What you do is to shape the casa in a different shape, forget that what make the real changes is what is inside, omit the fact that when you ask the engineer to perform the different shapes , then he put just that what we already know into it.
Now when some guy develob just that tool that new aproach that realy fill out the limits with something acturly new, you spend the time harassing him you don't spend the time realising the fact new architecture the new means, that now computers work and the limitations are down.
------ What you focus is everything else than the bright new options and you rather support someone who don't even claim to have put the years of efford, suffered himself and his family no, you allow yet another well fed academic to grasp it with the useal arogant aproach.
You don't care about an honest aproach you don't allow the credit, realy what do this tell about academics.
This is new even fellows like you for years tried to put it down, this is different and ask knowleage and skills to develob, it bring a compleat new world countless new applications, ---- guess we all know the academic worlds way to thank that guy who suffered who expanded the arts ; you rob him and exchouse it with the fact that he never passed artsschool.
That's enough in this state of denmark I say it stink I say art is more than a ret spot on a canvas and that it is not enough that the whole academic crowd say it is, when one of the friends borrowed an idea.
Why do you think I didn't crowd with the academics ; I did and I got my experience I know how much are social skills and how little are hard labor, I also know how the lazy guy's se that and how easy it is to find an exchouse to steal.This intire tread is one huge exchouse for robbing the bright guy and hand it to the well fed academic.
hurmph... this conversation has somewhat developed, and other people have made the points I was planning on bringing up, so there isn't much for me to say... but Per, it seems that Lars/NOX has done more with this structural system that you're claiming as your own than you have, he actually built with it, while all you continue to show are 3D models. This has most likely resulted in a level of refinement that you system lacks, making it a different beast.
So basically, get over it and stop trying to make yourself into a martyr. No one here is saying that its alright to rob someone's ideas (this was covered in a thread about the structural system being used by SOM that was "supposedly" stolen from a student's school project), stop saying everyone is against you. A handful of simple 3D models and rants on internet forums isn't enough proof for us, plain and simple.
And please, answer a-f's questions directly and completely. You have the nasty habit of skipping around direct questions from people.
the thing is, perhaps 100 or more people have the same idea as Per and 1. don't have the internet or B. have not published or patented the work. which one does Per fit. what our boy Per fails to realize is that there are plenty of people in the world with similar ideas like his - Per contrary to what you think, you are not original or unique - and do one of two things; develope them, produce real - not virtual fantasies - examples testing their methods or they relegate themselves to producing examples through using sofware and public forums.
the point here Per is this, americans have this great saying, and it goes like this "SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT"
your calling people Romans is counterproductive, your basic refusal to not answer questions is irritating. your methods and models are simplistic...and the length of this thread is excrutiatingly long, so....
do me a favor take it over to the other thread I created just for you...
a-f ; "1. How many architects do you think work with computers regularly?"
Very few I suppose "architect" is many things and cirtainly computers are often not the issue ,accounts and doing the percenteage on the materials bought, --- but is it your impression that it pay off putting any effort into making better tools, that it will be welcomed and credited if someone uses his or her experience to change that ?
"2. Imagine a form that is intersected with an extruded 90 degree lattice. Is the result 3D-H, yes or no?"
I focus on the lattrice that you proberly think about as what I describe as a surface thing, don't know if you follow but a 3D-H is a 3D thing it is a complete body of frames, I realy don't understand what you mean when you say, Form intersecting with aan extruded latrice, 3D-H form in and out, transverse the structure, do the structure in a very different way it is no lattrice .
"3. How much of his time do you think Lars Spuybroek spends browsing Design Community?"
Wouldn't know he could even be handed my aproach from someone who don't like me, someone who would enjoy my idear to be stolen without me getting any credit --- there are criminal minds as you know, but isn't it up to each one of us, to work against that ?
"4. How many artists do you think went to an arts academy?"
Art is not about that any museum prove this, you can be as well educated as you wish but be unable to produce an original thought , but if you are it cirtainly help with a bit of education.
"5. Is architecture = structural solutions?"
Offcaurse it is not architecture are a thousand things, but it also is the new tools and the new jobs, the new aproach and the new vision , new you se. I think the world is crowded with old means and old way's of thinking ------- a "structural solution" is just a mean to bring some beauty but also the way to change production and develob some new skills . 3D-H is and I allway's described it as, just one new option but it cirtainly open for a load of new options. These are not restricted into just performing one structure such as Lars suggest. What this tread suggest is to forget about all those fantastic possibilities as it's not worth dealing with new develobment within architecture and I cirtainly learned not to trust any architect in such a degree that I will make a laugh next time someone try rib me off asking a bit of help, I did learn from academics you se, I learned how rotten parts of the architectural world are, in terms of criminal minds that is no better than what you se from not so fine people. And I know fatbelly academics if you open your mouth when they are around, they try steal the bread out of your mouth that's just the fact.
Hi
Pixelhore "he build it" ------ realy did he, do you think so don't you think he had people doing it for him ?
Case so what did he then "create" , are you omitting any creavity that is not "build in real" , guess you don't realise that words that idears are as real as the build thing.
Now If he did not acturly "build it" but the creative process are the same as that student project rib off you mention ,if someone handed him a few drawings from denmark ,then he would suddenly have a tool to bring the organic shapes he untill then showed plenty of wouldn't he ?
Now I only ask you to respect that I am a designer not an architect that I develob the tools, that I don't mind the shapes it is used to produce in real, but didn't this guy suddenly have a concept that made it all a spetacular event --- but do he even se the options the new jobs, how this can be further develobed no.
Please take a better stand Pixelhore you must catch an arogant aproach be mean oposed anyone who happen to be able to get a bright idea, now isn't it just a bit overkill now you realised that. Is it realy fair now you accepted "this is possible" to move on to the next step justifying anyone if he is just an arts professor, do you realy hate the honest guy the one who put a true effort into a bright idear the one with the skills and ability to put those theoretic thoughts into a real envelobe. ----- Realy before 3D-H his work was pure theoretic, now you sudenly blame me the ability to solve a serious problem within modern architecture, have you looked at his work before this --- if you had you proberly wonder why he didn't say "thank's mr. Per Corell" you se that is all I asked.
I brought this public domain I ansvered any question even from the class bully , but did anyone reconise that anyone who asked in honest words did get a response. The class bully proberly try make you further give up any decent wish for mr. Corell and his family. But please let me defend myself, and please remember I am just promoting a brand new exclusive method , there are so much money in that, that it's not even needed to patent as this is what is also protected by copyright regulations.
Here in this fora a goy is fighting his copyright rights, that is fact.
Hopefully more over time will want to learn more about the fantastic options, by mean far better than following the class bully, --- he proberly are an old hippie hater, that frequent several usenet and web sites, just to spread a bit poison ,reconice the stupid claims ; I just want a reasoable credit, you ruin everything with a discussion controlled by the class bullies around ; I can point to other groups where an alkoholic usenet fanatic doomed out of the most right wing groups on usenet "talk" against Mr. Corell's promoting a new method that seem to work , ---- When then Mr. Corell raise his claims of public domain credit then you think one convicted can produce the two billion bucks you and your plesant needs aquier ---- Please group go make your mind , is what you want group bullying and lazy engineering talk or is is progressive drive , are you even interested in a new job , in many new jobs ??
Well an old draftsperson that want to show his means to the arogant architecture student hippies is around any architect group on web, maby it even is the same old sag, some lame ultra right wing ?
Wake up group there are other promises in this world, than helping stealing th bread from some nice guy's mouth make this group roll, ask some serious questions ; "Will a 3dh in Titanium be to expensive" or questions like that.
Sorry I forgot to mention, but all the fake ones are protected by fake names. In this discussion, you would not know if mr."Lecorbisier" is a fake mentaly obscure hippie hating ultra right wing. If some guy make you follow mean means , make you do the dirty work he want then this tread show some lead ---- if relevant new methods are what you want, you maby need to take a more honest aproach about public domain , it shuld protect the artists but do it in this group ; here a bunch to, have reflected their own expertations proberly realising, that this could be "It", the very thing that can get the computers work and make the jobs.
