|
Post by rmc on Nov 13, 2012 14:32:05 GMT
I wonder if this has been submitted already?
The idea that there is some final straw that breaks the back of some supporting structure seems hard to determine to me. After all, most things break in degrees. In other words, you'd need to specifically state what you consider counts as 'breaking' something. If you want a clean break, most times it will take much more weight than that initial amount which merely starts the first few cracks of failure. (Unless we use something like a light pane of thin, long glass or something)
So, which is it then? The first few tell-tale cracks that you may not even see or hear that counts as breaking, or waiting until all sorts of cracks have happened and we see obvious failure? (As I figure might be the case for breaking something like a "Camel's back") (Keep in mind, some failure cracks can be microscopic - perhaps that means even the first few straws begin some level of 'breaking' then?)
Anyway, it is difficult to tell if this one's already in the vault of untested idioms, but, given the simple nature of this kernel idea, I'd say that if it has been suggested, it must have passed up, or it would already have been filmed and presented, right? (Unless it has become an episode and I missed that somehow)
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Nov 13, 2012 16:11:50 GMT
I would take it to mean catastrophic failure and not just a microscopic break. If they were to test this, I envision something equivalent to a camels backbone spanning a gap. Straws are then placed on it until it breaks and they all fall to the floor.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2012 17:08:46 GMT
I concur that it would refer to a catastrophic failure, rather than just refusal to perform, or minor damage.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 13, 2012 19:54:42 GMT
I think I've seen it posted on Discovery a couple of times, although it was never discussed.
What is the fundamental aspect of the idiom? To me it is that something has a point at which even the smallest additional weight/pressure will cause it to noticeably break and be incapable of performing its intended function.
This is theoretically plausible, but I don't think even MB have tested things to the point they have seen it happen with the weight of a straw.
I would guess the way to test this would be with a wooden beam*, with them adding weights until the beam is sagging or noticeably sagging. Then they add a straw at a time until it snaps. It would probably be best if they ran conventional stress tests on identical wooden beams to see what sort of weight they normally fail under. Then load the beam with weights to bring the weight to just under this figure. If the weight needed is fairly consistent they could simply put the required amount of weight into a bag and hang it off the beams in turn.
(*I think someone might complain if they used a real camel. Although I guess they could always build a spine for their own testing.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 13, 2012 20:06:22 GMT
it was about once or twice a month at the old site. not quite enough to be annoying.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 14, 2012 1:41:40 GMT
The only potential roadblack of getting this full scale would be the amount of straw you would need. Depending on what they chose to break (snap, crack,...), you may be looking at the suspending the equivalent of multiple bales of hay above a structure.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Nov 14, 2012 6:14:12 GMT
A lot will depend upon the material from which the supporting structure is built, the way the supporting structure itself is supported, and the timeframe you are looking at to get the structure to break.
It is going to be the very rare instance where an incremental increase in load will result in a loud CRACK! and a total brittle collapse of the structure. Perhaps the best material to show this type of behavior would be glass.
The far more common result is going to be a yield-before-failure scenario, where you will find that when the load is removed, the structure has deformed, but is still performing its function.
My imperfect recollections of the materials science class I took a bit over 40 years ago (and the lab experiments run using our materials tensile strength testing machine (Tinius Olson)) is that once you get the structure to begin to yield, and continue to apply the pressure, it is just a matter of time before failure.
There is also the effect on repeated loading and unloading to consider. A fatigue failure can occur at peak loads well below the maximum load bearing capability of the structure if the load is applied and unloaded repeatedly. Fatigue failures often require loading/unloading cycles of a half million or more to induce failure. You get cracks that grow more rapidly as the crack size increases.
This was the failure mode of the I-35 bridge that failed in Minneapolis about five years ago.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 14, 2012 9:02:53 GMT
I think this is a "Worthy" experiment.... My kids have questioned this, and we did a quick experiment using a small container suspended from a strand of Spaghetti supported at both ends... We added Rice, grain by grain, until it snapped.
They got the basic idea from that.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Nov 15, 2012 5:09:04 GMT
One other thing occurs to me about this saying.
This is almost never used as a literal expression regarding the behavior of actual physical structures, but in reality tends to be used most often to describe a person reaching some sort of psychological limit.
Originally, the saying probably described a load that was just marginally too much for a pack animal to get up and transport. As things often tend to go, the concept probably then morphed into being described as being a 'backbreaking' load, and the tiny, incremental, amount that made it so was a 'straw'.
IMHO, the structural sense of the expression would be doggone hard to test.
As intimated before, the failure of such a structure could take years and determining the actual total (and incremental) loading that will (eventually) cause any sort of a large complex structure to collapse is not going to be an easy thing to come up with.
The aforementioned spaghetti experiment is an excellent teaching tool and proof of the overall concept, though.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 15, 2012 7:31:03 GMT
When this was previously discussed on the Mythbusters forum, I did a fairly lengthy post outlining the problems with testing it literally.
