Subject:
|
Re: Which weighs more?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:02:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
467 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford writes:
> Hmmm interesting. My conclusion from that would be that the "cylinder"
> containing the holes is significantly thinner than the brick walls.
Look a little bit harder. Note that the bottom studs, in a normal brick
extending all the way up, are interupted by the pegholes in a technic brick.
I estimate that the surface to subtract for the two holes in the brick wall
and the surface to add for the cylinder about cancel eachother out. It are
the much shorter bottom studs that make the difference.
With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Which weighs more?
|
| (...) Hmmm interesting. My conclusion from that would be that the "cylinder" containing the holes is significantly thinner than the brick walls. ROSCO (21 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.general)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
