 | | | | | |
Dear All
There was a letter in last week's New Civil Engineer which I shall reproduce
for you:
"I support the suggestion made by your correspondent (nCE 7 June) that
Meccano be adopted by schools to assist in the study of construction.
Unfortunately it is my experience that teachers expect children to construct
things using Lego, which although it has some merits, is absolutely hopeless
for modelling structures or demonstrating mechanics."
The writer provided his address so after a few hours to calm down I thought
we might like to respond to this.
What do you think?
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
> Dear All
>
> There was a letter in last week's New Civil Engineer which I shall reproduce
> for you:
>
> "I support the suggestion made by your correspondent (nCE 7 June) that
> Meccano be adopted by schools to assist in the study of construction.
> Unfortunately it is my experience that teachers expect children to construct
> things using Lego, which although it has some merits, is absolutely hopeless
> for modelling structures or demonstrating mechanics."
The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student
isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using tall
columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't
demonstrate mechanical principles.
What is needed is to introduce some of the ideas found in an absolutely
brilliant work by an MIT professor (which reference is escaping me but which
most serious technic heads know of) on Lego construction idioms. Taking
these idioms on board results in much stronger constructions that imbue
basic principles quite nicely.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student
> isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using tall
> columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't
> demonstrate mechanical principles.
Yes, but...Lego is easier to work with to provide the physical reality of the
design. Take a wall, make it of 2x bricks non interlaced...and push a ball at
it from a height. See how the ball goes right through the wall...now interlace
the wall, and try the same stunt (use a ramp for the ball to roll down)- the
ball bounces off instead of knocking over the wall like dominoes.
I would tend to agree that Lego is NOT the best medium for use in demonstrating
real construction designs...after all, the tallest brick skyscraper was only 10
stories high, and one can do substantially better than that with lego.
The use of mechaical designs (trusses, ect) becomes more important as one
reaches the limits of the Lego system (large train bridges being my favorite,
and I am sure that I don't do all that good of a job building them...)
The problem that I can see is that one tends to need large quantities of bricks
to build stuctures large enough to require engineered designs.
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student
> isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using tall
> columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't
> demonstrate mechanical principles.
I sortof see this and sortof don't. If they are talking specifically about civil
engineering then fair enough, and I suppose the fact that you can "legally" bend
meccano parts in ways not really possible with Lego could be relevant, but one
of the reasons I always preferred Technic over Meccano (aside from the fact I
never had Meccano) was that Technic seemed to offer far more possibilities when
it came to making mechanisms and vehicles.
Why this should be I have no idea, and I certainly haven't explored Meccano to
any great extent, but things usually looked a bit clunky in it and for some
reason it seemed less flexible (in terms of what you could do) than Lego. I
could make all sorts of grotesque contraptions with huge gear trains and
whatnots far easier with Lego, and perhaps even more importantly do it more
quickly; things click and pop together rather than needing to be bolted on.
I am almost certainly biased in this (maybe my brain is just geared towards Lego
far more than Meccano), but with all of the great Technic works on the Internet,
for someone to dismiss it as being useless at demonstrating mechanics shows they
haven't done their research well enough :-)
Jennifer
http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Jennifer Clark writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student
> > isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using tall
> > columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't
> > demonstrate mechanical principles.
>
> I sortof see this and sortof don't. If they are talking specifically
> about civil engineering then fair enough, and I suppose the fact that
> you can "legally" bend meccano parts in ways not really possible with
> Lego could be relevant, but one of the reasons I always preferred
> Technic over Meccano (aside from the fact I
> never had Meccano) was that Technic seemed to offer far more
> possibilities when
> it came to making mechanisms and vehicles.
>
> Why this should be I have no idea, and I certainly haven't explored Meccano to
> any great extent, but things usually looked a bit clunky in it and for some
> reason it seemed less flexible (in terms of what you could do) than Lego. I
> could make all sorts of grotesque contraptions with huge gear trains and
> whatnots far easier with Lego, and perhaps even more importantly do it more
> quickly; things click and pop together rather than needing to be bolted on.
Because you know all the idioms. To draw an analogy, I can code in C++ or
Java a lot faster than I can in Lisp, because I know more idioms and
patterns. That doesn't (in and of itself) make C++ *better* than Lisp, just
different. You need a different metric to decide whether C++ is better or
worse. Partisan facile-ness with it doesn't count.
But yes, I do think LEGO is more expressive than Meccano. There are more
parts, and it can be used across a much wider range of problems. I'm biased,
I haven't set out to *prove* it but it's what I believe to be true.
Having said that, it still is more possible for the novice builder (your
average 6 year old or 8 year old, or even 12 year old that hasn't used LEGO
much, and thus doesn't know the idioms) to make weak structures in LEGO than
it is in Meccano or Knex or even Znap.
Hope that's clear. I'm NOT trying to pick a fight (I consider all three
other systems I mentioned far inferior) just trying to say that I understand
where the perception referenced comes from.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Because you know all the idioms. To draw an analogy, I can code in C++ or
> Java a lot faster than I can in Lisp, because I know more idioms and
> patterns. That doesn't (in and of itself) make C++ *better* than Lisp, just
> different. You need a different metric to decide whether C++ is better or
> worse. Partisan facile-ness with it doesn't count.
Yup, that certainly is a large part of it, and I don't think there is any point in
my life where my skill (or lack thereof) at the two systems was equal therefore
allowing a valid comparison. I think there is something else though, a mindset,
something wired in my head - I can look at a random pile of Lego and almost
literally see diggers, bridges, houses, trains, ships, fairground rides, death
traps, you name it, but I look at a pile of meccano, znap or knex and all I see is
a pile of metal and plastic. Nothing about the system leaps out at me the way it
does with Lego. Of course, this could be due to my lack of idioms but I think
there is something more :-)
> Hope that's clear. I'm NOT trying to pick a fight (I consider all three
> other systems I mentioned far inferior) just trying to say that I understand
> where the perception referenced comes from.
Indeed, one superiour aspect of Meccano that immediately springs to mind is that
standard vertical structures cannot be pulled apart the same way Lego ones can
without extra bracing. The bracing idioms are probably quite a large barrier to
young kids making really good Technic models.
From an artistic and aesthetic point of view, however, I think Lego really is head
and shoulders above the rest by any standing.
Jennifer
http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Jennifer Clark writes:
> allowing a valid comparison. I think there is something else though, a mindset,
> something wired in my head - I can look at a random pile of Lego and almost
> literally see diggers, bridges, houses, trains, ships, fairground rides, death
> traps, you name it, but I look at a pile of meccano, znap or knex and all I >see is a pile of metal and plastic
Death traps? Ever had your wiring checked? :-) only joking.
I once saw a Sabre jet crafted in Meccano. It was very well done, especially
hard as it's not cylindrical along it's lenght, but tapers toward the tail.
Must have required some neat sheet metal work though.
I think the worst aspect of Meccano is doing up those nuts, especially when
you have to put one spanner on the bolt to prevent rotation and another
spanner on the nut leaving no hands free to hold on with. The Meccano I was
using also suffered from spanners that were hard to get on the nuts due to
the tolerances. Also some of the nuts we're tight on the bolts and therefore
hard to tighten.
Meccano is the best of course when it comes to one dimensional curves
especially with the plastic panels, but on the visual side it's rubbish with
all those exposed bolt heads.
From time to time you here of old men, Meccano enthusiasts who can't stand
it if you even mention the word Lego. I'd love the oppertunity of showing
them Jen's or Dennis Bosman's models. They'ed probably expire, if they
survived the shock I'd love to see them eat their words about the
'superiority of Meccano'.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Because you know all the idioms. To draw an analogy, I can code in C++ or
> Java a lot faster than I can in Lisp, because I know more idioms and
> patterns. That doesn't (in and of itself) make C++ *better* than Lisp, just
> different. You need a different metric to decide whether C++ is better or
> worse. Partisan facile-ness with it doesn't count.
