Rendered at 12:14:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Someone 1 days ago [-]
Can’t some of these easily be improved upon?
For example, for the 12.5°, 15° and 20° ones, replace the two blocks in the top layer by the construction used for the top two blocks in the 25° record.
Also, I think “A lone upright block tips over at 11.3° in its thin direction” doesn’t imply “no matter what you do to the base, you can’t stand blocks up vertically at high tilts.”
I would think you could sneak in cage-like structures like these (seen from the top)
ABB A
A D ABB
CCD CCD
D
with blocks A and D taking most of the north-to-south loads and B and C taking most of the east-to-west loads.
Possibly that will only work near the base, where there is more pressure from above that prevents these blocks from falling over.
Possibly, such a construct with only three (at 120° angles) or two blocks could work, too.
yorwba 1 days ago [-]
Rearranging blocks at the top to make them taller shifts up the center of gravity for the entire structure, which can destabilize lower levels. So copying part of a more stable tower into a less stable one won't necessarily be an improvement.
For example, for the 12.5°, 15° and 20° ones, replace the two blocks in the top layer by the construction used for the top two blocks in the 25° record.
Also, I think “A lone upright block tips over at 11.3° in its thin direction” doesn’t imply “no matter what you do to the base, you can’t stand blocks up vertically at high tilts.”
I would think you could sneak in cage-like structures like these (seen from the top)
with blocks A and D taking most of the north-to-south loads and B and C taking most of the east-to-west loads.Possibly that will only work near the base, where there is more pressure from above that prevents these blocks from falling over.
Possibly, such a construct with only three (at 120° angles) or two blocks could work, too.