Another one for the Mythbusters
June 17, 2011 11:14 AM Subscribe
Did the last straw really break the camel's back?
Would it be possible to load a camel's back with so much straw that adding one final piece would break it, but not adding that last one would not break it?
Would it be possible to load a camel's back with so much straw that adding one final piece would break it, but not adding that last one would not break it?
No, the camel would sit down or collapse before its spine broke under the load.
posted by orthogonality at 11:25 AM on June 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by orthogonality at 11:25 AM on June 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
This is definitely possible, for sufficiently large values of "one final piece".
In fact, you can see this all across the country (world?) in science classrooms every year when the kids make pasta bridges and such. It holds holds holds hooooolds and they put the last "straw" (weight of some size) on and it crushes.
posted by DU at 11:56 AM on June 17, 2011
In fact, you can see this all across the country (world?) in science classrooms every year when the kids make pasta bridges and such. It holds holds holds hooooolds and they put the last "straw" (weight of some size) on and it crushes.
posted by DU at 11:56 AM on June 17, 2011
Best answer: It probably depends how you're defining "break".
Consider a thin rod of something brittle, like glass. For any given rod, there's a definite weight at which it'll bend past x% of its width, then a point where the first fractures will appear, which is dependent on how big a fracture is before you can detect it and decide that it counts. After that, you have to start caring about time, because fractures can travel fast or slowly. In your definition, does enough weight to make a fracture that takes a week to propagate all the through the rod count as "the weight that breaks it", or does it need to propagate in a second, or so fast that it seems instantaneous to the naked eye? Or maybe it needs to propagate at the speed of sound in that medium before you'll count it? For a given object, all of these are measuarble and will give you quantifiable answers.
A camel's back is more complex. It's flexible, squashable and has different definitions of "broken": fractured bones, severed spinal column, physical separation between pieces? All of these will complicate the problems described with the simpler glass rod above.
So, like most questions about measurement: If you can decide exactly what you mean by "break", you can, in principle, measure it and find the precise weight required to do it.
posted by metaBugs at 12:06 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Consider a thin rod of something brittle, like glass. For any given rod, there's a definite weight at which it'll bend past x% of its width, then a point where the first fractures will appear, which is dependent on how big a fracture is before you can detect it and decide that it counts. After that, you have to start caring about time, because fractures can travel fast or slowly. In your definition, does enough weight to make a fracture that takes a week to propagate all the through the rod count as "the weight that breaks it", or does it need to propagate in a second, or so fast that it seems instantaneous to the naked eye? Or maybe it needs to propagate at the speed of sound in that medium before you'll count it? For a given object, all of these are measuarble and will give you quantifiable answers.
A camel's back is more complex. It's flexible, squashable and has different definitions of "broken": fractured bones, severed spinal column, physical separation between pieces? All of these will complicate the problems described with the simpler glass rod above.
So, like most questions about measurement: If you can decide exactly what you mean by "break", you can, in principle, measure it and find the precise weight required to do it.
posted by metaBugs at 12:06 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, but the value would be specific to each camel. See metabugs post.
But I'm sure with enough sample size - different breeds, different ages, sexes, etc. you could make a detailed chart where you could estimate the number of straws required to break a specific camels back.
posted by anti social order at 12:51 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
But I'm sure with enough sample size - different breeds, different ages, sexes, etc. you could make a detailed chart where you could estimate the number of straws required to break a specific camels back.
posted by anti social order at 12:51 PM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thank you for playing, MeFites. I learnt something today.
posted by Dragonness at 9:10 PM on June 17, 2011
posted by Dragonness at 9:10 PM on June 17, 2011
Best answer: As metaBugs correctly states this only makes sense for incredibly brittle things (which are defined by being things that don't bend much before they break).
Consider a rod of hard plastic. There is a weight which does not break it but which will bend it increasingly until it breaks, in which case it is most certainly not the last straw that breaks it. Adding additional weight only accelerates the process rather than being a directly causal element.
Adding straws at such a rate however that the acceleration in reaching the breaking point makes it nearly indistinguishable from the behavior of a brittle material might make this a plausible proposition. But that would be akin to just throwing giant bales of straw upon the camel's back, which invalidates the "last straw" hypothesis.
posted by anateus at 10:37 AM on June 18, 2011
Consider a rod of hard plastic. There is a weight which does not break it but which will bend it increasingly until it breaks, in which case it is most certainly not the last straw that breaks it. Adding additional weight only accelerates the process rather than being a directly causal element.
Adding straws at such a rate however that the acceleration in reaching the breaking point makes it nearly indistinguishable from the behavior of a brittle material might make this a plausible proposition. But that would be akin to just throwing giant bales of straw upon the camel's back, which invalidates the "last straw" hypothesis.
posted by anateus at 10:37 AM on June 18, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mazola at 11:19 AM on June 17, 2011 [1 favorite]