To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 1635
1634  |  1636
Subject: 
Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Mon, 10 May 1999 22:24:12 GMT
Viewed: 
699 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten writes:
onyx <onyx@flash.net> wrote in message news:FBJEHG.E04@lugnet.com...

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
compression to make springs length 50-100 LDU while only distorting the
cross-section of the coil by ~15% maximum.  I doubt anyone could tell the
difference on a circle of 1 LDU diameter.

For example if I needed a spring length 72 LDU, I would use the 80 LDU • versions
scaled by .9 on the y axis.

-John Van

btw, after i posted i came across another message of yours where you *had*
grasped the rub in this situation...

hmmm... i think that might be a decent idea... modeling various compressions
would be painless.. i could tear them up in a matter of minutes...

the question is whether or not we want thay many subfiles... i don't have a
problem with it, but some poeple prefer to keep things to a minimum...

once again, we'll have to let democracy rule..

J



Message is in Reply To:
  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)

7 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR