Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site seismo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!flinn
From: flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.physics
Subject: Big things are weaker than small things
Message-ID: <639@seismo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Mar-84 06:46:09 EST
Article-I.D.: seismo.639
Posted: Mon Mar  5 06:46:09 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Mar-84 01:03:08 EST
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 21


Tom Merrick asks:

  >>I'm not sure why this is, but you cannot pick up a full sized
  >>aircraft by one of its appendages either, but you can do so with a model.
  >>Any experts out there who can comment on this one?

Large things are intrinsically weaker than small things.  Since mass
scales as the cube of linear dimension and cross-sectional area as the
square of linear dimension, the stress in members of a structure goes
up as size increases.  A cube of wet sand a centimeter on a side
stands up all right, but a cube of the same sand a kilometer on a side
collapses of its own weight.  Rhinoceri have thick legs to support
their weight, while mice can get by with thin legs.  And so on.
  For good discussion of this, see Galileo's "Dialogs Concerning Two
New Sciences," Darcy Wentworth Thompson's "On Growth and Form," and a
paper by M. King Hubbert in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of
America in the 1950's.

-- Ted Flinn