2009年4月29日 星期三

流感、都市、建築思潮




picture from news BBC

都市的變化與成長,其實與病毒的演變是雷同的。甚至病毒的演化,非常直接的影響都市的運作。墨西哥政府已經禁止餐廳、咖啡店提供飲食服務,除了外帶之外。二者幾乎就是同義的相關名詞。禽、人類、豬流感的病毒基因混合,以新型姿態蔓延全球,跟次級房貸那些貪婪的銀行家所製造出來的金融風暴不也是異曲同工嗎?建築思潮也一樣,此起彼落交融又分離。「動態的世界」需要「動態的觀念」以及「動態的行動」!保守的人請讓開,請不要阻止世界運轉,好嗎?

生活小常識:
禽流感: bird flu
豬流感: swine flu


【轉載】這波疫情 衛署正名「新型流感」

【聯合報╱記者陳惠惠/台北報導】 2009.04.29 02:57 am


中央流行疫情指揮中心指揮官、衛生署長葉金川昨天表示,從墨西哥開始的這波疫情,是由豬、人、鳥流感基因重組出來的新病毒,不該稱為豬流感,應正名為「H1N1新型流感」。

衛署疾管局說,豬流感容易讓外界誤會,以為此病毒只在豬隻間流行,不會人傳染人。事實上,H1N1與豬肉一點關係都沒有,而是在人類身上流傳。

葉金川說,豬肉應煮熟再吃,吃豬肉不會得新型流感。讓他啼笑皆非的是,有媒體報導竟出現「病毒豬」的字眼,他強調,是病毒「株」不是病毒「豬」。

2009年4月28日 星期二

【轉載】保羅.克魯曼專欄-銀行家的報酬又漲回來了



2009-04-28 中國時報 【本報國際新聞中心尹德瀚摘譯】
 二○○七年七月十五日,《紐約時報》登出《富中之富:新鍍金時代的驕傲》,文中吹捧最力的「新大亨」是花旗集團董事長魏爾,他堅稱他和金融界同行是靠對社會的貢獻賺到龐大財富。

 此文登出後不久,魏爾自詡他協助建立的金融體系卻宣告崩潰,過程中造成巨大的附帶損害。就算我們有辦法避免大蕭條慘劇重演,世界經濟也需要多年才能恢復。

 這正好說明為何我們應對《紐時》周日版一篇文章感到不安。根據該文,投資銀行的待遇在去年縮水後又飆漲,已回到二○○七年水準。

 為何我們該焦慮?首先,已無任何理由相信這些華爾街術士真對社會有任何正面貢獻,遑論有正當理由拿天文數字的酬勞。

 切記二○○七年貴氣十足的華爾街並非一向如此。從一九三○年到一九八○年左右,銀行是個沈穩、相當無聊的行業,平均待遇不比其他行業高,但照樣維持經濟巨輪的轉動。

 那為何有些銀行家突然賺進龐大財富?有種說法是,那是對他們在金融創新上發揮創意的報酬。然而此刻很難想像,近年來有任何重大金融創新真的造福了社會。

 聯邦準備理事會主席柏南克試圖為金融創新辯護,他就「好的」金融創新舉出三個例子,一是信用卡(其實不算新構想),二是透支保護,三是次級房貸(我沒瞎掰)。這就是銀行家賴以賺進鉅額報酬的創新?

 有人會辯稱,我們實施的是自由市場經濟,私部門員工的身價由該行業自行決定。這正好觸及我要說的第二點:華爾街實質上已不再屬於私部門,它已經被政府收養,和領取救濟金的人一樣完全依賴政府。

 我說的「收養」不只是已根據「問題資產紓困計畫」挹注金融業的六千億美元,其他還包括聯準會提供的寬鬆資金、聯邦房屋貸款銀行提供的鉅額貸款、聯邦存款保險公司大幅增加保障額度等等。

 讀者大可據理力爭說,為了保護整體經濟必須拯救華爾街,這點其實我也同意。但金融企業受到如此鉅額納稅人的錢挹注,應要學公用事業,而非在營運和待遇方面回到二○○七年。

 讓這些投機炒作者坐領高薪不但離譜,更是危險。歸根結底,為何銀行家要冒高風險?因為成功─甚或只是暫時表面的成功─帶來豐厚報酬,就算搞垮公司,照樣領走上億美元。

 到底出了什麼狀況?為何銀行從業人員的待遇又往上飆?一種說法是只有這種待遇才能留住最好的人才,但此說站不住腳,現在金融業的就業機會劇減,這些人能去哪裡?

 金融企業再度發高薪,只是因為他們有這個能力。他們又開始賺錢,而且怎麼會不賺錢?畢竟拜聯邦政府保證之賜,他們可以低利借錢,再以高利借出。銀行樂得夜夜笙歌,因為不久後可能遭到管制。但也可能不會。從金融媒體可感受到風暴已經過去,股市上漲,經濟開始回穩,歐巴馬政府可能放這些銀行家一馬,頂多只是嚴詞譴責。錯對姑且不論,銀行家似乎相信馬上又可回到以往的好日子。

 我們只能指望領導人能證明他們錯了,並真正貫徹改革。二○○八年,報酬過高的銀行家拿別人的錢冒險,導致世界經濟趴到地上。我們最不需要的就是,再給他們一次惡整的機會。

 (克魯曼為美國普林斯頓大學教授,《紐約時報》專欄作家。)

2009年4月5日 星期日

Michael Fox

另一位有關動態建築的建築師。下面是一段訪談:


Excerpt of an interview with Brian Reynolds of Ohio State University for documentation of the "Meta Media Hyper Culture" symposium held at the Wexner Center in Columbus Ohio in February 2002.


Brian: First, could you tell me a little bit about what you do and how you became interested in this work? Also, how do you see your work and research impacting your own practice and the field in general?


Michael: In a nutshell, the idea is to create spaces and objects that can physically re-configure themselves to meet changing needs. The central issues in making these types of systems are human and environmental interaction (the changes) embedded computational infrastructures (intelligence) and the physical control mechanisms (kinetics). In retrospect I came about these ideas in somewhat of an opposite way than one might expect today. I first became interested in kinetic solutions in architecture with a focus on looking at how such systems can facilitate adaptability. The kinetics then are generally either transformable objects that can dynamically occupy predefined physical space or moving physical objects that can share a common physical space to create adaptable spatial configurations. After exploring numerous kinetic projects with this focus on adaptability it became an obvious next step that such spaces and object should be coupled with some sort of brain that can allow them to reconfigure themselves.

I say I came about this topic in a roundabout way because today there is a great interest in academia, and even the corporate and commercial sectors in intelligent environments. Everywhere we turn there is a smart house or smart office etc. etc. and so the obvious route would be to say that we have this space that is really smart, that understands the environment inside and outside and understands various data about the users including behavioral patterns but what is it doing? This is where I think the kinetics become important; to really extend the notion of enhancing everyday activities to creating spaces and objects that can extend everyday activities and do things that we cannot do or that are very difficult or inconvenient to do. In other words I like to think of the building as a body with bones and muscles and a brain that can control their behaviors, an intelligent environment without the kinetics is like a brain with a body that is incapable of moving and without the brain we can have of course the kinetics but no behaviors. When they are combined to what I call “intelligent kinetic systems” (IKS) they begin to have implications on the profession that are not negligible especially in terms of things like safety, security, spatial efficiency and energy efficiency (such as when coupled with traditional passive sustainable solutions).


Brian: Full scale kinetic architecture is one that embeds computational subsystems into a system capable of transformation through motion. This requires the architect to be fully engaged in the methods of fabrication as well as the programming of the computational subsystems. Does kinetic architecture suggest that architects respond with an equally kinetic process? Does this change the traditional role of the
architect?



Michael: Also I think it is good to point out that nothing I am saying is really new to the field of architecture on a theoretical level but we are really at a point in the profession where such systems are possible and even feasible from an economic standpoint. Architects really need to take a more active role in directing the development of this area of design. To do this we need to have at least a superficial knowledge base of both the engineering in terms of mechanics and fabrication and also the computational substructures. It is typical for architectural students to take courses on structures and HVAC systems etc. that provide the superficial knowledge necessary for design. In professional practice specialists take on these roles. Architects then should also be taking courses on simple mechanics and computation in order to develop the skills necessary to explore, think about, and design intelligently responsive kinetic structures and systems. As architects we are not doing structural calculations on a building and we should not be programming so, in short, no the traditional role of the architect will not change, but we will have new roles of engineering and consultancy.


