 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hey all.
The lightest lego part (of the candidates mentioned) is:
a gold coin = 0.05602 g
This measure was performed on a Mettler AE240 analytical balance. I
didn't correct for fingerprints or dust so these measures might be a
little off, but most of the pieces were new or slightly used. The coin
was new and broken off the sprue minutes before weighing.
Some other weights for your reference.
flower petal = 0.06392 g
small antenna = 0.05744 g
1x1 plate = 0.17583 g
1x1 round plate = 0.10436 g
1x8 brick = 3.06061 g
1x8 technic brk = 2.89084 g
I included the 1x8 technic and regular bricks because there was a thread
a while back about which is lighter- a technic brick or a regular
brick. I think it was about three to six months ago.
Here's a pic of the weighing process:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=40996
enjoy.
-chris
Jon Kozan wrote:
>
> If anyone has access to a laboratory quality balance (scale), could you
> determine how much the smallest LEGO part weighs?
>
> Probably a "Control Lever"
> http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=4593
>
> Qualifies as the smallest / lightest part...
>
> Unless anyone has a different candidate??
>
> Thanks,
> -Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Very cool. I've often thought that the small plume that attaches to a knight's helmet might be the lightest element. Any chance you
could weigh one of those?
- Cary
"Christopher Tracey" <ctracey@enviroweb.org> wrote in message news:3AD3A52C.1900D09@enviroweb.org...
Hey all.
The lightest lego part (of the candidates mentioned) is:
a gold coin = 0.05602 g
This measure was performed on a Mettler AE240 analytical balance. I
didn't correct for fingerprints or dust so these measures might be a
little off, but most of the pieces were new or slightly used. The coin
was new and broken off the sprue minutes before weighing.
Some other weights for your reference.
flower petal = 0.06392 g
small antenna = 0.05744 g
1x1 plate = 0.17583 g
1x1 round plate = 0.10436 g
1x8 brick = 3.06061 g
1x8 technic brk = 2.89084 g
I included the 1x8 technic and regular bricks because there was a thread
a while back about which is lighter- a technic brick or a regular
brick. I think it was about three to six months ago.
Here's a pic of the weighing process:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=40996
enjoy.
-chris
Jon Kozan wrote:
>
> If anyone has access to a laboratory quality balance (scale), could you
> determine how much the smallest LEGO part weighs?
>
> Probably a "Control Lever"
> http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=4593
>
> Qualifies as the smallest / lightest part...
>
> Unless anyone has a different candidate??
>
> Thanks,
> -Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, Cary Clark writes:
> Very cool. I've often thought that the small plume that attaches to a knight's helmet might be the lightest element. Any chance you
> could weigh one of those?
Yeah, there are a couple other pretty small parts that might contest
(Although my guess is still the coin):
- small knight's plume
- small knight's side plume (dragon wing r/l)
- minifig hand
- minifig 'hook' hand
- white rubber band
- universal joint center (part 91: http://img.lugnet.com/ld/7/91.gif )
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
David Eaton wrote:
>
> In lugnet.market.shipping, Cary Clark writes:
> > Very cool. I've often thought that the small plume that attaches to a knight's helmet might be the lightest element. Any chance you
> > could weigh one of those?
>
> Yeah, there are a couple other pretty small parts that might contest
> (Although my guess is still the coin):
> - small knight's plume
> - small knight's side plume (dragon wing r/l)
> - minifig hand
> - minifig 'hook' hand
> - white rubber band
> - universal joint center (part 91: http://img.lugnet.com/ld/7/91.gif )
I have all these parts except (maybe) the side plume. I'll weigh them
next time I know no one is going to be in the lab. I'm also interested
in seeing the relationship between brick size and mass (i.e. is it a
linear relationship?).
-chris
ps. i just had a funny idea for a website where you could enter your
piece inventories and the it will calculate the weight of your
collection. I'm not sure what use that will serve. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> ps. i just had a funny idea for a website where you could enter your
> piece inventories and the it will calculate the weight of your
> collection. I'm not sure what use that will serve. :)
If you had the weights of all the elements, it would be useful to someplace
like Brickbay, where it could be used to automatically calculate shipping
charges based on weight.
(not that i'm suggesting that you weigh out all the pieces or anything.....)
Troy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.market.shipping, Troy Cefaratti writes:
> > ps. i just had a funny idea for a website where you could enter your
> > piece inventories and the it will calculate the weight of your
> > collection. I'm not sure what use that will serve. :)
>
> If you had the weights of all the elements, it would be useful to someplace
> like Brickbay, where it could be used to automatically calculate shipping
> charges based on weight.
>
> (not that i'm suggesting that you weigh out all the pieces or anything.....)
Hmm... what would it take?
Assume that ABS plastic's volume relates directly to its weight-- and then
all you need to do is calculate volume using Ldraw parts. So weigh something
like a 2x10, a 2x4, a 1x1, and a few odds and ends... then check to see how
closely related the volume is to the mass-- and once you get a fairly stable
constant comparing volume to mass (well, ok, weight) then you could calcuate
stuff pretty easily, I assume...
And assuming that you feed in things like part inventories to calculate
their wieght as a set, then check the piece counts, you could probably get
some "average pieces by weight" measurements so you could get a better
estimate at how many pieces were in "11 lbs of Lego" or whatnot that you see
on ebay occasionally...
Just a thought...
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, Troy Cefaratti writes:
> > ps. i just had a funny idea for a website where you could enter your
> > piece inventories and the it will calculate the weight of your
> > collection. I'm not sure what use that will serve. :)
>
> If you had the weights of all the elements, it would be useful to someplace
> like Brickbay, where it could be used to automatically calculate shipping
> charges based on weight.
An interesting thought... variables would be opaque vs translucent ABS (TLC
appears to use different molds, so there may be differences in thickness), parts
per baggie, etc. Also, raw volumetric calculations might give a hint to what
size box would be required. The box size in turn, would yield a rough box
weight. Fascinating stuff for automation. ;)
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.market.shipping, Troy Cefaratti writes:
>
> If you had the weights of all the elements, it would be useful to someplace
> like Brickbay, where it could be used to automatically calculate shipping
> charges based on weight.
I'm not so sure that would be helpful..., well, at least not in
many cases. I ship MISB sets out of BrickBay, and I have never
once paid for shipping charges based on weight---it's always gone
by volume. LEGO packaging has just too much air in it, so it is
ridiculously light for its weight. The shipping companies don't
want their cargo space filled up with huge boxes with "nothing
in them", so they charge you based on volume. It is not uncommon
for me to ship a package weighing under 2 kg and be charged as if
it weighed over 6 kg!
The folks shipping pieces might have better luck applying this.
But even if they left out all of the protective packaging, I
still suspect that the air inside and around the pieces themselves
would throw the usefulness of piece weights out the window.
Now something I could find useful would be a database that says
the size of the LEGO set boxes. For the most part, there are
standard box sizes used across all the product lines. So you
could assign a letter or something to each different size box.
Then add that box size letter to the LUGNET database or something.
As I shipper I could then use the LUGNET database base to look
up the size of any (normal box-type) LEGO set. Using those
dimensions I can very quickly calculate the shipping costs.
Currently I just measure the sets, but hey, there's no cool
high tech stuff about that! ;]
Somebody could also then come along and make a geeky plot of
the increase in set volume versus per piece count over the years,
and also plot "set density per MSRP dollar" versus year. Maybe
we'll see that LEGO is shipping more air and charging us more
money for it :]
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In article <3AD45C66.53BBCA53@enviroweb.org>,
Christopher Tracey <ctracey@enviroweb.org> wrote:
> ps. i just had a funny idea for a website where you could enter your
> piece inventories and the it will calculate the weight of your
> collection. I'm not sure what use that will serve. :)
I'd rather see it work the other way around, but I can't figure out how
it'd work. :)
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, John D. Forinash writes:
> In article <3AD45C66.53BBCA53@enviroweb.org>,
> Christopher Tracey <ctracey@enviroweb.org> wrote:
> > ps. i just had a funny idea for a website where you could enter your
> > piece inventories and the it will calculate the weight of your
> > collection. I'm not sure what use that will serve. :)
>
> I'd rather see it work the other way around, but I can't figure out how
> it'd work. :)
>
> -JDF
"Let's see, you have 477 pounds of lego. Why that breaks down to 38
blacktron figs, 18 palm trees, 4,728 blue 2x4 bricks..."
that would be extremely cool, but I suspect the technology doesn't quite
exist yet. hehe.
Adrian
--
www.brickfrenzy.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general Adrian Drake <tremor@apk.net> wrote:
> "Let's see, you have 477 pounds of lego. Why that breaks down to 38
> blacktron figs, 18 palm trees, 4,728 blue 2x4 bricks..."
Reminds me of the AT&T (?) commercial from a few years back where you drive
your grocery cart through a scanner that calculates the total price. So,
maybe if each element had an embedded microchip... TLC would make a mint
selling hand scanners to garage salers. :)
Steve
--
Barb & Steve Demlow | demlow@visi.com | www.visi.com/~demlow/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.market.shipping, Cary Clark writes:
> > Very cool. I've often thought that the small plume that attaches to a knight's helmet might be the lightest element. Any chance you
> > could weigh one of those?