Academics ofcaurse think this can not be true ; art is in the museums and the artists are dead , pronto !
It's up to you to reconise my claims, you know they are not unballanced , anyone who ask a decent question, will get a good ansver about 3D-H proberly also a good laugh --- unless the class bullie excluted this from this fora, it's up to you what you want, with me you get an honest aproach, with a fake usenet name discussing in any archippie group you allready know what you will get ; an old vain fagot doing no nice houses Romans.
Just to clarify something here - Pers post # 407 mentions that very few architects work with computers regularly - This is not entirely true - unless by very few you meant 99%
Pete you must know that in this fora a bit irony are welcome in this tread, most often the best translation is humor ,but as useal humor and serious talk fit well together , I "say" those lazy architects don't even know the new means, please understand this within the context as offcaurse what is "use the computer" is it relevant that you can post a mail is it enough, is and must the computer replace skilled arts no , but the new technikes requier an open mind. Humor may be the best mean for that.
The year of the design what is that ?
Now my claims is that I participated in architect contests years ahead of that, contests where I pointed and in the papers described this new method ------ now just ontop that picture what can you read about there, some froud and an honest develober who got his rights by having a trial.
So isnn't this exactly the same thing, when I can prove my rights by have participated in contests years ahead way before ------ now this is a yes or no thing, where you seem to protect the guy who copied arn't you ?
About the serpentine building I will not say it faal compleatly under the description of a 3D-H it have simularities but it is not a 45 deg turned two planes that I would look for --- I think the designer had trouble expanding from the tree tradisional planes, that these frames simply follow the tree tradisoional planes , so no even this is a primitive sort of 3D-H it is not the thing. Maby you don't fully understand the concept ,but sure if you had shown this graphic say 3 years ago while I wasalso documenting 3D-H structures on the web, you cirtainly if you didn't have a famous architects name to put on it, you would be told that "this is impossible".
Wonder where the inspiration came from ??
Sorry if the two latest posts was written to fast, my connection been down and I thought I make a fast reply, ---- but now to something quite different.
How would you emagine exiting new architecture ? --- would you think it as wooden beams or would you think it as something drawn in Solids and manufactored with today's top digital means ?
Realy I find architecture are in a dead end when not reconising the develobment in methods and the promise of actural new way's. I find it is bad that you look if this in any way can show simularaty with 3D-H why not realise that to show the guts you must ask if an architect who think in wooden frames realy grasped the promises you need to check the actural structure and ask if it is not a good side effect , to get the structure for the floors at the same time as cutting the frame.
I think the Serpantine structure show how little today's celebrated architects understand about this new concept --- when performing such 3D-H like structure why show it as just an emty shell when expaning the understanding of this new way to see a structure, at the same time could have build the structure to rest the ploor panels, could have made the internal walls, --- even have made the foundations to cover to get the build-in furniture.
Sorry but years ago I published structures that from my point of view , show much more feel about the options with computers, I did brake the mental barrier and scrapped the tradisional 3 plane constructions and see what that brought ; please make a search at Yahoo about 3D-Honeycomb and you will se structures where I suggest all this, I did not just make an emty shell in square cubes I pointed to the obvious gains with a brand new vision.
Please try look in the foto's folders and see if I restrict this new method to timber frames and emty shells ;
Per, Instead of spending hours on end discussing your idea here and making these renderings perhaps you should think about how "your" system would integrate with other types of building systems. For instance, how would I run plumbing and electric lines through those walls? Your renderings show no detail as to how these things would sit on a foundation or how they would be clad. Also, this would cost a fortune to CNC or even laser cut plus make no mention of where one would find a piece of sheet steel large enough for one of these sections to be cut. I just worked on a project where we required a 40' x 10' x 2" piece of steel (your sections look much larger then that) and we had to have the foundry set up a sepcial operation to roll it out, the tooling alone cost close to half a million.
Per is right. this conversation turned into, from whether it works to who done it first..i am convinced,
Per did it first..even he didn't..
he is advocating 'his' idea. and after looking other examples recently came about in this post, his work is more evolved towards advocating the idea, where, the others had the opportunity to build it as a spatial application without emphasizing the structural aspects.
his proposals are mostly do-able, specially with tools he has been talking about. the details and quantifiying are solvable with simple cad tools.
for me, i will remember and attribute the authorship to Per Corell, if i see a close rendetion of this system, with the knowledge of earlier forms of this idea existed in modern architecture and were always there in nature.
I also like his sense of humor and see his vulnarabilities.+, he has great drawings..
When you draw the Solids that is sliced to produce the sections you allready have the option to perfectly plane any leads for plumbing.
Guess you checked how the basic for generating the sections are a Solid model, you then project the plumbing like you do in other applications, you simply subtract a long cylinder where you want the pipes --- when the sections are generated there will be a hole drawn where the Solid was subtracted and as you just make the water or laser cutter follow the lines that shape the sections magic will happen as while you assemble the frames you will se the hole created by the Solid cylinder you subtracted the original Solid model.
Now please emagine the gains, you already when projecting the raw structure, prepare for and avoid complex works that you othervise had to maneage, Emagine those savings ontop the gains saving special fittings and the effort asked to place them, now you can even build in foundations for stairs , you can already have the structure to place wall panels ----- ontop you could have these unrolled directly from drawing, and cut with the same laser or water cutter the very same and only one mashin, that do the rest of the projected structure --- now don't tell me that engineering is so lamely weekended that you can't find just one single way to cover the surfaces of any shape structure.
Also if you find that difficult, you could make the structure from an assembly of "known geometrics".
BTW --- I was asked if a 45 deg. twist of the two intersecting planes was a must, now please check this graphic and check the outher black frames, these are cut right downwerts up , but twisted on ground plane 45 deg. it would look silli to make them as tradisional "ships frames" it simply would be silli but not as a primitive 3D-H.;
abracadabra thanks for the nice words but, now what ,how can feed the exiting discussions how can we live without the fun and joy, Il'l not discuss politics so that's no option I acturly know very little about architecture I compleatly lack social skills , -- please realise what you taken from me being nice to me ;))
And yes some will call the primitive first 3dh structures ugly but, I am not an architect I urge you to make it better prove that there are a call for a new method so different still so promising.
I would simply love when someone add that spark show that ability to just use this as a tool, and produce a real wonder -- and yes this will put me in the right spot as just the one who in bad english tried to make you all see, see the bright new options see how different this is , just a new tool such need to be invented by someone , hope it will yield loads of beautifull houses that's all I wanted , beside offcaurse just a bit credit.
- Per Corell, Apr 17, 05 | 2:38 am"
No Per, you make it better. Oh wait, thats right, you have made nothing better here. There is absolutely nothing new with your structural ideas. There is nothing new and revolutionary here.
Your talk of people ripping you off! Incredible. Those people you say ripped you off could use this thread against you in a court of law (ok, maybe not). What you cannot use this thread for, however, is justifiction that your ideas are valid. You need to publish something for that.
I kept on reading because I thought you would offer some valid responses. Maybe some theory about this.
I had no intention of writing in this thread, but after the crap you have written, I felt compelled to. For a while, I was even thinking you were going to prove everyone wrong. But after years, you still have not. I pity you and myself for going through pages and pages of this crap.
Hi
wisof you seem to be more concerned about my protecting my intelectural right but realy it is my right to do just that, it is bad that this tread turned this way, as it shuld be obvious also for you, that when someone show somthing never seen before then he can claim his right afterwerts.
Now the only thing you can justify your words, is that this is not a structural system, I ask you two things , if it is not then what is it then.
