text:
Mechanical auto-unblocking mechanism
I have a GBC module1 which is quite simple but blocks regularly because a ball happens to be at just the wrong place at the wrong moment.
Per se, it's not a problem as a Technic Gear 24 Tooth Clutch protects the motor and the module can easily be unjammed by simply moving the wheel backwards manually to free the offending ball(s). It's simple enough that I can ask people in the public to do it when I'm lazy, but for bigger displays it's a given that the points of possible failure should be minimized as much as possible.
So my question is, is it possible to create a mechanism that would auto-unblock? To clarify, what it needs to do is to drive an axle in one direction, and if that axle becomes blocked, make it rotate shortly in the other direction, then resume.
My first thought was to try using differentials, by splitting the rotation on two paths, the regular one driving the axle, and the other one having some resistance to it (using a gear on a Technic pin with friction, for example), then recombining the paths somehow so that when the first is blocked, the second would take precedence and drive the mechanism backwards.
Unfortunately, a nagging thought at the back of my head tells me it'll never work as such (as going forward is always easier than going backwards, even if it's blocked forwards, it will just stay locked in place), and a first experiments confirms this (at least it's a solution if I run short of clutch wheels...).
Of course, a robotic solution would be easy to work out, but I would like to be able to replicate that kind of mechanism a lot (what, you think I have only one jamming module?), and I tend to prefer the pureness of mechanical-only solutions. Pneumatics would probably be OK, but I'd rather do it without.
I'll accept any working solution, but the more compact the better.

1) For those interested, it's the blue and yellow one with trans-clear front in which the hand of God puts some balls at 00:15 in [this video of the LEGO World Copenhagen 2011 GBC setup](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9VBQ3hW6t8)

how much degrees should the axle turn back at least and how long should this status last? is a simple "tap" (just a few degrees lasting ~0.1 seconds) enogh to unblock?

That should be enough, since moving a few millimeters backwards should free the balls. Anyway, I guess we'll probably be able to adjust that when a solution is found, but it does need to move a few millimeters at least.

I've found a solution that's actually pretty easy, but took some time to try out because I don't have the parts I need at hand.
The solution

Input from motor(s).
A differential to split up the input-movement to two shafts. Since I don't have a Technic Gear Differential at hand I had to built my own for the test.
One of the differential-outputs becomes our "unblocker". it's chocked off by a rubber band to have more resistance in moving than the "normal" output (called "output" from now), so it will only move if the output is blocked completely (or gets a high resistance). Important: make sure to block this as much as necessary but as few as possible.
A "gear on a stick" that will only get in contact with the bigger gear on the output on a small range of its rotation. Important: this is the unblocker - it has to have a "stronger" transmission than the output to be able to turn the output backwards while overcoming its own resistance added by the rubber band.
The "normal" output to move whatever you want it to.

Explanation
As long as there is less resistance on the output than on the unblocker, only the output will move. if the output is blocked, the unblocker will start rotating and turn back the output (just a bit - at the point where the "gear on a stick" gets in contact with the bigger output-gear). if this dissolves the problem, the output starts rotating again.
Potential Improvements

Use a Technic Gear Differential instead of a (much bigger) custom-built one
Use a Tooth Clutch instead of a rubber band to brake the "unblocker"
Use a Gear with offset Axle Holes instead of a "gear on a stick"

See it working

On YouTube
Improved Version on Youtube

UPDATE: i got a Technic Gear Differential today, so i could build a smaller (and better working) Version of this. You can watch it on YouTube.

From what the video shows, this is indeed exactly what I'm after. Not very compact, but one has to applaud the fact you improvised around parts you don't have.

I'm toying with this and I think I'll be able to adapt it for my module - short notes on your possible improvements in the meantime: 1. is a given; 2. should work, I'm using a 8t gear on a pin with friction which works similarly; 3. or anything remotely similar tended to jam the mechanism for reasons I have no clue about. And you're very very right on the important points you mention; the gearing on the unblocker path is nothing short of crucial.

@Joubarc: I updated my answer - i got a Differential today so i was able to built a smaller prototype.

Yeah, I'm using the same gears and I don't think it can get much more compact than that. Weirdly enough, yours turns more slowly, but I suppose there's unseen gear reduction on the motor side?

@Joubarc: I'm using a Worm Screw to drive it because i wanted it to be slower so it's easier to see how it works exactly.


text:
How do I unlock the daily surprises?
I got a lego star wars 2012 advent calendar (9509), and on the back it say "unlock a surprise every day", and it says to go to legostarwars.com, and there's a code on the back of the advent calendar flap, but when I go to legostarwars.com, it redirects(?) me to a lego star wars III clone wars game experience, and I don't know where to enter the code. Where am I supposed to enter the code?

The durability of LEGO products usually outlasts anything they do digitally, and this is no exception - as of april 2013, the action has long ended and the page to enter the code doesn't exist anymore. As such, this question isn't likely to help future visitors, hence the closing.

That is not the URL you're looking for ;)
Apparently you need to enter the codes on the LEGO.com Star Wars Advent Calendar page.

The codes are:
obiwan:MYONLYHOPE

GREEDO:HESHOTFIRST

HAN SOLO: NERFHERDER

leia:YOURWORSHIPFULNESS

VADER:MOSTIMPRESSIVE

SIDIOUS:DARKSIDE

LANDO:CLOUDCITYGAMBLER

BOBA:SARLACCFOOD

LUKE:KISSEDMYSISTER

CHEWBACCA:LETTHEWOOKIEEWIN

SAVAGE OPRESS:OPPRESSIVEMAUL

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can't open the page to enter my LEGO Advent Calendar code
I'm on a Mac and have been using the link provided in other posts to try to enter my Advent Calendar code.  But the page doesn't work for me.  This is the link I'm using:
http://starwars.lego.com/en-us/advent/Default.aspx
When the pop up finally opens it is just a blank page.

I'm on Mac and using Firefox, the link works for me. Does the rest of the lego site work? You might need to geta current version of flash player.

Hmmm.  I've tried with Safari and Firefox and get the same result.  The rest of the site seems to work.  I'm in Canada, does that make a difference?

I wouldn't think so. The box doesn't say US only. It took a while to load when I tried it sat morning but now it opens fine. Are your cookies turned on? It remembers the codes I've already entered. http://starwars.lego.com/en-us/default.aspx?domainredir=lego.com

The Star Wars pages (and many others on the LEGO site) are very heavily Flash based, are you able to view other Flash powered sites with any of your browsers? Do you see the flash animation on Adobe's site?

Thanks for getting in touch with us.
We're sorry about the frustration you must be feeling. Unfortunately
  there was a misprint on the packaging. The real website to enter the
  codes is www.starwars.lego.com.
When you get to the site in the middle of the page is a place for you
  to enter in the codes. I hope this helped.
Thanks again for getting in touch. We're always pleased to receive
  feedback from LEGO fans! If you could take a moment to complete a four
  question survey by going to the link below, it will help us make sure
  we are providing the best customer service to you.
http://www.econsumeraffairs.com/lsi/ensurvey.html?F1=032315854A
Please let us know if you need anything else.
Happy building!
Arianne K LEGO Consumer Services

If this post is from an e-mail you received from LEGO please state so, I've placed the contents of the message in a quote so it doesn't appear to be attributed to you.

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


text:
NXT software V2.1 runtime installation error in windows
My system configuration: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1.
When I try to install NXT software v2.1, I immediately get the error below:
Microsoft Visual C++ runtime

Runtime Error

program: D: Nxt/setup.exe

This application has requested the runtime to terminate it in an unusual way.
Please contact the application's support team for more information.

I had the same problem in Win XP also. Let me know how to fix this issue, please.

It sounds like you have the wrong NXT release.  Where did you get that v2.1?  Can you give the link?

You could also try updating Microsoft Visual. A lot of people have this problem for various Windows applications.

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


text:
Will playing with a PF train motor by hand damage it?
If one pushes a PF-motorized train by hand, will it cause damage to the motor, or any of the other parts (IR Receiver, Battery box)?
It is essentially working as a generator when turned by hand, so will that current damage it?

Unless you do extreme things it should be fine.  All the gears insides the Train motors, Power Function motors and the NXT motors are made of Nylon while the pinion attached to
the motor is made of metal.

Image Source
Since Nylon is much stronger than ABS plastic (normal LEGO plastic), the ABS would twist, tear or brake before damaging the nylon gears.
In fact one of the activities in the NXT manual (page 34) is to manually spin the motor by attaching a wheel to it and rolling it like a paint roller.  LEGO seems to trust that it is made to survive that kind of usage.
As for the electricity generated by rolling the motor, I'm pretty sure that the NXT brick is protected for that (given that LEGO expects this kind of manipulation).  On the other hand I would not connect a sensor directly to a motor and do this.  I would assume that the trains components are also protected since it is very likely that kids would roll the train by hand.
Extra info:

Link to other LEGO trains motors opened.
Link to opened Power Function motors.
Link to opened NXT motors.

Thanks! That's with regard to Mindstorms and NXT. What about the train motors (http://shop.lego.com/en-US/LEGO-Power-Functions-Train-Motor-88002) connected to IR receiver and battery box? Still safe for all three elements?

The trains motors have Nylon gears too.  I'll edit the answer.