Brian: Many architects are finding that the increased access to CNC fabrication technologies is allowing them to realize their designs with increased efficiency as well as permitting them to realize designs that would otherwise be impossible or certainly too difficult to construct using traditional methods of construction. How do these technologies, which could be seen as forms of kinetic architecture themselves, influence your process of design?


Michael: I think that the importance of CNC relative to kinetic designs lies more in the design process rather than in terms of fabrication processes. Basically I think that what you are talking about is more referential to form-making. Ironically, CNC was invented in engineering to increase design and manufacturing process performance and was adopted by architects as being useful for presentation models and was considered inappropriate for early stages of design. Only later did architects come to understand that processes such as rapid prototyping could be useful in the design process. This is where I think CNC does have an influence in particular with the design of complex three-dimensional parts and parts that will be set to motion. I think that what CNC has recently afforded architects in terms of realizing (design-to-fabrication) forms is rather profound. Again this was basically adopted from other fields of design (both product and aerospace I believe). Mechanical design also is extremely well developed both in terms of design and fabrication, and it is up to architects to adopt the processes.


Brian: CNC fabrication processes provide dimensional tolerances in material manipulation which are unattainable or at the very least unreasonable to be consistently expected by more traditional methods of fabrication. Does the nature of kinetic architecture require this increased precision?


Michael: This is really a continuation of the above question but I want to point out that it is important to see such systems in kinetic architecture as subsystems. A very smart building should mechanically adopt the paradigm of ubiquitous computing. The autonomous mechanics will prove important for making things that are robust in terms of failure. In getting to your question though, the idea of discrete mechanics has an effect on the dimensional tolerances. In other words the individual parts do have to be precise but not necessarily the larger building as a whole. Think of examples that already exist such as rotating sensor activated doors and escalators etc. These do need to be quite precise in their own operational way but not in terms of their tolerance with the larger architectural whole.


Brian: There is currently reluctance on the part of the automotive industry and the general public to accept “drive by wire” technologies which replace the direct mechanical link between the driver and vehicle with sophisticated sensor systems and a computational subsystem which processes input from the driver. The concern being that if a malfunction, either hardware or software, disrupts the flow of information, the result could be life-threatening. Traveling in a car at 90 mph and a kinetic architecture that responds to conditions of its surrounding environment do not have the same safety concerns, but it does suggest that systems that rely on embedded computational subsystems are only as good as the programs that are processing the information they receive. Could you discuss some of the challenges that face kinetic architecture from a reliability and dependability standpoint?


Michael: Well this is a very important question especially in terms of acceptance. The safety issues are really not comparable however and already have precedent in things like automatic garage doors etc that can be tackled with simple IR shields that detect obstacles in the path of motion. I think however the question of robustness is more important than that of safety. I have story of being in a car in Boston during a snowstorm with power windows that would not roll up. I was furious that there were no manual handles to roll up the windows. There should always be a manual means of controlling the motion or in cases of the objects being too large or heavy to manually move then there must be a means of egress considered such as in elevators. Also related to the notion of robustness is again that the intelligent kinetic systems should be considered discretely. If a rotating wall with a bed on it will not fold up for some reason, it will not prohibit other systems such as partition walls from sliding or rotating etc. In terms of large buildings an automated adaptive kinetic system could be very valuable in terms of energy efficiency as for instance coupled with HVAC systems. Where not only are rooms specifically heated or cooled that are being occupied but the doors and venting systems are physically controlled to manage the inefficiencies. If they are automated discretely, if one door does not close then they system of doors is still operational. In automotive terms, if the windshield wipers do not operate, you will still have headlights. Also I think that the automotive, aerospace and even maritime industries are far more developed in terms of being both intelligent and mechanical than that of architecture. Architecture is really in it’s infancy from an application standpoint and there are many lessons to be learned. The point is we spend most of our lives in buildings and only use cars and airplanes to get from one building to another. I think the second most likely candidate for failure lies not in the computational subsystem (software) but rather in the sensing subsystem (from a hardware standpoint). If a system performs not as expected, it is more likely the result of clouded data input: something is blocking the sensor or providing conflicting data input. When I used to work late at night I would always notice the lights coming on and off in a neighboring office although no one was inside the office. The problem was that the professor had piles of loose papers that were constantly blowing around as a result of the automated ventilation system and the motion of the papers moving would turn on the lights. The remedy was to redirect the motion sensor to only look at the door but I think it is another good lesson.


