วีดีโอ

Das bedingt sich meistens gegenseitig.

Hat ein negativer Hufbeinwinkel an den Hinterhufen Einfluss auf das LSG? Ich vermute meine Stute hat stets ein offenes LSG durch den negativen Winkel oder einen negativen Winkel durch das geöffnete LSG. Habe sie mit dieser Pathologie (roh) gekauft.

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with all of us! loving your book and also this vdeo x

Wie heißt der genau? Meine Podcastapp findet euch nicht.

Hi, wo finde ich kitchenlab Teil 1?

Hi! Beate hier. Riesendank für diesen genialen Vortrag 👍👍👍! Nun brauche ich die anderen Vorträge um die Frage beantworten zu können , denn wie es um die Biotensegrität des Lumbosacralgelenks meiner Spatstute steht weiß ich noch nicht, bestimmt hilft das Verständnis ihr. Super Zeichnungen!!!!!

👍 dieses erste sympathische Video von dir macht "Appetit " auf die Biotensegrität ( richtig geschrieben?) 👍😊

I love your final comment "it may be easier to manage a horse thats not very strong, but thats not fair". This is exactly how I feel. Thank you for putting it into more polite words than I usually manage

I loved this explanation too. Especially how you debunk the myth of the discs creating space. Biotensegrity has informed my somatic practice. I've always wondered how to explain that it's not the discs but the force distribution throughout. The tension and compression EVERYWHERE. I can share your video instead.

Thank you for this video and your clear explaination Maren. The tensegrity model with the elastic spine is a revalation. I hope that you continue to add more vertebrae and would love to feel and see the movement that this enables!

Dr. Johnson, We don't know each other in person and it is not at all up to you to praise or criticize my tone. As for my respect, it is not for you but for the people who do serious research on biotensegrity. My respect is to people who want to learn about biotensegrity and might be misled by pseudoscientific fake physics. My respect is to those people who always have some minutes and some coloured pens to answer questions on biotensegrity seriously. But to work through your first point as well: your first sentences show a lack of manners as the rest of your comment contains toxic positivity and back-handed compliments which are verbal micro aggressions. If you didn't know that, now you do. Thought someone should tell you. Now to the content parts: Your point was, that tensegrity would add too much compression on the bones. This is funny, because bones are made exactly for resisting compression in themselves instead of directing it against each other. They even become stronger under compression, did you know? If you state that there is compression between the bones, you say there is compression in the joints - or what else do you think is between two bones? If you say, that tension would add too much compression there, you seem to make it without. That was the reason for my experimental setup. If you didn't want to say that and instead think there should be tension, then where to do you think goes the compression? My setup showed, that in motion there is compression anyway. So this was a funny point in your video and not in mine. If you have tension created by muscles always and everywhere, you have always and everywhere compression and waste of energy. If the muscles give tone only when needed, you support a very vulnerable model of the body. My thought. Your „straps nice and taut“ in a spine give load on parts that are not made for that. If you come back again to cables and struts, sorry, you really don't get it, do you? I just showed you that it is neither about struts nor about single cables and the only funny thing is to image how your pile of compression elements climbs on trees or gallopps through the prairie. Your model doesn't work on quadrupeds, did you know that? And it doesn't work on birds. And all the other models except biotensegrity don't. You ask me if I'm „arguing that any addition of any tension components to a compression structure turns it into a tensegrity structure?“ I never wrote or said this and I'd like to know how this silly question comes to you. Tension in a compression-based modell adds compression BETWEEN the compression elements and that's the place where it should not be. In a tensegrity there is compression IN the compression elements where it belongs to. If you don't understand that difference, „then there is no need to go further with the debate“ since you are missing minimal basic understanding of tensegrities and biotensegrity. Here is another proof for lack of understanding: You try to find out, how I did it instead of trying to understand how nature would do it, how the body could do it. The rubber bands can't do what fascia does because they can't connect with the bones. But don't you think that the body has better ways to solve this (as it is obviously possible) and that assessing its possibilities in such a limited way like you do is human hubris? You look at the smallest parts and can't see the interaction of the whole. Following your argument, running, jumping, working and dynamic moving in spirals off the vertical is „outch“. All this is not about you. I don't want to convince you, what for? It is unimportant if you understand or support what I showed and explained in my video. The video was made for people who have difficulties to answer such stuff as you spread. They need a chance to understand and to rebuild my model if they like to. This reply is not for you too. It is just for people who want to know. I will not link your video. Its full title and your name are mentioned in the video so everyone can find you. You have been cited correctly what is more than you did in your video.

I love it! Much more respectful in tone than your first video so that you for that :-) And I love the vertebra with the rubber bands! The first half makes the point that a stack of boxes needs stabilization to not fall over when tipped, and that tension components on the side would be one way to do this. Yes this is correct and one of the main mechanisms by which the spine stabilizes. So no argument there. I don’t really understand why you didn’t make the straps nice and taut like spinal stabilizers. You seem to think that adding any tension to the compression structure would somehow be cheating. Of course nice taut straps would perform perfectly well in any position, just like the spine does. In any event, the viewer needs to decide - is the spine more like a stack of compression components (the vertebra) with nice taut stabilizing tension components on the sides (muscles, ligaments, and connective tissue) or like floating sticks between the connective tissue. To me it defies common sense to go with the latter as fun as that model is. Are you arguing that any addition of any tension components to a compression structure turns it into a tensegrity structure? If so then that is a pretty broad definition of tensegrity - I would even include reinforced concrete in that definition. If you are indeed going with that definition, then there is no need to go further with the debate since I don’t think anyone disagrees that the body is a combination of compression and tension components. You argue that the point is not to be anatomically correct but to “highlight the balance of internal forces.” It is true that not all useful models of the spine are anatomically correct. My argument was that tensegrity models need to fundamentally distort the bones of the spine in order that they function as tensegrity structures. So that at least that level of anatomical correctness seems required. Luckily you go for anatomically correct in your last experiment, which is my favorite - (and I’m not being sarcastic). You really take up the challenge. You say “if the vertebra can be suspended, there is tensegrity”. Yes, I basically agree with this and love that you are going for it with real vertebra. I’m trying to figure out how you did it actually. Here is my best guess. Have a look at the shot at 4:42. Do you see that giant clump of elastic bands, mostly yellow and green, under the facet joints? What are they doing there? As far as I can see they are either using the fact that the facets do indeed *very slightly* cross (see the comments under my video) or they are bunched up to create a springy rubber compression effect. Either way, you’ve got to admit that clump is a little weird and anatomically a stretch (no pun intended). If you’ve actually made use of the slight overlap in facets then you seem to have a model in which the entire weight of the spine will be suspended by some tiny fibers connecting the facets. Ouch! So I while agree that you’ve suspended the vertebra with rubber bands, I’m not convinced that a) the tension components at the facet joints won’t experience an absurd amount of tension and/or b) that the rubber bands are not being squeezed to create a rubbery compression effect. If you have really done it without b), then I congratulate you on finding, potentially, a tiny bit of tensegrity-like effect via the facets. But does this change the spine from being mainly a compression structure with stabilizing tension components on the side? No. By the way, how about including a link to my video so that readers can decide for themselves? :-)

2. The entire big idea behind tensegrity is exactly that - EVEN at the minimalistic 3 strut setup, the tensegrity setup creates the system that behaves as structurally and kinematically indeterminate framework exhibiting the dynamic behavior of super-stability upon external permutations. This dynamic behavior stems from being internally pre-stressed, and kind of ‘looped’. The superstability theorem has been proven by Prof. Connelly of Cornell in a pure mathematics sense with fully abstracted struts and cables, i.e. making it independent of the actual lengths, materials, etc. This ability to create a statically and kinematically indeterminate and yet super stable framework EVEN with the minimal number of members is what makes tensegrity interesting and attracts the attention of thousands of practitioners, engineers, and scientists alike. Your ‘debunking’ argument was obvious- a simple free body diagram that any first-year engineering student can do. Clearly, within an assumption of a determinate free body diagram- three vertical struts always win over three tilted struts. Duh! Thank you very much, we didn’t know that! The real question is -- whether the free body diagram is applicable in case of interesting pre-stressed combinations? Biotensegrity’s makes a central assumption that FBD is not applicable and we need a different approach to pre-stressed frameworks structural analysis. The interesting thing about tensegrity is to realize that because of framework effects compression members that touch the ground end up having a resultant local ‘kiss touch’ by distributing the reaction force impact through the entire framework rather than having a full weight-proportional load concentrated in a point of contact. So it's a completely different dynamic behavior compared to the one predicted by simple structural analysis.

