text:
What is the "LEGO Master Builder Academy"?
At a LEGO store I saw a box advertising the "LEGO Master Builder Academy". It came with a book and a code for online registration, and mentioned a subscription fee.
What is this "Academy"? What do I get with the set? How much does it cost?

Seems to be US only

They'll be bringing the line over to Germany soon. I recently participated in translating the instructions for three kits, and other accompanying materials, from English into German.

Basically, it's a program in which LEGO Master Builders share and impart their LEGO building knowledge to members. If you remember LEGO BrickMaster, MBA is sort of a successor to that.
There's a Guide section in the LEGO MBA site that answers your questions. Specifically, from What is LEGO MBA?:
What is this "Academy"?

LEGO Master Builder Academy is an in-home and online experience in which real LEGO Master Builders share the tips and techniques of basic through advanced building, creativity and design with kids (ages 8 or older) who want to become better builders.

What do I get with the set?

The first annual subscription includes LEGO MBA kits 2-6, with one kit delivered every 2 months, plus unlimited access to the members-only LEGOmba.com website! Each LEGO MBA kit includes an 84-page Designer Handbook teaching LEGO Master Builder techniques, plus articles, building instructions full of Master Builder tips, LEGO bricks to create 3 new models (one at a time), and exclusive minifigures or accessories.

How much does it cost?

The subscription, which includes kits 2-6, is $69.99 and available for purchase online or by phone.

This "about" page and the rest of the site should answer some other questions you might have.

It's what replaced the old "BrickMaster" program where Lego company would send a comic book and a new small Lego set every month.
There are pro's and con's to the new program but it's about the same except the first set is a much bigger "starter" set and the building books are more detailed (and I think the comic part is gone but I may have just missed it . . . I've just been getting them and putting them in the closet and not doing much with them).

PRO: The new books do a better job of explaining how to build the model and have details about why.
PRO: The books are real books and not pamphlets.
PRO: Each set builds off the prior sets
CON: It's more expensive
CON: It's all on the same "space" theme for now whereas the old program you would get a set from the different series like City, Star Wars, Creator, etc.

This answer is incorrect; only the first theme is a space theme. It also doesn't provide any information about the costs or what the online aspect is.

@JoeWreschnig The first set is the only set that is out. And all of them in the set are the space theme whereas the old brickmaster program every other month you got a completely different series.

The second set, which is out, is microbuild themed with an airport and race track - not space. (It does include a space shuttle, but those aren't "space lego" usually.) The next sets are robot, flight, creature, and car.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are Nanoblocks compatible with other building bricks?
Recently I have found Nanoblocks, a Japanese brick toy, in American stores. How compatible are these with other building toys? They look to be approximately the same scale as Modulex.

they sure don't look the right size :P http://www.mynanoblock.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/slide-11.jpg Edit... oh wait that's the "mini" series

No, that's what I'm asking about. They appear about the same size as Modulex (although I've never used Modulex), and AFOL are a creative bunch - I wouldn't be surprised if someone figured out a way to integrate them with regular LEGO bricks as well.

It appears that the goal of the nanoblock producers is to make "the world’s smallest toy building blocks"1.  And they appear to be too small to be compatible with LEGO.  See the following video comparisons of the sizes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cobnr8fWTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QXGP837-dU
1. http://www.mynanoblock.com/site/?page_id=2

Obviously they aren't going to fit right on top of a LEGO stud. But the question is about generally compatibility - for example, are they compatible with Diablock (for which there are LEGO-compatible adapters)? Are they compatible with Modulex, which is a Lego Group product incompatible with standard LEGO bricks but at the same scale? Are there any LEGO pieces which will serve as a hacky adapter?

I can attest that Nano bloks (left) are not the same scale as Modulex (right).

Duplo = compatible with normal Lego even though 2× the size as has hollow stud. Tube of normal 2×2 fits inside. Nano blocks 2×2 being 1/2 size of normal fit with a brick having a hollow stud, e.g. 1 round or 1×1 with holder. But Kawada Nano Blocks don't use tubes, so not fit like this when other makes do.
Guess that Nano Blocks' plastic = 1/2 as thick, could only attach Lego by over hanging a corner with it touching the 2nd stud.
I've just got some 1/2 size bricks, don't know what brand, can attach under Lego ×2 by having 1/10 on 1 side & 2/5 on the other.
Edge of System Lego fits between 2 studs, so can trap between brick & tile.
They also fit end of ×2 Modulex by 2 studs on a corner, if both ends of 2×5 then can join the 2 with nano.
Duplo, need to miss every 3rd to avoid the ribs.
Tenté, thinner walls & bigger stud than System Lego, tight fit, not holding when not reaching the edges.
Photo, arms & legs of Lego, head & torso of Nano Blocks. 2nd is Nano Blocks on Lego 1×2's with 1 stud  (at 90° to each other) & then Modulex on top.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Do any of the KRE-O Transformers sets actually transform?
KRE-O, a LEGO-compatible brick toy, has several officially licensed Transformers models. I have two of the smaller ones and they do not actually "transform" - you take them apart and put them back together in a different form.
Do any of the sets use model functions to provide transformation, or are they all simply different models using the same bricks?

There's an almost 20 minute video about the kre-o Optimus Prime at youtube where pretty much everything is shown in detail - except the transformation itself. I'm really sure that if this was possible without disassembling and building it from scratch then it would be shown here, so the answer seems to be: no.

I've recently seen a TV advert for these, and they are quite definite about the "Travel in vehicle form, then REBUILD into robot form".

I've not bought any but nothing I've heard suggests they can, and looking at the designs I can't see how this would be possible.

None of them transform.  You have to take them apart and rebuild them into each mode.  They are essentially 2 models that use some of the same bricks between each mode.

I have built al of these sets, and I have to agree with everyone else on this one.
However! If you use a couple of the moving parts, or hack with some same-scale LEGO pieces, you can buid them to transform all by yourself.
The Optimus Prime set is actually potentially hackable enough to rebuild as a real transformer alone, but you won' t get it to look  like a "normal" transformer, nor its namesake.


text:
What is an Erling brick?
I have seen people refer to the "Erling brick" or "headlight brick" on LEGO forums. What kind of brick are they talking about?

What i want to know is why is the stud inset in the brick?

I definitely know them as the headlight brick, and they look like this:

HoMa's world of bricks has a nice page dedicated to this brick!
http://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks/en/lampenstein.php
LEGO's Pick a Brick lists this as an "Angular Brick 1x1", Design ID 4070 (equivalent to the piece/part id).

The Erling Brick: named by the LEGO Designer Erling Dideriksen, who invented this element in 1979.

The model shops refer to this brick as a "washing machine" brick :-)


text:
What is "micro-scale" building?
I have seen references to "micro-scale" building in LEGO documentation. How is this different than the "normal" LEGO building scale?

It refers to building items at a much smaller scale than the usual "mini-fig" scale.
For example the "Micro" Star Destroyer:

 4492 Mini Star Destroyer

Edit to add:
Officially however, when bought as a set they are usually referred to as "Mini-scale".

Microscale is not just a technique, it's an artform:

blog explaining it and a few showcases
a very nice example

A few years ago, there was an official building competition specifically centered around microscale models. The winning entries were made into real LEGO sets.

LEGO are now bringing out a microscale version of their entire line (so far) of modular Cafe Corner sets


text:
What is SNOT building?
I have seen reference on LEGO forums to "SNOT building". This sounds gross! Are there really squishy-sticky LEGO bricks, or what?

SNOT stands for Studs Not On Top and it means building structures where you use hinges or other techniques to change the direction of the bricks, so they are not one on top of the other as it's done traditionally.
This is a very simple example of SNOT:

The technique is particularly useful for spaceships and even some LEGO sets rely on it, for example, look at the wings of the Imperial Shuttle (10212):

as well as any of the star destroyers, like the latest one, the Super Star Destroyer (10221) (the surfaces near the borders are placed at an angle):

There are many ways of performing this technique. Swooshable's SNOT reference tool has many more practical examples.

There are two variants of the Imperial Shuttle. Both rely on the SNOT design. {I have the newer version of the Imperial Shuttle.}


text:
Is there an official LEGO brick color reference?

Possible Duplicate:
How many different colours of lego brick are there?

Is there a canonical reference for the different colors of LEGO bricks?
Ideally this would be a color-matching system like Pantone or RAL but if such a reference isn't available something like sRGB would be acceptable as well.

This question provides a link that includes Pantone colors.
http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/75/how-many-different-colours-of-lego-brick-are-there

Good catch, that went up while I was fetching the Wikipedia links for Pantone and RAL - I'd rather close as duplicate than delete, though, as I think this title is differently-searachable.

Every color used in LEGO over the years is listed on the official LEGO color chart at Peeron. It also includes CMYK, RGB and Pantone references.


text:
Are there any mirrored LEGO bricks?
I recently built LEGO Creator 5770: Lighthouse Island which features a clever trick to build the lighthouse's lantern, using stickers on on a Slope Brick 2x2 and Slope Top 1x2x2/3:
Step 54 from Lighthouse Island Instruction Manual 1/3
It works reasonably well, but I'd like something better. Are there any official mirrored (or prismatic, but this seems even less likely) LEGO bricks?

I have updated my answer to include the first official mirror LEGO piece.

Bricklink search for chrome pieces
Gold 2x4

Duplo: Chrome 2X4

The Detective’s Office & Barber Shop (10246) includes the first mirror in a LEGO set. It was released 1st January 2015.
According to New Elementary, the piece is the same size as 1x4x6 windows, it comes in a bag with stickers to protect the sides from scratches and the part ID is 20193.

Alternatively, there are also highly polished bricks available in chrome and gold that reflect more light then others. These bricks tend to be rare and expensive.
There is a non-purist solution that works well using metalic paper or tin foil which can be found in craft stores and supermarkets respectively. The material is relatively cheap, flexible, can be as small or large as you like and provides a decent reflective surface. You can use double sided tape to stick the material onto slopes or you can hold them in place using bricks.

