Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!neuro1!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Those amazing 250 pound birds.
Message-ID: <417@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 12:41:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.417
Posted: Fri Aug 16 12:41:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 13:34:47 EDT
References: <1600@watdcsu.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 23

> Sure, the bird would weigh less, but so would the air.  The lighter air
> would, as a result have lower pressure, and as a direct result lower
> density.  Even though the bird would be lighter, the thinner air still
> wouldn't be able to support it.

Wrong.

The limiting factor in bird growth isn't wing size, it's muscle power. A
bird of indefinit seize can glide. The problem is moving the wings: pushing
a mass of air around.

Even if the gravity and air pressure are less, the bird can still generate
the same amount of power & would be able to fly.

Of course there are still many problems with the "low gravity" thesis. Here's
one:

	If skylab came crashing down in a couple of years, how long
	would the aqueous firmament stay up?
-- 
	Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf)
		UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
		MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076