Subject:
|
Re: Is there a problem with part #6629?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:22:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
974 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jeff Boen writes:
> I'm working with part #6629 (technic arm 1x9 with 1 bend) and have come across
> someting that has be perplexed.
>
> Please take a look. Hopefully I've given enough info to decipher the problem.
>
> http://home.flash.net/~onyx/Temporary/6629_Problem.htm
The first thing I did, was takong a look at the internal structure of the part
file 6629.dat. It looks consistent to me, each peghole on the short arm has an
offset of x=16 and y=12, relative to the previous hole. These ofsets follow
the rule of Pythagoras, with the (in)famous 3:4:5 ratio of the 3 sides of the
triangle. As a result the distance between the pegholes is equal to 20, and
that is correct. Based on this it I would say the part is as it should be.
You probably have to seek it in the orientation of the part. Try to turn your
6629's slightly inwards, just enough to allign the pegholes correctly.
The "other" translation of the peghole towards the middle, due to this
rotation, will be insignifingly small, and falls within the fitting
tollerances of the involved parts (with the real model, of course).
I don't know if you own the real model, but if you look closely, maybe you can
actualy see that the 6629-parts are not on perfectly straight.
Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Is there a problem with part #6629?
|
| I'm working with part #6629 (technic arm 1x9 with 1 bend) and have come across someting that has be perplexed. Please take a look. Hopefully I've given enough info to decipher the problem. (URL) (24 years ago, 14-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
