Hi all you fancy graphics lovers

[SDR]

I swore to myself that I was through with this, but, really. . .

". . .3D-H is impossible with the traditional construction drawings, that you can not draw a 3D-H as a traditional drawing. . ."

Nothing could be further from the truth. One would want, and could easily draw, a section through each and every bay of the egg-crate, in both "north/south" and "east/west" directions; each drawing would be a correctly proportioned and measurable elevation of a "bent," and the size and location of each intersecting member, at that bent, would be indicated at true size. These drawings would, in fact, be a necessary and assumed part of the design and manufacturing process, would they not?

I really do not understand what you can be thinking, sir.

As to finding that others have put into practice an apparently identical system, how could you be surprised? You haven't, after all, invented some new form of geometry, or a radical departure from known forms. You yourself repeatedly state that the essence of your contribution is to design with the capabilities of the computer in mind (itself, hardly an earth-shattering cincept). Now, more than a decade later, another designer has "appropriated" this rather obvious geometry - and, presumably, it was drawn and manufactured with the use of a computer -- and you are outraged not to be given credit.

Today, as never before, it is not enough to "invent" something (especially something which was an almost inevitable "next step" in use of available technology) and then sit on it without engaging oneself in further development. "Use it or lose it" is the name of the game. And if you have put all your creative eggs in this one basket (to employ another old metaphor) perhaps you have engaged in a risky gamble?

Although I draw by traditional means, I am not able to post any visuals online. Could someone take the obvious step of making a sample drawing of a piece of "3D-H" and displaying it here, for the edification of P.C.?

SDR

[SDR]

If you are not familiar with the noun "bent," I sugest you find it in an (English-language) text on construction technology, before accusing me of misunderstanding your proposed method of construction.

And, the word you use so often is "see," not "se."

SDR

[P.C.]

Hi
SDR I am glad I have the option to correct just that you explained .
And yes you misunderstood my claims or rather emagine you suddenly find , that it would be fair now this thing this guy been fighting, that he did an honest aproach and , by damn the thing work and as Mr. Corell say you can't emagine how smart further develobment will provide I gladly make you see that. But are you realy fair when layer after layer fall, and show the thing , that yes can be made better, --- but sadly not yet "the thing" the honest aproach, that give this guy the credit he deserve.
Mister - potential abuse - been poured in vain try to put some dirt,as out of arguments stupid questions by plenty just showing the low mind of the spoken , realy you are close the truth when reconising that a guy that years after, a guy dealing in theoretic architecture with architecture as poetry surely interesting prospects but allway's bad CAD related, suddenly get a clue , after this guy who invented something that you seem to have misunderstood ------ SDR I will repeat my claim that a 3D-H is impossible in a tradisional drawing, you will not be able to describe in the tree tradisional planes, a 3D-H structure. Can't you se how stupid it will be to slice a 3D-H structure, it just will be 2D boxes hanging in the air, what will you use thise plans for ???? Not to produce the thing ; and here you totaly misunderstood 3D-H and your claims are wrong, you se generating a 3D-H is a totaly different drafting process, you simply don't use the tradisional 3 planes to draw on, this is what you can't emagine and you proberly think, that 3D-H is drawn the useal way the only way you can emagine ---- now it is not so, the finished drawing fro a 3D-H follow the planes and is as ever "tradisional" as before, but DO NOT FOLLOW THE PLANES, then how about your critic, that seem to be the last one before realising, that this guy brought whatever you like it or not, a splendid new method onto public domain.
And yes it is possible to create the new jobs and as you say develob ontop this basic concept, the 3D-H's of the future can have no lookalike with the early and simple examples I brought to entlighten so you could see.

[P.C.]

Hi
SDR I try again ;

With 3D-H you have two planes only, you slice anything from a number of paralell slices in two sets 90 deg. to another, this in "real" 3D-H , I name it so as this is the first real 3D-H design rule , the two new planes are each 45 deg. towerds the tradisional planes , between the two planes used there are 90 deg.
So far so good ------ then why do you think it is even possible to slice 2D lines on a turned plane onto one of the tradisional planes and why shuld you, we don't need the tradisional that you claim will caurse trouble anymore, it don't mind that there would be problems using them we do not in 3D-H.
But be honest and ansver my claims it will not cost you anything, you and the fora would profit, it iis fair and a natural response towerds the vain continious bullying , take a sound stand get a real attitude an honest one, or admit it is allright to post - potential abuse - and make the discussion about architecture a matter of harassment and being the dirtiest jerk, pay some respect you are what you say.

[SDR]

So, your conception is that the correct way to "section" a 3D-H structure is "diagonally" throught the grid (I really must insist it is a grid -- a honeycomb, a nice word, is actually hexagonal, isn't it?). For instance, in the very first structure being "built" in an animation at the beginning of this thread, the "plan" view (you know, overhead view?) would have the "ribs" (should I call them that? or bents?) running diagonally to the long edges of the building. This is fine, and beautiful, and exciting; but unnecessarily complicated to draw, by ANY means, as sections PARALLEL to, or transverse to, the edges of the building, no? Even if the computer could easily make such drawings, they wouldn't be useful in producing the actual parts, would they?

So, even if you choose to THINK of your building system as a diagonal grid -- and I like to think of it that way, if only because neither set of bents is dominant or "more important" than the other -- why would you insist on DRAWING it in the most complex manner possible? Of course you would use a computer to draw it - why not -- but still, wouldn't the most direct way to communicate the actual shapes of the parts be to draw sections parallel to the bents, not parallel to the edges of the building?

If being asked to answer such basic questions, in the service of explaining, promoting and defending your ideas (that is what you are doing here, isn't it?) is "harrassment and being the dirtiest jerk," then. . .I don't know what to say to you. It feels as if you are yelling at the world out of your window, than slamming the shutter closed so no reply can penetrate. Very frustrating to those of us out here, and unlikely to result in any enlightenment, on either side, no?

SDR

[P.C.]

Hi

Sorry I must find more angles to this, but atleast it fight some rightsm SDR you say when I say ". . .3D-H is impossible with the traditional construction drawings, that you can not draw a 3D-H as a traditional drawing. . ."

That

"Nothing could be further from the truth. One would want, and could easily draw, a section through each and every bay of the egg-crate, in both "north/south" and "east/west" directions;

What ??? what would I use a tradisional drawing describing the sliced object for ??I allready have perfect plane sections yet from other directions than the tradisional ones, I allready manufactored the object with these informations without one single line on any tradisional plane ; are you sure you understand what you attack so heavy or rather now you know you have the joy of fighting a nice guy's claim for credit, and you know it work , still you keep on , --- what to use a reverse engineering tradisional set of plans for, they as I telll you can not even describe anything you can use for anything, then you don't use it how can it be a problem, you don't need it what's the trouble
??

Then you say ;

"each drawing would be a correctly proportioned and measurable elevation of a "bent," and the size and location of each intersecting member, at that bent, would be indicated at true size. These drawings would, in fact, be a necessary and assumed part of the design and manufacturing process, would they not?"

No

Again no planes in 3D-H are turned towerds the tradisional pælanes that's the whole idear. Othervise it do not show all the nice side effects that you proberly didn't realise, such as generating the floors at the same time as generating the structure for the roof, -- now don't say you don't need a structure everything is a structure.

[SDR]

So, we are saying the same thing, apparently.

I wonder why this thread has ten pages, and we are still hashing over the most elementry aspects of this idea? Time to draw some buildings, eh?

SDR

[SDR]

If one's computer was broken, one COULD draw such a building (for starters) on paper, right? Much more easily than a Frank Gehry building, in fact -- that's one of the proofs that you have a good idea.

The point of it is to BUILD, not just to arrive at a perfect drawing method. . .at least, that would be the usual architectural goal. Or is this just a "mind game"?

SDR

[LeCorbusier]

You know that madman guy with the one shoe that pushes the shopping cart thru the alley full of plastic bags and aluminum cans, Blabbering jibberish but actually makes a point like "go to hell" every once in while if you can take the time to sit thru it and actually hear what he has to say? Well, reading PC is a lot like that. No offense to the metally ill.