Reply to @ Patrick Johnson. 1. From an ethical perspective, it is fair to say that the unethical misconduct falls squarely on Dr. Johnson’s side. After noticing what looks like a glaring ‘tilted struts’ mistake from a structural analysis perspective in an apparently “simple” 3 strut tensegrity structure, a fair thing to do would have been to contact biotensegrity.org and ask: “Are you guys complete morons, or am I missing something in this entire tensegrity spiel?” IF in response you were ignored, brushed aside, or received some stupid answer - then it would have been appropriate to initiate the “Debunking…” video. You have chosen the exact opposite of a respectful discussion - you hyped it up and went on the offensive right off the bat: “Debunking…” and the whole nine yards. Basically being patronizing and claiming out loud that “these people are idiots and can’t do even the simplest structural analysis”. What kind of response did you expect from those who you publicly attacked?

Again, at the request of Dr. Johnson, and to give context for his replies posted below, here is the 2nd of his two publicly posted presentations on tensegrity and biotensegrity, in which he invites responses such as this one:

As Dr. Johnson has requested in the comments below, here is a link to one of two publicly posted TH-cam presentations Dr. Johnson has put forth sharing his debatable impressions on the subjects of tensegrity and biotensegrity: th-cam.com/video/pm9N1Mn1Tvg/w-d-xo.html

Hi Maren Thanks for watching my video and taking the time to try to refute it! I firmly believe in critical discourse, and I think this is ultimately what you were trying to go for here (despite a few kind of personal digs that I think were unnecessary ;-)). 1) You are right that my drawing is missing a cable and the triangles are slightly misoriented. So thank you for pointing that out. I made it with powerpoint and could have been more careful. On the other hand, the calculations I made for the structure are not altered by the mistake in my cartoon. So the main point still stands - the tensegrity structure will have more compression in the struts than the vertical rods. You make quite a big deal out of my cartoon mistake, and perhaps it is deserved to a degree, but unlike some of the so-called "tensegrity spines" out there, the omission in the cartoon does not fundamentally change the math. 2) Great to see you having a go at an experiment! Indeed you show that the tensegrity structure resists deformation very nicely. However if you watch my video again, you will see that I wasn't making a point about stability against deformation of the type you demonstrate but about compression in the struts themselves. I think it is fairly obvious that standing sticks will buckle over sideways when you put a weight them - I would have predicted the same thing. Equally obvious is that trying to stabilize it at the bottom with clay will not work since the torque from the long rods will deform the clay. But this says nothing about the compression in the rods themselves. I'm not going to call you a "faker" because I don't think you are one. But your presentation does distort the argument, using the tactic of diverting the subject rather than directly addressing my central claim. I'd love to see you create an experiment that does directly measure the actual compression in the struts. It's not as easy as the one you did, but its the only one that would directly address my claims. 3) To put it another way, its well known that tension structures along the side of the spine stabilize it from buckling. But there is no need to invoke tensegrity there. Furthermore the necessity of having stabilizing tension structures *increases* pressure on the discs, rather than decreasing it as so many tensegrity proponents seem to suggest, which is the main point I am making. 4) I would propose that if you are interested in critical discourse that you put a link to my video in your description so that viewers can make their own judgement. 5) If you really want to dig into this further, I suggest you send me an email and we can arrange to discuss it by phone. You can find my email at the bottom of my website, which is listed in the description of my video. I much prefer a conversation to a youtube argument :-) in fact I really enjoy talking about this stuff (and don't really enjoy the youtube debates, as necessary as they are). -Patrick