|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 22:39:00 -
[1]
Depends how big the beetle was.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 22:51:00 -
[2]
Okay that's about an 80th of the length of a human (albeit a basketball player sized human). If we're to assume the model scales linearly with body length, then it would clear 80*15ft in 4 minutes. That's 20*15ft per minute, that's 300 ft per minute. That's roughly 100 meters per minute or 1.7 meters per second. About 4 miles an hour, a brisk walking pace.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 23:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Last Wolf But this wouldn't scale linearly would it?
Growing up I always heard that "If ants where the size of humans they could lift 5 tons!!!"
Well no, that is not true. Just because they can lift 50x their own weight at their current size, doesn't not mean they could at our size.
In fact, if a HUMAN was ANT sized, we'd be able to lift even more than they could. Fact #2, if ants where human sized, they'd break their own legs trying to stand.
Indeed, I believe that is called the fallacy of the model or something. Mass scales as a cube of the length whereas the strength of joints scales as a square of the length.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 23:33:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tortun Nahme those formulai assume that speed has the same linear progression as the speed though...
Well given that the identity is a linear map, it is actually true that speed scales linearly with speed.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 23:39:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Last Wolf Edited by: Last Wolf on 14/10/2008 23:38:35
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: Tortun Nahme those formulai assume that speed has the same linear progression as the speed though...
Well given that the identity is a linear map, it is actually true that speed scales linearly with speed.
Hmm, I knew that strength didn't scale as fast as weight did, so I assumed speed was similar.
I guess it two different properties though.
So if say a 10Lb 1ft length rocket went 200mph. a 100lb 10ft rocket would go 2000mph?
edit: Actually, that 10ft rocket would probably way a lot more than that.
I wouldn't know. if you actually read what you quoted there, I was actually making fun of a typo.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 11:50:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 15/10/2008 11:46:01 Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 15/10/2008 11:12:32 After a night of sleep I got to thinking this morning about this thread and some of the statments that where made without any hard fact or declaration of direct knowledge. I do not know why I keep thinking of these things sometimes, but it happens.
I understand the following.
Volume = cubic meters m3 Area = Sq meters m2
But lets look at humans. Humans are bipedal creatures which can not support the body weight that quad****dal creatures can. For example the average cow weight is around @ 1200 pounds. This is more then 3 times the weight that the "average human" can sustain for signifaicant times without biomechanical/physiological failure.
How about deer and other related quadripeds? They have their, very similar mass to the averge human, dispersed over a smaller surface area (feet versus hooves). Yet their (much smaller and very similar articular connection and functioning) knees are able to support much higher jumping. Where as, the life expectancy of a professional basketball player is only 5 years due to the exponential rise in forces on joints in relation to jump height and the inability of the human knee to sustain this type of abuse for long periods of time.
I will not say that if an ant somehow was increased in size, to that of say a cow (this is not a Rick Moranis movie), that it would be able to handle its weight with its biological makeup. I would also not say, as fact unless I had some hard numbers to show, that one would also be crushed under this weight due to the above mentioned realtionship between volume and area. Biology is a crazy thing
I will say that if a six legged creature existed, that was in scale with cows/elephants, it is very likely that it would be able to handle significantly higher amounts of body weight then a biped could and also be able to handle loads equivelant to or greater then elephants. I also doubt that this creature would be able to move at similar rates as its 10mm relatives.
Then again I could be viewing this illogically.
EDIT: Spelling
EITT 2: The only research I could find on ants that discussed scale was... Walking on inclines: energetics of locomotion in the ant Camponotus. This studied did energy expenditure studies on ants which involves the measurement of Co2 production in a closed area to determine O2 consumption. I know these tests all to well in the format of human testing, but what these guys did was a little crazy.
Slade
I have to confess, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you double the size of a given structure without changing the materials (be it an animal, scaffold, building, etc), then its mass increases eightfold whereas the strength of its materials only increases fourfold. Some animals have heavy bodies and thin legs because their bones are made differently and have different musculatures.
|
|
|
|