What you are describing is called backdriving. I teach my students, in principle, not to backdrive the output shaft of a gearbox, motor/gearbox, or servo/gearbox unless they know what's inside of it because you can damage the unit. I use a variety of different robots in my class so what I'm explaining applies to gear drives in general.
If you grasp the orange output shaft on an NXT motor (servo/gearbox) and rotate it, it rotates quite easily. You can tell it's going to rotate as soon as a small force is exerted. The NXT motor is really a servomotor and gearbox combination and the geartrain is inside the housing. I know from experience that Lego allows you to backdrive the NXT motor.
Read the following thoroughly before trying - if you break anything, it's your fault!
Backdrive Experiment:
Build a drive axle extension that is attached to the drive end of an NXT motor so that you can add some gear reduction. Place an axle through the orange output shaft and then slide an 8 tooth gear onto the axle. Now, mount an axle with a 40 tooth gear onto the extension you've built. You want the 8 tooth gear to drive the 40 tooth gear. A good design will support both sides of the axles and gears.
Make sure the gear alignment and mesh are correct. The gear ratio of this combination is 40/8 or 5:1. You multiply this gear ratio, times the gear ratio of the NXT Motor (servo/gearbox) to get the final drive ratio.
Careful here, you can break something!
Now, apply force incrementally and try to rotate the 40 tooth gear or a small wheel attached to its axle. You won’t' break the gears inside the NXT motor, but you may damage the motor housing, gears, axles, and structure parts. Depending on how well you built the drive axle extension and whether you try to rotate the axle/wheel or 40 tooth gear, you will have surprising results if you have never done this before.
Additionally, some robot gearboxes have worm gears which prevent backdriving by design. Trying to backdrive a gearbox with worm gears will break it. The worm gearbox is useful in a robotic arm so that when power is not applied to the motor, the arm won't fall down. The OWI 535 Robotic Arm Edge uses worm gears and regular gears in its motor/gearboxes. Clutches are used in each motor/gearbox to prevent overload or backdriving that will break the gears.
If you need a picture of how to design the drive axle extension and geartrain, let me know.


text:
Are the blue and grey 12v train system compatible?
Are the two generations of 12v train compatible?
Eg can you combine a "blue" remote controlled point and a "grey" 12v transformer?
Main motivation for this: I have a complete "grey" set of trains, tracks and accessories and "blue" items are much much cheaper on the re-sale market, so I'd rather buy additional "blue" items.

It's more or less obvious that tracks themselves are compatible, although blue rails won't go on dark gray sleepers, which isn't really a problem. You may want to use more sleepers under blue tracks to stabilise it, although the 12v inserts help. Mixing blue and grey track and inserts shouldn't be a problem, should you wish to do so.
Motors are also compatible and pick up power the exact same way. Cables use the same connectors and are thus compatible too (if you want to add lighting to your trains).
As for accessories, I can't be sure but I believe there are limitations. If you look at the blue transformer, you'll notice the output to remote control the switch is 16v AC, while grey era remotes use 12v DC. Feeding 12v remotes with 16v might work (it's just an electromagnet inside and shouldn't be exposed for too long), if the blue era remotes need 16v, they may not work with only 12v.
Moreover, the wiring is also different: 12v era remotes use a standard cable, and the polarity determines the direction you want to turn it, but the blue era points use a 3-wire cable, as evidence by this extension cable. And let's not forget the difference AC/DC, which mean you'll have to add some non-LEGO components to make it work.
In short, I think controlling 12v era remotes with the blue transformer should be easy (a couple of diodes should do the trick), but the opposite might prove tricky, and if you have blue points, you may want to get a blue transformer as well. (Then again, I don't know enough about electronics to know how tricky it would be).
A small caveat though: I assumed you have the blue point without the remotes themselves, but since they were sold together, it could be that you get the point, wiring and remote together. If that's so, you best bet is to use the 12v AC output of the 7864 transformer - maybe that's its purpose (and if you try that, and it works, please go answer that question).

Thanks for covering all the aspects (tracks, motors, remotes).

The answer is yes.
Using the 13v~ (alternate) output of the grey line transformer you can command the blue line switches.
This is not in the manual of the new transformer (it is a kind of hidden door to the past) and the blue line transformer switches output was 16v~, but I've tried it and it works.

I just got some blue era stuff.  I'm going to try and see what happens, but the grey era Transformer has >13V output and I think that is legacy for the blue track stuff.  So that you can plug in switches to there (until now I've wondered what on earth that output is for!!)

Did you managed to discover the intended use for the 13V output? More important, did you discover if the blue train switch can be used with the gray transformer?

@PedroQuaresma I've moved your answer to a comment here, but this user has been inactive for several years, so you are unlikely to hear back from them. You might be better off asking a new question such as "Can the 13V output on the 7864 transformer be used to support blue-era points?"

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


text:
Where can I find the black crusaders horse barding?
The question is all in the title. I'm talking about this: the second knight from the left entrance to the castle.

Good places to find parts include:

Thrift stores, car boot sales, jumble sales. Sometimes you get lucky.
eBay is a good general source for parts... as long as you can find what you're looking for.
LEGO's Pick-a-Brick (PAB) service is good for for common parts.
LEGO's replacement parts service is better for less common parts from newer sets. The range of parts is far greater than PAB, but doesn't come close to being complete.
BrickLink, the most comprehensive resource for parts on the internet.

Given that the part you're looking for is older, I suggest that BrickLink might be your best bet.
I couldn't identify the exact part that you wanted, but they do list a good range of horse barding.

I have tried all of the above, to no avail. I'm talking about a non-commercial barding, one that has never been in store.

Then, to be honest, you probably can't buy it anywhere.

@The Lego Company. Hear this desperate cry!


text:
Serial tower stopped communicating with RCX 1.0
I recently bought a RIS 1.5 with brick 1.0 and serial tower (no CD). I got a cheap USB adapter and installed the RIS 2.0. It worked almost fine for a few days. Everytime I started RIS I had to autoconfigure tower, which used COM2. I had to try two or three times to download programs, but it worked.
Later, I installed Bricxcc and connected as well, although I downloaded no program. I did download the original lego firmware with Bricxcc and since then RIS is not able to connect to the RCX.
I have tried with new batteries, uninstalling Bricxcc and then RIS. Installing RIS again, with reboots in the process. Nothing seems to have changed. I cannot connect.
Any previous experience?
I was thinking about buying an USB tower, but I don´t know if it will work with RCX 1.0.
Thanks for your help

You could try with NQC.  By default it supports the Serial Tower and you can specify if you are using a USB Tower with -Susb .  It works on Windows, Linux and Mac.
The man page (documentation) can be found here or the in pdf format here.


text:
What is the brown ship in the Star Wars 2012 advent calendar?
The brown boxy ship is shown in the ad, but I have no idea what it is? My son was waiting all day for me to get home and tell him, but I can't figure it out!

According to BrickLink it is a Trade Federation MTT

Same on Brickset, according to which "we can all see it's an MTT". I'll be honest, I don't who "we" is, but it sure doesn't include me either.

It seems to be a Trade Fedration MTT from episode III.

Welcome to the site. This answer does give a lot of information (The relatively short answer from McKay already refers to the same vehicle with more details and links).  If this is your first time on a StackExchange site I invite you to read the FAQ (link at the top right). This will show you how you can ask and answer questions.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.


text:
Alternative controller for LEGO NXT
I love the NXT platform and have quite an investment in sensors and motors, etc.  I would like  to know if there are alternative controllers that have been integrated with the NXT sensors/motors.  By more powerful I mean floating point math, more memory (RAM), more non-volatile storage.  Ultimately, I am looking for a way to incorporate a camera onto the brick and do the required image processing.

I would suggest Arduino or, preferably, Raspberry Pi.  Here's some info extracted from my previous answer on NXT:
Arduino & Raspberry Pi are flexible development platforms and they can easily be interfaced with other devices. As for image processing the Raspberry Pi would be the better choice since it is more powerful.
Arduino & NXT:
There is a lot of Arduino-NXT hardware components that you can buy or even make yourself.  For example you could use this Arduino shield called NXShield-D and it's software.
RaspberryPi & NXT:
Pi is a full computer and very easy to use.  To interface with NXT you can use the GPIO pins but thanks to the USB port, somebody already made the NXT-python to control the NXT brick.  Being a Linux system you'll probably find some ready-made image processing samples all over the web.

Also see: http://robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/nxt


text:
Is there only one lego Rohan soldier? Why?
As far as I can tell, Lego has released only one set containing a regular rank-and-file Rohan soldier, that is Uruk-hai army.
Is this correct? Why is it so?

This is correct. I double checked on the LEGO wiki. The reason is likely because they haven't had time to release more sets that take place in scenes where the Rohan soldiers are present. If they ever release an Edoras, Minis Tirith or Battle of the Pelennor Fields set, perhaps there will be more.


text:
Is LEGO testing the market with the Minifigure Series?
I looks to me that LEGO is testing the market by using the Minifigure Series.  It seems logical to try all kind of different themes and see which ones are gaining traction.
For example:

Minifigure Series 1 (May 2010) had a ninja and then Ninjago came out (2011)
Minifigure Series 2 (Sep 2010) had a Pharaoh and then Pharaoh Quest came out (2011)

If you look at all the new LEGO IPs since  Minifigure Series exist, it looks like you can find a link for each one.
Did LEGO confirm that this was one of the goal of the  Minifigure Series?

