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
|