"Did they say things heavier than air would never fly, and ships out of iron would ofcaurse sink"
OK - by your analogy Per, you're telling a bunch of aeronautical engineers that you've created a way to make a brick fly, and the way you've achieved it is to invent a revolutionary computer-driven manufacturing process that makes the bricks out of sheet material instead of old-fashioned extrusion. But you haven't tested it yet and, oh yeah, it's still a friggin brick dude.
You are quite right Pixelhore, realy it don\t matter what we call ourself and it must be the sense in the words, --- pictures, that make the discussion.
Now just you know it, my whole life I worked with practic issues I can claim to be profesional in carpentry and boatsbuilding, even done projects at the finest workshops please check out the Cyber-Boat site.
But I will tell you why I ignore that claim ------ if you check Cyber-Boat you will se a number of acturly build boat designs, then when I once came out with a new design I had endless discussions with somone that could even be the same in this group, the claim was that I as profesional boatsbuilder who even had teached at the proud boatbuilding school, shuld "prove" my designs with a full scale model.
Now if you don't know this, then a boatbuilder often build a halve-model to prove the lines to smooth, this is how boatbuilders alway's done but those jokers I had this discussion with, just hated me for doing fine wooden boats in genuine wood instead of what was the trend in american amature boatbuilding groups, to plumb out a flat bottom shoebox design made in the cheapest plywood .
Well you can find this tread on web, but fact is, that also back then, a bunch of dryass usenet fanatics knew "everything" about boatsbuilding and claimed that to "prove" what I designed 3D shuld be build in real othervise they would not "belive" it.
Now isn't this the same as in this group, --- in the other group a bunch of fanatic Bolger wannabees could not accept that the glorious american writing desk designer who back 50 ago filled Popular mechanics with what scrap from the garage could bring in terms of dangouras flat bottomed rowboats, a few had a good buisness selling copies of nameless designs that was never proven, but to any profesional showed to be a bad thing to let your children sail in.
I build boats not cheap unsafe plywood boxes, but they just hated me for that, and they did that, with the _exact_ same "arguments" you se in this tread ------ now why do you think that somone who all his life made everything he made perfect, shuld bother the ignorance and stupidity of some amature who don't even know the simplest thing,
The thing about fire protection work fine unless you are in a discussion where all you want is to piss on the guy you would rob if you had the chance. ----- but except I do not have a criminal mind or try brag about my ability to throw dirt, fact is, that fire protection come as a side effect with 3D-H , you spend less time develobing it, than fiddeling it. But if you don't know that what you draw 3D can only work, as othervise it could not show on a screen. And unless you know that oposed this ,then somthing drawn 2D don't carry any of the same garentie, and you can't emagine just the first step generating a honeycomb structure or a framework structure, why shuld I then publish how fire protection come hand in hand with new digital design tools.
-------- Just another example left on web.
But please don't think I se myself as misunderstood genious, I acturly had a few patents I know my worth up against the trend setting drunk architects. So when some lame joker here in this group try harassing with the useal social harasment ,then he speak to his own perception and only show the inside of his own mind.
Do you realy expect I shuld deal with fire protection, and be questioned by the once you seen using this tread as pisshouse.
El jeffe ; I don't talk about bricks if you read what I write, I suggest just a possible side effect, then you pick down on that, why do you do that are you trying to gain a few cheap points ------- this seem to make you so angry that you like a few other jokers try put words I never said into my mouth ------ I don't care for bricks continue build in clay, dig your houses into the ground if that solve the problems with your lame paper heavy architect applications 3D-H work without bloody paper and I know just one porpus for paper , I bet that in the stoneage they had a splendid social life even they just hated the guy who invented this fire thing.
I don't think anyone on here has a problem imagining the first steps of your 3D-H system, but when they start to look further down the road in its development (with or without you) they start to see flaws in its execution. Perhaps you're mistaking their criticism as insult because they're jumping ahead of what you're showing, but keep in mind that what you're showing are very simple executions of this system (in terms of detailing, etc.).
And has been pointed out before, a boat is an entirely different creature from a building. Yeah, the built form of the boat might be a beginning, but I don't think anyone will take that as solid, bullet-proof example of how a building can be made.
Per-- This process does little to aid in the constructablilty of architecture for all the aforementioned reasons, but more so, it does not provide any new reconceptualization of design practice and production. As a process, it utilizes many of the same conventional formal operations that architects use everyday--like the section and surface extrusion. This 3D-H tool is a scripted process, not a organizational or structural system, which has no fundemental relationship to materiality.
As a reference for work and writing that may provide the much needed incite that you lack, see Cecil Balmond.
Thank you jmac.... I have one word for you Mr. Corell - PROCESS
The Informalist
Cecil Balmond has a simple plan to reinvent architecture: Break down the cage that separates structural engineering from design.
By Jennifer Kabat
Architectural superstar Rem Koolhaas swears by him. Structural engineer Cecil Balmond has been Koolhaas' collaborator on 30 projects since the mid-'80s, including the three that have made Koolhaas' name: the Bordeaux villa, the Kunsthal in Rotterdam, and the new Seattle Public Library. Today, Koolhaas won't even start a project until Balmond has weighed in. "When we work together, there's more to it than just an engineer saying you need a column here, support there," Koolhaas attests. "Cecil has changed my outlook on structure and enabled me to rethink architecture."
German conceptualist Daniel Libeskind - famous for his museums in Denver, Berlin, and now London - also brings Balmond in at the earliest stage. "He's a thinker, a mystic," says Libeskind. "He's not your average engineer brought from the outside to check things out. He's there with us from the very beginning with his keen insights and keen design ability. Most engineers don't see engineering as an evolving adventure in design, but Cecil does." Balmond and Libeskind collaborated on the Spiral, the Victoria and Albert Museum's contemporary wing, a $100 million project awaiting British government funding.
Perhaps most impressive is the respect Balmond has won from Philip Johnson, one of the 20th century's architectural titans. Johnson, now 94, is working with Balmond on Chavasse Park, a planned $300 million shopping center in Liverpool. The great man actually calls Balmond "my teacher, my mentor." This from a guy who was whelped by Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.
"Balmond's mad, he's brilliant, he's changing shapes for the world," Johnson says. Then he sighs theatrically and confides that Balmond will be largely responsible for the look of Chavasse Park, whose tentlike roof will swoop over the organic megastructure. "I gave him free rein, and I didn't really keep up with it," Johnson admits. "It was clear to me that this man knew perfectly what it was I wanted."
At 56, Balmond has reached the very top of his profession. According to the celebrated architects who have worked with him, he not only makes their buildings stand up, but also inspires their designs. He has two advanced engineering degrees from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, and a third from the University of Southampton. He sits on the board of London-based Ove Arup, the most prestigious structural engineering firm in the world. Established in 1946, the company built the iconic Sydney Opera House, the vast Tate Modern museum in London, and the just-completed longest bridge in the world, øresund Fixed Link - a 10-mile-long double-decker that stretches between Sweden and Denmark. Balmond is the chair of Ove Arup's operations division, which puts him in charge of global strategies for research and development and other specialist departments.
Balmond, however, might never get what he wants - public acclaim. It's not his place to be in the public eye. Structural engineers are meant to stay behind the scenes and work to bridge the gap between the architect and the builder. They measure forces and calculate load. They plan a building's foundation and place the columns that will bear its weight. Typically, engineers design the core - that is, the elevators and stairs at the center of a skyscraper - and often the facade as well. When an architect says, "I want glazed bronze glass that lets in only a certain amount of light and looks gold at sunset," it's the engineers who interview window manufacturers and evaluate their cladding systems. The results of this painstaking process are working drawings that spec out every last fixture. Builders can't even begin without them. Balmond's goal - outlined in a monograph, Informal, to be published this June - is to offer a new structure for architecture.
Engineers, as a rule, find glory in structural firsts and feats. Balmond calls it the "macho-ness of structure - the tallest, the thinnest." Ove Arup, in particular, values the big and the bold. Load bearing is made blatantly obvious. "Arup is hi-tech, our traditional image is hi-tech, and the hi-tech aesthetic is a certain belief in structural comprehensibility," he says. "The hi-tech style is right in your face - structure like the mast of a boat or gussets or a tension wire." Working with the British-born, Yale-educated master of hi-tech, Lord Norman Foster, the company gave the $645 million Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank headquarters massive cross-bracing in the atrium lobby and giant trusses up its 47-story glass exterior. Completed in 1986, it is considered the epitome of the style.
Balmond is more subversive. He tweaks structure: Where a typical engineer would simply place columns in a grid, he'll slide them off center, or tilt them so they lean as they rise from the floor. He hides structure: Instead of bracing a high-rise with mammoth steel Xs on the exterior, Balmond will turn the building itself into a brace and morph the floors into ramps that distribute the load downward. He invents structure: When Libeskind called for tiling on the Spiral extension of the V&A, Balmond came up with "frac-tiles" - tiles that repeat their shapes in a fractal pattern.
Often, Balmond's engineering solutions affect the form of a building so much that his work is indistinguishable from architecture. Take, for example, the Yokohama International Port Terminal. The London- and Tokyo-based FOA (Foreign Office Architects) - a trendy, young firm going for its first major project - tapped Balmond while competing for the $200 million commission. Balmond came up with an innovative plan that eliminated all columns.
"He said we could do it with a wavy piece of steel," explains Alejandro Zaera Polo, a partner at FOA. The terminal is not yet built, but Balmond's solution has it looking like a huge piece of corrugated cardboard. Koolhaas, who sat on the competition's jury, calls the concept "really beautiful. The shape of the building itself is its structural solution." Balmond's engineering is the architecture, and vice versa. The overlap is so remarkable that to understand Balmond's contribution is to ask: What's the role of the official architect?
I get an answer, of sorts, from the eminent British critic Charles Jencks. In 1997, the BBC asked him for a list of buildings that were transforming architecture. He came up with 15 structures and almost as many architects. Balmond engineered more than a quarter of them. "There's the V&A Spiral, of course, and Rem's Bordeaux villa, and also the library, Jussieu, with Koolhaas, and the stadium at Chemnitz with Ulrich Königs and Peter Kulka," Jencks says, rattling off the buildings that Balmond engineered.
Jencks says that since he made the list, Balmond has only grown more important: "If I were to do it again today I'd have to add Arnhem, a project Balmond did with Ben van Berkel, and the Yokohama terminal, and that project with Philip Johnson in Liverpool. Really," he interrupts himself, "Cecil Balmond is the world's leading thinker on form and structure. He's the power behind the throne."
While interviewing Jencks in his London townhouse, I press the issue. I ask him whether, in the design of those famous buildings, it's Balmond who is really calling the shots. Jencks, who's perched on a sofa across from me, leans forward over a coffee table shaped like the top of a Doric column - a relic of postmodernism, the architectural movement that Jencks made famous - and answers: "To try and decide who did what gets you into the area of libel."
Philip Johnson calls Balmond "my teacher, my mentor." This from a guy who was whelped by Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.
But that is what Balmond is saying, or at least hinting at, in Informal: New Structure in Architecture. The book, his second, is a manifesto, a call to arms urging his fellow engineers "to release the world of engineering and feel free to enter architecture." The accolades from Koolhaas, Libeskind, Johnson, and Jencks aren't enough anymore: Balmond wants some credit. The book is risky. He's nearly been sued - by FOA - over the credit issue before. And, after all, he is dependent on his good relationships with architects. They are the ones who hire him and bring him in on projects; while the process of making a building is clearly collaborative, the architect is still the star of the show.
Balmond's London office is modest: no prestigious corner, no great views. You'd hardly know he's in charge of 1,700 people. Photos of various Koolhaas projects hang on the wall next to a company-issue poster.
Balmond is bent over some architectural plans. The posture plays up his monkish appearance: He's dressed all in black, hair thinning into a tonsure. The plans are by the Dutch avant-gardist Ben van Berkel - one of a new wave of architects who, in the wake of fellow countryman Rem Koolhaas, are turning the Netherlands into an architectural promised land. The drawings are for the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh. The brief calls for a 160,000-square-foot extension and rehab of the existing 200,000-square-foot building on the bank of the Ohio River.
Balmond and van Berkel have been collaborating on the proposal for a month; the competition deadline is in two weeks' time. Balmond's research assistant, Gwenola Kergall, and another Arup engineer, Charles Walker, sit next to him, armed and ready with a ream of sketch paper and a tray of sandwiches cut into quarters. Balmond has called the meeting to go over van Berkel's latest design. They have only a couple of days to analyze this new set of drawings and get back to him.
A month ago, Balmond and van Berkel met to discuss their initial ideas for the center. Van Berkel was toying with some slablike shapes. Sketching out the logic of the site, Balmond scribbled down his idea: two crossing tubes, each with a smaller tube inside. Aligned on the north-south and east-west axes, the outer tubes would drop people in front, link to parking behind, and hide the old structure. The inner tubes would house the exhibits. By their next meeting, van Berkel had jettisoned the slab design for Balmond's schematic. The drawings on Balmond's table today show the Carnegie Science Center as two sets of concentric tubes. Van Berkel has the outside tube folding over to generate the inside tube in an endless skin, almost like a sock rolled back on itself, turning inside out.
Balmond looks at the new plan and shakes his head. In his original sketch, he had the inner tube hanging from the wall of the outer tube - they were joined together. Now, with the folded-over design, the inner tube needs to be held up by columns, and Balmond is irritated that he has to even consider adding any sort of pillar. He's convinced the columns will detract from the building and make it harder to put in exhibition space.
He takes a sheet from the ream and starts to draw, talking in a stream of consciousness as his hand moves. "Supports will interfere with the seamlessness. But it's a tube folded in on itself and will need internal supports. We need a new language for it, but it can't be a separate language. It should have branches like filaments, like tendrils from the wall ..." The drawing he makes to describe the tendrils looks like a swirling red-and-white peppermint.
Kergall suggests a filigree support with an art nouveau look and sketches it out. Balmond nods approval, but still laments. "How can I ruin it with such language?" he demands of Walker and Kergall. "Let's not talk column because I cannot, I can't, I'll die, how can I do that - fold a skin over on itself and then stick columns in?"
This searching for metaphors, this scribbling on paper, this is what Balmond calls "the informal." The informal is Balmond's radical philosophy of engineering; he describes it as "opening the door ... and breaking down the cage." Stripped of metaphor, the informal is Balmond's term for the creative process.
Balmond started reexamining traditional engineering when he turned 40. "It suddenly hit me: I'd been doing this for 20 years without questioning the basic configuration I was dealing with. I'd spent hours minimizing and putting in columns, and architects were saying, 'Oh he's a great guy to work with ...'" Here Balmond trails off. As he hit midlife, engineering became empty. He was winning awards for his buildings - the Merrill Lynch headquarters in London, the Carlsberg Brewery in Northampton - but still felt there was something lacking. He was just making "meaningless containers of form." Searching for a connection between form and meaning, Balmond discovered Pythagoras, the geometer-priest of ancient Greece, and James Gleick's book Chaos.
Inspired, Balmond set out to investigate the mathematical composition of fractals, and soon found that the golden ratio - the basis of Greek architecture - was itself fractal, a pattern repeating endlessly on several different scales. It was the start of a renewed fascination with math, especially its more cabalistic aspects. His first book, Number 9, published in 1998, is a novel with a numerology theme. His study is lined with notebooks filled with fractal patterns and magic squares, sketches that he says "help focus my mind." One binder contains sketch after sketch of bending lines, curves crossing over each other - they look a bit like sine waves. He says they served as the inspiration for the curving supports of the Yokohama terminal.
Right now he's drawing, trying to find some inspiration for the Carnegie Science Center. Sheets of paper are flying, each filled with a tube sketch. He eats as he draws, and indicates for Walker and Kergall to help themselves. Balmond is talking and chewing, trying to find an elegant solution for the central space where the tubes meet. Walker shakes his head, saying that "the complexity of the hub is lost."
Balmond is frustrated. He wants the tubes' intersection to create energy, speed, a sense of velocity. "Spin," he says. He draws swooshing whirlpools and circles over the plan, tracing through the space to get a feel for it. "If you spin from a hub, then you're putting structure into it. It will stand independently and face out." Then he pauses. "Stairs!" he pronounces. "We spin the stairs and shoot off around it!" He arrives at a grand spiral staircase, which serves as a structural support and creates the focal point for the entire building.
He takes another bite of sandwich and moves over to dial van Berkel's office on the speakerphone. The receptionist explains twice that van Berkel is in a meeting with clients, but Balmond insists that she put him through. Once on the phone with van Berkel, it takes Balmond about five minutes to work it out that, yes, van Berkel assumed there would be legs and columns underneath the tubes, which Balmond then corrects with his tendril notion. When he suggests a central vortex with a spiraling staircase, van Berkel replies quietly, "That is what I have in mind, but it's not drawn yet."
Later, Balmond explains the pitfalls of his working style. "The problem is about claiming credit for the architecture. For the record, that's architecture," he says, pointing at the plans on the table, "that's Ben van Berkel." Balmond came up with the crossed-tube plan and then worked out a way to make it feasible, but that detail will fade away. "No one will ever know what Balmond did," he says, using the third person. "Part of an engineer's job description is to remain anonymous."
In conversation, Balmond speaks in a quasi-spiritual patois, peppered with phrases like "tuning in" and "it came to me." He exudes a mystical demeanor that must serve him well while working with big architects and their notoriously big egos.
But Balmond has a big ego, too. It nearly landed him in court, thanks to a messy round of accusations and counter-recriminations over Yokohama. FOA won the competition and started attracting press. "But nobody at FOA mentioned me," he complains. Then the firm chose to work with another engineer for the execution phase of the project, saying, among other things, that Ove Arup was too expensive. "This was the worst episode in my career," Balmond explains, looking down. "Here was an idea that frankly transformed their work. I gave it to them and then, goddamn it, they cut me out!" It's the only time I hear him raise his voice. "It became embarrassing," he adds quietly.
Alejandro Polo of FOA explains from Tokyo that the firm had no choice. "The competition copyright is owned by us, so we had to instruct our lawyer to write a letter saying that we will take court action against them. That was the bitter end of a relationship that probably could have been much better."
Charles Jencks points out that attribution is a touchy issue within architecture. "Even as a professional critic, it's very hard to know who to credit. There's the legal issue of copyright as well as the issue of who actually did it." The bottom line, says Jencks, is that "it's hard for an engineer to get the kind of fame architects do. An engineer isn't asked to be a showman. By necessity and positioning, they are like actors asked to play the secondary role, the Rosencrantz or the Guildenstern. There is an inevitable tension: the architect versus the engineer who forgets his place."
This puts Balmond in a tough position with his new book. "How much do you really say?" he asks rhetorically. "If you write yourself in, you've blown the architect away completely, and I can't do that professionally. I've got to give them more credit than they're due. That's part of the game."
But Koolhaas, who has read an early version of the manuscript, doesn't object. "The book's important. We need it to create the sense of being on the same level," he says. It's no blurb. Koolhaas has twice asked Balmond to join him as business partner and creative equal - working as an architect, not as an engineer.
When I ask Philip Johnson who should get the laurels on the Chavasse Park project, he says, "Cecil always needs to have credit. And why not? He deserves it. What he's doing defies categorization. We need to invent a new word for what he does." Yet Balmond is ambivalent about staking his claim. He's afraid of offending Libeskind and doesn't even want to tell him about the book. There is a chapter that covers the fractal tiles that coat Libeskind's V&A Spiral. In the book, Balmond seems chastened - and doesn't take credit for things that, in private, he says are his. He goes to extremes to sound diplomatic, obscuring credit under the umbrella of "we."
