Tensegrity 3 magnetic - Art Meets Science

I know, I know, you didn't think it could get any cooler after my Tensegrity 2 project, well here you go - magnetic tensegrity! Here I explore the use of magnets to replace the tension elements.
This is where art meets science.
Here's Tensegrity 2 : • Tensegrity 2 - Art Mee...
Here's Tensegrity 4 HD : • Tensegrity 4 HD - Back...
My channel has a variety of interesting stuff. Check it out - / @artmeetsscience

[@LCTesla]

this makes me think of 23rd century architecture, with people casually living in buildings upheld by incomprehensible forces

[@ArtMeetsScience]

well said

[@gavart4509]

Bioshock infinite

[@juuk3103]

Jetsons style

[@ArcWelder588]

On the 23rd century that would be racist

[@ArcWelder588]

In the future we'll have flying cars and floating buildings

[@tapptshamm-oyp]

I can't sleep without watching your video. These are the videos that give me a surprise.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks. Here's a another relaxing contraption: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3XXaYCbftuKjLc

[@xn4pl]

You should've tried to replace chains with magnets not on one side of the square, but on a diagonal, it still wouldn't be complete floating but at least something. Another idea is to replace chains with pillars with magnets, that way they won't be able to glue wrongly and the structure would be completely floating (also you need to account that central magnet should be as powerful as 4 lateral magnets combined (or even stronger if you want to put some weight on top of the structure)). Good luck with your experiments.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Hi Vlad. These are great ideas, and I tried them all! The 'diagonal' idea was just as unstable. I also tried using threaded studs as pillars, with magnets. That eliminated some of the 'glue wrongly' problem (I love that phrase), but ultimately got me no farther. Once you 'magnetize' any 3rd leg, it becomes impossible to maintain the sweet spot of balance with attractive forces. I think one computer-driven electromagnet in the center, balancing 4 permanent magnets around the outside will get me there, but that's a lot of work. I'm working on another passive design incorporating repulsive forces. Thanks for watching.

[@slackerelite1]

Josh Schneider it seems like the issue comes from interference with the magnetic fields, either from another magnet or metallic structural elements. If you increased the size of the table/model to give more space between the supporting corner magnets, it should reduce that issue, but bigger surface = more weight = stronger magnet = more interference, so a finicky problem to balance and solve. Thanks for the video, I’ll look forward to seeing what you come up with

[@PetitBeaute]

Nice! Looks amazing. I’d love a table-sized one.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks. I'd love to make you one someday. Thanks for watching.

[@renehollan7695]

An all (static) magnet approach will not be stable. With normal strain elements, as they get stretched strain increases, and when relaxed, strain decreases. With magnets it is the opposite. You need at least ONE normal (non-magnetic) strain element (a wire) or a dynamic magnetic strain elrment. I suspect if you have a wire in the center, you can have magnets on all four corners to stabilize "sliding" of the top. But, it will be unstable with regard to "tilting" of the top. The former increases central wire strain, but the latter does not. You can try to avoid this with two corner wires but there will still be an axis along which it can "tilt". If you replace the central wire tension element with three in a triangle, you should be able to use outside 'corner' magnetic tension elements. Thus a hexagon design presents itself.

[@Sergiuss555]

great comment! explains it all and a nice suggestion

[@jacekpawowski3223]

It seems to me that using magnets repulsion rather than attraction should work better. When your model is based on attraction, the greater the imbalance, the smaller force from the external magnets to correct it. With repulsion, you should get it right - the greater the imbalance, the greater the force from the external magnets to correct it. Of course, the external magnets would have to be mounted on some fixed pillars rather than chains. Unfortunately, such pillars would spoil the overall impression. But anyway, it is worth checking out, I think.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks, interesting thought. Check out what I did with magnets HERE: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@jeeyan2024]

U should tried replacing base and top with a wider surface area i think so that your magnet wont attract each other (distance from one set of magnets).. Thats just my opinion hope u would consider

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, good suggestion. That would eliminate that one issue, but it still seems impossible to balance any magnetic forces without a computer-controlled, electromagnetic device. That being said, I'm still experimenting with a couple more ideas.

[@Goblinoid-o]

@@ArtMeetsScience but do you think it’s theoretically possible to make this work with the right tech?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@Goblinoid-o Yes, but that means using electromagnets. It's impossible to go any further with PMs. With EMs we could vary the magnets strengths continuously, maintaining the critical 'sweet-spot' of balance. This would require Hall-effect sensors, and a micro-controller running the EMs, as you see in the many 'floating globes, lamps etc' that you can buy. My dream is to float something with PMs. Have you seen my mag-lev hockey project? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU Thanks for watching!

[@PeterOfTheNorth]

@@Goblinoid-o There is a thereoretic result in physics, the theorem that states, that structure, consisting of bodies linked with any possible combination of static magnetic fields is unstable. So, it is possible to be made, but it should be somehow stabilized, or it will collapse after a perturbation.

[@tipsyrobot6923]

It won't work. Hysteresis will get you every time.

