4 ms·

The 1000x comparison is silly - in a straight up lifting of things, a simple steel wire can probably lift 100000x times it's weight. The tech has it's uses and

The 1000x comparison is silly - in a straight up lifting of things, a simple steel wire can probably lift 100000x times it's weight. The tech has it's uses and they should highlight the flexibility rather than perceived strength...

tomp 9y ago
A steel wirte isn't lifting anything, it's just holding.
- mlevental 9y ago
  i don't understand what this means. you understand that g = 9.81 m/s^2 ... every second? the difference between colloquial lifting and just holding is a matter of applying on the order of just 1% more force.
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    There is a difference between a material’s chemical bonds resisting the acceleration of gravity and actually being able to lift an object from one height to a second, higher height.
  - tomp 9y ago
    I'm not talking about force, but about energy. To hold something suspended in air, you don't need any energy. But a steel wire can't lift anything, you need to have a motor (or muscle) that actually expends energy to move the object higher.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - keenerd 9y ago
      A steel wire can lift things all by itself. Just cool the wire. If you disagree with this, consider the motor or hydraulic cylinder that can't lift anything either. (Without an external source of energy like a battery or compressor.) I'm half serious about this. The other main "artificial muscle" technology is nichrome wire after all.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
    So if we took away 1% of that 1000x it's own weight it would be able to lift it? It can't. It will never be able to. Only thing I got out of my engineering dynamics class - ropes don't lift. Well, that and jokes about couple moments. A lift is not a hold. A human can hold a ton of weight against gravity, but that's not them lifting it. See the squat. You can put a huge amount of weight on your back compared to the amount you can actually move. If you put them on an escalator, they could probably even move a distance with it. But that isn't them lifting it that distance.
    - arghwhat 9y ago
      A human can hold several loaded shipping containers stacked upon each other against gravity. The human will be very flat and leaking all over, but it will be holding the containers.
      - SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
        "I guess he kind of bench pressed that steam roller... kind of."
        arghwhat 9y ago
        He lifted it several millimeters off the ground!
    - mlevental 9y ago
      as someone who stalls out at the midpoint of a squat coming up very often i can tell you that locking your knees with weight on your back is not holding anything - it's putting your posterior chain under compression. my point was that something like a barbell hold (like this http://www.myfitnessstudio.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/barbell-bicep-curl.JPG http://www.myfitnessstudio.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/barbell-...) is just as hard as just curling.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - ricardobeat 9y ago
    You mean infinity more force, since at rest (holding) no force is being applied at all.
- timthelion 9y ago
  But a steel wire can be reeled in using a reel. And if we don't include the airpump required for these origami muscles in our "muscle weight" then we don't need to include the winch weight in the case of the reeled wire.
  - arghwhat 9y ago
    Only counting the steel wire in the winch example is unfair in the other direction. You have to count a small part of the winch (pulley?) for it to be directly comparable. But this is all incredibly silly, and what we all agree on is that they fail to consider the vacuum pump, valves and reinforced vacuum hoses in order to make their invention seem fancier.
    - JackFr 9y ago
      The proper comparison is not with the pulley, the wire or the winch, but rather the structure holding the pulley up.
ricardobeat 9y ago
Maybe the fact that flexible, water-soluble materials can even show up in a comparison to steel is enough of a breakthrough?
icc97 9y ago
I think the gripping part is the important bit. You can't get a steel wire to open and then close on an object and lift it.

tomp 9y ago

A steel wirte isn't lifting anything, it's just holding.

mlevental 9y ago
i don't understand what this means. you understand that g = 9.81 m/s^2 ... every second? the difference between colloquial lifting and just holding is a matter of applying on the order of just 1% more force.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  There is a difference between a material’s chemical bonds resisting the acceleration of gravity and actually being able to lift an object from one height to a second, higher height.
- tomp 9y ago
  I'm not talking about force, but about energy. To hold something suspended in air, you don't need any energy. But a steel wire can't lift anything, you need to have a motor (or muscle) that actually expends energy to move the object higher.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - keenerd 9y ago
    A steel wire can lift things all by itself. Just cool the wire. If you disagree with this, consider the motor or hydraulic cylinder that can't lift anything either. (Without an external source of energy like a battery or compressor.) I'm half serious about this. The other main "artificial muscle" technology is nichrome wire after all.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
  So if we took away 1% of that 1000x it's own weight it would be able to lift it? It can't. It will never be able to. Only thing I got out of my engineering dynamics class - ropes don't lift. Well, that and jokes about couple moments. A lift is not a hold. A human can hold a ton of weight against gravity, but that's not them lifting it. See the squat. You can put a huge amount of weight on your back compared to the amount you can actually move. If you put them on an escalator, they could probably even move a distance with it. But that isn't them lifting it that distance.
  - arghwhat 9y ago
    A human can hold several loaded shipping containers stacked upon each other against gravity. The human will be very flat and leaking all over, but it will be holding the containers.
    - SketchySeaBeast 9y ago
      "I guess he kind of bench pressed that steam roller... kind of."
      - arghwhat 9y ago
        He lifted it several millimeters off the ground!
  - mlevental 9y ago
    as someone who stalls out at the midpoint of a squat coming up very often i can tell you that locking your knees with weight on your back is not holding anything - it's putting your posterior chain under compression. my point was that something like a barbell hold (like this http://www.myfitnessstudio.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/barbell-bicep-curl.JPG http://www.myfitnessstudio.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/barbell-...) is just as hard as just curling.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ricardobeat 9y ago
  You mean infinity more force, since at rest (holding) no force is being applied at all.
timthelion 9y ago
But a steel wire can be reeled in using a reel. And if we don't include the airpump required for these origami muscles in our "muscle weight" then we don't need to include the winch weight in the case of the reeled wire.
- arghwhat 9y ago
  Only counting the steel wire in the winch example is unfair in the other direction. You have to count a small part of the winch (pulley?) for it to be directly comparable. But this is all incredibly silly, and what we all agree on is that they fail to consider the vacuum pump, valves and reinforced vacuum hoses in order to make their invention seem fancier.
  - JackFr 9y ago
    The proper comparison is not with the pulley, the wire or the winch, but rather the structure holding the pulley up.

ricardobeat 9y ago

Maybe the fact that flexible, water-soluble materials can even show up in a comparison to steel is enough of a breakthrough?

icc97 9y ago

I think the gripping part is the important bit. You can't get a steel wire to open and then close on an object and lift it.