F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <73qcjc$jj8 at dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <912196374.3097.0.nnrp-05.d4e44203 at news.demon.co.uk> "Andrew K
>- - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> I'll repeat my previous comment:
>> >I'd be surprised if the processes were the same (I.e. water
> transport in trees, CSF formation and transport and
> absorption). What is your thesis re relevance of CSF
> circulation to MS? to spinal cord injury?
I would be surprised if any fluid transport system was the same as the
current theory for fluid transport in trees.
>- - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>Are you familiar with the limit of 33 feet in physics for lifting
>water up a
>>single tube under normal atmospheric pressure RE:Galileo and
>>> Is this some kind of a joke? (No, unfortunately, it is not; I
> know that. I just used a common rhetorical device to express
> incredulity that someone purporting to understand physical
> principles better than anyone else would say this.)
>> In physics (as in a few other things), SCALE is all-important.
> Given a tube wide enough so that surface tension effects are
> negligible, they will not be sufficient to draw fluid along the
> surface of the tube, hence the alternative method of exhausting
> the air above the column so that the weight of the air on the
> fluid communicating with the base of the tube will force it up;
> the limit, of course, is set by the height of the atmosphere
> and thereby the weight of the column of air.
>> With a sufficiently small tube, surface tension effects are
> very large relative to the total mass of fluid, and draw the
> fluid along the tube (up, down, or sideways, depending on the
> orientation of the tube)--process known as "capillary action"
>> But what does ANY of this to do with fluid movement in brain
> ventricles? We are not "pumping" 33 ft using atmospheric
> pressure, and we are not (so far as main movement through the
> ventricles is concerned) dealing with tubules so fine as to
> make us invoke capillary action as a mechanism.
>>> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
> New York Neuropsychology Group
>Stating the old theories is of paramount importance to this debate!
A good lawyer discredits previous evidences and then lays down his new
evidences on turned soil so they grow free of weeds and competition.
At this point I need to bring into this discussion some text from an old
GCSE Biology Book---a book where the author of the fluid transport section
was not convinced of the theories presented. This was the trigger that
started my work. An explanation for this is included, posted under the new
heading The truth is out there RE: answers to nerve regeneration.
What did you make of the Giraffe physiol abstracts in the wordpad doc.
Thank you Frank for your interest, please stay with this. I will try to
move along now that we have established that there are a lot of unanswered
questions in CSF transport and formation.