[@luck3949]

Stabilizing this thing with all strings replaced by magnets is impossible: let's say that force of the magnet in the middle is F_m, and force of each magnet in corner string is F_c/4. There are initial possible cases: A: F_c > F_m B: F_c < F_m C: F_c = F_m Case C has probability 0, and falls into A or B with arbitrarily small perturbation, so we reject this case from consideration. In case A, the system will get lower, distance of corner magnets will decrease, and F_c will become even higher, distance between middle magnets will increase, and F_m will become even lower, so eventually corner magnets will meet each other, and we'll find ourselves in situation like corner strings are simply connected, like in the beginning of the video. In case B the top will go up, the distance between corner magnets will increase, F_c will become even lower, the distance between middle magnets will decrease, until they will meet. After this point, at least 1 string with corner magnets will also get connected due to similar logic, that I'm too lazy to write down. Actually, using same way of thinking, it is possible to prove that stabilizing this thing with any 2 corner strings replaced by magnet strings is impossible, so the author of the video replaced the most number of strings with magnets, with respect to what physics allows.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Wow, nice break-down, Luck! Yes, I get it - it's those 'arbitrarily small perturbations' that will get you every time ;-) . The fact is, this construction will stand with just 3 outer chains, (none with magnets) so the outer, 'magnetic leg' here, is really just 'window dressing'. I'm not finished challenging Earnshaw, though. You'll appreciate this other creation of mine. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Please let me know what you think. Thanks for watching, and explaining.

[@prashantmadaan9347]

Rather then adjacent edge try with diagonal edge . You may get marginally stable system

[@Hcheeza]

Seems rasionable right

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yeah, I tried that. Thanks. It was still un-cooperative. Have you seen my mag-lev experiment? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@neiloppa2620]

If the issue is the chain being magnetized, then you could use other materials like normal twine, paracord, or titanium chain.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Good thought, but it's aluminum ball-chain - not attracted. Check out this other magnetic magic project of mine: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU Thanks for watching.

[@BlunderMunchkin]

Makes sense why it wouldn't work with more than one balance chain magnetized. The chains work because they have a constant length, but chains with magnetic gaps can have variable lengths. As soon as two of them have magnetic gaps, whichever gap has the stronger force is going to dominate and those magnets will get closer together, causing the gap to shrink and the forces to increase even more. At the same time the other chain gap will widen and become weaker.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yeah, I had to try. Damn physics!

[@makermh2635]

I've made it out of trees and fishing lines so far. Using magnets is really the best. I also want to make it using magnets. Thank you for the good information.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Glad you liked project. Here's an even more challenging one - kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3vOmWh8ndp2e5Y Thanks for watching.

[@eswarjuri]

If someone manages to make a table like this and having magnets on all sides, this would most likely be the first “floating” build with magnets, where all magnets actually attract and not repel each other like it is done with some “levitating” lamps etc.!

[@ArtMeetsScience]

This is really the holy Grail of this type of contraption. Unfortunately people have devoted their lives to attempting this, without success. There are entire physics disciplines devoted to showing why you cannot do this. That being said, I’m not giving up ;-) thanks for watching.

[@russelltalker]

@@ArtMeetsScience I had this same conflicting thought when i first saw the magnet tensegrity table. I know its been mathematically proven impossible but i don't really know what that means. If the instability is due to the magnetics interacting with each other directly through their magnetic fields, what if you just made the table bigger in scale relative to the size of the magnets and their fields. This might also mean you'd have to use lighter materials and also move the magnets as far away from each other as possible and thirdly decreasing the distance between pairs. The separation could be achieved by staggering, placing one pair close to the top and the next pair at the bottom and so on with the center pice still in the center.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@russelltalker ...still won't work. The math translates to (I'm paraphrasing massively) you can never maintain the 'sweet spot' of 2 permanent magnets. Here's a good illustration: Take 2 magnets, any type, any size. Put one magnet on a table, and try to bring the other magnet down, slowly, just enough to float the first one up, off the table, but NOT get sucked up into the magnet you're holding. This is a tricky nut to crack. I have achieved some magnetic magic in this machine. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@shannonknable]

Use some kind of plastic tubing that way the magnets are contained. Then add a small crank on each outer strings to adjust the length and achieve balance. Once the correct length is found just remove the tubing.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

That's a good idea, but ultimately I need a larger base to keep the magnets away from each other to avoid unwanted interactions. At one point, instead of chains, I used threaded rods, so that I can make tiny adjustments. I'm afraid I may be up against the limits of what is possible here. Have you seen my copper versus magnets video? Pretty cool -kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYLXaZx4l9Sqm5Y

[@Uniquettt]

Many people will travel both north and south in search of a pole of great magnitude others will not see the attraction and be poles apart on their opinions.And opposites will never attract.but his/her personal magnetism attracted them to search for the ultimate Tensegrity The holy grail of all tensegrity creations.. Well done for thinking outside the box..

