Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:05 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI
[Admin: Split from V-Cube 8 is available!]

Verdes did not design conical cuts, they are in the EastSheen 4x4x4 and 5x5x5. I also remember someone designing a mini 7x7x7 with a mechanism that was almost identical to the v7, and they were not aware of the similarity, having never seen a V-cube 7 mechanism.

Recently, I have been researching designs after I make my model, to make sure that my designs are legal.

Looking at the patent, it looks like the v8 will have lots of pops.

_________________
I hope you have a cloudy day today
I hope you have a miserable day
I hope everyone is a pain
I hope it rains on your parade
I hope you have a lousy day today

Just Kidding! Have a great day!

Sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
Verdes did not design conical cuts, they are in the EastSheen 4x4x4 and 5x5x5.
This is incorrect.
It is true that a cylinder is technically a degenerate state of a conic section but apart from this no, the ES puzzles are not conical. They are cylindrical, like the Udo Krell design and the Rubik's 3x3x3 before it, and this method just won't work past the 5x5x5. Just look at the cut lines in the patents (parallel to the axis of rotation). It is surprising to me that you can design the puzzles you have and mis-identify something so basic.

Had they been conical we would have had > 5x5x5 cube 20 years before Verdes produced it. Read the forum from before they were released and you will find no shortage of desire and attempts to build 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 puzzles by smart and experienced builders.
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
I also remember someone designing a mini 7x7x7 with a mechanism that was almost identical to the v7, and they were not aware of the similarity, having never seen a V-cube 7 mechanism.
Can you tell us who this is and provide some documentation? This is a large claim to make on behalf of an unknown person. Since the V-Cubes were released many, many puzzles have been influenced by their design. Independent invention does happen (Aleh built a 4x4x4 quite similar to the Péter Sebestény design, for example) but it's much harder to not have seen a mechanism once it has influenced an entire market.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI
The EastSheen 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 corners have stalks on them, which are formed by conical surfaces. The difference that I see is that V-Cubes have larger conical surfaces, therefore longer corner stalks.

I think that what makes V-Cubes special is the spherical layers combined with large cones. For example, the V7 has an innermost 3x3x3 shell, then a 5x5x5 shell, and an outer 7x7x7 shell. Then the center flanges hold them all in place.

IMO: The EastSheen mechanism can make everything that V-Cubes has made.
Attachment:
File comment: "EastSheen" 7x7x7
7x7x7 rubiks cube.png
7x7x7 rubiks cube.png [ 81.22 KiB | Viewed 2598 times ]

_________________
I hope you have a cloudy day today
I hope you have a miserable day
I hope everyone is a pain
I hope it rains on your parade
I hope you have a lousy day today

Just Kidding! Have a great day!

Sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
The EastSheen 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 corners have stalks on them, which are formed by conical surfaces.
Cylinders are cones but not all cones are cylinders. So I'm still not sure if you are talking about cylindrical surfaces or not. Could you post some pictures? Or maybe a drawing that shows the "conical surfaces" you are talking about? In the sketch you just posted of a EastSheen like 7x7x7 I only see cylindrical surfaces. No conical surfaces that aren't cylinders.
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
IMO: The EastSheen mechanism can make everything that V-Cubes has made.
On paper I believe I agree. My intuition is telling me the V-Cube mechanism would be much more stable but I would be very interested in seeing a direct comparison if someone wanted to test this.
DLitwin wrote:
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
I also remember someone designing a mini 7x7x7 with a mechanism that was almost identical to the v7, and they were not aware of the similarity, having never seen a V-cube 7 mechanism.
Can you tell us who this is and provide some documentation?
I too would be very interested to know more about the 7x7x7 to which you refer. It wouldn't be this one would it?
http://etienne.deforas.free.fr/rubiks/7x7x7/My_7x7x7.html
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3207
This is one of the first 7x7x7 attempts that I can remember. This dates back to October 2004. Verdes' patent looks like it was filed in May 2004 but wasn't published until October 2009. Interesting... there is an image in that very thread which dates back to 2005 which shows the use of spherical and conical cuts in a 6x6x6 design. Namely this one...
Attachment:
6Cutaway.JPG
6Cutaway.JPG [ 71.11 KiB | Viewed 2519 times ]
I believe it is safe to say this design wasn't influenced by Verdes' patent. The "Priority date" on Verdes' patent is May 21, 2003. I believe this is the date Verdes claims to have come up with his invention. I'm no legal expert so I'm not sure. But it does appear to me that there were others playing with spherical and conical cuts before Verdes' patent was published. If it existed in any form before May of 2003 I have no idea but things might get interesting if it did.

