Simpler way to test
Get two sharks. Sandpaper one of them.
Getting volunteers to sandpaper a shark (obviously using wet'n'dry) might be tricky though.
Boffins 3D-print biomimetic shark skin
Scientists from Harvard University have used 3D printing to reveal just how sharks lower their energy consumption in a cruise thanks to miniature teeth-like "denticles" on their skin. Sharks are coated with million of these "overlapping tooth-like scales", known to reduce drag, but until George Lauder, James Weaver and Li Wen …
-
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 11:23 GMT Don Jefe
Re: Simpler way to test
Sharks are sandpaper.
Or were. Shagreen is seldom used outside Asian cutlery and sticklers for traditional wood carving anymore.
Besides, everybody knows you shouldn't rub sandpaper of two different kinds together. Doing so can cause adhesive failure in one, or both, of the backing materials as well as contravening about 270 Canadian laws.
-
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 10:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Evolution ...
... is there anything it can't do?!
Well, actually, yeah there are a few things. But it still never ceases to amaze me especially when you see it coming up with things like this...
(and, of course, I am referring to the thing they are trying to copy rather than the - admittedly also very clever - thing that the researchers came up with)
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 11:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Surprised they didn't get better results actually
Mind you, their synthetic one - though technically an impressive achievement - may not be anywhere near as good as the real thing.
As for the bit about swimsuits - weren't certain types of full-body suits with fancy drag-reducing textured surfaces banned for Olympic competition? I don't imagine you'd get away with biomimetic shark skin either. Though for divers it would be great to be able to reduce exertion.
Interesting note - try stroking a shark front-to-back, and it's slick smooth. Try it back-to-front, and the denticles make it rougher than the most grippy sandpaper you've ever known (and I'm comparing it to the super-grippy stuff they paint on the top of Chinooks to help mechanics not slip off). Even sharks without obvious teeth tend to have an enlarged form of these denticles inside the mouth, which can mean if one is even big enough to latch onto a finger, you're not getting that finger back.
Now let's also not ignore the fact that directed surface friction is a useful commodity in itself. Though today's particular lesson is: don't rub a shark up the wrong way.
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 11:18 GMT frank ly
Re: Surprised they didn't get better results actually
A long time ago, as part of a spa/massage experience, I was rubbed down by a lady who wore a genuine sharkskin glove. It really was like a fine but grippy abrasive paper and suprisingly pleasant. By that stage, my body had been pummeled to jelly and I was too relaxed to care about anything.
-
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 11:27 GMT Don Jefe
Biometric Shark Skin
At first I was confused about why anyone would want to create a biometric shark skin. I'm not aware of any facilities that allow entry exclusively sharks and I'm absolutely certain nobody is going to question a shark who presents a credit card for a purchase or a passport at border crossings; any credit card or passport. Other thoughts will be occupying 100% of their mental capacity.
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 11:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Scientists spend money discovering already known facts?
We already knew what the denticles on shark skin do.
Who the fuck funds this stuff? If they're giving money away for old rope, I've got some investments for them. Fuck for the right amount I'm even willing to cut up sharks, and make swim suits out of their skin.
What next? Will they fund making a really soft fluffy fibered parachute so paratchutists can attempt to be as silent as an owl?
There are people starving in the world and the best we can do is piss away time and money on demonstrating something we already know, is what we already know it to be.
(They say men get grumpier as they get older... is it any surprise when we come to realise just what a fucking mess the world (human part of it anyway) is)
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 12:11 GMT Russell Hancock
Re: Scientists spend money discovering already known facts?
The point of this, well points i can think of in about 2 seconds, is:
1) We now have a way to actually CREATE "sharkskin" so now we have a way to use the knowledge that sharkskin is quicker in water... This can be used to make boats more efficient, dive suits that are quicker, surfboards that are quicker...
2) We now have a way to actually measure just how good sharkskin is - i.e. we know it is quicker than not having it but HOW MUCH quicker - should we do all of the things in point 1? yes, yes - it's not as good as real sharkskin but then neither was V1 sharkskin i don't imagine
3) we can now MAKE laser wearing sharks rather than trying to train them - not sure about you but i don't fancy trying to train a shark to shoot the right thing with a laser - it will probably think i am the right thing to shoot based on the fact i caught it and strapped a laser to it's head.
Think thats it for now - anyone else care to add to this list?
Cheers
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 12:21 GMT Elmer Phud
Re: Scientists spend money discovering already known facts?
" If they're giving money away for old rope"
'Old rope' was sections of rope that had beeen used for a hanging.
Sold by the hangman, proces varied depending on who the hangee was and the hanger was.
Oh, and if this world is a mess - it's OUR mess, we made it so stop grumbling.
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 15:55 GMT NumptyScrub
Re: Scientists spend money discovering already known facts?
quote: "We already knew what the denticles on shark skin do."
What this did, which had not been done previously, was quantify the exact effects of specific denticle shape and placement.
from the article: Lauder enthused: "This is the first time that anyone has measured the energetic cost of shark skin and the reduction in swimming cost relative to a smooth surface."
-
Friday 16th May 2014 08:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Scientists spend money discovering already known facts?
What this did, which had not been done previously, was quantify the exact effects of specific denticle shape and placement.
I'm fairly sure anybody with skills in fluid dynamics could have calculated that in a lab, I even suspect someone probably already had.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 13:39 GMT JasonDS
Really?
Surely you would use real shark skin to have a control substance, then you could compare against what you've manufactured to see if really does mimic the same properties? For all we know, sharks might be 20% more efficient than a smooth surface.
Maybe not all sharks are the same - different patterns, groupings on different parts of the body? I'm no marine biologist, but I'm sure these are valid questions?
-
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 15:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Similar work done on Bumble bees
The denticles on shark skin are similar in action to the fibers on a bumble bee exoskeleton. Technically, a bumble bee should not be able to fly but it can.
Both appear to help create a "boundry layer" of fluid between the creature's body and the water or air serving to make the creature slide through the media easier or more efficiently; by reducing overall friction and turbulence.
They are different fluids (air or water) but the idea is the same, fluid slips against fluid instead of directly against the skin.
This boundry layer idea has been used in submarines for some time now. A flexible surface is applied to the steel and it absorbs the turbulence, making it more efficient. That discovery was also an observation of nature as the skin being emulated is that of a dolphin.
-
Thursday 15th May 2014 18:33 GMT John Smith 19
*extremely* regular teeth
Which may be a factor in the relatively small improvement.
But let's keep in mind it's about 6% faster x6% less energy.
together those features may multiply to give a shark with them a significant survival advantage over other sharks.
Who would be quite pathetic by comparison.
-
Friday 16th May 2014 06:08 GMT Fat-Boy-R-Dee
Y'all aren't thinking big enough
Imagine, if you will, that this technology is able to scale up to, say, be able to be applied to a cargo ship or supertanker. If they can get the propulsion optimized to spec, a 10%+ improvement in efficiency (and translated bunker fuel costs) ain't nuthin to sneeze at.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
