aol000xw

25: 10 26: 6 38: 4 37: 3 23: 2 1: 1

The TC6 closing date caused some err... confusion and it was a simple and well explained matter. For a staff award I can foresee complains, controversy and whatnot by those who don't understand, share or accept the staff decision. I worry some flame wars might ensue and that is always a burden on the moderators. Those unhappy may have their posts moderated by those already tired moderators that made the "wrong" decision with the prize "adding" offense to injury and... Hmm perhaps I am a bit pessimistic

I can't believe there can be so much wrong in a single line,The irony is strong with this one.

Eneloop, I like the low discharge rate when not used. There are several generations,models and brands, so not every cell is the same. Just Google Eneloop.

Oh there is another thread... Is that sarcasm? I can't tell from the single smiley.

From a non purist point of view if I understood correctly using reinforcements in axles like half bushes is mostly useless because there is always a critical section between every half bush, at the point where an axle crosses a beam or where gears are put. So unless spreading torque among several axles and gears there is not much to do 2x2 round bricks reinforcing an axle -yeah bulky- given the diameter and the design of the parts and having an axle at the core would increase the strength by a high margin right? But unless the 24 and 40 teeth gears can fit the 4 studs without modification it is a non purist options because: If a gear sits next to a 2x2 round brick, it needs to be firmly attached to it, otherwise everything is reduced to a critical section at the axle. If two or more consecutive gears are used to increase "gear strength" then those should be attached or glued together and to the round bricks next to them if any. Axles can never cross a beam CV or UV joints would need to be custom if some are needed before the "reinforced axle" is spread among several standard axles, one to each of several wheels for example. in doing so, the limits of the axle could theoretically be overcome by a very high margin, for example in a big truck using several XL motors and a main shaft to transfer all the torque.

Detecting sarcasm from smileys is like calling Photoshop from the pixels.

It's ok, I can tell from the smileys! Besides...everybody feels the same about you! Hmm guys are you sure about the smiley thing? I think something isn't working.

There are 4 pneumatic cylinders

I like the fire plane quite a lot, really good parts set due to those 3/5 panels. In the end no set using Tumbler tires in 2015, I am a little disappointed, Luckily the Arocs is compensation eough

So that's all? I was about to get my pitchfork and join the mob Care someone to explain what are the negative effects besides vibrations of incorrectly setting he UJoints if any? I guess it is not relevant at Lego scale, but to be honest never cared of UJoints alignment so at least this argument was useful to me.

I have seen old motors crawling and loosing most of it's torque, I guess because the magnets lost strength overtime, but those were using not neodymium magnets, and I don't know if that applies here.

So are the 2x2 round trans clear blue as water confirmed? I think I see some in the picture.

Many of you might be somehow violating rights given by design patents of commercial models Most of the MOCs I see are modelling real life designs by companies that really did patent all that they could conceivably patent and since selling instructions is a commercial activity that is benefiting not only from those designs but from the brand that made those, that leaves the door open to litigation. An exaggeration probably but IP lawyers love brands Irony is complaining about someone "stealing" your instructions of a MOC of a real life counterpart for which you did not care to license with the company that designed the model those very instructions help to build Whatever... I don't give a shit, where are my new pneumatics? Btw I agree with Sariel When MOCing the same subject given 2 technics or designs one is always of higher fidelity to the original. Hence two equally skilled builders coming to similar or even identical designs isn't only probable, is expected. There are people who really love to scream that A is a copy of B, when most probably both are inspirations first of the real model and then of many other MOCs.

Now I will complain harder and louder about the lack of a 5292 motor for PF. Cause you know... we are still 6 months away of really having new pneumatics and need to keep all the whining flowing until then.

Hmm how many grill designs are? The built model does not look at all like the box pictures. I am not sure which one I dislike more... Don't get me wrong I think it is a great set. It is just the grill that is bugging me.

There is a difference between copyright and patents. While copy rights are intended to protect creative works, they do not apply to every aspect of intellectual property, mechanical designs for example are covered by patents -for a notably shorter term-. Instructions are covered by copyright but I don't believe possible to enforce copyright over the MOCs/MODs defined by those very instructions unless we are talking about built models, and that isn't obvious either. Copyright is -at first sight- pretty straightforward but patenting is a way more convoluted process subject to concession, revision and whatnot, and a MOC could be covered by industrial design patents -a special kind of patent for the "looks"-, but as a MOC is indeed a bunch of Lego parts conforming a mechanical device with several functions and a specific design things get very complex. So in the end anyone could take your instructions make a new ones with different steps, colors, page desing, building order etc., and then you are out of look as that is an "original work" even if in the end the resulting Lego model is the same. On the other hand it would be hard to enforce a design patent for a MOC even if someone was selling the parts and the instructions together, as those parts may represent or may not the patented design and the instructions aren't covered by that. However if you had a design patent over a MOC and someone was selling BUILT copies of that MOC that might have some force... Unless they made exactly the same car for example except they modified a bit the body to avoid failing in the scope of your design patent. In the end you can't get into the intellectual property world and keep your common sense and sanity intact. But this is a pretty simplistic view and worse one that varies a lot from country to country.

However we are well served of sarcasm, not in quality but sure in quantity.

I don't buy all that marketing nonsense, in my experience some women find subjects that lack or can't convey beauty or emotion boring and uninteresting. I'd sadly say most women. Technic is somewhat the ugly emotionless branch of Lego so probably mostly women who are already interested in science somehow will see the appeal of Technic. However those women won't feel intimidated at all by a "for men" label. About pink I believe is cultural and loses appeal pretty fast with age so it won't help Technic at all, the same that a "for men" campaign probably wouldn't affect "female" sales.

Lego for men I had to check, and... I didn't know of www.legomen.de, but they sure know how to make it look "for men",

I noticed that, I guess the wheels are connected by an axle instead of a three pin hub, and the sheer weight of the model is a bit too much.

About the Fire plane I read somewhere the water are indeed 2x2 round tiles but I am a little skeptic.

They are not going out of business thanks to abandoning the Technic line and keeping the profitable ones. By the way didn't anyone some weeks ago say anything about new PF parts?

Hmm they raised the stakes this year

Only one motor connected to the battery box and a lever to a gear box, so my guess is two powered functions, tilting the boom and raising/lowering the claw.