 | | | | | |
I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that a
piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
and/or reach!! I firmly believe that we are dealing with some sort of
artificial intelligence here. The Lego, as it is falling, is using some kind of
radar device to seek out the most remote and obscure spot in the room; and then
it calculates the angle and trajectory at which it must hit the floor to bounce
into that precise spot. The smaller pieces seem to have a greater capacity for
this and also a greater desire for escape - they seem to flee in higher
numbers. As for the pieces that never get found, I envision some kind of
underground railroad that secretly leads them on their journey to freedom.
Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
they do it!! Any theories?
"I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!"
Bill
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that a
> piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
> and/or reach!!
This is a well-established Law of Murphy, but it still never fails to annoy
me. I build most of my smaller sets on my desk, and invariably I'll drop a
piece or two during construction, only to have it skitter to the joint of the
wall and floor behind my desk. It doesn't matter if it's a round 1x1 or a
6x12 plate; they all end up there. I'm convinced there's some sort of ABS
gravity well behind my desk. Maybe I can harness it...
Dave!
(follow-ups to off-topic.fun)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> they do it!! Any theories?
I think they're likely in cahoots with Wham-O whose Frisbees have long been
seeking the underside of autos for years.
-Steven
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Steven Vore writes:
> > Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> > Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> > they do it!! Any theories?
I definitely have to agree with this. I usually do my building at a desk or
table and my bricks decide to fall just underneath the center of the chair.
That one spot that you (or I, at least) can't reach without either getting out
of your chair, or leaning so far that you risk falling over. Also, if I drop
one without realizing it, I have my own underground railroad -- my cat. She's
managed to scatter lost pieces to the four corners (or more, depending on the
room) of my house.
-Jonathan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Jonathan Little writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Steven Vore writes:
> > > Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> > > Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out • how
> > > they do it!! Any theories?
>
>
> I definitely have to agree with this. I usually do my building at a desk or
> table and my bricks decide to fall just underneath the center of the chair.
> That one spot that you (or I, at least) can't reach without either getting out
> of your chair, or leaning so far that you risk falling over. Also, if I drop
> one without realizing it, I have my own underground railroad -- my cat. She's
> managed to scatter lost pieces to the four corners (or more, depending on the
> room) of my house.
>
> -Jonathan
I suspect that there is a place between the floor of my apartment and the
ceiling of the apartment below, where errant LEGO, cigarette lighters,
paperclips, computer case screws and jumper shunts congregate to have parties
and laugh at us. The cats know where these parties are held, but are too large
to fit in to the holes. When your cat is staring off into space, it's actually
listening to the various items laughing at the humans. This is why cats have
no respect for people; their tiny little kitty-minds have been poisoned from
overhearing lost items bad mouth us all their lives.
-Cheese
-Cheese
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Steven Vore writes:
> > Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> > Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> > they do it!! Any theories?
>
> I think they're likely in cahoots with Wham-O whose Frisbees have long been
> seeking the underside of autos for years.
>
> -Steven
Not to mention the rooves of buildings. ;)
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jeff Stembel wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Steven Vore writes:
> > > Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> > > Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> > > they do it!! Any theories?
> >
> > I think they're likely in cahoots with Wham-O whose Frisbees have long been
> > seeking the underside of autos for years.
> >
> > -Steven
>
> Not to mention the rooves of buildings. ;)
Not to mention the roofs...<runnning> >;-)
-John
>
>
> Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal writes:
> Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > Not to mention the rooves of buildings. ;)
> Not to mention the roofs...<runnning> >;-)
hoof -> hooves
roof -> rooves (???)
OR
roof -> roofs
hoof -> hoofs (???)
Ahhhhhh..... That's english for ya' :)
-David
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Carriker writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal writes:
> > Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > > Not to mention the rooves of buildings. ;)
> > Not to mention the roofs...<runnning> >;-)
>
> hoof -> hooves
> roof -> rooves (???)
>
> OR
>
> roof -> roofs
> hoof -> hoofs (???)
>
> Ahhhhhh..... That's english for ya' :)
>
> -David
But it *can* be spelled hoofs, as in "huffs" or "hoooffs". In fact I've seen
it spelled that way more often than the other way. But I don't like it when
people say "ruffs".
