Animal Planet's "Dragons"

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.

Any thoughts?

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary wrote:
> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
> >
> >>
> >> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
and
> >> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
behind it
> >> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
bladder/fire
> >> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >
> > I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
weeks ago
> > called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm
sure
> > that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough
lift to
> > fly.
> >
> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
possibly
> fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

Yeah, magically-assisted flight is so much more plausable.

Brandon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:

>
> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
>
> Any thoughts?
>

I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
fly.

--
http://www.rexx.co.uk

To email me, visit the site.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
>
>>
>> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
>> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
>> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
>> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>
> I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
> called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
> that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
> fly.
>
Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could possibly
fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:21:19 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

>Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
>news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
>>> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
>>> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
>>> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
>> called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
>> that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
>> fly.
>>
>Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could possibly
>fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

[lurk off]
I like how they neglected to mention the fact that if dragons were real,
there's no need for them to fly or breathe fire - after all, the human
imagination tends to run wild when faced with the unknown, and creatures
as mundane as other humans have been said to breathe fire (literally).

Anyway, if it was up to me, I think I'd go for something more "normal"
than hydrogen to power flame-breathing; methane is by far more common.

Also, I notice that they didn't mention my pet theory on the origins of
dragons: I think someone saw some largish dinosaur fossils somewhere - a
hillside or a cave or something - and bang, instant mythology. I think
it would explain why all the cultures mentioned have dragon myths -
after all, fossils are found pretty much everywhere.
[lurk on]
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
Is it weird in here, or is it just me?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary wrote:
> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
>
>
>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife and
>>>I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science behind it
>>>is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight bladder/fire
>>>breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts?
>>>
>>
>>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks ago
>>called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm sure
>>that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough lift to
>>fly.
>>
>
> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could possibly
> fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but pteranodons got
pretty big.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> No 33 Secretary wrote:
> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
> possibly
> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.

(missed the original post, sorry)
There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off the top
of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a wingspan over
35 feet. I don't know if that's the largest flying creature ever
discovered, but still, that's pretty big.

Although, from my understanding of mythology, dragons are described as huge
and muscular, not thin and spindly, like the pteradons would have been.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

No 33 Secretary wrote:
> Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
> newsOG%d.66229$7z6.46090@lakeread04:
> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
> >> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The
wife
> >>>>and I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
> >>>>behind it is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the
flight
> >>>>bladder/fire breath binary system and the dual-dive mating
ritual.
> >>>>
> >>>>Any thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
weeks
> >>>ago called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good,
though
> >>>I'm sure that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it
> >>>enough lift to fly.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
> >> possibly fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
> >
> > Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but
pteranodons
> > got pretty big.
> >
> I didn't watch the show in question, but the commercials looked like
they
> were talking about the usual - quite large - size from myth and
legend.
>

Yep. The show was built around the concept of applying real world
science - or an approximation thereof - to explain the most common
traits attributed to dragons in myth and popular culture, as well as
likely habits. Thus, the flying dragons were big, but with latticed
skeletons like birds, and had hydrogen-filled bladders that provided
extra lift. The hydrogen, when coupled with a catalyst such as platinum
(which the dragons clawed out of rock and ingested) also provided fuel
for the dragon's breath.

Probably bullshit, but inventive bullshit for all that.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
> > Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
> > news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
and
> >>>I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
behind it
> >>>is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
bladder/fire
> >>>breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
> >>>
> >>>Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
weeks ago
> >>called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm
sure
> >>that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough
lift to
> >>fly.
> >>
> >
> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
possibly
> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
>
> Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but pteranodons
got
> pretty big.

The female dragon in the ice cave seemed to be about the size of a
large horse.

Brandon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1111439078.024656.310050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
>>
>> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
> and
>> >> I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
> behind it
>> >> is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
> bladder/fire
>> >> breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
>> >>
>> >> Any thoughts?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few
> weeks ago
>> > called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though I'm
> sure
>> > that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it enough
> lift to
>> > fly.
>> >
>> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
> possibly
>> fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
>
> Yeah, magically-assisted flight is so much more plausable.
>
Not in a TV show that pretends to be based on history.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in
newsOG%d.66229$7z6.46090@lakeread04:

>
>
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> Rexx Magnus <trashcan@uk2.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns9620A61AB4EE1rexxdeansaund@130.133.1.4:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:18 GMT, madafro@sbcglobal.net scrawled:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone else catch "Dragons" on Animal Planet last night? The wife
>>>>and I enjoyed it, although I can't speak to how good the science
>>>>behind it is. Of particular neatness (we thought) were the flight
>>>>bladder/fire breath binary system and the dual-dive mating ritual.
>>>>
>>>>Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think that's the same program that was aired in the UK a few weeks
>>>ago called "The Last Dragon" - I thought it was pretty good, though
>>>I'm sure that it would have required much more hydrogen to give it
>>>enough lift to fly.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
>> possibly fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
>
> Not sure how big the dragon is you're talking about, but pteranodons
> got pretty big.
>
I didn't watch the show in question, but the commercials looked like they
were talking about the usual - quite large - size from myth and legend.