That sounds like a very valid question, but I think the answer is slightly more complex.
First, as you note, there's an obvious link in terms of moulds reuse, which means LEGO can offload the cost of these new parts to the minifig series (which aren't exactly on the cheap side), so that regular sets introduced later can be cheaper as a result. They do that too with licensed sets, by the way; for example, the Harley Quinn minifig financed the cost of the jester headgear.
Then, as you ask, do they actually test the market?
In a way, this would seem to make sense: if, say, spartan minifigs sell well, LEGO might be tempted to introduce spartan sets. Yet I think there are two problems with that.
The first is that they need to follow which minifig is more sought after, which they can't study from their own data since they sell "random" minifigs and the buyer can't pick the ones they want. Of course, they can check the aftermarket for that, bricklink prices and so forth, but is that really representative of what fans want, I don't know.
The second point is that sets design happens quite a long time before sets reach the shops. A designer told me in july 2012 that all 2013 sets were already designed, so you can count on 1 year and half between design and shops. Moreover, designing sets isn't the first step, and picking themes come before that. So if LEGO feels that a particular minifig sells well and decide to make a theme based on it, it'll be two years before that theme appears. Which isn't to say they won't, but I think they're a bit more preemptive than that.
So, in my opinion, LEGO might decide to do whole themes which have similarities with collectible minifigs, but I doubt they take the time to test the market - they just use the minifigs to offset the cost of new parts in upcoming sets. So, will we see cavemen sets? Spartan sets? Noone but LEGO can say at this point, but it's a possibility. It seems there will be some western sets in 2013, and we've indeed seen indian minifigs in the first series.

There are a number of parts in the current Monster Fighters and Lord of the Rings sets that would translate very easily to a Western theme so this strikes me as a very good explanation

The "western" theme is a licensed one, actually (Lone Ranger), so I'm too sure if my explanation holds there


text:
What does DTC stand for?
I was reading at the Brickipedia site about upcoming 2013 LEGO sets and found several in a list which were referred to as "DTC", as in "40055 DTC Seasonal Halloween 2013" found here.  What does the DTC stand for?

In this context, DTC means direct to consumer. These sets are typically only available directly from TLG either online or from LEGO retail stores.
Here's the original source and discussion for the DTC set that you mentioned and several others:
http://www.brickset.com/news/article/?ID=2900


text:
How is the corner on Azuma Makoto's LEGO bonsai tree done?
I'm looking at doing my own version of Azuma Makoto's bonsai.  I know it will probably not be a 100th as good, but I want to try anyway.  The first step is obviously building a similar base but I'm having trouble figuring out how he built his.  The photos don't make it clear.  I've tried just staggering them as they go up but that doesn't give the same effect.  Here is an album for more reference.

The two corners of the bonsai tray shown in this image appear to be built differently...  I've chosen to do the technique shown on the left.

The best I could do was use various lengths of two-wide bricks and staggered them in a upside-down pyramid shape with 2x2 bricks in the corner.
I was trying to re-create the model from memory, and I forgot to add another row of staggered plates.


text:
Gunner bot programing
I just build the RCX Gunner Bot using the instructions from this web site.
I had to build something different to the one we built in the class, I added a touch sensor and light sensor, so the bot will avoid any obstacles on its way, and shoot when it sees a black dot.
I am wondering if anyone has a program for a basic gunner bot, or at least for shooting the bullets. If somebody can help me, It would really appreciated.
I am not an engineering person but I need to pass that class.

Are you setup to use NQC?

no, I have to use RCX Code

Please state clearly what problems you have as well as what you have tried.

I used: ON motor B then Set Direction Bv then Set Power B(8) and the bot is shooting but non stop. How to make it drive then shoot two times if it hits something or shoot if it sees a black spot?

Your code handling the behaviours like "Shoot 3 times if the touch sensor is triggered" or "Shoot if the light sensor is triggered" should use 'if' statements.

Then, instead of always being called, the "shooting" code would append only on sensor events.  After shooting, the robot would then go back to the "Driving around" part of the code.
This page is a good visual reference for all the RCX programming components

@ewelina does this help in any way?


text:
How long are Star Wars exclusives usually in stock for?
I'm currently looking into purchasing the Super Star Destroyer, but I'm wondering how long they will be in stock for.  The reason I ask is I know that LEGO used to have a Tie Fighter in their exclusives that they no longer have in stock.
Are exclusives usually in stock for a few years?  A couple of months?

This is fairly similar to How do I know when current sets will retire

I don't think there's any rule about that, and most probably various factors influence the length of time for which a set is available. From experience, I'd tend to say that most sets last around 2 years, but it's certainly not fixed in stone, so don't take my word for it.
Considering exclusives usually mean more benefit for LEGO, it would make sense for example that well-selling sets are produced for a longer time - if it sells, there's less incentive to stop producing it, apart from production issues (the number of set in production at a current time being limited, and the same is true for parts so if the set has specific parts maybe it'll be phased out faster).
In the past, LEGO has even reissued sets which were in high demand, the best example being the Maersk ship for which LEGO had said there would be no more of them because they hadn't any granulate left of that colour, until Maersk intervened and a reissue was possible.
However, there is now another help for that, as LEGO recently created a "retiring soon" page which should give an good indication of soon-to-retire sets. It may not always be accurate, it seems to be limited to the US at the moment, but if your set is on the list, it's probably a good idea not to wait too long. But if it's not on the list, it doesn't necessarily mean you can sleep on it too long either.
Of course, some sets land in the Sales & Deals page at the end of their life, and when they do, you better act real fast or risk having to pay more than list price (example: the modular Green Grocer, which had been heavily discounted before selling out in a matter of hours, if not minutes. Good luck finding a cheap one now.). It may actually end up that way with the "retiring soon" page as fans hurry to buy the sets there, and there are indeed a few which are now sold out.
So, in short, don't wait too long if you can avoid it. Just because LEGO has sent a retired set to a kid doesn't mean they'd do the same for you :-)

On the Maersk front, don't forget they also released the Maersk Train the following year.

Indeed - since the "no more maersk blue" situation had been resolved for the reissue, there was no problem any longer to do other maersk sets.

the news link seems to be gone, perhaps this can replace it?

It depends of the set's inventory parts, I mean pieces. For example, the Hoth Rebel Base from 2007 was only available in stores for 5 months, and if you look at it, it's an amazing set (I have it) So, it depends, and as Joubarc said, there is not a rule for that.

Does S@H count as a 'store' in this case? Brickset says it was available there for 15 months. http://brickset.com/sets/7666-1/Hoth-Rebel-Base

Well, brickset may be wrong gev, that was an exclusive set, with an exclusive minifigure "k-3po" So, look in another info source.

@Marcelobarrantes "S@H" is LEGO's online store ("Shop at Home") and as such sells LEGO "Exclusives" quite legitimately.


text:
How to start with technic?
I have bought myself the technic set 9393 Tractor. I really like the model and I want to dig deeper into the Lego technic universe. I am not focused in building pre-designed models (although I enjoy it, and it would be  a plus), but I want to have a decent set of technic parts, such that I can build models on my own. So what is the best way to get a basic set of bricks:

Buying some sets and take the parts from the sets? (rather buy a big set, or several small ones?)
Buying used parts as bulk?
Are there non-model technic sets, similar to the traditional Lego, for which they have door sets, wheels sets etc. ?

I know this question might be a bit broad. So let me add that I am not necessarily want to build motorized models right away. Also, I do not plan to build huge models, more in the size of the 9393 model.

Here are the two things that I would recommend:

Get yourself a big set if you have the budget for it. These will have a large variety of pieces and once you've built the models from the instructions you'll have a good understanding of a lot of different building techniques.
Watch eBay or similar sites for large lots of Technic parts by the pound. These can be a little hit or miss, but the price per piece is far lower than most other ways of buying parts. Keep in mind that prices tend to be higher around the holidays.

There used to parts packs for Technic like what you are describing, but I believe they were removed now that pretty much everything is available from Pick-A-Brick. You can also get any parts that you want from bricklink.com, and if you don't mind used parts, this can be a pretty affordable option.

I support the idea of getting a big set first.  Personally when I got back into LEGO Technic (for the purpose of using it with MindStorms) I got the 4x4 Off Roader (#8466, 1134 pieces)

How about ideas ? Any book to recommend ?

I have to say I did the opposite and bought loads of small kits first and then larger kits later, however I did do a lot of research on the net and there are plenty of good books for reference material on individual mechanisms on Amazon (without having to buy lots of useless pieces for only specific functions on one kit only – can be quite expensive option).
Ebay can fill up on specialised hard to get pieces and in a variety of colours too- although one has to wade through most of the junk available to find what one needs and it also depends on what you want to build? Bulk buying is a good use of this method – pick a brick can be expensive but the quality of the new bricks are without question.
Pinching plans of Technic kits from LEGO directly or from other fansites, is a good idea (with permission) to expand your knowledge of all the possibilities out there, too.
Finally, I find that technical manuals from real machines are really good for inspiration like those cutaways from plane books are really useful or car repair books etc – so do your research first and ask around – lots out there...