-- Ian
(Incidentally, does anyone here say "tomahto"?) :P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Carriker writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal writes:
> > Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > > Not to mention the rooves of buildings. ;)
> > Not to mention the roofs...<runnning> >;-)
>
> hoof -> hooves
> roof -> rooves (???)
>
> OR
>
> roof -> roofs
> hoof -> hoofs (???)
>
> Ahhhhhh..... That's english for ya' :)
>
> -David
FTR, I made a mistake. I checked the dictionary, and rooves is not a plural
form of roof. :) Ahhh... I love English. ;)
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that a
> piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
> and/or reach!! I firmly believe that we are dealing with some sort of
> artificial intelligence here. The Lego, as it is falling, is using some kind • of
> radar device to seek out the most remote and obscure spot in the room; and • then
> it calculates the angle and trajectory at which it must hit the floor to • bounce
> into that precise spot. The smaller pieces seem to have a greater capacity for
> this and also a greater desire for escape - they seem to flee in higher
> numbers. As for the pieces that never get found, I envision some kind of
> underground railroad that secretly leads them on their journey to freedom.
> Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> they do it!! Any theories?
>
>
> "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!"
> Bill
It's just the Lego Variation on Murphy's Law. Well-documented. :-)
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Bill Farkas" <kfar@bellsouth.net> writes:
> I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed
> that a piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult
> spot to see and/or reach!!
A corollary:
any piece falling off of a model will fall into the model where it is
impossible to reach without disassembling at least half of the
constrution. Shaking the model in an attempt to remove the lost piece
will result in the piece beign lodged in an even harder to reach spot and
may cause other pieces to follow suit.
I also hate it when I'm trying to sweep pieces (on a carpet) into a pile,
and the tiny pieces just jump even further from where I want them.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I've been wondering the same thing! But it only works when you don't see
where the falling piece landed. I've often dropped a fairly large piece
(sometimes a whole minifig or something) from my desk when "creating", and
spent up to twenty minutes searching for it! Of course, I'll drop another
piece and watch where it lands as a test, and where it hits the ground it
just sits...in plain view. Argh.
--
Paul Davidson
Bill Farkas <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FowA6w.6Ho@lugnet.com...
> I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that • a
> piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
> and/or reach!! I firmly believe that we are dealing with some sort of
> artificial intelligence here. The Lego, as it is falling, is using some • kind of
> radar device to seek out the most remote and obscure spot in the room; and • then
> it calculates the angle and trajectory at which it must hit the floor to • bounce
> into that precise spot. The smaller pieces seem to have a greater capacity • for
> this and also a greater desire for escape - they seem to flee in higher
> numbers. As for the pieces that never get found, I envision some kind of
> underground railroad that secretly leads them on their journey to freedom.
> Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of • Falling
> Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out • how
> they do it!! Any theories?
>
>
> "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!"
> Bill
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that a
> piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
> and/or reach!! I firmly believe that we are dealing with some sort of
> artificial intelligence here. The Lego, as it is falling, is using some kind • of
> radar device to seek out the most remote and obscure spot in the room; and • then
> it calculates the angle and trajectory at which it must hit the floor to • bounce
> into that precise spot. The smaller pieces seem to have a greater capacity for
> this and also a greater desire for escape - they seem to flee in higher
> numbers. As for the pieces that never get found, I envision some kind of
> underground railroad that secretly leads them on their journey to freedom.
> Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> they do it!! Any theories?
>
>
> "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!"
> Bill
I believe there is another related force involved here. Have you noticed that
if you "create" from the spill method on a large floor of any type that
gravity seems to cluster bricks together. As you sift, spirals of brick move
outward and create new clusters. An oddity that occurs within this system is
the vanishing brick effect, similar to what you describe. Any given brick
will become visible through the course of a sift and search expedition, only
to vanish when the hunt turns toward it. This can cause a simple model
construction to extend into the hours when all sane folk go beddy-bye. This
leads me to believe that a brick free from a well constructed model is either,
a) shy, b) unwilling to experience "one-ness" with a collective, c) an
anarchist, or d) the strggle between good and evil is taking place right there
on your floor!
This cannot be cured unless the user sorts every single brick into separate
colonies comprised of only bricks of the same size and function. Separation
cannot, however cure the bouncing brick problem, as it is common among all
single individual bricks.
I have not got enough time on my hands.
