Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
99percentinvisible.org
Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#2Some more real life Bio inspired things - LED inspired from fireflies nano structures, Velcro, camera from human eye more at
https://asknature.org/?s=&p=0&hFR%5Bpost_type_label%5D%5B0%5...
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#3"...and a nose of a kingfisher" - except that the kingfisher dives on that video with open mouth. Something's not right here, what's the point of modelling closed one for "no splash"/no soundwave. It's also low pressure -> high pressure in case of the diving bird and high pressure -> low pressure in case of train leaving a tunnel.
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#4"...and a nose of a kingfisher" - except that the kingfisher dives on that video with open mouth. Something's not right here, what's the point of modelling closed one for "no splash"/no soundwave. It's also low pressure -> high pressure in case of the diving bird and high pressure -> low pressure in case of train leaving a tunnel.
I think they enter the water with a closed mouth and then open it to grab the fish. I see them frequently when I’m kayaking but they are too fast for me to tell which way their mouths are for sure.
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#5Yeah nature got us here, but "here" is a local optimum based on evolutionary selection forces. If you were to design things based on biomimicry rather than first principles, planes would flap their wings, cars would gallop, and computer vision sensors would only perceive visible light. These people are building solutions rather than solving the problem.
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#6Yeah nature got us here, but "here" is a local optimum based on evolutionary selection forces. If you were to design things based on biomimicry rather than first principles, planes would flap their wings, cars would gallop, and computer vision sensors would only perceive visible light. These people are building solutions rather than solving the problem.
The human brain is the best pattern matcher in existence and we continue to learn from it. Think about that.
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#7Yeah nature got us here, but "here" is a local optimum based on evolutionary selection forces. If you were to design things based on biomimicry rather than first principles, planes would flap their wings, cars would gallop, and computer vision sensors would only perceive visible light. These people are building solutions rather than solving the problem.
You are assuming that designers would be overly simplistic about their work. Planes don't use their wings for propulsion, so why would a designer try to make them flap? That action isn't solving the same problem, and any engineer would know that. Likewise, tires roll in response to propulsion, whereas galloping legs are providing power. Frankly, the pistons inside an engine ARE closer to a gallop than to a roll. (Well, maybe not in a Wankel rotary engine, but...)
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#8Yeah nature got us here, but "here" is a local optimum based on evolutionary selection forces. If you were to design things based on biomimicry rather than first principles, planes would flap their wings, cars would gallop, and computer vision sensors would only perceive visible light. These people are building solutions rather than solving the problem.
You are assuming that designers would be overly simplistic about their work. Planes don't use their wings for propulsion, so why would a designer try to make them flap? That action isn't solving the same problem, and any engineer would know that. Likewise, tires roll in response to propulsion, whereas galloping legs are providing power. Frankly, the pistons inside an engine ARE closer to a gallop than to a roll. (Wel…
I think a piston engine is just a different thing than a gallop.
A 1 cylinder engine works a lot better than a 1 legged gallop.
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#9Yeah nature got us here, but "here" is a local optimum based on evolutionary selection forces. If you were to design things based on biomimicry rather than first principles, planes would flap their wings, cars would gallop, and computer vision sensors would only perceive visible light. These people are building solutions rather than solving the problem.
You are assuming that designers would be overly simplistic about their work. Planes don't use their wings for propulsion, so why would a designer try to make them flap? That action isn't solving the same problem, and any engineer would know that. Likewise, tires roll in response to propulsion, whereas galloping legs are providing power. Frankly, the pistons inside an engine ARE closer to a gallop than to a roll. (Wel…
Leonardo da Vinci, notable designer, and many other sophisticated people considered flapping wing aircraft. It’s easy to dismiss it as simplistic hundreds of years later once practical solutions already exist.
Re: Biomimicry: How Designers Are Learning from the Natural World
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming that designers would be overly simplistic about their work. Planes don't use their wings for propulsion, so why would a designer try to make them flap? That action isn't solving the same problem, and any engineer would know that. Likewise, tires roll in response to propulsion, whereas galloping legs are providing power. Frankly, the pistons inside an engine ARE closer to a gallop than to a roll. (Wel…
Leonardo da Vinci, notable designer, and many other sophisticated people considered flapping wing aircraft. It’s easy to dismiss it as simplistic hundreds of years later once practical solutions already exist.
No, flapping wing aircraft simply are less efficent for size scales that can carry a person. That's why the larger a bird's wingspan, the less frequently they flap, such that condors, storks etc. are basically fixed wing gliders.
We in the artificial world do have our own local optima with quad copter drones. Flapping here would be more efficient. Consider seagulls that dive and change direction instantly, and can respond to gusts without missing a beat. We have nothing approaching that maneuverability. This is an active area of research.