My little sister had a lot of LEGO Belville, which has some glossy silver bricks and parts:

see the bin and the decoration-bricks on top of the grids - but I never saw or owned "normal" bricks or plates of this color which could be used to build a mirror or something.

LEGO have produced prisms. Here's one type:

There is the 'Chrome Silver Dish 2 x 2 x 2/3 Light Reflector' available from BrickLink.

This piece was available in many sets, one of which was the 3801 - Ultimate Accessory Set for MindStorms where it is used as a reflector around a 'White Electric, Light Brick 1 x 2 with Single Side Light' element.

There are also chrome bricks, such as the LEGO lightsaber hilt, that is hard to see your face on, but they are reflective.

Bigger chromed pieces were available in a Special Edition Naboo Starfighter. Shiny!

One other mirror piece that hasn't been listed is the Mirror of Erised in 4721-1: Hogwarts Classrooms.

It too is a sticker, on another piece, in this case a clear window.

On the front, the sticker is reflective, with screen printing for the characters over it. On the back side however (the side with the adhesive), it is all reflective.

It's not perfect, it has a bit of a texture, but it is pretty reflective.

I had some gold bars from a LEGO City police set.
They are ten 1x2 Metalic Gold tiles in this LEGO Agents set:

I will also add that these bricks' reflections aren't diffuse - that is, they're as reflective as the back side of an iPhone, so they'd probably work pretty well as mirrors.

I have this set and the gold bars are the kind that are not very reflective.

@Ambo100 Oh, really? Mine are reflective. At least, I hope they still are. Haven't seen 'em for two years. :( So are yours like the LEGO Indiana Jones golden idol's material, then?

There is at least one Clikits set that contains an actual mirror: 7504 Friendship Frame / Mirror
The actual part is Clikits Mirror Insert 4 x 4, fits Frame clikits011 which is a bit large for use in the Creator Lighthouse but is an official LEGO mirror part.


text:
Is there difference between different colors of LEGO axles?
There are a few different colors of LEGO Technic axles, but not enough to really use for artistic variation - black, grey, some beige, and recently I have started seeing blue.
The particular color used in different Technic sets seems arbitrary to me. Is there a difference between the different colors aside from just the color, like a slightly different size or tensile strength?

The only way to check differences would be to perform torsion tests, I think. A possible way would be to create torsion bars like Sariel used in a recent tank build.

Be sure of the difference between axles and connector pegs (and combinations of both).

@BoltClock: Yep, I managed to figure out the differences between connector pegs when I was a kid. :) Which is why I always wondered if the axles had similar practical differences.

Hmmm my comment should have been under Sibbo's answer, since it seemed to be referring to pegs. So I posted in the wrong textarea :S

The first LEGO axles were milky white and were probably made in a different plastic than they are now.
Later on, LEGO started making all-black axles when they started doing more serious technic sets. However, the tendancy is now to make sure all difficult technic pieces are "color-coded" so that children can pick them out more easily. As such, nowadays, the following axle lengths and colors are standard:

2: red, notched
3, 5, 7, 9: (new) grey - no 11 yet as far as I know but I suppose it's just a matter of time
4, 6, 8, 10, 12: black
3 with stud: dark tan
4 with stop, 5.5 with stop, 8 with stop: (new) dark grey

Similarly, 2L friction pins are black, non-friction grey, 3L friction pins are blue and non-friction tan, and so on. All that to make sure they're easy to pick. Even gears are being changed now, for example the classic 24T is now dark grey.
That said, there have been other colors used for axles, when the color itself was important. I've seen tan, red, green, brown, but possibly others exists. The long ones (32 and 16) have also been produced in black, white, and yellow (32 only).
As far as I know the plastic used is always the same, so they should all have the same mechanical properties.

Years, later, the 11 axle is a reality https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=23948

A near useless factoid is that the colorant added to ABS plastic affects the mechanical properties. For reasons I do not understand the RED colorant weakens any plastic it is added to more than any of the other colorants. The black colorant appears to be the strongest.

@Dan1138 the red probably absorbs most UV/blue light leading to brittleness over time.  The black may be/include carbon particles which make for tougher plastics in some cases


text:
Which hand is this minifigure extending normally?
I remember more than one argument with a friend over which way LEGO minifigures' hands should be oriented to be correct (with the thumb pointed upward/inward, like a human hand's neutral position).

This gentleman is holding his left hand so the rounded side faces down, and his right hand so the rounded side faces up. Is there an officially correct orientation? The peg connecting the hand angles slightly, so I've used both orientations in different situations to keep hands on steering wheels and control panels. Did I risk aggravating any minifigure's carpal tunnel syndrome in doing so?

That's the kind of question I would expect from FreeLUG members when they're bored during an event.

On the other hand, are we actually discussing anatomical correctness of minifigures?

I personally consider the left one as up-right ever since I was a kid and that's how Lego place all their hands in their promotional pictures:

I've become more pragmatic as I've grown up: as a kid, there was a definite "right way up", but as a grown up I've come to realise that some poses are only possible if you turn a hand upside down (for example, getting the binoculars to a Mini Figures face correctly).

There's also a special position in which you can align both hands to grip the same utensil which requires the lower hand to be "upside-down".

@Zhaph, Joubarc: Yep, those poses are the reason I've never been 100% sure.

I have always done it the left-hand way except for those few exceptions.

I think the most recent Hagrid minifigure also supports this point of view, since he clearly has thumbs, and when these are oriented correctly, the flat side of his hand is upwards.

Here is another way to consider it:
Make a fist, and don't bend your wrist.  The pinky's side of your hand is mostly aligned with the rest of your wrist and forearm.  The thumb's side of your hand is not so much aligned with your wrist and forearm.  Also notice that the curve of your fingers tapers toward the pinky finger.

Now compare to the minifigure hand.  Notice that the wrist is closer to one side of the hand (the left hand in your photo) than the other.

The left one is more natural, because the shortest fingers are on the down side.

The correct way is shown in his left hand based on LEGO Friends. Go have a look at the minidoll, where the arm and hand is one piece and cannot be rotated to another position:

Minidoll hands are more curved on the top too, probably to accommodate some tools as some other answers point out.

I would generally agree with pcantin's answer, but there are some "official" cases where the right side is correct. Iron Man typically is in the "right hand" configuration, because it attaches translucent light blue circular 1x1 blocks to the bottom for repulsor beams. Also, the Frodo and Bilbo magnets both hold Sting pointed straight up, and do so using the "right hand" configuration, so their hands aren't high up in the air.

Personally, I consider the left hand correct, as you hand place a stud, an ice cream piece, or anything that is to be put on studs on the minifigure's hand.


text:
Why did Technic bricks have holes in the studs?
Lego Technic (/ Expert Builder) bricks have always had a very different design than the normal Lego brick, with peg holes lining the sides serving fairly obvious purposes, but they also have had (as long as I can remember) hollow studs on the top:

Now that these pieces are appearing in non-Technic sets I've seen them used often to hold things - they're about the same size as a minifigure's grip, so wrenches, guns, gems, and other decorative elements that need to stand are often stuck into them.
But Technic has no minifigures and features only sparse decoration. I don't recall ever seeing a Technic set that uses the holes. It seems like they would be much more difficult to mold especially as far back as Technic's introduction in the late 1970s.
So why were they introduced in Technic? (Or am I wrong, and they were not introduced in Technic / Expert Builder?) Did they serve a functional purpose, or were they just another visual marker to separate it from "regular" Lego during its introduction?

From principles of molding, you want a uniform part thickness throughout if possible. This facilitates plastic flow as well as dimensional stability (you want uniform shrinkage on cooling.) Removing a divot from the underside of a stud serves this purpose in a regular brick.   The Technic brick with through holes would have had a large amount of solid plastic under the stud compared to regular bricks, which could create undesirable shrinkage and warping from stress in cooling. So removing the top divot helps there.
However, if you examine a 1x16 beam from Expert Builder, you can observe a plastic channel running along the underside between studs 4 to 13 (which are injection gates; also stud 8, or 9.) The 1x8 doesn't have this. This channel would let the plastic flow away from the injection gate without turning too many corners. It's also possible LEGO used a reciprocal molding action where plastic is pressed in one gate, then another, in a rocking action, to facilitate welding of the multiple injection streams. Solid studs might lessen the effectiveness of this process, but the channel helps it. If the channel was necessary to produce a 1x16 beam back in the day, and the channel forced hollow studs, then the hollow stud style was the only way to make a 1x16 beam. The technical difficulty of making a new, longer brick (beam) may have influenced the look of the whole Expert Builder system.
That's only my theory, but you can still see the channel for yourself.
My tests also indicate the hollow stud separates from another beam more easily than a common solid stud would.
It remains possible though that they were just maximizing the usefulness of the part by making the stud hollow. Though the fun part of being an engineer is maximizing more than one property at once.
So my thought is the hollow stud came from various molding principles. Cost of plastic comes after that (and yes, if you can save a bit, you do.)
Another interesting trivia: the Technic studs were each freehand drafted in the early Expert Builder instruction booklets. I joked about reproducing this while showing some Lego employees (in 2001) what could be done with non-representational rendering, for instance a pen-and-ink renderer with random jitter.

True, molding complexity does influence cost more than quantity of plastic.

I was  very intrigued by this question.  So I messed around with two LEGO Technic beams, a long one and a short one.  The 'pins' at the bottom of the beams are made to fit in the hole on top of the studs.

When using the studs holes instead of the normal 'in between' way, the holes on the side of the beams are offset at mid distance.  This could be very useful working with gears (I'll remember that one next time I have a complex gears ratio to create).

In the end the rules are:

The bottom beam must be shorter than the top beam.
The bottom beam cannot extend past the top beam ends.

The following picture shows why rule number 2 is important. The end of the top beam and the studs of the bottom beam interfere.

My question is about the holes in the studs, not the holes in the sides of the bricks and on beams.