Aaron > maniac@vol.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Aaron West writes:
**snip**
> An oddity that occurs within this system is the vanishing brick effect,
> similar to what you describe. Any given brick will become visible through
> the course of a sift and search expedition, only to vanish when the hunt
> turns toward it. This can cause a simple model construction to extend into
> the hours when all sane folk go beddy-bye.
Preach it, brother! This has driven me crazy for decades!
A further, minor corrolary is that the initially-sought piece will become
visible again, often in large numbers, once an inferior or less desirable
substitute (2 1x4 bricks for a 2x4, et al) is thoroughly entrenched in a model
so that removing it would be a bigger pain than leaving it in.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Aaron West writes:
> **snip**
> > An oddity that occurs within this system is the vanishing brick effect,
> > similar to what you describe. Any given brick will become visible through
> > the course of a sift and search expedition, only to vanish when the hunt
> > turns toward it. This can cause a simple model construction to extend into
> > the hours when all sane folk go beddy-bye.
>
> Preach it, brother! This has driven me crazy for decades!
> A further, minor corrolary is that the initially-sought piece will become
> visible again, often in large numbers, once an inferior or less desirable
> substitute (2 1x4 bricks for a 2x4, et al) is thoroughly entrenched in a model
> so that removing it would be a bigger pain than leaving it in.
I must add yet another corrolary that I discovered... I felt it appropriate
enough to hunt this thread up for it... :-)
Any piece that is completly unwanted will appear in the largest quantities
possible, in a very ubiquitous manner. Once you find a good use for the piece,
it will vanish.
I discovered this today, while trying to find those red parrots that were
*everywhere* just a few days ago... :-)
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
One more collary to add to this thread:
If a piece of Lego has a sharp point on it and falls to the ground, the point
will always be facing up. This piece can only be located by stepping on it with
bare feet. :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Dave Johann writes:
> One more collary to add to this thread:
>
> If a piece of Lego has a sharp point on it and falls to the ground, the point
> will always be facing up. This piece can only be located by stepping on it • with
> bare feet. :-)
And after the initial shock of the impaled foot is felt, you are unconciously
driven to lift your foot off the ground very abruptly, placing yourself in the
least stable standing position possible. Then after trying in vain to grab
hold of something, you fall over, either onto: 1) a pile of equally sharp
Lego, 2) one of your better creations, or 3) the tub that the rest of your
Lego is in, splitting the tub open and causing the contents to spill out
everywhere. The last one has actually happened to me on two separate occasions.
Greg Majewski
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/abs.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Greg Majewski writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Dave Johann writes:
> > One more collary to add to this thread:
> >
> > If a piece of Lego has a sharp point on it and falls to the ground, the point
> > will always be facing up. This piece can only be located by stepping on it • with
> > bare feet. :-)
>
> And after the initial shock of the impaled foot is felt, you are unconciously
> driven to lift your foot off the ground very abruptly, placing yourself in the
> least stable standing position possible. Then after trying in vain to grab
> hold of something, you fall over, either onto: 1) a pile of equally sharp
> Lego, 2) one of your better creations, or 3) the tub that the rest of your
> Lego is in, splitting the tub open and causing the contents to spill out
> everywhere. The last one has actually happened to me on two separate
> occasions.
Or, if you're *really* lucky, you don't fall, but manage to jump to a
different location - which of course also has a few sharp pieces...
Having wall-to-wall carpeting never helps, somehow...
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> And after the initial shock of the impaled foot is felt, you are
> unconciously driven to lift your foot off the ground very abruptly, • placing
> yourself in the least stable standing position possible. Then after
trying in >vain to grab hold of something, you fall over, either onto...
3) the tub that >the rest of your Lego is in, splitting the tub open and
causing the contents >to spill out everywhere. The last one has actually
happened to me on two >separate occasions.
All the boxes my LEGO is sorted into are rather large, so while building,
I tend to stack them around me. However, in order to be able to reach
certain pieces, I often have to move boxes around or shift them, so most
of the time, the boxes are precariously balanced. When I reach over to
grab a box just out of reach, I sometimes lose my balance and set my hand
into the unsupported portion of one of these precariously balanced boxes.
If I'm lucky, the pieces spill only onto the carpet, and not into half a
dozen other boxes...