Then my other question ask a bit explernation , guess you know that there are nothing new making sections and that a new thing, a realy new thing often define itself being so simple that "anyone" will say "why havn't anyone done this before". Now that something is simple is no reson to rip off someone his rights for credit, I worked with this for 12 years and used the web to check if this idea have been seen anywhere simple or not and I published loads of different structures made in a way never done before , where do you say this is made before ? please show me ..... But don't show me a tradisional frame and stringer structure as this is not a 3D-H,
Very often I start a post with asking people to open their mind , fact is that it shuld be obvious that this is new as surely you seen two sections meet in a notch , you also can se tradisional structures where the sections follow the tradisional 3 planes , but you fail to understand and instead of realising, instead of looking closer and read what I describe, you close your eyes. As soon as Lars made this in real everyone could se it worked, before anyone said "this is impossible" even just the fact it is made 3D prove it can, but didn't this prove how little a lot of people acturly know about 3D ?
And yes there are a theori about this, all you need is to read what I write that this is a structural system that no one before have grasped.
Can't you even se how this is a complete different world ,that the pictures acturly prove it is so different from anything you ever seen, your eyes shuld tell.
Now I wonder if your argument is more like that someone who can't spell can't claim his right , then please reconise that I am good with the things I show it is not my foult that you are not good reconising that others have a different language ,but maby just this different language is what it take to develiob a method no one before put forth, tell me where it have put forth before . Ask yourself if you are harassing asome nice guy of whom you made your own hate picture, if you help the guy who did not develob this system but just grasped it wothout leaving a single line for credit, --- now don't use the exchouse that the bicycle thief uses when he grasp an unlocked bike ; he know it is not his and it is no exchouse for stealing intelectural property that the you don't see the lock.
Sorry if this text are a bit long, but if I shuld repeat that before computers it was impossible to project a 3D-H , and how this _work_ so different and acturly make the computer work with Solid modeling, why it is different aso. aso. , then I could use every day describing this, one day to an 8 year old next day to a 70 year old engineer who will defend what he done all his life to the last letter and with closed eyes.
You see peoples reson to harras me are as different as people themself but in the end, and maby your problem are that you did not open your mind or know to little about structural systems to se the clue , even it is obvious when the foundations for floors and walls grow as by magic ---- where just where have you seen this work ?
Acturly I think everyone shuld support the bright guy who develob something never seen before, it is a much more positive aproach.
Sorry about the bad english, now I don't write so just to make a fast lazy exchouse , --- maby you guy's shuld try danish.
a-f ; "I think this says it all. Rotate a space frame 45 degrees, and you have 3D-H."
This is not quite true, but please reconise that I only know a few hundred english words , you se this is just a simple paralell I use to explain what even so simple when you look at the graphic, are so difficult to explain , yes it is right but what you do, is to turn the 3 tradisional planes something that you never did and never was allowed but it is that simple thing that explain the concept, and then the wierd thing, that now you can not use the tradisional 3 planes , not if you make a 3D-H.
But some of my best arguments I think is, that first people say this is impossible it simply are to fantastic that you can press a button and by magic the whole basic structure are there, it contain in a fantastic way both frames for walls and floors even structure for the stairs even the option to build-in furniture and all in just one material ---- oposed those who say "this is nothing some details look as other details in other structures"
Please recoise that this realy havn't been done before, and no one investigated the enourmous amount of nice side effects , the way this will change architecture, please allow that credit, it is not a small thing.
wisof please reconise that I would rather spend time develobing this method further than fighting the rights that in time will be proven mine.
I would rather be able to ansver questions from someone who see the potentials and want to create a beautifull house but have difficulties getting that small bright idea that can make it work, this would be very much more better, --- it also would ensure that the real bright idea can work ontop this fantastic new tool. It would over time make the bread for me and my family it would or could make it so that I could support my autistic son better.
Also it would bring just a bit honesty back into architecture, to accept that a guy with a bright idea one who worked serious for decades to create some beauty in this world, is not met with greed and the mind of a thief when he enter the academic world. Time will tell my rights it will also describe your words .
wisof do it help your understanding when I tell you that highly educated engineers acturly have "seen the light" that truely skilled people after saying "this is impossible" suddenly said "Hey --- damned this _is_ fantastic, look how the structure realy work perfect as he say" ?
Hi sorry just want to add, that _everyone_ will profit from accepting my rights for credit, no one will gain from discussions like this.
Becaurse I am here to ansver any polite question I am not just here to defend my rights even it look so, the only reson I do that is that I have to and please think about it, -------- in the two rcent main discussions here and at at desinn forum more than 20000 visitors have been to the treds, so don't you think time will prove my rights anyway , then why not make this discussion into something productive instead .
Can you tell us more about "the enourmous amount of nice side effects" of turning the frame 45 degrees? Clearly it doesn't create ANY new type of structure. And to say that it is impossible to intersect complex shapes with planes without computers is a complete minsconception. Have a look at the intriguing 16th century drawings of Philibert de l'Orme, for example, where he is cutting rotated cylinders with planar balustrade shapes using projective geometry.
a-f I realy would like if you took the time and checked the graphicd in the various 3D-Honeycomb Yahoo Groups , this is my best way to respond and maby after looking closer you will see how easy it now is to do the actural solutions in a much more smooth way, that to understand this concept you must have a real problem and allow this concept to show those nice side effects that is difficult while so different, to describe in words.
Now isn't it then bad that" the intriguing 16th century drawings of Philibert de l'Orme" have not any response in today's Solid modeling, that the tradisional methods made the limitations just by materials and crafts avaible , ----- please consider that in copenhagen some poor guy who can not do 20 mens job are asked to spend 40 mens work to prove what is allready in the pictures. Please consider how different this is is is both so simple and still so complex that it carry all the definations of a brilliant new idea that is "so simple" that "why didn't anyone think about this before, --- yet the problem seem to be something quite different, that the poor guy with the bright idear are up against the social skills he don't master ------ but maby real artists are not the supermen expected. Maby in 20 years there will be people who would say "If I was just a fly on the wall"
Anyway I take your advise and look for that 16' century artist --- but please realise that my vision are about develobing new tools for the computer, and I openly published it all allway's ansvered the questions if they was relevant for creating something , and oposed 16' century artists I made the computer work showed a different aproach something quite new, made from only two planes something the tradisional 3 planes are simply not fit for, --- the possible develobment is something I can only point to, I do not know the future .
a-f take a simple box with thick walls , place Solids as floors and walls so you have a real Solid model that you could make a walkthru , a model that show thick walls and thick floors.
Now try slice it from the tradisional 3 planes.
Then try turn the 3 planes, what you will se, is that now oposed the tradisional 3 planes, the sections will transverse the structure, that one frame will form foundations for walls and floors in one and same frame, that when you assemble this new model you will as by magic have the foundations for floors and wall foundations that you othervise would need to add in the tradisional ans awsom troubled way costing a lot of money and wherever you need a beam to hold the floor you will need a special fitting and a load of bolts. With 3D-H you cut it all in one go, but in a way that the tradisional sections would not prove any nice side effects. Try or look at some of my first graphics where I did that.
you know having been part of this mess, and yes it is a mess, i realized something as i shook myself out of this stupor; that this Per guy advocates nothing, NOTHING! i mean is it software? no, because he has never said what it is and where anyone can purchase it, is it a way of living? no. is it a structural system? well who knows, have any of us seen any structural engineers talk about this, or seen any structural calculations? no. so, what does he want, what is this mission? he has seen 1 architecture firm that SEEMS to be using what he calls HIS ideas, but really what can any of us tell from a few photo's and what does that prove anyway? you need more than a few images to prove any kind theft of intellectual property, just ask SOM and David Childs about that. how radical is this idea anyway? a rotated space frame, 45 degrees, and this is the claim to superiority?? originality? i mean do you see chickens running around claiming to everyone that they came first in the chicken vs. egg scenario?? it is a structural frame, a frame that by my eyes is rigid as all hell and will not bend to the will of any designer, most especially Per's - i gather that this frame designed our Per rather than Per designing this frame, it certainly has more personality than Per and speaks more volumes about its simplistic limitations than the almighty supposed creator PER CORRELL......
I really appreciate the time you take to explain the concept, since I have seen your renderings, and want you to understand that 3D-H is only an aesthetic concept, not a new structural solution.
