Hi all you fancy graphics lovers

[P.C.]

Hi

You quote this image ;

http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/download.php?id=367

Now isn't this the opposite of 3D-H ???
The panels the surface to build a structure by raising the panels make the structure an alian support of the outside expression.
Now the sheets to form the low roofs show this most clearly, are or are not these thought just how you se them, with no mind no thought about how to hold them in the air ??
With a 3D-H structure you would have many other way's to do the panels, at the same time you would have the foundations for the floors, you would not need to attach profiles for the floors or bulkheads afterwerds inside the building --- don't you se a direct link building method must be different, it can not be just copying a craftman with a robot, then you make exactly the same , the expression will be quite different from today's craftmanship, still that don't leave out the craftmanship, but maby we need some progress in crafts that could easily be clever mashines or buildings that will restand a Tsunami.

[SDR]

Yeah, LC -- you're a full-fledged masochist, I'd say!

Every once in a while, a glimmer or a ghost of something comprehensible emerges from the cave, but it's so elusive.

I'd like to think the problem is one of linguistic skill -- but if you imagine these utterances coming forth in the writer's native tongue, I think there would still be a significant lack of ability or willingness (who knows which?) to a) respond directly and forthrightly to the questions posed, and to b) formulate complete sentences and to pursuasively argue for either the aesthetic or the practical advantages we are so urgently implored to acknowledge.

SDR

[P.C.]

Hi

Don\t like refering the last graphic example L.C. added --- reson is that describing a different process proberly will be seen as a critic, but what you maby don't se is that I describe the whole process from creative spark following the emaginary buildings worker and the means avaible -- not just in the application where solving the actural craftvise problem, but how expanding the options with new tools, also expand the options in the creative process. Have you ever experienced how a new process a new material a new way to perform, expanded your creative options ?
I would envision the refered building very different I would not fight the special fittings plan the supporting stringers put my feel into the surface covering and the tradisional support made to hold that in place and in the air, I would not bother and have more efford shaping the forms. I would not fight the sheets emagine them as standard squares as I know I can simply have them cut presission down millimeter and I would know the means some of you more theoretic focused would ask, as sure I know materials expand but do you think solutions for that, only respond to the tradisional way's , why shuld that be a problem acturly in this application there are many more way's to solve the fact problems much more flexible. Anyway often I se the tradisonal means like forcing down a screw with a hammer , as while there are no real smart way to go from Solid modeling to ready building compoment unless going forth and back several times and often forgetting the bright design underway translating the sketch into somthing that can be build, --- realy and must I say with practic experience, I so often experienced that there are a gab a missing tool ,a tool to often replaced with fiddeling and huge hammers , a tool missing in modern architecture a tool missing surrounded by a lot of dull talks making process that is lame amature like, into unspoken secrets just covering the fact that the real limitations allway's been the lack of tools the handle to fit your emagination in such smooth way that the result the actural envisioned piece , will remove any doubt.
Today arts are so socialy skilled a craft , that you can't blame me not to be able to do 20 mens work and spend a mill. on a workshop. But at the same time I blame you that you replaced the core drive with a wish for a cromeplated gold gadged, that you forgot the save knowleage that skills and fantasy are a much more relevant tool that value reflect in other things than what your social rules dictate ; in this world of academics there are no room for arts that I claim, on the other hand there are a lot of space for what fit within academic ruling and medium visions , there cirtainly are a loft some fysical thing that hinder the expression to catch on , nothing unless well known and socially accepted _and_ financely supported will catch your attention as if money and social accept ever was a measure for real arts for expanding our vision our means.

[P.C.]

Hi

SDR what you proberly don't realise is how harsh the arts world realy are outside your protected circles. That real artists fight in their everyday and some fight challances thicker than you would emagine.
Now what would _you_ chose to spend the little money you had as a working artist ; would you spend 10 grand to "prove" unto L.C. that cirtainly a boat will be much better and much more safe when you at the same time need to find new furniture as your autistic child destroyed the chair and the computer screen ?
In your protected world the vision is up there somewhere in my world it is all over the place, but you don't know the protectivism that keep the concrete head old hippies bound for the next bottle of redwine, when that ugly dialect is to be translated by someone who's actural problem is not to find a bright idea .
Fact is that none of you Romans would blame sureal liquid clocks in the paintings, but you cirtanly would if you was born 80 years before, nothing would keep you from it , would it ?

[P.C.]

Hi

And this is what make it so in this state of denmark, that any alchohol dameaged old hippie, that can place a red spot on a canvas is thought to bring more inspiration onto architecture, than the seriously working artist who have a clue about why modern buildings seem so edgy and cold.
Rather have one who don't question the rent don't suggest a revolution in means to form the outher expression the clotches the expensive penthouse.
You se all my life I been fighting painterbrain artsworld the lame insight to arts that it is just a social skill ; well it work that way but do that mean that the fat academics and lazy hippies who taken patent handing out the founds, those who decide who can get the option displaying their work ,are right in their perception of the arts they cramp in words ?
The art they fear so much that they rather keep it under their heel ? The new technology they can wrap in words they acturly don't understand themself.
Fat self glad academics allway's was the worse hinder for arts, it was 1905 it is today, it was 1932 .

