Talk:Constructal law

Editing guidelines

Before editing, may I suggest reading the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. --Mre env (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Falsifiable Hypothesis

What, if any, falsifiable hypothesis does this theory make? --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci's rule

The article claims that constructal law predicts Leonardo da Vinci's rule. This probably refers to Leonardo da Vinci's tree rule. See: http://phys.org/news/2012-01-leonardo-da-vinci-tree.html However, the constructal law prediction seems to be based on hydraulics, which seems to be refuted by the article at: http://phys.org/news/2012-01-leonardo-da-vinci-tree.html So my questions are these:

• Is the constructal law article referring to Leonardo da Vinci's tree rule?
• Is the prediction based on hydraulic considerations?
• Do hydraulic considerations explain Leonardo da Vinci's tree rule?
• Is Leonardo da Vinci's tree rule true?

Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV language and WP:UNDUE

I've got some concerns about this article both for violations of WP:NPOV in its presentation of this theory and WP:UNDUE with the weight given to sparse support in an article which seems to govern a notable WP:FRINGE topic. I've added tags and am bringing this to the attention of the NPOV noticeboard in hopes some people with more Physics experience than mine can lend a hand fixing. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I also contacted the Quality Control noticeboard of the WikiProject Physics group. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made many revisions since. Statements are based on citations. If there isn't anything else about this issue, I will remove the NPOV tag. (Mre env (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

A classic example of a "fringe theory given undue weight"

This "article" and the personal polemics contained here read like a pamphlet written by the author to promote his original research. The so-called "constructal law" is a fringe theory heavily promoted by a single individual and virtually no one else. Most references listed here are to Mr Bejan himself and/or his students. The "constructal law" borders on pseudoscience: the formulation is as vague as it is untestable. It fails to make any meaningful predictions, and I mean _original_ predictions in areas which have _not_ been already resolved by others (Horton, Kleiber). Presenting insights worked out by others in the context of one's "theory" is _not_ a prediction, but merely a re-formulation (at best). / WP:FRINGE/PS / WP:PROFRINGE / WP:NFRINGE / WP:UNDUE

I very much concur. I see MreEnv has replaced theory with law, too, which is undeniably inappropriate. Said user continues to inject this stuff into other, unrelated pages as well. 207.229.179.9 (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Me too. Such a shame that we live in times where this sort of stuff appears in "respected" journals; I think the life sciences will remain vulnerable to this sort of thing until _proper_ training in maths and physics becomes part of their basic curriculum.137.205.183.111 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cosigned, mostly. He seems to be *observing* that things evolve to structurally optimize in a given environment. That's cool; no shit. Then he ties it to physics in order to claim it's a first principle. Not cool. While the concept is sound enough, considering its sheer obviousness he's crap at describing it (or the article is) and seems intent on making it out to be bigger than it warrants. 172.250.24.73 (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you source any of your opinions/suspicions? Fgnievinski (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. 207 and 137's opinions are first principle. Can't be sourced. 172.250.24.73 (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you even tried to comprehend these ideas disinterestedly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.35.26 (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links

I have moved the following links from the EL section because they may make good sources for article content but are inappropriate as ELs.

• Scoop it: Constructal Law of Design in Nature
• Constructal Law web portal: publications, events, links, etc.
• Unified Physics Theory Explains Animals' Running, Flying And Swimming: Duke University article.
• Tree branching key to efficient flow in nature and novel materials, [1]
• Unifying The Animate And Inanimate Designs Of Nature, [2]
• Why the golden ratio pleases the eye, The Guardian, UK, [3]
• Le secret de la beaute demystifiee, Le Devoir, Montreal, [4]
• Collaboration of soloists makes the best science, [5]
• Design in Nature and the Relevancy of Your School, The Learning Pond, January 31, 2013.

Jojalozzo 14:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us leave that way until we solve other priorities in this article Mre env (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible sources

The following list of sources was included in the article in a "Popular literature" section. They should either be used as sources to support article content or dropped.

