OK, so let's say that "natural materials and structures have particularly
attractive mechanical properties". But it is a fact that in advanced
structures where the customer is willing to pay really big money for
high-strength and/or high-stiffness to density ratios (e.g. aircraft and
sporting equipment) natural materials are never used. So, is this a
conspiracy, or are the engineers just plain stupid?
Am I raining on someone's parade? Ah, yes, if it rains most "natural
materials" begin losing some of their "attractive mechanical properties".
Now don't get me wrong; I am in favor of trees continuing to be made from
wood. If they started making trees from graphite reinforced epoxy I would
be very unhappy.
Spoil Sport (aka Kalman Schulgasser)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prof Peter Gosling" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:45 PM
Subject: Examples of the benefits of biomimetic materials & structures
I am looking for examples (evidence) to support the claim that natural
materials and structures have particularly attractive mechanical properties.
In particular, I would like to put together a table of properties
(normalised by density?), with comparisons to more conventional materials
including modern composites.
I would welcome any data & details.
Many thanks, Peter Gosling.
|