Sadly this wonder of nature was deduced from the 5 feathers that were all that remained after the noble creature was ingested by a turbofan engine of an airliner.
Written by Walter Murch?? Like, the guy who is considered maybe the best editor and sound designer of all time, who was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, and won 3??? (Editing perhaps second only to Thelma Schoonmaker.)
Walter Murch has been working in film for more than 50 years, as an editor, sound designer, writer, and director. He edited and sound-designed many films for Francis Coppola (The Godfather Trilogy, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now) and Anthony Minghella (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Cold Mountain). His interest in science can be seen in his editing of Mark Levinson’s film Particle Fever (2013), about the search for the Higgs Boson.
Yes, That Walter Murch.
In The Blink Of An Eye is on the bookshelf just behind the monitor I'm typing this on, with my headphones and BMD Speed Editor slightly blocking my view of it.
The part about coal coming from dead trees during a window of time before bacteria evolved lignin digestion is no longer the scientific consensus. Such bacteria existed earlier; not all coal is high lignin; and coal still formed later. Too bad; it was a lovely story!
That theory is not really disproven, even if it was not the only reason for the huge accumulations of coal during the Carboniferous.
Coal has been always forming later, even today, but never in such quantities, because later it required much luckier conditions for the wood to not be decomposed by fungi.
The climate and the position of the continents during the Carboniferous must have contributed to the accumulation of coal, i.e. it is likely that a much greater percentage of the surface of the Earth was covered by some kind of swamps with warm climate, where plants were abundant and dead wood could submerge and be protected from decomposition, but this still does not appear to be able to explain the so great discrepancy in the amount of accumulated coal.
The most likely explanation is that all factors must have contributed, the conformation of the continents, the climate and the low abundance or absence of wood-digesting fungi, or perhaps there already were wood-digesting fungi, but their enzymes were not as efficient yet as those of later fungi, so they could decompose only a small part of the wood before it was buried in sediments.
> The difficult thing is that most old folks grew up thinking that oil, coal, and gas were great, and it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
Doesn't seem cynical enough to me. Some people make money on oil, coal, and gas, and it doesn't matter what they believe about the climate, they would do anything to continue enriching themselves. It is even worse, really, because they are not just some individuals, it is a big network of organizations. And some states too have their GDP dependent on a fossil fuel trade. You can probably talk a capitalist into surrendering their money-making practices, if they are damaging the Earth, but you can't convince an organization to dissolve or a state to go into a deep recession.
But oil, gas and coal are indeed cool, you get some of the highest chemical energy density substances on Earth for the price of digging. It sucks that burning them reverts the atmosphere to something life isn't really adapted anymore, but the substances themselves are still pretty cool.
I still believe that in the future synthetic hydrocarbons will retain an important role for the long-term storage of energy, for which batteries are inappropriate, due to self-discharging, and also for aerospace applications.
Producing synthetic hydrocarbons is already old technology, which was used at large scale before the decreasing price of oil made that non-competitive.
Today the most inefficient part remains the capture of the diluted CO2 from air and its conversion into concentrated CO2, which is easy to process further, e.g. by electrolytic methods that are more efficient than the hydrocarbon synthesizing methods used in the past.
If only a small fraction of the money that has been spent for much more frivolous purposes, like AI investment, had been directed to goals like improving the methods for concentrating CO2, we would have been in a much better situation today.
When extracting them from the ground was relatively harder there were also many processes to extract volatile compounds and charcoal from fresh wood for fuel. I think that could see a revival as well.
Right, oxygen is an oxidizer, not a fuel. A world with 43% oxygen would have some pretty terrifying wildfires, but the sky wouldn't just burst into flames
And now I know why a variety of coal is called "Lignite". And why dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals were so big.
What an amazing story. It's been a while since I read something so interesting.
Ultimately, all energy on earth comes from the Sun, stored in the bonds between atoms or molecules. Plants are battery-manufacturing machines that create these bonds inside the organic compounds. Animals do the opposite - break the bonds to release the energy stored by trees. Animals also store energy within their own organic compounds such as fats and muscles and thus become part of the food pyramid.
Technically, not all energy on earth comes from the sun. Geothermal energy comes from radioactive decay and cooling (including shrinking converting some gravitational potential energy to heat). Tidal energy is partially from the moon. Even meteorites provide a miniscule energy input. But, yeah, the Sun is kind of a big deal.
radioactive molecules were probably born in a star... a big hunk of dirt hurling through space hardly creates any energy when compared to a star. We CONSUME...
Yeah, nice article that makes me think the civilisation that wants to survive longer should rely on more fundamental energy sources, like solar radiation, rather than byproducts of evolution.
I loved the article. I knew already about fungi taking millions of years to develop a mechanism to eat wood, but the ramifications into dinos getting huge due to their superior breathing systems was a completely new to me. I thought everyone had lungs on earth!
> Phorusrhacids ranged widely in size, with the smallest members like Psilopterus measuring 1 meter (3.3 ft) tall whereas giants like Devincenzia possibly reached 3 meters (9.8 ft) tall.
