Dragons: My Point of View

Dragons in different cultures describe dragons in different details. There is myth, then there is science. I've researched dragons, both the mythical side and the scientifical side, watched documents on it, etc., etc.

People's first thought of dragons usually depend on what part of the world you grew up in. If you lived in Europe or North America (Referring to the United States and Canada), you think of dragons as scaled beasts with horns, sharp teeth, a long tail with the ability to breathe fire. But most would think they are just fairy tales, pure fantasy. I, myself, believe in dragons. But I learned over the years a few things:

-Dragons can't fly with their own wings. They body is simply to heavy. But, after watching documents and stduying, I believe the ability for the beasts to fly is by gases, mainy hydrogen. It builds up hydrogen (Or whatever gas it may be, I still do not know, but I think it more than likely hydrogen) in the body, making it float. The wings are meant for it to control where it is flying, the wings don't take care of that job all on its own.

-The statements that dragons can breathe fire may be an exaggeration, but I have developed my theories about fire-breathing dragons. There are two ways a dragon may be able to breathe fire:

-Venom glands near the mouth of top of the esophagus create a venom that can ignite into fire by a small area under the tongue known as a spark pouch. The "spark pouch" than creates friction to ignite the venom into fire. The dragon may breathe, thus spitting a flame out of the mouth. But does is seem all that simple? Not to sure.

-My other theory is the hydrogen (Or whatever gas) ignites from fire-producing pouches under the tongue or somewhere else in the mouth, creating a flame. But then, there wouldn't be any "hydrogen" for it to fly, mind you.

Other dragons can breathe a frosty blast, some use poison or acid, like snakes, and some use no fireiceacidpoison or anything of the sort at all...ya never know. That's all the info I'm typing right now, I'll tell you more if you want ot know more, but feel free to post your opint-of-view. K?

-OkamiZaku

Well! A mythical beast it certainly is and a symbol of the Anglo-Saxons (White Dragon) also the Celtic nation of Wales (Red Dragon).
I doubt very strongly that these winged myths ever existed in reality but they are quite an adversary in Sword and Sorcery cartoons and movies.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
But I learned over the years a few things:

-Dragons can't fly with their own wings. They body is simply to heavy. But, after watching documents and stduying, I believe the ability for the beasts to fly is by gases, mainy hydrogen. It builds up hydrogen (Or whatever gas it may be, I still do not know, but I think it more than likely hydrogen) in the body, making it float. The wings are meant for it to control where it is flying, the wings don't take care of that job all on its own.

What "documents and studying" would this include? Consider the buoyancy for one litre of hydrogen in air at sea level:
0.08988 grams * (1 - (1.292 / 0.08988) ) = -1.202 grams.
This means that you need approximately 1 cubic meter of hydrogen to displace approximately 1.1kg. Let's say a dragon weighs as much as a horse (1,000 lbs or 450 kg) - finding neutral size between the European big dragons and Eastern smaller dragons - then you'll need 410 cubic meters of hydrogen. That's about 410,000 litres (metric)/ 90,187 gallons (UK)/ 108,310 gallons (US) of gas. That's a square box of about 7.45 x 7.45 x 7.45 meters. Or a 16.2 x 2 meter cylinder. This is the empty space required to lift a dragon the weight of a horse... Try to imagine all of this, and you'll find a gigantic animal, which for some reason has little body (muscle and internal organ) mass... Considering a blue whale is half that size at 25 feet/8 meters weighing in at about 6-8 tons (5.4-7.3 metric tonnes), you'll find that it's pretty impossible.

OK, let's overlook the basic science of seize and weight and say that there is a creature with the correct weight and length dimensions to become airborne with hydrogen gas. Such a creature - filled with hydrogen gas - would float up, and continue floating up until it either explodes (due to a lack of air pressure) or perhaps go into orbit.

OK, let's say that this creature can in fact keep itself from floating to high, it means that it would be able to control the amount of hydrogen gas in its body. This means that it would generate hydrogen before it wants to become airborne. It would then have to "create" the hydrogen over a period - seeing that "creating" hydrogen (from what?) would be a pretty energy consuming process, it would take some time to "create" enough hydrogen to be able to become airborne. Once the creature has been airborne and it did the flying it wanted to do, it would then "release" the gasses (by farting? ) to land. It would then have to start "creating" hydrogen all over before it could fly again. Would you not agree that this is not an ideal method of flying, especially for something that is a predator.