Anyways... I'm WAY off topic. But there is some interesting discussion about the history of spherical and conical cuts and what may be possible with simple cylindrical cuts here if one of the moderators wants to move this into another thread. I would be interested in what others say on this topic. Also anyone know what became of Etienne de Foras? I see he hasn't posted since 2008.

Back to the 8x8x8. I want one but I'm holding out till I see some reviews... so please share your findings.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Last edited by wwwmwww on Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:21 am
Location: Massachusetts, USA
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
The EastSheen 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 corners have stalks on them, which are formed by conical surfaces.

I don't see how any of the cuts in the image you posted could be considered conical. A conical cut implies that a cross section of the cut along the axis of rotation is neither parallel to nor perpendicular to the axis of rotation. As far as I know, this is not the case for EastSheen cubes.

_________________
Katniss wrote:
Only on this forum would people use a V-cube 7 as a size comparison for a cat :lol:

My Shapeways shop


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI
I didn't include conical cuts in my sketch, as they are not needed. The E-Cube 7x7x7 doesn't have corner stalks, though fillets make it seem like they are there. Spherical shells were first used in the skewb, so Verdes didn't design those either.

P.S.
The patent for the V-cube 2 is cylindrical!
Does that violate the EastSheen patent?

_________________
I hope you have a cloudy day today
I hope you have a miserable day
I hope everyone is a pain
I hope it rains on your parade
I hope you have a lousy day today

Just Kidding! Have a great day!

Sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
The EastSheen 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 corners have stalks on them, which are formed by conical surfaces.
Again, I don't believe your understanding of a conical surface is correct. No one else seems to agree with it.
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
IMO: The EastSheen mechanism can make everything that V-Cubes has made.
I don't believe that is true. For a non-proportioned cube possibly but not with any stability. I think it unreasonable to believe ES didn't pursue this direction, and if it had worked they would have had a product on the market long ago.
But perhaps you can be the first to demonstrate what no one else could achieve. Please show us a functioning stable >5x5x5 cylindrical cube! This may sound sarcastic, so let me state that it is meant sincerely. Just because we can't see how it can happen doesn't make it impossible. But few will be convinced without a functioning physical example. For many years people were skeptical of Verdes' cubes because no one could figure out how he could have done it, everyone was thinking in cylindrical terms. Those few who may have been thinking of shells and cones (Bram, perhaps?) hadn't discussed it much or applied it to making larger puzzles.
wwwmwww wrote:
That was by no means a mini-7x7x7 :) So I can't imagine it was what he meant. (E-Cubes? You never answered us.)
That design isn't near the V-Cubes design. It was a highly innovative non-circular design with very interesting properties as the pieces moved.
wwwmwww wrote:
This is one of the first 7x7x7 attempts that I can remember. This dates back to October 2004. Verdes' patent looks like it was filed in May 2004 but wasn't published until October 2009. Interesting... there is an image in that very thread which dates back to 2005 which shows the use of spherical and conical cuts in a 6x6x6 design. Namely this one...
I see cylindrical cuts, not the conical. But TBTyler is a current member so perhaps he can give us first hand information on this. He definitely didn't have any heads up on the Verdes design but if he was using conical cuts, it was without the crucial innovation to make higher order puzzles work. The community was certainly trying!