However, the jist of the idiom is that often, either with people or with systems, the cause of failure is not a single catastrophic event but a collection of individually minor events, the sum of which is overwhelming. For a real-world example, you just need to look at almost any air crash investigation. Air accidents are rarely the result of a single event but are usually the sum of a series of system or mechanical failures (any one of which individually could easy be ignored) that result in a fatal outcome.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 15, 2012 14:48:52 GMT
One other thing occurs to me about this saying. This is almost never used as a literal expression regarding the behavior of actual physical structures, but in reality tends to be used most often to describe a person reaching some sort of psychological limit. In this sense, this statement was touched upon a couple seasons ago during the Cabin Fever myth. Could Tori, Carrie & Grant (and/or some other volunteers) be subjected to psychological stressors (fears, sleep deprivation, etc) to find out how much a person can take before they "snap"? Or, would that be too unethical?
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 15, 2012 15:49:49 GMT
One other thing occurs to me about this saying. This is almost never used as a literal expression regarding the behavior of actual physical structures, but in reality tends to be used most often to describe a person reaching some sort of psychological limit. In this sense, this statement was touched upon a couple seasons ago during the Cabin Fever myth. Could Tori, Carrie & Grant (and/or some other volunteers) be subjected to psychological stressors (fears, sleep deprivation, etc) to find out how much a person can take before they "snap"? Or, would that be too unethical? It would be unethical, and you could only really get the required amount of stress through what would classify as torture - Which after the Chinese Water Torture episode they decided they would not do again. It would be better to use/test the saying in a literal sense I think.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 15, 2012 17:48:45 GMT
Could Tori, Carrie & Grant (and/or some other volunteers) be subjected to psychological stressors (fears, sleep deprivation, etc) to find out how much a person can take before they "snap"? Or, would that be too unethical? It does depend on what point you'd consider them to have "snapped". In most cases when you hear this expression used about someone's actions, it's not refering to a complete mental breakdown, it's simply the result of someone losing their temper. It would be relatively easy to test to that point. In fact, I bet that if they went back through the show's outtake footage, there'd be plenty of examples of various cast members "snapping" when things repeatedly didn't work right, etc.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 15, 2012 20:17:09 GMT
Perhaps this would be possible to test then. If we're only looking for the point when frustration takes control, this could be accomplished by giving them detail oriented task designed to wear away their patience. (i.e., complete a puzzle, draw a picture, etc)
|
|
|
Post by rory on Jan 23, 2013 21:27:10 GMT
Set up a table with a hidden vibrator or bump mechanism. Ask them to build a card pyramid the quickest with a large visible clock displaying the time they take (for stress induction). Have one of the 'in the loop' casts build it in front of them first with all 52 cards to set a time.
Then let them have a go, if they get too close to completion activate the bump. If they test it in a tight space that should be enough to make them think they're nudging the table.
Keep hassling them to hurry up.
They would get angry at some point, a d you can use the number of collapses as a measurement.
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Jan 24, 2013 14:46:01 GMT
That happened to me last week. Without going into too much detail, my (now ex) boss had been a jerk (to be polite and it's not just me) the entire 1.5 years since he was hired. I'd complained to HR 4 times and there were meetings in attempt to resolve the problems. No go. Finally I'd had enough over an issue that by itself was fairly minor and "jumped over" HR, going directly to the plant and general managers saying I just couldn't/wouldn't work for the guy any more. Transferred to another department and took a 25% paycut.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Jan 25, 2013 22:55:12 GMT
Perhaps this would be possible to test then. If we're only looking for the point when frustration takes control, this could be accomplished by giving them detail oriented task designed to wear away their patience. (i.e., complete a puzzle, draw a picture, etc) And what would be better for this than some Sudoku puzzles that just can't be done, or crossword puzzles where SOME of the answers are just, dead, wrong?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2013 4:44:07 GMT
That happened to me last week. Without going into too much detail, my (now ex) boss had been a jerk (to be polite and it's not just me) the entire 1.5 years since he was hired. I'd complained to HR 4 times and there were meetings in attempt to resolve the problems. No go. Finally I'd had enough over an issue that by itself was fairly minor and "jumped over" HR, going directly to the plant and general managers saying I just couldn't/wouldn't work for the guy any more. Transferred to another department and took a 25% paycut. I had one morning when I walked int the office in my old job and told the manager I couldn't work with the apprentice any more. at that point, if he had told me I had to I would have packed up my tools and told them to write me two paychecks. after that I worked a couple jobs with the boss, and figured out where the apprentice got the work habits I hated so much...
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 27, 2013 7:07:04 GMT
This is why I just LURVE being Agency.
There are one or two places I will NOT work for, but other people from my agency will, because of the interaction I have had with particular people?.... One of those thinks all agency workers are Scum, and arranges that the Agency workers get the worst jobs on the daily rota..... He isnt in charge of anything, its just how the place works, and he gets away with it?.. I cant work there because of that. Another who IS in charge thinks he can over-rule the agency rules because "I am paying for you", I started there and did my usual walk round the vehicle, starts with the "Just get in and drive the f---in' thing"..... Only two bad tyres and an out of date operators licence later, I didnt drive the f- thing, 'cos it wasnt legal, and he hasnt forgiven me yet?....
|
|