[@PimpTrizkit-42]

We only need three outside chains for a stable (-ish) Tensegrity table... I would guess that's why you can replace the 4th with a magnet... I would also lead to think that when you replaced your 4th with a magnet, that it made the table a bit more unstable. Because now the center one is not in the middle of the three remaining outside full-chain connections and the 4th magnet one is probably pulling too much (or not enough, for when it fails). As in, normally, the outside chains only provide equal and opposite force back, just enough to keep the table in equilibrium (stable, centered and level). Whereas using the magnet can add more tension to the chain on top of that (as in, what if you replaced that 4th magnet with stronger ones, that would be like having one chain too tight). Or if the magnets get too far apart they provide less tension and the line breaks. So think of it this way... Treat it like a seesaw. I can use 2 chains... one chain on each side of a seesaw to tie down both sides of a seesaw and make it level, and effectively turn it into one big stable bench, where I can sit anywhere along it. It would be very difficult to replace both these chains with attractive magnet connections (without some crazy computer-sensor controlled electro-magnet solution as you mentioned). Even if you did get it level, it would tilt to one side or the other as soon as you touched it. Its not stable. BUT, you could replace EITHER side with a strong enough attractive magnet connection, as just long as its not strong enough to break the chain, and the chain is the right length. So, therefore, replace the outside chains with magnets and not the middle one... keep it a single full chain in the middle, holding up an entire table.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice analysis, but the bottom line is that (simply put) you CANNOT balance ANYTHING with permanent magnets. Here's a good illustration: Take 2 magnets, any type, any size. Put one magnet on a table, and try to bring the other magnet down slowly, just enough to float the first one up, off the table, but NOT get sucked up into the magnet you're holding. Impossible! Samuel Earnshaw studied and explained this in 1845. Meanwhile, I was able to employ PM's in a useful way that I'm pretty sure has never been done before: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Let me know what you think. Thanks for watching.

[@alexcrowder1673]

Try using smaller magnetic gaps at alternating heights and use non magnetic metal such as anodized alluminum for the platforms.

[@ckschnider]

Keep going! I’m thinking more magnets at countering angles to balance out the “ finicky” attractions

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice idea. Thanks for watching Calvin. My last name is Schneider! Check this one out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@jimaanders7527]

This really amazing with just the center magnet. It's magic !! I've seen this with strings and chains but a magnet, it looks like it's really floating ! The active electronic model is nice but it doesn't seem like magic. It's well known you can do anything with electromagnets.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks Jim! Permanent magnets DO seem magical. Check out the magnetic magic in my Gizmotron 2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@michaelperrone3867]

Put the magnets closer together: if their separation distance is small relative to the distance between chains, you'll get a better result

[@iindium49]

You have inspired me.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@iindium49 Thanks for watching!

[@x-cardboardface-x3444]

If there is an earthquake, you won't feel it right?

[@Bonkers-yl2jd]

Not unless the stabliser magnet underneath gets messed up

[@dakotapeters5654]

Copper or aluminum tubing should be able to stabilize the magnets and will make them want only to pull towards the closest magnet. You'll have to calculate the amount of push vs pull strength and you'll have to balance that somehow. Not to mention the shape is all off. I'd be trying to do some sorta circle or like a sphere with a hollow section shaped like a tube idk... I keep thinking if we had a strong enough set of magnets to lift / push the frame up hard enough to levitate.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks for you insight. Stable levitation only with permanent magnets is impossible. There are physics that just get in the way. UNstable levitation though, CAN be used beneficially as I prove in my magnetic lifting system here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosUsi=6cgu5yclVFWSQCgp Let me know what you think.

[@dakotapeters5654]

@ArtMeetsScience they already have stable levitation buildings they are in Dubai don't know how far along the construction is but they are sooo cool they are supposed to be anti earthquake. However I'll totally check out your video... I wasn't thinking stable levitation more like controlled directional gravity another form of flying using magnets pullies and copper or aluminum for the lightweight ability as well as the ability that they have to stabilize the magnetic strength

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@dakotapeters5654 Yes they have “stable levitation buildings in Dubai “, they are currently in the DREAM state of construction, because as I said before, stable magnetic levitation with permanent magnets is impossible. I would love to see some information about levitation actually being implemented with permanent magnets. Please send me some ;-)

[@dakotapeters5654]

@ArtMeetsScience lol I'll try to find the link for ya, but I am concerned I may not know something or how things are structured. idk about a DREAM state of construction.... idk feeling like if there's collective consciousness that I'm not a part of it like I'm a missing link or something, idk. Kinda finding reality to be odd these days.

[@kristyandesouza5980]

Now THIS is cool as heck

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thank you.

[@MrBonners]

I have been toying with similar concept. Thinking springs with magnets on the ends. Thinking use much larger diameter mags for the lower ones and smaller for the uppers (opposite for the center leg). Add another a leg to 2 adjoining sides will add stability, maybe. Make upper platform assembly as light as possible so it will be quick to settle and stay put, maybe.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Cool idea. I've tried to 'balance' the magnets pull with springs, and had no success. I'd love to see you make it work. Check out my latest vid - MagLev - kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@qual2474]

Did Alan Alda started his own science channel? 😂😂 Dude, you sound exactly like him! 😄

[@ArtMeetsScience]

U R funny!