Enough rambling,
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, 1 May 2000 02:47:48 GMT, Bram Lambrecht <braml@juno.com>
wrote:
> All the boxes my LEGO is sorted into are rather large, so while building,
> I tend to stack them around me. However, in order to be able to reach
> certain pieces, I often have to move boxes around or shift them, so most
> of the time, the boxes are precariously balanced. When I reach over to
> grab a box just out of reach, I sometimes lose my balance and set my hand
> into the unsupported portion of one of these precariously balanced boxes.
> If I'm lucky, the pieces spill only onto the carpet, and not into half a
> dozen other boxes...
> Enough rambling,
> --Bram
Sounds like what happens to me. End up catapulting a monorail sized
box full of pieces at me showering not only myself but the rest of my
sorted boxes with miscellanious pieces. Quite exciting.
Kya
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
>
> All the boxes my LEGO is sorted into are rather large, so while building,
> I tend to stack them around me. However, in order to be able to reach
> certain pieces, I often have to move boxes around or shift them, so most
> of the time, the boxes are precariously balanced. When I reach over to
> grab a box just out of reach, I sometimes lose my balance and set my hand
> into the unsupported portion of one of these precariously balanced boxes.
> If I'm lucky, the pieces spill only onto the carpet, and not into half a
> dozen other boxes...
I can relate to Brams last comment about pieces falling into the wrong
boxes--this has happened to me more than a few times.
As for the problem of dropping/falling Lego, this does not trouble me much at
all. Since the day Lego was brought into my life, I have been building on the
floor. 25 years of sitting on the floor playing with Lego has not been kind to
my knees, but that is another topic.
By builidng on the floor, the dropped piece has nowhere to go--it is already
quite near the floor.
A tip for those of you in search of that dropped piece--
USE A FLASHLIGHT.
Keep a flashlight on your building table and you can then quickly spot that
missing piece, no matter where it has fallen--90 percent of the time, anyway.
As for cats snatching Lego bricks, I suggest using bait. A bunch of old Yellow
2x2 bricks work well and are somewhat easy to locate when searching for them
again. Simply throw one to the cat when he/she approaches or looks hungry for
some plastic to chew and kidnap.
__Kevin Salm__
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> All the boxes my LEGO is sorted into are rather large, so while building,
> I tend to stack them around me. However, in order to be able to reach
> certain pieces, I often have to move boxes around or shift them, so most
> of the time, the boxes are precariously balanced. When I reach over to
> grab a box just out of reach, I sometimes lose my balance and set my hand
> into the unsupported portion of one of these precariously balanced boxes.
> If I'm lucky, the pieces spill only onto the carpet, and not into half a
> dozen other boxes...
This is one advantage of my system where most parts are in resealable
bags (such as ZipLoc). Of course it adds a new way for Murphy to strike
- you pick up an unsealed bag by the bottom...
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> This is one advantage of my system where most parts are in resealable
> bags (such as ZipLoc). Of course it adds a new way for Murphy to strike
> - you pick up an unsealed bag by the bottom...
Indeed. Or when you have your little Plano tackle boxes, filled with parts,
turn around in your chair, your arm hits an object, and you have a MIRV type
LEGO dispearsal all over the place. : )
Here is a container:
http://www.geocities.com/legoguy712/new-pictures-3299/sort-bin1.jpg
Or when you grab a container, not knowing it is closed, or you accidently
drop it, and boom! Instant resorting! My worst instance is when I had a
chest of 60 drawers near the stairs, in the loft area of my condo, and I
tripped and sent the entire drawer on the floor, where I had about two hours
of LEGO sorting and finding, on two floors. Ugh!
Old Building area:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/build-sort.html
Drawer in question: (On the far right, where I am, I guess! : ) )
http://www.geocities.com/legoguy712/build-overall-2.JPG
Scott "This is happened too many times to me" Sanburn
--
Scott E. Sanburn
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
This is perhaps my biggest problem whenever I'm trying to rebuild an old
set. The piece I need is ALWAYS in the one box that has been buried under
all the other boxes.
Dave
Bram Lambrecht <braml@juno.com> wrote in message
news:20000430.213215.5095.0.braml@juno.com...
> "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> > And after the initial shock of the impaled foot is felt, you are
> > unconciously driven to lift your foot off the ground very abruptly, • placing
> > yourself in the least stable standing position possible. Then after
> trying in >vain to grab hold of something, you fall over, either onto...