The question of credit would be moot if Balmond left Ove Arup to become an architect. Then there would be no questions about authorship. One evening while sitting in his house, I ask him why he hasn't left, why he hasn't taken Koolhaas up on his offers. He tells me a story: When he was young and just starting his 33-year career at Ove Arup, he fell in love with the guitar. "I started playing classical guitar seriously at 22, and by the age of 30, it was too late - you couldn't become a classical professional," he sighs with regret. "So it's like the guitar. By the time I seriously found out what I wanted, I was in my mid-forties. To be an architect - well, maybe I should have thought about that in my twenties. I don't know."
Balmond puts on some Bach but continues talking over the rising strains of the music, his words clipped but perfectly enunciated. "I know there are some problems now, where I lose out on the ideas and they get taken and appropriated, but I have something deeper than the idea. They take the shape, maybe, but I've got something ahead of them, because structure for me is about the connection of ideas. I want to blaze a new path in the philosophy of structure. That's a bigger agenda than architecture, and I guess that's where I am."
The issue I concern, replace you drawing somthing on a screen asking a craftman to translate it uses today per fact a lot of paper.
Is that bundle able to feed the mashines or do you have the codes translated , ------- if anyone is not producing anything then why is most just transcript, beside what's wrong with a simple process, producing exactly what you ordered ,in actural building frames.
I say ,there you are right that as this is different, it must have a bunch of ignorant engineers just hating it. Now I say I master some few skills, I could do these boats without even drawing, but realy who is the fool the ignorant or the brave, the one who show you the actural lead, or the one you emagine tell what you even say you don't understand, then how can you then talk against it.
My cheap houses make no social warmth, but maby your brother one day, would just love a quality tumble safe house, with access to original spare parts whenever in the future, --- as soon as you replace your stone adge Romans.
Now I do belive in democrazy I think it is wierd , these greeks made it possiv´ble to be a svede in denmark ,--- guess you know we danes understand them even what they are speaking.
You obviously don't you jokers ,but I tell you that Demokrati as spelled in danish, work perfect with nice inviroments and safe spaces. Speaking architecture is making your percenteage in this group it's said that Demokrati stink and work no where, where a new digital technology can provide a tool, even for clay bricks why don't you think 3D-HoneyComb can not provide shelter ,well it bring a new tool, bad it don't already go direct link producing the actural building element at low cost but in a new technike that will act more chalancing than bending or fiddeling ; mark this, real craftmen don't like fiddeling it's no art just going without direction, pastice.
You who dig your crafts from bellow, don't you think toilet paper would be a hell in hell. ---- anyway let me make this the question to both Frensh and abrakadabra and all others who refuse their eyes ; go do a just as challancing subject such as 3D-HoneyComb , you chicken go out prove your words --- do a toilet paper that will work in hell, with your plesant design skills, this must be a minor, but let's measure it with providing the actural thing in say 10 millimeter steel.
A lion shaped building that will last 500 years and alway's will find original building parts, this time maby crome plated gold .
Poor Romans the treasure are right before you, you even produced it yourself, but you don't want your brother to have a safe house ,no I don't even talk about cost or explotation of an exiting technike.
But as the academics work today, as when I frequtented the creative center og the arts school no one wanted future and hopefully no more jobs.
Still I belive in it and even you already done your best, then as you nothing have put up, being a direct link method (not some scrambled acturly lumping rigid steel beam sale) but a geniune simple as called workable and promising, I never asked neutral oppinions from the engineers I seem to frighten with my concept of total options performing any shape cube structure , this work you Romans even yourself develobed the foundations for making a building as a building frame assembly , still arts is a hounted profesion and no one ever show some real brilliance, in the west anyway.
Times never was for bright innovative aproaches, no real wish for progress and exiting understandable new technologies . This is an arear of great ignorance and I do my best, but that is based in problem solving, not social games . The problems you clever buisnessmen never discovered ,is how simple things already work we build from clay and straw ,the architect programs do not in real generate the actural structure of the design , nomatter you made it invisible or added some flavor ilumination, ------ now wouldn't it then planning the electrics, to have a basic cube grid ,distribuating aux air water whatever , ok you can dig it in the mountain but then it will never be a wonder, a wonder ask vision .
Now I alway's prefered wonders here and now, that's how 3D-HoneyComb was found, I needed somthing decent, to replace what I never for real would master, as tradisional are slow, digital is not.
Now beside Demokrati there are other things I obviously belive where you do not. You simply hate artists people that is different different from what, your emagination . Yes, so instead of seing the exact measured tol, to provide schools and somthing to teach, somthing that is math. Now would you belive that math in a brand new way will make cheap strong houses, with a better life span and creating new jobs ,would be good or bad ?
Ok but even you seem to disagrea, I think that showing some decenty atleast display you as a human being, not one of those from bellow,
Now even about fire safety we disagrea ,how could that relate Demokrati I do not know ; I seriously think houses shuld be made safem they shuld not kill you with the first small fire, --- but you disagrea about this also ---- now soon my question will be, that when we can't use technology as demokrati is not more important than the expertations of just one person deciding all .
Now this you call Demokrati, but Anyway architects must stay with fewer jobs, constructores with fewer projects now is that progress Romans ?
Is it progress walking backverts ?
Wouldn't it be better to repair those gates before hell and then realise that you get exactly what you emagine, my point just is isn't that a boring occupation vasting your life just doing poison , Ok Im'e a beliver you jokers are not and it seem you can't get hell bad enough now try some chicken work, do a better direct link method better than 3D-HoneyComb, one that work is not stolen so bad, cheaper and most important spark a new 3D technology ------ Oh sorry technology must not be simple this is what you protest ; if it is not difficult and hard to maneage it is not what you want as you never knew better.
Now words are good or bad buildings is structures spaces is an artifitial issue ,you can't be pleased if you never even seen a gain of the settled Lego mind "design tools", not when design is shaping the manufactoring process ,but that must not be simple either, it must be as you expect all computer works ; difficult and dull. You dismiss a method that provide better than you expect ,then you rather want to discuss what you call politics bored all over the web spaces you invoke.
Then as we disagrea on so many things ,you for instance don't ask honesty and expect to be able to just stand upright, open your big fat mouth and fried chicken will fly past ,you just open your mouth -- isn't this how you Romans think pyramides work ,well take it from a profesional these pyramides are worthless ,they are the vorse structures to enter but easy to ecape, they are worthless from an architectural point of view. Beside they must be cast as othervise you shuld have bilions of square flat surface ,just try rock a block in a corner all those tonn, it is simply impossibel no, one block was ofcaurse cast against the one before, they are same color as the sand around.
Now you even feel more atracted to that, than exploiding a new media, one that in an instant bring you a small house but ofcaurse ask that you understand the technike --- now what would you think about a guy banging in a nail with an apple. Now I bet you jokers want to persave yourself, that architecture don't need to be beautifull, you want stoneadge tools and not a promise of heaven you do not belive in peace and buisness ,As it unfold in this tread ,as you know social games is not on my mind they will not bring the new technology but if you are chicken you don't even need to think about the future, if ontop you don't have children and you as architect don't have an image of what will provide, why do you then want to interfear with fragile new technology ----- yes new things never had an easy time, But knowing my skills as writer, I rather stay away from hell ink not display a twisted picture of my deepest wish , to reinfrce you to produce 4 times stronger plane fuselages, earthquake safe houses, buildings that will rebuild from scratch , now where on that plotter paper do you se this. Better be prepared to build those gates before hell , maby that is the only thing that bring you to heaven.
Hell, you too have a hell untill hopefully never more, your sincerely
Hi
Beta no can't you se this guy could be svedish or english I don't call anyone a lier I wish I could do it myself, but Im'e just an honest guy, maby it is difficult to understand, but true, dinosauers grow great they are huge , but I wonder why anyone would deal with dinusaure instead of nice houses, but this just show how crule the world is.
Molecular surfaces are widely used for characterizing molecules and displaying and quantifying their interaction properties. Here we consider molecular surfaces defined as iso-contours of a function (a sum of exponential functions centred on each atom) that approximately represents electron density. The smoothness is advantageous for surface mapping of molecular properties (e.g. electrostatic potential). By varying parameters, these surfaces can be constructed to represent the van der Waals or solvent accessible surface of a molecule with any accuracy.
We describe numerical algorithms to operate on the analytically defined surfaces. Two applications are considered. (1) We define and locate extremal points of molecular properties on the surfaces. The extremal points provide a compact representation of a property on a surface obviating the necessity to compute values of the property on an array of surface points as is usually done. (2) A molecular surface patch or interface is projected onto a flat surface (by introducing curvilinear coordinates) with approximate conservation of area for analysis purposes. Applications to studies of protein-protein interactions are described.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents ( in one page )
Introduction
Distance to the surface
Operation on the surface
Finding potential extrema
Projections of molecular surfaces and interfaces
Example of interface analysis
Accuracy of area values
The program
Conclusions
Introduction
The surface of a molecule bears information about how it interacts with other molecules and its solvent. As the surface of a molecule is not a quantity for which a unique physico-chemical definition exists, several definitions have been introduced. Those most commonly used are:
The probe or solvent accessible surface, i.e. the boundary of the region where the centres of the atoms of other molecules with the radius of the probe are allowed to be placed (see Lee and Richards). The solvent accessible areas and volumes of molecules may be used to quantify their interaction with the solvent (see Eisenberg and McLachlan).
The probe excluded molecular surface, which is drawn on the surface of the probe as it is rolled over the molecule (Richards). It highlights the region belonging to the molecule alone; namely, no part of the probe is allowed to be inside the molecular surface. It may be calculated by construction of a dot surface (Richards) or analytically (Connolly).
The van der Waals surface of the molecule dependent only on the atomic radii and coordinates of the atoms in the molecule. It is equivalent to a molecular surface computed with a probe of zero radius.
The analytical molecular surface is smoother than the van der Waals surface and this facilitiates its analysis. However, its primary importance is not its smoothness but that it gives a different description of the molecular interior from the van der Waals surface, since the cavities inside the molecule which are not accessible to the solvent probe appear to belong to the molecule's interior.
The properties of a molecule are usually displayed on its surface by assigning values to points on the surface - all but a minority of which will be on the surface of a single atom and thus possess the properties of that atom. The points can be displayed on a graphical device or used for computational analysis. The analysis of surface properties is usually based on visual inspection for which points are coloured or assigned sizes corresponding to the value of a property. Solid rendering, such as exemplified by the GRASP program of Nicholls, can be used to enhance visual quality. There are several algorithms allowing automation of surface analysis. We mention two by way of example: a) The fully automated detection of clusters of surface points with like properties in order to specify hydrophobic patches on protein surfaces by Lijnzaad et al. b) Location of knobs and holes on a protein surface using a geometric hashing algorithm applied to coordinates derived from a dot representation of the molecular surface by Fischer et al. A reasonably accurate representation of a molecular surface requires 10-30 points per , generating 100,000-300,000 points per surface for medium-sized proteins. While the scanning of all surface points is fast, considerable computational effort is necessary to establish the connectivity (neighbourhood) of the points. Operations with dot surfaces can, however, be made extremely efficient by avoiding time consuming distance checks (see Eisenhaber et al ).
An alternative description of a molecular surface, which is analogous to the van der Waals surface, may be derived from a Gaussian description of the molecule (Duncan and Olson). It is defined using the approximate electron density distribution:
,
representing the contribution from each atom i of the molecule with different weighting factors and taking into account the different sizes of the atoms. This form of representation is rather arbitrary and exponential functions such as:
,
would give a more correct description of the asymptotic behavior of electron density. Advantage of Gaussian surface description is that it may describe the fuzziness of molecular surfaces due to high frequency atomic vibrations (see Agishtein).
The volumetric properties of the Gaussian molecular representation have been compared to those of other surfaces by Duncan and Olson and Grant and Pickup. They found that a Gaussian representation could reproduce area and volume quantitites computed using a hard-sphere model. The Gaussian representation is exploited to locate specific regions on molecular surfaces in the SURFNET program of Laskowski. Physically, the Gaussian representation provides a much more natural and realistic description of the shape of molecules than the atomic hard sphere representation. Another advantage is its continuity which allows straight-forward analytical estimation of the derivatives of surface dependent properties, in contrast to the computational difficulties of dealing with the discontinuous hard sphere representation.
In this study, we use a related, exponential, density function to construct molecular surfaces. It differs from previous uses of Gaussian functions in the following respects:
a) The function is constructed to define molecular surfaces rather than the molecular interior. We intentionally study the surfaces directly, since quantization and numerical operations on the 2D surface require considerably fewer operations and memory than operations on the 3D density function itself.
b) Surfaces similar to the solvent accessible surface of the molecule can be derived as well as those corresponding to its van der Waals surface. The solvent accessible surface is easier to treat analytically because of its relative simplicity.
c) The parameters of the density function are assigned to define the degree of smoothing of a hard-sphere surface. These parameters are related to electron density parameters to the extent that the hard-sphere model reflects the electron density.
The starting point for this study is the analytical definition of the surface approximating the solvent accessible or van der Waals surface. The surface is defined implicitly using the functional of the distance to it (simply, distance=0). Using this functional, one can make a numerically fast and stable projection to the surface on which one can place a set of approximately equally spaced points with obvious connectivity. The latter may be used to build a grid of quasi-curvilinear coordinates on the surface. We describe two important applications of these surfaces.
The first application is to couple a potential function to the surface so that the potential function appears to be defined on the molecular surface. Then it has meaningful extrema separated from singularities at sources of the potential or asymptotic values at infinity. These extrema are the most concise representation of the potential function.
The second application is the mapping of part of the surface or a molecular interface to a flat rectangle. The mapping allows the projection of the surface from 3D to 2D with conservation of neighbourhood and reasonably small distortions. Although the mapping algorithm used may give rise to overlaps when the distance conservation requirement is strong, overlaps decrease as this requirement is weakened. The mapping algorithm is particularly suitable for analyzing the solvent accessible surface of a molecule, and can be used for the van der Waals surface although interpretation is more difficult as overlap is more of a problem. Interfaces between molecules can be mapped reasonably in the majority of cases.
Distance to the surface
Let us define an exponential parametric function g(r,A;d) associated with atom A, whose center is positioned at and which has a radius . The parametric function depends on coordinate r and adjustable parameter d :
.
While other functional forms may be equally appropriate, we will only consider the above exponential function. A simple manipulation gives the exact value of the distance to the surface of the atom A, :
,
which is independent of the parameter d. Assignment of zero atom radius would give the distance to the atom center.
Now, let us consider a molecule M comprised of atoms , i=1,2,...,N, with radii and coordinates . One can define the exponential parametric function for a molecule as a sum of those for every atom:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1a)
Then, the distance functional is:
. . . . . . . . . . (1b)
This definition is formally equivalent to an isocontour value of the sum in (1a), but is easier to handle numerically.
At any point, r, the major contribution to the sum in (1a) will be from the closest atom. Thus, the distance, , derived from G(r,M;d) will largely reflect the distance to the closest atom, (as the distance to a collection of atoms should do according to molecular surface ideology). Variation of the parameter d changes the relative contribution of the close atoms to the sum. As d is decreased, the number of contributing atoms decreases and, when d=0, only the closest atom contributes.
Depending on which radii are ascribed to the atoms, one obtains the distances to different surfaces: a) if all are atomic van der Waals radii, then =0 defines an approximation to the van der Waals surface; b) if all are van der Waals radii of atoms incremented by a solvent probe radius, then the solvent accessible surface is approximated.
The choice of the value of the parameter d should be related to the characteristic interatomic distances. At any given point on the surface, the relative contributions to the sum in equation (1b) arising from the the closest atom and the next closest atom can be compared. Considering a typical interatomic distance of 1.5 Ã… between these atoms, the contribution to the sum from the second atom will be 0.05 and 0.22 times that of the closest atom for values of d of 0.5 and 1.0 Ã…, respectively. Consequently, considering only the two closest atoms, the =0 surface will follow the van der Waals or solvent accessible surface with a deviation of only 0.025 Ã… at d=0.5 Ã… or 0.2 Ã… at d= 1.0 Ã…. If the geometrical positions of the atoms is different that from described above, or more atoms are considered, the distortion may be much greater. Figures 01-04 illustrate the dependence of the computed surfaces on the parameter d for the human growth factor hormone.
Figure 01: Contours on the solvent accessible surface of human growth factor (hGH) computed with d =1.0 Ã…. There are 6911 points at the surface. The solvent accessible surface area, computed from the hard-sphere representation is 9785 .
Figure 02: Contours on the solvent accessible surface of human growth factor (hGH) computed with d =0.5 Ã…. There are 7497 points at the surface.
Figure 03: Planar section through the same molecule, hGH, showing contours corresponding to van der Waals surfaces at d =1.0, 0.50 and 0.25 Ã…. The contour with d =0.5Ã… essentially shows all the details of the molecular surface except the cavities within the molecule. At d<0.25 Ã… the contours are not of closed form, making continuous tracing of the surface impossible.
Figure 04 shows contours on the same cross-section plane as in Figure 03 for solvent accessible surfaces computed with four values of d. Note that surfaces computed with d<0.25 Ã… are almost indistinguishable.
The surface of molecule M is thus defined by =0. To define the interface between two molecules, M1 and M2, the definition of the distance to the molecular surface given in (1b) can be used in:
=
where the distances and are the distances to the surfaces of the first and second molecules, respectively. The parameters in the definition of the distance functional (1b) can be modified to obtain different interfaces defined as equidistant to molecular surfaces using atomic radii or defined as equidistant to the closest atoms by setting all radii to zero.
Operations on the surface
The performance of some of the operations to be described below depends on the value assigned to the parameter d, defining the closeness of the computed surface to a hard-sphere surface. Except for the first two, which are performable at any d, mapping of the surface can usually (for proteins) be done only at d >0.5 Ã… when the surface is smooth enough to keep the mapping operations stable. Improvement of the algorithms may, however, enable mapping of the more complicated surfaces obtained at smaller d.
a. Placing a point on the surface
The surface is defined implicitly and is smooth. The basic operation for moving from any given point to the point on the surface is projection to the surface along the gradient of the distance function (1b). Projection is performed iteratively with a step size equal to the distance to the surface.
b. Motions along the surface
Motions along the surface from any point can be done using the surface tangents. The choice of the functional (1b) makes the higher order derivatives small, so the tangent movements can be corrected by a few iterations (typically 1-2, when the deviations from the surface are less than 1 Ã…), when the step size of the tangent motion is within 1-3Ã…. Consequently, the move along the surface costs several computations of sums like that in (1b) (the functional itself and its 3 first derivatives are computed at each iteration). Computation of the sum (1b) scales as the number of atoms: the same number of motions wll cost only twice as much when the molecule size is doubled.
c. Mapping part of a surface
Locally, the molecular surface resembles a Euclidean rectangle (being topologically equivalent to it). One can define pseudo-Euclidean coordinates on an interesting part of the surface. It is natural to introduce polar coordinates, starting from some specific point on the surface. This can be achieved by growing up rings of points starting from a given center. A variety of algorithms can be used. We introduce the basal distance D to define the distance between the points on the surface. Each ring of points is constructed at this distance from the previous one and then projected onto the surface. The points on each newly constructed ring are then checked, one after the other, to see if the distance to the next point is less than 0.75D, in which case this next point is eliminated, or larger than 1.7D, in which case one more point is added. An example of a set of points resulting from applying this procedure is shown in Figure 05. This method is similar to that used by Bacon and Moult, who introduced web coordinates on molecular surface patches by fitting the precomputed surface points by B-splines and constructing a self-growing web. We use the ring construction algorithm to map the interfaces between two molecules. If D=1 Ã…, the algorithm places ca. 1 point per 1.225 of the surface.
Figure 05: Example of a set of points resulting from the mapping procedure.
d. Scanning the whole molecular surface
To represent the molecular surface as a whole, one needs a representative set of points on the surface that cover the entire surface as uniformly as possible. The simplest solution is to project every atom center in the molecule onto the closest point on the surface. A drawback of this procedure is that the set of points on the surface cannot be made more dense unless a check over all surface point pairs is done because the points are not ordered according to proximity. It is just such computationally intensive searching that we wish to avoid. An alternative procedure is to use the algorithm described above in section (c) to map the entire molecular surface. For relatively spherical molecular surfaces, the growing rings may eventually contract to a point on the other side of the molecular surface from that at which growing was started, thus defining the spherical coordinates. These mapped coordinates may be used to locate every point on the surface. Making a more dense representation is straightforward since the set of points is ordered. Examples are presented in Figures 01 and 02 where this algorithm was used to cover the solvent accessible surface of the molecule by a sequence of rings.
Finding Potential Extrema
Potentials representing diverse properties, for example, electrostatic potential, lipophilicity, hydrophobicity, or the curvature of the surface itself, can be studied. In order to locate the potential's extrema on the surface, the formalism of Lagrange multipliers is used and the equations are solved by Newton's method (see, for example, Korn and Korn). For this, it is necessary to compute the first and second derivatives of the potential and the distance functional. These can be computed analytically if the potential and its gradient are smooth.
Figure 06 shows an example of the characterization of a potential on a molecule's surface by its extremal points. The circles are drawn to show the sizes (derived from the second derivative) of the minima and maxima along the surface tangent plane. Saddle points are shown as lines along the two main directions, defining the steepest increase and decrease of the potential. Surprisingly, the potential at the (smoothed with d = 1 Ã…) 1.4 Ã… probe accessible surface of the molecule is not extremely complicated, having only 50-100 extremal points in all. These points can be used as a minimal representation to restore the potential and to compare molecules. For instance, many molecular properties correlate with the properties of its electrostatic potential as described, for example, by Murray et al and Richard.
Figure 06: Minima, maxima and saddle points of the electrostatic potential on the smoothed solvent accessible surface (shown by yellow contours) of hGH. Red circles shows the position and extension of minima (which, in this example, all have a negative value of the potential), blue circles show the maxima, and green crosses show the saddle points of the potential on the surface.
Projections of molecular surfaces and interfaces
Surfaces are usually defined as a set of points that is visualized with the aid of graphical programs and analysed by eye. The automation of the procedure would not only save time spent in analysis, but would also avoid possible errors resulting from the subjective nature of the manual analysis procedure. The projection of two different surfaces onto one simple surface is necessary for the comparison of these surfaces (see review by Masek ). A natural solution is to project the surface onto a plane where it can be quantified in a straightforward manner. However, simple projection of the entire molecular surface encounters a topological problem (met already in mapping the surface of the earth), since a closed surface can at best be projected onto a sphere rather than a plane without destroying the connectivities between points. A beautiful solution to this problem for small molecules was suggested by Gasteiger et al, who used Kohonen maps to project the surface onto a torus conserving neighbourhood.
For projecting the surface onto a sphere, the gnomonic projection (see Chau and Dean) provides the simplest solution. The surface is placed within the sphere and then projected along the radials of the sphere. The feasibility of approximately conserving distances between points on the surface upon projection is highly dependent on the relative orientations of the sphere and surface and distance conservation will not be uniform over the surface. Moreover, two points will often be projected onto one, resulting in loss of information. A projection that avoids overlaps is the spherical harmonics representation developed by Duncan and Olson in which a special procedure eliminates overlaps resulting from the gnomonic projection.
The solution proposed in this work is based on the analytical definition of molecular surfaces and the algorithm of growing rings, which builds up quasi-polar coordinates on the surface. This construction may overlap onto itself, causing the duplicate projection of some regions of the surface. The duplication problem is inevitable as can be appreciated from imagining covering an irregular surface with a piece of paper. The duplicate covering can obviously not be completely avoided except in the case of a planar surface. However, most of the duplications can be avoided by weakening the requirement of distance conservation, in an analogous way to covering the surface with a piece of stretch film rather than paper. Depending on the curvature of the surface, this will cause different degrees of distortion. On the other hand, overlaps caused by topological differences between the original and projection surfaces should be handled either by projecting onto an appropriate simple surface or by additional description, for example, specifying the equivalence of opposite borders of a rectangle to which a torus has been projected.
Once the surface has been covered by a set of rings, the m-th point of the n-th ring can be projected onto a point (x,y) on the plane using the following formulae:
, where M is the number of points in the n-th ring.
As a result various properties on the surface or interface are transferred to an appropriate Euclidian rectangle.
Figures 01 and 02 show surfaces mapped avoiding duplications. A correction of the procedure described in section (d) above avoids local sources of duplication, so that the growing rings eventually evolve to a point on the other side of the molecule. The ring numbering can serve as a latitude and the length parameter along each ring as a longitude. This provides a means by which to automatically introduce spherical coordinates for a molecular surface.
(For best viewing of this section, the width of the page should be equal to the width of the bar below.)
By way of illustration, we provide a new view (in Figures 07-13) of the hGH-hGH receptor interfaces analysed by Clackson and Wells. The available crystal structure consists of the ternary complex of one hGH molecule bound to two identical receptors: hGHR1 and hGHR2. Binding at the first interface, hGH-hGHR1, is high affinity while that at the second interface, hGH-hGHR2, is low affinity. The buried areas on the hGH-hGHR1 and hGH-hGHR2 interfaces are 1300 and 900 , respectively. The two binding surfaces of hGH differ in sequence while the binding surfaces of the two receptors are similar (but not identical) both spatially and in terms of the residues involved.
The pictures below are the links to stereo images of: a) the ribbon representation of the complex; b) the complex together with 2 interfaces; c) hGHR2 and hGH and interface; d) hGHR1 and hGH and interface.
For the mapped interfaces shown in Figures 07-13, the areas in the maps approximately equal the areas on the interface in 3D. The scale is such that each map has dimensions of about 60 Ã… by 60 Ã…, and the tick marks are positioned at approximately every 1 Ã…. The contour plots of 2 dimensional functions on a reactangle are generated using the program XFarbe.
Figure 07: Mapping displaying the interprotein distances (in Ã…) for the hGH-hGHR2 (left) and hGH-hGHR1 (right) interfaces. The distance is computed at every interface point as a sum of the distances to the closest atoms of the two proteins. The latter distances are derived from the distance functional (1b) with atomic radii set to zero.
Figure 08: Mapping of the residues of hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) onto the hGH-hGHR1 interface coloured by their number. Only the residues projecting onto more than 17 points are coloured.
Figure 09: As figure 08 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Figure 10: Mapping of the hydrophobicity properties (following Eisenberg and McLachlan) of the closest atoms of hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) onto the hGH-hGHR1 interface. Blue regions are hydrophobic, red ones are hydrophilic.
Figure 11: As figure 10 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Figure 12: Mapping of the crystallographic temperature factor distribution (in of the closest atoms of hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) onto the hGH-hGHR1 interface. Red regions are more mobile with temperature factors above 30 ; blue regions are more rigid with temperature factors below 25
Figure 13: As figure 12 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Figure 14: Mapping of the electrostatic potential (in kcal/mole/e) from hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) on the hGH-hGHR1 interface.
Figure 15: As figure 14 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Interfacial cavities and crevices can be identified from Figure 07. Those for which the interprotein distance is greater than about 5 Ã… are large enough to accommodate water molecules. As can be seen from Figures 08 and 09, the interfaces consist of residues from discontiguous parts of the sequences of the proteins. However, there are some continuous stretches of residues at the interfaces, notably, the participation of the D helix and C-terminus of hGH (residues 155-190) in interactions with the hGHR1 is readily seen in Figure 08 (right) as a more ordered region of residues with close numbers. The interface to HGHR1 is, however, not centred on this helix but inbetween two separate secondary structure patterns. On hGHR1, there are three residues that contribute large surface areas to the interface. Tryptophans 104 and 169 contact part of hGH's D helix (residues 155-184) and AB loop (residues 35-71, especially the N-terminal part of the minihelix 2, built of residues 64-70). Asparagine 218 interacts with part of hGH's A helix (residues 9-34). Experimentally it has been shown that the high affinity of the hGH:hGHR1 complex is due to the contribution of a "hot spot" on the hGHR1 receptor consisting of a small number of hydrophobic residues, including W104 and W169 (Clackson and Wells). The hydrophobic patch at the interface created by these residues is clearly visible in Figure 10. It is the largest continuous hydrophobic patch on the interface. It satisfies the description of the binding epitope as consisting of a hydrophobic center surrounded by polar moieties. An equivalent patch, due also to W104 and W169, is observed on the hGHR2 in the second (lower affinity) interface, but it differs in shape and in the arrangement of the polar residues around it. The second patch on the hGHR1 interface (formed mainly by N218 of hGHR1) also has a large buried area. However, it contributes much less to the binding energy, as revealed by mutational analysis (see Clackson and Wells ). It can be seen from Figure 12, that this patch has less hydrophobic complimentarity, being composed of hydrophilic residues of hGHR1. Moreover, it is rather mobile unlike the first patch. It is interesting that it is the mobility rather than hydrophobicity that clearly distinguishs the first patch from the second (see Figure 12 vs Figure 10) implying that the interactions between less mobile residues define the binding free energy of these two proteins. The residues forming the second patch of the interface to hGHR1 have much smaller interfacial areas on the interface to hGHR2.
The electrostatic potentials of the two proteins show a high degree of complimentarity at the interface, as can be seen from Figures 14 and 15, where regions of positive (negative) potential from one protein match regions of negative (positive) potential from the other. The electrostatic potentials were computed with UHBD. The potentials of the hormone at the two binding interfaces are similar. This is seen by comparing the right sides of Figures 14 and 15 taking into account the different transformations applied during projection: in both cases, the potential of the hormone consists of patches in the sequence: negative-positive-negative-positive (from the left to the right).
Figure 16 shows the similarity index for the potentials from hGHR1 and hGH plotted on every interface point, as well as a simple product of the two potentials. To compute the potentials used in Figure 16, the polar hydrogen atoms were simply added to the crystal structure with the HBUILD option in QUANTA. As can be seen from Figure 16, the complimentarity of the two potentials (given by negative values of the similarity index) is not uniformly distributed over the interface. There are at least 4 regions where the potentials from the 2 molecules are in conflict having the same sign and having considerable absolute values (see the right-side panel of Figure 16). To evaluate whether these result from assignment of poor hydrogen atom positions, we energy minimized the hydrogen atoms (fixing all heavy atoms) with QUANTA/CHARMM for 150 steps of steepest descent minimization. Figure 17 shows the same properties as Figure 16 for the resulting conformation.
Figure 16: Similarity index (known as Hodgkin index) as a function of the interface point (left) and the product (right) of the two molecular potentials for the hGH-hGHR1 interface. Namely, given the potentials from molecule 1, , and molecule 2, , at the point r of the interface, the function shown on the left-side is and on the right: . There are 4 clickable regions (A, B ,C and D) for which 3D stereo images available.
Figure 17: As Figure 16 but for the energy minimized conformation of the hGH-hGHR1 complex.
As a result of minimization, one highly non-complementary patch (B) disappeared. The other non-complementarity patches, however, remain. The conformational changes due to minimization are rather small, as can be seen by clicking on the marked patches of non-complimentarity in Figure 16 - they have links to 3D stereo images of conformations before (coloured by atom type) and after (coloured green) minimization. The receptor (hGHR1) is always drawn on the left side of the interface (yellow). Non-complimentarity in region B is removed by a conformational change in Threonine 175 of hGH, the added hydroxyl hydrogen atom of which was in obvious conflict with the side chain atoms of Arginine 43 of hGHR1. The small non-complimentarity in region A is not affected by minimization. Non-complimentarity in region D is reduced, but this is not only due to minimization: we also interchanged the NE and OE atoms of the side chain of Glutamine 46 of hGH, which, as a result, has a favourable electrostatic interaction with Glutamate 120 and Threonine 77 of the hGHR1. The interactions in region C are very complicated and remained essentially unoptimized after minimization. It is interesting that there is a correlation between electrostatically non-complimentary regions, mobile regions and the regions having a small contribution to binding.
In summary, this example shows the different features contributing to binding. The "hot spot" is a particularly rigid (blue spot in Figure 12 ) hydrophobic (blue spot in Figure 10 and white spot on the right-side panel of Figure 17 ) region of high shape complimentarity (red spot in the right side panel of Figure 07 ) involving 2 Tryptophans ( Figure 08 ) surrounded by polar residues in highly complimentary positions (best seen in Figure 17 ).
Accuracy of area values
There is approximate area conservation during the mapping procedure. When the reference distance for ring generation is D=1Ã…, approximately one point is placed per 1.225 . However the distribution of the points is not uniform. Projection of the surface rings to the rings of the polar coordinates on a planar rectangle further distorts the areas.
We repeated the mapping for the two interfaces for hGH binding to hGHR1 and hGHR2 using different starting points. In both cases, the interface remains the same since its definition is independent of mapping. Distortions occur when the surface is projected onto the planar square and these distortions are related to the position of the interface with respect to the center/starting point. There is no strict correlation between the distance to the chosen center and the distortions, although the area around the center will always be less distorted. Mapping with different centers is a good test of area conserving properties. Figure 18 shows the correlation between the areas assigned to every residue of both proteins at both interfaces during two different mappings. Deviations are within either the absolute limit of points or the relative limit of These deviations depend mainly on the surface curvature which defines the degree of distortion.
Figure 18. Correlation between areas assigned to residues at the hGH-hGHR1 and hGH-hGHR2 interfaces when mapping is started at points separated by 2 Ã… QQ An absolute tolerance limit of is shown in red and a relative tolerance limit of is shown in blue. The scale is logarithmic.
The distortions above are introduced by the projection procedure. However, the placing of the points on the interface or surface is also subject to error. These distortions can be quantified by relating the accessibility of each residue to the number of surface points generated on the analytical surface which are closer to this residue than any other (see Figure 19). There are two sources for deviations. The first is caused by the deviation of the analytical smooth surface from the hard-sphere surface used to compute residue accessibilities. The second is defined by the algorithm generating the points on the surface, which is designed to generate non-intersecting rings that evolve to a single point when mapping of the surface is complete. As can be seen in Figure 19, although the upper estimate of the error for the surface shown in Figure 02 is 22 , for the majority of residues the number of surface points per residue correlates much better (with a scaling factor of 1.25) with the residue accessibilities. The scaling factor arises because the surface was constructed so that there is on average 1 point per 1.225 .
Figure 19. Correlation between the number of surface points per residue on the surface shown in Figure 02 for hGH and residue accessibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program
The illustrations above are generated by a 4-step protocol using the ADS (Analytically Defined molecular Surfaces) program package. In the first step, rings of points are constructed on the interface using a program which maps the surface of the molecule. In the second step, the required properties are assigned to the points on the surface. In the third step, the surface rings are projected onto a rectangle, producing data files to be used in the fourth step, which is to display the properties and plot the pictures. Output data files are readable by the X-window oriented program XFarbe of Preusser, which is used to make a contour representation of the functions on a rectangle. Computer times necessary to perform the manipulations (which have not yet been optimized for speed) are within 2-5 minutes on an SGI Indy RC 4600 workstation for proteins having ca 1500 atoms.
The source codes (in fortran 77) of the ADS program package are currently under development and it is intended that they will be made available upon request.
Check the latest status of ADS development at ADS home page.
Conclusions
We have introduced an analytical definition of smooth molecular surfaces as isocontours of the sum of exponential functions centered on atoms. Depending on the smoothing parameter, the analytically defined surfaces can approximate van der Waals or solvent accessible surfaces of a molecule with any desired accuracy. We constructed a distance functional to make the implicit definition of the surface easy to use numerically. Moreover, the interface between two molecules may be defined using this definition of distance to the molecules.
We exploited the main property of these surfaces, their smoothness, in order a) to couple potential functions to a surface and locate extremal points of the potential on the surface by gradient methods; b) to define pseudo-Euclidean (on part of the surface) or pseudo-spherical (on the whole surface) coordinates on the surface; c) to define pseudo-Euclidean coordinates on the interface between two molecules. These representations are useful to visualize and study molecular surfaces and interfaces.
The main advantage of these representations is that their complexity or simplicity can be tuned by the user. This attribute is especially important for analysing the many properties of protein surfaces and interfaces.
References
Agishtein, M.E. Fuzzy molecular surfaces. J. Biomol. Str. & Dynamics., 1992, 9, 759-768.
Bacon D.J. and J. Moult. Docking by least-squares fitting of molecular surface patterns. J. Mol. Biol., 1992, 225, 849-858.
Chau P.L. and P.M. Dean. Molecular recognition: 3D surface structure comparison by gnomonic projection. J. Mol. Graphics, 1987, 5, 97-100.
Connolly, M. L. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science, 1983, 221, 709-713.
Clackson T., J.A.Wells. A hot spot of binding energy in a hormone-receptor interface. Science, 1995, 267, 383-386.
de Vos A.M., M. Ultsch, A.A. Kossiakoff. Human growth hormone and extracellular domain of its receptor: Crystal structure of the complex. Science, 255, 306-312.
PDB entry 3hhr.brk, notations hGH, hGHR1 and hGHR2 are used for chains A, B and C, respectively.
Duncan, B., and A. J. Olson. Approximation and characterization of molecular surfaces. Biopolymers, 1993, 33, 219-229.
Duncan, B., and A. J. Olson. Shape analysis of molecular surfaces. Biopolymers, 1993, 33, 231-238.
Eisenberg., D., A.D. McLachlan. Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature , 1986, 319 , 199-203.
Eisenhaber, F., P. Lijnzaad, P. Argos, C. Sander, and M. Scharf. The double cubic lattice method: efficient approaches to numerical integration of surface area and volume and to dot surface contouring of molecular assemblies. J. Comp. Chem., 1995, 16, 273-284.
Fischer D., R. Norel, H. Wolfson, R. Nussinov. Surface motifs by a computer vision technique: searches, detection, and implications for protein-ligand recognition. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 1993, 16, 278-292.
Gasteiger, J., X. Li, C. Rudolph, J. Sadowski, and J. Zupan. 1994. Representation of molecular electrostatic potentials by topological feature maps. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116, 4608-4620.
Gasteiger, J., X. Li, and A. Uschold. The beauty of molecular surfaces as revealed by self organizing neural networks. J. Mol. Graphics., 1994, 12, 90-97.
Grant, J. A., and B. T. Pickup. A gaussian description of the molecular shape. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 3503-3510.
Hodgkin, E.E. and W.G. Richards. Molecular similarity based on electrostatic potential and electric field. Int. J. Quantum Chemistry. Quantum Biol. Symp., 1987, 14, 105-110.
Korn G.A., T.M. Korn. Mathematical handbook for scientists and engineers. 1961. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Laskowski, R. A. SURFNET: A program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. J. Mol. Graphics, 1995, 13, 323-330.
Lee, B., F.M. Richards. The interpretation of protein structures: Estimation of static accessibility. J. Mol. Biol., 1971, 55 , 379-400.
