No video :(

Minimal 7x7x7

Подписаться 108 тыс.

Просмотров 75 тыс.

50% 1

Buy at www.shapeways.... Copyright (c) 2014, M. Oskar van Deventer. Minimal 7x7x7 is a minimalistic skeletal 7x7x7 twisty puzzle shaped as sphere. The complete puzzle has 218 individual pieces. Its mechanism is related to Minimal Twist, using a dovetail-style connection to connect adjacent pieces. The sphere flexes a bit because of the play in the dovetail connections needed for the turning of the layers. Once broken in, it turns surprisingly smoothly, although there is not any corner-cutting.

Опубликовано:

26 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 202

@DefiantFrost 9 лет назад

The orientation of the dovetails is the issue, because the pieces are designed to work in one parity, they wouldn't work while flipped, because the dovetails would no longer align because they are designed to work in one orientation. The exception would be a 2x2 because you only have to worry about corners.

@TheMaoiSha 9 лет назад

Me acabo de enamorar! Eres un genio! :)

@Laurames99 9 лет назад

Espero verlo en tus vídeos Miguel :)

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

Thank you Miguel!

@MrCamoga 9 лет назад

si te lo compras enseña en el video como lo montas porfa

@anjega37 9 лет назад

cuando estaba viendo el vídeo, pensaba en lo que podrías decir al ver este cubo... y si, después vi tu comentario y me imagine que dirías eso XD saludos OskarPuzzle y Miguel desde México! Muy buen cubo Oskar, felicidades!

@maxgodard3319 9 лет назад

De Oskar o del cubo?

@KasabianFan44 9 лет назад

In a 4x4x4, if you do the U2 move, the dovetails in the centre layer face the opposite direction than previously. This means that you would not be able to do the Rw or Fw move, as the dovetails won't be aligned. Same with the 2x2x2, 6x6x6, etc.

@tecnicality2050 9 лет назад

Heh, I always thought that when he started the video, he said Hi, I'm Oskar the Inventer not Oskar van Deventer

@jh-ol7yb 7 лет назад

Lol

@austinbryan6759 7 лет назад

I always thought he said "Oskar from Dave Hunter." Dave Hunter being the name of his twisty puzzle company.

@smittywarbenyagermangensen4860 7 лет назад

Tecnicality first few times I thought he was saying "hi, I'm Oskar Deviant art..."

@giantpizzafish 7 лет назад

Austin Bryan Thank you! I'm not the only one...

@puzzlesmith 9 лет назад

The reason the cube needs to be an odd number is because the center slice needs to have the negative dovetail while the pieces adjacent to it need positive dovetail. The 2x2 is an exception however because it can use a similar mechanism to the Rubik's original 2x2 that includes a corner with 3 positive dovetails then "inner" dovetail pieces similar to those in the Rubik's 2x2.

@oldsmay 7 лет назад

WHY ISNT THIS MASS PRODUCED??!!!!!?!!!!!!!!!?????!?!?!?!

@OskarPuzzle 7 лет назад

Impossible to mass produce at any reasonable cost. See also oskarvandeventer.nl/FAQ.html. And thanks for the implicitly expressed interest!

@MetaKnight23 7 лет назад

why is it expensive to mass produce? is it hard to assemble or hard to make molds?

@OskarPuzzle 7 лет назад

Yes and yes.

@rusty8785 9 лет назад

I really like how the minimal puzzles look.

@jimgilbert2340 8 лет назад

If there was an even number, the dovetails wouldn't match up. Even numbered Rubiks Cubes are actually odd numbered cubes with the center pieces hidden inside. But this spherical puzzle has no way to hide center pieces. They would have to be visible, and in that case it would just be an odd numbered cube.

@MasterQuestMaster 9 лет назад

0:49 Gotta love the Austrian flag pattern (red-white-red)

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

Could this mechanism be used for a regular 7x7x7 cube? Or for a 17x17x17 cube? What would be the biggest challenges then?

@AiiiSha99 9 лет назад

I think for the extensions on the side, they would be bigger and bigger you know,

@theportalnerd 9 лет назад

I think the mechanism could be used for the 17x17 cube but as more layers are added the clearence between the pieces would cause the puzzle to be flexible similar to this 7x7. Although a 17x17 minimal cube would be very flexible I think the puzzle would not fall apart and still be functional. Oskar, how do you assemble and disassemble this puzzle? The mechanism is similar to the gift cube right? If so there wouldn't be any way to force the pieces apart unless there were a few special pieces different from the rest.

