Subject:
|
Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:27:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1285 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
| | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| In lugnet.technic, Alex Farlie writes: (snip!) (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| 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. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
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
|
|
|
|
