0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by neilepWocha Peeps,I love Trees...trees are great..I know tree rings are an excellent way to determine the age of a tree (or the age of a tree when it was cut down etc)..
quote:Originally posted by neilepThat is fascinating stuff Robert.Now then...because I am such a lazy bi-ped and can not be arsed to click the link, do we know why are the leaves large and smooth in warm climes and that in cooler climes they are smaller and serrated ?I am interested particularly in the smooth against serrated aspect.
quote:Originally posted by neilepI would imagine in contrast to some leaves evolving to shed water that some leaves are designed to hold water also!....
quote:What do you think ? is the reason why some leaves are designed to displace snow ?....Snow is dry !....so it's not going to dampen the leaf !...snow is an insulator and would probably serve as a blanket rather than expose the leaf to a strong wind or a colder atmosphere....Unless, it serves the tree/leaf to be exposed like that !
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneA totally out of the blue idea, but serrations could hold drops of water on their tips, and could this not have a lensing effect for sunlight falling though them (again, more relevant for leaves that are small and densely packed, thus allowing an upper leaf to focus light on a lower leaf).George
quote:Originally posted by ROBERTA coating of snow would reduce the amount of sun reaching the leaf, no sunlight = no photosynthesis = plant dies.An accumulation of snow could be heavy enough to snap off leaves and braches.So a snow shedding shape is an advantage, (tonguetwister )
quote:I think you are correct about serrations causing droplets to form.However any lensing effect would not increase the amount of solar energy reaching the lower leaves,(lenses do not create energy).
quote:Originally posted by another_someone I don't believe that leaves fluttering in the wind would actually increase exposure to sunlight yes, it would guarantee that it is facing towards the sun some of the time, but it would also guarantee that it is facing away from the sun sometimes, and on average the two would probably cancel out.George
quote:Originally posted by ROBERTHere is an analogy of the comparison between static and flapping leaves,(where: factory = leaf, electricity = solar energy , batteries = photosynthesis). Imagine two factories whose purpose is to charge batteries from the mains electricity supply.Factory C has a constant electricity supply of 70units/hour.Factory V has an electricity supply which varies throughout the day from 0 to 100units/hour.Both factories can only receive the same total amount of electrical energy each day. Factory C need only have enough equipment and workers to utilize all the 70units/day power supply, all its equipment and workers would be constantly employed, (maximum efficiency).Factory V must have more workers and equipment than C to take advantage when the power supply exceeded 70units/hour. All the workers and equipment in factory V would not be constantly employed, (not efficient). If factory V was limited to the same amount of workers and equipment as factory C then factory C would produce more batteries per day. Factory V would be underperforming C when its power supply was below 70units/hour, and would not be able to take advantage when its power supply could exceed 70units/hour.
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneAnyone available to do a proper aerodynamic analysis of a leaf (bearing in mind that smaller leaves will have smaller Reynolds numbers, which will alter the aerodynamic behaviour).George