Illogic I will be happy to place some models for free download, but anyone must still know that these models are nothing compared what you will make as soon as you realise what increadible options are avaible , when you drop the old way of thinking a structure. The "Catedral" thing you mention are a quite trivial thing --- in fact it is nothing but a trivial manzard added halve a cylinder and halve a globe ,then these are melted into the raw manzard model and sliced 3D-H simplest way ,--- emagine if just a bit more efford had been put into it focusing on adding the tradisional geometrics that shape gotic buildings -
You see there are so many wonders to uncover, and what the manzard/catedral pictures show, is how little you need , just 3 Solids but made so that they are hollowed Solids, made so that a floor and some walls are added , please remember my attitude ; I know how limitless the fact possibilities are when you now don't need to vorry about the actural structure, but as you I was stunned about the fact that this is a new architecture, one that don't hide it's structural aperance.
I often thought about distribuating some of the raw models , my problem been quite vain ,as I know the small foults I know how this also uncover the lazy designer , but you are right illogic it would be the only right aproach, --- please allow me to give it a thought.
(some models though , are to be downloaded in some of the Yahoo groups, but frankly I don't remember where.
Per
What about a giving us your amazing software, so we can create the most amazing new revolutionary architecture in the world?
Per why do you keep bothering posting messages on this forum as I noticed the only thing being done here is mud throwing? What is in it for you? Or do you see yourselve as a profet spreading the word of 3D-H and trying to convert the non-believers?
P.B. you are quite right , what this is about for me , and been about since I realised what this acturly is, -- have been to publish and promoting a brand new way.
This is not just some easy treasure, it is the result of many years develobing the tools promised with the CAD options, --- problem is that your creativity with computers are limited in many way's ,that unless you enter the labyrint right then you will just end in some dead-end.
Just like architecture in general have ; ----- Reson I say so are my fact experience but, I never publish any of this critic without being able to point to alternatives.
P.B. architecture and arts are a highly social thing, you can be the master visionary artist but as it allway's worked then within arts it is not the quality it is not the relevant ansver or attitude that get the price . I worked develobing design tools for my own porpus since I got my first 8088 and an AutoCAD 2.6 ,but nomatter you can document that the innovative method make a building at a third the cost, make a new architecture , do it with a visionary new aproach towerds the structural issues ,then it do not count ; _any_ social skilled architect with the right social abilities who find a small gadged in a CAD program he soended two day's with, will win the price it don't matter if you in a contest display the most innovative the most visionary aproach , and document it in graphics and description --- your role are the fact same as any visionary artist 1905 or 2005 there are no difference architecture are a social game ------ atleast here I have the chance to defend myself, just look how german architects "did not know, did not see" , just check how intelectural property are made into a comic among academics no, I have much better chances in China than in denmark .
P.s ------ P.B. this is not about software ,this is about realising about being able to use the actural tools that is allready there . Now I could spend several thousand words describing why and how designers and architects are stuck in the tradisional attitude, fact is that 3D-H are so different that it work compleatly opposite the tradisional structural thinking ; I poured examples into these treads and my description of the method, I piece by piece explained and used examples where any of the examples I use , are based on a hands-on aproach.
The actural 3D-H method was an ansver to my own expertations, I wanted a method to be able to freely design any shape --- I wanted a method that solved all the trivial problems engineering the most important issue with any object over a cirtain size , the framework.
What I discovered was how floors and walls as by magic grew within the structure, and with my background in actural boats building, I knew what a revolution this mean. Look at the trivial software what it it realy, it is just the old methods rewritten into fast and safe code , --- where are the "new" in that ?
Still fact also are that I am just a family man , a guy who are "blessed" with the ability to make new solutions , fact is that at an age of 54 I realise that being blessed with an innovative mind and knowing the code ,being able to acturly build the boat , then these ability also been the pest of my life. It is not funny to have great skills the way it worked for me, I worked with design for so many years that I know that it is not the actural innovative aproach that count, it is not the ability to see it thru and find new solutions that are praised today no, it is the attitude of the thief the mind of a robber that get the attention, detail knowleage and an ability to create visions are realy not what today's architectural celebrate, it never was but the words are sweet.
per, please, make for here people you close-pretty handshake cnc parts make. only metal here? wood- small dollar (cut no cnc)- many dollar by man, yes?
Hi
Cf I talk about the simplest cnc controlled manufactoring. Mashins that allready for many years been building ontop very safe and a very easy technology ,technikes to work the materials . ------ please don't complain about that materials need to be worked, they all do both the 20 different steel profiles ,special fittings nuts and rivits ,these all require their individual production line ; now wouldn't it be sense to admit that when a new technike replace these 20 different lines of production, with one line of production, that this indicate some savings ?
