Talk:Tensegrity

message: I have removed this section:
Technically, every bridge constructed since the dawn of human kind is an example of tensegrity. Dropping a log across a stream is, basically, 'tensegrity', since the fibers on the top of the log undergo compression, while the fibers on the bottom undergo tension. Ancient suspension bridges of rope and sticks are another example.
As far as my understanding goes, what distinguishes a tensegrity system from other types of structural system is that in a tensegrity, the compression members are discontinuous (ie. not touching). While it is true that a beam contains both tension and compression, this is bending and not a tensegrity. Peterleroux 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have learnt the same thing. The principle behind this is that any construction can be reversed. I.e substituting tension with compression and vice versa. Like Antonio Gaudi did when he modeled the Sagrada Familia. I believe Buckminster Fuller first postulated this and Snelson made the first Tensegrity sculpture.  DrNumLock 01:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridges

message: I have added a drawing which I did to illustrate an article,(Peterleroux 07:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: In his articles on 'Cellular Tensegrity', Ingber consistently present the protein cytoskeleton as a 'Tensegrity' structure - if this were the case, it should be free standing on extraction - it is not.  Moreover, likening it to a geodesic dome structure is an inaccurate comparison, since these are designed to maintain a certain shape, and biological cells are flexible.  Its a case of a superficial visual relationship, but an apposite functional truth.
*My understanding is that cytoskeletons function as tensegrity structures but that some of the tension members are membranes, not cables. In that sense, isn't removing a membrane or removing hydrostatic forces that pre-stress membranes is equivalent to dismantling the structure? Peterleroux 06:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Cell Tensegrity 

message: Though B. Fuller is recognized by popular press as the "creator" of the concept of tensgrity and the tension-compression structures built on the idea, it is well understood that K. Snelson was the original designer who presented this idea of "floating compression" to Fuller. Perhaps this article should be amended as to include this information? --Sjschen 08:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article does a pretty good job of giving the basic relationship between Snelson and Fuller without falling victim to the tremendous controversy between them, and without mentioning the ill-will Snelson carried for Fuller ever afterward. That's an important part of their story, but doesn't belong in this brief description of the concept and history of tensegrity, itself. I applaud the restraint shown here. rowley (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenneth Snelson

message: "Theoretically, there is no limitation to the size of a tensegrity. Cities could be covered with geodesic domes. " 
I think this is misleading.  Geodesic domes, like all arches, are primarilly in compresson.  Additionally, there would be a size so large that no material would have sufficient strength to weight.  The structure would collapse under its own weight.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.115.158 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think an opposing view would be welcome.  A citation is needed.  There are plenty of citations around for the "no size limits" idea.  And Fuller also proposed the Cloud Nine idea where whole spheres could be floated through the atmosphere.  I think thermal differentials are involved with the Cloud Nines.  Perhaps they are also a part of Fuller's reasoning for the domes.  Your analysis is interesting, but we need a verifiable reference. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  no size limits??

message: Does the paragraph starting "In example, the formation of functioning architectures in one particular area of cybernetics research [...]" actually mean anything?  Maybe there is some missing context, but I've rarely seen worse cases of Star-Trek-worthy impenetrable technobabble.  — Coren (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless? 

message: The diagram showing the three- and four-rod structures both contain an error. Each rod needs to extend past the base of the next rod. The four-rod one, for example, appears to be inscribed in a cube. In fact, the upper square needs to be twisted more. A stable tensegrity structure needs at least three of the tension members attached to an end of a compression member need to
# be applying compressive force to the compression member (otherwise they aren't compressing the compression member)
# be spread out so that looking down the axis of the compression member, the maximum angle between two tension members must be less than 180 degrees (otherwise they are pulling the compression member to one side)
Looking at the three-beam structure in this image, at the top of the right beam, the three tension members are all pulling left in the image, making the structure unstable. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the basic connectivity is correct, but the lengths of the rods and cables are wrong.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Here we go. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in diagram 

