7 ms·

Making a Stainless Steel Rubik's Cube

254 points by camtarn 5y ago

mjb 5y ago
That's very cool, and a beautiful piece in the end. Good choice to do it in 303. 316 really is a pain. The ingenuity required to get things like this one on manual tools (especially pre-DRO, but even now) is amazing. Starting out machining, I expected the machining to be the hard part, but often a lot more time is spent on planning, fixturing, set-up, and so on. For example, the idea of making custom vise jaws to hold odd-shaped parts seemed crazy to me the first time I heard it, and now its just a completely normal way to behave. CNC makes things a whole lot easier, from being able to do complex shapes with CAD/CAM, to simple things like interpolated circles (when the mill cuts a circular shape by moving X and Y simultaneously, a seemingly trivial thing that's nearly impossible on a manual*). Having a 4th or 5th axis makes complex stuff even easier, and often completely avoids the need for wacky fixturing. The lathe fixturing here is especially fun. A lot of old hobby books are written assuming you have only a lathe and no mill. Fun, often scary, fixturing was the order of the day. * Ok, you can do crazy things with boring heads, but getting it right is really hard.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Yes, fixing stuff is one of the harder problems, as is avoiding toolstrikes or having to re-grip something because your carefully laid plans are messed up by the cutting depth or stability of your tools. Sometimes you spend more time figuring out how to safely grip a workpiece than you do on the actual machining.
- bsder 5y ago
  "Devil's chewing gum" describing 304/316 stainless for machining is pure poetry.
selectronics 5y ago
Very cool! Follow up idea, which I'm sure adds tons more complexity: have each face be a different material or finish. E.g. one face is stainless, another anodized aluminum, zinc plated for a third, brass on another. Each of the edge pieces would have to be a two-part assembly, and the corners composed of the three materials joined together (joinery, screws, brazing). That surely would feel strange with the varying densities and thermal masses while solving, but would look very cool. To be fair, it appears from the pictures that each center piece's pattern is symmetric, which avoids the difficult part of aligning those when solving (center often doesn't line up when solving a cube with pictures on the faces in place of a solid color). Probably far too niche for selling these to be profitable, but I'd love to have one.
- jstanley 5y ago
  > center often doesn't line up when solving a cube with pictures on the faces in place of a solid color I don't understand this. If you have a corner piece in the wrong corner then won't the colours on the adjacent faces be wrong?
  - BoppreH 5y ago
    The corner and edge pieces are guaranteed to have the right orientation, but the center pieces can be in any 90° orientation. Imagine an arrow printed on a center piece; a cube can be solved and still have that arrow pointing to any of the 4 neighboring sides. Here's a video explaining special algorithms to rotate only the center piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk1eCZNCTB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk1eCZNCTB4
    - jstanley 5y ago
      Ah, interesting, thanks! So it's possible to reach a configuration where every side has the centre rotated but all the colours match up. I would not have believed that without seeing it.
- somebodynew 5y ago
  I think that it would be difficult to keep everything clean enough to avoid galvanic corrosion at the metal interfaces once someone has touched it. I experienced surprisingly rapid corrosion when securing copper lugs using zinc-plated steel nuts and bolts until I started handling them exclusively with gloves.
CarVac 5y ago
I never realized before that the sliding surfaces inside the cube are cylindrical, not spherical.
- s1mon 5y ago
  Doing some quick image searches for teardowns, it seems that different models have been done both ways. Some with spherical bearings and some with intersecting cylinders. It makes some sense that either way works, as you're only ever rotating around one axis at a time.
at_a_remove 5y ago
I saw a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iB7kkCy1xM&t=160s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iB7kkCy1xM&t=160s) on EDM machining and the tolerances were magnificently tight. I had since wondered if such techniques would work for building a "one-move" Lemarchand Box (Hellraiser), assuming that engraving various designs would utterly obscure the actually disjoint pieces. I am not sure what steel you would need. Something dimensionally stable, to be sure.
lisper 5y ago
