Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: A matter of scale (oops)
Message-ID: <189@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 20:37:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.189
Posted: Sat Sep 14 20:37:30 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 23:58:30 EDT
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 26

(remove foot from mouth, proceed to type)

My previous article of this title contained a ridiculous error.
In essence, I left out a paragraph just after the paragraph that adjusted
the scaling operation for leverage.  The leverage adjustment given there
was supposed to be just one of (at least) two possible adjustments.

Picking up where that paragraph left off, I took back *all* the leverage
advantage gained by enlarging the joints, and showed that the stress
on the animal was at least thinkable.  Imeant to add that a more realistic
scenario was to calculate how much room was under the mumble-saur for
knees, calculate the extra stress caused by fitting the legs into this
space, and the extra leverage that would result.

There should be at least 15 feet side-to-side room under a mumble-saur.
That means that knees *could* be as much as 7 feet in diameter.  This would
cause leverage advantage that would cut about 1/2 of the stress to the knee.
Since the knee is about half as wide as it "should be" when scaled from human
dimensions, this means that there is 4 times the stress, or twice the stress
experienced by a human.  And *this* is well within the range of reasonability.

The point of the paragraph that appeared originally was that *even* with 
essentially *no* leverage advantage, a mumble-saur should be able to at least
stand up.  Sorry for the confusion.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw