Hydrodynamic spin-pairing and active polymerization of oppositely spinning rotors

Domain: physics
Published: 2025-11-24
Editorial outcome: minor_revision

Abstract
Rotors are common in nature—from rotating membrane-proteins to superfluid vortices. Yet, little is known about the collective dynamics of heterogeneous populations of rotors. Here, we show experimentally, numerically, and analytically that at small but finite inertia, a mixed population of oppositely spinning rotors spontaneously self-assembles into active chains, which we term gyromers. The gyromers are formed and stabilized by fluid motion and steric interactions alone. A detailed analysis of pair interaction shows that rotors with the same spin repel and orbit each other while opposite rotors spin-pair and propagate together as bound dimers. Rotor dimers interact with individual rotors, each other, and the boundaries to form chains. A minimal model predicts the formation of gyromers in numerical simulations and their possible subsequent folding into secondary structures of lattices and rings. This inherently out-of-equilibrium polymerization process holds promise for engineering self-assembled metamaterials such as artificial macroscale proteins.

Introduction
Life is too complicated to be assembled manually1. From the nanoscopic starting point of the lipids that comprise the cell and the DNA molecules holding the blueprints of each organism’s design, to the final macroscale product of the organism itself, there are many length scales and billions of molecules participating2. Life is also inherently out of equilibrium and forms far more complex structures than the crystals expected for atomistic systems at low temperatures3. A prototypical example is proteins, which are self-assembled hierarchically on the molecular scale, first forming chains and then folding into secondary and tertiary structures that can function as intricate molecular machines4.

A growing body of research in recent years has been devoted to the study of self-assembly out-of-equilibrium. Yet, when the building blocks are isotropic, most of the resulting structures have been crystals5–8. Symmetry breaking is possible with an external field, such as electrostatic chains that align along field lines9,10, Janus particles with electrostatic imbalance11, active shakers12,13, magnetic dipoles14 or patchy colloids15.

Despite the fundamental role of fluid dynamics in biological systems, hydrodynamic interactions have received limited attention in the study of active self-assembly. Notably, hydrodynamic structure formation by rotating objects has been garnering increasing interest. For example, synthetic rotors driven by a magnetic field16–20 or light21, living rotating matter22,23, fluids or elastic materials with odd viscosity18,24–26, dry rotating matter27,28 or rolling particles,29,30. These systems are ubiquitous in nature, ranging from the geological immensity of hurricanes to the biological intricacies of rotating proteins within cellular membranes and extending even to the quantum realm31. Historically, the behavior of rotors has been examined under conditions of negligible viscosity, dating back to Helmholtz32–34. More recently, studies have addressed settings of negligible inertia35–38, notably in biological contexts like ATP synthase proteins39,40. However, the intermediate Reynolds number regime, where both viscous and inertial forces play significant roles, remains relatively uncharted20,41. Here, complexities arise due to the nonlinearity of the Navier–Stokes equations, leaving our understanding of this regime limited. Within this regime, research involving small spinning magnetic particles has demonstrated the formation of lattice structures16,42,43, highlighting the interesting dynamics that emerge in such systems.

Common to all the aforementioned instances is that the units creating the self-organization are driven in the same direction. A question arises: what unique properties will be observed in a mixture of binary rotors, where some spin clockwise while others counter-clockwise? At intermediate Reynolds, this is still unknown. Both in the limit of an ideal fluid with no viscosity and in the limit of purely viscous fluids, the equations of motion have time-reversal symmetry. Theoretical studies of binary rotors in these two limits have shown that the two populations separate and dense clusters of same-spin rotors are formed34,35. In fact, even completely dry opposite rotors separate27,44. The intermediate regime is qualitatively different from both limits since time reversal symmetry is no longer obeyed.

Here, we show that when inertia is small but not negligible, the resulting structures are very different — mixed-sign circular rotors self-assemble in a hierarchical manner, reminiscent of polymerization, but driven by fluid flow and steric interactions alone — first, rotors spinning clockwise and counter-clockwise attract, spin-pair and form bound dimers. Dimers then assemble into longer active chains. The chains, which we term gyromers (gyroscopic polymers), are stabilized by their activity (see Fig. 1 and Supplementary Movie 1).