[@strictnonconformist7369]

A square is an inherently unstable shape, but a triangle is inherently stable. If you put them far enough apart from the center magnet, as much as it'd constantly be shifting from the nature of magnets, it'd keep pulling itself back together: next closest thing to a perpetual motion machine. Now I'm thinking I'll need to spend some money to try that mad scientist experiment myself!

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice idea, love triangles. Def need space to avoid unwanted magnetic attractions, but I don't think that a triangular design would allow even one magnetic 'link', aside from the center magnet pair. It seems like we're up against the limits of physics. I'd love to see your attempt. Thanks for watching.

[@dominykaszakrys3373]

This is actually amazing since this qualifies as "reverse tensegrity". Instead of middle part taking tension and outer parts support the balance, in this case the middle part is repelling force while outer parts receive tension. This makes me wondering, if you could use N+S for the center and N+S on the corners, could you make tensegrity fully float ?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

The middle magnets, and the outer magnets are attracting (N+S). Thank you for watching. Check out what I did with magnets here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@SurajSingh.3389]

You should add a magnet on the opposite side of the first magnet(side ropes)

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Tried it, similar results. Thanks for watching!

[@MrBonners]

corner chains, try short chain then long chain. on the other corner go long chain then short chain.

[@Anti-Ratshield-vel-Antysystem]

Just great.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks! Here's some more magnetic magic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@rowgler1]

It seems like it should be possible. The magnets affect each other in sideways proximity also, so maybe if they were farther apart. If you suspend a neodynium magnet by a long thread it can be influenced by another one from several feet.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, keeping them much farther apart would eliminate that problem. The interactions make it very complicated. I'm still trying! Have you seen my maglev experiments? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU Thanks for watching.

[@MDRNKEYSMUSIC]

I have a quick suggestion, what if you use 4 magnets for the tension peripheral chords, and substitute de chords with wooden or metalic tubes ? I will still act with tension, but the tubes will limit the directions of the magnets in order to stay pointed towards the right opposite magnet.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice idea, but it's still too 'slippery'. With 4 peripheral magnet sets, the top twists, and is unstable. I will keep trying. Thanks. Check out my magnetic viewer project: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYm8gmWnrb2oldEsi=GAbz6QuJAdHsdW-R

[@joseignaciojungmann3450]

Awesome dude! Please make an tensegrity 4

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Ha, thanks Jose!

[@herberthornig6727]

Amazing!

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks Herbert. Have you seen this one? kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZ2tYWSkf7eEi5o

[@herberthornig6727]

I saw now! Very good!

[@easygoing2479]

Rather than balancing a quadrangle plane, have you considered instead trying with a triangle plane? I'm thinking in terms that a triangle resides in one plane, whereas a quadrangle resides in several, thereby introducing unequal amounts of tension in at least one 'pillar', be it a mechanical or magnetic junction - resulting in an out-of-balance and collapse of the supports. I figured it would take lots of effort's worth of experiments, and much, much time. Perhaps years. Let us know how it works out. 😁

[@ArtMeetsScience]

This needs to be explored. Fewer variables. Thanks. Have you seen my 'Copper vs Magnets'? kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYLXaZx4l9Sqm5Y

[@jacquesboon9153]

Really admire your experiment. Imho, I believe that the magnets fail because we cannot control the distance between 2 magnets.The certain length of strings holds everything in position. We need at least 3 strings to hold it in place, same way as any normal structure. Let's say, if you make hexagonal shape and have 3strings/3magnets, it will work.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks Jaques. You said it: There are complicated physics behind why, but simply put, you cannot maintain the exact separation of 2 permanent magnets. They will wander too close and snap together, or too far apart, and not support the structure. There is an infinitely small 'sweet spot' where the 'balance' is, and staying there without a feedback system and constant adjustment is impossible- with permanent magnets. Check out the magnetic magic I did in this project: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@biswarupghosh3583]

First u should get two magnets side. when u do this things one opposite side another. Second when u use four big magnet for upper side and small magnet for lower side. But for center ues bi magnet both side. And attach four upper side magnet with middle hanging magnet with rod and do this things opposite side I think it's work

[@joewoodchuck3824]

Very cool!

[@abstract_ion]

The darkside has disrupted the balance of the force. Jedi must return to resolve this issue.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Please summon immediately!

[@JaydenLawson]

I’m guessing the final design is purely aesthetic and is the same as having no fourth stabilising cable at all? Eg. if you removed those corner cables with the magnets, it would still remain balanced. You could use vertical airflow to stabilise without any cables?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@JaydenLawson Yes basically it would remain balanced with just three corners supported. This design started with my dream of having all four corners “magnetized“, but through the experiments, I learned this was never going to happen. Physics won’t allow it. Using a stream of air is an interesting idea, but would require more machinery, apparatus. Check out this cool design - kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJrGiqt7eKtrabcsi=aT295JGDCCcYscME

[@davidleblanc9676]

I was making stuff like that 40 yrs ago

[@albertrenshaw4252]

Magnetic fields go pretty far outward, radially. I would think you could get success doing a much larger structure to keep the magnets far apart, perhaps Balsa?