Now please cf, before you questioned this -- did you then try to find out what it cost to have say a 5 mm. steel sheet cut by one of these mashins pr. cut meter ? If you did not I am sorry to say that you seem to be quite unjust towerds the technike, that if someone without even checking the basics ,go strait into critics without even having just the tinyise clue about the cost, with no thought about my arguments, well then maby that someone deserve to have his new cabin made from dirt and waters ,if someone simply deny ,by porpus refuse to open his mind , then why not stay in the cave while the social games was as sofisticated there as within modern architecture .
Now cf please don't think that 3D-H was develobed by a wish to become a famous designer, it was acturly develobed in a hands-on aproach develobing new design tools. If you don't think that an CNC controlled cutter ,pounshing mashin flame or water , work more efficient than doing the same cutting with a jigsaw , if you havn't tried to calculate the amounts of sheet to make the framework for a fact building or pavilion --- then if you allready from the start refuse to quistion your own picture about something that make a round house without bending one single frame, if you don't want to see something that obviously as develobed by a very skilled crafts person ,ans instantly as develobed as not a dull dream or engraved in grandious words ------ then you shuld rather ask yourself ; "do I want my new Cabin at a third the cost, will I have it four times as strong" .
If your ansver then is "No" , please don't ask for more new popular mechanics, as that is the frightning side effect with new technikes, that they even in the end could yield a new architecture, so if you don't want that either , don't ask me for it .
Hi
This is what I made 15 years ago ,software bound in the tradisional fasion ,just with a few new tools like unfolding a 3D model ,even not smooth byt lapstrake zig-zag, to get the planks unfolded , those that make up the shell the hull. The way this boat is build is first make the 3D model scale one to one , make sure this realy are a lapstrake surface ( not just a plain smoothed 3D computer mesh but the real exact 3D model where planks overlap as they do in lapstrake boatsbuilding.
It was shaped from my favorite sections designed with the Lofot dinghie in mind, but where the original carry one plank less one plank less to shape the rounded hull. Now all that made without one piece of paper, measures placed by evaluating (getdistance) and placing the ansvered distance as dimention text. Just to make the right decision it is an inbetween of two hulls morphed and this chosen to be the one.
-------- Sure the planks could be routered out ,well they are polylines as how my in-house unfolding software draw the unfolded lapstrake surface , a software btw. where you are asked if measures and angles is to be printed on the unfolded lines yes or no.
But this is nothing of the 3D-H kind, this is what I did 15 years ago , --- fact is that compared 3D-H it is irasionel to build this way fact is that you can design a better boat a bargain compared the old way's , realise that also here 3D-H make something at a third the cost and important 4 times as strong a one-off cheaper than the tradisional technikes provide.
Beta I don't understand this, --- where are the on-topic issue ?
This is an architecture discussion board ? Realy I would like to discuss the issue paperless architecture, as I know a lot about this issue.
Now from what you put in ,it seem you care a lot about usenet and usenet related issues, you do not like pictures and you want this tread that is about a very interesting in modern building arts ,become an issue about what must be seen, as rightwing usenet politics why is that ?
In the NYT. discussion fora about redevelobing the twin towers , there have been a guy, who every now and then, reposted the same screwed promoting mails --- it's like when the discussion realy start to get interesting, then this guy tumble in, with 3 neurotic quite paranoid procalmations , as now he want all this attention ,he seem sort of being attracted to a site where things are happening and without any respect just rush in ,talk about totaly off-topic issues ,and don't share any of the subject for the fora, --- I wonder why your last mail with the mysterious messeage "REMOTE LINKING IMAGES MAKEs BABY JESUS CRY" is all capital letters, why is that ,and how relevant is this in this board in this discussion ?
sorry per i don't mean to upset you but 'your ideas' is taking over the world, and stiil no credit to you.
you need to publish a book with proper dates on the work.
i'm just trying to outsmart the system so I DON'T EVER recieve email notifications about this thread ever again! I wonder if it will work to uncheck the 'notify me' box this time?
Hi
abracadabra I am not sure I want to take the credit there, you see this again is quite a trivial cardboard assembly it seem --- nothing out of planes realy, or rather if you look closer and try see the difference ,then atleast for it to be a 3D-H the side and front views need to be 45 deg. out of plane and at best all 3 planes need to be out of planes. With this thing I don't know, I would not say this is a 3D-H.
Still Im'e still waiting.
Anyway I apriciate your concern about the 1000, --- but what I hope is that something else that would have happened some weeks ago would be at the same time as that number, --- well some papers will be published, no more about that before they are.
I emagine such structure and form, to perform better, than a 200 feet high Concrete wall --- now this even trap flying dameage materials, a 3D-H structure will redirect the impac and this way protect the framework , Anyway I find this suggestion ,for the bottom of the towers a better aproach, than a blank concrete wall, 200 feet high.
For me ofcaurse it is as important that 11406 views are reported, together with the 196 mails and 24235 views onttop the multible visits at my own homepage and the graphics distribuated being looked at , --- then numbers are good as long as the numbers are high.
