Hi

"Christopher K. Egan" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
Don...I really think you missed my whole point...pleasae re-read my
post.

I applaud Per as a visionary, but his idea is not architecture....and
this is a forum for architecture. Personally I think you hit the nail
on the head with your reference to Edison.... yes, he had the idea,
but he didn't rest until he had found the material and the technique
to make it work. That is what Per needs to do....and then I will be
among the first to applaud his work.

Christopher

What I think is, that when the 3D-H idear catch on, it could be in a different
application than what any of us could emagine.
There are several resons I focused on the "material" "method" aspect of it.
First I am not any very good architect , ----------- surely a complete new form
language , or if this is not the right defination then a compleatly new tool
that leave a result that as much as 3D-H do, uncover the actural structure .
Will allow somone like me to put some exiting designs on display, but compared
what I know a skilled younger person , somone with a better feel or somone who
didn't need to spend his or her potential, getting to know computers the way I
had to fight my way thru, -------- somone who can focus on the creative process
more than I have had to focus on the technical solutions to the extents, that
the CAD program "said" , " well if you can't find the functions you emagine
shuld be in a CAD program, then write them yourself in Lisp".
But you are right with another issue ; as while the method in itself is quite a
raw idear that need some develobment, -------- then just that develobment will
bring a lot of new options, a lot of small or big gadgeds like the small tricks
you se the steel workers master, to make the final hands-on touch , that acturly
make the whole thing work together.
Realy the core idear is so simple , but isn't the Roman bridges simple and based
on a "simple" idear. Now back to the designs I used to recive that valuable
critic that I would not be without, then even a few of you maby think that this
dane is so square , that nothing will bite on him, ------- then please know that
without this critic , I would just think that this method or material system ,
is so great that I would end up so arogant that the whole thing would be
forgotten in a few years ; This method is so primitive that just that fact fuel
a lot of relevant critic about it. First it realy is not the best, if the one
who develob a method such as 3D-H , also promote him/her self as architect or
artist, when your strong side is _not_ architecture. Also when you read some of
the promoting I tried to put forth, I start promoting new materials for the
space industrie and end pointing to pressed hay sheets --------- realy even this
is a primitive thing, it realy gat you around. Just emagine you know some 300
english words, and must explain why and how floors grow by magic , just as a
side effect when you put an assembly produced in a special way
together, ----------- then when everyone finaly get the clue about why sheet
material is the essential matter, then you in a particular design , must explain
that now "sheet material" shuld be seen more widely, and that a tube also in
some sense can be seen and must be seen as "sheet material", as then you as a
side effect solved the problem about fire proving, as now you can cool the core
building structure in a building system, that in the most surprising way , solve
some of the fundamental fysical problems bringing the cooling water to the right
place, without stressing the structure as how the tradisional way of doing it
would effect.
How to promise new jobs and a promising future, if this shuld not involve a lot
of develobment and more new idears.
Still I know one way that this could work, that's architecture. As if you have
the same vision I had about what can be achived if you give this
method-material-system a chance I repeat ,it will blow your mind ; ---------- I
know what a skilled architect could progress with a new material , but that ask
the architects to deal with that detail that slipped out of post modern
architecture. Beside the whole concept ask a different aproach , -------- now
the basic knowleage about the programming and the 3D computer issues is easy
grasped, and even understood in pictures ; you don't need to be able to do the
somwhat difficult calculations that better than any modern architecture
application, explain you what 3D is about. But you need to know the difference
between a block on block program . You got to know and realise the dead-end with
modern architect applications, that even they do what most architects need,
place an invisible mental gate, that will keep you from realising the
oppotunity's that could grow from a new aproach , ---------- as you are quite
right, it proberly will not "end" with 3D-H , but 3D-H could start a complete
new lead, that acturly reshape the role of the architect ,-------------- now
that role already changed a few times already, but the challance with new tools
, that allow you to point in the air to reflect a vision in your mind could seem
a bit lazy for those who rather go into detail and create wonders, but if those
then did go into detail with a new digital method , the result would speak for
itself and with a better architect than I, this method would speak it's own
language .
P.C.