Are Hexagons the Strongest Shape?

[@theesteward9150]

First (That gets the most useless comment out of the way)

[@DEMEMZEA]

First reply ( I got to say first somewhere, sorry )

[@-Lambda]

@@DEMEMZEA first reply to the first reply (Me too.)

[@nirn_]

@@-Lambda I see the pattern (yesss )

[@ready7307]

@@nirn_ how long will this go (let's goo)

[@elfeiin]

Seek Canadian healthcare.

[@glennac]

Those that disagree need to establish in WHAT scenarios Hexagons are the Bestagons. As he says, he is not testing packing or space filling. He’s testing the mechanical use of hexagons. He shows other shapes are better in this case.

[@Splarkszter]

CIRCLES ARE THE BESTAGONS

[@sayorancode]

@@Splarkszter well they are kinda impossible to tile without weirdness

[@HidekiShinichi]

And while hexagons are not bestagons in this scenario.... triangles are bestagon and the best triangles are ones that make a..... hexagons, because hexagons are bestagons.

[@Splarkszter]

@@sayorancode My comment is mostly a joke.

[@livedandletdie]

Even in packing or space filling Triangles are the most efficient.

[@kiltedjade]

When I was teaching students about polygons, CGP grey's video made it a bit harder. Many of them had strange misconceptions. Thanks for fighting against one!

[@ToroidalFoxCasual]

Civil engineer knows triangle is just 2nd strongest shape. The best is just long load bearing bar with two orientation stabilizing circular structure at the bottom.

[@Splarkszter]

a what of what doing what?

[@danielsantos3254]

Only real civil engineers know that

[@LiftandCoa]

But a real civil engineer would also know that Hexagons are the bestagons

[@wallrunner7635]

@@ToroidalFoxCasual Anyone can build a bridge, but only an engineer can barely build one.

[@volzutansmeig7323]

I only clicked on this Video to search for comments about the real strongest shape that only a real civil engineer knows of

[@ThePringels09]

In the words of my Prof: "In tensile loads, Hexagons are only good, if they're triangles"

[@elfeiin]

I wonder, what he, meant by, that.

[@mcpudd-20k]

It’s almost like there’s a reason things like cranes use triangles

[@faokie]

For completeness sake, you should have had two hexagon samples: one vertical and one horizontal. Even if you know which one is stronger in theory it would be good to see it in practice

[@dondavis1180]

100%. This is like a high school science project. You forgot to test all your variables and didn't even have a control. Can't believe this guy has all this equipment and "knowledge" but missed basic steps of scientific method in his "proof"

[@tailez606]

@@dondavis1180 Very dismissive of you. Surely he can make an update video where he adds any other relevant orientations for the shapes. His proof is sound otherwise: a hexagon's strength does not come from itself - it comes from the triangles that form it. It was shown plain as day in his simulations, that hexagons without supports fall apart faster than triangles. But the optimal supports for the hexagons make them into triangle compositions - therefore it is because of triangles that hexagons have good load-bearing properties, and not inherently.

[@zionkawahiha8136]

The best shape for a structure depends on its purpose-there’s no one-size-fits-all. And no Bestagons

[@fnamelname9077]

You could use the press to push on the bottom of the sample, with the top stuck to a frame. That would give you a tension test. (Edit: I have no idea if that is a safe procedure for a press like that.)

[@ConHathy]

It would definitely work but I was hoping not to buy a load cell or crane scale to measure the force. Maybe one day

[@fnamelname9077]

​@@ConHathy I did not realize that's what those terms referred to. I just naively assumed you could keep using the same equipment with a different configuration. It doesn't seem terribly justified if it's much of a bother, lol. Good luck with whatever you do next!

[@maxmyzer9172]

0:24 lets make it 3. HERETIC!

[@whynot626]

I had literally just 5 seconds before he said that, called him a heretic 😂

[@fren1413]

loved the video! I definitely see this channel blowing up sometime soon. keep it up!

[@Adi-bo5do]

Don't care about the topic Appreciate that you used the scientific method for something so trivial while people can't use it for far more important issues

[@CT--wj6sm]

I think your analysis of honeycombs is not great. Its not about where it is used but how. Honeycombs are most often used in sandwich structures as the core. In these structures the honeycombs are not load bearing.

