Hallo,
the Association of German Engineers (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure – VDI)
produced a guideline for biomimetics that makes the distinction easier
(also in English):
VDI 6220. (Draft, June 2011). Biomimetics, Conception and strategy,
differences between bionic and conventional, methods/products.
VDI-Richtlinien. Berlin: Beuth.
Thomas Speck's group made useful investigations on the distinction
between biomimetics and non-biomimetics, but I think it is in German only:
Frey E, Masselter T, Speck T. 2011. Was ist bionisch? -- Eine Analyse
des Ideenflusses von der Biologie in die Technik. Naturwissenschaftliche
Rundschau 64:117-126.
Yours,
Manfred
Am 03.08.2012 12:37, schrieb Julian Vincent:
> From my current readings of the literature and various conferences, there are lots of people who do some experiments on a biological system, get an idea of how it works, and finish off the paper saying that this is obviously a good subject for a technological fix of some sort. There are also many papers in which a semi-working model (often of very questionable efficiency and effectiveness) has been produced (common in robotics) with, again, the statement that this is biomimetic.
> Up to a point.
> But . . . .
> I think that we should have a criterion, based on the original ideas put forward by von Neumann, Otto Schmitt and Jack Steele, that the thing which is biomimetic is a machine or concept (e.g. way or organising something) which works in practice. That is not an easy target to reach and involves all the design, production and testing which are so often forgotten. If you take this as your criterion then I suspect the search becomes easier! I throw into the ring a fire extinguisher and a fuel injector based on the way the bombardier beetle works. Details can be obtained from Swedish Biomimetics in Oxford (write to Andrew Copestake,<[log in to unmask]> copied to Natalie Rousseau<[log in to unmask]>). The boxfish car might be a contender, except that it has never (as far as I know) been made. Velcro is the obvious one. And there are examples in architecture (Gaudi is the obvious one here - although obviously he didn't call the S
agrada Familia biomimetic, and there are lots of bits of his work which are only biomorphic). The European Space Agency works on ideas based on swarming, but I don't know if they've actually made anything.
>
> One area to be shy of is medical, where prosthetic medicine is now bidding for biomimetics status. I think they got tired of the idea of biomechanics, so they are changing the name in the hopes of rejuvenating the topic. I leave you to decide that one!
>
> Julian
>
>
> On 3 Aug 2012, at 07:36, Daniel Weihs wrote:
>
>> I'm glad this group is getting active again.
>> I was asked to give a presentation to a group of engineers& applied
>> mathematicians , on recent examples of biomimetic designs - both mechanisms
>> and structures as wel as any other ideas . Any ideas are welcome and I'll
>> quote the sender ( please send 1-2 powerpoint slides + reference)
>> I'll post the full talk after presenting it on Sept. 3
>> Thanks everyone
>> Danny Weihs
>>
>> Daniel Weihs, Distinguished Professor
>> Head, Technion Autonomous Systems Program
>> Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
>> Technion, Haifa, 32000, Israel
>> T: +97248293806 F:+97248255141 C: +972526386481
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Engineers and biologists mechanical design list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Vincent
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:34 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Reports of death exaggerated
>>
>> I'm getting reports from my tailor about this mailbase - "Never mind the
>> width - feel the quality!"
>> Perhaps he's right.
>>
>> It was an interesting exercise to write (or rather, revise in depth) a book
>> after 20 years. What had changed (apart from me)? Well, lots of stuff on
>> molecular conformations and their mechanical implications, quite a bit on
>> nanotesting of one sort and another, a fair amount on computer modelling.
>> Strangely the topics which hadn't moved very much were the calcified
>> materials - bone, especially. I made some enquiries about this and it was
>> confirmed.
>>
>> Bone hasn't moved much in over 20 years. Nor, for that matter, has mollusc
>> shell. Perhaps the advance is coming with the realisation, which may apply
>> to all biological ceramics, that the matrix isn't a glue - it's a lubricant.
>> Perhaps not throughout the entire volume of the material, but certainly a
>> significant contribution, allowing global strain to double. Strain is then
>> (probably) limited by internal 'imperfections' (i.e. bits which snuggle up
>> to each other in a decidedly non-Cartesian manner) which lock up. Barthelat
>> has shown this in nacre, and bone shows similar behaviour although it hasn't
>> been analysed to the same degree. Which of course ties in with the
>> production of matrix ligaments across the fracture sites. The idea is
>> developed in H. D. Espinosa, J. E. Rim, F. Barthelat and M. J. Buehler,
>> (2009). Merger of structure and material in nacre and bone: Perspectives on
>> de novo biomimetic materials. Progress in Materials Science, 54: 1059-1100.
>>
>>
>> I know that's a few years ago now, but who is applying these ideas in
>> technical composites?
>>
>> Answers on the back of a $1000 note, please, to the following address:
>>
>> Julian Vincent
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Laburnum Cottage
>> 48 Frome Road
>> Odd Down
>> BATH
>> BA2 2QB
>> tel: 01225 835076
>> Mob: 07941 933 901
>> "Structural Biomaterials" now out:
>> http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9774.html
>
--
====================================
Manfred Drack, Dr. Mag.
Department of Theoretical Biology
University of Vienna
Althanstrasse 14
1090 Wien
Austria
Tel: ++43 1 4277 56706
Fax: ++43 1 4277 9567
====================================
|
