|
|
| |
For anyone interested in the future of the BrickWiki
project please visit the new BrickWiki Blog and
join in the discussion of the need to move to a new server (or not).
Thanks.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Thomas Garrison wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
I’d like to see this discussion reach other “keepers of lego part names”, at
least for feedback. I don’t expect that a consensus would be reached.
|
(ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or
lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . .
|
Also lugnet.db.brictionary ;)
| |
| |
Unless I’ve missed something, we’ve never had a part title which included
LDU. I believe we’ve only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
|
To clarify: that includes “local” units, i.e., stud and brick height
measurements are relative to the system (Primo, Duplo, System, etc.) of the
parts being described (with the curious exception of part 33029).
|
I support the idea of standardised names for tyres - I would probably vote for
millimetres, as that would match better with the most of the ones molded by TLC.
And I would further suggest that wheel dimensions be changed to millimetres too,
to match.
I think mm are more intuitive - even those of us used to working with LDU, it’s
not something most of us probably intuitively work with. If you pick up a part,
it’s “2 x 2 studs” or “4 plates”, or in th case of non-standard parts, usually
inches or mm. So if I pick up a wheel and want to find it, it’s easier to think
“diameter about 4mm” than to work out what that is in LDU. So inches or mm seem
more logical to me, and I put mm first because
- It’s what I’m more used to using
- It’s easily converted to/from both inches and LDU and
- It’s the standard unit in Aus, and it would be inconsistent to stick with “tyre” and then use inches...
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.db.brictionary, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.db.brictionary, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > I'm doing a cross-check on a part number. Can anyone confirm the number of the
> > older, square Technic piston?
> >
> > Peeron shows the number for this part as 3652:
> > http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3652
> >
> > Technica shows the number as 3562:
> > http://isodomos.com/technica/registry/trans/trans_1.php
>
> The number on mine is definitely 3652.
Thanks, Ross.
On the Parts Tracker, I've moved x849.dat to 3652.dat.
Steve
|
|
| |
Hello Steve
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:I6B07w.L2u@lugnet.com...
> I'm doing a cross-check on a part number. Can anyone confirm the number • of the
> older, square Technic piston?
>
> Peeron shows the number for this part as 3652:
> http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3652
>
> Technica shows the number as 3562:
> http://isodomos.com/technica/registry/trans/trans_1.php
>
> It seems likely that the number on Technica is a typo, but I wanted to be
sure.
When checking your second link it does say 3652.
So either someone has just corrected the test or you apparently made a
typo...
ML Cad does say 3652 either.
Greetings
Maico Arts
|
|
| |
In lugnet.db.brictionary, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.db.brictionary, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > I'm doing a cross-check on a part number. Can anyone confirm the number of the
> > older, square Technic piston?
> >
> > Peeron shows the number for this part as 3652:
> > http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3652
> >
> > Technica shows the number as 3562:
> > http://isodomos.com/technica/registry/trans/trans_1.php
>
> The number on mine is definitely 3652.
>
> ROSCO
We appreciate the confirmation and notification. Technica has been corrected.
Thanks,
Clark
Isodomos webmaster
|
|
|