>
> But yes, I do think LEGO is more expressive than Meccano. There are more
> parts, and it can be used across a much wider range of problems. I'm biased,
> I haven't set out to *prove* it but it's what I believe to be true.
>
> Having said that, it still is more possible for the novice builder (your
> average 6 year old or 8 year old, or even 12 year old that hasn't used LEGO
> much, and thus doesn't know the idioms) to make weak structures in LEGO than
> it is in Meccano or Knex or even Znap.
>
> Hope that's clear. I'm NOT trying to pick a fight (I consider all three
> other systems I mentioned far inferior) just trying to say that I understand
> where the perception referenced comes from.
Hi Larry.
Correct me if I misunderstand but you appear to be saying that the Lego
idioms are quicker to learn than for the other construction toys. We also
appear to agree that the writers perception is wrong.
Do you support me attempting to correct it?
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> Hi Larry.
>
> Correct me if I misunderstand but you appear to be saying that the Lego
> idioms are quicker to learn than for the other construction toys. We also
> appear to agree that the writers perception is wrong.
>
> Do you support me attempting to correct it?
Yes, very much so! I think it would be a great idea to do so!
What I am trying to say is that if you understand why the writer has the
perception he does, and counteract it, I think your letter will be much more
powerful. I think I see why he does, because, like I said, novice builders
DO tend to build weak things.
Jen dug up the doc I was thinking of (which was brilliant of her, thanks
muchly!!! It ought to be on the Technic front page, everyone ought to go
read it). A course that teaches this stuff and that doesn't use the Duplo
predigested sets (which don't suffer from weakness since they were designed
specially for this) ought to first start out with a quick overview of how to
build strong things and what the principles and idioms are. That would
counteract this criticism... and make for better education overall. As well
as more fun for the kids.
Helps?
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Jen dug up the doc I was thinking of (which was brilliant of her, thanks
> muchly!!! It ought to be on the Technic front page, everyone ought to go
> read it). A course that teaches this stuff and that doesn't use the Duplo
> predigested sets (which don't suffer from weakness since they were designed
> specially for this) ought to first start out with a quick overview of how to
> build strong things and what the principles and idioms are. That would
> counteract this criticism... and make for better education overall. As well
> as more fun for the kids.
>
> Helps?
Very much so, except my home PC is useless and I'm not allowed to download
files at work so I can't get the document (plus I've never done an FTP
before and I don't really understand it (I'm a Civil Engineer not an IT
specialist, dammit!) I'll get it somehow because I think I need to read
that before I finish the letter.
I've drafted a letter which will be up shortly. I've trimmed all the bits
where I was ranting and not putting my case reasonably, but some of them
were fun so here are a couple of bits Mr Christopher Ward will not be seeing:
"I challenge Mr Ward to a race to build a model of a bridge of his choice,
him to use Meccano and I Lego, the bridge to be capable of carrying five
times its self-weight as a point load, first to be complete wins"
"Where's Boltnet, eh?"
(Is there anything similar to us for Meccano?)
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Okay. Now I know how FTP works (i.e seamlessly, it wasn't like that in 1994
when I was at University!) As Gael says that is a cool article, just one
question. Did the Constructopedia ever go online? I have never seen any
reference to it on Lugnet. It seems a superb idea and I think it deserves
pursuing.
Here is my draft reply letter. It's a bit long and maybe needs focussing a
bit. I've included a number of web references which I will need to clear
with the authors. All comments welcome.
"Dear Sir
I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Christopher Ward’s letter
(nCE 28 June) and his comments regarding the relative merits of Meccano and
Lego. I can only assume that Mr Ward is unaware of the elements available
in Lego’s Technic and Dacta product lines, particularly the Technic beam and
connector pin system which enables large trusses to be built very quickly.
I am a member of the online Lego community Lugnet (www.lugnet.com). Mr
Ward’s letter has led to some interesting discussions among the world’s Lego
enthusiasts and we would like to offer some examples of the functionality of
Lego.
I am unsure whether Mr Ward was advocating Meccano as a structural or a
mechanical engineering modelling tool so I’ll address the Civils issues
first. I was taught that there are four main materials used in
construction: Timber, Concrete, Masonry and Steel. Clearly neither system
would be good for modelling timber construction, concrete is similarly
beyond either. Lego is far better at masonry because its basic elements are
bricks and I would strongly contend that there is little to choose between
the two as far as modelling steel construction is concerned. I would add
that steel structures are generally welded or riveted together and the Lego
friction pin system is a better analogue for this than Meccano’s bolts.
Pictures of Lego structures can be found at
www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch truss bridge) and
(further example)
As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
(www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
(www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
Lego also has an educational theme called Dacta, which is only available to
educational establishments (though if anyone is interested it can be bought
at Legoland or by mail order from www.pitsco-legodacta.com). Dacta includes
solar cells, capacitors and other electronic and mechanical parts along with
teaching guides and other support to use Lego in the classroom. I do not
believe anything so comprehensive has ever been provided by Meccano.
In an educational environment Lego has a few distinct advantages, firstly
and most importantly that it is quick to put together and take apart and
secondly that it is easier for a child to pick up the idioms necessary for
successful construction. (Professor Fred Martin of MIT has written a useful
guide which explains these:
ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf). For these
reasons I feel that Lego is a better educational tool than Meccano.
To summarise I am a Civil Engineer in large measure thanks to Lego and I
cannot allow such a slight to the Toy of the 20th Century to go unchallenged.
Simon Bennett (Graduate Member)"
LMKWYT
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> Here is my draft reply letter. It's a bit long and maybe needs focussing a
> bit. I've included a number of web references which I will need to clear
> with the authors. All comments welcome.
It hits the salient points. As you say it may need a bit of shortening. But
overall, it's brill. (Even though it doesn't even mention the vast civil
engineering possibilities afforded by use of the Train parts. (1))
1 - that last bit was a joke.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> that steel structures are generally welded or riveted together
Large steel structures (i.e. buildings and bridges) are welded and BOLTED
together. Rivets are rarely used anymore in these structures.
> friction pin system is a better analogue for this than Meccano’s bolts.
Friction pins are an excellent connector because they are easy and
convenient to use, but they lack the ability to provide any axial
compression (i.e. tightening of a bolt "squeezes" the parts together). While
this may not be necessary for most applications, it can be a problem.
Although Lego does make (or has made) threaded axles, they are rare and it
is unfeasible to plan a large structure using many of these axles.
I wouldn't leave out using axles as connectors. They are much stronger in
shear than pins are. If you're creating a structure like a truss and have
eccentric connections, axles can be better.
> Pictures of Lego structures can be found at
> www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch truss bridge) and
Large impressive structure, yes; truss, no. This bridge is technically not a
truss and therefore doesn't have the strength that a true truss would.
Without going into too much detail, the members in a truss must intersect at
a common point. The diagonals on the example bridge are not continously
connected end-to-end along the structure. If you want to know what I'm
talking about, go here:
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/ideas/truss/
If you want good examples of large trusses build with Lego bricks, go here:
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/creations/bridge_arch/
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/creations/bridge_straight/
In recent times, the trend in bridge building is moving towards large plate
girders and box girder sections. I'm not familiar with Meccano at all, but
Lego is excellent for building these structures. It can take a lot of
plates, but it works well:
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/ideas/beam/
> As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
> advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
> of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
> differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
> cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
> mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
> (www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
> (www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
Yes, excellent, good!!! Examples are the best way to defend our argument
that Lego is far superior. There are many other sites out there with good
MOC's that are worthy of mentioning.
Also, if you're going to present the benefits of Lego and Technic to someone
who is not familiar with Lego, mention Jim Hughes' site: Technica,
http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/technica.html
it is an excellent reference for Technic parts.
> Lego also has an educational theme called Dacta, which is only available to
> educational establishments (though if anyone is interested it can be bought
> at Legoland or by mail order from www.pitsco-legodacta.com). Dacta includes
> solar cells, capacitors and other electronic and mechanical parts along with
> teaching guides and other support to use Lego in the classroom. I do not
> believe anything so comprehensive has ever been provided by Meccano.
Don't forget about Mindstorms and all the Lego robotics stuff. How does
Meccano compare against that? (if at all)
T. J.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Thomas (T. J.) Avery writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> > that steel structures are generally welded or riveted together
>
> Large steel structures (i.e. buildings and bridges) are welded and BOLTED
> together. Rivets are rarely used anymore in these structures.
Noted. You're absolutely right. It's been a while since my degree and I'm
a railway engineer now, sorry about that slip up. I must go back and review
my notes on egg-sucking too!!
> > friction pin system is a better analogue for this than Meccano’s bolts.
>
> Friction pins are an excellent connector because they are easy and
> convenient to use, but they lack the ability to provide any axial
> compression (i.e. tightening of a bolt "squeezes" the parts together). While
> this may not be necessary for most applications, it can be a problem.
So should I leave the part about Lego being no worse for modelling steel
out? Actually I need to research Meccano but I think it only consists of
plates so if you want to form a member (I-beam or box section) you have to
bolt it together first. A technic beam is already a decent member. Should
I make this point instead?
> Although Lego does make (or has made) threaded axles, they are rare and it
> is unfeasible to plan a large structure using many of these axles.
>
> I wouldn't leave out using axles as connectors. They are much stronger in
> shear than pins are. If you're creating a structure like a truss and have
> eccentric connections, axles can be better.
Okay, I'll add that.
> > Pictures of Lego structures can be found at
> > www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch truss bridge) and
>
> Large impressive structure, yes; truss, no. This bridge is technically not a
> truss and therefore doesn't have the strength that a true truss would.
> Without going into too much detail, the members in a truss must intersect at
> a common point. <snip-ment>
Blame that on my not looking at it properly. I do remember what I was
taught about trusses!
> In recent times, the trend in bridge building is moving towards large plate
> girders and box girder sections. I'm not familiar with Meccano at all, but
> Lego is excellent for building these structures. It can take a lot of
> plates, but it works well:
> http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/ideas/beam/
Hmm, I think Meccano may work better for this. I need to check it out
properly before I send the letter.
> > As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
> > advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
> > of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
> > differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
> > cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
> > mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
> > (www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
> > (www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
>
> Yes, excellent, good!!! Examples are the best way to defend our argument
> that Lego is far superior. There are many other sites out there with good
> MOC's that are worthy of mentioning.
Really good examples welcome (I don't want to overload it).
> Also, if you're going to present the benefits of Lego and Technic to someone
> who is not familiar with Lego, mention Jim Hughes' site: Technica,
>
> http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/technica.html
>
> it is an excellent reference for Technic parts.
I had a big section giving references to various elements in Technica and
going on to cover the online support that Lego builders give each other but
I cut it due to length. If others think it's really relevant I'll put
something in.
> > Lego also has an educational theme called Dacta, which is only available to
> > educational establishments (though if anyone is interested it can be bought
> > at Legoland or by mail order from www.pitsco-legodacta.com). Dacta includes
> > solar cells, capacitors and other electronic and mechanical parts along with
> > teaching guides and other support to use Lego in the classroom. I do not
> > believe anything so comprehensive has ever been provided by Meccano.
>
> Don't forget about Mindstorms and all the Lego robotics stuff. How does
> Meccano compare against that? (if at all)
It doesn't but I thought that was widening the point a bit and I didn't have
the space. Also if, as Steve Lane suggests (and I also suspect) we are
replying to an older engineer he may dismiss the more modern stuff as just
'playing with computers'.
Thanks for the input.
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> Actually I need to research Meccano but I think it only consists of
> plates so if you want to form a member (I-beam or box section) you have to
> bolt it together first. A technic beam is already a decent member. Should
> I make this point instead?
I think for ease of use, Lego parts (like a Technic beam) are certainly
better. You'd still have to build-up a Technic beam to get an "I" or box
section, but the Technic beam by itself is relatively strong and as you say,
is "a decent member". So, yes, it's a good point!
> Blame that on my not looking at it properly. I do remember what I was
> taught about trusses!
Well, I do like Ross Crawford's bridge and I think it's great. I appreciate
how difficult it is to build a large arch out of Lego bricks. However, if
you tell another engineer about a "truss" and it's really not, you may loose
some credibility. I'm just being nit-picky. It's my job.
> Hmm, I think Meccano may work better for this. I need to check it out
> properly before I send the letter.
I'd like to check it out too. Are there any good websites on Meccano? Not
that I'd flip over to the "dark side", but I'd like to see.
> Really good examples welcome (I don't want to overload it).
You can really overload it, as there are a lot of good sites out there. I've
collected a few links to other good sites:
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/links/
Any of the fan-created sites would be good. Maybe if you included a few more
links, or just one link to a page of links (like mine, for example).
> I had a big section giving references to various elements in Technica and
> going on to cover the online support that Lego builders give each other but
> I cut it due to length. If others think it's really relevant I'll put
> something in.
Well, I think it is relevant. If you want to convince someone that Lego is
better, what do you think that person is going to think? They're probably
not familiar with Lego. If anything, they're familiar only to a small extent
and probably still think it's a toy for small children. If you present an
engineer with an inventory of Technic parts to choose from, I think it would
help greatly.
It's just like you and I wondering about Meccano and how it compares with
Lego. If we saw an inventory of Meccano parts, we'd have a much better
understanding of it.
Good luck with the letter!
T. J.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Thomas (T. J.) Avery writes:
> I'd like to check it out too. Are there any good websites on Meccano? Not
> that I'd flip over to the "dark side", but I'd like to see.
http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/meccano/mecparti.html
After an admittedly a short search this is the best I've found. L girders
are present in very long lengths and they do make pawls! but I don't think
there are any small bevel gears.
What do you think are the biggest omissions and which therefore prove Lego
more useful?
LMAO about this... http://www.meccano.com/pages/under_c.htm !!!
A bit of a surf starting here may yield a bit of information but there's
clearly less web support for Meccano than for Lego.
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"SB" == Simon Bennett <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> writes:
SB> LMAO about this... http://www.meccano.com/pages/under_c.htm !!!
SB> A bit of a surf starting here may yield a bit of information but
SB> there's clearly less web support for Meccano than for Lego.
http://www.meccanotoys.com/ does seem to work. Also loaded with Flash,
by the way, just like lego.com. Sigh.
Cheers,
Johannes.
--
"You cannot save time -- you only choose how to spend it." -- Buck Tilton
Visually inspecting visual programming languages.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:GFwFDH.8JM@lugnet.com...
>
> So should I leave the part about Lego being no worse for modelling steel
> out? Actually I need to research Meccano but I think it only consists of
> plates so if you want to form a member (I-beam or box section) you have to
> bolt it together first. A technic beam is already a decent member.
As far as I know, Meccano has 'L'-beams, and perhaps 'U' too? At least there
are large plates, with folded sides, which is effectively a 'U'.
(I only have the Swedish clone of Meccano (Teknik) at hand, and this includes
L-beams, L-plates, Z-plates and U-plates, even a LUL plate)
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Ok, I am A computing person not a cival enginer but here are my comments
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> "Dear Sir
>
> I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Christopher Ward’s letter
> (nCE 28 June) and his comments regarding the relative merits of Meccano and
> Lego. I can only assume that Mr Ward is unaware of the elements available
> in Lego’s Technic and Dacta product lines, particularly the Technic beam and
> connector pin system which enables large trusses to be built very quickly.
Additonaly thier is the fact that in many cases Lego parts are over engineered!
Whilst meccano parts are fine for more traditonal mechanical designs. I feel
that with education the focus should be on understanding the principles not
the system. Lego also has the advanatge that it can be used for more rapid
prototyping than Meccano. For example, you can remove 'elements' more esily
than those bolted in.
> I am unsure whether Mr Ward was advocating Meccano as a structural or a
> mechanical engineering modelling tool so I’ll address the Civils issues
> first. I was taught that there are four main materials used in
> construction: Timber, Concrete, Masonry and Steel. Clearly neither system
> would be good for modelling timber construction, concrete is similarly
> beyond either.
> Lego is far better at masonry because its basic elements are
> bricks and I would strongly contend that there is little to choose between
> the two as far as modelling steel construction is concerned. I would add
> that steel structures are generally welded or riveted together and the Lego
> friction pin system is a better analogue for this than Meccano’s bolts.
Didn't TLG/TLC produce a set of elements specifically for building design by
professionals called Modulex?
> Pictures of Lego structures can be found at
> www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch truss bridge) and
> (further example)
>
> As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
> advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
> of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
> differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
> cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
> mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
> (www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
> (www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
I agree. With more recent Technic part designs it has also been eaiser to
assmeble than compartive Meccano models.
> In an educational environment Lego has a few distinct advantages, firstly
> and most importantly that it is quick to put together and take apart and
> secondly that it is easier for a child to pick up the idioms necessary for
> successful construction. (Professor Fred Martin of MIT has written a useful
> guide which explains these:
> ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf). For these
> reasons I feel that Lego is a better educational tool than Meccano.
Agree.
> To summarise I am a Civil Engineer in large measure thanks to Lego and I
> cannot allow such a slight to the Toy of the 20th Century to go unchallenged.
>
> Simon Bennett (Graduate Member)"
There is also the fact that there is Computer Aided Design (CAD) and
computer Aided Architectural Design(CAAD) suppourt for Lego. I am unaware of
ANY cad system for Meccano.
Information on Lego(R) related CAD and CAAD can be found via www.ldraw.org
or the appropriate section of the Lugnet hireachy.
In fact a number of the features present in L-CAD systems are also present
in professional systems costing many dollars. L-Draw (the orignal) program
and ML-CAD are essentially available for the cost of a a download. I accept
that the parts library does not yet suppourt the entire range of elements
but it does in my view suppourt suffcient parts to allow reasonable
mechanical principles to be taught.
In additon to pure L-CAD systems such as ML-CAD there are other programs
which take the output from L-CAD systems to produce raytracer files for
Povray ( useful for product and design visualisations.) . There are also
converters for other well known file formats.
L-CAD also has the advanatge of being mainly Windows based which is what
most schools will I assume be using. (I note with intrest that a Mac L-CAD
program is underway as well as a more advanced 3D L-CAD system for windows.)
Sorry for the L-CAD adovacy peice but I felt it important to mention!
Lego(R) bricks also (In my view) encourage the use of modular soloutions and
a teaam approach. I would welcome comments on this myself.
Alex
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Alex Farlie writes:
> Additonaly thier is the fact that in many cases Lego parts are over engineered!
Well after recently observing a diff case bend under heavy loading, I'm
inclined to disagree. I'd say most Technic parts are engineered to just the
right standard to withstand normal usage and loadings.
As regards the diff case, it was the rectangular part supporting the pin
that holds the middle of the three interior gears that twisted. The pin was
the part through which the bending load was exerted. I'm happy to say the
part returned to it's correct shape afterwards. I think two strenghtening
ribs added to the design would prevent it happening in future. In my case a
transmission redesign prevented a recurrance.
> Lego(R) bricks also (In my view) encourage the use of modular soloutions
Agree
> a teaam approach.
Disagree
Members of lugnet are about as seperated as you can get :-). I don't see how
lego can imbue a need for teamwork on it's own, I think the nature of how
classes are organised is what leads to a need for working in a group but I'm
willing to be proven otherwise :-).
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Alex Farlie writes:
(snip!)
> Didn't TLG/TLC produce a set of elements specifically for building design by
> professionals called Modulex?
FYI, Modulex is actually an advanced Architectural Signage company
(www.modulex.com) founded by, and associated with TLG, operating
internationally (& is also based in Billund) which, amongst many other
things, made signage for the new ExCeL exhibition centre in London's Docklands.
Chris Fenter
------------------------
www.thinkidea.co.uk
fenter.c@thinkidea.co.uk
------------------------
(P.S. no, I don't work for them! - but my office has worked with them
before, which is how I found out about them)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I've looked through two sources of Meccano information:
the main website: http://www.meccanotoys.com/
and a parts list: http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/meccano/mecparti.html
My opinion now, after being more educated on what Meccano has to offer, is
that Lego is probably best, depending on how you intend to use it.
If a building system is needed to quickly and easly demonstrate mechanical
and structural concepts, then Lego is surely the best choice:
1. It is easy to connect and dissasemble.
2. Its basic members (i.e. Technic beam) are relatively strong by their
given shape (compared to a skinny piece of perforated metal flatbar, which
lacks significant lateral strength and therefore must be strenthened).
3. It offers a wide range of elements to realistically model many
mechanical, electrical, and structural systems.
4. It is readily avaible and even has an educational division, Dacta.
If a building system is needed to be very realistic, then I think a
"building system" must be built from scratch. Stock up on small sections of
flatbar, angles, channels, I-beams, tubes, and plate as well as bolts and
welding equipment. This home-build "system" is simply a small version of the
real thing and demonstrates exactly what an engineer will face in the real
world. And don't forget all the tools required to accomplish such construction.
I think that Meccanno fits in somewhere between the home-built solution and
Lego parts. It's not exactly the real thing, but it's not as easy to use as
Lego is.
Think of this: you're given a simple assignment to construct a model truss
to demonstrate how a truss works. Do you want to spend days cutting,
drilling, and shaping steel? Or do you want to spend an afternoon, in your
clean room, putting together a few plastic pieces with no tools required?
T. J.
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> "Dear Sir
>
> I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Christopher Ward’s letter
> (nCE 28 June) and his comments regarding the relative merits of Meccano and
> Lego. I can only assume that Mr Ward is unaware of the elements available
> in Lego’s Technic and Dacta product lines, particularly the Technic beam and
> connector pin system which enables large trusses to be built very quickly.
>
> I am a member of the online Lego community Lugnet (www.lugnet.com). Mr
> Ward’s letter has led to some interesting discussions among the world’s Lego
> enthusiasts and we would like to offer some examples of the functionality of
> Lego.
>
> I am unsure whether Mr Ward was advocating Meccano as a structural or a
> mechanical engineering modelling tool so I’ll address the Civils issues
> first. I was taught that there are four main materials used in
> construction: Timber, Concrete, Masonry and Steel. Clearly neither system
> would be good for modelling timber construction, concrete is similarly
> beyond either. Lego is far better at masonry because its basic elements are
> bricks and I would strongly contend that there is little to choose between
> the two as far as modelling steel construction is concerned. I would add
> that steel structures are generally welded or riveted together and the Lego
> friction pin system is a better analogue for this than Meccano’s bolts.
> Pictures of Lego structures can be found at
> www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch truss bridge) and
> (further example)
>
> As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
> advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
> of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
> differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
> cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
> mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
> (www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
> (www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
>
> Lego also has an educational theme called Dacta, which is only available to
> educational establishments (though if anyone is interested it can be bought
> at Legoland or by mail order from www.pitsco-legodacta.com). Dacta includes
> solar cells, capacitors and other electronic and mechanical parts along with
> teaching guides and other support to use Lego in the classroom. I do not
> believe anything so comprehensive has ever been provided by Meccano.
