Talk:Tensegrity

Bridges

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)

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)

Photograph

I have added a drawing which I did to illustrate an article,(Peterleroux 07:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)) as well as a photograph I took of the Needle Tower which I believe to be covered by fair use. Removed Requires photograph notice Peterleroux 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The right handside drawing is wrong. The top square should be rotated 45 degrees relative to the bottom square to achive tensegirty. The left handside drawing is not very good either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.9.74 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree tensegrity is every were. Especially in a bicycle wheel, all pneumatic structures.

Try my web site on discontinuos structures. 1000 and 1 floating modular stuctures.

www.tombarber.com

Biological Cell Tensegrity

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)

My point entirely - the entire CELL (viscous fluids + solid proteins) forms the structure - Glanz and Ingbers models are of the proteins alone - if some of the tension members are membranes, it is impossible to build a model that omits them? Analogy - if you attempt to explain the motions and shape changes of a tree bending in the breeze, and omit from your model the fluid in which the tree is embedded, you end up with a 'contractile tree model' - which is totally inaccurate, as the actual force inducing the motion and the tree's shape at any given instant ( the movement of the fluid air in which it is embedded) is dismissed as irrelevant - you therefore end up with an entirely misleading model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.158.38 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Snelson

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)

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)

Section removals

The following text has been removed for possible copyright infrongement. The text is identical to this page: http://www.synearth.net/TensegrityHtml/Tensegrity.html

---

== Yes, I have written permission to use this information in whole or in part. I am in the process of editing out the unnecessary parts. --Sv==

ah. ok. cool. YOu can restore the article from the edit history. Sorry about this, but we have to check for infringement. -- Tarquin 19:47 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I uberunderstand - SV

The original author of that article you're importing understands that the parts of their article that are imported to Wikipedia will be released under the GNU Free Documentation License, right? -- Tarquin

---

Tensegrity is the pattern that results when push and pull have a win-win relationship with each other. The pull is continuous and the push is discontinuous. The continuous pull is balanced by the discontinuous push producing an integrity of tension – compression.

Push and pull seem so common and ordinary in our experience of life that we humans think little of these forces. Most of us assume they are simple opposites. In and out. Back and forth. Force directed in one direction or its opposite.

Buckminster Fuller explained that these fundamental phenomena were not opposites, but compliments that could always be found together. He further explained that push is divergent while pull is convergent.

File:Tenseg1.png

Imagine pushing a yellow ping pong ball on a smooth table with the point of a sharp pencil. The ball would always roll away from the direction of the push, first rolling one way then the other. Push is divergent. Now imagine the difference, if you attach a string to the ping pong ball with tape, and pull it toward you. No matter how other forces might influence the ball to roll away from you, the string would always bring it to you more and more directly. Pull is convergent.

Another example from common experience occurs when we are pulling a trailer with our car. When I am driving uphill, I am pulling against gravity. The trailer converges nicely behind my car. If the trailer begins to sway, I can dampen it by increasing pull – simply increasing my acceleration. Now if I am driving downhill, the trailer may begin to push. This produces a strong side to side force – divergence. My trailer will begin to sway from side to side. Push is divergent. When the trailer begins to push us, experts advise us to accelerate our car in order to re-establish pull. Pull is convergent. The trailer will straighten out and we can congratulate ourselves for being good drivers. These then are the two always co-existing fundamentals of Universe – Push and Pull – Compression and Tension – Repulsion and Attraction.

Tensegrity Seeking the Gift Tensegrity TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

Tensegrity Theory Explained

A more common example of a tensegrity is a child's balloon. When we examine an inflated balloon as a system, we find that the rubber skin of the balloon continuously pullswhile the individual molecules of air are discontinuously pushingagainst the inside of the balloon keeping it inflated. All external forces striking the external surface are immediately and continuously distributed over the entire system. This makes the balloon very strong. We all know how hard it is to break a good balloon with a blunt blow. Molecules of air discontinuously pushing against the continuously pulling rubber skin of the balloon. Tensegrity — a balance of continuous pull and discontinuous push. The automobile tire is one of the strongest most durable inventions in the history of humankind. And few of us are aware that it is a tensegrity. It is the power of tensegrity in each tire that protects us from failure and blowout despite high speeds and long miles. A tensegritythen is any balanced system composed of two elements – a continuous pull balanced by discontinuous push. When these two forces are in balance a stabilized system results that is maximallystrong. The larger the system the stronger the system. Most of humanity knows of Fuller's discovery of the Geodesic Dome, but few realize that geodesic domes are themselves tensegrities: "The great structural systems of Universe are accomplished by islanded compression and omnicontinuous tension. Tensegrity is a contraction of tensional

Tensegrity Seeking the Gift Tensegrity TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken 3

integrity structuring. All geodesic domes are tensegrity structures, whether the tension-islanded compression differentiations are visible to the observer or not.Tensegrity geodesic spheres do what they do because they have the properties of hydraulically or pneumatically inflated structures." 2

We are all familiar with the geodesic dome at Disney World in Florida. The larger the tensegrity the stronger it is. Theoretically there is no limitation to the size of a tensegrity. Cities could be covered with geodesic domes Planets could be contained within them. The only limiting factors are the amount of materials and the degree of our technologies. As Harvard physician and scientist Donald Ingberexplains: "The tension-bearing members in these structures – whether Fuller's domes or Snelson's sculptures – map out the shortest paths between adjacent members (and are therefore, by definition, arranged geodesically) Tensional forces naturally transmit themselves over the shortest distance between two points, so the members of a tensegrity structure are precisely positioned to best withstand stress. For this reason, tensegrity structures offer a maximum amount of strength

2R. Buckminster Fuller, SYNERGETICS—Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, Volumes I & II, New York, Macmillan Publishing Co, 1975, 1979

Tensegrity Seeking the Gift Tensegrity TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken 4

for a given amount of building material." 3

Biological Tensegrities My own search for tensegrities began in 1980. As a trained physician, my attention first turned to the human body. I recognized two tensegritiesinstantly which are systems of the human body. The muscle- skeletal systemis atensegrityof muscle and bone, the muscle provides continuous pull, the bonesdiscontinuous push.The forces between the bones and muscles are held in constant balance. This forms the basis for all of our physical mobility. The central nervous system also functions as a tensegrity. The sensory-motor systemis a tensegrity of sensory neurons and motor neurons. The sensory neurons always sensing information – continuously pullingand the motor neurons only occasionally involved in some motor action – discontinuously pushing. 3

Donald E. Ingber, The Architecture of Life, Scientific American Magazine, January 1998

Tensegrity Seeking the Gift Tensegrity TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

5 Finding Other Tensegrities However, my focus was above the cellular level. I wanted to understand how individual organisms related to each other and again I expected that the concept of tensegrity would help us understand. I was quite familiar with Alfred Korzybski's operational definitions of Plants, Animals and Humans as Energy-binders, Space-binders, and Time-binders. (Read Korzybski's discussion in Manhood of Humanity _Chapter 3, Classes of Life.)

So I then as I examined the three classes of life, I began looking for tensegrities. Plants –the energy-binders have their primary relationship with the sun. Their leaves are continuous pullingas they collect solar energy from the sky, but with the rotation of the earth and changes in the weather the sun only discontinuously pushesits radiation on to the leaves.

•Photosynthesis-Radiationis the energy-binder tensegrity.

Animals – the space-binders are usually fighting or fleeing. They are generally limited to two roles either as prey or as predator. The prey animals are continuous pulling predators to them. While the predators are only occasionally hungry. They discontinuously pushout seeking the occasional kill. Prey and predator must be in balance to stabilize the ecosystem. The larger the ecosystem the more stable it is.

•Prey-Predatoris the space-binder tensegrity.

An associate of mine, Ms.Leann Roberts, recognized that even our human sexual roles as Female and Male operate as a tensegrity. The femalewas continuouslymaking herself attractiveto pull on her male, but the malewas only occasionally interested and discontinually pushingtowards her for attention.

Humans – or time-binders have the power of understanding. We develop understanding through education. The two roles of humans can then be seen to be Student and Teacher. I am continuously learning – continuously pullingin new information, but I am only occasionally teaching – discontinuously pushingout information to someone else.

Tensegrity Seeking the Gift Tensegrity TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

6 •Student-Teacherthen is the time-binding tensegrity.

If we examine the three classes of life from the viewpoint of their relationships with each other, we can see that: Plants as the independent class of life have no relationship with each other. They mostly ignoreeach other and form no tensegrity. Animals as the dependentclass of life have a negative relationship with each other. They form an adversary tensegritywhere the prey is continuously at risk of being hurtand the predator is discontinuously hurting other. Humans as theinterdependent class of life can have positive relationships with each other. We can form a synergic tensegritywhere we are continuously being helpedand discontinuouslyhelpingother.

Tensegrity Seeking the Gift Tensegrity TrustMark 2001 by Timothy Wilken

7 Animals and other biological structures are made strong by their tensioned and compressed parts. Muscles and bones act in unison to increase the strengthen the other. This kind of strength goes to the cellular level, and is a somewhat new understanding of biological structuring.