Then try turn the 3 planes, what you will se, is that now oposed the tradisional 3 planes, the sections will transverse the structure, that one frame will form foundations for walls and floors in one and same frame
No, this would also happen without rotation, and is an ordinary frame. I think your error lies in this paragraph:
when you assemble this new model you will as by magic have the foundations for floors and wall foundations
meaning that the only reason for a rotation is because the isolated parts of the frame are more difficult to visually relate to the complete frame (before being built, that is), hence the magic part, and also
With 3D-H you cut it all in one go, but in a way that the tradisional sections would not prove any nice side effects
meaning that the 3D-H "touch" (the 45 degree rotation) is only there because YOU like it. There is no structural difference in making static nodes (joints) and cutting everything out of the same material. The only so-called advantage you get is the need to cut, transport and assemble gigantic frames (imagine trying to get two steel frames by 20x100 meters trying to "intersect" in each others joints). A few bolts and what you call a "special fitting" seems like a more clever solution to me.
a-f you could look closer to the start graphic in this tread, please look how foundations for the floor and walls grow as by magic and that no one "lay the floor beams isn't this different ?
Look at how the mesh form around the windows whare standard compoment windows will fit millimeter placed, ---- maby you will say that parts of this is possible with tradisional frames but realy, do it not corrospond a new way one never used before , will you not just meet the limitations in many way's where turning the planes make anything possible, --- wouldn't the walls be just plain sections with no supporting structure around will the tradisional sectioning add the huge strength that something as simple as turning the plans offer.
Please realise that in a 3D-H each and every frame will be supported much better than with the tradisional sections where frames often will stand alone with no support from the surrounding frames .
Now the reson I ask you to look closer to the other graphics I show is, that many of these simply would be silli in the tradisional sectioning following the tradisional planes, many would be "card houses" where turning the planes make this up. --- ,aby you think this is a small thing, but maby this thing is bigger than you and I can emagine, now what means am I allowed to prove my saying, --- wasn't I allway's met with the response that "this is impossible" well try belive that as I know the tradisional way's that I acturly master some of the real difficult crafts, spended years with the tradisional way's , then please trust that I known your arguments but seen the 3D-H concept work in so many applications where the old way's will be troublesim and vaste compared this new way.
If you ever build a boat you would know that tradisionaly you would stand with frames swinging in the air, with no way to be sure they are placed right , 3D-H make both the frames smaller and offer a brand new way, sorry I just fail the words I have to count that that fly on the wall will know.
The _reson_ we use 3 planes are that with these we can calculate inbetween the planes realy this is the only reson we use 3 planes.
Now we only need two planes as the computer can do all that calculating.
But maby you don't realise the idea before you realise why everything untill now have followed these 3 planes, and why it is allmost impossible and by all means useless, tio describe a 3D-H in th tradisional 3 planes --- if you try slice a 3D-H with the tradisional 3 planes you will get something you can't use for anything, it all be boxes hanging in the air with no use in a direct link prodiuction, --- and that is what 3D-H is, --- a way to go strait from drawings to producing the individual building parts, and these are _different.
Besife a-f I am not claiming any of the tradisional way's I point to that this is different than the tradisional way's , then I point to some of the graphics and say "see how it change your whole perception" I say "this expand the way you tradisionaly think a building it replace 20 different steel profiles and that way challacne the production" but I also try to explain how huge savings ,what this mean in terms of change in perception and building methods if you focus on one material and don't try piece together a structure the tradisional way. I do many other things and I would be able to do much further getting the credit ,among these things to be able to give the advise and realy change architecture, now that you _can do structures the tradisional way shuldn't be a hinder for either develobment of great new methods or giving the actural visionary the credit.
True what I don't hope for, is that every time someone show a great and beautifull building everyone will reconise as build in 3D-H, that talk will be about me being cheated for the credit, still isn't this so easy to avoid just giving the credit.
JG ---- Think about it this way that in a shipyard you allready handle huge sections cut the rolled sheets and perform what is very close to the square cube honeycomb structures I point to, fact is that this is based on the tradisional way of thinking that methods been refined and new way's proven that you can build a ship without first placing the keel ,then the ribs and then covering these with the panels , but in terms of cost I think shipsbuilding will prove these sections as a possible side production at a very lower cost. Offcaurse what I talk about ask special production equipment but is it that special I would not say as 50 years ago or before, you could make a flame cutter follow a chalk line lofted onto the steel sheets , the only difference is that today the cutter are feed by digital but realy , in shipyards you allready maneage much bigger frames much heavier frames , ----- now what is Per Corell now claiming, that houses shuld be build in shipyards, well why not if this can sell more steel ?
Still as you maby know there are digital feed routers that handle standard size plywood sheets , now if you just window in the join between the sheets to build a large frame don't you then think this simple mashin would provide ready and cut materials on site , in a very much more flexible way than you do this today ?
Well today you "think" in standard sizes standard panels and the result is that everything is square as if it was not it would cost a farm , with this method it do not matter what shape the house are and it is not a bundle of work as the computer allready calculated each and every little piece and that piece will fit perfect, ------- now I know this is different but are you sure that these thoughts don't reflect the future, that when tools get smart they will do their work when they are in that exact posision and that this point further than plain boatsbuilding or don't you think that any future method will challance the way we build family houses today ?
I hope there will be better way's ,and with the graphics and the arguments that was never ansvered in this tread ,-- my arguments about building stronger and cheaper at the same time, -- I guess there are an option , that there are a way to build houses that will not tumble houses that are easyer rebuild , houses where you can have "original spare parts" cut in 200 years proberly cheaper than what experimental methods will provide today. Who say production will not gain from new methods that the savings doing it in sheet materials can pay just those expenses , now why shuld sheet metal be more expensive than profile steel and when you se the allready legovise assembly of strait beams , why couldn't this be replaced with a much smarter and flexible method. One that will yield a new architecture .
Dec. 2000 I participated in an architect competision .
Sadly the trends at that time was not actural new way's of producing the "new way's of living" , you can see the first price project here;
Now offcaurse it important how you can emagine the future as you see in this "architectural correct" project. Still what I never realy understood, is why the theoretic masters, the professors at the art schools display such arogance towerds the guy who maneage the bright idea, why at the same praising a totaly theoretic project , then they claim that "this is not possible" when talking about 3D-H.
Anyway this contest was in Dec 2000 , and I participated a project describing a new building method, a way to make the theoretic words go alive, wouldn't it be better to allow Mr. Corell his reigh for credit, so he can go on with his life and maby further develob his method ?
Your system of 3D-H has nothing to do with "new ways of living", as you say yourself, you "participated a project describing a new building method", this has absolutely nothing to do with "new ways of living", so don't be so damn critical of the contest results! modes and styles of living can be seperate variables in a design from the meaning of producing those modes of living - if they should be is a completely different topic.
Also, you've pointed out on many occasions that you're not an architect, but you refuse to take the criticism from people that have been involved in the profession and possibly are architects. For some reason this just doesn't make sense to me...
Funny though as the name for that contest was "The Digital future within building"
Now I wonder what realy shuld be relevant in that context, the theori a science fiction or a suggestion about the actural means.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
You are a sick man per corell, a sick, sad, lonely man.
What you do is to shape the casa in a different shape, forget that what make the real changes is what is inside, omit the fact that when you ask the engineer to perform the different shapes , then he put just that what we already know into it.
Now when some guy develob just that tool that new aproach that realy fill out the limits with something acturly new, you spend the time harassing him you don't spend the time realising the fact new architecture the new means, that now computers work and the limitations are down.
------ What you focus is everything else than the bright new options and you rather support someone who don't even claim to have put the years of efford, suffered himself and his family no, you allow yet another well fed academic to grasp it with the useal arogant aproach.
You don't care about an honest aproach you don't allow the credit, realy what do this tell about academics.
This is new even fellows like you for years tried to put it down, this is different and ask knowleage and skills to develob, it bring a compleat new world countless new applications, ---- guess we all know the academic worlds way to thank that guy who suffered who expanded the arts ; you rob him and exchouse it with the fact that he never passed artsschool.
