Hi all you fancy graphics lovers

[P.C.]

Hi

SDR I se this also a a personal develobment, but all along the lines I had the thought that this is about publishing ,about even my bad language ability to keep a discussion even this mean that some would get enough, even some be so fed up with it then what can a poor man do ,only publish and find a way by refining the arguments . This fora surely did that and please know that no one more than I would like a better knowleage of the english language --- but please consider that when I started promoting the method I even spelled the word language wrong.
It is all right to blame me that I can't se outside my own circles, that I must be partly out of step with how these things could have been promoted better, but it is also my experience that many people realy only see what they want to see. That when you think people would respond with "this is great" then in fact you most often get the respond "this is not possible" .
Now I would most cirtainly rather have spended my time develobing and showing the method in real , but I guess you see that there could bemany resons why this was not so ------- I gave up my boatsbuilding when I realised how important this concept could prove but this is rather a thing that describe my personality where not with my age I can see how I aproaced everything I did , I can see that I ended up autodidact teaching 3D for boatbuilding apprentish at the boatbuilding school even I learned myself all skills , I learned myself to build a boat and troubled with the tradisional plans wondering if computers could not make this better, maby in a brand new way but I could make my bread doing some repair job or producing some one-off furniture as I had my workshop. ------- but all the time I had to "invent" find smarter way's develob the tradisional craft do it better.
Now if anyone realy want a laugh and at the same time reconise what SDR say , I can tell you that at some point also many years ago I invented the perfect way to build a wooden boat , a very simple application where you take out the diffivult part of building a wooden boat and I aplied for a patent but, who want wooden boats who want wooden boats refined with a nice feature that make it into a composite where the boatsbuilder need to be able to use a computer ,to produce the ends of the boat from computer drawings --- well it was easy for me but I guess you see why I did not expand the patent.
But I did master the boatsbuilding I do master the CAD programs , when I was skin diving I could hold the air 5 minuts I was simply the most skilled danish skindiver back 1968 , ------- I reinvented the way old boatsbuilders made mast rings. Well please don't think this is me braging this is just how I reconised everything I dealed with , I also used the architect school here in copenhagen for 3 years without being registrated as student, I had 3 splendid projects at one of the real fine workshops , a place where a student have no chance unless showing a real profesional aproach a place that you add your C.V at top line ----- Realy this was the top of my "academic" C.V. to be allowed 3 times into the danish workshops for arts and crafts ( in the same house as the danish architecture center).
But this is my personality , it is the way I think and perform I don't go out to brag as I find no real value in braging about something you can not perform and when I master a thing, I allway's lost interest in it and started doing something quite different --- for me the process are the catch not the result.
SDR I am glad you see the points you described I think you are very close to describing the real problems, still please know that for a guy outside the circles there are only very few way's to progress within the circles and most often people see what they want to see, I found this the vorse trouble .

[P.C.]

Hi

SDR ;
"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?"

Not realy , my strike are creating ,you don't allway's use words for that ?
I build boats, do AutoCAD applications produce furnityre, But wasn't the first architect not a caveman ? Didn't he then become a farmer a munk an adventurer , an eskimo or just someone just out of school.
Who say the patented outlook are the real only and sain post-produktivism'ism ( the last ism to point out it is a trend ). mind I discuss other issues to, such as digital ( about said I know a lot ) , mental helth and etics on web, isn't my concern about if rich-man flats or relevant cheap flats in copenhagen relevant , but please I did never claim that _this shuld be my edge, -- innovation is.

You se I realised how great impac a new technike are compared much of that old fiddleworks, see with 3D-H there are no fiddeling ,realy I just mentioned the fiddeling in old works as a joke, with 3D-H there are no such sort of joking , still think social skills shuld build the cabins ?

[P.C.]

Hi

More than 20000 visitors have been reading in this tread at the two main fora the issue have been about new fantastic options, many arguments have been put forth mainly against a promising and actural exiting new way to make Solid modeling show a brand new way, even the pictures seem to be reconised as true innovating thinking I must realise that this seem to be what an artist today must fight, that the picture about what an artist is and what an artist must deal with, are very limited in the mind of a lot of the posts.

