nerdsforprez
-
Posts
3,073 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by nerdsforprez
-
I sometimes get concerned that people build for attention rather than for fun. They refer to whatever they are building as their "work".... Just my humble opinion.... But your"work" is what you do for pay. Profession. And although for some these can overlap, for most of us what we build is for play. Lets not forget that building for play is just as important if not more so than building for recognition. -
HOF!! truly....this is a great build
-
Since I have not been able to bend boxerlegos ear on this, I am bumping the topic. Does anyone know if this application can be applied to two xl motors, and not just one?
-
Sorry for the obscure reference in the title, but this phrase exactly describes how I feel about cranes. The idea of large cranes seems so Neanderthal, so many pulleys, cables, etc.... almost Rube Goldberg - like. But unlike the infamous RG machines, they are completely functional. Lifting thousands of tons in some cases. IMO there is such a simple, almost clumsy way about them, but at the same time they are completely beautiful and mezmorizing to watch (perhaps not our Lego models, but I mean real, huge cranes). There has been so much talk on the forum as of late about cranes, likely due to our TC8 contest. "Cranes on the brain" one might say, and I've got it as well. Last year I built a version of a Liebherr 1500 8.1, and attempted to lift the 8070 supercar. Well, I failed (as have others, RebrickableLEGO on youtube also tried, and failed). But I am too stubborn, and with all the talk about cranes, I thought I would give it another try. Took apart the superstructure and installed a L motor instead of the M that was in it. Increased the amount of pulleys. Redid the "Y guy" arrangement to make it stronger and more accurate, and made the counterweight heavier. It worked perfectly. Lifted my version of the supercar (little heavier than the regular 8070 supercar; 1433 grams) perfectly. Also had some fun lifting other things. Perhaps the crane is not as pretty as Lifting Bricks' cranes (com'on Nerds......not even close) but more literal More pics and information @ http://mocpages.com/moc.php/420370
-
Anyone? @Boxerlego.... where are you?
-
While this video incorrectly shows how a crane lifts its load, it does demonstrate that the LA can actually lift the 8070 supercar. They are pretty strong.
-
@boxerlego - would it be possible to power two XL motors with the dual battery setup you got going here?
-
I am not sure there is really a distinction anymore.... is there? I have been grappling with this for a while now, but so many more that are so much more well-known in the Technic community have not said anything, so I haven't either. But nowadays, hardly anything is really Technic anymore. Or at least a lot of the more popular builds. The builds that seem to get the most attention, (and I am NOT taking anything away from them, they are simply amazing) just aren't Technic the way something like a Sheepo model or something is. VFracingteam's models, Sariel's models, and the like rarely seem Technic anymore. They still have the fundamental elements of Technic, and all the functionality.... but according to piece count, perhaps not?? I don't know....
-
Schizophrenic (inability to tell reality from fiction; i.e. in this case Lego) -- it is that good.
-
I think this is one of the best things about building. Like most,I spend the majority of my time building things that are functional. But, it is always fun to delve in the conceptual or even fantastical. Fantasy is always funner than reality
-
Ah.....nothing like the sound of hind sight regret whooshing by. I like to forget the sets I missed out on. Thanks for bringing back all that pain.....jerk. ;)
-
People are really hitting it out of the park with this contest. I love how this, and other submissions are making the truck so low to the ground. Gives the impressions of low drag. Almost s of this truck, and others, are like trains.
-
Sure, I get it.... and great observations. I will just real quick (love that we can discuss all this stuff), I think you said it best when you began by stating "I know its not a direct argument" - Giving an example from 1985 until now is not the same as comparing now to 2045. Although the interval is the same if by stating "I know its not a direct argument" you are alluding to the exponential growth of technology then the thirty year time interval is nothing like the 30 year interval between '85 and now. Lastly, I think that it is important to at least consider "phase transitions" in the next thirty years. Those in the field, much smarter than myself, explain these phenomenon much like what the internet has done for modern technology. The idea is one piece of technology or advance, whether it be in physics, comp. science, metallurgy, whatever, thus affects everything else, and we enter into a new phase, and from then on see a whole new type of exponential growth pattern. It does not even have to be in science per se. Consider a political change that allowed an increase of standard of living (by that i mean more available resources and opportunity for research and design) for everyone. Increases in diversity and shear number of people engaging in such activities would increase the chances of HUGE things happening. That is what the internet did for human innovation in the last decade or two..... will we see a now type of "phase transition" in the new thirty years? I dunno... but I think it is worth considering. And it may not be with a specific type of technology per se, but rather an advance, or whole new understanding altogether, of physical or naturalistic laws themselves......
-
Good point..... but although true here in 2015 perhaps not so true in 2045 (but again, who knows?). I think one of the great things about this contest is that our current thinking about things doesn't really apply to 2045. As others have pointed out, we may not be driving flying (?? that sounds wrong) vehicles in 2045; the greatest gains in automotive technology are likely to come in the size of things, how they are powered, emissions and efficiency, etc.... these types of things.
