|
 |
| | | Author: | psusaxman2000  | | Posted: | May 12, 2021 21:28 | | Subject: | Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 192 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| Saw this article pop up on reddit and thought it was interesting. Who's
up for the challenge?
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20578627
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | owlcd | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 08:53 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, psusaxman2000 writes:
As an engineer, geek and AFOLer, I found this fascinating! Engineering (and LEGO!)
for the win!
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, psusaxman2000 writes:
Ugh so is this the state of science writing?
"The average maximum force the bricks can stand is 4,240N. That's equivalent
to a mass of 432kg (950lbs). If you divide that by the mass of a single brick,
which is 1.152g, then you get the grand total of bricks a single piece of Lego
could support: 375,000."
Bricks have mass, of course, and technically speaking grams and kg are units
of mass, but weight is the issue. On the moon a brick could support many more
bricks.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Cob | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 11:10 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, peregrinator writes:
| | In General, psusaxman2000 writes:
Ugh so is this the state of science writing?
"The average maximum force the bricks can stand is 4,240N. That's equivalent
to a mass of 432kg (950lbs). If you divide that by the mass of a single brick,
which is 1.152g, then you get the grand total of bricks a single piece of Lego
could support: 375,000."
Bricks have mass, of course, and technically speaking grams and kg are units
of mass, but weight is the issue. On the moon a brick could support many more
bricks.
|
Really? Why be "Ugh" over this article, I thought the article was neat and interesting.
Why discuss building on the moon when only a handful of LEGO pieces have even
been to space? Why didn't you mention Mars? Appreciate the point of the
article that LEGO bricks can support a lot of force, instead of finding problems.
Look hard enough and errors will be discovered in anything written.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 11:58 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, Cob writes:
| |
Look hard enough and errors will be discovered in anything written.
|
Some people live for detecting errors, and pointing them out. Instead, time should
be spent investigating, inventing, and creating.
I'm still skeptical that LEGO could be stacked at such a height without failure
creeping in. It would have to be done in a perfect vacuum, and likely at 1 earth
gravity. This almost begs the math involved to calculate maximum brick height
for all planetary bodies (excluding those where ABS would be non-functional,
Venus I'm looking at you !). But then you have to deal with what happens
to ABS when the temperature is very cold. I'm guessing it may become very
brittle.
In any case, back to the LEDs !
Nita Rae
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, peregrinator writes:
| | In General, psusaxman2000 writes:
Ugh so is this the state of science writing?
"The average maximum force the bricks can stand is 4,240N. That's equivalent
to a mass of 432kg (950lbs). If you divide that by the mass of a single brick,
which is 1.152g, then you get the grand total of bricks a single piece of Lego
could support: 375,000."
Bricks have mass, of course, and technically speaking grams and kg are units
of mass, but weight is the issue. On the moon a brick could support many more
bricks.
|
Well, one could also remark that you practically can’t pile 375,000 bricks,
or that if you manage that feat, that the higher you go, the lighter the bricks
get (375,000 bricks high = 3.6km), so you could pile a few more before the one
at the bottom melts. Or you’d need to arrange the 375,000 bricks to sit and
balance on the one lone bottom brick and to stay “not far” from sea level on
Earth.
Or you could remark that cows aren’t perfectly spherical…. 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, SylvainLS writes:
| | Well, one could also remark that you practically can’t pile 375,000 bricks,
or that if you manage that feat, that the higher you go, the lighter the bricks
get (375,000 bricks high = 3.6km), so you could pile a few more before the one
at the bottom melts. Or you’d need to arrange the 375,000 bricks to sit and
balance on the one lone bottom brick and to stay “not far” from sea level on
Earth.
Or you could remark that cows aren’t perfectly spherical….
|
The article actually addresses some of the praticalities of stacking the bricks
that high - e.g., the center at the top would have to be no more than 2mm from
the center at the bottom. What bothers me is the conflation of mass with weight.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 13:07 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, peregrinator writes:
| | The article actually addresses some of the praticalities of stacking the bricks
that high - e.g., the center at the top would have to be no more than 2mm from
the center at the bottom. What bothers me is the conflation of mass with weight.
|
This article clearly targeted "average people" instead of trying to be a purely
scientific dissertation. For most, mass is the same as weight. Go to any doctor
for your yearly physical, and s/he will ask you your weight (not your mass) in
kg or lbs. Any ordinary scale "weighs" in kg/lbs, not in Newtons. And while you
are done beating up your doctor, please put in a massive amount of technical
issue reports on BL, to have them either change all the "weight" references to
"mass", or show the weight in Newtons.
In short, everyone knows what was meant in the article. No need to get all worked
up about it.
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 14:20 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, qwertyboy writes:
| | This article clearly targeted "average people" instead of trying to be a purely
scientific dissertation. For most, mass is the same as weight.
|
Yes, so the article should have just used the term "weight" rather than "mass".
I don't at all mind if weight is described in the usual metric terms.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | May 13, 2021 14:55 | | Subject: | Re: Lego "Melts" Under Pressure | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, peregrinator writes:
| | In General, psusaxman2000 writes:
Ugh so is this the state of science writing?
"The average maximum force the bricks can stand is 4,240N. That's equivalent
to a mass of 432kg (950lbs). If you divide that by the mass of a single brick,
which is 1.152g, then you get the grand total of bricks a single piece of Lego
could support: 375,000."
Bricks have mass, of course, and technically speaking grams and kg are units
of mass, but weight is the issue. On the moon a brick could support many more
bricks.
|
g, kg, lbs, & N units all in one paragraph? Reminds me of my college classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Pennsylvania
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Alberta