• Maggie Wittlin, "A Finger on the Pulse of the World", SEED Magazine, January 13, 2006.
• H. Poirier, Une théorie explique l’intelligence de la nature, Science & Vie, 1034, 2003, pp. 44–63.
• Natural Design with Constructal Theory, Mechanical Engineering magazine, [6]
• The many and the few, Mechanical Engineering magazine, [7]
• Laufen = Fliegen = Schwimmen, [8]
• Jeremy Berlin, Gaudi’s Materspiece, National Geographic, December 2010, pp. 24–27.
• Tara Bruno, Higher Navel, faster feet, Science World, October 18, 2010, Vol. 67, No. 3, p. 5.
• A. Boyle, Why March Madness isn’t that mad, MSNBC, 2 March 2011.
• Jonathan Mitchell, Constructal Law: A Theory of Everything, Studio 360, 2 March 2012.
• S. Pappas, Fastest swimmers make webbed hands out of water, Live Science, 20 June 2012.
• M. Torre, “La Natura, vi svelo le formule della perfezione”, La Macchina del Tempo, January – February 2004, No. 1–2, Year 5, pp. 36–46.
• “La Tour Eiffel a livré son equation”, Interview with A. Bejan, Science & Vie, No. 1050, March 2005, pp. 18–19.
• “Evolution of Movement Design is Deterministic”, Interview with A. Bejan, Astrobiology Magazine, 31 December 2005. http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1820
• “Traquers de formes: Quand les morphologues réinventent la nature” (Pursuers of shapes: when the morphologists reinvent nature), Science & Vie, No. 1067, August 2006, Supplement, pp. 47–50.
• R. Bliwise, “Going With the Flow”, DUKE Magazine, September–October 2007, pp. 32–29.
• P. J. Zane, Going with the flow, The News & Observer, Raleigh, 30 December 2007.
• J. J. Hermes, “Fixed Rankings?”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 54, Issue 27, Page A6, 14 March 2008.
• Fabienne Lemarchand, La pyramide ou la géometrie du moindre effort (The Pyramid or the geometry of least effort), Les Cahiers de Science & Vie, No. 106, August–September 2008, pp. 52–61.
• R. R. Britt, Is Einstein the last great genius? Yahoo News, 5 December 2008, http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081205/sc_livescience/iseinsteinthelastgreatgenius
• M. Lord, Capstone Redesign, Prism, April 2009, pp. 45–47.
• K. McVeigh, “The bigger they get, the faster they go – the rise of the superhuman athlete”, The Guardian, 17 July 2009.
• R. Alleyne, “Size matters: bigger athletes dwarf efforts of smaller rivals”, The Daily Telegraph, 17 July 2009.
• Elizabeth Cooney, “The quickest grow fastest”, The Boston Globe, 20 July 2009.
• “Higher, taller, faster: study suggests”, Vancouver Sun, 20 July 2009.
• R. Boswell, “The skinny on today’s Olympic athletes”, National Post, Canada, 20 July 2009.
• Lee Dye, “Are giants taking over sports?”, ABC News, 22 July 2009.
• Emanuela di Pasqua, “Generazione di fenomeni <<crescono>>”, Corriere della Sera, 17 July 2009.
• Paola Mariano, Nuoto e corsa/ Atleti più veloci? La causa e il fisico “ingigantito”, ilsussidiario.net, 17 June 2009.
• Elizabeth Landau, Olympic speed winners getting taller, heavier, CNN.com, 5 August 2009.
• Matthew Futterman, Behind the NFL’s touchdown binge, The Wall Street Journal, 10 September 2009, p. D8.
• Steve Connor, Why some shapes are more pleasing to the eye than others, The Independent, London, UK, 21 December 2009.
• Karen McVeigh, Why golden ratio pleases the eye: US academic says he knows art secret, The Guardian, London, UK, 28 December 2009.
• Paola Mariano, Cervello: nei nostri occhi il segreto bellezza opere d’arte, l’Unità, Italy, 21 December 2009.
• Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Così occhio e mente cologno la bellezza, Corriere della Sera, 12 January 2010, p. 36.
• Frédérique Doyon, Le secret de la beauté démystifié, Le Devoir, Montreal, 21 January 2010.
• Matthew Moore, Centre of gravity theory for dominance of black sprinters and white swimmers, The Daily Telegraph, 12 July 2010.
• Karin Zeitvogel, Belly-buttons key to success in sport: study, Yahoo News, 12 July 2010.