Lijnzaad P., H.J.C. Berendsen, P.Argos. Hydrophobic patches on the surfaces of protein structures. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 1996, 25, 389-397.
Madura, J.D., J.M. Briggs, R.C. Wade, M.E. Davis, B.A. Luty, A. Ilin, J. Antosieeicz, M.K. Gilson, B. Bagheri, L.R. Scott, and J.A. McCammon. Electrostatics and diffusion of molecules in solutions: simulations with the University of Houston Brownian Dynamics Program. Comp. Phys. Comm., 1995, 91, 57-95.
Masek B.B. Molecular surface comparisons. In: Molecular similarity in drug design , edited by P.M. Dean, Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, 1995, 163-186.
Murray, J. S., T. Brinck, and P. Politizer. Relationships of molecular surface electrostatic potentials to some macroscopic properties. Chem. Phys., 1996, 204, 289-299.
Nicholls, A., R. Bharadwaj, and B.Honig. GRASP: Graphical representation and analysis of molecular surfaces. Biophys. J. 1993, 64 , A166
Preusser, A. Algorithm 671 - FARB-E-2D: Fill area with bicubics on reactangles - A contour plot program. ACM Trans.Math.Soft., 1989, 15, 79-89. On-line description of the program is also available.
QUANTA molecular modeling software package. 1992. Molecular Simulations, Inc. Waltham, MA.
Richard, A. M. Quantitative comparison of molecular electrostatic potentials for structure-activity studies. J. Comp. Chem. 1991, 12, 959-969.
Richards F.M. Areas, volumes, packing, and protein structure. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng., 1977, 6, 151-176.
This is how science, math, and chemistry, etc. is communicated.
Not "I rather stay away from hell ink not display a twisted picture of my deepest wish , to reinfrce you to produce 4 times stronger plane fuselages, earthquake safe houses, buildings that will rebuild from scratch , now where on that plotter paper do you se this"
If it were not for your lost rants maybe you could see this.
What you do is fine otherwise.
How can we impart some sense to your way Per, otherwise...
I ask again, where is my darn delete thread button?
In some treads some scripts aome fora, you have the option to edit your own posts , but wouldn't a tread be a wierd piece of poetry if the context can change , Now if what you ask is knowleage of sort of digital Turette that's how I se the tread the result I reconise some but even I have some knowleage having an autistic child I say that you seem to much aware of it for me to help, beside just that it is natural for you to harras others, don't justify it.
Some even use their Turette as exchouse to do social things that can be exchoused " oh that's his Turette he didn't do it by porpus" , now how can you help when the Turette is not the issue the reson you look for that button is proberly uncountious ,you know the ansver but will not realise fact, --- Shuld that be so difficult to change, it just ask a bit guts.
That's the short coming of todays architectural elite. They want to desribe their works as the above process. We should have learned our lesson long ago with the spouting of Eisenman during his House phase.
Alright, I will be the first to admit there are very few on my side of the canal. My question to you, then, "What is in your wagon?".
the thing that i find interesting is that this thread went on and on and on.
and while you all wanted it to die...
it just wouldn't.
and yet you all kept returning.
the thing i'm struck by is that Per had the balls to post something and put himself "out there". and whether or not it was good, all you could do was "bash" him (as one of you said you were doing.)
this strikes at the very heart of the problem with our architectural education system. the "attack" mentally of our studio crits has put us on guard so that when we are given the chance to critique the work of our colleagues, we don't provide anything constructive or even illuminating. we look for the weak points and keep digging until the "victim" breaks down (mentally, emotionally, or physically.)
Per - i don't know that i agree with everything you wrote/posted, but i applaud you stamina and willingness to "put it out there" and stick up for what you believe. it sounds like you are a Dane. having just returned from a 2 month research trip to Denmark, i think that integrity is trait that most Danes possess. it unfortunately is not a trait that most Americans have.
i think archinect is really fantastic and has so much potential to change the dialogue in our profession. let's not take drag it down with all the negative energy that our predecessors so liked to employ. this is a new generation. let's take the profession in a new direction.
it's been almost a month that this thread has lived.
i agree with many of you, it's time to start fresh and let this one die.
I like the first part of your post, it\s not just architecture that change it\s our perception of "the master architect" the Icon and the technikes that will change.
I don't know that much about architecture but I know it never going to work to force everything under the same code books ,it's not that is't not a good idear to have everything grouped so an accurate account can be made on paper, that buying and selling making your persenteage shuldn't work within the digital accounting systems, but having a block with attributes and ontop expect that the lattrice works shuld intiligent interact at the same time, without making this just also within the way things alway's been done, and no matter how effective the old way's can be rewritten ,it will not win a new world , it just make the old one more stressed and square.
I agrea with most of what you say, but not all I did argue myself , you se I don't make my money on this acturly I never made very much money on what I made money wasn't the issue but realy I have no other choice, so I have to stay in it --- you Romans will never understand that.
The rest will come, maby 5 , 10 or 20 years guess it will come if somone realy want to make the money ,press a button and the thing is there this change your options the whole way to project, the choice of materials and the actural mashines that make it.
Just an old Pony ; a bargebridge a float bridge four or five of these in a row will make a cheap bridge, will be flexible as they after the weekend at the Opera can form a day bridge north of that place, if placed the wrong place it can just be moved to the right place, it alway's be level with the land with ballast tanks and pumps navigated with satelite , don't even need a captain but can be automated and act as ship, controlled from land or onboard.
Then tell me what is wrong with a float bridge, what's wrong with just a bit innovative aproach don't you know that what cost in a ship is not the hull . Now this aproach is just perfect in an old slow harbour like copenhagen I don't say it is perfect with a river running wild, but if there is mostly a meter or one and a halve meter between high and low tide ,if the barge is fitted with ballast tanks that pump out with low water and fill with high tide so it alway's is even with the land, then instead of placing a number of expensive small bridges wrong ,this one offer quite a bit more flexibility.
Ofcaurse you can't have it in all the worlds architect news as yet another arched walking bridge, you can't talk about elegant swung arches , but you can talk about a solution that leave a live harbour not a parade of impressive single masterpieces in enginering but a flexible solution, that solve the trafic problems --- Ok maby that is not what you Romans want to solve maby the practic issues must back out with the wish of spetacular enginering arches moving in the wind ,maby we must be pleased the more advanced the more futuristic the faster worn out tiny bridges must work. This barge bridge offer none of that, it's cheap easy build ,serve a porpus you could even make it so that turist boats could pass thru it, you could place a resturant ontop it ,it would work in the protected waters of a harbour it will open a lot of new oppotunities that a bridge would never do. It can be here in the weekends and there the rest of the week, it will not fall if one section fall out, a replacement barge is easy placed.
Phil·is·tine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fl-stn, f-lstn, -tn)
n.
A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C.
A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values.
One who lacks knowledge in a specific area.
adj.
Of or relating to ancient Philistia.
often philistine Boorish; barbarous: “our plastic, violent culture, with its philistine tastes and hunger for novelty†(Lloyd Rose).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Middle English Philistines, Philistines, from Late Latin Philistn, from Greek Philistnoi, from Hebrew Plitîm, from Pleet Philistia.]
Word History: It has never been good to be a Philistine. In the Bible Samson, Saul, and David helped bring the Philistines into prominence because they were such prominent opponents. Though the Philistines have long since disappeared, their name has lived on in the Hebrew Scriptures. The English name for them, Philistines, which goes back through Late Latin and Greek to Hebrew, is first found in Middle English, where Philistiens, the ancestor of our word, is recorded in a work composed before 1325. Beginning in the 17th century philistine was used as a common noun, usually in the plural, to refer to various groups considered the enemy, such as literary critics. In Germany in the same century it is said that in a memorial at Jena for a student killed in a town-gown quarrel, the minister preached a sermon from the text “Philister über dir Simson! [The Philistines be upon thee, Samson!],†the words of Delilah to Samson after she attempted to render him powerless before his Philistine enemies. From this usage it is said that German students came to use Philister, the German equivalent of Philistine, to denote nonstudents and hence uncultured or materialistic people. Both usages were picked up in English in the early 19th century.
I develobed the option case you are lazy have all the pictures a reson and a wish to earn a mountain of money. But is you realy have enough with fiddled computer mesh ,want houses for families to live in and a promise of progress and new jobs, then I wonder what your exchouse not making a beauty will be.
I told the generated @material@ is in your hands concerning dimentions ,gee we just got there you just recently got the promise, that rigid boxwork, proberly could be made intelligent < 5 inch up this hight 10 inch if the building is to high Realy how much intiligens do you need in terms of generating the thickness of material ,when there are just 3 avaible.
Well if you are not a Designer this couldn't vorry a Roman, Please this make everything ; as a thick shell of interconnected framework you don't want to build at a third the cost why do you even deal with this discussion, you don't know what beauty is, don't ask honesty don't know a thing, never tried it don't even reconise it, now you don't want to create as you are lazy , isn't that what a Roman could ansver ?
Don't you understand this is a new material, it is avaible with water laser and pounching mashines , well if you are lazy you don't want to profit from a new Digital method, that promise a lot , why then "talk" about nice houses and beautifull people, if you beforehand refuse to earn a mountain of money -------- you do that with Direct Link production but ofcaurse only if you know what beauty is new jobs are very pritty --- No ?????
I must exchouse to those who read the tread the dirt betadinesutures
now post shuld show enough about the intentions , Now I asked the staff to remove this filth but being the one who started the tread I must ask every one of the more than 3000 viewers to know and understand what you are up against ,displaying a new visionary idea.
betadinesutures obviously have other fake names and I tried this before, latest somone named "Ken" found great pleasure posting the same dirt in another fora I participated , in this tread you can expect that the same person bored from Usenet, have taken several fake names and taken you all hosteage forcing dirty pictures upon you in his attemt to harm me, Obviously you can't protect yourself against sick people I just hope the staff reconise and find a way to make sure the fora don't develob into a porn site.
are you looking for a designer who is willing to test your 3DH building method? it seems to me that your project would be more convincing if you actually got a project built... and it would also help if the built project was well designed not just to show what 3DH can do, but if it was a real functional building, that does something formally interesting that couldn't easily be done with more common building methods, so that it gives 3DH some credibility....
or build some smaller scale objects to demonstrate / prove 3DH... Like a storage shed or an interesting exterior structure like a pavilion or a deck... or even some kind of furniture that is structurally / formally interesting and then include the cost to build it, time and the precise building steps required... represent the simplicity of process to hit people over the head with your idea...
in other words, people sometimes need proof... an idea is great. but it becomes real if you actually build with it... i mean make architecture. not just boats...
"I am glad that you are finnaly trying to appeal to the graphic designers,
because those of us who deal in reality will have no use for your useless
drawings. Go make a video game or something.
Everytime I try to ask a sensible question about these crappy ideas,
I get nonsense as an answer. Or "I dont understand" or "the romans used bricks" or some other bullshit. As soon as you are ready to provide
some real answers, then I will begin to accept."
Ken
Hi
bRink you are quite right, trouble is that to do that you need a workshop. Also within architecture there are a growing understanding that to make a revolution is in the direction acturly using the computer but in a way that is very different .
Now did you ever know an inventor that had no finantional problems, emagine you can just spend the time and the money . Now please don\t think that when I talk about laser and water cutters, that I do so from what you can read on the web. So even I would have no problems setting up a N.C. router or do a proto type from plot sheets cutting the assembly from the lines, arts are still a social game and I am not a member Im\e not an architect and being so critic as I am ,it is simply impossible to raise the money ---- it\s as simple as that.
Ken I don\t make pictures I develob building methods. I don\t make what you think I make ,then how can you blame me doing somthing I don\t even feel for, I want real things not things on paper .
Don\t you understand that I am not pleased with pritty pictures but want new technikes ,still you blame me for somthing that is all in your mind and you can\t understand that you will never get the @ansver@ you ask ; you are the one who display your ignorance you are the one who never ansver but repeat the same stupid questions ,look everyone else se the vision but your reactions and ignorance beside the filth you post, reflect only what you realy have on mind, ----- just look at the pictures you post yourself, don't these tell just everything.
Now I don\t agrea that solving the transport problem will be the right attitude solving any of the problems mentioned. I think production is so refined and materials is so bad they can be, I think there are no gain refing the tradisional methods compared develobing new and in my posts here, you will se my arguments ; the 3D's I show is proven already just being 3D as you can not draw anything in 3D unless it can be made. 3D is the tool I learned after learning to master a plane a bandsaw a chissel , 3D is a tool it work just as well as doing the thing in real but the issue here is not my drawings but how architecture reflect to all these fantastic new options.
Now Im'e not member of the academics ,even I apply for funds there will be a crowd that first of all will check if Im'e autodidact, Please I worked with this for 15 years I know how academics and arts work, I been around designers and even spended 3 years as unregistrated student at the architect school, and I tried so many times to find founds ----- Im'e not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and fact is, that unless you are that, it's meaningless to reply.
You se I master boatsbuilding, master AutoCAD can do the programming required ,but all it need is somone who just hate autodidacts or just an architect.
Per:
What do we arkitecture students/arkitects to do if we don't have access to high powered software/computers like you have. Does your new process become just another elitist movement for those with money or access to your resources?
1. Lack of productivity
2. Lack of innovation and development
3. Too much waste
4. Craftsmanship is the spine of the industry
5. Complexity/organisationally overloaded
6. Lack of competition
7. One-off production
8. Too many mistakes
9. Health and safety issues
10. Environmental issues
How do you think these problems can find a solution if that solution can not question how today\s architect programs work. How can architecture be changed a new form language show, true new jobs develob just look at this tread. --------- don't his tread just point out where the real problems are ; it's not enough to have spended 15 years mastering AutoCAD and knowing the computer in detail, it's not enough to have a life long experience within crafts, it's not enough already to have proven a flexible mind and real things unique designs no, if you are not an academic you can find your materials in the metal scrapyard, do your science from the money left over when the family had theirs, you must spend the time others spend in the local bar, --------- and even you done all that, you are not an academic, not a member of the ignorant crowd that rather se things done "as they alway's was done" and arts as a social game.
I already tried to find fonds ,but when an autodidact ask for support to develob a fantastic new digital tool, it is archtects and academics that must judge, that statement often just is a transcript of the Jante Law, papers are never returned and you spend months fighting the academics oppinion about autodidact artists. But realy it is not my foult ,I just like nice houses I just want to se cheap houses build in a promising new method academics hated me all my life for that, for the skills I show for the visions I carry, ------- in the end the jokers display what is on their mind as you will se from the porn distribuated in this fora, you can't even display your works unless somone use dirty tricks or simply crash the plotter you saved years to buy, problem is that for an academic who get his money nomatter what results he show it's a compleatly different world than the one you have, being an artist ,if what you show is not the useal academic bullying but unique works in a new field .
Hi
Gustav ;
"What do we arkitecture students/arkitects to do if we don't have access to high powered software/computers like you have. Does your new process become just another elitist movement for those with money or access to your resources? "
Fact is that I did this with an 8088 ,the almost first real P.C. fact is that the calculations are so easy that there are no problem as long as you have a computer. Now today it would seem rediculas to scrap somthing becaurse it need a computer ,but if you think this is for the elite you are wrong ---- fact is that it is easyer than the methods you othervise must learn, beside you se the results right away , you realise the Math. much better , you don't even need to involve in the calculations and even doing it with free download programs it offer you whatever you draw at a third the trouble, compared the tradisional methods.
Now if you plotted each frame on paper ,then everyone would be able to jigsaw each frame, how can that be for the elite, acturly it is made so easy that with 10 thumbs everyone can make a pavilion a small shelter whatever , ---- but as soon as you grasp the vision you will se no end to what can now be made four times as strong and even hidden under the paneling. But must I repeat ,the panels will fit.
Sorry have to go shopping.
So, it can be as simple as this.
You are realy something with that 8088. Do you think my double floppy (no hard drive) Wang could stand the strain?
Shopping, Koping, Koben, bought.
Don't you think that since my question has not been asked (as I have read) it should be asked? Now about that shopping.
Once again (as I've stated before): if its so easy, why haven't you built anything with your 3D-H system over the years that you've been working on it? It seems to me that this would have been a logical step instead of making more 3D models on your computer. There are reasons that mock-ups, large scale models, etc. are built, and its not because all architects are "romans". And what about a cost-analysis, etc?
I think you shuld ,so shuld all designers wannabe designers and even engineers. The reson I didn\t build is that the system work, realy there is no reson to make it prove for me, When I build anything I try build a beautifull thing then first I must know what that is, and to just build somthing only to prove somthing I already know work is from my point of view silli if it is only to prove a method not to build a beautifull thing, ----- now that you Romans will never grasp, but this is how it is from one day to the other I stopped building boats now I could do that and there was no challance in that as soon as the basic problem in small boats building was solved ,with the 3D/H.
Realy I made all sorts of things in my life and alway\s becaurse of my personality became quite good at it, with boatsbuilding I ended up lecturing in CAD and boatsbuilding tradisional way\s in modern concept, ------- but I poured that many money into projects that with this I made a decision that before I know exactly what to build I will not start. And why shuld I the pictures show maby my role in architecture is just to inspire ----- anyway I know there are much better skilled architects than I, I just maneage to get the computer working.
Gustav maby it\s becaures that since the diagnosis we had to spend all hours around our youngest child, unpayed work with other parents and young with autism , ------- guess you know that if you get a child with autism you are offered to leave it at an institution we dod not , this been going on 16 years and it keep you from being lazy.
Jay Im\e glad you say so, to ansver your question I must know what you mean by detail ---- you se from the point where you generate the frames is the point you realy don't need to display the frames anymore, your projecting is over and if you from that point try to change anything it will just caurse trouble.
On the other hand you need a detail drawing to show where a particular frame must be placed and more important, what frame must be placed first as most proberly if you do it wrong you have to cut and latch one frame to make another fit within ; if you check the animation and know that this is realy a simple structure ,then on one hand you will se the countless applications where if more creativity go into the basic solid fantastic details will grow as by magic. And on the other hand you will realise that now you don't need 20 different profiles and a number of special fittings as everything ,floors walls stairs just everything, is replaced with just one material.
Now please don't think that as I show just everything as a framework, that I force upon this way to do things onto everythng --- the graphics are only to show and it's needless to say that ofcaurse you combine this with the tradisional methods. But to show it, I must draw the primitive designs and point to the fact that it is not the designs I show, but a new method ----- maby you can only use it for the basic foundations maby you are atracted by the decor it also offer, but you are right that this tread give the oppotunity to say what you mean.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
"Did they say things heavier than air would never fly, and ships out of iron would ofcaurse sink"
OK - by your analogy Per, you're telling a bunch of aeronautical engineers that you've created a way to make a brick fly, and the way you've achieved it is to invent a revolutionary computer-driven manufacturing process that makes the bricks out of sheet material instead of old-fashioned extrusion. But you haven't tested it yet and, oh yeah, it's still a friggin brick dude.
Hi
You are quite right Pixelhore, realy it don\t matter what we call ourself and it must be the sense in the words, --- pictures, that make the discussion.
Now just you know it, my whole life I worked with practic issues I can claim to be profesional in carpentry and boatsbuilding, even done projects at the finest workshops please check out the Cyber-Boat site.
But I will tell you why I ignore that claim ------ if you check Cyber-Boat you will se a number of acturly build boat designs, then when I once came out with a new design I had endless discussions with somone that could even be the same in this group, the claim was that I as profesional boatsbuilder who even had teached at the proud boatbuilding school, shuld "prove" my designs with a full scale model.
