Goethite?
Isn't that a pokémon?
HOLY SEA SNAILS! Their TEETH are strong enough to build a plane
Forget the Killer Rabbit from Monty Python, limpets – a type of aquatic snail – have far more power behind their bite, say the scientists who've discovered their teeth are composed of the strongest natural material. The creatures need high strength teeth to scrape algae off rocks. But researchers from Portsmouth University …
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 09:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Not the strongest by far!
Naaaa, everyone knows that the strongest material in the world is Cephaloporcanite* the incredibly strong nanofilament shield that protect the brains of our glorious country's politicians from any form of common sense and keeps their self serving agendas warm and snug.
(* Some cynics may point that the term seems coined from the unlikely mating of the greek root for head and the latin one for pig implying our political class is pig-headed. It was in fact randomly generated by the new automated terminological generator of .gov.uk... the only useful service to-date)
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 09:33 GMT JimmyPage
Back to nature
With the usual caveat about BBC programmes (even BBC4 programmes) being science-lite and gimmick heavy, the recent 2 part documentary about quantum physics in biology (Jim al Khalili) was quite fascinating.
Seems we could learn a lot from nature.
(I was slightly taken aback that a real scientist like JaK would be mixing imperial and metric units though. Shame on him !)
-
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 10:05 GMT JimmyPage
Re: Back to nature
It was in two parts, and if you feel comfortable with the big concepts of quantum mechanics, the first is optional. It describes the history more than anything - although you hear some lesser known names.
The second was more interesting. It explained how biologists have started finding quantum effects all over nature. From memory:
1) Robins navigation systems (detecting infinitesimal magnetism)
2) How plant cells process sunlight so efficiently (using the fact a quantum particle is in all places at once)
3) How enzymes work at a molecular level, using quantum tunneling
4) How the sense of smell distinguishes between similar shaped molecules (by differentiating their quantum "signature")
5) Was an examination into an ongoing hypothesis that evolution has been driven by quantum changes.
All proof that what we knew 30 years ago was incomplete at best and wrong at worst.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 12:18 GMT JimmyPage
Re: Back to nature
Total upvote and respect for mentioning the awesome, and sadly missed Feynman.
If anyone here wants some Kindling, then "What Do You Care What Other People Think" and "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" are great reads.
And the story of his involvement in the Challenger disaster enquiry is well worth a watch.
-
-
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 14:45 GMT JimmyPage
Re: Back to nature
Well I was quoting from memory, and have the excuse of not being a particle physicist.
If I understood the general thrust, it was that the current theory of how smell works - that it's the *shapes* of molecules which receptors recognise and report on - is incomplete. Mainly because there are several isomorphic molecules, which smell completely different. However, molecular bonds have a quantum dimension, which is unique to that molecule.
More here.
To be honest, the thing that impressed me the most was the technique of using isotopes in compounds to produce different quantum signatures. It seemed so ... simple.
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 14:56 GMT phil dude
Re: Back to nature
Smell is modulated by G-protein coupled receptors, which have an "outer" and "inner" part. The inner part is responsible for sending the signal down the control chain. The outer is the bit that becomes adapted through evolution to molecule shapes and does the recognition. We even have a receptor that allows us to smell light (get the pattern? Its called Rhodopsin)
The problem is , as Prof. Brian Cox puts it "It's quantum all the way down". General language often has to approximate quantum.
Mixing "shape" with quantum signature has no real meaning. Shape and charge is probably a more useful description - everything has a quantum signature.
What's *really* interesting about smell is that Humans are so bad at it. But then when you compare us to other mammals (approx receptor density).
Human < Dog < Cat <Rat < Mice.
It would seem Humans don't need such good smell, probably because we walk upright. Hunters (Dog/Cat) need it to hunt.
Mice need very good smell, because their body mass is so low that poisons would be fatal, oh , and they are food for many other species!!
Why use dogs over cats?
Ever tried to train a cat?
P.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 12:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: At the size of a human hair...
"...making an F1 car is going to leave an awfully large number of toothless limpets."
I'd love to know why F1 is always put forward as the pinnacle of engineering technology. It really isn't. Its not that hard to make a light car with a turbo engine that puts out stupid HP but only has to last 200 miles before a complete rebuild, and the idiotic rules make it even more hamstrung.
