maybe brown is a better camouflage colour overall than green.
Why no blue or green fur?
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Maybe brown is sexier to the ladies than green.
There have been a few posts here which mentioned polar bear fur. Many years ago there was a myth published many times as scientific truth.
The myth was that polar bear fur was not fur, but some type of crystalline substance which converted light to heat with an efficiency (90-99%) far beyond any substance or mechanism manufactured by our technology.
The above myth did not get published in Scientific American or any serious journal, but made it to magazines like Discover.
The myth was that polar bear fur was not fur, but some type of crystalline substance which converted light to heat with an efficiency (90-99%) far beyond any substance or mechanism manufactured by our technology.
The above myth did not get published in Scientific American or any serious journal, but made it to magazines like Discover.
Dinosaur,
If you call it a myth then you most have proof of that right?
If you call it a myth then you most have proof of that right?
Neuromancer All I have are memories of articles I read many years ago.
For at least ten years I believed the myth about polar bear hair, having read it in some reasonably reputable magazine like Discover.
Then I either noticed a more reputable article or somebody drew my attention to such an article.
I now believe that the original article was a hoax that had been published once and then repeated without verification. Once the myth is questioned, it does not seem very reasonable.
If you anlayze the claim for well over 90% efficiency compared to far less efficient human methods, you might conclude that research would result in modern technology duplicating the effect. Think of the market for a passive home heating using such an efficient mechanism. Also the claim that the substance is crystalline rather than being fur seems a bit hard to believe.
For at least ten years I believed the myth about polar bear hair, having read it in some reasonably reputable magazine like Discover.
Then I either noticed a more reputable article or somebody drew my attention to such an article.
I now believe that the original article was a hoax that had been published once and then repeated without verification. Once the myth is questioned, it does not seem very reasonable.
If you anlayze the claim for well over 90% efficiency compared to far less efficient human methods, you might conclude that research would result in modern technology duplicating the effect. Think of the market for a passive home heating using such an efficient mechanism. Also the claim that the substance is crystalline rather than being fur seems a bit hard to believe.
It would not be hard to post links, I look it up on google here what I got:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1390.html
http://it.stlawu.edu/~koon/mar_ref.html
http://it.stlawu.edu/~jahncke/clj/polarbearpics/PolarBears.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Polar+bear+hair+myth&spell=1
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1390.html
http://it.stlawu.edu/~koon/mar_ref.html
http://it.stlawu.edu/~jahncke/clj/polarbearpics/PolarBears.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Polar+bear+hair+myth&spell=1
That may be a myth, it certainly sounds like one, but that doesn't mean polar bears having hollow transparent fur is a myth.
Easuly speaking, I am surprised...... but if that myth is true, is there any other such species which grows such 'odd' hair?