Brian: From E.J. Marey’s chronophotographic studies to the motion and efficiency studies of the Gilbreth’s and numerous examples in modern art such as Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase, there has been and continues to be a history of exploration into how to describe and capture motion. In your elevator studies for the Porsche collector there is a cinematic nature to the motion of the doors that reminds one
of the opening sequences of a James Bond film or to the aperture of a camera’s lens. The responsive awning project traces the flows of passersby in a fluid wave-like description. Could you comment on the inspirations or ambitions of these seemingly different types of motion description? What are the differences in the computational subsystems of these two projects?


Michael: I suppose that the conceptual link lies in the fact that they are both relative to motion in the part of a third party. In both of these cases it is the spatial conceptualizer (if we get academic). The point is that the motion in architecture is prescribed by a responsive and adaptive behavior. A layer on top of this might be a building shade that tracks the sunlight and also supplies shade relative to the spatial conceptualizer. The door studies were intentionally cinematic to be choreographed when the person drives in and exits. The studies were getting at a complexity that could be inherent in a very simple system. I am a bit disappointed with the end result of the elevator in the sense that it is too straightforward without the complexity/simplicity but it is a real project with a real client and that is a great thing. The saving grace is the layering of the wire mesh that still provides the illusion of complexity with the simplicity of four choreographed doors. The complexity then is really more visual than mechanical is the point. With the façade, I had already designed several responsive awnings prior to this project each dealing with many discrete parts that followed the motion of the pedestrians as they walked along the sidewalk below. This project was conceptualized with my partner Ran Oron when he had the idea of a sand dune on a particular building on 47th and Lexington in New York. The idea of many discrete parts then was translated to a scale where the individual parts become pixilated to the extent of having negligible entities. Upon prototyping and understanding how it would actually be constructed we came to the idea of individual points being articulated enough to be recognizable but still recognizable as a whole. With the help of Axel Killian we began studies in Java to find a motion that would be simple enough to make overall patterns with discrete elements and not loose the essence of the whole. In this project then the actual mechanics played a much more important role in the conceptual development. The computational subsystem is actually quite simple as a means to imbed certain robustness into the façade as a whole. The bars are in vertical strips of 10 both mechanically and computationally. Each vertical strip moves as a whole and only understands what it has sensed and the motion of its neighbor and it’s neighbor’s neighbor on each side. In this sense if any one vertical strip malfunctions the system as a whole will still function and the vertical strip of 10 bars can be removed and repaired.


Brian: What are some of the goals of your kinetic architecture? Is there the potential that kinetic architecture can increase efficiency? Do the methods by which these kinetic systems and computational subsystems are produced lend themselves to mass production or do they remain unique responses to unique situations?


Michael: Most of this I have answered in the first additional question, but I will answer in response to mass production vs. unique situational use. Probably the most innovative designs will always arise from unique situational use, and a driving force lies in the changing patterns of human interaction with the built environment. The ability to not only monitor but also physically control remote environments may have consequentially important implications. I think there is a great potential for applications that arise from understanding what an architectural space or object is currently doing and how it can do it better:

How can issues of privacy and public be dynamically responded to? How can thermal, visual, and acoustic conditions be dynamically responded to? How can spatial sharing be optimized, and natural daylight articulated? And how can architecture extend the notion of enhancing our everyday activities by doing things that are impossible or very difficult for us to do. We should really ask not what architecture is, but what can it do.