Dave :)

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
I didn't include conical cuts in my sketch, as they are not needed. The E-Cube 7x7x7 doesn't have corner stalks, though fillets make it seem like they are there.
I think we are all waiting for pictures or video of this puzzle. You posted picture of your weird 5x5x5, why not pictures of the CAD designs you have printed?
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
Spherical shells were first used in the skewb, so Verdes didn't design those either.
Umm, is this just taking random swipes at Verdes? How is that relevant to the Conical vs. Cylindrical discussion?
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
The patent for the V-cube 2 is cylindrical!
Does that violate the EastSheen patent?
No it isn't. Have a look at the patent (here) figure #2. It very clearly shows a non-parallel cut line, which makes a cone. This is consistent from 2x2x2-11x11x11 in his patent. It is part (but not all) of what he as patenting!
The production V-Cube 2 doesn't match its patent, but doesn't seem much like the many other ES 2x2x2 clones. But I haven't reviewed the ES 2x2x2 patent in detail so I don't know its claims, just the general look of its insides.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:39 pm
Location: Cornwall, United Kingdom
wwwmwww wrote:
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
IMO: The EastSheen mechanism can make everything that V-Cubes has made.
On paper I believe I agree. My intuition is telling me the V-Cube mechanism would be much more stable but I would be very interested in seeing a direct comparison if someone wanted to test this.
It nearly happened:
Mefferts Newsletter Nov 2007 wrote:
Hi All,

First of all regarding the 6x6x6 & 7x7x7 cube survey results. What surprised
me was that unfortunately the results were very disappointing, the total quantity for
both puzzles combined was less then 1/4th of the quantity for the Dogic, when I conducted a
similar survey, before I re-produced it.

I heard that Mr. Verdes via his son Konstantinos made a recent announcement
that they will release the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 cubes in 2008, which is great news. Based on
the above I came to the conclusion that I should step a-side and let the Verdes's handle
these puzzles all by themselves directly from Greece, no point having two similar products in the
marketplace and the Olympic cube mechanism is most likely better then what I would have made
which would just have been an extension of the mini 4x4x4 and mini 5x5x5 cube. [etc]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI
I have nothing against Verdes, as he has combined existing geometries to create a truly unified mechanism, that is extremely stable. I think that I should apologize for saying Verdes didn't design conical cuts, as even if they already existed, he probably came up with them on his own. The skewb used a spherical surface, but Verdes was the first to use nested spherical shells.

EastSheen 4x4x4 patent:
Attachment:
File comment: EastSheen Patent
es.jpg
es.jpg [ 21.4 KiB | Viewed 2327 times ]

Attachment:
File comment: EastSheen 4x4x4 vs V-Cube 4
vs.jpg
vs.jpg [ 51.4 KiB | Viewed 2327 times ]

I hope this shows the ES corner stalks.

_________________
I hope you have a cloudy day today
I hope you have a miserable day
I hope everyone is a pain
I hope it rains on your parade
I hope you have a lousy day today

Just Kidding! Have a great day!

Sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
First... thanks Dave for breaking this off in a new thread.
DLitwin wrote:
That was by no means a mini-7x7x7 :) So I can't imagine it was what he meant. (E-Cubes? You never answered us.)
That design isn't near the V-Cubes design. It was a highly innovative non-circular design with very interesting properties as the pieces moved.
I agree. I just can't remember many other early 7x7x7s. So I'd love to know more about the one to which E-Cube refers.
DLitwin wrote:
I see cylindrical cuts, not the conical. But TBTyler is a current member so perhaps he can give us first hand information on this. He definitely didn't have any heads up on the Verdes design but if he was using conical cuts, it was without the crucial innovation to make higher order puzzles work. The community was certainly trying!
Look at this:
Attachment:
6CutawayB.jpg
6CutawayB.jpg [ 127.07 KiB | Viewed 2283 times ]

