 | | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) That was meaningful to me, I got my name. The useless flame-war if Tim was right or not was a pity though since both him and I had agreed already. AND PLEASE DON'T BRING THIS DISCUSSION BACK TO LIFE AGAIN :))) (...) /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Did I mention English is my second language? Flood is obviously wrong word here, but I think I can turn this to my right :) Imagine the .technic.bionicle group has a wide stream of messages, if it get's to crowded they will flood .bionicle and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Erroded axles
|
|
(...) but (...) the (...) you (...) Right, I came to the same conclusion. They're good enough (except for the null grip) if used on a smooth surface and with not too much tension. When for any reason the links are no more exactly aligned, the force (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: anyone got hardware specifications for the RCX?
|
|
(URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Ok I'll adjust my above statement to read Bionicle is bad for Lego Technic. (...) This whole argument reignited because of my one word retorical response to Tobbe's original post. (And it would be rude not to reply to reply's) (...) I wouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | RE: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) And don't forget the very, very meaningful debate about what MOTM should be called! Think that one got 72 per hour at one point. Discussion is healthy, its what sets us apart from the apes (or should that be Rahi?) William (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | RE: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) his (...) Nah! I like the Bionicle bits - lovely colours, great parts, love the ball and socket stuff, but the only thing you (may) be seeing from me are pneumatic walkers using the lift arm with ball parts as legs and other such creatures. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) This is a complex argument to start with. For Lego the company, Bionicle has been very, very good. For the proliferation of Lego Technic sets that are big and fancy, perhaps Bionicle is bad. I could accept the argument that Lego will produce (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Find your nearset supplier at (URL) your bank balance!) ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Only problem is they don't have the full range of elements. Try finding half thickness lift arms for example. Or, my favourite, black beams, or any colour, but in the size/number I want. For example, I'm building a crane boom, and need 4 16U (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: anyone got hardware specifications for the RCX?
|
|
(...) Hi Jonathan, Kekoa Proudfoot has a very detailed page about the RCX internals here (URL) it's a large page - there's *lots* of info there! ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | anyone got hardware specifications for the RCX?
|
|
Since there are projects like legos (or whatever its called now) that replace the firmware of the RCX, there must be some hardware documentation out there. What processor does it use? What other hardware is in that box? Memory maps? (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) It seems that William has taken up the challenge to put his parts where his mouth is. (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes: <snip> (...) flood the Technic group? My definition of flooding would be scores of posts in a matter of days. Since the beginning of 2002, there has been a grand total of 123 Bionicle posts. It seems like (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | RE: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Isn't that an oxymoron? William (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Indeed. I did it slightly differently (but same basic idea for my harbour bridge (URL) This was forced on me by the weight of the arch - not having the symmetric main beams would've damaged the connection axles, or the holes they went through. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Well, start practicing on those trusses ;-) (if you plan to build a lattice boom, that is) TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) No! No more "good-bye" posts, please. No harm done, I think. Just the butting of a few heads. It keeps life interesting. (...) If you solved the rotation problem, then you could work out something with this. Again, the geometry will be more (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
That was just an idea that struck my head, I dont have any plans to build a brigde, but I want to build a crane someday... "Thomas Avery" <thomas.avery@intec-hou.com> wrote in message news:GszDHs.JyM@lugnet.com... (...) at (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Now that would be something! How about an Expert Builder version of Bionicle? LOL- a challenge indeed. TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
