Weak Links enhance Strength?

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff:

<What Casler fairly casually write in his recent letter leads us to

an interesting new Puzzle & Paradox, namely that " a kinetic chain may be

stronger than its weakest link in a biological system. " >

Casler:

<Regarding RFD, the transmission of force through the kinetic chain can

only be as efficient as the weakest link in that chain. So it would certainly

stand to reason that conditioning the " full " chain (chains) involved

would offer the best result.>

Mel Siff wrote:

<<The saying that a " chain is only as strong as its weakest link "

certainly appears to be true in all rigid systems, but does it have to

be qualified or re-stated if it contains a sequence of links some of which

are rigid, non-rigid and fluidic? In such a case, the rigid elements are

stronger than the non-rigid elements and much 'stronger' than the

fluidic elements, so we are now compelled to examine how strength is

defined in a " linked " system.

Is this puzzle simply an intellectual diversion or does it have any

relevance to the body? Well, the body contains just this sort of system of

different links, with some links weaker than others. Does this necessarily mean

that the overall strength of the body will be limited by its weakest fluidic

or highly deformable components, which, after all are not as strong as the

bones and ligaments?>>

Casler writes:

Absolutely, and bones and ligaments are not " always " the strongest links

as evidenced by injuries of those tissues.

Mel Siff wrote:

Does the ability of these " weaker " elements cope with

this relative " weakness " depend on their doing exactly what they are

meant to do, namely to absorb shock, store elastic energy and transfer elastic

energy? In fact, their very " weakness " protects the more rigid parts of the body

from damage and enhances the efficiency of movement, thereby making it

" stronger " in coping with and in generating force.

Casler writes:

Yes, but making them stronger improves their efficiency and ability

also.

Mel Siff wrote:

<Would this then not imply that even apparently " weak " links in a

biological chain can " strengthen " the overall performance of a linked kinetic

chain, so that we cannot directly apply that popular colloquial saying ( " a chain

is only as strong as its weakest link " ) without careful statement of its

scope and limitations in living systems?>

Casler writes:

No.

I don't think stating that a chain " can only be as efficient as the

weakest link in that chain " is inaccurate in any way. Your example only

emphasizes that there are some " portions, parts or segments " that are

certainly stronger and the weaker portions can be strengthened to allow

greater efficiency..

If the application the chain is called on to perform is one of

" creation, transmission, or absorption " of force, then IT IS LIMITED by

the weakest potions of that chain. Calling them soft tissue, or shock

absorbers, or whatever is of no consequence. Greater limit forces

cannot be used on weaker structures, no matter what their functional

role.

If you this is how you think a " kinetic chain " functions, we might have

to talk more regarding " force creation, transmission, and absorption " .

I know you Mel and you cannot for a second think that a chain can be

made stronger by " not " conditioning the weaker links to their maximum.

I must be seriously misunderstanding this post.

Their is no way allowing a link to not be conditioned to its strongest

potential will result in an equally strong chain. Period.

So I stand firmly on my original statement of, " the transmission of

force through the kinetic chain can only be as efficient as the weakest

link in that chain. "

Regards,

A. Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA