 | | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001) —John Koob
|
| | | John Koob wrote in message ... (...) Clarification - 30" is a bit short, but 60" is too long. How long is the low table? Could we go for something like a 45" bridge and have some box/wood constructed to raise the apparent height of part of the low (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| | | |
| | | | | RE: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001) —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) We can vary the height on more than one table, that's no problem; all it takes is more legs. If we drop two tables, we can fill in some terrain on each side of the lowered area with brick to make it look more "natural", which would give us (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001) —Steve Chapple
|
| | | | (...) What low table are you refering to? (...) Ummm - That's what I'm suggesting. (My bridge is _exactly_ 45" in fact.) By lowering "the table" 16 bricks, the bridge deck and track would be level with the other tables, as Kevin pointed out quite (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001) —Michel Magnan
|
| | | | The low table I made last year is one of the small 30.5x30.5 inch guys, it is more like a canyon, with vertical walls on three sides and open on only one side. The walls are there to attach to the adjacent tables with the usual bolt holes. I think (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| | | | |