That's enough in this state of denmark I say it stink I say art is more than a ret spot on a canvas and that it is not enough that the whole academic crowd say it is, when one of the friends borrowed an idea.
Why do you think I didn't crowd with the academics ; I did and I got my experience I know how much are social skills and how little are hard labor, I also know how the lazy guy's se that and how easy it is to find an exchouse to steal.This intire tread is one huge exchouse for robbing the bright guy and hand it to the well fed academic.
Per, here's a questionnaire for you to fill in:
1. How many architects do you think work with computers regularly?
2. Imagine a form that is intersected with an extruded 90 degree lattice. Is the result 3D-H, yes or no?
3. How much of his time do you think Lars Spuybroek spends browsing Design Community?
4. How many artists do you think went to an arts academy?
5. Is architecture = structural solutions?
hurmph... this conversation has somewhat developed, and other people have made the points I was planning on bringing up, so there isn't much for me to say... but Per, it seems that Lars/NOX has done more with this structural system that you're claiming as your own than you have, he actually built with it, while all you continue to show are 3D models. This has most likely resulted in a level of refinement that you system lacks, making it a different beast.
So basically, get over it and stop trying to make yourself into a martyr. No one here is saying that its alright to rob someone's ideas (this was covered in a thread about the structural system being used by SOM that was "supposedly" stolen from a student's school project), stop saying everyone is against you. A handful of simple 3D models and rants on internet forums isn't enough proof for us, plain and simple.
And please, answer a-f's questions directly and completely. You have the nasty habit of skipping around direct questions from people.
the thing is, perhaps 100 or more people have the same idea as Per and 1. don't have the internet or B. have not published or patented the work. which one does Per fit. what our boy Per fails to realize is that there are plenty of people in the world with similar ideas like his - Per contrary to what you think, you are not original or unique - and do one of two things; develope them, produce real - not virtual fantasies - examples testing their methods or they relegate themselves to producing examples through using sofware and public forums.
the point here Per is this, americans have this great saying, and it goes like this "SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT"
your calling people Romans is counterproductive, your basic refusal to not answer questions is irritating. your methods and models are simplistic...and the length of this thread is excrutiatingly long, so....
do me a favor take it over to the other thread I created just for you...
403
3 entries
Hi
a-f ; "1. How many architects do you think work with computers regularly?"
Very few I suppose "architect" is many things and cirtainly computers are often not the issue ,accounts and doing the percenteage on the materials bought, --- but is it your impression that it pay off putting any effort into making better tools, that it will be welcomed and credited if someone uses his or her experience to change that ?
"2. Imagine a form that is intersected with an extruded 90 degree lattice. Is the result 3D-H, yes or no?"
I focus on the lattrice that you proberly think about as what I describe as a surface thing, don't know if you follow but a 3D-H is a 3D thing it is a complete body of frames, I realy don't understand what you mean when you say, Form intersecting with aan extruded latrice, 3D-H form in and out, transverse the structure, do the structure in a very different way it is no lattrice .
"3. How much of his time do you think Lars Spuybroek spends browsing Design Community?"
Wouldn't know he could even be handed my aproach from someone who don't like me, someone who would enjoy my idear to be stolen without me getting any credit --- there are criminal minds as you know, but isn't it up to each one of us, to work against that ?
"4. How many artists do you think went to an arts academy?"
Art is not about that any museum prove this, you can be as well educated as you wish but be unable to produce an original thought , but if you are it cirtainly help with a bit of education.
"5. Is architecture = structural solutions?"
Offcaurse it is not architecture are a thousand things, but it also is the new tools and the new jobs, the new aproach and the new vision , new you se. I think the world is crowded with old means and old way's of thinking ------- a "structural solution" is just a mean to bring some beauty but also the way to change production and develob some new skills . 3D-H is and I allway's described it as, just one new option but it cirtainly open for a load of new options. These are not restricted into just performing one structure such as Lars suggest. What this tread suggest is to forget about all those fantastic possibilities as it's not worth dealing with new develobment within architecture and I cirtainly learned not to trust any architect in such a degree that I will make a laugh next time someone try rib me off asking a bit of help, I did learn from academics you se, I learned how rotten parts of the architectural world are, in terms of criminal minds that is no better than what you se from not so fine people. And I know fatbelly academics if you open your mouth when they are around, they try steal the bread out of your mouth that's just the fact.
Hi
Pixelhore "he build it" ------ realy did he, do you think so don't you think he had people doing it for him ?
Case so what did he then "create" , are you omitting any creavity that is not "build in real" , guess you don't realise that words that idears are as real as the build thing.
Now If he did not acturly "build it" but the creative process are the same as that student project rib off you mention ,if someone handed him a few drawings from denmark ,then he would suddenly have a tool to bring the organic shapes he untill then showed plenty of wouldn't he ?
Now I only ask you to respect that I am a designer not an architect that I develob the tools, that I don't mind the shapes it is used to produce in real, but didn't this guy suddenly have a concept that made it all a spetacular event --- but do he even se the options the new jobs, how this can be further develobed no.
Please take a better stand Pixelhore you must catch an arogant aproach be mean oposed anyone who happen to be able to get a bright idea, now isn't it just a bit overkill now you realised that. Is it realy fair now you accepted "this is possible" to move on to the next step justifying anyone if he is just an arts professor, do you realy hate the honest guy the one who put a true effort into a bright idear the one with the skills and ability to put those theoretic thoughts into a real envelobe. ----- Realy before 3D-H his work was pure theoretic, now you sudenly blame me the ability to solve a serious problem within modern architecture, have you looked at his work before this --- if you had you proberly wonder why he didn't say "thank's mr. Per Corell" you se that is all I asked.
Hi
I brought this public domain I ansvered any question even from the class bully , but did anyone reconise that anyone who asked in honest words did get a response. The class bully proberly try make you further give up any decent wish for mr. Corell and his family. But please let me defend myself, and please remember I am just promoting a brand new exclusive method , there are so much money in that, that it's not even needed to patent as this is what is also protected by copyright regulations.
Here in this fora a goy is fighting his copyright rights, that is fact.
Hopefully more over time will want to learn more about the fantastic options, by mean far better than following the class bully, --- he proberly are an old hippie hater, that frequent several usenet and web sites, just to spread a bit poison ,reconice the stupid claims ; I just want a reasoable credit, you ruin everything with a discussion controlled by the class bullies around ; I can point to other groups where an alkoholic usenet fanatic doomed out of the most right wing groups on usenet "talk" against Mr. Corell's promoting a new method that seem to work , ---- When then Mr. Corell raise his claims of public domain credit then you think one convicted can produce the two billion bucks you and your plesant needs aquier ---- Please group go make your mind , is what you want group bullying and lazy engineering talk or is is progressive drive , are you even interested in a new job , in many new jobs ??
Well an old draftsperson that want to show his means to the arogant architecture student hippies is around any architect group on web, maby it even is the same old sag, some lame ultra right wing ?
Wake up group there are other promises in this world, than helping stealing th bread from some nice guy's mouth make this group roll, ask some serious questions ; "Will a 3dh in Titanium be to expensive" or questions like that.
Hi
Sorry I forgot to mention, but all the fake ones are protected by fake names. In this discussion, you would not know if mr."Lecorbisier" is a fake mentaly obscure hippie hating ultra right wing. If some guy make you follow mean means , make you do the dirty work he want then this tread show some lead ---- if relevant new methods are what you want, you maby need to take a more honest aproach about public domain , it shuld protect the artists but do it in this group ; here a bunch to, have reflected their own expertations proberly realising, that this could be "It", the very thing that can get the computers work and make the jobs.
Academics ofcaurse think this can not be true ; art is in the museums and the artists are dead , pronto !
It's up to you to reconise my claims, you know they are not unballanced , anyone who ask a decent question, will get a good ansver about 3D-H proberly also a good laugh --- unless the class bullie excluted this from this fora, it's up to you what you want, with me you get an honest aproach, with a fake usenet name discussing in any archippie group you allready know what you will get ; an old vain fagot doing no nice houses Romans.
