Subject:
|
Re: Erroneous Use of Technic Beams?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:04:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
735 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> Every now and then, with a large creation or something that has joints
> or limbs holding large components, somebody mentions that they use
> technic beam in lieu of regular bricks in order to reduce the overall
> weight of the supported member - the obvious assumption is that the
> technic beam, which incorporates holes, weighs less than a comparable
> brick.
This is a great thought. Now I wonder if at some point I mentioned it to you
(as part of my quest to build a gun my Fuji Power Armor could hold).
The funny thing is, as soon as you started I saw where you were going- the hole
removes but the cylinder adds- but nonetheless it's a great thing to keep in
mind. Thanks!
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Erroneous Use of Technic Beams?
|
| Erroneous Use of Technic Beams or Ode to a Technic Quandary Hi all, Every now and then, with a large creation or something that has joints or limbs holding large components, somebody mentions that they use technic beam in lieu of regular bricks in (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-01, to lugnet.build)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
