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

Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (short)

To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at, dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (short)
From: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:28:24 -0700
References: <OE145OFQeYmVH5O57jr0000a1be@hotmail.com> <3CB5F8AE.B7CD4E35@bellsouth.net> <006b01c1e196$a31cc440$b4432fd5@chello.at> <3CB70A92.3426810D@bellsouth.net> <004101c1e255$59054660$b4432fd5@chello.at>
Reply-to: jrccea@bellsouth.net
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

David Marjanovic wrote:

> Might negative lift production become interesting at low densities? Adult
> birds (songbirds, probably) are given 0.8 (g/cm³) in the literature...

I think maybe so.  Possibly in an amount loosely about 1/5 that that it plays a
role in flight in air?  Personally, I'm clueless about the average density of
birds who are prone to 'fly' underwater.Jim

References:
- Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (long)
  - From: "Patrick Norton" <ptnorton@msn.com>
- Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (long)
  - From: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
- Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (short)
  - From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
- Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (short)
  - From: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
- Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (short)
  - From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>

Prev by Date: Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (the big one)
Next by Date: New papers online
Previous by thread: Re: Cost in Aquatic Birds (short)
Next by thread: RE: The One True King
Indexes: