Talk:Kleiber's law

message: Though this article seems to be quite enlightening on the subject, statements like "It is truly unfortunate that it is not well understood even by its own foremost proponents" have no place in an encyclopedia, do not present any new data and may prejudice a readers opinion. 
Furthermore in the 6th to last paragraph there were many claims made about the usefulness of Kleiber's law with no supporting evidence or references. For example:
"This equation explains why exercise results in longer life, why over-eating results in shorter life, why stem cells proliferate and why they stop as they differentiate. This equation explains why cancer cells proliferate, and how to get them to destroy themselves."
I'd love to put one of those warnings at the top of the page but I don't know how...
Biledemon 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 comments

message: I did some wikification of the article, but I think it still needs some work.  Also, maybe the biography section should be moved to a separate article?
Jdrice8 06:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikified! 

message: This "article" is, for the most part, somebody's personal views about how the the field has foolishly gone in the wrong direction and been generally incompetent, along with his views about what is really important.  I'm no expert in allometry, but I'm going to get rid of most of this myself if nobody else steps forward.  A short, comprehensible summary would be much better than what's there now. 151.200.245.35 (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Problems 

message: I've restored my edits, which had been reverted.  The material removed consisted of the opinions of one editor that the general scientific understanding of the topic is flawed, along with his own idiosyncratic views (parts of which are fairly nonsensical). In his talk page comment above, the editor essentially tells us that this is own original research, which is not accepted by biologists.  I attempted to discuss this with Showtime2009, but received no reply. 68.239.116.212 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored edits of 68.239.116.212 

message: habla engles yo me gustaaaaa
hi im a spanish user of wikipedia, and i want u traduct that article because spanish users need that information, please
thank u so much!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.150.120 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add it to the spanish Wikipedia. Samwb123T-C-@ 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  traduction 

message: Quote: "Actually, it's two-thirds," says University of Vermont mathematician Peter Dodds [...] "My new paper follows the argument that was put forth in 1997 [the paper of Geoffrey West and colleagues] that, somehow, networks give rise to the 3/4 law. They were right that supply networks are key to understanding the metabolic limitations of animals. Except my paper shows that networks give rise to the 2/3 law, actually," Dodds says, "If you do the math properly." (Unquote)
From:
Spherical Cows Help to Dump Metabolism Law, 
Joshua E. Brown, University of Vermont, 02-02-2010
Dodds's paper:
Optimal Form of Branching Supply and Collection Networks
Peter Sheridan Dodds, University of Vermont
PhysRevLett.104.048702
--Liberatus (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Challenge: It's 2/3 if the math is done properly 

message: I'm not sure whether this article has received the proper proofreading, but it is very unclear.  It's even more a shame then that the topic looks like it would be interesting if elucidated correctly.  Here are some suggestions for those who want to help:
* Dig through the paragraphs and simplify to a few concepts.
* Write with a style for everyone to understand.
* Use technical and consistent definitions -- many math articles (e.g. Galois Theory) are about complicated topics but with clear definitions and precise exposition.
74.104.44.94 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page very unclear 

message: The metabolic-efficiency (ME) stuff is OR and is basically nonsense (let's see a cite for it). Warm blooded animals in adulthood have a power-law metabolism exponent for weight less than 1 because they get a boost from surface/volume effects. Plants don't need that, and that's why their metabolic power exponent is one. In adults, all metabolic (food) energy winds up as heat eventually, so there's no point in talking about anything else. Reptiles are not true poikilotherms but do need to heat up to function, and since they need to warm up, and scaling effects give them a similar power law, but with a different scale factor for an overall slower metabolism as baseline. The reasons for 3/4 fitting the data better than 2/3 is unclear, but it may be because very small mammals can make up for their terrible metabolic heating cost by growing a lot thicker coats (shrews are half fur) and larger mammals can simply shed most hair, especially in the tropics (which they have done-- look at a rhino or elephant). That trick keeps the exponent from being the 2/3 law it would be, if all mammals had the same heat-tranfer coefficients from hide-to-air (they don't).  So, Showtime2009 has been blocked as a socker, and is probably our nutcase. The other users opposed to removing the OR are user:Mokele (who by his background should know better), and user:Samwb123, whose problem I don't know, but it may just be conservatism. I'm going to post this on both of their talk pages, and let us see if we can get this back to being a scientific article again. SBHarris 09:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reflexively revert large content deletions that aren't discussed in the talk page.  Had you posted this before deleting it, I'd've been fine with it.  To be honest, I haven't read 95% of the page contents. Mokele (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kleiber's law]]: The shorter version, without the "metabolic efficiency" stuff, is better 