Would you be "A fly on the wall" even the thing is happening right infront your eyes ? Would you reconise that the role of an artist today, is as important as back then when other artists was fighting their right just to express ,would you say "no the sun is not black" the clocks are not liquid, and "This _Is_ a pipe damned" . Now the various discussions suddenly progressed a mile and instead of arguments like "this is impossible" and "this guy is crazy" the issue now are if it carry any intelectural property rights that I for a decade have been participating in architect contests and published on web , this method that still seem to great for you to realise.
------ Instead of accepting my rights you turn the discussion so, that my next step will be to contact the thousands of members that joined the Cyber-Boat sites before and after it moved to Yahoo Groups beside the number of members that joined the various 3D-Honeycomb groups you also find at Yahoo, ---- this is instead of the positive aproach that would come from realising my right for just a bit credit and see that I will ansver any question to help anyone who see this as a brilliant tool to make some fine houses. Instead of changing your aproach so we all could profit from a nice guy who published his brilliant idears so we all can profit, --- you make this into the useal harassing aproach that allway's met true artists.

Now maby you are enforced by the fact that I call myself an artist, you proberly will not even allow me that faviour, --- why is that, would you realy be that fly on the wall, would you realy know , are you able to realise that I been publishing this great concept for a decade and the thing that hold it all together that make any sense in arts, is that you reconise that even you think I am a bad guy develobing this, spending years and suffering my family for this vision, then you gain nothing throwing away my rights, all you do is to back up the sad backside of arts.

Is that what you want to do, stop dead this progressing new fantastic tool, as the guy who been robbed his actural intelectural property have used rude words to protect his rights --- am I not even allowed to ude the few english words I know, must an artist be only what academics claim they are.

Would you be that fly on the wall, would you reconise what you acturly do harassing someone who done the hard work the one who can't do anything but the non profitable battle for new tools this sad poor guy from whom the well fed academics steal the bread out of his mouth, the work they don't even understand that they don't even have the knowleage or drive to further develob.

We can all steal but need arts continue to harras the guy with the new vision while you didn't get that clue yourself , isn't this the drive you se in many of the posts here that you don't allow the bright guy who don't fit within your expertations of that guy who get the brilliant idea --- well I did work to find it I did have a vision and that vision are greater than the architects who just grasp the new idea that make the dull talk into something real and as you reconise fantastic.

What you can't take is my right to fight for that single line of credit, and my question to you are why you don't even reconise my right for that, when I can prove that I participated in contests and published loads of unique artsworks on the web, now are you sure that this is fair ?

Anyway , on go the battle -- we now know who is who and what this is about. As I am not a famous therotic arts professor, I can only ask for a decent response an honest aproach from the thousands of members who allready profited from my Cyber-Boat groups. I can ask them if it is not sad that I have not published that design software that they all would like to download and I can point to a way so they could, --- you see I only asked the credit the credit some of you will rob me just to throw away as you can't claim you develobed it.

Sorry about my bad english still even people who can't write can be great artiste, even visionary artists even you can't read their words then you can instantly reconise their pictures.

[LeCorbusier]

I stumbled into archinect and low and behold I find a whole new world of
people who are unimpressed by this nonsense. Its a parallel site where the only difference is NOBODY is buying this garbage on that website.

http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=8091_0_42_0_C

[Kevin]

Which may or may not be saying much of anything, depending for instance on the level of the rest of the conversation over there.

[P.C.]

Exactly

For me the issue are and have been to publish this new method to inspire architects to do two things , try this exiting method and show the credit.

In this fora alone round 13839 visitors have checked the tread, and Kevin I find it interesting that this now proven method first started with allmost everyone saying "this is not possible" ----- then now it have been proven , wouldn't it be an idea to try clear your mind and give the guy who against all odds been publishing for the benefit of all, take the step and say that if this method in furture will prove the words Per Corell put into the descriptions , that then you shuld pay the credit so Mr. Corell can put his mind into further develobing this method instead fighting his natural rights ?

I "used" this fora no, I joined this fora with a great idea that now proven right , an idea that I must credit this fora to have supported just by allowing me to make the tread carrying allready now round 13839 visitors, don't you think I would pay you that credit that the discussions here matured my arguments further sparked my fight for new methods and that the discussions here, been a challance that helped develobing my method.

Kevin you been around and know that I only fight for that line of credit, wouldn't you think everything would fall apart, if the poor artist couldn't even trust his rights according to public domain rules about intelectural property. Would you if you made a structure in 3D-H "forget" to pay the credit ? And do you think this dutch arts professor would lose anything not taking the bread from the mouth of the one who made his spetacular project even possible ?

