Subject:
|
Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:03:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1808 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Simon Bennett writes:
> Actually I need to research Meccano but I think it only consists of
> plates so if you want to form a member (I-beam or box section) you have to
> bolt it together first. A technic beam is already a decent member. Should
> I make this point instead?
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". So, yes, it's a good point!
> Blame that on my not looking at it properly. I do remember what I was
> taught about trusses!
Well, I do like Ross Crawford's bridge and I think it's great. I appreciate
how difficult it is to build a large arch out of Lego bricks. However, if
you tell another engineer about a "truss" and it's really not, you may loose
some credibility. I'm just being nit-picky. It's my job.
> Hmm, I think Meccano may work better for this. I need to check it out
> properly before I send the letter.
I'd like to check it out too. Are there any good websites on Meccano? Not
that I'd flip over to the "dark side", but I'd like to see.
> Really good examples welcome (I don't want to overload it).
You can really overload it, as there are a lot of good sites out there. I've
collected a few links to other good sites:
http://tanyatj.home.texas.net/tjscreations/links/
Any of the fan-created sites would be good. Maybe if you included a few more
links, or just one link to a page of links (like mine, for example).
> I had a big section giving references to various elements in Technica and
> going on to cover the online support that Lego builders give each other but
> I cut it due to length. If others think it's really relevant I'll put
> something in.
Well, I think it is relevant. If you want to convince someone that Lego is
better, what do you think that person is going to think? They're probably
not familiar with Lego. If anything, they're familiar only to a small extent
and probably still think it's a toy for small children. If you present an
engineer with an inventory of Technic parts to choose from, I think it would
help greatly.
It's just like you and I wondering about Meccano and how it compares with
Lego. If we saw an inventory of Meccano parts, we'd have a much better
understanding of it.
Good luck with the letter!
T. J.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
