On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Filippo A. Salustri
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Norbert,That's a pretty detailed "shot" you took!
Clearly, setting up some good case studies will require a lot of work, and may lead to a number of dead ends in cases where good documentation really cannot be found or doesn't exist.
Seems like a great research project, though. Now if only there were a way to get funding for it....
/fas
On 22 August 2012 17:48, Norbert Hoeller
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I took a shot at applying these criteria to some of the examples which Julian questioned in https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1208&L=biomimetics&D=0&P=12409. I think the PAX impeller meets the 'outcome' criteria. As I understand it, impellers are mature technology where improvements are relatively small. The PAX impeller has demonstrated dramatically better efficiency in real-life situations. Jay Harman says the inspiration came from observing seaweed that seemed to have weak connections to rocks but was able to deal with strong surge. His observations led him to a unique understanding of how fluid moves, which he believes underlies a lot of natural phenomena. His work led to complex fluid dynamics models that have resulted in several different impeller shapes which have been tested by independent third parties.
The Shinkansen bullet train story involves both redesign of the pantograph as well as the shape of the nose. Nakatsu clearly states that the owl and the kingfisher inspired him to search for solutions to noise problems that at the time (project started in 1989) seemed intractable using existing knowledge and methods. That said, the overall design of the quieter pantograph appears to be standard engineering with the possible exception of the vortex generators. My knowledge and search skills are inadequate to determine if vortex generators and reduced noise was well understood in the early 1990s. The process chain relating to the nose is problematic in that tests on scale models appears to have occurred concurrently with computer simulations, both of which identified that a shape similar to that of the kingfisher delivered the best results.
I agree that the Eastgate example involved at best an inaccurate analogy. I do not have enough knowledge of either architecture or this project to determine how well the design meets the other attributes above. Supposedly the energy consumption is dramatically less than a 'business as usual' design, but as Julian pointed out many cultures have come up with low-tech solutions well-adapted to their environments.
I think developing a good case study becomes increasingly difficult as we use form, process and systems for our analogies. On the surface, a Living Machine is a fairly direct analogy to a wetland. Then again, the solution has been successfully implemented as a cost-effective alternative to traditional waste water treatment. It delivers the desired function in a resilient and adaptable manner in a way that people can directly observe (I doubt visiting a sewage treatment plant is high on most people's 'have to see' list). The process of seeding and then allowing the plants to adapt also seems biomimetic. In this case, 'quality of service' characteristics seem as important as the functionality.