Rhino horns and paper cups: Deceptive similarities between natural and human designs
- 2 Downloads
One cannot assume that resemblances between the mechanical devices of human technology and those produced by the evolutionary process reflect either specific copying of nature by people or some particular point of functional superiority. A third alternative is that the two mechanical contexts derive quite different advantages from a given arrangement. While this latter might appear unlikely, one can argue that it underlies such things as the use of conical shapes, helical tensile structures, spheres and cylinders, beams and columns of relatively low torsional stiffness, and geodesic shells.
KeywordsBiomimetics biomechanics functional morphology
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cook T A 1914 The Curves of Life (London: Constable)Google Scholar
- Crane H R 1950 Principles and problems of biological growth; Sci. Mon. 70 376–379Google Scholar
- Oberg E, Jones F D and Horton H L 1984 Machinery’s Handbook 22nd edition (New York: Industrial Press)Google Scholar
- Pettigrew J B 1908 Design in Nature (London: Longmans)Google Scholar
- Thompson D’Arcy W 1917 On Growth and Form (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
- Vogel S 1998 Cats’ Paws and Catapults: Mechanical Worlds of Nature and People (New York: W W Norton)Google Scholar