Message - Re: Per, Ever hear of a space frame? Did you invent this?

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    

Posted by  Per Corell on August 03, 2003 at 10:37:43:

In Reply to:  Re: Per, Ever hear of a space frame? Did you invent this? posted by Scratchy on August 03, 2003 at 10:13:00:

The 3D-H is not hexagonal as this would make 3D-H a third more expensive.
Why make a Honeycomb cell with 6 walls just becaurse insects do so, and you with two crossing planes 90 deg. on eachother, can form a square cell.
What you do not realise, is that a 3D-H can be formed as a thick shell of square cells, that when covered with panels form the perfect , the cheapest, honeycomb structure. ----- A very different aproach compard a Geostatic structure, that in princip is a surface thing, where 3D-H form the interiours in one go, at the same time.
Now please check the floor at first floor in the graphic at top, but also look closer into how not just the floor are there without a handyman placing it, ----- but the wall also just "grow" and if you wanted collims, they will form an X seen from top , isn't an X beam a nice collum , then when it form with garentie wherever you place a simple Solid , --- acturly the positive side effects hount this 3D-H method ; you don't need to bend a single piece, you can form whatever, just check the multible examples in the scrapbook ; then show one single Geostatic Dome that is more efficient, easyer produced and most important, ---- produced with the first and only Direct Link building structure method.
Please open your mind, what do you expect from a method described as being 20 years before it's time , do you even realise that you speek on the behave of thousands of engineers and craftmen that for centuries have develobed the good old tradisional 3 Plane method, where my defense of my 2 Plane method is based on one persons work, with the computer , the computer that make this possible was not here 20 years ago and 3D-H is no good idear without a computer, so no wonder it wasn't develobed before, it simply is to many calculations and impossible to overview without a computer. oposed a Geostatic structure that is most often quite easy to describe and emagine.
------- and no, yes I spended 12 years to find that method I thought the computer would offer ; it did not only lame Geostatic structures, and they do not bring an intire house only the surface panels, case you write the applications to develob the sheets yourself in AutoLisp, like I had to do.
Sorry about my spelling, but since year 2000 it is alowed to write as you speak on the web, so I heard.

ArchitectureWeek     Buildings     Architects     Types & Styles     Search
Library     Places     Building Photos     Free 3D Models     Archiplanet

Architecture Search   by name of Building, Architect, or Place:
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"
Advanced Search

Post a Response -


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.

Architecture Forum | Students Forum | Scrapbook | Home Design | 3D Gallery | E-Design

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only.