To study the stability and origin of gyromer formation, we developed a test bed that enables controlling both the direction of rotation and the initial position of each individual rotor. Following Grzybowski, Stone, and Whitesides42, we analytically describe the velocity field of numerous spinning bodies within an intermediate Reynolds number regime, where viscosity remains the dominant force, and inertia is a perturbation. We conduct numerical simulations that qualitatively reproduce the experimental results. We determine that gyromer stability is decreased with increasing the variance in angular velocities of individual rotors.

Results
Our rotors are brushless motors enclosed in 3D-printed cylindrical shells that allow them to float at the oil-air interface. A 3D-printed propeller is attached to the motor’s bottom pin so that the two parts counter-rotate (Fig. 1A). The rotation direction can be switched by reversing the battery wiring. Rotors spinning counter-clockwise (clockwise) are marked in cyan (pink). The resulting tangential flows were characterized using Particle Image Velocimetry (Fig. 1B). Full experimental details are provided in the Methods and Supplementary Information.

The bath is continuously monitored from above by a camera. When placed in the oil bath, the rotors spin at about 7 rpm (\Omega \approx 0.7 rad/s). We test two viscosities—high viscosity \mu = 1 Pa\cdots, and low viscosity \mu = 0.06 Pa\cdots. The Reynolds number, a measure of inertial forces compared to viscous ones, is Re = \rho\Omega a^2/\mu \approx 0.2 for the high viscosity and Re \approx 3 for the low viscosity. We find that, even though the Reynolds number is small, inertia is not negligible in both cases. In fact, it changes the behavior of the system qualitatively. Two rotors at zero Reynolds number maintain a fixed distance, they do not draw nearer nor drift apart35,39,40—same-sign rotors orbit around each other, and opposite-sign rotors propagate. When inertia is included (see also ref. 20, or activity, see ref. 37), it adds radial forces reminiscent of electrical charges—same sign rotors orbit and also repel, tracing a growing spiral (Fig. 1C); opposite sign rotors propagate and also attract (Fig. 1D and Supplementary Movie 2). The dynamics are predicted by the theoretical model described below.

At higher numbers of rotors, we first tested self-assembly of same signed rotors into lattices (Fig. 1E, F), reproducing the lattice formation first observed in ref. 16, though here no magnetic interactions are present. We then tested a mixed population of rotors. The particles self-assemble into active chains (gyromers). Gyromers are constantly assembled and disassembled due to interaction with other rotors or with the boundaries. We commonly see pair-switching or companion stealing. Even-numbered gyromers self-propel in a direction perpendicular to their axis with a speed that decreases with the number of monomers (an infinite gyromer will be stationary). Odd-numbered gyromers orbit around their center (see Fig. 1H), with an angular velocity that decreases as 1/N^3, where N is the number of rotors in the gyromer, see analysis below. Small changes in the spin of the rotors cause deviations from this ideal behavior. Gyromers are stable until encountering other rotors or the boundaries. Odd-numbered gyromers are stable for a longer duration since they are less prone to interact with the boundaries. As demonstrated in Fig. 1, at a low concentration (7 rotors), all the rotors assemble into a single gyromer. Once formed, the gyromer remains stable for the lifetime of the rotors’ batteries (~2 h).

The boundary in our system has a critical role in facilitating the creation of self-assembled structures. Without it, assuming an infinite space, even-numbered gyromers propagate far away. Initially, we designed either a circular container or a flower-shaped boundary45, but rotors were hydrodynamically attracted to the boundary and tended to stay there46. To eliminate attraction, we designed a boundary of an inverse flower-like shape. This unique shape, designed by principles outlined in refs. 47,48, creates effective repulsion and brings rotors back into the pool.