[@zulualpha460]

Granted in CPG Grey’s video he made a point to mention how triangles were stronger, but that they ALSO just formed hexagons when tiling a plain.

[@TheWorldEnd2]

Except those hexagons have very rigid and useful crossbeams... making them, not hexagons but triangles

[@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009]

I think Hathy mentioned this in the previous video, and pointed out that the strength isn't coming from the hexagon shape, but the triangle shapes within it

[@zulualpha460]

@@TheWorldEnd2 but, for his video to be “more accurate” you can tile a plain with triangles that don’t form hexagons, they can form squares or rhombi (plural rhombus?) meaning that their strength DOES come from the hexagonal shape. Yes triangles are, on their own, more structurally stable, however when tiling a plain they MUST piggy back off the strength of another shape.

[@wallrunner7635]

In the original video Gray specifically mentions that hexagons are inherently more liable to buckle than anything else. Given that, are hexagons significantly more stable when "wrapped" as in stuff like carbon nanotubes where you bend the 2d structure around a cylinder to reduce the buckling?

[@xenontesla122]

If it's a hexagonal truss like in this video but wrapped into a tube, not much. A compressive load will just make the whole tube widen as it compresses, and vice versa for tensile (stretching) loads. Unlike trusses, molecules become really stable at particular angles, and carbon is extremely stable roughly around 110°-120° (I'm not a chemist, so the explanation might be more complicated). Hence, carbon nanotubes, graphene and diamonds are really strong.

[@wallrunner7635]

@xenontesla122 Correct me if I'm wrong though, a cylindrical structure would cause the forces which are currently being used to buckle the structure to instead put the structure into a tension restricting its deformation. Outside of those valence structures you spoke of, which I agree is why those carbon forms are so strong, isn't this structure still remarkably stable in tension?

[@donchaput8278]

Now the tests must be completed on the opposite plane. Lay the pieces down, give them another 2 grams of mass/material for stiffness.

[@afilthyweeb8684]

I always under the impression triangles were the strongest shape but I feel like I've been gaslit these past few years to think hexagons are.

[@elfeiin]

Almost like people have been conditioned to believe whatever daddy google tells them to.

[@rivernlong5979]

... but what is triangle tialling, if not two overlapping sets of hexagon tialling? (Kidding)

[@elfeiin]

Hello friend. "Tialling" is usually spelled "tiling". Thank you for time.

[@StreetSurfersAlex]

KZbins autotranslation has to be the worst feature ever

[@ConHathy]

@@StreetSurfersAlex oh wow, how is the translation? My Spanish isn’t good enough to tell.

[@archiveprovider3981]

@@ConHathy I can only speak to the German translation and I would say that the translation is good but the automatic voice over is a monotone text to speech voice that is outdated by multiple years. At least in long videos you always have the option to switch to the original audiotrack unlike in shorts where I haven't been able to find that option.

[@dylanjackson7325]

Evil CGP grey be like

[@mrwhatshisname]

Maybe a dumb question but: Would rotating the hex grid 90 degrees to maximise lines in line with the force direction have any effect?

[@ConHathy]

@@mrwhatshisname it would give you some lines that directly align with the force, but then the load would have to make a 60 degree turn into a line that’s almost completely perpendicular to the force, then another 60 degree turn back in line, repeat. With the zigzag, it’s never perfectly inline, but it never has to turn more than 30 degrees off of vertical

[@IlluminatiBG]

To be fair to hexagons, they do exist in the triangle pattern, so space filled by triangles is like space filled by hexagons, but better.

[@essidus]

Hexagons are just what happens when semifluid circles stack, which is why they show up so much in nature. That said, I'd be curious to know which shape handles lateral forces the best. It seems like triangles and squares would be more rigid than hexagons when poked from the side. So hexagons would deform more quickly, but it seems like they would hold together better than the other polygons.

[@elfeiin]

The circles have to be "semi-fluid"? What's that mean?

[@essidus]

@@elfeiin Semi-fluid is probably the wrong term. What I mean is fluid that isn't fluid enough to just combine with itself.

[@ZappyRedstone]

*Jan Misali** has entered the chat* @1:40

[@jasmijn-isme]

You mean jan Misali?

[@ZappyRedstone]

@jasmijn-isme yes sorry. Not a common name where I am.

