The truth is out there

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sat Nov 28 21:47:08 EST 1998


In <912196374.3097.0.nnrp-05.d4e44203 at news.demon.co.uk> "Andrew K
Fletcher" <andrew.k.fletcher at naturesway.demon.co.uk> writes:

- - - - - - -(snip) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>could we please have someone put on record the current accepted
mechanism
>for cerebrospinal fluid circulation and formation? We need to have an
>accurate benchmark, so that a new theory for fluid transport may be
offered
>for discussion.

        Your idiosyncratic use of the term "benchmark" is a small      
        thing, but alert readers mauy see this as an indication that we
        are dealing with yet another example of a "private" way of     
        thinking with many implicit private definitions and beliefs    
        which will be impervious to reasoned arguments and evidence    
        which does not fit your private (solipsistic?) "system".
        However, I'll point out that while one does need to know a     
        current theory if one wants to explicitly argue against it, one
        can state a new theory with or without knowing the old theory.

        If you have something to say, SAY it.

       
 It is my belief that a new understanding of this phenomenon
>will reverse a complete spinal cord injury.
>
        Surely you do not mean the understanding would reverse it      
        (faith healing?).  Perhaps you mean that this understanding    
        would lead too the development of effective treatments.  If you
        think you have a "new understanding" and if you think you see a
        therapeutic method based on this understanding, SAY SO. (And   
        give at least a hint what the new understanding is and what the
        new therapy might be).


- - - - - - -(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?


- - - - - - -(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
Torricelli?


        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




More information about the Microbio mailing list