call.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:04 pm

Listen, how could I know that, beside ,can that also be seen as what you are so obsessed, arguments against a great new building method . How can I know why things work like that if you want to knoe, then History are a great sourse. Read about why revulosionary idears , idears we before has seen change a lot, somethime are taken on right on, and why sometimes great visions will stay unbuild.
You yourself seem to be totaly ignorant about 3dh , I am sure you yourself, would newer use it anyway, you don't understand it, don't reconise it at all, so ---- why don't you ask yourself ?
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:47 pm

The best you can do, with others challenge your 3DH with arguments, is say they do not understand it, rather then answer those challenges in a rational way. This is not a convincing way to support your 3DH. If others bring such challenges to show there are problems with your system, you should address such challenges one by one in an intelligent way once and for all rather then turn it into a game.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:32 pm

Image

You don't need to be professor in mechanics to figure out what sheet material would be suited to build this structure, it's 3dh and clearly prove exiting details about a compleatly new way to engage structures, now we has 3dh now a 3D drawing with 3D solids , can be computed into an assembly of simple N.C. cut building frames.
See how these replace hundreds of different building parts, with one material only --- then finding the right thickness steel plate is not that impossible a job, is it ?
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:40 pm

Forget it, will use too much steel to erect such a structure, or to use such structures for all architectural architypes.

WHY 3DH IS NOT ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY DESIGNED, from an engineering point of view -->>

1. - Is was created by a boat builder that knows nothing of structural engineering.

2. - It will consume too much steel.

3. - PC has never produced any structural calculations to prove it works.

4. - It has never been built, is all theory.

5. - It is ten years old, and alternate systems are already on their way into the market, that have actually been built.

6. - It is nothing more then a nice series of matrix calculations, performed by a computer program, that distributes a structural grid into volumes, filling every space with it's "3dh" structural members that transverse the spaces in every direction. And it provides no structural details with calculations. It is all theoretical.

7. - Further, such transversing of spaces is cumbersome, it gets in the way, it creates interior spaces that are not free of structural members, but rather punched in every direction by these 3dh structural members, thus creating a need to resolve hundreds of interior spaces, and also creating many nooks and crannies in the corners, that one must now deal with. Interesting to note that your behavior has done the same. You have poked into every nook and cranny of these discussions, creating now problems to resolve. Your 3DH is consistent with your behavior on these forums.

8. - 3DH is difficult to build in practice, to set-up a production line to actually manufacture it.

9. - There are hundreds of alternate systems out there designed by some of the world's greatest engineers, and you expect designers to play around with this 3dh like a bunch of monkeys dangling around in a world of uncertainty, hanging from the conceptual beams of a structure never built before ? Monkey games.....

Further, -->>

11. The author of 3DH cannot decide what material to use to produce 3DH. First, he is adamant about sheet metal, now he is not SO CERTAIN.

FURTHER REASONS --->>

1. Sheet metal is not so environmentally friendly.

2. This system cannot be easily fire-proofed.

3. 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. Those as the Architect who have entered into these games do this to their own detriment, and this also is folly.

4. 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.


5. To try to apply 3dh to many of the designs produced by architects, such as Frank Lloyd Wrignt and others is absurd. It would seriously limit these designs and the selection of materials would not match. One system cannot simply be expected to provide a solution to all designs. You cannot substitute a well designed brick building for 3DH.

6. Has anyone ever tried 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."

7. 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?

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

[/quote]
23 REASONS AND MORE WHY 3DH IS A POOR SYSTEM.

SUMMARY OF A FEW PROBLEMS WITH 3DH -->>

I have already pointed out what is wrong with the 3dH system that PC has posted several times in this one particular image of what appears could be a church or the like, that he has just posted again, in his continuous harassment of the forums with his 3DH jargon -->>

1. Small structural modules at corners that do not make sense. There are as remnants of a grid laid 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 standard construction systems.

5. A maze of pieces that are not necessary to make the structure stand.

6. A maze of remnant unnecessary 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?

The problem is, he keeps posting this particular same image on this forum, asking everyone what is wrong with it, and nobody cares to respond. Perhaps I was the first to attempt to respond to it in a logical way.

How many times must I post this to demonstrate the system is not what it appears to be ? And, it will keep coming back and re-appearing like a jack-in-the-box, without failure, all over these forums, including the architectural forum for sure. Same for the art work postings....
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:56 pm

Now this is said by a very paranoid and very obsessed person ;

"How many times must I post this to demonstrate the system is not what it appears to be ? And, it will keep coming back and re-appearing like a jack-in-the-box, without failure, all over these forums, including the architectural forum for sure. Same for the art work postings..."

Here is a sick person raging these fora's with no etics and an over size Ego , this is realy sick , so sick that you will not wonder why such person can not realise it himself, -- it is over the edge.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby P.C. » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:59 pm

Paranoia ;

" For those who wish to know, the truth about this PC, his system, his personality, and what he has done, please visit this topic -->>

For those who wish to know, the truth about this PC, his system, his personality, and what he has done, please visit this topic -->>

The truth about 3DH and PC

(Just click on the link above)."
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:10 pm

Now look at who is paranoid and obcessed...:)

And look at who is sick around here....and who has no ethics....and look who is going over the edge....

Paranoia, sick, over the edge, and on and on...

And the link about 3DH again -->>

In depth analysis of 3DH

and -->>

Better Alternate Structural Systems
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:27 pm

Usarender , the way you behave I would not blame anyone , who would not be safe to turn his back to you.

Think about it, what you are doing, is to prove it is best to avoide you.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

Postby usarender » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:42 pm

The 3DH image you project at me is mirrored back at you. What you speak, you speak of yourself.
usarender
millennium club
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:22 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Postby P.C. » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:03 am

Image

To state that 3dh "uses to much material" only prove usarender don't know what he talk about --- it would be easy to realise that if realy "to much material" is used , then 3dh is so flexible, that it would yield just that structure you think you would afford, by simply computing another framework.
But to say 3dh uses "to much materials" is allready such a cheap argument, as what would other methods prove , where are the method usarender put 3dh up against to prove his words, and what about the side effects -- the easier assembly, the fact that the Solid modeling programs and the average computer, with this building system , offer something anyone can understand . ---- surely 3dh do not calculate your dimensions, but what program do realy that, - do you know of any - , and if you do has you considered that this is maybe just the treadisional way to put steel profiles together as in 1932, and ontop think about it -- 3dh "fight" or is up against systems that has been masivly supported , so many papers are written to profit the tradisional building systems -- and yet 3dh maneage from the start that challance.
All critic relate to other systems , but is used "against" 3dh that is calling apples for oranges and putting any weight to critics towerds horse carriges and use it against the Ford T , now that seem both silli and unprofesional.
P.C.
millennium club
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 7:25 am
Location: Denmark

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.