Rubik Cube? Extra Credit Blog
When trying to think of a topic that I should write about for a blog, I could only think of a rubik cube. The idea came to me because of my new profound interest in the cube that has stumped millions since it was invented in 1974. The rubik cube, invented by a Hugarian Sculptor named Erno Rubik is a mechanical puzzle that without intentions by Rubik became the most popular toy ever invented in the world. The inegma shaped in a simple cube has sold over 900,000,000 since 1980 when it was released for sale to the public. The popularity of the toy gained it the prestigious award “Game of the Year” in 1980 and in 1981 in addition to the BATR Toy of the Year Award in both 1980 and 1981. However, the popularity of the puzzle was an added bonus for Rubik. The cube was looked at as a challenge in itself to Rubik and he was merely looking for a way to make the cube work. Starting in 1970, a protype for the Rubik Cube had been created by a Canadian named Harry Nichols. The difference between the two were Nichols idea was a 7×7x7 puzzle and was rotational, very similar to the ideas of Rubik. In addition, the puzzle was held together by magnets resulting in being clomsy and very costly to produce. Also in 1970, a man named Frank Fox, invented a 3×3x3 toy but was spherical. He received a patent much earlier than Rubik but failed to gain popularity. When Rubik created his version of the puzzle, he used the idea of interlocking pieces inside of the cube, allowing every piece to swivel in every direction except diagonally. The only pieces that didnt’t move were the center pieces, which were held firmly in place because they are bonded together. The use of interlocking pieces was much more efficient, durable, and cheaper than the other models created. After testing out his invention and dispersing it to toy shops to test out for themselves resulting in popularity. As the popularity began to grow, he original name for the cubic puzzle, the magic cube, was changed when it went on sale in 1980 by the company Ideal Toys. However, because of similar ideas, Nichols sued Ideal Toys and lost the suit that the 2×2 cube was an infringement on his patent but the 3×3x3 cube did not do so. After all of the legal settlements were resided, production of the product started up again, and by 1982 over one hundred million cubes had been sold. When the toy reached its peak of popularity, stickers of the cubes were actually sold because people became so frustrated in trying to solve the cube. For the majority of the population the original cube is a challenge in itself, but for some the cube was to simple nd did not give them a worthy challenge. As a result for the demand for a greater challenge, cubes of 4, 5, 6 and all the way up to eleven cubes were invented. In addition to the gifted who are able to solve the complex puzzle with relative ease, competitions around the world are held throughout the world for who can solve it in the least amount of time. Today the record is set at 9.55 seconds and is .22 seconds faster than any other competitor. One of the reasons that the puzzle has gained such popularity and interest to the American public is because of its intense and rigorous challenges to solve. The cube is made up of 26 individual cubes resulting in over 3,252,003,274,489,856,000 different positions. This results in a almost insurmountable challenge to anyone who tries. However, no matter how many different ways that the cube can be positioned, it can be solved in less than 40 moves no matter what. The solution to the Rubik Cube must be solved using algorithms which is a series of moves that result in not moving any pieces except for the single intended cube. This task to solve the cube has stumped almost a billion people since its invention and has only been solved by less than 10 percent of the people who have ever picked the cube up. It is a goal of mine to one day be a part of that ten percent.
Nate Jenkins
http://www.rubiks.com/
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/
http://www.hungarianbookstore.com/rubik.htm
Leave a Reply