Modeling minimal inertia
A single rotor far from boundaries stays static. When placed in a bath with other rotors it is advected by the flow created by them. In this region of the Reynolds number, the flow is governed mainly by viscous forces, but not only. We account for inertia by expanding the Navier–Stokes equations to a first order for a small but finite Re. In this limit, the equations are linear, and we can write u = u_s + u_i, where u_s is the part coming from the Stokes equations and u_i is the inertial correction. The flow field of a single rotor in a viscous fluid is49
u = C_s \Omega \times \hat{r} / r^2, (1)
where \Omega is the spin of the rotor, and C_s is a prefactor of O(1). Two identical, same-sign rotors in this viscous regime orbit around each other with an angular velocity, \dot{\theta}, given by
\dot{\theta} / \Omega = r^3, (2)
while maintaining the initial distance between the rotors, r. When inertial effects are included, the second rotor adds a correction to the above flow, giving a lift force resembling the Magnus effect. Solving the Navier–Stokes equations under a small but finite Reynolds number for a spinning disk in the shear rate created by a second, far away disk gives the leading order correction to a viscous flow, which is radial and has the scaling16,42,50 (Supplementary Discussion)
u_i = C_i \Omega_1 \Omega_2 \hat{r} / \rho \Omega_1 \Omega_2 a^6 \hat{r} / \mu r^3, (3)
where C_i is a prefactor of O(1). Due to the linearity in this regime, the velocity of the jth particle, u_j, is a superposition of the flow created by other particles. In complex notation z_j = x_j + iy_j (where x_j and y_j donate the position of the jth rotor), and using Eqs. (1) and (3) we can compactly describe the dynamics of the rotors. Switching to dimensionless form by taking z \to z/a, \Omega_i \to \Omega_i / \Omega_0, where \Omega_i is the ith rotor’s own spin, \Omega_0 is the typical magnitude, and t \to (C_s \Omega_0 / a^3)t, we get
\dot{z}_j = \sum_{k \neq j} i \Omega_k \frac{z_j - z_k}{|z_j - z_k|^3} + \beta \Omega_j \Omega_k \frac{z_j - z_k}{|z_j - z_k|^4}, (4)
where \beta = C_i \Omega_0 / (a C_s) \propto \rho \Omega_0 a^2 / \mu is proportional to the Reynolds number up to a multiplicative prefactor of O(1), and signifies the importance of inertial interactions compared to viscous ones.

Two key assumptions were made here: First, we assumed that the rotors act as rotating disks. The use of self-spinning brushless motors in an infinite fluid results in a torque dipole along the Z-axis, as illustrated in Fig. 1A. It is, therefore, not immediately apparent that the magnitude of the angular velocity of a pair of rotors should indeed scale as Eq. (2). However, the vicinity of the propeller to the bottom of the container dampens its decay46, as we have verified from PIV measurements (Supplementary Fig. 4). Therefore, the dynamics are governed by the upper cylinder. Second, Eq. (3) is the far distance approximation of the flow, though in practice, often the rotors are not far. Certainly, this is not correct for nearest neighbors in a gyromer. To verify the validity of both assumptions when rotors are distant, we analyze the dynamics of two same-sign rotors.

Solving analytically Eq. (4) for two rotors gives
r^4 = 8 \beta \gamma \Omega^2 t + A (5)
\dot{\theta} = (\gamma + 1) \Omega / r^3, (6)
where we have chosen \Omega_1 = \Omega and \Omega_2 = \gamma \Omega. Note that the dimensionless distance between rotors only depends on the inertial terms since the distance stays constant when \beta = 0. The distance grows for same-sign rotors (\gamma > 0) and decreases for opposite-sign rotors (\gamma < 0). Conversely, the orbiting angular velocity over time only depends on the viscous term (it is independent of \beta), and is inversely proportional to the distance between the rotors to the 3rd power. We experimentally tested the dynamics of several two same-sign rotors with \gamma \approx 1. Figure 2A shows the angular velocity of the pair with a power law of three for both the high viscosity bath, and the low viscosity bath in the inset, as predicted by Eq. (6). Figure 2B shows that the separation distance to the fourth power is linear with time, as predicted by Eq. (5). Equations (5) and (6) were used in order to extract the experimental value of \beta from the graphs presented in Fig. 2 (Supplementary Discussion). This resulted in \beta = 0.323 \pm 0.057 for \mu = 1 Pa\cdots, and \beta = 4.71 \pm 0.42 for \mu = 0.06 Pa\cdots.