> 3) the tub that >the rest of your Lego is in, splitting the tub open and
> causing the contents >to spill out everywhere. The last one has actually
> happened to me on two >separate occasions.
>
> All the boxes my LEGO is sorted into are rather large, so while building,
> I tend to stack them around me. However, in order to be able to reach
> certain pieces, I often have to move boxes around or shift them, so most
> of the time, the boxes are precariously balanced. When I reach over to
> grab a box just out of reach, I sometimes lose my balance and set my hand
> into the unsupported portion of one of these precariously balanced boxes.
> If I'm lucky, the pieces spill only onto the carpet, and not into half a
> dozen other boxes...
> Enough rambling,
> --Bram
>
>
> Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
> -------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
> WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Dave Johann" <hardcoredj@techie.com> wrote:
> One more collary to add to this thread:
>
> If a piece of Lego has a sharp point on it and falls to the ground, the point
> will always be facing up. This piece can only be located by stepping on it with
> bare feet. :-)
...Or alternately: "A 1x1 trans-* piece that falls on the floor can only be found by the
vacuum cleaner"... this after my daughter tipped over my 1x1 trans dot box :-/
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that a
> piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
> and/or reach!! I firmly believe that we are dealing with some sort of
> artificial intelligence here. The Lego, as it is falling, is using some kind • of
> radar device to seek out the most remote and obscure spot in the room; and • then
> it calculates the angle and trajectory at which it must hit the floor to • bounce
> into that precise spot. The smaller pieces seem to have a greater capacity for
> this and also a greater desire for escape - they seem to flee in higher
> numbers. As for the pieces that never get found, I envision some kind of
> underground railroad that secretly leads them on their journey to freedom.
> Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> they do it!! Any theories?
>
>
> "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!"
> Bill
I believe there is another related force involved here. Have you noticed that
if you "create" from the spill method on a large floor of any type that
gravity seems to cluster bricks together. As you sift, spirals of brick move
outward and create new clusters. An oddity that occurs within this system is
the vanishing brick effect, similar to what you describe. Any given brick
will become visible through the course of a sift and search expedition, only
to vanish when the hunt turns toward it. This can cause a simple model
construction to extend into the hours when all sane folk go beddy-bye. This
leads me to believe that a brick free from a well constructed model is either,
a) shy, b) unwilling to experience "one-ness" with a collective, c) an
anarchist, or d) the strggle between good and evil is taking place right there
on your floor!
This cannot be cured unless the user sorts every single brick into separate
colonies comprised of only bricks of the same size and function. Separation
cannot, however cure the bouncing brick problem, as it is common among all
single individual bricks.
I have not got enough time on my hands.
Aaron > maniac@vol.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Aaron West writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> > I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that a
> > piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
> > and/or reach!! I firmly believe that we are dealing with some sort of
> > artificial intelligence here. The Lego, as it is falling, is using some kind • of
> > radar device to seek out the most remote and obscure spot in the room; and • then
> > it calculates the angle and trajectory at which it must hit the floor to • bounce
> > into that precise spot. The smaller pieces seem to have a greater capacity • for
> > this and also a greater desire for escape - they seem to flee in higher
> > numbers. As for the pieces that never get found, I envision some kind of
> > underground railroad that secretly leads them on their journey to freedom.
> > Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> > Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> > they do it!! Any theories?
> >
> >
> > "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!"
> > Bill
>
> I believe there is another related force involved here. Have you noticed that
> if you "create" from the spill method on a large floor of any type that
> gravity seems to cluster bricks together. As you sift, spirals of brick move
> outward and create new clusters. An oddity that occurs within this system is
> the vanishing brick effect, similar to what you describe. Any given brick
> will become visible through the course of a sift and search expedition, only
> to vanish when the hunt turns toward it. This can cause a simple model
> construction to extend into the hours when all sane folk go beddy-bye. This
> leads me to believe that a brick free from a well constructed model is either,
> a) shy, b) unwilling to experience "one-ness" with a collective, c) an
> anarchist, or d) the strggle between good and evil is taking place right there
> on your floor!
> This cannot be cured unless the user sorts every single brick into separate
> colonies comprised of only bricks of the same size and function. Separation
> cannot, however cure the bouncing brick problem, as it is common among all
> single individual bricks.
