Hi

"Syd Mead" skrev i en meddelelse
newsqMeb.10238$Rd4.9175@fed1read07...
This thread was brought in from rec.boats.building. so **** off. Also
Per's "3D-H" topic has more in common with
boats than architecture anyway.


"Dazed and Confuzed" wrote in message
...
be limited to the
*architectural* field.

Please take the time to not cross post to rec.boats.building!
Beer, it's not just for breakfast anymore.......


Now even I already exchoused to the group about the cross posts, I must say I
agrea with Syd , as the boatbuilding group already for a decade been dealing
with the cheapest materials and the simplest plans , -------- and the issue I
try bring to replace all to old designs shuld not be met with a reply that by
core deal with a conservative aproach saying, that the future for amature
boatbuilding is old drawings and old attitude with old fasion tools .
From my aproach just amature boatbuilding ,shuld deal with somthing exiting and
somthing that shuld bring a plesant result even you are an amature builder.
Also 3D-H origine in boatbuilding , and when everyone want a mini trawler or a
smooth but easy build and cheap fancy sailboat, no one do anyone any faviour
omiting the fact that today's race sailboats look just like the first
experimental Cyber-Boats.
Realy the credit shuld open some new options and possibilities and those who
followed this forum know, that boatbuilding alway's been a valuable source for
develobment within architecture. ---------- Atleast those parts of
boatbuilding, that been the fuel for creativity and joy. Bad that the
Cyber-Boat concept stopped just then, but this was my try to bring somthing new
and even more exiting, than the attitude of popular mechanics back 40' and 50' .
I mean this is more than 50 years ago and today you don't need to place a nail
in endwood and make a patch to hide bad craftmanship, today you can combine
first class projecting of whatever beautifull boat hull shape, and do not need
to build a box as it is to difficult to work with the skills only a profesional
boatbuilder spended years to gain, --------- today technology open a complete
new field for creativity, and as Syd point out, new materials show even cheaper
than the ply used is these old plans.
P.C.

"P.C." wrote
Now even I already exchoused to the group about the cross posts, I must
say I
agrea with Syd , as the boatbuilding group already for a decade been
dealing
with the cheapest materials and the simplest plans ,

Architecture and boats are only 2 examples that might benefit from 3DH.
The *method* is what we're talking about here.
The materials, and the application, are secondary to the subject.
Everybody is looking for a cheaper way, a faster way, a more reliable way.

Chris, I am not suggesting that Per has come up with a new idea as I am sure
many other people have thought of the same thing and are advancing in that
area.
Per has been the one to suggest 2DH here in alt.architecture, to open some
eyes.
I have seen this method on Discovery, dealing with fighterplanes and yachts,
using kevlar and other materials.
Per is the only person I have seen to mention the use of this method in
relation to architecture (unless you consider buildings on Mars
architecture).
Can you describe the difference between *method* and *form* as you have used
them below?

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
m...
Don...again I agree with your philosophical support for Per the
visionary...but the fact is that ...no...he has not suggested a
"method". He has only suggested a form...and he doesn't know how it
can be made or of what it can be made.

It is quite possible that someone in the 14th century thought
"Wouldn't it be cool if buildings could have 100 floors!" That isn't
architecture and I would never suggest that such a comment was the
idea for the tall buildings of the 20th century. Those were the work
of architects who solved the technical and artistic problems involved
in making such forms.

I agree with you that I like Per...but don't give him credit for what
he hasn't done.

Christopher

"Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com wrote in message
...
"Syd Mead" wrote in message
news:QbAeb.9058$Rd4.3063@fed1read07...
GS/Don quote: "Edison tried over 1000 materials...." How many has
Per
tried? Even at and economical scale?

You're talking apples and oranges.
Per is suggesting a *method*, not a material.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:24:44 -0400, "Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:


"gruhn" wrote in message
...
You're talking apples and oranges.
Per is suggesting a *method*, not a material.

Apples and apples. Edison had an idea and tried to implement it. Per found
the "boolean" button in his 3d program, threw some inaccurate adjectives
at
it and talks it up like it's cross sliced bread.

Not at all.
Per has suggested sheet steel and plywood.
Many other materials can be implied including composites.

So let Per even demo a _model_. Edison did.

If somebody did take Per's idea, and made it work, then marketed it or
in some way profited from it, Per may well join that long list of
"visionaries" who go down in history as the "real", "hard done by"
inventor. If Per wants somebody to back him, and share the profits (I
hope) the Per needs to show that there is some _practical_ use to
this. It would cost far less than the computer and Net connection for
a year to get a model going. If Per is physically incapable of this,
which is a possibility that needs considering, then surely he can
arrange somebody to give a small madeol a go, to generate real
interest.

