Talk:Professor's Cube

Toys Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Toys To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More...
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles.
Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article
Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes
Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles.
Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs
Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner.
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention

Untitled[edit]

Think we can get rid of the cleanup notice now? There doesn't seem to be any discussion here, so it's not evident what we should be cleaning up - but quite a bit has changed since September.

--RandomPrecision 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it; leave a note here if you think it should be returned, and why. It seems a half-way decent article. --AlsatianRain 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are you won't take me seriously...[edit]

And I can't really blame you. After all, I'm not really sure myself that I'm entierly serious with this question... But I wanna know anyway... How do you pronounce "282,870,942,277,741,856,536,180,333,107,150,328,293,127,731,985,672,134,721,536,000,000,000,000,000"? 217.209.222.101 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two hundred eighty two trevigintillion, eight hundred seventy duovigintillion, nine hundred forty two unvigintillion, two hundred seventy seven vigintillion, seven hundred forty one novemdecillion, eight hundred fifty six octodecillion, five hundred thirty six septendecillion, one hundred eighty sexdecillion, three hundred thirty three quindecillion, one hundred seven quattuordecillion, one hundred fifty tredecillion, three hundred twenty eight duodecillion, two hundred ninety three undecillion, one hundred twenty seven decillion, seven hundred thirty one nonillion, nine hundred eighty five octillion, six hundred seventy two septillion, one hundred thirty four sextillion, seven hundred twenty one quintillion, five hundred thirty six quadrillion. Mewchu11 05:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet! Have a cookie Mewchu11! ^_^ 81.228.148.16 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now for a real challenge, try pronouncing the permutations for the 6×6×6 or 7×7×7 puzzles. I would guess that googol would appear in there somewhere, since both have billions of googols of possibilities. Hellbus (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of Article[edit]

Is the subject of the article mechanical cubic 5x5x5 puzzles or is it specifically the Rubik's brand of 5x5x5 puzzles? Paiev (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All cubic 5x5x5's, but most people have only heard of "rubik", so out of simplicity we just say rubik 70.237.234.59 (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!![edit]

I've got the 3*3*3 cube but the 5*5*5 cube is amazing I mean I can only solve one side of the 3*3*3 cube!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.8.181 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank on behalf of the cubing community- 70.237.139.129 (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retooled Version[edit]

When was the new retooled version of the rubik's cube released? Which one moves better the original or the retooled (Master King (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think Summer 2007, but probably earlier. And it depends how you lube it, and break it in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwiki (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

parity?[edit]

is there parity error like in rubik's revenge? if there is, i think we should mention on the article, like rubik's revenge. Ragnaroknike (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you group edges and centers together and then solve it like a 3x3x3, there's no chance of odd parity. The centers, middle edges and the corners make up a 3x3x3 cube, so if the surrounding pieces match up with them, there's no chance of a parity error like the Revenge, unless the cube has been tampered with. I've added this information to the article. Hellbus (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik's vs Eastsheen 5x5x5[edit]

Which 5x5x5 cube is better - Rubik's or Eastsheen? I can already solve both the 3x3x3 and the 4x4x4, so now I'd like to get the 5x5x5. Well I don't know which one to buy - the Rubik's or the Eastsheen? Which one is 'better'? My 3x3x3 is Rubik's and my 4x4x4 is Eastsheen. After Eastsheen the Rubik's feels really weird and kinda soft... But i don't know if it's a bad thing. And after Rubik's the Eastsheen feels kinda hard (to touch) and weird as well... So now it's the 5x5x5 - which one should i get? I'm not into speedsolving, just casual solving. (Well my 3x3x3 average is about 2 minutes and my 4x4x4 is about 10 minutes and i'm happy like that) So which one should i get in 5x5x5 - Rubik's or Eastsheen? --Topk (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people will recommand Eastsheen version, since it last longer than the rubik's... mine is rubik's, and sometimes when u turn, the center piece will move up and down and one time it is almost going to pop out... -Ragnaroknike (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recommend the Eastsheen cube as well. It turns much more easily than the Rubik's brand cube. I can turn inner layers on the cube just by pushing on them. On the Rubik's brand cube, I'd have to turn two layers and then turn the outer one back to where it was to accomplish the same task. Hellbus (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I have a V-Cube 5 I recommend it over either of the other versions. It just has a better feel, and it's probably more durable too. Hellbus (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastsheen?[edit]

Some more information on the Eastsheen version would be handy. Other than the internal mechanism, what differentiates the Eastsheen from the other 5x5x5 variants? --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the smallest of the three versions made and it uses purple instead of orange stickers on that side. It's fairly well made, perhaps a bit too easy to turn. Hellbus (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the mechanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.143.67 (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meffert's and Cube4You version[edit]

Does anyone has pictures or referable information of mechanisms of those cubes? --Artman40 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember right, the Meffert's version has the same mechanism as the official cube. Cube4You sells the Eastsheen version of the cube. Hellbus (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how is the mechanism altered to provide smoother turning and higher durability? --Artman40 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Meffert's cube, I don't know. If you're referring to the Cube4You/Eastsheen cube, it uses an entirely different mechanism as can be seen in the dismantled cube pictures. Hellbus (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]