Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About NathanR

  • Rank
    Smells like new LEGO

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)

Recent Profile Visitors

3874 profile views
  1. Ok, many thanks for checking. Guess it's back to the drawing board for me.
  2. I have a question on Lego tolerances. When I build a ring using 4L axles and the #3 axle connector (157.5 degrees), tells me the resultant 16-sided polygon has a diameter of 500.2 LDU. If I put 1x1 technic bricks with the +-shaped axle holes on four of the sides, can I safely attach them to a single baseplate without stressing the elements? I've done this before with an octagon using 4L axles, #4 axle connector, and the side-to-side diameter was 241.4LDU, which worked (and has appeared in an official lego set) but was a bit tight. Unfortunately I don't have enough #3 connectors to test a hexadecagon.
  3. I am super excited for these space sets! 42179 will be an incredibly novel departure from the usual technic lineup. I imagine 42178 ahs 42181 are designed to work together, based on the common "LT" number. Also, neat reference to the founding years of technic...
  4. Not strictly a technic question, but I thought maybe someone with experience of GBCs might be able to help. I'm trying to build a working hourglass sand timer out of Lego bricks, with pairs of 67950 3x6x6 half cylinders for each chamber and a 2x2 square opening between the top and bottom halves of the hourglass. I would have thought that any 1x1 element would fall freely through this setup, but everything just locks together in the top half of the hourglass and refuses to drain out. I've tried 1x1 round plates, 1x1 round tiles, 32606 flower, 11609 star tile, 30153 jewel, and even technic 1/2 bushes (which worked well the first 2-3 tries, then they all started automatically stacking up into columns). Will these elements mesh together and block up anyway, no matter what size aperture? If the aperture is too small, then what size NxN hole is needed to ensure smooth flow of 1x1 particles? (Also, are there any smaller Lego elements that I could try to use as "sand"?)
  5. Hi all, it's me again, still working on the Atlas model. I'm trying to create a thin, C-shaped bracket - basically an octagon with a few sides removed - but the top of the bracket needs to be rigid as it will carries some weight. Can something like this work? It seems valid in, but is it actually "in system"? Do the click hinges have a pivot point that matches the centre of a technic pin hole?
  6. Thanks for all the advice, it's reassuring to know that pins aren't that fragile. I considered that, but then I would need an odd-sized technic brick to fill the gap. And there just aren't enough pin holes available to hold the beams together and slot them into a brick. Oh dear, I grabbed an older render, I was just trying to show the overall structure that frame has to support. I have five octagonal frames, a 4L wide one that uses the 3L pin with bush, and four other frames that sue the 3L pin with stop. My new solution is to add in a few 1x2 bricks with 2 holes, and 1x2 plates with pin hole. This feels a bit wrong, somehow, like there should be a more elegant way to do it, but it uses every available pin hole: You make a good point, the click hinges are the main thing holding the shape, and I will have a total of six hinges distributed along the length of the barrel. However, I have more planned. The reason I use a pair of 7L beams for each side of the octagon, instead of a single 15L beam, is that the diameter of the ring is 41.04 studs. That's close enough to be in system. You may have spotted some radial beams on the render, these are connected to an axle passing through the hole in the click hinges. The axle should bisect the octagon corner, at 67.5 degrees, but if I move them to 67.4 degrees then the radial beam forms the hypotenuse of a 5-12-13 Pythagorean triple. I use half this due to lack of space, so it's really a 2.5-6-6.5 triangle. At 6.5 studs from the pin hole in the click hinges, I can link a pair of the radial beams with a 13L beam. 13L is another magic number, as an octagon with side length 12 modules (or 13 pin holes) will be 28.97 studs across. So by mirroring the base section at the top of the barrel, I will get (Pythagorean triple + octagon + Pythagorean triple) = (6 + 28.97 + 6) = 40.97, almost perfectly matching the outer octagon. The smaller octagon doesn't need to use click hinges, I can use part 79846 which conveniently has a pin hole at the corner, reinforce it with plates and brackets so it cannot be compressed, and that should be strong enough to lock the outer ring in place, and transmit all the weight directly down into the base block.
  7. You're right, of course, but I just don't see how to add additional connections points... It's awkward because I have transition from odd-based studless technic to even-based Lego system. The 7kg comes from what's on top. This is a prototype render, with only three of the octagon frames - the central ones are are C-shaped brackets, the outer two are full O-shaped rings. An inner octagon rings, built using the new 79846 bent plate will provide some extra support, but ultimately all the weight goes down to the technic beams on the bottom of the barrel. More blue blocks (muon chambers) will be suspended from the 3x3 cylinders running the length of the model (the toroid magnet coils). Then there will be an entire separate cylinder unit inserted in the centre, housing the calorimeters and inner detector:
  8. Hi everyone, I'm trying to build a large scale model of the ATLAS detector at Cern, using regular system bricks suspended from a technic skeleton. The model is basically an octagonal barrel. I use 44224/44225 click hinges to form the corners, and two 7L beams to get a side length of 17 modules (or 18 studs) to get an octagon diameter that is close enough to be in system (41.04 studs diameter). I have a technic axle running the length of the model through the holes in the click hinges. I also use two of 32557 to hold the frame in place above the blue base block: There will be five such octagonal frames, but ultimately all the weight of the model (estimate about 7-8kg) will be going through the two 77765 3L pin with stop at the base of each frame. I don't think the pins can carry this weight, and I don't see how to add technic bricks for support because the beam is an even-number length. Is there any way to make this connection stronger?
  9. NathanR

