Lower stiffness of smaller machinery
A rod is the stiffer ...
- the bigger its cross-section A (∝L²) is and
- the shorter its length l (∝L¹) is.
The geometry dependent stiffness (aka spring constant) k [N/m] is calculated from
the geometry independent stiffness (aka elastic modulus) E [N/m²] as such:
[math]k = E ~ (A/l) \propto L^1[/math]
Thus geometry dependent stiffness falls when shrinking the size of machinery (while keeping the same material).
Also covered on page about Scaling laws.
Contents
Even diamond becomes soft like jelly - not a problem though
With scaling down machinery to smaller sizes the stiffness of this machinery falls.
One millionth the size => One millionth the stiffness. See related page: Scaling law.
This makes even diamond jelly soft.
Which poses an obvious question:
Q: Could this maybe be a serious problem?
A: Perhaps surprisingly the answer is: No. At least for the most part.
Important are deflection magnitudes rather than spring constants
What is relevant are relative deflections rather the geometry dependent stiffness of the material.
So how do deflections scale?
As it turns out the relative deflections / strains from ...
- accelerations of machinery scale with L0 (scale invariant - nice!).
- gravity scale with L¹. – (Large machines suffocating under their own weight. A known macroscale problem.)
- thermal motions scale with TODO. – (Relevant for piezomechanosynthesis and unguided covalent welding)
For the math deriving these scaling laws see Page:
Same relative deflections across scales
Misc
(wiki-TODO: explain the following)
- The consequences on design constraints based no this falling stiffness
Related
- Same relative deflections across scales
- How macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale outperforms its native scale
- Applicability of macro 3D printing for nanomachine prototyping
- Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale
- Natural scaling of absolute speeds
- Scaling law
- Stiffness
Thermal motion related:
Intuitive feel related:
