Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:05 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: New 3x3x3 well sort of... (WARNING: Pics and animations)
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Sorry folks with dial-up this may be slow.

Anyways, lets start at the beginning. This idea came to me after seeing this video:

http://tinyurl.com/y4jrev

It was pointed out in this thread:

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5653

In that thread you can also see the beginnings of this idea here:

Image

The idea is further discussed here:

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5719

and here:

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1359&start=50

And I can already see some of you saying "That's a 5x5x5, why is this thread titled a new 3x3x3?" Give me a minute and I'll explain...

Lets build the 5x5x5 first. Its built from 6 different pieces and for each I have an animation and a picture I want to post. I'll put each in its own post below.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Lets start with the corners:

Image

You need 8 of these:

Image

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Next come the edge pieces:

Image

You need 24 of these:

Image

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
The other edge piece:

Image

You need 12 of these:

Image

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Now on to the face pieces:

Image

You need 24 of these:

Image

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Another face piece:

Image

Again you need 24 of these:

Image

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
And finally the face centers:

Image

You just need 6 of these:

Image

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: somewhere in the universe
Ooo that's pretty cool because there is no central core.

_________________
...
3x3 29.95(lucky 28.05)
1.92 rubik's magic
My favorite animal is the Pfargtl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:27 am
Hey, now thats an interesting concept! Having interlocking grooves - instead of requiring 2 pieces to lock another into place, one will lock onto another one. Seems like an interesting mechanical solution to creating cuboids as well :P
However, I imagine that some of the thin terminations of the female groove may prove somewhat weak.

Good work wwwmwww! All that's left now is for someone to fabricate one of these.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 4:08 am
absolute genius. no question about it, this could revolutionize cubical rubik's puzzles. get a 3d printer!!!!

_________________
Hey Peter, whaaaat's happening.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Now if you add that up:

8+24+12+24+24+6 = 98

And:

5x5x5 = 125

The difference is 27 or 3x3x3.

So place a working 3x3x3 made of 27 identical shapes inside this 5x5x5 shell. I'll leave it as an excersise to work out the exact shape of those 27 identical pieces. :)

Think of it as a 3x3x3 that wears its innards on the outside. This technique can be used to make a functional 7x7x7 out of 343 identical pieces. To my knowledge its the only way to make a working 7x7x7 out of identical sized cubies where the corner cubies don't fall off or the shape of the cube is deformed in some way. You just need a clear 9x9x9 case or shell to put it in. You can start with something like this and do what I did above if you wanted to.

Image

Enjoy,
Carl


Last edited by wwwmwww on Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:01 pm
what an excellent idea.

some thoughts, how are you going to get it together though? is there going to be enough play in it to put it together, yet not so much that it will fall apart?

That also looks like it will be an alignment nightmare. may make the ends of the male peices more tapered to help itself align during a turn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:29 am
Agreed. Don't you really only need a spherical male piece to sit in the tracks? That would give some play in aligning it, I think.

What if the center pieces were split into a body and a cap that were screwed together? Would that help at all with assembly?

I can't see this thing being assembled (or used) in practice without a supporting piece in the center. You could make the hollow core spherical and reinforce it with a lightweight sphere inside. Maybe even attach the center pieces to the sphere (kind of like the core of a Rubik's 4x4x4 but without the tracks).

Anyway, brilliant idea!

Edit: corrected grammar


Last edited by dim5 on Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: somewhere in the universe
Also what would happen if it locked up and you droped onto the ground?

_________________
...
3x3 29.95(lucky 28.05)
1.92 rubik's magic
My favorite animal is the Pfargtl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2000 2:51 am
Location: New Ulm, Minnesota, USA
What I want to know is. How in the heck are you going to tell if the inside 3x3x3 cube is mixed up or solved? Theres no possible way. But I do like the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Norway
Hey !!

Intriguing 8-)

Could you please please ASAP make an 'animation' of a fully assembled cube which is being manipulated, and with some transparent cubies in order to see the inside. :P :twisted:

-Per :solved:

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans" -John Lennon, Beautiful Boy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:07 pm
Nice... I don't think I envisioned male/female parts, though not sure anymore. But I'm sure at least in the beginning I hoped it'd hold together just because of the connected cubies on the axes and flat wings. Anyway, great animations. I always had trouble envisioning how the pieces would look like and I wanted to render it and downloaded povray but that's where I stopped. What program did you use?

