Bizarre Cube Problem

[Campaigner]

Dear All,

 

I am new to the forum so thanks in advance.

 

My problem is this I have been asked to create an artistic cube drawing which is 1 metre square, then I have to insert 100 separate holes right through all 3 (6) faces, there is 100 holes in all starting at 1mm then 2mm, 3mm... and so on through to 100mm.

 

Would there be a formula for this does anyone know?

 

Really appreciate any input on this nutty problem.

 

Campaigner

[ReMark]

I'm assuming this is all to be done in 3D right?

 

Is the cube supposed to solid throughout or is it hollow?

 

Why would you need a formula to create the holes?

 

Is there a pattern that must be followed for the placement of the holes or can they be placed at random intervals?

 

Final result will depict each face with 100 holes right?

Edited May 25, 2016 by ReMark

[Dadgad]

How about just using the Artistic metric cube with body piercings lisp?

 

Welcome to the CADTutor forum Campaigner.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

I don't suggest you waste any time googling for such a lisp.

So, as ReMark asked, will the total number of holes be 100, or 100 per axis, for a total of 300 holes?

 

Have you considered, or been given, a concept for the hole layouts on the faces?

Edited May 26, 2016 by Dadgad

[BIGAL]

A 1m cube with tubes took about 2 mins. If you do 1mm 2mm 3mm say across you will get 5050 not 1000 so would need some form of radial from a corner formula to do 1mm 2mm 3mm etc a sprialing centre of the circle. Image is just an array example.

Edited May 26, 2016 by BIGAL

[Campaigner]

The cube will have the 100 holes randomly scattered across each face - on all 3 planes. The reason a formula may be required as at a later date not only will the cube size be changing but also the number of holes. The cube will be 3D printed. Already impressed with the answers...

[Dadgad]

I thought from your original post that a single cube would have 100 holes, and that no two holes would be of the same diameter?

Meaning ranging in increments of one mm from 1 to 100?

And they will randomly pierce the cube along each of the ortho axii, X, Y & Z.

Are the holes allowed to intersect one another inside the cube?

Edited May 26, 2016 by Dadgad

[Campaigner]

...that's right Dadgad, each face will have 100 holes, no two holes will be the same diameter, they will be a series of 1-100. If they are random they will be allowed to intersect with each other.

[ReMark]

The cube will have the 100 holes randomly scattered across each face - on all 3 planes. The reason a formula may be required as at a later date not only will the cube size be changing but also the number of holes. The cube will be 3D printed. Already impressed with the answers...

 

Any other criteria you care to add?

 

So, what's with the question about a formula? You still haven't provided an explanation.

[ReMark]

Here's my first attempt at what I refer to as my Cube of Swiss Cheese.

 

My 100 holes were systematically positioned across a single face of the cube at a spacing of 100mm horizontally and vertically in ascending order starting at 1mm then proceeding all the way up to 100mm. I won't bother going into an explanation of the process I used unless someone is interested other than to say the holes were then copied to the other two orientations.

 

[SEANT]

I certainly think it possible to automate that task with Lisp, or some such. It would not neccessarily be easy. The random placement has to avoid already placed holes.

 

Perhaps a little human interaction would be okay. This command macro was used to create the attached file:

*^C^C_Circle;\D;$M=$(getvar,useri1);setvar;useri1;$(-,$(getvar,useri1),1);

 

A portion of the process was screen captured here:

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/community/screencast/036e4f63-72ac-4aa2-a660-dbb61a0882ec

 

HundredCircles.dwg

[ReMark]

Personally I like brute force. Never pretty, never fast but it does get the job done.

[SEANT]

There seems to be a formatting issue with the web forum software. It keeps inserting a space before one of the dollar signs(3rd one). The macro should be like the image below:

[Campaigner]

That's brilliant, however the person who asked me requires the holes to be randomly scattered so as not to affect the integrity of the piece.

[SEANT]

Integrity of randomness. Interesting.

 

At the end of the day, wouldn't either method be a form of Human randomness? Either via direct scattering by hand, as in my macro, or via some Random() function that has a algorithm designed by man.

[ReMark]

That's brilliant, however the person who asked me requires the holes to be randomly scattered so as not to affect the integrity of the piece.

 

Now it seems we are finally getting to the crux of the matter.

[ReMark]

Randomly picked although not necessarily randomly placed holes.

 

[ReMark]

Randomly picked AND randomly located holes. I'm done. All this reminds me of Swiss Cheese on acid.

 

[lrm]

Clarification - you said the holes may intersect with each other. Thus there is no minimum wall thickness between adjacent holes. Is that right? Can a hole intersect the edge of the cube face it is on? I assume the holes are drill perpendicular to the face.

 

If this all true then all you need is a program with a loop of 100 iterations that calculates a X and y randomly and successively increment the circle diameter. The number of holes,the size of the cube, and the range of circle radii would be specified at the start. No checking is required. Sounds straight forward to me.

~ Lee

[ReMark]

Yeah, that sounds too straight forward to me. Instead of only penetrating the opposite the face the holes should also be allowed to penetrate adjacent faces at random angles too.

[lrm]

On further thought if there is no checking then a small hole may be located totally within a larger hole yielding a final hole count of less than a hundred. Is this ok? If not, then you need to define what is meant by two intersecting holes. That is, how much of an incursion into the wall of a large hole must a small hole make for it to be considered valid?

 

~Lee

 

P.S. ReMark, regarding your signature " Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standard!" Where I worked we suffered from too many standards enabling us to choose any one we liked thus totally nullifying the concept of standards.