The Physics of Bras • Hacker News Board

Re: The Physics of Bras

#11

Post by scott_s » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:01 AM UTC

DarkShikari wrote: post #10

dustingetz wrote: post #4

holy mother of "A pair of D-cup breasts weighs between 15 and 23 pounds—the equivalent of carrying around two small turkeys."

That statistic seems slightly off to me. If we assume that the breasts are the same density as water (which is probably too high, as they're mostly fat, which is less dense than water), 23 pounds is about equal to a 12 inch by 7.5 inch by 7.5 inch block of pure flesh. Maybe it's just me, but I think that fails a simple sanity test. Edit: Wikipedia says "The average breast weighs about 0.5 kilograms (1.1 lb)" with som…

"D-cup" also isn't enough information to gauge volume. A 36-D is larger than a 34-D. And remember that volume (and hence mass) increases as the cube of length, so two inches more in length will mean a lot more mass.

Re: The Physics of Bras

#12

Post by DarkShikari » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:05 AM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #11

DarkShikari wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statistic seems slightly off to me. If we assume that the breasts are the same density as water (which is probably too high, as they're mostly fat, which is less dense than water), 23 pounds is about equal to a 12 inch by 7.5 inch by 7.5 inch block of pure flesh. Maybe it's just me, but I think that fails a simple sanity test. Edit: Wikipedia says "The average breast weighs about 0.5 kilograms (1.1 lb)" with som…

"D-cup" also isn't enough information to gauge volume. A 36-D is larger than a 34-D. And remember that volume (and hence mass) increases as the cube of length, so two inches more in length will mean a lot more mass.

Of course. I assumed that "15-23" would mean "average", so since the average band size is around a 36, that would probably mean "32D-40D" or something of the sort for "15-23".

Either way, the numbers seem absurd.

Re: The Physics of Bras

#13

Post by ciupicri » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:10 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #2

Wondering if this upvoted article will generate any serious discussion. I stopped counting after I had gone through 9 different bra sizes over the years. I found the article quite interesting.

Do you have any idea what caused this? I have yet to met someone with such a huge variation, except mothers who are breast feeding, but that's another thing and it's expected.

Re: The Physics of Bras

#14

Post by ciupicri » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:10 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #2

Wondering if this upvoted article will generate any serious discussion. I stopped counting after I had gone through 9 different bra sizes over the years. I found the article quite interesting.

Do you have any idea what caused this? I have yet to met someone with such a huge variation, except mothers who are breast feeding, but that's another thing and it's expected.

Re: The Physics of Bras

#15

Post by ciupicri » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:10 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #2

Wondering if this upvoted article will generate any serious discussion. I stopped counting after I had gone through 9 different bra sizes over the years. I found the article quite interesting.

Do you have any idea what caused this? I have yet to met someone with such a huge variation, except mothers who are breast feeding, but that's another thing and it's expected.

Re: The Physics of Bras

#16

Post by silencio » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:44 AM UTC

ciupicri wrote: post #13

Mz wrote: post #2

Wondering if this upvoted article will generate any serious discussion. I stopped counting after I had gone through 9 different bra sizes over the years. I found the article quite interesting.

Do you have any idea what caused this? I have yet to met someone with such a huge variation, except mothers who are breast feeding, but that's another thing and it's expected.

I'm not sure why that's a surprise, I'd be surprised if a woman didn't have a wide variation of sizes to choose from. Not only are "standard" bra sizes not entirely the same across manufacturers, but also there are all sorts of different types of bras out there to get different looks. And that's not even considering how physically different breasts can get, even for a specific woman depending on the day.

Re: The Physics of Bras

#17

Post by brisance » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 3:44 AM UTC

DarkShikari wrote: post #12

scott_s wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"D-cup" also isn't enough information to gauge volume. A 36-D is larger than a 34-D. And remember that volume (and hence mass) increases as the cube of length, so two inches more in length will mean a lot more mass.

Of course. I assumed that "15-23" would mean "average", so since the average band size is around a 36, that would probably mean "32D-40D" or something of the sort for "15-23". Either way, the numbers seem absurd.

Volume of cone = pi * r^2 * h / 3.

Plugging in r1 of 3 and r2 of 2.5, and h1 of 36 and h2 of 34. Constants cancel out, that's an increase of 2.38 times in volume.

This is per cone ;)

Re: The Physics of Bras

#18

Post by aguynamedben » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 4:26 AM UTC

brisance wrote: post #17

DarkShikari wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. I assumed that "15-23" would mean "average", so since the average band size is around a 36, that would probably mean "32D-40D" or something of the sort for "15-23". Either way, the numbers seem absurd.

Volume of cone = pi * r^2 * h / 3. Plugging in r1 of 3 and r2 of 2.5, and h1 of 36 and h2 of 34. Constants cancel out, that's an increase of 2.38 times in volume. This is per cone ;)

I love Madonna too!

Re: The Physics of Bras

#19

Post by notauser » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 7:19 AM UTC

rokhayakebe wrote: post #3

I think starting a bra comparison site with reviews and comments would be great.

Wouldn't it be very subjective? Reviews of walking shoes are pretty useless, for example.

Re: The Physics of Bras

#20

Post by kingsley_20 » Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 7:23 AM UTC

What follows are the musings of an ex-lingerie designer.

Side note: Humans, btw, are the only animals that sport full breasts all through their youth. Most mammals, including all simians and apes, only sport enlarged breasts when feeding their young.

Simplistically, cup-size is the chest-to-breast ratio, designed to compensate for the fact that radius of the cup is almost, but not entirely, independent of the chest circumference. It does not have a strong correlation to volume of the cup or to mass, although acute cup-sizes are more common at larger chest sizes.

Human bodies grow very disproportionately at either extreme of size. For example, height is a very poor indicator of girth, although it bears a small correlation, and vice versa. Similarly, larger women have a higher incidence of acute cup-sizes, but the shape, consistency and mass of the breasts are very different from what you'd expect through linear scaling.

Ultimately, larger women are a different market. It's common for a larger woman to have large breasts that have a small footprint on her torso. Most lingerie does not account for this. Most lingerie is also not built to bear the weight/consistency of larger breasts. You need to use load-distributing design, as well as resilient/soft materials to ease the stress on the back. And then, you have to put the whole thing together into a sexy package. It almost make it more fun to write code :)