>
> In an educational environment Lego has a few distinct advantages, firstly
> and most importantly that it is quick to put together and take apart and
> secondly that it is easier for a child to pick up the idioms necessary for
> successful construction. (Professor Fred Martin of MIT has written a useful
> guide which explains these:
> ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf). For these
> reasons I feel that Lego is a better educational tool than Meccano.
>
> To summarise I am a Civil Engineer in large measure thanks to Lego and I
> cannot allow such a slight to the Toy of the 20th Century to go unchallenged.
>
> Simon Bennett (Graduate Member)"
>
>
> LMKWYT
>
> Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> But yes, I do think LEGO is more expressive than Meccano. There are more
> parts, and it can be used across a much wider range of problems. I'm biased,
> I haven't set out to *prove* it but it's what I believe to be true.
>
> Having said that, it still is more possible for the novice builder (your
> average 6 year old or 8 year old, or even 12 year old that hasn't used LEGO
> much, and thus doesn't know the idioms) to make weak structures in LEGO than
> it is in Meccano or Knex or even Znap.
Well, I had both Meccano and Lego as a kid, and I can tell you that the
Meccano didn't get a look in, past building a few things from the
instructions. I really tried, but Meccano was just so slow to construct
anything, and you couldn't really experiment with it. There was no learning
path. You either built something decent or nothing at all. There was no
playing about with simple models, then going on to more complex or stronger
structures, which is what you need for an educational system.
I know that K'nex is used in some schools, because it's cheaper and easier
to give a classful of kids a decent amount. But, as far as I know, this is
only in primary schools (in the 5-8 year old classes), as it doesn't get
very advanced.
At my secondary school for one week the entire school worked on industrial
projects (in groups made up of 12-16 year olds, with the sixth formers
acting as consultants, banks, etc), and a lot of Lego was used for making
model machinery - worm-gear driven sluice gates, lifts etc. Kids were
actually building and refining these themselves, not from plans.
As I said in loc.uk, Meccano might be good for a _demonstration_. But, the
days of teaching kids by pointing to a dusty piece of demonstration
equipment and telling them what to write about it are long gone.
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Jennifer Clark writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student
> > isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using tall
> > columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't
> > demonstrate mechanical principles.
>
> I sortof see this and sortof don't. If they are talking specifically about civil
> engineering then fair enough,
I sit firmly in the 'sort of don't' camp. I'm going to do a little more
work on this tonight, particularly in terms of the ways in which Meccano
models civils better than Lego (in my opinion none).
> and I suppose the fact that you can "legally" bend
> meccano parts
One of the reasons why I never liked Meccano as a child. I saw too many
friends sets with plates bent all over the place (I don't mind altering lego
parts but now I know where to get replacements, I didn't know that of
Meccano when I was small). Plus with the plates being metal I knew they
would eventually break from fatigue cracking.
> in ways not really possible with Lego could be relevant, but one
> of the reasons I always preferred Technic over Meccano (aside from the fact I
> never had Meccano) was that Technic seemed to offer far more possibilities when
> it came to making mechanisms and vehicles.
>
> Why this should be I have no idea, and I certainly haven't explored Meccano to
> any great extent, but things usually looked a bit clunky in it and for some
> reason it seemed less flexible (in terms of what you could do) than Lego. I
> could make all sorts of grotesque contraptions with huge gear trains and
> whatnots far easier with Lego, and perhaps even more importantly do it more
> quickly; things click and pop together rather than needing to be bolted on.
Very important in an educational environment.
>
> I am almost certainly biased in this (maybe my brain is just geared towards Lego
> far more than Meccano), but with all of the great Technic works on the Internet,
> for someone to dismiss it as being useless at demonstrating mechanics shows they
> haven't done their research well enough :-)
Absolutely. I agree with Jason, that this chap can't have ever seen Technic
and certainly not Dacta.
I'm going to post a draft reply letter and the URL's of some pics to back up
our case.
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> Absolutely. I agree with Jason, that this chap can't have ever seen Technic
> and certainly not Dacta.
>
> I'm going to post a draft reply letter and the URL's of some pics to back up
> our case.
I think that would be great!!!
Like I said, if you can dig out that reference to the fellow from MIT (I
think his first name is Fred) and his work on idioms, that would make it
even better... I am so bumming that I can't find it. It's not on the technic
front page and it's not in this list either:
http://www.lugnet.com/links/
but it's awesome. Help??? Anyone remember what I am talking about?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Like I said, if you can dig out that reference to the fellow from MIT (I
> think his first name is Fred) and his work on idioms, that would make it
> even better...
I think this is it:
ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf
Jennifer
http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jennifer Clark wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > Like I said, if you can dig out that reference to the fellow from MIT (I
> > think his first name is Fred) and his work on idioms, that would make it
> > even better...
>
> I think this is it:
>
> ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf
That's a cool article. Even if it is from 1995. It is really relevant.
Each point is illustrated with a picture.
Gael
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I feel compelled to add;
When I was a Meccanno fan, some years ago now, and the proud owner
of a Set 10, complete with drawer cabinet, Lego hadn't invented gear wheels
yet. Because we had Lego too, and it was the construction toy of choice
for buildings, but not mechanical devices, I was biased toward Meccanno
and metal for mechanical designs.
I think that, at some time in the more recent past, Lego has truely become
the dominant technical construction toy followed by the somewhat oddly
scaled fischertechnik stuff.
But, most times I visit the UK and am in the area, I usually drop in on that
little Meccanno store in Henley just to see what's new.
JB
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student
> > isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using • tall
> > columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't
> > demonstrate mechanical principles.
>
> I sortof see this and sortof don't. If they are talking specifically about
> civil
> engineering then fair enough, and I suppose the fact that you can
> "legally" bend
> meccano parts in ways not really possible with Lego could be relevant, but one
> of the reasons I always preferred Technic over Meccano (aside from the fact I
> never had Meccano) was that Technic seemed to offer far more possibilities
> when
> it came to making mechanisms and vehicles.
>
> Why this should be I have no idea, and I certainly haven't explored Meccano to
> any great extent, but things usually looked a bit clunky in it and for some
> reason it seemed less flexible (in terms of what you could do) than Lego. I
> could make all sorts of grotesque contraptions with huge gear trains and
> whatnots far easier with Lego, and perhaps even more importantly do it more
> quickly; things click and pop together rather than needing to be bolted on.
>
> I am almost certainly biased in this (maybe my brain is just geared
> towards Lego
> far more than Meccano), but with all of the great Technic works on the
> Internet,
> for someone to dismiss it as being useless at demonstrating mechanics
> shows they
> haven't done their research well enough :-)
>
> Jennifer
> http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Barnes wrote:
> I think that, at some time in the more recent past, Lego has truely become
> the dominant technical construction toy followed by the somewhat oddly
> scaled fischertechnik stuff.
I remember years ago a friend of mine having this; if I remember correctly it was
a bit odd, with flexible tubes that kindof slotted into other pieces. It seemed ok
but somewhat limited in what you could do with it. I had no idea it was still in
common use!
Jennifer
http://www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
What a petty, hasn't meccano gone bust.
on another point My fiancee who is a civil engineer is always nicking my
lego to use as illustrations for construction techniques
James
"Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GFuA4J.Bs0@lugnet.com...
> Dear All
>
> There was a letter in last week's New Civil Engineer which I shall • reproduce
> for you:
>
> "I support the suggestion made by your correspondent (nCE 7 June) that
> Meccano be adopted by schools to assist in the study of construction.
> Unfortunately it is my experience that teachers expect children to • construct
> things using Lego, which although it has some merits, is absolutely • hopeless
> for modelling structures or demonstrating mechanics."
>
> The writer provided his address so after a few hours to calm down I • thought
> we might like to respond to this.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
> Dear All
>
> There was a letter in last week's New Civil Engineer which I shall reproduce
> for you:
>
> "I support the suggestion made by your correspondent (nCE 7 June) that
> Meccano be adopted by schools to assist in the study of construction.