Coming to this late, as I am in the same kind of boat.
Options might be different in 2014 due to newer options for models.
I'm trying to find a nice few sets that can cover me for building almost anything else. Using rebrickable, adding models to a set and then looking at other Technic models (both official and MOC) will give you an idea of what sort of bits you want next. Also gives you suggestions on models to buy to up your % match.
8043 seems like a good set, but has 4 piddly M motors, which I guess is okay on top but on its own is a little lame, also the price for this retired model has gone INSANE.
So far I have gone with these three...
42030 Volvo L305F Wheel Loader
Got it for £131 new, has 2 remotes, various sized motors (including steering servo), actuators, bucket and some rather large wheels.
42009 Mobile Crane
Seems to be the largest model you can get for a good price (£105), has the most pieces in any Technic model so far (although apparently half of these are just pins!) but this brings another motor and battery box (sadly just 1, but still), diffs, a bunch of wheels and obviously lots of pieces.
I already own a few small (9391, 42001) and a mid sized model (80690, buckets, wheels small LA)
42028 Bulldozer
Recently bought this for £25 as a present, really good price, just been looking at how much track is to buy on its own and its not much less than this. Although its ~14 short of building the 8043 (and I'm guessing short of a lot of MOCs) but its a start, at least you get extra parts. Could buy 2!
Hopefully they, obviously large will be a good start.
Ideally what I personally want next is:

A proportional remote, the train sets include these + the "smaller" battery box that a lot of people use, although the big designers often have the rechargeable boxes, the 6xAAA are drop in replacements (mostly, assuming they haven't made use of the reversal pin). Im not sure I will do this though as I don't think the lad will like me gutting a train (and I don't want to stretch to two!)
Pneumatic kit, no sets seem to have a lot in them. ile9os on ebay has a VERY nice "pro" set. I wish they had more than 1 mini-pump in the collection, sadly to get 3 (to make a total of 4) from bricklink the price goes up when you have someone that has a quantity you want (bricklink is kind of a pain for that).
Steering kit, there are a few different types so looking at smaller models for these.
Springs, I'm keeping an eye out on deals of smaller Technic non motorised sets for these.
Wheels, but I'm going to resist buying them on their own though as you can easily get these on smaller models, and will eventually be overrun with them (as I am with non-Technic LEGO since I decided to buy a batch lot and later on... I have too many!)
More clutch gear, the above has some in but would like more, the crane has a lot in because it has one motor for all the functions. Service truck seems to be another and has some pneumatic kit - personally don't like that model though and I'm not sure about the price (still watching)

42005 seems to be good for steering ball joint(x2) small springs(x4) "steering arms"(x4) steering rack(x2) knobwheel(x2). All that would cost you around £20.45 on ebay at a quick glance, and has sold as low as £23 on amazon (currently £33, I'm going to hold out for sub-£27) and it has 327 parts. You can see why people buy and part out to sell.
btw for the likes of Amazon, get onto camelcamelcamel and set a LOT of "crazy" price alerts and sit on them for a long time.

LEGO Education still sells a Pneumatics set https://shop.education.lego.com/legoed/en-US/catalog/product.jsp?productId=9641&isSimpleSearch=true


text:
When was the first official use of the term 'minifigure' or 'minifig'?
When did The LEGO Group first use the term minifigure? Have they been called that since their introduction in 1978?
Similar to this question:
Why are they called "minifigs"?

"PEOPLE" in a 1979 brochure http://www.peeron.com/catalogs/1979/medium/12/?id=96

I kept searching and found out for myself :). The US magazine from 1979 calls them Mini-Figures, even the version without arms.
http://www.peeron.com/catalogs/1979/medium/6/?id=97
http://www.peeron.com/catalogs/1979/medium/10/?id=97

Technically, this 1979 catalog use refers to Mini-Figure, which is slightly different to ‘Minifigure’ which the LEGO group would consider to be the official trademarked term.

Funny then, that the 1979 catalog as the TM trademark symbol right next to Mini-Figure ;)

If I knew how to freely search for trademarks to see when it was originally filed, I would, but AFAICT it costs $$$! :)


text:
Who built the LEGO structures for the film "Elf"?
My daughter greatly enjoyed the look on my face when the guy destroyed Buddy's LEGO models in the film Elf. She wishes she had a picture of me.
The question is: Does anybody know who built the LEGO models for the film? Was it a LUG?

I think I audibly gasped when I saw that.  It still makes me cringe - all that beautiful work.

According to an interview with Elf director Jon Favreau, the Lego City set was built in-house by the Rusty Smith's art department.
The IMDB page for the movie thanks The LEGO Group for the permission to use the LEGO logo and trademarks but has no mention of any further involvement in set design.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that they had to do it in one take, as it would've taken too long to re-assemble the models again!


text:
Is there a way to build a stronger LEGO ball than what was done by the Mythbusters?
In one episode, the Mythbusters busted a fake video by building a 7' tall LEGO ball.  The construction did not roll very far before falling apart.

Assuming that they only used standard bricks (with studs on top only), is there a better build pattern to make a stronger ball?
Extra info: They explain their build method in this video.

Replacing bricks by plates could also strengthen the structure

I wish I had 500,000 bricks to test some theories

I thought they could have done it stronger if they'd had more time too.  It would be awesome if the great LEGO minds here came up with more things for the Mythbusters to test with LEGO bricks.

There is a problem with the Mythbusters building technique.
One of the first things you learn about building with Lego is that, if you want a stable structure, your bricks need to interlock as much as possible.
The Unofficial Lego Builder's Guide illustrates this rather well:

Unfortunately, to make the build easier the Mythbustes team assembled a series of large blocks and then assembled these meta-blocks into a ball. The problem with this approach is that it creates lines of weakness between the meta-blocks.
In the shots of the ball falling apart you can clealy see these sub-assemblies inside the ball, which suggests that it did indeed break up along the lines of weakness between them.
For maximum strength, the Mythbusters team should have built the ball in layers of single bricks, ensuring that in each layers bricks bound the layer below together as much as possible.
All that said, I don't think that the faulty building technique really invaidates the Mythbusters conclusions. There is simply no way that a Lego ball of that size would remain intact. You would expect, for example, that the outermost bricks would fall away in exactly the way they did in the Mythbusters. And in fairness, building the ball with fully interlocking bricks would have taken considerably longer than doing so the way they did.
Of course, if they're willing to supply the bricks, I'm sure we could try to do it better for them!

Totally, building meta-bricks and then building the ball out of them is a sure way to introduce many weaknesses. Single layers of bricks arranged in a way as random as possible should be better.

absolutely right. i don't buy that experiment of theirs for 1 second.

You could probably make it stronger with some of the bricks that are 2-4 bricks tall. That would give it more rigidity.

You could use lego technic and that would make the ball really strong, or you could cheat and glue it together! the other idea i would have would be to make the ball as curved on the surface as possible that way when the ball rolls, less stress is inacted upon on single point on the surface- which lead to the breakage on film and cracked it wide open! so not only a slightly different method used but also a different shape could used to make the ball more ball shaped other than a blocky version- the lego theme parks have many examples of near perfect curved surfaces so this could be done- with a few extra different shaped pieces and not just the ordinary building blocks as seen on the programme.
Also as a general point but i didn't see anyone on the programme that could call themselves an experienced lego builder?...unlike james may did in his version.


text:
Why does LEGO sell minifigures randomly?
I often want to buy only some minifigures in each series and might want to buy more than one of a given minifigure but LEGO doesn't allow it. You know, it wants to give you a nice surprise in each minifigure bag :). I can guess that the reason is LEGO simply doesn't want people to be able to buy some minifigures and ignore others, and it can affect their manufacturing plan.
Is there any other reason? BTW, I can still buy exactly what minifigure I want at local LEGO shops.

You may find some extra info in this related question: Is there a reliable way to determine what minifigure is in a LEGO Minifigures series package?

I was also asking a theoretical question about this subject: Is LEGO testing the market with the Minifigure Series?

I'm fairly confident that your guess is the correct one: manufacturing issues.
If each minifigure of a series were to be produced separately, they would be considered as 16 different sets for all production and inventory purposes. As a box, they are considered as only one set, which suits LEGO better as there is less overhead.
Logistically, it makes sense too. If the retailers needed to buy individual minifigs, they might not want to bother (especially if they still have to buy boxes of 60, for example), whereas buying a few boxes of random minifigs isn't usually a problem.
You'll find a similar example with train track: when LEGO introduced RC (plastic) track, they decided to sell straight and curved track pieces together in a box. That decision makes absolutely no sense at all, except to reduce the number of boxes in production. They managed to correct this a little by replacing the curved tracks with flex-track in recent boxes (curves aren't sold separately anymore, which is just fine); but they still have only one box of supplemental track (points nonwithstanding).
That said, this reasoning doesn't actually fully hold. The content of minifig boxes appears to be fixed (which makes sense for production purposes), so nothing prevents them from marking which minifig is in which bag, and it wouldn't make much difference for retailers.
But LEGO doesn't do that. In fact, they even actively stopped doing it, as the first two series were easily identifiable through a barcode. When LEGO noticed fans had discovered this, they resorted to other, more hidden methods. Which proves they want it to be random, and we still have to find out why.
Again, production issues can help explain this: if custoemrs can pick their minifigs, retailers left with leftovers of unwanted minifigs may not be as keen to buy more boxes of the next series.
But to be honest, I think LEGO really wanted the randomness to be there to start with, simply because they want children (their target demographic, let's not forget this) have the fun of discovering what they got, and try to get them all one way or the other.

LEGO shops in my town can still mark which minifig in which bag of series 7. Thanks.

True, there are still some ways to identify later series minifigs, but they may be less reliable or time-consuming. For the first two seasons it was ridiculously easy with the barcodes, especially with a smartphone.

The minifigs are what is known in the retail trade as 'blind-packed collectables'.
They're sold at 'pocket money' prices in newsagents and bookshops at aisle ends or counter-tops. The idea is to encourage people (mainly children but adults too) to try and 'collect' a complete set. The opaque bags encourage this by making this goal harder to reach, and therefore more of an achievement - revealing the contents would take away a lot of the fun.
The sealed bags also lead buyers to end up with 'doubles'. If you keep these, then the Lego company gets that extra revenue - whereas if you try and swap them, then that helps to spread the word about the product and gives you an incentive to encourage your friends to start collecting them too.
The minifigs are also produced in un-even amounts. This makes it even harder to collect a complete set - and also means that Lego can save money by making less of the more expensive to manufacture minifigs.
So - whilst you might find the random element frustrating, you can see how it makes financial sense to Lego. And if you stop and think about it, would simply being able to pick-and-choose which minifigs you buy be quite so much fun?

