Re: [Phys-l] ingenious? or just perverse?

[chuck britton <cvbritton@embarqmail.com>]

This 'Savage' method seems rather symmetric to me.
How does the added 'top' differ from the existing 'bottom'.

I'm missing something here.


On Jul 11, 2008, at Jul 11(Fri) 4:40 , John Denker wrote:

> Meanwhile, the Adam Savage scheme appears to be the following:  start
> with a five-faced object consisting of a cube that is missing its top.
> Crease each of the four side-faces along the diagonal from northwest
> to southeast.  This is a "valley" crease as seen from outside.  Then
> collapse the cube with a twisting motion.  It works fine for the five
> faced object ... which is what they proudly showed on the TV show ...
> but if you try it with the sixth face in place it doesn't work nearly
> so well.
>
> ========================