# New BLD edges method? H-edges...



## Thieflordz5 (Jul 11, 2009)

I've been thinking about this for a while now, would it be efficient to use the H-Perm to solve the edges of a 3x3 BLD?
The only real problem I can see is that if you have a cycle/z perm, you wouldn't be able to solve, unless you mem them that way.
Of course, this is just a thought, and I'm not sure if it can work 100% yet.
Plus, you get edges done twice as fast! (instead of shooting to one spot, you're shooting to 2)


----------



## byu (Jul 11, 2009)

1. Not twice as fast... think about setups.

2. That's a really good idea, I think I'm going to try this out, but not just H-Perm, hold on a sec...


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Jul 11, 2009)

byu said:


> 1. Not twice as fast... think about setups.
> 
> 2. That's a really good idea, I think I'm going to try this out, but not just H-Perm, hold on a sec...



HAHA, I meant without setups, but of course, you're right, the setups would be more complicated.


----------



## byu (Jul 11, 2009)

What do you mean by without setups? I think that if we have two buffers, one at UF and one at UL, and make sure they both are in different cycles, you can run both cycles at the same time. If they're in the same cycle, then we just break into the UL one, and leave the one at UF.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Jul 11, 2009)

oh... oops, Sorry, I'm not a BLD guru 
And by no setups, I think that it would be faster to do 6 H-perms minimum as apposed to 12 T/M2 minimum. 
How would you break the UL cycle, by doing a 3 Cycle? Like I said, I don't do much BLD XD


----------



## byu (Jul 11, 2009)

Unfortunately, I can't find my cube right now, but let's just say you had these two cycles (simplified greatly to suit this example, since I don't have a cube)

UF->DB->RB
UL->FR->UR

DB + FR
DB is setup to UF by doing a B2 move. FR is setup to UR by doing an R move. So

B2 R *H-Perm* R' B2

RB + UR
RB is easily setup with B, and UR doesn't need a setup, so:

B *H-Perm* B'

Please tell me if that doesn't work, I don't have a cube to test it on.

EDIT: A similar concept (although quite more complicated) I believe can be used for the corners (E-Perm or H-Perm+U2)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 11, 2009)

I'll be experimenting with this a good bit today.


EDIT:
After experimenting, I've decided that I don't like it..too much keeping track of set-up moves + special cases.

Instead, here's a method idea:
Orient corners
permute corners and edges at the same time with T-perms & set-up moves. (UBR and UR)
use T perms to finish it off.

I've already done some testing, and I can say that it works so far.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 11, 2009)

Brilliant!
I just tried this with eyes open, im wondering how to memo this now.

+1 to you, mister. 

EDIT: I really like this!


----------



## vvtopkar (Jul 11, 2009)

Hm, I've been thinking about similar uses of "other" PLL's (apart from traditional ones used in Old Pochman), especially the H perm, but I'm pretty sure M2 will still be faster (M2 as the "solving alg" will always be faster than M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2)

Also, setups would be quite difficult, as the setup for the piece in the first buffer could potentially disturb the position of the "slot" for the piece in the second buffer.

I'm still interested though. 

EDIT: Trying this out, but what would you do if you need to send the piece from one buffer to the other, or would you just break into a new cycle from there? I'll try to figure out....


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 11, 2009)

vvtopkar said:


> Hm, I've been thinking about similar uses of "other" PLL's (apart from traditional ones used in Old Pochman), especially the H perm, but I'm pretty sure M2 will still be faster (M2 as the "solving alg" will always be faster than M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2)
> 
> Also, setups would be quite difficult, as the setup for the piece in the first buffer could potentially disturb the position of the "slot" for the piece in the second buffer.
> 
> I'm still interested though.



He's right, the it seems to me that the simplicity of M2 is better. Some of the cases i see are a bit complicated after setups and its a little tricky.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 11, 2009)

I agree. This method just died. Sorry guys.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jul 11, 2009)

> And by no setups, I think that it would be faster to do 6 H-perms minimum as apposed to 12 T/M2 minimum.


6 times H is slower than 12 times M2...

Just sayin'.


----------



## Edmund (Jul 11, 2009)

I actually thought about this about 4 months ago when I was learning a bunch of BLD methods for fun. After thinking for a while though I realized that it wouldn't be faster than M2 with the setups I had to do. I see why you had the idea it just didn't work well when I tried a few months back.


----------



## SparkZer00 (Jul 11, 2009)

I think that this method has not died yet. What if you don't restrict yourself solely to the h perm, but instead just the h perm cycle. I propose that you expand your algorithm range to all ells that cycle in an h perm fashion, so that you can include an orientation/ expand target spots to shoot to.

This simplifies setup moves a lot, in my opinion


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 11, 2009)

Too complex. Why not use http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=181473&postcount=120


----------



## happa95 (Jul 11, 2009)

SparkZer00 said:


> I think that this method has not died yet. What if you don't restrict yourself solely to the h perm, but instead just the h perm cycle. I propose that you expand your algorithm range to all ells that cycle in an h perm fashion, so that you can include an orientation/ expand target spots to shoot to.
> 
> This simplifies setup moves a lot, in my opinion



It's getting complicated and free enough that it can just be considered freestyle.


----------



## blah (Jul 12, 2009)

Wait... So all you want to do is to solve 2 edges at a time, right?

Considered 3-cycle?


----------



## joey (Jul 13, 2009)

Yeah.. I had this idea a long while ago.. but I don't really think it works too well.. feel free to prove me wrong.


----------



## tjyahl (Mar 26, 2010)

ive thought about using h-perm for edges too, but setups can get a little to complicated, and theres odd special cases that would be....well odd, and ive considered turbo but it seems like it has way to much unessicary memo, and it would be easy to transition from h-perm into turbo it seems


----------



## Sakarie (Mar 28, 2010)

Thieflordz5 said:


> oh... oops, Sorry, I'm not a BLD guru
> And by no setups, I think that it would be faster to do 6 H-perms minimum as apposed to 12 T/M2 minimum.
> How would you break the UL cycle, by doing a 3 Cycle? Like I said, I don't do much BLD XD



Please make a video where you do 6 H-perms faster than 12 M2's


----------



## Diniz (Mar 28, 2010)

H perm = M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 > 4 M2


----------