I tried stuff with the beams and changed my super bad answer for this one

In my opinion, you don't need to look further than plastic quantity, and thus cost.
Take a normal brick or plate (easier) and look inside it. You'll notice that each stud is hollow, but from below. Why? Simply because there's no need to have it full with material as it serves no purpose. It's easy to make the mould that way, it doesn't remove any functionality of the brick, everybody is happy.
Now take a Technic beam and look at it from under. The Technic holes make it way more difficult to have a mould which has cavities under the studs. So the easy solution is to have the cavity in the stud itself, which has the added benefit of adding functionality to the stud itself. Also, I suspect that the sturdiness of a Technic beam is better if the upper side is full.
Note it's just speculation; but most of the times you need to analyze a part with the eyes of a LEGO producer (use as less plastic as possible), and of a designer (have a part which fits with as many other parts as possible). Nowadays, it's likely they would use hollow studs more and more, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up on regular bricks some day — but that's going to take a while as there is a third factor in play: brand recognition. regular LEGO bricks have full studs, with the LEGO engraving, and that's not seomthing which LEGO will easily accept to replace.

Curiously, plastics texts suggest placing a logo to hide the injection gate, which is typically on a stud.  LEGO does this (look for one or more logos with a blob in the center), but I have no idea if they pioneered it or just jumped on board. It is certainly part of their trade dress now.

Oops, the gate was on a corner of the brick in the 1960s when it was made of cellulose acetate. So the stud logo came before the stud gate.

Most 1×2 (and longer) plates and bricks have a pin at the bottom right in the middle of studs that perfectly fits this hole.

Connecting this way gives you half-stud shift.

Ah, but what goes in the tiny hole in the pin on the underside of the 1x plates? :)

Television antenna spokes? Flower stems?

Spider legs, plumes (various sorts), Technic chain links, screwdrivers, universal join centre

After getting a great answer to my question: When did Lego decide that it was okay to put a stud into a technic hole? and looking at the pdf slides linked there: http://bramlambrecht.com/tmp/jamieberard-brickstress-bf06.pdf, it's stated in one of the slides that the words "LEGO" on the top of the brick adds a little height, .14mm to be exact, to the brick.  This extra height interferes with the Lego dimensions for Technic elements.  So the hole'd studs was likely a way to still have the stud, but shave off that top .14mm.

I was looking for that PDF, thanks a lot for finding it!

In answer to part of your question, Expert Builder sets were not the first appearance of the hollow stud. I believe the old-style windows were the first, starting in the mid 60s:

The reason for the hollow studs here seems to be related to the exposed underside of the stud face. LEGO seems to have wanted to have the inner frame of the window smooth rather than have the divots that regular studs would create. So they shifted the divots to the upper surface where they would be hidden in most uses.
There is another functional reason some modern pieces have hollow studs: child safety. Around the same time the Expert Builder sets were introduced, LEGO started using hollow studs on small cylindrical pieces like 1x1 round bricks and cones that went clear through the brick. This was to provide an air hole should one (or more) of them be stuffed in a nostril or ear canal, or be swallowed or inhaled. In some cases, like with 2x2 round plates and bricks, LEGO uses a through axle hole for the same purpose.

The 1x2 plate with 1 knob (Design ID 3794) has the same design for it's top stud - I assume for the same reason Joubarc gives - you can't create a hollow stud from underneath as the peg's in the way.
Peeron.com

Sorry, this is a correct point, but -1 because it's not really an answer to anything - it would be better merged into someone else's answer as another example of the same design principle.

@JoeWreschnig Possibly. However, it does answer the part that in the question that says "(Or am I wrong, and they were not introduced in Technic / Expert Builder?)" - all of these that I have from my youth are like this, but I can't prove which came first.

The jumper brick was a contemporary of Expert Builder, and space sets used the hole by plugging a torch into it.

Hollow studs fit the bars on the underside of 1×x bricks. The same hollow studs are found on Lego windows and Minitalia pieces (Lego made in Italy), also 1×1 with holder and 1×2 tile with 1 stud, 1×2×5, 1×2×3 slope.
Other brands, such as Montini and Tente have hollow studs and unknown on 1×1 plate. So maybe should ask 'why aren't studs hollow on all Lego pieces?' So Technic beams were not the first.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Does the LEGO company sell LEGO brick organization bins?

Possible Duplicate:
What are some storage options?

Are there official LEGO brick storage and organization bins available?  If not, then what good 3rd party options are there?  I'm looking to transition away from just having large plastic boxes filled with LEGO bricks that require me digging through, and going to having a way to quickly access specific bricks I need when building.

These are the best containers I've used: http://www.harborfreight.com/24-divider-storage-container-94458.html -- Pull-out bins tend to be a hassle when you want an individual piece as you have to search for it.

@Pubby8 Please add that as an answer.

Similar question?

@daviesgeek Yeah, I'd close my question as a dupe of that one.

The LEGO company has indeed regularly issued storage solutions. They may be great for kids (the latest ones are brick-shaped), but let's face it, for serious fans they are mostly pointless. And expensive.
Depending on the size of your collection and your sorting method (which is another debate, but remember to sort by form first, not by color), you'll want to switch to do-it-yourself storage racks (the ones with lots of plastic drawers) or whatever you fancy. If using drawers, make sure they are translucid, or have a sticker with the image of the part on them. (LEGOland designers glue one specimen of the actual part).
Some people just buy translucid boxes, try to find some shop which sells them in bulk (like, by 100 pieces), ask a caterer where he finds his for example.
It will require some experimenting anyway, so don't buy too much of an expensive item before being sure it's right for you.

Any suggestions for retailers in the UK?

AKRO seems to have the kind of containers I had in mind, but that's just from 5 minutes googling, I don't live in the UK.

These clear plastic AKRO containers are commonly used in UK takeaways (takeout?)! I'd never thought of using them for this before now.


text:
Under what conditions are the LEGO boardgame dice unfair, and by how much?
For LEGO's board game line, they have moulded a LEGO die, with a 2x2 stud pattern on each side.

Obviously, weight distribution is going to be thrown off if you use a full studless plate on one side and four 1x1 studless plates on another because of the kerf.
Experimentally (by constructing different dice and rolling hundreds of times) or analytically (by analyzing the weight distribution of different plate configurations), how unfair can this die be assuming all studs are covered by a studless plate? What can be done to minimize the unfairness?

If you want to be torough, your assumption about all studs being covered has de be rescinded. Indeed, some of the games make heavy use of the "build your dice" feature, and add or remove tiles during the game itself. This adds a whole new dimension to the dice mechanics as event probabilities change over time, even if you ignore the unfairness introduced by the weight difference. Minimizing the unfairness can be of course by using only 2x2 tiles, but where's the fun in that?

I don't think I've played a Lego game yet that allows empty die sides? Or perhaps I forgot - some of the games are fairly unmemorable. I'm also interested in any unfairness that may manifest for a plain die covered in 2x2 as well.

I don't expect much unfairness if all sides are covered by 2x2 tiles. From what? The paint? The LEGO dice is probably much more balanced than a regular Monopoly engraved dice. As for games where sides are built during the game, a lot of them do, and I think Lava Dragon is a good example: when you roll the dice, if there's room on the upper side, you may add a 1x1 tile of your color, then you can make as many moves as there are tiles of your color on that face (or something like that).

Indeed, Lego's manufacturing genius has probably resulted in an extremely fair die - but like I said in the question, a good answer will be something empirical or analytic, and not assumed. (Lava Dragon is one I haven't played yet.)

Conditions for unfairness:

Different shaped tiles applied to each side resulting in different weight wich maked the dice "biased."

Example:
The maximum difference in weight (when all studs get covered) is one side using a 2x2 tile, and another side is using 4 1x1 tiles. the weight difference in this case is calculated based on using these measurements. To show the difference:
X X X X X X X X X X
X       . .       X
X       . .       X
X       . .       X
X . . . . . . . . X
X . . . . . . . . X
X       . .       X
X       . .       X
X       . .       X
X X X X X X X X X X

X = borders
. = border from the 1x1 tiles that are missing using a 2x2 tile
So there are ~ 28 legounits³ = 44.8 mm³ difference in material used. ABS, the material used for LEGO bricks has a density of between 1.04 and 1.12 g/cm³ so 44.8 mm³ have a maximum height of:
1.12g/cm³ / 1000mm³ * 44.8mm³ = 0.050176g

0.05 g would be way too much for a precision-dice used in a casino, but for a "toy" it's almost nothing (it's less than 1% of the die's total weight - I'd like to calculate that, but I can't find information about its weight), so I won't expect anyone to notice the LEGO-dice is "unfair".
EDIT:
Found the dice on bricklink. weight: 8.02 g, so the 0.05 g are just ~ 0.6 % of the total weight.

Actually, BrickLink will give you the weights for tiles too. A 2x2 is 0.48g and a 1x1 is 0.16g so the difference between one 2x2 and 4 1x1 is 0.16g. Which is not the highest unfairness you could have; as I said you can have empty sides, so the highest unfairness is empty side against 4 1x1 tiles, or a difference of 0.64g, or 8% of the total weight, which is bound to make a difference. Although usually when an empty side comes up you may add stuff on it so the situation is unlikely to happen.

i've chosen to compare 2x2 against 4 1x1 because that was one of the things asked ("a full studless plate on one side and four 1x1 studless plates on another"). the difference in this cas eas also much more interesting as the dice gets filled quickly and as long as there are empty sides its obvious the weight-difference is much higher.


text:
How much weight can a handle of Technic pegs and beams support?
Some Lego spaceships have handles attached, made out of Technic beam and pegs, and attached to the model using Technic bricks, pegs, and axles.
For example, 7644: MX-81 Hypersonic Operations Aircraft has a handle on the top (circled below), and the shuttle in 7690: MB-01 Eagle Command Base has a small handle on the bottom side.

This handle is great for play, transport, and mounting, and I'd like to incorporate this feature into my own designs. However, I don't know what a safe number of pegs and beams is relative to the weight of the model. To be really useful, it needs to support not just the weight of the model, but a reasonable amount of centrifugal force caused by rapid course adjustments as it flies around my living room. Are there official Lego Group guidelines on this, or has someone done a study of the strength of peg-and-beam constructions?