And the larger pteranodons were gliders, not flyers.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:jKWdnTeAYObfwaLfRVn-uA@comcast.com:

>> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
>> possibly
>> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
>
> (missed the original post, sorry)
> There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
> the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a
> wingspan over 35 feet.

Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat ground.

> I don't know if that's the largest flying
> creature ever discovered, but still, that's pretty big.
>
> Although, from my understanding of mythology, dragons are described as
> huge and muscular, not thin and spindly, like the pteradons would have
> been.
>
Indeed. Spindly, and fragile. Not ferocious.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9620A15874E13taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
> > the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a
> > wingspan over 35 feet.
>
> Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat ground.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Pteranodon.shtml

I don't know exactly what "fly with power"(under Locomotion) means
precisely, but I would think it would mean just what it says, that they were
able to lift off under their own steam, regardless of terrain. That a given
animal's normal locomotion is gliding does not mean that it was incapable of
short bursts of powered flight. Heck, there are plenty of examples of
normally gliding birds and other animals that have very precise control of
their paths due to short bursts of powered flight. Predatory birds like
hawks and such are often like this.

However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that I
think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been able to
fly.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
I
> think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
able to
> fly.
>

Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...


We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..


Also, take a look, how did numerous civilizations that had no contact
with each other come up with the dragon with similar attributes?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
lestermosley@gmail.com wrote:

>We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
>shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..

There's people who still believe that little myth?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9620A15874E13taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:jKWdnTeAYObfwaLfRVn-uA@comcast.com:
>
> >> No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
> >> possibly
> >> > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
> >
> > (missed the original post, sorry)
> > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
> > the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a
> > wingspan over 35 feet.
>
> Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat ground.
>
> > I don't know if that's the largest flying
> > creature ever discovered, but still, that's pretty big.
> >
> > Although, from my understanding of mythology, dragons are described as
> > huge and muscular, not thin and spindly, like the pteradons would have
> > been.
> >
> Indeed. Spindly, and fragile. Not ferocious.
>

The dragons I saw on the program were indeed more spindly than I imagined
dragons to be.

DM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:42:51 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> > > Indeed. Anybody who think that any living thing that size could
> > possibly
> > > fly is smoking some pretty good dope.
>
> (missed the original post, sorry)
> There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off the top
> of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon, with a wingspan over
> 35 feet. I don't know if that's the largest flying creature ever
> discovered, but still, that's pretty big.

IIRC the pteradon was 'only' about 20' across the wings. The bigger
quetzlacoatl (sp for sure) did have a ~35' wingspan. While it may have
been a glider, last I heard this was not certain as it seemed to be a
scavenger in an area with few high objects to glide off.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
> I
> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
> able to
> > fly.
> >
>
> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...

Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of. If the
bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold before
snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater muscle mass
to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you even heavier until
such time that you can't fly.

Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
to the design.

> We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
> shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..

Up until recently, we did not understand how it happened, it's true. Now we
know how such a small wing can lift a relatively large insect.
http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/archive/2000/20000913.html
about halfway down, "Bumblebee Flight Possible", they use vortex
manipulation to get around.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:9N2dnQo-fPvw56LfRVn-3g@comcast.com:

> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9620A15874E13taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
>> > There have been some pretty big living things that have flown. Off
>> > the top of my head, one large flying creature was the pteradon,
>> > with a wingspan over 35 feet.
>>
>> Glider, not flyer. Couldn't take off from a running start on flat
>> ground.
>
> http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Pteranodon.sh
> tml
>
> I don't know exactly what "fly with power"(under Locomotion) means
> precisely, but I would think it would mean just what it says, that
> they were able to lift off under their own steam, regardless of
> terrain.

Perhaps. Color me skeptical, however.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96215863A7E42taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> > I don't know exactly what "fly with power"(under Locomotion) means
> > precisely, but I would think it would mean just what it says, that
> > they were able to lift off under their own steam, regardless of
> > terrain.
>
> Perhaps. Color me skeptical, however.

Well, even the largest modern gliders are able to take off under their own
power(condors, vultures, albatross, eg). I would think that such a large
creature as a Pteranodon would be pretty ungainly and awkward when it did
take off, but I imagine it would HAVE to be able to power it's own flight
for those times where it lands on flat ground. Otherwise it would have to
walk to somewhere to take off from, or wait for a wind strong enough to lift
it off.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
>> However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
> I
>> think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
> able to
>> fly.
>>
>
> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...
>
For definitions of "they" that are restricted to "people who don't actually
know anything about the subject."
>
> We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
> shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..

Complete and utter bullshit, of course, and only a retard could possibly
not know that. The original comment was on the limitations of aeronautical
science at the time, not the mysteriousness of bumblebees.
>
>
> Also, take a look, how did numerous civilizations that had no contact
> with each other come up with the dragon with similar attributes?
>
You claiming that dragons actually existed? Retard.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:49:34 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
>> I
>> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
>> able to
>> > fly.
>> >
>>
>> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
>> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...
>
>Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
>integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of. If the
>bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold before
>snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater muscle mass
>to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you even heavier until
>such time that you can't fly.
>
>Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
>ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
>increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
>critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
>exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
>They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
>to the design.

<delurk>

Not quite. Insects have been larger over the course of Earth's
history than they are now, quite larger. However, insects have a
passive respiratory system. If they get larger, it's more difficult
to absorb oxygen from the atmosphere through pores in the exoskeleton.
The large size of prehistoric insects is thought to be related to a
higher oxygen content in the atmosphere.

</delurk>

Crazy Chick
DM- Kingdoms of Kalamar
Player- Midnight, WoD, Forgotton Realms

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In <9dmdnaWwiZKI6t3fRVn-3A@comcast.com> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> writes:

>"Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not that
>> I
>> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
>> able to
>> > fly.
>> >
>>
>> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
>> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the 747...

>Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
>integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of. If the
>bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold before
>snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater muscle mass
>to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you even heavier until
>such time that you can't fly.

>Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
>ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
>increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
>critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
>exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
>They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
>to the design.

- given current conditions.

There were "dragonflies" with wings a couple of feet across in the
Carboniferous, but the atmosphere may have been denser then.

>> We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
>> shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..

>Up until recently, we did not understand how it happened, it's true. Now we
>know how such a small wing can lift a relatively large insect.
>http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/archive/2000/20000913.html
>about halfway down, "Bumblebee Flight Possible", they use vortex
>manipulation to get around.

>--
>Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
>It's not a god complex when you're always right



--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:9dmdnaWwiZKI6t3fRVn-3A@comcast.com:

> "Lester Mosley" <lestermosley@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111489449.780496.258610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > However, I'm no dinosaur expert, so I'm just guessing here. Not
>> > that
>> I
>> > think anything as large as the dragons of myth would ever have been
>> able to
>> > fly.
>> >
>>
>> Before 1903, They said the same thing about those contraptions people
>> get into to travel around in. and then they said that about the
>> 747...
>
> Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
> integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of.
> If the bones are light, there is a weight limit to what they will hold
> before snapping like twigs. If the bones are heavy, you need greater
> muscle mass to move them, and the mass of muscle required makes you
> even heavier until such time that you can't fly.
>
> Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the
> largest ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an
> exoskeleton increases with the surface area it covers, and insects
> have reached a critical point at which they cannot make more muscle
> inside their exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to
> increase in size. They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it.
> It is a physical limit to the design.
>
>> We were not around, and there is quite afew thigns that "fly" that
>> shouldn't - like the bumblebee for example..
>
> Up until recently, we did not understand how it happened, it's true.

Actually, we've understood it for quit a while. It just wasn't the same as
an airfoil on an airplane.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <9dmdnaWwiZKI6t3fRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, see, that's different. There are physical limits to structural
>integrity of living things, based on the materials they are made of.

This part is certainly true

>Did you know that insects will likely never get any larger than the largest
>ones are right now? That is simply because the weight of an exoskeleton
>increases with the surface area it covers, and insects have reached a
>critical point at which they cannot make more muscle inside their
>exoskeletons to move their exoskeletons, if they were to increase in size.
>They might get a *BIT* larger, but that's about it. It is a physical limit
>to the design.

The limit I heard about was that they rely on diffusion of oxygen inward from
the skin, rather than having lungs, and were limited by how far the oxygen had
to move. However, I was also under the impression that Carboniferous era
(flying) insects *were* considerably larger than at present, and that a higher
percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere may have allowed the larger size.

Once again, no cites. Sorry.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)