Technic Hall of Fame Discussion

[Balrog]

I want to suggest the Pen Dragon 2 for the hall of fame.

Original Topic: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=111877

Since Blakbird already displayed some interest, I think this is a no-brainer.

In case this alone does not count, here are some more arguments:

- unique creation

- single motor for whole functionality

- very thoughtful mechanisms with a lot of research and trial & error

- doesn't look too bad, too

[Moz]

I want to suggest the Pen Dragon 2 for the hall of fame.

While I think it's an interesting model the builder doesn't seem to understand what fractals are. That means the model can't draw them and thus doesn't perform even the one function it's supposed to. It just draws one fixed pattern and (within Lego accuracy limits) repeatedly draws over the top of the same path. I'd rate it "could do better". I suspect it could be made to draw a psuedo-Penrose tile, for example, which is a more likely ambition than a semi-fractal design.

[Balrog]

While I think it's an interesting model the builder doesn't seem to understand what fractals are. That means the model can't draw them and thus doesn't perform even the one function it's supposed to. It just draws one fixed pattern and (within Lego accuracy limits) repeatedly draws over the top of the same path. I'd rate it "could do better". I suspect it could be made to draw a psuedo-Penrose tile, for example, which is a more likely ambition than a semi-fractal design.

I don't see your critique valid. This is not exactly about fractals or anything like that. It is about a mechanical solution to draw such a curve with relatively high precision, all powered by a single motor. Note, this model does not simply do left/right/left/right movements alone, also it does exactly what it is described to do.

[Moz]

A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. Edited July 17, 2015 by Moz

[Blakbird]

A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales.

Obviously it is impossible to create an infinitely complex figure mechanically. The machine makes an approximation of the full fractal, and a very good one.

[Moz]

Obviously it is impossible to create an infinitely complex figure mechanically. The machine makes an approximation of the full fractal, and a very good one.

I must admit that I can't see the "self-similar across different scales" in the picture that machine draws. It would be as (in)accurate to say it draws Mandelbrot plots.

I don't "obviously the builder set out to do something impossible and did something completely different" as grounds to put the model in the hall of fame. Yes, it's complex, and yes it does something interesting. No, it's not amazing. If it was called "semi-programmable line drawing robot" would you still ant in the the hall of fame?

Edited July 18, 2015 by Moz

[Nalyd997]

May I just ask but why are there all these gg's instead of just making a post when you need to?

[BachAddict]

I must admit that I can't see the "self-similar across different scales" in the picture that machine draws. It would be as (in)accurate to say it draws Mandelbrot plots.

I don't "obviously the builder set out to do something impossible and did something completely different" as grounds to put the model in the hall of fame. Yes, it's complex, and yes it does something interesting. No, it's not amazing. If it was called "semi-programmable line drawing robot" would you still ant in the the hall of fame?

It draws a specific iteration of the dragon curve fractal, exactly as it was meant to.

[Moz]

It draws a specific iteration of the dragon curve fractal, exactly as it was meant to.

And by itself that's not a fractal. At best it's an approximation of a small part of a fractal. No-one is making, say, a "mosaic printer" that puts one tile onto a background and stops. That wouldn't be a mosaic printer. In the same way a "fractal drawer" that draws one element of a tiled fractal and stops, isn't a "fractal drawer".

That's why I suggested penrose tiling, because there are smaller, simpler penrose tiles so it'd be more likely you could actually draw enough of them to demonstrate tiling. But at the same time, saying "this draws one penrose tile" would be more accurate than "this draws a fractal", simply because you can have one penrose tile, where you can't have a bounded "one fractal". It's exactly like "one infinity", in common language infinity is unbounded. And even to the transfinite mathematicians, a bounded infinity is a pretty special case. And this definitely is not a bounded infinity (like, say, a mandelbrot set is).

[sm1995]

And by itself that's not a fractal. At best it's an approximation of a small part of a fractal. No-one is making, say, a "mosaic printer" that puts one tile onto a background and stops. That wouldn't be a mosaic printer. In the same way a "fractal drawer" that draws one element of a tiled fractal and stops, isn't a "fractal drawer".