Let's over-look all of that. Let's say that the creature can achieve buoyancy by hydrogen... How do is propel itself? The hydrogen makes it go up, right? The wings make it go left and right? What makes it go forward? The wings as well? Well if the wings are to small to get it airborne then the wings could propel the dragon forward, but considering the dimensions of the creature - which would be pretty bulky - it would be a painfully slow process to move forward.

OK, that was the long and scientific answer. The short answer would be: No. Hydrogen or any other natural gas would one of the worst possible ways for any creature to fly. Not even humans try to do it anymore.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
-The statements that dragons can breathe fire may be an exaggeration, but I have developed my theories about fire-breathing dragons. There are two ways a dragon may be able to breathe fire:

-Venom glands near the mouth of top of the esophagus create a venom that can ignite into fire by a small area under the tongue known as a spark pouch. The "spark pouch" than creates friction to ignite the venom into fire. The dragon may breathe, thus spitting a flame out of the mouth. But does is seem all that simple? Not to sure.

Do you know where the esophagus is? Wouldn't the positioning of the "venom glands" and "spark pouch" cause the creature to basically blow its head up every time a "spark" is created? Or at least set fire to its own tongue? Wouldn't the fact that the "spark pouch" is under the tongue actually prevent anything from igniting? What is the "spark pouch" made off? (It must be some sort of natural bone or gland or something right?) Why would the dragon be the only creature in the history of time with such a "spark pouch"?

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
-My other theory is the hydrogen (Or whatever gas) ignites from fire-producing pouches under the tongue or somewhere else in the mouth, creating a flame. But then, there wouldn't be any "hydrogen" for it to fly, mind you.

Indeed. And once again you have the chance of the creature blowing up itself...

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
Other dragons can breathe a frosty blast, some use poison or acid, like snakes, and some use no fireiceacidpoison or anything of the sort at all...ya never know. That's all the info I'm typing right now, I'll tell you more if you want ot know more, but feel free to post your opint-of-view. K?

And this is based on...? Popular science-fiction? Dungeons and Dragons?

Any questions? It's not the best theory/ies in the world, but at least you have one - a very creative one at that.

I am by no means trying to destroy your theory, OkamiZaku. Just making a point. Go on facts, actual science - not just "researched dragons, both the mythical side and the scientifically side, watched documents on it, etc., etc." - but more importantly provable science. And perhaps avoid using words like "whatever gas it may be", "I still do not know" and so on. If you sound unsure of yourself, other people will be even less inclined to believe you.

Well that's my opinion. Use it. Don't use it. Keep those theories coming!

Edit: Removed repeated sentence.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by Gemwolf]

They sure made a great choice when picking Subject Matter Experts.
For now, dragons remain in the realm of folklore.

Gemwolf, it wouldn't exactly release, I think. Think of it as a balloon, soft of kind of. Farting...what a joker...

Gemwolf, you seem to put a lot of thought into your theories...or facts...XD

I myself, do not play D&D. These sources include books, documentaries such as Animal Planet's "Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real" which to you people and skeptics probably think it would be just a Sci-Fi. But don't the theories this "document" supports seem acceptable? I, myself, think so. Gemwolf, no, I dodn't think that you are trying to ruin my point of view, it is actually very supportive.

(Oh yeah, and websites, such as past threads on here, and other websites, you know, those are my reasearch...what do you think, I was on a D&D nerdies blog? You guys are nuts.)

TheB1ueSoldier, yes, in this period, dragons are in the realm of folklore. I support you and your theories, B1ue. But I think literature, the media, myself, is making it seem like folklore. I mean, seriousally, dragons only seen in fantasy novels in this point of time? Well, there is science int he theories of dragons.

As for frost dragons, mist producing glands with the effect of liquid nitrogen, prehaps? But, would that effect the whole, flying theory? Gemwolf, explain that to me, I'd love to hear.

As for posionacid dragons, look at snakes. Taht's all I'm saying for now.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
Gemwolf, it wouldn't exactly release, I think. Think of it as a balloon, soft of kind of.

Farting...what a joker...

Well, if it were like a balloon it would be flying randomly all over the place when it ...err... released the gasses. Perhaps more like a Hot Air balloon? Problem is a Hot Air Balloon uses - you guessed it - hot air to float up and down, which is much more controllable than trying to "create" a gas "on the fly", so to speak.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
Gemwolf, you seem to put a lot of thought into your theories...or facts...XD

Of course. Although I base my theories on facts.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
I myself, do not play D&D. These sources include books, documentaries such as Animal Planet's "Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real" which to you people and skeptics probably think it would be just a Sci-Fi. But don't the theories this "document" supports seem acceptable? I, myself, think so. Gemwolf, no, I dodn't think that you are trying to ruin my point of view, it is actually very supportive.

(Oh yeah, and websites, such as past threads on here, and other websites, you know, those are my reasearch...what do you think, I was on a D&D nerdies blog?

You guys are nuts.)

Yes, I'm supportive of your theory. Or rather I'm supportive of the fact that you have theory, not so much the theory per se. Not many people believe in actual dragons. The reason is the lack of actual evidence, which is basically nothing - well except if you count folklore and Science Fiction. You on the other hand believe in dragons, and you must have a good reason to do so. Most people don't just blindly believe anything without good reason to do so. As I understand it you saw an actual dragon - whether this was before you believed in dragons or not I wouldn't know. The challenge is thus up to you to convince me - and other "non-believers" and sceptics - dragons do exist. If you're going to try and convince us with science, then it should be solid science, not something that can be cancelled with little effort.

When you theorize and put it out there for other people's scrutiny, it helps if you have sources for your research. Not only is it good etiquette (and in some cases legally required) to quote sources, but it also strengthens your theory if you have other people to back your theory up. Even if you don't use any specific source for your theory, it helps to use sources to support your theory. For example, your theory states that dragons fly because they have the ability to "float" using hydrogen. You could link to the Wikipedia article on hydrogen, and explain why you think hydrogen is the "gas of choice"... You can also link to say other animals that have the ability to "inflate" themselves, like the puffer fish, and a variety of frogs/toads. And so on.

Don't stop at the basics. If I were you I would expand the theory and not stop at "dragons use hydrogen to fly". You can dig much deeper like theorizing that dragon bones are hollow and extremely light, like those of birds. They have very little muscle tissue, like the greyhound. The gas that helps the dragon to fly is stored in an air bladder, like those found in fish (see air bladder). And so on.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
TheB1ueSoldier, yes, in this period, dragons are in the realm of folklore. I support you and your theories, B1ue. But I think literature, the media, myself, is making it seem like folklore. I mean, seriousally, dragons only seen in fantasy novels in this point of time? Well, there is science int he theories of dragons.

Well? Where is the science? Show us the science. We love science.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
As for frost dragons, mist producing glands with the effect of liquid nitrogen, prehaps? But, would that effect the whole, flying theory? Gemwolf, explain that to me, I'd love to hear.

I think, technically speaking a "frost producing" dragon would be more possible than a "fire producing" dragon. Turning something cold would be easier and more controllable (less likely to harm the animal itself) using chemicals. Liquid nitrogen. Not going to happen. Nitrogen isn't very stable to start with. Nitrogen liquefies at 77 K (−195.8°C) and freezes (solidifies) at 63 K (−210.0°C). This means that the body temperature of the dragon would have to be about -200°C to store the nitrogen. Considering that dragons are most likely reptiles, thus cold-blooded, a temperature of -200°C would kill the animal. Well, any other animal as well, for that matter. You want an Endothermic reaction, such as the reaction between barium hydroxide octahydrate and ammonium nitrate. However, most such reactions are pretty slow, thus it wouldn't instantly freeze something, but in laboratory conditions temperatures of up to -30°C can be achieved. (See Endothermic)

But think about this. Why would a dragon - or any other animal- want to freeze something? They would want a hot meal, not a cold one right? Especially if it's a reptile. They need the heat.

Originally posted by OkamiZaku
As for posionacid dragons, look at snakes. Taht's all I'm saying for now.

I suppose this is the most likely "way of defense" or "attack" if dragons were to exist. Again, I would put my money on a chemical reaction. If it were only "poison" then no (cehmical) reaction would be required, but seeing that you threw acid in there, it changes the whole scenario.

