Back in 2002 I had the idea of building a working Rubik Cube. This is a buldingchallenge that has always appealed. Here the challenge is to create a mechanicaldevice that has a number of degrees of freedom about a central point. It's not easy!The cube consists of 12 edge pieces, 8 corner pieces and one central piece. All ofthese have to be interlocking, yet still be able to rotate about any axis at anytime in any direction! And all this with a basic square block! Thankfully LEGO hasbeen kind and the ratio of 5 bricks to 6 studs allows us to create a genuine cubestructure.
I must point out that quite independently a fellow LEGO enthusiast, at the same time as me, alsoconstructed a working Rubik's cube. Maarten Steurbaut's cube is quite a bit different from mine. His originaldesign is based around 8x8x8 cubes and so it's slightly larger than mycube. After seeing my version Maarten went on to create a Rubik's cube that'ssmaller than my one based on 4x4x4 cubes.
Lego Cube Download
Download Zip 🔥 https://geags.com/2yGcF4 🔥
Since then numerous other LEGO fans have built Rubik's Cubes as any web search will attest. Typically,they are based on 4x4 studs and have corner pieces not disimilar in concept from Maarten Steurbaut.
Rather than boring you with endless detail of how a Rubik Cube works it'sprobably better just to scroll down and see how it was constructed. There's even a movie of theRubik's cube in action - its operation is a bit sticky due to there beingslightly different levels between pieces (a result of not having enough tileplates), and self-destruction was always a possibility! Please also bear in mind that this videowas made on a basic 3MP digital camera with limited video resolution, well before the days smartphones or HD devices.
A Rubik's cube has eight corner pieces. These were the most difficult partto make since the square nature of the LEGO brick doesn't lend itself too well tothe creating circles. The corner pieces have to move completely round theentire cube as well as ensuring the whole puzzle remains self-interlocking (ie.it doesn't fall apart).
The whole cube was pretty big, which meant trying to do it very was difficult. In fact the whole model wasprone to self-destructing, something that could only really be prevented by usingglue. I also didn't have enough tile pieces, the consequence of which can beseen in the movie. Basically, it meant that some of thecentre and edge pieces were at fractionally different heights to theirneighbours, resulting pieces catching when rotating.
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
You may be familiar with the cube Dude proportioned characters. Invented by Angus MacLane, one of the Toy Story writers, the Cube Dude is an efficient system for creating licensed (and other) characters. Here's an example of a Cube Dude figure:
They've been around for a while. But with the advent of Funco! Pops, and also a plethora of collectible large-headed and cute (chibi) figures, Cube Dudes fit right in to this universe. This trend of blind minis coincidentally owes itself to the collectible Lego "mystery" minifigures.
Lego did make their own stylized look. That's the trend today. re-imagine a licensed series, especially with big heads. Everyone's capitalizing on the trend, even Hallmark, until the next trend comes along.
Here is my own Cube Dude design for the Transfomrers Megatron and Optimus Prime. I was never happy with the "official" Angus MacLane versions, although the Bumblebee design is excellent. Here's my LDD creation. I hope to make physical models soon.
A 1x1 brick is TALLER than it is wide and long, and as a consequence the LEGO system makes it comparatively difficult to build in different directions. You have to develop all sorts of tricks to match stud lengths in the vertical and horizontal and you consequently need all sorts of odd bricks (like the headlight brick, with it's brick-width cutout section) to make things possible.
I can only presume that when the LEGO system was designed it was simply never imagined that anyone would ever build in any direction other than bricks stacked on top of each other; and that making the bricks slightly taller than they are wide made the 4x2 brick (the basic brick) look slightly more, well, brick-like.
Personally I think a cube shape would be less interesting. The 2 studs/ 5 plate ratio offers plenty of opportunities for SNOT techniques and technic bricks with holes combined with technic pins or 1x1 bricks with studs on the side make it fairly easy to turn bricks sideways. Part of the fun is in the challenge.
But the geometry was a huge concern (don't confuse toy with easy to develop). LEGO did not invent the plastic construction brick, but they did come up with (among other tweaks) the dimensions and proportions. They tried the best dimensions for children to use it to build things, stable things.
I think this reason is the best explanation. You can't really build a stable wall with a cubic brick. You need more overlap in order to be secure. That's what I am guessing was the design intent from the start. That is, to have bricks to build structures.
From what I understand, the size ratio of Lego's bricks was not determined by Lego themselves, but rather by Hilary Page and his Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Bricks, from which Lego bought their first molds that they retooled and started production of their own interlocking bricks. From what I understand, the bricks were very similar those first few years, before Lego abandoned the slots for windows and doors and came up with the innertubes providing much more clutch power and versatility.
Nope, pretty sure it was due to the fact that rectangles make better construction components than cubes. I believe bricks have always been rectangular since the first cities in Mesopotamia. Can you imagine trying to build a house with cubes?
Realistically speaking, though, I believe you're correct, though I also think that rectangles are slightly more visually appealing than perfect cubes BECAUSE we associate them with LEGO sturdy, safe structures. That may just be me, though.
Don't be silly. I'd be very surprised if anybody here would like to see all elements being 1x1x1 cubes and that's not what the OP is suggesting either. Properly formulated his question would be: why is the 1x1 brick not a cube?
You could have 1x1x1 cubes, with other elements having a width and length that is an integral multiple of the height. That would make a 1x2x1 brick essentially two 1x1x1 cubes side by side. There's no reason why that wouldn't work, as shown by Modulex.
The "original" brick, the source of all LEGO was not a 1x1 but was, I believe, a 2x4 "brick". The rectangular shape was the starting point not a result of calculations based on the 1x1 and some sort of design question whether it should be a cube or not. We got the dimensions of a 1x1 by chopping up a 2x4 in a metaphorical sense.
I imagine cube-shaped parts could be harder to disassemble. The extra height of bricks increases the amount of "leverage" you have when snapping bricks apart. With cubic bricks, disassembling any model might be more like disassembling a model made entirely of plates, which as any AFOL knows can be hell without a brick separator.
It's self evident that you need rectangular bricks rather than 1x1 bricks for building strong walls, but that doesn't tell you anything about why 1x1 bricks aren't cubes, which was what the OP was asking about!
They started with a "brick" that was proportioned to mimic real bricks that have been used for thousands of years. They were not concerned at the time with how it would be subdivided. Eventually they broke the 2x4 brick into smaller chunks until they started manufacturing 1x1 "bricks" and by then it was too far along in the process for anyone to stop and say, "hey, we should make the 1x1 a cube."
I agree that the dimensions of a 2x4 are similar to those of real-world building bricks, but so is a brick where the width is twice the height and the length is four times the height (which would make a 1x1x1 brick a cube). The result would still be rectangular, suitable for building walls, and the overall proportions wouldn't have been all that different from the current 2x4.
Even starting with the 2x4 brick, a stack of 5 2x4 bricks is as tall as a row of three 2x4 bricks lying side-by-side is wide. I have a really hard time believing that this is a coincidence and unless you have a reference somewhere that explains this, I'm not buying it. It's also not as though they chose integer measures in a convenient measurement system. 152ee80cbc
download tamil new movies 2023
renee rapp everything to everyone zip download