The blue surface is cylindrical. The yellow surface is planar. These are typical cuts like found in the EastSheen. The cut you see circled in orange had me thrown off for a second but that is just the intersection of two cylinders. But look deeper. There is a shell between the two red spherical cuts which has the green conical cut surface. Just below the inner red surface we go back to a planar surface again but for one complete shell I see a great example of the combination of spherical cuts and conical cuts that we find in the V-Cubes. Yes... TBTyler is a current and active member. I would LOVE to hear his thoughts. He appears to have been VERY close to coming up with the V-Cube mechanism before it was ever published.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
DLitwin wrote:
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
Spherical shells were first used in the skewb, so Verdes didn't design those either.
Umm, is this just taking random swipes at Verdes? How is that relevant to the Conical vs. Cylindrical discussion?
I believe I was the first to mention Spherical cuts. Dave I suspect is more familiar with Verdes' patent then I am but what is unique about the V-Cubes to me is the combination of spherical and conical cuts. If I'm throwing in a curve ball please correct me. I wasn't trying to say Verdes' patent covered the use of all spherical cuts.
Justin wrote:
It nearly happened:
Mefferts Newsletter Nov 2007 wrote:
...what I would have made which would just have been an extension of the mini 4x4x4 and mini 5x5x5 cube. [etc]
Very interesting... I think I have a hazy memory of that as well. Were there ever any images released of the exact mechanism Mefferts would have used?
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
I have nothing against Verdes, as he has combined existing geometries to create a truly unified mechanism, that is extremely stable. I think that I should apologize for saying Verdes didn't design conical cuts, as even if they already existed, he probably came up with them on his own. The skewb used a spherical surface, but Verdes was the first to use nested spherical shells.
For the record I have a great deal of respect for Verdes as well. I'd love to shake his hand some day. And yes "nested spherical shells with conical cuts" is exactly what I think of when I think of Verdes' patent.
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
I hope this shows the ES corner stalks.
As you stated above those surfaces are (or at least can be) simply created by filleting. I think its a bit of a stretch to call them conical... though I believe I at least understand what you were talking about before.

Thanks,
Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Russia
Hi
I made some screenshots - I want to show the evolution of the 3*3 cube

1) std Rubik's mechanism - cylindrical cut
2) std Rubik's mechanism - spherical cut
3) V-3 (patented, but not produced) - conical cut (I mark this conical cut)
(this line of patented mr. Verdes !!!)

(click to see in big size)
Attachment:
1.png
1.png [ 277.98 KiB | Viewed 2031 times ]


4) Dayan v2.1 - one conical cut (I mark this conical cut)
5) Dayan v2.2 - two conical cuts (I mark this conical cut)
(because this line mr. Verdes filed in court on mr. Dayan)
6,7) Dayan 5 and 6 - wave cut (I mark this wave cut)
(You can change any direct line on a wave line,
then mr. Verdes will not be able to file an action against you!
wave cut - this is my invention ;) see my Fluffy Cube)

You can free use wave cuts in your puzzles. Good Luck!!!

(click to see in big size)
Attachment:
4.png
4.png [ 324.3 KiB | Viewed 2031 times ]


-- added ------------------------------------------------------
other line-types:

8) Aleh Brilicube 1 - hyperbolic cut (I mark this hyperbolic cut)
Attachment:
8.png
8.png [ 80.69 KiB | Viewed 2028 times ]

_________________
my Shop: ShapeWays, grigorusha Big Puzzle Sale: EBay
Image Image


Last edited by grigr on Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Russia
I have great respect for invention Verdes, but he patented a trivial thing and it his patent hinders the development of puzzle-production.
I did this study only to show you how to get around its limit ...

ps
I made a great discovery: ;)
I found the puzzle which used conic sections in the 1982 year
This puzzle has a patent. I will give evidence later ...

_________________
my Shop: ShapeWays, grigorusha Big Puzzle Sale: EBay
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles
wwwmwww wrote:
Yes... TBTyler is a current and active member. I would LOVE to hear his thoughts. He appears to have been VERY close to coming up with the V-Cube mechanism before it was ever published.
Carl


Not so active lately though. Maybe once I get my 3d printer and CNC machines up and running ;)

What you see in that 6x6 is an application of the Rubik's 3x3 to Rubik's 5x5 transformation applied to a 4x4. If you look at the spherical cuts in the center, that's just the Rubik's brand 4x4. That mech was designed to be glued onto a slightly shape-modded 4x4. At that point in time, I was just copying what I had in front of me. I think I might have accidentally used conical cuts on a failed and unrealized puzzle, but I have absolutely no proof. In personal correspondence, the earliest conical cut I can find was from 2007.

