rekrunner wrote:
By instructing us to "construct an arrangement" and then "evaluate the possible arrangements", all you've done is specify that same set of unique arrangements upfront. You haven't reduced the potential solution set.
No, but it should make it easier to methodically find all the solutions and identify duplicates.
And since the maximum density arrangement seems to be only about 87% efficient, it's not given that a maximum density approach results in a maximal solution. Seems like, even if we found a maximal solution, we would have to rule out the possibility that spacing some balls less maximally could make room for more.
Partly why I'm not so interested in finding a solution for regular stacking. Why bother finding all the solutions if you already know they're all wrong?
One reason any stacking arrangement is inefficient is the last outer PPB-radius of a 15cm-radius sphere contains so much of its volume:
(15^3 - 14.5^3)/15^3 = .097
close to 10% of the volume of the sphere, and of course the region in which any regular arrangement breaks down leaving a lot of extra space. Figuring out how to move the inner PPB's around to fit more in that edge region is a whole nuther ball of wax from sphere stacking.
Maybe it would be better start with the outer PPB's in a sort of geodesic sphere and build smaller geodesic spheres inward toward the center.