Flashhawk PS: With this technic, all kinds of Rubic's Cube could be done, not only 3x3x3. I have made myself a plan for a 5x5x5 but they probably will nerver be done
Flashhawk PS: With this technic, all kinds of Rubic's Cube could be done, not only 3x3x3. I have made myself a plan for a 5x5x5 but they probably will nerver be done
5x5x5 is, in a practical sense, the largest physical Rubik's Cube one can make. On 6x6x6 and higher, the corner cube winds up completely leaving the bounds of the underlying cube--it'd fall off when you rotate it, in other words. It'd take a lot of complex engineering to make something bigger than 5^3, and it's just not worth it.
5x5x5 is, in a practical sense, the largest physical Rubik's Cube one can make. On 6x6x6 and higher, the corner cube winds up completely leaving the bounds of the underlying cube--it'd fall off when you rotate it, in other words. It'd take a lot of complex engineering to make something bigger than 5^3, and it's just not worth it.
You could do a virtual 6x6x6 cube, but....why?
This guy seems to think that bigger cubes exist....
5x5x5 is, in a practical sense, the largest physical Rubik's Cube one can make. On 6x6x6 and higher, the corner cube winds up completely leaving the bounds of the underlying cube--it'd fall off when you rotate it, in other words. It'd take a lot of complex engineering to make something bigger than 5^3, and it's just not worth it.
You could do a virtual 6x6x6 cube, but....why?
This guy seems to think that bigger cubes exist....
There is some really complex design to get those big cubes to hold together. It's radically different from what's inside a 3^3 cube. The 3^3 pieces (and presumably everything up to 5^3) rely on neighboring pieces to stay in place, but the pieces in these big cubes burrow down to the center to find their grip. I'm very impressed.