>
> Yeah, there are a couple other pretty small parts that might contest
> (Although my guess is still the coin):
> - small knight's plume
> - small knight's side plume (dragon wing r/l)
> - minifig hand
> - minifig 'hook' hand
> - white rubber band
> - universal joint center (part 91: http://img.lugnet.com/ld/7/91.gif )
>
> DaveE
How about the plastic banners used in the Ninja sets. Do those count as Lego
Parts ? They should be pretty light.
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, Ray Sanders writes:
> In lugnet.market.shipping, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.market.shipping, Cary Clark writes:
> > > Very cool. I've often thought that the small plume that attaches to a knight's helmet might be the lightest element. Any chance you
> > > could weigh one of those?
> >
> > Yeah, there are a couple other pretty small parts that might contest
> > (Although my guess is still the coin):
> > - small knight's plume
> > - small knight's side plume (dragon wing r/l)
> > - minifig hand
> > - minifig 'hook' hand
> > - white rubber band
> > - universal joint center (part 91: http://img.lugnet.com/ld/7/91.gif )
> >
> > DaveE
>
> How about the plastic banners used in the Ninja sets. Do those count as Lego
> Parts ? They should be pretty light.
How about Milimy's wings? They are feather light.
james
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, David Eaton writes:
> Yeah, there are a couple other pretty small parts that might contest
> (Although my guess is still the coin):
What about stickers???
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> In lugnet.market.shipping, David Eaton writes:
> > Yeah, there are a couple other pretty small parts that might contest
> > (Although my guess is still the coin):
>
> What about stickers???
I've got another potential - the tiny foam dot which is punched out of a
Scala foam sheet to make a hole to fit over the Scala foam fasteners.
The dot is just 1 or 2 mm diameter. They show pictures of different
color dots being put into foam pieces (that's how they make a pepperoni
pizza in one set for example), so it's definitely a legitimate LEGO
element. There are some pretty small stickers so they might be the
lightest element.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In article <GBLto5.JsI@lugnet.com>,
Cary Clark <cary@corp.nospamwebtv.net> wrote:
> a gold coin = 0.05602 g
> flower petal = 0.06392 g
> small antenna = 0.05744 g
> 1x1 plate = 0.17583 g
> 1x1 round plate = 0.10436 g
> 1x8 brick = 3.06061 g
> 1x8 technic brk = 2.89084 g
Hm, looking at the picture I get to wondering. These numbers are pretty
ridiculously small to even more ridiculously small precision.
Would it not be more "correct" to measure more than one at the time and
divide, perhaps then adding in an error factor based on weighing
individual pieces? Noting that the difference between the small antenna
and the gold coin is about 1 milligram, I can easily imagine a light
coin and a heavy antenna making the numbers turn out backward....
(Note: An appropriate answer is very possibly, "Yes, but I don't have
that much free time with the scale..." :) ) Or perhaps even "I don't
own the seven million antenna it would take to get a reasonable
reasonable measurement", I don't recall where you can assume
you're not just looking at statistical noise...
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
J.D. Forinash wrote:
>
> In article <GBLto5.JsI@lugnet.com>,
> Cary Clark <cary@corp.nospamwebtv.net> wrote:
> > a gold coin = 0.05602 g
> > flower petal = 0.06392 g
> > small antenna = 0.05744 g
> > 1x1 plate = 0.17583 g
> > 1x1 round plate = 0.10436 g
> > 1x8 brick = 3.06061 g
> > 1x8 technic brk = 2.89084 g
>
> Hm, looking at the picture I get to wondering. These numbers are pretty
> ridiculously small to even more ridiculously small precision.
it was also pretty ridiculous that we care about the lego in such a
geeky way. :)
> Would it not be more "correct" to measure more than one at the time and
> divide, perhaps then adding in an error factor based on weighing
> individual pieces? Noting that the difference between the small antenna
> and the gold coin is about 1 milligram, I can easily imagine a light
> coin and a heavy antenna making the numbers turn out backward....
yes. it would also be good to only use new parts and remove them from
their bag with forceps... = lots of work. this would make a god
article for the 'journal of improbable results' (1).
> (Note: An appropriate answer is very possibly, "Yes, but I don't have
> that much free time with the scale..." :) ) Or perhaps even "I don't
> own the seven million antenna it would take to get a reasonable
> reasonable measurement", I don't recall where you can assume
> you're not just looking at statistical noise...
Yes, but I don't have that much free time with the scale... :) My lab
is used by a bunch of grad students and faculty and it's occupied
ridiculously long hours of the day. I just happened to had to go back
and pick up a paper I left but I was checking email/lugnet and saw this
thread so since I was going back anyway... I figured what the heck.
This balance is also used to weigh things like ethidium bromide, a
neurotoxin used in gel electrophoresis, so I don't like to touch if if I
don't have to. All the parts I used in this test are soaking right
now. (The balance is also used to weigh seeds and plant parts)
I do have access to a balance that only has three decimal places instead
of five. Maybe I'll try what you have suggested.
