# Auto cube scrambler



## iseldoff (Sep 21, 2011)

Just a question has anyone ever tried to make or know were i can get a affordable auto cube scrambler. And what I mean by that is a device were you can put your 3x3 into and it will scramble it for you. I've seen Lego solvers on YouTube. Maybe they can be reprogramed but I would have no idea how to do that let alone build one.


----------



## Cheese11 (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm guessing you have just have to build a lego solver and then reprogram it to scramble the cube.


----------



## brandbest1 (Sep 21, 2011)

I would love one of those, because i'm too lazy to scramble my cube.


----------



## iseldoff (Sep 22, 2011)

brandbest1 said:


> I would love one of those, because i'm too lazy to scramble my cube.


 Yea me too. Honestly my hands get sore after about 50 solves if I had a auto scrambler I can double the amount of solves I can do before stoping.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 22, 2011)

iseldoff said:


> if I had a auto scrambler I can double the amount of solves I can do before stoping.


 
Lolwut. Scrambles are usually 25 moves. Something tells me your solves take more than 25 moves. Not having to scramble would not come even close to cutting the amount of turning you do in half.


----------



## Vinny (Sep 22, 2011)

Yeah a 3x3 scrambler wouldn't really be nexessary, because it's not even hard to just scramble the cube. However, if you find out some sort of 7x7 scrambler, feel free to tell me :3


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Sep 22, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Lolwut. Scrambles are usually 25 moves. Something tells me your solves take more than 25 moves. Not having to scramble would not come even close to cutting the amount of turning you do in half.


 
I think he will use two cubes 
and while solving, the autoscrambler can scramble the other cube for him. 

anyway, I still like scrambling my own cube. It can also improve my fingertricks.
although, it is really cool to have that autoscrambler. :tu


----------



## collinbxyz (Sep 22, 2011)

It'd be the most help if you have two cubes, one you solve, while the other is being scrambled. Therefor, there would be practically no delay between solves, other than the normal inspection. But I honestly don't find scrambling much of a problem. But of course, I would definitely _prefer_ one.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 22, 2011)

Someone who's really good at robotics should make a machine to help people do cube marathons. It would have a cube intake conveyor belt thing, and a cube output place, and you'd give it your solved cubes and it would do random moves on them for you. As long as it can scramble faster than the WR holder can solve, you could use it to replace a partner, and do tons of marathons all by yourself.

(For normal practice, though, I'd suggest just doing the scrambles yourself... unless you're doing huge cubes, it's really not that hard. And if your hands get tired scrambling, you probably need a better cube.)


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 22, 2011)

I've thought about this before, and wondered why no one has ever made them for competitions.

Or you could just press the space bar. Oh yeah, I'm doing too much sim solving.


----------



## iseldoff (Sep 22, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Lolwut. Scrambles are usually 25 moves. Something tells me your solves take more than 25 moves. Not having to scramble would not come even close to cutting the amount of turning you do in half.


 Yea I'm still solving average around a min so I probably my solve most likely take more then 25 moves. I'm using fredrik but I still have quite a bit of algorithms to memorize. And that time I know is very slow considering ive been cubing about 9 or 10 months now. But also about the scramble I probably scramble the cube longer then I should as well I normally scramble for at lest a min or 2. It's kind of a habit I really wanna make sure the cube is scrambled properly. That's why a auto scrambler would be awesome there would be no doubt in my mind that the cube is scrambled properly. But if I scramble for a min and it take me a min to solve then most likely I could almost double it, no?


----------



## iseldoff (Sep 22, 2011)

qqwref said:


> (For normal practice, though, I'd suggest just doing the scrambles yourself... unless you're doing huge cubes, it's really not that hard. And if your hands get tired scrambling, you probably need a better cube.)


 naw I have a zhanchi lubed with lubix it's not the cube it's me I have major joint pain all over my body my hands weren't to bad but there getting worse so yea that's the reason for the soreness. Plus those numbers I gave was very ruff estimates. I practice all day stopping every couple of hours for about 30 min to a hour at a time so 50 solves is like the min I do all day it's probably more then that most days but at the end of the day my hands are pretty sore.


----------



## aronpm (Sep 22, 2011)

iseldoff said:


> But also about the scramble I probably scramble the cube longer then I should as well I normally scramble for at lest a min or 2. It's kind of a habit I really wanna make sure the cube is scrambled properly. That's why a auto scrambler would be awesome there would be no doubt in my mind that the cube is scrambled properly.


 Use a timer that gives scrambles, don't hand scramble.


----------



## Jungleterrain (Sep 22, 2011)

This would work better for competitions, not at home use, I think.


----------



## wontolla (Sep 22, 2011)

IMO, it would take a lot of effort (and money) to develop a robot capable of scramble several cubes faster than a human. 

But a scrambler machine at home could be useful for multiblind when you don't own many cubes. Although it could be cheaper to just buy the bl**** cubes.


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 22, 2011)

wontolla said:


> But a scrambler machine at home could be useful for multiblind when you don't own many cubes. Although it could be cheaper to just buy the bl**** cubes.


 
Ever heard of "memo"?


----------



## tx789 (Sep 22, 2011)

useful in huge comps worlds and as cubing grows


----------



## peterbone (Sep 22, 2011)

Here's an idea I had a while ago.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?28690

Edit: I was thinking about this some more and was thinking what the simplest design for a random cube scrambler could be. It doesn't need the complexity of a solver. I think it would be possible to make a purely mechanical scrambler. Here's my idea:
You have an upside-down cone shaped funnel about 20cm high. At the bottom of a cone is a shooting device (spring powered) that continuously throws the cube up (with a bit of spin), which will then bounce, roll and slide down the side of the cone back to the same position at the bottom, but with a random orientation. Additionally there's an arm at the bottom which performs a quarter turn on one of the cube faces, which is in synch with the thrower and performs a turn just before the throw. Both are powered by a single motor.
Quite easy to make I think and would be fun to watch but the down side is that it would be quite slow, although I think you could get it to do 20 turns in around 30 seconds.


----------



## mazter2010 (Sep 24, 2011)

My idea is to have 6 small motors attached to the core, and center pieces and then a way to controll them (bluetooth?) 
The motors would also act as sensors and would display moves live on a computer screen, now wheres my super glue?


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 24, 2011)

mazter2010 said:


> My idea is to have 6 small motors attached to the core, and center pieces and then a way to controll them (bluetooth?)



Lol. I think the best way for competitions would be like a solver, but just does random turns.


----------



## JimJokester (Mar 9, 2019)

The hardware you would need for a robot scrambler would be the same as for a robot solver. I would look for robot solver designs.


----------



## willtri4 (Mar 9, 2019)

JimJokester said:


> The hardware you would need for a robot scrambler would be the same as for a robot solver. I would look for robot solver designs.


It's been 7 years, they probably realize that by now (or more likely don't care anymore)


----------

