Biconcave vs Biconvex: Which Gives Greater Surface Area?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pranav Jha
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Biconcave shapes, like red blood cells (RBCs), provide a greater surface area compared to biconvex shapes, such as chloroplasts, when both have the same volume. This is crucial for biological functions that require high surface area for processes like gas exchange. The physics behind this observation highlights the efficiency of biconcave forms in maximizing surface area. The discussion emphasizes the importance of shape in biological structures for optimizing function. Ultimately, the biconcave shape is superior in terms of surface area for a given volume.
Pranav Jha
Messages
141
Reaction score
1
this question of mine springs from an observation in biology but i think the answer is explained by physics. Both RBCs and chloroplasts need to have large surface area but RBC is biconcave shaped whereas chloroplast is biconvex shaped. IF both had the same volume, which would have a greater surface area i.e. for a given volume, which shape, biconcave or biconvex, gives greater surface area?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Biconcave would have the greater surface area.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top