Do you know about Sharklet? It was inspired by sharkskin: http://www.sharklet.com/technology/
Jack
John J. Mecholsky, Jr., Ph.D
Materials Science & Engineering Department
237A Rhines Hall
PO Box 116400
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-6400
Telephone: 352 846 3306
FAX: 352 846 3355
-----Original Message-----
From: Engineers and biologists mechanical design list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Vincent
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ghosties
I certainly try to stick to that positive viewpoint. However - - mention of shark skin brings up another problem. How many biomimetic design solutions are actually due to physicists and engineers having worked out how a particular phenomenon works, then it's been recognised in biology and hailed as a new phenomenon? Shark skin certainly falls into that category.
Velcro is good, though, so are cats' eyes as road markings and Lotus effect. I think gecko tape is OK. I agree that a prep. list would be a useful thing.
One of the problems about doing science is knowing the history behind various ideas. I am reading Gerry Pollack's latest book on the strange physics of water. He describes what he calls the exclusion zone - a layer of water molecules about 100 µm thick built up rapidly against a surface - that he discovered and has studied. It's been known in biology for quite a few years under the name of the unstirred layer, but Gerry found that out only later. I suspect biomimetics is in the same category - if you don't know your history you are condemned to relive it. If you *do* know your history you can apply some of the earlier ideas - which is what happened with shark skin, once the full connection had been made.
Julian
On 16 May 2013, at 14:17, Daniel Weihs wrote:
> Hello Julian
>
> The best way is to describe real biomimetic systems that are of public
> interest, and well known ( but not the biomimetic aspect) Thus
> sharkskin drag reducing surfaces, Velcro , etc. are good examples,
> that all of us, when talking with the public , should point out. A
> prep. List may be useful
>
> Danny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Engineers and biologists mechanical design list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Vincent
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Ghosties
>
> There are quite a few stories which do the rounds regularly of systems
> which purport to be derived biomimetically and are nothing of the
> sort. I have researched some of these, since it seems to me that it's
> important to sort out how ideas can profitably be moved from biology
> to technology, and counter-examples might be useful as examples of
> bad science, wishful thinking, post hoc propter hoc, etc.
>
> The ones I know of are:
>
> **Roof of the Crystal Palace: The corrugated roof was invented in
> 1810 or earlier by John Claudius Loudon, an inventive
> horticulturalist, some 40 years before the Crystal Palace was designed
> and (as far as I can tell) before people in the UK had come across the
> floating leaves of the lily, Amazonica.. The corrugated roof bears no
> relation to the leaves of lily, but the half-round arch which tops the
> Crystal Palace (not present in the original drawings) is very
> reminiscent of the leaf in its design. There may be a connection there. A result of lax reportage by the Press?
> **Eiffel Tower: This was the first structure to be designed according
> to wind loadings. Its hierarchical strutted structure is probably a
> result of limited access to the site. The Tower is nothing to do with
> the structure of bones, tulip stems, or anything else biological.
> **Sydney Opera House: Nothing whatsoever to do with shells. It's a
> shell structure, but that's a technical description. Nothing in the
> original accounts of its design or structure says anything about a biomimetic origin.
> **Polar Bear light guides: The bear's hair does not function as a
> light guide (shown experimentally) although light guides arranged in
> the same way can have useful properties.
> **Eastgate Centre, Harare: Doesn't work like a termite mound
> (technically as a stack - chimney - which can draw air through the
> system) because termite mounds don't work like that! The building was
> designed before people understood how the nest's gas exchange system
> really works (it seems to be more like our lungs, semi-tidal and not
> mixing very much). And people ignore that insects can cope with a
> wide range of CO2 in the air surrounding them.
>
> Any more to add to this hit list (there must be!)?
> How do we rectify these fairy tales?
>
> Julian Vincent
|