[@jasmijn-isme]

@@ZappyRedstone That's okay, it's Toki Pona, so it's not a common name anywhere

[@ZappyRedstone]

Now I just want to know how many states of matter there are.

[@hammersbald7612]

Slander! That's exactly what big triangle want's you to believe!

[@matthewparker9276]

Where hexagons are optimal is in containing equal volume/pressure cells in 2D, but even then it isn't because they're strongest, but because they're already as deformed as they can be. They approximate a minimal surface.

[@foxetlux1414]

fantastic video! your ever smiling face is both a comfort and unnerving just what the average youtube commentor deserves

[@elfeiin]

I love you.

[@themaedog]

Im actually glad theres someone on youtube that has finally spoken out against hexagons

[@peperoni_pepino]

The algorithm recommended this video to me. I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but yeah the things you test are obvious. That is not where a hexagon shines, but rather it's mathematical dual: the triangle. Hexagons are great when you are pulling, i.e. when you need to make a sheet can can deform but shouldn't tear and that can be pulled in any direction. The main real-life example of this is football goal nets, which are usually hexagonal (at professional levels, at least). You can similarly easily find hexagonal fishing nets. You remarked in your video how you could make the square stronger by putting more of the material into the load-bearing sides and less into the lateral sides. You can do the same without changing the widths of each side by making the squares into rectangles. If you let a hexagonal net deform, you see that it precisely turns into rectangles - hence the net deforms itself to become nearly optimal in every direction. But this requires the net to deform, so this is obviously not suitable for load-bearing uses or any time there are tight tolerances. Generally speaking, hexagons are strong when they are flexible, allowed to deform, and the force comes from orthogonal to the plane. Triangles are strong when they are hard, rigid, and the force comes from inside the plane.

[@human_shaped]

This was fantastic. I would love to see more tests like this. For example, using some materials that do yield more, etc., and with 3 dimensional profiles like tubes and angle bar and in more 3 dimensional truss forms, etc. I guess that's not the point of how this started out, but it would be fascinating.

[@xenontesla122]

look up "lattice structures".

[@fooperfarvey4812]

Wait so isn’t this just a question of which tile-able shape is the strongest? Because I thought circles were the strongest.

[@Lea-js9jw]

Another prove that "Hexagons are the bestagons".

[@paulfoss5385]

As a fan of the game HyperRogue, I think heptagons are the bestagons.

[@that1ghost423]

Ah but you see the triangles FORM hexagons, see? Hexagons are the Bestigons! (Ragebait obviously omg) Hexagons are still vastly superior aesthetically tho !!!

[@kelsiehogan3400]

hexagon hater

[@elfeiin]

Squares performing _similarly_ to triangles is not unexpected, and the results were not that similar. Squares could handle less displacement than triangles. Yes they yielded at the same force but perhaps you should try filled plane as a control and not squares.

[@balazsbelavari7556]

What if you simulate the structure of your material? Surely the tiny shapes the material is made of on a molecular scale could change the ideal shape somewhat, couldn’t it?

[@wallrunner7635]

@balazsbelavari7556 Only to a certain extent. Certain materials are strongest in certain ways. Think concrete in compression vs sheer. In this case, though, since he tested both compression and sheer, it's fair to say that the material had little effect on the results beyond the simplification of finding a yield point, as he mentioned.

[@satosato4169]

May the Algorithms bless you, it was really entertaining and useful, love it. I'm quite ignorant in this field, so I'm sorry for stupid question. Would prolonged shape change the difference? Maybe it acts so brittle when it's flat, but holds much better when it's longer?

[@maxmyzer9172]

10:50 in Every Day Astronaut's tour of Blue Origin, I believe their boosters have isog grids.

[@tristanballman9262]

Well ok but the hexagon is still the bestagon

[@mushroomjuise2349]

couldn't you use a logarithmic scale for the first graph

[@ConHathy]

There isn’t much detail to pull out of the flat region, the force is just bouncing up and down but the average stays flat until the end

[@Metallikatzz]

Before watching this and your previous video. I wonder why builders try to add Triangles to their structures and not hexagons? If hexagons were strongest(Not efficient for space) Im sure my house would of been framed with hexagons and not triangles

[@chair547]

hexagons may not be the bestagons, but they are my favorite-agons

[@iancowan3527]

Triangle or Square...

[@LiftandCoa]

Hexagons are bestagons

[@krycke]

Hexagons are bestagons!

[@guustvangucht3551]

great video for a heratic

[@jakejones5895]

From what I can tell you made one test that was meant to be realistic you didnt get the expected result of triangles are the absolute best as squares performed similarly you made a second test which was the worst case scenario for squares, without considering the worst case scenario for triangles If you are doing a repeat experiment, confirming what is already known at large, you cannot allow yourself to be biased towards the expected result in fear of getting the “wrong” result, if you do get the “wrong” result you should try and find out why, the idea of an absolute strongest shape is a bit silly as there are so many ways to measure strength if you were supporting an aquaduct across a valley using materials with good compressive strength then it’s clear arches are far superior to a triangular lattice I suspect the worst case for triangles compared with squares is at 0 degrees i would be interested in what the results would be if the same amount of material was used in vertical members of both the triangle and square lattice and the same for the horizontal/ diagonal members, though i’m pretty sure the triangles would come ahead due to their vertical component

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

Hexagons are Bestagons

[@darenu3232]

La versión en español se siente como un anuncio de temi xddd

[@TehHoovy]

nobody send this video to ethan from ghpc

[@MemberRoach]

*Triangle 🔺

[@MemberRoach]

🔺🔺🔺

[@Aklama01]

*CGP GRAY WANTS TO KNOW YOUR ADDRESS*

[@orest58008]

Would be cool to see a test of sheer force (e.g. moving the fixtures in parallel direction instead of a perpendicular one)

[@bernhardjordan9200]

Do it with 3d infill

[@elfeiin]

The BGM is annoying.

[@khulhucthulhu9952]

that stuff at the end is completely made up. every kg of satellite that has to go up has to be propelled with multiple kg of fuel, which most certainly adds to the cost! honeycomb wire is certainly an easy and convenient manufacturing process, but for sandwich structures it's used because of its actually superior packing qualities. In a satellite it doesn't have to be strong, but it does have to be insulated to protect it from all forms of heat

[@ConHathy]

@@khulhucthulhu9952 the cost of topping off the tanks is negligible compared to everything else you’re paying for, and I highly doubt they would ever launch with partially empty tanks just because the payload is a few kilograms lighter. It’s extra margin for pocket change. For reference a Falcon 9 launch is on the order of 70 million. LOX and RP-1 run under $3 per kg so to save 1% of the launch cost you’d need to remove over 200 tons of propellant (more than then entire prop mass of the second stage). So no, this does not represent a real cost saving opportunity.

[@khulhucthulhu9952]

@ConHathy hmmmm... you do make a good point... Thanks for the quick explanation! I guess that in my head fuel is disproportionally expensive. I'm sorry for the bold statement from my part.

[@galalon2]

for the defence of the hexagons i would like to see the same experiment but with smaller grid size instead of thicker sides

[@Splarkszter]

At that point just make it solid

[@Pystro]

@@Splarkszter He doesn't mean smaller grid size overall. He means that the shapes which are more economical with the material get _more lines at the same thickness_ in order to make the amount of material the same instead of getting _the same number of lines but ticker ones._

[@dondavis1180]

I'm not sure why anyone who has ever built a bridge out of sticks would think that hexagons would be "stronger" than triangles, but I can understand why people would have problems with your methodology. Just from the start, we don't load "2d" shapes in the real world. Also two of your test samples don't have polygons, fam. Both your (favorite) samples have rounded corners, adding to their strength by a mathematically significant amount. Of course you'll get the results you want if you cheat. Finally, any real world scenario that has hexagons is going to have a "flat edge" that runs along the outer rows of hexagons (remember you said hexagons don't have any way of handling load in that direction? That issue is solved by the real life applications that you yourself provided... But hey, "stay sure of yourself and never reflect on anything" is what I always say.

[@ConHathy]

@@dondavis1180 all three have the same corner radius. It’s not a cheat, it’s standard practice to avoid a stress concentration. You’re right that honeycomb doesn’t load hexagons like this but honeycomb would not be substantially affected by the geometry of its fill material. The strength would mostly be dependent on the total cross sectional area, regardless of it being hexagons, squares, or even random infill

[@UnitSe7en]

Everyone knows the strongest shape is oIo

[@Splarkszter]

100 = 99 + 9 ?