Tristan Lostroh did an exhaustive test of both studded beams and stud-less beams with and without connections. Here are his results:

Studless beams are better in tension than studded
Studded beams are better in transverse than studless
Studless beams are stronger in transverse with the pins on the side
Connections to other components will fail before the beam (Either connections themselves  or the connection area of the beam)(IE the
  (unstressed) centre of the beam    will not fail)
Pin connections will probably pull apart before they fail catastrophically
The more pins, the stronger the connection
In transverse 3 pin overlap, with 2 pins used is almost as strong as 3 pin overlap and 3 pins used
Beams in transverse conditions won’t fail (but will bend) if the pivot points match the end of  the connection
Lego is quite strong for its weight

From the report it looks like two beams linked with 5 pins will break at about 57lb of transverse force.
Edit: Just for the fun of it I calculated this 'real life' scenario. Imagine a kid with 40cm  arms spinning around a 2lb Lego ship.  To create the 57lb of centrifugal force necessary to break the handle he would have to turn at 252rpm.  I don't think any amount of sugar can do that.

If only I could +2 for the edit - I'll ask my boys to try this evening after trick or treating ;)

After calculating it, I pictured my kid spinning like the Tasmanian Devil at 252rpm. I was laughing so hard I had a though time typing the edit.

A nice display of structural strenght is seen on the Millenium Falcon lego set 10179-1 : http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=10179-1

The link now 404's

@AidanConnelly The link is now fixed


text:
Are there LDraw files for the standard Heroica components?
I'm using MLCAD to design and polish some Heroica maps. As I go I've made various LDraw files for the common map components (6x6 tiles with 4 spaces, 4x1 hallways, etc.) as well as some aliases for simple objects in particular colors (e.g. the gold pickups).
Am I duplicating work someone else has already done? If no one answers this in a few days I'll probably answer with my own archive.
Note that this is not a request for the Heroica sets in LDraw format - I've got manuals for that. I'm more interested in getting parts files that can be used to rapidly build my own levels.)

I'll bet you're the only one combining bricks.se, Heroica and LDraw for the moment.

Yeah but at the very least I can hope someone here sees something on another forum I missed. Although Heroica seems to have surprisingly little buzz on the Internet so far.

I've just seen the value in this, and whole heartedly agree with the sentiments. Not sure how many "typical" players will be up to speed with LDraw though ;)

I've uploaded the Heroica LDraw parts I made to my website (and now there's even a site to go with it).
My Parts

Paths of length 2 and 4, and rooms in 2x2, L, and J shapes. The base
and half the tiles can be recolored; the remaining tiles are fixed
at dark gray.
The length 3 bridge over a 4x4 water tile, used twice in Fortaan.
The standard potions with fixed colors, and recolorable potion
templates.
The "character sheet" model. The 1 x 4 cross plate is recolorable.
A treasure chest, fixed as brown.
A gold piece, fixed as pearl gold.
A health piece, fixed as red.
A torch, fixed in color. This uses the unofficial 64647 LDraw part,
included.
A closed gate. The standard door piece is not available in the LDraw
parts library or unofficial list, but the gate used to link Nathuz
and Fortaan is.
A magic door, fixed in color.
Rocks, recolorable and standard dark gray.
The ship dock, from Draida Bay, and the regular brown starting
space.

Included Unofficial Parts
These parts are real Lego parts, but have not made it into the LDraw
part library yet. I've put them on the same site for convenience.

62808 - Minifig Key, by Andy Westrate
64647 - Minifig Plume/Flame Triple, by Philippe Hurbain. This is
used as the top of the torches in Nathuz.

Other Parts
Here are some parts that are invaluable, from the standard LDraw part
library. If you're going to make Heroica levels, they belong in your
MLCAD Favorites.

2343 - Minifig Goblet
3794 - Plate 1 x 2 with 1 Stud
3958 - Plate 6 x 6
30153 - Rock 1 x 1 Gem Faceted
41539 - Plate 8 x 8
64644 - Minifig Telescope
85863 - Microfig
87580 - Tile 2 x 2 with Groove and 1 Stud

What do they look like?
Here's a POV-Ray render of the map I'm working on now, sans greebling. Except for the 16x16 center the rooms and paths all use the premade parts, and it features the chest, gold, and potion parts also.

By the way, these are the first reusable LDraw parts I've ever made, so it's possible there's some really horrible failure in them.

I'll probably be checking these out soon, but they look great!


text:
How can I make micro-scale water?
This is totally boring:

How can I add some variance to it that helps to distinguish a rippling lake from a raging ocean from a fast-moving river, while keeping a look that's appropriate for micro-scale landscapes?

It's boring, but when you need to cover a few tables with ocean, you get used to it very fast.

The 1x1x2/3 slopes would be ideal for making waves, etc.:
 and  or the 1x2 options.
Along with some blue tiles you could make some great waves:

Obviously, if you don't want them breaking, keep the white fronts blue.
Also, if you have some Navy blue tiles you can create currents of colder water - if you've ever watched large bodies of water you'll notice they have strips of different shades running through them.
Stick to tiles on the plate rather than the 2/3s height for lakes, or for some good ripples use the Round Dish 2x2 Inverted:

Transparent parts (slopes, tiles) work very well too

Good call @joubarc

Put the transparent on top of the blue baseplate and use different colors of transparent... you can get some very interesting effects that way

Try using combos of Trans-clear and Trans-blue studs to make a nice, clear foaming water affect. Studs can be bought in extreme masses  on Bricklink for like, 1¢. So there's no trouble.

Here is David Lee using transparent bricks to create nice waves
Here is Mark of Falworth using another technique involving loose bricks of different colors.

The second one is particularly impressive, but both of those are minifig scale, not microscale.

oops. I somehow skipped "microscale". I'd use the same techniques regardless.

Use a blue stud and put a flat round Lego brick on top of it to make the beautiful ripples.


text:
Why does my NXT colour sensor not recognise colour on my iPhone?
If I point the colour sensor to my iPhone it does not recognise it, but if I point it to a piece of paper, it does.
Does anyone know if there is a solution for this?
I found some documentation online, and saw this video, he's doing pretty much what I want.

if its the iPhone screen it probably has to do with the glare/glossiness of the screen

Yeah that's right

The robot in the video has a custom light sensor, a more advanced HiTechnic color sensor V2 which can detect an extended range of 15 colours. The stand colour sensor can detect six (white, black, red, blue, green and yellow).

The sensors are based on different principles. LEGO sensor uses a RGB
  LED, and successively shines red, green and blue light on the object.
  Reflected light is collected by a light sensor sensitive to all
  wavelength. HiTechnic one has a white LED, and a specialized color
  sensitive chip. This chip has three sensitive areas covered by red,
  green and blue filters. An added advantage of HiTechnic method is that
  it can detect the color of light sent on it (in passive mode, with the
  white LED shut off).

[Source]
A direct LED light against an iPhone's screen will reflect the light back into the sensor, making it difficult for the sensor to detect colour.


text:
Rebuilding the Millennium Falcon 7965 with unsorted bricks?
After a week of building the Millennium Falcon 7965, we were nearing the end.  My son became excited and literally started jumping for joy.  As a result, he accidentally landed on the model and thus caused major portions of the super-structure to pop out of place.
I attempted to reinsert the bricks but found myself having to gently stretch out a section of the hull in order to snap the brick into place correctly.  Of course this action caused more bricks to pop out.  Of particular difficulty is the 'girdle section' that encircles the outer hull.
Now it seems I have been left with a very expensive pile of gray, dark gray, and yellow Lego bricks and a very fragile super-structure into which they should go.  We threw the bags away, and don't know at which construction stage the various pieces belong to.  Of course we have the manuals.
I was minded to consign the whole project to the rubbish bin, but this would create a heart-broken child...
For those with experience in this sort of thing, what is a recommended strategy?  Are we talking about a reboot from square 1 without the bags as a sequential guide?

I hope 'consigning the whole project to a rubbish bin' was purely metaphorical? I would cringe at the thought of perfectly good LEGO going to waste.

@Ambo100 - That option was originally considered, but met with virulent expostulations from my 7 year old.  I am going to accept your answer and attempt to rebuild it from square 1.

Lego is not a "one time build"-model. It's more like "build and enjoy, and after a wile destroy and use the bricks to build something else of your own imagination and after a while find the instructions of the original set and build it again, this time with the enhanced complexity of finding all the original pieces"-model. I'm afraid you just have to make the best out of it. With a big model like this, I understand your frustration, though - after a long building process...

Only ever throw out LEGO that has sustained actually irreversible damage, bricks that have been bent beyond repair or snapped. It so rarely happens that I can find a suitable picture. In this case, I would assume the longest plates and tiles would be more likely to be damaged.
I'd go through the painful process of dismantling the model and starting again, replacing any broken pieces (if any) or at least starting again from the last significant building stage. Many large models are build independently and combined at a later stage of building. These independent 'building stages' often match a numbered set of plastic bags.

Yes, sorry for the confusion.  The individual pieces are intact.  By 'damaged' I mean that they have become unmoored from the places they were supposed to snap into.  And when you try and snap them into place, other pieces become unmoored.  And in some cases I was not watching where exactly they became unmoored from.  But all of the pieces are still in very new condition.  Does that help clarify?

I will suggest you carefully dismantle sections of the construction so that you can see all the bricks and can recognize the hidden parts against the instructions. Then build up different sections with the aid of the instructions.
If there are larger parts of the construction that are not damaged, you can keep these intact, and just take apart sections that need to be re-built to get the structure stable.
And lastly: NEVER THROW AWAY LEGO BRICKS THAT ARE NOT PHYSICALLY DAMAGED! These are building bricks that can be used to build anything - not just part of a model. The joy of LEGO is the ability to tear down and build something else when you get bored of the original model. Some LEGO sets come with instructions for 3 different models that you can build with the same bricks.

+1 for "NEVER THROW AWAY LEGO BRICKS". If you really want to dispose of LEGO bricks, and you aren't bothered about selling it, at least consider giving them away. And if you're ever struggling to find someone... yes, I will pay the postage. ;-)

In addition to the excellent answers given here, I will add this one, which was learned the painful way and now given in hindsight...
DON'T BUILD A COMPLEX MODEL ON THE FLOOR.
Use a table or other elevated space.  Building it on the floor with an excited child around is just asking for trouble.

