noo i havent asked my self that BUUUT i do now LOL
conclution, we do know why marijuana users aint ALL that productive^^
soo why did they EVEN try chloral hydrate's?? makes no sence as the purpus was stimulis, correct???
Did i lose what happend to the hopefully swoop/move in time they did their webs?? <feels fuzzed O.o
Love the post, suuper job 💕
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The purpose was to somehow quantify the strength of the effect of psychoactive substances and therefore it is legit to test chloralhydrats. Also getting dizzy/sleepy can be quantified. ;-)
Thanks for your praise! 😄
Best,
mountain.phil28
hm <noot buying them cookies your selling :P hang on must walk dogs, and think about this.... brb ;)
Ok yes i get that :p but dizzy/snozy isent quantified BY compairing to ex> amphetamine ;0 as they give opposit effects, right? IF they/we are talking quantyfying drugs effects, suure il bite :D but they/ you are stating -' H. M. Peters worked on garden spiders and how they build their webs. Since they usually web between 2am-5am he asked his friend, a swiss pharmacologist, Peter N. Witt if he could somehow influence and shift their time of productivity'
and also we must look into amount of ex caffein used as 10-13mg koffein/kg is increasing productivety BUT 150mg-kg is leathal on a person ;) & ampthetamin 1-1.5g/ day :p
I think, my problem is that on marijuana and chloral hydrate , your NOT supose to be hiigh performing ;) BUT as test of toxisety, i do agree and say good way to think :D Do NOTE>>> coffeein has a halflife of 6h whiich i find should have been effective on the spiders, a bit fuzzing i must say.. Hmm FOR how long did they do study?? it will need a long time spann as swooping time takes time... hm, still FAB intressting post :D tnx
The effects were not quantified by comparing directly the webs constructed by spiders influenced with different drugs, but only by an computer-performed algorithmn 'measuring' the increasing geometric dissorder. > Then this results could bei compared to each other. (Giving pretty much the same image one is intuitively seeing as you have your first look on the webs.)
As i already stated in the article, this method misses explanatory power, since it is a whole different organismn and it also does not tell you what is going on in the test-organism, but only how strongly the normal behavior of the test-organism is affected by a given substance.
jupp i figured that ha ha i just hope you got my point :)
Hm yes i see & know you did, il guess thats what bugs me,<pun soooo intended ^^ as i said, you did FAB hun, im nitpicking ;) :P
i do find it intressting from what it started out from, to what they ended up actually testing :D ha ha and the fact of WHIIICH drugs was used, yes it still fuzzez me :p