[@ConHathy]

@@Splarkszter 100² ~ 99² + 9² (don’t forget Pythagoras)

[@matteoaversa3293]

HEXAGON ARE THE BESTAGON!!!

[@CielMC]

Nice

[@kaarel545]

Hexagons are the bestagons!

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

Please don't use crappy German. I want to watch the original

[@ConHathy]

It’s KZbin auto dubbing, go to the settings of the video and switch to the original.

[@user-jp1qt8ut3s]

What stresses do you apply?

[@geoffbrom7844]

I don't disagree with any specific thing you just said... HERETIC!!!

[@drenmar1533]

Hexagons are the Bestagons

[@TheLongBen]

You are still being unfair to the hexagon. You should have included the vertical support to the hexagon as you did for the square and triangle.

[@ConHathy]

@@TheLongBen I didn’t add the vertical lines, triangles and squares form them on their own

[@Nothing2150]

Woosh​@@ConHathy

[@maxbowen8925]

the triangles are cheating though, they're just larger hexagons with support within them

[@hellmine]

do hexagon filled triangles

[@c64116]

I have only a cellphone. and stage fright. Please try a grid of circles. Youd be surprised with the results. i tested this at home and used basswood and a laser cutter and only tested compression because tension wasn't needed for my application. It smokes everything else. My intent was to make a table. so it needed to support a lot of weight. I went with circles.

[@andrews6013]

Bestagons!

[@kehtabpeg]

Do you think internet is really concerned with the truth??? STOP ATTACKING BESTAGONS

[@TheLongBen]

You are probably an illuminati lol 😂

[@ConHathy]

@@TheLongBen I work in the space industry, it was a prerequisite

[@TheLongBen]

@ConHathy ha ha ha... I thought so..

[@druidplayz2313]

Mechanicaly triangles are bestagons, but triangles make hexagons which is close enough

[@camohawk6703]

If for packing and other shaping objects i would rather use an octagon.

[@marsfreelander5969]

Hexagon is the bestagon Source: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qpmympmrfdhpm7sfeature=shared

[@ginglyst]

yeah right, a flat panel with cut out hexagons... not the best use of hexagons. Hexagons are only useful in a bend load and the thickness of the panel determines the stiffness. Sandwich it between unstretchable material. THAN you get the best use of hexagons.

[@ConHathy]

@@ginglyst so hexagons are only strong when they aren’t carrying the load themselves? I want to try to test different infill shapes for a panel but it’s difficult to manufacture. 3d printing is too variable for reasons other than the actual shape. But in theory there would be almost no difference between different shapes. The purpose is just to distribute load from one plate to another which depends only on total cross sectional area and is independent of shape. Hexagon fill is the easiest to make, which is why it’s used (not because it’s somehow extra strong filler)

[@arkbg22]

1. your hexagons are oriented with the minimum number of verticals. 2. it doesnt matter anyway bc there is no "gon" in "triangle", 3. CGPGrey is your nerd-god, show some respect. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qpmympmrfdhpm7s

[@ConHathy]

@@arkbg22 Rotating them would give you some lines that directly align with the force, but then the load would have to make a 60 degree turn into a line that’s almost completely perpendicular to the force, then another 60 degree turn back in line, repeat. With the zigzag, it’s never perfectly inline, but it never has to turn more than 30 degrees off of vertical Also triangles are a polyGON, checkmate

[@camfunme]

Your test is still moot because you still misunderstand both the original CGP video and almost all the comments on your previous video. Hexagons balance plane packing efficiency and minimisation of the differential of internal and external forces when packed. Triangles are stronger when a force is imposed from outside the shape, such as in your test. But fill the lattices with the same volume and the hexagonal lattice will have less strain with the same force applied.

[@c64116]

7:09. 2 acrylic walls. 2 pieces of wood for top and bottom. grid in middle. like an unbuckleable sandwich.. that would have been the easiest solution. i hate half-assed experiments. If youre going to do it, and you hit a hurdle, take a break until you figure it out, dont just skip it..

[@stephen01king]

Do it and post the video. I hate half-assed comments more than half-assed experiments. At least you can learn a lot from the experiment.