If you have a large enough large tray this is even better for later portability, as well as containing the current bags pieces within the lip ;)

The most important is to sort out the technic beams and plates as these really restrict doing any search on smaller pieces.
I have been rebuilding this set with "unsorted" bricks a couple time.
Something that works really well for me is to simply keep the brick sorted in a traditional way, using ziploc bags... (So, I'm suggesting that you first sort your unsorted bricks, then build)
See this post about a proper sort method.


text:
What is the male:female ratio of gendered minifigures?
For many years now, Lego has provided more detail on the face and bodies of minifigures. One of the effects of this is that the usually visually gender-neutral minifigures of my childhood (with the rare exception of a sloped piece as a dress) have been replaced by clear male and female faces and body shapes.
But in packing away my Atlantis sets to make room for my wife's new Super Star Destroyer, I've noticed that there's only one woman. And yet, oceanography and marine biology have some of the highest ratios of female graduates and employees in scientific fields, approaching 50%.
So of all the minifigures who are gendered (either explicitly by Lego in character biographies, or via secondary sexual traits like facial hair, or via cultural traits like wearing a dress or lipstick), what's the ratio of male to female minifigures? How does it break down year-over-year, theme-by-theme, and by recommended age group?
(As you might guess, there's an ideological agenda behind this question, and yes it's inspired by the ridiculous new "Lego Friends" line of figures. But what I'm most interested in right now is hard facts.)

If it's any help to your agenda, the first female Minifigure (a nurse) was released two months after the first male Minifigure, both in 1978. The precursor to the minifigure (the ones made out of bricks) also had male and female hair pieces in fairly even ratios (certainly I had about the same amount of both). But purely going by the Minifigures collections, male figures heavily outweigh female ones.

A lot of this is probably down to the market - Boys tend to prefer playing with (and watching) male characters (hence a lot of TV shows with male leads), while girls tend to accept playing/watching with either gender happily. This isn't to say that girls don't prefer to play with female characters, just that they tend to be more accepting of the imbalance. Certainly my sons are disappointed when we open a Minifigure packet and it's a lady in a dress.

Yeah, well, boys need to get over it. Maybe you need to talk to your sons about how not to be sexist.

I do, don't worry, that's also why I ensure we do occasionally pick one out - also they quite like the "action girls" - skaters, surfers, zoo-keeper etc., and that said, they seem to enjoy the Geisha head and hair - it's just the slope/dress they don't really like.

I did a quick check of the released sets in the Freinds theme. There are 23 female figures and one male figure (Peter).

In a rather cheeky way, I refer the honourable gentleman to this question "My daughter loves to play with LEGO sets but she is really wants to play with pink or 'girl' LEGO", while we all do our best to educate our kids some things seem to get ingrained :(

There's worse than lady, there's C3P0

I found this interesting comment by J on a blog post about LEGO female oriented sets.

I did a count of male and female mini-figures by theme in the 2011
releases for which we have visual evidence. The modular house line
always tends to be more balanced so there’s still potential there but
the City theme is particularly bad this year. Here’s the results
(aliens/creatures are excluded except where male-female
differentiation exists:
Alien Abduction: 9 male, 1 female
Atlantis: 7 male, 1 female
Castle: 15 male, 1 female
City: 59 male, 5 female
Collectible Mini-Figures: 37 male, 10 female (omit 1 alien)
Creator: 2 male, 0 female
Dacta: 33 male, 19 female
Duplo: 16 male, 4 female
Harry Potter: 20 male, 3 female
Ninjago: 30 male, 3 female
Pharaoh’s Quest: 9 male, 1 female
Pirates of the Caribbean: 32 male, 4 female
Star Wars: 43 male, 7 female
Trains: 3 male, 0 female
TOTAL SYSTEM: 299 male, 55 female
TOTAL DUPLO: 16 male, 4 female
TOTAL: 315 male, 59 female
That’s greater than a 5:1 ratio and if you remove the Dacta and
Collectible Mini-figure sets from the equation, you get a pathetic 8:1
ratio (245 male, 30 female). I’ll say it again. If Lego wants girls to
take interest in their products, they should make a better effort to
include figures through which girls can identify.

The survey only takes into account 374 minifigures of the last year. It would be interesting to compare this data to minifigures released, 10, 20 and 30 years back to see how the gender ratio has changed.

Collectable Minifigures Series 1-9 & Team GB
I've performed my own test, this time with Collectable Minifigures.
(Feel free to correct me on any of the ambiguous minifigures.)

Series 1: 10 male, 2 female, 4 ambiguous (Tribal Hunter, Circus
Clown, Robot, Demolition Dummy)
Series 2: 12 males, 3 females, 1 ambiguous (Mime)
Series 3: 11 male, 3 female, 2 ambiguous (Mummy, Space Alien)
Series 4: 13 male, 3 female
Series 5: 11 male, 4 female, 1 ambiguous (Small Clown)
Series 6: 9 male, 5 female, 2 ambiguous (Classic Alien, Clockwork
Robot)
Series 7: 11 male, 5 female
Series 8: 10 male, 5 female, 1 ambiguous (Evil Robot)
Series 9: 10 male, 5 female, 1 ambiguous (Battle Mech)
Team GB: 6 male, 3 female
TOTAL: 91 male, 30 female, 11 ambiguous
The ratio can roughly be simplified as 9:3:1 (m/f/a)

Download .CSV [?]
Collectable Minifigures REVISITED (December 2014)
All the genders of ambiguous minifigures have been confirmed using the gender pronouns used on the official LEGO Minifigure minisite character page.

Series 1: 14 male, 2 female
Series 2: 13 males, 3 females
Series 3: 11 male, 3 female, 2 ambiguous (Mummy, Space Alien)
Series 4: 13 male, 3 female
Series 5: 12 male, 4 female
Series 6: 11 male, 5 female
Series 7: 11 male, 5 female
Series 8: 10 male, 5 female, 1 ambiguous (Evil Robot)
Series 9: 10 male, 5 female, 1 ambiguous (Battle Mech)
Series 10: 11 male, 5 female
Series 11: 10 male, 5 female,  ambiguous (Evil Mech)
Series 12: 11 male, 5 female
Team GB: 6 male, 3 female
The Simpsons: 13 male, 3 female
The LEGO Movie: 10 male, 6 female
TOTAL: 166 male, 22 female, 5 ambiguous

The share of unique female Collectable Minifigure from the main series have improved from 1/8 in Series 1 up to ~1/3 in Series 12. Collectable Minifigure that are not part of the standard series (Team GB, The Simpsons and The LEGO Movie) tend to vary.
Download .CSV [?]

Yikes! The 12:1 ratio for City, which Lego has 100% creative control over and could easy just put in more women, is probably the most surprising/depressing.  This is very close to what I'm looking for - I'll leave the question open for a few days in case anyone can pull up good historical data, but otherwise this is a great answer.

I did notice the Horizon Express set has exactly 50:50 ratio, including a female driver. Which is a start.

My guess would be that only LEGO has the answer, and I'm sure they'd never tell. But for what it's worth, looking at the BrickLink.com stock, I came up with a ratio of 4:2:1 for  male:neutral:female heads.
I looked at heads because I feel like many figs aren't so cut-and-dried with respect to gender (or could be considered both/either), while it's pretty clear with heads where you stand. This doesn't take into account multiple copies of the same fig in sets, but it does take into account older minifig designs, which had a tendency to be less gender specific.
Anyway, in case anyone's interested, here's a post with more details on my findings, including my sources and methods, as well as further musings on the gender-LEGO issue:

This ratio has improved significantly in recent years, moving from 10% female mini figures in 2011. In 2017, almost 40% of figures in the City and Creative Expert ranges display female traits.
While there are many female figures in LEGO Friends, If you don't count duplicate character names,  there were around 38% male characters in 2017
A review of 2011-2016 can be found here
A summary of 2017 can be found here

Based on this great info-graphic data, the male to female ratio is at 18:1


text:
Is there a way to draw LEGO figures using Blender?
I have some basic experience in Blender. Is there any way to insert pre-drawn LEGO pieces into Blender?

Will it blend, in other words?

First note that this question is a possible duplicate of Do any programs exist that allow you to build your own LEGO manuals?  With that, here is the answer:

(optional) Create a model in LEGO digital designer or LDraw and export it as a LDraw (*.ldr) file.
Install LeoCAD, and either open the model that you made in LDD/LDraw (recommended) or create your model directly in LeoCAD.
Export your model in LeoCAD as a 3D studio (*.3ds) file and import that in Bender.

I learned this technique from this very site less than a week ago and have already tried it out.  So far, it works great and has given me loads of ideas.
Edit: The Linux version of LeoCAD currently does not export to the *.3ds file format, so you can not set up a pipeline that way; I know this from experience.

You can also use the Lightwave (.obj) exporter from LeoCAD and import that into Blender - note also that LeoCAD has the "Minifig Wizard" allowing you to create your Minifigs directly in there.

I just did a video using the same method as InkBlend. It worked well for me and here is the link https://youtu.be/kIbvFUuAoLU

For a general introduction to Lego characters (humanoid figures) modeled directly in Blender you might like to view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWfS82EOa4A&list=EC3F4C5FF0451A92D9 which is a tutorial on modeling a Lego man. I have just begun to analyse this tutorial to see if I can make an expanded PDF version that will incorporate the correct proportions for this figure but when I will complete this task and if I will publish it depends on too many factors to predict.

I would start to model the lego-head.
It is pretty simple, because u can use only one cylinder and then extrude/move and scale faces.
Here is a nice tutorial with an attached blend file.
http://infofreund.de/modelling-lego-head-blender/

authors: الوارث الحضرمي


text:
Can I use two ultrasound sensors at a time?
Is there a way to use two ultrasound sensors on a Mindstorms NXT without them interfering with each other?

theres a single shot mode (at least when using NXC, NXT-G is very limited in fuctionality) for ultrasonic sensors. if you use that and don't read from two sensors at the exact same time, you can pass around interferences. to read more about that, please take a look at:

http://www.mindsensors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=134
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/nl/roboticstroubleshooting/thread/81a4680d-20a7-46bc-bdba-e7041566c93c


text:
How accurate is the ultrasound sensor when moving?
Can I use an ultrasound sensor while the Robot is moving, or will it give bad data?