Yes, I know it's more fun to not know what it is until you open the bag but it's not always true e.g. my kid often want only a specific minifig and what if I have to open 5, 7 bags to get correct one for him :). Thanks.

@Tiendq Indeed, but that's the point - you have to purchase more to get the one you want - it's always been this way from sticker books, cigarette cards, whatever.

it's also sometimes more fun to do something if you've experienced difficulties or frustrations along the way. For instance if computer games were really easy to complete or win no-one would play them! :)


text:
How much usage can a LEGO piece take before it loses its 'clutch power'?
In this article it's mentioned that one very important feature of the LEGO bricks are their 'clutch power' which is "the ability of its bricks to snap together tightly while also being easy to separate, thereby readily allowing for de- and reconstruction"
Since a LEGO brick is ABS plastic and will wear with use, I wonder how many times you can assemble and dis-assemble two pieces before they no longer stay together.

+1 for 'clutch power' - hadn't realized it was a term used for more than the character

37,112 times
Well I did it. I built a machine to test this. It took 10 days until the LEGO at the bottom couldn't stay on anymore.

>>> Check my blog for more details

Now that's dedication

Did one side give out more than the other, or are they both equally worn?

Because there was rotation in the movement, it worn for one position but sticks a little when turned 180deg

@pcantin lol. I saw your test posted on my local LUG site. I rushed over here to post it, but somehow, you already knew about it...

I'm riding this wave of visitors for 3 days now.  This story is going around the whole net (ArsTecnica, Make blog, Arduino.cc, ... ). The cool thing for us, is that it created a massive flow of hits on our LEGO SE.  I hope that many people join us on this site.  What a promotion.

@pcantin I think it would be very interesting to try out your device on a cheaper LEGO imitation brand brick and see if the brick wears out with significantly fewer repetitions.

@ulmangt This is definitely an option when I do the next test rig.

The optimal clutch power is attained after 8 to 10 couplings(search for "clutch"); that is, before that, the bricks will sometimes cling a little too much on each other.
However, I don't think anyone ever actually stated when clutch power would start to deteriorate. I'd tend to assume that once the optimal clutch is reached, there is just enough plastic at the coupling to make it work, but not enough that it would wear of.
Of course, as you said, I suppose there is still a little that wears off, but I'd wager it isn't that much, and it's probably negligible with regards to the manufacturing tolerance of the bricks. In other words, you're more likely to find two bricks which come loose too easily because they're at the limit of the tolerance, each at a different extreme; than to take two bricks with normal clutch power and try to wear them off so that they too come loose easily.
Then again, I don't think it's ever been extensively tested. We'd need two bricks, and a robot that assembles/disassemble them a great many times. (Unless you want to do it manually)

I have to say that, unless there was already data available, my plan was to build a robotic rig to test this.

You must start this right away and give your results!

I'm not sure there's any official answer for this, however I can answer with an anecdote.
There have been a few times where I've come across old bricks that have been assembled together for a very long time (ie many years). When prised apart, I've spotted that the studs have actually made an indentation on the sides of the tubes.
Based on this, I wonder whether there's more danger of bricks losing their clutch power from being assembled (which means they're in compression) for a long time, rather than being repeatedly assembled and dis-assembled?

Good points but, for this one, I'm focussing on the mechanical wear instead of the ageing effects


text:
Is there a way to remotely operate the push-button light brick?
The push-button light brick seems to be popular with Lego at the moment, and included in quite a few sets.
I'd like to find a way of being able to operate it remotely, so that I can include the lights within a Cityscape and switch them all on and off easily.
The button obviously can be connected to a technic axle, but is there a simple way of motorising an on/off push?
(I know I could alternatively use the PF lights, but they don't always seem to be as easy to use in place)

Will all the lights be reachable by a mechanical path (i.e. through the hollow buildings) or will some lights be only reachable by a flexible wire (i.e. snaking a cable to them)?

Either would be ok, I think - though the cable would probably offer some more flexibility. My main concern is how to engineer the mechanism to press the switch.

Yes, the easiest way would be to get the following: a powerfunctions remote control, battery box, moter, ir reciever,   and z-motor. The total cost is $36 and you can get all this on LEGO.com except for the z-motor, that part you have to get in a LEGO set as the following: 8052. 8053, 8110, and the LEGO Technic yellow actuator which I can't find the set number of right now. get a 1x4 axle (usually black) put it at the far end of the z-motor and into the light brick. Get another 1x4 axle and put in  the other end of the z-motor and into the regular motor, hook the regular  motor into the receiver, and the receiver into the battery box. Make sure the remote control and the receiver are in channel 1. Make sure the green light is on, on the battery box. The battery box could stay on for about a week without needing new batteries. flick both of the levers on the remote and the  light should turn on. You could also get the rechargeable battery box where it plugs into an outlet and never needs batteries. You could run 32 lights on 1 remote.

Do you have any graphics to help understand what you're proposing?

So as I understand it, this uses the Linear Actuator - http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=61927c01 - to actually push the light button? Won't there be a problem with the travel of the actuator being much longer than the travel of the light switch button?

Shouldn't be a real issue if it's only the end of its travel, the rest of it can be made before hitting the switch

I would tend to ignore the fact that there is a Technic cross hole in the light switch. I guess it may be handy in some cases, but frankly it seems easier to me to just push the button  with a lever or cam.
To do that, the best part is probably the Technic Cam, possibly two of them side by side. Don't drive it through the center hole but through the one just next to it, that is, the middle one of the three adjacent ones.
Positioning it so that it pushes the switch shouldn't be an issue, but of course you'll also have to motorize it somehow. I guess the easiest would be the new servo motor but you'll need to wait for it to be available separately (should happen during 2013), and of course it takes some space. (If you want to be creative with precision positioning, you could use an old 12v train switch remote too, I guess).
Of course, any motor will probably do, but then you'll have to make sure it doesn't turn too fast or it's going to be tricky to hope it stops in the desired position.
Another wacky idea would involve a wormscrew right on a rack, which would slide in or out of position, but I'm not sure it would be that easy. And if you're willing to go that route, a simple actuator is probably easier.

Hadn't thought of using the cam - an interesting idea. The motor would have to go pretty slowly (or be geared down) to be able to use it accurately. Or alternatively the servo motor might be easier.

Another weird idea: modify your buildings so that, when placed close together, one building pushes on the button of the next building. If you have a row of them, that means you can light them all by squeezing the row on both ends. Granted, maybe it's not such a good idea after all, but you can ponder on the theme. The general idea is to translate the mechanical part so that it's easier to access, and for all buildings at the same time. You could also modify them so that pulling a small wire/rope lights the brick, then tie all ropes together and give one single pull.

I see that you considered the use of PF Lights, but discounted them as they were difficult to integrate into your models. Maybe you could use the older style 'Electric, Light Brick 1 x 2 with Single Side Light'

This has the obvious advantage of being based on the standard 1 x 2 Brick for ease of integration but is also smaller than the push-button light brick (2 x 3 x 1 1/3) it would replace, and therefore hopefully be easier to fit into the available space in your models. It can be connected using 9v Wires and/or Electric Plates that are available in 1 x 2, 2 x 4 and 2 x 8 sizes. You could then use any of the 9v battery packs or power supplies to control the light.
The link you specified is to the light brick with a yellow light but they are also available in other colours. So for like-for-like replacements you could use a single 'Electric, Light Bulb Cover (Colored Globe)' to tint the light to match the light brick you replace.

That's not a bad idea - but I do have a stack of the push button lights, and they seem a lot brighter too.


text:
Exact dimensions of studless Technic beams
I'm looking for the exact dimensions of the studless Technic beams. I found a number of answers for studded beams but there are some more aspects for the studless beams which are not covered.
I'm especially interested in these parts:

Technic, Liftarm 5 x 7 Open Center Thick
Technic, Liftarm 1 x 9 Thick (or any other length)

What level of precision do you need?

Liftarms are 1 stud wide (8 mm) and 7 mm high so they have a 7:8 aspect ratio. (width is the direction parallel to they axis of rotation of the peg holes).
As pictured in the link, the 1x9 liftarm has the hole orientated vertically. So the height is 8mm. The width is 7mm and the length is 9 x 8 mm = 72mm.
Similarly, the 5x7 open center thick has
height=8mm
width=5 x 8mm=40mm
length = 7 x 8mm= 56mm
opening width=3x8mm=24mm
opening length= 5x8mm=40mm

That sounds reasonable. I'm just curios: Where did you find this?

Sorry, should have included a reference:
Chapter 1 of
THE UNOFFICIAL LEGO® TECHNIC BUILDER’S GUIDE
Paweł “Sariel” Kmiec
This is a great technic reference and doubles as a primer on mechanical engineering. Available as a free ebook in pdf form.

PS For fun, you can also look at CAD representations of the pieces. For example, Google Sketchup, free version. You can download technic pieces into it from the marketplace and measure in the app. Assuming you trust these to be authentic and faithful renderings. You get the same dimensions I quoted above. The stud proportions are actually quite important to keep in mind when designing models.

Technic, Liftarm 5 x 7 Open Center Thick

Height = 7.86mm
Width = 39.80mm
Length = 55.85mm
Opening width = 24.08mm
Opening length = 40.20mm

Technic, Liftarm 1 x 9 Thick (oriented as shown on Bricklink image):

Height = 7.86mm
Width = 7.44mm
Length = 71.36mm

(measured with digital caliper, precision +/-0.05mm)

Thanks for doing the measuring! Since I don't have an approriate tool, that's already helpfull. Actually I was hoping someone does now the exact values as they are weill known (and alredas answered in this forum).

Thx for the dimensions, Philo did you measure other parts?

To increase precision, you can stack multiple beams


text:
Why is there such a small supply of dark red 1x4 bricks?
I've recently been thinking of building in dark red because it looks so nice, but as I've been looking at how much it would cost to get the bricks, I found that 1x4 dark red bricks are almost non-existent.
I was considering buying a big set to get the parts, and the most obvious choice seems to be 10197 Fire Brigade. Unfortunately, while this set has a good number of dark red bricks, it is awkwardly missing the 1x4. It has 15 1x1, 42 1x2, 34 1x6, but not a single 1x4 brick. It seems like the designers would have had to go to extra effort to not use any 1x4 bricks.
I checked bricklink to see if I could get these bricks there, but at the time of writing this, there are fewer than 100 total 1x4 dark red bricks listed on Bricklink. Looking at the part info on peeron, it seems that this part in this color was only used in a few sets that were produced back in 2005.
So, why are there so few of this part? It seems like with large sets like 10197 making heavy use of dark red it would be worthwhile to produce this part, but it appears that TLG thinks differently.

Kramii's analysis is quite interesting and it's certain that some colors are more popular than others - as you point out yourself, you find dark red to be more suitable for some buildings, and you're definitely not alone.
I do disagree however on the fact that LEGO has a strategic position with regards to certain bricks or colors, or that they find that a product with 1x4 dark red bricks would disinterest children.
I do believe this is more a manufacturing issue. Keep in mind the number of elements (that is, one specific shape in one specific color) in production at a current time is limited (by the number of machines), and those are the elements that are available to designers. As you remark, the 1x4 dark red brick was last seen is sets from 2005, so we can safely say that it's not currently in the palette of elements in production.
This doesn't mean that designers may not use it, however; if that was so we'd never have new elements, or new colors, and that wouldn't make sense. But they aren't free to use it at will either. All elements in production have a production cost which is taken into account during the design phase, as a designer has a specific "budget" to work with. I think the costs implied here are not actual costs, but I don't know the exact details.
But new elements do have a higher cost, depending on a lot of various factors. In this specific case, there is no new mould involved, so that doesn't account for much, but the price is definitely higher than if the part was currently in production. So, most of the time, it's the designer who will try to assess if the extra cost is worth reintroducing the part. It could very well be that using 2 1x2 bricks is cheaper (again, in terms of design cost) than asking for a 1x4; more so if they already use some in the set (there is also a cost for just having a part in the set, which is why some firefighter stations have 1x2 bricks and use 1x2 bricks with groove instead - as they already had to use them for doors).
All in all, while I don't know the exact details, I know that the design process has to take the cost of parts into account, and that parts not currently in production cost more. What I don't know is, if a designer asks for a 1x4 dark red brick, whether it's automatically accepted or not, or if he has to defend the case or something, but I believe even that is mostly reflected in the part cost.
The good news is that more and more designers are either from a strong AFOL background, or at the very least are very aware of what the AFOLs want or not. That's why we see more of dark red, dark green, dark blue, or other nice colors nowadays - the designers know we like them, and they like them too.

It's worth adding to this that LEGO knows that people want certain parts and can't get them, which is why a lot of the new sets aimed at adults (Tower bridge, architecture, Sopwith Camel, etc) often come with a lot of a specific part. eg: the Sopwith Camel comes with 63 3x1 tiles in dark green. I wouldn't be surprised if a set comes out with a ton of dark red parts at some point, specifically to appease people like the OP.

Well, that's what I implied in my last paragraph - a lot of designers are AFOLs themselves and do indeed know what AFOLs want, so they can push for it in their design. Now, maybe it also happens at another level within LEGO, but I really feel the designers are the primary responsibles for that. That said, there are quite a few sets which use Dark Red intensively these days.

I don't know if there are any particular issues with manufacturing 1 x 4 bricks in Dark Red, but I suspect not. Instead, to understand why dark red 1 x 4s are relatively rare, it is interesting to consider why other colours might be relatively popular.
Popular Colours
Younger children like strong primary colours + black and white. At the same time, older children rarely object to primary colours. For this reason, there is a bias in LEGO's colour selection towards the primary colours. For this reason, Red, Yellow, Blue, White and Black have been part of the LEGO spectrum for a long time. This means that there is already a large number of bricks in these colours in circulation. Indeed (at the time of writing) there are well over 1,000 1x4s in each of these colours available on BrickLink. Green bricks have not been around quite as long, but you would expect them to be popular with children for a similar reason. Indeed, there are a good number of these available, too (over 700 lots today).
Space, Star Wars, castle etc. have required lots of Greys, so these are available in larger quantities. As you would expect, these are also available in larger quantities (over 700 lots each for the modern greys, around 300 - 400 lots for the older greys).
You would expect newer, bright colours to be popular with children. In addition, Lego aimed at girls has resulted in increased quantities of pinks, purples and pastel shades. This would account for why Orange (600+ lots), Lime (500+), Dark Purple (250+),  Bright Pink (250+), Medium Blue (250+), Dark Pink (100+) and Purple (50+) are relatively popular, but less common than the primaries and the greys.
Transparent 1x4s used to be used as windscreens etc. in older models, so there are quite a few of these in circulation (200+ lots on Bricklink).
Less Common Colours
Earthy colours - browns, tans and - have been required for a variety of models, typically representing desert or other natural phenomena. Tan, for example, has been a feature of Pharoah's Quest, various Star Wars sets, etc. This is why there are relatively large quantities of Tan (600+), Reddish Brown (600+), Dark Green (200+), Brown (100+) and Dark Tan (50+) lots available.
The quantity of Maersk Blue (100+ lots) is a special case, in that the licensed models that require this colour also require 1x4s in larger quantities.
Rare Colours
Then there are the rarer colours for 1 x 4s, where there are less than 50 lots of each colour available on BrickLink at the moment. These include Light Yellow, Medium Orange, Light Purple, Pink and our friend Dark Red (+ a few others). I suspect that there are so few of these simply because TLG have had not identified a market for models that contain 1 x 4s in these colours.
Ultra-Rare Colours
For completeness, it is interesting that there are a few colours that are ultra-rare (<10 lots available) in 1 x 4 brick format: Magenta, Transparent Green and Chrome Gold, for example. Sometimes these ultra-rare bricks exist because they were used in a small number of sets that are themselves very rare, or because they were prototype bricks, because they were used in "special" models like the ones in theme-parks, or because the person listing them on BrickLink has misidentified their colour.
(The astute reader will notice that I've omitted Dark Blue, Sand Green and Sand Blue from this analysis, each of which has 200+ lots of 1 x 4s listed on BrickLink as of today. To be honest, I have not yet investigated their relative popularity compared to Dark Red. Suggestions would therefore be welcome.)
Conclusion
In conclusion, I suggest that the relative scarcity of Dark Red 1 x 4 bricks can be explained in terms of TLG's marketing strategy, both current and historic. TLG has always sold bricks in sets that are designed to appeal to children, and its marketing people appear to think that children are disinterested in a product that contains large numbers of Dark Red 1 x 4 bricks.


text:
Bluetooth pairing successful in OSX but Mindstorms NXT software still can't connect
I'm using OS X Mountain Lion. I've installed the Mindstorms NXT software successfully using the NXT Script.rb script from Lego's web site, which is supposed to tweak the install so that it is compatible with Mountain Lion.
I'm trying to use the remote control tool to control the NXT unit via Bluetooth. I can do it with USB. I'm able to pair the NXT with my computer, but it appears disconnected and doesn't show up in the available devices. However, if I go to Bluetooth preferences, highlight the disconnected NTX device, and then click the gear and choose "Edit serial ports...", it shows a green status and says it's connected. Soon after exiting this dialog, it says it's disconnected again.
I have also tried to scan for the device in the Mindstorms NXT software after pairing but it doesn't find anything. Has anyone succeeded in doing this? Do you have any advice for me?

Carl,
I have the same problem with Mountain Lion and Mindstorms that I bought for Christmas.  I have discovered the following so far:

This is a known problem that Legos has not taken any action on.  I believe it is related to two things: different bluetooth chips and Lion / Mountain Lion OS changes.
The Macs with Broadcom Bluetooth chips supposedly will not work.  However, the Cambridge Silicon chips supposedly will.  You can check this out under the About Apple on your Mac (more information button).  My MacBook Pro has the Broadcom chip.
Some people have had success pre Lion with bluetooth.  And there appears to be Leopard / Snow Leopard patches on the Legos web site.  The lack of success for some must still be related to the Broadcom chips which are in the newer Macs.
Some have had success with using Windows with Parallels.  Usually they are using an external bluetooth dongle and there is some fiddling that needs to be done to override the internal bluetooth by using bluetooth explorer.  It is not clear if using Windows through Parallels works with the internal broadcom chip.

