| | Re: Voting Page
|
|
(...) actually.. that *is* funny!.. he he heh eeh eh e heh eh e he (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
| | Re: Voting Page
|
|
(...) cinderella, cinderella, all i ever hear is cinderella... hehehhee. just kidding... FG addressed this to me personally when i presented the part... and i agree with him that this is important (especially since i was the one who started all the (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
| | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
|
onyx <onyx@flash.net> wrote in message news:FBJEHG.E04@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) Yup, undoubtedly more than my attempt at explaination. I think if you gave us correctly scaled coils at 100 LDU, 80 LDU, 60 LDU, and 50 LDU, we could use (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
| | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeff Boen writes: one last addition on this subject from me... the only drawback to my method of custom building a spring of X length, made from the existing subparts, is that no matter how "compressed" the spring was in your (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
| | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
|
(...) i'm not sure if you and steve are completely clear on what terry and i are concerned about... and even if the two of you are, i'll lay it out for everyone else that might be hazy on why this "compression" "no compression" "scaling" etc etc etc (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|