Short answer: The ultrasonic sensor is perfectly accurate while moving!
A regular NXT robot will move at a maximum speed of several meters per second (usually about 1 or 2 m/s max.). Ultrasound, on the other hand, travels with about 330 meters per second through air. So during the "snapshot" the ultrasound sensor does (basically it sends a ping, listens for the pong-echo, and takes the time difference), your robot appears to be frozen for this brief moment.
So this is why, whenever your ultrasonic sensor makes a measurement, you get a freze-frame snapshot of the current distance to the nearest object it detects. In reality, the sensor sends out pings all the time during default operation, and you just get the very latest measurment -- but essntially, this feels the same.
Since the ultrasonic sensor is digital and offers its data via the I²C protocol, this is where the main latency comes from. On the other hand, you shouldn't poll (i.e. read out) your sensor too frequently, if that is what you're worried about. In several tests we've concluded with hundred NXT kits, that a polling rate of 50 Hz (50 times per second, delay of 20ms between each poll) does work perfectly with no problems at all. When you're using NXT-G, you shouldn't worry at all: You won't get values faster anyway. When you're working with other languages, and you feel your ultrasonic sensor doesn't work so well in a tight loop with constant polling, try to insert this little 20ms break!
Far more important are the objects you try to detect. This is due to the wavelength of ultrasound. You can't detect objects with dimensions of just a couple of centimeters.

The US works best when facing walls, perpendicular to the sensor
It has big problems detecting furr, carpet- or cloth-like surfaces (the ultrasound doesn't get reflected)
It has big problems detecting smooth surfaces, facing the sensor at skew angles (not 90°) -- the ultrasound gets reflected away
It has problems detecting round objects (e.g. a water bottle or a football) accurately. The ultrasound gets reflected too widely, so you'll see the bottle or ball "bigger and wider" than it is in reality.
It will miss tiny objects

The first rule is, as always: Experiment on your own! For more resources, try the LEGO NXT Hardware SDK or at least the pictures in this german paper, pages 24, 27ff.

The ultrasound sensor will only be affected by the rate in which it captures and processes data, which could be a matter of milliseconds.
Supposing the ultrasound sensor captured data at one second intervals whilst moving towards an object at a rate of ten inches a second. If the rate at which it was moving was consistent the sensor would report measurements of say 60, 50, 40, 30 inches. This is not 'bad data', it can be considered insufficient depending on objective.
LEGO haven't specified the rate at which the ultrasound sensor processes data, if it hasn't been documented, you might want to try a couple of controlled experiments to see how it is affected by motion.

The shooterbot, one of the robots that can be built from the instructions in the nxt 2.0 set, uses this sensor while rotating in place, which proves this works pretty well.
please note that your results might be different, depending on the angle, speed of movement and distance of the objects you're measuring. Basically, there's no problem - but the best way to find out is to start building ;)


text:
How can I make a LEGO heroica scale fountain of youth using bricks from Fortaan or Waldurk?
I have started collecting heroica and I thought "wouldn't a fountain of youth be superb!" but I only have Fortaan and Waldurk... any ideas?

Is that all the LEGO you've got, or are there other pieces to work with?

@Miles, Zhaph - Ben Duguid is right.  You need to supply more information if you want an answer.  Are those Heroica sets all the Legos that you have?  Do you have more, but not want to use them?  Please clarify.

The way I read the question, it does imply "only parts from these sets". If not, it would just be formulated "How can I make a LEGO Heroica scale fountain of youth?". Not everybody has a huge stash of LEGO parts, and we won't shy away from a challenge, will we? (well, I suppose I will since, I don't have any of the two :-/)

Thought I'd finally step up to the plate - here's my first attempt.
On the basis that the Fountain of Youth is probably an end goal rather than something you'd come across on the way somewhere else I've gone for an 8x8 base, but as we're limited to these two sets I've had to go with grey - I could probably have gone with the 4x4 blue plates, but felt that might limit other options, and wanted the figures to be able to move around the fountain a bit.
I've added the goblet as a collectable treasure that could have a "healing" rule for use in campaigns:


text:
How can I draw a microfigure on paper?
I am a great drawer, but I cannot draw microfigures! You may think that because I am young I won't be great I really am, but I need help drawing this, on paper.

Whilst it's not in our sites interest to discuss drafting, I think it can be a very important tool for creative design. I think this is a good question for our site.

Since you'll be working at a scale you may prefer to use graph paper. You can print your own if you don't have any, this will make it easier. Use a ruler, pencil and a rubber to draw your microfigure.
A microfigure is roughly 2/7 legs, 2/7 torso and 3/7 head high, It should also be 3 squares wide. You may find the diagram below makes it easier to visualise:

At this stage the most important thing to concentrate on is symmetry.

Symmetry is common in nature, human beings and even more so with Lego.
  Bricks wouldn't be as compatible as they are now if they didn't have a
  sense of symmetry.

For now, concentrate on the vertical symmetry (top-to-bottom). In my sketch I've drawn out the three boxes first and added a few rough outlines within the guidelines. These guidelines can be erased later when you have finished.

If you can draw Microfigures, you can draw Minifigures. All it takes is a change of scale.

Take a look at:

How to Draw a Lego Minifigure with Easy Step by Step Drawing Tutorial
How to Draw LEGO Men
How to Draw a LEGO

Personally number 3 looks like the best bet to me.

The instructions in these links could be adapted for the micro-figure rather then the minifigure, although they are more "representations" of figures.

@Zhaph-BenDuguid doh, I got the wrong figure type.


text:
How can I make a pigglet headed LEGO figure to be a sidekick for my Gadget Hero?
I have a LEGO superhero that I painted, and he needs a sidekick. The Sidekick is a boy who has the head of a pigglet! But how do I make a Pigglet head?!?

I would use the head piece from a Gamorrean Guard.  This piece can be found in the following sets:

4476 Jabba's Prize
6210 Jabba's Sail Barge
9516 Jabba's Palace

The 1979–1989 Fabuland animals figures have a human body slightly larger than a minifigure, the head, arms and legs move but cannot be removed. The figures are no longer produced but remain quite popular amongst AFOL's. They can still be purchased on sites like Bricklink.

It's a bit late, but in 2020 the Monkie Kid line contains a minifigure-sized pig head:

Another possibility is one of the pig minifigures from the now-discontinued 2016 The Angry Birds Movie theme. For example, see set 75822, Piggy Plane Attack:


text:
How to convert new 4x4 crawler to tracks?
With the new 9398 4x4 crawler coming out what would need to be done to convert it to a track based system that looks similar in style to the ones sold by Mattracks?
On a related point what would make a good basis for making a Lego Technic model of the tracked buggies used in Prometheus that use similar 'track wheels'?

I started with something based around the tracks that came with the original LEGO Mindstorm's kit: 680 Technic Tread:

I then build a rather more bulky than I'd have liked set of beams around it - I think if I'd have really dug out my Technic elements I'd have had more success making it look closer to the mattracks options:

Here's the very bulky rear - this would obviously want to be pared down somewhat, and you might want to either power the top wheel, or both the bottom ones:

Here's the rear with the beams removed:

You would need to have the driving axle on a universal joint to allow cornering, and would want to mount the whole thing on the mounts for steering.
I think it would be better if I'd had more of the newer Technic beams (the ones without the studs - I could have then connected them with two coat-hanger pieces and have another one vertically to the top.

Greate answer! I'd still like to see something that uses the 'tank' tracks that you get with various kits though (big digger, snow plough). Also it seems that Mattracks simple bolt to the hub where the wheel goes (probably with an adaptor plate) so I was expecting to simply slip any solution onto a shaft. Would that work?

@ClaraOnager I'll see if I can find any instructions for that model, and check the connections. I'll also try and dig out a few more bits of my Technic collection and have a better go at it ;) As to the other tracks, the end result would probably be similar, but you'd have a bit more control over the size due to the flexibility of the track sizes.


text:
How do I keep LEGO boxes looking their best for as long as possible?
I want to buy a few cool sets for investing purposes or to give to my kids later on if they prove to be poor investments. I'm not going to open the boxes they'll just be stored but it might be nice to display them on a shelf or something to remind me of why I like them.
So how can I keep the boxes looking their best for the next five or ten years? I assume that fading from sunlight damage is the biggest problem so what needs to be done to prevent that?
Note that I'm asking about the boxes here and not the bricks which is covered in this question: How can I store LEGO bricks as long as possible?

While the LEGO plastic elements are very durable and should be considered as safe as long as they remain in their box, the boxes themselves are much more vulnerable.
As you mention, direct sunlight may be damaging to the printing, but you'll also need to be wary of humidity and possible shocks.
As a minimum, I'd recommend storing them in another cardboard box, if possible an original one from LEGO as dimensions will match better. If not, you'll need to make sure there is sufficient padding so that your LEGO box doesn't move freely in the cardboard box. Padding might be a good idea anyway if you aren't too sure of how careful you'll be with the outer box, a dented corner happens very fast.
Of course, you'll want to store the boxes in a dry area, and out of reach of other hazardous elements (cats come to mind - shredding boxes is the raison d'être of some, the rest prefer peeing on everything which you'll want to avoid too).
All this isn't exactly specific to LEGO, but my last bit of advice would be to turn the boxes from time to time so that the weight of the elements settling inside don't always affect the same side. Or at the very least, store your boxes flat. If you were to store a big box on the same side, the bricks inside will put enough pressure on the side that they'll eventually deform them.

Fortunately there are no cats in the house. What about displaying them?

Well I wouldn't go as far as to say "display" and "preserve" are incompatible, but it's certain if you want to display them you'll have to sacrifice some protective measures. Light, obviously, but you can at least make sure it's not sunlight. Also, you're likely to display them in a standing upright position, which as I said can cause a settling problem. Your best bet is probably to build cases (glass, plexiglass?) which encase the boxes tightly, but how to do that is a question probably better suited for Home Improvement. Or transparent wrapping foil, maybe?