Just to clarify something here - Pers post # 407 mentions that very few architects work with computers regularly - This is not entirely true - unless by very few you meant 99%
Hi
Pete you must know that in this fora a bit irony are welcome in this tread, most often the best translation is humor ,but as useal humor and serious talk fit well together , I "say" those lazy architects don't even know the new means, please understand this within the context as offcaurse what is "use the computer" is it relevant that you can post a mail is it enough, is and must the computer replace skilled arts no , but the new technikes requier an open mind. Humor may be the best mean for that.
well then, if this is all about irony and humor.. check out this.. your honeycomb is invading Portugal! even Cecil Balmond has surrendered...!!
"I had no professional training, I gave it my all, I have no regrets" -William Hung
Hi ferplexion
The year of the design what is that ?
Now my claims is that I participated in architect contests years ahead of that, contests where I pointed and in the papers described this new method ------ now just ontop that picture what can you read about there, some froud and an honest develober who got his rights by having a trial.
So isnn't this exactly the same thing, when I can prove my rights by have participated in contests years ahead way before ------ now this is a yes or no thing, where you seem to protect the guy who copied arn't you ?
About the serpentine building I will not say it faal compleatly under the description of a 3D-H it have simularities but it is not a 45 deg turned two planes that I would look for --- I think the designer had trouble expanding from the tree tradisional planes, that these frames simply follow the tree tradisoional planes , so no even this is a primitive sort of 3D-H it is not the thing. Maby you don't fully understand the concept ,but sure if you had shown this graphic say 3 years ago while I wasalso documenting 3D-H structures on the web, you cirtainly if you didn't have a famous architects name to put on it, you would be told that "this is impossible".
Wonder where the inspiration came from ??
Hi
Sorry if the two latest posts was written to fast, my connection been down and I thought I make a fast reply, ---- but now to something quite different.
How would you emagine exiting new architecture ? --- would you think it as wooden beams or would you think it as something drawn in Solids and manufactored with today's top digital means ?
Realy I find architecture are in a dead end when not reconising the develobment in methods and the promise of actural new way's. I find it is bad that you look if this in any way can show simularaty with 3D-H why not realise that to show the guts you must ask if an architect who think in wooden frames realy grasped the promises you need to check the actural structure and ask if it is not a good side effect , to get the structure for the floors at the same time as cutting the frame.
I think the Serpantine structure show how little today's celebrated architects understand about this new concept --- when performing such 3D-H like structure why show it as just an emty shell when expaning the understanding of this new way to see a structure, at the same time could have build the structure to rest the ploor panels, could have made the internal walls, --- even have made the foundations to cover to get the build-in furniture.
Sorry but years ago I published structures that from my point of view , show much more feel about the options with computers, I did brake the mental barrier and scrapped the tradisional 3 plane constructions and see what that brought ; please make a search at Yahoo about 3D-Honeycomb and you will se structures where I suggest all this, I did not just make an emty shell in square cubes I pointed to the obvious gains with a brand new vision.
Please try look in the foto's folders and see if I restrict this new method to timber frames and emty shells ;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pavilions/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skuespilhus/
Offcaurse there are plenty more Yahoo groups these are only two old ones.
Is no one understanding what is said with this graphic ???
Per, Instead of spending hours on end discussing your idea here and making these renderings perhaps you should think about how "your" system would integrate with other types of building systems. For instance, how would I run plumbing and electric lines through those walls? Your renderings show no detail as to how these things would sit on a foundation or how they would be clad. Also, this would cost a fortune to CNC or even laser cut plus make no mention of where one would find a piece of sheet steel large enough for one of these sections to be cut. I just worked on a project where we required a 40' x 10' x 2" piece of steel (your sections look much larger then that) and we had to have the foundry set up a sepcial operation to roll it out, the tooling alone cost close to half a million.
Per is right. this conversation turned into, from whether it works to who done it first..i am convinced,
Per did it first..even he didn't..
he is advocating 'his' idea. and after looking other examples recently came about in this post, his work is more evolved towards advocating the idea, where, the others had the opportunity to build it as a spatial application without emphasizing the structural aspects.
his proposals are mostly do-able, specially with tools he has been talking about. the details and quantifiying are solvable with simple cad tools.
for me, i will remember and attribute the authorship to Per Corell, if i see a close rendetion of this system, with the knowledge of earlier forms of this idea existed in modern architecture and were always there in nature.
I also like his sense of humor and see his vulnarabilities.+, he has great drawings..
Hi
When you draw the Solids that is sliced to produce the sections you allready have the option to perfectly plane any leads for plumbing.
Guess you checked how the basic for generating the sections are a Solid model, you then project the plumbing like you do in other applications, you simply subtract a long cylinder where you want the pipes --- when the sections are generated there will be a hole drawn where the Solid was subtracted and as you just make the water or laser cutter follow the lines that shape the sections magic will happen as while you assemble the frames you will se the hole created by the Solid cylinder you subtracted the original Solid model.
Now please emagine the gains, you already when projecting the raw structure, prepare for and avoid complex works that you othervise had to maneage, Emagine those savings ontop the gains saving special fittings and the effort asked to place them, now you can even build in foundations for stairs , you can already have the structure to place wall panels ----- ontop you could have these unrolled directly from drawing, and cut with the same laser or water cutter the very same and only one mashin, that do the rest of the projected structure --- now don't tell me that engineering is so lamely weekended that you can't find just one single way to cover the surfaces of any shape structure.
Also if you find that difficult, you could make the structure from an assembly of "known geometrics".
BTW --- I was asked if a 45 deg. twist of the two intersecting planes was a must, now please check this graphic and check the outher black frames, these are cut right downwerts up , but twisted on ground plane 45 deg. it would look silli to make them as tradisional "ships frames" it simply would be silli but not as a primitive 3D-H.;
http://www.designcommunity.com/scrapbook/images/1712.jpg
Hi
abracadabra thanks for the nice words but, now what ,how can feed the exiting discussions how can we live without the fun and joy, Il'l not discuss politics so that's no option I acturly know very little about architecture I compleatly lack social skills , -- please realise what you taken from me being nice to me ;))
'I acturly know very little about architecture I compleatly lack social skills'
thats okay with me Per..all the better.
To quote Per from the image gallery:
"Hi
Now please make it better ;))
And yes some will call the primitive first 3dh structures ugly but, I am not an architect I urge you to make it better prove that there are a call for a new method so different still so promising.
I would simply love when someone add that spark show that ability to just use this as a tool, and produce a real wonder -- and yes this will put me in the right spot as just the one who in bad english tried to make you all see, see the bright new options see how different this is , just a new tool such need to be invented by someone , hope it will yield loads of beautifull houses that's all I wanted , beside offcaurse just a bit credit.
- Per Corell, Apr 17, 05 | 2:38 am"
No Per, you make it better. Oh wait, thats right, you have made nothing better here. There is absolutely nothing new with your structural ideas. There is nothing new and revolutionary here.
Your talk of people ripping you off! Incredible. Those people you say ripped you off could use this thread against you in a court of law (ok, maybe not). What you cannot use this thread for, however, is justifiction that your ideas are valid. You need to publish something for that.
I kept on reading because I thought you would offer some valid responses. Maybe some theory about this.
I had no intention of writing in this thread, but after the crap you have written, I felt compelled to. For a while, I was even thinking you were going to prove everyone wrong. But after years, you still have not. I pity you and myself for going through pages and pages of this crap.
I think this says it all. Rotate a space frame 45 degrees, and you have 3D-H.
Hi
wisof you seem to be more concerned about my protecting my intelectural right but realy it is my right to do just that, it is bad that this tread turned this way, as it shuld be obvious also for you, that when someone show somthing never seen before then he can claim his right afterwerts.
Now the only thing you can justify your words, is that this is not a structural system, I ask you two things , if it is not then what is it then.