-chris
1- i'm drafting this article in my spare time right now for this journal
regarding everyone's favorite wizard. it's going to be great. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In article <3AD5104B.1E5450A4@enviroweb.org>,
Christopher Tracey <ctracey@enviroweb.org> wrote:
> Yes, but I don't have that much free time with the scale... :) My lab
Heh. :)
> I do have access to a balance that only has three decimal places instead
> of five. Maybe I'll try what you have suggested.
3 should get you down into milligrams, which I suspect _ought_ to be
sufficient for any purpose legomaniacs could have. It's not like we're
trying to figure out the right number of 1x1 tiles needed to react with
five pounds of 2x4 bricks or something.
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.market.shipping, Christopher Tracey writes:
> Hey all.
> The lightest lego part (of the candidates mentioned) is:
>
> a gold coin = 0.05602 g
>
> This measure was performed on a Mettler AE240 analytical balance. I
> didn't correct for fingerprints or dust so these measures might be a
> little off, but most of the pieces were new or slightly used. The coin
> was new and broken off the sprue minutes before weighing.
>
> Some other weights for your reference.
> flower petal = 0.06392 g
> small antenna = 0.05744 g
> 1x1 plate = 0.17583 g
> 1x1 round plate = 0.10436 g
> 1x8 brick = 3.06061 g
> 1x8 technic brk = 2.89084 g
>
> I included the 1x8 technic and regular bricks because there was a thread
> a while back about which is lighter- a technic brick or a regular
> brick. I think it was about three to six months ago.
>
> Here's a pic of the weighing process:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=40996
Extremely Cool Chris. Thanks!
I wonder if different colors have different weights?
If you could weigh the standard bricks (1x1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 2x2,3,4)
Then compare, say, 2x4's of different colors, it would add to our knowledge
base...
Then Steve Bliss could add that to the Parts Reference....
But I digress...
Thanks again,
-Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jon Kozan wrote:
>
> Extremely Cool Chris. Thanks!
you're welcome!
> I wonder if different colors have different weights?
> If you could weigh the standard bricks (1x1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 2x2,3,4)
> Then compare, say, 2x4's of different colors, it would add to our knowledge
> base...
hmmm.... all i can say is the brick and the technic beam were yellow. :)
> Then Steve Bliss could add that to the Parts Reference....
>
> But I digress...
>
> Thanks again,
> -Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, Christopher Tracey writes:
>
> This measure was performed on a Mettler AE240 analytical balance. I
[snip]
> Here's a pic of the weighing process:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=40996
Hey Chris, I'm squinting at the sticker on the scale..., is
that thing past it's cal due date?? :] Those neuro-toxin
whatever measurements might be off...
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.market.shipping, Christopher Tracey writes:
> a gold coin = 0.05602 g
> flower petal = 0.06392 g
> small antenna = 0.05744 g
> 1x1 plate = 0.17583 g
> 1x1 round plate = 0.10436 g
> 1x8 brick = 3.06061 g
> 1x8 technic brk = 2.89084 g
Are there any published data on Lego weights? I remembered this thread, but
this was the *only* info I could find. Even the RTL FAQ, which goes into
excruciating detail on the dimensions of a 2x4 brick, can't be bothered to say
how much one weighs.
Given that I spent half an hour or so today trying to figure out how much Lego
I could add to a BrickLink order and stay below 0.7kg, and ended up having to
guess[1], I think there must be *some* demand for this information.[2]
TWS Garrison
[1] And I was just trying to estimate weights for common pieces. . .1x6 bricks,
6x8 plates, maybe 'figs. . .
[2] I suppose this info could be hiding in the BrickLink discussion fora, but
those are not searchable.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
TWS Garrison wrote:
>
> Are there any published data on Lego weights? I remembered this thread, but
> this was the *only* info I could find. Even the RTL FAQ, which goes into
> excruciating detail on the dimensions of a 2x4 brick, can't be bothered to say
> how much one weighs.
>
> Given that I spent half an hour or so today trying to figure out how much Lego
> I could add to a BrickLink order and stay below 0.7kg, and ended up having to
> guess[1], I think there must be *some* demand for this information.[2]
I'd be willing to weigh another round of common pieces (e.g bricks,
plates and maybe minifigs). time is the limiting factor.
-c
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hi All,
In the last months I began to weigh parts when adding to my collection.
I used a 0.1 gramms scale weighing as much elements as I found (at least 20)
and divided. Results are about 1/100 gramm but I do not promise the last
digit to be correct, but it gives a nice overview for calculating shipping
or whatever. The list can be downloaded from brickshelf (as long as it is not
deleted)
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ElLutzo/misc/teile-daten.xls
Enjoy
Lutz
| | | | | | |
