Table 6.

Two models of energy input to the tegminal oscillator during stridulation

Spring model Kinetic energy transfer model
Speciesfws (s-1)Teeth struck per wing strokeVibrating mass1 (μg)Spring constant2 (β) (kg s-2)File tooth depth (mean; μm)Power transfer3 (μW)Pac÷power transferPower transfer÷PCallEmbedded Image at COM4 (m s-1)Mass (mg)Est. P5 (μW)Pac÷est. PPower transfer/PCall
S. borellii 5530.465259.136.9310%0.07%0.1165.34943%0.5%
S. vicinus 15010.765257.113.970%0.05%0.0806.42711%0.4%
S. borellii÷S. vicinus0.362.
  • 1 Estimated for one tegmen as the product of the ratio of the average harp area for both species to the harp area for G. campestris times the estimated vibrating mass for G. campestris (Nocke, 1970).

  • 2 β for one tegmen was calculated using estimated vibrating mass (see 1) and fC of each species (Table 1).

  • 3 `Spring model' power was calculated using Eq. 5.

  • 4 Mass is for both tegmina (Table 3). COM, centre of mass.

  • 5 The `KE transfer model' calculation assumes that the change in velocity during a tooth capture cycle is 20% of the mean closing speed. The capture and release velocities were calculated with Eq. 7 and power transfer using Eq. 6.