nerdsforprez

however this turns out, and regardless of what opinion you are bent toward, I agree with Milan. No need to tell others to"shut up". Respectful dialogue is the goal here....

Good News for all of us. I had not seen your trucks before..... just took a peak. Great stuff. Excited that you are back building

So in a build I am working on I noticed a gear combination that probably is well-known and used often by others, but it was not in Sariel's online gear coupler and I haven't seen it used often in builds. The small turnable (28t) can be paired with the 20t gear.

Yes, typically, air suspension is used for vehicles with a huge payload. That is because springs have such a fast rebound that when you are dealing with a huge payload the fast rebound can throw the whole vehicle off-kilter from just the rebound. I remember seeing a documentary on the large AirBus planes, and trying to figure out the landing gear was a nightmare for the engineers because shocks would recoil and send the plane in a frizzy after the first landing touch-down, which is usually pretty hard. What they discovered was a suspension that had no metal coils, only used air for the compression. The pilot could hit the ground fairly hard, but the landing gear would only compress air, not metal springs, which would not recoil. This would give the plane a soft landing without the rebound/recoil thing.....

I am going to bump this topic again. I am sure the BuWizz folks are just super-busy with getting this product out to all those who backed it, but can we get an update? Are things progressing as planned? Many have backed this product from this forum and an update would be great. Thanks!

I have always been a fan of the mini sets. Mostly build Technic but also enjoy a SW MOC or two. Right now working on a large MOC incorporating many official and non-official Mini SW sets, and this is one of the unofficial MOCs created by myself I thought would be fun to share. Complete with nuclear reactor and superlaser on a mini-scale. http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/433762

I agree. Turning out to be more a valid enterprise than initially thought. Although.... for what it is worth the actual ebay post of the 4-5 tons of LEGO at one million dollars does appear like a misprint, or attempt at advertising, fanfare, etc. THAT part at least, does not appear to be 100% accurate although the seller actually sounds more and more to be real. Personally, I do not live in Georgia, but I do live in the continental US. More and more tempted to go out there to just look at this guy's stuff and perhaps sort some LEGO

I also thought the stock photos were suspicious but then again I would like to know how this individual is storing them if it is for real. Surely not just a lump of legos. At four tons (again if for real) those on the bottom would likely be heavily damaged from the compression weight. Four tons of Lego would be an astronomical amount. In considering the validity of this ad, one has to ask how one could accumulate such an amount. This would be more Lego Technic than even Blakbird (probably). I wonder what that amount would even look like.-------10 seconds later--------- About 1900 8070's (supercars) to be exact. My money is that it is fake. Odd thought, like grum64 pointed out..... that he/she has good feedback rating

Agreed. I also think it is a molding issue. We all know that with such a short axle, it would take tons of torque to twist it. I think the side walls of the female end (I know.. I know sounds funny) would break off before the short axle would twist. Just checked 8 of mine..... no warping at all. I think you just got one from a bad batch......

Are these lifelites with just the effects turned on? At the bottom of most LED sets there are options to do lots of different effects. I just didn't have mine turned on.

OMG..... I am loving the scrutiny you are dedicating to this set! This is an excellent find. I am sure you could even request replacement parts from TLG. This indeed is very important. Surprised no one has responded yet. I should look at my set and see if there are any misaligned CV joiints. This would mean taking a significant amount of it apart... but I will try and find some time to do it. Interesting if we get a strong group of people to do the same with their sets. I am curious if this is a problem for others. Of course, if this is a problem I am sure if is not confined just to the Porsche set but all CV joints right? I am going to look at my collection of un-used joints... I am sure I have some laying around.

I also agree with this. I don't think there is as much disagreeing opinion on this as some might think from this post. Earlier @didumos69 had mentioned that perhaps there was a shift in opinion between the second from the first page. But I don't see that. What I do see is just perhaps a lack of clarification of what we are discussing. I think that everyone agrees that if there is a blatant copy of a design, you need to give credit. If you buy or use instructions, reverse-engineer, etc. the work of others and use it in your own MOC - give credit. I don't think it is nearly as complex as sometimes we think it is. I built a Unimog with a pneumatic engine in it. Super-fun for me...... but even though I have built my own LPEs, none of them work as good as Alex Zorko's @ LPEpower.com. I didn't want to take the time or cost to learn to modify Lego switches and cylinders so I bought an LPE from him and that is what was used in my project. Therefore.... the credit goes to him. Simple as that. However, to agree with perhaps more what is being discussed here on the second page, non-blatant copying of ideas, or obtaining inspiration from others is not so clear cut. It is not that people are disagreeing that credit should be given to original builders, it is that there is skepticism about quantifying what constitutes "original" in the first place --- and I agree with this. @rm8 said it best when he lamented that we don't want to begin making a wonderful hobby like a onerous research papers........ adding pages and pages of citations as references. Duly noted. We don't. I don't pretend to know exactly how to navigate things here in the more murky area of ideas, etc. - but.... I think it is worth mentioned that there is a distinction between blatant copying of a build and more of a using others' ideas for inspiration, or an idea...etc. This is worth mentioning because it is not a change in opinion between whether one should or should not give credit to others' work but rather a change in opinion of what work should and should not be credited.......

Welcome to EB! Honestly, this is one of my favorite MOCs in a long time. This is really well done. So many things to love, but specifically love the worm gears at angles.