[dgt]

Per

This system is not new. This method is not new. The '3d honey comb' system is basically a three dimensional structural grid that is done again and again on usually complex geometry.

Did you look up the Swiss Re Tower? A diagrid structure is a three dimensional structural grid. It is a natural moment structure that can adapt to complex shapes. It is applied again and again throughout architecture.

Machining everything from flat panels sounds good, but the practice is very odd. Connections still are a big concern. If this was enlarged to a massive scale, say a conference center, the flat planes would have to be significantly thick. It could not be simply 'any panel' material. Now you must machine hundreds of pieces out of 8" to 10" thick stock if not thicker and provide connections for all the seams.

Also the building would be so over-structured as to be laughable. The cost of all that structure would be four to five times what the equivalent structure would be out of traditional shapes, which begs the question why use it in the first place?

I will answer this myself since it is difficult to get an answer from you. It is used in COMPLEX GEOMETRY like the image you posted earlier. See also dECOi and many projects by the structural engineering firm Buro Happold (my spelling of this maybe incorrect).

There is nothing wrong with pushing an idea and being passionate about it. However, do not push an idea that has already been done, and frankly, done better. I understand that you are not an architect and you may not have access to some of the trends in the industry, but damn man, open your eyes. You are not some jilted artist. You are a designer of something that is not necessarily new.

As I said before, you interest seems to lie in the digital fabrication field, which is in exceptional need of innovation. This as you present it, is not it.

You propose any material can be cut to make a structural member. THIS IS NOT TRUE (The only exception might be at the scale of a house). Perhaps work with structural engineers to propose a sheet cut structural member. It will not be what you have because it will encompass a specific material, load paths, internal stresses, and geometry.

When you post things to a forum, at least assume you may have to adjust you ideas based on input from others. Do not look for a pat on the back.

Regards,
dgt

[P.C.]

Hi

I wonder if some guy hundreds of years ago, develobed a brand new way to make the computer work. I doubt anyone would be able to describe a 3D-H within the allowed 3 tradisional planes and making it do a direct link from 3D drawing to production.

You claim so, but are you sure that you realy understand the method, you see plenty other people have reconised this to be new, and not just new but innovating and exiting --- now that is what you want to shoot down isn't it ?

Ontop you point your attack by claiming that I am proberly an uneducated isiot with no feel of real world --- well I did go to the architect acadamy for 3 years, I was invited 3 times into the states workshop a place where no amatures are allowed, I did end as application develober on one of the most difficult CAD programs I did build a lot of boats and plenty of furniture ,--- now what practic experience do you judge from ? I just mentioned the lot not all the detail jobs I did.

Now it seem you didn't read this, and maby you havn't opened your mind to se that this method by no means claim to be a grid or mesh thing and when you mention this ;""A diagrid structure is a three dimensional structural grid"" did you then realise that 3D-H is not a a three dimensional structural grid ---- when will you see, it's like you frozen your mind from seeing what so many others realised , that this is different compleatly different and new.

[P.C.]

Hi

dgt ---- I was acturly in London when thy finished the bottom tubes make them look like what you refere, I even zoomed in to show how the pipework are covered with panels to give that impression you then turn oposed 3D-H, I can now say that you totaly misunderstood 3D-H and you proberly don't know the structural facts about that tower.

I was there as I found the structure exiting , but instantly I found that this has nothing plain nothing in common with 3D-H. You think that if something ahve a slight lookalike then you can use it as an argument , well that all depend what you are up to, if you misunderstood this surface grid to be the same as 3D-H I must say that you proberly havn't looked to the pictures or read my text , as in the text I point again and again to the fact that in core 3D-H are not a surface structure it is no hippie dome thing, it is not to make a thin shell so to build another house inside to get the floors and walls, --- Yes dgt that tower are made up by pieces of steel tube welded together you try critic apples from the facts of oranges.

[P.C.]

Hi

dgt ---- how can you say that a surface grid is the same as 3D-H, how can you say a surface grid that are small pieces of tube assemblet with special fittings showing no paralell except a slight lookalike is the same as slicing a Solid model, to get each and every assembly piece --- please these two have nothing in common , are you positive sure you understood 3D-H ?