[@Jaydcoke]

For the outer chains, what if you simply mount the lower magnet directly on the base so there's no propensity for it to move? The only movement then would be in the hanging magnet and if that's close enough, it may be sufficient to ensure some stability.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Good thought. Yes, I tried. I even tried mounting both the upper and lower magnets on posts. No matter what you do, you just can not balance the magnetic forces to keep it stable. I now believe that this is impossible without using an electromagnet, Hall-effect sensors, and a microcomputer.

[@Jaydcoke]

@@ArtMeetsScience Looking forward to that. :-) I'm actually in the process of designing and building a Tensegrity table to be used as both a brochure rack as well as registration table for the Maker Space I do my woodworking at so am very intrigued by the various solutions people are posting up.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@Jaydcoke Can't wait to see!

[@bloom_un]

That's so cool

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks. Check out my magnetic lifter - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@sierraadams8009]

What if you just make it bigger so they're further apart and then do all four of them

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Good idea. That would solve one of the problems. Unfortunately physics keeps getting me down! You've got to see what I've done with magnets in this one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@bobsmith-qu2oq]

if you make the base and top wider will that put the magnets far enough apart so they don't interfere?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, good thought. Check out what I've done with magnets HERE: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@raytajmir8400]

This an amazing art work

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks Ray!

[@rubenchables8303]

You can use fishing line,not metal Also magnets can be installed by top or bottom,away from the pull of the center one which have to be even stronger to contrast the pull of other magnets in the perpendicular pull

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks Ruben, good suggestions, but I've learned that this is impossible, in this configuration. There are complicated physics behind why, but simply put, you cannot maintain the exact separation of 2 permanent magnets. They will wander too close and snap together, or too far apart, and not support the structure. There is an infinitely small 'sweet spot' where the 'balance' is, and staying there without a feedback system and constant adjustment is impossible- with permanent magnets. Check out the magnetic magic I did in this project: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@eyefishinggunkchannel1011]

the only thing that keeps 2 magnots apart is somet stable so iff u take away all the stable stuff well it just duz not work there could be a way ya never no

[@southpole9450]

How about starting with a triangular shaped instead of a square? this will allow you to start with three threads instead of four threads.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

That seems like it would simplify the design. Thanks for watching !

[@antonioisaac1986]

The magnets in the center need to be -/+ or +/-. The center magnets need to repel each other. That will induce strain on the other 4 legs.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks Antonio. Check out another one of my magnetic projects: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@Darkpsyer]

Why you dont start to sell some of your works? My favourite is the second one (with mtb brakes) but this one is also VERY beautiful....

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Glad you like my work. I might consider making some to sell. Some of my creations are very complicated - kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3vOmWh8ndp2e5Y

[@Kidnepp7]

I wonder how if you replace all of the chains with a steel rod for better stability, then place each magnet on all of the corners

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice idea. I've tried that. With the center support 'magnetized', and anything more that one magnetic outer leg, it becomes unstable. Apparently physics says no. Check out this video: I lift and transfer a steel ball with permanent magnets. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosUsi=0SBWH4h8P8OfxbQE Let me know what you think. Thanks for watching

[@Kidnepp7]

@@ArtMeetsScience You're right, I forgot how difficult it is to balance a structure on a horizontal axis. It is impossible without something to lock its movements to maintain perfect balance. The only possible way to create floating magnetic concept is to place opposite poles near a single bar magnet. However, it seems that this concept has been created as a "floating magnetic globe"

[@ArtMeetsScience]

I am still trying ;-)

[@Zyugo]

Another drawback you never shown was if you placed both magnetic strings on either side, would have a different result.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks for watching. Yes, trying to keep the vids short. I experimented with every combination possible, with similar results. Magnetic fields are tough to balance. In this project, I focus magnetic pulses to manipulate a steel bearing. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5OuiaODlMubm9U

[@colinprior7588]

try placing the the magnets at the end of the chains....alternating betwee top end and bottom end as yo go around the circumference...you'd end up with 2 diagonally opposite magnets at the top and the other 2 diagonally opposite magnets at the bottom...this might keep the forces far enough from each other

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yeah, nice thought Colin. Tried that too. The fact is, this thing can stand if I just remove the magnetic 4th chain altogether. All I need is 3 corners. Achieving 'magnetic mechanical stability' with ANY of the 3 required supporting chains is just not possible. Try holding a magnet over a paper clip on a desk. Now bring the magnet in closer and closer. Try to find the 'sweet spot' where the paper clip will float, but NOT get sucked into the magnet. You CAN NOT. This effect is what we're up against. Thanks for watching! Check out my mag-lev: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@koujaz]

Ernshaw theorem forbids replacing all chains w/ magnets. Is there a stable setup with just one chain?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

I knew intuitively that 4 'magnetized' chains would never work. I started with one, and that's as far as I could go. Looks cool, fun project, but ultimately the one mag-chain is really just eye-candy. This structure stands with just 3 normal chains! You can't 'support' anything more in this system with mag-chains. BTW - I've got beef with Ernshaw, and I'm not giving up ;-) Thanks for watching - kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYLXaZx4l9Sqm5Y

[@houstonpromotion]

What if you put to attracting magnets on opposite sides and two deflecting magnets on the two other sides

[@InovasiNgaji]

Amazing Grace

[@0Tirano]

do it the other way around, that is instead of putting magnetos in the center put them on the chains, have what happens hazlo al revez, o sea en vez de poner magnetos en el centro ponlos en las cadenas, haber q pasa

[@ArtMeetsScience]

0Tirano -good suggestion! Thanks for watching.

