A fascinating discussion about wooden airplanes and cars (and even an
elephant thrown in!). The general tone of the discussion was quite
positive about the adoption of biological solutions by engineers. A quote
from James Cunningham: "To me a good (engineering) design is one that
serves its intended function as well as possible using the materials
available to the designers at the time."
Are there non-technical factors that might inhibit the use of biological
solutions? Ulrike Wegst mentioned the importance of awareness and
education, especially when we are dealing with "inspirations drawn from the
principles of the operations of organisms", rather than well-known
substances like wood. How much impact does risk play, both in terms of
design (safety) as well as personal reputation? The investment of time
required to investigate and apply new methods may also encourage staying
with the 'tried and true'.
Building a biological reference library using engineering terminology
sounds like part of the solution, especially if it can express the unique
ways that natural systems have solved problems. Looking back over many of
the examples posted in this thread, is some compelling event also required,
encouraging engineers to look outside of the normal solution set?
Expanding on Ulrike's comment that "It will be easier to sell a solution to
an existing technical problem than to find a problem for a biomimetic
solution", is there a class of problems where the standard technical
solutions are difficult/expensive to implement, or have unacceptable side-
effects?
|