It is different houses enginering structure . It is and not about it cover the jobs is very different as with strong can only be the fancy organic it is with computer that material not 20 support made this not just surface it is different the old ways. it make new support don't as different as it build cheap structure. a new technology it promise old attitude it's form square new but but different materials, is super sales but don't it is as way about the It is one computing ,it is forms but don't as it it different for support sheet materials, it renderings, what it seems.
driftwood , when you freely can shape and form in 3D .When you know that the press of the button just every time , produce just the assembly that shape the exact forms , and ontop you just unfold the surfaces get it in perfect measures. Then Quality are what it is. The Quality I want is a genuine tool , one that work better than any other one you can rely, is not just as how things was made 80 years ago --- you simply can't ansver the call for relevant tools, tools that go from 3D drawing strait to manufactoring -- without getting that quality as a side effect.
But that's another story, ontop you must count the ten of thousands, that been a member of any of my boat groups , that will be quite a number, ontop the visitors and members at Yahoo Groups about the method.
You see with this method, an inventor will not be in the situation that the aincient stole his concept, --- they had no computer and 3D-H is silli without the direct link, there are no reson to make a 3D-H if you don't have that link ,it will be irasionel -- ,I just love that argument.
When getting my undergraduate degree I took the extra time and effort to obtain minors in both creative and technical writing because writing is something I both enjoy and find to be a valuable tool. I trained and worked for several years as a writing tutor, helping everyone from those with learning disabilities to Ph.D's working on their dissertations to learn how to better understand the what they are writing and how they write it. I've even worked with ESL students on many occasions. I have a basic, but well versed understanding of language, how to use it to convey meaning, and how to help others in communicating.
You are beyond my ability to help.
And your inability to communicate is what dooms you. It's what dooms us all.
driftwood: I was fascinated by your message. I obsess over writing, punctuation, spelling. I agree with you: "It's what dooms us all". I wonder if writing means anything at all, short of it having some sort of inner subliminal structure. To misquote the Russians, "you pretend to write, I pretend to understand". Is communication at all possible? I fret over this and am giving myself an ulcer for fear that language has no meaning whatsoever...
that having been said, I find Per's broken English strangely compelling. Like Hamlet, it is fluency unfluent taken to the limit of absurdity...
(Yet common sense tells me that we do communicate through language all the time: that does not stop me from fretting. Per is so haunting...) I also fret over music having no 'real' subliminal structure, also architecture, of course... (I hate myself for enjoying Tchaikovsky when I don't understand intellectually what the structure is)... sorry for this long ramble. I wish I knew more about Wittgenstein: maybe he could help you with Per's English.
Yeah... I read my last line again just now and it gave me goosebumps...
As for your question, "Is communication at all possible?" the only way to answer it is by asking another question. Is it possible to not communicate? The answer to that one, is no. How's this sound:
You pretend to say nothing, I pretend to not hear it.
And I agree with you. Per's posts are compellingly lyrical. They're intriguing in their confusion. It's a challenge to put his thoughts together, find the diamond in the rough. To quote Shakespear's Polonius, "Though he be mad, there is method in't." And don't hate yourself for liking music just because you don't understand the structure behind it. Understanding something doesn't always mean greater appreciation. Sometimes it's not understanding that leads to the greatest insights.
You have nothing to fear in regards to your communicative ability. Your comments are elucidating, and your entries are consistently worthy of opening, so to speak.
In this life we are permitted only limited knowledge, the trick is to know what to learn. I think there may be some value in looking at the critiique or the opposing view of a subject in order to understand it - provided that one is able to trust the source of the critique.
This thread is a case in point, where one discerns that the value of knowing anything about 3DH structures and Per is very little. based upon the comments of yourself, driftwood, betadinesutures, abracadabra, agfa8x and other archinotables.
Wittengenstein is indeed worthy of pursuit, as is Borges, Calvino, Camus, and if you want some genuine opacity for a challenge, Clausewitz. Given that you are of a more mature vintage than myself, I'm sure that you can take my advice with a grain of salt, and possilby a shot of tequila.
Oh lord reading Camus is a sado-masichistic form of ritual torture...
I love him. The Plague is brilliant. I've always meant to read more of his work but haven't gotten to it. If you're looking for something a little less carnivorous to attack though, I find Swift to be a superb foil to literary 'opacity.' I get all hot and bothered by that man's use of satire, sarcasm, and irony.
