Subject:
|
Re: Large arch bridge geometry - help!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:47:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
859 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Adrian Egli writes:
> Pedro,
>
> John's advise is very good. Experiment! Sure, you might make something
> that at first you might not like but examine what you've made and ask
> yourself "How can I change it?" Then again, you'll make something you'll
> love one moment, come up with a better idea, and junk what you once loved
> (its happened to me MANY times!)
Like I said in a different message, I can't make large scale experimentation
in the present (not enough parts). I must therefore restrict to details, and
that is why the theoretical approach is so important to me.
> When I constructed my first suspension bridge from Technic (sorry, no pics
> on brickshelf), in West elevation view (seeing its span) it looked OK. But
> in North elevation view, I thought it was junk. So I just tinkered around
> with small Technic parts like triangles, lever arms, etc., and pulled off my
> Trademark Bridge.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=16101
> (Like I said, at first I loved it but now I want to build a better version!)
That is partially the explanation for the above; most of the parts I
currenty have are used up in a drawbridge, which was modified numerous times
until it reached the current status of "operational". It's far from pretty,
but it works great :-) The downside is *it has more than twice the pieces
originally planned*...
> Geometric triangles (3-4-5, 5-12-13, 7-24-25, 9-40-41, 11-60-61, just to
> name a few) only go so far. Apply that LEGO builder instinct of yours and
> you'll come out better!
The thing with those angles is the difficulty to use them in a design. At
first I was considering using only geometric triangles, then I realised it
would take a lot more effort than that.
I did try to make a sketch of possible arches recurring to LEGO beam
measurements (15, 11, 9 and less holes), but it was too time consuming to be
an effective method. Then I tried to use some LEGO beams to test possible
dispositions, and it also was a bad method when used alone...
This is why I came up with the idea of a theoretical approach. It too, when
used alone, will not be of great use, but at least I'll be losing less time
to dumb errors :-)
Thanks for the help,
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Large arch bridge geometry - help!
|
| Pedro, John's advise is very good. Experiment! Sure, you might make something that at first you might not like but examine what you've made and ask yourself "How can I change it?" Then again, you'll make something you'll love one moment, come up (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jul-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
