Note how this is built in the "stacked" method, i.e. old school Lego. Even with technical parts, this was uniquely accessible. My proudest achievement was a smooth running, jamproof pump for elevating marbles; you can see it from about 0:27 in this old camcorder video:
These Legos encouraged engineering thinking all the way and were the defining toy of my childhood.
Modern Legos are stunning. Look, for example, for the Rubik's cube solve machine that can twist a (lubricated) cube to completion in a few seconds. However they're no longer stacked from bottom to top; they're built "inside out" and the best tool to come up with a design for them is probably a CAD program. Stunning results for those who have put in the time, but not so encouraging for tinkerers just starting out. So it's nice to still see "old school" stuff being built.
The bottom up vs inside out has always been present - and the robotics Lego build on Technic which always had a bit of the inside-out build going on.
I think a big part of learning to build well with Lego is realizing the refactoring that’s built in - like Minecraft you build a prototype and then continually refine it until the final product looks amazing.
edit: I know nothing about woodworking or crafting any building materials, but I always wish I could perform those types of projects. And whenever some potential project comes up, I think to myself, "but I could build it with Legos."
> edit: I know nothing about woodworking or crafting any building materials, but I always wish I could perform those types of projects. And whenever some potential project comes up, I think to myself, "but I could build it with Legos."
I bought a case for the Raspberry Pi camera that has a LEGO-compatible back and a small LEGO set (10692) specifically for making things to hold the camera where I want it. It has worked great.
Question for LEGO geeks: my set only has one L-bracket, and it is quite small. Looking at other sets at local stores, they also only have one or two small L-brackets.
Is there some way other than L-brackets that people use when they want some LEGO assembly to connect perpendicularly to some other assembly?
Or should I just order an assortment of brackets from a third-party LEGO brick marketplace site, like this [1].
This pattern is what people call 'SNOT'[1]. As my 10yr old has moved up to more complex sets, the percentage of those increases, sicne they allow designers to achieve different effects. I would personally recommend the 1x2 or 1x4 blocks with studs on one side, those are fairly sturdy.
In addition to brackets also consider hinges [1], like the standard 1x2 hinge [2] or for higher load a combination of e.g. [3] and [4]. There are also various solutions using Technic parts.
I'd honestly just order what you need from bricklink. Alternatively get used Lego by weight from ebay. Around here you get a kilogram of unsorted, good quality Lego for €20.
If you have a part you really like BrickLink is often he best way to get it cheaply (as you can buy just it) - but if you want to expand your collection I would use BrickLink’s tools to find sets that have as many of the parts as you can find and try to locate those on sale.
Or try the local Goodwill Auction site (if you drive to pickup you save on shipping and can outbid others).
That's almost what I ended up doing, except rather than putting the flat piece between two rows of studs, I put it on top of the studs and had adjacent stacks to stabilize it.
Two flat pieces back to back are very very close to the width between the sides of two rows of bricks separated by one row of empty studs.
Here is a photo [1]. Here it is with the three top braces and the cable holder removed so you can see everything [2].
This the LEGO compatible case I'm using for the camera [3].
oh, i am soo waiting for that. you can already print compatible bricks now, but the results are not quite there yet, but that's totally the future. instead of buying sets in a shop i'd lofe to just print out the parts at home. one nice thing is that, since the parts are so small, it's much easier to deal with print failures, because reprinting a broken part is much easier than reprinting a whole model.
The Lego corporation is welcome to care about that for trademark reasons, but the rest of us don't really have a need to do so. "Legos" is clearly in common usage, failure to YELL ABOUT LEGO IN ALL CAPS and all.
Ugh Lego and trademarks. My wife and I had Lego threaten to sue us for trying to import "legos" of mass destruction, it seems. We ordered a lego-compatible kit, which is ok I think, since it's only the lego figure that is patented Lego, the logo and name of course trademarked to Lego, and any brand cooperation to respective rights holders (eg Star Wars).
However, a kit without Lego names or logos, and without Lego-figures, and without any branding or copy of existing Lego-kit, should be ok.
But no. In some way, our customs withheld the package and we had lawyers for Lego threaten to sue us if we claimed rights to the package. They attached the Lego figure patent with the threat. We said, burn it, forget it, and acknowledge that we can sleep at night again please, but they forgot the last part.
