QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Loudon, C. Articles by Koehl, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Loudon, C. Articles by Koehl, M.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 193, Issue 1 233-254, Copyright © 1994 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

WHEN DOES MOTION RELATIVE TO NEIGHBORING SURFACES ALTER THE FLOW THROUGH ARRAYS OF HAIRS?

C Loudon, B Best and M Koehl

Many animals from different phyla use structures bearing arrays of hairs to perform a variety of important functions, such as olfaction, gas exchange, suspension feeding and locomotion. The performance of all these functions depends on the motion of water or air around and through these arrays of hairs. Because organisms often move such hair-bearing appendages with respect to their bodies or the substratum, we assessed the effects of such motion relative to walls on the fluid flow between neighboring hairs. We compared flow fields near dynamically scaled physical models of hairs moving near walls with those calculated for such hairs in an unbounded fluid. Our results suggest that the methods an organism can use to change the flow through a hair-bearing appendage differ with Reynolds number (based on hair diameter). When Re is 10(-2) or below, changing speed does not alter the proportion of the fluid that moves through rather than around the array, whereas moving relative to a wall increases it. In contrast, when Re is between 10(-2) and 1, changes in speed have a big effect on the proportion of fluid moving through the array, while moving near walls makes little difference.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. Reidenbach, N. George, and M. A. R. Koehl Antennule morphology and flicking kinematics facilitate odor sampling by the spiny lobster, Panulirus argus J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2008; 211(17): 2849 - 2858. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.A.R. Koehl The Fluid Mechanics of Arthropod Sniffing in Turbulent Odor Plumes Chem Senses, February 1, 2006; 31(2): 93 - 105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. S. Mead, M. B. Wiley, M. A. R. Koehl, and J. R. Koseff Fine-scale patterns of odor encounter by the antennules of mantis shrimp tracking turbulent plumes in wave-affected and unidirectional flow J. Exp. Biol., January 1, 2003; 206(1): 181 - 193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Goldman and S. N. Patek Two sniffing strategies in palinurid lobsters J. Exp. Biol., December 15, 2002; 205(24): 3891 - 3902. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Walker Functional Morphology and Virtual Models: Physical Constraints on the Design of Oscillating Wings, Fins, Legs, and Feet at Intermediate Reynolds Numbers Integr. Comp. Biol., April 1, 2002; 42(2): 232 - 242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.A. Goldman and M.A.R. Koehl Fluid Dynamic Design of Lobster Olfactory Organs: High Speed Kinematic Analysis of Antennule Flicking by Panulirus argus Chem Senses, May 1, 2001; 26(4): 385 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Mead and M. Koehl Stomatopod antennule design: the asymmetry, sampling efficiency and ontogeny of olfactory flicking J. Exp. Biol., January 12, 2000; 203(24): 3795 - 3808. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C Loudon and M. Koehl Sniffing by a silkworm moth: wing fanning enhances air penetration through and pheromone interception by antennae J. Exp. Biol., January 10, 2000; 203(19): 2977 - 2990. [Abstract] [PDF]