I'd like to present the finished and stickered Bubbloid233 puzzle.

The puzzle weighs in at 130 grams.

The edge lengths are:

18*(0.5+3*(1+sqr(2))/2) ≈ 74.18mm
27*(1+sqr(2)) ≈ 65.18mm

So the outer most edge pieces are 9mm wide. All the pieces of the Bubbloid123 are reused here unchanged except for the core.

In this thread I presented some pictures before the puzzle was completed.
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopi ... =9&t=26072

You Tube Video
http://youtu.be/3odMoKOPWfc

You may purchase this puzzle in my Shapeways shop here:
http://www.shapeways.com/model/1985627/ ... id233.html

Solved... Mid-Turn Partially Scrambled Enjoy,
Carl

Beautiful as always Carl . I can't wait to do a polished family photo!

This one is definitely my favorite of them! But the title of the thread says 223.

I have corrected the title.

rayray_2561 wrote:This one is definitely my favorite of them! But the title of the thread says 223.

Can you explain the numbering? I would've thought this was 344.

themathkid wrote:Can you explain the numbering? I would've thought this was 344.

The numbering is very clearly explained in the video.

Nice!

Would Bubbloids of arbitrarily large numbers in arbitrary combinations be theoretically possible?

This is a much more interesting solve than the ones with ones in them.

Gus wrote:

themathkid wrote:Can you explain the numbering? I would've thought this was 344.

The numbering is very clearly explained in the video.

The naming/numbering was first discussed in this thread:

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopi ... =9&t=20686

In this post GuiltyBystander numbers the puzzle according to the edges shared between adjacent corners. You can also think of this as the number of edges between the active (i.e. not stored) cuts on that edge.

In this post, 4 days later, Bram names them using the same method you do above.

And later in that thread it evolved into talking about them like this, B334-G233, where the B stood for Bram's notation and the G stood for GuiltyBystander's notation. Once I actually printed one and had to settle on a name I simply went with GuiltyBystander's notation as it was out 4 days before Bram's was. Nothing against Bram... I really could have gone either way as I consider both methods totally self consistent and they relay the exact same information. I just wanted to pick one and stick with it so I picked the one that came out first.

Carl

rubikcollector123 wrote:Would Bubbloids of arbitrarily large numbers in arbitrary combinations be theoretically possible?

With simulators... yes. With physical puzzles my method in practice has a limit to the number of edges you can tie to a corner of 4. On paper its 5, but you can see in this post here, that at 5 edges, while there is contact with the core, there isn't room for a foot unless the puzzle is HUGE.

Even to get 4 edges per corner I'd have to go a fair bit bigger then I already have and that would get expensive enough that I'm not sure anyone would be interested.

But if you are simply interested in theoretically possible... yes... you can go to arbitrarily large numbers. Oskar has shown that there is another way to build Bubbloids. They don't need the multi-core approach I'm using. You can map these to puzzles where all the axes go through a single point and you just vary the angle between the axes. If you do that and make your puzzle spherical you CAN go to arbitrarily large numbers if you have the funds to pay for arbitrarily large puzzles.

Carl