• Karen Rowan, Scientists theorize why black athletes run fastest, Live Science, 13 July 2010.
• William Saletan, Lose the race. Can the black-white performance gap be hereditary but not racial? Slate, 13 July 2010.
• Jeannine Stein, The key to an athlete’s speed may be the body’s center of gravity, Los Angeles Times, Health, 12 July 2010.
• L. Valich, Just go with the flow to pick March Madness winners, Medill Reports, 1 March 2011.
• E. Brennan, Circular evolution in the NCAA tournament, ESPN, 3 March 2011.
• C. Arnold, Universal Law of Basketball, US News & World Report, 21 March 2011.
• Lindsey Emery, Athletic blessings in disguise, ESPN W, 11 May 2011
• Pourquoi les coureurs d’origine africaine sont-ils meilleurs que les autres?, Science et Vie, July 2011, pp. 126–129.
• Esses are everywhere, Science Daily, 20 July 2011.
• Seeing the S-curve in everything, Science Codex, 20 July 2011.
• A. W. Kosner, There’s a new law in physics and it changes everything, Forbes, 29 February 2012.
• A. W. Kosner, “Freedom is good for design”, How to use Constructal Theory to liberate any flow system, Forbes, 18 March 2012.
• Moira Gunn, TechNation: Adrian Bejan—The Nature of Design, IT Conversations, 22 March 2012.
• A. Bejan and J. P. Zane, In design, nature goes with the flow, News & Observer, 8 May 2012.
• Sharon Begley, Newton at the Games: Sports science, Reuters, 16 July 2012.
• Sharon Begley, Faster Olympic swimmers paddle like a duck, kick like a dolphin, Reuters, 18 July 2012.
• Matthew Futterman, Bodies built for Gold, The Wall Street Journal, 27 July 2012.
• Natalie Wolchover, What are the ingredients of an Olympian?, Life’s Little Mysteries, 30 July 2012.
• Pauline Gravel, La physique constructale à l′épreuve de l′eau?, Le Devoir, Montreal, 31 July 2012.
• Karin Zeitvogel, SPORTS: Researchers point to fingers as key to speed in the water, WaterWonksBeta, 2 August 2012.
• Lee Charles Kelley and Kevin Behan, Empathy & evolution: how dogs convert stress into flow, Psychology Today, 6 August 2012.
• Michael Donlevy, Could your child be an Olympian?, Yano, 15 August 2012.
• A. W. Kosner, Big data not required: the benefits of a less complex model of climate change, Forbes, 12 October 2012.
• L. C. Kelley, The canine mind bows to the Constructal Law, Psychology Today 16 October 2012.
• The Week, UK, The Hobbit film leaves fans with an unexpected thickness, 2 December 2012.
• Max Borders, The most important idea you probably didn’t know about, The Freeman, 31 January 2013.
• A. W. Kosner, The (not so) evil strategy behind everything Google, Forbes, 3 February 2013.
• L. C. Kelly, Hierarchies without dominance: The pack as a flow system?, Psychology Today, 8 February 2013.
• Lance Hosey, Why We Love Beautiful Things, New York Times, 15 February 2013.
• Phil Patton, Designers of Aston-Martin Rapide S Embrace Golden Ratio, New York Times, 20 February 2013.
• A. W. Kosner, The Sports Car, The Laptop And The Science Behind The Golden Proportion, Forbes, 22 February 2013.
• Matthew Futterman, Here Come The Flamethrowers, The Wall Street Journal, 29 March 2013, pp. D1-D2.
• Ira Katz A Law for Almost Everything, American Daily Herald, 3 June 2013.
• Richard Merritt, In baseball, bigger is better, 8 July 2013 http://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-07/du-ibb070813.php.
• Laura Candler, Why baseball pitchers (and other athletes) are getting taller, WUNC Science and Technology, 10 July 2013.
• Through the Wormhole, with Morgan Freeman: Did God Create Evolution?, Science Channel, 31 July 2013.
• Karl Gruber, Spreading your fingers improves your swimming, The Munich Eye, 9 September 2013.
• A. W. Kosner, Winter wonderland: Snowflakes are predictably diverse, but not unique, Forbes, 22 December 2013.
• Stephanie Pappas, How snowflakes form: new video explains, Live Science, 23 December 2013.
• Matthew Futterman, Imperfect bodies chase gold, The Wall Street Journal, 7 February 2014.

