Subject:
|
Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 1999 11:06:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
654 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 May 1999 08:30:00 GMT, "Adviesbureau Noord/Zuidlijn"
<nzlijn@euronet.nl> wrote:
> -----Original message-----
> From: Terry K <legoverse@geocities.com>
> To: lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com>
> Date: maandag 10 mei 1999 4:05
> Subject: Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
>
>
> Karim wrote:
>
> > > I have a fourth idea. It's a bit difficult to explain, but I'll try to
> > > make it clear:
> > >
> > > There would be a total of 3 pieces to make up the shock:
> > >
> > > A) Shock lower w/ half of spring
> > > B) Shock upper
> > > C) Spring upper half
> > >
> > > Since the spiral is fairly constant (except for the two extreme ends)
> > > over the length of the spring, one could make a spring at any length by
> > > moving the spring halves closer together and then rotating the upper
> > > half until the spiral ends are coincident.
> > >
> > > So, the process for building a Shock of 'x' length is:
> > >
> > > 1) Place Part "A" at desired location.
> > > 2) Place Part "B" at desired location and 'x' distance from part "A".
> > > 3) Place Part "C" at correct position relative to Part "B".
> > > [at this point, the spring will look funny because the two halves will
> > > overlap and be mis-aligned in the middle of the run of the spring.]
> > > 4) Rotate Part "C" until spiral is coincident with Spring segment of
> > > Part "A".
> > >
> > > Ideally, the origin for part "C" should match that of part "B", to make
> > > insertion easier.
> > >
> > > --Karim
>
>
> Terry answered:
>
> > Leave it to Karim to be clever. :-)
> >
> > A very interesting idea. I am somewhat chagrined to have not thought of it
> > myself. The only difficulty is the precise rotation needed.
> > But I expect that the simplest way of using this assembly will be by making
> > a shock subfile for your model. Doing it that way would simplify the
> > rotational difficulties. Much easier than trying to place the pieces, at
> > angles, in a model an then trying to adjust the length and rotate the
> > spring section.
> >
> > I would like to ask Onyx (you reading this, Jeff?) if he could whip up a
> > quick sample based on this idea and we could try some tests.
>
> The idea of using a shock subfile first where the desired shock length is
> obtained and then use the subfile for easy placement en rotation, also works
> well for the 4th idea Terry mentioned. Terry wrote:
>
> > Some people may raise the question of just having one spring length, and
> > then stretching or compressing it by altering the scale of the piece along
> > one axis in the dat file.
>
> He rejected it claiming that scaling would be difficult. However, in the
> shock subfile the scaling can be done along just one axis, by changing one
> number in the line, and that is not difficult at all.
> Scaling factor = desired length / original length.
> In my opinion scaling the spring this way is easier than the positioning and
> rotating method suggested by Karim.
Another negative thing I see with this method is that the dat file _must_ be
manually edited to affect the scaling change. It can't be done from LEdit.
This is what makes it difficult - at least for the casual user.
Karim's method can be done from LEdit, although I am not sure about the
accuracy - it may be required to edit the dat file to fine tune the movement if
LEdits "fine" mode is not sufficient.
This is something that needs to be tested.
> Terry also claimed that scaling the spring part distorts the spring
> structure. I think this can be avoided if the scale-able part of the spring
> is limited to the section with equal space between the windings. The upper
> and lower ends of the spring containing the structure that must remain
> undistorted, can be added to the upper and lower pieces of the shock
> absorber.
>
> Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
I fear that doing it that way might result in some very noticeable flaws. The
upper and lower ends of the spring would be nicely proportioned, but the center
of the spring - where it was stretched or compressed - would appear odd. The
spring would no longer be round. It would appear to be oval instead.
What would the transition point between round and oval look like?
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
| (...) Why would it appear oval? The scaling would be along the Y axis. The only difference in appearance would be that the windings would not be as steeply spiralled. Which is a correct appearance. Of course, my opinion is that the most-correct (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
| -----Original message----- From: Terry K <legoverse@geocities.com> To: lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com> Date: maandag 10 mei 1999 4:05 Subject: Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat (...) Terry answered: (...) The idea (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