The stated above is *exactly* why I (used to) build in a room with a marble-
like tiled floor that is (other than bricks) totally empty, with all the
pieces sorted into little yogurt cans (washed of course ;-)
But this was an attic room, so of course I had a problem of the pieces falling
down the "stairs", and straight underneath the table that was "in their path".
(They try to mislead you, so whenever you're looking, they roll into
the "obvious" (but still hard to reach) places. If you're not, they turn
around and roll into the most obsecure places...)
Again, this is more support to the theory - against all odds, pieces manage to
escape from our collections. Obviously Lego bricks are VERY advanced life
forms, that like to live alone, but we force them to stay together. We are
evil oppressors.
Let the bricks free, and they'll come to us by themselves! (maybe ;-)
FUT .fun
-Shiri, the 2x4 red LEGO freedom fighter. Let my people go!
The Lion's Cove is under long construction, due to falling and disappearing
lego. See it here:
www.geocities.com/shiri_lego
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Bill Farkas writes:
> I think I've discovered another law of physics! Have you ever noticed that a
> piece of falling Lego will always end up in the most difficult spot to see
> and/or reach!! I firmly believe that we are dealing with some sort of
> artificial intelligence here. The Lego, as it is falling, is using some kind
> of
> radar device to seek out the most remote and obscure spot in the room; and
> then
> it calculates the angle and trajectory at which it must hit the floor to
> bounce
> into that precise spot. The smaller pieces seem to have a greater capacity for
> this and also a greater desire for escape - they seem to flee in higher
> numbers. As for the pieces that never get found, I envision some kind of
> underground railroad that secretly leads them on their journey to freedom.
> Although I have no evidence of the underground railroad, the Law of Falling
> Lego has been documented many times over - I just wish I could figure out how
> they do it!! Any theories?
>
>
> "I'm NOT PLAYING, I'm CREATING!"
> Bill
Very nice observation, Bill! Although I'm afraid I don't know enough about
artificial intelligence or the paranormal to offer any hypotheses of any
value, this is a very close relative of a theory that I've held for years:
After a dropped Lego piece hits the floor, it travels across the floor roughly
six times the distance from the table to the floor.
(Drop Distance) * 6 = Radius at which I start looking.
-Adam 8^D
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Adam Hoekwater <ahoekwat@nd.edu> wrote:
> After a dropped Lego piece hits the floor, it travels across the floor
> roughly six times the distance from the table to the floor.
>
> (Drop Distance) * 6 = Radius at which I start looking.
On what surface? Linoleum? Hardwood? Carpet? (What kind of carpet?)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Matthew Miller writes:
> Adam Hoekwater <ahoekwat@nd.edu> wrote:
> > After a dropped Lego piece hits the floor, it travels across the floor
> > roughly six times the distance from the table to the floor.
> >
> > (Drop Distance) * 6 = Radius at which I start looking.
>
> On what surface? Linoleum? Hardwood? Carpet? (What kind of carpet?)
Hehe... it doesn't matter :-)
-Shiri
(yes, I know that's not physics-wise possible... but we already agreed that
lego bricks don't obey the physics rules! :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Here's a more accurate calculation (deals with different surfaces):
L = (H(R/50)+B)/S
Set H to the height of the table, B to the number of studs of the brick,
R to the radius you get with (H*6) and finally, S to the "bounciness" of
the surface. A wooden floor (or a floor of solid rubber if anyone has
one) has a low (1) value, and a soft carpet has high value (around 10,
if it's really soft, 11). When this is done, you get the Length Of
Bounce, L.
I just made it up now, but it actuallly seems to work pretty fine. I
tried it with cm on my carpet, and, well...
--Tobias
Shiri Dori wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Adam Hoekwater <ahoekwat@nd.edu> wrote:
> > > After a dropped Lego piece hits the floor, it travels across the floor
> > > roughly six times the distance from the table to the floor.
> > >
> > > (Drop Distance) * 6 = Radius at which I start looking.
> >
> > On what surface? Linoleum? Hardwood? Carpet? (What kind of carpet?)
>
> Hehe... it doesn't matter :-)
>
> -Shiri
> (yes, I know that's not physics-wise possible... but we already agreed that
> lego bricks don't obey the physics rules! :-)
| | | | | | |