My first thought was: how the heck could you assemble a metal cube? Putting a plastic one together relies on the springiness of the material in order to place the final piece, but metal won't give in the same way. The solution: > The face centers each receive a hollow stem that screws into the 5/16-24 thread. This assembly holds a captive spring-loaded screw, which screws into the core. The spring provides some give to the entire unit and allows the cube to be assembled and disassembled easily by snapping pieces in. Brilliant!
- globular-toast 5y ago
  I had the same thought but just tested with a fairly standard "premium" plastic cube (not Rubick's brand) and I think it works in the same way. There are springs and that allows assembly/disassembly and I think it would work with a less flexible material. Not sure if the Rubick's brand ones are the same or if they really do rely on flexible plastic.
  - HmOh6WbJ 5y ago
    Rubik's
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      Cube
  - Doxin 5y ago
    The original Rubiks brand cubes would rely on the springiness in the plastic. These tended to be rather hard to turn with even the slightest misalignment. Copy cats invented the improved mechanism. These will turn with a misalignment up to something silly like 40 degrees. Rubiks copied this mechanism for their own cubes eventually. Long story short, a random chinese Rubiks cube knockoff is quite likely to be higher quality than an actual Rubiks brand cube these days.
- gaudat 5y ago
  Conversely this is a cube that can't be cheated by smashing it into pieges like those plastic ones.
omoikane 5y ago
> Although it may be neat to look at, it weighs a massive three pounds (~1.4 kg) and is very tiring to manipulate. Solving this is more a test of the wrists than of the mind! This was the punchline I was looking for. The aluminum version seem like a more desirable version at 500g.
- chaoxu 5y ago
  I wonder if one can hollow out the individual cubes to decrease the weight.
  - lapetitejort 5y ago
    Or you could increase the weight by using tungsten or depleted uranium.
    - userbinator 5y ago
      With the same dimensions as the one in the article, tungsten would be around 7.3lb, and DU is only slightly lighter. If it was osmium, the densest known element, it would be around 8.5lb.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Osmium would evaporate, slowly, and poison you while it did. Strangely, osmium oxide is a gas. Iridium might be the better choice.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Now make one out of tungsten. Tungsten is famously hard to machine, but ultra-pure tungsten is supposed to be OK.
jacquesm 5y ago
Wow, what a gorgeous piece of work. If you ever want to make something out of 304 and you're having problems: if you are too gentle with your cuts it will tend to 'smear', you really need to cut, probably a lot more aggressive than you might think if you are used to taking it easy on Aluminum and other soft metals which are pretty forgiving. 304 is not. The machinists joke is that it isn't hard, it's just hard to work.
RobertRoberts 5y ago
He missed an opportunity to color the engravings on each side with the same colors from the original cube. I think it would have looked even better. But still incredible regardless.
jamestimmins 5y ago
This is extremely cool! I wonder if the relative similarity of the designs on the faces makes it particularly difficult to tell them apart, although if it's mostly for display that shouldn't matter much.
Damogran6 5y ago
I just bought a shower cassette removal tool (looks like Moen 104421), it's machined aluminum. I'm pretty sure I could make it myself...I couldn't make it for $15 and no time spent. This makes me sad.
jhgb 5y ago
I was kind of hoping the faces would be heat-colored but I imagine that would have been a bit more complex.
- convolvatron 5y ago
  just need an oven with good temp control. there is this lovely bronze color you can get on stainless.its strangely alot more stable than color you get from heat treating mild steel...but i bet it would rub off if you used it a nontrivial amount
  - jhgb 5y ago
    The problem I imagine would be with the corner pieces. You'd need three different temperatures for the three different faces (with stable temperature across each face). I imagine that achieving this might be still technologically possible but almost certainly non-trivial.
    - skykooler 5y ago
      The only way I could see of achieving that would be to heat each face very rapidly with something like a high-powered infrared laser, so it can reach oxide-forming temperature before the heat has time to spread. The low thermal conductivity of stainless steel compared to many other metals would actually be rather useful here.
  - auxym 5y ago
    Yep, we annealed a bar of 304 once (in a good kiln oven with electronic temp control) and it came out looking like brass.
Dig1t 5y ago