Before this forum was twistypuzzles, what was it? It might shed some light on the subject to check out the internet archive of the old forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
Verdes was the first to use nested spherical shells.
Thinking about this some more I think you really need to say nested spherical shells with conical cuts. The design TBTTyler posted in 2005 has 3 nested spherical shells. The inner 2 use planar cuts and its only the 3rd one which uses a conical cut. Verdes still could have been the first but this design well predates the publication of Verdes' patent.
grigr wrote:
I made some screenshots - I want to show the evolution of the 3*3 cube
Nice set of images. Thanks. May I ask what program you used to make these? Was it Solidworks?
grigr wrote:
I have great respect for invention Verdes, but he patented a trivial thing and it his patent hinders the development of puzzle-production.
Many great inventions in retospect seem trivial. Its like watching a magic show. If you know how the trick works it doesn't have that wow factor. So I personally have no issues with Verdes' patent. My take on it is that it only covers NxNxN Cubes and conical cuts used in conjuction with spherical shells. Tecnically if he wanted to he could argue about something like my (and TomZ's) Uniaxial Cubes as its in effect a bandaged 5x5x5 which uses spherical shells and conical cuts but he's been asked and has always been quite generous in my opinion with applications of this spherical shells and conical cuts approach to anything that isn't your most basic NxNxN puzzle. Oskar has also made use of it numerious times as well with the OK from Verdes.
grigr wrote:
I did this study only to show you how to get around its limit ...
Very interesting study... not sure I agree with the motivation. While apparently legal, it feels like a loophole to me.
grigr wrote:
ps
I made a great discovery: ;)
I found the puzzle which used conic sections in the 1982 year
This puzzle has a patent. I will give evidence later ...
Interesting... but again I don't think Verdes is claiming to have invented the conical cut either. To me its just the combination of sherical shells with conical cuts between them. And yes today this seems trivial and programs like SolidWorks make it very easy to apply this method to make puzzles. But I have NO issue with Verdes having a patent on it. Now if something out there that is older then 2003 has multiple spherical shells with conical cuts in them... then that could bring the validity of Verdes' patent into question. It is entirely possible... the patent lawers which check for this sort of thing I wouldn't expect to have the familiarity with the subject that many of us do here at Twisty Puzzles. Not really sure I should look any harder then I already have though... I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with myself if I ended up finding something that invalidated his patent. I'm torn now between my curiosity and my respect for Verdes.
TBTTyler wrote:
Not so active lately though.
That comment was based on me checking to see when the last time you had logged into the site was yesterday after posting your mechanism picture in this thread. And when I checked I noticed you had been logged in yesterday as well. I was going to send you a PM pointing you to this thread as well but I see you beat me to the punch.

Personally I think you may be selling yourself short. Pulling two puzzles together to make what looks like a functional mechanism for a 6x6x6 was NO trivial task in 2005. Had we had 3D printing as easily available then, you could have designed this to be all original and not built on top of an existing puzzle. Had you done that, I think this design could have easily just been an iteration or two ahead of a pure copy of the Verdes mechanism. I'm in no way knocking Verdes... I'm just saying I think you were onto something that has since proven to be bigger then anyone realized at the time.
TBTTyler wrote:
Before this forum was twistypuzzles, what was it? It might shed some light on the subject to check out the internet archive of the old forums.
This answers most of that rather well.

http://twistypuzzles.com/articles/other-history/

Most of the posts to the Twistymegasite though I believe have been copied to these forums as well.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Last edited by wwwmwww on Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI
The dayan cubes have a cylindrical inner surface, not spherical.

_________________
I hope you have a cloudy day today
I hope you have a miserable day
I hope everyone is a pain
I hope it rains on your parade
I hope you have a lousy day today

Just Kidding! Have a great day!

Sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2000 2:51 am
Location: New Ulm, Minnesota, USA
TBTTyler wrote:
Before this forum was twistypuzzles, what was it? It might shed some light on the subject to check out the internet archive of the old forums.


I know it.

twistymegasite.com

http://web.archive.org/web/200312080117 ... com/forum/

http://www.twistypuzzles.com/articles/other-history/

http://waynejohnson.net/images/examples ... twisty.gif

_________________
Darren & Traiphum's Dual Helicoptrahedron
X-TownCuber wrote:
Are my eyes deceiving me, or is this the coolest puzzle ever?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
I hope this shows the ES corner stalks.
Unfortunately your picture is cut off right where it gets interesting (the ES piece on the right). I don't see any way you can get a conical cut from the ES cut lines. The corner doesn't have the stalk that the Verdes does (formed by the conical cut) and is very much like a classic 3x3x3: Three conical cuts leads to a spherical looking foot, intersecting the cube of the corner.
Can you find a larger picture perhaps?
wwwmwww wrote:
Dave I suspect is more familiar with Verdes' patent then I am
I wouldn't be so sure :) I certainly do my best to understand these issues but I'm no attorney, just an engineer with (I hope) an analytical mind and an interest in understanding it as well as I can.
grigr wrote:
I have great respect for invention Verdes, but he patented a trivial thing and it his patent hinders the development of puzzle-production.
Like Carl noted, many things seem trivial in hind sight. The community went decades with talented and motivated people unable to break these barriers. Had this innovation been trivial, that would not have been the case.
And when considering hindering the market, consider that this innovation *created* the market you describe being hindered. This is exactly what patent is supposed to do: Give someone like Verdes an incentive to invest in his design for the benefit of the industry, at the price of a limited monopoly. His innovation is fairly narrowly protected (cubic 2-11), but benefits our industry in most every new design and geometry.
Would he have shared it without the lure of patent protection? I don't know. Maybe he would have just had sketches in his notebook on a desk in Greece while the rest of us kept looking for solutions.
Regarding practical hindering: Frankly I don't see anything being hindered at all. His patent is blatantly infringed. Modifications to his designs have continued. Other than our own minor KO policy (which I doubt is of any business consequence) I don't really see anyone else standing up and enforcing much of anything other than some occasional whack-a-mole on eBay.
Had his limited monopoly been actually enforced, perhaps he would have had the resources to get his other designs to market sooner, and perhaps he would have had incentive to collaborate with others instead of feeling mugged by them.
We'll never know, I suppose. I see the patent system as having failed him, which is a sad thing.
grigr wrote:
(You can change any direct line on a wave line,
then mr. Verdes will not be able to file an action against you!
wave cut - this is my invention see my Fluffy Cube)
Well he can certainly file one. Whether or not he would prevail in court is a separate matter :)
I imagine the court would have to decide if the overall shape of the piece was substantially similar in form and function despite the wave. One can make a wave shallower and shallower until you couldn't even see the curve, yet still claim it is there, and have the essential Verdes design. At what point does it differ? An interesting question. I suppose one could argue it is the start and end points that distinguish conical from cylindrical cuts, and curves in between are minor variations.
E-Cubes Designer X wrote:
The dayan cubes have a cylindrical inner surface, not spherical.
For a while that was a matter that was pursued by Verdes (read here and in particular here for the resolution)
Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
What happens if you take a set of steps, comprising horozontal and vertical surfaces, and gradually reduce the step height and width to zero? Don't you effectively end up with a smooth slope?

Similarly, what happens if you take a stepped cut, and gradually reduce the step size? Don't you end up with a conical cut? At what step size/resolution does a stepped cut become a conical cut? 5mm? 1mm? 0.1mm? Even before you get to a smooth conical cut with infinitessimally small step size, you have a textured conical cut. Is that still not a conical cut? And even smooth conical cuts of Verdes are textured and not perfectly smooth, so are they truly conical?

