Talk:Square–cube law

...

In "Description" is it possible to clarify what "Which length is used does not matter." means? Does it refer to the units used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.228.97 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Throughout my adult lifetime, I have known this law by the expression "cube-square law" not "square-cube law." Now, I have no provenance for the former, and a web search does indeed find nearly thrice the uses of the latter (5,900 vs 1,830); however, might it be reasonable to mention the alternative name in the opening of the article?

I added it. I'm no mathematician, but your argument demands a serious whynot? reason to add the alternate name. Thmazing (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. In referencing the term in Economics, I have seen it listed as "cube-square law" not the other way around.

--Bsgillis (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Under Biomechanics, would it be possible to specify that we are referring to isometric scaling? For example, an elephant has stockier bones and limbs to carry its weight in comparison to, say, a gazelle. This is what allowed many prehistoric "monsters" to exist, such as the dinosaurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.81.133 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It might make the example in the "Description" section clearer if it were explicitly noted that in the first example (the cube with side length of 1 m) the ratio of Area to Volume is 6:1 and in the second example (the cube with side length 2 m) the ration of Area to Volume is 3:1. This is certainly easy to infer, but for a quick reader they may be miss the point that the ratio has decreased by focusing on the larger absolute increase in Area (i.e. Area increases by 18 from 6 to 24, and Volume increases by 7 from 1 to 8, but in spite of the larger absolute increase, Volume has increased more as a proportion). Do others feels this would be an improvement? Outsideshot (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Example

This page ought to contain some kind of easy-to-digest example, like what would happen if you increased the volume of some everyday thing by a factor of two, or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.231.96 (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge this page into a section under Surface-area-to-volume_ratio. A distinct technical term for the law does not exist in all languages which makes cross-linking difficult. A redirect should lead to the newly created section. Materialwiss (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose -- See Wikipedia "Common Name" policy... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, phrases like «Square-cube law» are still commonly used in English. Spumuq (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

King Kong

According to the Kaijupedia (a wiki about Godzilla, King Kong, and the like):

King Kong's size in the 1933 film is close to the largest size a terrestrial animal can be under the current understood constraints [of the Square-cube law].

King Kong is about 15 meters tall in the 1933 movie, and 7,5 meters tall in the 2006 movie, so technically he could work. The only problem is the Japanese King Kong, where his size is close to Godzilla's (45 meters in King Kong vs. Godzilla, and 20 meters in King Kong Escapes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.47.119.250 (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Crash tests

I've never heard that large vehicles perform poorly in crash tests, I've heard the opposite. Where is the evidence for this?

I think the idea is that cars are more damaged than golf carts, which are more damaged that radio-controlled cars, but I agree this needs more explanation. HCA (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Mention of insects

Doesn't this law dictate the maximum size to which insect species can grow (based on the effect of atmospheric pressure on their carapaces? Shouldn't this issue be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Relationship between Area and Volume and allowable maximum size of animals

In animals what is important is the cross-sectional area of support structures like legs, bottom of feet, diameter of necks as they get longer, etc. Areas and Area Ratios can be expressed as Volume Ratios raised to the ( 2/3 ) Power. That is Area Ratio / Volume Ratio = Volume Ratio ^ (2/3 ) / Volume Ratio. This is important when looking far back in Geologic Time Periods especially when looking at Sauropod Volume Ratios when compared to Male African Elephant Volumes ( MAE Vol ). Sauropods seems to have reached a maximum Volume Ratio around 17 MAE Vol, and at other times it reached a Maximum Volume ratio of around 15 MAE Vol. So doing the upper Volume Ratio gives 17^(2/3) / 17 = 6.611489018 / 17 = 0.388 911. This is around 38.89 % of the current surface gravity this side of 170 million years ago. And 15^ (2/3) / 15 = 6.082201996 / 15 = 0.405480. This is close to 40.55 % of Earth's current surface gravity, somewhere between 170 Ma, and 150 Ma.

This can be cross-checked using the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of soggy soils at structural failure. This is around 5040 lbs per square foot of dinosaur foot bottom surface area, which was, at a maximum just under 16 square feet. Simplifying 5,000 lbs/ sf X 16 sf = 80,000 lbs = 40 Tons. Other articles put the maximum weight of sauropods at 100 tons ( in our surface gravity ). The actual was around 40 tons, not 100 tons. 40 / 100 = 0.40 gravity. so it checks out. 17 MAE Vol = 38.89 % gravity, Weight ratio = 40 % gravity, and 15 MAE Vol = 40.55 % gravity. 24.9.221.181 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)