[LeCorbusier]

Wow, I did go back and read your post. Quite angry with me are you?
I should think you'd have more work to do on your 3-d Honeycomb, (he he he) then to accuse me of posting - potential abuse -. Anyway, we can now add PARANOID to the Schizophenic prefix of the name Per Correll. Please send any URL, Link or whatever you have that incriminates me, As I'd like to know why you make such bizarre accusations.

You've marred your name and taken a sorry path for the discussion of your idea.

[P.C.]

Hi

SDR this is difficult to explain in few words, but it give you the means to do very many things , much better guess that shuld be a relevant argument.

But what is difficult is to explain how just a bit more thought , say bring a load of engineers onto the project, ask to have added the option of cescribing the dimentions ---- it can not be that difficult as you can calculate the intire weight, then why not make sure there are saved some material and some money in this or that particular application.

I don't have the fantasy to point out how you perform a simular aproach in micro scale but I would say it is possible. But then you must develob one function robots ,small units that do one thin when they are in the right posision , realy this is quite close to the fundamental nano idea isn't it ?

But if you shuld outline it on paper, I think it is a better perception to emagine the building and like a tradisional craftman decide for a particular array of frames , just knowing this can be shaped just any shape as long as you "think" in sections "think" in sheet materials ------- Eh sorry if I get carried away by Lecorbusiers more and more dirty talk, now he harras the mentaly ill , please SDR isn't it the time for a change , a different and credit friendly aproach, please look at the guy's writing , is that relevant for a place where young people culd learn a bundle ,learn a lot difficult math. and in a new promising way, an honest way ?

[P.C.]

Hi

SDR if the computer is broken offcaurse you can outline the building on paper you can tread 3D-H just as how the disney concert hall is "projected". You even could combine and get the best of two worlds but you then make a better building, knowing the fantastic new options, avaible with 3D-H but not with the tradisional mesh entity structures.
Maby thei is the perfect time to tell the fundamental difference and why it in some way are sad, that architects don't understand that there are even better way's ------ but I ask you SDR wouldn't there after 20 years, isn't it possible that there shuld, shuldn't such method be obviously develobed by someone who master the lame mesh technology, one that written unrolling software for the bloody thing , but know the exact limitations ???
Sorry to say about Lecorbusier but maby he did learn his stuff in art school , would you say so, I mean mind his language, the things he speak don't you think he hate both hippies and mentaly ill ?

[SDR]

P.C. -- I certainly appreciate the vastly improved writing. I hope this is not too much of a sacrifice; it greatly improves the readability and credibility, particularly in the 1:47 pm post.

It is very difficult for any of us to accurately assess ourselves and the way we might appear to others. We can only try to corral our thoughts, arrange them in what seems to be a logical sequence, and attempt to pursuade others of their worth. The feedback we get from others is the only way we have of knowing if our efforts have been successful -- isn't it?

My writing is patterned, unconsciously, after the way others write and speak, in ways that have communicated effectively and clearly to me. Did you find that, in slowing down to write more carefully, some effort was also made to more effectively arrange and edit the points you wished to make, from one part to the next?

Ideas that I would like to think are original to me, I am naturally very protective of; it is very disappointing to find that such an idea is either misunderstood, dismissed, or gratuitously appropriated without credit. It is far harder to be objective and dispassionate about such ideas, compared to similar ones that are not my own "children." Believe me, I know what that feels like. I also know my "ego-grip" has at times been so strong that I did not see, or could not acknowledge, what later was revealed as an obvious flaw.

I have been disapointed to find that this thread has attracted only two principal responders. The more input you could have, from a variety of points of view, the more quickly you could determine what hasn't yet been explained or communicated adequately. Another difficulty is the absence of visual aids to explain some of the secondary ideas you have tried to describe. While all of the intricacies and details of the systems you have contemplated may be clear in your mind, you have to assume that it's all brand new to others. Anything you could do to support these concepts with some simple images would be a big advantage; you are the only one who can determine when you have given away more proprietary work than you wish to, but it must be said that much is still unexplained, despite many impassioned sentences and paragraphs already posted here.

Best of luck -- SDR

[dgt]

P.C.

Lasercutting and CNC milling are both powerful tools. However, you can only make something with them that is smaller than the machine itself. If not you must make an assembly.

You mentioned on page 8 I think that the members can be smaller than the building and attached to one another. How exactly does this occur. Do not sidestep this question. It is integral to you position. The joints must be stronger than the members themselves or the 3d-H is no more. It will act like any overly structured building and be incredibly inefficient if not collapse at the joints.

Therefore, steel is the obvious and only choice. You can make the joints stronger by welding than the actual material itself. It has been done. Currently, it is only more efficient in larger buildings. For instance, the diagrid structure in many contemporary tall buildings is exactly what you propose. See Foster and Partner's Swiss Re tower.

Perhaps your innovation comes by applying this system in smaller projects. If that is the case, then your innovation becomes less about the system but more about the process.

Regards,
dgt

[P.C.]

Hi

First dgt thank's for your nice response I realy better like a productive talk and the use of relevent arguments as your's are.
But before ansvering I just must add that realy I participated in architect contests many years ago and since that the last one where I also in words and pictures described the concept lay atleast 2 years before Lars's structure in Holland --- they keep papers guess you know that, and that architect contests are sort of a protection for the poor guy with a billiant design.

Anyway back to your relevant question --- first you must consider that this could be a promising method , shown in pictures to be proven, and then come the practic problems but, think about how much bigger sheets allready are shaped in shipyards, and please consider that even with today's cutting equipment we can reach quite huge frames . I fully agrea that steel is the most promising of today's materials but I don't fully agrea that a join need to be as or stronger than the sheets themself. Reson are that I see so many applications where this simple basic concept, can be develobed ontop, ------- emagine you just use the simplest way to entlarge a frame you cut two pieces that have to go in one , the tradisional way is to "lash" the two sheets together --- somethng you se everywhere esp. in riviteded constrictions ; you place a small piece ontop the seam between the two pieces and drill holes in both going thru the lash , then you rivit or weld . Now please do not forget that we talk presission cutting even with a huge plane, and that we do not need to drill the holes for the rivits or lead bolts , we simply cut these holes that will also callibrate the pieces into the right posision to be assembled, _and_ this is done while anyway cutting the shape of the frames, we simply in the ends of these prepare holes cutting them in same instance as cutting the shape of the frame, ----- then we could even use standard pre.made lashes ,steel sheet filled with holes same distance as these cut in the frames.
Now this is just one application much brighter people would surely find much smarter means but, please consider that there are several way's , you can also when you find out how cheap it acturly is to cut the sheets, consider what would happen if you place two equaly cut sheets but overlapped joins ------- well sorry my bad english this early on the day, but as you can cut with top presission you could even make the frame in tree layers where the two outside are in one piece and the layer in the middle are in several pieces, held together in a composite you have cut in exact shape, you can even have transverse holes cut at the start.

You say that you can only produce something smaller than the table, no you can window out any place on a frame and have it cut, you can window out the lash to cover the seam betweenh two other pieces. Beside the fact of other members near to the join , members and a structure that will carry the distribuated load is there, ------- please think the 3D-H as a homogen structure please don't think only about the individual members strength or structural ability , this is an assembly that distribuate the forces. ------ geuess even so , that you can take huge lumps of the structure and the rest will still stand.

About system versus process, how will you take the two apart -- to develob a system you must follow a process , and I did that I allway's put the vision up against face facts , but you must agrea that there will be so many options so many applications where you can build ontop this concept ------- just to show some of my first examples was boats and planes and FAA who had a look at the concept, found it exiting and fit for smaller aeroplanes , but architect contests was my choice as there you like on the web , can publish your intelectural products or what we must call this expression of creativity, as by now it seem I need to fight my intelectural rights by pointing to the fact that I participated in contests with this method ------- still isn't it a bit more visionary to point to the possible new jobs and the fact that this is _Compleatly_ different a whole new world, don't you think it is fair to reconise this ?