A real achievement for F1 would be to make the races actually worth watching anymore.
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 14:13 GMT Someonehasusedthathandle
Re: At the size of a human hair...
Because nothing else is based around the idea of building a light car with a turbo engine that runs at 15k rpm minimum.
And a energy recovery system on both the brakes and the turbo that generates 180hp.
And can withstand 190miles (Silverstone) continuously.
And roughly 800miles (rounded down - 4 races per engine) overall before something can be replaced.
And the g's of braking from 200mph multiple times a lap for 52 laps (Silverstone again).
And has to fit into a very small space.
(enough?)
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 14:24 GMT John Smith 19
Re: At the size of a human hair...
"Because nothing else is based around the idea of building a light car with a turbo engine that runs at 15k rpm minimum.
And a energy recovery system on both the brakes and the turbo that generates 180hp.
And can withstand 190miles (Silverstone) continuously.
And roughly 800miles (rounded down - 4 races per engine) overall before something can be replaced.
And the g's of braking from 200mph multiple times a lap for 52 laps (Silverstone again).
And has to fit into a very small space.
(enough?)
You forgot. A cockpit/seat that can allow the drive to survive a 200mph crash without an airbag.
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 15:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: At the size of a human hair...
"Because nothing else is based around the idea of building a light car with a turbo engine that runs at 15k rpm minimum."
The american indy and champ car series get pretty close so its hardly unique.
"And can withstand 190miles (Silverstone) continuously."
Wow , a whole 190 miles. Incredible. Thats only 1/1000th the distance a good road car engine can manage but hey, yeah , I'm impressed!
Rest of blah blah snipped
"(enough?)"
Not even close. Rally cars take far more punishment plus the the racing is actually exciting unlike the tedious procession of F1.
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 15:37 GMT Someonehasusedthathandle
Re: At the size of a human hair...
Apples and oranges. Racehorse to any other. Mo to Bolt.
Okay, on topic. The point is F1 is considered a pinnacle of engineering because every part is custom designed to save 10th's of a second. To save grams. The good filters down to our life. The rubbish is reworked. Regardless of personal opinion the top engineers flock to true challenges, F1 has top engineers. Go look up Adrian Newey. Bask in his bald greatness.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 20th February 2015 04:09 GMT Shades
Re: Desperate Dan hair (that has the strength of 3000 bags of beanos.)
"Stop mixing units: Desperate Dan was not in the Beano! (but the Dandy)"
I think that was the point? Sounds like I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects was a Dandy person rather than Beano. Personally I preferred the Beano.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 15:02 GMT TonyK
You do have proofreaders,right?
Obviously the teeth in the picture can't be both "100 times thinner than the diameter of a human hair" and "just less than a millimetre long". How on earth did that slip past the proofreaders? That "100 times thinner" figure refers to the prepared samples that the scientists put in their strengthometer. You can see a picture at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31500883.
Also I suspect that it's the cross-sectional area that is 100 times less than a human hair, not the diameter.
-
Thursday 19th February 2015 21:13 GMT x 7
not news......
I hate to decry peoples efforts, but I don't believe this is "new" news. I can remember reading 40+ years ago that limpet teeth were supposed to be harder/stronger than diamond. Can't remember where though - New Scientist maybe???
But when you get down to it, it should hardly be a surprise for an animal that crunches rock, both to access food, and to create a better low-tide anchorage site to prevent drying out. They chew the rock to better match the profile of the shell, creating a tighter fit
-
Friday 20th February 2015 00:20 GMT Martin Budden
Why is El Reg dumbing down the sciencey bit?
I read this story in a "normal" newspaper and it was a great article which actually explained why limpet teeth are so strong and why they stay strong even at larger sizes (it's to do with thinner fibres being less susceptible to flaws, knowledge which has obvious potential benefits in carbon fibre manufacture).
But the El Reg article has completely skipped all the detailed sciencey stuff and instead aimed the article at disinterested numptys. Why? Does Kat Hall not realise that we come here for fun FACTS???
Biting the hand that feeds IT
