Scioly.org

Are we allowed to have the blocks fall down one by one but on the last block is a mass that falls on a mousetrap causing the next reaction. Technically the stacking of the blocks causes the mass to fall triggering the next reaction.

elmono wrote:Are we allowed to have the blocks fall down one by one but on the last block is a mass that falls on a mousetrap causing the next reaction. Technically the stacking of the blocks causes the mass to fall triggering the next reaction.

All the blocks need to stack. So if the 5th block does not fall on the 4th block, or the 4th block does not completely support the weight of the 5th block, then no, that would not count.

I just thought of an idea.
You could have walls up and have the first four blocks slide into it, but the fith block would have a top that was a little wider then its base (such that the sides of the block form an angle) and the last block is heavier then the other blocks. This way, when the last block falls onto the stack, it pushes down the walls and thus leaves the stack free standing. The walls can cause the next action.

engineeringmaniac wrote:The walls can cause the next action.

But..but.. the STACK has to cause the action. And it's only the last block that's causing the walls to move, so that's still not the stack making anything happen.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Will the last block push the walls inwards (towards the stack) or out?

sj wrote:So just to confirm we are allowed to have string in between the blocks so long as each block supports the blocks above it?

Et voila! Clarification:
Q:
Can the blocks be suspended by strings in a string-block-string-block chain
where the top string is cut/released and once stacked there is still string
in between the blocks?
A:
There is nothing in the rules to disallow this, but keep in mind that the
blocks must completely support the blocks stacked on top of each one.

sorry if this has already been answered, would embedding magnets inside of the blocks still count as them being self supporting?

questionguy wrote:sorry if this has already been answered, would embedding magnets inside of the blocks still count as them being self supporting?

There is a FAQ related to this on the soinc.org website: http://soinc.org/node/630

I recommend regularly checking the official FAQs and clarifications since they are constantly being updated:
http://soinc.org/frequently_asked_questions
http://soinc.org/official_rules_clarif

chalker wrote:

questionguy wrote:sorry if this has already been answered, would embedding magnets inside of the blocks still count as them being self supporting?

There is a FAQ related to this on the soinc.org website: http://soinc.org/node/630

I recommend regularly checking the official FAQs and clarifications since they are constantly being updated:
http://soinc.org/frequently_asked_questions
http://soinc.org/official_rules_clarif

So, I understand embedding magnets in each one is ok, but if there was a pole would that also still county even if the blocks are touching the pole?

questionguy wrote: So, I understand embedding magnets in each one is ok, but if there was a pole would that also still county even if the blocks are touching the pole?

There's a FAQ on that situation too: http://soinc.org/node/670

Again, I recommend regularly checking the official FAQs and clarifications since they are constantly being updated:
http://soinc.org/frequently_asked_questions
http://soinc.org/official_rules_clarif

So the next event has to be triggered by weight? That's the only thing I can think of that uses the whole stack.