Friedman, Yona

整理一些動態建築的資料,發現這位前輩,轉載一些他的資料。雖然他的可動性,是針對使用者出發,強調使用者可自主性地改變自身的空間,但或多或少也影響了後面的可動式(kinetic)建築。

original webpage:
http://moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A8109&page_number=1&template_id=6&sort_order=1

Source: Oxford University Press
French architect of Hungarian birth. He studied architecture at the Technical University, Budapest (1943), but he left Hungary in 1945, completed his training at the Technion, Haifa (Dip. Arch., 1948) and subsequently taught. In 1956 he attended CIAM X in Dubrovnik, which confirmed his belief that requirements generated by technological progress and demographic growth were too great to be solved by traditional social, urban and architectural values and structures. In 1957 he settled in Paris and founded the Groupe d’Etude d’Architecture Mobile (GEAM) with Paul Maymont, Frei Otto, Eckard Schultze-Fielitz, Werner Runhau and D. G. Emmerich. The group’s manifesto was Friedman’s L’Architecture mobile (1958), in which he rejected the idea of a static city. In contrast he developed the principle of ‘infrastructure’, a skeletal metal ‘space-frame grid’ of several levels, on which mobile lightweight ‘space-defining elements’ would be placed. He proposed to adapt these ideas for large cities by superimposing this grid on the existing fabric of London, Tunis and New York, or by allowing commercial facilities to be built over the network of high speed roads in Los Angeles.

Friedman’s ambition was ‘to help the inhabitant to become master of his own design’, the sub-title of L’Architecture mobile, and to encourage architects to become less self-important and to gain an awareness of how they could be useful to their client. Applications of his participatory concepts were used in an unexecuted project for the CDC headquarters in Ivry-sur-Seine (1976) and the Lycée David d’Angers, Angers (1978–80). His ideas, conveyed by simple diagrams and cartoons, gained a significant popular appeal. His exhibition Une Utopie réalisée drew a record attendance at the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris in 1975 and it later toured Latin America, sponsored by the French government.

A gifted self-promoter, Friedman wrote and lectured extensively, and in the early 1960s his ideas began to be discussed worldwide, especially in Japan where they were adopted by Kenzo Tange and exponents of ‘metabolist’ architecture. Many urban planners, architects and critics found his concepts too simplistic and objected that occupants would never accept the state of being disconnected from ground level. In Pour une architecture scientifique (1970), Friedman attempted to prove that his visions were based on careful reasoning. After 1976 he enlarged the scope of his activities, adapting his theories to the needs of developing countries. In 1981 he began work with Eda Schaur (b 1945) on a museum where techniques and methods for self-reliance would be demonstrated to disadvantaged people, resulting in the Museum of Basic Technology, Madras, India.

Isabelle Gournay
From Grove Art Online

© 2009 Oxford University Press

2009年3月29日 星期日

Biomimetics: Design by Nature


What has fins like a whale, skin like a lizard, and eyes like a moth? The future of engineering.

By Tom Mueller
Photograph by Robert Clark

One cloudless midsummer day in February, Andrew Parker, an evolutionary biologist, knelt in the baking red sand of the Australian outback just south of Alice Springs and eased the right hind leg of a thorny devil into a dish of water. The maneuver was not as risky as it sounds: Though covered with sharp spines, the lizard stood only about an inch high at the shoulder, and it looked up at Parker apprehensively, like a baby dinosaur that had lost its mother. It seemed too cute for its harsh surroundings, home to an alarmingly high percentage of the world's most venomous snakes, including the inland taipan, which can kill a hundred people with an ounce of its venom, and the desert death adder, whose name pretty well says it all. Fierce too is the landscape itself, where the wind hissing through the mulga trees feels like a blow dryer on max, and the sun seems three times its size in temperate climes. Constant reminders that here, in the driest part of the world's driest inhabited continent, you'd better have a good plan for where your next drink is coming from.