Oh and you're a cheater. The 3x3 is not made up of 27 identical parts, it's made up of 27 identical parts plus a lot of extra stuff parts...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:19 pm
Location: Yaroslavl, Russia and Maryland, USA
I remember seeing a patent for Master Pyraminx that was designed along the same principles. While clever in design, this kind of a mechanism is not very aesthetic as these notches and grooves are very visible on a Master Pyraminx when it is being mixed.

_________________
Aleksey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:05 am
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
It seems like the Male piece might be prone to snapping off. This is still a very well thought out and ingenious idea.

Would this only be possible with odd cubes?

_________________
Fridrich
3x3 PB 22.63
3x3 Av 30.57

25, Male
Started cubing Oct 15 '05

Out of the game, but not completely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Amazing! I want to see more!

Despite the doubts, it would be very cool to see in reality.

_________________
PLL 15/21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve-Drdc8HMg
OLD NAME : Kid_with_teh_mohawk
pb 22.19
pb avg
27.61 = 26.74, 26.69, 26.98, 23.16, 26.14, 24.63, 23.71, (22.19), 30.41, (35.42), 34.97, 32.69


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Myke wrote:
Ooo that's pretty cool because there is no central core.


Thanks for all the comments guys. I have very little free time these days but I'll try to reply to all the comments I can. If you've posted a question it WILL be answered. It just might not be the same day the question is asked. I'll also try to answer the questions in the order they are asked.

Thanks,
Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
wfung wrote:
However, I imagine that some of the thin terminations of the female groove may prove somewhat weak.


True. It looks good on paper. As I don't have a real one I can't really comment on how well it would hold up in practice. In principle I think a meterial could be chosen that would make this possible.

wfung wrote:
Good work wwwmwww! All that's left now is for someone to fabricate one of these.....


Thanks... and yes I'd love to see this made. Better yet I'd like to hold one in my hands. ;)

Carl

P.S. Feel free to call me Carl. Its my name. Wwwmwww is just the handle I use in most forums I frequent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Quinn Lewis wrote:
absolute genius. no question about it, this could revolutionize cubical rubik's puzzles. get a 3d printer!!!!


I'm not sure about revolutionizing cubical puzzles but thanks.

So what is the cheapest 3D printer out there? I doubt I could afford one.

Carl


Last edited by wwwmwww on Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Joe Schmoe wrote:
what an excellent idea.


Thanks.

Joe Schmoe wrote:
some thoughts, how are you going to get it together though? is there going to be enough play in it to put it together, yet not so much that it will fall apart?


No, I wouldn't expect there to be enough play to put together as is. In POV-Ray its easy. In the real would I would expect a few of the male pieces would have to be screwed or glued in place during assembly.

Joe Schmoe wrote:
That also looks like it will be an alignment nightmare. may make the ends of the male peices more tapered to help itself align during a turn.


The male pieces are arcs of tori capped with spheres. As such a slight misalignment should correct itself when a turn is attempted. Also I'm not making any claims this is the best design for speed cubing. I just wanted to show it as a new design. And with this design it should be possible to make puzzles that aren't currently possible with the other designs. For example you could make a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5 that is inturn inside a 7x7x7 and make it possible to solve all three puzzles, not just the 7x7x7 on the outside.

How to see the puzzles on the inside? Well someone else has already asked that question so I'll get to that in a minute.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
Wow.... looks like a 3-d magic, but... without strings! :D

In theory it looks brilliant, good luck with making a hard copy og it....
Please keep us updated! Genius design!!!




Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
dim5 wrote:
Agreed. Don't you really only need a spherical male piece to sit in the tracks? That would give some play in aligning it, I think.


Yes a spehere is all that is needed for this idea to work on paper. In practice I think a lone sphere used as the male conections might give too much play to the pieces and make it harder to rotate. The arcs or tori should help with the alignment.

dim5 wrote:
What if the center pieces were split into a body and a cap that were screwed together? Would that help at all with assembly?