Tensegrity also refers to a means of creating structures, using rods and wires. The rods are always in compression and the wires in tension, the rods do not connect with each other but are held in place by the wires, no member is parallel or perpendicular. A completed structure resists pressure in one plane but compresses and then returns if subject to force in the opposing plane.

The concept was discovered by Kenneth Snelson at Black Mountain College in 1948, the term 'tensegrity' was coined for Snelson by Buckminster Fuller from tensional integrity. Snelson used the concept to produce sculptures such as his 18 metre high Needle Tower (1968). The idea was adopted into architecture in the 1980s with David Geiger designing the first significant structure - a competition hall for the Summer Olympics of 1988.

Accuracy

This bit:

 All external forces striking the external surface are immediately and 
 continuously distributed over the entire system, meaning the balloon
 is very strong despite its thin material. Similarly, thin PVC
 plastic membranes such as a plastic bags are often stronger
 when loaded rather than unloaded.

...doesn't seem right. Both claims are highly dubious.

The first seems to imply violations of the light speed limit - and is simply inaccurate. The second is vague to the point of being meaningless.

I think the second statement about thin films being stronger when loaded either needs to be expanded to say why, or should be removed. Coming from a materials engineer if even I am unsure of what it means something is up. The only thing I can think is the person is somehow referencing force normal to the surface of the film, and by stronger somehow means that the force required to move the film a distance increases.

no size limits??

"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)

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)

I am in agreement that there are limitations. While I located references to Fuller's claims like R. Buckminster Fuller BUCKMINSTER FULLER—An Autobiographical Monologue/Scenario, 1980, ibid there are still structural members under compression that bear the weight and must eventually collapse in column. This said, there can be argument as to what is the column? If the column itself consists of a tensegrity tower then it changes the concept of what structure we are describing. Certainly man has created structures rising 2000 feet such as skyscrapers and this route would allow you to go far higher albeit with a larger foot print. I think a compromise position is best here and rather than claiming an absolute, it is better to claim something like nearly. Certainly materials have a limitation and you can only compress something so much before you end up turning it into a liquid. I'm not deleting this paragraph in case others in the which to provide input. Pbmaise (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless?

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)

Error in diagram

File:Tensegrity unit.jpg

Two simple tensegrity structures

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

1. be applying compressive force to the compression member (otherwise they aren't compressing the compression member)
2. 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)

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)

Here we go. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

File:3-tensegrity.svg

Recommend Major Revisions

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)

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)

It is how the system works that is important. I see only confusion to the reader when talking about things that don't work. For this reason I have removed mention of slackrope. It takes the three points, and discussion that 2 or 1 point doesn't work is not relevant. Pbmaise (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of using tensegrity to enclose planets or stars. Dyson himself states according to the dyson sphere page that he did not envision a fixed system. Further, why bother mentioning something that is a pure fiction and that would utilize more resources than we have on earth. Its like saying we can cover all of Europe. Showing what really is impossible to do with this technique only dilutes what is possible.Pbmaise (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Well I spent nearly the entire day reading some of the support documents listed in the external resource area and find that Snelson is very creditable in his views on this subject and that Fuller seems to have been full of hot air. For this reason I also removed it can be scaled up to cover an entire city. I also included direct quotes found made by Snelson in correspondence. Pbmaise (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Distracting animations

File:4-tensegrity.svg

A simple tensegrity structure

Animation of rotating structure
200 200

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mathematical Explanation

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)

Thank you. Please also provide a source or citation. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

I added another citation Rlsheehan (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Physics explanation

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)

• Agree. This article is about a structure. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading use of 'parallel' in the mathematical explanation

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)

Parallel view autostereograms missing

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)

External links modified

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)

Buckminster Fuller controversy

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)

External links & Further reading maintenance

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.
• Template:Cite arxiv 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)

Tensegral

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

"delineate the system spatially"

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)

Add new applications of tensegrity in synthetic materials science.

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) Template:Reftalk

Reply 16-SEP-2023

File:Breezeicons-emblems-8-emblem-remove.svgTemplate:NbspUnable to reviewTemplate:Nbsp

1. Your request cannot be reviewed because the page numbers from the proposed sources have not been provided.
2. Please provide the page numbers from the source material where the proposed information is confirmed.

Regards,  Spintendo  22:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Core concept section

Is clearly straight from chatGPT. It is the standard chatGPT format. Big turnoff 24.52.214.110 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)