Subject:
|
Re: Relative or absolute?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:42:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3268 times
|
| |
|
|
Here is my thought:
Functional design is both relative and absolute.
Let's define the context.
In this I mean, when a given mechanical component can be modeled in Lego within
a reasonable spectrum of variations.
So if you want to replicate, let's say a Geneva wheel, in Lego. It can be done,
it will just be a matter of scale. Because it might take a bunch of parts tpo do
it.
If that modeled end product exceeds the scale of the application it will fitted
to, then the scale of the application must grow to fit the special needs of the
sizes involved.
Look at it this way. You can model most any type of mechanical design with Lego.
Some of the more complex machinery that might be difficult to model in Lego can
be done, just with a mega amount of pieces.
Remember the oldie style U-joint from the idea books?
So in a way, it really depends on what you are trying to replicate in Lego and
how easy it is to do so. If the parts exsist to mimic mechanical applications
within reason, (again, how many parts will it take to mirror a given
application) then the design can be relative to its function.
If a given application is not easily mimic in Lego and requires many parts to
replicate, then the design is absolute and makes the design much more prone to
follow function over form. Just because it takes a bunch of parts to replicate
the special component.
The best way to acheive the balance is to blend both asthetics and fuctionality
together as much as possible. So even if the sizes of the mechanical components
are large, they somehow contain structural and asthetic properties
simultainiously.
Perhaps it is just one way to look at it.
I think the way to determine which one takes presedence, is to define the
application.
This first and foremost is what it is all about. The sculpting and culling of
those components is needed so the items are useful to us.
Like you can make a bunch of compoments, but only until they are put together do
they become a Train, lets say.
Then the study of relative and absolute can be explored.
Refinement, streamlined efficiancy, this is where you begin to herald the
absolute and weave the relative to the bare minimum, or bolster it to become
something entirely new.
Of course, my words are subject to this as well. Even as I type this, we narrow
the perspective to a finite focus. Looking for what really matters, looking for
what drives the enigma.
e
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Relative or absolute?
|
| Does anyone think Lego design is relative or absolute? I have been discussing it with Nathanael Kuipers and have decided that functionality is mostly absolute, but aesthetics is relative. But that is just my opinion. What do the rest of you think? (...) (19 years ago, 19-Apr-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
