Ok... I've finally finished a puzzle. All the way through dying and stickering this time...

So I proudly present the Doctor Skewb. Previously I called this the SMMS which was short for Slice-turn-only Mixup Master Skewb. However, I felt that was more of a discription then a name so I figured I'd rename this to something that wasn't such a mouthful. Seeing as this is closely related to the Master Skewb I felt the name Doctor Skewb was appropriate for several reasons. Both are degrees and the creator has his Ph.D.

YouTube Video









Now here are some pictures of the Doctor and the Master Skewb together. (These are smaller versions of the unedited originals the above images were made from.)



This shows the moves they have in common.



But each has a trick which the other can't pull off.



And yes... I'm a Doctor Who fan as many of you have guessed as well.

For the development of this design please see this thread.

The plan is to sell this original on eBay and then to later offer this in my Shapeways Shop. More details to follow.

Enjoy,
Carl

P.S. Special thanks to the following:

Olivér Nagy for his help with the stickers.
Oskar for pointing out that the initial problems with the design were due to the paths not crossing at 90 degrees.
TomZ for tips ranging from how to dye the puzzle black to how to make the template for the stickers in SolidWorks.
And everyone here at TwistyPuzzles for creating such an inspirational community and patiently waiting on me to finish an idea from over a year ago.

I remember seeing this idea brought up long ago. I'm happy to finally see it as a finished puzzle.
Fantastic work and I can't wait for the video.

Great Puzzle! Long Way!
Congratulation

Brilliant work Carl! I look forward to the video!

Yay! I've been hoping to see this puzzle finished soon. I look forward to the video.

Looks great! Very visually appealing AND well functioning.

--JC--

Congrats! What a great puzzle! And congrats on the Phd too!

How about some scrambled pics and a video? Can't wait!

Where's the scrambled pick?
Good job and congratulations.

Brilliant puzzle. Even better because "Skewb" is similar to "Who" if you say it right.

How long until someone makes one with a real skewb core?

NType3 wrote:Brilliant puzzle. Even better because "Skewb" is similar to "Who" if you say it right.

And the Master is the Doctor's arch nemesis.

Well, congratulations on your first build. It looks very good and I can't wait to see how it turns.
I'm hoping to see more of your work soon!

An amazingly beautiful puzzle that is based around an amazing idea. Great Job.

Wow! that is beautiful, I must say I wasn't sure how it was going look with the odd shaped pieces, but man did you pull it off. I anxiously await a video, I am very curious as to the solving aspects of this puzzle without the skewb turns.

Great job.

Matthew

OH MAN THIS IS SICK! D:

Adman234 wrote:How about some scrambled pics and a video? Can't wait!

More important: The image after one atomic twist.
Well made image for a very interesting concept.

Thanks for all the kind words everyone.

Andreas Nortmann wrote:

Adman234 wrote:How about some scrambled pics and a video? Can't wait!

More important: The image after one atomic twist.
Well made image for a very interesting concept.

More pictures are coming. I'm cleaning them up by removing the background. I'm doing this in Paint as I don't know how to do it in PhotoShop. I'm simply starting with a very high res image and then any pixel which isn't part of the puzzle I set to white. This creates rough edges but those get smothed out when I shrink the image for posting. It took me about 2 hours to clean up the image above but I'll get at least 1 scrambled picture posted tonight. Granted I haven't done a full scramble since I put the stickers on... I don't think I could solve it. It was hard enough to get it back into a cube after my boss had scrambled it without the stickers.

Andreas, is one atomic twist the turing of one slice layer by an arbitrary amount? 30 degrees? or 120 degrees?

Carl

it's only slice turns? It's weird... because it seems like with slice turns only, it wouldn't be too extremely difficult... I'm sure I'm underestimating it though...

elijah wrote:it's only slice turns?

Yes, see the development thread as for why.

elijah wrote:It's weird... because it seems like with slice turns only, it wouldn't be too extremely difficult... I'm sure I'm underestimating it though...

I'm much better at designing then I am at solving so I may not be the best judge as to its difficulty. If one could add the non-slice turns my thinking is that would add an extra degree of freedom and potentially make the puzzle easier. However it also adds many more states to the puzzles so I can't say for sure.

Carl

Adman234 wrote:Congrats! What a great puzzle! And congrats on the Phd too!

Thanks on both counts though I got the Ph.D. back in 1996 so its not exactly new.

Carl

New pictures added to the first post.

Enjoy,
Carl

Congratulations Carl! It's wonderful to see a puzzle whoes concept started on the forum and ended here, whilst seeing every step of the way. Well done.

wwwmwww wrote:Andreas, is one atomic twist the turing of one slice layer by an arbitrary amount? 30 degrees? or 120 degrees?

Atomic = indivisible. An atomic twist is an indivisible twist. It is the shortest twist after which other moves are possible.
90° on the 3x3x3.
72° on the megaminx.
30° on this one when I am right.

wwwmwww wrote: I'm cleaning them up by removing the background. I'm doing this in Paint as I don't know how to do it in PhotoShop.

I use GIMP. No advice here. Sorry.

That is utter madness...I love it!

Video added to first post...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE0AxvBETzw

Enjoy,
Carl

Wow !!! It's so amazing !!! and it spins great !!!! Congratulations !!!

Carl,

My compliments for your perseverance and for an excellent result!

Oskar

I love it. The way the pieces rotate slightly to accommodate for turning is so ingenious and mesmerizing I wish I understood how to do that.

Wow, that turns really nicely! Well done!

-Eitan

TomZ wrote:I love it. The way the pieces rotate slightly to accommodate for turning is so ingenious and mesmerizing I wish I understood how to do that.

The turning in that video is amazing! it looks like the pieces are doing the conga

Looks amazing. I really love watching the pieces bob up and down when they're going around the track. In it's solved state it's hard to see why you can't do vertex turns but the slice turn bobbing shows us that they really aren't planar cuts.
Congrats on finishing this puzzle. Hope to see more of your ideas meet reality soon.

Andreas Nortmann wrote:More important: The image after one atomic twist.

Andreas,

Just added this imaged to the first post for you.


And THANKS for ALL the kind words everyone. Oskar and Tom, this puzzle wouldn't be the success it is had it not been for input from you.

Carl

This is an amazing puzzle. Hopefully I can get it off shapeways! I really like the way the pieces shift as they turn!

Thank you for the image.
I forgot to ask:
What is its edge length? 60mm?
What is its weight?

Andreas

Andreas Nortmann wrote:Thank you for the image.
I forgot to ask:
What is its edge length? 60mm?
What is its weight?

I knew these were coming. I brought my puzzle into work again today just to weigh it. The edge length is indeed 60mm and it weighs in at 58.2 grams.

Carl

Just made a few more pictures for Andreas that I wanted to share.









Enjoy,
Carl

Carl,

Your puzzle is great and comprises an element of new puzzle family. As an alternative you might build your puzzle in a shape of ball (as you showed it in your visualistions). If you put colours on it in a similar way as in a cube then, from logical point of view, the puzzle would be exactly the same and would always keep its shape. Is not keeping the shape somehow more aesthetic? The spherical shape is advantageous as it gives possibilities to create different puzzles just by changing a way of ‘stickering’. Similarly as the cube you might obtain octahedron or rhombic dodecahedron. It would be interesting to see visualisation of octahedral or dodecahedral puzzle based on your concept, at least in a ball-shaped version.

Good job and very inventive concept.

Iwona

Iwona G wrote:As an alternative you might build your puzzle in a shape of ball (as you showed it in your visualistions). If you put colours on it in a similar way as in a cube then, from logical point of view, the puzzle would be exactly the same and would always keep its shape. Is not keeping the shape somehow more aesthetic? The spherical shape is advantageous as it gives possibilities to create different puzzles just by changing a way of ‘stickering’. Similarly as the cube you might obtain octahedron or rhombic dodecahedron. It would be interesting to see visualisation of octahedral or dodecahedral puzzle based on your concept, at least in a ball-shaped version.

To be honest I used to not be the biggest fan of shape changing puzzles either... but that has changed a bit over the years and I now have a much deeper appreciation of them. Personally I think I like this in cubic form more and I love how it looks so much like a Master Skewb. That said I could easily offer this in a spherical shape, or as an octahedron or rhombic dodecahedron. Actually the next shape that I think I'd personally like the most would be a Tetrakis Hexahedron as that would give each piece a unique position and orientation and it could still be done with just 6 colors, I believe, if it were stickered like the Ultimate Cube. But it would still change shape as the two types of edges would look different. Any of these I think I could throw together in a few hours if there were interest, just let me know. I think the biggest issue I see with the sphere would be gripping it to make the turns, particulary during the break in period. I think the edges help alot in giving you a good way to hold and turn the puzzle where you have a little leverage.

Iwona G wrote:Your puzzle is great and comprises an element of new puzzle family. <SNIP> Good job and very inventive concept.

Thank you very much. That is EXACTLY what I like to do. The shell mech is very powerful and can be used to make many many puzzles but as an engineer there are many others already doing this so as much as I want some of those puzzles I'm willing to let others play in that area. I like to find new things and explore the unknown. I just find it more fun. Plus being as slow as I am it helps that my POV-Ray and math background keep me playing with geometry that is complex enough I don't usually have to worry about taking my time... but that certainly is changing and I know I'm going to have to get faster.

Thanks again,
Carl

wwwmwww wrote:Actually the next shape that I think I'd personally like the most would be a Tetrakis Hexahedron as that would give each piece a unique position and orientation and it could still be done with just 6 colors, I believe, if it were stickered like the Ultimate Cube.

Actually I started to doubt this assumption after saying the above so I had to take a closer look at it. Looking at this picture of the Ultimate Cube you can tell there would be 3 edges shared between two collors. Let's look at green and red.

(1)You have one edge on the top at the 7o'clock position.
(2)You have another on the edge between the front and left faces.
(3)And there would ne one on the bottom face directly below the one on the top.

The one labeled as (2) if this were a Doctor Skewb would be a different shape then the other 2 so its unique. But I was worried (1) and (3) might be interchangeable. After thinking some more I see these two would be mirror images of each other so while in the correct orientation the stickers would tell you that you had it in the wrong location. And if you rotated the part by 180 degrees it would be obvious the piece wasn't in the proper orientation as the puzzle wouldn't be in the Tetrakis Hexahedron shape. So yes... I now am sure an Ultimate Doctor Skewb could be made in the shape of a Tetrakis Hexahedron with just 6 color stickers being used. The same sticker patern on a sphere however wouldn't be an Ultimate Doctor Skewb as you could rotate these pieces by 180 degrees and not be able to tell. See what I mean by saying I've gained a much deeper appreciation of shape changing puzzles. You can't make all the versions you want by just re-stickering a sphere.

Carl

wwwmwww wrote:

wwwmwww wrote:Actually the next shape that I think I'd personally like the most would be a Tetrakis Hexahedron as that would give each piece a unique position and orientation and it could still be done with just 6 colors, I believe, if it were stickered like the Ultimate Cube.

Actually I started to doubt this assumption after saying the above so I had to take a closer look at it. Looking at this picture of the Ultimate Cube you can tell there would be 3 edges shared between two collors. Let's look at green and red.

(1)You have one edge on the top at the 7o'clock position.
(2)You have another on the edge between the front and left faces.
(3)And there would ne one on the bottom face directly below the one on the top.

The one labeled as (2) if this were a Doctor Skewb would be a different shape then the other 2 so its unique. But I was worried (1) and (3) might be interchangeable. After thinking some more I see these two would be mirror images of each other so while in the correct orientation the stickers would tell you that you had it in the wrong location. And if you rotated the part by 180 degrees it would be obvious the piece wasn't in the proper orientation as the puzzle wouldn't be in the Tetrakis Hexahedron shape. So yes... I now am sure an Ultimate Doctor Skewb could be made in the shape of a Tetrakis Hexahedron with just 6 color stickers being used. The same sticker patern on a sphere however wouldn't be an Ultimate Doctor Skewb as you could rotate these pieces by 180 degrees and not be able to tell. See what I mean by saying I've gained a much deeper appreciation of shape changing puzzles. You can't make all the versions you want by just re-stickering a sphere.

Carl

Carl,

I thought for a moment that the same disadvantage may concern classic tetrakis heksahedron (I mean a solid dual to truncated octahedron having equal edges) as the mentioned solid is inscribed into a sphere. And it could mean that after turning by 180 degrees element could still be aligned with a puzle surface. But the edge elements corresponding to face element of you Doctor Skewb are not placed centrally on their edges and this helps them. Then yes, I agree, you may build Ultimate Doctor Skewb in the shape of tetrakis heksahedron and the shape may be considered as best one for your puzzle.

But it seems that majority of shape changing puzzle will lose this advantage if you put less number of colours than number of faces.

Regards
Iwona

Iwona G wrote:I thought for a moment that the same disadvantage may concern classic tetrakis heksahedron (I mean a solid dual to truncated octahedron having equal edges) as the mentioned solid is inscribed into a sphere.

Well I did say "a" tetrakis heksahedron and not "the" tetrakis heksahedron. Look at this site. A tetrakis heksahedron is a positive cumulation of a regular cube. "The" tetrakis heksahedron which you describe can be made as a cumulation of a unit cube by a pyramid with height 1/4. However as I understand it, if you used a pyramid with height 1/8 you would still call the resulting shape "a" tetrakis heksahedron. If I were to make a tetrakis heksahedron Ultimate Doctor Skewb I would do something like this to maximize the shape changing property.

Iwona G wrote:And it could mean that after turning by 180 degrees element could still be aligned with a puzle surface. But the edge elements corresponding to face element of you Doctor Skewb are not placed centrally on their edges and this helps them. Then yes, I agree, you may build Ultimate Doctor Skewb in the shape of tetrakis heksahedron and the shape may be considered as best one for your puzzle.

I haven't checked to see how close the face elements of the Doctor Skewb are to being centrally placed on the edges of THE tetrakis heksahedron but its entirely possible they are close enough that it may be hard to tell if they were aligned with the puzzle's surface after a 180 degree rotation. I'd certainly check before using that shape.

Iwona G wrote:But it seems that majority of shape changing puzzle will lose this advantage if you put less number of colours than number of faces.

Maybe. I generally look at these things on a case by case basis.

Here is another example where shape changing is "better" then a sphere, in my opinion of course. Look at your statement above:

Iwona G wrote:As an alternative you might build your puzzle in a shape of ball (as you showed it in your visualistions). If you put colours on it in a similar way as in a cube then, from logical point of view, the puzzle would be exactly the same and would always keep its shape.

No... it would NOT be exactly the same puzzle. On a cubic Doctor Skewb there are 4 face elements of any given color. These face elements are interchangeable but their orientation is important. In other words they could all be on the correct face but in orientations which are obviously not correct. This wouldn't be true if the puzzle were in the shape of a sphere. The 4 face elements of a given color are still interchangeable but they now appear solved in any of their 4 possible orientations.

Carl

wwwmwww wrote:

Iwona G wrote:

wwwmwww wrote:Well I did say "a" tetrakis heksahedron and not "the" tetrakis heksahedron. Look at this site. A tetrakis heksahedron is a positive cumulation of a regular cube. "The" tetrakis heksahedron which you describe can be made as a cumulation of a unit cube by a pyramid with height 1/4. However as I understand it, if you used a pyramid with height 1/8 you would still call the resulting shape "a" tetrakis heksahedron. If I were to make a tetrakis heksahedron Ultimate Doctor Skewb I would do something like this to maximize the shape changing property.[

In ‘classic’ tetraheksahedron the height of pyramid is (3^0,5-1)/2 (slightly more than 1/3) and if it is equal to ½ then rhombic dodecahedron is obtained. I seems that in rhombic dodecahedron edge element corresponding to a face element of your Doctor Skewb is aligned with a surface after rotation through 180 degrees. In any other tetrakis heksahedron this feature is not kept. So, the closer to dodecahedron the bigger alignment is obtained.

Iwona G wrote:

wwwmwww wrote:I haven't checked to see how close the face elements of the Doctor Skewb are to being centrally placed on the edges of THE tetrakis heksahedron but its entirely possible they are close enough that it may be hard to tell if they were aligned with the puzzle's surface after a 180 degree rotation. I'd certainly check before using that shape.

Iwona G wrote:

wwwmwww wrote:Maybe. I generally look at these things on a case by case basis.

Here is another example where shape changing is "better" then a sphere, in my opinion of course. Look at your statement above:

Iwona G wrote:

wwwmwww wrote:No... it would NOT be exactly the same puzzle. On a cubic Doctor Skewb there are 4 face elements of any given color. These face elements are interchangeable but their orientation is important. In other words they could all be on the correct face but in orientations which are obviously not correct. This wouldn't be true if the puzzle were in the shape of a sphere. The 4 face elements of a given color are still interchangeable but they now appear solved in any of their 4 possible orientations.

Carl

Yes, Carl, you are right. In a spherical puzzle all orientations of ‘face’ elements will be allowed. But you always may give the orientation in another way, for example by putting dot near the edge adjacent to square immovable element or something like that. Similarly Fudball’s elements can rotate in their positions but the puzzle would lose its character if its shape was changed. Therefore some orientation marks would be better in my opinion (for example carved single strokes radiating from the centre of hexagons or something that kind but of course it is up to Oskar). Well, Fudball’s elements are also interchangeable within hexagons. Interchangeableness and orientation may always be a problem if elements are plain.
The undeniable advantage of the spherical shape of Doctor Skewb or Fudball is that all movable elements are of the same shape and then it could be cheaper in case of mass production. But maybe I am wrong as I am not an expert in moulds.

Iwona

The Doctor Skewb is now for sale. Please see my post here.

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopi ... 11#p271711

I wasn't sure how many might have missed this over in the marketplace section.

Thanks,
Carl

Would it be possible to make a higher order, slice turning cube, such as a "doctor 5x5x5", where all the center pieces and edge pieces of a 5x5x5 could move and change place such as with this puzzle?

Fredrik wrote:Would it be possible to make a higher order, slice turning cube, such as a "doctor 5x5x5", where all the center pieces and edge pieces of a 5x5x5 could move and change place such as with this puzzle?

I believe so. Look at my Doctor Cube. You could rather easily cut each sliding piece (face center and edges) into quarters. This would then give you what looked like a 4x4x4, however the normal 4x4x4 edges would be cut into 2 pieces such that each piece had only one sticker. The Doctor version could have slice turns only but it would also be easy enough to add the face turn ability back into the puzzle if you started from a Mixup Cube and not a Doctor Cube. I'd have to think a bit more about a 5x5x5 version. You might need to start fuding things a bit at this stage but I don't see why if couldn't be made to work.

Carl