Jojalozzo 14:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us leave that way until we solve other priorities in this article Mre env (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

List of examples in desperate need of sources

The list of examples of natural designs explained and unified by constructal law in the Constructal thermodynamics section had no sources. Such a long list with zero citations is a significant abuse of policy. I have moved the list here for holding so they can be moved back as sources are provided.

• Global circulation and climate
• River basin design: Horton's rules of stream numbers (~4) and lengths (~2), and all the other scaling rules (e.g., Melton, Hack) of river basins all over the world.
• The distribution of city sizes and numbers, i.e. Zipf's law relating log (size) versus log (rank).
• The distribution of tree sizes and numbers on the forest floor, which is also a Zipf line of log (size) versus log (rank).
• The flow of education as a morphing vasculature on the globe, and the rigidity of university rankings.
• Vision, cognition, and the "golden ratio" phenomenon.
• The entire architecture of vegetation: roots, trunks, canopies, branches, leaves, and the forest, including the prediction of Leonardo da Vinci's rule, Huber's rule, and the Fibonacci sequence.
• Pedestrian movement, speeds, and patterns
• The emergence of urban traffic design
• The entire morphogenesis of dendritic crystals (e.g., snowflakes), as a flow structure that facilitates the flow of the heat of solidification
• The scaling law of all animal locomotion (running, flying, swimming): speeds, frequencies, forces and the work spent per unit of mass moved and distance traveled.
• The evolution of speed in sports.
• Kleiber's law, the relationship between metabolic rate and body size
• The relationship between breathing and heart beating times and body size
• The relationship between the mass transfer contact area and body mass
• The human bronchial tree with 23 levels of bifurcation.
• The dimensions of the alveolar sac,
• The total length of the airways,
• The total alveolar surface area,
• The total resistance to oxygen transport in the respiratory tree.

Jojalozzo 01:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

working on it Mre env (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe this issue has been addressed and the examples were restored.Mre env (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Current lead

The lead as it currently stands needs some work. In its current position, for example, the quote "For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it" needs some unpacking:

(I tried to address each one of queries. If there's still questions, feel free to email me through wikipedia.)Mre env (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Is persisting to be considered the same as living?

Yes, what persists in the Constructal-law statement is the flowing and the morphing (evolving) of the flow organization (structure, design). This is the definition of life as physics. It is the counterpart of the "dead state", which in thermodynamics is an established concept meaning a system with no flow and no change.Mre env (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• "that it [the system] provides easier access to" : What is being provided with access? (Access for what to do what?)

Access to space, i.e. access to flow into and through the environment (neighborhood of the flowing entity). No flow exists unless it overcomes the opposition of the environment. Flow means changing the environment, and getting the environment out of the way.Mre env (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• "imposed" : By what? Why imposed?

A flows happens because it is driven, pushed, or pulled. Power is what drives a flow, and the flow dissipates the power that drives it. Nothing moves in nature unless it is pushed. All the movement, bio and non bio, is driven by the heat engine (Earth) fueled by the sun, with heat rejection to the cold sky.Mre env (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• "currents" : Of what?

Currents of anything. Once again, this is why the constructal law is a most general statement of physics. Current means relative movement, black on white, the mover moves along the black channel, and the stationary is the white space. There is a wide diversity of physical entities that are pushed to move along the black channel and also a diversity of surroundings. Every "flow system" is a morphing architecture composed of currents and their surroundings.Mre env (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"The constructal law is receiving increased acceptance within the scientific community"

• Is this more attention and citation than acceptance?

"to describe the natural tendency of flow systems ... to ... increase flow access"

• Sounds circular (and continues to beg the queries above).