Don. Why don't _you_ give it a go?
************************************************** ****************************************
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
The rest sit around and make snide comments.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

"Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com wrote in message ...

(snip)
Can you describe the difference between *method* and *form* as you have used
them below?

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
m...
Don...again I agree with your philosophical support for Per the
visionary...but the fact is that ...no...he has not suggested a
"method". He has only suggested a form...and he doesn't know how it
can be made or of what it can be made.

Yes I can describe the difference between "method" and "form"....and
"material" as well.

To say that a building shall be an arch is to describe its "form."

To say that the arch shall be made of stone is to describe its
"material."

To say that the stone arch shall be built by cutting stone blocks from
a particular quarry in a size that they can be handled by a human
mason, and that these shall be transported by horse-drawn wagon to the
site, and that carpenters will build wood framework to hold the stones
in place until the key stone is set...and that the stones shall be
lifted by a crane using horse power and mechanical advantage....and
that they will be set in mortar with metal clips ....that is to
describe the "method."

Our friend Per has suggested a form...but neither "material" nor
"method". His references to plywood or steel do not explain how this
would be done at the large scale he is proposing. In fact his work
reminds me of the work of thousands of 2nd year architecture students
in the 1970s who proposed similar forms to his in schools around the
world. When asked "what material do you propose?" the universal answer
was "concrete!" because the students didn't really know what to use
and they had heard that concrete could be made in many forms.
However....if Per's proposal is to use concrete, than it probably
would not be cut by computer-operated means as he has suggested...but
would be cast with carefully fabricated steel reinforcing in a highly
labor-intensive technology. Similarly, if he is suggesting steel,
then is he suggesting steel plates that are 12" to 30" thick as is
implied by the images? Don't you think that gets a bit extreme when it
comes to cost? Or would these really be carefully crafted steel
hollow boxes requiring a lot of expensive welding?


Christopher

"brudgers" wrote in message
...

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
om...

2. The second point is one I think I suggested to you a few years
ago....and it is equally important. Architecture is not really about
structures....it is about spaces for humans and their belongings and
their activities. Therefore, the shape of architectural space must be
driven by the human actions instead of by the construction.

At a certain scale I agree with you. But I would argue that at a certain
scale physical dimensions of the space takes precedence, e.g. the dome of
St
Peters or the Eifel tower. I just don't believe that the relationship is
one way. Program is not always that important (though it usually is).


Any means
of construction is simply an interesting curiosity unless it forms the
spaces needed by humans. In other words... if the spaces are driven by
the structural system, it is simply an engineering novelty ...not a
work of architecture.

In those cases, structure, scale and grandeur were a big part of the
program.

The trick is to discuss program.Your proper injection of the term bails CEG
out of his narrowly presented belief.

"JD" wrote in message
m...

"brudgers" wrote in message
...

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
om...

2. The second point is one I think I suggested to you a few years
ago....and it is equally important. Architecture is not really about
structures....it is about spaces for humans and their belongings and
their activities. Therefore, the shape of architectural space must be
driven by the human actions instead of by the construction.

At a certain scale I agree with you. But I would argue that at a
certain
scale physical dimensions of the space takes precedence, e.g. the dome
of
St
Peters or the Eifel tower. I just don't believe that the relationship
is
one way. Program is not always that important (though it usually is).


Any means
of construction is simply an interesting curiosity unless it forms the
spaces needed by humans. In other words... if the spaces are driven by
the structural system, it is simply an engineering novelty ...not a
work of architecture.

In those cases, structure, scale and grandeur were a big part of the
program.

The trick is to discuss program.Your proper injection of the term bails
CEG
out of his narrowly presented belief.


This is kind of like saying purely aesthetic elements are functional because
part of the function of the building is to please the client.

Michaelangelo just wanted to build a big ****ing dome. The the feat was
more significant than the program. In fact the feat allowed the program to
develop the way it did. St P's functioned prior to the construction of the
dome for a millenium.

"brudgers" wrote in message
om...

"JD" wrote in message
m...

"brudgers" wrote in message
...

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
om...

2. The second point is one I think I suggested to you a few years
ago....and it is equally important. Architecture is not really
about
structures....it is about spaces for humans and their belongings and
their activities. Therefore, the shape of architectural space must
be
driven by the human actions instead of by the construction.

At a certain scale I agree with you. But I would argue that at a
certain
scale physical dimensions of the space takes precedence, e.g. the dome
of
St
Peters or the Eifel tower. I just don't believe that the relationship
is
one way. Program is not always that important (though it usually is).


