Jump to content

Photo

Lego Rock raiders. First sight of the future?

Solved

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1
Ben24x7

Ben24x7

    Visible Vampire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

I once had a look at the crome cusher in a dark area (please note it was daytime) and I noticed that the Tr. Fluore. Green (the pick-a-brick colour name for the yellow-green transparent pieces) glow around the edges, this also worked for energy crystals, but it wouldn't glow-in-the-dark and now I'm thinking... "Could this be an early version of glow-in-the-dark elements?"

 

Post up comments or more theories to add more info to this theory.



#2
JimbobJeffers

I doubt it was an early version of glow-in-the-dark elements. From what I've read, transparent LEGO parts are made from PolyCarbonate rather than the usual ABS plastic, as ABS isn't transparent. Quoting Wikipedia: 'Polycarbonate is highly transparent to visible light, with better light transmission than many kinds of glass.' Which suggests that perhaps it is just more reactive to light, although I'm no expert on this.

 

Also, the Rock Raiders line wasn't the first to use transparent parts. For instance, the Ice Planet 2002 sets feature iconic orange transparent elements, and these were released six years before Rock Raiders.

 

So, basically, I don't think so. But then it's likely someone else here who knows way more than me could very easily contradict this statement.


  • Cyrem and The Ace Railgun thanked this

#3
jamesster

... Seriously?

LEGO has had glow in the dark stuff since 1990, nine years before Rock Raiders, and transparent pieces since 1950.

http://www.bricklink...talogColors.asp
  • Lair, McSpudz, s0d3rb3rg and 1 other thanked this

#4
Fushigisaur

Well considering the color is called Transparent Fluorescent Green...

#5
McJobless

say-what.gif

uwotm8?
  • Lair, jamesster, Zephyria and 1 other thanked this

#6
Lair

Lair

    Toilet Buster

  • Contributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,626 posts

Is it appropriate in times like this to say "kids these days"?


  • McJobless thanked this

#7
Fushigisaur

Is it appropriate in times like this to say "kids these days"?

Oui

#8
Pranciblad

Pranciblad

    Oh no mah coffee help

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts

Why exactly is this in the fan fiction section?


  • Lair, jamesster and McSpudz thanked this

#9
Alcom1

Kids these days.


  • Lair and McJobless thanked this

#10
BobaFett2

BobaFett2

    Wannabe Fan Game Dev

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 228 posts

As said above, glowing parts have existed since ghosts, so no.
It's not actually glowing, sorry.

 

Kids these days.



#11
Tracker

Tracker

    AIV

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,250 posts

It does glow, but only under UV, violet, or blue light.



#12
Cyrem

Cyrem

    Founder

  • Retired Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,694 posts

Props to JimbobJeffers for an actual decent reply without the attitude of the other replies.

 

That is an interesting thing you've spotted. Generally, when you get a transparent piece, the edges of the piece will look brighter than the rest. This is due to lighting and not necessarily any 'glow' this piece may have. I've never actually seen a fluorescent piece of LEGO (whether they make any I don't know) but it would look quite good on RR sets for night scenes.



#13
Ben24x7

Ben24x7

    Visible Vampire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Well... I would've been impressed if they were glow in the dark but it means it would have to be white which wouldn't fit the Rock raiders colour scheme. And why are you all saying "kids these days"? You think I'm a very young person! Well, do you expect a very young person to say physudonim? (or how you spell it (it means false name)).  :zzz:  *calms down*  :wimp: < Sorry... Very off topic... my own topic! )



#14
Fushigisaur

Well... I would've been impressed if they were glow in the dark but it means it would have to be white which wouldn't fit the Rock raiders colour scheme. And why are you all saying "kids these days"? You think I'm a very young person! Well, do you expect a very young person to say physudonim? (or how you spell it (it means false name)).  :zzz:  *calms down*  :wimp: < Sorry... Very off topic... my own topic! )

Pseudonym. One's ability to say large words is not an indication of age, and the fact that you would think it is does not exactly help your case. Especially since you couldn't even be bothered to look up the correct spelling.
  • jamesster, TheDoctor and McJobless thanked this

#15
Cirevam

Cut it out with the "kids these days" comments, especially when a bunch of you ARE KIDS. Maybe if you took a second to read your own posts before posting them you would see that you're being non-constructive and pretty much insulting.

Jimbob and Cyrem seem to be the only people who actually understood what the topic creator was talking about. I can break it down a little further. Transparent pieces are definitely made with a different kind of plastic as Jimbob said, but why do these pieces seem to glow at all? It's due to a phenomenon called "total internal reflection." When a beam of light strikes something transparent, it will do certain things depending on how it hit the surface. If it's directly into the surface, it goes through. But if it's a glancing hit, it will reflect either partially or completely. You can sometimes notice this if you look at a window from close to the side.

