New book - Biomimetics

My new book, Biomimetics, is now on sale. It looks at the ways in which technology and engineering have been inspired by nature - from the idea for Velcro that came from a burdock burr, to self-healing concrete. As I comment in the book:

This book has turned out to be very different from the one I originally intended to write. The reality of what has happened in this field is at odds with the glossy marketing that refers to it (or, for that matter, practically every book that has been written about it). This lack of following expectation is not a bad thing. Talk to any scientist, and they will tell you that science gets interesting when the world does not behave the way we expect it to. Based on this metric, biomimetics and its implications for our understanding of the use of naturally inspired science and technology in new products and design is very interesting indeed.

Rather than tell you why I think it's wonderful (perhaps with a touch of bias), here's what Publishers Weekly had to say:

In this illuminating study, science writer Clegg investigates how scientists and engineers take inspiration from nature. Highlighting inventions modelled on natural structures and processes, he tells how Swiss engineer George de Mestral got the idea for Velcro from the burrs stuck to his dog’s fur; University of Akron graduate student Arnob Banik created tire treads modelled on the toe pads of tree frogs; and Dutch microbiologist Hendrik Jonkers developed a concrete mix featuring calcium carbonate–producing bacteria capable of filling cracks. Clegg also explores less successful attempts to harness the power of nature and details how Mercedes designed a bulky concept car resembling the build of a box fish, only to realise that “most of the fish’s excellent ability to change direction and dart around came not from its shape... but from the unusual operation of its fins.” Clegg is careful not to overhype biomimetic products (he expresses skepticism toward the claim of the Japanese company Teijin that its Morphotex fabric—which, like peacock tail feathers, gets its colour from how its texture refracts light, rather than from pigmentation—somehow reduces textile waste), but he remains optimistic that the future might hold self-healing iPhone screens and greener energy production. Jam-packed with fascinating ideas, this is a treat for pop science readers.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can buy Biomimetics from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org - or find out more (or get a signed copy) at my website.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog