Has neone ever tried racing an ant in their 300 ?

 

The ant should have a massive weight advantage, and the exoskeleton should mean good aerodynamics. Six legs means better traction, so I reckon the ant would walk it !!

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

so I reckon the ant would walk it !!

 

Must be a fast walk........

 

 

Matty.

 

------------------

Nelson, do you sit up all night thinking this sh*t up or does it just come to you.

Nelson, Just as you manage to scape back a bit of dignety by doing some fairly semi interesting posts, You go and ruin all your hard work with something like this.

 

B19RKS

 

P.S Would the ant have to diet to reduce mass?!!!

Lighten up, it was a joke FFS !!

P.S Would the ant have to diet to reduce mass?!!!

 

nope, jaylox could make a lightweight replacement carbon fibre exoskeleton for it!!!!

 

lol!!

 

------------------

I feel the need, the need for speed!

 

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

Lighten up, it was a joke FFS !!

Like all your posts

 

i think you need to have a little key code on the side of your threads

KEY

S- SERIOUS

K-KAK

CK-Clomp Kak

 

 

A smaller object has a lower mass/volume to size ratio and a lower mass/volume to surface area ratio; therefore smaller objects are relatively stronger.

 

Think of a 1cm3 cube. Mass = say 1g.

 

Think of a cube with sides of 10cm (size increased by factor of 10). Mass = lots more than 10g - in fact it would weigh 1000g. Surface area would be 600cm2 - lots more than 10 times the 6cm2 of the 1cm3 square.

 

 

So as size increases, relative surface area is redueced and relative volume/mass is increased even further.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Nelson MainFella (edited 04-10-2002).]

[edited 'coz I got it wrong!]

 

[This message has been edited by Mike Duffy (edited 04-10-2002).]

LOL

 

Dec looks the fitter of the two to me!

 

 

 

------------------

"Life sucks. Get a F**king helmet, okay?"

Denis Leary

Hmmm... maybe if the ant was the same size it's proportional speed would be higher.

Well, Kent Brockman (Simpsons) would say: 'all hail our conquerors, the giant ant men.' ROFL

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

Think of a 1cm3 cube. Mass = say 1g.

 

Think of a cube with sides of 10cm (size increased by factor of 10).

 

I am going to go and boil my head in a moment for once again being unable to control the desire to correct you. Why can't I just leave it ? Someone tell me please. But I can't. So ...

 

A cube with 10cm sides is NOT 10 times bigger than a cube of 1 cm sides. If you want to make a comparison than take 10 cubes with 1 cm sides and put them next to each other. You end up with a shape measuring 10x1x1. THAT is 10 times the size.

 

Now I know you have an inquisitive mind but please stop posting stuff like this as you are driving me TOTALLY INSANE and I am drinking way too much at the moment.

 

Originally posted by Hairsy:

I am going to go and boil my head in a moment for once again being unable to control the desire to correct you. Why can't I just leave it ? Someone tell me please. But I can't. So ...

 

A cube with 10cm sides is NOT 10 times bigger than a cube of 1 cm sides. If you want to make a comparison than take 10 cubes with 1 cm sides and put them next to each other. You end up with a shape measuring 10x1x1. THAT is 10 times the size.

 

Now I know you have an inquisitive mind but please stop posting stuff like this as you are driving me TOTALLY INSANE and I am drinking way too much at the moment.

 

Maybe the drink explains why you are wrong. You are getting confused between an increase in size(overall dimensions) and an increase in overall VOLUME - what you are quoting.

 

So I think what I said is correct, but feel free to continue trying to prove me wrong - one thing I am not is closed-minded (I think!)

 

Dont' think because I was wrong once, that I am always wrong !

ROFLMMFAO

Talking of small things,i read somewhere that the thread from a spiders web is the strongest material there is,.( please correct me if wrong!).

Well in my book, the size of three dimensional object needs to be measured in three dimensions. You seem to be suggesting that the size should be measured in one dimension only.

 

If you take my example of a 1x1x1 object and a 10x1x1 object, are you saying that the two objects are the same size ?

 

AND YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN AND MADE ME REPLY TO YOU - LEAVE ME ALONE !!!!!

AND YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN AND MADE ME REPLY TO YOU - LEAVE ME ALONE !!!!!

 

LMFAO!!!!!!

 

------------------

I feel the need, the need for speed!

 

A 'stretched' cube as you have described, is only bigger in one dimension, but we are taking about our reality which is 3-dimensions.

 

When you have a scale mdel of a car, it is say, 1:18. That means the length of the model is 1/18 that of the actual car. The height is also the same, and so is every other dimension. In other words, the model is 1/18 of the scale/size/dimensions of the real car in 3-dimensional space.

 

The mass and volume of the real car are clearly much more than 18 times greater than the model. The surface area of the model will be proportionally greater than that of the real car in comparison with their relative volumes/masses.

 

To make this clearer, think of a cube - mass/volume = 1 unit, surface area = 6 units. Then surround this cube by 26 further cubes to make a cube of 3 units by 3 units by 3 units.

Now, mass/volume = 27 units, surface area = 54 units.

54

 

The mass/volume IS proportional to the size in 3-dimensions [because that's what it's measuring], but not the scaling factor.

I have just flicked an ant across my office desk and reckon it went faster than a Z (stock one of course)

 

Bob

Originally posted by Hairsy:

If you take my example of a 1x1x1 object and a 10x1x1 object, are you saying that the two objects are the same size ?

 

Just can't leave it !

 

1) Can you please answer the question I asked !

 

2) If you're talking about strength, don't forget that the thickness of the surface will also have increased by the same factor as the rest of the object

 

3) Of course a 1/18 scale car doesn't hav 1/18 of the weight. Not every component is 1/18 scale. If it was then I promise you it would weigh exactly 1/18th.

 

4) Bob flicked an ant. I promise you that Bob is at least 10 times the size of an any. Possibly more. I know - I've fed him. Surely if your theory is correct, the ant would be considerably stronger than Bob in which case I would have expected Bob to have been damaged by the encounter.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Hairsy (edited 08-10-2002).]

Damn, as an ex-physicist, I can't let this pass without comment.

 

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

The mass and volume of the real car are clearly much more than 18 times greater than the model.

 

The mass/volume IS proportional to the size in 3-dimensions [because that's what it's measuring], but not the scaling factor.

 

The first sentence says that mass is not proportional to scale and the second sentence says it is. Hmmm.

 

Scale is a dimensionless ratio. As typically used, it is applied to linear length. A measurement which is 18cm on a real car will on a 1/18 scale model be 1cm.

 

If you have a cube 18cm on each side of, say, bullsh1t and assuming bullcr*p weighs 1g per cm3, then the cube will weigh 5,832g.

 

A scale model of this at 1/18 will measure 1cm on each side and hence weigh 1g.

 

"Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour..."

Hairsy, your stretched cube is larger, yes, but only in one dimension as I said.

 

I don't see the point you are trying 2 make.

 

Gio, re-read your post !! Your first line is incorrect.

 

When I said larger objects are weaker, what I meant was that they are porportionally weaker. Drop an ant 10 feet onto the ground and it will survive. Drop a human a proportional distance (>10,000 ft) relative to much greater body size, and the human would obviously die. F = ma, ie. larger mass = more force acting on a large object.

Originally posted by Gio:

"Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour..."

 

only you lol.

 

Ok here is my theory, on bees ??? cause i recon a bee is faster because it has wings so ants are pants lol

Larger bees contain muscles that are increased in a cubic relationship to cell size. At first sight this looks to be a benefit to the bee, but the increase is only proportionate to the mass of the bee. The relationship between muscle bulk and mass would be proportionate. It has been pointed out that the strength of a muscle is proportionate to it's cross sectional area so our larger bee is therefore using its greater strength (proportionate to square of cellsize) in attempting to counter it's own extra weight (proportionate to cube of cellsize). The extra resistance due to the larger frontal area then causes yet more resistance, still to be overcome. This alone seems to me to be a serious and significant disadvantage to the larger bee. But other factors yet further detract from the large bee's performance. The large flight muscles require an amount of oxygen that is increased by a cubic (or even greater) factor, but the orifices which this greater amount of air has to pass through are only increased by a squared factor, whilst the tubes themselves are longer and thus exhibit more resistance due to length.

 

so as you can see , where are the ants? nowhere thats where unless they are in your pants

 

 

 

I think you have a point there, Warren !!

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

. Drop an ant 10 feet onto the ground and it will survive. Drop a human a proportional distance (>10,000 ft) relative to much greater body size, and the human would obviously die. F = ma, ie. larger mass = more force acting on a large object.

 

NOW you're talkin about reaching terminal velocity!!! LMFAO Yes F=MA BUT eventually the wind resistance becomes equal to F and the object stops accelerating. Also, under gravity, all objects fall at the same rate (until they reach terminal velocity where some objects will continue to accelerate). So what is the terminal velocity of an ant??? Not a lot I bet Terminal velocity of a human? around 120mph I *think* so yeah you'll die - why not try it? LOL

 

CheerZ,

 

Andy

The Myth

If a human had strength "equivalent" to that of an ant, he could lift 2000 (maybe even 10,000) pounds over his head. Or, to put it another way, if an ant were as big as a human it could lift 2000 or more pounds over its head.

 

The Truth

If an ant were as big as a human it probably would not even be able to walk or lift its own weight, much less lift even a hundred pounds over its head

 

The reason behind this theory

 

LITTLE SIZE 1 CUBE CREATURE

 

WEBL Size 1 Cube Creature:

Height = 1; width = 1; thickness = 1

Cross Sectional surface area of face = 1 square

Weight = 1 pound

Weight lifted over its head = 10 pounds

It can lift 10 times its weight over its head.

 

TWICE AS TALL - 8 TIMES HEAVIER

 

WEBL Size 2 Cube Creature:

Height = 2; width = 2; thickness = 2;

Cross Sectional area of face = 4 squares

Volume = 8 cubes

Weight = 8 pounds

Weight lifted over its head = 40 pounds

It can now only lift 5 times its own weight over its head

 

And so on and so on.

muscle strength changes approximately with the change in muscle cross-sectional area. The cross-sectional areas have increased by a factor of four, while the weight increased by a factor of eight

 

Let's do it for an ant.

Let's say we have an ant that is 6 millimeters long and weighs about 3 milligrams (or 0.003 grams). This, according to one of my references, is about the size of a leafcutter ant. Pictures of leafcutter ants carrying leaf sections much bigger than themselves are common and they are often touted as being super strong.

 

Well we found lots of claims about ant strength. The weight lifting claims ranged from 10 to 50 times their own weight. Every one of the sources claimed this was the equivalent of a man lifting 10 to 50 times his weight.

Let's use 50 which I suspect is on the high side for most ants. That means our ant can lift 150 mg, or 0.15 grams.

 

Now let's grow our ant to 6 feet (1829 millimeters) in length. An increase of 304.8 times the original length of 6mm. If she (most ants are females) grows proportionally, she will weigh about 187 pounds when she gets to 6 feet in length. Continuing to use the relationships described above, we can calculate that this frighteningly large ant will now be able to lift 13,935,456 milligrams. That sounds like a lot more. But alas, it is really only 13,935 grams or just about 30.7 pounds.

Now our giant ant cannot quite lift one sixth of her body weight! No one would brag about that. And I suspect, though won't try to prove it here, that she will not even be able to lift that. She'll be lucky if she can lift her head.

 

Now lets do this for people.

 

Pretend you are 6 feet tall and weigh 200 pounds. You're a pretty strong guy or girl and can push 100 pounds worth of barbell and weights over your head. Not exactly olympic material, but not bad. That's one half your body weight.

 

Seems pretty pathetic next to our leafcutter ant that can lift and carry 50 times its weight (though I have never actually verified this. Have you?).

But what happens if we shrink you?

We zap you with the "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" ray and you shrink all the way down to about 6 mm or 1/4 of an inch.

According to my estimation using the relationships described above, you now weigh 3.2 milligrams. Based on the change in cross-sectional area of your muscles you can now lift 488 milligrams.

That's almost 153 times your weight!

Now you are 3 times stronger than the whimpy ant!

 

END OF DEBATE LMAO