3 ms·

Actually ... force is proportional to the cross section of the muscle. You can probably produce more power approximated by the volume of the muscle though.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
force is proportional to the cross section of the muscle. This never made any sense to me. Muscles are made up of groups of fibers, which are made up of chains of sarcomeres. How could strength be proportional to cross sectional area rather than volume of the muscle?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > How could strength be proportional to cross sectional area rather than volume of the muscle? The same reason that's true of strength of passive members; the limiting factor is the force that will cause shearing, which is basically the strength of one bond in the lengthwise direction times the number of them supporting in parallel in the cross section. So, given the same material, cross sectional area determines strength.
  - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
    But, by my understanding, the sarcomeres, which are the source of the actual movement, don't run end to end, they're chains. The entire line of reasoning seems to rest on the idea that the smallest unit we consider runs from one end all the way to the other.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > But, by my understanding, the sarcomeres, which are the source of the actual movement, don't run end to end, they're chains. It doesn't really matter, except the not being homogenous end-to-end means it's the weakest point that matters. But, irrespective of the structural details, there is some force in the direction of contraction that will cause failure, and that force is proportional to, basically, the number of linkages it is distributed across in parallel (not connections in series, such as along the chain) which is proportional to cross-sectional area. > The entire line of reasoning seems to rest on the idea that the smallest unit we consider runs from one end all the way to the other. It is not (in fact, the entire reason it is true of any material is because even structures which seem to be end to end are composed of smaller structures with fallible linkages; if there were indivisible end-to-end structures, this would cease to be a concern.)
a1369209993 8y ago
To clairify, I was talking about the force exerted by a asphalt plane slamming into you at X m/s, not the force exerted by your muscles. Although I was basing that on force exerted by gravity (which is proportional to mass), whereas deceleration might be spread out proportional to length, so it might work out to L² anyway. It's too late to edit though.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago

force is proportional to the cross section of the muscle. This never made any sense to me. Muscles are made up of groups of fibers, which are made up of chains of sarcomeres. How could strength be proportional to cross sectional area rather than volume of the muscle?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> How could strength be proportional to cross sectional area rather than volume of the muscle? The same reason that's true of strength of passive members; the limiting factor is the force that will cause shearing, which is basically the strength of one bond in the lengthwise direction times the number of them supporting in parallel in the cross section. So, given the same material, cross sectional area determines strength.
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  But, by my understanding, the sarcomeres, which are the source of the actual movement, don't run end to end, they're chains. The entire line of reasoning seems to rest on the idea that the smallest unit we consider runs from one end all the way to the other.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But, by my understanding, the sarcomeres, which are the source of the actual movement, don't run end to end, they're chains. It doesn't really matter, except the not being homogenous end-to-end means it's the weakest point that matters. But, irrespective of the structural details, there is some force in the direction of contraction that will cause failure, and that force is proportional to, basically, the number of linkages it is distributed across in parallel (not connections in series, such as along the chain) which is proportional to cross-sectional area. > The entire line of reasoning seems to rest on the idea that the smallest unit we consider runs from one end all the way to the other. It is not (in fact, the entire reason it is true of any material is because even structures which seem to be end to end are composed of smaller structures with fallible linkages; if there were indivisible end-to-end structures, this would cease to be a concern.)

a1369209993 8y ago

To clairify, I was talking about the force exerted by a asphalt plane slamming into you at X m/s, not the force exerted by your muscles. Although I was basing that on force exerted by gravity (which is proportional to mass), whereas deceleration might be spread out proportional to length, so it might work out to L² anyway. It's too late to edit though.