And here's a similar dilemma: At what angle does a truly smooth cylindrical cut become conical? 10 degrees? 1 degree? 0.1 degrees? You might be interested to know that even cylindrical cuts are conical, and NOT cylindrical, because injection moulding requires a slight "draft angle" to allow the parts to come out of the mold, so even the original Rubik's Cube had conical rather than cylindrical cuts!

Nothing in life is ever truly black and white, when you *really* think about it! :wink:

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Last edited by KelvinS on Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:57 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI
The dayan lunhui and Rubiks 5x5 have stepped cuts.

_________________
I hope you have a cloudy day today
I hope you have a miserable day
I hope everyone is a pain
I hope it rains on your parade
I hope you have a lousy day today

Just Kidding! Have a great day!

Sparta? THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Russia
I learned design Russian Master Pyraminx (Ordynec ​​1981) and made a drawing for this puzzle.
I marked line drawing - conical cut, also there is the spherical cuts.
this is very interesting - this puzzle usesd v-design style ;)

Attachment:
mp1.png
mp1.png [ 355.38 KiB | Viewed 1890 times ]


here disassembled original puzzle and images from patent

Attachment:
IMG_3900.JPG
IMG_3900.JPG [ 404.83 KiB | Viewed 1890 times ]

Attachment:
IMG_3901.JPG
IMG_3901.JPG [ 169.44 KiB | Viewed 1890 times ]


Attachment:
omp2.png
omp2.png [ 339.25 KiB | Viewed 1890 times ]

Attachment:
omp1.png
omp1.png [ 496.78 KiB | Viewed 1890 times ]

_________________
my Shop: ShapeWays, grigorusha Big Puzzle Sale: EBay
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Russia
wwwmwww wrote:
grigr wrote:
I made some screenshots - I want to show the evolution of the 3*3 cube

Nice set of images. Thanks. May I ask what program you used to make these? Was it Solidworks?

I use SW for drawing and Snagit for screenshots

wwwmwww wrote:
grigr wrote:
I did this study only to show you how to get around its limit ...

Very interesting study... not sure I agree with the motivation. While apparently legal, it feels like a loophole to me.

Carl, Dave, Kevin - if you ever going to do mass production of puzzles, you have to think differently ...
:mrgreen:

_________________
my Shop: ShapeWays, grigorusha Big Puzzle Sale: EBay
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
KelvinS wrote:
Even before you get to a smooth conical cut with infinitessimally small step size, you have a textured conical cut. Is that still not a conical cut?
I think 3D printing elegantly displays your point: Most all the processes I know of are essentially layer based, which means all those V-Cube inspired designs come out as 90 degree stepped prints, if you look close enough.
But of course those are approximations for the real shape and function.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: Munich, Germany
grigr wrote:
I have great respect for invention Verdes, but he patented a trivial thing and it his patent hinders the development of puzzle-production.

I am not sure this is trivial. Before his work it was thought that 6x6x6 and above was impossible. So the idea may seem trivial afterwards - as many other ideas in every field - but it is clearly not.

Roberto

_________________
Roberto Avanzi
I do mathematics. I like it cool and applied.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Russia
mocenigo wrote:
grigr wrote:
I have great respect for invention Verdes, but he patented a trivial thing and it his patent hinders the development of puzzle-production.

I am not sure this is trivial. Before his work it was thought that 6x6x6 and above was impossible. So the idea may seem trivial afterwards - as many other ideas in every field - but it is clearly not.

you got me wrong!
v-cube 6*6*6 - this brilliant invention, Verdes took a big step forward!
patent on a conic cuts - is a patent on a trivial thing.
I already showed you that the conical and spherical cuts were used for 20 years before

_________________
my Shop: ShapeWays, grigorusha Big Puzzle Sale: EBay
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:37 am
I agree that patenting a kind of cut is patenting a trivial thing. I'll bet nobody ever patented a planar cut just because it is so simple. What if I (or anyone else) decided to patent it and pretty much completely halt puzzle production. Patenting is necessary, but patenting something like a kind of cut is RIDICULOUS!