-
I love how people wax near-poetic when they describe their entries for this competition. The amount of theory and abstract reasoning is just wonderful. I don't comment much on others builds (need to do it more often), but could not help myself on this one. I agree with @Chade. This truck is really easy on the eyes. Seriously, the whole package. If I could offer one bit of constructive criticism (which truly hard to do on such a great build) I wonder if it is futuristic-looking enough. 2045 is a long way away, and critics might think this is a great truck for like 2030 or something, but not 2045. But that is just one small observation. To be honest, I think it is great and my favorite submission so far for this competition......
-
Isn't that the nature of all Lego sets however? In fact, there is a recent post on here taking about this very fact with 8421. Therefore, I think this perception is not specific to 8110, but a generalization that can be made for most sets......
-
Just found this today. Looks like exactly what you are asking about.
-
I also really really moved this set. I think that the ship itself so so unique. I also think that the Lego version is unique in that, to my knowledge, it is the only UCS set to not really do that well commercially (relatively speaking). I heard from an unnamed source that the poor sales were the reason for the very quick run and 50% off sale. Which all might sound like common sense but it is nice to have it verified. I love the modifications you did... :sweet: :thumbup:...... and I am always a proponent of doing things on the cheap. I also built the set, and added my own modifications. Major modifications to the wings..... IMO TLG can't have a UCS ship and show the underside of the plates for the wings. :sceptic: :thumbdown:
-
I mostly build Technic.... but also love a good SW build as well. Here is a recent mid-size Frigate I built. I also used this little Technic dingy to take the pics. Sometimes focused light can be amazing. And kinda cool that the lighting itself was Lego (PF lights, and stand is all technic)
-
43 U joints! Not sure that is just a record for you my friend......that may be a record period.... for any technic MOC.
-
I put this question out on the BL forum as well.... and I got this response. "Incidentally, I just did a quick weight comparison and the thin-wall version weighs 77% of the thick-wall version. That's a pretty big savings in materials." I know this is an extrapolation.... but wondering if it is fair to say then, based on the above statement, that the older, thicker pins may be around 25% stronger. Perhaps even more given that relationships such as these are often exponential in nature.......but this would all have to be given to experimentation.
-
Would you be willing to sell? If so, send me a PM. Thanks! Sounds like everyone hates them.... understandably so... but I have use for them. If anyone is interesting in selling at a reasonable price (there is not really a market to my knowledge for them.... so no need to price gouge), feel free to send a PM my way.
-
Yes, but as I mentioned in the post... there actually are two different kinds of the slotted version. By consensus... it sounds like it still reflects an earlier versus a later version, even in the slotted versions. As can be seen in the pics.... the pins I was playing with today were all slotted.... even though they had varying levels of thickness. Maybe not a rare part... but I would love a whole large lot of them. I know it probably does not make a lot of sense to BL stores to differentiate between the two, because they are so cheap. But I know personally I would gladly pay good money for the older, thicker version.Even though you can place bars in the middle of the newer version, bars cost too. And if you were trying to make a large, strong build, placing bars in each pin would be tedious. I also prefer the newer version most of the time. But for large, big builds, or like truck trials with XL motors..... I would much rather prefer the older thicker versions.
-
If so I am surprised I have not heard about this before on the forum. It seems to me then..... that (if this is truly the case) it would be in certain people's best interest (mine included) to stockpile these guys. Like I mentioned... they are lots stronger. This would make for an interesting philo-like test......
-
There has been a lot of chatter as of late in building Technic models with high-strength needs in mind. Whether you are building big (i.e. lots of weight), want faster cars and trucks and are planning on using RC components, lift a lot of weight with crane or truss, keeping Lego pieces together is an absolute must. I am currently also working on such a project with high-strength needs. This morning while building, i came across something weird. Now.... the top pins are obviously thicker and more robust than the bottom pins. Notice how thin the plastic is on those pins displayed in the bottom row. Now, to my knowledge, there are two kinds of pins, but only two kinds. A quick look on bricklink confirms this. Ones with slots in the middle and ones without such slots. Now..... the ones that are displayed in the pic up top both have slots! but.... as seen, the thickness of the plastic is so much different. The visual helps us see this, but to make sure our eyes are not deceiving us simple demonstration confirms this: I toyed with both pins this morning and the thicker are obviously stronger. Much much stronger. If I found enough I would create some experiment to demonstrate this. I searched throughout my inventory this morning and out of probably 5-600 pins only found 12 like this. My question for the forum is Does this represent a new part altogether or is it some anomaly in a mold or something? There has been criticism of TLG in the past few years of using less and less plastic in their molds...... is this just evidence of this? I have really only been building and collecting since 2012.....so it is not like I have any (or at least don't think so..... I have collected some sets from others that date back a decade or so) or lots and lots or really old pieces. If these are just older pieces and represent the less plastic used by TLG..... then I think it is worth mentioning that if you are building a project that requires a lot of strength.... look through your own collections and see if you can't find the thicker pins. 3L pins are already much thicker....... so mentioning that is kinda a moot point......