Hi there, while we hope you enjoy browsing through the site, there's a lot more you can do if you register. The process is easy and you can use your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account to make it even faster. Some perks of joining include:

Create your own topics, participate in existing discussions, and vote in polls

Show off your creations, stories, art, music, and movies and play member and staff-run games

Enter contests to win free LEGO sets and other prizes, and vote to decide the winners

Participate in raffles, including exclusive raffles for new members, and win free LEGO sets

Send private messages to other members

Organize with other members to attend or send your MOCs to LEGO fan events all over the world

Much, much more!

Enjoy your visit!

You have clicked an external link, proceed at your own caution. External sites are not moderated by BZPower and may contain content inappropriate for minors.

I've decided that This Day Aria is my favorite song from A Canterlot Wedding. Its juxtaposition of Cadance singing about her love for Shining Armor with Chrysalis singing about her callous indifference and plot to use him is amazing.

Also, it's (at least partially) a villain song, and those tend to be awesome.

As promised, I'm going to kick off my set reviews of LEGO System circa mid-late 1990s with a review of the Time Cruisers Rocket Racer (no, not the LEGO Racers Rocket Racer). Credit to BZP for the review format.

(My apologies if you notice the yellow tint to the shadows; my digital camera decided to be rather yellow when taking these pictures, and using GIMP to re-balance the white left those yellow shadows as an artifact.)

Presentation From the design of the box to the instruction manual, these are the first things you see before building the set.

We see our protagonist, Timmy, riding in the eponymous racer through a rather dark, stormy backdrop. Pretty awesome. We can tell right off the bat that this isn't a very large set (seeing as the price was only $4.50 when it came out).

Building Half the fun is had building the set. How fun is it to build and how easy or challenging is it?

Not very challenging at all. The build took only a couple of minutes and was fairly straightforward, seeing as there were only 15 steps. All 55 pieces are included in the above photo, and it's not surprising that they don't take very long to assemble.

Set Design Now that the set is complete, we can critique how it looks from every angle. New or interesting pieces can also be examined here.

Nothing too sophisticated here. The body is based on a bracket piece that saw use in the Xtreme Team windsurfer/buggy set. The propellers are pretty cool in their functionality (yes, they do spin). A simple buggy/car set with a few modifications.

Playability The other half of the fun is in playing with the set. How well does the set function and is it enjoyable to play with?

All aircraft report!

The propellers are the coolest part of this set. They are connected by an axle to a smooth base that sits on the back tires, as seen in the above photo. The tires, made of rubber, grip the smooth base of the propellers on one side, and as the tires spin, the propellers spin. Now, on my set, this works well for the (Timmy's) right-hand propeller, but not the left. I think this may be because the bricks on top are not completely aligned over the hole for the left propeller, and thus the axle grips the pieces. I'm not sure though. It's still a cool bit of functionality that I'm impressed they thought to incorporate on such a small set. You really don't see that much on newer small sets.

Beyond this, though, the set is mainly for you to roll on the table and go "Vroom! Vroom!"

Final Thoughts Once it's all said and done, how does the set stack up? Should I get it?

Since the original price was $4.50, it's not a bad set for that price. I got mine for $4.00 with the other Time Cruisers sets, so it wasn't a heavy additional monetary burden for my wallet. If you see this set floating around for a low price, pick it up; you get a Timmy minifigure and a few cool MOC pieces/a cool race buggy.

Pros What's to like?

Timmy minifigure

Cheap set (BrickLink has one for $1.00)

Neat functionality despite being small

Decent variety of pieces

Cons What's not to like?

Not incredibly exciting, but it is a small set

I honestly think that this set isn't bad at all for what it is. Back in the day, this would've made any 90's kid happy if he/she found it in their stocking on Christmas day. If you want to get some Time Cruisers sets, add this one to your cart. It's cheap, cute, and fun in its own way.

Thanks for sticking around for my review. Next time we'll head into the realm of the villainous Time Twisters.

Royal Wedding finale is best finale. Seriously, I was wowed throughout the episode. The songs were okay, but the plot was very interesting. Celestia actually fought someone! And Cadance is adorable.

Also, Jaller is best Captain of the Guard, be he pony or Matoran.

So, I bought all the remaining Time Cruisers/Twisters sets (minus 1) that KK and I need to complete the entire theme for under $80 (Mystical Mountain Time Lab, Flying Time Vessel, Rocket Racer, and the Time Tunnelator; all that remains is the Hypno Cruiser).

Also, I think that during the summer I'm going to start reviewing LEGO sets of the 90s (more from the mid to late 90s), since this is the era of my childhood when I was first introduced to and subsequently obsessed with our favorite ABS bricks, so keep your eyes peeled for that.

I'll also make some more comics over the summer. Right now is the home stretch of the semester, which means more work in a shorter amount of time, leading to more stress and less free time.

I love watching series over and over again to see if there are any subtleties the writers threw in that I never noticed during my first viewing. However, I rarely find a series that, when I watch it, I get the same feeling of suspense, the same feeling of revelation, as I do when I watch Red vs. Blue Season 6: Reconstruction.

If you haven't seen Reconstruction yet, be warned that there will be spoilers in this entry.

What is it that's so great about this particular season of a very comedic and ridiculous take on the Halo universe? Well, let's start with the premise of Red vs. Blue. We have two teams of ridiculously inept soldiers who are "at war" with each other for what they believe is the fate of the universe. Being the ineffective soldiers that they are, their battles usually end in whacky hijinks and the exchange of insults, and they very much keep those personalities in Season 6. A brief summary of the characters and their personalities:

Red Team

Sarge - Gruff and regimented leader of the Red Team, older, comes up with convoluted plans and ridiculous tactics. His hate for the Blues is only surmounted by his hatred of Grif.

Grif - Lazy comic relief who is smarter than he looks, just unmotivated. Has a sort of love/hate relationship with Simmons.

Simmons - The nerd of the Red Team, enjoys math, sucks up to Sarge every chance he gets.

Lopez - The Red team's robot who can only speak (poorly translated) Spanish. Deadpan snarker.

Donut - (absent from Reconstruction) Guy who wears pink armor and is rather effeminate.

Blue Team

Church - Self-appointed leader of the Blue Team

Tucker - Lazy member of Blue Team who only thinks about picking up chicks.

Caboose - The token cool dude of Blue Team. Probably the most popular character on the show for his ridiculous lines.

Tex - A special ops soldier and Church's ex-girlfriend. The only soldier who can actually do something.

Now, mix these characters with Agent Washington, a completely serious special ops soldier (like Tex) with no tolerance for humor. Surprisingly, this works extremely well (considering the number of ways they could have screwed this relationship up). Together, they are all trying to find a new threat known as the Meta who is killing off Freelancer agents (like Tex and Wash) to obtain their armor abilities and AI, which help them in battle.

Then there is the overarching banter between the Director of Project Freelancer and the Oversight Sub-Committee Chairman. These conversations open every episode in the form of audio letter and alternate between the two, and they illustrate one of the most awesome passive-agressive power struggles I've ever witnessed in any series (and they are never on screen throughout the entire season!). While brief at the beginning of each episode, the subject of the dialogue, while at first seems unrelated, is actually intertwined with the entire motivation of the events of the season.

And if that didn't seem to make things come full circle, the big reveal in the season further seals the deal. When I watch this one moment when Washington fully reveals why the Reds and the Blues were stuck in the middle of a boxed-in canyon in the middle of nowhere, why these Freelancer AI have plagued them and caused all their problems from the get go, and why he needs to put a stop to what Project Freelancer has done and bring them to justice, I am stunned. I always watch the scene and marvel at how perfectly everything is drawn together. I get the same goosebumps during each subsequent viewing of that scene that I got the first time I watched it. The reveal is always fresh; it always keeps me on the edge of my seat; it never gets stale, and that is why I consider this the crowning moment of the entire Red vs. Blue series.

