From cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Tue Jun 4 14:07:52 1996 Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Received: from curry.epilogue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curry.epilogue.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04174 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:07:51 -0400 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 08:35:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicholas Bodley To: Wei-Hwa Huang Cc: Cube-Lovers@ai.mit.edu Subject: Fragile parts in 4^3 In-Reply-To: <4op242$5mh@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On 1 Jun 1996, Wei-Hwa Huang wrote: {Mostly snipped} > As another aside, I don't understand the rationale behind the canonical > 4x4x4 design. It would seem to me that it's better to have two rings of > grooves in each dimension, so that the face pieces could have "fatter" > legs and not break off as easily. > > Wei-Hwa Huang, whuang@cco.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/ It probably isn't necessary for the legs to be so thin; the mechanical engineer probably had optimistic estimates of the likely forces and the strength of the particular polymer used. The latter isn't, by any means, cheap stuff. Wider legs might still meet the constraints that ensure the Cube not fall apart. (Sorry for a slow reply.) Regards to all, NB Nicholas Bodley Autodidact & Polymath |*| Keep smiling! It makes | Waltham, Mass. Electronic Technician |*| people wonder what | nbodley@tiac.net Amateur musician |*| you have been up to. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------*