> And, 5 million years later, which is the time it took to design this very complicated thing, Mr. R&D came up with a lung system with both an entry point and an exit point, with hollow bones and air-sacs to temporarily store oxygenated air. It was super-efficient compared to any previous lung system and made the best use of the limited oxygen. The animals that received this gift from Mr. R&D were the dinosaurs.
I'd like to know the process by which you evolve from a single-orifice lung system to a dual-orifice lung system in something as complicated as a reptile.
There are living reptiles that are still kind of in the intermediate stage with one-way airflow through parts of their respiratory system without having two orifices.
> And that’s what the birds have with their lungs: an in point and an out point. They also have air sacs and hollow spaces in their bones. When they breathe in, half of the good air (with oxygen) goes into these hollow spaces, and the other half goes into their lungs through the rear entrance. When they breathe out, the good air that has been stored in the hollow places now also goes into their lungs through that rear entrance, and the bad air (carbon dioxide and water vapor) is pushed out the front exit.
Isn't "front exit" the "front entrance"? They don't have two mouths. I don't understand how this improves things.
There are two air sacs viz. Anterior and Posterior with the Lungs in-between. Inhalation goes to Lungs+Posterior Sacs (pushing stale air to Anterior Sacs) while Exhalation moves Fresh Air from Posterior Sacs (stored from Inhalation above) to Lungs whose stale air is moved to the Anterior Sacs and then breathed out.
44 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 37.9 ms ] threadhttps://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7...
Walter Murch has been working in film for more than 50 years, as an editor, sound designer, writer, and director. He edited and sound-designed many films for Francis Coppola (The Godfather Trilogy, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now) and Anthony Minghella (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Cold Mountain). His interest in science can be seen in his editing of Mark Levinson’s film Particle Fever (2013), about the search for the Higgs Boson.
Yes, That Walter Murch.
In The Blink Of An Eye is on the bookshelf just behind the monitor I'm typing this on, with my headphones and BMD Speed Editor slightly blocking my view of it.
As such, this works only in aerobic environments (not swamps).
Coal has been always forming later, even today, but never in such quantities, because later it required much luckier conditions for the wood to not be decomposed by fungi.
The climate and the position of the continents during the Carboniferous must have contributed to the accumulation of coal, i.e. it is likely that a much greater percentage of the surface of the Earth was covered by some kind of swamps with warm climate, where plants were abundant and dead wood could submerge and be protected from decomposition, but this still does not appear to be able to explain the so great discrepancy in the amount of accumulated coal.
The most likely explanation is that all factors must have contributed, the conformation of the continents, the climate and the low abundance or absence of wood-digesting fungi, or perhaps there already were wood-digesting fungi, but their enzymes were not as efficient yet as those of later fungi, so they could decompose only a small part of the wood before it was buried in sediments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23639294 (Jun 26, 2020 - 96 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28844872 (Oct 12, 2021 - 108 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34210508 (Jan 1, 2023 - 6 comments)
This submission is from 4 days ago, so it must've been placed into the second chance pool.
Doesn't seem cynical enough to me. Some people make money on oil, coal, and gas, and it doesn't matter what they believe about the climate, they would do anything to continue enriching themselves. It is even worse, really, because they are not just some individuals, it is a big network of organizations. And some states too have their GDP dependent on a fossil fuel trade. You can probably talk a capitalist into surrendering their money-making practices, if they are damaging the Earth, but you can't convince an organization to dissolve or a state to go into a deep recession.
Producing synthetic hydrocarbons is already old technology, which was used at large scale before the decreasing price of oil made that non-competitive.
Today the most inefficient part remains the capture of the diluted CO2 from air and its conversion into concentrated CO2, which is easy to process further, e.g. by electrolytic methods that are more efficient than the hydrocarbon synthesizing methods used in the past.
If only a small fraction of the money that has been spent for much more frivolous purposes, like AI investment, had been directed to goals like improving the methods for concentrating CO2, we would have been in a much better situation today.
Good article except oxygen is not flammable. Oxygen is the stuff that makes other stuff flammable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Time_(novel)
What an amazing story. It's been a while since I read something so interesting.
Ultimately, all energy on earth comes from the Sun, stored in the bonds between atoms or molecules. Plants are battery-manufacturing machines that create these bonds inside the organic compounds. Animals do the opposite - break the bonds to release the energy stored by trees. Animals also store energy within their own organic compounds such as fats and muscles and thus become part of the food pyramid.
- why don’t birds get gigantic?
- in this era of super high oxygen and abundant wood all over the place, why weren’t there constant fires pushing things towards equilibrium?
They weren't sauropod gigantic, but there were these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae:
> Phorusrhacids ranged widely in size, with the smallest members like Psilopterus measuring 1 meter (3.3 ft) tall whereas giants like Devincenzia possibly reached 3 meters (9.8 ft) tall.
- theses carbon deposits weres mostly swamps so the dead wood was under water
I'd like to know the process by which you evolve from a single-orifice lung system to a dual-orifice lung system in something as complicated as a reptile.
Isn't "front exit" the "front entrance"? They don't have two mouths. I don't understand how this improves things.
Yes, the in/out is through the mouth+nose. But internally is' more like a one-way circle.
See the explanation and diagram here; How Air Sacs Power Lungs in Birds’ Respiratory System - https://asknature.org/strategy/respiratory-system-facilitate...