> Unfortunately it is my experience that teachers expect children to construct
> things using Lego, which although it has some merits, is absolutely hopeless
> for modelling structures or demonstrating mechanics."
>
> The writer provided his address so after a few hours to calm down I thought
> we might like to respond to this.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Psi
I think it's probably been written by someone who missed out on the whole
Technic line by being quite old and narrow-minded. Since when did Meccano
have a helicopter swashplate on their parts inventory? And can you build
epicyclic gearboxes out of Meccano?
Having said that, maybe Meccano is better for mechanical demonstrations,
since it's a lot sturdier. But, it takes so much meticulous planning to
build anything decent. For kids to learn and build for themselves, Lego
wins hands down.
You see, the other thing this misses out on is that education is no longer
about the teacher demonstrating and the kids writing down what happened.
It's about letting the kids experiment too - and not pre-defined experiments
with copyable results either.
Try setting a challenge to build a wall, that's going to be hit by a
mechanical wrecking ball. Give kids a few tries with Lego and see how many
reinforcement methods they can come up with. Then try doing that exercise
with Meccano...
Jason J Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Simon Bennett wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> There was a letter in last week's New Civil Engineer which I shall reproduce
> for you:
>
> "I support the suggestion made by your correspondent (nCE 7 June) that
> Meccano be adopted by schools to assist in the study of construction.
> Unfortunately it is my experience that teachers expect children to construct
> things using Lego, which although it has some merits, is absolutely hopeless
> for modelling structures or demonstrating mechanics."
>
> The writer provided his address so after a few hours to calm down I thought
> we might like to respond to this.
>
> What do you think?
My wife used to work for the American Society of Civil Engineers and to
the best of my recollection, that organization is really into using KNEX
for educational purposes. She did bring in LEGO for a 'play' area for a
bring your kid to work day and it was a pretty good success. I can ask
her more about the org's construction toy position if anyone is
interested.
-chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Christopher Tracey writes:
>
> My wife used to work for the American Society of Civil Engineers and to
> the best of my recollection, that organization is really into using KNEX
> for educational purposes. She did bring in LEGO for a 'play' area for a
> bring your kid to work day and it was a pretty good success. I can ask
> her more about the org's construction toy position if anyone is
> interested.
>
> -chris
If only the Institution of Civil Engineers had a 'construction toy
position'! In my opinion they do not do enough to promote civils amoing
schoolchildren and when they do (usually at the 14-16 level) they tend to
use spaghetti or straws for construction challenges. I guess because
they're cheaper. I would prefer it if they used toys that children recognised.
I am definitely interested in what the ASCE thinks.
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
During my first year of Civil Engineering, we had a project of building a
model bridge using paddlepop sticks (Australian term), i'm not sure what
they're called around the world, but their the wooden sticks you get with
ice creams bought in packets.
Although I see merits in using Technic beams and joints as real life
construction models, the problem with these are that they don't represent
true life strenght of materials for weight etc.. Well unless you can afford
to build life size items with ABS plastic ;)
Now that I'm working on construction project, I use Lego for fun only, the
real things are no way near as fun although just as interesting.
Cheers
Santosh
In lugnet.mediawatch, Simon Bennett writes:
> In lugnet.loc.uk, Christopher Tracey writes:
> >
> > My wife used to work for the American Society of Civil Engineers and to
> > the best of my recollection, that organization is really into using KNEX
> > for educational purposes. She did bring in LEGO for a 'play' area for a
> > bring your kid to work day and it was a pretty good success. I can ask
> > her more about the org's construction toy position if anyone is
> > interested.
> >
> > -chris
>
> If only the Institution of Civil Engineers had a 'construction toy
> position'! In my opinion they do not do enough to promote civils amoing
> schoolchildren and when they do (usually at the 14-16 level) they tend to
> use spaghetti or straws for construction challenges. I guess because
> they're cheaper. I would prefer it if they used toys that children recognised.
>
> I am definitely interested in what the ASCE thinks.
>
> Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Santosh Bhat writes:
> During my first year of Civil Engineering, we had a project of building a
> model bridge using paddlepop sticks (Australian term), i'm not sure what
> they're called around the world, but their the wooden sticks you get with
> ice creams bought in packets.
In the US we commonly call them Popsicle sticks, but that's actually a case
of trademark dilution, as Popsicle is a trademark for a brand of "paddle
pops". I think there is a generic name but I forget what it is. Note that
these sticks are narrower than tongue depressors which you also can get for
use in projects...
> Although I see merits in using Technic beams and joints as real life
> construction models, the problem with these are that they don't represent
> true life strenght of materials for weight etc.. Well unless you can afford
> to build life size items with ABS plastic ;)
Are you saying that real materials are stronger per unit of mass or weaker??
I sort of would have expected steel to be stronger!
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> of trademark dilution, as Popsicle is a trademark for a brand of "paddle
> pops". I think there is a generic name but I forget what it is. Note that
Paddle pop is accually the brand name of a particular type of icecream.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Santosh Bhat writes:
> > During my first year of Civil Engineering, we had a project of building a
> > model bridge using paddlepop sticks (Australian term), i'm not sure what
> > they're called around the world, but their the wooden sticks you get with
> > ice creams bought in packets.
>
> In the US we commonly call them Popsicle sticks, but that's actually a case
> of trademark dilution, as Popsicle is a trademark for a brand of "paddle
> pops". I think there is a generic name but I forget what it is. Note that
> these sticks are narrower than tongue depressors which you also can get for
> use in projects...
Paddle Pop is also a particular Brand as Jonathan has pointed out. I'm not
really sure what a generic term would be? I know other guys have had to
build bridges using balsa wood. The spaghetti usage must only happen at a
lower primary school lelvel, though I never had the pleasure of that..
> > Although I see merits in using Technic beams and joints as real life
> > construction models, the problem with these are that they don't represent
> > true life strenght of materials for weight etc.. Well unless you can afford
> > to build life size items with ABS plastic ;)
>
> Are you saying that real materials are stronger per unit of mass or weaker??
> I sort of would have expected steel to be stronger!
Per unit of mass perhaps. A beam made of ABS plastic would be a lot lighter
than a similar sized beam of steel. AS for which would be stronger, I'm not
really sure. I suppose that Steel would indeed be stronger. Whats cheaper?
thats pretty obvious that one..besides I don't know if Billund has the moulds.
Santosh
And I'm sure if the moulds did exist, the parts would never be available
here. (Sorry just had to put in the whinge for consistency) ;)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Santosh Bhat writes:
> And I'm sure if the moulds did exist, the parts would never be available
> here. (Sorry just had to put in the whinge for consistency) ;)
LLC and LLW have some very large scale Technic parts, but I think they're
made of fiberglass rather than ABS, and no doubt have steel armatures.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
> Dear All
>
> There was a letter in last week's New Civil Engineer which I shall reproduce
> for you:
>
> "I support the suggestion made by your correspondent (nCE 7 June) that
> Meccano be adopted by schools to assist in the study of construction.
> Unfortunately it is my experience that teachers expect children to construct
> things using Lego, which although it has some merits, is absolutely hopeless
> for modelling structures or demonstrating mechanics."
>
> The writer provided his address so after a few hours to calm down I thought
> we might like to respond to this.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Psi
I think he's right.
I have a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering, and took many courses in
engineering mechanics. The simplifications used in engineering mechanies are
better modeled by Meccano (or Erector sets) than in Lego. Techniq is better
than the bricks, but still not as good.
Some of the simplifications are used to avoid nondeterminate equations (ie.
four equations and six variables). One example is that many joints are
considered to be only constrained vertically and horizontally, not
rotationally. If you were to model a truss with four elements meeting (which
is most of the truss), you would have to use an axle in Techniq and end up
with a four wide section, it's much easier to model in Meccano. Plus, if
your axle went through a cross shaped hole, you have a resistance to any
torque and your equations would be much harder.
