Hey guys, would this work?
So I don't know much about magnets and how they work, but I know magnets with opposite polarities attract, and magnets with the same polarity push each other away. So what if someone made a cube with pieces coated with a metal that had some polarity? This would mean the pieces wouldn't touch, so turning would be effortless, would make no sound and corner cutting would be very easy. Also, if the magnets were strong enough, lockups would be impossible since the pieces couldn't catch on each other.
Sorry if this is stupid and wouldn't work, I don't know the first thing about magnet physics or whatever. Just an idea.
So uh, what if you used a last slot method which permutes the edges with petrus, so that it would result in L4C.The recog for the LS method wouldn't be very good, but it's a 1LLL
Also, quite a few algs
I'm pretty sure this already exists. It wouldn't turn very well because you would need magnets on every cubie to keep the cube together. The centres would have strong magnets so you can rotate the layers, while the edges and corners would have weaker magnets. This would be quite bumpy because you would have to break apart each magnet bond to rotate. I guess a better way to do it would be to keep the same cube design we have on current cubes and replace screws with magnets. Popping would be an issue unless the magnet was really strong but then turning would be harder. Also cubes would be quite a bit more expensive.
L4C is pretty bad in general.
You didn't understand. My idea was to have a regular core, but the pieces push AWAY from each other. This means there is no contact between pieces.
One potential worry though I think is that with magnets that thin, what'll end up happening is they'll repel when directly across from each other, but then in the middle of a turn once they're lying basically adjacent to each other they'd attract, since the front side of the edge of each magnet would be attracted to the backside of the edge of the opposing magnet.
Then again, I don't know too much about magnets either. It'd be pretty awesome though if you could get a "hover-cube" of sorts like that.
If the magnets repel then how would it stay together? I'm pretty sure the pieces wouldn't float, they would just fall off.
I think he means take a core and put magnets in the pieces.
Bad idea anyway imo unless you can completely magnetise the whole siflde ot wouldn't sit in the normal position very well.
Well if all pieces are being pushed away with the same force they will sit squarely with no instability. Yeah, my idea was for a cube to have a normal core, with the pieces hooking onto the core, then all pieces are being pushed away from each other so that they cannot touch. With this, lockups would be impossible since pieces couldn't catch, at least externally. Internal lockups would be possible, but I don't think that really happens on 3x3s.
Except that if you misalign a layer (for example, when executing a turn), all of a sudden, your perfect repulsion is gone, and the pieces can touch quite easily. As Teoidus said, when the magnets don't align perfectly, not only can they touch, there are certain alignments for which they will attract each other rather than repelling (magnetic fields are weird).
Also it may be pretty weird to have a frictionless cube, now that I come to think of it--theoretically, if you flicked any face it would never stop turning...
Lol air causes resistance...
Also it may be pretty weird to have a frictionless cube, now that I come to think of it--theoretically, if you flicked any face it would never stop turning...
Still not that much. It could keep spinning for quite a while.
Have a look at the mini maglev tracks
I actually think more than that because the drag really wouldn't be very much.Yeah, it would spin for a while, maybe up to 5 seconds, but not forever.
So, I'm sure this has been looked into before, but I can't seem to find evidence of it anywhere: what prevents one from inventing a 2step method for 2x2x2 where you orient everything, then permute everything?
Because the alg set for permutation is monstrous and recog isn't great.So, I'm sure this has been looked into before, but I can't seem to find evidence of it anywhere: what prevents one from inventing a 2step method for 2x2x2 where you orient everything, then permute everything?