@kyleessex6301 9 лет назад

even number orders wouldn't have piece symmetry so if you had an A piece it won't always meet up with a B piece and an AA connection will not work

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

PerpetualCubingMachine Nylon is flexible. I clicked the last pieces in place. The puzzle does not come apart.

@pepernando2221 9 лет назад

cool! :)

@thedefectivememe 7 лет назад

I really love this design and would love to see it mass produced!

@OskarPuzzle 7 лет назад

Thank you! (Won't happen though, sorry ...)

@xoxoxooxperry9686 8 лет назад

the mechanism only works on odd numbers because odd number cubes have center pieces,everything hooks on to the center piece. In even layered cubes the pieces have no center piece to hook onto.

@deldarel 8 лет назад

in the state you left it in, it looks like a few green pieces from from different colums would line up. Can you actually make those turns? That would make it a pretty insane mixuplike puzzle.

@installerboy101 7 лет назад

Deldarel ईशरन

@imaries6854 7 лет назад

The bouncy 7x7 which has been engineered the best it could've possibly been

@BackwardsCup 8 лет назад

The exception is 2. There would always be an extended layer on any even number above two.

@jabacon5866 7 лет назад

Well it has to be odd, it's hard to explain but using the centre layer as an axis of symmetry for the hooks it requires equal amounts either side of this. It would however work on a 2x2 as a single hook joint can act the same on its own.

@evanknowles4780 9 лет назад

the exception would be a 0x0

@happyghost8311 9 лет назад

The answer is obvious: For every two adjacent pieces, one slide into the other like this: 0>0, so one layer of the 7x7 looks a bit like this 0>0>0>0

@benpuzzles 9 лет назад

I doesn't work for even-layered puzzles because of the deep cuts, as a hidden middle layer (and some bandaging) would be needed to hold both halves together. The one exception is the Skewb, because of the self-dual geometry of the tetrahedron.

@Willasfantasyland 9 лет назад

Even numbered cubes have hidden internal pieces that are hooked to the core. There is no core with this puzzle so there is nowhere to support the hidden pieces. The exception is that you can have a 2x2, because all of corners can hook right into each other, so you can eliminate the hidden edges.

@cubedude76 9 лет назад

i would explain it like this: the mechanism has tabs and hooks. the centers are made up of only tabs and the corners are made up of only hooks. (for things like the 7x7 all the tabs are facing outward from the center and all the hooks face inward towards the center.) this makes it impossible for a corner to attach to another corner and thus 2x2s and other even puzzles are impossible. the exception is the skewb which is a 2x2 puzzle that has a center piece. (visualize a Jing's pyraminx)

@Zalaniar 9 лет назад

It doesn't work with even numbers because the pieces would be going the same way, for example both hooking upward, while in an odd layered puzzle a hook up always meets with a hook down. I think an exception would be the 2x2 because then you can make it with an internal, hidden 3x3.

@TinBryn 9 лет назад

I've seen some interesting things with the number 17 lately, sudoku needs at least 17 clues, the building houses on lots game goes up to 17, if the exception is 17 I'll be very interested.

@evanknowles4780 9 лет назад

but... isn't 17 odd???

@TanookiOshawott64 8 лет назад

+TinBryn THOSE ARE ALL SOME OF MY FAVORITE VIDEOS BY MY FAVORITE MATHEMATICIAN ON NUMBERPHILE!!!!!

@jilanfk 9 лет назад

i'd love to see the 3x3 one

@lietz13 9 лет назад

Something to do with stationary centers? That's my guess for only odd number cubes. Exception would be 2x2?

@thethinkinlad 8 лет назад

This is so freaking cool! I really love this

@OskarPuzzle 8 лет назад

+Random Selenator Thank you!

@kameronpeterson3601 8 лет назад

could you do a 3x3x3 version of this that would be awesome

@kurtilein3 9 лет назад

the exception would be the skewb, it has two layers and is compatible with this design. it does not work with 2x2 or 4x4, because that would require internal pieces, also with dovetails or hooks you always have a positive and a negative side. all center pieces of a 2x2 need to be able to be adjacent to each other, which would require something like a neutral dovetail, which does not exist.

