| |
In lugnet.loc.uk, George Haberberger writes:
>
> I think he's right.
>
> I have a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering, and took many courses in
> engineering mechanics. The simplifications used in engineering mechanies are
> better modeled by Meccano (or Erector sets) than in Lego. Techniq is better
> than the bricks, but still not as good.
>
> Some of the simplifications are used to avoid nondeterminate equations (ie.
> four equations and six variables). One example is that many joints are
> considered to be only constrained vertically and horizontally, not
> rotationally. If you were to model a truss with four elements meeting (which
> is most of the truss), you would have to use an axle in Techniq and end up
> with a four wide section, it's much easier to model in Meccano. Plus, if
> your axle went through a cross shaped hole, you have a resistance to any
> torque and your equations would be much harder.
>
> Another simplification is that only one end of structure is fixed, the other
> is free to move back and forth (again, this simplifies the equations
> immensely without much of a change in the answer). With bricks, you'd need
> tiles to properly model that.
>
> Another simplification is that materials are rigid and do not deform.
> Deformations change your structure and make your equations much more
> difficult. Again, Meccano should be better than ABS here.
>
> Finally, Techniq is too limiting geometrically. There are configurations
> that are hard to pull off (ie. a seven cylinger rotary airplane engine) in
> TEchniq that can be more easily modeled in Meccano.
>
> Hope this clarifies things,
>
> George
Thanks George,
I agree with much of this and am glad someone has taken the opposite view.
BUT...
From the context of the original letter I think the author is referring to
education well below undergraduate level where analysis will not be used in
such depth and the issues of fixity are therefore not relevant. I agree
with what Jason Railton said in his post about the way in which children are
taught and I still believe Lego is better for this application.
Do you think I ought not to send the letter or do you have any changes you
would suggest?
Psi
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) Reading your letter, I think you should send it, my remarks are better suited for an undergraduate class, or perhaps a high level high school class. I don't have any Civil Engineering background (other than that which would have been common to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) I think he's right. I have a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering, and took many courses in engineering mechanics. The simplifications used in engineering mechanies are better modeled by Meccano (or Erector sets) than in Lego. Techniq is better (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
51 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
|
|
|
|