Yes, it very well might. See the idea I mentioned above. Another idea is maybe the whole puzzle could be made in a 3D printer already fully assembled. That way there is no assembly. I don't know enough about 3D printers to know if that's actually possible or not though.

dim5 wrote:
I can't see this thing being assembled (or used) in practice without a supporting piece in the center. You could make the hollow core spherical and reinforce it with a lightweight sphere inside. Maybe even attach the center pieces to the sphere (kind of like the core of a Rubik's 4x4x4 but without the tracks).

Anyway, brilliant idea!


Thanks. I agree the hollow 5x5x5 may need some interior support but if you place 27 cubies inside of the right size I think that would strengthen it up quite a bit. To turn the core into a sphere sort of defeats the purpose.

Carl


Last edited by wwwmwww on Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: RPI, Troy NY, USA
dim5 wrote:
Don't you really only need a spherical male piece to sit in the tracks? That would give some play in aligning it, I think.


I agree with you on that. With the male pieces you have set up in the above pictures/animations, they would give a little if not properly aligned, but if it were just a sphere, there would be less chance of locking up and would also allow for eaisier assembly in some ways. I think that's correct, in theory of course, someone correct me if my thoughts are absurd...

Hey, anyone think this might be one of the new Meffert's puzzles? A cube within a cube. It would be amazing if something like this were ever on the market.

[edit]

On how to see what colors are where on the inner cubes... I might as well throw in my 2 cents... If there are going to be transparent cubies on the outer layers, then using LEDs and sanded surfaces could work, for the outer layers at least. The sanding wouldnt be over the entire outer surface, but enough would be left unsanded so you can see through to the next layers. The sanded part would pick up the light from the LED and the non-sanded wouldnt.

This was an idea presented with the Acryillic Magnetic Cube, and it sounded good, so I thought I would post it here. Sure, you might have to replace batteries, and the cube would always light up, even when you dont want it to, but if it works, it works, hah.

_________________
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) 2011
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering

Phi Mu Delta
Nu Theta Chapter


Last edited by GarrettDickerson on Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Myke wrote:
Also what would happen if it locked up and you droped onto the ground?


I don't know. I guess that would depend on what you made it out of.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Darren Grewe wrote:
What I want to know is. How in the heck are you going to tell if the inside 3x3x3 cube is mixed up or solved? Theres no possible way. But I do like the idea.


I see two ways.

1) If its just one puzzles inside anothere say a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5 then all you have to do is make the 5x5x5 out of something transparent. Use small stickers on the 5x5x5 so you can see the 3x3x3 on the inside.

2) If you have more then two puzzles, say a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5 inside a 7x7x7 then you could do the following. Drill holes through the face pieces of the 7x7x7 that allowed you to see the 5x5x5 inside. Then drill smaller holes through the face pieces of the 5x5x5 that allowed you to see the 3x3x3 inside. By face pieces I mean the cubies that are NOT on the edges or the corners. In the solved state the larger holes in the 7x7x7 would have to be inline with the smaller holes in the 5x5x5. The obvious thing to do would be to center the holes on the cubies but I can see reasons why one might want the holes off center.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: puzzlepalace.com
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
puzzle palace has a 3d printer and would certainly entertain helping you create this puzzle as long as you allowed him to share it at the next IPP.

He's a very nice guy to speak to via email and phone as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
perfredlund wrote:
Hey !!

Intriguing 8-)

Could you please please ASAP make an 'animation' of a fully assembled cube which is being manipulated, and with some transparent cubies in order to see the inside. :P :twisted:

-Per :solved:


That's the plan. However some of these animations took days to render so it may be a few months before I have what you are after.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:01 pm
Thanks for all the input Carl. I hope you look at all the comments not a knocks, but as suggestions / brainstorming to make it the best it could be.

One question, anyone on the forum might be able to answer, but is it nessicary for the male and female pieces to actually interlock, or would a deep enough groove do the trick?

Keep up the good work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2000 9:11 pm
Location: Delft, the Netherlands
If the only part of the puzzle you are interested in is the inner cube, then you don't need to make the outer layers of the container twistable - i.e. you can as it were glue the outer layers together.

I'm pretty sure I have seen a patent with this kind of mechanism for hollow 3x3x3 and 5x5x5 cubes. The difficulty with a mechanism like this is that
1. It has no springs to keep the pieces tightly together
2. It therefore needs to be very accurately made to have little wiggle room (otherwise it will rattle, and not hold its shape very well).
3. It is extremely hard to make it tight enough, but not so tight that friction makes it immovable.