message: this is not my field, therefore I am not going to attempt what I am suggesting myself. Below are a few isolated aspects, that sprung to my attention most intensely -- TrisQ
"Two cables would be unstable, like a person on a slackrope; one cable is just the limit case of two cables when the two cables are anchored in the same place." (unclear)
" As long as the angle between any two cables is smaller than 180° as seen looking along the rod,... " (unclear. Also recommend to use the term "when projected along the compression member (onto a plane normal to it)" to precisify).
 " Planets and stars (Dyson sphere) could be contained within them. "
(pretty remote association)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.165.24 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the first two of those. I agree they could be clarified a bit more, probably with diagrams. As for the Dyson sphere business, I agree that's a little far-fetched. It is relevant that such constructions have been suggested as applications, though. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend Major Revisions 

message: Animation of rotating structure
Hi, I would like to suggest that we replace the two animations with static pictures, and add links to the animated versions. Having such frantic animations next to the text that you are trying to read is very distracting and annoying. 109.151.57.53 (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I personally don't find the animations distracting, I can understand your concern. To me, the animation describes the structure much better. Another compromise would be to extract the most representative frame from the animation and use it along with a collapsed table cell containing the animation, as in the example on the right. cmɢʟee'τaʟκ'maιʟ  19:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think a single frame extracted from the animation would serve very well. That was what I had in mind in fact. My idea was that in the caption of the frame there could be a link like this: Animation. 86.176.210.154 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh, also, if you have an interest in doing it, I think it would be nice to slow down the second animation. For me, It's rather too fast to follow. And sorry, I forgot to say amongst all my criticism that the graphics are really very nicely done. 86.176.210.154 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've replaced the animations with stereoscopic versions with links to the animations. How are they? I think the animation speed is fine; the animation will be rather jerky if I slow it down any further. cmɢʟee☎✉  00:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's much better. Much easier on the eye while one is reading the text, and the animations are just a click away when you want to watch them... 86.176.212.196 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: One of the rods switches from in front on the left to behind on the right.Sapiens scriptor (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distracting animations 

message: I have added a mathematical modell which explains the stability of tensegrity figures as a simple geometric constraint — no prestress is needed here. The modell is particularly simple in the case of the tensegrity icosahedron in view of cubic symmetries, and it does away with the popular misconception, that the tensegrity icosahedron is a regular icosahedron. I believe that variants of this model determine other stable structures as extremal points of quadratic forms, so stable structures should usually have infinitesimal mobility.
I don't know who first came up with this model — I have seen it some twenty years ago and reconstructed it from memory. Martin Roller (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Please also provide a source or citation.  Rlsheehan (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation had been removed by Yworo. I can't reply on his talk page, so I do it here. As I said before, I can't yet provide the actual source of the explanation, but I can give you a citation. As a mathematical argument, I consider it complete and self contained, so it doesn't need any further validation. Martin Roller (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added another citation Rlsheehan (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that appears to be a good survey. I would prefer to regard that as a general reference (under Bibliography), rather than a citation for this section. The point of this section is that the argument is short and self contained, and it gives you just a glimpse of the dozend or so theories (form finding methods in the survey). Martin Roller (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematical Explanation

message: I don't think this section has enough relevancy to tensegrity. The notion of jumpulse defined in the cited paper is a generic physical definition in Newtonian dynamics. It does not explain any property specific to tensegrity structures.  Martin Roller (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Physics explanation

message: When I tried to visualize the figure described in the mathematical explanation from scratch, I was terribly misled by the use of the word 'parallel'. Here the edge of the cube and the strut are not in the same plane and hence not 'parallel' in the true sense. I was imagining the strut on the face itself so that it would be parallel to the edge and also intersect the centre of the face of the cube, but that gives rise to a very confusing mental picture when you keep reading further. I suggest describing it better, or using different terms. Tushar Shrotriya (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading use of 'parallel' in the mathematical explanation 