Net, here are the approaches I have come up with to try:
1.  Try my wife's MacBook with Cambridge Silicon chips and Snow Leopard to confirm it works
2.  Create an external boot drive for Snow Leopard plus Mindstorms and see if that works on my MacBook Pro.  However, I think the Broadcom chips may prevent it from working.
3.  Buy a bluetooth dongle (not clear which ones work and which ones do not) and try it on Snow Leopard external boot drive and then Mountain Lion.
4.  Set up parallels and add Win XP to my Mac and see if it works with the internal bluetooth and if not, try the external bluetooth.
The biggest cost for me will be #4 since it will require buying the Parallels upgrade and maybe Windows 7 if I can not get XP to work.  I do not like doing this since I have had Parallels and it is "clunky" and at times conflicted with Mac OS and drive storage.  I am hoping a Snow Leopard external drive maybe with a cheap bluetooth dongle will solve it.
I am also going to complain to Legos about supporting the Lion / Mountain Lion OS upgrade.  However, I do not expect a positive response since they will probably stop supporting NXT 2 in favor of their new system.
**Successful Update!!!!!:

I have successfully run Mindstorms using a MacBook with Snow Leopard plus the Cambridge Silicon Bluetooth chips.  Plus, the flash player is version 11.1.102.55.  I created a simple program and downloaded it to the NXT brick using bluetooth.  I shut down the NXT and Mac several times downloading new programs to the NXT brick using bluetooth.  Each time you restart the brick or the NXT program, you must pair bluetooth via the NXT window button in the controller of the NXT program.  Once set up it will run as long as you maintain the link and keep the NXT program and NXT brick on.
I made an external Snow Leopard Boot disk to run off my MacBook Pro with the Broadcom Bluetooth chips.  I updated it with current Apple updates through the internet to make sure it is current.  I loaded the Adobe Flash player version 11.1.102.55 to be consistent with the MacBook setup.  (There has been some indication that the current Flash version creates problems so I took that out of the mix...I will explore this later).  I added the Mindstorms NXT 2 program.  I connected with the NXT brick via bluetooth; created a program and downloaded it successfully.  Net, it appears to work!!!!

I now believe that the issues with Mountain Lion are related to 64 bit versus 32 bit on Snow Leopard.  My understanding is that NXT 2 is a 32 bit program.  Plus, you will notice that Mindstorms NXT 2 runs better in Rosetta mode which Mountain Lion does not support (Notice the watch comes up when you double click to start the NXT program...it means Rosetta).  Net, it appears to work.
For your information:  Full Snow Leopard installation and NXT takes up 15.74 GB.  I added iWorks 9 so I would have a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation capability which would drive it to 16.7 GB.  Thus, you could easily fit the whole works on a 32 GB thumb drive and have about 15 GB of space for data.  This would make the whole arrangement very compact for travel with a MacBook Pro.
Anyway, I got it to work to my satisfaction and I am off to learn how to make robots!!**

Although this isn't a very easy solution, it is one. Unfortunately that Lego has been so neglectful of their Mac-based customers. Thanks for the detailed write-up. I found some of this information elsewhere also. We were able to get things working using a bootcamp installation on our iMac.


text:
Why do the tubes in the Seattle Space Needle Architecture set need to be cut?
I just received the Seattle Space Needle from the Architecture series. There are tubes that the builder is required to cut to a certain length for the model.  This is the first time I've encountered tubes in a LEGO model.  Are the tubes made only one size making it normal to have to cut them to use them?  I was wondering why the tubes were not manufactured to the correct size instead of having the builder cut them.

Why do they need to be cut? Duh, because they would be too long otherwise.

Well, I guess I could have gnawed them instead, LOL.

This happens in Technic models as well, at least for pneumatics tubes. I would tend to assume it's a simple production issue or simplification - as this requires less work from LEGO.
That way, they only need one length of tube per model, instead of having one part ID for each of length of tube. Considering LEGO wants to control its number of elements currently in production (it's not infinite), this makes sense.


text:
Displaying the Star Wars Super Star Destroyer in a small apartment?
It has been several years since I played with LEGOs.
Three weeks before the holidays I got the LEGO Star Wars set 10221 Super Star Destroyer as an impulse purchase at a local sale. Now I am stuck with a 125 centimeter, 3.5 kilogram LEGO figure.
Has anyone got any suggestions or tips on what to do with such a huge display figure in a relatively small apartment? I really should have planned this a bit better before completing it.
I have considered hanging it from the high ceiling, but I am afraid the construction is not strong enough to prevent it from falling apart. Not that it would look particularly good from the underside either.

Hummm... take a picture, frame & display it, and disassemble the kit :-) (and if you can't even store the pile of parts as itself, send it to me or something)

Seriously, isn't this an awesome problem to have?

By using two TV wall mounts, you could put it against the wall on its side.

This guy was able to do with the LEGO Millennium Falcon(Ultimate Collector 10179).  Here's a link to some pictures that shows how he interfaced the TV mount with the LEGO bricks.  You will have to make some modifications to the kit but that's a good reason why LEGO are fun.

Very neat idea, beats a picture :-/

It must be very impressive in person

that's pretty awesome.

One of my friends who had a similar issue with the LEGO Millennium Falcon (10179) beastie, got a custom coffee table built for it, it has a toughened glass top, and glass side panels, to show off it's true beauty (I believe the next step is to hook it up with some strip LED lighting too).
I don't know how feasible that would be for the SSD, I don't know the size differences between it and the MF, but it's something you could do too :)

You can use a tv holder to attach it to the wall or ceiling. 3 kg should be no problem. If this would be like a movable arm you could easily set views from any perspective.
EDIT
I mean something like this

or this one

The latter can carry up to 17.5 lbs which is 8 kilograms.


text:
How to speed up the 4x4 Crawler truck 9398?
Just finished building the 4x4 Crawler and it was a fun build but as a remote control car it is . . . in a word . . . SLOW! I know it's powerful and can climb over stuff but sometimes there is nothing to crawl over and I'd rather it be faster. Are there any other gear configurations that would make it a bit more exciting?

'Crawler' is a good name then... :)

I think you need to find your own solution for the two (identical) motor blocks. There should be enough space to rebuild this with an XL motor or use other gear transmission ratios.

YES! I didn't think what "crawler" really meant until after I had it put together . . . and, yeah, I've seen some videos where people are disappointed with the torque and the differentials. I have one XL motor and I'm about to order another!

The simplest way to get different speeds is by changing the gears. The instructions get you to build it with a 12:20 gear down in the portal axles, so the easiest way to change the speed is to flip those to get 20:12. From memory that will not work because it interferes with other parts of the model.
You can fit two 16 tooth gears in there instead, giving a slight speed increase. Or you can put an 8:24 gear down for even more torque (but even less speed). There two options are shown below.
It's important that you keep all four wheels geared the same, otherwise you will be making the front and rear motors fight each other. That's not great for the motors and gears, and it will drain your batteries very quickly.

Deeper inside the model there is another 12:20 gear pair that you can also swap for 16:16 (two sets of this, one each end).

You need these old school 5292 puppies ;-)  2 of them.
Check a motor comparison here
You're gonna have to do some after-market mods but those are very powerful , I have them from the 8366 set. But as you can see in the review, there are pro's and con's on every engine.
I suggest reading it in full, it's an amazing source of information and you'll learn a lot like I did. There's a nice poster about them.
It has 2 different outputs which makes it so fun to make something that can use them both.  Speed or torque.  They will drain your batteries for sure anyway you use it.

Why oh why did Lego get rid of them!?!?  Maybe is was the un-Lego-like remote. It's funny because I remember seeing these a long time ago and when I got into Lego later I was amazed there were no real remote control cars. This is why I need to buy all the cool sets as soon as they come out! Anyway . . .  I think the PF XL motor would work well too . . . my fear is that I'll break some gears but that's the price to pay for a powerful and fast "crawler".

Oh, and another option is the PF XL motor with a gearbox so I can change speeds. http://sariel.pl/2011/02/2-speed-heavy-duty-linear-gearbox/

Indeed, I love that remote, I'm so glad I actually have 2 sets.  Found them on ebay at the time, pretty suspicious person selling it but hey ;-)
Those motors are really awesome.

You could actually crash the car in a way big lego pieces broke in half, so it was pretty fast, we played with them at work and some couldn't handle it ;-)  There is a big diff between the mechanincal power the PF XL and the RC one, but as always: lego isn't about receiving exact answers, but about posing the questions to figure out by experiment ;-)

You can switch 4 pairs of gears on each end of the crawler (2 pairs in the portal hubs and another 2 pairs inside the gearbox infront of the motor) do this on both ends or you run the risk of broken gears or premature motor wear. I ran 12 tooth gears all the way from the motor to my hubs for a dramatic increase in speed however the torque suffered severely, I would only recommend doing my gearing with xl motors. Cheers :)

What about this in comparison to Móż's?
The gist is to swap out two gears at the rear of the vehicle:

I see two solutions, but I don't know which is the better before I proceed to order pieces. One seems to be free, as it consists in switching these two gears in the image and/or the ones at the steering portal axles. Is there a difference between the two positions switching? Is the Móż's solution more balanced? Like having some more speed, but keeping enough torque power to remain a crawler?

Welcome to Bricks! We're generally looking for answers that go into a little more detail and don't just include a link to another resource. I'll expand your answer a little so that it isn't just a link.

This community is too . . . strict maybe? I posted something similar and included a link to youtube and just got voted down so I deleted it and gave up . . . and it was MY question so I should probably know what sort of answer I was looking for. Anyway, that is one way to speed it up and I did that but even if it was 2x faster it was hard to tell because it was still so slow! :)

Still, this is a place to discuss solutions. What is the difference in mounting two 16T gears at the wheels or in the middle (where is marked in the picture above)? Is there a difference in power and speed?


text:
What is new about the IR receiver in the 4x4 Crawler 9398?
Reading a review of the 4x4 it seems the IR receiver is different from what is included with the trains. From the review all the information we got was "improved CMOS motor driver with lower power loss". Can someone expand on that?

