I have no idea if this has been made before, but the idea came to me out of the blue. This is my first major (and completed) puzzle design. All layers should be able to turn 90°~360°, and the puzzle adds just a little bit of jumbling due to the extra layer. Dimensions are 30mm x 30mm x 40mm and will use Maru Mini 30mm screws, springs, and core (optional). Current cost in Shapeways is $38.81. What do you guys think?

The puzzle can be viewed on Shapeways here

Is the top (extended) layer's center attached to the core? It looks separate. But I like this idea. If scrambled properly, I can see the top layer being a hassle to solve.

EDIT: Okay, maybe not as difficult as I though, but I still really like the idea.

If it is attached I think the 2nd layer down’s center needs to be rounded. I’m not an expert though.

The top cap is extended and split in a way that the cap can actually twist, allowing the extended layer to turn. I had to add this functionality after realizing that although the extended layer was separated, it was still "bandaged" due to the top center piece extending through two layers.





To give you all a hint as to how this problem was overcome:

Wouldn't this solve like a 3x3x3. The top layer can be turned, but it can't be scrambled.

It can be scrambled. You can see that the top and the second layers are combined to form an extended 3x3 top layer, so the top layer can be scrambled.



EDIT: Oh crap, I just realized a flaw with this design... As soon as the extended pieces start to jumble, they're going to fall out of their spots. So that means that I have to connect the extended pieces to the internal sphere that connects the other pieces together. Back to the drawing board!

CBC: The extra layer is U in this example. Do any PLL algorithm, turn the extra layer, do any other PLL algorithm, turn the extra layer, etc. You can technically solve the 3x3x3 aspect just plainly, but the extra layer would be off and definitely a mind-crushing setup for the unprepared. Solving this layer would actually take a considerable amount of work beyond a normal 3x3x3 solve if the scrambler knew what to do.

If you were to do this on all 6 faces (alike the Reach-Out cube), this puzzle would be a pretty interesting solve. You could get away with any number of off-center puzzles with a careful combination of dissymmetry.

Under normal circumstances I would have corrected the use of 'jumbling' here, but now that I think about it... the moves are blocked in a way that can't be unbandaged, right? I mean, if you get really creative you can try (and the harder I think, the more plausible it seems), but I'm not sure I've seen this kind of jumbling before.

I don't think they will fall out of their slots. But if you wanted to redesign it, this is basically a fully functional 3x3x5 with one layer cut off.
As for scrambling, you can just do some PLLs, turn the very top layer, do some more PLLs, repeat until the top two layers are scrambled. Then proceed to 3x3 scrambling. You can emulate this by taking a 3x3x5 (proportional or cubic, doesn't matter) and bandaging the bottom two layers together to form one layer (maybe with tape or just keep track of which layers you are scrambling)

That would be a cross cube.

Aww man, Tony Fisher made that already? I have one drawn up in Solidworks, thinking I was all cool and stuff... Well, mine is slightly different, I suppose it's like a shape + sticker mod of a Cross Cube. Actually, I wonder how it would look if I finished all the fillets and did the caps... Maybe I'll finish that up and post it as well.

Correct. These parts won't fall out because the 3x3x3 parts that it grips into are also next to 3x3x3 parts. There should be no reason for these to fall out.

*facepalm*


Why not take an existing 3x3x5 and replace one layer with 3x3x3 parts? (or alternatively, two 3x3x5 to get those parts if the pieces aren't quite right)

Correct. These parts won't fall out because the 3x3x3 parts that it grips into are also next to 3x3x3 parts. There should be no reason for these to fall out.

Yeah, I just went back and looked at that again. They would stay fine because the tabs for the extended layer cubies go into the next layer instead of vice versa.

Rouricht made a similar puzzle, which looked like a 3x3x3 but was a 3x3x4 with one layer cut off. Buying this from shapeways does not make much sense for me, because you can easily make it from a Witeden crazy 3x3 and a normal 3x3. That would cost around 15$.

I wouldn't say that this puzzle jumbles. It can be viewed as a bandaged Cross Cube (5 of the extended layers' pieces bandaged to the pieces below them, making those extensions redundant). The "extra" face can be scrambled, but consciously. If you were to extend another face or two, those pieces could mix up more, while rotations still being somewhat restricted.

isnt this a known mod? ive had one for a while now, ill post vid in a min.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UDvxHIKQTs&feature=plcp&context=C3bbb423UDOEgsToPDskK68N5jrJyYUGBbXv5HMJ3A

Come to think of it, I'm sure I've seen an offset 3x3 done as well.

There's always someone who's going to go one better isn't there
Now, I could say I planned it if they matched
It's functional though.
I think C4U does a combo 3x3x6 also.
EDIT: I just figured out a little method too.. it's not really very difficult, you just use your domino algs, interesting though, more interesting than I first thought it would be.

@Owen, S3rzz: Can you post some (additional) images of your creations?

its not the most efficient mod, but what i had was a witeden crazy 3x3 and taking the d layer out and using normal 3x3 cubies to make it flush. then with the top layer i kept the crazy 3x3 cubies in there but did it much the way of making a ff 3x3x5. (unbandage the internal top layer and glue solid cubies to it to make it a turnable layer) you should check out cbcubes tutorual on how to make one if interested) i will post pictures later on if you are still interested. and for the c4u mod you did up there with the 3x3x5's/3x3x7 that actually was a lot of fun thanks.

Great design,
remind me to my one in 2008 this vdo
other 3x3x3 version by SmaZ

i actually solved it like a normal 3x3 and then used plls to get the top 2/3 to be u perms and solved it from there.







as you can see those are the extended layers which you would use on only 1 side (that is a view of a fully funtional 3x3x5 for the sake of showing you. and for that top layer you would use regular 3x3 cubies.