3D-H would never perform like this but you find the most obscure example make the rules and say " well if it can't do this then it is nothing" , realy you find the examples where it is a trouble with the tradisional methods and if 3D-H in your mind can't make this, then it is no use in the hundreds other applications you can not emagine, --- and the argument about makins Solid modelling sense you don't ansver, you don't ansver if there are any particular use for a direct link method, you don't ansver the arguments about this being so new and so different that you can't use the tradisional construction planes, and you mistake a method to fill out the interiours and the outside in one go, with the old space grid method -- how can you do that if you havn't compleatly misunderstood the method or maby you never realy had a close look at more than just one graphic, that you then judge the intire concept from. Omitting how different this is.

[P.C.]

How can you mistake this space grid made from pieces of tubes covering the surface assembled with special fittings, with a method that is not just covering the surface it thought in a compleatly different way fullfill compleatly different means is so different it can be , realy How can you use this as an argument it is the opposite of 3D-H it is the old one layer space grid to make emty Domes just refined --- and refined quite well -- but you can't use this as an argument against 3D-H thesw two are two different worlds.
But maby you shuld consider how this very different and very tradisional method have been develobed for centuries where 3D-H only been published very short time compared. Maby you shuld realise that it is allowed one guy to get a brilliant idea and that when you meet arguments that prove right, then you shuld accept these arguments ; you see most times what I heard was that this is impossible, then it is like you defend the attacks this brought onto me by holding on with the tip of your fingers , it is like it is outmost important that I don't get that credit , isn't it ???

[P.C.]

Also this is _NOT_ a 3D-H but it show what 3D-H can replace and if it did , and if you understood 3D-H , how this not very beautifull structureal grid that is now covered from your eyes, would perform a great structural beauty case made in 3D-H.

Don't just disney concert hall show it all if you uncloth it, --- that what is originaly thought as a 3D mesh structure when taken into the real world, need to be made from rigid steel beams and making thest heavy profiles curve, is done with a huge hammer ----- that going from sketch to building is _not_ the adventure in digital but how skilled craftmen can twist the rigid steel profiles that was never made to be twisted.

Realy 3D-H is so much different, maby you don't even realise what it mean when I say that the tradisional grid only produce an emty shell, and maby you never realised how smart 3D-H work, but please don't say it is not new that it don't make that direct link to production and that it don't work compleatly different ------- and don't make that an argument against a bright new system that you maby don't even understand, show me another system that as easy generate the assembly structure for an intire building, with structure to rest the floors and walls. Be fair .

[LeCorbusier]

[P.C.]

Hi
LeCorbusier not being able to put forth one single original thought , being as ever off-topic and unable to get just one bright idea itself the ffagot copy the words from this link;

Thanks to http://thesaurus.reference.com/

So he show his ability to bring what architecture call for what the rest of this fora must share, The class bully once again ask your attention , why don't you join in follow the guy let the bully rule the fora.
Look this guy been uncovered so often and you allow the fora to suffer, listen he is some ultra right wing who just hates hippies ,he have as dameaged a life as you can read from the ugly words, he skips - potential abuse - out to a discussion and you allow him to do just that.

Anyway it must be good that I can document 3D-HoneyComb in a contest I joined year 2000 and fact is that I am glad this foul mouth are angry ; why you maby ask, well it is proven that anyone getting angry lose 30 pct. of his or her IQ while being angry. Wonder what this say about the IQ LeCorbusier vaste, wonder if LeCorbusier even speak more than one language.

[dgt]

P.C.

I did not make judgements about your experience or your inteligence. I will kindly ask you to not make judgements about mine.

As far as understanding your system. The load paths are simple. There is a natural transfer and balence of the members throughout the structure in three dimensions. If one is remove others compensate. Trust me, I understand the system you propose. NOX architecture is not the first to use the system, nor are you.

As far as me not understanding the structure of the building. I would suggest you refrain from that line of questioning. Without giving details, I am very close to that project among others.

Everything I have posted has been in the vain of constructive criticism, a term you apparently do not understand. You address the moderator by saying that posting to this board has helped you shape your system. I do not see it. A forum is two-sided, contribution and then feedback. You argueably have done one of those.

Lets keep this professional and in the spirit of the forum. I only refered to you as an 'artist' because time and time again you have refered to youself as this while making it clear that you are not an architect.

One more thing, I find it offensive that you would assume that three years in architecture school is sufficient for what you suppose, not to mention hinting that this makes you more qualified than me. Do not assume to know me or my experience. I do not assume anything about you other than the vast amount you post on this form.

Somewhat strained regards,
dgt