From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Thu Nov 13 14:26:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: from sun30.aic.nrl.navy.mil by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.1/mc) with SMTP id OAA05543; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:26:34 -0500 (EST) Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Mail-from: From tenie1@juno.com Thu Nov 13 13:02:44 1997 To: Cube-Lovers@ai.mit.edu Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:01:41 -0800 Subject: 6x6x6 cube design Message-Id: <19971113.100159.5094.0.tenie1@juno.com> From: tenie1@juno.com (Tenie Remmel) I am attempting to design a 6x6x6 cube. My idea to make it structurally sound is to attach both the center cubies and the middle edge cubies to a ball in the center. Then all other pieces are wedged behind those. I think that extending from the 5x5x5 design the same way the 4x4x4 was extended from the 3x3x3 design would be way too flimsy, mainly because the centers would have to be attached via long, thin struts which are apt to break easily unless made out of metal, which would make the thing way too heavy. The width of the cubies probably could not be more than 14 or 15 mm; if they were larger, the cube would be quite big and so it would be difficult to manipulate. Unfortunately the ball would be quite complicated, with six or even nine tracks in it instead of just three as in the 4x4x4 cube. It might have to be made of metal instead of plastic (it shouldn't be too heavy if it is hollow). Also the 152 pieces will be a real pain to put together... Of course, even if it can be built, does anyone know how to solve it? Here is a rather crude diagram of a cross section through the center of the cube. Actually it is just a quarter of a cube. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccccccc aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccccccc aaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccccccc aaaa......aaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccc aaaa..............bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccc aaaaaaaa................bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccc aaaaaaaa....................bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccc ................................bbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccccccccc ..................................bbbbbbccccccbbbbbbbbcccccc ....................................bbccccccbbbbbbbbbbcccccc ..............................cccc..ccccccbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ..............................ccccccccccbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ................................cccccc....bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ..................................cccccc....bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb ....................................cccc......bbbbbbbbbbbbbb ..............................................bbbbbbbbbbbbbb ................................................bbbbbbbbbbbb ................................................bbbbbbbbbbbb ..................................................bbbbbbbbbb ..................................................bbbbbbbbbb ..................................................bbbbbbaaaa ....................................................bbbbaaaa ....................................................bbbbaaaa ....................................................aaaaaaaa ....................................................aaaaaaaa ......................................................aaaaaa ..............................................aaaa....aaaaaa ..............................................aaaa....aaaaaa ..............................................aaaaaaaaaaaaaa ..............................................aaaaaaaaaaaaaa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW, Does anyone have experience with TurboCAD? Can it be used to design this type of thing? It sure would be easier to use a computer program than to use graph paper. I believe that the 6x6x6 is the largest mechanically possible, because with the 7x7x7 and higher cubes, the corner cubies aren't attached to anything at all! Is this correct? Also what is the mechanism for a 2x2x2 cube? Could it be extended to make a more stable 4x4x4 and/or 6x6x6 cubes... And how about a GigaMinx, a 5x5 version of the MegaMinx magic pentagonal dodecahedron, with five pieces on each edge, 31 pieces on each face (5 corners, 11 edges and 11 central pieces), 242 pieces total. I would draw a diagram if it wasn't so hard to make a pentagon out of chars... --Tenie Remmel (tenie1@juno.com) [ Moderator's note: The purported impossibility of a Rubik's 7^3 has been discussed and refuted repeatedly on this list, and several mechanisms have been proposed for it; see the archives. It is not true that the corner cubies "aren't attached to anything". Each corner will be attached to at least two edge cubies, though not always the same two edge cubies. You should also look in the archives to find descriptions of the 2^3, some as recently as 28 July. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to understand it. I'd like to see a clear description, as I haven't got a 2^3 handy to try myself. -Dan ]