Then my other question ask a bit explernation , guess you know that there are nothing new making sections and that a new thing, a realy new thing often define itself being so simple that "anyone" will say "why havn't anyone done this before". Now that something is simple is no reson to rip off someone his rights for credit, I worked with this for 12 years and used the web to check if this idea have been seen anywhere simple or not and I published loads of different structures made in a way never done before , where do you say this is made before ? please show me ..... But don't show me a tradisional frame and stringer structure as this is not a 3D-H,
Very often I start a post with asking people to open their mind , fact is that it shuld be obvious that this is new as surely you seen two sections meet in a notch , you also can se tradisional structures where the sections follow the tradisional 3 planes , but you fail to understand and instead of realising, instead of looking closer and read what I describe, you close your eyes. As soon as Lars made this in real everyone could se it worked, before anyone said "this is impossible" even just the fact it is made 3D prove it can, but didn't this prove how little a lot of people acturly know about 3D ?
And yes there are a theori about this, all you need is to read what I write that this is a structural system that no one before have grasped.
Can't you even se how this is a complete different world ,that the pictures acturly prove it is so different from anything you ever seen, your eyes shuld tell.
Now I wonder if your argument is more like that someone who can't spell can't claim his right , then please reconise that I am good with the things I show it is not my foult that you are not good reconising that others have a different language ,but maby just this different language is what it take to develiob a method no one before put forth, tell me where it have put forth before . Ask yourself if you are harassing asome nice guy of whom you made your own hate picture, if you help the guy who did not develob this system but just grasped it wothout leaving a single line for credit, --- now don't use the exchouse that the bicycle thief uses when he grasp an unlocked bike ; he know it is not his and it is no exchouse for stealing intelectural property that the you don't see the lock.
Sorry if this text are a bit long, but if I shuld repeat that before computers it was impossible to project a 3D-H , and how this _work_ so different and acturly make the computer work with Solid modeling, why it is different aso. aso. , then I could use every day describing this, one day to an 8 year old next day to a 70 year old engineer who will defend what he done all his life to the last letter and with closed eyes.
You see peoples reson to harras me are as different as people themself but in the end, and maby your problem are that you did not open your mind or know to little about structural systems to se the clue , even it is obvious when the foundations for floors and walls grow as by magic ---- where just where have you seen this work ?
Acturly I think everyone shuld support the bright guy who develob something never seen before, it is a much more positive aproach.
Sorry about the bad english, now I don't write so just to make a fast lazy exchouse , --- maby you guy's shuld try danish.
Hi
a-f ; "I think this says it all. Rotate a space frame 45 degrees, and you have 3D-H."
This is not quite true, but please reconise that I only know a few hundred english words , you se this is just a simple paralell I use to explain what even so simple when you look at the graphic, are so difficult to explain , yes it is right but what you do, is to turn the 3 tradisional planes something that you never did and never was allowed but it is that simple thing that explain the concept, and then the wierd thing, that now you can not use the tradisional 3 planes , not if you make a 3D-H.
But some of my best arguments I think is, that first people say this is impossible it simply are to fantastic that you can press a button and by magic the whole basic structure are there, it contain in a fantastic way both frames for walls and floors even structure for the stairs even the option to build-in furniture and all in just one material ---- oposed those who say "this is nothing some details look as other details in other structures"
Please recoise that this realy havn't been done before, and no one investigated the enourmous amount of nice side effects , the way this will change architecture, please allow that credit, it is not a small thing.
Hi
wisof please reconise that I would rather spend time develobing this method further than fighting the rights that in time will be proven mine.
I would rather be able to ansver questions from someone who see the potentials and want to create a beautifull house but have difficulties getting that small bright idea that can make it work, this would be very much more better, --- it also would ensure that the real bright idea can work ontop this fantastic new tool. It would over time make the bread for me and my family it would or could make it so that I could support my autistic son better.
Also it would bring just a bit honesty back into architecture, to accept that a guy with a bright idea one who worked serious for decades to create some beauty in this world, is not met with greed and the mind of a thief when he enter the academic world. Time will tell my rights it will also describe your words .
wisof do it help your understanding when I tell you that highly educated engineers acturly have "seen the light" that truely skilled people after saying "this is impossible" suddenly said "Hey --- damned this _is_ fantastic, look how the structure realy work perfect as he say" ?
Hi sorry just want to add, that _everyone_ will profit from accepting my rights for credit, no one will gain from discussions like this.
Becaurse I am here to ansver any polite question I am not just here to defend my rights even it look so, the only reson I do that is that I have to and please think about it, -------- in the two rcent main discussions here and at at desinn forum more than 20000 visitors have been to the treds, so don't you think time will prove my rights anyway , then why not make this discussion into something productive instead .
Can you tell us more about "the enourmous amount of nice side effects" of turning the frame 45 degrees? Clearly it doesn't create ANY new type of structure. And to say that it is impossible to intersect complex shapes with planes without computers is a complete minsconception. Have a look at the intriguing 16th century drawings of Philibert de l'Orme, for example, where he is cutting rotated cylinders with planar balustrade shapes using projective geometry.
above: "the frame" should be read as "an ordinary spaceframe"...
Hi
a-f I realy would like if you took the time and checked the graphicd in the various 3D-Honeycomb Yahoo Groups , this is my best way to respond and maby after looking closer you will see how easy it now is to do the actural solutions in a much more smooth way, that to understand this concept you must have a real problem and allow this concept to show those nice side effects that is difficult while so different, to describe in words.
Now isn't it then bad that" the intriguing 16th century drawings of Philibert de l'Orme" have not any response in today's Solid modeling, that the tradisional methods made the limitations just by materials and crafts avaible , ----- please consider that in copenhagen some poor guy who can not do 20 mens job are asked to spend 40 mens work to prove what is allready in the pictures. Please consider how different this is is is both so simple and still so complex that it carry all the definations of a brilliant new idea that is "so simple" that "why didn't anyone think about this before, --- yet the problem seem to be something quite different, that the poor guy with the bright idear are up against the social skills he don't master ------ but maby real artists are not the supermen expected. Maby in 20 years there will be people who would say "If I was just a fly on the wall"
Anyway I take your advise and look for that 16' century artist --- but please realise that my vision are about develobing new tools for the computer, and I openly published it all allway's ansvered the questions if they was relevant for creating something , and oposed 16' century artists I made the computer work showed a different aproach something quite new, made from only two planes something the tradisional 3 planes are simply not fit for, --- the possible develobment is something I can only point to, I do not know the future .
Hi
a-f take a simple box with thick walls , place Solids as floors and walls so you have a real Solid model that you could make a walkthru , a model that show thick walls and thick floors.
Now try slice it from the tradisional 3 planes.
Then try turn the 3 planes, what you will se, is that now oposed the tradisional 3 planes, the sections will transverse the structure, that one frame will form foundations for walls and floors in one and same frame, that when you assemble this new model you will as by magic have the foundations for floors and wall foundations that you othervise would need to add in the tradisional ans awsom troubled way costing a lot of money and wherever you need a beam to hold the floor you will need a special fitting and a load of bolts. With 3D-H you cut it all in one go, but in a way that the tradisional sections would not prove any nice side effects. Try or look at some of my first graphics where I did that.
you know having been part of this mess, and yes it is a mess, i realized something as i shook myself out of this stupor; that this Per guy advocates nothing, NOTHING! i mean is it software? no, because he has never said what it is and where anyone can purchase it, is it a way of living? no. is it a structural system? well who knows, have any of us seen any structural engineers talk about this, or seen any structural calculations? no. so, what does he want, what is this mission? he has seen 1 architecture firm that SEEMS to be using what he calls HIS ideas, but really what can any of us tell from a few photo's and what does that prove anyway? you need more than a few images to prove any kind theft of intellectual property, just ask SOM and David Childs about that. how radical is this idea anyway? a rotated space frame, 45 degrees, and this is the claim to superiority?? originality? i mean do you see chickens running around claiming to everyone that they came first in the chicken vs. egg scenario?? it is a structural frame, a frame that by my eyes is rigid as all hell and will not bend to the will of any designer, most especially Per's - i gather that this frame designed our Per rather than Per designing this frame, it certainly has more personality than Per and speaks more volumes about its simplistic limitations than the almighty supposed creator PER CORRELL......