@skallos_ 9 лет назад

kurtilein3 The skewb is mechanically a Jing's Pyraminx, a 3-layered puzzle.

@kurtilein3 9 лет назад

Funblox7 i have skewbs. from the outside its clearly two layers. in the inside its a bit different, thats why it would work with this mechanism.

@jaask0111 9 лет назад

It only works for an odd number Rubik's cube because it has a center and all odd number Rubik's cubes have centers, the only acception it would have to an odd number cube is that center, if it didn't have that center than it would have to be an even number cube, or sphere, so yeah, the centers is what answers both of those questions Mr. Daventer

@umcarainteressante 8 лет назад

My guess is that there needs to be a center layer that acts like the core (i.e. doesn't move). In an even numbered puzzle there's no center piece at all, so there wouldn't be a "core".

@ianrosenberg8103 9 лет назад

because the even ordered cubes have a "hidden" layer that makes it an odd ordered cube

@tardigrades3184 8 лет назад

Exception is 1x1

@smittywarbenyagermangensen4860 7 лет назад

Tardigrades he was saying there is one even magnitude exception. 1 isn't even.

@mdlouis1859 9 лет назад

Is it because the mechanism sits on the middle rings, which serve as the core? It seems like without them (as if it were a 6x6x6), the mechanism wouldn't be anchored on anything, and would fall apart. Great looking puzzle! This is my favorite so far!

@Josh-oosh 9 лет назад

it only works on odd layers because of the way the pieces lock together.

@fatmonkey4713 8 лет назад

Maybe because it would have a center that stays there so the pieces can stick together?

@user-yr5so4gt4w 9 лет назад

Great! Should be placed inside the sphere of transparent plastic.

@charliehills1142 9 лет назад

Nice idea I wish I had one looks cool

@itsoktobedummythicc8996 6 лет назад

I think this is possible only for odd cubes because you can hook 8 pieces on one piece and then more on the rest pieces like the center in the normal cube it holds all the pieces and I think is possible to do it with 2x2 because there are les pieces

@mileslentz 8 лет назад

i know the answer to both questions 1. even layered puzzles need internals but there are no internals but the exception is with a 0 by 0 by 0

@BeugenNinja 9 лет назад

It dosent work on odd number of layers because you need a cener, the exception is a 2x2x2 because you ca use any NxNxN cube and if you only look at the corners it will be a 2x2x2

@kurtilein3 9 лет назад

no, i think the exception is the skewb.

@CHASEcancover 7 лет назад

I think this concept doesn't work on even layered cubes because it needs to have some sort of alignment mechanism and it wouldn't make it look like the minimal 7x7. I don't know the additional rule though.

@zacksmash134 7 лет назад

with the dovetail connection, you have 2 ways to orient the edges of each piece to allow for movement; same orientation either next to, or across from each other. I'm guessing that one of those options for connecting the pieces may only work with odd numbers? also, I'm guessing the black edge pieces and corners could be the one exception. not sure but I would love to buy a 5x5x5 version of this concept!

@westbrooksburner 9 лет назад

It only works for odd layered cubes, because even layered cubes contain a hidden layer underneath, making it just a normal ball unable to be hallowed.

@jh-ol7yb 7 лет назад

At least we can still get a minimal 3x3 then

@account6555 6 лет назад

It should be possible to extend the pieces to make it into cubes

@raulpiles3772 9 лет назад

Pero en este cubo las aristas tienen alguna importancia o es como un 5x5?

@JasperJanssen 6 лет назад

Incidentally I sort of disagree, you *could* make an even variant of this, you just need to have an internal set of pieces that are not present on the surface. You just can’t do it invisibly, if everything is open like that.

@user-mr7cs1yv3q 9 лет назад

i wont this looks so cool

@Zamber999 9 лет назад

It can only work for an odd layer cube because it would have to have extra pieces inside but it has to be hollow Exception idk

@tafellappen8551 6 лет назад

unless im wrong, an even numbered cube would not be possible through this method because you would end up trying to connect two concave or convex dovetails. if this is the case though then why can't you have a dovetail that internally connects the two concave dovetails?

@CubixRube 9 лет назад

you can not put internal peices because all the peices hook each other not the core

@AlbertRutter 9 лет назад

Can you move a central layer one space up and then make a perpendicular layer move?

@SomeRandomFellow 8 лет назад

Does that have anything to do with the fact that if you disassemble an odd-layered cube and then re-assemble it, the central edges and the corners must be in the correct position in order for it to be solveable? Also, the second question, I'm gonna go with 2x2 or 0x0

@12... 8 лет назад

is the exception 0x0? anyway, you could make multiple "cubes" inside each other, for example: a 1x1 inside a 3x3 inside a 5x5.

@zegamingcuber857 8 лет назад

0x0 is even not odd because it comes before 1

@soulseek2 9 лет назад

hehe finally a question i know ;) well not too hard if you modded your clicking 6x6 v-cube back in the day and learned how the mechanism works.. but i noticed that the answer was already given.. nontheless i it felt good :D

@ginjatom 9 лет назад

It doesn't work for even layered cubes as you must add 1 to the shown layers to show the cube it is made from (1 layer is hidden under the others)

@lukasdewijngaert 9 лет назад

Omdat ik denk dat dan de centers van plaats kunnen veranderen?

@MelindaGreen 7 лет назад

The exception is the 2x2. Just don't ask me why. It's a wild ass guess.

@Sam_on_YouTube 7 лет назад

Can you use that mechanism and extend the pieces into a cube shape, then put a hollow 5x5 inside that and a hollow 3x3 inside that so that the act of moving the 7x7 moves the pieces on the internal cubes? Then you would have real cube puzzles for all puzzles up to 7x7 (which is really every size that matters) in both even and odd sizes.

@OskarPuzzle 7 лет назад

I have built a 4x4 (Framed Cube), 5x5 (Peek Cube) and 6x6 (Real 6x6) that way, so I guess that would also work for a 7x7

@eliasbarocio4857 9 лет назад

Because the centers

@RedstoneMiner66756 9 лет назад

could you make a 7x7 Fornicube with this mechanism?

@jamesotts2437 2 года назад

Why does he not color the corners and edges

@thundershaker5668 9 лет назад

it doesnt work with even numbers because it needs a middle layer and a centre piece. Without them, a twisty puzzle would need a core.

@ketchupkid197 9 лет назад

Is it because of the hooks

@zacharygibbs1537 8 лет назад

all odd layered cubes have centers. no even layered cube has a center.

@tinchyred1 7 лет назад

i'm assuming the separation to the rule is a 2 x 2?

@insanitycubed8832 9 лет назад

the duff tails intervene with turning on the even layers

@kowan011 6 лет назад

Try making a 7x7 treasure chest!

@MrRyanroberson1 7 лет назад

but the edges and corners are not labeled!

@higloo1094 7 лет назад

If you twisted it by one 'cubee' then you could turn it like the cheese block, right?

@catprog 9 лет назад

Is it possible to turn the sphere when the cubes are not aligned? I.e 1:27 with the greens horizontally?

@itsoktobedummythicc8996 6 лет назад

I think this is easier than a normal 7x7 because you have only the faces to solve

@MangaMiyn 9 лет назад

GENIUS

@jetison333 9 лет назад

you should make 3x3 version of this.

@pleasantvegetable 9 лет назад

jetison333 He did

@cwuzii 9 лет назад

Can you make a 3x3 version of this? Please do.

@SomeRandomFellow 8 лет назад

+cwuzii he did

@cwuzii 8 лет назад

Cant find it

@SomeRandomFellow 8 лет назад

cwuzii hollow cube. not exactly the same, but pretty much

@Owen-ny7nq 7 лет назад

can you make a non spherical version? so its turnable

@supergreatsuper 9 лет назад

0:48 "You can, uhh, bounce it"

@DarthLlama 9 лет назад

would it be possible to layer the pieces with plastic sheet and then sticker it? It would be cool to have a spherical 7x7

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

+BlockishSky In principle, yes. Note that nylon is hard to glue.

