 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) The man has a point. The typical construction of an inexperienced student isn't likely to hang together very well, especially if it's built using tall columns of basic bricks, etc. And things that don't hang together don't demonstrate (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Yes, but...Lego is easier to work with to provide the physical reality of the design. Take a wall, make it of 2x bricks non interlaced...and push a ball at it from a height. See how the ball goes right through the wall...now interlace the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) I sortof see this and sortof don't. If they are talking specifically about civil engineering then fair enough, and I suppose the fact that you can "legally" bend meccano parts in ways not really possible with Lego could be relevant, but one of (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Because you know all the idioms. To draw an analogy, I can code in C++ or Java a lot faster than I can in Lisp, because I know more idioms and patterns. That doesn't (in and of itself) make C++ *better* than Lisp, just different. You need a (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) I sit firmly in the 'sort of don't' camp. I'm going to do a little more work on this tonight, particularly in terms of the ways in which Meccano models civils better than Lego (in my opinion none). (...) One of the reasons why I never liked (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Yup, that certainly is a large part of it, and I don't think there is any point in my life where my skill (or lack thereof) at the two systems was equal therefore allowing a valid comparison. I think there is something else though, a mindset, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) I think that would be great!!! Like I said, if you can dig out that reference to the fellow from MIT (I think his first name is Fred) and his work on idioms, that would make it even better... I am so bumming that I can't find it. It's not on (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Hi Larry. Correct me if I misunderstand but you appear to be saying that the Lego idioms are quicker to learn than for the other construction toys. We also appear to agree that the writers perception is wrong. Do you support me attempting to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
I feel compelled to add; When I was a Meccanno fan, some years ago now, and the proud owner of a Set 10, complete with drawer cabinet, Lego hadn't invented gear wheels yet. Because we had Lego too, and it was the construction toy of choice for (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) I think this is it: ftp://cherupakha.med...oflego.pdf Jennifer (URL) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Well, I had both Meccano and Lego as a kid, and I can tell you that the Meccano didn't get a look in, past building a few things from the instructions. I really tried, but Meccano was just so slow to construct anything, and you couldn't really (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Yes, very much so! I think it would be a great idea to do so! What I am trying to say is that if you understand why the writer has the perception he does, and counteract it, I think your letter will be much more powerful. I think I see why he (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) I remember years ago a friend of mine having this; if I remember correctly it was a bit odd, with flexible tubes that kindof slotted into other pieces. It seemed ok but somewhat limited in what you could do with it. I had no idea it was still (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Death traps? Ever had your wiring checked? :-) only joking. I once saw a Sabre jet crafted in Meccano. It was very well done, especially hard as it's not cylindrical along it's lenght, but tapers toward the tail. Must have required some neat (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Very much so, except my home PC is useless and I'm not allowed to download files at work so I can't get the document (plus I've never done an FTP before and I don't really understand it (I'm a Civil Engineer not an IT specialist, dammit!) I'll (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) That's a cool article. Even if it is from 1995. It is really relevant. Each point is illustrated with a picture. Gael (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.loc.uk)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
Okay. Now I know how FTP works (i.e seamlessly, it wasn't like that in 1994 when I was at University!) As Gael says that is a cool article, just one question. Did the Constructopedia ever go online? I have never seen any reference to it on Lugnet. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) It hits the salient points. As you say it may need a bit of shortening. But overall, it's brill. (Even though it doesn't even mention the vast civil engineering possibilities afforded by use of the Train parts. (1)) 1 - that last bit was a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Large steel structures (i.e. buildings and bridges) are welded and BOLTED together. Rivets are rarely used anymore in these structures. (...) Friction pins are an excellent connector because they are easy and convenient to use, but they lack (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Noted. You're absolutely right. It's been a while since my degree and I'm a railway engineer now, sorry about that slip up. I must go back and review my notes on egg-sucking too!! (...) So should I leave the part about Lego being no worse for (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) I think for ease of use, Lego parts (like a Technic beam) are certainly better. You'd still have to build-up a Technic beam to get an "I" or box section, but the Technic beam by itself is relatively strong and as you say, is "a decent member". (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) (URL) an admittedly a short search this is the best I've found. L girders are present in very long lengths and they do make pawls! but I don't think there are any small bevel gears. What do you think are the biggest omissions and which (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
"SB" == Simon Bennett <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> writes: SB> LMAO about this... (URL) !!! SB> A bit of a surf starting here may yield a bit of information but SB> there's clearly less web support for Meccano than for Lego. (URL) does seem to work. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
"Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> skrev i meddelandet news:GFwFDH.8JM@lugnet.com... (...) As far as I know, Meccano has 'L'-beams, and perhaps 'U' too? At least there are large plates, with folded sides, which is effectively a 'U'. (I (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
Ok, I am A computing person not a cival enginer but here are my comments (...) Additonaly thier is the fact that in many cases Lego parts are over engineered! Whilst meccano parts are fine for more traditonal mechanical designs. I feel that with (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Well after recently observing a diff case bend under heavy loading, I'm inclined to disagree. I'd say most Technic parts are engineered to just the right standard to withstand normal usage and loadings. As regards the diff case, it was the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Alex Farlie writes: (snip!) (...) FYI, Modulex is actually an advanced Architectural Signage company (www.modulex.com) founded by, and associated with TLG, operating internationally (& is also based in Billund) which, amongst many (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Meccano vs. Lego (Re: New Civil Engineer letter)
|
|
I've looked through two sources of Meccano information: the main website: (URL) a parts list: (URL) opinion now, after being more educated on what Meccano has to offer, is that Lego is probably best, depending on how you intend to use it. If a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