It was a kit worth about 10€, and we have hundreds of €'s of Lego. Now we've stopped buying Lego. Also, less plastic crap.
Not to sound bitter, but the big friggin majority of kids toys industry is shit and the world would be a better place without it. Sorry for the steam :S.
the patent for the lego figure is expired too. they still have a 3d design mark on the figure which bluebrixx is working now to overturn.
you tried to privately import a single box? i can understand lego going against commercial importers, but private shipments of individuals who don't have any resources to defend themselves, that's just ridiculous.
However, a kit without Lego names or logos, and without Lego-figures, and without any branding or copy of existing Lego-kit, should be ok.
and they are. but you have to make the effort to defend yourself against the accusations, which a commercial importer can do, but it's totally unfair to put that on individuals for a single set.
which set exactly did you try to import?
there are a few large importers in germany, you may consider those. avoids the hassle...
They send bulk of these threats for any package that customs mark as "probably fake Lego". Depending on a country, if you refuse to get the product incinerated you'd have to pay storage fees for the time it takes to get an expert to assess the claim. Lego is doing great job in making sure custom officers have as little knowledge of the real situation as possible.
And to add to Lego's sis each set includes unnecessary unique bricks so that you can't remake a set without buying these custom parts. There are tens of thousands unique bricks so far and this trend is going strong.
and as soon as you start paying those fees the price advantage of personally importing alternative brands is lost. making importing only worth the risk for a set that you really want because lego doesn't have anything comparable.
You're right to be bitter, especially so because Lego has a pretty sordid history in this respect, the only reason they exist is because the founder copied someone else's IP and made a bundle of money on it. At the root of every great fortune there is a great crime. Oh, and the original inventor committed suicide. Those little details.
My main point here is that you probably don't run around saying LEGO, in all caps, not singular vs plural.
I understand why the LEGO corporation does it, but it's their problem, not ours, and we don't really need unpaid lego consultants running around lecturing people about the "correct" way to refer to them.
I think it's fairly obvious why they want people to refer to them as a brand—they don't want to lose their trademark. If LEGO becomes so generic as to lose its association with the company that created it, then they lose out to all of the copycat companies. Velcro has done the same ("hook and loop, one side's a hook, the other's a loop"...).
Personally I get faintly annoyed by people saying "legos" the same as I would by people saying "sheeps" instead of sheep when referring to multiple, although I don't think I've ever corrected anyone over it.
That was exactly my point. The guy was saying people shouldn't correct an "incorrect" thing which is in common usage, but I was trying to emphasise that it isn't common usage everywhere.
Strange because as an American I've almost always heard to them referred as Legos. As a kid, my friends and I said, "let's play with Legos". My parents would say " get these legos off the floor". Seems odd to me to think of these phrases without the "s" on lego
I have a pet theory - in north america you have a popular snack called an eggo (pluralised to eggos) thats basically a waffle.
I think americans started calling lego legos because they were already calling eggos eggos. In the uk and europe generally we don't have eggos, so we don't have legos.
More likely, the Americans lengthen the e in the first syllable into almost a diphthong, like /eɪ/, and shorten the "o" in the second syllable into a schwa kind of sound that can comfortably be followed by /z/. Meanwhile, in British and many European accents, the first syllable is short and strongly stressed /ɛ/, and the o is /oʊ/, and you can't add an s without contorting your mouth in some horrible way. Which is why British people are so disgusted by "Legos". Try saying it with an American accent.
Yeah thats probably a more reasonable explanation than my theory. On the other hand its pretty common to say silos, speedos (both for swimwear and slang for a speedometer) and flamingos in British english and they have very similar endings.
Interestingly the company initially wanted people to call them "Froffles", but people apparently called them "eggos" due to the fact that they taste eggy. Then the company changed the name to "eggo" to reflect that.
I checked the wiki page and thought the contrast between the two approaches is interesting.
I love pet theories so I hate to disagree. I've personally said the word "Legos" about 1M times in my life and it's mostly because Legos always come in groups, groups with a lot of items. You have to have a plural word to refer to them.
