Subject:
|
Re: studless construction practice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:38:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2232 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Matthew Davidson <matthew@blank.org> wrote:
> One advantage is rectified horizontal/vertical hole placement.
Although there is a disadvantage here too. I find fewer spacing options with
studless constructions, actually. Integer and half integer spacing is easy, but
not 1/3rd integer spacing that I can get with plates. Additionally, very fine
spacings can be accomplished with tiles, clips, modified tiles, panels, etc. (a
lot of my GBC constructions depend on these tight, fine spacings).
The spacing is easier to understand - I'm not convinced it's a benefit as
yet.
> Studless beams provide a smooth surface to slide parts on... I've
> found designs can be more compact with studless construction.
Again, for *some* things I find this is true. Often, I end up turning to
studless constructions for small mechanisms (touch sensor assemblies are a great
example). But some projects I can think of no way to do them in a studless
fashion (a recent minisumo entry is an example of this - it had to fit in a
10x10 cm footprint. The RCX alone is pushing that envelope, and the NXT doesn't
look like it will help - not with those motors!).
> Once you start working with it, you'll find ways to reduce bulk.
Like the cross-blocks http://peeron.com/inv/parts/653 in various lengths - I
use these all the time it seems. The axle-joiners with the varying angles can
also be used to make some nice structures... although with very little tensile
strength.
> Studless designs are stronger and more rigid.
This one is where I'd have to disagree. I can make a "strong" studless
design, in that it will not easily pull apart (it will not fail in tension
because connections would have to "shear", not pull apart) - but I can do that
almost as easily with studded designs. As to rigid, I *strongly* disagree - I've
yet to see a studless design that rivals a studded frame for rigidity.
Sometimes, this can work to your advantage - a structure with some give is often
more forgiving of stresses than a very rigid one. But if you really *need* a
rigid structure, well... I'm open to being proven wrong here (yet again), but
I've not seen it yet.
> when things start moving and carrying loads, studless wins
> hands down.
Not with me, not yet. I'll still use whatever works the best, and I think
there are cases where that's studded. But there are also cases where that's
stud-*less*, which I think is sometimes overlooked.
> There are a number of studless parts that offer angled beams. These
> parts offer construction possibilities that would be unwieldy or
> impossible with normal studded beams.
They do help, although I've never had a problem building some things at odd
angles with studded parts. The greater degree of flex in a studless construction
means sometimes I can get away with imperfect spacings in triangles that would
have been less acceptable in studded constructions, but again I'm not sure if
this should be considered a strength or a weakness.
I'll tell you one problem I really have with studless structures - changing
orientations and keeping the structure rigid. The hint of a new connector from
the Wired article really got my attention. I hope it works in this regard as
well as in "making rigid structures". Try to connect three studless beams
together at mutual right angles, or join two studless beams end-to-end with a 90
degree rotation, and you'll know some of my problems with this. It's not that
those two things are impossible (far from it), but they don't seem to have a
very strong, rigid, or satisfactory solution. In my opinion (and again, I'd
*LOVE* to be proven wrong on this).
Oh, and taking apart studless constructions can be a pain. Literally. I use
one of those thin rubber sheets used to open stuck jars. Even my kids won't help
me take studless constructions apart (they love helping with studded
disassembly!).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: studless construction practice
|
| (...) I guess you mean (URL) ... (...) I completely agree with Brian. While I do like studless construction (I still need more time to think and build with them, but the result is more refined), I use studded beams when I need stiffness. A single (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: studless construction practice
|
| (...) One advantage is rectified horizontal/vertical hole placement. To have an even ratio vertical hole distance using studded beams, you have to place two plates between each beam. Studless beams do not have this problem, and also provide a hole (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