Hi Per
I really appreciate the time you take to explain the concept, since I have seen your renderings, and want you to understand that 3D-H is only an aesthetic concept, not a new structural solution.
Then try turn the 3 planes, what you will se, is that now oposed the tradisional 3 planes, the sections will transverse the structure, that one frame will form foundations for walls and floors in one and same frame
No, this would also happen without rotation, and is an ordinary frame. I think your error lies in this paragraph:
when you assemble this new model you will as by magic have the foundations for floors and wall foundations
meaning that the only reason for a rotation is because the isolated parts of the frame are more difficult to visually relate to the complete frame (before being built, that is), hence the magic part, and also
With 3D-H you cut it all in one go, but in a way that the tradisional sections would not prove any nice side effects
meaning that the 3D-H "touch" (the 45 degree rotation) is only there because YOU like it. There is no structural difference in making static nodes (joints) and cutting everything out of the same material. The only so-called advantage you get is the need to cut, transport and assemble gigantic frames (imagine trying to get two steel frames by 20x100 meters trying to "intersect" in each others joints). A few bolts and what you call a "special fitting" seems like a more clever solution to me.
a-f you could look closer to the start graphic in this tread, please look how foundations for the floor and walls grow as by magic and that no one "lay the floor beams isn't this different ?
Look at how the mesh form around the windows whare standard compoment windows will fit millimeter placed, ---- maby you will say that parts of this is possible with tradisional frames but realy, do it not corrospond a new way one never used before , will you not just meet the limitations in many way's where turning the planes make anything possible, --- wouldn't the walls be just plain sections with no supporting structure around will the tradisional sectioning add the huge strength that something as simple as turning the plans offer.
Please realise that in a 3D-H each and every frame will be supported much better than with the tradisional sections where frames often will stand alone with no support from the surrounding frames .
Now the reson I ask you to look closer to the other graphics I show is, that many of these simply would be silli in the tradisional sectioning following the tradisional planes, many would be "card houses" where turning the planes make this up. --- ,aby you think this is a small thing, but maby this thing is bigger than you and I can emagine, now what means am I allowed to prove my saying, --- wasn't I allway's met with the response that "this is impossible" well try belive that as I know the tradisional way's that I acturly master some of the real difficult crafts, spended years with the tradisional way's , then please trust that I known your arguments but seen the 3D-H concept work in so many applications where the old way's will be troublesim and vaste compared this new way.
If you ever build a boat you would know that tradisionaly you would stand with frames swinging in the air, with no way to be sure they are placed right , 3D-H make both the frames smaller and offer a brand new way, sorry I just fail the words I have to count that that fly on the wall will know.
P.s.
The _reson_ we use 3 planes are that with these we can calculate inbetween the planes realy this is the only reson we use 3 planes.
Now we only need two planes as the computer can do all that calculating.
But maby you don't realise the idea before you realise why everything untill now have followed these 3 planes, and why it is allmost impossible and by all means useless, tio describe a 3D-H in th tradisional 3 planes --- if you try slice a 3D-H with the tradisional 3 planes you will get something you can't use for anything, it all be boxes hanging in the air with no use in a direct link prodiuction, --- and that is what 3D-H is, --- a way to go strait from drawings to producing the individual building parts, and these are _different.
Besife a-f I am not claiming any of the tradisional way's I point to that this is different than the tradisional way's , then I point to some of the graphics and say "see how it change your whole perception" I say "this expand the way you tradisionaly think a building it replace 20 different steel profiles and that way challacne the production" but I also try to explain how huge savings ,what this mean in terms of change in perception and building methods if you focus on one material and don't try piece together a structure the tradisional way. I do many other things and I would be able to do much further getting the credit ,among these things to be able to give the advise and realy change architecture, now that you _can do structures the tradisional way shuldn't be a hinder for either develobment of great new methods or giving the actural visionary the credit.
True what I don't hope for, is that every time someone show a great and beautifull building everyone will reconise as build in 3D-H, that talk will be about me being cheated for the credit, still isn't this so easy to avoid just giving the credit.
Hi
JG ---- Think about it this way that in a shipyard you allready handle huge sections cut the rolled sheets and perform what is very close to the square cube honeycomb structures I point to, fact is that this is based on the tradisional way of thinking that methods been refined and new way's proven that you can build a ship without first placing the keel ,then the ribs and then covering these with the panels , but in terms of cost I think shipsbuilding will prove these sections as a possible side production at a very lower cost. Offcaurse what I talk about ask special production equipment but is it that special I would not say as 50 years ago or before, you could make a flame cutter follow a chalk line lofted onto the steel sheets , the only difference is that today the cutter are feed by digital but realy , in shipyards you allready maneage much bigger frames much heavier frames , ----- now what is Per Corell now claiming, that houses shuld be build in shipyards, well why not if this can sell more steel ?
Still as you maby know there are digital feed routers that handle standard size plywood sheets , now if you just window in the join between the sheets to build a large frame don't you then think this simple mashin would provide ready and cut materials on site , in a very much more flexible way than you do this today ?
Well today you "think" in standard sizes standard panels and the result is that everything is square as if it was not it would cost a farm , with this method it do not matter what shape the house are and it is not a bundle of work as the computer allready calculated each and every little piece and that piece will fit perfect, ------- now I know this is different but are you sure that these thoughts don't reflect the future, that when tools get smart they will do their work when they are in that exact posision and that this point further than plain boatsbuilding or don't you think that any future method will challance the way we build family houses today ?
I hope there will be better way's ,and with the graphics and the arguments that was never ansvered in this tread ,-- my arguments about building stronger and cheaper at the same time, -- I guess there are an option , that there are a way to build houses that will not tumble houses that are easyer rebuild , houses where you can have "original spare parts" cut in 200 years proberly cheaper than what experimental methods will provide today. Who say production will not gain from new methods that the savings doing it in sheet materials can pay just those expenses , now why shuld sheet metal be more expensive than profile steel and when you se the allready legovise assembly of strait beams , why couldn't this be replaced with a much smarter and flexible method. One that will yield a new architecture .
Hi
I'm only posting because I feel like it's some sort of Archinect initiation rite, and I've missed out until now.....
Plus I want to help put it over 600....
Carry on, Per
600 - YESSSSS!
i'm loading up on prizes.
damn you jeffe.
awesome.....
Hi
A 3D-H made from 3D-H.
Hi
Dec. 2000 I participated in an architect competision .
Sadly the trends at that time was not actural new way's of producing the "new way's of living" , you can see the first price project here;
http://www.kollision.dk/nwol/index.html
Now offcaurse it important how you can emagine the future as you see in this "architectural correct" project. Still what I never realy understood, is why the theoretic masters, the professors at the art schools display such arogance towerds the guy who maneage the bright idea, why at the same praising a totaly theoretic project , then they claim that "this is not possible" when talking about 3D-H.
Anyway this contest was in Dec 2000 , and I participated a project describing a new building method, a way to make the theoretic words go alive, wouldn't it be better to allow Mr. Corell his reigh for credit, so he can go on with his life and maby further develob his method ?
Your system of 3D-H has nothing to do with "new ways of living", as you say yourself, you "participated a project describing a new building method", this has absolutely nothing to do with "new ways of living", so don't be so damn critical of the contest results! modes and styles of living can be seperate variables in a design from the meaning of producing those modes of living - if they should be is a completely different topic.
Also, you've pointed out on many occasions that you're not an architect, but you refuse to take the criticism from people that have been involved in the profession and possibly are architects. For some reason this just doesn't make sense to me...
Hi
Funny though as the name for that contest was "The Digital future within building"
Now I wonder what realy shuld be relevant in that context, the theori a science fiction or a suggestion about the actural means.
Nwol New way's of living was the title for that first price, the contest was about the digital future within architecture .
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.