[@mr.e3275]

You could try using Bismuth For its diamagnetic properties in your design

[@ArtMeetsScience]

That's a great idea! I've worked with Bismuth before, and I'm familiar with it's 'magical' properties. You can see a couple of my home-grown Bismuth crystals used as counter-weights here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHjGd5WqdrSlZs0

[@theperegrinator8007]

Have you tried to make the structure taller and wider, putting one pair of "side" magnets near the top and another pair near the bottom. Will this eliminate the interference with a greater distance?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Good idea, spacing could eliminate unwanted interactions.

[@vivekthumu8992]

Super bro

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks for watching

[@Charzilian]

This might be a stupid idea because I'm not the brightest, but wouldn't it be easier to get it stable if the bottom outside magnets were further out and set at an inwards angle, with the top being smaller and the magnets at an outwards angle? Edit: never mind, just clicked in my head that the outside magnets have to push, not pull.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Hi Charzilian. I got you thinking, huh? Nice suggestion, but the fact is that all of these magnets are PULLING. Thanks for watching. Check out my latest project: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4PPeYGaeNOth8U

[@isoroku8554]

真ん中を磁石の力で支える仕組みです。この位の大きさだからこそ出来る、仕組みですね。マジックの様に見えますが、物理的な仕組みです。

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, like magic. 物理的な仕組みです . もっと 魔法 : kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4esY5RsjNapd8U

[@ITpanda]

Bigger might be easier, as it would separate the fields.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, that would eliminate on of the problems. Thanks.

[@akshaymalviya5332]

May be you should use something more stiffer instead of chain and you might achieve what you were looking for...

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice thought but in Tensegrity, it's all about using flexible materials in tension. Besides, I tried that! I started with threaded studs supporting the magnets. Thanks for watching. Check out my Copper vs Magnet experiments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYLXaZx4l9Sqm5Y

[@gaming4K]

Did you try the one chain across the magnetic one? XD That should stay stable too. Or all at once very near to each other.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice thought, tried it. Just not stable. There are complicated physics behind why, but simply put, you cannot maintain the exact separation of 2 permanent magnets. They will wander too close and snap together, or too far apart, and not support the structure. There is an infinitely small 'sweet spot' where the 'balance' is, and staying there without a feedback system and constant adjustment is impossible- with permanent magnets. Check out the magnetic magic I did in this project: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@robotnikkkk001]

=IN ACTUAL,THAT TENSEGRITY CAN BE MADE FULL MAGNETIC AND FLAT ..............AT CENTER 1 BIG PUSHING MAGNET AND PULLING LESSER MAGNETS AT SIDES

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Cool idea, but I’m not sure it’s possible. Thanks for the suggestion. Let me know if you work it out ;-)

[@williamtomkiel8215]

were those neo magnets?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yup

[@nanmonstaway3599]

First off if you want to use all magnets you need less metal in the structure. Only use metal near the magnetic connections. Next if you find the magnets move too much change the chain or string to something more stiff like a toothpick or something. Lastly try having the magnets at different heights so they dont all match the same distance

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks for your comments, but it still won't work . The math translates to (I'm paraphrasing massively) you can never maintain the 'sweet spot' of 2 permanent magnets. Here's a good illustration: Take 2 magnets, any type, any size. Put one magnet on a table, and try to bring the other magnet down, slowly, just enough to float the first one up, off the table, but NOT get sucked up into the magnet you're holding. This is impossible! I have achieved some magnetic magic in this machine. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@ericbulbosa6199]

The problem is for the chains all need to be identical in gap spacing and chain length. The magnets will need to be identical in pull as well for the chains, however the central magnets would have to have the same pull as the four chain magnets combined, probly, idk its worth a go. lol.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, theoretically, everything in perfect harmony, perfect balance. In reality, it's just impossible. One part of the problem is that the upper structure ('tabletop') wants to slide off to the sides, and rotate. I've been experimenting with a variety of solutions to control these motions with additional magnets, but I have not found a practical design yet. Thanks for watching.

[@TheAndycroy]

@@ArtMeetsScience IDK, what if the corner magnet were closer? Or what about some copper? IDK exactly how magnets and copper react each other, but I think it could help corner magnets going to center.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@TheAndycroy I think Bismuth is the answer.

[@fabriziofabrizi5524]

ciao da quanti chilogrammi sono quei magneti,? grazie fabrizio italia

[@2trucks_having_sex]

Did you ever try stabilizing the magnets with 3 cables to a magnet?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Sort of - I tried using threaded bolts instead of chains. It's still impossible to add a second outside magnet pair. Here's more cool magnetic magic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@magicisme9631]

I would pay good money for a tensegrity table!!!

