tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post1609562596275107841..comments2021-07-28T04:41:35.423+02:00Comments on Furahan Biology and Allied Matters: Scaling, or 'size matters, but so does gravity'Sigmund Nastrazzurrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-27557548268773545172010-09-24T22:18:22.799+02:002010-09-24T22:18:22.799+02:00Sorry about the typos; I was in a hurry.Sorry about the typos; I was in a hurry.Sigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-23143311708192298072010-09-24T19:44:50.207+02:002010-09-24T19:44:50.207+02:00It does help. Thank you!It <i>does</i> help. Thank you!Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-47292708910818669972010-09-23T22:11:44.500+02:002010-09-23T22:11:44.500+02:00Yes: if you increase density 3 times lift will be ...Yes: if you increase density 3 times lift will be restored. Here is another example, but now the animal's length, width and size are multiplied 4 (n) times.<br />- Its area (including wing area) grows with the square of the multiplication factor, so becomes 4x4=16 times larger (n^2).<br />- Lift is proportional to wing area, so lift increases 16 times.<br />- Its weight increases with the third power, so becomes 4x4x4=64 times larger (n^3)<br />- If the original lift:weight ratio was 1:1, keeping it aloft, for the bigger animal it is 16:64, or 0.25:1. That is 4 times worse (n)<br />-How to restire that?<br /><br />A. Make the wing area 64 times bigger than originally. The new multiplication factor is the root of 64, or 8. Wing area if length x width, and if each becomes 8 times larger, the area is 64 times larger. You get that as the square root of n^3. With n=3, that is 5.2.<br /><br />B. Make the atmosphere 4 (n) times more dense<br /><br />C. Fly faster. The effect of velocity in the lift formula has to increase 4 times (n times). as velocity is there as a square, velocity itself has to increase with the square root of 4: make it fly twice as fast. (it will drop like a stone when it attempts to slow down to land) <br /><br />I hope this helpsSigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-52232365501427158042010-09-23T20:42:06.543+02:002010-09-23T20:42:06.543+02:00Excellent, thank you! So, if I understand correctl...Excellent, thank you! So, if I understand correctly, then if you have that 9x creature with 9x wings, but put them in a 3x density atmosphere then they will have sufficient mathematical lift?<br /><br />Also, where did you get the number 5.2 from?Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-69217411265438317262010-09-23T18:59:15.618+02:002010-09-23T18:59:15.618+02:00Hi Evan,
Have a look at this post first: http://p...Hi Evan,<br /><br />Have a look at this post first: http://planetfuraha.blogspot.com/2009/12/anatomy-of-alien-high-gravity.html<br /><br />Lift is proportional to wing area. Take a flying animal, and multiply all its dimensions by three: its mass (~weight) increases 27-fold, but its wing area only nine times. To get the same relative lift the wing area will have to increase 27-fold, which requires multiplying the original wing dimensions 5.2 times instead of 3 times (and a bit more because the larger wing increases weight, etc.). So yes!Sigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-73506567845752499762010-09-23T04:49:04.734+02:002010-09-23T04:49:04.734+02:00Another thing I've been pondering is if the sa...Another thing I've been pondering is if the same formulas for upscaling and different gravity apply to the surface area of wings. Obviously atmosphere density would have to be factored in, but other than that are the calculations pretty much the same?Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-26811121075892144662010-06-27T13:31:37.232+02:002010-06-27T13:31:37.232+02:00Hi Evan,
Density directly affects mass and thus w...Hi Evan,<br /><br />Density directly affects mass and thus weight, and is therefore important. Many animal tissues are basically water, with important exceptions for bone, which is significantly heavier, and lungs, if you include the air in them. If bones were made of a lighter but stronger material, you could get away with a more slender skeleton, everything else staying equal. Inventing muscles that provide more strength for their mass than ours do would also help. With such alteration you could obtain animals with legs more slender than an animal with conventional bones and muscles could afford to be.Sigmund Nastrazzurrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449461215427527447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5821098719340852065.post-64280559199003301832010-06-26T07:53:27.789+02:002010-06-26T07:53:27.789+02:00One thing I'd be interested to see is how dens...One thing I'd be interested to see is how density factors into the equation. For example, what's the average density of a human body? Or other animals? How light could you make the legs and still maintain necessary strength to support given weights?Evan Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10493966209787828900noreply@blogger.com