That's why I suggested penrose tiling, because there are smaller, simpler penrose tiles so it'd be more likely you could actually draw enough of them to demonstrate tiling. But at the same time, saying "this draws one penrose tile" would be more accurate than "this draws a fractal", simply because you can have one penrose tile, where you can't have a bounded "one fractal". It's exactly like "one infinity", in common language infinity is unbounded. And even to the transfinite mathematicians, a bounded infinity is a pretty special case. And this definitely is not a bounded infinity (like, say, a mandelbrot set is).

Sorry, I don't really agree with your reasoning.

Sure it may not draw an actual "fractal" ( something I know nothing about), but...

a. Does it do something that no other lego creation out there does? Yes it does.

b. Is it a crazy complex and fascinating piece of engineering? Yes it is.

I think based on those two criteria alone, it qualifies for the HOF. It is my humble opinion that you need to open your eyes and see the bigger picture here; a simple technicality doesn't (IMO, again) discredit all the 'outside of the box" thinking and hard work required to come up with a creation like this.

[Alasdair Ryan]

May I just ask but why are there all these gg's instead of just making a post when you need to?

gg is just a place holder for future entry's,official staff use RFU reserved for future use.I am not a staff member sooo....well two letters are quicker than three.

Creating separate topics means I can index them and link to that model (top of the first page).

Edited July 18, 2015 by Alasdair Ryan

[Blakbird]

I don't "obviously the builder set out to do something impossible and did something completely different" as grounds to put the model in the hall of fame. Yes, it's complex, and yes it does something interesting. No, it's not amazing. If it was called "semi-programmable line drawing robot" would you still ant in the the hall of fame?

Yes. Regardless of what words you want to use to describe what it does, it is still one of the best mechanical creations I have ever seen. It will be on my shelf.

[Alasdair Ryan]

Yes. Regardless of what words you want to use to describe what it does, it is still one of the best mechanical creations I have ever seen. It will be on my shelf.

I guess that is Blakbird's way of forcing me to add it....

[BachAddict]

And by itself that's not a fractal. At best it's an approximation of a small part of a fractal. No-one is making, say, a "mosaic printer" that puts one tile onto a background and stops. That wouldn't be a mosaic printer. In the same way a "fractal drawer" that draws one element of a tiled fractal and stops, isn't a "fractal drawer".

That's why I suggested penrose tiling, because there are smaller, simpler penrose tiles so it'd be more likely you could actually draw enough of them to demonstrate tiling. But at the same time, saying "this draws one penrose tile" would be more accurate than "this draws a fractal", simply because you can have one penrose tile, where you can't have a bounded "one fractal". It's exactly like "one infinity", in common language infinity is unbounded. And even to the transfinite mathematicians, a bounded infinity is a pretty special case. And this definitely is not a bounded infinity (like, say, a mandelbrot set is).

Draw a mandelbrot set using LEGO. Then you may say "This model is not worthy of recognition because it doesn't draw an actual fractal."

Edited July 19, 2015 by BachAddict

[Balrog]

I guess that is Blakbird's way of forcing me to add it....

That is what I already stated in my suggestion :P

And by itself that's not a fractal. At best it's an approximation of a small part of a fractal. No-one is making, say, a "mosaic printer" that puts one tile onto a background and stops. That wouldn't be a mosaic printer. In the same way a "fractal drawer" that draws one element of a tiled fractal and stops, isn't a "fractal drawer".

That's why I suggested penrose tiling, because there are smaller, simpler penrose tiles so it'd be more likely you could actually draw enough of them to demonstrate tiling. But at the same time, saying "this draws one penrose tile" would be more accurate than "this draws a fractal", simply because you can have one penrose tile, where you can't have a bounded "one fractal". It's exactly like "one infinity", in common language infinity is unbounded. And even to the transfinite mathematicians, a bounded infinity is a pretty special case. And this definitely is not a bounded infinity (like, say, a mandelbrot set is).

Just to get the comparison you used projected on this model: Imagine a curve being a single tile. Imagine the whole curve being a mosaic. You said yourself, a machine creating a mosaic would be worthy for the HoF.

[Victor Imaginator]

Drawing a fractal it's impossible, just because any drawing algorithm must include infinite recursion. Any fractal image that you can see is finite... not a real fractal, just an approximation of it. Pen Dragon 2 makes an approximation, like any other fractal drawing device (or program).

