Subject:
|
Meccano vs. Lego (Re: New Civil Engineer letter)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:44:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1619 times
|
| |
|
|
I've looked through two sources of Meccano information:
the main website: http://www.meccanotoys.com/
and a parts list: http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/meccano/mecparti.html
My opinion now, after being more educated on what Meccano has to offer, is
that Lego is probably best, depending on how you intend to use it.
If a building system is needed to quickly and easly demonstrate mechanical
and structural concepts, then Lego is surely the best choice:
1. It is easy to connect and dissasemble.
2. Its basic members (i.e. Technic beam) are relatively strong by their
given shape (compared to a skinny piece of perforated metal flatbar, which
lacks significant lateral strength and therefore must be strenthened).
3. It offers a wide range of elements to realistically model many
mechanical, electrical, and structural systems.
4. It is readily avaible and even has an educational division, Dacta.
If a building system is needed to be very realistic, then I think a
"building system" must be built from scratch. Stock up on small sections of
flatbar, angles, channels, I-beams, tubes, and plate as well as bolts and
welding equipment. This home-build "system" is simply a small version of the
real thing and demonstrates exactly what an engineer will face in the real
world. And don't forget all the tools required to accomplish such construction.
I think that Meccanno fits in somewhere between the home-built solution and
Lego parts. It's not exactly the real thing, but it's not as easy to use as
Lego is.
Think of this: you're given a simple assignment to construct a model truss
to demonstrate how a truss works. Do you want to spend days cutting,
drilling, and shaping steel? Or do you want to spend an afternoon, in your
clean room, putting together a few plastic pieces with no tools required?
T. J.
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.
>
> I am a member of the online Lego community Lugnet (www.lugnet.com). Mr
> Ward’s letter has led to some interesting discussions among the world’s Lego
> enthusiasts and we would like to offer some examples of the functionality of
> Lego.
>
> 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.
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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)"
>
>
> LMKWYT
>
> Psi
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
