| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Scaling | ||
|---|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 9 2012, 02:22 AM (1,463 Views) | ||
| coherentsheaf | Jan 9 2012, 02:22 AM Post #1 | |
Speak of the devil and nothing shall happen.
|
One common misconception: "If you would scale up an ant, it could lift a car." This is wrong. The reason for this is that the strength of a muscle is determined by its thickness not its volume. The thickness of a muscle scales with the square of the length of the animal, while the mass of the animal, and all objects it could affect, scales with the length to the 3rd power. Hence an animal that has the same proportion and is 10 times longer, weighs a 1000 times more but is only a 100 times stronger. This fact is also evidenced by the relative proportions of extant closely related animals. Is this the whole truth about scaling up animals? No. In many animals their relative proportions become distorted when they are compared to smaller relatives and individuals of the same species. For example: Tigers are more muscular than domestic cats. In light of this statements like "Megalodon is like a scaled up Great white shark." do not make much sense. If Megalodon was like a scaled up GWS many of its mechanical properties would be unhelpful in its struggle for survival. Therefore it most probably had different proportions. How to get proper formulas for scaling up animals? First of you need data on proportions of similar animals. (Optimally animals of the same species). For example you could measure the total mass of spotted hyenas and their respective head length. Then you use some form of variational method to determine their relationship. For zoological data the method of least squares is appealing. Fortunately many papers offer such formulas, so you do not have to derive them yourself. But notice: These formulas are approximations. They may fail. In fact they fail massively if you scale too far. I hope this post gives some insight into how scaling of animals works. Edited by coherentsheaf, Jan 9 2012, 04:26 AM.
|
|
|
"... grains are falling, haphazard, random, a disorganized stream of silicone that seems pregnant with the possibility of any conceivable shape. But this is illusion. Things have their shape in time, not space alone. Some marble blocks have statues within them, embedded in their future." The Queen: "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" | ||
 |
 
|
|
| Ursus arctos | Jan 9 2012, 02:25 AM Post #2 | |
 
|
I figured I'd pin this for the time being as a replacement to AJ's "a lot of you are misinformed" thread. | |
|
|
|
|
| brolyeuphyfusion | Jul 22 2012, 05:22 PM Post #3 | |
Sauropodomorpha and Allosauroidea enthusiast
|
Here's something of the insect fanboys, I'm gonna shut all of you down. The real "strength" of an ant, or any insect for that matter, lies in its diminutive size. Generally speaking, the smaller the critter, the "stronger" it will be. It's physics, plain and simple. First, you need to understand a few basic measurements of size, mass, and strength: The strength of a muscle is proportional to the surface area of its cross section. Surface area is a two-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the square of its length. Volume is a three-dimensional measurement, and is proportional to the cube of its length. An animal's weight is related to volume, which increases in proportion to the cube of its length, or by a factor of 3. But its strength is related to surface area, which only increases in proportion to the square of its length, or by a factor of 2. Larger animals have a greater disparity between mass and strength. When a large animal needs to lift an object, its muscles must also move a greater volume, or mass, of its own body. The tiny ant has a "strength advantage" because of the ratio of surface area to volume. An ant need only lift a small measure of its own weight relative to the strength of its muscles. |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| brolyeuphyfusion | Jul 22 2012, 05:31 PM Post #4 | |
|
Sauropodomorpha and Allosauroidea enthusiast
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law Hope this helps |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| Superpredator | Jul 22 2012, 05:40 PM Post #5 | |
|
Oh god! Lb for lb an Ant is MUCH more impressive than a Sauropod. Notice I said, LB FOR LB. During our argument via PM, you failed to realise this, during some of our arguments in threads, you failed to realise this. | |
 | ||
|
|
|
|
| brolyeuphyfusion | Jul 22 2012, 09:26 PM Post #6 | |
|
Sauropodomorpha and Allosauroidea enthusiast
|
You don't realize ANYTHING, absolute strength is UNBIASED while lb for lb is VERY BIASED against large animals |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| brolyeuphyfusion | Jul 22 2012, 11:24 PM Post #7 | |
|
Sauropodomorpha and Allosauroidea enthusiast
|
Scale Factors page 1 Scale Factors page 2 |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| Superpredator | Jul 23 2012, 04:30 PM Post #8 | |
|
READ MY POST. I AM NOT COMPARING STRENGTH! I AM COMPARING LB FOR LB. GOD! FANBOYS! |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| brolyeuphyfusion | Jul 23 2012, 06:40 PM Post #9 | |
|
Sauropodomorpha and Allosauroidea enthusiast
|
I said insects are weak, that means insects have low strength, then you came up with that lb for lb crap even though I meant absolute strength, you're in no position to call me a fanboy |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| Superpredator | Jul 23 2012, 06:42 PM Post #10 | |
|
No, you said Insects are weak, I said they are strong lb for lb, you said Sauropods are stronger and I said an Insect as big as a Sauropod could kill it, if there was no Scaling, and you directed me here. 
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 23 2012, 06:55 PM Post #11 | |
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
Could you two please stop these debates? @Superpredator: If you scale an insect, with the exact same anatomy to the same wehieght as a sauropod, it won´t get as much stronger as it will get heavier, because muscular strenght scales with the square (the muscles crossection, because the muscles lenght isn´t relevant for the power it can produce), while the total weight of the animal logically scales with the cube. This will result in an insect this size not being able to bear it´s own weight any more. If you scale a sauropod to the size of an insect, it will be even stronger Lb for Lb than an insect is. Lb for Lb is terribly biased in towards small animals, because large animals will never be as strong compared to their weight as the exact same animal would be if you just scale it down. got it now? @brolyeuphyfusion: You should learn better manners. once someone is saying something, you call him a fanboy, and you think you were allowed to judge who is a fanboy and who isn´t. Don´t you think other people would call you a fanboy as well if they weren´t as polite as they are? So please just learn that when somebody doesn´t understand what you meant, like in this case, or whan somebody has a different opinion (eg. dinosaurs are cooler than bats), you can´t just insult him/her and call him/her a fanboy. |
|
Theropod My Website My Gallery My Blog My Youtube Channel | ||
|
|
|
|
| Superpredator | Jul 23 2012, 06:56 PM Post #12 | |
|
Thanks Theropod. I will stop now(FINALLY!). | |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| theropod | Jul 23 2012, 06:59 PM Post #13 | |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
|
 Good! Let´s hope brolyeuphyfusion does so as well. If he doesn´t , I suggest just ignoring him.
|
|
|
Theropod My Website My Gallery My Blog My Youtube Channel | ||
|
|
|
|
| brolyeuphyfusion | Jul 23 2012, 08:35 PM Post #14 | |
|
Sauropodomorpha and Allosauroidea enthusiast
|
Okay, I'll stop... | |
| ||
|
|
|
|
| Superpredator | Jul 24 2012, 04:03 PM Post #15 | |
|
@theropod/coherentsheaf/brolyeuphyfusion- If I understand correctly, Sauropods would be stronger than Insects at the same weight as, they have evolved robust bodies to support their weight. If they got scaled down, their robustness could be used for strength, and because they have extra robustness, they would be leagues stronger. However, Insects can't survive at the size of Sauropods, as they aren't robust enough to support their weight. | |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| 3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | ||
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:18 PM May 22