 | | 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. (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (17 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, 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 (...) (17 years ago, 23-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 (...) (17 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 (17 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. (...) (17 years ago, 19-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| |
