| |
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | New Civil Engineer letter
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.mediawatch) !
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
