[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: avian flight



The real joke is, my paper was peer-reviewed, one of the unknown number of
reviewers being Prof. Michael Benton, and nobody raised any of the
criticisms that you list-members write...

>   I can't speak for Jim Cunningham, who's aeronautics and
> mathematics specialty is well above mine.

And mine, and maybe even above Ebel's...

>   David Marjanovic wrote:
>
> <... parachuting, where there is no lift.>
>
>   I strongly disagree. Lift is less than drag in a parachuter,
> and there is no thrust, thus lift is directly opposed to drag.
> The animal drops. Increasing integumentary structures and the
> shape of them with increase drag to certain degrees relative to
> mass.

Weight pulls the parachuter downwards, and drag pulls it upwards, so drag is
"lift"... As there is no lift

> <Flying squirrels, AFAIK, glide to a tree trunk hands-first,
> grab that tree trunk, pull themselves into an upright position
> while folding their patagia, and get rid of the rest of their
> kinetic energy by clinging to the tree trunk with their feet.
> Have I missed anything here?>
>
>   From direct observation, glissant [gliding] animals such as
> flying squirrels will incline the entire body and _slam_ into a
> tree full body. This is how they reduce kinetic energy, which
> wouldn't happen if they just held on there, hoping for it to
> bleed off, because it wouldn't.

OK.
That's more or less what I've wanted to describe, only in much detail and
very slowly... and I'm getting tired, my English is leaving me.
(We don't have _any_ gliding animals in Europe... :.-( )

**************************************************************
Auuuuuuuuuuuuu-streeee-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Where The Idiots Are Sitting In The Government!!!!

(bad poetry, I agree)