From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Fri Nov 14 11:12:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: from sun30.aic.nrl.navy.mil by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.1/mc) with SMTP id LAA10598; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:12:41 -0500 (EST) Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Mail-from: From chrono@ibm.net Thu Nov 13 22:03:44 1997 Message-Id: <346BBF7F.ADFDE0D4@ibm.net> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:03:27 -0800 From: "Jin 'Time Traveler' Kim" Organization: The Fourth Dimension To: Cube-Lovers@ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: 6x6x6 cube design References: <19971113.100159.5094.0.tenie1@juno.com> Tenie Remmel wrote: > 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. > Of course, even if it can be built, does anyone know how to solve it? If it can be built and scrambled, it can be solved. In fact, it could make for a very interesting puzzle since it could behave identically to a 3x3x3 if one wanted it to, just like a 4x4x4 can be manipulated like a 2x2x2. Heck, the 6x6x6 could also behave like a 2x2x2... One puzzle could take the place of two others. Sort of a "mix and match" difficulty setting. Regardless, I suspect that many would applaud the ingenuity of a 6x6x6 if it was executed elegantly and worked well, like the 5x5x5. > 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? The moderator of the mailing list stated that a 7x7x7 cube could be built, but I counter that it would require "cubes" of dissimilar size or some kind of groove type scheme, which actually isn't quite in the spirit of a cube. Even a 6x6x6 would require some careful engineering since the corner cubes just barely overlap. > Also what is the mechanism for a 2x2x2 cube? Could it be extended to > make a more stable 4x4x4 and/or 6x6x6 cubes... The mechanism of the 2x2x2 is similar to the 4x4x4, which makes both of them rather stiff. > 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... I'm sure supersets of many existing puzzles have been considered. I myself spent some hours contemplating and drafting the possibility of a pyraminx to the next level. I called it Tut's Curse as a sort of 'project' name, despite the fact that Tut was never buried in a pyramid. Maybe that's why I never completed the project. Oh well. The best laid plans of mice and men... -- Jin "Time Traveler" Kim chrono@ibm.net VGL Costa Mesa http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/alley/9895 http://www.slamsite.com