| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
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. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
|
| | 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
|
|
(...) Noted. You're absolutely right. It's been a while since my degree and I'm a railway engineer now, sorry about that slip up. I must go back and review my notes on egg-sucking too!! (...) So should I leave the part about Lego being no worse for (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
|
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) I think for ease of use, Lego parts (like a Technic beam) are certainly better. You'd still have to build-up a Technic beam to get an "I" or box section, but the Technic beam by itself is relatively strong and as you say, is "a decent member". (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
|
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) (URL) an admittedly a short search this is the best I've found. L girders are present in very long lengths and they do make pawls! but I don't think there are any small bevel gears. What do you think are the biggest omissions and which (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
|
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
"SB" == Simon Bennett <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> writes: SB> LMAO about this... (URL) !!! SB> A bit of a surf starting here may yield a bit of information but SB> there's clearly less web support for Meccano than for Lego. (URL) does seem to work. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
|
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
"Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> skrev i meddelandet news:GFwFDH.8JM@lugnet.com... (...) As far as I know, Meccano has 'L'-beams, and perhaps 'U' too? At least there are large plates, with folded sides, which is effectively a 'U'. (I (...) (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)
|
|
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
(...) Well after recently observing a diff case bend under heavy loading, I'm inclined to disagree. I'd say most Technic parts are engineered to just the right standard to withstand normal usage and loadings. As regards the diff case, it was the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
|
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Alex Farlie writes: (snip!) (...) FYI, Modulex is actually an advanced Architectural Signage company (www.modulex.com) founded by, and associated with TLG, operating internationally (& is also based in Billund) which, amongst many (...) (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)
|