And I can't think of any other series that does that to me.

My Classical Mechanics professor quoted someone in class the other day: "The maturation of a physics student involves solving the harmonic oscillator over and over again throughout his/her career." (or something to that effect)

So, what is the harmonic oscillator? Otherwise known as the simple harmonic oscillator, it is the physical situation in which a particle is subject to a force whose strength is proportional to the displacement from equilibrium of said particle, known as Hooke's Law, or, in math terms,

F = -kx

where F is our force, x is our displacement, and k is some proportionality constant (often called the "spring constant"). That sounds swell and all, but to what situations does this apply? Well, for a simple example, consider a mass suspended on a spring. If you just let it sit in equilibrium, it doesn't really move since the spring is cancelling out the force of gravity. However, if you pull the mass slightly off of its equilibrium point and release it, the spring pulls the mass up, compresses, pushes the mass down, and repeats the process over and over. So long as there is no outside force or friction (a physicist's dream) this will continue oscillating into eternity, and the position of the mass can be mapped as a sine or cosine function.

What is the period of the oscillation? Well, it turns out that the square of the period is related to the mass and the spring constant, k in this fashion:

T^{2} = 4π^{2}m/k

This is usually written in terms of angular frequency, which is 2π/T. This gives us the equation

(2π/T)^{2} = ω^{2} = k/m

This problem is also a great example of a system where total energy, call it E, is conserved. At the peak of the oscillation (when the mass is instantaneously at rest), all energy is potential energy, since the particle is at rest and there is no energy of motion. At the middle of the oscillation (when the mass is at equilibrium and moving at its fastest) the potential energy is at a minimum (zero) and the all energy in the system is kinetic energy. Kinetic energy, denoted by T (and not to be confused with period) is equal to mv^{2}/2, and the kinetic energy of the simple harmonic oscillator is kx^{2}/2. Thus, the total energy can be written as

E = mv^{2}/2 + kx^{2}/2 = p^{2}/2m + kx^{2}/2

Where I've made the substitution p = mv. Advanced physics students will note that this is the Hamiltonian for the simple harmonic oscillator.

Well, this is great for masses on springs, but what about more natural phenomena? What does this apply to? Well, if you like music, simple harmonic oscillation is what air undergoes when you play a wind instrument. Or a string instrument. Or anything that makes some sort of vibration. What you're doing when you play an instrument (or sing) is forcing air, string(s), or electric charge (for electronic instruments) out of equilibrium. This causes the air, string(s), and current to oscillate, which creates a tone. Patch a bunch of these tones together in the form of chords, melodies, and harmonies, and you've created music. A simpler situation is blowing over a soda/pop bottle. When you blow air over the mouth of the bottle, you create an equilibrium pressure for the air above the mouth of the bottle. Air that is slightly off of this equilibrium will oscillate in and out of the bottle, producing a pure tone. Also, if you have two atoms that can bond, the bonds that are made can act as Hooke's Law potentials. This means that, if you vibrate these atoms at a specific frequency, they will start to oscillate. This can tell physicists and chemists about the bond-lengths of molecules and what those bonds are made up of. In fact, the quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator is a major topic of interest because the potential energy between particles can often be approximated as a Hooke's Law potential near minima, even if it's much more complex elsewhere.

Also, for small angles of oscillation, pendula act as simple harmonic oscillators, and these can be used to keep track of time since the period of a pendulum can be determined by the length of its support. Nowadays, currents sent through quartz crystals provide the oscillations for timekeeping more often than pendula, but when you see an old grandfather clock from the olden days, you'll know that the pendulum inside the body is what keeps its time.

Hopefully you can now see why we physicists solve this problem so many times on our journey to physics maturity.

Being a physics grad student has seen me be in quite the scientific mood lately, hasn't it? Well, unfortunately, I still don't have a new comic made (I'm sorry, everyone! ><), but I do have another idea for a blog entry. Last week, Pi day (March 14) marked Einstein's 133^{rd} birthday, and since my Classical Mechanics course is covering the Special Theory of Relativity, I thought I'd try to cover the basic ideas in blog form.