[aeh5040]

Of course everyone is entitled to make their own judgement about the merits of a model, but I want to correct some of the factual misconceptions here. When someone concludes that generations of mathematicians must be wrong just because they "cannot see it", I can only be amused.

The term "fractal" was coined by Benoit Mandelbrot in the 1970s to describe an object with non-integer ("fractional") dimension. (The concept itself has its origins centuries ealier).

The Heighway dragon curve was first studied in the 1960s. It is space-filling, therefore it has Hausdorff dimension 2. However, its boundary has Hausdorff dimension 1.5236, which is not an integer. Therefore, it is fractal. (The definition of Hausdorff dimension is technical, but easy to look up - I will not give it here).

(A far more famous example of the same phenomenon is planar Brownian motion, which has dimension 2, but whose boundary has dimension 4/3, as conjectured by Mandelbrot and proved by Lawler, Schramm and Werner in 1999. Werner received the Fields Medal partly in recognition of this work.)

Many popular fractals have the stronger property of self-similarity, and the dragon curve is no exception. In fact, it has the even stronger property that it is the fixed point of an "iterated function system" - this means that it can be exactly decomposed into several (in this case two) smaller copies of itself. In this case the two copies are rotated by multiples of 45 degrees, and are smaller by a factor of 1 over the square root of 2, compared with the original. (The Wikipedia article on dragon curves gives full details).

Any drawing or other representation of a fractal produced by human or machine is necessarily an approximation, basically because it's not possible to realize something infinitely complex in the physical world (at least within currently understood physics). Such an approximation is implicit in the word "drawing". For a fractal, typically one uses a clearly defined sequence of approximations that (provably) converge to the fractal set. In the special case of the dragon curve, there is a Lindenmayer substitution scheme that provides such a sequence of approximating curves. It can be interpreted in terms of Gray code or paper folding - again, the Wikipedia article contains a very clear description.

The Pendragon model produces the 7th Lindenmayer approximation to the dragon curve (drawn with rounded rather than square corners). It does this by the Gray code method. If another Geneva mechanism were added, it would produce the 8th approximation, with twice as many steps, and so on. (More precsiely, it actually produces the 7th approximation to the "twin dragon", which is a union of two dragon curves).

Apologies for the lengthy and somewhat off-topic digression. Again, the purpose was to set the record straight on the (very standard) mathematical facts.

[Jim]

Thanks for the explanation.

I think we can focus on the HoF now

[Superfield]

+1. This one must belong to the HoF IMHO.

another proposal:

Nathanaël Kuipers 2015 Predator Supercar

Topic: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=106316&hl=predator

Nathanaël is an Eurobricks-member, there exists a topic and i forecast that it will sit on blakbirds shelf in not too distant future ;-)

And - btw - it is an outstanding model of an outstanding designer...IMHO

[nerdsforprez]

I would like to formally start a conversation of adding this MOC to the HOF. http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=116846 IMO, it is every bit of gorgeous as the supercars already added, and it also includes an amount of power (4XL motors) that I don't think we have seen in a supercar yet. It is a marvelous build.

[Kiwi_Builder]

I have to agree with nerdsforprez, I'm not normally a fan of supercars or BMW, but this MOC just amazes me with how beautiful it looks. I would even go to say that it looks better than the original (Thus, the not usually a fan of BMW ). I would definitely recommend this and I'm sure Blakbird is clearing a space on his shelf for it right now

[D3K]

Don't know if this has been asked/answered before, but I'm curious: Why do you always queue up a whole bunch of posts for coming entries in the HoF topic, instead of just making them when the entries are added?

[Alasdair Ryan]

Please read the first reply in this topic,I have added some info.

[D3K]

Please read the first reply in this topic,I have added some info.

Thanks, I understand

[RMBP]

I just can't understand why isn't this marvel in the HOF:

Madoca's Corvette C3 Stingray - http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=97592&hl=corvette

I also like RM8's Toyota Land Cruiser FJ40 a lot (the car that brought me to the MOC scene) - http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=103380&hl=%2Btoyota+%2Bland+%2Bcruiser - but I understand this one might not be clear for everyone.