Yeah I was wondering if something along the lines of a deep picture frame would be doable

Well shoot, if you want to display it, send it off to the Action Figure Authority and have them grade it and seal it in carbonite: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2007-LEGO-STAR-WARS-10179-UCS-MILLENNIUM-FALCON-2ND-EDITION-GRADED-AFA-9-5-/321057358932?pt=Building_Toys_US&hash=item4ac0828454

Just keep them away from children, and store them on the shelf. the boxes are very easy to dust off, and they will not be harmed form the dust.
Also, do not put anything heavy on top of the LEGO boxes! I have had experience with this, and it leaves a crease in the box. Actually, you should not out ANYTHING on top of the box, unless it is another empty LEGO box. Or a full LEGO box. I would say that the maximum weight would be the heaviest LEGO box, because the weight is spread out. Only put other LEGO boxes on top of the box. They were meant to be stacked.

Not putting anything heavy on the boxes seems a very valid point. I'm a bit curious about your statement that LEGO boxes are meant to be stacked. As far as I know, LEGO boxes are actually seldom stacked; rather, they are bundled together in bigger boxes which are themselves stacked, so the boxes themselves don't have to support a lot of weight. Is this something you read somewhere? If so, a reference would be neat.

I meant that they were meant to be stacked on each other. LEGO box on another LEGO box will not cause damage.

What great storage ideas! There are a lot of lego loving kids in our family, so I'm going to have to share these ideas.

Please do not stack the Lego boxes, especially the big sets. They are going to crush the lower ones.
If you need to, at least make sure to put a board or something between the two layers to distribute the weight evenly.


text:
How can I make a Lego heroica scale gladiator arena?
Sorry all my questions are about heroica, but this needs to be easy so that I can build in a few mins. I will make gladiator micro figures as well, if someone can make a Lion too!

Which size are you aiming at?

@Joubarc - I'd assume Heroica/Microfig scale.

Let's assume that the Heroica figures are exactly half the scale of the normal LEGO minifigure.  That would be roughly 1:100.  At that scale, 1 meter would be roughly 0.75 studs long or the height of a standard LEGO brick.
Now let's convert the Coliseum dimensions:

Height: 50 meters  ~ 50 bricks high
Length: 189 meters ~ 142 studs
Width: 156 meters ~ 117 studs

To calculate the real dimensions of this LEGO construction, let's remember that a brick is 9.6mm high and the distance for 1 stud is 8mm (= 1 stud radius + the distance between two studs).
Using these values we get:

Height: 50 bricks = 480mm (~18.9 inches)
Length: 142 studs = 1136mm (~44.7 inches)@
Width: 117 studs = 936mm (~36.9 inches)@

@Those two distances are calculated by multiplying 6.4mm with the number of studs, and then adding 1.6mm for the last little bit of beam left after the last stud.

The distance for one stud is 8mm (2 times the radius plus the distance between them). For example, a 1x1 brick is 8mm square, while a 1x2 brick is 16mm the long way. That is why 5 plates equals 2 studs: 5 x 3.2mm = 2 x 8mm = 16mm.

@oddtodd You are totally right and I have made the fix.  I have no idea where that 6.4mm came from.  Thanks for caching this mistake. (...and I'm like, I need a coffey)

You're going to need a lot of pieces. And I don't know if you are talking about making it for your game boards or for your minifigures. I, the LEGO know-it-all, will help you out. I have made a ton of things, including a LEGO to-scale tennis court. That was fairly easy and I made it in about 3–4 hours.
So, if you want to make an arena, you first have to make a square- or circle-sized, box-like base with walls. Make four walls and put them all together as if you were making a house.
Then, make some stands. These will be supported by poles or stacked bricks ot have the height over the wall. This will take a lot of pieces, but very basic ones. What you want to do is use long skinny 2×12 or 2×10, or any longer plank, and 2×4 bricks, and you will want to build some seats or bleachers with those. I will upload a pic of those soon.
Then, you want to kind of make a roof over those bleachers. And of course you also want some entrances and maybe a gate or tunnel. Then you can use the bear from LEGO forest police, make some chariots, and have fun.


text:
What is the best way to transport a large quantity of LEGO bricks?
I have a decently sized collection (thousands of bricks/hundreds of sets/a bunch of bins) from my childhood, but they're all at my parents' house. I live in the US and a couple states away from my parents (more than 1000 miles). What is the best way to package all of the bricks? What is the best way to move all of those packages? I ask because I'm thinking the weight of them all might make it tricky to transport. Hopefully someone out there has been in a similar situation.

You may want to contact experienced BrickLink or eBay sellers, since they routinely do that kind of thing.

Are there any of those on this site?

I have no idea, but I suppose if there are, they will answer...

When I moved house, I just sealed the gaps in a bunch of packing boxes with duct/packing tape, and put the storage bins in there - that way if anything did escape from the bins it wasn't going to get lost from the box.
I would say though that in general my collection wasn't organised in anyway, although there were a few built sets that survived fairly well.

No personal experience, but one vendor I've seen a couple years now at Brick Fiesta just ships boxes full, roughly U-Haul medium sized. He has some cardboard 'trays', but I'm pretty sure they are not structurally useful. He also had stuff bagged up into various types and some level of sorting, but that's not really important to shipping either.
Of course, if you have some relatively delicate bits (like [part:2337:46]), take care to pack them with as little stress on them as possible.
(ok, clearly I'm not getting how to do part linking)

Pack them in a box and surround them with things that are soft.


text:
Is Mindstorms EV3 backwards compatible?
LEGO Group announced the next Mindstorms version, the EV3 which will be available in the Fall, 2013.
Does anyone know if the new version, specifically the controller, will be backwards compatible with the NXT 2.0 sensors and motors?
I'm assuming all of the other parts are standard Technics parts and should inter-operate without a problem.

The LEGO Group have advertised the EV3's excellent backwards compatibility with NXT.
As the cables are the same, the EV3 will work with NXT sensors, motors and, of course, LEGO Technic bricks. RCX sensors will work with the aid of converter cables.
Software designed for programming the NXT will not work for the EV3 as the NXT runs firmware, but the EV3 runs Linux. However, the graphical software that ships with the kit will be able to program older bricks.
From the official EV3 FAQ:

Q: Can NXT sensors and motors be used with the EV3 P-brick?
A: Yes. LEGO® MINDSTORMS® EV3 uses the same LEGO® TECHNIC elements and RJ12 connector cables as the MINDSTORMS® NXT, so all your existing sensors, motors and building elements will work  with the new platform, and the software will recognize them as NXT sensors/motors when they  are plugged in.

do you have a link for LEGO Group's statement of backwards compatibility with NXT?

I do not think that TLG have actually announced it on their website, but all of the articles on tech blogs say so. (The tech blogs have received their info from LEGO's announcement at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.) This guy who was invited by LEGO to beta test the new product says so on his blog

Ah, LEGO have just released an EV3 FAQ page that confirms these facts

Also, have a look at this article on Robot Square about EV3 and NXT compadibility.

The EV3 will run old sensors, motors, and lego bricks. I am sure it will run NXT 2.0 and NXT 1.0 motors, sensors, and etc. but not sure for RCX.

It should be possible to run use some elements from the RCX system by using a converter. See: Can I use RCX sensors and motors with the NXT brick?

Some parts will be compatible with the EV version while others aren't. You can see a complete list with compatible parts in this article http://www.intorobotics.com/building-robots-lego-mindstorms-ev3-features-programming/.

This is not true in my experience! The NXT touch sensor is not detected by my EV3 with the latest firmware. I have tried the NXT touch sensor on the EV3 and it is NOT compatible. Since I have a few of these and really want to use them on my EV3 I investigated it further. The NXT sensor switch connects a 2k2 resistor between pins 1 and 3, with all other pins unconnected. The EV3 sensor is much more complicated, but the main difference is that it switches the 2k2 resistor between pins 4 and 6. I converted the NXT sensor to be EV3 compatible, by removing the existing 2k2 resistor, shorting pins 3 and 5, adding a 910 ohm resistor between pin 3 and 1, and changing the switch to switch the 2k2 resistor between pins 4 and 6. It is now detected and works fine. Why this sensor isn’t compatible I’m not sure, but the EV3 input ports are definitely different from the NXT to some degree. Looks like the intelligent sensors work though, as I can use the NXT ultrasonic and light sensors. Waiting for the EV3 HDK to investigate further…

Have you contacted the Lego Group through their support center?  I would start there, especially since they have advertised sensors as being compatible.


text:
What are LEGO's best selling products?
I am doing a school project on LEGO.
I have two questions for you. How much profit does Lego  make each year? Also what products have been the biggest sellers and in what years?

You can find some of The LEGO Group's financial information in their annual report. Note that the financials are in Danish kroner, so you'll need to do some currency conversion. For example, the net profit for 2012 was 5.6 billion DKK, which works out to about 1 billion USD.
I'm not aware of a reliable way to get official sales numbers for individual products or even product lines. The Mindstorms RIS 2.0 set was the best selling individual product as noted in this article from 2008:

The Mindstorms RIS 2.0 is the #1 selling product in the company's history, and there are over 1 million RCX bricks that have been sold.

TLG does occasionally release some product sales information, as shown in this Brickset post.
If you are interested in the current bestselling sets, there is a page on LEGO.com with this information. Brickpicker also has a section for the current bestselling sets on eBay.


text:
Is the LEGO Midstorms EV3 software compatible with OS X Yosemite?
OS X Yosemite (10.10) was just released yesterday. I want to upgrade, but I am worried that the EV3 software will be incompatible.
What should I do?
A. Upgrade
B. Stay on OS X Mavericks (10.9)

The educational software of mindstorms is not yet updated.(Version 1.1.0)
If you download the free version of mindstorms (Version 1.1.1) you can connect via Bluetooth under Yosemite to your brick!

Thanks a lot! I had to resort to the cable because the bluetooth wasn't working. I'm so happy the the update fixed it!

