 | | Re: New angled beam —Huw Millington
|
| | | Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3so49olig.fsf@....uio.no... (...) I have the DDK and AFAICT there are no new pieces in it, at least none unique to the set except for a turntable-thingy which is used for R2's (...) (25 years ago, 21-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) I don't know what the DDK is, but I assume you're refering to the set which is depicted on the images I refered to. Does this mean that the "eight hole one bend" technic beam visible in the images in white and grey has been available before (...) (25 years ago, 21-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —John Matthews
|
| | | | | I noticed this beam too and thought it was new. I have a lot of Technic (prolly not as much as Fredrik) and I do not have a specimen of this beam. John Matthews Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 21-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Huw Millington
|
| | | | Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m33dw8o454.fsf@....uio.no... (...) Yes, sorry. The Droid Development Kit. (...) I have to say that I didn't notice that! I am at work at the moment, but I'll double check the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) No, I would guess they are 135°. (I said 45° in my original post, but I really meant 135°, sorry.) The old part 6629 (nine holes) has a pretty odd angle, 143.13°. (...) Yep, it's the 32140 "five hole one bend" beam, with this basic shape: o + (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Gregor Benedikt Rochow
|
| | | | | (...) If that angle is there to allow for some fit to a grid of holes, I'd guess the new beam has the same angle. In the US S@H catalog, alt. model pictures show that the new beam, too, has 9 holes, albeit 2+corner+6 rather than 3+corner+5. I've (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yep, the angle makes it fit in a Phytagorean 3-4-5 triangle. Here's an illustration: (URL) In the US S@H catalog, alt. model pictures show that the (...) Yes, it looks like you are correct. The new part appears to still have 9 holes, but the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I believe the angled part makes the hypotenuse of a 3-4-5 right triangle. The 143.13° angle fits this geometry. Steve (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Eric Brok
|
| | | | | (...) That's not the one that was meant in R2-D2, if i'm right. That one's not 45 degrees. Eric (25 years ago, 23-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) No, it isn't. It is the one Huw Millington talked about in the post I followed up on. Let me review: It's the new "liftarm" part which was introduced earlier this year in the connectables set. (...) Of course it isn't. It's 90°, as Huw (...) (25 years ago, 23-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Eric Brok
|
| | | | | | Fredrik Glöckner wrote in message ... (...) Sorry. i meant to say that the R2-D2 piece Fredrik originally meant was not *90* degrees, but about 45 degrees. It's not the liftarm but a one-bend beam, shorter version than before. Meanwhile this also (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) It's not 45° or even 135° (as you probably meant). Rather, it has the same angle as the original one bend beam (6629), that is 143.13°. This is according to Huw Millington, who has the part in questions himself. (...) In LDraw, we call these (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Huw Millington
|
| | | | | | Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m33dvyhu3r.fsf@....uio.no... (...) I will post a scan of the piece in question later to settle this once and for all :-) Huw (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Amos Bieler
|
| | | | (...) I'm always interrested in Technic LDraw parts, including (especially?!?!) the unofficial ones! Amos "Junior" Bieler Spambot shield at 98.6%, Captain. (25 years ago, 5-Oct-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) I haven't been doing much part modeling lately, but there are a few parts on the page (URL) two first parts are submitted for voting, the air tank and the "connector locking without toggle notches". The last two will probably never be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Oct-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Amos Bieler
|
| | | | (...) That's OK, I'll probably get BOO'ed for this, but, I don't use LDRAW itself alot, I just use the parts geometry. -Amos Bieler CAPITALS in e-mail addresses are bad... (25 years ago, 24-Oct-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