message: The cross-eye and the parallel view autostereograms are in both instances exactly the same image. The parallel ones should either be supplemented or deleted alltogether.--93.203.48.95 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallel view autostereograms missing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Tensegrity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305184533/http://jaoa.org/content/113/1/34.long to http://www.jaoa.org/content/113/1/34.long
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526153151/http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/nat_Fak_I/sammlung/ten.htm to http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/nat_Fak_I/sammlung/ten.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031002084349/http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/40.html to http://www.angelfire.com/mt/marksomers/40.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040729063119/http://www.kennethsnelson.net/ to http://www.kennethsnelson.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218220347/http://www.childrenshospital.org/cfapps/research/data_admin/Site3022/mainpageS3022P6.html to http://www.childrenshospital.org/cfapps/research/data_admin/Site3022/mainpageS3022P6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 20 years ago I knew a brilliant girl, (Eva, from Montréal) who was HARDCORE into M.C. Escher, optical illusions, patterns, deep math, and Buckminster Fuller.  She taught me brief overviews on these and introduced me to tensegrity.  She explained that Bucky was showman popularist who accepted accolades yet didn't invent the geodesic dome or tensegrity, nor properly credit those who did.  She was a bit bitter about this but still loved Bucky, including his "faults", at least as reported by some (I don't know what biographies or math history books she gleened this from).  I'd like to see this mentioned in more detail in the "tensegrity" and "Bucky Fuller" articles.  ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckminster Fuller controversy 

message: On 2018-11-10T11:46:24‎ User:Jim1138 removed most of these external links.  I doubt they're all spam and some might be good for citations and/or additional content.
* "Tensegrity" Scholarpedia article
* Point, contrepoint. French tensegrity, art and design.
* Scientific Publications in the Field of Tensegrity by Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Applied Computing and Mechanics Laboratory (IMAC)
* Valentin Gomez-Jauregui's site A web page (in English and Spanish) showing images, references and explanations about tensegrity.
* Kenneth Snelson's site with an article on the theory and development of tensegrity as well as pictures of his sculptures from desktop pieces to 90-foot towers.
* Kirby Urner's page on Kenneth Snelson, developed in collaboration with the artist before the above official site came on-line, still relevant.
* Dubai Tensegrity Tower designed by Aurel von Richthofen includes diagrams of proposed tower with elevator.
* Ortegrity by Timothy Wilken, MD 2002, 70-page-long PDF document describing human interactions in terms of tensegrity.
* Tensegrity in a Cell—This interactive feature allows you to control a cell's internal structural elements. From Donald Ingber and the research department of Children's Hospital Boston.
* Stephen Levin's Biotensegrity site Several papers on the tensegrity mechanics of biologic structures from viruses to vertebrates by an Orthopedic Surgeon.
*  The Dynamic Template site that demonstrates how spatially organised flows of aminophospholipids in the red blood cell membrane convert the cell surface into a "Dynamic Template" for its cortical Spectrin cytoskeleton. This is the only model to date that provides biological cells with a mechanism capable of pre-stressing flexible, membrane-associated protein networks, which is absent from Glanz & Ingbers' exclusively protein-based models of cellular "tensegrity" structures.
* Tensegrity examples Several tensegrity examples by Marcelo Pars.
* Sine Utilitate Examples of contemporary sculptural constructions by Christos Saccopoulos using tensegrity principles.
* Virtual 3D tensegrity structures Interactive visualisations, structures can be viewed in virtual reality devices like Google Daydream, Samsung Gear VR.
Also, under the "Further reading" list is a maintenance template warning: "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2009)"
I can't sift through them now, but I'm highlighting them should anyone wish to delve. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links & Further reading maintenance 

message: We can find the word tensegral in articles about biotensegrity. What means 'tensegral'?Sylveno (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tensegral 

message: Is it just me, or is the above phrase at the end of the introductory paragraph utterly meaningless? Dtaylor1984 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "delineate the system spatially" 

message: Below I add a couple of new applications of Tensegrity inspired materials in the Applications section. I am an author in one of these applications. I invite other users to add more examples of recent advances in the materials science field.
* What I think should be changed: 
The concept of tensegrity has also seen recent research advances in synthetic materials applications such as textile metamaterials and composites.
* Why it should be changed:
I feel that pointing readers towards synthetic materials research, unlike naturally formed biological materials, is a noteworthy contribution. 
* References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
Included in the text above.
Shredderwoods (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add new applications of tensegrity in synthetic materials science. 

message: #Your request cannot be reviewed because the page numbers from the proposed sources have not been provided. 
#Please provide the page numbers from the source material where the proposed information is confirmed.
Regards,  Spintendo  22:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 16-SEP-2023