Also (child of the 70s) I am certain that I was calling mine Legos before I even knew about Eggo waffles. Third - boy I'm really piling on, sorry - I don't think I've ever referred to multiple Eggo waffles as "Eggos", probably because there's already "waffles" for that.
the catchphrase from the advertisement is "leggo my eggo", where leggo means "let go" which can't have an s appended. i have never had them so i am not sure, but i don't think they are that popular, and i haven't seem them referred to in plural
It seems to be a fairly clear-cut geographical divide - Americans always pluralise, Britons never do. Without knowing but based on other lexical splits, I'd expect the majority of the rest of the Anglophone world to follow British usage, with Canada going either one way or the other. Usually Americans can cite 17c usage as a precedent - not in this case !
you are of course right, and people have been trying to get the word lego to be used as a common term for all lego compatible bricks, but that's dangerous as for now lego can stop anyone from publishing anything about alternative brands using the term lego. so they have to avoid doing that or will get in trouble. better to avoid the term lego altogether and just call them bricks.
I use "bricks" (or the very neat tearm "Klemmbausteine" in German) in any context where Lego legal might want to interfere, and stick to Lego/Legos otherwise. It's a common term beyond any reasonable doubt by now, and corporations really shouldn't pry their greedy tentacles that deeply into everyday life.
right, i have a hard time avoiding the term lego at home with my kids too. the main problem for me though is that i am quite disappointed with how lego treats competitors that i just don't want to promote the lego brand anymore.
btw: german seems to have developed two terms. i don't know where it originated, but bluebrixx (and i don't know who else) uses the term "noppensteine".
we'll have to see which term becomes more popular. both are descriptive, but "noppen" is a rather rarely used word which feels a bit wierd when you are not used to it.
You might not really need to avoid using the term in a way that is understood by the general public. There are quite a few (United States) precedents for losing trademark if a term becomes genericized. For example: Asprin, Escalator, Flip Phone, etc.
Even you're misconstruing their recommendation. "LEGO is always an adjective" implies there is no plural form, because there is no noun to begin with. You're supposed to say "LEGO brick(s)", apparently...
One of the most fascinating things about HN is how people will come out in droves to bash the environmental impact of mining cryptocurrency, but legos are just wonderful - nevermind the plastic waste.
There must be a name for this phenomenon.
Obviously this post will get downvoted with no real rebuttal - more idiosyncracies of the quality platform that is HN.
I prefer it when the commentary on Hacker News does not extend to hot takes. I am sure there are many hypocrisies to be observed on HN, but you are drawing a patently false equivalence between the carbon footprint of cryptocurrency, which if it produces value, certainly does not do so directly, and the impact of the plastic pollution caused by lego pieces, one of the most heavily conserved categories of plastic object in the world.
Say what you will, but any post on HN that even mentions cryptocurrency in passing has an environmental alarmist as the top upvoted post whereas here any such thing will be downvoted to the bottom.
> I prefer it when the commentary on Hacker News does not extend to hot takes.
Seems like you don't speak for the hivemind. Hot takes get upvoted on the regular around here. Just not when they don't conform to the echo chamber.
I found a name for the phenomenon that I was looking for, I think.
That plastic will outlast you, though. When considering environmental impact it's prudent to look beyond a couple hundred years - which I admit we suck at as humans.
Back in 2017 I supported a Kickstarter for Foldscope - The Origami-inspired Paper Microscope. I got a classroom package and they are still in use for all I know.
Foldscope is analog and priced to fit low income countries STEM needs but this Lego hack is nice too.
Yes, even $10 for the paper microscope is too much. It was designed to be cheap to increase access to instruments and make them more likely to be used. Selling them in this way really makes me wonder where the profit goes. For comparison I have a Carson Microbrite 60x-120x and it was $12.
Edit: as an aside, how do they have discontinued items in their store that are for 'international' orders only?
> Why the difference in price between Deluxe Individual Kits and Classroom Kits?
>Our mission is to bring bring affordable scientific tools to everyone (not just communities who have the resources - but everyone). For any of this to be possible, our business model balances our cost of operations with offering extremely low-cost (low-profit) products.
>We find this balance through a pricing structure that operates on a 2-tier system: high price point kits for individual Foldscopes (Deluxe Individual Kits), and low price point kits for bulk Foldscopes (Classroom Kits).