B. Stay with OS X Mavericks.  I can confirm that bluetooth no longer works with Yosemite. Spent two hours trying to make it work, but in vain.

The new update v1.1.1 for the programming software fixes the issue. See below.

I have run the LEGO MINDSTORMS EV3 software successfully on Yosemite Beta for a couple weeks. The only problem I have had is that I cannot get Bluetooth to work. The bluetooth problem appears to be at the OS level rather than a software compatibility issue though.
Update:
I reported this to Apple via https://bugreport.apple.com. It was marked as a duplicate, so apparently Apple knows about it. Unfortunately, their bug reporting system is not very open and you can only see your own bugs. There is no other feed back on the status of getting it resolved.
I would suggest that everyone that has the problem report the bug as well. This should let Apple know there is demand to get this fixed and hopefully they will make it a priority.

Same here. Upgraded my MBAir (late 2013) to Yosemite and now can't connect over bluetooth to the brick (EV3) anymore...

Same, my EV3 bluetooth no longer works with Yosemite :-(


text:
Where to find this green transparent brick?
Where can I find this lego brick?

I have one but I want some more of them for a project.

Your brick appears to be trans-neon-green, an extremely rare color for 2x4 bricks. It never appeared in any set and it is only traded between collectors. You would be paying over $50 for a brick like that if you are lucky enough to find it. It would probably be best to pick another color, or another brick-size for your project. Trans-neon-green also comes in 1x2 size, which is more readily available.

So basically, the better path is to sell this one brick for $50 on bricklink.com, and then use the money to buy a larger quantity of the same brick in trans-yellow for ~$2 each :)

I guess that could work, although as a collector myself, I would never part from a brick like that. It is ultra-rare! :)

If it never appeared in any set, is an official brick and (I presume) was not available in pick-a-brick... What's their story? How did the collectors get their hands on them?

@Maurycy  LEGO does make uniquely colored pieces for LEGOLAND Parks and other special LEGO projects like large sculptures, etc. And they also make pieces in test colors (2x4 bricks are one of the most common for testing colors). Sometimes these escape the factories and design studios, make it to the secondary market, and end up in the hands of LEGO fans. They are highly valued by collectors.

Could it be this one: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3001f1 ? In translucent yellow it sells for about $2 a piece and is also quite rare.

I have thought of that, but the OP's photo definitely looks more neon color than yellow. Especially at the edges. It could be just picture quality though. Trans-yellow is definitely easier to find. You linked to the one with frosted interior, and there is also the regular one listed here: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=3001&colorID=19

At the time of this answer, 8 are listed in Bricklink:

They appear slightly different than the one in the photo though:

You get a discount if you buy more than one.  For only $275.00-ish USD they can be yours!  That is going to be one very expensive MOC :D

Could this be what you're looking for?

The link is broken.

Ouch, that hurts.


text:
How to control a 88004 Servo Motor with a Raspberry Pi?
I am able to control a simple servo motor such as SG90 by using pulse-width modulation. However when it comes to controlling a 88004 LEGO Servo Motor it is simply a nightmare.
By using PWM all I managed was bringing it to its normal position. It seems the pulse length doesn't play a role at all - I've tried several ones...
Another difference between a SG90 and a 88004 is that the first has only three wires (PWR, GND and Control) whereas the LEGO servo has 4 (PWR, C1, C2 and GND).

Which of those wires (C1 and C2) should be used with the PWM?
How long should the pulses be to move the motor through its 15 positions?
Is there another way to control a 88004 directly from the Raspberry Pi such as I2C?

EDITED

It works!
#Importing the necessary library
import RPi.GPIO as GPIO
from time import sleep

#Reference by GPIOs IDs
GPIO.setmode(GPIO.BCM)

#Assigning the GPIOs to the Lego's command wires
C1 = 21
C2 = 26
moveFactor = 14.285714286

#Setting up the necessary GPIOs
GPIO.setup(C1, GPIO.OUT)
GPIO.setup(C2, GPIO.OUT)

#Setting up the PWMs - (GPIO ID, Frequency)
pwm1 = GPIO.PWM(C1, 1200)
pwm2 = GPIO.PWM(C2, 1200)

def setPosition(position):
    pwm1.stop()
    pwm2.stop()
    i = round(position * moveFactor, 2)

    if position >= 0:
        print 'Position: ' + str(position) + ' at a Duty Cycle of ' + str(i)
        pwm1.start(i)
    else:
        print 'Position: ' + str(position) + ' at a Duty Cycle of ' + str(i*-1)
        pwm2.start(i*-1)

#Testing the commands with a LED
try:
    setPosition(-7)   #180 Degrees
    sleep(2)
    setPosition(7)    #0 Degree
    sleep(1)
except:
    pass

pwm1.stop()     # Back to the normal position (90 degrees)
pwm2.stop()
GPIO.cleanup()

Did you need to raise the voltage levels to 5v or 9v, or were you able to control it via 3v3 directly from the pi?

LEGO "Servo Motor" has little to do with a RC servomotor. To drive it, you need to:

Power it at 9V (probably works at 5 volts, but with less torque) through PWR/GND terminals
To move in one direction, send a PWM signal (1200 Hz, 0 to 100% duty cycle) on C1 and keep C2 at GND level. As duty cycle varies, servo motor will move along 7 positions on one side. See this video.
To move in the other direction and reach the 7 other positions, send PWM to C2 and keep C1 at ground level.

Thank you very much Philo. Just another question from someone who has very limited physics knowledge. What exactly do you mean by "0 to 100% duty cycle"? Would you be so kind and write a very simple algorithm? Thank you!

The duty cycle percentage is the ratio between powered time over cycle period. Eg. here, a 30% duty cycle at 1200 Hz means 250µs on / 583µs off.

Hi Philo. Thanks for your replay. I just created a code in Phyton based on your explanation (see the edited question) but unfortunately it still does not work. Would you help me by reviewing it and making the necessary adjustments? I would be very thankful for that.

Problem is that I am not Python savvy... Might be a physical  interface problem too?

As best I can tell the above instructions are correct, but I couldn't get my servo to go to any position other than -90/0/90, no matter what PWM duty cycles I used.  It turns out that my cheap 88004 clone motor for aliexpress only has 3 positions, so it's not 100% compatible.  A bit disappointing but it was cheap & does work for some applications...


text:
The Mindstorms EV3 Software crashes on OS X Yosemite 10.10.3. What do I do?
It's crashing on startup which is really irritating. When debugged with terminal it says this:
Unhandled Exception: System.UnauthorizedAccessException: Access to the path is denied.
[ERROR] FATAL UNHANDLED EXCEPTION: System.UnauthorizedAccessException: Access to the path is denied.
What should I do? I've already tried reinstalling it.
System specs: MacBook Air '11, Late 2010, Mac OS X 10.10.3
Latest version of Mindstorms software

Does the error say which path? It may be a read-only file or a directory.

The error is caused by the underlying MS Silverlight runtime. As stated in this stack overflow answer, the error may be caused if

the caller does not have the required permission.
the path is a directory.
the path specified a read-only file.

Possible ways to find a solution:
• Open the Console application and see if the error shows details about which path it cannot access.
• Repair file permissions of your partition via the Disk Utility application.
Search for Mindstorms EV3 files in your ~/Library/Caches, ~/Library/Application Support and ~/Library/Preferences folder and delete these files (backup files first! or make sure TimeMachine is set up). Normally an application will re-create files located in these folders at start.

Updating the iOS version to 10.10.5 seems to have solved the problem for me. Hopefully this helps someone else out there.

I tried to duplicate this on my 10.10.3 MacBook Air 13.  No luck.  I did see in the readme file that the minimum resolution is 1024 by 768, and the native resolution of the Air 11 is 1366 by 768.
Try the following if you have not already:

Use an external monitor of > 768 lines
Upgrade your version of Silverlight

https://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/Get-Started/Install/Default.aspx

I tried to set my Mac to 720 lines to see if I could get the app to crash, but no luck.

authors: Томшин Павел Валерьевич


text:
Does the Mindstorms EV3 software run on OS X El Capitan?
El Capitan was released a few days ago, and I want to upgrade. Will there be issues with the software, or will it run nicely on El Capitan?
My Mac:
Retina MacBook Pro 13", Early 2015

I had the same error message as Stefan on opening. I fixed the problem by installing Silverlight 5.1.41212.0.
I'm running:

El Capitan 10.11.4 (15E27e) (beta)
Late 2015 Retina iMac i7 4GHz

So providing you've got the correct version of Silverlight installed, you should be able to run it.

I've recently upgraded to OS X 10.11 El Capitan (as a matter of fact, I have the exact same model of computer). I've done some basic tests with the EV3 software without running into any issues. I've downloaded programs to the brick using both USB and Bluetooth.
Base on past experience with OS upgrades with both the NXT and EV3 software, the problems have usually been with Bluetooth. The fact that this is working is a good sign.
I have not used the EV3 software extensively yet on OS X 10.11, so there could be some minor issues I don't know about, but at least I can say that it is usable.

The official LEGO.com page says:

Mac OS 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 with the latest Service packs

This does not include 10.11, but seeing that another official LEGO.com page says:

Fixed Bluetooth crashing in various ways on OSX Yosemite (10.10)

it seems probable that LEGO supports their software better than their homepage :)
So while we don't have a definitive answer yet, I think even if there are show-stopper changes in El Capitan, LEGO will patch the EV3 to work flawlessly.

I use EV3 with El Capitan. No issues, though I bought a WiFi dongle as Bluetooth experiences with prior NXT really wasted so much of my time.

I tried to install it newly on el capitan and got an error message that I should contact the software supplier...
So for me it did not work


text:
How do you display EV3-G images properly on an NXT screen?
When I use the EV3 programming software to put an image on the screen of an NXT, it cuts off the top 3/4 of the image (see below):
       |
cut off|cut off
       |
----------------
       |
cut off|shown
       |

Only the bottom-right quarter of the image is showing. How can I make the brick show the entire image?

Could you please post the code you are using? Maybe we can spot the bug that way together.

A picture would be helpful too.

I'll try to put up a picture soon...