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 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com