>We arrived at this pricing structure for many reasons, but primarily because the reality of fulfillment and shipping means we cannot ship a single Foldscope that costs roughly $1 in parts to produce at a $1 dollar price while being sustainable. Overall, we make a profit only from our high price point kits, this profit allows for us to exist and produce any microscopes at all, and this profit also subsidizes our low price point kits (which we do not profit off of), in which offer Foldscopes for as inexpensive as $1.75 each!
This is fantastic. There are some incredible ideas on that site and this microscope is a good example of an expert model maker using their creativity to work with the constraints of the Lego.
Lego seems to provide just the right amount creative control whilst still imposing its own rules and limitations. You see tiny models that express the character of the subject so well, often by using blocks in unexpected ways to create the subtlest hint of a form. The end result has so much charm but requires great skill.
Pity you still need non-lego lenses though. Can anybody come up with a way to avoid that? Perhaps something based on the principles of a Camera Obscura?
Could you retrieve lenses from otherwise junk hardware? If the lenses are different you’d likely have to calibrate it differently but it still should work.
I wonder if it would hold any weight in the dispute if he claimed the brick was not actually a Lego brick, but one of the numerous perfectly legal stud-compatible knock-offs.
the patents for lego bricks have long expired, so anyone can copy them, which is why we are now seeing many alternative lego compatible brands, because they are in fact legal.
what is not legal is to clone the exact models that lego produces, and to pretend that a clone is lego, which it isn't. but as long as the alternative brands come up with their own models they are perfectly legitimate.
as for this microscope, it's not even a product, just a design, there are websites where these designs are shared, and even sold (without the bricks which you have to acquire separately). you can even upload your own designs to a lego ideas site where you can promote it and ask lego to sell it as a model.
Like someone mentioned in another thread (edit: and another reply written while I typed this), LEGO the company cares about this for trademark reasons -- they don't want the word to become generic and lose trademark protections.
In the US, I've never actually heard someone use the "correct" plural, everyone just says "Legos", which makes it reasonably correct IMO. That said, I've heard "LEGO" plural occasionally in Europe, more people seem to care across the pond.
LEGO (the company)has to take it seriously because they have to defend their trademark. Likewise, the manufacturer of hook-and-loop fabric closures has to be very clear [0] when a hook-and-loop fabric closure is their product or not, but lay-people are happy to call them all Velcro.
You've linked a Daily Mail story with a baseless assertion and LEGO themselves said it was because of the logo of the store. The story has the owner of the store holding up a t-shirt of the logo such that it's somewhat obscured and the remaining focus is on the store itself.
Well he stopped selling LEGO after that and is now promoting LEGO alternatives which do have a better price / quality ratio.
That LEGO tries to push any competition out of the market with shady legal tactics (e.g. claiming minifigures appear too similar even though they clearly feature different proportions and characteristics) while at the same time hiking prices leaves a bad taste.
indeed. fortunately bluebrixx is now attempting to get the lego 3d design mark of their minifigures invalidated. not because bluebrix wants to sell minifigure clones, but because lego is using their 3d mark as basis for their claim that any other minifigures even dissimilar ones would violate that mark. bluebrix believes that they have a good chance to be successful.
this guy unfortunately did make some mistakes. he did change his logo though, but he later got in trouble again for not clearly distinguishing between lego and compatible brands.
however lego has been very heavy handed in dealing with him and others, causing him to choose to stop selling any lego in his store, focusing on alternative brands only.
lego is trying to prevent competing brands to sell their models at all costs. currently they are fighting bluebrixx and johnny's world, who are both large german importers of alternative brands on the basis of the similarity of their minifigures, while those minifigures are not similar at all (except for the fact that they have the expected body parts and are compatible with lego bricks)
https://youtu.be/Mw3dUbRfMSw?t=24
These Legos encouraged engineering thinking all the way and were the defining toy of my childhood.
Modern Legos are stunning. Look, for example, for the Rubik's cube solve machine that can twist a (lubricated) cube to completion in a few seconds. However they're no longer stacked from bottom to top; they're built "inside out" and the best tool to come up with a design for them is probably a CAD program. Stunning results for those who have put in the time, but not so encouraging for tinkerers just starting out. So it's nice to still see "old school" stuff being built.