| |
In lugnet.loc.uk, George Haberberger writes:
> 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 my degree) but I'm still not totally sold on bricks for
> modeling construction. Techniq would work very well for kids for modelling
> mechanics, and the gears should work very well, too.
I have now sent the letter. I didn't change it that much and it's still
very long but I wanted to get it out there before I got cold feet about
sending it at all!
The text was:
"Dear Sir
I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Christopher Ward’s letter
(NCE 28 June) and his comments regarding the relative merits of Meccano and
Lego. I can only assume that Mr Ward is unaware of the elements available
in Lego’s Technic and Dacta product lines, particularly the Technic beam and
connector pin or axle system which enables large trusses to be built very
quickly. A full reference guide to the elements available in Technic can be
found at Jim Hughes’ excellent website Technica
http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/technica.html
I am a member of the online Lego community Lugnet (www.lugnet.com). Mr
Ward’s letter has led to some interesting discussions among the world’s Lego
enthusiasts (which you can read starting here:
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/uk/?n=6806 ) and we would like to offer some
examples of the functionality of Lego.
I am unsure whether Mr Ward was advocating Meccano as a structural or a
mechanical engineering modelling tool so I’ll address the Civils issues
first. I was taught that there are four main materials used in
construction: Timber, Concrete, Masonry and Steel. Clearly neither system
would be good for modelling timber construction, concrete is similarly
beyond either. Lego is far better at masonry because its basic elements are
bricks and I would strongly contend that there is little to choose between
the two as far as modelling steel construction is concerned. Pictures of
Lego structures which demonstrate this can be found at
www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch bridge) and
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/creations/bridge_straight/
(Thomas Avery’s bridges).
As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
(www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
(www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
Lego also has an educational theme called Dacta, which is only available to
educational establishments (though if anyone is interested it can be bought
at Legoland or by mail order from www.pitsco-legodacta.com). Dacta includes
solar cells, capacitors and other electronic and mechanical parts along with
teaching guides and other support to use Lego in the classroom. I do not
believe anything so comprehensive has ever been provided by Meccano.
In an educational environment Lego has distinct advantages, firstly and most
importantly it is quick to put together and take apart and secondly it is
easier for a child to pick up the idioms necessary for successful
construction. (Professor Fred Martin of MIT has written a useful guide which
explains these: ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf).
For these reasons I feel that Lego is a better educational tool than Meccano.
To summarise I am a Civil Engineer in large measure thanks to Lego and I
cannot allow such a slight to the Toy of the 20th Century to go unchallenged.
Simon Bennett (G)"
I hope that it reflects most people's comments and you are all happy with it.
Psi
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