As we advance to study the interaction involving multiple rotors, we will compare our system to two well-known equilibrium systems. The first is charged particles, which also repel (same sign) or attract (opposite sign) and are prone to form ionic crystals51. The second system that bears a resemblance to ours is that of magnetic dipoles, which are known to form chains and rings52,53. For more than two rotors, solving Eq. (4) analytically becomes challenging. Instead, we will leverage the insights gained from the two-rotor scenario and introduce the four-rotor and six-rotor interaction experimentally, numerically and use linear stability analysis.

Four rotors
Two rotors of opposite sign attract and propagate in space. In fact, in our experiments, spin pairing is very common. Once the rotors make contact, they advance in space as a bound dimer. To study the interaction between four rotors, we initialized two rotor-dimers such that they advance toward each other, as shown in Fig. 3A. The two pairs collide in a formation resembling an ionic crystal of plus and minus charges (Fig. 3B). However, unlike static ionic crystals, in our experiments, these lattice formations are never stable and quickly break into two new pairs of rotor-dimers (Fig. 3C). This effect is purely due to the dynamic nature of the interactions. Unlike static lattices, the forces governing the system include not only attraction and repulsion with each other or with the walls (Fig. 3E) until reforming into a 4-rotor gyromer (Fig. 3F). Once formed, the gyromer is stable for a long time (~half an hour, Supplementary Movie 3). Simulations of rotors were performed by propagating Eq. (4) using either a 5th or a 2nd order Runge-Kutta scheme in Python (Supplementary Discussion). The simulations reproduce the experimental results taking \beta to be either 0.8 (Fig. 3J, L) or 80 (Fig. 3K). The arrows overlaying Fig. 3K are the analytical solution for the velocities initially and at steady-state. Notice how the viscous forces drive the outer and inner pairs apart, but the inertial forces have a stabilizing downward component.

Ring formation
Rotor-dimers are a common and relatively stable feature of our system. We therefore wanted to compare it to another system that forms chains—magnetic dipoles. To that end, we examined an initial ring formation, as depicted in Fig. 3G–I. The ring quickly disperses into smaller “building blocks" of rotor-dimers. Subsequently, these dimers attract and eventually create larger gyromers. This behavior is starkly different from static magnetic dipolar systems, where ring formations remain stable (as seen in the inset of Fig. 3G). At the lower viscosity, we observe that rings still disperse but are stable for longer durations.

The self assembly of multiple rotors
Up to this point, we have discussed simple and engineered cases of rotors. We now seek to discover general and statistical properties of gyromer formation, starting from random initial conditions. First, we find that the angular velocity of gyromers in the high viscosity bath scales as 1/N^3, where N is the number of rotors in the gyromer as seen in Fig. 4A. In this regime, gyromers are straight, and inertial interactions maintain the structural integrity of the chain without contributing to its angular velocity (similar to the two-rotor case, see Eqs. (5) and (6)). The angular velocity is thus governed by the viscous interactions, and so \dot{\theta} \approx 1/r^3. Let us consider the angular velocity of the rotor next to the center (all rotors have the same angular velocity, so we can choose the rotor that is most convenient). In a long gyromer, velocities of its left and right nearest neighbors cancel exactly, and so do next-nearest, etc. (see gray ellipse in cartoon inset in Fig. 4A), and all that is left are the two most distant rotors, at a distance L ~ N/2. Of these two, the closer one is more dominant, determining the direction and magnitude of rotation, giving \dot{\theta} / 1 = N^3.

Second, with increasing concentration, more monomers are available, enabling longer chains to form more rapidly—but also to dissociate more quickly (Supplementary Movie 4). It is, therefore, unclear a priori what concentrations will produce longer gyromers. We conducted experiments with increasing numbers of rotors, and analyzed gyromer lengths in each frame. We observe that, after reaching steady state, in the high-viscosity regime (\beta = 0.3), the average gyromer length first increases, see Fig. 4B. At low concentrations, for odd numbers of rotors, a steady state is reached with a single gyromer; for even numbers, the gyromer breaks when reaching the boundary. At higher concentrations, the system enters a dynamic steady state where gyromers continuously collide and reassemble, but the average gyromer length is constant N ~ 2. In contrast, at lower viscosity (\beta = 5), a single long gyromer tends to form even at higher concentrations (see snapshots in Fig. 4D), although the resulting structure is notably less straight. In this regime, where inertial interactions are stronger, we observe the emergence of new structures—both in simulations and in experiments—that are absent in the high-viscosity case. These include branched polymers and intermediate ring-like formations, Supplementary Movie 5. The size of the gyromers in this regime can be characterized by their radius of gyration, analogous to molecular polymers, defined as R_g = \sqrt{\sum |r_i - r_{cm}|^2 / N} = a, where r denotes the center of mass.

Comparing experimental results to simulations at different concentrations shows similarities and differences (Supplementary Movies 6, 7). Using inertial values in the range (\beta \in [0.8, 1]), we start to observe gyromers in simulation, though they are less stable and more quickly dissociate into dimers and trimers. There can be several reasons for deviations from the simplified model—(a) at short distances, our theoretical model is no longer expected to hold. Indeed, experimentally, we observe deviations even for a pair of opposite rotors as they approach distances of \approx 3a from one center to another (Supplementary Fig. 9). (b) Since the Reynolds number is not negligible, there may be deviations from simple pair interactions such that superposition does not strictly apply. (c) The three-dimensional nature of the flow at close proximity may play a role. (d) Other interactions, though weaker, come into play, such as attraction due to capillary forces (Supplementary Fig. 8). In the future, full, 3D simulations of the flow around adjacent rotors may assist in better understanding the stability of gyromers.

Figure 4C shows a phase-space of the formed structures in the simulations. A phase’s type is determined by the most prevalent structure (Supplementary Discussion). At small \beta ~ 0.1 the Stokes regime dominates and gyromers do not form at all tested area fractions [\phi \in (0.02, 0.2)]. At slightly higher values, \beta ~ 0.3, we start to observe dimers as the most stable configuration. Going to \beta ~ 1, we observe gyromers up to \phi = 20%. At higher values of \beta ~ 10–30, and for low and intermediate concentrations, there are mixed states of gyromers, lattices, and occasional rings. The steady state configurations are sensitive to initial conditions and to the total number of rotors. At \beta = 100, up to \phi = 15% there is a re-entrant to a stable gyromer phase. In these high values of inertial interactions, dipolar-like interactions dominate, and gyromers are more stable to perturbations. At higher concentrations, stable structures are predominantly lattices. Experimental values are plotted on the stability of the gyromers is the spin of individual rotors. Gyromers are stable for up to a couple of hour when no free monomers are present. A question arises: what makes the gyromer break after such a long time of stability? (Supplementary Movie 8). From the analysis of the rotor’s spin, it can be seen that there are always deviations in frequencies of up to 10% (see Fig. 5C). In fact, in simulations, we see that adding noise to the spins increases gyromer stability (Supplementary Fig. 7). However, once the difference is greater than around 20%, gyromers dissociate. In experiments, this happens when one of the batteries starts to fail. A typical instance of gyromer breakage is shown in Fig. 5C along with the failure of one of the rotors, marked in green.

Discussion
In this work, we have revealed the novel dynamic self-assembly of mixed-sign rotors, demonstrating that due to the combination of viscous and inertial forces, oppositely spinning elements attract and propagate to form active structures termed gyromers. Unlike homogeneous rotor systems that lead to the formation of hexagonal lattices, our mixed-sign rotors orchestrate themselves into linear assemblies driven purely by hydrodynamic and steric interactions. When two counter-rotors form a dimer, this dimer acts as a dipole moment. Since the interactions are dipolar, just like in magnets, the formed structures also resemble magnetic formations such as chaining53. However, our system is active, and has in addition to the radial, dipolar-like, interactions, also tangential interactions, which change the nature of the resulting dynamical states. That is, unlike magnetic particles, after gyromers are formed, they are not static. In the high viscosity bath, we observe strictly straight, linear chains; in the lower viscosity bath, gyromers can be branched, and are more curved and fluctuating. Simulations indicate that when increasing inertial forces further, gyromers fold into tertiary structures of square lattices and rings, which remain stable. At the microscale, inertia becomes negligible, but similar radial interactions may arise from viscoelastic forces. In such cases, however, additional effects, such as memory, may play a role.