Now if you don't know this, then a boatbuilder often build a halve-model to prove the lines to smooth, this is how boatbuilders alway's done but those jokers I had this discussion with, just hated me for doing fine wooden boats in genuine wood instead of what was the trend in american amature boatbuilding groups, to plumb out a flat bottom shoebox design made in the cheapest plywood .
Well you can find this tread on web, but fact is, that also back then, a bunch of dryass usenet fanatics knew "everything" about boatsbuilding and claimed that to "prove" what I designed 3D shuld be build in real othervise they would not "belive" it.
Now isn't this the same as in this group, --- in the other group a bunch of fanatic Bolger wannabees could not accept that the glorious american writing desk designer who back 50 ago filled Popular mechanics with what scrap from the garage could bring in terms of dangouras flat bottomed rowboats, a few had a good buisness selling copies of nameless designs that was never proven, but to any profesional showed to be a bad thing to let your children sail in.
I build boats not cheap unsafe plywood boxes, but they just hated me for that, and they did that, with the _exact_ same "arguments" you se in this tread ------ now why do you think that somone who all his life made everything he made perfect, shuld bother the ignorance and stupidity of some amature who don't even know the simplest thing,
The thing about fire protection work fine unless you are in a discussion where all you want is to piss on the guy you would rob if you had the chance. ----- but except I do not have a criminal mind or try brag about my ability to throw dirt, fact is, that fire protection come as a side effect with 3D-H , you spend less time develobing it, than fiddeling it. But if you don't know that what you draw 3D can only work, as othervise it could not show on a screen. And unless you know that oposed this ,then somthing drawn 2D don't carry any of the same garentie, and you can't emagine just the first step generating a honeycomb structure or a framework structure, why shuld I then publish how fire protection come hand in hand with new digital design tools.
-------- Just another example left on web.
But please don't think I se myself as misunderstood genious, I acturly had a few patents I know my worth up against the trend setting drunk architects. So when some lame joker here in this group try harassing with the useal social harasment ,then he speak to his own perception and only show the inside of his own mind.
Do you realy expect I shuld deal with fire protection, and be questioned by the once you seen using this tread as pisshouse.
El jeffe ; I don't talk about bricks if you read what I write, I suggest just a possible side effect, then you pick down on that, why do you do that are you trying to gain a few cheap points ------- this seem to make you so angry that you like a few other jokers try put words I never said into my mouth ------ I don't care for bricks continue build in clay, dig your houses into the ground if that solve the problems with your lame paper heavy architect applications 3D-H work without bloody paper and I know just one porpus for paper , I bet that in the stoneage they had a splendid social life even they just hated the guy who invented this fire thing.
Per:
I don't think anyone on here has a problem imagining the first steps of your 3D-H system, but when they start to look further down the road in its development (with or without you) they start to see flaws in its execution. Perhaps you're mistaking their criticism as insult because they're jumping ahead of what you're showing, but keep in mind that what you're showing are very simple executions of this system (in terms of detailing, etc.).
And has been pointed out before, a boat is an entirely different creature from a building. Yeah, the built form of the boat might be a beginning, but I don't think anyone will take that as solid, bullet-proof example of how a building can be made.
So Per you believe that only people producing form can discuss forms produced by other? That is undoubedtly very open minded...
Per-- This process does little to aid in the constructablilty of architecture for all the aforementioned reasons, but more so, it does not provide any new reconceptualization of design practice and production. As a process, it utilizes many of the same conventional formal operations that architects use everyday--like the section and surface extrusion. This 3D-H tool is a scripted process, not a organizational or structural system, which has no fundemental relationship to materiality.
As a reference for work and writing that may provide the much needed incite that you lack, see Cecil Balmond.
Thank you jmac.... I have one word for you Mr. Corell - PROCESS
The Informalist
Cecil Balmond has a simple plan to reinvent architecture: Break down the cage that separates structural engineering from design.
By Jennifer Kabat
Architectural superstar Rem Koolhaas swears by him. Structural engineer Cecil Balmond has been Koolhaas' collaborator on 30 projects since the mid-'80s, including the three that have made Koolhaas' name: the Bordeaux villa, the Kunsthal in Rotterdam, and the new Seattle Public Library. Today, Koolhaas won't even start a project until Balmond has weighed in. "When we work together, there's more to it than just an engineer saying you need a column here, support there," Koolhaas attests. "Cecil has changed my outlook on structure and enabled me to rethink architecture."
German conceptualist Daniel Libeskind - famous for his museums in Denver, Berlin, and now London - also brings Balmond in at the earliest stage. "He's a thinker, a mystic," says Libeskind. "He's not your average engineer brought from the outside to check things out. He's there with us from the very beginning with his keen insights and keen design ability. Most engineers don't see engineering as an evolving adventure in design, but Cecil does." Balmond and Libeskind collaborated on the Spiral, the Victoria and Albert Museum's contemporary wing, a $100 million project awaiting British government funding.
Perhaps most impressive is the respect Balmond has won from Philip Johnson, one of the 20th century's architectural titans. Johnson, now 94, is working with Balmond on Chavasse Park, a planned $300 million shopping center in Liverpool. The great man actually calls Balmond "my teacher, my mentor." This from a guy who was whelped by Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.
"Balmond's mad, he's brilliant, he's changing shapes for the world," Johnson says. Then he sighs theatrically and confides that Balmond will be largely responsible for the look of Chavasse Park, whose tentlike roof will swoop over the organic megastructure. "I gave him free rein, and I didn't really keep up with it," Johnson admits. "It was clear to me that this man knew perfectly what it was I wanted."
At 56, Balmond has reached the very top of his profession. According to the celebrated architects who have worked with him, he not only makes their buildings stand up, but also inspires their designs. He has two advanced engineering degrees from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, and a third from the University of Southampton. He sits on the board of London-based Ove Arup, the most prestigious structural engineering firm in the world. Established in 1946, the company built the iconic Sydney Opera House, the vast Tate Modern museum in London, and the just-completed longest bridge in the world, øresund Fixed Link - a 10-mile-long double-decker that stretches between Sweden and Denmark. Balmond is the chair of Ove Arup's operations division, which puts him in charge of global strategies for research and development and other specialist departments.
Balmond, however, might never get what he wants - public acclaim. It's not his place to be in the public eye. Structural engineers are meant to stay behind the scenes and work to bridge the gap between the architect and the builder. They measure forces and calculate load. They plan a building's foundation and place the columns that will bear its weight. Typically, engineers design the core - that is, the elevators and stairs at the center of a skyscraper - and often the facade as well. When an architect says, "I want glazed bronze glass that lets in only a certain amount of light and looks gold at sunset," it's the engineers who interview window manufacturers and evaluate their cladding systems. The results of this painstaking process are working drawings that spec out every last fixture. Builders can't even begin without them. Balmond's goal - outlined in a monograph, Informal, to be published this June - is to offer a new structure for architecture.
Engineers, as a rule, find glory in structural firsts and feats. Balmond calls it the "macho-ness of structure - the tallest, the thinnest." Ove Arup, in particular, values the big and the bold. Load bearing is made blatantly obvious. "Arup is hi-tech, our traditional image is hi-tech, and the hi-tech aesthetic is a certain belief in structural comprehensibility," he says. "The hi-tech style is right in your face - structure like the mast of a boat or gussets or a tension wire." Working with the British-born, Yale-educated master of hi-tech, Lord Norman Foster, the company gave the $645 million Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank headquarters massive cross-bracing in the atrium lobby and giant trusses up its 47-story glass exterior. Completed in 1986, it is considered the epitome of the style.
Balmond is more subversive. He tweaks structure: Where a typical engineer would simply place columns in a grid, he'll slide them off center, or tilt them so they lean as they rise from the floor. He hides structure: Instead of bracing a high-rise with mammoth steel Xs on the exterior, Balmond will turn the building itself into a brace and morph the floors into ramps that distribute the load downward. He invents structure: When Libeskind called for tiling on the Spiral extension of the V&A, Balmond came up with "frac-tiles" - tiles that repeat their shapes in a fractal pattern.
Often, Balmond's engineering solutions affect the form of a building so much that his work is indistinguishable from architecture. Take, for example, the Yokohama International Port Terminal. The London- and Tokyo-based FOA (Foreign Office Architects) - a trendy, young firm going for its first major project - tapped Balmond while competing for the $200 million commission. Balmond came up with an innovative plan that eliminated all columns.
"He said we could do it with a wavy piece of steel," explains Alejandro Zaera Polo, a partner at FOA. The terminal is not yet built, but Balmond's solution has it looking like a huge piece of corrugated cardboard. Koolhaas, who sat on the competition's jury, calls the concept "really beautiful. The shape of the building itself is its structural solution." Balmond's engineering is the architecture, and vice versa. The overlap is so remarkable that to understand Balmond's contribution is to ask: What's the role of the official architect?
I get an answer, of sorts, from the eminent British critic Charles Jencks. In 1997, the BBC asked him for a list of buildings that were transforming architecture. He came up with 15 structures and almost as many architects. Balmond engineered more than a quarter of them. "There's the V&A Spiral, of course, and Rem's Bordeaux villa, and also the library, Jussieu, with Koolhaas, and the stadium at Chemnitz with Ulrich Königs and Peter Kulka," Jencks says, rattling off the buildings that Balmond engineered.
Jencks says that since he made the list, Balmond has only grown more important: "If I were to do it again today I'd have to add Arnhem, a project Balmond did with Ben van Berkel, and the Yokohama terminal, and that project with Philip Johnson in Liverpool. Really," he interrupts himself, "Cecil Balmond is the world's leading thinker on form and structure. He's the power behind the throne."
While interviewing Jencks in his London townhouse, I press the issue. I ask him whether, in the design of those famous buildings, it's Balmond who is really calling the shots. Jencks, who's perched on a sofa across from me, leans forward over a coffee table shaped like the top of a Doric column - a relic of postmodernism, the architectural movement that Jencks made famous - and answers: "To try and decide who did what gets you into the area of libel."
Philip Johnson calls Balmond "my teacher, my mentor." This from a guy who was whelped by Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.
But that is what Balmond is saying, or at least hinting at, in Informal: New Structure in Architecture. The book, his second, is a manifesto, a call to arms urging his fellow engineers "to release the world of engineering and feel free to enter architecture." The accolades from Koolhaas, Libeskind, Johnson, and Jencks aren't enough anymore: Balmond wants some credit. The book is risky. He's nearly been sued - by FOA - over the credit issue before. And, after all, he is dependent on his good relationships with architects. They are the ones who hire him and bring him in on projects; while the process of making a building is clearly collaborative, the architect is still the star of the show.
Balmond's London office is modest: no prestigious corner, no great views. You'd hardly know he's in charge of 1,700 people. Photos of various Koolhaas projects hang on the wall next to a company-issue poster.
Balmond is bent over some architectural plans. The posture plays up his monkish appearance: He's dressed all in black, hair thinning into a tonsure. The plans are by the Dutch avant-gardist Ben van Berkel - one of a new wave of architects who, in the wake of fellow countryman Rem Koolhaas, are turning the Netherlands into an architectural promised land. The drawings are for the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh. The brief calls for a 160,000-square-foot extension and rehab of the existing 200,000-square-foot building on the bank of the Ohio River.
Balmond and van Berkel have been collaborating on the proposal for a month; the competition deadline is in two weeks' time. Balmond's research assistant, Gwenola Kergall, and another Arup engineer, Charles Walker, sit next to him, armed and ready with a ream of sketch paper and a tray of sandwiches cut into quarters. Balmond has called the meeting to go over van Berkel's latest design. They have only a couple of days to analyze this new set of drawings and get back to him.
A month ago, Balmond and van Berkel met to discuss their initial ideas for the center. Van Berkel was toying with some slablike shapes. Sketching out the logic of the site, Balmond scribbled down his idea: two crossing tubes, each with a smaller tube inside. Aligned on the north-south and east-west axes, the outer tubes would drop people in front, link to parking behind, and hide the old structure. The inner tubes would house the exhibits. By their next meeting, van Berkel had jettisoned the slab design for Balmond's schematic. The drawings on Balmond's table today show the Carnegie Science Center as two sets of concentric tubes. Van Berkel has the outside tube folding over to generate the inside tube in an endless skin, almost like a sock rolled back on itself, turning inside out.
Balmond looks at the new plan and shakes his head. In his original sketch, he had the inner tube hanging from the wall of the outer tube - they were joined together. Now, with the folded-over design, the inner tube needs to be held up by columns, and Balmond is irritated that he has to even consider adding any sort of pillar. He's convinced the columns will detract from the building and make it harder to put in exhibition space.
He takes a sheet from the ream and starts to draw, talking in a stream of consciousness as his hand moves. "Supports will interfere with the seamlessness. But it's a tube folded in on itself and will need internal supports. We need a new language for it, but it can't be a separate language. It should have branches like filaments, like tendrils from the wall ..." The drawing he makes to describe the tendrils looks like a swirling red-and-white peppermint.
Kergall suggests a filigree support with an art nouveau look and sketches it out. Balmond nods approval, but still laments. "How can I ruin it with such language?" he demands of Walker and Kergall. "Let's not talk column because I cannot, I can't, I'll die, how can I do that - fold a skin over on itself and then stick columns in?"
This searching for metaphors, this scribbling on paper, this is what Balmond calls "the informal." The informal is Balmond's radical philosophy of engineering; he describes it as "opening the door ... and breaking down the cage." Stripped of metaphor, the informal is Balmond's term for the creative process.
Balmond started reexamining traditional engineering when he turned 40. "It suddenly hit me: I'd been doing this for 20 years without questioning the basic configuration I was dealing with. I'd spent hours minimizing and putting in columns, and architects were saying, 'Oh he's a great guy to work with ...'" Here Balmond trails off. As he hit midlife, engineering became empty. He was winning awards for his buildings - the Merrill Lynch headquarters in London, the Carlsberg Brewery in Northampton - but still felt there was something lacking. He was just making "meaningless containers of form." Searching for a connection between form and meaning, Balmond discovered Pythagoras, the geometer-priest of ancient Greece, and James Gleick's book Chaos.
Inspired, Balmond set out to investigate the mathematical composition of fractals, and soon found that the golden ratio - the basis of Greek architecture - was itself fractal, a pattern repeating endlessly on several different scales. It was the start of a renewed fascination with math, especially its more cabalistic aspects. His first book, Number 9, published in 1998, is a novel with a numerology theme. His study is lined with notebooks filled with fractal patterns and magic squares, sketches that he says "help focus my mind." One binder contains sketch after sketch of bending lines, curves crossing over each other - they look a bit like sine waves. He says they served as the inspiration for the curving supports of the Yokohama terminal.
Right now he's drawing, trying to find some inspiration for the Carnegie Science Center. Sheets of paper are flying, each filled with a tube sketch. He eats as he draws, and indicates for Walker and Kergall to help themselves. Balmond is talking and chewing, trying to find an elegant solution for the central space where the tubes meet. Walker shakes his head, saying that "the complexity of the hub is lost."
Balmond is frustrated. He wants the tubes' intersection to create energy, speed, a sense of velocity. "Spin," he says. He draws swooshing whirlpools and circles over the plan, tracing through the space to get a feel for it. "If you spin from a hub, then you're putting structure into it. It will stand independently and face out." Then he pauses. "Stairs!" he pronounces. "We spin the stairs and shoot off around it!" He arrives at a grand spiral staircase, which serves as a structural support and creates the focal point for the entire building.
He takes another bite of sandwich and moves over to dial van Berkel's office on the speakerphone. The receptionist explains twice that van Berkel is in a meeting with clients, but Balmond insists that she put him through. Once on the phone with van Berkel, it takes Balmond about five minutes to work it out that, yes, van Berkel assumed there would be legs and columns underneath the tubes, which Balmond then corrects with his tendril notion. When he suggests a central vortex with a spiraling staircase, van Berkel replies quietly, "That is what I have in mind, but it's not drawn yet."
Later, Balmond explains the pitfalls of his working style. "The problem is about claiming credit for the architecture. For the record, that's architecture," he says, pointing at the plans on the table, "that's Ben van Berkel." Balmond came up with the crossed-tube plan and then worked out a way to make it feasible, but that detail will fade away. "No one will ever know what Balmond did," he says, using the third person. "Part of an engineer's job description is to remain anonymous."
In conversation, Balmond speaks in a quasi-spiritual patois, peppered with phrases like "tuning in" and "it came to me." He exudes a mystical demeanor that must serve him well while working with big architects and their notoriously big egos.
But Balmond has a big ego, too. It nearly landed him in court, thanks to a messy round of accusations and counter-recriminations over Yokohama. FOA won the competition and started attracting press. "But nobody at FOA mentioned me," he complains. Then the firm chose to work with another engineer for the execution phase of the project, saying, among other things, that Ove Arup was too expensive. "This was the worst episode in my career," Balmond explains, looking down. "Here was an idea that frankly transformed their work. I gave it to them and then, goddamn it, they cut me out!" It's the only time I hear him raise his voice. "It became embarrassing," he adds quietly.
Alejandro Polo of FOA explains from Tokyo that the firm had no choice. "The competition copyright is owned by us, so we had to instruct our lawyer to write a letter saying that we will take court action against them. That was the bitter end of a relationship that probably could have been much better."
Charles Jencks points out that attribution is a touchy issue within architecture. "Even as a professional critic, it's very hard to know who to credit. There's the legal issue of copyright as well as the issue of who actually did it." The bottom line, says Jencks, is that "it's hard for an engineer to get the kind of fame architects do. An engineer isn't asked to be a showman. By necessity and positioning, they are like actors asked to play the secondary role, the Rosencrantz or the Guildenstern. There is an inevitable tension: the architect versus the engineer who forgets his place."
This puts Balmond in a tough position with his new book. "How much do you really say?" he asks rhetorically. "If you write yourself in, you've blown the architect away completely, and I can't do that professionally. I've got to give them more credit than they're due. That's part of the game."
But Koolhaas, who has read an early version of the manuscript, doesn't object. "The book's important. We need it to create the sense of being on the same level," he says. It's no blurb. Koolhaas has twice asked Balmond to join him as business partner and creative equal - working as an architect, not as an engineer.
When I ask Philip Johnson who should get the laurels on the Chavasse Park project, he says, "Cecil always needs to have credit. And why not? He deserves it. What he's doing defies categorization. We need to invent a new word for what he does." Yet Balmond is ambivalent about staking his claim. He's afraid of offending Libeskind and doesn't even want to tell him about the book. There is a chapter that covers the fractal tiles that coat Libeskind's V&A Spiral. In the book, Balmond seems chastened - and doesn't take credit for things that, in private, he says are his. He goes to extremes to sound diplomatic, obscuring credit under the umbrella of "we."
The question of credit would be moot if Balmond left Ove Arup to become an architect. Then there would be no questions about authorship. One evening while sitting in his house, I ask him why he hasn't left, why he hasn't taken Koolhaas up on his offers. He tells me a story: When he was young and just starting his 33-year career at Ove Arup, he fell in love with the guitar. "I started playing classical guitar seriously at 22, and by the age of 30, it was too late - you couldn't become a classical professional," he sighs with regret. "So it's like the guitar. By the time I seriously found out what I wanted, I was in my mid-forties. To be an architect - well, maybe I should have thought about that in my twenties. I don't know."