There is a defined angle for each kind of material where this transition between partial reflection and total reflection occurs. It is called the "critical angle", but I have seen it called the "minimum glancing angle" too. You will notice this much more in rounded pieces such as antennas, since the light will bounce off of the shallow rounded angles and be trapped inside for quite some time before it escapes at a single point. More light in one spot is brighter, of course, so the edges can look brighter under certain conditions. I'm not sure why it does that for pieces with hard edges like energy crystals, but perhaps it has something to do with how the plastic hardened.

http://en.wikipedia....rnal_reflection
  • Cyrem and JimbobJeffers thanked this

#16
jamesster

Interesting science, but largely unrelated to the original question of if it's somehow a prototype of something that came nine years earlier (heck, even the topic title asks if it's the "First sight of the future"). I'm also not seeing how this is topic worthy, seems more like something you'd see in a blog or even a status update.

Also, the 1990 ghost minifigure having the first glow in the dark LEGO piece is an incredibly common piece of LEGO trivia, which is probably where the "kids these days" comments came from - its just one of those things most older LEGO fans know.

#17
Cyrem

Cyrem

    Founder

  • Retired Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,694 posts

Interesting science, but largely unrelated to the original question of if it's somehow a prototype of something that came nine years earlier (heck, even the topic title asks if it's the "First sight of the future"). I'm also not seeing how this is topic worthy, seems more like something you'd see in a blog or even a status update.

 

It was a question. He was asking if LRR was the first to have these parts that he thought 'glowed'. The science is very much related because it is the reason he thought they were glowing. Even though he was wrong about the glowing and when LEGO started making transparent parts, it in no way makes the topic less 'worthy' then any other topic on the forum. This topic not only answered his question, but gave anyone who didn't know about "total internal reflection" an education.



#18
jamesster


It was a question. He was asking if LRR was the first to have these parts that he thought 'glowed'. The science is very much related because it is the reason he thought they were glowing. Even though he was wrong about the glowing and when LEGO started making transparent parts, it in no way makes the topic less 'worthy' then any other topic on the forum. This topic not only answered his question, but gave anyone who didn't know about "total internal reflection" an education.


The science is somewhat related, educational, and interesting indeed, but the main question's answer is more about a prototype than the science from how I understood it. And the topic's "worthiness" has nothing to do with dates or glowing like you're implying, it's simply that it seems rather obscure and out of place for a main forum post, especially in its original fan fiction location.

#19
Cyrem

Cyrem

    Founder

  • Retired Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,694 posts

The science is somewhat related, educational, and interesting indeed, but the main question's answer is more about a prototype than the science from how I understood it. And the topic's "worthiness" has nothing to do with dates or glowing like you're implying, it's simply that it seems rather obscure and out of place for a main forum post, especially in its original fan fiction location.

 

Had the parts not looked like they were glowing or had he known about total internal reflection, this topic would not have existed. The 'science' is what prompted him to think "Are they early versions?", he just didn't know it. As Fan Fic and Theme Discussion are right on top of each other, posting this in the wrong forum is completely possible. The content of the post is what matters anyway, not the location. This is certainly not the first theory that has been posted, so I don't understand why certain ones are treating this guy differently simply based on his lack of knowledge or a misplaced topic.

 

I don't know a lot about LEGO compared to members here, I didn't know about "first glow in the dark LEGO" which is a "incredibly common piece of LEGO trivia"... I didn't even know LEGO produced glow-in-the-dark pieces altogether. Regardless, I don't think the "kids these days" (or in my case "Adults these days") comment is appropriate if it's based on how much you know about LEGO.



#20
jamesster


Had the parts not looked like they were glowing or had he known about total internal reflection, this topic would not have existed. The 'science' is what prompted him to think "Are they early versions?", he just didn't know it. As Fan Fic and Theme Discussion are right on top of each other, posting this in the wrong forum is completely possible. The content of the post is what matters anyway, not the location. This is certainly not the first theory that has been posted, so I don't understand why certain ones are treating this guy differently simply based on his lack of knowledge or a misplaced topic.


Agreed on the science bit. As for the generally negative reaction, I'd say it's probably more due to a combination of things than just one - the awkward and uninformed content, the misplacement, and how he tried using a topic honoring the death of a major LEGO employee to advertise his fan fiction (which is hosted on the LEGO Message Boards, which have quite a reputation among the fan-operated LEGO forums for having a terrible community composed almost entirely of younger kids) all around the same time didn't add up to a pretty picture, and his other post here certainly didn't help.
  • Lair thanked this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Solved