This the thorny devil knows, with an elegance and certainty that fascinated Parker beyond all thought of snakebite or sunstroke. "Look, look!" he exclaimed. "Its back is completely drenched!" Sure enough, after 30 seconds, water from the dish had wicked up the lizard's leg and was glistening all over its prickly hide. In a few seconds more the water reached its mouth, and the lizard began to smack its jaws with evident satisfaction. It was, in essence, drinking through its foot. Given more time, the thorny devil can perform this same conjuring trick on a patch of damp sand—a vital competitive advantage in the desert. Parker had come here to discover precisely how it does this, not from purely biological interest, but with a concrete purpose in mind: to make a thorny-devil-inspired device that will help people collect lifesaving water in the desert.

A slender English academic with wavy, honey-blond hair beneath a wide-brimmed sun hat, Parker busied himself with eyedroppers, misters, and various colored powders, the better to understand the thorny devil's water-collecting alchemy. Now and then he made soft, bell-like, English-academic sounds of surprise and delight. "The water's spreading out incredibly fast!" he said, as drops from his eyedropper fell onto the lizard's back and vanished, like magic. "Its skin is far more hydrophobic than I thought. There may well be hidden capillaries, channeling the water into the mouth." After completing his last experiment, we gathered up his equipment and walked back to our Land Cruiser. The lizard watched us leave with a faint look of bereavement. "Seeing the devil in its natural environment was crucial to understanding the nature of its adaptations—the texture of the sand, the amount of shade, the quality of the light," Parker said as we drove back to camp. "We've done the macro work. Now I'm ready to look at the microstructure of its skin."

A research fellow at the Natural History Museum in London and at the University of Sydney, Parker is a leading proponent of biomimetics—applying designs from nature to solve problems in engineering, materials science, medicine, and other fields. He has investigated iridescence in butterflies and beetles and antireflective coatings in moth eyes—studies that have led to brighter screens for cellular phones and an anticounterfeiting technique so secret he can't say which company is behind it. He is working with Procter & Gamble and Yves Saint Laurent to make cosmetics that mimic the natural sheen of diatoms, and with the British Ministry of Defense to emulate their water-repellent properties. He even draws inspiration from nature's past: On the eye of a 45-million-year-old fly trapped in amber he saw in a museum in Warsaw, Poland, he noticed microscopic corrugations that reduced light reflection. They are now being built into solar panels.

Parker's work is only a small part of an increasingly vigorous, global biomimetics movement. Engineers in Bath, England, and West Chester, Pennsylvania, are pondering the bumps on the leading edges of humpback whale flukes to learn how to make airplane wings for more agile flight. In Berlin, Germany, the fingerlike primary feathers of raptors are inspiring engineers to develop wings that change shape aloft to reduce drag and increase fuel efficiency. Architects in Zimbabwe are studying how termites regulate temperature, humidity, and airflow in their mounds in order to build more comfortable buildings, while Japanese medical researchers are reducing the pain of an injection by using hypodermic needles edged with tiny serrations, like those on a mosquito's proboscis, minimizing nerve stimulation.

"Biomimetics brings in a whole different set of tools and ideas you wouldn't otherwise have," says materials scientist Michael Rubner of MIT, where biomimetics has entered the curriculum. "It's now built into our group culture."

Shortly after our trip to the Australian desert, I met up with Andrew Parker again, in London, to watch the next phase of his research into the thorny devil. Walking from the Natural History Museum's entrance to his laboratory on the sixth floor, we traversed warehouse-size halls filled with preserved organisms of the most exuberant variety. In one room were waist-high alcohol jars of grimacing sea otters, pythons, spiny echidnas, and wallabies, and one 65-foot-long case containing a giant squid. Other rooms held displays of gaudy hummingbirds, over-the-top toucans and majestic bowerbirds, and shelf after shelf filled with beetles as bright as gemstones: emerald-green scarabs, sapphire-blue Cyphogastras, and opalescent weevils.