According to the laws of physics laid down by Sir Isaac Newton, all non-accelerating observers witness the same laws of physics. This included an idea of spontaneity, the idea that someone traveling on the highway at 60 mph would witness an event occur at the exact same time as someone who was just sitting on the side of the highway at rest. The transformation from a reference frame in motion to one at rest for Newtonian physics is known as a Galilean transformation, where x is shifted by -vt, or minus the velocity times time. Under such transformations, laws of physics (like Newton's second law, F = ma, remain invariant (don't change).

However, during the 19^{th} century, a man by the name James Clerk Maxwell formulated a handful of equations, known now as Maxwell's equations, that outline a theory known as electromagnetic theory. Of the many new insights this theory gleaned (among these the ability to generate electricity for power which every BZP member uses) one was that light is composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields; light is an electromagnetic wave. By using his newly invented equations, Maxwell discovered what the speed of light was by formulating a wave equation. When his equations are used to describe electromagnetism, the speed of light is shown to be the same regardless of reference frame; in other words, someone traveling near the speed of light (as long as they weren't accelerating) would see light travel at the same speed as someone who was at rest. According to Newton's laws, this didn't make sense! If you're in your car on the highway and traveling at 60 mph while another car in the lane next to you is traveling at 65 mph, you don't see the other car moving at 65 mph; relative to you, the other car moves at 5 mph. The reason that light is different is because a different theory governs its physics.

This brought about a dilemma: is Maxwell's new electromagnetic theory wrong? Or does Newtonian mechanics need some slight revision? This is where Einstein comes in. He noticed the work of another physicist, Lorentz, who had worked on some new transformations that not only caused space to shift based on reference frames moving relative to each other, but also shifted time. Einstein realized that if light had the same speed in all non-accelerating reference frames, then objects moving faster experienced time differently than those that moved slower. This would come to be known as the Special Theory of Relativity.

How does this make sense? Well, if you have some speed that must remain constant no matter how fast one is traveling, you need time to shift in addition to shifting space to convert between both reference frames, since speed is the change in distance over the amount of time that displacement took place. If you have two reference frames with some relative speed between them, the only way to shift your coordinates from one to another and preserve the speed of light is if both frames experience their positions and times differently. This means that, if something moves fast enough, a journey will take less time in one frame than the other. Special relativity says that moving clocks progress more slowly than clocks at rest, so someone traveling in a rocket at a speed comparable to the speed of light will find that the journey took less time than someone who had been anticipating his arrival at rest. This also means that if someone left Earth in a rocket traveling near the speed of light and came back ten years later would not have aged ten years, but would be younger than someone who was his/her age before his journey took place. Weird, huh?

If you think this is crazy or impossible, there have been experiments done (and are still going) to try to confirm/reject the ideas of special relativity, and they all seem to support it. There's another relativity at play as well known as general relativity, which states that gravitational fields affect spacetime (the combination of space and time into one geometry). General relativity says that the higher up you are in a gravitational field, the faster clocks run (time speeds up). A proof of this theory is GPS; the satellites that help find your position by GPS are all higher up in Earth's gravitational field than we are, and thus their clocks run faster than those on Earth's surface. If general relativity weren't considered in the calculations to figure out where you are on Earth, your GPS would be off by miles.

Math is a truly wonderful topic, and since I'm procrastinating a little on my physics homework, I'm going to spend some time talking about the complex numbers.

Most of us are used to the real numbers. Real numbers consist of the whole numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...), the negative numbers (-1, -2, -3, ...), the rational numbers (1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 22/7, ...), and the irrational numbers (numbers that cannot be represented by fractions of integers, such as the golden ratio, the square root of 2, or π). All of these can be written in decimal format, even though they may have infinite decimal places. But, when we use this number system, there are some numbers we can't write. For instance, what is the square root of -1? In math class, you may have been told that you can't take the square root of a negative number. That's only half true, as you can't take the square root of a negative number and write it as a real number. This is because the square root is not part of the set of real numbers.

This is where the complex numbers come in. Suppose I define a new number, let's call it i, where i^{2} = -1. We've now "invented" a value for the square root of -1. Now, what are its properties? If I take i^{3}, I get -i, since i^{3} = i*i^{2}. If I take i^{4}, then I get i^{2}*i^{2} = +1. If I multiply this by i again, I get i. So the powers of i are cyclic through i, -1, -i, and 1.

This is interesting, but what is the magnitude of i, i.e. how far is i from zero? Well, the way we take the absolute value in the real number system is by squaring the number and taking the positive square root. This won't work for i, though, because we just get back i. Let's redefine the absolute value by taking what's called the complex conjugate of i and multiplying the two together, then taking the positive square root. The complex conjugate of i is obtained by taking the imaginary part of i and throwing a negative sign in front. Since i is purely imaginary (there are no real numbers that make up i), the complex conjugate is -i. Multiply them together, and you get that -i*i = -1*i^{2} = 1, and the positive square root of 1 is simply 1. Therefore, the number i has a magnitude of 1. It is for this reason that i is known as the imaginary unit!

Now that we have defined this new unit, i, we can now create a new set of numbers called the complex numbers, which take the form z = a + bi, where a and b are real numbers. We can now take the square root of any real number, e.g. the square root of -4 can be written as ±2i, and we can make complex numbers with real and imaginary parts, like 3 + 4i.

How do we plot complex numbers? Well, complex numbers have a real part and an imaginary part, so the best way to do this is to create a graph where the abscissa (x-value) is the real part of the number and the ordinate (y-axis) is the imaginary part. This is known as the complex plane. For instance, 3 + 4i would have its coordinate be (3,4) in this coordinate system.

What is the magnitude of this complex number? Well, it would be the square root of itself multiplied by its complex conjugate, or the square root of (3 + 4i)(3 - 4i) = 9 + 12i - 12i +16 = 25. The positive square root of 25 is 5, so the magnitude of 3 + 4i is 5.

We can think of points on the complex plane being represented by a vector which points from the origin to the point in question. The magnitude of this vector is given by the absolute value of the point, which we can denote as r. The x-value of this vector is given by the magnitude multiplied by the cosine of the angle made by the vector with the positive part of the real axis. This angle we can denote as ϕ. The y-value of the vector is going to be the imaginary unit, i, multiplied by the magnitude of the vector times the sine of the angle ϕ. So, we get that our complex number, z, can be written as z = r*(cosϕ + isinϕ). The Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler discovered a special identity relating to this equation, known now as Euler's Formula, that reads as follows:

e^{iϕ} = cosϕ + isinϕ

Where e is the base of the natural logarithm. So, we can then write our complex number as z = re^{iϕ}. What is the significance of this? Well, for one, you can derive one of the most beautiful equations in mathematics, known as Euler's Identity:

e^{iπ} + 1 = 0

This equation contains the most important constants in mathematics: e, Euler's number, the base of the natural logarithm; i, the imaginary unit which I've spent this whole time blabbing about; π, the irrational ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter which appears all over the place in trigonometry; 1, the real unit and multiplicative identity; and 0, the additive identity.

So, what bearing does this have in real life? A lot. Imaginary and complex numbers are used in solving many differential equations that model real physical situations, such as waves propagating through a medium, wave functions in quantum mechanics, and fractals, which in and of themselves have a wide range of real life application, along with others that I haven't thought of.

Proto +2 for Premier Membership +1 from Pohuaki for reporting various things in Artwork

Name: Akano Real Name: Forever Shrouded in Mystery Age: 25 Gender: Male Likes: Science, Math, LEGO, Bionicle, Ponies, Comics, Yellow, Voice Acting Notable Facts: One of the few Comic Veterans still around Has been a LEGO fan since ~1996 Bionicle fan from the beginning Misses the 90's. A lot. Twitter: @akanotoe