This question reminds me of a famous essay written by the eminent evolutionary biologist, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, on an issue often debated in marine biology. Are Portuguese Man-O-War Jellyfish single organisms of colonies of organisms just all cohabitating together? No need to look all this up (but if you are interested, here is a link: https://medium.com/@TyrannosuarusMaximus/biology-mythkillers-the-portuguese-man-o-war-ebb695c433e1#.45rf1e4vj ). Briefly, to summarize what he concluded with was that some questions are meant to generate answers, and other questions are meant to generate discussion. This question feels the same. It has been asked before, and is a great question. But, we should not expect a concrete answer. It will generate some really good discussion, and likely some guidelines. But not a hard and fast rule or answer. In that spirit, here are some guidelines I think worth mentioning: - Builds are easier to quantify than ideas. Ideas exist all over the place, and are much more difficult to trace their point of origin. Given this, I think there must be much more slack of the crediting of ideas. Creating a solid trace of origin is difficult for ideas. If borrowing a whole build, then definitely the source should be mentioned. - When things are freely shared, such as Sariel's site, or on our own Axle thread, although credit should still be given (in my opinion) again I think things should be a little more lax. When the author is posting their information they are giving the information out to the public. They should expect it to be used. If credited, great. And IMO, it should be. BUT, if it is not, once again, IMO, no fit should be thrown. - All this somewhat needs to be taken with a grain of salt. As others have pointed out, there are many methods with no certain identifiable point of origin. If one exists, and is well-known in the community, then great. But often there are not. The quote "no need to re-create the wheel" I think applies here. Just because someone else has done something, IMO, this does not mean that one needs to find a different way of going about doing it. Improvement, yes..... but if there is something out there good that serves a purpose, use it. Science progresses not by solely the sharing of ideas; but the sharing of ideas with the assumption of sharing in their use as well. - Lastly, I don't think that the sharing of MOCs and being part of a community are completely orthogonal to each other. That is, they are not distinct, unparalleled processes. To share a MOC is to also become a member of a community, replete with an identity and reputation. If one chooses to borrow ideas, builds, etc without the proper sharing of credit then the community will pick up on this and the sharer will be labeled as such. Although perhaps not obvious at face value, I think it actually best serves the borrower of ideas/MOCs to share their source of information if obvious, as this will only help build their identity in the community whereas stealing the work of others without giving proper credit will only hamper it....

Funny. I never received a PM from you either. I know at least one other member also is having this issue. I see that you have provided your email already once, so to avoid being redundant, can I just send a message to that email?

All good answers. Thanks everyone. I was building this weekend and just found myself thinking that I seem to use the 3/4 pins less and less.

I am sure I am missing something. But to be there seems to be a decreasing use for Technic 3/4 pins. I mean, I know their intended use, obviously, for 1/2 lift arms. And I know they have the exact measurement and grooves at the end so there is a perfect connection with a 1/2 lift arm.... when one connects the 1/2 pin into a 1/2 liftarm there is a *snap*. However, the connection never seems perfect... does it? The connection wobbles a little bit. Not sure about others but I find myself using the Technic 1/2 pin More often than the 3/4 pin to make a connection into a 1/2 liftarm. I know the connection does not provide a **snap** and therefore is not a perfect connection, but it does seem more secure. There is no wobbling. Anyone else have this issue with 3/4 pins? Do you sometimes, always, never make this switch? If so, what is the rational? Are there other good uses for the 3/4 pins?

Clever use for the drum nice job.

one thing that is always missed when discussing this topic is color. Sure, the Volvo loader is a great place to start, but only if you planning on building a yellow jeep or tank. as I have advanced as builder I think one of the biggest things i omitted ad I started building up my collection was color. I can build forever in black. Other colors not so much. Something to consider. Especially with all the color variation in new sets

I am also in Texas. . Although I don't know of any truck trials

I thought this day would never come. I now have a funny feeling I need to reassess my whole life.

wow.... These are great. Mine are ordered and will now go on my ultimate "displayable" version. Perhaps I will have to take new pics.

Perhaps, but honestly, I think the strips in the older versions were sufficiently strong themselves. In several projects already posted earlier this year, but demonstrate this point fairly well I took a pneumatic engine, revved it to around 1500 RPMs and applied that power to an inactive axle with at least some weight on it (not alot) and never had any problems with the gears stripping or breaking. This really surprised me. Akin to reeving a car in neutral and then throwing into gear which puts alot of strain on the gears. In the video below, the old-style clutch gears were used, not the old ones. So yea, I think they are strong enough. In my air-turbine version of a similar project (won't repost..... pretty much the same idea as above only faster) I did the same but the input axle was moving at several thousand RPMs before it engaged.

I think another issue that has not been discussed is the distance from the center of the gears that are causing the friction when they do touch a liftarm, connector, etc. The way I understand it, when friction is further from the center, the force will have greater stopping power. That is why disk brake circumference on cars, motorcycles, etc. is so important and immensely desirable on high-performance vehicles. Check out the diameter, thus the distance from the center, of the disk brake on this high-performance bike Versus the distance on just a regular road bike (much less speed, weight, etc. - you get the picture. Much less stopping power needed) On the gears being discussed, the distance from the center of the gear that may potentially rub against another surface is pretty significant. Taken from @didumos69 own photo.... When there is rub against another surface, the new gear acts like a large disk brake on a high performance bike, car, etc. More stopping power for the same force generated on say something that has a smaller radius. Like the older clutch gear, that has a smaller radius.

hmmmm..... I'd be cautious here. This might be an appropriate place for the old saying, "the absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of an absence" Interpretation: Just because people aren't complaining about this post doesn't mean there are no complaints. People might just be sparing some feelings. not to be too critical perhaps some constructive feed back would be: try and ask questions that have some objectivity. Your question is purely subjective. Any responses are only based on what responders think is desirable. But, if you ask the question: Should I build A or B given the rules of contest C or.... Should I build A our B given that I only have x to spend, or that I only have pieces x,y, and z, or something like that then responders have something objective to go off of.