    Wizarding World 2023 - Rumors & Discussion

    They did a remastered 2-game collection a few years ago, giving you all 8 movies on one disc, it seems to have fixed all the bugs. The Lego Star Wars Skywalker Saga game gave you the traditional levels based on movie scenes, but also a vast open world to explore. Every planet mentioned in the Star Wars movies is a location you can visit and explore - and the maps are huge. Each planet feels like it could have been a game in its own right, with dozens of mini games, puzzles and hilarious easter eggs. If Harry Potter gets the same treatment, then you can expect a vast and seamless open world covering every location from the books.
  10. I was at Bricktastic in Manchester, UK, yesterday and picked up two Lego Certified Professional sets produced by Bright Bricks. Both carry a "Brick Wildlife" label, one is an elephant and the other is a gorilla. While I'm aware that certain designers have registered with Lego and are allowed to produce limited edition custom sets, these are the first I've ever actually seen or been able to acquire. Does anyone know what they were produced in aid of, and if there were any other animal models?
  11. NathanR

    DC Superheroes 2023 - Rumors & Discussion

    That used to be the case. Transparent parts were made from polycarbonate, not ABS plastic, and the two materials shrink by different amounts when cooling after being moulded. However, the trans-clear parts recently changed plastic (remember the arguments about how windscreens now have a slightly "foggy" look?), I think it's supposed to be an ABS-type formula, so maybe they can now use one mould for all possible colours.
  12. NathanR

    Marvel Superheroes 2022 - Rumors & Discussion

    Given the way it opens up, do you think it possible that the 76206 buildable Iron Man figure could be slotted inside?
  13. I updated to 2.22.9(3) this morning, and now I can't save or open any .io files. I'm running MacOS, and whenever I try to open or save using the file browser I get the spinning beach ball of death and have to force quit the app. Curiously, if the file appears on the "Recently opened files" list on the startup splash screen, the model loads fine. Also, as I write this, I find that just moving focus away from the app causes it to become unresponsive and generate the spinning beach ball. Does anyone else see anything similar? Are there MacOS security settings that I should have updated?
  14. The mechanism is very temperamental, but you don't need to add or change anything to make it work out-of-the-box. The droid did keep jamming up, failing to unfold, the first few times I built it when I was a kid. However, do you remember the picture in the instructions of a technic beam being squeezed with gears either side and looking unhappy? That's exactly what you have to avoid! The solution is to simply make sure that you don't press the technic parts together too tightly. Check that every moving part, down to the 2L pin connectors, can spin freely. If in doubt, pull beams, bushes, liftarms, etc. apart slightly on an axle so there is a visible gap between each one. The whole mechanism should be feeling "floppy"by the time you start adding rubber bands on.
  15. NathanR

    The future of Back to the Future

    Not unless the pin is subjected to excessive wear and tear, e.g. you use it as a pivot that is constantly moving. The black technic pins with friction from the 1980s were notorious for their excessive clutch power - once inserted into a technic pin hole, it was almost impossible to remove them, you had to use pliers! The redesigned version that appeared from ~1990 to the present day were made to be much easier to work with, but this meant they had lower friction as standard.