 | | Smallest cube ever!?
|
| As per this challenge way back 3 years ago ( (URL) ), I present the 2x2x2 cube. No gap this time from the technic half pin. It doesn't fit quite tight but usually will not fall apart when picked up either. This is inspired by (URL) . (2 URLs) (18 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, lugnet.announce.moc, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) It seems we are condemned to re-discover endlessly building tricks : (URL) (18 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) AH! Well, there you go. I missed that the first time around. Leave it to Bram and Dan though to beat me to it. The've both been at it longer than I. Good work all. (18 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| Of course, the thing that's still missing is the 3x3x3 cube! We've discovered how to make a 2x2x2, a 4x4x4, 5x5x5, and anything larger that's an integer multiple of studs... But no 3x3x3's :( The other thing that I haven't seen tried is making (...) (18 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) hmmm. I have a suspicion that most non-integer cubes are impossible because of the way the surfaces can be constructed. Each side of a surface must be constructed out of I + 1/5 J plate units (I and J integer) since we can only make them out (...) (18 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) Of course this should be all non-integer cubes are impossible... Tim (18 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) To both reply to this post and the one mentionned by Didier about the sturdyness, I noticed that if you put the 4 1x1 tiles stud out and in the exact middle of the 2x2 tile then the building will be more sturdy than putting the 1x1 tiles in (...) (18 years ago, 23-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) Hi, Here is my attemp of a 3x3x3 cube: (3 URLs) The two 1x3 sides are a bit fragile because they are only cliped on less than half the height of a stud. This cube will be then probably disqualified for that, but maybe it will give some ideas (...) (18 years ago, 23-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) No, the real trick is in getting 1x1 tiles out of the 2x2 brick afterwards! Jason R (18 years ago, 23-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) I tried and I think that it is better to use 2 x 50746 slope 30 1 x 1 x 2/3 ((URL) instead of 4 x 1x1 tiles Saso (18 years ago, 25-Feb-07, to lugnet.build.schleim, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Timothy Gould wrote: (snip) (...) I'm not so sure about that... If I understand correctly, the main issue here is to produce a flat square surface with a non-integer number of studs as side, right? Because that is certainly (...) (18 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) It's still an integer number of plates (which was my condition). Tim (18 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Smallest cube ever!?
|
| (...) Although it would appear my terminology disagreed with my maths ;) So you are right in your reading and I am wrong in my concept but not my principal. So to keep the terminology the same just replace all 5s by 2s and the rest remains the same. (...) (18 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| |
