Tony Fisher's 66mm 6x6x6

Tony Fisher · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm

I couldn't resist giving this a go though now I kind of wish I hadn't bothered.
In a different thread I spoke of cutting a 6x6x6 V-Cube down so that it was properly proportioned with cubic cubies. The modification only requires the removal of 1.5mm from each face though it's hardly a ten minute job. Even if it works the resulting puzzle would be barely any different to a regular 6x6x6. I gave it a shot and was quite surprised at the result. I had been worried about the centre four squares on each side becoming too thin but they are fine. However eight other pieces on each face very slightly change their shape. Because I knew these pieces would survive a cut down I hadn't even checked what would happen to them.
So, pretty much a waste of time and I didn't achieve what I wanted anyway. I am tempted to call it a mini 6x6x6 but just 3mm smaller is kind of taking the mickey.

SaiyanKirby · **Joined:** Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:18 pm **Location:** MA, USA

Gimme! :O

Jared · **Posted:** Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:52 pm

You should include that ruler in all your other photos. It pretty much says it all.

Aleksey · **Posted:** Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:49 pm

What's interesting, when you shave it like you did, it get's somewhat similar to these designs: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13800

MarkSS · **Joined:** Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:29 am **Location:** UK

Mathematical musing.

This version has less cubic/apparently cubic cubies than the original.

Original (96 or 104): 16 on each face plus 8 corners (albeit larger)
This (80): 8 on each face , 2 on each edge and 8 corners.

Thomas · **Posted:** Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:16 am

Tony, I don't think this is a waste of time at all. I really like how it looks now.
It's so much better than the regular version with bigger outside cubies.

Thomas

RoboticFresca · **Posted:** Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:55 am

I like the not perfect cubies

DragonCuber · **Joined:** Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:37 pm **Location:** UK

Wow, that looks really funky

We're getting remarkbly close to a correctly porportioned 6x6x6, it's starting to get me excited

Monopoly · **Posted:** Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:43 am

The 6x6x6 has non-cubic cubies? :O Call me a noob, that's news to me! Also, it isn't very apparent that the 'new' 6x6x6 has any more cubic cubies than the original. As a matter of fact, on the ORiginal, the cubies looked like rectangular prisms, if not cubes, while on this variant it looks rather like some abstract shape, kin of like Olz's higher order things only not as extreme.

TheCube · **Posted:** Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:03 pm

Monopoly wrote:

The 6x6x6 has non-cubic cubies?

yea, the outer layer (non-center pieces) are a little bigger. if you compare the corner piece piece with a center piece, you'll see a difference

Tony Fisher · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm

Monopoly wrote:

The 6x6x6 has non-cubic cubies? :O Call me a noob, that's news to me! Also, it isn't very apparent that the 'new' 6x6x6 has any more cubic cubies than the original. As a matter of fact, on the ORiginal, the cubies looked like rectangular prisms, if not cubes, while on this variant it looks rather like some abstract shape, kin of like Olz's higher order things only not as extreme.

Tony Fisher wrote:

I gave it a shot and was quite surprised at the result. I had been worried about the centre four squares on each side becoming too thin but they are fine. However eight other pieces on each face very slightly change their shape. Because I knew these pieces would survive a cut down I hadn't even checked what would happen to them.
So, pretty much a waste of time and I didn't achieve what I wanted anyway.

Tony Fisher's 66mm 6x6x6

Who is online