These findings not only enhance our understanding of active matter systems but also lay a foundational step towards engineering advanced materials and devices harnessing the self-organizing principles observed in natural and synthetic active systems, presenting opportunities for future explorations of the complex interplays of force, motion, and structure.

Methods
Experimental setup
Each rotor consists of a brushless motor (80 rpm) powered by a LIR2477 battery and enclosed in a 3D-printed cylindrical shell (radius a=1.8 cm and height 7.5 cm). The shell design was created in “Tinkercad" with a circular profile and a square base compatible with the motor attachment. The model was printed using a 3D printer (Bumba lab-1-Carbon). A stand to securely hold the battery in place was printed separately. The printed models can be seen in Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Information. Thin 3D-printed belts were added to reduce friction between rotors and with the bounding walls. A 3D-printed propeller attached to the bottom pin of the motor ensured counter-rotation of the rotor and propeller, and both were immersed in oil to ensure similar resistance. All rotors were carefully balanced with Plasticine to prevent precession. The experiments were performed in a cylindrical silicone-oil bath (diameter 60 cm, height 9.5 cm, density \rho = 10^3 kg/m^3) of two viscosities: \mu = 1 Pa\cdots and \mu = 0.06 Pa\cdots. Each rotor was marked with a green off-centered dot in order to track its spin. The experiment was continuously monitored from above using a Sony camera (\alpha7s_3, lens FE 4/24-105G-OSS), capturing snapshots at one-second intervals. Rotors trajectories and spins were extracted in Python with OpenCV. Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) of the flow field was performed using Thorlabs-HNL050L laser and PIVlab software

Numerical simulations
Molecular dynamics simulations were written in Python using a fifth-order Runge-Kutta scheme (free-space) or a second-order scheme (periodic boundary conditions). We have tested values of the inertial-viscous ratio \beta ranging from 0.01 to 1000. Gaussian noise (typically 10%) was added in some runs. The timestep was dt = 10^-5. Soft-core steric interactions between particles were included in the form of purely repulsive harmonic springs with strength w_s = 5\cdot10^4. Interactions vanish beyond r > 2a, and for r < 1.8a the radial hydrodynamic term was set to zero to avoid unphysical overlap. This stabilization allowed larger timesteps without changing the dynamics.