Another simplification is that only one end of structure is fixed, the other
is free to move back and forth (again, this simplifies the equations
immensely without much of a change in the answer). With bricks, you'd need
tiles to properly model that.
Another simplification is that materials are rigid and do not deform.
Deformations change your structure and make your equations much more
difficult. Again, Meccano should be better than ABS here.
Finally, Techniq is too limiting geometrically. There are configurations
that are hard to pull off (ie. a seven cylinger rotary airplane engine) in
TEchniq that can be more easily modeled in Meccano.
Hope this clarifies things,
George
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, George Haberberger writes:
>
> I think he's right.
>
> I have a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering, and took many courses in
> engineering mechanics. The simplifications used in engineering mechanies are
> better modeled by Meccano (or Erector sets) than in Lego. Techniq is better
> than the bricks, but still not as good.
>
> Some of the simplifications are used to avoid nondeterminate equations (ie.
> four equations and six variables). One example is that many joints are
> considered to be only constrained vertically and horizontally, not
> rotationally. If you were to model a truss with four elements meeting (which
> is most of the truss), you would have to use an axle in Techniq and end up
> with a four wide section, it's much easier to model in Meccano. Plus, if
> your axle went through a cross shaped hole, you have a resistance to any
> torque and your equations would be much harder.
>
> Another simplification is that only one end of structure is fixed, the other
> is free to move back and forth (again, this simplifies the equations
> immensely without much of a change in the answer). With bricks, you'd need
> tiles to properly model that.
>
> Another simplification is that materials are rigid and do not deform.
> Deformations change your structure and make your equations much more
> difficult. Again, Meccano should be better than ABS here.
>
> Finally, Techniq is too limiting geometrically. There are configurations
> that are hard to pull off (ie. a seven cylinger rotary airplane engine) in
> TEchniq that can be more easily modeled in Meccano.
>
> Hope this clarifies things,
>
> George
Thanks George,
I agree with much of this and am glad someone has taken the opposite view.
BUT...
From the context of the original letter I think the author is referring to
education well below undergraduate level where analysis will not be used in
such depth and the issues of fixity are therefore not relevant. I agree
with what Jason Railton said in his post about the way in which children are
taught and I still believe Lego is better for this application.
Do you think I ought not to send the letter or do you have any changes you
would suggest?
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
> Thanks George,
>
> I agree with much of this and am glad someone has taken the opposite view.
> BUT...
>
> From the context of the original letter I think the author is referring to
> education well below undergraduate level where analysis will not be used in
> such depth and the issues of fixity are therefore not relevant. I agree
> with what Jason Railton said in his post about the way in which children are
> taught and I still believe Lego is better for this application.
>
> Do you think I ought not to send the letter or do you have any changes you
> would suggest?
>
> Psi
Reading your letter, I think you should send it, my remarks are better
suited for an undergraduate class, or perhaps a high level high school class.
I don't have any Civil Engineering background (other than that which would
have been common to my degree) but I'm still not totally sold on bricks for
modeling construction. Techniq would work very well for kids for modelling
mechanics, and the gears should work very well, too.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, George Haberberger writes:
> Reading your letter, I think you should send it, my remarks are better
> suited for an undergraduate class, or perhaps a high level high school class.
>
> I don't have any Civil Engineering background (other than that which would
> have been common to my degree) but I'm still not totally sold on bricks for
> modeling construction. Techniq would work very well for kids for modelling
> mechanics, and the gears should work very well, too.
I have now sent the letter. I didn't change it that much and it's still
very long but I wanted to get it out there before I got cold feet about
sending it at all!
The text was:
"Dear Sir
I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Christopher Ward’s letter
(NCE 28 June) and his comments regarding the relative merits of Meccano and
Lego. I can only assume that Mr Ward is unaware of the elements available
in Lego’s Technic and Dacta product lines, particularly the Technic beam and
connector pin or axle system which enables large trusses to be built very
quickly. A full reference guide to the elements available in Technic can be
found at Jim Hughes’ excellent website Technica
http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/technica.html
I am a member of the online Lego community Lugnet (www.lugnet.com). Mr
Ward’s letter has led to some interesting discussions among the world’s Lego
enthusiasts (which you can read starting here:
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/uk/?n=6806 ) and we would like to offer some
examples of the functionality of Lego.
I am unsure whether Mr Ward was advocating Meccano as a structural or a
mechanical engineering modelling tool so I’ll address the Civils issues
first. I was taught that there are four main materials used in
construction: Timber, Concrete, Masonry and Steel. Clearly neither system
would be good for modelling timber construction, concrete is similarly
beyond either. Lego is far better at masonry because its basic elements are
bricks and I would strongly contend that there is little to choose between
the two as far as modelling steel construction is concerned. Pictures of
Lego structures which demonstrate this can be found at
www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch bridge) and
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/creations/bridge_straight/
(Thomas Avery’s bridges).
As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
(www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
(www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
Lego also has an educational theme called Dacta, which is only available to
educational establishments (though if anyone is interested it can be bought
at Legoland or by mail order from www.pitsco-legodacta.com). Dacta includes
solar cells, capacitors and other electronic and mechanical parts along with
teaching guides and other support to use Lego in the classroom. I do not
believe anything so comprehensive has ever been provided by Meccano.
In an educational environment Lego has distinct advantages, firstly and most
importantly it is quick to put together and take apart and secondly it is
easier for a child to pick up the idioms necessary for successful
construction. (Professor Fred Martin of MIT has written a useful guide which
explains these: ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf).
For these reasons I feel that Lego is a better educational tool than Meccano.
To summarise I am a Civil Engineer in large measure thanks to Lego and I
cannot allow such a slight to the Toy of the 20th Century to go unchallenged.
Simon Bennett (G)"
I hope that it reflects most people's comments and you are all happy with it.
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
<snip>
> I have now sent the letter. I didn't change it that much and it's still
> very long but I wanted to get it out there before I got cold feet about
> sending it at all!
<snip>
You rock. Very nicely done. I think I speak for a number of people when I
say "thanks for doing this, well done!"
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> You rock. Very nicely done. I think I speak for a number of people when I
> say "thanks for doing this, well done!"
>
> ++Lar
Cheers Larry, I've got a nice warm Lugnetty 'included' feeling now! All we
have to do now is just sit back and watch New Civil Engineer not publish it!
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Jul 2001 03:44:07 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.STOPSPAMnet>
|
Reply-To:
|
sjbaker1@airmail*ihatespam*.net
|
Viewed:
|
1475 times
|
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I have now sent the letter. I didn't change it that much and it's still
> > very long but I wanted to get it out there before I got cold feet about
> > sending it at all!
>
> <snip>
>
> You rock. Very nicely done. I think I speak for a number of people when I
> say "thanks for doing this, well done!"
Yes - nicely said.
One difference that *is* significant from an educational standpoint (IMHO)
is the use of tools. Meccano really does require you to use a screwdriver
and spanner (aka wrench)...where Lego doesn't really require tools at all
(except maybe the brick separator). You might regard that as an advantage
*or* a disadvantage from an educational standpoint...I'm not sure which!
However, the way Lego eases a child gently through the 'stacking blocks'
phase through Duplo, Lego *bricks*, Technics and ultimately, Mindstorms is
unrivalled. There is no other system that can span from 1yr old to 99yrs+
with a single set of compatible components.
My kid was raised on Lego *and* Meccano *and* Lincoln Logs *and* Knex
*and* Construx *and* Girder-and-Panel *and* balsa-wood+glue *and* Anatomics
(you build dinosaur skeletons from a bunch of 'bones' that snap together
using ball-and-socket joints) *and* Wizzard Wandz *and* <some German system
that lets you build full-sized climbing frames from two foot long sections
of plastic pipework - and comes with a 1/10th scale version of all the parts
so you can plan your work on a more reasonable scale!>.