Any means
of construction is simply an interesting curiosity unless it forms
the
spaces needed by humans. In other words... if the spaces are driven
by
the structural system, it is simply an engineering novelty ...not a
work of architecture.

In those cases, structure, scale and grandeur were a big part of the
program.

The trick is to discuss program.Your proper injection of the term bails
CEG
out of his narrowly presented belief.


This is kind of like saying purely aesthetic elements are functional
because
part of the function of the building is to please the client.

No, I don't believe it is. No single decorative element pleases one enough
to be pleased with a building and I do not agree that pleasing the client is
ever in the program -- satisfying the user always is however.

Michaelangelo just wanted to build a big ****ing dome. The the feat was
more significant than the program. In fact the feat allowed the program
to
develop the way it did. St P's functioned prior to the construction of
the
dome for a millenium.

Yes, but it could not have been nearly as awe-inspiring. Part of the big,
****ing dome's function was to serve a a big ****ing canvas. Sounds
programatic to me.

Sure the structure was a significant feat in and of itself, but it was
pushed by the program.

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
om...
"Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com wrote in message
...

(snip)
Can you describe the difference between *method* and *form* as you have
used
them below?

"Christopher K. Egan" wrote in message
m...
Don...again I agree with your philosophical support for Per the
visionary...but the fact is that ...no...he has not suggested a
"method". He has only suggested a form...and he doesn't know how it
can be made or of what it can be made.

Yes I can describe the difference between "method" and "form"....and
"material" as well.

To say that a building shall be an arch is to describe its "form."

To say that the arch shall be made of stone is to describe its
"material."

To say that the stone arch shall be built by cutting stone blocks from
a particular quarry in a size that they can be handled by a human
mason, and that these shall be transported by horse-drawn wagon to the
site, and that carpenters will build wood framework to hold the stones
in place until the key stone is set...and that the stones shall be
lifted by a crane using horse power and mechanical advantage....and
that they will be set in mortar with metal clips ....that is to
describe the "method."

Thanks!


Our friend Per has suggested a form...but neither "material" nor
"method". His references to plywood or steel do not explain how this
would be done at the large scale he is proposing. In fact his work
reminds me of the work of thousands of 2nd year architecture students
in the 1970s who proposed similar forms to his in schools around the
world. When asked "what material do you propose?" the universal answer
was "concrete!" because the students didn't really know what to use
and they had heard that concrete could be made in many forms.
However....if Per's proposal is to use concrete, than it probably
would not be cut by computer-operated means as he has suggested...but
would be cast with carefully fabricated steel reinforcing in a highly
labor-intensive technology. Similarly, if he is suggesting steel,
then is he suggesting steel plates that are 12" to 30" thick as is
implied by the images? Don't you think that gets a bit extreme when it
comes to cost? Or would these really be carefully crafted steel
hollow boxes requiring a lot of expensive welding?

I think he has mentioned thin sheet steel that has been offset by a few
inches, forming one shape inside another, with webbing between the 2 sheets.
Yes, initially it seems like a lot of welding. But maybe a new way of
welding would be required. A way in which the entire pair of sheets become
maleable and the webbing is then vacuumed into pre-prepared slots in the
sheets. As I've said all along there are many aspects of getting from here
to there in his *vision* and all of the bugs have not been worked out.

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:24:44 -0400, "Don" one-if-by-land.concord.com
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:


"gruhn" wrote in message
...
You're talking apples and oranges.
Per is suggesting a *method*, not a material.

Apples and apples. Edison had an idea and tried to implement it. Per
found
the "boolean" button in his 3d program, threw some inaccurate
adjectives
at
it and talks it up like it's cross sliced bread.

Not at all.
Per has suggested sheet steel and plywood.
Many other materials can be implied including composites.

So let Per even demo a _model_. Edison did.

If somebody did take Per's idea, and made it work, then marketed it or
in some way profited from it, Per may well join that long list of
"visionaries" who go down in history as the "real", "hard done by"
inventor. If Per wants somebody to back him, and share the profits (I
hope) the Per needs to show that there is some _practical_ use to
this. It would cost far less than the computer and Net connection for
a year to get a model going. If Per is physically incapable of this,
which is a possibility that needs considering, then surely he can
arrange somebody to give a small madeol a go, to generate real
interest.

Don. Why don't _you_ give it a go?

As Per would say, "I have my own pony to ride". ;-)

Hey Nick, have I seen your sig over in misc.survivalism?
I haven't been there in awhile.


************************************************** **************************
**************
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
The rest sit around and make snide comments.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/