Slashdot Mirror


"Ballooning" Spiders Use Electrostatic Forces To Generate Lift

KentuckyFC writes "Many types of small spider release threads into the air which then lift and carry them significant distances. Biologists have found them at altitudes of up to 4 km. The conventional thinking is that the threads catch thermal air currents which then carry them away but this does not explain how spiders perform their trick even when there is little or no wind. Now one physicist says the explanation is the atmosphere's natural electric field which has an average downward-pointing magnitude of 120 Volts per metre. He calculates that a strand of silk need only gain a negative charge of around 30 nanoCoulombs to lift a spider. That explains how the spiders take off on windless days, how they reach such great heights and how several strands can lift heavier spiders of up to 100 milligrams."

23 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Next step is testing by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Of course, Gorham’s ideas will need to be tested by actually measuring the charge on gossamer spider silk as it is generated. That’s an experiment for an enterprising biologist to take on."

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  2. Re:Yes, But... by deusmetallum · · Score: 4, Informative

    He lives in New York, he's always swung from the multitude of high rises.

  3. Re:Yes, But... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a shame that they ruin it with that - the rest of the story is totally plausible.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Yes by Flipstylee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stories like this are the reason i frequent /.

  5. Airborne mini drones, here we come.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Funny

    This really bugs me.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  6. Re:Yes, But... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sigh! Spiderman's webs attach to skyscrapers, streetlights, bridges and the like. That's why you never see him swinging around in the suburbs. Spiderman only fights crimes downtown.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. Nature is amazing by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To me stuff like this is what proves evolution. There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.

    1. Re:Nature is amazing by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sometimes tend to think the opposite: some of the evolution's achievements seem so precisely engineered that it feels more like a designer's product than test of time. Not that I would actually believe in intelligent design and all that stuff.

    2. Re:Nature is amazing by MadKeithV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I sometimes tend to think the opposite: some of the evolution's achievements seem so precisely engineered that it feels more like a designer's product than test of time. Not that I would actually believe in intelligent design and all that stuff.

      Most "precisely engineered" stuff that's actually engineered is still the product of large quantities of trial and error, at some level :)

    3. Re:Nature is amazing by hort_wort · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if the intelligent designer just wanted to use evolution? I've never understood why the two solutions have to be exclusive.

    4. Re:Nature is amazing by tobiasly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To me stuff like this is what proves evolution. There is no one in their right mind who could sit there and convince me that such an obtuse solution to move from point A to point B is "by design", vs. random evolution.

      As a scientist who happens to also believe in a creator, I don't understand why evolution and intelligent design have to be mutually exclusive. Why can't a creator have designed evolution?

      The fact that life on this planet has undergone -- and continues to undergo -- evolution is undeniable. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. A system that is not only capable of propagating itself indefinitely but also continually updates itself over centuries and millennia.. now that's a pretty impressive hack if you ask me.

      A common refrain from those who want to disprove intelligent design is "this creature's adapted behavior isn't the most efficient way to accomplish this task, so therefore it was not designed by an all-knowing, all-powerful creator". Just because this spider's means of locomotion is an "obtuse solution" also doesn't mean it's not "by design".

      Who says God doesn't have a bit of Rube Goldberg in him? You're presuming that he's trying to create the perfect organism and he just can't quite get it right. Maybe he realizes that if he created the perfect spider it'll freak the hell out of his humans who will then wipe it off the planet.

    5. Re:Nature is amazing by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are missing the point and arguing my own point.

      IE if Intelligent Design was real, then this "designer" would have given arachnids that had to fly wings, and what you think of as an arachnid would be different.

      He wouldn't have made them make these strange parachutes because it is not as efficient. This is something evolution did to solve the problem of "I don't have wings how do I move around". If the designer was intelligent it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

    6. Re:Nature is amazing by RKThoadan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "not as efficient?" These seem a whole lot more efficient than wings to me. A single one-time expenditure of energy and they go for miles. There are downsides to this method of course, most obviously that they don't have any control of where they go. But if you accept that limitation this seems to be a nearly optimal method of flight.

    7. Re:Nature is amazing by Lithdren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm gonna preface this with the fact that I do not believe in a god or gods of any sort. But your disagreement with his opinion is sorta silly.

      Look, Evolution is fact. The Theory of Evolution is still open to debate, how it works, what impacts it, etc.

      His opinion on it seems to be that a creator could design something like a self-serving system to improve over time. Your argument is "Thats not efficent". Who says it needs to be? If God really did exist, who says he cares how much time it takes? Who says they/it would even expierence 'time'?

      In the tend, religion and things like 'intelegant design' are little more that faith based beliefs trying to take what science has shown to be true and make sense within their own religious construct. There's nothing wrong with this, even if it's not right. You're doing it right now through your senses. You're not seeing white background and black text, you're interpreting what your eyes are sensing as those colors and shapes.

      When you get down to it all you're seeing are waves of photons and a weird mish-mash of quarks and glueons. Trying to talk to someone about why their belief is wrong is like trying to explain to someone why a red apple isn't red. It wont change their world view, so stop trying. Just accept that some people see the apple as Red, while other people dont. Trying to argue against their point only lets them decide how the argument is played out, in their own terms and on their own grounds. If you dont believe, great. If you do, great.

      In the end, we're all wrong anyway, that much im certin of.

  8. Re:batman by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    The bat signal itself doesn't fit with physics.

    My parents have owned a searchlight rental business for 30 years now. For the first Batman movie they were asked to put a bat signal cutout on the searchlight to simulate the bat signal. The thing is that searchlights have too high a candlepower and the light just bends around the cutout. The light spreads more the farther away from the searchlight. It looks cool when shown against a wall, but far out in the sky it simply doesn't work. The physics of light doesn't allow it.

  9. Re:Yes, But... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He lives in New York, he's always swung from the multitude of high rises.

    I'm guessing you're a little younger than I am, because I still remember the original 1960's Spider-man cartoon. He managed to swing across the Hudson River frequently. I recall one episode where he managed to "swing" to Mexico, or Central America even. Even so, not every area in all five boroughs of NY are covered in skyscrapers you know. He lived in a single family house with his aunt.

  10. Re:eh? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

    The sky webs read "crispy bacon". Poor Wilbur.

  11. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The earth's magnetic field is almost certainly unrelated. The magnetic field is generated internally due to us having a molten iron core. This atmospheric electrical field comes from the bulk transport, separation, and friction of huge air masses - like the kind that give rise to thunderstorms. There's interplay between the two, especially during a solar storm (e.g., aurorae), but you couldn't freeze the magnetic field by tapping the atmosphere.

    As for why we can't tap that, I could only speculate. 120 V/m sounds like a sizable field - strong enough that we ought to be able to feel it. On the other hand, the E-field in an ordinary capacitor is many orders of magnitude greater (10s of volts, perhaps, but separated by just microns). You can get a greater E-field from peeling scotch tape off its roll.

    Also bear in mind that an electric field, by itself, is not a store of energy. In order to make use of that field, you need to have charge traverse that field - a flow of electrons. If we think of the atmosphere between stratosphere and ground like a giant capacitor, its stored energy is 1/2 * C * V^2. The V term might be very large (120 kV/km, squared!), but if the C is tiny, then you end up without much energy. And do not conflate power and energy: you can get quite a spark from a discharging capacitor (or a lightning bolt!) - great instantaneous power - but it doesn't last. Unless there's some source to continuously replenish the charge separation, you may not be able to tap much energy. I suspect that the available energy is very diffuse; more diffuse than, say, the kinetic energy of wind that we are able to capture with turbines. You would probably need kilometer-sized antenna arrays to capture much useful power.

  12. Re:Yes, But... by meerling · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're trying to work out continuity issues from an old and poorly made no budget ancient cartoon?
    You might as well complain that dropping an anvil on sombody's head will not result in a bump but will crush their freaking skull and kill them.
    Besides, Spiderman doesn't do web flight. He must not have been bit by a gossamer spider. :)

  13. not an effective strategy, seems bugs can't read by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The rule in my house is that if you have more than four limbs, you are a bug , and you belong outdoors. This policy is clearly stated on the signs underneath each door.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. Re:120V/m - why can't we tap that by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've just read that one bolt of lightning powers one household with all their energy needs for a month. I'm not too sure how accurate that is; but I think we'll need a lot more than that.

    I will try to plug the numbers in. Let's see how this goes.

    According to the physics.org toast power article, a lightning packs "over five billion joules of energy". I will round that down to 5 billion. A watt is the same thing as "joules per second". A month has 60 * 60 * 24 * 30 = 2,592,000 seconds. Then, 5 * 10^9 J / 2,592,000 s = 1929 J/s. This means that we can run the house at a constant power consumption of 1929 watts. Converted to a standard kWh number that would be 1389kWh per month.

    That's pretty much on the spot. It would indeed be enough to run a house of a small family for one month, accounting electrical heating running around winter.

  15. I don't understand how this works by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will have to read the research article because the press article doesn't explain it. a dipole charge would not move in a linear gradient field. it would require a second order curvature to the gradient to make it move. thus it's irrelevant that the linear field is 120 v /meter. what would matter is the derivative on that.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  16. Show me an experiment by TheSync · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll believe this when someone takes some spider silk, charges it up, and it can lift an inanimate object of weight of a spider in still air.