[LeCorbusier]

PC For once I agree with you. Screw the academics, screw the hippies.

The fine arts are like any other of the entertainment industries. Like the music industry, they churn out stars to sell more paintings or sculpture.
Look at the garbage on Billboards top 100 list. Do the fine arts have a similar ranking system on who is selling the most painting? Does it mean it is any good? Any half-spam hack can hang out in the clubs and attend gallery- openings every night in NYC and sell their crap if you get in with a connected gallery owner.

[P.C.]

Hi

LeCorbusier together we will beat the Romans

[P.C.]

Hi

I known a lot of artists guess I known some real good ones to, my experience on the other hand is that sometimes you realise that art realy exist that there are individuals who can paint something with their hands on their back that you know just know is art. Art is something you reconise instantly you ar not in doubt it is different it is unique .
Bad thing that a few real skilled artists are such svine in their private life.
That's fact you know it when you know art it's not unique.

[P.C.]

Hi

Oh -- did I forget Art is beauty.

[LeCorbusier]

still not sold on any of this yet. I understand it, but its not what you say it is, no matter how you try to say it.

[P.C.]

Hi

As you all know I been progressing this method on the web for some 12 years, if you are on the web you have been bound to se some of the promotion in various groups in many boards, I been all over and I been that with an intention, that when you publish a bright idea you gain intelectural property, Now please check out this structure It's the Son-O-House in Son, Holland, by Lars Spuybroek (better known as NOX) - completed in May last year I place a graphic at the bottom.

Guess you all are interested in the issue of intelectural property, the fact that an invention can be the result of years of efford and sacrifise , that the one who do a serious work and develob something new also deserve the credit as why shuld anyone develob these things that we all will profit from ,spend his or her life on something that is maby the only think he or she can do .As while artists are many sorts and arts is something that reflect our inner values and wishes , I reached the point I forseen the point where the concept I been progressing for so many years and can document ,is used in an application where the method this new tool with no doubt, is what bring the spetacular aproach .
Di you find it fair from the architectural community, that someone real skilled spend 12 years progressing a fantastic idea, and then when someone who are bound to have seen the concept on the web, in one of the various groups, just publish a concept that with no doubt is a 3D/Honeycomb structure, and that then not one single word, is vasted mentioning that the idea are borrowed from some poor danish guy, who don\t profit from the academic rights in the academic circles.

Do you find this, that with the new regulations about patents and intelectural property must be described as a "loan" fair, without giving the credit that shuld be a natural thing for this sort of innovation.

With the last picture a-f added, there can be no doubt that "this is possible" but mark my words when I talk about how dameaging it can be, to "loan" the concept without one line of credit to the guy who suffered to develob it, --- as these people totaly forget the multible applications where this will be the fantastic tool of the new architecture, and in that contect, must the new architecture be based on property taken without giving any credit whatso ever ?

Now I beg for your reply, --- will it be the right thing to ask you all to mail this studio and tell that there are a thing called intelectural property and that Mr. Corell never asked anything but a bit fairness and to have his name mentioned now his method seem so perfectly shaped to make anything in this project ,that is not sound.

Is it to much to ask the board -- will the members even care about intelectural property ,would _you_ if you worked for 20 years ontop had an autistic child and a family , was not able to work with anything but your art would you trust, that all you nice people would mail this studio and tell that they forgot a very important thing ? --- think about it, I never asked nothing but to be treaded fair, isn't it fair to ask some credit ; will anyone help with that posting this studio reminding the fact that some nice danish guy acturly progerssed this on web for a decade ? --- I gave you the joy now please give a helping hand.

[LeCorbusier]

1st. "We also want to keep in the public domain certain types of ideas and information, and not allow basic principles and concepts to be exclusively appropriated by one or a small group of individuals or entities"
The building type noted falls into this. Do you think the post and beam is copyrighted? If so, then there are a hell of a lot of infractions out there.


2nd. We don't even see a building by you for anyone to have lifted. Yes, there are fancy graphics, but where are the building elements like plumbing electrical mechanical, doors, windows, stairs, etc, etc, etc? You always dismissed it as being a minor detail, but where is the building? I havent seen any.

3rd. We've been saying for a long time that you havent invented any new structural system, and that these types of structures have been around since at the very least mid 20th century, which I think are rooted in early Gothic Cathredal design, see photo. Here you are providing us living proof, for I HIGHLY DOUBT Lars lifted any of your work, as none of it had been developed to a point of practicality to begin with.

[P.C.]

Hi

You seem to "We" a lot, but I wonder if you ever read any of the posts I made.
Your only argument is that the stone elements ( made by stone not cut from sheet ) is what I invented , obviously it can not be. I never claimed but did you in fact ever read any of my posts ?

If you did you would know that the "post and beam" system you point to have nothing to do with either the church structures you mention or my building system , You so often showed any lack of knowleage according any structural system so I do not wonder why you mistake one technike for another system realy I think you with this showed everyone that you never understood any of the subjects discussed your knowleage about intelectural property seem as little as your knowleage about what made the old church what the word architect acturly mean.

I claim to have develobed a system that work with computers ,you obviously havn't read a word of how I explained this, how I explained it and why this make so great a difference.

You talk against your own words, not long ago you claimed that "this is not possible" then you se it made in a graphic and after quite some time, instead of accept , you fly out like with as obscure arguments as you use to, now you forgot everything you said before that this show how wrong you was, but it describe your abilities and your perception quite well , anyone who doubt my words just need to read the tread and check if some - potential abuse - pictures like those you posted isn't the right paralell to your words , ----- before you used fake names fake everything you can't hold back the filth this is your only drive , how can you suddenly forget what you said before try check your own words in this tread.

And yes this is new, this is a new building system and it was not here before I went out and published it, --- do that hurt is that what's wrong ??

[P.C.]

Hi

"1st. "We also want to keep in the public domain certain types of ideas and information, and not allow basic principles and concepts to be exclusively appropriated by one or a small group of individuals or entities"

So when someone show a structural system in public space you think you don't need to pay any credit, what do you expect except - potential abuse - to be distribuated with this attitude ?

"The building type noted falls into this. Do you think the post and beam is copyrighted? If so, then there are a hell of a lot of infractions out there."

Eh --- first you say this is it then you say the strait opposite, first "this space" is not to be used to publish bright idears if the author or inventor want to put his name on it , get real you obviously don't know anything about public domain , then you talk on the behave of the intire fora and claim there are nothing there ; now can't you se how you talk against your own words ? ---


"2nd. We don't even see a building by you for anyone to have lifted. Yes, there are fancy graphics, but where are the building elements like plumbing electrical mechanical, doors, windows, stairs, etc, etc, etc? You always dismissed it as being a minor detail, but where is the building? I havent seen any."

I never claimed I made a building, I repeat again and again that I am a designer not an architect, but you never seem to read my words. Why do I have to invent toilets stairs ect. they are allready there, beside you never read my words I claimed to have develobed an engenious structural system it is not my foult, that your Iq is not high enough to reconise.
Do you even know what an architect deal with ? it don't seem like that not from your words.

"3rd. We've been saying for a long time that you havent invented any new structural system, and that these types of structures have been around since at the very least mid 20th century, which I think are rooted in early Gothic Cathredal design, see photo. Here you are providing us living proof, for I HIGHLY DOUBT Lars lifted any of your work, as none of it had been developed to a point of practicality to begi

First you refuse to accept that "this is possible" , then when you se a graphic where it work you tumble around in your own arguments and forget that you talk against your own words, --- have you realy seen all the graphics I used to prove my intelectural property as brick or stone buildings ? Do you even reconise thsat 3D-H is impossible with the tradisional construction drawings , that you can not draw a 3D-H as a tradisional drawing ------- realy your arguments became more and more lame ,after you se a graphic where it work you don't reconise my call but find another but quite bad set of arguments. realy just everyone with just a bit knowleage just everyone with a bit of honesty will reconise my claims , you se I posted these graphics and explained the method , years before that. This is what copyright is about and this fora shuld start acting with a bit honesty and reconise copyright and intelectural property.
You obviously do not.

n with.

[P.C.]

Hi

"LeCorbusier" the class bully ,did you ever reconise that maby others in the class could ask serious questions about building systems?
Did it occour to lie, that fake is fake and where you acturly posted - potential abuse - as arguments that there could be others, such as serious people , not class bullies like you old fake.
You been a true member of this tread, your fake do t so, that when you made all follow your yellow bragging ,they are left with an old fagot usenet fanatics ; proberly an old drafts person who just hate those arogant architecture students.
You are the one that never ansver my call and claims about the new jobs the real new architecture, over time you in your words , told that your skills are such hobby ones that you don't even know why Gothics are for architecture ,you class bullie who teach your manners onto a board that shuld deal with beauty and honesty.
Your campain is to attack anyone you think is a hippie, you know nothing fill - potential abuse - onto an architecture site show the same dirty words and mind, bring nothing yourself, is a bad show the class bully.
Anyone want to know any features concerning 3D-H you know you allway's can ask, only this requier an honest mind ,good will and a wish for a job.
Case you need a place to live, and are clever 3D-Honeycomb will build you a cabin at a third the cost at the same time you learn how to make a computer acturly work, everything is public domain I allready proven this with my Cyber-Boat sites where you can download free boatplans. What is you offering the fora ,,, Do anyone reconise this class bullie and at the same time understand mr. Corells concern for credit for somthing brought public domain ?