There have been *many* others.
At age 10, he is just starting in on pressure-treated-lumber-and-coach-bolts,
Linux, C++ programming and my wife's 1972 VW bug!
Lego is undoubtedly the most enduring and most flexible of those systems
- but they all have their place and to pick a *single* building system
for your kids would be to miss out on a wide range of experiences.
----------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------------
HomeMail : <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkMail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net
http://agtoys.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Steve wrote:
> My kid was raised on Lego *and* Meccano *and* Lincoln Logs *and* Knex
> *and* Construx *and* Girder-and-Panel *and* balsa-wood+glue *and*
> Anatomics
> (you build dinosaur skeletons from a bunch of 'bones' that snap together
> using ball-and-socket joints) *and* Wizzard Wandz *and* <some
> German system
> that lets you build full-sized climbing frames from two foot long sections
> of plastic pipework - and comes with a 1/10th scale version of
> all the parts
> so you can plan your work on a more reasonable scale!>.
>
> There have been *many* others.
>
> At age 10, he is just starting in on
> pressure-treated-lumber-and-coach-bolts,
> Linux, C++ programming and my wife's 1972 VW bug!
Ummm, can you adopt older (39 yrs) kids like myself? :-)
Cheers, Ralph
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
> In lugnet.loc.uk, George Haberberger writes:
> > Reading your letter, I think you should send it, my remarks are better
> > suited for an undergraduate class, or perhaps a high level high school class.
> >
> > I don't have any Civil Engineering background (other than that which would
> > have been common to my degree) but I'm still not totally sold on bricks for
> > modeling construction. Techniq would work very well for kids for modelling
> > mechanics, and the gears should work very well, too.
>
> I have now sent the letter. I didn't change it that much and it's still
> very long but I wanted to get it out there before I got cold feet about
> sending it at all!
>
> The text was:
[text snipped]
> I hope that it reflects most people's comments and you are all happy with it.
Well, I didn't comment yet in this thread, because I'm not an engineer or a
teacher (though I did start in engineering at uni), and I hadn't really thought
much about it. I did have one small Meccano set when I was a kid, but it didn't
take me long to lose all those darn nuts & bolts, so I never really did
anything with it.
But having read your letter, I think it does a pretty good comparison. I
wonder, though how "juniorisation" is going to affect that comparison, and what
(if anything) Meccano is planning in the way of new directions? Best keep on
your toes, TLC!!!
(Oh, and it's pretty cool to get a mention in such an auspicious letter,
thanks!)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Ross Crawford writes:
> Well, I didn't comment yet in this thread, because I'm not an engineer or a
> teacher (though I did start in engineering at uni), and I hadn't really thought
> much about it. I did have one small Meccano set when I was a kid, but it didn't
> take me long to lose all those darn nuts & bolts, so I never really did
> anything with it.
>
> But having read your letter, I think it does a pretty good comparison. I
> wonder, though how "juniorisation" is going to affect that comparison, and what
> (if anything) Meccano is planning in the way of new directions? Best keep on
> your toes, TLC!!!
>
> (Oh, and it's pretty cool to get a mention in such an auspicious letter,
> thanks!)
>
> ROSCO
Crikey ROSCO, all I did was write a letter, you built the bridge!
Psi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:GG1utI.nE@lugnet.com...
> [...]
> I wonder, though how "juniorisation" is going to affect that comparison, and • what
> (if anything) Meccano is planning in the way of new directions?
Meccano is also juniorizing, and putting out more "models" and less basic
sets.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Simon Bennett writes:
> I have now sent the letter. I didn't change it that much and it's still
> very long but I wanted to get it out there before I got cold feet about
> sending it at all!
That's great, Simon! I hope all of our comments and input were constructive
enough. Your final revision of the letter was not too long, hit some very
important points, and certainly made a good argument that Lego is a better
"building system".
It's now up to the reader to take advantage of the information presented in
the letter and really learn what Lego is about.
Let us know what happens and if you get any response.
thanks,
T. J.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.uk, George Haberberger writes:
> Some of the simplifications are used to avoid nondeterminate equations (ie.
> four equations and six variables). One example is that many joints are
> considered to be only constrained vertically and horizontally, not
> rotationally. If you were to model a truss with four elements meeting (which
> is most of the truss), you would have to use an axle in Techniq and end up
> with a four wide section, it's much easier to model in Meccano.
True, you do end up with a 4-wide eccentric connection. However, gusset
plates can be used instead of trying to line up 4 members on a common pin.
This can be accomplished by using extra beams or other members at the joint.
You may not end up with a perfectly non-eccentric joint, but you certainly
can reduce the width.
> Plus, if
> your axle went through a cross shaped hole, you have a resistance to any
> torque and your equations would be much harder.
Nothing can model a frictionless pin, despite the assumption made for a
truss. And besides, making trusses with real pinned connections is rarely
done anymore. Most of the members are "I" or box sections connected with
gusset plates. The connection is fixed, each member is rigidly fixed to
another. If tubes are used, they are all coped and then welded together.
> Another simplification is that only one end of structure is fixed, the other
> is free to move back and forth (again, this simplifies the equations
> immensely without much of a change in the answer). With bricks, you'd need
> tiles to properly model that.
And Lego offers tiles, many tiles.
> Another simplification is that materials are rigid and do not deform.
> Deformations change your structure and make your equations much more
> difficult.
Only if the deformations significantly alter the geometry of the structure.
Most elastic deformations are small and are neglected in any calculations.
If you want your structure to survive and not destroy the "building system"
you've invested in, you'd better not overload it.
> Again, Meccano should be better than ABS here.
Well, if you're going to build something and perform calculations to model
your models reactions, then steel or aluminum parts would be better. ABS is
a non-isotropic material. It has a different modulus of elasticity in
different directions. The modulus of elasticiy, E, of ABS in flexure is 2.07
GPa, and the E in tension is 190 GPa (Ref. Machinery's Handbook, 25th Edt.).
Your calcuations assume that the material is isotropic (i.e. it behaves the
same way in all directions- the modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio
are constant). Although steel and aluminum can sometimes be non-isotropic,
it is safe to assume they are isotropic (at least for simple calculations).
> Finally, Techniq is too limiting geometrically. There are configurations
> that are hard to pull off (ie. a seven cylinger rotary airplane engine) in
> TEchniq that can be more easily modeled in Meccano.
I agree. However, you really have to sit and think about this one. I'm sure
there are many things Meccano can do that Lego can't. However, I have an
idea that there are many more things that Lego can do that Meccano can't
(pneumatics, robotics, sophisticated electronics, etc.).
> Hope this clarifies things,
To ultimatly decide which system is best, you have to really consider the
purpose of having a "building system" in the first place:
1. Do you want something that is quick and easy to use, that will be able to
demonstrate a wide range of mechanical, structural, and electrical systems?
2. Do you want a realistic system capable of providing engineers with
materials identical to real-life situations and to perform calculations in
conjunction with experiment?
If you desire the first, then Lego is the choice. I think it has an
excellent selection of parts that can be used to model just about anything.
It's a convenient and easy to use system that requires no tools for assembly
and disassembly.
If the second is desired, I think you'd be better off with a home-build
system (i.e. stock up on plate, angles, tees, channels, tubes, etc. as well
as bolts and welding equipment; don't forget all the tools required for
assembly). In order to model more "mechanical" systems, you'll have to
purchase hydraulic and electronic components that can be very expensive
(relative to Lego).
To sum this up, the perfect building system would be just a scaled-down
version of the real thing. An ideal building system capable of demonstrating
real-life systems would be one that is easily obtainable, is relatively
inexpensive, provided a good inventory of parts, and could be used with
little effort. I think Lego fits the "ideal system".
T. J.
| | | | | | |