There is a wonderful example of such a system. The bombardier beetle (Brachinus):

Bombardier beetles store two separate chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide) that are NOT mixed until threatened. When this occurs the two chemicals are squirted through 2 tubes, where they are mixed along with small amounts of catalytic enzymes. When these chemicals mix they undergo a violent “exothermic” chemical reaction. The boiling, foul smelling liquid partially becomes a gas and is expelled with a loud popping sound.

Source

Such a mechanism would however be at the rear of a dragon, because when things like that is sprayed - in near gas form - there is a chance that the creature might get it in his own eyes, thus rendering the target and the "shooter" out of action. You'll note this with most animals with "chemical reactions" like the skunk, the bombardier beetle, etc. Because they don't want the chemicals in their face.

Well, sir, what else do you have?

Gemwolf, thanks for the information. The more I learn, the harder I actually think.

Now all I have to do is think of another theory that fit along with your descriptions and facts!

after i read this i looked at my wall and noticed a picture of saint george killing a dragon

news.uns.purdue.edu...

and then i got to thinking people back in the day were not as big as us and all the different pictures i seen of st. george killing the dragon the dragon was always small compared to the siz of st. george in the picture, so i was thinkin does this mean dragons were smaller then we think, or was st.george just buff?

Maybe they where about as small as crocodiles?

When you find out, tell me!

if hydrogen is indeed utilized to keep the dragon afloat or used as fuel for the flame, the most likely source by far would be water. but, extracting hydrogen from water is a fairly complicated process that i doubt a living creature would be able to accomplish. first of all, the dragon would need to have two conductive yet fairly inert electrodes inside of its body. this means it would need to have a solid crystal of carbon or something similar and a solid crystal of copper or something similar. on top of that, it would need to facilitate a way to build up considerable electrostatic potential (voltage) in order for the current to jump between the two electrodes. this reaction would produce equal volume amounts of hydrogen and oxygen. the hydrogen would have to be taken to a separate chamber and the oxygen would be released or used for other purposes. there is no other plausible explanation of how the dragon would be able to obtain hydrogen as the gas hasn't existed in the lower atmosphere for the past 3 billion years. the only other gas that could be used would be helium, as it is the only other gas that is less dense than the atmosphere. helium only has 1/4 the lifting power of hydrogen. it never has existed in our atmosphere and it cannot be obtained from any compounds (as it can't form any). the only way to get helium is through alpha decay (which is in microscopic quantities), and from fossil fuel reservoirs (the way helium is obtained commercially today). also, hydrogen is not capable of forming a steady flame when burned. even huge quantities of hydrogen would burn up very quickly in a dull orange fireball, hardly like the flamethrower-like flames of dragons described in folklore. however, there are actually some probable explanations for firebreathing. alkanes, such as methane, ethane, and propane are all fairly simple molecules that can be produced by ordinary biological processes and are all highly flamable. if "dragons" were capable of fire-breathing, that would be their best bet. as for the hydrogen, though, the evolutionary circumstances to allow that would be so borderline impossible that it's hardly worth considering. sorry for busting holes in your theories okami, but i hope that this helped.

[edit on 25-6-2007 by jmakobi]

If you read old Viking texts you will understand that these beasts didn't fly by wings. They were "magical". As far as fire breathing, a build of up potassium mixing with water creates a very violent light show. Anyhow, I have no clue!

haha no way that potassium thing is happening. potassium is too reactive to be found pure in nature, and the only way to obtain potassium is from very rare potassium salts in a reaction identical to the one i mentioned before about obtaining hydrogen, except this one requires much more energy. also potassium only keeps a very low energy unstable flame when it reacts with water. interesting theory though.

jmakobi, believe me, that helped a lot. Your theories helped a whole bunch. Now, for the logics.

ok.. i'm not sure if anyone has covered this.. but umm.. what if their bones were hollow.,. how exactly would that help them fly? less weight yes, but their size still would be too big wouldn't it?

Dragon legends have always intrigued me, because I'm fascinated by things that are supposed to fly.

However, I think you need to take this stuff in context, and not literally.

My general belief is that Dragon legends are generally born out of meteorite and comet sightings (firey objects in the sky - start fires sometimes when they hit the ground etc), probably combined with the unearthing of one or two dinosaur bones/skeletons and some tall stories passed on by word of mouth, with "Dragon Slayers" such as the legendary St.George being the braver type of people that you get who will go and have a look and see what actually happened in the area.