message: I agree with several discussants above that the page is opaque to read, and as Biledemon said, the style and language are not fitting to an encyclopedia entry.  Much seems to be personal vendetta and original research of one or two authors.  It is fair to say that there is some academic controversy, so the entry should reflect the mixed opinions; but it is far to one side currently.
If Mokele agrees, perhaps in a week or so I/we can try to shorten and clarify it.  
A recent reference analyzes much of the available data and comes to a balanced conclusion -- that there is good evidence for a 3/4-power scaling, but with significant exceptions, some of which don't fit with the main theories:  Isaac NJB, Carbone C. "Why are metabolic scaling exponents so controversial? Quantifying variance and testing hypotheses."  Ecology Letters. June 2010; 13(6):728-735. 
Lucubrations (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, anything to make it read better.  I've always been leery of biology pages winding up like the math articles, which are essentially unintelligible without an advanced degree. Mokele (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly recommend Knut Schmidt-Nielsen's book SCALING: Why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, 1984. It's a semi-popular book, but Schmidt-Nielsen goes relentlessly through the math and the arguments, and looks at allometry by metabolism, species, homeotherms vs. others, by organ system, under loads like maximal work, and so on. Schmidt-Nielsen also gives the evidence for the 3/4 power law of body mass to give total-body (not specific) metabolic rate across species (though interestingly enough, it tends to be 2/3 within a species, as for example between breeds of dogs). And he gives various interpretations of this, including the one about what happens if you can vary insulation between species, which tends to make the exponent in the power law for total metabolic rate closer to 1.0 (see my note above). SBHarris 18:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kleiber's law]]: can we do a major edit? 

message: I read the article and I came to the same conclusions. Too few references, too much opinion and indeed it sounded like someone trying to get a scientific article published. 
I see in the Talk Page that this has been observed long ago and it is important that something will happen soon. If knowledge or time is lacking to rewrite it properly, parts of it could easily be deleted.
Expendable parts are Concept of metabolic efficiency and Current debate, which only continues the talk about ME. 
I also agree that the biography should be moved to Max Kleiber's own page.
: Well, it's been a few years, and this article is still just as hiliarously bad as the above comments describe. Here's my favorite piece of prose: 
:: Attention to fundamental principles of the electrochemical nature and dependence of biomass, is deflected in favor of continuing disputation about the equation's relevance, the appropriateness of Euclidean considerations in a fractal world of capillary fluid dynamics, and the whispered depths to its secrets with regard to aging and to cancer, secrets unattainable so far.
: MillingMachine (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's take action 

message: Kleiber's 3/4 ratio has been proven and it's deviations can be explained. Paper will come soon. August 29, 2017. Ryan M. Latterell  — Preceding 
The key is that you just have to use the animals layers of tissue as concentric layers for heat loss and resistance. The geometry of heat transfer is not the same in less spherical ("more limbed") animals, and tends to go more to 3/4 because of this. If you look at a rabbit, and that's about as spherical as I can think of right now, you will see something closer to the 2/3 line, but maybe not all the way. Putting a blue whale on the graph was a poor choice because the thermal conductivity of water is not the same as air.
-Ryan L again, let me know if i missed something
And again please focus on the effect of concentric layers of heat resistance when you're doing your calculation to prove this one. The math can be a bit tricky if you're not through a few levels of calculus yet. I will return and await egg on my face if I haven't put this to rest
unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8200:A430:D133:A463:5DD3:3A24 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: something about the subject, not the article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kleiber's 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/20110720105154/http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Kozlowski_2005_FunctEcol.pdf to http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Kozlowski_2005_FunctEcol.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kleiber's 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/20080208045947/http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/memorial/kleiber.htm to http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/memorial/kleiber.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208045947/http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/memorial/kleiber.htm to http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/memorial/kleiber.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion