Subject:
|
Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:53:04 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1829 times
|
| |
|
|
Okay. Now I know how FTP works (i.e seamlessly, it wasn't like that in 1994
when I was at University!) As Gael says that is a cool article, just one
question. Did the Constructopedia ever go online? I have never seen any
reference to it on Lugnet. It seems a superb idea and I think it deserves
pursuing.
Here is my draft reply letter. It's a bit long and maybe needs focussing a
bit. I've included a number of web references which I will need to clear
with the authors. All comments welcome.
"Dear Sir
I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Christopher Ward’s letter
(nCE 28 June) and his comments regarding the relative merits of Meccano and
Lego. I can only assume that Mr Ward is unaware of the elements available
in Lego’s Technic and Dacta product lines, particularly the Technic beam and
connector pin system which enables large trusses to be built very quickly.
I am a member of the online Lego community Lugnet (www.lugnet.com). Mr
Ward’s letter has led to some interesting discussions among the world’s Lego
enthusiasts and we would like to offer some examples of the functionality of
Lego.
I am unsure whether Mr Ward was advocating Meccano as a structural or a
mechanical engineering modelling tool so I’ll address the Civils issues
first. I was taught that there are four main materials used in
construction: Timber, Concrete, Masonry and Steel. Clearly neither system
would be good for modelling timber construction, concrete is similarly
beyond either. Lego is far better at masonry because its basic elements are
bricks and I would strongly contend that there is little to choose between
the two as far as modelling steel construction is concerned. I would add
that steel structures are generally welded or riveted together and the Lego
friction pin system is a better analogue for this than Meccano’s bolts.
Pictures of Lego structures can be found at
www.lugnet.com/~469/projects/archbr (Ross Crawford’s arch truss bridge) and
(further example)
As far as mechanical engineering is concerned Meccano may have had an
advantage prior to the late 1970s but these days Lego has a much wider range
of gears and other mechanical elements than Meccano, including
differentials, shock absorbers, pneumatic pumps and cylinders, gearboxes,
cams and flexible drive shafts. Examples of models which show good use of
mechanical principles are Jennifer Clark’s trucks and construction machinery
(www.telepresence.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/) and Dennis Bosman’s mobile cranes:
(www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Highway/2290/bmnr04.html).
Lego also has an educational theme called Dacta, which is only available to
educational establishments (though if anyone is interested it can be bought
at Legoland or by mail order from www.pitsco-legodacta.com). Dacta includes
solar cells, capacitors and other electronic and mechanical parts along with
teaching guides and other support to use Lego in the classroom. I do not
believe anything so comprehensive has ever been provided by Meccano.
In an educational environment Lego has a few distinct advantages, firstly
and most importantly that it is quick to put together and take apart and
secondly that it is easier for a child to pick up the idioms necessary for
successful construction. (Professor Fred Martin of MIT has written a useful
guide which explains these:
ftp://cherupakha.media.mit.edu/pub/people/fredm/artoflego.pdf). For these
reasons I feel that Lego is a better educational tool than Meccano.
To summarise I am a Civil Engineer in large measure thanks to Lego and I
cannot allow such a slight to the Toy of the 20th Century to go unchallenged.
Simon Bennett (Graduate Member)"
LMKWYT
Psi
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) It hits the salient points. As you say it may need a bit of shortening. But overall, it's brill. (Even though it doesn't even mention the vast civil engineering possibilities afforded by use of the Train parts. (1)) 1 - that last bit was a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
| | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) Large steel structures (i.e. buildings and bridges) are welded and BOLTED together. Rivets are rarely used anymore in these structures. (...) Friction pins are an excellent connector because they are easy and convenient to use, but they lack (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
| | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| Ok, I am A computing person not a cival enginer but here are my comments (...) Additonaly thier is the fact that in many cases Lego parts are over engineered! Whilst meccano parts are fine for more traditonal mechanical designs. I feel that with (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
| | | Meccano vs. Lego (Re: New Civil Engineer letter)
|
| I've looked through two sources of Meccano information: the main website: (URL) a parts list: (URL) opinion now, after being more educated on what Meccano has to offer, is that Lego is probably best, depending on how you intend to use it. If a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) Very much so, except my home PC is useless and I'm not allowed to download files at work so I can't get the document (plus I've never done an FTP before and I don't really understand it (I'm a Civil Engineer not an IT specialist, dammit!) I'll (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
51 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
|
|
|
|