I agree driftwood. My antidote to more complex writers is Borges, particularly his non-fiction. In regards to more complex writers, I find Thomas Pynchon quite frustrating. I still proclaim Mason & Dixon the most beautiful thing I've ever read - the first paragraph had me hooked. However, I've forgotten how many times I've attempted to read it, because I've never been able to finish it.
driftwood & diabase: thanks for these comments. It is true that the brain kills poetic pleasure. To get back to Per & Danish English & Denmark: remember that beautiful scene at the start of 'Out of Africa' where Karen Blixen is in Denmark, in the snow, shooting fowl (before she ever goes to Kenya). Meryl Streep dazzling in it: it is unanalysable yet satisfying. Like Per's opaque English. It's not a question of any parallel between Danish and English meanings in any straightforward way. Just give in to the sense of being lost at sea, and you'll float... even maybe splash around and frolic a bit. (I was utterly dismayed at the 'Mr Devlin': what are you guys trying to do to me???)
driftwood: the fact that what you had (unwittingly) written gave you goosebumps proves that you hit a nerve, are on to something true here...
Per: I just visited your website. Saw there what seems to be a slice out of a cylindrical opera house or theatre with boxes, orchestra, corridors etc. One question: if this project is an opera house or theatre, I am just wondering if you have considered the acoustics of such a space. I thought that circular or cylindrical spaces were murder on acoustics. I may be wrong. I had thought that the shoe-box was the ideal shape for good acoustics for music. That having been said I know (I think) there were/are many baroque opera houses that are curved at one end (opposite the stage). I wonder how their acoustics are/were? Any comments on this? I am not an acoustician.
Hi
johndevlin one day I was handed a CD with a number of "computer drawings" ------ to make a long story short it was 2D cake slices from a round interiour ,one that actury was first build and then afterwerds "digitized" -- measured at site -- in hope of a 3D computer drawing.
Now if you don't think this is silli you don't know the basic problems in digital projecting ; a computer drawing is still a thing to sell the project not a tool to manufactore the building compoment, but this was the typical build where "We build as we allway's build" and the modern fuzzwork was only used to display the project -------- sad to say , with the same attitude architects allway's worked with computers.
These 2D sections of that Opera being build was simply useless , made as reverse engineering after the outher shell was put up as a measure of the steel frames allready put in place , guess you allready see that even It was possible to work these 16 2D sections into an actural 3D model -------- then the work was vasted as there was no use for it, no use for it the way these builders thought a 3D model worked.
All in all this project ,thought to be impossible by the architects, was fruitless as there was such a old fasion attitude , such a "we do as we allway's did" atitude, that as no one realy understood a 3D drawing , even less would know the use for one. Now isn't it a laugh, that with this newbuild Opera, I am acturly the only one who have a real 3D drawing, that except the display 3D models there are fact no 3D model from this just finished build.
----------- If I was to write a book about these issues, this would be a story showing just everything, about how architects see the modern tools; the way the 2D sections was made _after_ the building was made, the fact that the work I made in a week would have costed a farm , and couldn't be made in denmark but proberly only at a greman university, is acturly a sad story. But as I said , this build is just ready and guess what there are a lot of reverse engineering but very little innovation involved, even less computer skills or visions, ----Eh that's no news ,guess it's like that many places where the old are good enough and the modern thing is only about selling the thing, not building it.
About danish versus english remember. For centuries danes went again and again to england , every time teaching them a bit more civilised language , word for word over centuries but every time they went back home, the brittish forgot the language again --- then it was needed with another trip to england just to brush up the language once again.
----- Over a thousand years we danes build up word for word the english language we know your language at a deeper level than yourself remember. There are words in the danish language to poverfull , only a few of you was trusted to know the special letters those that simply don't exist in english, those letters I can't use on this keyboard , making my writing limited as I can't use these .
--------- They are the letters impossible to pronounce in english æ ø å
very poverfull letters to poverfull for the english to learn. One reson why Kirkegaard are best at his native language.
Hi all you fancy graphics lovers
Cristal, the ultimate Champagne to be produced by Champagne Louis Roederer, builds upon the 200-year tradition of fine winemaking that has made Roederer French Champagnes amongst the most sought-after in the world. For connoisseurs the world over, there is nothing finer than Cristal. Jewel in the Louis Roederer crown, cuvée CRISTAL remains faithful to the value which inspired it in 1876 when, especially created for Tsar Alexander II, it sought to epitomize the elegance and purity of Champagne. Cristal is produced in accordance with strict production criteria. Vinified and aged in oak, Cristal shows a delicate vinosity.
Assemblage: 55% Pinot Noir and 45% Chardonnay
hmmmm. i suspect quite different than the murky piss water brewed in a 1985 soviet plastic jug in diego's hog barn on the isle de juventud.
thanks for clarifying beta.
Champagne? Huh. And I'm certain I detected the tang of rusty metal barrels in my beer... Oh wait! That was Buccanero!
Hi
Illogic I will be happy to place some models for free download, but anyone must still know that these models are nothing compared what you will make as soon as you realise what increadible options are avaible , when you drop the old way of thinking a structure. The "Catedral" thing you mention are a quite trivial thing --- in fact it is nothing but a trivial manzard added halve a cylinder and halve a globe ,then these are melted into the raw manzard model and sliced 3D-H simplest way ,--- emagine if just a bit more efford had been put into it focusing on adding the tradisional geometrics that shape gotic buildings -
You see there are so many wonders to uncover, and what the manzard/catedral pictures show, is how little you need , just 3 Solids but made so that they are hollowed Solids, made so that a floor and some walls are added , please remember my attitude ; I know how limitless the fact possibilities are when you now don't need to vorry about the actural structure, but as you I was stunned about the fact that this is a new architecture, one that don't hide it's structural aperance.
I often thought about distribuating some of the raw models , my problem been quite vain ,as I know the small foults I know how this also uncover the lazy designer , but you are right illogic it would be the only right aproach, --- please allow me to give it a thought.
(some models though , are to be downloaded in some of the Yahoo groups, but frankly I don't remember where.
Per
What about a giving us your amazing software, so we can create the most amazing new revolutionary architecture in the world?
Per why do you keep bothering posting messages on this forum as I noticed the only thing being done here is mud throwing? What is in it for you? Or do you see yourselve as a profet spreading the word of 3D-H and trying to convert the non-believers?
Hi
P.B. you are quite right , what this is about for me , and been about since I realised what this acturly is, -- have been to publish and promoting a brand new way.
This is not just some easy treasure, it is the result of many years develobing the tools promised with the CAD options, --- problem is that your creativity with computers are limited in many way's ,that unless you enter the labyrint right then you will just end in some dead-end.
Just like architecture in general have ; ----- Reson I say so are my fact experience but, I never publish any of this critic without being able to point to alternatives.
P.B. architecture and arts are a highly social thing, you can be the master visionary artist but as it allway's worked then within arts it is not the quality it is not the relevant ansver or attitude that get the price . I worked develobing design tools for my own porpus since I got my first 8088 and an AutoCAD 2.6 ,but nomatter you can document that the innovative method make a building at a third the cost, make a new architecture , do it with a visionary new aproach towerds the structural issues ,then it do not count ; _any_ social skilled architect with the right social abilities who find a small gadged in a CAD program he soended two day's with, will win the price it don't matter if you in a contest display the most innovative the most visionary aproach , and document it in graphics and description --- your role are the fact same as any visionary artist 1905 or 2005 there are no difference architecture are a social game ------ atleast here I have the chance to defend myself, just look how german architects "did not know, did not see" , just check how intelectural property are made into a comic among academics no, I have much better chances in China than in denmark .
P.s ------ P.B. this is not about software ,this is about realising about being able to use the actural tools that is allready there . Now I could spend several thousand words describing why and how designers and architects are stuck in the tradisional attitude, fact is that 3D-H are so different that it work compleatly opposite the tradisional structural thinking ; I poured examples into these treads and my description of the method, I piece by piece explained and used examples where any of the examples I use , are based on a hands-on aproach.
The actural 3D-H method was an ansver to my own expertations, I wanted a method to be able to freely design any shape --- I wanted a method that solved all the trivial problems engineering the most important issue with any object over a cirtain size , the framework.
What I discovered was how floors and walls as by magic grew within the structure, and with my background in actural boats building, I knew what a revolution this mean. Look at the trivial software what it it realy, it is just the old methods rewritten into fast and safe code , --- where are the "new" in that ?
Still fact also are that I am just a family man , a guy who are "blessed" with the ability to make new solutions , fact is that at an age of 54 I realise that being blessed with an innovative mind and knowing the code ,being able to acturly build the boat , then these ability also been the pest of my life. It is not funny to have great skills the way it worked for me, I worked with design for so many years that I know that it is not the actural innovative aproach that count, it is not the ability to see it thru and find new solutions that are praised today no, it is the attitude of the thief the mind of a robber that get the attention, detail knowleage and an ability to create visions are realy not what today's architectural celebrate, it never was but the words are sweet.
per, please, make for here people you close-pretty handshake cnc parts make. only metal here? wood- small dollar (cut no cnc)- many dollar by man, yes?
Hi
Cf I talk about the simplest cnc controlled manufactoring. Mashins that allready for many years been building ontop very safe and a very easy technology ,technikes to work the materials . ------ please don't complain about that materials need to be worked, they all do both the 20 different steel profiles ,special fittings nuts and rivits ,these all require their individual production line ; now wouldn't it be sense to admit that when a new technike replace these 20 different lines of production, with one line of production, that this indicate some savings ?
Now please cf, before you questioned this -- did you then try to find out what it cost to have say a 5 mm. steel sheet cut by one of these mashins pr. cut meter ? If you did not I am sorry to say that you seem to be quite unjust towerds the technike, that if someone without even checking the basics ,go strait into critics without even having just the tinyise clue about the cost, with no thought about my arguments, well then maby that someone deserve to have his new cabin made from dirt and waters ,if someone simply deny ,by porpus refuse to open his mind , then why not stay in the cave while the social games was as sofisticated there as within modern architecture .