Balmond puts on some Bach but continues talking over the rising strains of the music, his words clipped but perfectly enunciated. "I know there are some problems now, where I lose out on the ideas and they get taken and appropriated, but I have something deeper than the idea. They take the shape, maybe, but I've got something ahead of them, because structure for me is about the connection of ideas. I want to blaze a new path in the philosophy of structure. That's a bigger agenda than architecture, and I guess that's where I am."
Hi
The issue I concern, replace you drawing somthing on a screen asking a craftman to translate it uses today per fact a lot of paper.
Is that bundle able to feed the mashines or do you have the codes translated , ------- if anyone is not producing anything then why is most just transcript, beside what's wrong with a simple process, producing exactly what you ordered ,in actural building frames.
I say ,there you are right that as this is different, it must have a bunch of ignorant engineers just hating it. Now I say I master some few skills, I could do these boats without even drawing, but realy who is the fool the ignorant or the brave, the one who show you the actural lead, or the one you emagine tell what you even say you don't understand, then how can you then talk against it.
My cheap houses make no social warmth, but maby your brother one day, would just love a quality tumble safe house, with access to original spare parts whenever in the future, --- as soon as you replace your stone adge Romans.
Per next time you call someone a liar jam it.
or how about this link;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1218_021218_tetrapod.html
Hi
Now I do belive in democrazy I think it is wierd , these greeks made it possiv´ble to be a svede in denmark ,--- guess you know we danes understand them even what they are speaking.
You obviously don't you jokers ,but I tell you that Demokrati as spelled in danish, work perfect with nice inviroments and safe spaces. Speaking architecture is making your percenteage in this group it's said that Demokrati stink and work no where, where a new digital technology can provide a tool, even for clay bricks why don't you think 3D-HoneyComb can not provide shelter ,well it bring a new tool, bad it don't already go direct link producing the actural building element at low cost but in a new technike that will act more chalancing than bending or fiddeling ; mark this, real craftmen don't like fiddeling it's no art just going without direction, pastice.
You who dig your crafts from bellow, don't you think toilet paper would be a hell in hell. ---- anyway let me make this the question to both Frensh and abrakadabra and all others who refuse their eyes ; go do a just as challancing subject such as 3D-HoneyComb , you chicken go out prove your words --- do a toilet paper that will work in hell, with your plesant design skills, this must be a minor, but let's measure it with providing the actural thing in say 10 millimeter steel.
A lion shaped building that will last 500 years and alway's will find original building parts, this time maby crome plated gold .
Poor Romans the treasure are right before you, you even produced it yourself, but you don't want your brother to have a safe house ,no I don't even talk about cost or explotation of an exiting technike.
But as the academics work today, as when I frequtented the creative center og the arts school no one wanted future and hopefully no more jobs.
Still I belive in it and even you already done your best, then as you nothing have put up, being a direct link method (not some scrambled acturly lumping rigid steel beam sale) but a geniune simple as called workable and promising, I never asked neutral oppinions from the engineers I seem to frighten with my concept of total options performing any shape cube structure , this work you Romans even yourself develobed the foundations for making a building as a building frame assembly , still arts is a hounted profesion and no one ever show some real brilliance, in the west anyway.
Times never was for bright innovative aproaches, no real wish for progress and exiting understandable new technologies . This is an arear of great ignorance and I do my best, but that is based in problem solving, not social games . The problems you clever buisnessmen never discovered ,is how simple things already work we build from clay and straw ,the architect programs do not in real generate the actural structure of the design , nomatter you made it invisible or added some flavor ilumination, ------ now wouldn't it then planning the electrics, to have a basic cube grid ,distribuating aux air water whatever , ok you can dig it in the mountain but then it will never be a wonder, a wonder ask vision .
Now I alway's prefered wonders here and now, that's how 3D-HoneyComb was found, I needed somthing decent, to replace what I never for real would master, as tradisional are slow, digital is not.
Now beside Demokrati there are other things I obviously belive where you do not. You simply hate artists people that is different different from what, your emagination . Yes, so instead of seing the exact measured tol, to provide schools and somthing to teach, somthing that is math. Now would you belive that math in a brand new way will make cheap strong houses, with a better life span and creating new jobs ,would be good or bad ?
Ok but even you seem to disagrea, I think that showing some decenty atleast display you as a human being, not one of those from bellow,
Now even about fire safety we disagrea ,how could that relate Demokrati I do not know ; I seriously think houses shuld be made safem they shuld not kill you with the first small fire, --- but you disagrea about this also ---- now soon my question will be, that when we can't use technology as demokrati is not more important than the expertations of just one person deciding all .
Now this you call Demokrati, but Anyway architects must stay with fewer jobs, constructores with fewer projects now is that progress Romans ?
Is it progress walking backverts ?
Wouldn't it be better to repair those gates before hell and then realise that you get exactly what you emagine, my point just is isn't that a boring occupation vasting your life just doing poison , Ok Im'e a beliver you jokers are not and it seem you can't get hell bad enough now try some chicken work, do a better direct link method better than 3D-HoneyComb, one that work is not stolen so bad, cheaper and most important spark a new 3D technology ------ Oh sorry technology must not be simple this is what you protest ; if it is not difficult and hard to maneage it is not what you want as you never knew better.
Now words are good or bad buildings is structures spaces is an artifitial issue ,you can't be pleased if you never even seen a gain of the settled Lego mind "design tools", not when design is shaping the manufactoring process ,but that must not be simple either, it must be as you expect all computer works ; difficult and dull. You dismiss a method that provide better than you expect ,then you rather want to discuss what you call politics bored all over the web spaces you invoke.
Then as we disagrea on so many things ,you for instance don't ask honesty and expect to be able to just stand upright, open your big fat mouth and fried chicken will fly past ,you just open your mouth -- isn't this how you Romans think pyramides work ,well take it from a profesional these pyramides are worthless ,they are the vorse structures to enter but easy to ecape, they are worthless from an architectural point of view. Beside they must be cast as othervise you shuld have bilions of square flat surface ,just try rock a block in a corner all those tonn, it is simply impossibel no, one block was ofcaurse cast against the one before, they are same color as the sand around.
Now you even feel more atracted to that, than exploiding a new media, one that in an instant bring you a small house but ofcaurse ask that you understand the technike --- now what would you think about a guy banging in a nail with an apple. Now I bet you jokers want to persave yourself, that architecture don't need to be beautifull, you want stoneadge tools and not a promise of heaven you do not belive in peace and buisness ,As it unfold in this tread ,as you know social games is not on my mind they will not bring the new technology but if you are chicken you don't even need to think about the future, if ontop you don't have children and you as architect don't have an image of what will provide, why do you then want to interfear with fragile new technology ----- yes new things never had an easy time, But knowing my skills as writer, I rather stay away from hell ink not display a twisted picture of my deepest wish , to reinfrce you to produce 4 times stronger plane fuselages, earthquake safe houses, buildings that will rebuild from scratch , now where on that plotter paper do you se this. Better be prepared to build those gates before hell , maby that is the only thing that bring you to heaven.
Hell, you too have a hell untill hopefully never more, your sincerely
"it's said that Demokrati stink and work no where"
Per did you really just wrote that?
Hi
Beta no can't you se this guy could be svedish or english I don't call anyone a lier I wish I could do it myself, but Im'e just an honest guy, maby it is difficult to understand, but true, dinosauers grow great they are huge , but I wonder why anyone would deal with dinusaure instead of nice houses, but this just show how crule the world is.
ANALYTICALLY DEFINED SURFACES TO ANALYZE MOLECULAR INTERACTION PROPERTIES
R.R.Gabdoulline and R.C.Wade
European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molecular surfaces are widely used for characterizing molecules and displaying and quantifying their interaction properties. Here we consider molecular surfaces defined as iso-contours of a function (a sum of exponential functions centred on each atom) that approximately represents electron density. The smoothness is advantageous for surface mapping of molecular properties (e.g. electrostatic potential). By varying parameters, these surfaces can be constructed to represent the van der Waals or solvent accessible surface of a molecule with any accuracy.
We describe numerical algorithms to operate on the analytically defined surfaces. Two applications are considered. (1) We define and locate extremal points of molecular properties on the surfaces. The extremal points provide a compact representation of a property on a surface obviating the necessity to compute values of the property on an array of surface points as is usually done. (2) A molecular surface patch or interface is projected onto a flat surface (by introducing curvilinear coordinates) with approximate conservation of area for analysis purposes. Applications to studies of protein-protein interactions are described.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents ( in one page )
Introduction
Distance to the surface
Operation on the surface
Finding potential extrema
Projections of molecular surfaces and interfaces
Example of interface analysis
Accuracy of area values
The program
Conclusions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The surface of a molecule bears information about how it interacts with other molecules and its solvent. As the surface of a molecule is not a quantity for which a unique physico-chemical definition exists, several definitions have been introduced. Those most commonly used are:
The probe or solvent accessible surface, i.e. the boundary of the region where the centres of the atoms of other molecules with the radius of the probe are allowed to be placed (see Lee and Richards). The solvent accessible areas and volumes of molecules may be used to quantify their interaction with the solvent (see Eisenberg and McLachlan).
The probe excluded molecular surface, which is drawn on the surface of the probe as it is rolled over the molecule (Richards). It highlights the region belonging to the molecule alone; namely, no part of the probe is allowed to be inside the molecular surface. It may be calculated by construction of a dot surface (Richards) or analytically (Connolly).
The van der Waals surface of the molecule dependent only on the atomic radii and coordinates of the atoms in the molecule. It is equivalent to a molecular surface computed with a probe of zero radius.
The analytical molecular surface is smoother than the van der Waals surface and this facilitiates its analysis. However, its primary importance is not its smoothness but that it gives a different description of the molecular interior from the van der Waals surface, since the cavities inside the molecule which are not accessible to the solvent probe appear to belong to the molecule's interior.
The properties of a molecule are usually displayed on its surface by assigning values to points on the surface - all but a minority of which will be on the surface of a single atom and thus possess the properties of that atom. The points can be displayed on a graphical device or used for computational analysis. The analysis of surface properties is usually based on visual inspection for which points are coloured or assigned sizes corresponding to the value of a property. Solid rendering, such as exemplified by the GRASP program of Nicholls, can be used to enhance visual quality. There are several algorithms allowing automation of surface analysis. We mention two by way of example: a) The fully automated detection of clusters of surface points with like properties in order to specify hydrophobic patches on protein surfaces by Lijnzaad et al. b) Location of knobs and holes on a protein surface using a geometric hashing algorithm applied to coordinates derived from a dot representation of the molecular surface by Fischer et al. A reasonably accurate representation of a molecular surface requires 10-30 points per , generating 100,000-300,000 points per surface for medium-sized proteins. While the scanning of all surface points is fast, considerable computational effort is necessary to establish the connectivity (neighbourhood) of the points. Operations with dot surfaces can, however, be made extremely efficient by avoiding time consuming distance checks (see Eisenhaber et al ).
An alternative description of a molecular surface, which is analogous to the van der Waals surface, may be derived from a Gaussian description of the molecule (Duncan and Olson). It is defined using the approximate electron density distribution:
,
representing the contribution from each atom i of the molecule with different weighting factors and taking into account the different sizes of the atoms. This form of representation is rather arbitrary and exponential functions such as:
,
would give a more correct description of the asymptotic behavior of electron density. Advantage of Gaussian surface description is that it may describe the fuzziness of molecular surfaces due to high frequency atomic vibrations (see Agishtein).
The volumetric properties of the Gaussian molecular representation have been compared to those of other surfaces by Duncan and Olson and Grant and Pickup. They found that a Gaussian representation could reproduce area and volume quantitites computed using a hard-sphere model. The Gaussian representation is exploited to locate specific regions on molecular surfaces in the SURFNET program of Laskowski. Physically, the Gaussian representation provides a much more natural and realistic description of the shape of molecules than the atomic hard sphere representation. Another advantage is its continuity which allows straight-forward analytical estimation of the derivatives of surface dependent properties, in contrast to the computational difficulties of dealing with the discontinuous hard sphere representation.
In this study, we use a related, exponential, density function to construct molecular surfaces. It differs from previous uses of Gaussian functions in the following respects:
a) The function is constructed to define molecular surfaces rather than the molecular interior. We intentionally study the surfaces directly, since quantization and numerical operations on the 2D surface require considerably fewer operations and memory than operations on the 3D density function itself.
b) Surfaces similar to the solvent accessible surface of the molecule can be derived as well as those corresponding to its van der Waals surface. The solvent accessible surface is easier to treat analytically because of its relative simplicity.
c) The parameters of the density function are assigned to define the degree of smoothing of a hard-sphere surface. These parameters are related to electron density parameters to the extent that the hard-sphere model reflects the electron density.
The starting point for this study is the analytical definition of the surface approximating the solvent accessible or van der Waals surface. The surface is defined implicitly using the functional of the distance to it (simply, distance=0). Using this functional, one can make a numerically fast and stable projection to the surface on which one can place a set of approximately equally spaced points with obvious connectivity. The latter may be used to build a grid of quasi-curvilinear coordinates on the surface. We describe two important applications of these surfaces.
The first application is to couple a potential function to the surface so that the potential function appears to be defined on the molecular surface. Then it has meaningful extrema separated from singularities at sources of the potential or asymptotic values at infinity. These extrema are the most concise representation of the potential function.
The second application is the mapping of part of the surface or a molecular interface to a flat rectangle. The mapping allows the projection of the surface from 3D to 2D with conservation of neighbourhood and reasonably small distortions. Although the mapping algorithm used may give rise to overlaps when the distance conservation requirement is strong, overlaps decrease as this requirement is weakened. The mapping algorithm is particularly suitable for analyzing the solvent accessible surface of a molecule, and can be used for the van der Waals surface although interpretation is more difficult as overlap is more of a problem. Interfaces between molecules can be mapped reasonably in the majority of cases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to the surface
Let us define an exponential parametric function g(r,A;d) associated with atom A, whose center is positioned at and which has a radius . The parametric function depends on coordinate r and adjustable parameter d :
.
While other functional forms may be equally appropriate, we will only consider the above exponential function. A simple manipulation gives the exact value of the distance to the surface of the atom A, :
,
which is independent of the parameter d. Assignment of zero atom radius would give the distance to the atom center.
Now, let us consider a molecule M comprised of atoms , i=1,2,...,N, with radii and coordinates . One can define the exponential parametric function for a molecule as a sum of those for every atom:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1a)
Then, the distance functional is:
. . . . . . . . . . (1b)
This definition is formally equivalent to an isocontour value of the sum in (1a), but is easier to handle numerically.
At any point, r, the major contribution to the sum in (1a) will be from the closest atom. Thus, the distance, , derived from G(r,M;d) will largely reflect the distance to the closest atom, (as the distance to a collection of atoms should do according to molecular surface ideology). Variation of the parameter d changes the relative contribution of the close atoms to the sum. As d is decreased, the number of contributing atoms decreases and, when d=0, only the closest atom contributes.
Depending on which radii are ascribed to the atoms, one obtains the distances to different surfaces: a) if all are atomic van der Waals radii, then =0 defines an approximation to the van der Waals surface; b) if all are van der Waals radii of atoms incremented by a solvent probe radius, then the solvent accessible surface is approximated.
The choice of the value of the parameter d should be related to the characteristic interatomic distances. At any given point on the surface, the relative contributions to the sum in equation (1b) arising from the the closest atom and the next closest atom can be compared. Considering a typical interatomic distance of 1.5 Ã… between these atoms, the contribution to the sum from the second atom will be 0.05 and 0.22 times that of the closest atom for values of d of 0.5 and 1.0 Ã…, respectively. Consequently, considering only the two closest atoms, the =0 surface will follow the van der Waals or solvent accessible surface with a deviation of only 0.025 Ã… at d=0.5 Ã… or 0.2 Ã… at d= 1.0 Ã…. If the geometrical positions of the atoms is different that from described above, or more atoms are considered, the distortion may be much greater. Figures 01-04 illustrate the dependence of the computed surfaces on the parameter d for the human growth factor hormone.
Figure 01: Contours on the solvent accessible surface of human growth factor (hGH) computed with d =1.0 Ã…. There are 6911 points at the surface. The solvent accessible surface area, computed from the hard-sphere representation is 9785 .
Figure 02: Contours on the solvent accessible surface of human growth factor (hGH) computed with d =0.5 Ã…. There are 7497 points at the surface.
Figure 03: Planar section through the same molecule, hGH, showing contours corresponding to van der Waals surfaces at d =1.0, 0.50 and 0.25 Ã…. The contour with d =0.5Ã… essentially shows all the details of the molecular surface except the cavities within the molecule. At d<0.25 Ã… the contours are not of closed form, making continuous tracing of the surface impossible.
Figure 04 shows contours on the same cross-section plane as in Figure 03 for solvent accessible surfaces computed with four values of d. Note that surfaces computed with d<0.25 Ã… are almost indistinguishable.
The surface of molecule M is thus defined by =0. To define the interface between two molecules, M1 and M2, the definition of the distance to the molecular surface given in (1b) can be used in:
=
where the distances and are the distances to the surfaces of the first and second molecules, respectively. The parameters in the definition of the distance functional (1b) can be modified to obtain different interfaces defined as equidistant to molecular surfaces using atomic radii or defined as equidistant to the closest atoms by setting all radii to zero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations on the surface
The performance of some of the operations to be described below depends on the value assigned to the parameter d, defining the closeness of the computed surface to a hard-sphere surface. Except for the first two, which are performable at any d, mapping of the surface can usually (for proteins) be done only at d >0.5 Ã… when the surface is smooth enough to keep the mapping operations stable. Improvement of the algorithms may, however, enable mapping of the more complicated surfaces obtained at smaller d.
a. Placing a point on the surface
The surface is defined implicitly and is smooth. The basic operation for moving from any given point to the point on the surface is projection to the surface along the gradient of the distance function (1b). Projection is performed iteratively with a step size equal to the distance to the surface.
b. Motions along the surface
Motions along the surface from any point can be done using the surface tangents. The choice of the functional (1b) makes the higher order derivatives small, so the tangent movements can be corrected by a few iterations (typically 1-2, when the deviations from the surface are less than 1 Ã…), when the step size of the tangent motion is within 1-3Ã…. Consequently, the move along the surface costs several computations of sums like that in (1b) (the functional itself and its 3 first derivatives are computed at each iteration). Computation of the sum (1b) scales as the number of atoms: the same number of motions wll cost only twice as much when the molecule size is doubled.
c. Mapping part of a surface
Locally, the molecular surface resembles a Euclidean rectangle (being topologically equivalent to it). One can define pseudo-Euclidean coordinates on an interesting part of the surface. It is natural to introduce polar coordinates, starting from some specific point on the surface. This can be achieved by growing up rings of points starting from a given center. A variety of algorithms can be used. We introduce the basal distance D to define the distance between the points on the surface. Each ring of points is constructed at this distance from the previous one and then projected onto the surface. The points on each newly constructed ring are then checked, one after the other, to see if the distance to the next point is less than 0.75D, in which case this next point is eliminated, or larger than 1.7D, in which case one more point is added. An example of a set of points resulting from applying this procedure is shown in Figure 05. This method is similar to that used by Bacon and Moult, who introduced web coordinates on molecular surface patches by fitting the precomputed surface points by B-splines and constructing a self-growing web. We use the ring construction algorithm to map the interfaces between two molecules. If D=1 Ã…, the algorithm places ca. 1 point per 1.225 of the surface.
