Subject:
|
Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:15:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2034 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Kevin Clague writes:
> > <snip>
> > > 1) Two pistons to tilt bucket, clearly showing, and new type of piston w/o
> > > bottom 2x2, I dislike it 'cause it will be even harder to "stack" them in • order
> > > to make a longer piston. With any luck there is a cross axle hole instead of • a
> > > round one. However it looks like it's round.
> >
> > I found an easy solution to piston stacking:
> >
> > http://www.users.qwest.net/~kclague/pistons/pistons-00.html
>
> Nice one! TJ also have one (actually two) versions:
> http://www.texbrick.com/ideas/cyl/
>
> My point was all of these solutions is impossible with the new cylinder since
> it lacks the 2 x 2 "brick" in the bottom.
I know. Actually you said it was more difficult. I doubt it is impossible.
When I get 8455 I'll have to see what I can do.
I've not had a chance to work on back to back small pistons, but I will when I
get to the project that needs it.
Kevin
>
> /Tobbe
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
| (...) What I meant as impossible is the two solutions found abouve since you no longer can attach studs on the bottom of the piston. I'm sure the pistons still can be attached back-to-back in another manner, hence more difiicult. But who knows? (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
| (...) (URL) point was all of these solutions is impossible with the new cylinder since it lacks the 2 x 2 "brick" in the bottom. /Tobbe (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
54 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
|
|
|
|