@loganl7799 7 лет назад

it doesn't work for even layer cubes because even layer cubes have internal peices

@alive03330 6 лет назад

5x5 cross cube

@ryanflake657 Год назад

Now break the world record of a 33x33

@OskarPuzzle Год назад

Carl Hoff is working on a 42x42x42 ...

@philipr6319 9 лет назад

Could this be used to break a world record size?

@AiiiSha99 9 лет назад

I think not because the extensions on the side you know.

@philipr6319 9 лет назад

Xusiy Blackwatch it would make it fragile but i dont really know otherwise...

@thuvo927 9 лет назад

Nice Vids

@jg-7780 7 лет назад

Exception is 0x0

@russellwen1410 6 лет назад

The exception is 2x2, Answer to question is there needs to be a pivot point?

@russellwen1410 6 лет назад

Because the hooks will be in the opposite direction

@OskarPuzzle 6 лет назад

Indeed!

@mikedrewson5545 4 года назад

Why didn’t you color the edges and corners?

@OskarPuzzle 4 года назад

Good question. Look at the puzzle. Can you answer your own question?

@randomiser820 9 лет назад

you could make a 111*111 cube

@ketchupkid197 9 лет назад

Cool

@castorthe_chicken_shaman1757 9 лет назад

isn't this a 5x5

@artman40 9 лет назад

Exceptions are 0×0×0 and 2×2×2 ones. Otherwise this won't work as central rows need to be mirrored?

@Vykori 9 лет назад

...comment posted 2 months ago?

@NateHarrah 9 лет назад

2 months ago? WHAT!

@artman40 9 лет назад

Apparently, I got into this video from Shapeways and didn't realize that this video was not posted in a normal way before it was too late..

@Vykori 9 лет назад

artman40 oh cool! so his videos are unlisted on shapeways for a while before he posts to youtube

@shitlordful 9 лет назад

a guess for The exception is 1x1

@shitlordful 9 лет назад

*1x1x1

@drumbum7999 4 года назад

@@shitlordful no.

@tob2089 8 лет назад

cool

@xenontesla122 9 лет назад

Would it be possible to make a minimal mixup?

@pleasantvegetable 9 лет назад

xenontesla122 But it's a SPHERE

@jf4196 8 лет назад

Why don't you dye the edges of your puzzles? Like how on this puzzle and your 17x17 you only dyed the centers?

@KasranFox 8 лет назад

+jf4196 Probably because he'd have to dye the different faces different colors, which I imagine is pretty hard in comparison to just dying the whole piece one color.

@jf4196 8 лет назад

+Kasran Fox yea god point

@AngelAlvarez-qr2sr 9 лет назад

Are these for sale yet and if yes where

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

Feel free to click the link in the description.

@CEHCuber 9 лет назад

140$ no to bad not bad at all...

@CEHCuber 9 лет назад

CEH Cuber if you but it will it be assembled

@buildingjumpr 4 месяца назад

hi oskar ❤

@GeometryDashAshtonator0 7 лет назад

Im pretty sure my dude, that is a 5x5

@OskarPuzzle 7 лет назад

Count again, carefully :-)

@DimitrovYordan91 9 лет назад

The cube looks odd. If the connection worked for even layered cubes it woudn't be that odd. That's why. And the exception is any cube with different number of layers like 3x3x5 or 5x7x9 etc. cause that would create an elipsoid and this is just ridiculous :D

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

+Yordan Dimitrov Actually, one can easily turn this into a 3x3x5 or 3x5x7 by glueing (or cadding) some layers together.

@DimitrovYordan91 9 лет назад

wouldn't that be simply a bandaged cube (sphere)?

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

+Yordan Dimitrov Yes. One can consider a 3x3x5 and 3x5x7 indeed bandaged variations of an unbandaged 7x7x7.

@DimitrovYordan91 9 лет назад

But a 7x7x7 is usualy symetrical. My idea is a 5x5x7 (or something similar) version of the Minimal but still having layers with equal width . Like an egg for example.

@OskarPuzzle 9 лет назад

+Yordan Dimitrov I believe that you are mixing up two concepts, namely functionality and shape. One can achieve the 5x5x7 functionality by glueing some layers together (bandaging). One can achieve a proportional 5x5x7 shape by reshaping the puzzle (shapemodding). So we could bandage the 7x7x7 into a 5x5x7, and then shapemod it into an egg shape.