| |
So, out of curiosity, I started toying around with the smallest possible
Lego-cube that is smooth on all sides. IE no studs, stud holes, technic pin
holes, etc showing on any of the 6 faces.
Getting a 6x6x6 stud cube wasn't too hard... a 5x5x5 was tricky, but doable, and
a 4x4x4 was similarly tricky but doable. But try as I might, I couldn't get a
smaller one.
So, challenge time: What's the smallest smooth cube you can build? And what's
the fewest pieces you can do it in? (My 4x4x4 cube took 23 pieces, although it
could be built flimsily with 21 pieces).
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, David Eaton wrote:
> So, out of curiosity, I started toying around with the smallest possible
> Lego-cube that is smooth on all sides. IE no studs, stud holes, technic pin
> holes, etc showing on any of the 6 faces.
>
> Getting a 6x6x6 stud cube wasn't too hard... a 5x5x5 was tricky, but doable,
> and a 4x4x4 was similarly tricky but doable. But try as I might, I couldn't
> get a smaller one.
Great challenge, Dave! I gave this a shot for about 45 minutes.
I made a 3x3x3...but it has two tiny square holes (4x4 LDU) It uses 18 parts.
> So, challenge time: What's the smallest smooth cube you can build? And what's
> the fewest pieces you can do it in? (My 4x4x4 cube took 23 pieces, although it
> could be built flimsily with 21 pieces).
Hmm, my 4x4x4 took 24 pieces, but it's very sturdy. Half of those are 2x2 tiles
though. It isn't very complicated at all...not nearly as tricky as the 5x5,
IMO. I can think of a way to do the 4x4 in about 16 pieces, but it uses
non-traditional connection methods (ie, doesn't use studs) Once you have the
5x5, anything bigger is a breeze.
My 5x5x5 is kinda flimsy, but then again I didn't tinker with it very long.
It'd be interesting to see how ours compare.
I also figured out a way to do a 6x6 using 32 pieces with all legitimated stud
connections, but I didn't build it. Again, half of those are tiles.
--Bram
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> Great challenge, Dave! I gave this a shot for about 45 minutes.
> I made a 3x3x3...but it has two tiny square holes (4x4 LDU) It uses 18 parts.
Oops...that's not quite true. It's actually 2.8 x 2.8 x 3 studs:
http://asphodel.org/bsv/?path=bl/misc/Schleim
My 4 and 5 stud ones are exact though :)
--Bram
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> In lugnet.build.schleim, David Eaton wrote:
> > So, out of curiosity, I started toying around with the smallest possible
> > Lego-cube that is smooth on all sides. IE no studs, stud holes, technic pin
> > holes, etc showing on any of the 6 faces.
> >
> > Getting a 6x6x6 stud cube wasn't too hard... a 5x5x5 was tricky, but doable,
> > and a 4x4x4 was similarly tricky but doable. But try as I might, I couldn't
> > get a smaller one.
>
> Great challenge, Dave! I gave this a shot for about 45 minutes.
> I made a 3x3x3...but it has two tiny square holes (4x4 LDU) It uses 18
> parts.
Closer than I got! That's pretty cool...
> > So, challenge time: What's the smallest smooth cube you can build? And
> > what's the fewest pieces you can do it in? (My 4x4x4 cube took 23 pieces,
> > although it could be built flimsily with 21 pieces).
>
> Hmm, my 4x4x4 took 24 pieces, but it's very sturdy. Half of those are 2x2
> tiles though. It isn't very complicated at all...
Yeah, mine turned out uber-simple:
http://www.suave.net/~dave/images/4x4x4cube.jpg
(minus 1 1x4 brick to expose the inner headlight bricks, and minus 2 headlight
bricks (not really necessary) for a lower piece count)
> I can think of a way to do the 4x4 in about 16 pieces, but it uses
> non-traditional connection methods (ie, doesn't use studs)
Ooo, neat! You'll have to share!
> Once you have the 5x5, anything bigger is a breeze. My 5x5x5 is kinda
> flimsy, but then again I didn't tinker with it very long. It'd be
> interesting to see how ours compare.
The 5x5x5 I build is pretty dinkily flimsy. Rather than Ldraw the whole thing,
here's the only interesting bit:
http://www.suave.net/~dave/images/5x5x5cube.jpg
So quite a few bits that are only held on by a single stud...
> I also figured out a way to do a 6x6 using 32 pieces with all legitimated
> stud connections, but I didn't build it. Again, half of those are tiles.
Using a similar method to my 4x4x4, the minimum piece count I can get for a
6x6x6 is 29 pieces (again, pretty flimsy-- can add 2 pieces and make it at least
not so flimsy as to fall apart in your hand)
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> In lugnet.build.schleim, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> > Great challenge, Dave! I gave this a shot for about 45 minutes.
> > I made a 3x3x3...but it has two tiny square holes (4x4 LDU) It uses 18 parts.
>
> Oops...that's not quite true. It's actually 2.8 x 2.8 x 3 studs:
> http://asphodel.org/bsv/?path=bl/misc/Schleim
> My 4 and 5 stud ones are exact though :)
> --Bram
Doh! Yeah, I got a 3x3x3 that had 4 studs poking out, that was as close as I was
able to get...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, David Eaton wrote:
> Yeah, mine turned out uber-simple:
> http://www.suave.net/~dave/images/4x4x4cube.jpg
> (minus 1 1x4 brick to expose the inner headlight bricks, and minus 2 headlight
> bricks (not really necessary) for a lower piece count)
>
> > I can think of a way to do the 4x4 in about 16 pieces, but it uses
> > non-traditional connection methods (ie, doesn't use studs)
>
> Ooo, neat! You'll have to share!