With the above in mind, I doubt that a tongue with a circular cross-section as you have chosen is a good idea. It would probably wedge into the narrow part of the groove the moment the cubies are pulled apart slightly. Much better would be a T or L shaped tongue.

_________________
Jaap

Jaap's Puzzle Page:
http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Stefan wrote:
Nice... I don't think I envisioned male/female parts, though not sure anymore. But I'm sure at least in the beginning I hoped it'd hold together just because of the connected cubies on the axes and flat wings. Anyway, great animations. I always had trouble envisioning how the pieces would look like and I wanted to render it and downloaded povray but that's where I stopped. What program did you use?


I used POV-Ray as well. Here is the code I used to make the pictures and animations above:

http://www.wwwmwww.com/Puzzle/5x5x5.pov

Feel free to play with it if you like. I'd enjoy seeing any renderings that you make.

Stefan wrote:
Oh and you're a cheater. The 3x3 is not made up of 27 identical parts, it's made up of 27 identical parts plus a lot of extra stuff parts...


True... I like to bend the rules. Just think of all the extra stuff as packaging. :)

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Aleksey wrote:
I remember seeing a patent for Master Pyraminx that was designed along the same principles. While clever in design, this kind of a mechanism is not very aesthetic as these notches and grooves are very visible on a Master Pyraminx when it is being mixed.


Was this Master Pyraminx ever made? Any pictures of the puzzle or diagrams from the patent around?

Thanks,
Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
xcool wrote:
It seems like the Male piece might be prone to snapping off. This is still a very well thought out and ingenious idea.


I'd like to think with the right choice of materials that wouldn't be an issue but I'm sure if this was ever to actually get made there would be design tweaks going from design to actual puzzle. As Jaap points out below there are many other cross-sections that could be used for the shape of the tongue and groove. I picked a circular cross-section for ease of modeling and to show proof of concept. I'm not making the claim that its the best cross-section to use but I do think the circular cross-section should help with auto-aligning the puzzle when rotations are attempted with the puzzle slighly out of alignment.

xcool wrote:
Would this only be possible with odd cubes?


No... I don't think so. I have a design in my head I want to model too that is for a 4x4x4 with a 2x2x2 inside. However in that case the 2x2x2 is key to the puzzle. In other words the hollow 4x4x4 would fall apart. I'm not sure yet if its possible to make a hollow 4x4x4 on its own. I'm still thinking about it.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Clayne H. wrote:
Amazing! I want to see more!

Despite the doubts, it would be very cool to see in reality.


Me too. I have plans to try and make a few photo realistic renders of what I think a finished puzzle would look like (maybe even an animation or two) but I'm not sure I'll be able to take it any further then that.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
kastellorizo wrote:
Wow.... looks like a 3-d magic, but... without strings! :D


One of these days I need to get myself a magic. I still don't understand how they work.

kastellorizo wrote:
In theory it looks brilliant, good luck with making a hard copy og it....
Please keep us updated! Genius design!!!
Pantazis


Will do and thanks,
Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
GarrettDickerson wrote:
I agree with you on that. With the male pieces you have set up in the above pictures/animations, they would give a little if not properly aligned, but if it were just a sphere, there would be less chance of locking up and would also allow for eaisier assembly in some ways. I think that's correct, in theory of course, someone correct me if my thoughts are absurd...


Maybe, I think to know for sure someone would have to actually build the thing.

GarrettDickerson wrote:
Hey, anyone think this might be one of the new Meffert's puzzles? A cube within a cube. It would be amazing if something like this were ever on the market.


I agree with you there. I want one, even if it isn't this design.

GarrettDickerson wrote:
On how to see what colors are where on the inner cubes... I might as well throw in my 2 cents... If there are going to be transparent cubies on the outer layers, then using LEDs and sanded surfaces could work, for the outer layers at least. The sanding wouldnt be over the entire outer surface, but enough would be left unsanded so you can see through to the next layers. The sanded part would pick up the light from the LED and the non-sanded wouldnt.

This was an idea presented with the Acryillic Magnetic Cube, and it sounded good, so I thought I would post it here. Sure, you might have to replace batteries, and the cube would always light up, even when you dont want it to, but if it works, it works, hah.