[@duimaurisfootball8134]

what if you replace all the outside ones with magnets but keep the inner chain?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice thought. That's actually where I started. I used threaded rods not chains, on the outside, so I could make small adjustments. 2 worked ok, 3 was impossible to balance. I think I up against physics here. Have you seen what I made with a 2x4 and some fishing line? kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3vOmWh8ndp2e5Y

[@jonaslunwil]

Using magnets for tensegrity is probably physically impossible. At least in this kind of design. The reason is that magnetic forces act differently from wire forces. We can think of wires as very stiff springs. Picture a box connected to springs on opposite ends. The left spring pulls the box to the left with a force given by the spring potential U(x) = kx^2, and the right spring pulls the box to the right with a force given by the spring potential with a different equilibrium point V(x) = k(x-a)^2. The box moves under the influence of the resulting potential which is the sum of the two: U(x) + V(x). Plot the resulting potential with some arbitrary values for k and a, and you will see that it has a stable equilibrium at some value of x. Thus the box will fall to rest in the minimum of this potential function. Now assume we didn't use springs, but rather magnets. The difference is that the potential function of a magnet is something like 1/x. Considering the sum of two such potential functions: 1/x + 1/(x-a), you can plot this potential for some arbitrary value of a, and see that it has an unstable equilibrium. Meaning the box will end up sticking to one or the other magnet, rather than settling in an equilibrium between them.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@jonaslunwil Wow, thanks for the science Jonas. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've found the limit with this sort of design, but I'm pleased with being able to find equilibrium with 2 pairs of magnets. Are you surprised? I bet you'd do a great job of explaining THIS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYLXaZx4l9Sqm5Y Thanks for watching!

[@jonaslunwil]

It seems like you have a good grasp of what's going on with the copper induction. Regarding your tensegrity setup with 2 pairs of magnets: It looks like the reason it works is that you have three outer chains in addition to the magnet chain and the central chain. This kind of setup only needs 3 outer chains to be stable, so it doesn't depend on the magnet chain to stay up. That would be my guess at least.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@jonaslunwil Yes, thanks. I love that copper induction. Your tensegrity assessment seems reasonable. I can not remove any of the 3 chains, due to the instability of the 2 magnetic 'connections'. I've got a mag-lev project on the bench that I'd like to get your insight into. Can I email you a picture of it?

[@isafctat]

you try making a larger base, so that the corner chains are drawn away at an angle and increase their distance to adjacent magnets?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, I def need to spread out the magnets with a bigger base. The unwanted interactions are a big problem. Drawing them away at an angle is an interesting thought. That may make it more stable. Thanks for watching. Have you seen my Automata hand? kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3vOmWh8ndp2e5Y

[@mikemichaelson120]

Try doing it with a super conducting super cooled magnet

[@ArtMeetsScience]

LOL, NOW you're talking! How about some room temperature magnetic levitation? I've done that! - kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@KalkiKR]

can you try it in opposite sides

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yeah, I tried that. Thanks. It was still un-cooperative. Have you seen my mag-lev experiment? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@Maggio97]

There should be some sort of “wall” the prevents magnet force to go through ? Have you tried something like that ? Maybe trying to make a tube with water ?

[@seanhubbard6033]

I don't think he has any compact superconductors to hand sadly

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Ha, right. Your sense is correct, but I think making a bigger base, and spreading out the corner chains, is more practical. Have you seen what I made from a 2x4!? kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3vOmWh8ndp2e5Y Thanks for watching.

[@vincenta6440]

How about get rid of the 4 chains, make the table top into circle or spade shape, the central magnet instead of one duality use 2, with an interconnected chain or pillar, just a suggestion, I wish I had the materials to make a video to show what I mean

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice thought. So many possible configurations.

[@MurihSantos]

Now I'm wondering, if instead of two magnets attracting each other in the middle, if it was two magnets repelling each other, creating a maglev, it would also work, right? Cause the tension of the chains around would prevent the magnets to move to the sides

[@MurihSantos]

But it wouldn't have this structure in the middle, it would be on the floor and at the upper structure, two magnets repelling, and the chains around would prevent the structure to fall sideways

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice thought Murilo, but they will not be stable. It's like balancing one marble on another marble. Thanks for watching Check this one out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@haynerbass]

What if you spread the corners waaay out?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Tried that. Thanks for watching.

[@dbly5460]

Hi, shouldn't be working when magnetizing the opposite corner instead of any next one, to maintain symmetry?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Seems that way, but any 2 magnetized chains fail. Just too unstable.

[@dbly5460]

That's too bad ! Anyway, this is pretty neat. I'd never be able to build anything near your accomplishment. Thanks for sharing.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@dbly5460 I'm happy to share my work. I encourage you to try your hand. Start simple. Here's my newest one - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYazdKqtrN2ljpo

[@joshweickum]

It would probably work if the magnets were further apart with a wider table

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, that would def help the cross-interference issue, but the up/down balance is the real problem. Thanks for watching. You've got to see what I did with magnets HERE: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@josefelixhornasanchez3194]

Por favor traducirlo al español, gracias.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Lo siento, desearía poder. Gracias por ver. Este interesante proyecto no necesita traducción. Va a sorprenderte por completo- kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Déjame saber lo que piensas

[@moses2626]

Still impressive

[@yungxexe]

maybe try a piramid shape

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice idea. May be worth a try. Thanks for watching.