I have done an extensive review of both receivers, see it here.
This other page shows the performance of various motors connected to both receivers.
Note that because of a problem in Power Functions M-motor, the new receiver is not suitable for driving several of them on the same output. See this LEGO official notice.

Could you summarise the content of the links in this answer, and provide the links for further references ? That'd make a better answer


text:
Mindstorms start block is missing
the start block is missing on my mindstorms NXT 2.0 programming space. i cannot run any program without it.
i have tried, restarting the programming window, placing a block and even just undoing to the point that it dissappeared.
So far nothing has worked

It's buggy software. What OS are you using? Can you post a screenshot?

maybe if you contact LEGO they'll send a replacement

to be clear, you're speaking on the software platform on your computer, right? not the brick itself?

Try uninstalling the software and installing the latest version (if you weren't installed it)

First try to reinstall NXT 2.0. This should help you.
What's your OS ? Can you give screenshot ?


text:
Is there a freely downloadable LEGO set and part dataset?
I'm working on a project that will require a list of all sets including all of the parts they contain. I'm aware of at least three sites which have this information (Peeron, BrickLink, and Rebrickable), but I haven't been able to find a way to download all of this data easily.
The closest thing I have been able to find so far is the Brickset API, but Brickset only has a limited amount of set metadata (year, theme, part count, etc) and does not seem to have a full listing of parts contained in each set.

I wasn't able to find anything like this, so I contacted the admins of the sites that I mentioned in the question. Rebrickable was kind enough to send me a dump of their set inventories under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA license, which basically means that you can do whatever you want with the data as long as Rebrickable is acknowledged as the source and you share any updates that you make.
I've created an archive which contains a spreadsheet for each set that was in the dump that I received. Hopefully this is useful to someone else.
Lego Set Inventories as of March 2014
Update:
The raw data that I used to create these spreadsheets is now available directly from Rebrickable and is updated monthly there. I also maintain software to build an SQLite database from these dumps.

This is great! I've been looking for something like this to create a "cross match" application, basically an app that would take inventory of the sets that you currently own(and underlying pieces), and compare it against other sets you do not own to see if you can fulfill any other sets (or get close) and therefore not have to buy that set again. Just use the pieces you have. You wouldnt happen to have an updated version of this extract, would you? Some 2014 sets my son has arent in here. Thanks!

I've updated my link and added a note about getting this data directly from Rebrickable. If you aren't familiar with Rebrickable, you should check it out. It sounds like it does exactly what you are trying to do.

Thanks for posting this. This is a very suitable solution.


text:
Useful machines built with LEGO
I am looking for examples of useful machines built with LEGO (probably Technics, NXT etc.). There are many fun project examples and proofs of concept, such as a Rubik cube solver and a Turing machine.
Do you know any examples of LEGO machines that simplify some actual task or where should I look for examples?

There are two brilliant brick sorters built by akiyuky, one for standard bricks, and another for Technic axles.

Here are some examples that caught my attention in the last years:

Cambridge scientists are using LEGO Mindstorms in their lab instead of a professional robot, saving them large amounts of money.
The Kno tablet development team is using a LEGO rig to perform automated stress tests on their devices.
University of Southhampton is using LEGO bricks as the structural frame for a cheaper supercomputer (warning: they use the word legos).
Building custom encasing for electronics like this monster three-motherboard PC.
For automatic milling and sculpting, there are also plenty of examples of LEGO CNC machines. They can be used to prototype parts, make molds, etc. Here's one.
A loom machine to produce usable weaved cloths — pictures, video.
Pheromone Labs is using LEGO Mindstorms 2.0 to perform automated tests of a tablet app — link, video.
Low-cost nanoscope at UCL (news, main page)
Handling insect specimens (link)
UV-Vis spectrometer (Link)
Braille Printer (Link)

It depends a lot how you distinguish useful from proof of concept.

I think this clock could be useful (or at least be fun): http://tiltedtwister.com/. The website even provides building instructions. However it will be noisy, expensive and take a lot of time (and fun) to build, which will make it less useful for a lot of people.
There's a super computer rack for 64 Raspberry Pis built from lego: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~sjc/raspberrypi
I'm using only 4 bricks as additional feets for my keyboard, everyday at work. So this is probably the most useful thing I can think of. Things do not have to be rocket science to be useful.

+1! Had to catch my armchair tightly to not to fall down laughing! :] Your four-brick-keyboard-supporter certainly deserves Nobel Price or at least ten +1!

Lego Antikythera Mechanism can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPVCJjTNgk
The Antikythera Mechanism: http://bit.ly/fm4oFK is the oldest known scientific computer, built in Greece at around 100 BCE. Lost for 2000 years, it was recovered from a shipwreck in 1901. But not until a century later was its purpose understood: an astronomical clock that determines the positions of celestial bodies with extraordinary precision.

In 2010, we built a fully-functional replica out of Lego.

I once built an NXT robot that opened and closed a set of blinds.
The blinds had a rod that you could spin to open and close them, and the rod had a hole at the end, which made it pretty easy to hook up to a mindstorms motor.
I made two different versions.  One version was a "clapper" - with a microphone sensor, and one was a smarter version, that used a light sensor.  The light sensor was positioned on the outside of the blinds.  When the sun came up, it would open the blinds, and when the sun went down, it would close them.
I could have combined them together - in fact, I was planning to do that - but then I decided to use the NXT unit for some other projects instead.

It depends how you define machine.
I've used a static rig as a phone holder on a desk.
I've built small tools for pushing Lego pins out when constructing Lego models. I've built innumerable machines for demonstrating principles of physics, engineering and structure.
If someone has dominoes as a hobby, then there is a Lego domino setting machine - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=de4xdOVVROQ.
I've seen an NXT being used to tidy Lego bricks - although that may have been more proof of concept as it could only cope with bricks below a certain size, it would use a rotor to sweep the bricks (And anything else) into a rear hopper.
I've also seen brick sorters - for those who like to color sort their Lego (I used to do this) these can be handy.

Well this all sounds like toy examples. The machines for demonstrating principles of physics, engineering and structure come closest. There should be online video tutorials for learning with Lego :-)

I've also build a small stand to hold my phone securely in the dashboard of my car when I'm using it as navigation aid, so I wouldn't underestimate the adaptability of LEGO for similar jobs. At the other end of the range, there's even been a full desk - not a machine, but fully functional.

I've seen pinball machines too. The thing is - if such things are somebodies passion - then stuff that assists in them could arguably be "Useful machines".


text:
Is there a list of colours currently in production?
Is there a list anywhere of colours currently being used by Lego for new sets? There seem to be lots of comprehensive lists of all colours released ever, but few that relate to in-use colours, for instance only including the new blue-greys rather than the old greys.
I'd also be interested to know if any colours are limited to certain themes only (e.g. Friends) - or whether all colours are open to designers of all themes.

Related to How many different colours of LEGO bricks are there?, but specifically for current colors.

As I answered on another question, LEGO officially released its internal palette in 2010. It showed 51 colours in use, although their company profile spoke about 58.

This is the Palette LEGO used in 2010, meaning that only these colours were in production then. Unfortunately, LEGO doesn't release this info on a regular basis (I'm frankly quite surprised they did in the first place), and I don't know if it has been updated since. On the other hand, LEGO has learned not to change their palette too often, so it's likely there hasn't been much change since then.

Edit: I was optimistic in thinking there would be little change in two years time. As you ask, there are two Friends colours "Medium Azur" and "Medium Lavender" which new for 2012 and are thus not present on the list.
The list of colours on BrickLink has date information which you'll certainly find useful; for example "Olive Green" is of course new too (and is bound to become extremely popular), "Spring Yellowish Green" and "Light Glow" are also new; and "Aqua" ("Light Aqua" on BrickLink) , "Dark Azur" and "Lavender" all appear to have been introduced in 2011.
You could also try to see which colours have been phased out, but since the BrickLink list appears to be based on the year in which a set is first introduced, it's probably not too reliable. For example, the "Light Stone Grey" used in mindstorms (or "Very light Bluish Grey" on BrickLink) is stated as last seen in 2010, but since the NXT 2.0 kit is still sold, it's possible it's still produced. So trying to know whether a colour is out or not is at this stage a guess, although I would at least venture to guess that "Phosph.Green" is out - since there's a new "glow in the dark" effect.

As for availability to designers, I don't see why some colours would be limited to specific themes, even though of course specific themes are designed around specific main colours. So Friends sets may have more purple and pink, but that doesn't mean they can't use other colours, or that other sets can't use purple and pink.
Now that you mention it, it would make sense however to lower the entry cost for specific colours in specific themes to make sure designers aren't penalized. What I mean is, if a Friends designer needs a specific part in pink, there's less reason to deny it to him than there would be for, say, a Technic Designer. Usually producing an existing part in a new colour bears a cost for the set designer, but there could be different rules depending on the theme. It's pure speculation, though; and it's as likely that the theme doesn't do any difference at all.
In any case, once production has been decided for a specific part in a specific colour, it's certainly available for all other designers. The only exception would be part-specific (for example, a city designer is probably not allowed to use a Star Wars stormtrooper helmet), but I see no reason for having such restrictions on specific colours.

That's great, thanks. Do you know if all the Friends colours are on that chart?

Nope, and it's a good question. I found some more info, see my edited answer.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll try do a bit of my own research and come up with a more up-to-date list. I'll share the results if I do so.