 |
 |
That is right, Julian, I already replyed to Sam that the formulation of the problem was hardly formulated. This initial stage - setting goals, detecting problems, total "diagnostics" of the whole situation - is essential. As for mono- or poly-cultures - it is great to employ robots, but there are lot of ways to avoid monocultural strategies without robots with the existing technologies and machinery. The solutions are mainly in the spatial lay-outs of the fields. Permaculture gives many nice paragons. Regards Nikolay Bogatyrev Quoting Julian Vincent <[log in to unmask]>: > I think most of the replies showed that the question itself was > ill-formed. Sam's question was really about direct use of natural > resources, whereas the answers were about the *best* use of natural > resources (which actually ties in with Michael's answer). > Additionally, some of the anwers were concerned with applying concepts > from 'wild' nature to farming, getting away from monocultures and > allowing natural ways of pest control to be better expressed > (monocultures make pests). With modern computerised farming and > selective robotic cropping it should be possible to crop individual > plants within a mixed population. Are there any real advantages? > > Julian > > > On 20 Jan 2009, at 12:27, Michael Ellison wrote: > >> Samuel’s Idea: >> >> I've been thinking that we may be able to design more sustainable >> products if we can use >> organic "waste" (like fallen leafs, mowed grass from city parks or >> fodder from farming >> operations) and transform their fibers into carpets for example, or >> may be clothing. Is >> this technically possible to do while achieving the level of >> functionality of conventional >> products? Could we design a sustainable manufacturing process that >> mimics nature to >> create such type of products? >> >> >> >> Having come of age in what used to be the School of Textiles at >> Clemson University, I can offer some thoughts on Samuel’s idea. >> (From a quick read of the ensuing email storm, his idea seems to >> have gotten lost.) >> >> I presume that you, Samuel, are considering making fibers from the >> cellulose in the matter that you listed, since, with the possible >> exception of “fodder from farming operations,” if that includes >> things such as flax, the fiber-like structures in the items you >> mentioned do not have the necessary properties for a textile >> material. Over the decades of textile fiber research, many plants >> have been studied as a source of cellulose from which to make >> regenerated cellulose fibers, such as rayon. The basic chemical >> composition of most materials is such that they do not lend >> themselves well to the process. In addition, the process is far >> from sustainable, given our current method of processing. >> >> That said, it may well be that grasses, given that they have an >> aspect ratio that at least has the same sense as that of a fiber >> (long length and small diameter), may find use as a reinforcing >> component in a composite material (non-fired clay bricks of course >> is an example), or as a structure-forming component in their own >> right (baskets, for example). Grass carpets may certainly be an >> option, but longevity and marketability would be an issue. However, >> it is only a matter of imagination and need that limits potential >> applications of these materials. Of course, how sustainable this is >> depends on how it is done. I am skeptical about being able to make >> fibers from these materials for use in textiles, however. >> >> Michael >> >> >> Michael S. Ellison, Ph.D. >> Professor >> School of Materials Science and Engineering >> 161 Sirrine Hall Box 340971 >> Clemson University >> Clemson, SC 29634-0971 >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> http://mse.clemson.edu/htm/faculty/Ellison.htm >> Voice: 864.656.5956 >> FAX: 864.656.5973 >> Cell: 864.650.0020 >> email: [log in to unmask] >> >> From: Samuel Bautista Lazo <[log in to unmask]> >> Reply-To: Engineers and biologists mechanical design list >> <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:42:53 -0500 >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Conversation: I'm looking for areas of research in design for >> sustainability applying biomimetics >> Subject: I'm looking for areas of research in design for >> sustainability applying biomimetics >> >> Dear all, I would appreciate your wise advice. >> >> I'm a 23 year old PhD student, I just joined the University of >> Liverpool to do Research in >> Design for Sustainability. >> >> I really want to do something meaningful with my life, my time and >> energy, that's why I >> ended up doing research in Design for Sustainability. >> >> In my dreams I would like to go even a step further to design and >> manufacture products >> that heal the environment, I like calling this "Grow-ability" >> (Growing more of the life >> support systems) mimicking the tree that when it grows it is good, >> it sequesters carbon, >> it creates oxygen, provides habitat to hundreds of species, and so >> on and so forth, but >> HOW DO I GET TO THE SPECIFICS? HOW COULD BIOMIMETICS HELP ACHIEVE GROW- >> ABILITY? >> >> From my first survey of the literature I sense that most of the >> efforts in Biomimetics are >> channeled to the design of functionality in products and that there >> is less effort put into >> biomimetics applied to eco-design. Is this picture true? >> >> >> My Idea: >> >> I've been thinking that we may be able to design more sustainable >> products if we can use >> organic "waste" (like fallen leafs, mowed grass from city parks or >> fodder from farming >> operations) and transform their fibers into carpets for example, or >> may be clothing. Is >> this technically possible to do while achieving the level of >> functionality of conventional >> products? Could we design a sustainable manufacturing process that >> mimics nature to >> create such type of products? >> >> Thank you very much! >> Samuel >>