tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212207797265262891.post7337781483777265428..comments2022-11-23T12:59:53.568-05:00Comments on Anchor Stone Constructions: g24William Seppelerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284402557702089267noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212207797265262891.post-63849071519869684942008-08-06T11:11:00.000-04:002008-08-06T11:11:00.000-04:00It's not too weird. There's a systems to the bloc...It's not too weird. There's a systems to the block choice.<BR/><BR/>In my first "cube" example, I choose<BR/><BR/>(2) #1<BR/>(2) #4<BR/>(2) #15<BR/><BR/>This produces a 2x2 cube where all the blocks are based on a #4 (ie: the largest). The #1 and #15 are blocks that can be derived from a #4 by halving.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the 3x3 "cube" is a collection of blocks all based on the #4 and #5 blocks. The other blocks are derived by halving, then quartering, and so on.<BR/><BR/>I thought it particular that a solid "cube" could be constructed by using two of each block type. I'm sure there's some mathematical proof or reasoning behind this exercise. I just found it interesting. Makes for a good puzzle if anything.<BR/><BR/>NOTE: I should point out that this "halving" exercise is not really consistent. I only half the #5 block down to a #29, but I continuously half the #4 block down to a #72. I also introduce the #208, #210, and #218 blocks, which are diagonal cuts derived from a #4 (actually a #1, but a #1 is derived by halving a #4).<BR/><BR/>BTW: When I say something is based on a #4, I mean it has a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio in it's dimensions. If a block is based on a #5 block, it has a 3:1 or 3:2 ratio somewhere in it's dimension. OK, saying that probably confused you more :) Suffice to say, there was a system at play (pun intended) going on.William Seppelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284402557702089267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212207797265262891.post-19631013202010174352008-08-06T09:56:00.000-04:002008-08-06T09:56:00.000-04:00Wow.That list of stones sounds thoroughly weird. I...Wow.<BR/><BR/>That list of stones sounds thoroughly weird. I may have to give it a try. :)<BR/><BR/>\\<BR/><BR/>I found two smaller sets: Orion KK 0 and Orion GK 1 - the latter being from that fun series were the block cross section is 25mm by 18.75 mm. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I don't have design booklets of sheets for either of those -- I'd like to see what Ankerstein came up with for them.<BR/><BR/>That may be the nudge to get me to order a current set of CDroms.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11040774790050777890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212207797265262891.post-19342413074810428572008-08-06T09:14:00.000-04:002008-08-06T09:14:00.000-04:00Leave it to me to reinvent the wheel.A while back,...Leave it to me to reinvent the wheel.<BR/><BR/>A while back, I suggested the creation of an Anchor Stone promo set. The promo set idea was just a repacking of Froebel gifts 3, 4, and 5. Instead of Froebel gift 3 where you have a cube of eight #1 blocks, you would package a cube of two #4, two #15, and two #1 blocks. The set would fit in the same wooden box as Frobel gift 3.<BR/><BR/>I even went so far as to create a larger "sample set" as follows:<BR/><BR/>(2) #1<BR/>(2) #3<BR/>(2) #4<BR/>(2) #5<BR/>(2) #15<BR/>(2) #17<BR/>(2) #19<BR/>(2) #21<BR/>(2) #28<BR/>(2) #29<BR/>(2) #31<BR/>(2) #34<BR/>(2) #69<BR/>(2) #72<BR/>(2) #208<BR/>(2) #210<BR/>(2) #218<BR/><BR/><BR/>This sample set creates a 3x3 cube and gives a sample of most of the basic Anchor blocks. It's not a very practical sample set, but thought it was novel in that it uses two of every block to create the cube. It's an easy puzzle if you want to build a cube from the above block list.William Seppelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284402557702089267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212207797265262891.post-14895166906695606942008-08-05T18:04:00.000-04:002008-08-05T18:04:00.000-04:00The Kleine Gernegroß seems to the smallest set eve...The Kleine Gernegroß seems to the smallest set ever done, considering the total physical volume of the stones in a set.<BR/><BR/>But many sets were done with fewer stones. <BR/><BR/>The smallest I can think of right off, Comet 0, had 18 stones. <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/albrwi/ab0/as0.htm" REL="nofollow">This set</A> had 19. Being KK, those had slightly smaller footprints than a KG, but greater depth for more volume. <BR/><BR/>Several sets had counts in the twenties and thirties up through 37 for the Orion KK 2 (and possibly others).Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11040774790050777890noreply@blogger.com