Part number for double injection and assemblies

[Willy Tschager]

I love this hobby. I'm authoring part for almost 15 years and still come across things I have no clues about. Given that I read:

http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/numberfaq/

I have no idea how to number the top and bottom part of the Animal clam I just fixed:

http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=30218

and how to number the assemblies of the closed and opened version.
(Is it further worth modeling its alias https://rebrickable.com/parts/30218/clam...inner-lip/ or just go with a renumber).

Some goes for double injection:

http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...152c01.dat

how do we number them? Any links in the FAQ?

w.

[Magnus Forsberg]

how to number the top and bottom part of the Animal clam

IMO it should be made regular subparts

how to number the assemblies of the closed and opened version

Today I would give them a suffix -f1; 'partnumber'-f1 , 'partnumber'-f2. It's the same part, but in two different states.

double injection: how do we number them?

I think the p-suffix is the best here, if not the correct lego design ID is known.

Examples:
Rock 4x4x1.333 and Rock 4x4x1.667
Plate 1x2 with rubber tip, 61406p01 ....
BURP 6083p01, 6082p01

[Willy Tschager]

[quote pid='26691' dateline='1511390005']
I think the p-suffix is the best here, if not the correct lego design ID is known.

Examples:
Rock 4x4x1.333 and Rock 4x4x1.667
Plate 1x2 with rubber tip, 61406p01 ....
BURP 6083p01, 6082p01
[/quote]

Looks like Steffen has a different opinion:

http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...152p01.dat

but to me this is not an assembly but a multi injection part:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6vq5ahrz1uaw66...o.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cn0e5tcidcy27u...o.jpg?dl=0

w.

[Magnus Forsberg]

but to me this is not an assembly but a multi injection part

w.

I agree.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Definitely P01 for me.
See below...

[Gerald Lasser]

I could not see the pictures initially, but found them on the PT.

Although I could not imagine first, the way it looks to me it is a double injection part.

I found now both pieces and I think it is the following way:

The older 30152: Assembly
The newer 10830: Dual Injection.

As the Trans-Red is only available as the 30152 variant, I would go for a ...c01/...c02


10830 is visibly different from the  30152 and shall be a different part, i.e. no alias, as the frame is 'much' thicker.

edit: What makes me wonder when looking at Willy's pictures, is the lack of the little dent on top of the frame that 10830 has, but seems to be owed to the perspective.

edit: revised below

[Philippe Hurbain]

The older 30152: Assembly
The newer 10830: Dual Injection.

As the Trans-Red is only available as the 30152 variant, I would go for a ...c01/...c02

Brickset "Element count" field makes it clear:
30152 and 90463 are assemblies (Element count=2) -> c01

10830 is Dual Injection (Element count=1) -> p01
According to images, 30152 and 90463 have thin edges, but 90463 has a thicker glass, while 10380 has thick edge/thin glass
https://brickset.com/parts/design-30152
https://brickset.com/parts/design-90463
https://brickset.com/parts/design-10830

[Willy Tschager]

The older 30152: Assembly
The newer 10830: Dual Injection.

As the Trans-Red is only available as the 30152 variant, I would go for a ...c01/...c02

Brickset "Element count" field makes it clear:
30152 and 90463 are assemblies (Element count=2) -> c01

10830 is Dual Injection (Element count=1) -> p01
According to images, 30152 and 90463 have thin edges, but 90463 has a thicker glass, while 10380 has thick edge/thin glass
https://brickset.com/parts/design-30152
https://brickset.com/parts/design-90463
https://brickset.com/parts/design-10830

If the Element count would count determining if it is an assembly or a multi injection how would you rate these:

https://brickset.com/parts/design-52210 (Element count=2)
https://brickset.com/parts/design-2634 (Element count=1)
https://brickset.com/parts/design-47847 (Element count=5)

I tried to remove the lens of the 30152 - no chance. It is further more inserted seamlessly.

w.

[Philippe Hurbain]

OK... Element count is not a clear criteria...

I tried to remove the lens of the 30152 - no chance. It is further more inserted seamlessly.

Glued?

[Willy Tschager]

OK... Element count is not a clear criteria...

I tried to remove the lens of the 30152 - no chance. It is further more inserted seamlessly.

Glued?

No glue on the borders of the lens but the gap you see on the picture is closed with a transparent finishing on the surface. Scratching with your nail over the outside ring you cannot feel any imperfection - perfect surface as if the spine of the lens had melted into the black ring.

w.

[Gerald Lasser]

OK... Element count is not a clear criteria...
Glued?

No glue on the borders of the lens but the gap you see on the picture is closed with a transparent finishing on the surface. Scratching with your nail over the outside ring you cannot feel any imperfection - perfect surface as if the spine of the lens had  melted into the black ring.

w.

I now bravely took a 30152 and cut it apart...

It looks like it is a dual injection or 'welded' together by some other thermal process that got the lens and the holder together. The hollow handle does reach all the way through to the transparent part, i.e. lens.

The design on the PT needs to be refined a bit further IMHO to represent the part properly. I never noticed till today that there is a bit of the transparent part sticking out... 

90463 is two parts. You can take it apart some force though, but it does not break. The holder is more felxible than standard ABS and you can assemble it again without leaving any marks.

That needs to be newly authored.

Same goes for 10830, however I do not have this at hand, to check if you can force out the lens.

[Willy Tschager]

I now bravely took a 30152 and cut it apart...

Ouch!

The design on the PT needs to be refined a bit further IMHO to represent the part properly. I never noticed till today that there is a bit of the transparent part sticking out... 

No, please! We are already too picky on many details. It doesn't add any value nor functionality. Just leave it as it is and use your precious time to fix one of the 318 held files which really need attention.

w.

[Gerald Lasser]

No, please! We are already too picky on many details. It doesn't add any value nor functionality. Just leave it as it is and use your precious time to fix one of the 318 held files which really need attention.

w.

Well, I did it already. ...probably cut away the protruding transparent thingy from the lens

I redid it also because the dimensions are completely off, take your calipers and compare... diameter and height do not match.

Have a look at the attachments:

30152inlined.dat is an all-in-one quick view...

edit: here they are, side by side:
   

[Willy Tschager]

I redid it also because the dimensions are completely off, take your calipers and compare... diameter and height do not match.

Fix the origin (Don't forget the Moveto) and submit.

w.

[Gerald Lasser]

Fix the origin (Don't forget the Moveto) and submit.

w.

Why should I use a ~Moved To?

I will move my new file to match the bottom of the old one.

Then I would simply submit all of the affected files s01, s02 and the p01 and p02

What to do with the old one? It's wrong, but it is official..?

[Willy Tschager]

Why should I use a ~Moved To?

I will move my new file to match the bottom of the old one.

Then I would simply submit all of the affected files s01, s02 and the p01 and p02

What to do with the old one? It's wrong, but it is official..?

The official part has a wrong origin. That should be fixed as long as the part is back at the PT. If you don't use a Moveto all set currently using the magnifier glass will have it floating in the air.

w.