Subject:
|
Re: New angled beam
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:28:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
901 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:19:44 GMT, "G. Benedikt Rochow"
<rochogb@eng.auburn.removethis.edu> wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > "Huw Millington" <hmillington@cix.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > > I have to say that I didn't notice that! I am at work at the moment, but
> > > I'll double check the lengths tonight. I can say that at that length they
> > > are not 90 deg., though.
> >
> > 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°.
>
> 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.
I believe the angled part makes the hypotenuse of a 3-4-5 right triangle.
The 143.13° angle fits this geometry.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New angled beam
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
