Hi Guys,

Well here it finally is. I scrapped together all the bits and pieces from old emails, the copyright document and whatnot into an article. Keep in mind that this is now 6 years old and there are some parts that would have been improved.

http://waynejohnson.net/6x6x6.asp

Hope you guys enjoy reading it.

Wayne

*Alert* *Alert*
*Information Overflow!!!*



Seriously though, that was some Odyssey. Thanks for sharing it.
And to be honest, I would not be surprised if a small workaround is found
for the edge pieces.




Pantazis


PS Lately, I have started to learn Solidworks, and it is excellent!

Fantastic! I can't believe that was 6 years ago! So the plan would have been for the corner piece (green line) to have an extension that went back into the void (red line)? That should have worked. Very impressive!

For the love of god why did you stop assembling it? you had a mere few hours left to test how it worked and a few more for adjustments? was there a flaw in the design? how hard would it be to assemble? more importantly, DO YOU STILL HAVE THE CUBE?

please finish the job

Ditto! I would love to see this completed.

Very clever approach to the 6x6! It reminds me a little of Tyler's 6x6.

Yep, I would like to see it too.

if he had all the parts ready I don't see what was to stop him from at least assembling it and making a test video. it looked like a very impressive mechanism! not as fluid as the v-cubes, but for coming up with it on his own its amazing

really very awesome design, did the halves at least turn well? why did the gap "have" to be filled in?

somewhat off topic, but why would the ball method work for a 6x6?

Wow.

I remember seeing some design pictures at TwistyMegasite back in the day, but I never knew you got that far. I'm impressed.

Thank you for sharing.

Really nice, detailed writeup. Amazing stuff. Shame that it hit a wall, but the design was definitely there!

Thanks Wayne.

Thanks guys. Yeah I know it was crazy to stop. Things got really busy around then (one of the reasons I have bailed on Sydney).

And when LaurentB appeared with claims of a 6x6x6, I figured I'd step back if it was just about to appear. We still don't know if those photos were real or not.

If anything, I learned a lot about 3d modeling and design. So the exercise was valuable enough in itself.

Does that mean you're not going to finish it?

hand it to me, i'll have it done in 2 days =)

This is such an impressive design sausage. I can't say for sure what the advantages or disadvantages are over a V-Cube 6, but i CAN say for sure that the fact that you were able to design, build, and troubleshoot the puzzle with such precision is amazing, even if it's not quite finished. I would love to see this project completed (by you or someone else on the forum) as a testament to your abilities. It would be such an amazing puzzle to own, knowing that you are the only owner of that puzzle, which you designed by yourself before anyone else.

-CC10

Fascinating case study of a puzzle design. I can see how designing longer wings would help the edge piece stay in place, but I think with that design you would need to design longer wings for the pieces farther in as well, otherwise the edge piece would pull the other pieces out of place anyway. As soon as I saw the core the standard 2x2x2 came to mind, actually. In many respects it's the same design.

Maybe it'll be revisited one day. But right now, I have something a little more original in the pipeline...

And this one is getting finished.

Simply amazing. Great job Wayne!

Bravo! That is an eloquent puzzle. That is like comparing the Eastsheen 2x2x2 and 4x4x4 to the V-cube model, and the Rubik's 2x2x2 and 4x4x4 to your model. Because the Eastsheen 2 and 4 have internal 3 and 5 mechanisms, while yours combines the concepts of the Rubik's 2 and 4 cubes, which did not contain higher order mechanisms. As to which one would ultimately turn better? Someday, hopefully you may be able to answer that

I am currently happy with my V-Cube 6x6x6. Maybe you could patent your mechanism, and (if it is good enough) sell/license the design to Rubik's?

Kudos, anyway...

I would certainly patent the mechanism. It's brilliant. And if the folks over at Rubik's have any gusto, they should be willing to pay handsomely for permission to use your patent. If not, maybe the folks over at Eastsheen would be willing.

I like it! Does it turn well?

Not sure how it ended up turning out. As others have correctly stated, it was unstable where some parts needed extending etc.

I really doubt the whole patenting concept. It is officially copywritten as a sealed document mailed to myself. A very nice way to do it and prove your claims should you ever need to.

But on the patenting issue, I'm sure Meffert has a patent on things like the megaminx however that doesn't stop reproductions that we see pop up like the larger one from out of asia.

The Meffert's 5x5x5 and Rubik's 5x5x5 are essentially the same thing. Did Rubik's clone Mefferts? I believe they did.

But I guess once a puzzle is out there, anyone can make a die from it and market their own out of asia or elsewhere. And we know that if there was a patent, no one would spend the money to challenge it.

It's an interesting discussion of it's own.