Interesting idea. What do you think of the two ideas I posted above?

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: somewhere in the universe
wwwmwww wrote:
Aleksey wrote:
I remember seeing a patent for Master Pyraminx that was designed along the same principles. While clever in design, this kind of a mechanism is not very aesthetic as these notches and grooves are very visible on a Master Pyraminx when it is being mixed.


Was this Master Pyraminx ever made? Any pictures of the puzzle or diagrams from the patent around?

Thanks,
Carl

Yes it was made here but I don't know where a patent is.

_________________
...
3x3 29.95(lucky 28.05)
1.92 rubik's magic
My favorite animal is the Pfargtl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: puzzlepalace.com
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
sexualRubiks wrote:
puzzle palace has a 3d printer and would certainly entertain helping you create this puzzle as long as you allowed him to share it at the next IPP.

He's a very nice guy to speak to via email and phone as well.


I'm not familiar with puzzle palace. Is he a poster here? If he is interested in making this to share at the next IPP I'd be happy to help in any way I can. I personally don't have a ton of money I can throw at this. The reason I use POV-Ray is because its free. :)

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Joe Schmoe wrote:
Thanks for all the input Carl. I hope you look at all the comments not a knocks, but as suggestions / brainstorming to make it the best it could be.


Yes, I welcome ALL comments. Nothing has been taken as a knock. To be honest I don't have much puzzle building experience when it comes to real physical puzzles. I'm sure the real puzzle builders around here would have a much better feel for what are good suggestions and what aren't. If I were to actually try and make this I'm sure there would be a lot of trial and error along the way as design tweaks were tested but I personally really don't have the time or skills to go far in that direction at the moment personally. I wanted to get the concept out there for public view and if anyone wants to run with it feel free. My next project here is to see if I can make myself a cool (and more puzzle related) avatar out of these pieces.

Joe Schmoe wrote:
One question, anyone on the forum might be able to answer, but is it nessicary for the male and female pieces to actually interlock, or would a deep enough groove do the trick?

Keep up the good work.


Thanks, and if its just a deep groove what is to keep they layers from coming apart? I think there needs to be some interlocking.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
jaap wrote:
If the only part of the puzzle you are interested in is the inner cube, then you don't need to make the outer layers of the container twistable - i.e. you can as it were glue the outer layers together.


True... but I'd rather have a 3x3x3 inside a 5x5x5. In other words I'm not ONLY interested in the inner cube.

jaap wrote:
I'm pretty sure I have seen a patent with this kind of mechanism for hollow 3x3x3 and 5x5x5 cubes. The difficulty with a mechanism like this is that
1. It has no springs to keep the pieces tightly together
2. It therefore needs to be very accurately made to have little wiggle room (otherwise it will rattle, and not hold its shape very well).
3. It is extremely hard to make it tight enough, but not so tight that friction makes it immovable.


I agree those are all issues that would have to be addressed. And yes the fabrication would have to be very very accurate. If you want springs maybe there could be spring loaded ball bearings put in each of the grooves to help keep the tongue centered and tight with low friction. It doesn't sound cheap but might be a solution.

jaap wrote:
With the above in mind, I doubt that a tongue with a circular cross-section as you have chosen is a good idea. It would probably wedge into the narrow part of the groove the moment the cubies are pulled apart slightly. Much better would be a T or L shaped tongue.


I thought about that some but the sharp edges of the T or L I think might hurt the ability of the puzzle to auto-align. Again to be honest, I'm not sure.

Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Myke wrote:
Yes it was made here but I don't know where a patent is.


I actually have that. But that one isn't make with the tongue and groove technique is it? If it is they aren't visible during rotation.

You can see mine here:
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4733&start=23

Carl

P.S. WOW... all caught up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: somewhere in the universe
Toung and grove, no I don't think it was made.

_________________
...
3x3 29.95(lucky 28.05)
1.92 rubik's magic
My favorite animal is the Pfargtl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:19 pm
Location: Yaroslavl, Russia and Maryland, USA
I guess, I meant this Master Pyraminx patent
Also, take a look at this 7x7x7 and Dino combination.

_________________
Aleksey


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anthony, Google [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group