 | | Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | Hi All! I hope I can distract everyone from the Bionicle vs. Technic discussions and focus on something more constructive for a moment. I built a little bridge recently: (URL) details will follow later, after I put together a webpage) I'm not (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Steve Martin
|
| | | | | (...) Amen. (...) I just recently built a Truss bridge as well and pretty much ended up in the same place you did. I don't think using liftarms would help much in my case since all my members were created using 1x2 beams attached to 1xN bricks with (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) Do you have any pictures to share with us? thanks, TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Tobbe Arnesson
|
| | | | | (...) I think I'm going to stop posting soon, two flame-wars originating from my posts *sigh* Better learn something about action and reaction soon... (...) Cool. (...) Could you use the medium pulley and half beams in any way? Something like this: (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) No! No more "good-bye" posts, please. No harm done, I think. Just the butting of a few heads. It keeps life interesting. (...) If you solved the rotation problem, then you could work out something with this. Again, the geometry will be more (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Tobbe Arnesson
|
| | | | | | (...) You have my word :) (...) Yeah, that's always something :) (...) Of course I have never tried to build a bridge or anything that uses a truss (sp?) as of yet. And BTW bridges should be .train or something, it's not Technic! *joking* /Tobbe (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) LOL Hey! Do you want to start another flame-war? ;-) I've wondered about this myself. I think bridges are of interest to both groups. My bridge is made of mostly Technic parts, and my question was about construction technics involving Technic (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | RE: Truss Joint Construction Details —William Howard
|
| | | | | | | Why don't we just have one *HUGE* newsgroup and then apply our own e-mail filters! :-)) W PS - I'm not serious! -----Original Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...net.com]On Behalf Of Thomas Avery Sent: 15 March 2002 (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Tobbe Arnesson
|
| | | | | | (...) cp lugnet.train sure, why not .) (still kidding) (...) Yes, but does it qualify as technic when nothings moving? :) (...) Nah, don't think there are enough bridge builders as of yet. /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | RE: Truss Joint Construction Details —William Howard
|
| | | | | | | How about lugnet.train.bridges...n-problems for the newsgroup? :-)) W -----Original Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...net.com]On Behalf Of Tobbe Arnesson Sent: 15 March 2002 15:46 To: lugnet.technic@lugnet.com (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh, it does move alright. Especially when you drop 16 pounds on it: (URL)Maybe bridges belong somewhere else altoghether. Do you think we need a (...) I dunno about that. Have you seen: (URL) it seems every train layout has at least 2 or 3 (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Tobbe Arnesson
|
| | | | | | (...) nice and did not drop them at all. BTW what do you use those weights for anyway? I can't see any muscular overload with that amount of weight .) (...) Yes, they exist but I don't think they are that many. I might be wrong though :) I feel they (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) Well of course! I'm not that crazy ;-) (...) They're my wife's weights, but believe me, if you lift those things a hundred times they do get pretty heavy :-) TJ (23 years ago, 17-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Jan-Tore Skålvik
|
| | | | (URL) this out! I think this might help you alittlebit! regards jt (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | (...) Thanks JT! You can make things a little easier by not connecting all the member ends at one common point (like you did with the diagonal connection). Also, take a look at Ross' truss bridge: (URL) joints don't meet at a common point, or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Jan-Tore Skålvik
|
| | | | | That was just an idea that struck my head, I dont have any plans to build a brigde, but I want to build a crane someday... "Thomas Avery" <thomas.avery@intec-hou.com> wrote in message news:GszDHs.JyM@lugnet.com... (...) at (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Thomas Avery
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, start practicing on those trusses ;-) (if you plan to build a lattice boom, that is) TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Indeed. I did it slightly differently (but same basic idea for my harbour bridge (URL) This was forced on me by the weight of the arch - not having the symmetric main beams would've damaged the connection axles, or the holes they went through. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