Squiver (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You have included two different refs. as "ref. [1]". Did you intend to leave that way ? If not, are you proposing to include Bejan and Lorente, 2010 as an additional ref. ? When possible, I have been using independent sources (secondary, tertiary sources). Let me know what you think. Mre env (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hello -- I included the link to Bejan and Lorente 2010 in the first ref as it refers to it in its title ("The law of life ... comment on "The constructal law and the evolution of design in nature" by A. Bejan and S. Lorente"). If that's a mistake, I apologize and please amend as you see fit.

It's important that ref. appear as Basak, because he or she was the first one to call it "the law of life". Your edit works just fine for me.Mre env (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think, though, that the queries raised above are more pressing.

Sincerely, Squiver (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

On citation and acceptance, ISI Web of Science shows a 25% increase from 2014 to 2015 in new authors publishing on constructal in peer-reviewed and qualified periodicals. I believe it can be interpreted as increase in acceptance by the scientific community. The increase in attention can be tracked by googling 'constructal'. The other issues you raised are definitely important. I am looking for the discussions on published papers to address that. Sincerely, Mre env (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

May I add that more and more researchers are using the Constructal Law in their work, and publishing their own contributions to the constructal law field. For example, the term "constructal" on Google Scholar reveals near 4,000 titles of constructal publications (paper, books). The topic "constructal" in the ISI Web of Science has the h index 49. There have been nine international Constructal Law Conferences, all over the world. The must recent was on 18-19 May, 2015 in Parma, Italy. Leading universities are teaching constructal-law courses.Mre env (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Social ideas have similar flow characteristics

http://zone34retentioncentral.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-rotary-network-s-growth-why-it.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:200:A65C:9D9:11A3:8DC2:694F (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Inspiration?

The tenets of this (which I've only skimmed briefly) remind me of Antonio Lima-de-Faria (1988) 'Evolution without Selection. Form and Function by Autoevolution'. A 'whoosh!' intro to it may be found here: (http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho12.htm).2001:8A0:F009:9A01:F555:3AF2:46E8:3CC5 (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constructal law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316082048/http://www.brentpeters.me/wp/2013/11/3917 to http://www.brentpeters.me/wp/2013/11/3917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to keep constructal law page

because it is an established law and field, and it is used now by scientists world over. Shaojun xia (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

constructal law page should be kept

Constructal theory is widely used in various fields, and the theory puts forward the structure evolution of recognizing things for us to provide a new Angle of view. Deep understanding and application of the Constructal theory for more and more scholars can promote the progress of science and technology very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yang Aibo (talk • contribs) 14:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Constructal law page should be kept

Constructal theroy is widely used as a powerful tool for the design of various devices as well as the analyses and predictions of various configurations. Direct access to the constrctual law is beneficial to numerous scholars of various fields who are using this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chao Wang (talk • contribs) 01:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

constructal law page should be kept

constuctal theory provides a broad converage of "designedness"eveywhere, from engineering to geophysics and biology,it has a great value to search constuctal theory . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penglei Li (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to keep the Constructal Law page

Constructal law is a theory concerning the evolution of design in nature. From the perspective of biological evolution, some of its ideas are consistent with the theory of evolution. As we all know, the theory of evolution is also controversial, but we cannot deny its reasonability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cx liu (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep the Constructal Law page

The Constructal Law is well established in Physics, and are applied by many researchers and authors all over the world, especially by young scientists. There is no need to describe professor Adrian Bejan, the founder of constructal law, because he is already well known and highly reputable in terms of scientific and engineering novel concepts and guidelines. Constructal-law articles and reviews appear regularly, in strict peer review journals, e.g. the Journal of Applied Physics (American Physics Institute). The constructal law is now well-recognized in terms of growing citations and the publications. Therefore, I ask Wikipedia, to keep Constructal law page. MH Heat transfer (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

AFD comments

Anyone who wants to contribute to the AFD, should do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constructal law, not here. Note that per WP:DISCUSSAFD the opinions of new single purpose accounts are likely to be discounted, Meters (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Constructal Law is pseudoscience woo, its author an obvious narcisist lost in his own profoundly non-objective love affair with his own self referential jargon.

Any mention of this "law" or its author, must be accompanied by critical reviews by subject experts professionally removed from the author's inner circle of decibels and fanboys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Lee Reetz (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)