Figure 05: Example of a set of points resulting from the mapping procedure.
d. Scanning the whole molecular surface
To represent the molecular surface as a whole, one needs a representative set of points on the surface that cover the entire surface as uniformly as possible. The simplest solution is to project every atom center in the molecule onto the closest point on the surface. A drawback of this procedure is that the set of points on the surface cannot be made more dense unless a check over all surface point pairs is done because the points are not ordered according to proximity. It is just such computationally intensive searching that we wish to avoid. An alternative procedure is to use the algorithm described above in section (c) to map the entire molecular surface. For relatively spherical molecular surfaces, the growing rings may eventually contract to a point on the other side of the molecular surface from that at which growing was started, thus defining the spherical coordinates. These mapped coordinates may be used to locate every point on the surface. Making a more dense representation is straightforward since the set of points is ordered. Examples are presented in Figures 01 and 02 where this algorithm was used to cover the solvent accessible surface of the molecule by a sequence of rings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding Potential Extrema
Potentials representing diverse properties, for example, electrostatic potential, lipophilicity, hydrophobicity, or the curvature of the surface itself, can be studied. In order to locate the potential's extrema on the surface, the formalism of Lagrange multipliers is used and the equations are solved by Newton's method (see, for example, Korn and Korn). For this, it is necessary to compute the first and second derivatives of the potential and the distance functional. These can be computed analytically if the potential and its gradient are smooth.
Figure 06 shows an example of the characterization of a potential on a molecule's surface by its extremal points. The circles are drawn to show the sizes (derived from the second derivative) of the minima and maxima along the surface tangent plane. Saddle points are shown as lines along the two main directions, defining the steepest increase and decrease of the potential. Surprisingly, the potential at the (smoothed with d = 1 Ã…) 1.4 Ã… probe accessible surface of the molecule is not extremely complicated, having only 50-100 extremal points in all. These points can be used as a minimal representation to restore the potential and to compare molecules. For instance, many molecular properties correlate with the properties of its electrostatic potential as described, for example, by Murray et al and Richard.
Figure 06: Minima, maxima and saddle points of the electrostatic potential on the smoothed solvent accessible surface (shown by yellow contours) of hGH. Red circles shows the position and extension of minima (which, in this example, all have a negative value of the potential), blue circles show the maxima, and green crosses show the saddle points of the potential on the surface.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projections of molecular surfaces and interfaces
Surfaces are usually defined as a set of points that is visualized with the aid of graphical programs and analysed by eye. The automation of the procedure would not only save time spent in analysis, but would also avoid possible errors resulting from the subjective nature of the manual analysis procedure. The projection of two different surfaces onto one simple surface is necessary for the comparison of these surfaces (see review by Masek ). A natural solution is to project the surface onto a plane where it can be quantified in a straightforward manner. However, simple projection of the entire molecular surface encounters a topological problem (met already in mapping the surface of the earth), since a closed surface can at best be projected onto a sphere rather than a plane without destroying the connectivities between points. A beautiful solution to this problem for small molecules was suggested by Gasteiger et al, who used Kohonen maps to project the surface onto a torus conserving neighbourhood.
For projecting the surface onto a sphere, the gnomonic projection (see Chau and Dean) provides the simplest solution. The surface is placed within the sphere and then projected along the radials of the sphere. The feasibility of approximately conserving distances between points on the surface upon projection is highly dependent on the relative orientations of the sphere and surface and distance conservation will not be uniform over the surface. Moreover, two points will often be projected onto one, resulting in loss of information. A projection that avoids overlaps is the spherical harmonics representation developed by Duncan and Olson in which a special procedure eliminates overlaps resulting from the gnomonic projection.
The solution proposed in this work is based on the analytical definition of molecular surfaces and the algorithm of growing rings, which builds up quasi-polar coordinates on the surface. This construction may overlap onto itself, causing the duplicate projection of some regions of the surface. The duplication problem is inevitable as can be appreciated from imagining covering an irregular surface with a piece of paper. The duplicate covering can obviously not be completely avoided except in the case of a planar surface. However, most of the duplications can be avoided by weakening the requirement of distance conservation, in an analogous way to covering the surface with a piece of stretch film rather than paper. Depending on the curvature of the surface, this will cause different degrees of distortion. On the other hand, overlaps caused by topological differences between the original and projection surfaces should be handled either by projecting onto an appropriate simple surface or by additional description, for example, specifying the equivalence of opposite borders of a rectangle to which a torus has been projected.
Once the surface has been covered by a set of rings, the m-th point of the n-th ring can be projected onto a point (x,y) on the plane using the following formulae:
, where M is the number of points in the n-th ring.
As a result various properties on the surface or interface are transferred to an appropriate Euclidian rectangle.
Figures 01 and 02 show surfaces mapped avoiding duplications. A correction of the procedure described in section (d) above avoids local sources of duplication, so that the growing rings eventually evolve to a point on the other side of the molecule. The ring numbering can serve as a latitude and the length parameter along each ring as a longitude. This provides a means by which to automatically introduce spherical coordinates for a molecular surface.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example of interface analysis
(For best viewing of this section, the width of the page should be equal to the width of the bar below.)
By way of illustration, we provide a new view (in Figures 07-13) of the hGH-hGH receptor interfaces analysed by Clackson and Wells. The available crystal structure consists of the ternary complex of one hGH molecule bound to two identical receptors: hGHR1 and hGHR2. Binding at the first interface, hGH-hGHR1, is high affinity while that at the second interface, hGH-hGHR2, is low affinity. The buried areas on the hGH-hGHR1 and hGH-hGHR2 interfaces are 1300 and 900 , respectively. The two binding surfaces of hGH differ in sequence while the binding surfaces of the two receptors are similar (but not identical) both spatially and in terms of the residues involved.
The pictures below are the links to stereo images of: a) the ribbon representation of the complex; b) the complex together with 2 interfaces; c) hGHR2 and hGH and interface; d) hGHR1 and hGH and interface.
For the mapped interfaces shown in Figures 07-13, the areas in the maps approximately equal the areas on the interface in 3D. The scale is such that each map has dimensions of about 60 Ã… by 60 Ã…, and the tick marks are positioned at approximately every 1 Ã…. The contour plots of 2 dimensional functions on a reactangle are generated using the program XFarbe.
Figure 07: Mapping displaying the interprotein distances (in Ã…) for the hGH-hGHR2 (left) and hGH-hGHR1 (right) interfaces. The distance is computed at every interface point as a sum of the distances to the closest atoms of the two proteins. The latter distances are derived from the distance functional (1b) with atomic radii set to zero.
Figure 08: Mapping of the residues of hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) onto the hGH-hGHR1 interface coloured by their number. Only the residues projecting onto more than 17 points are coloured.
Figure 09: As figure 08 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Figure 10: Mapping of the hydrophobicity properties (following Eisenberg and McLachlan) of the closest atoms of hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) onto the hGH-hGHR1 interface. Blue regions are hydrophobic, red ones are hydrophilic.
Figure 11: As figure 10 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Figure 12: Mapping of the crystallographic temperature factor distribution (in of the closest atoms of hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) onto the hGH-hGHR1 interface. Red regions are more mobile with temperature factors above 30 ; blue regions are more rigid with temperature factors below 25
Figure 13: As figure 12 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Figure 14: Mapping of the electrostatic potential (in kcal/mole/e) from hGHR1 (left) and hGH (right) on the hGH-hGHR1 interface.
Figure 15: As figure 14 but for the hGH-hGHR2 interface.
Interfacial cavities and crevices can be identified from Figure 07. Those for which the interprotein distance is greater than about 5 Ã… are large enough to accommodate water molecules. As can be seen from Figures 08 and 09, the interfaces consist of residues from discontiguous parts of the sequences of the proteins. However, there are some continuous stretches of residues at the interfaces, notably, the participation of the D helix and C-terminus of hGH (residues 155-190) in interactions with the hGHR1 is readily seen in Figure 08 (right) as a more ordered region of residues with close numbers. The interface to HGHR1 is, however, not centred on this helix but inbetween two separate secondary structure patterns. On hGHR1, there are three residues that contribute large surface areas to the interface. Tryptophans 104 and 169 contact part of hGH's D helix (residues 155-184) and AB loop (residues 35-71, especially the N-terminal part of the minihelix 2, built of residues 64-70). Asparagine 218 interacts with part of hGH's A helix (residues 9-34). Experimentally it has been shown that the high affinity of the hGH:hGHR1 complex is due to the contribution of a "hot spot" on the hGHR1 receptor consisting of a small number of hydrophobic residues, including W104 and W169 (Clackson and Wells). The hydrophobic patch at the interface created by these residues is clearly visible in Figure 10. It is the largest continuous hydrophobic patch on the interface. It satisfies the description of the binding epitope as consisting of a hydrophobic center surrounded by polar moieties. An equivalent patch, due also to W104 and W169, is observed on the hGHR2 in the second (lower affinity) interface, but it differs in shape and in the arrangement of the polar residues around it. The second patch on the hGHR1 interface (formed mainly by N218 of hGHR1) also has a large buried area. However, it contributes much less to the binding energy, as revealed by mutational analysis (see Clackson and Wells ). It can be seen from Figure 12, that this patch has less hydrophobic complimentarity, being composed of hydrophilic residues of hGHR1. Moreover, it is rather mobile unlike the first patch. It is interesting that it is the mobility rather than hydrophobicity that clearly distinguishs the first patch from the second (see Figure 12 vs Figure 10) implying that the interactions between less mobile residues define the binding free energy of these two proteins. The residues forming the second patch of the interface to hGHR1 have much smaller interfacial areas on the interface to hGHR2.
The electrostatic potentials of the two proteins show a high degree of complimentarity at the interface, as can be seen from Figures 14 and 15, where regions of positive (negative) potential from one protein match regions of negative (positive) potential from the other. The electrostatic potentials were computed with UHBD. The potentials of the hormone at the two binding interfaces are similar. This is seen by comparing the right sides of Figures 14 and 15 taking into account the different transformations applied during projection: in both cases, the potential of the hormone consists of patches in the sequence: negative-positive-negative-positive (from the left to the right).
Figure 16 shows the similarity index for the potentials from hGHR1 and hGH plotted on every interface point, as well as a simple product of the two potentials. To compute the potentials used in Figure 16, the polar hydrogen atoms were simply added to the crystal structure with the HBUILD option in QUANTA. As can be seen from Figure 16, the complimentarity of the two potentials (given by negative values of the similarity index) is not uniformly distributed over the interface. There are at least 4 regions where the potentials from the 2 molecules are in conflict having the same sign and having considerable absolute values (see the right-side panel of Figure 16). To evaluate whether these result from assignment of poor hydrogen atom positions, we energy minimized the hydrogen atoms (fixing all heavy atoms) with QUANTA/CHARMM for 150 steps of steepest descent minimization. Figure 17 shows the same properties as Figure 16 for the resulting conformation.
Figure 16: Similarity index (known as Hodgkin index) as a function of the interface point (left) and the product (right) of the two molecular potentials for the hGH-hGHR1 interface. Namely, given the potentials from molecule 1, , and molecule 2, , at the point r of the interface, the function shown on the left-side is and on the right: . There are 4 clickable regions (A, B ,C and D) for which 3D stereo images available.
Figure 17: As Figure 16 but for the energy minimized conformation of the hGH-hGHR1 complex.
As a result of minimization, one highly non-complementary patch (B) disappeared. The other non-complementarity patches, however, remain. The conformational changes due to minimization are rather small, as can be seen by clicking on the marked patches of non-complimentarity in Figure 16 - they have links to 3D stereo images of conformations before (coloured by atom type) and after (coloured green) minimization. The receptor (hGHR1) is always drawn on the left side of the interface (yellow). Non-complimentarity in region B is removed by a conformational change in Threonine 175 of hGH, the added hydroxyl hydrogen atom of which was in obvious conflict with the side chain atoms of Arginine 43 of hGHR1. The small non-complimentarity in region A is not affected by minimization. Non-complimentarity in region D is reduced, but this is not only due to minimization: we also interchanged the NE and OE atoms of the side chain of Glutamine 46 of hGH, which, as a result, has a favourable electrostatic interaction with Glutamate 120 and Threonine 77 of the hGHR1. The interactions in region C are very complicated and remained essentially unoptimized after minimization. It is interesting that there is a correlation between electrostatically non-complimentary regions, mobile regions and the regions having a small contribution to binding.
In summary, this example shows the different features contributing to binding. The "hot spot" is a particularly rigid (blue spot in Figure 12 ) hydrophobic (blue spot in Figure 10 and white spot on the right-side panel of Figure 17 ) region of high shape complimentarity (red spot in the right side panel of Figure 07 ) involving 2 Tryptophans ( Figure 08 ) surrounded by polar residues in highly complimentary positions (best seen in Figure 17 ).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of area values
There is approximate area conservation during the mapping procedure. When the reference distance for ring generation is D=1Ã…, approximately one point is placed per 1.225 . However the distribution of the points is not uniform. Projection of the surface rings to the rings of the polar coordinates on a planar rectangle further distorts the areas.
We repeated the mapping for the two interfaces for hGH binding to hGHR1 and hGHR2 using different starting points. In both cases, the interface remains the same since its definition is independent of mapping. Distortions occur when the surface is projected onto the planar square and these distortions are related to the position of the interface with respect to the center/starting point. There is no strict correlation between the distance to the chosen center and the distortions, although the area around the center will always be less distorted. Mapping with different centers is a good test of area conserving properties. Figure 18 shows the correlation between the areas assigned to every residue of both proteins at both interfaces during two different mappings. Deviations are within either the absolute limit of points or the relative limit of These deviations depend mainly on the surface curvature which defines the degree of distortion.
Figure 18. Correlation between areas assigned to residues at the hGH-hGHR1 and hGH-hGHR2 interfaces when mapping is started at points separated by 2 Ã… QQ An absolute tolerance limit of is shown in red and a relative tolerance limit of is shown in blue. The scale is logarithmic.
The distortions above are introduced by the projection procedure. However, the placing of the points on the interface or surface is also subject to error. These distortions can be quantified by relating the accessibility of each residue to the number of surface points generated on the analytical surface which are closer to this residue than any other (see Figure 19). There are two sources for deviations. The first is caused by the deviation of the analytical smooth surface from the hard-sphere surface used to compute residue accessibilities. The second is defined by the algorithm generating the points on the surface, which is designed to generate non-intersecting rings that evolve to a single point when mapping of the surface is complete. As can be seen in Figure 19, although the upper estimate of the error for the surface shown in Figure 02 is 22 , for the majority of residues the number of surface points per residue correlates much better (with a scaling factor of 1.25) with the residue accessibilities. The scaling factor arises because the surface was constructed so that there is on average 1 point per 1.225 .
Figure 19. Correlation between the number of surface points per residue on the surface shown in Figure 02 for hGH and residue accessibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program
The illustrations above are generated by a 4-step protocol using the ADS (Analytically Defined molecular Surfaces) program package. In the first step, rings of points are constructed on the interface using a program which maps the surface of the molecule. In the second step, the required properties are assigned to the points on the surface. In the third step, the surface rings are projected onto a rectangle, producing data files to be used in the fourth step, which is to display the properties and plot the pictures. Output data files are readable by the X-window oriented program XFarbe of Preusser, which is used to make a contour representation of the functions on a rectangle. Computer times necessary to perform the manipulations (which have not yet been optimized for speed) are within 2-5 minutes on an SGI Indy RC 4600 workstation for proteins having ca 1500 atoms.
The source codes (in fortran 77) of the ADS program package are currently under development and it is intended that they will be made available upon request.
Check the latest status of ADS development at ADS home page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
We have introduced an analytical definition of smooth molecular surfaces as isocontours of the sum of exponential functions centered on atoms. Depending on the smoothing parameter, the analytically defined surfaces can approximate van der Waals or solvent accessible surfaces of a molecule with any desired accuracy. We constructed a distance functional to make the implicit definition of the surface easy to use numerically. Moreover, the interface between two molecules may be defined using this definition of distance to the molecules.
We exploited the main property of these surfaces, their smoothness, in order a) to couple potential functions to a surface and locate extremal points of the potential on the surface by gradient methods; b) to define pseudo-Euclidean (on part of the surface) or pseudo-spherical (on the whole surface) coordinates on the surface; c) to define pseudo-Euclidean coordinates on the interface between two molecules. These representations are useful to visualize and study molecular surfaces and interfaces.
The main advantage of these representations is that their complexity or simplicity can be tuned by the user. This attribute is especially important for analysing the many properties of protein surfaces and interfaces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Agishtein, M.E. Fuzzy molecular surfaces. J. Biomol. Str. & Dynamics., 1992, 9, 759-768.
Bacon D.J. and J. Moult. Docking by least-squares fitting of molecular surface patterns. J. Mol. Biol., 1992, 225, 849-858.
Chau P.L. and P.M. Dean. Molecular recognition: 3D surface structure comparison by gnomonic projection. J. Mol. Graphics, 1987, 5, 97-100.
Connolly, M. L. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science, 1983, 221, 709-713.
Clackson T., J.A.Wells. A hot spot of binding energy in a hormone-receptor interface. Science, 1995, 267, 383-386.
de Vos A.M., M. Ultsch, A.A. Kossiakoff. Human growth hormone and extracellular domain of its receptor: Crystal structure of the complex. Science, 255, 306-312.
PDB entry 3hhr.brk, notations hGH, hGHR1 and hGHR2 are used for chains A, B and C, respectively.
Duncan, B., and A. J. Olson. Approximation and characterization of molecular surfaces. Biopolymers, 1993, 33, 219-229.
Duncan, B., and A. J. Olson. Shape analysis of molecular surfaces. Biopolymers, 1993, 33, 231-238.
Eisenberg., D., A.D. McLachlan. Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature , 1986, 319 , 199-203.
Eisenhaber, F., P. Lijnzaad, P. Argos, C. Sander, and M. Scharf. The double cubic lattice method: efficient approaches to numerical integration of surface area and volume and to dot surface contouring of molecular assemblies. J. Comp. Chem., 1995, 16, 273-284.
Fischer D., R. Norel, H. Wolfson, R. Nussinov. Surface motifs by a computer vision technique: searches, detection, and implications for protein-ligand recognition. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 1993, 16, 278-292.
Gasteiger, J., X. Li, C. Rudolph, J. Sadowski, and J. Zupan. 1994. Representation of molecular electrostatic potentials by topological feature maps. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1994, 116, 4608-4620.
Gasteiger, J., X. Li, and A. Uschold. The beauty of molecular surfaces as revealed by self organizing neural networks. J. Mol. Graphics., 1994, 12, 90-97.
Grant, J. A., and B. T. Pickup. A gaussian description of the molecular shape. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 3503-3510.
Hodgkin, E.E. and W.G. Richards. Molecular similarity based on electrostatic potential and electric field. Int. J. Quantum Chemistry. Quantum Biol. Symp., 1987, 14, 105-110.
Korn G.A., T.M. Korn. Mathematical handbook for scientists and engineers. 1961. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Laskowski, R. A. SURFNET: A program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. J. Mol. Graphics, 1995, 13, 323-330.
Lee, B., F.M. Richards. The interpretation of protein structures: Estimation of static accessibility. J. Mol. Biol., 1971, 55 , 379-400.
Lijnzaad P., H.J.C. Berendsen, P.Argos. Hydrophobic patches on the surfaces of protein structures. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 1996, 25, 389-397.
Madura, J.D., J.M. Briggs, R.C. Wade, M.E. Davis, B.A. Luty, A. Ilin, J. Antosieeicz, M.K. Gilson, B. Bagheri, L.R. Scott, and J.A. McCammon. Electrostatics and diffusion of molecules in solutions: simulations with the University of Houston Brownian Dynamics Program. Comp. Phys. Comm., 1995, 91, 57-95.
Masek B.B. Molecular surface comparisons. In: Molecular similarity in drug design , edited by P.M. Dean, Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, 1995, 163-186.
Murray, J. S., T. Brinck, and P. Politizer. Relationships of molecular surface electrostatic potentials to some macroscopic properties. Chem. Phys., 1996, 204, 289-299.
Nicholls, A., R. Bharadwaj, and B.Honig. GRASP: Graphical representation and analysis of molecular surfaces. Biophys. J. 1993, 64 , A166
Preusser, A. Algorithm 671 - FARB-E-2D: Fill area with bicubics on reactangles - A contour plot program. ACM Trans.Math.Soft., 1989, 15, 79-89. On-line description of the program is also available.
QUANTA molecular modeling software package. 1992. Molecular Simulations, Inc. Waltham, MA.
Richard, A. M. Quantitative comparison of molecular electrostatic potentials for structure-activity studies. J. Comp. Chem. 1991, 12, 959-969.
Richards F.M. Areas, volumes, packing, and protein structure. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng., 1977, 6, 151-176.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how science, math, and chemistry, etc. is communicated.
Not "I rather stay away from hell ink not display a twisted picture of my deepest wish , to reinfrce you to produce 4 times stronger plane fuselages, earthquake safe houses, buildings that will rebuild from scratch , now where on that plotter paper do you se this"
If it were not for your lost rants maybe you could see this.
What you do is fine otherwise.
How can we impart some sense to your way Per, otherwise...
I ask again, where is my darn delete thread button?
Hi
In some treads some scripts aome fora, you have the option to edit your own posts , but wouldn't a tread be a wierd piece of poetry if the context can change , Now if what you ask is knowleage of sort of digital Turette that's how I se the tread the result I reconise some but even I have some knowleage having an autistic child I say that you seem to much aware of it for me to help, beside just that it is natural for you to harras others, don't justify it.
Some even use their Turette as exchouse to do social things that can be exchoused " oh that's his Turette he didn't do it by porpus" , now how can you help when the Turette is not the issue the reson you look for that button is proberly uncountious ,you know the ansver but will not realise fact, --- Shuld that be so difficult to change, it just ask a bit guts.
wow alpha...that was actually a pretty interesting paper.
jmac, I agree, sometimes I wish I had the time to mine deeply like that. The nature of surfaces and their interactions is a rich subject.
Have a great weekend, I'm sneekin' out early today!
That's the short coming of todays architectural elite. They want to desribe their works as the above process. We should have learned our lesson long ago with the spouting of Eisenman during his House phase.
Alright, I will be the first to admit there are very few on my side of the canal. My question to you, then, "What is in your wagon?".
the thing that i find interesting is that this thread went on and on and on.
and while you all wanted it to die...
it just wouldn't.
and yet you all kept returning.
the thing i'm struck by is that Per had the balls to post something and put himself "out there". and whether or not it was good, all you could do was "bash" him (as one of you said you were doing.)
this strikes at the very heart of the problem with our architectural education system. the "attack" mentally of our studio crits has put us on guard so that when we are given the chance to critique the work of our colleagues, we don't provide anything constructive or even illuminating. we look for the weak points and keep digging until the "victim" breaks down (mentally, emotionally, or physically.)
Per - i don't know that i agree with everything you wrote/posted, but i applaud you stamina and willingness to "put it out there" and stick up for what you believe. it sounds like you are a Dane. having just returned from a 2 month research trip to Denmark, i think that integrity is trait that most Danes possess. it unfortunately is not a trait that most Americans have.
i think archinect is really fantastic and has so much potential to change the dialogue in our profession. let's not take drag it down with all the negative energy that our predecessors so liked to employ. this is a new generation. let's take the profession in a new direction.
it's been almost a month that this thread has lived.
i agree with many of you, it's time to start fresh and let this one die.
Hi
I like the first part of your post, it\s not just architecture that change it\s our perception of "the master architect" the Icon and the technikes that will change.
I don't know that much about architecture but I know it never going to work to force everything under the same code books ,it's not that is't not a good idear to have everything grouped so an accurate account can be made on paper, that buying and selling making your persenteage shuldn't work within the digital accounting systems, but having a block with attributes and ontop expect that the lattrice works shuld intiligent interact at the same time, without making this just also within the way things alway's been done, and no matter how effective the old way's can be rewritten ,it will not win a new world , it just make the old one more stressed and square.
I agrea with most of what you say, but not all I did argue myself , you se I don't make my money on this acturly I never made very much money on what I made money wasn't the issue but realy I have no other choice, so I have to stay in it --- you Romans will never understand that.
The rest will come, maby 5 , 10 or 20 years guess it will come if somone realy want to make the money ,press a button and the thing is there this change your options the whole way to project, the choice of materials and the actural mashines that make it.
Hi
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
Just an old Pony ; a bargebridge a float bridge four or five of these in a row will make a cheap bridge, will be flexible as they after the weekend at the Opera can form a day bridge north of that place, if placed the wrong place it can just be moved to the right place, it alway's be level with the land with ballast tanks and pumps navigated with satelite , don't even need a captain but can be automated and act as ship, controlled from land or onboard.
Check out this nice feature ;
somebody kill this thing... better yet, somebody kill me...now...please...
pow
Hi
Then tell me what is wrong with a float bridge, what's wrong with just a bit innovative aproach don't you know that what cost in a ship is not the hull . Now this aproach is just perfect in an old slow harbour like copenhagen I don't say it is perfect with a river running wild, but if there is mostly a meter or one and a halve meter between high and low tide ,if the barge is fitted with ballast tanks that pump out with low water and fill with high tide so it alway's is even with the land, then instead of placing a number of expensive small bridges wrong ,this one offer quite a bit more flexibility.
Ofcaurse you can't have it in all the worlds architect news as yet another arched walking bridge, you can't talk about elegant swung arches , but you can talk about a solution that leave a live harbour not a parade of impressive single masterpieces in enginering but a flexible solution, that solve the trafic problems --- Ok maby that is not what you Romans want to solve maby the practic issues must back out with the wish of spetacular enginering arches moving in the wind ,maby we must be pleased the more advanced the more futuristic the faster worn out tiny bridges must work. This barge bridge offer none of that, it's cheap easy build ,serve a porpus you could even make it so that turist boats could pass thru it, you could place a resturant ontop it ,it would work in the protected waters of a harbour it will open a lot of new oppotunities that a bridge would never do. It can be here in the weekends and there the rest of the week, it will not fall if one section fall out, a replacement barge is easy placed.
i am not a Roman;
Phil·is·tine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fl-stn, f-lstn, -tn)
n.
A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C.
A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values.
One who lacks knowledge in a specific area.
adj.
Of or relating to ancient Philistia.
often philistine Boorish; barbarous: “our plastic, violent culture, with its philistine tastes and hunger for novelty†(Lloyd Rose).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From Middle English Philistines, Philistines, from Late Latin Philistn, from Greek Philistnoi, from Hebrew Plitîm, from Pleet Philistia.]
Word History: It has never been good to be a Philistine. In the Bible Samson, Saul, and David helped bring the Philistines into prominence because they were such prominent opponents. Though the Philistines have long since disappeared, their name has lived on in the Hebrew Scriptures. The English name for them, Philistines, which goes back through Late Latin and Greek to Hebrew, is first found in Middle English, where Philistiens, the ancestor of our word, is recorded in a work composed before 1325. Beginning in the 17th century philistine was used as a common noun, usually in the plural, to refer to various groups considered the enemy, such as literary critics. In Germany in the same century it is said that in a memorial at Jena for a student killed in a town-gown quarrel, the minister preached a sermon from the text “Philister über dir Simson! [The Philistines be upon thee, Samson!],†the words of Delilah to Samson after she attempted to render him powerless before his Philistine enemies. From this usage it is said that German students came to use Philister, the German equivalent of Philistine, to denote nonstudents and hence uncultured or materialistic people. Both usages were picked up in English in the early 19th century.
Hi
Right I get back to that crowd later .
betadinesutures that cirtainly sound like a Roman name , anyway you be a Roman for me untill you realise.
tell me Per how would 3d-honey design around, oh, i don't know lets say this...
** pornographic image removed by moderators **
or this?
** pornographic image removed by moderators **
Hi
I develobed the option case you are lazy have all the pictures a reson and a wish to earn a mountain of money. But is you realy have enough with fiddled computer mesh ,want houses for families to live in and a promise of progress and new jobs, then I wonder what your exchouse not making a beauty will be.
I told the generated @material@ is in your hands concerning dimentions ,gee we just got there you just recently got the promise, that rigid boxwork, proberly could be made intelligent < 5 inch up this hight 10 inch if the building is to high Realy how much intiligens do you need in terms of generating the thickness of material ,when there are just 3 avaible.
Well if you are not a Designer this couldn't vorry a Roman, Please this make everything ; as a thick shell of interconnected framework you don't want to build at a third the cost why do you even deal with this discussion, you don't know what beauty is, don't ask honesty don't know a thing, never tried it don't even reconise it, now you don't want to create as you are lazy , isn't that what a Roman could ansver ?
Don't you understand this is a new material, it is avaible with water laser and pounching mashines , well if you are lazy you don't want to profit from a new Digital method, that promise a lot , why then "talk" about nice houses and beautifull people, if you beforehand refuse to earn a mountain of money -------- you do that with Direct Link production but ofcaurse only if you know what beauty is new jobs are very pritty --- No ?????
Hi
I must exchouse to those who read the tread the dirt betadinesutures
now post shuld show enough about the intentions , Now I asked the staff to remove this filth but being the one who started the tread I must ask every one of the more than 3000 viewers to know and understand what you are up against ,displaying a new visionary idea.
betadinesutures obviously have other fake names and I tried this before, latest somone named "Ken" found great pleasure posting the same dirt in another fora I participated , in this tread you can expect that the same person bored from Usenet, have taken several fake names and taken you all hosteage forcing dirty pictures upon you in his attemt to harm me, Obviously you can't protect yourself against sick people I just hope the staff reconise and find a way to make sure the fora don't develob into a porn site.
betadinesutures:
Who is the guardian of your gate to cultur and art?
hey per: great thread... ;)
are you looking for a designer who is willing to test your 3DH building method? it seems to me that your project would be more convincing if you actually got a project built... and it would also help if the built project was well designed not just to show what 3DH can do, but if it was a real functional building, that does something formally interesting that couldn't easily be done with more common building methods, so that it gives 3DH some credibility....
or build some smaller scale objects to demonstrate / prove 3DH... Like a storage shed or an interesting exterior structure like a pavilion or a deck... or even some kind of furniture that is structurally / formally interesting and then include the cost to build it, time and the precise building steps required... represent the simplicity of process to hit people over the head with your idea...
in other words, people sometimes need proof... an idea is great. but it becomes real if you actually build with it... i mean make architecture. not just boats...
From another group infiltrated by you know who...
"I am glad that you are finnaly trying to appeal to the graphic designers,
because those of us who deal in reality will have no use for your useless
drawings. Go make a video game or something.
Everytime I try to ask a sensible question about these crappy ideas,
I get nonsense as an answer. Or "I dont understand" or "the romans used bricks" or some other bullshit. As soon as you are ready to provide
some real answers, then I will begin to accept."
Ken
Hi
bRink you are quite right, trouble is that to do that you need a workshop. Also within architecture there are a growing understanding that to make a revolution is in the direction acturly using the computer but in a way that is very different .
Now did you ever know an inventor that had no finantional problems, emagine you can just spend the time and the money . Now please don\t think that when I talk about laser and water cutters, that I do so from what you can read on the web. So even I would have no problems setting up a N.C. router or do a proto type from plot sheets cutting the assembly from the lines, arts are still a social game and I am not a member Im\e not an architect and being so critic as I am ,it is simply impossible to raise the money ---- it\s as simple as that.
Hi
Ken I don\t make pictures I develob building methods. I don\t make what you think I make ,then how can you blame me doing somthing I don\t even feel for, I want real things not things on paper .
Don\t you understand that I am not pleased with pritty pictures but want new technikes ,still you blame me for somthing that is all in your mind and you can\t understand that you will never get the @ansver@ you ask ; you are the one who display your ignorance you are the one who never ansver but repeat the same stupid questions ,look everyone else se the vision but your reactions and ignorance beside the filth you post, reflect only what you realy have on mind, ----- just look at the pictures you post yourself, don't these tell just everything.
Hi
If you want to se how I relate the issue about new building methods please visit this site <
link
Now I don\t agrea that solving the transport problem will be the right attitude solving any of the problems mentioned. I think production is so refined and materials is so bad they can be, I think there are no gain refing the tradisional methods compared develobing new and in my posts here, you will se my arguments ; the 3D's I show is proven already just being 3D as you can not draw anything in 3D unless it can be made. 3D is the tool I learned after learning to master a plane a bandsaw a chissel , 3D is a tool it work just as well as doing the thing in real but the issue here is not my drawings but how architecture reflect to all these fantastic new options.
Now Im'e not member of the academics ,even I apply for funds there will be a crowd that first of all will check if Im'e autodidact, Please I worked with this for 15 years I know how academics and arts work, I been around designers and even spended 3 years as unregistrated student at the architect school, and I tried so many times to find founds ----- Im'e not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and fact is, that unless you are that, it's meaningless to reply.
You se I master boatsbuilding, master AutoCAD can do the programming required ,but all it need is somone who just hate autodidacts or just an architect.
Per:
What do we arkitecture students/arkitects to do if we don't have access to high powered software/computers like you have. Does your new process become just another elitist movement for those with money or access to your resources?
Hi
1. Lack of productivity
2. Lack of innovation and development
3. Too much waste
4. Craftsmanship is the spine of the industry
5. Complexity/organisationally overloaded
6. Lack of competition
7. One-off production
8. Too many mistakes
9. Health and safety issues
10. Environmental issues
How do you think these problems can find a solution if that solution can not question how today\s architect programs work. How can architecture be changed a new form language show, true new jobs develob just look at this tread. --------- don't his tread just point out where the real problems are ; it's not enough to have spended 15 years mastering AutoCAD and knowing the computer in detail, it's not enough to have a life long experience within crafts, it's not enough already to have proven a flexible mind and real things unique designs no, if you are not an academic you can find your materials in the metal scrapyard, do your science from the money left over when the family had theirs, you must spend the time others spend in the local bar, --------- and even you done all that, you are not an academic, not a member of the ignorant crowd that rather se things done "as they alway's was done" and arts as a social game.
I already tried to find fonds ,but when an autodidact ask for support to develob a fantastic new digital tool, it is archtects and academics that must judge, that statement often just is a transcript of the Jante Law, papers are never returned and you spend months fighting the academics oppinion about autodidact artists. But realy it is not my foult ,I just like nice houses I just want to se cheap houses build in a promising new method academics hated me all my life for that, for the skills I show for the visions I carry, ------- in the end the jokers display what is on their mind as you will se from the porn distribuated in this fora, you can't even display your works unless somone use dirty tricks or simply crash the plotter you saved years to buy, problem is that for an academic who get his money nomatter what results he show it's a compleatly different world than the one you have, being an artist ,if what you show is not the useal academic bullying but unique works in a new field .
Hi
Gustav ;
"What do we arkitecture students/arkitects to do if we don't have access to high powered software/computers like you have. Does your new process become just another elitist movement for those with money or access to your resources? "
Fact is that I did this with an 8088 ,the almost first real P.C. fact is that the calculations are so easy that there are no problem as long as you have a computer. Now today it would seem rediculas to scrap somthing becaurse it need a computer ,but if you think this is for the elite you are wrong ---- fact is that it is easyer than the methods you othervise must learn, beside you se the results right away , you realise the Math. much better , you don't even need to involve in the calculations and even doing it with free download programs it offer you whatever you draw at a third the trouble, compared the tradisional methods.
Now if you plotted each frame on paper ,then everyone would be able to jigsaw each frame, how can that be for the elite, acturly it is made so easy that with 10 thumbs everyone can make a pavilion a small shelter whatever , ---- but as soon as you grasp the vision you will se no end to what can now be made four times as strong and even hidden under the paneling. But must I repeat ,the panels will fit.
Sorry have to go shopping.
So, it can be as simple as this.
You are realy something with that 8088. Do you think my double floppy (no hard drive) Wang could stand the strain?
Shopping, Koping, Koben, bought.
Don't you think that since my question has not been asked (as I have read) it should be asked? Now about that shopping.
Per:
Once again (as I've stated before): if its so easy, why haven't you built anything with your 3D-H system over the years that you've been working on it? It seems to me that this would have been a logical step instead of making more 3D models on your computer. There are reasons that mock-ups, large scale models, etc. are built, and its not because all architects are "romans". And what about a cost-analysis, etc?
Errrrr.... why do I even bother?
Hi
I think you shuld ,so shuld all designers wannabe designers and even engineers. The reson I didn\t build is that the system work, realy there is no reson to make it prove for me, When I build anything I try build a beautifull thing then first I must know what that is, and to just build somthing only to prove somthing I already know work is from my point of view silli if it is only to prove a method not to build a beautifull thing, ----- now that you Romans will never grasp, but this is how it is from one day to the other I stopped building boats now I could do that and there was no challance in that as soon as the basic problem in small boats building was solved ,with the 3D/H.
Realy I made all sorts of things in my life and alway\s becaurse of my personality became quite good at it, with boatsbuilding I ended up lecturing in CAD and boatsbuilding tradisional way\s in modern concept, ------- but I poured that many money into projects that with this I made a decision that before I know exactly what to build I will not start. And why shuld I the pictures show maby my role in architecture is just to inspire ----- anyway I know there are much better skilled architects than I, I just maneage to get the computer working.
Hi
Gustav maby it\s becaures that since the diagnosis we had to spend all hours around our youngest child, unpayed work with other parents and young with autism , ------- guess you know that if you get a child with autism you are offered to leave it at an institution we dod not , this been going on 16 years and it keep you from being lazy.
You are a strong man, Per!
This thread has made archinect.com my favourite site on the internet at the moment. Ive spent two lunch times reading this thread.
Per, Id be interested to see how you would detail such a structure.
Hi
Jay Im\e glad you say so, to ansver your question I must know what you mean by detail ---- you se from the point where you generate the frames is the point you realy don't need to display the frames anymore, your projecting is over and if you from that point try to change anything it will just caurse trouble.
On the other hand you need a detail drawing to show where a particular frame must be placed and more important, what frame must be placed first as most proberly if you do it wrong you have to cut and latch one frame to make another fit within ; if you check the animation and know that this is realy a simple structure ,then on one hand you will se the countless applications where if more creativity go into the basic solid fantastic details will grow as by magic. And on the other hand you will realise that now you don't need 20 different profiles and a number of special fittings as everything ,floors walls stairs just everything, is replaced with just one material.
Now please don't think that as I show just everything as a framework, that I force upon this way to do things onto everythng --- the graphics are only to show and it's needless to say that ofcaurse you combine this with the tradisional methods. But to show it, I must draw the primitive designs and point to the fact that it is not the designs I show, but a new method ----- maby you can only use it for the basic foundations maby you are atracted by the decor it also offer, but you are right that this tread give the oppotunity to say what you mean.
with the time per has spent on this thread, he could have built something already.
Hi
True but this ask a workshop, and as you guess a metal scrapyard.
momentum:
do you think that Rome was "built" in a day. Sometimes I think that is fact. Can you imagine the possibilities?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.