I agree with Marc - in fact I thought that Galileo had got over the problem that it doesn't matter what it is that you drop - it's still subject to the same forces. So although as Saskia suggests, biological responses to gravity are worth investigating, it's the response, not the necessity, which is to be investigated. A friend of mine designed a very simple accelerometer based on the semi-circular canals of fish - cheaper and better thatn NASA's. I'm very amused by the German definition of a biomimetic product, when the German Textile Institute is touting a textile made with translucent fibres and claiming that it's biomimetically based on polar bear fur. How do you classify a working idea based on a non-existent function derived from a badly interpreted model? You end up the same gum tree as the building in Harare. And that's precisely why I think it's important to have sorted out the biology first, even though a mis-understood phenomenon can still lead to a viable concept!! It's a more risky route with no guarantee. It would be illuminating to ask an insurance company to validate the biomimetic origin of a number of products!
Meanwhile, can I put in a commercial for the International Soc of Bionic Engineering. Apart form the fact that you can join for free, they are currently offering prizes for the best biomimetic ideas. More details on the web site. They will also shortly need a new President. Any nominations??
Julian
|