Ok, here are mine:
http://asphodel.org/bsv/?path=bl/misc/Schleim/Cubes
First is the minimum pieces 4x4x4, but it's kind of cheating.
Next are the exploded and unexploded views of the center of the sturdy 4x4x4
that I actually built.
> The 5x5x5 I build is pretty dinkily flimsy. Rather than Ldraw the whole thing,
> here's the only interesting bit:
> http://www.suave.net/~dave/images/5x5x5cube.jpg
Ok, so that's the center 5x5x1 section plus the attachment for the top and or
bottom which are built studs up, 5x5 bricks x 5 plates? The connection for the
top seems unneccesarily complicated...unless your design is actually a bit more
complicated. I can think of a few ways to make it much sturdier...think I
might...
For my 5x5x5 (see link above) build 5b x 1b x 10p walls around the red pieces,
and tile over the gray parts, and stick it all together...not too sturdy either.
> > I also figured out a way to do a 6x6 using 32 pieces with all legitimated
> > stud connections, but I didn't build it. Again, half of those are tiles.
> Using a similar method to my 4x4x4, the minimum piece count I can get for a
> 6x6x6 is 29 pieces
A 6x6x6 could easily be made like the first 4x4x4 above. Or you can make one
using just 3 unique parts:
24 x 1x6 tile
4 x 4x6 brick
8 x headlight brick
--Bram
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> I can think of a few ways to make it much sturdier...
> think I might...
OK...got it...but I don't feel like LDrawing anymore :P
> A 6x6x6 could easily be made like the first 4x4x4 above. Or you can make one
> using just 3 unique parts:
> 24 x 1x6 tile
> 4 x 4x6 brick
> 8 x headlight brick
whoops...
and 4 x 4x6 plate
--Bram
|
|
| |
My challenge was even more challenging: building a die with smooth tiles on all
six sides.
You may have missed it when I announced it on Fri, 21 Nov 2003 (I didn’t know
there was a schleim-newsgroup).
I started with a 9x9x9 die, very soon followed by a 7x7x7 die. In the end I
managed to make it 5x5x5.
All together:
Go to my webpage
for more pictures.
Schleim on
Maarten
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Nathan Proudlove wrote:
> I actually didn't think I would be able to do it but I stumbled upon this
> configuration for a 2x2, smooth cube with four pieces.
It doesn't quite work. The flange on the stud-pin leaves a gap between the
brick and the lower tile.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> Ok, so that's the center 5x5x1 section plus the attachment for the top and or
> bottom which are built studs up, 5x5 bricks x 5 plates? The connection for
> the top seems unneccesarily complicated...unless your design is actually a
> bit more complicated.
Heh, that's what I get for toying around and calling "done" the first thing that
worked. :) I hadn't even thought of that until just now, but yeah, could easily
reduce that mess of 5 pieces down to a single 1x1 with side studs on its side...
Durh.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Nathan Proudlove wrote:
| |
I actually didn’t think I would be able to do it but I stumbled upon this
configuration for a 2x2, smooth cube with four pieces.
|
It doesn’t quite work. The flange on the stud-pin leaves a gap between the
brick and the lower tile.
|
Yeah, I’ve tried that technique before (for a different project) and noticed the
same gap. How about using a small bit of flex tubing inside a bit of pneumatic
tubing like so:
No gap:
And, it’s still technically 100% Lego, though I can understand that some people
would feel inclined to frown upon this type of solution... :-)
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Mark Riley wrote:
snip
| |
Yeah, I’ve tried that technique before (for a different project) and noticed
the same gap. How about using a small bit of flex tubing inside a bit of
pneumatic tubing like so:
snip
No gap:
snip
And, it’s still technically 100% Lego, though I can understand that some
people would feel inclined to frown upon this type of solution... :-)
Mark
|
Bram and I were discussing this and we had both came up with this modification.
If you take 4 1x1 tiles and put them end on into one of the 2x2 tiles you can
use them to attach the tile to the brick.
This isn’t a standard stud to tube connection but it can be sturdy. Seems to be
variable depending on who builds it and other vagaries. I’ve rolled one as dice
while another fell apart.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Dan Sabath wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.schleim, Mark Riley wrote:
snip
| |
Yeah, I’ve tried that technique before (for a different project) and noticed
the same gap. How about using a small bit of flex tubing inside a bit of
pneumatic tubing like so:
snip
No gap:
snip
And, it’s still technically 100% Lego, though I can understand that some
people would feel inclined to frown upon this type of solution... :-)
Mark
|
Bram and I were discussing this and we had both came up with this
modification.
If you take 4 1x1 tiles and put them end on into one of the 2x2 tiles you can
use them to attach the tile to the brick.
This isn’t a standard stud to tube connection but it can be sturdy. Seems to
be variable depending on who builds it and other vagaries. I’ve rolled one as
dice while another fell apart.
|
Wow, that’s clever. Nice work!
So I am wondering if it is even possible to go smaller. The geometric ratio
seems to suggest not, but then I keep thinking that’s the smallest you can go
and someone goes smaller.
|
|
|