Peer review rounds
[{"round": 1, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "The manuscript of Gelvan et presents an experimental study of mixtures of rotors rotating in opposite directions on a a surface. They show a hierarchical process of aggregation whereby two motors form motile dimers and then the dimers aggregate in a way similar to polymerization process to form chains that the authors call gyromers. The gyromers can then fold back to form \"secondary structures\" such as rings. The experiments are very elegant and to my knowledge the results are new and sound. In the absence of inertia it is known that there is not interaction between rotors. The authors use an approximation of the hydrodynamic equations where they treat inertia as a perturbation. The interaction between rotors can be calculated at this level in the limit where the distance between rotors is large and is used to perform molecular dynamic simulations that can be compared only qualitatively to the experiments because of this long distance approximation.\nThis is a beautiful and elegant manuscript and I recommend its publication in Nature Communications. The authors might want to take into account the following comments\n-Some equations given by the authors only show the scaling behavior(1,2). It seems to me that they are easier to read if all the dimensionless quantities. Also in the appendix, the derivation of the interaction between two rotors introduce complex coordinates that do not seem necessary, the results are directly obtained in going to polar coordinates for the vector between the two particles.\n-The calculation of the interaction is based on a previous calculation for a spinning and propagating sphere. Is it obvious that the scaling can be used for the rotors?\n-The authors mention magnetic particles as a reference systems. I remember beautiful experiments by A. Skjeltorp that were also showing the same type of structures as shown here. Is this analogy purely superficial or can it be made more quantitative\n-As noted by the authors the simulations made can only be used for qualitative comparisons because of the approximations involved. Could one think of simulations including the flow in the fluid, that could be quantitatively compared to the experiments?\n-An alternative to inertia to create interactions between rotors could be a scholastic fluid. Would the results be exactly the same?", "reviewer_3": "In this work, the authors investigate the dynamics of multiple macroscopic rotors dispersed at an oil-air interface. While the rotors are relatively slow, they operate at finite (but small) Reynolds number, such that inertia cannot be fully neglected. The authors outline that the presence of inertial forces imply novel interactions compared to the Stokes regime, in particular radial attraction or repulsion depending on the relative spins of the interacting rotors. This yields to the reported formation of either bound pairs, or chains of alternate spins, forming what the authors call “gyromers”. The latter are the main focus of this work, and seem to be the essential novelty. The authors further developed a small perturbative model to capture the dynamics of pairs of rotors, and performed simulations by using the linearity of the hydrodynamic equations.\nThe article is nicely written, pedagogical and easily understandable. The system developed seems robust, and investigating inertial regimes in spinning systems indeed remains to be done. Experimental studies on spinners are scarce, especially at small scale, while simulations and theoretical work have been done. Hence, this study offers interesting physical and experimental insights. However, I have some important concerns and questions, described below.\n1) The main point is that the study remains a bit “descriptive” to my sense. It would have been interesting to characterize further the dynamics of gyromers (the main realization of this work), like for instance, their fluctuating dynamics. How do they compare to standard models of polymers? How does their dynamics vary with the length and speed of the motors, etc. ? The fact that gyromers are robust once formed has been to my sense completely overlooked, despite the strong opportunities to study the dynamics of active objects/solids (vastly unexplored), beyond the study of pairs of spinners, already reported. Unfortunately, the results in Figs.3, 4, 5 do not give information on the physics at work, but rather report observations and empirically characterize the dynamics… Some questions would have deserved to be addressed or mentioned, e.g.:\na) Is a stationary state attained for the different concentration regimes ?\nb) How does the gyromer length PDF scale with the number density of rotors ?\nReaching higher numbers of rotors in larger surfaces would probably imply different PDFs of gyromer lengths and numbers (Fig.4).\nc) Can all of this be predicted from constitutive equations ?\nd) I also wonder (side question) if pinning one rotor could enforce the position of the subsequently forced gyromer ?\n2) While simulations were done, they do not seem to inform so much about the dynamics at work, as the model of the author (eq.4) has already been verified in Fig.2. The agreement seems to remain qualitative ([Fig.4g-j]), giving no particular information on the potential emerging realizations or on the physics at work. Could they use it to quantify the PDF of gyromer length, for instance (or dimers number, or the gyromer’s lifetime, etc…) depending on the system parameters?\nAdditionally the simulations should allow the authors to map the collective behavior depending on the density and Reynolds number, for instance, yielding a phase diagram (strengthened by experimental points). Along this line, have the authors varied the viscosity of the fluid and observed different phenomena? Could they reach much higher densities (experimentally or using simulations), to compare their data to the common phase separation observed in dense mixtures (e.g. refs 27 & 33 mentioned), and study collective self-organization beyond the formation of gyromers? Increasing the density should should allow the observation of circular confinement effects on collective dynamics with some rotors remaining in bulk by steric hindrance.\nCould the authors also comment on the discrepancy between the β factor measured and the one giving the best agreement in simulations? Also, it is not clear whether they could obtain the same gyromer stability with simulations (no particular demonstration is provided in the movies).\n3) The authors briefly mentioned that adding noise within simulations increased the stability of the structures. Would there be a way to add noise experimentally? How do they explain this increased stability? Is it because of the ability of rotors to subsequently adapt their rotation speed to their neighbor’s ?\n4) The introduction is mostly formulated in analogy to the role of biological motors and polymers, which operate at small scale. This implies a low Reynolds number, Stokes regime, fluctuating environment, statistical ensembles, none of which are present in the current study. Along this line, the abstract mentions “out-of-equilibrium polymerization which holds promise for engineering self-assembled metamaterials such as artificial proteins”. I would rephrase such claims to account for the difference in scale.\n5) Below are few suggested, relevant references for this work:\n-About the self-organization of spinners in the inertial regime (simulations): [Shen and Lintuvuori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 188202 (2023)]\n-About the collective dynamics of spinning of active machines, which experimentally observed the rotation of pairs os spinners [Aubret et al., Nature Physics volume 14, pages 1114–1118 (2018)]\n-About the dynamics of pairs of active spinners vs. passive, where radial interactions at low Reynolds were reported [Fily and Marchetti, Soft Matter, 2012,8, 3002-3009]\n-About the collective dynamics of macroscopic gyroscope and their topological behavior [L.M. Nash, D. Kleckner, A. Read, V. Vitelli, A.M. Turner, & W.T.M. Irvine, Topological mechanics of gyroscopic metamaterials, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 (47) 14495-14500 (2015)].\nMinor points:\n-Ref. 27 does not use rolling particles as mentioned.\n-The calling order of the figures is not respected.\n-Fig.1a,b are in the center of the figure, after Fig.1c, which is disturbing."}, "author_response": "We are grateful to both referees for carefully reading and evaluating our paper. Both referees provided constructive comments, which we address below, as well as in the revised version of the paper. We feel that the revisions following both reports have substantially improved the breadth and scope of the work.\nChanges to the paper and the SI are marked in green. The main changes that were made following the reports are:\n1. Additional Experiments in a fluid of much lower viscosity. We observe stable gyromer formation in this regime as well, thereby demonstrating gyromer formation in a wide range of parameters. The formed gyromers are generally less straight and show secondary structures — such as rings and branched gyromers — resembling the simulations at lower viscosities.\n2. New quantitative data characterizing gyromer dynamics, specifically their angular velocities as a function of length, which fit theoretical predictions.\n3. Improved quantification of gyromer stability and robustness.\n4. Expanded numerical simulations, including: simulations with periodic boundary conditions; noise sensitivity analyses; and a phase-space map of the simulation results, which we compare directly with experimental data.\n5. Extended discussion on connection to magnetic systems and potential link to viscoelastic fluids.\n\nResponse to Referee 1\nWe copy the referee’s comments in gray and our response below each comment.\n[...]\nWe thank the referee for their kind words and for recommending publication in Nature Communications. We answer their comments below as well as in the revised version of the text.\n[...]\nResponse to Referee 3\n[...]\nWe thank the referee for finding the article nicely written and the study to offer interesting physical and experimental insights. The referee made excellent comments, which we address below. We feel that the additional experiments and simulations which we report below and in the revised version of the paper and the SI have helped improve the scope and depth of the paper.\n[...]\nWe thank both referees for recommending publication in Nature Communications. In the revised version, we have addressed the minor points and typos raised by referee 3:\n• Typos were corrected.\n• We have kept the order of the panels in Fig. 1.\n• The coordinates were defined before Eq. 4.\n• We described the arrows in Fig. 4b.\n• We have clarified why the crosses are red in Fig. 4c.\n• The legend of the colorbar is described in the caption.\nSincerely,\nNaomi Oppenheimer, on behalf of the authors"}, {"round": 2, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "My previous report was positive and the authors answered the points that I raised (and also the points raised by referee 3) in a constructive and convincing way that I think improve the manuscript.\nI therefore recommend the manuscript for publication in Nature Communications under its present form.", "reviewer_3": "Following our first report, the authors have significantly revised their manuscript. They notably changed the Figures 4 and 5 significantly, and performed very interesting novel experiments and quantitative analysis. In particular, the addition of the phase diagram in Fig.4, and all the new experiments at low viscosities allowed them to uncover novel phenomena, while strengthening their previous claims. The review and the answers have been done very seriously, and they satisfactorily answered by comments/questions.\nOverall, I find the quality of the manuscript much improved, and now suitable for Nature Communications.\nBelow are minor comments and typos:\n-« Naiver-Stokes » (p3)\n-« we test two viscsoities » (p2)\n-I still find the order of panels in Fig.1 disturbing.\nThe z, x , y and are not defined before eq.4.\nFig.4b – describe the arrows in the graph.\nFig4c – Clarify why the crosses are red :because theyr represent gyromers? The legend of the colorbar is missing."}, "author_response": ""}]

Decision letter