Addition:
Also if we analyse THE WHOLE SYSTEM we will see that this problem also
could be solved by various manipulations of the very tunnel itself,
the cover materials of the train, the micro/meso-structure of the
train surface, the layout of the ajacent urban territories, the active
acoustic dampers, etc. Nothing of these options were even
mentioned!... He also tells us about "inspiration"... What about
serious PROFESSIONAL analysis made by biologist? Can we imagine the
situation: ornithologist makes a design of a train in is inspired by
some reminiscenses from his childhood about some steam engines....
I realise that there is no perfect comparison... but all these
practical biomimetic projects are never properly biologically
substantiated...
Correct me, please, if I am wrong.
Nikolay
Quoting Julian Vincent <[log in to unmask]>:
> To start with I thought the kingfisher beak story was another urban
> myth. But it seems that it's true (link below). I still ask myself
> why engineers need to use the kingfisher as an intellectual mediator
> for streamlining, which is not a foreign topic for them. And there are
> lots of birds in the kingfisher family (e.g. kookaburra) which don't
> dive into water but have pretty much the same shaped beak. Why not a
> cormorant, whose dive is much more severe than the kingfisher?
>
> http://www.japanfs.org/en_/newsletter/200503-2.html
>
> Julian Vincent
> ------------------------------------------------
> MA, PhD, DSc, FRES, MIMMM, CEng, FIMechE
> Laburnum Cottage
> 48 Frome Road
> Odd Down
> BATH
> BA2 2QB
> tel: 01225 835076
> Mob: 07941 933 901
> [log in to unmask]
|