Alternatively, as another one of my interests is UFO's, its possible that some of these "dragons" may have been more interesting objects, and that the legends of abduction by dragons are an older version - more suited to the superstitious ethos of the time - of alien abductions.

The second theory is even more interesting if you throw in the idea that some alien abduction encounters refer to reptilians.

That idea makes the idea of Dragon slyaing even more interesting. Did good old St.George poleaxe a reptilian alien?

Of course, these are only theories. I've never actively researched them past a certain cursory glance.

Still, theres some food for thought

[edit on 18/0707/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by neformore
My general belief is that Dragon legends are generally born out of meteorite and comet sightings (firey objects in the sky - start fires sometimes when they hit the ground etc), probably combined with the unearthing of one or two dinosaur bones/skeletons and some tall stories passed on by word of mouth, with "Dragon Slayers" such as the legendary St.George being the braver type of people that you get who will go and have a look and see what actually happened in the area.

Alternatively, as another one of my interests is UFO's, its possible that some of these "dragons" may have been more interesting objects, and that the legends of abduction by dragons are an older version - more suited to the superstitious ethos of the time - of alien abductions.

The second theory is even more interesting if you throw in the idea that some alien abduction encounters refer to reptilians.

That idea makes the idea of Dragon slyaing even more interesting. Did good old St.George poleaxe reptilian alien?

Of course, these are only theories. I've never actively researched them past a certain cursory glance.

Still, theres some food for thought

Yes, the whole dragon idea is real, not in terms of a real walking dragon as we know it, but in ancient times they must have had experienced something that made them think up the idea of the dragon image as we know it today, and even as they knew it back then. I can't imagine them just making up the dragon from no basis at all...just completely from their imagination. It's possible but more than likely they based their 'dragon research' on something that was happening at the time or something they saw.

Maybe it was the Komodo dragons that we know today? They are very dragon like indeed and pretty damn large. Large enough to eat children - hence why the people of Komodo have their houses on stilts. But where did the 'breathing fire' myth start from? Maybe it was passed down that being bitten by a Komodo dragon felt like a raging inferno of fire - so intense? Then that got passed around by word of mouth, and like a 'Chinese whisper' the information became more unclear as time progressed until the 'breathing fire dragon stories' became a reality.

Remember it was only just over 100 years ago people were still being accused of being real witches and working hand in hand with the Devil himself. If you were found talking with your pet cat, that was even worse as they thought the Devil was operating through your cat! It didn't even appear to them that you might actually be lonely and just chatting to your pet to pass the time. I talk to my dog daily, as do many other people around the world, and I'm certainly not conspiring with the Devil himself. My point is, many people have gotten things wrong in the past when it comes to the paranormal, and things which they didn't understand properly, they thought of another way that it must happen, and that was it...there was no other alternatives.

So maybe the crazy dragon was just a giant lizard? Maybe it was a reptilian alien? Maybe one species of dinosaur didn't die out until very late? There's many possibilities, but one thing is for sure...they must have gotten their idea from somewhere!

Originally posted by Arawn
Maybe it was the Komodo dragons that we know today?

The problem with that is the fact that komodo dragons are only indigenous to the Komodo islands, and nowhere else. But the dragon myth is seen explicably all around the world.

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
The problem with that is the fact that komodo dragons are only indigenous to the Komodo islands, and nowhere else. But the dragon myth is seen explicably all around the world.

You are quite true about that, but that is in todays world is it not? I'm not an expert on Komodo dragons, but could they have populated other parts of the world hundreds of years ago?

Therefore it still leaves that theory open does it now?

Also the Komodo dragon was used an example. There could have been other large lizards roaming certain areas around the world hundreds of years ago.

The dragon myth is seen all around the world but going back to when it first was accounted for, I'm guessing hundreds and hundreds of years...as there are ancient writings describing flying serpents in ancient temples, word of mouth would have been used very highly as transport for a lot of people would have been very limited, and like the 'chinese whisper' the message of what people had seen could have been distorted.

Intriging is the fact that many dragons of different cultures have 4 legs and 2 more members for the wings. How many reptiles in nature have 6 members?I don't think that it is a mere coincidence.