Now cf please don't think that 3D-H was develobed by a wish to become a famous designer, it was acturly develobed in a hands-on aproach develobing new design tools. If you don't think that an CNC controlled cutter ,pounshing mashin flame or water , work more efficient than doing the same cutting with a jigsaw , if you havn't tried to calculate the amounts of sheet to make the framework for a fact building or pavilion --- then if you allready from the start refuse to quistion your own picture about something that make a round house without bending one single frame, if you don't want to see something that obviously as develobed by a very skilled crafts person ,ans instantly as develobed as not a dull dream or engraved in grandious words ------ then you shuld rather ask yourself ; "do I want my new Cabin at a third the cost, will I have it four times as strong" .
If your ansver then is "No" , please don't ask for more new popular mechanics, as that is the frightning side effect with new technikes, that they even in the end could yield a new architecture, so if you don't want that either , don't ask me for it .
Does this remind anyone else of the show 'Three's Company'?
per, please, how handshake cnc pretty 3dh parts. computre handshake also this, no.
cnc pretty 3dh parts wood boat
Hi
This is what I made 15 years ago ,software bound in the tradisional fasion ,just with a few new tools like unfolding a 3D model ,even not smooth byt lapstrake zig-zag, to get the planks unfolded , those that make up the shell the hull. The way this boat is build is first make the 3D model scale one to one , make sure this realy are a lapstrake surface ( not just a plain smoothed 3D computer mesh but the real exact 3D model where planks overlap as they do in lapstrake boatsbuilding.
It was shaped from my favorite sections designed with the Lofot dinghie in mind, but where the original carry one plank less one plank less to shape the rounded hull. Now all that made without one piece of paper, measures placed by evaluating (getdistance) and placing the ansvered distance as dimention text. Just to make the right decision it is an inbetween of two hulls morphed and this chosen to be the one.
-------- Sure the planks could be routered out ,well they are polylines as how my in-house unfolding software draw the unfolded lapstrake surface , a software btw. where you are asked if measures and angles is to be printed on the unfolded lines yes or no.
But this is nothing of the 3D-H kind, this is what I did 15 years ago , --- fact is that compared 3D-H it is irasionel to build this way fact is that you can design a better boat a bargain compared the old way's , realise that also here 3D-H make something at a third the cost and important 4 times as strong a one-off cheaper than the tradisional technikes provide.
Beta I don't understand this, --- where are the on-topic issue ?
This is an architecture discussion board ? Realy I would like to discuss the issue paperless architecture, as I know a lot about this issue.
Now from what you put in ,it seem you care a lot about usenet and usenet related issues, you do not like pictures and you want this tread that is about a very interesting in modern building arts ,become an issue about what must be seen, as rightwing usenet politics why is that ?
In the NYT. discussion fora about redevelobing the twin towers , there have been a guy, who every now and then, reposted the same screwed promoting mails --- it's like when the discussion realy start to get interesting, then this guy tumble in, with 3 neurotic quite paranoid procalmations , as now he want all this attention ,he seem sort of being attracted to a site where things are happening and without any respect just rush in ,talk about totaly off-topic issues ,and don't share any of the subject for the fora, --- I wonder why your last mail with the mysterious messeage "REMOTE LINKING IMAGES MAKEs BABY JESUS CRY" is all capital letters, why is that ,and how relevant is this in this board in this discussion ?
sorry per i don't mean to upset you but 'your ideas' is taking over the world, and stiil no credit to you.
you need to publish a book with proper dates on the work.
wow, is that the tate?
i'm just trying to outsmart the system so I DON'T EVER recieve email notifications about this thread ever again! I wonder if it will work to uncheck the 'notify me' box this time?
Hi
abracadabra I am not sure I want to take the credit there, you see this again is quite a trivial cardboard assembly it seem --- nothing out of planes realy, or rather if you look closer and try see the difference ,then atleast for it to be a 3D-H the side and front views need to be 45 deg. out of plane and at best all 3 planes need to be out of planes. With this thing I don't know, I would not say this is a 3D-H.
Still Im'e still waiting.
I Will do it here ;
![](http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/3dh-2.jpg)
arrrgh. the balls of satan
per has combined chocolate icecram and waffles into one amazing desert
So are you guys there yet? The 1000's?
we're working on it... I wonder if the thread will self-destruct upon reaching 1000? I guess if it hasn't yet it never will....
that last image does look mighty tasty though.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/3dh-3.jpg
Im'e quite sure that such structure will restand a car bomb better, than a 200 feet high flat concrete wall.
Anyway I apriciate your concern about the 1000, --- but what I hope is that something else that would have happened some weeks ago would be at the same time as that number, --- well some papers will be published, no more about that before they are.
you have why many talk bombas, economicality building make... for here why no man Beirut dollar give?
This framework will restand anything much better, remove huge sections and the rest will still stand as each frame support all others.
![](http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/hus-1-8.jpg)
better much building as pure metricgeo not, above. ice cream buiding no, maybe could, here no..
tatlin breathe per mind in. here.
I emagine such structure and form, to perform better, than a 200 feet high Concrete wall --- now this even trap flying dameage materials, a 3D-H structure will redirect the impac and this way protect the framework , Anyway I find this suggestion ,for the bottom of the towers a better aproach, than a blank concrete wall, 200 feet high.
![](http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/wtc-11.JPG)
Try this one to. This is the full picture :
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/wtc-11.JPG
Per: have you read any Kierkegaard?
If God exists, he doesn't believe in 3D-H.
does the 1000th poster to this thread win any sort of prize?
Hi
For me ofcaurse it is as important that 11406 views are reported, together with the 196 mails and 24235 views onttop the multible visits at my own homepage and the graphics distribuated being looked at , --- then numbers are good as long as the numbers are high.
How about a "Beware your words the echo are just a reminder of it's pover" shirt?
You're unfamiliar with the axiom, "Quality over quantity," are you?
It is different houses enginering structure . It is and not about it cover the jobs is very different as with strong can only be the fancy organic it is with computer that material not 20 support made this not just surface it is different the old ways. it make new support don't as different as it build cheap structure. a new technology it promise old attitude it's form square new but but different materials, is super sales but don't it is as way about the It is one computing ,it is forms but don't as it it different for support sheet materials, it renderings, what it seems.
driftwood , when you freely can shape and form in 3D .When you know that the press of the button just every time , produce just the assembly that shape the exact forms , and ontop you just unfold the surfaces get it in perfect measures. Then Quality are what it is. The Quality I want is a genuine tool , one that work better than any other one you can rely, is not just as how things was made 80 years ago --- you simply can't ansver the call for relevant tools, tools that go from 3D drawing strait to manufactoring -- without getting that quality as a side effect.
But that's another story, ontop you must count the ten of thousands, that been a member of any of my boat groups , that will be quite a number, ontop the visitors and members at Yahoo Groups about the method.
You see with this method, an inventor will not be in the situation that the aincient stole his concept, --- they had no computer and 3D-H is silli without the direct link, there are no reson to make a 3D-H if you don't have that link ,it will be irasionel -- ,I just love that argument.
Per-
When getting my undergraduate degree I took the extra time and effort to obtain minors in both creative and technical writing because writing is something I both enjoy and find to be a valuable tool. I trained and worked for several years as a writing tutor, helping everyone from those with learning disabilities to Ph.D's working on their dissertations to learn how to better understand the what they are writing and how they write it. I've even worked with ESL students on many occasions. I have a basic, but well versed understanding of language, how to use it to convey meaning, and how to help others in communicating.
You are beyond my ability to help.
And your inability to communicate is what dooms you. It's what dooms us all.
driftwood: I was fascinated by your message. I obsess over writing, punctuation, spelling. I agree with you: "It's what dooms us all". I wonder if writing means anything at all, short of it having some sort of inner subliminal structure. To misquote the Russians, "you pretend to write, I pretend to understand". Is communication at all possible? I fret over this and am giving myself an ulcer for fear that language has no meaning whatsoever...
that having been said, I find Per's broken English strangely compelling. Like Hamlet, it is fluency unfluent taken to the limit of absurdity...
(Yet common sense tells me that we do communicate through language all the time: that does not stop me from fretting. Per is so haunting...) I also fret over music having no 'real' subliminal structure, also architecture, of course... (I hate myself for enjoying Tchaikovsky when I don't understand intellectually what the structure is)... sorry for this long ramble. I wish I knew more about Wittgenstein: maybe he could help you with Per's English.
Yeah... I read my last line again just now and it gave me goosebumps...
As for your question, "Is communication at all possible?" the only way to answer it is by asking another question. Is it possible to not communicate? The answer to that one, is no. How's this sound:
You pretend to say nothing, I pretend to not hear it.
And I agree with you. Per's posts are compellingly lyrical. They're intriguing in their confusion. It's a challenge to put his thoughts together, find the diamond in the rough. To quote Shakespear's Polonius, "Though he be mad, there is method in't." And don't hate yourself for liking music just because you don't understand the structure behind it. Understanding something doesn't always mean greater appreciation. Sometimes it's not understanding that leads to the greatest insights.
Mr Devlin,
You have nothing to fear in regards to your communicative ability. Your comments are elucidating, and your entries are consistently worthy of opening, so to speak.
In this life we are permitted only limited knowledge, the trick is to know what to learn. I think there may be some value in looking at the critiique or the opposing view of a subject in order to understand it - provided that one is able to trust the source of the critique.
This thread is a case in point, where one discerns that the value of knowing anything about 3DH structures and Per is very little. based upon the comments of yourself, driftwood, betadinesutures, abracadabra, agfa8x and other archinotables.
Wittengenstein is indeed worthy of pursuit, as is Borges, Calvino, Camus, and if you want some genuine opacity for a challenge, Clausewitz. Given that you are of a more mature vintage than myself, I'm sure that you can take my advice with a grain of salt, and possilby a shot of tequila.
Oh lord reading Camus is a sado-masichistic form of ritual torture...
I love him. The Plague is brilliant. I've always meant to read more of his work but haven't gotten to it. If you're looking for something a little less carnivorous to attack though, I find Swift to be a superb foil to literary 'opacity.' I get all hot and bothered by that man's use of satire, sarcasm, and irony.
And wait a minute! Yes! I'm an "archinotable!"
Huzzah!
I agree driftwood. My antidote to more complex writers is Borges, particularly his non-fiction. In regards to more complex writers, I find Thomas Pynchon quite frustrating. I still proclaim Mason & Dixon the most beautiful thing I've ever read - the first paragraph had me hooked. However, I've forgotten how many times I've attempted to read it, because I've never been able to finish it.
driftwood & diabase: thanks for these comments. It is true that the brain kills poetic pleasure. To get back to Per & Danish English & Denmark: remember that beautiful scene at the start of 'Out of Africa' where Karen Blixen is in Denmark, in the snow, shooting fowl (before she ever goes to Kenya). Meryl Streep dazzling in it: it is unanalysable yet satisfying. Like Per's opaque English. It's not a question of any parallel between Danish and English meanings in any straightforward way. Just give in to the sense of being lost at sea, and you'll float... even maybe splash around and frolic a bit. (I was utterly dismayed at the 'Mr Devlin': what are you guys trying to do to me???)
driftwood: the fact that what you had (unwittingly) written gave you goosebumps proves that you hit a nerve, are on to something true here...
Per: I just visited your website. Saw there what seems to be a slice out of a cylindrical opera house or theatre with boxes, orchestra, corridors etc. One question: if this project is an opera house or theatre, I am just wondering if you have considered the acoustics of such a space. I thought that circular or cylindrical spaces were murder on acoustics. I may be wrong. I had thought that the shoe-box was the ideal shape for good acoustics for music. That having been said I know (I think) there were/are many baroque opera houses that are curved at one end (opposite the stage). I wonder how their acoustics are/were? Any comments on this? I am not an acoustician.
Hi
johndevlin one day I was handed a CD with a number of "computer drawings" ------ to make a long story short it was 2D cake slices from a round interiour ,one that actury was first build and then afterwerds "digitized" -- measured at site -- in hope of a 3D computer drawing.
Now if you don't think this is silli you don't know the basic problems in digital projecting ; a computer drawing is still a thing to sell the project not a tool to manufactore the building compoment, but this was the typical build where "We build as we allway's build" and the modern fuzzwork was only used to display the project -------- sad to say , with the same attitude architects allway's worked with computers.
These 2D sections of that Opera being build was simply useless , made as reverse engineering after the outher shell was put up as a measure of the steel frames allready put in place , guess you allready see that even It was possible to work these 16 2D sections into an actural 3D model -------- then the work was vasted as there was no use for it, no use for it the way these builders thought a 3D model worked.
All in all this project ,thought to be impossible by the architects, was fruitless as there was such a old fasion attitude , such a "we do as we allway's did" atitude, that as no one realy understood a 3D drawing , even less would know the use for one. Now isn't it a laugh, that with this newbuild Opera, I am acturly the only one who have a real 3D drawing, that except the display 3D models there are fact no 3D model from this just finished build.
----------- If I was to write a book about these issues, this would be a story showing just everything, about how architects see the modern tools; the way the 2D sections was made _after_ the building was made, the fact that the work I made in a week would have costed a farm , and couldn't be made in denmark but proberly only at a greman university, is acturly a sad story. But as I said , this build is just ready and guess what there are a lot of reverse engineering but very little innovation involved, even less computer skills or visions, ----Eh that's no news ,guess it's like that many places where the old are good enough and the modern thing is only about selling the thing, not building it.
P.s.
About danish versus english remember. For centuries danes went again and again to england , every time teaching them a bit more civilised language , word for word over centuries but every time they went back home, the brittish forgot the language again --- then it was needed with another trip to england just to brush up the language once again.
----- Over a thousand years we danes build up word for word the english language we know your language at a deeper level than yourself remember. There are words in the danish language to poverfull , only a few of you was trusted to know the special letters those that simply don't exist in english, those letters I can't use on this keyboard , making my writing limited as I can't use these .
--------- They are the letters impossible to pronounce in english æ ø å
very poverfull letters to poverfull for the english to learn. One reson why Kirkegaard are best at his native language.
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.