 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