Please keep in mind this is just my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
grigr wrote:
patent on a conic cuts - is a patent on a trivial thing.
The Verdes patent doesn't cover *all* conical cuts. Conical cuts are a feature of his patented design, which it sounds like we all agree was not trivial.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: Munich, Germany
grigr wrote:
mocenigo wrote:
grigr wrote:
I have great respect for invention Verdes, but he patented a trivial thing and it his patent hinders the development of puzzle-production.

I am not sure this is trivial. Before his work it was thought that 6x6x6 and above was impossible. So the idea may seem trivial afterwards - as many other ideas in every field - but it is clearly not.

you got me wrong!
v-cube 6*6*6 - this brilliant invention, Verdes took a big step forward!
patent on a conic cuts - is a patent on a trivial thing.
I already showed you that the conical and spherical cuts were used for 20 years before

Let me try to express this more clearly. The Verdes patent does not patent the conical cuts per se. Among other things (some of which have little to do with conical surfaces) it actually patents their use to achieve a particular purpose.

In the case of the russian master pyramid the shape of these cuts are more or less unavoidable consequence of the design. Spherical surfaces are also a consequence of "ball core" designs which are a completely different design approach. But, in the case of Verdes, these elements are the means by which you construct a mechanism intended to fulfil a specific, non trivial purpose. In particular, building large cubes and stable cubes and smooth cubes (this includes "large and stable and smooth" of course, but note this is "large and/or stable and/or smooth" - and it is cubes, not dodecahedrons or pyramids or, apparently, even cuboids, since Verdes is allowing cuboid designers to adopt the ideas).

I cannot see how this invention is nothing else than non-trivial and innovative to construct anything 6x6x6 and above (also the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 however gain in stability by adopting his ideas).

Function and purpose are fundamental in the patentability of an idea and in determining its scope, its applicability.
For instance, mf8's 8x8x8 mechanism was infringing because it was, essentially, a 7x7x7 with the central layer made wider and split into two by using a 2x2x2 core - which means that all other cuts and pieces did not only have the same shape, but also the same function. (OTOH the dayan+mf8 4x4x4 pieces has quite different shapes: the idea of the 2x2x2 core is reused in the 8x8x8) It is beautiful that Verdes and mf8 decided then to join forces: manufacturing in china helps definitely to bring the cost down, increasing sales, and a piece of the cake goes to mf8 as well.

Back to the verdes patent: one could counter that a court COULD invalidate some of Verdes claims in the context of smaller cubes. However, consider the fact that the 3x3x3 is almost identical to a 6x6x6 with the pieces glued together: can you market as your own a product that is identical to a product by someone else, just with some pieces glued together? Or: would you like other people making money out of a design you patented, where they just took it and glued some pieces together?

Roberto

PS: Patent law is horrible because of its complexity - but at least in its intentions it is there to protect innovators, not to stifle innovation. I am not a lawyer, but my job requires me to create IP. At some point you start to see how it works...

_________________
Roberto Avanzi
I do mathematics. I like it cool and applied.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Conical vs. Cylindrical cuts
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Russia
I find one more old russian puzzle with conical cuts
I learn macanism Macarov Cube (same as Oskar Mixup Cube)

1. Sergey Makarov invented the "rails-mechanism"
2. His cube has no kernel, as well as Void Cube
3. He used conical and spherical cuts

You can find old drawing and picture there (patent - 1983 year)
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicat ... cale=en_EP

and there
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... /Scan2.jpg
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... /Scan3.jpg
http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo31 ... /Scan4.jpg

Makarov Cube
Attachment:
m1.png
m1.png [ 140.92 KiB | Viewed 1048 times ]


Image

conical cuts - picture from patent
Attachment:
m2.png
m2.png [ 183.85 KiB | Viewed 1048 times ]


my Drawing fro this puzzle
Attachment:
s1.png
s1.png [ 125.91 KiB | Viewed 1048 times ]

Attachment:
s3.png
s3.png [ 121.7 KiB | Viewed 1048 times ]

Attachment:
s5.png
s5.png [ 235.79 KiB | Viewed 1048 times ]

_________________
my Shop: ShapeWays, grigorusha Big Puzzle Sale: EBay
Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Door and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group