Replies

Yeah, I found it very interesting too. I also found it very garbagy. What is necessary to support flight is not oxygen. The present day concentrations of oxygen -about 20% are more than enough to support the metabolism of a flying creature. The difference between inspired and exspired air is only about 1-2%. We don't use but a tiny fraction of the oxygen we breath in. What is required to support any metabolic activity is the utilization of carbohydrates. These metabolic processes have been fixed and static since the inception of life. Further, modern birds, when they face long term energy requirements do not even use oxygen. They metabolize glucose via anaerobic pathways, building up a lactic acid deficit. In no way is a lack of oxygen a rate limiting step in the metabolism of flighted birds.

What explains this ridiculous article. The answer is the by-line. See where it comes from? Analog Science Fiction and Fact. This magazine was the finest science fiction magazine ever edited. I remember Isaac Azimov show casing his robot/detective novels here. I remember Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity" here and the first publication of the Dune series. And then the editor, John Campbell went off the deep end with his Dean Drive "Reactionless space drive", his quasi- mystical Hieronymous machine [draw the circuit of the device on paper, think happy thoughts and away you go, etc, etc, etc. The magazine fell into disrepute, Campbell was marginalized and the rest is history. Sad.

You missed an essential part of the article. O2, the oxygen molecule, is much heavier than N, a nitrogen atom. Therefore, if the oxygen level was higher, the atmosphere was heavier. Imagine the difference between flying in modern air, and "flying" under water, which any scuba diver can do.
Now move 10% down the scale from air toward water. Ceatures could get airborne and fly in that, who could not fly today. That's the difference.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Using the Old Noodle," now up on UPI and FR.