Re: tyrannosaurus bataar eggs

[Crpntr@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth Carpenter)]

Paul Sparks wrote:
>
>Mikiel presented some more details on the eggs in question.  
>Using these dimensions etc I was able to take a nominal egg 
>of 17 inches and a squashed 7 or 8 inch (that is a "real" 
>diameter of about 8 or 9 cms).using these dimensions one 
>would get a diameter to thickness ratio (D/T)of 40.6, pretty 
>hefty. It is only the diameter and the thickness that give 
>strength to squashing,  called hoop strength.
>
>I then got out a chicken egg that measured 1.75 inches in 
>diameter and had a thickness of 0.028 inches for a D/T value 
>of 62.5.  This would show less strength than the dino.  Just 
>for the hell of it a modern submarine has a nominal D/T of 
>about 150-200 depending on the material.  Based on this I 
>don't really think that the T.Bataar egg is all that weak. If 
>it were also leathery then it would tend to be tougher but 
>not stronger, that is it would deform before breaking 
>providing more protection from breaking.
>



Unfortunately, you are mistaken that the eggs are flat as a pancake.  A 
20 cm wide egg is usually 4-5 cm thick, thus assuming a round cross 
section,  the diameter is closer to 15.5 cm .  This means a D/T of 
around 77.5.  Actually, based on work done by the Poles and Russians in
Mongolia, some elongated eggs do not have a round cross-section, but 
were clearly ellipical to flattened oval.  Stresses would not be evenly 
distributed as in a round cross section, so funcionally, these eggs are 
weaker than if round.

Kenneth Carpenter