[@celticstephenhill]

Did you try using Neodynium magnets and/or getting the magnets really close together? Or, one corner chain can have its magnets near the top, and the ones adjacent could have its magnets near the bottom?.. This might pull the em fields away from each other.

[@ArtMeetsScience]

These are Neo's. I tried every-which-way. Going to a 4th magnetic link is impossible in this configuration. Thanks for the suggestions. Have you seen my vid Copper vs Magnets: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYLXaZx4l9Sqm5Y

[@kastorcin1195]

Nice

[@devanh8592]

would different heightss of the four corner support chainsvhabe made a difference?,

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Different - yes, but it doesn't solve the problem. Good thought, though. Check-out the magnetic magic that I did with my Gizmotron 2 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@devanh8592]

@@ArtMeetsScience thats pretty neat....it reminds me of wintergatens marble music machine

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@devanh8592 Thanks D. Check out my channel - 'Art Meets Science' All kinds of cool stuff. kzbin.info/door/Rsj5S_3Wo_t0ikfiu8Ptnw

[@seymourguado9765]

can i buy it pls, and how much

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Ha ha, thank you. I'm very attached to it.

[@4c00h]

Great idea man, have you tried making the horizontally opposite string like the one with the magnet since the other 2 provide the balance?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks. Yeah, tried that. It gets crazy no matter which one I 'magnetize'. I think physics is getting in the way.

[@4c00h]

@@ArtMeetsScience Perhaps more strings

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@4c00h Seems like that would make it EASY!

[@desertshadow72]

Sooo coool

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thanks. Lots of fun. Check out some more of my magnetic magic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU

[@ineax7447]

Could you use this technique to make a ladder to space? With wires connecting a sequence of electromagnets held under tensegrity?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice idea, but impractical with electromagnets. Supplying the power would require additional cables/solar panels controllers and mass that would be unwieldy. We need to get there with permanent magnets. I think this is the key.

[@ineax7447]

@@ArtMeetsScience I can see what you mean, perhaps a hybrid method could keep the weight down and give precision?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@ineax7447 The fact is, a 'ladder to space' is just not practical, no matter how you build it. You just can't have 200 mile-high 'towers' dotting the planet, for many reasons. As we get better at launching ourselves into space, it gets cheaper, safer, and more efficient. I think the next step might be electromagnetic propulsion to space. (see rail-gun). Have you seen my 'mag-lev' hockey project: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@spm1962YT]

Hint: There is a way to get two magnet "assemblies" to repel each other but also attract at a distance away! kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2fWgIqnj9agldE

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Nice hint, thanks. I've been experimenting with magnet "assemblies" a bit, lately. check it out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU

[@akshaymore1991]

What happened with replacing all chains wjth magnet. Ifbu are stuck, U Should reduce the power at the sides. 4 sides total = 1 at the center

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Yes, the forces must balance. That's the whole game here. Seems simple, but it is IMPOSSIBLE. There are laws of physics that explain why. Try this: put a magnet on a table, hold another magnet above it, and slowly bring it closer until you pick up the magnet that was on the table, cause it to float, but not slam into the magnet you're holding. IMPOSSIBLE! That's why all those magnetic levitation devices (desktop floating globes, floating light bulbs, etc) use an ELECTROMAGNET that's constantly modulated by a feedback circuit. Check out this maglev project of mine- kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmbY6OcoK6jaNU Thanks for watching!

[@akshaymore1991]

@@ArtMeetsScience ok. Understood. Thanks 👍🏻

[@aliffluffy4111]

Great

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Thank you! Check out my Automata art: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3vOmWh8ndp2e5Y

[@aedaldaniel]

So its almost 1 year how far are you from success?

[@ArtMeetsScience]

It's still a far-off dream. I hate to concede, but as I've stated in previous comments, replacing even ONE more of the outer chains with permanent magnets is IMPOSSIBLE in this type of Tensegrity form. There are complicated physics behind why, but simply put, you cannot maintain the exact separation of 2 permanent magnets. They will wander too close and snap together, or too far apart, and not support the structure. There is an infinitely small 'sweet spot' where the 'balance' is, and staying there without a feedback system and constant adjustment is impossible- with permanent magnets. Check out the magnetic magic I did in this project: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU Thanks for watching.

[@aedaldaniel]

@@ArtMeetsScience then why don’t you try to put those 2 magnets inside a transparent elastic plastic tube in that way it would be transparent and support the magnets from wandering off. It won’t be like we want without chain but it will be close

[@ArtMeetsScience]

@@aedaldaniel That would only constrain them in the horizontal. They would still get too close and snap together.

[@Enderia2]

This is literally just called floating

[@ArtMeetsScience]

Magnets are awesome! kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX-naXeCgsdlosU