This is so cool, stuff like this makes me wish I had studied mechanical engineering instead of computer science. Does anyone know of a good route for learning the software stack associated with this stuff? I keep up with some maker YT channels like Stuff Made Here and they usually do an okay job of showing which machines were used and how each piece was made. But what they usually never show is which programs they used to model and mock up their creations before they started machining. I'd really love to learn more about CAD modeling and designing these kinds of projects but I don't know how to get started.
- teraflop 5y ago
  Fusion 360 has a free version and is very approachable. It's pretty popular among 3D printing hobbyists, but you can use it for all kinds of 2D and 3D designs.
  - s1mon 5y ago
    Onshape also has a free tier [0] and is popular amongst hobbyists and education. [0] https://www.onshape.com/en/products/free https://www.onshape.com/en/products/free
    - jwise0 5y ago
      I was Chris's housemate at the time, the victim of the hours of 'sssshhhh sssshhhh shhhhh'. Interestingly, he rendered this mostly by drawing boxes in pov-ray -- I'm not sure what he used to make dimensioned drawings, but it was definitely not any of the modern CAD tools, and they were mostly for his reference. But these days, I do highly recommend Onshape -- it breaks down a lot of the 'rules' that I thought I knew about CAD software. I started using it about two months ago; one of my clients uses it for real industrial design of some IoT hardware, so it is powerful enough to do real things. Before I started using Onshape, I thought that 1) all CAD software was a million billion gigabytes, and required stupidly powerful hardware for no readily apparent reason, and 2) had an annoying licensing model that requires you to jump through hoops to get access to the free tier. Well, neither of these are true with Onshape: I went from 'hmm, maybe I should try this for my personal projects' to 'constraining a sketch' in about 90 seconds ... on Linux ... in Firefox ... on my Shenzhen ThinkPad ... with an Intel GPU. I was blown away at how much it failed to suck. Anyway, my suggestion on choosing software is: it probably doesn't all that much matter. What you want to learn is the CAD mindset, not the software. An experienced MechE once told me that if you are not careful, you can end up writing 'spaghetti CAD'. These tools these days give you a lot of features that are, in theory, more expressive, but in practice, can result in unmanufacturable parts or unmaintainable designs: be careful!
nickcw 5y ago
A mirror cube made like this would be perfect as it doesn't need any markings on the faces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_blocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_blocks (The mirror cube is my favourite shape mod!)
- aardvark179 5y ago
  A ghost cube would be nice too.
huhtenberg 5y ago
Sort of tangentially related. Had this page bookmarked years ago because the craftsmanship on the puzzles is absolutely incredible - http://www.pelikanpuzzles.eu/en/gallery.html http://www.pelikanpuzzles.eu/en/gallery.html
gotaquestion 5y ago
My tendons are cowering in fear. How fast does it do finger tricks? It seems like there'd be a lot of resistance since so much surface-to-surface contact, where speedcubes typically flex on springs so that the shape of the cube changes to cut rotation on different curved planes.
s0teri0s 5y ago
I wonder if it is whisper quiet in use, or if it makes any kind of scraping noises when manipulated.
SapporoChris 5y ago
I definately enjoyed the article, but apologies. I enjoyed the referrenced article https://kellycordes.com/2009/11/02/the-fun-scale/ https://kellycordes.com/2009/11/02/the-fun-scale/ much more. Perhaps it's just my mood at the moment, but it had me laughing out loud. Regarding the Stainless Steel Rubik's Cube. What a work of art!
- camtarn 5y ago
  I also loved the linked article - the concept of Type II Fun is definitely one I'll be adding to my vocabulary :)
derbOac 5y ago
I would have liked to hear more about why the author was disappointed with the aluminum cube. I'd think it would be lighter and easier to handle.
- ummonk 5y ago
  From the article on the aluminum cube: http://lulabs.net/machining/cube/ http://lulabs.net/machining/cube/ > The flat bottoms of the face centers do not allow the cube to turn as smoothly as it should; a problem that was rectified with a different design in the new cube.
damir 5y ago
Shut up and take my money! Seriously, I want to buy this, like right now...
- idoh 5y ago
  Same. How much would you pay? I’d do $500 easy.
- tintor 5y ago
  Same! Especially the heavy steel one.
isoprophlex 5y ago
Weighs more than a kg... Makes me wonder if machining a tungsten Rubik's Cube is feasible
- tintor 5y ago
  In Tungsten: 41.6lb / 18.9kg. Train your mind and your arms at the same time. https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/the-4-tungsten-cube/ https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/the-4-tungsten-cube/
woah 5y ago
This may some day be the last remaining Rubik's cube
DominoTree 5y ago
You opened the box... we came

254 points by camtarn 5y ago

mjb 5y ago

That's very cool, and a beautiful piece in the end. Good choice to do it in 303. 316 really is a pain. The ingenuity required to get things like this one on manual tools (especially pre-DRO, but even now) is amazing. Starting out machining, I expected the machining to be the hard part, but often a lot more time is spent on planning, fixturing, set-up, and so on. For example, the idea of making custom vise jaws to hold odd-shaped parts seemed crazy to me the first time I heard it, and now its just a completely normal way to behave. CNC makes things a whole lot easier, from being able to do complex shapes with CAD/CAM, to simple things like interpolated circles (when the mill cuts a circular shape by moving X and Y simultaneously, a seemingly trivial thing that's nearly impossible on a manual*). Having a 4th or 5th axis makes complex stuff even easier, and often completely avoids the need for wacky fixturing. The lathe fixturing here is especially fun. A lot of old hobby books are written assuming you have only a lathe and no mill. Fun, often scary, fixturing was the order of the day. * Ok, you can do crazy things with boring heads, but getting it right is really hard.

jacquesm 5y ago
Yes, fixing stuff is one of the harder problems, as is avoiding toolstrikes or having to re-grip something because your carefully laid plans are messed up by the cutting depth or stability of your tools. Sometimes you spend more time figuring out how to safely grip a workpiece than you do on the actual machining.
bsder 5y ago
"Devil's chewing gum" describing 304/316 stainless for machining is pure poetry.

selectronics 5y ago

Very cool! Follow up idea, which I'm sure adds tons more complexity: have each face be a different material or finish. E.g. one face is stainless, another anodized aluminum, zinc plated for a third, brass on another. Each of the edge pieces would have to be a two-part assembly, and the corners composed of the three materials joined together (joinery, screws, brazing). That surely would feel strange with the varying densities and thermal masses while solving, but would look very cool. To be fair, it appears from the pictures that each center piece's pattern is symmetric, which avoids the difficult part of aligning those when solving (center often doesn't line up when solving a cube with pictures on the faces in place of a solid color). Probably far too niche for selling these to be profitable, but I'd love to have one.

jstanley 5y ago
> center often doesn't line up when solving a cube with pictures on the faces in place of a solid color I don't understand this. If you have a corner piece in the wrong corner then won't the colours on the adjacent faces be wrong?
- BoppreH 5y ago
  The corner and edge pieces are guaranteed to have the right orientation, but the center pieces can be in any 90° orientation. Imagine an arrow printed on a center piece; a cube can be solved and still have that arrow pointing to any of the 4 neighboring sides. Here's a video explaining special algorithms to rotate only the center piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk1eCZNCTB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk1eCZNCTB4
  - jstanley 5y ago
    Ah, interesting, thanks! So it's possible to reach a configuration where every side has the centre rotated but all the colours match up. I would not have believed that without seeing it.
somebodynew 5y ago
I think that it would be difficult to keep everything clean enough to avoid galvanic corrosion at the metal interfaces once someone has touched it. I experienced surprisingly rapid corrosion when securing copper lugs using zinc-plated steel nuts and bolts until I started handling them exclusively with gloves.

CarVac 5y ago

I never realized before that the sliding surfaces inside the cube are cylindrical, not spherical.

s1mon 5y ago
Doing some quick image searches for teardowns, it seems that different models have been done both ways. Some with spherical bearings and some with intersecting cylinders. It makes some sense that either way works, as you're only ever rotating around one axis at a time.

at_a_remove 5y ago

I saw a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iB7kkCy1xM&t=160s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iB7kkCy1xM&t=160s) on EDM machining and the tolerances were magnificently tight. I had since wondered if such techniques would work for building a "one-move" Lemarchand Box (Hellraiser), assuming that engraving various designs would utterly obscure the actually disjoint pieces. I am not sure what steel you would need. Something dimensionally stable, to be sure.

lisper 5y ago

My first thought was: how the heck could you assemble a metal cube? Putting a plastic one together relies on the springiness of the material in order to place the final piece, but metal won't give in the same way. The solution: > The face centers each receive a hollow stem that screws into the 5/16-24 thread. This assembly holds a captive spring-loaded screw, which screws into the core. The spring provides some give to the entire unit and allows the cube to be assembled and disassembled easily by snapping pieces in. Brilliant!

globular-toast 5y ago
I had the same thought but just tested with a fairly standard "premium" plastic cube (not Rubick's brand) and I think it works in the same way. There are springs and that allows assembly/disassembly and I think it would work with a less flexible material. Not sure if the Rubick's brand ones are the same or if they really do rely on flexible plastic.
- HmOh6WbJ 5y ago
  Rubik's
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    Cube
- Doxin 5y ago
  The original Rubiks brand cubes would rely on the springiness in the plastic. These tended to be rather hard to turn with even the slightest misalignment. Copy cats invented the improved mechanism. These will turn with a misalignment up to something silly like 40 degrees. Rubiks copied this mechanism for their own cubes eventually. Long story short, a random chinese Rubiks cube knockoff is quite likely to be higher quality than an actual Rubiks brand cube these days.
gaudat 5y ago
Conversely this is a cube that can't be cheated by smashing it into pieges like those plastic ones.

omoikane 5y ago

> Although it may be neat to look at, it weighs a massive three pounds (~1.4 kg) and is very tiring to manipulate. Solving this is more a test of the wrists than of the mind! This was the punchline I was looking for. The aluminum version seem like a more desirable version at 500g.

chaoxu 5y ago
I wonder if one can hollow out the individual cubes to decrease the weight.
- lapetitejort 5y ago
  Or you could increase the weight by using tungsten or depleted uranium.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    With the same dimensions as the one in the article, tungsten would be around 7.3lb, and DU is only slightly lighter. If it was osmium, the densest known element, it would be around 8.5lb.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Osmium would evaporate, slowly, and poison you while it did. Strangely, osmium oxide is a gas. Iridium might be the better choice.
ncmncm 5y ago
Now make one out of tungsten. Tungsten is famously hard to machine, but ultra-pure tungsten is supposed to be OK.

jacquesm 5y ago

Wow, what a gorgeous piece of work. If you ever want to make something out of 304 and you're having problems: if you are too gentle with your cuts it will tend to 'smear', you really need to cut, probably a lot more aggressive than you might think if you are used to taking it easy on Aluminum and other soft metals which are pretty forgiving. 304 is not. The machinists joke is that it isn't hard, it's just hard to work.

RobertRoberts 5y ago

He missed an opportunity to color the engravings on each side with the same colors from the original cube. I think it would have looked even better. But still incredible regardless.

jamestimmins 5y ago

This is extremely cool! I wonder if the relative similarity of the designs on the faces makes it particularly difficult to tell them apart, although if it's mostly for display that shouldn't matter much.

Damogran6 5y ago

I just bought a shower cassette removal tool (looks like Moen 104421), it's machined aluminum. I'm pretty sure I could make it myself...I couldn't make it for $15 and no time spent. This makes me sad.

jhgb 5y ago

I was kind of hoping the faces would be heat-colored but I imagine that would have been a bit more complex.

convolvatron 5y ago
just need an oven with good temp control. there is this lovely bronze color you can get on stainless.its strangely alot more stable than color you get from heat treating mild steel...but i bet it would rub off if you used it a nontrivial amount
- jhgb 5y ago
  The problem I imagine would be with the corner pieces. You'd need three different temperatures for the three different faces (with stable temperature across each face). I imagine that achieving this might be still technologically possible but almost certainly non-trivial.
  - skykooler 5y ago
    The only way I could see of achieving that would be to heat each face very rapidly with something like a high-powered infrared laser, so it can reach oxide-forming temperature before the heat has time to spread. The low thermal conductivity of stainless steel compared to many other metals would actually be rather useful here.
- auxym 5y ago
  Yep, we annealed a bar of 304 once (in a good kiln oven with electronic temp control) and it came out looking like brass.

Dig1t 5y ago

This is so cool, stuff like this makes me wish I had studied mechanical engineering instead of computer science. Does anyone know of a good route for learning the software stack associated with this stuff? I keep up with some maker YT channels like Stuff Made Here and they usually do an okay job of showing which machines were used and how each piece was made. But what they usually never show is which programs they used to model and mock up their creations before they started machining. I'd really love to learn more about CAD modeling and designing these kinds of projects but I don't know how to get started.

teraflop 5y ago
Fusion 360 has a free version and is very approachable. It's pretty popular among 3D printing hobbyists, but you can use it for all kinds of 2D and 3D designs.
- s1mon 5y ago
  Onshape also has a free tier [0] and is popular amongst hobbyists and education. [0] https://www.onshape.com/en/products/free https://www.onshape.com/en/products/free
  - jwise0 5y ago
    I was Chris's housemate at the time, the victim of the hours of 'sssshhhh sssshhhh shhhhh'. Interestingly, he rendered this mostly by drawing boxes in pov-ray -- I'm not sure what he used to make dimensioned drawings, but it was definitely not any of the modern CAD tools, and they were mostly for his reference. But these days, I do highly recommend Onshape -- it breaks down a lot of the 'rules' that I thought I knew about CAD software. I started using it about two months ago; one of my clients uses it for real industrial design of some IoT hardware, so it is powerful enough to do real things. Before I started using Onshape, I thought that 1) all CAD software was a million billion gigabytes, and required stupidly powerful hardware for no readily apparent reason, and 2) had an annoying licensing model that requires you to jump through hoops to get access to the free tier. Well, neither of these are true with Onshape: I went from 'hmm, maybe I should try this for my personal projects' to 'constraining a sketch' in about 90 seconds ... on Linux ... in Firefox ... on my Shenzhen ThinkPad ... with an Intel GPU. I was blown away at how much it failed to suck. Anyway, my suggestion on choosing software is: it probably doesn't all that much matter. What you want to learn is the CAD mindset, not the software. An experienced MechE once told me that if you are not careful, you can end up writing 'spaghetti CAD'. These tools these days give you a lot of features that are, in theory, more expressive, but in practice, can result in unmanufacturable parts or unmaintainable designs: be careful!

nickcw 5y ago

A mirror cube made like this would be perfect as it doesn't need any markings on the faces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_blocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_blocks (The mirror cube is my favourite shape mod!)

aardvark179 5y ago
A ghost cube would be nice too.

huhtenberg 5y ago

Sort of tangentially related. Had this page bookmarked years ago because the craftsmanship on the puzzles is absolutely incredible - http://www.pelikanpuzzles.eu/en/gallery.html http://www.pelikanpuzzles.eu/en/gallery.html

gotaquestion 5y ago

My tendons are cowering in fear. How fast does it do finger tricks? It seems like there'd be a lot of resistance since so much surface-to-surface contact, where speedcubes typically flex on springs so that the shape of the cube changes to cut rotation on different curved planes.

s0teri0s 5y ago

I wonder if it is whisper quiet in use, or if it makes any kind of scraping noises when manipulated.

SapporoChris 5y ago

I definately enjoyed the article, but apologies. I enjoyed the referrenced article https://kellycordes.com/2009/11/02/the-fun-scale/ https://kellycordes.com/2009/11/02/the-fun-scale/ much more. Perhaps it's just my mood at the moment, but it had me laughing out loud. Regarding the Stainless Steel Rubik's Cube. What a work of art!

camtarn 5y ago
I also loved the linked article - the concept of Type II Fun is definitely one I'll be adding to my vocabulary :)

derbOac 5y ago

I would have liked to hear more about why the author was disappointed with the aluminum cube. I'd think it would be lighter and easier to handle.

ummonk 5y ago
From the article on the aluminum cube: http://lulabs.net/machining/cube/ http://lulabs.net/machining/cube/ > The flat bottoms of the face centers do not allow the cube to turn as smoothly as it should; a problem that was rectified with a different design in the new cube.

damir 5y ago

Shut up and take my money! Seriously, I want to buy this, like right now...

idoh 5y ago
Same. How much would you pay? I’d do $500 easy.
tintor 5y ago
Same! Especially the heavy steel one.

isoprophlex 5y ago

Weighs more than a kg... Makes me wonder if machining a tungsten Rubik's Cube is feasible

tintor 5y ago
In Tungsten: 41.6lb / 18.9kg. Train your mind and your arms at the same time. https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/the-4-tungsten-cube/ https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/the-4-tungsten-cube/

woah 5y ago

This may some day be the last remaining Rubik's cube

DominoTree 5y ago

You opened the box... we came