To Parker this was not a mere collection of specimens, but "a treasure-trove of brilliant design." Every species, even those that have gone extinct, is a success story, optimized by millions of years of natural selection. Why not learn from what evolution has wrought? As we walked, Parker explained how the metallic sheen and dazzling colors of tropical birds and beetles derive not from pigments, but from optical features: neatly spaced microstructures that reflect specific wavelengths of light. Such structural color, fade-proof and more brilliant than pigment, is of great interest to people who manufacture paint, cosmetics, and those little holograms on credit cards. Toucan bills are a model of lightweight strength (they can crack nuts, yet are light enough not to seriously impede the bird's flight), while hedgehog spines and porcupine quills are marvels of structural economy and resilience. Spider silk is five times stronger by weight and vastly more ductile than high-grade steel. Insects offer an embarrassment of design riches. Glowworms produce a cool light with almost zero energy loss (a normal incandescent bulb wastes 98 percent of its energy as heat), and bombardier beetles have a high-efficiency combustion chamber in their posterior that shoots boiling-hot chemicals at would-be predators. The Melanophila beetle, which lays its eggs in freshly burned wood, has evolved a structure that can detect the precise infrared radiation produced by a forest fire, allowing it to sense a blaze a hundred kilometers away. This talent is currently being explored by the United States Air Force.

"I could look through here and find 50 biomimetics projects in half an hour," Parker said. "I try not to walk here in the evening, because I end up getting carried away and working until midnight."

In one such late-night creative burst eight years ago, Parker decided to investigate the water-gathering skills of a desert beetle by building an enormous sand dune in his laboratory. This tenebrionid beetle flourishes in the Namib Desert in southwestern Africa, one of the world's hottest, driest environments. The beetle drinks by harvesting morning fogs, facing into the wind and hoisting its behind, where hydrophilic bumps capture the fog and cause it to coalesce into larger droplets, which then roll down the waxy, hydrophobic troughs between the bumps, reaching the beetle's mouth. Parker imported several dozen beetles from Namibia, which promptly scampered all over the lab when he opened the box, but eventually settled contentedly on the dune. There, using a hair dryer and various misters and spray bottles, Parker simulated the conditions in the Namib Desert well enough to understand the beetle's mechanism. He then replicated it on a microscope slide, using tiny glass beads for the bumps and wax for the troughs.

For all nature's sophistication, many of its clever devices are made from simple materials like keratin, calcium carbonate, and silica, which nature manipulates into structures of fantastic complexity, strength, and toughness. The abalone, for example, makes its shell out of calcium carbonate, the same stuff as soft chalk. Yet by coaxing this material into walls of staggered, nanoscale bricks through a subtle play of proteins, it creates an armor as tough as Kevlar —3,000 times harder than chalk. Understanding the microscale and nanoscale structures responsible for a living material's exceptional properties is critical to re-creating it synthetically. So today Andrew Parker had arranged to view the skin of a thorny devil museum specimen under a scanning electron microscope, hoping to find the hidden structures that allow it to absorb and channel water so effectively.

With a microscopist at the helm, we soared over the surface of the thorny devil's skin like a deep-space probe orbiting a distant planet, dipping down now and then at Parker's request to explore some curious feature of the terrain. There seemed to be little of interest in the Matterhornlike macrostructure of an individual thorn, though Parker speculated that it might wick away heat from the lizard's body or perhaps help capture the morning dew. Halfway down the thorn, however, he noticed a series of nodules set in rows, which seemed to grade down to a larger water-collection structure. Finally we dove into a crevasse at the base of the thorn and encountered a honeycomb-like field of indentations, each 25 microns across.

"Ah-ha!" Parker exclaimed, like Sherlock Holmes alighting upon a clue. "This is clearly a superhydrophobic surface for channeling water between the scales." A subsequent examination of the thorny devil's skin with an instrument called a micro-CT scanner confirmed his theory, revealing tiny capillaries between the scales evidently designed to guide water toward the lizard's mouth. "I think we've pretty well cracked the thorny devil structure," he said. "We're ready to make a prototype."

Enter the engineers. As the next phase in his quest to create a water-collection device inspired by the lizard, Parker sent his observations and experimental results to Michael Rubner and his MIT colleague Robert Cohen, a chemical engineer with whom he has worked on several biomimetics projects in the past. Rubner and Cohen are neatly groomed gentlemen who speak in clipped phrases and look frequently at their watches. While Parker likes to explain his work via a stroll through a botanic garden or by pulling out drawerfuls of bright beetles in a museum, they are more likely to draw a tidy graph of force over time, or flip through a PowerPoint presentation on their laptop. But a pooling of biological insight and engineering pragmatism is vital to success in biomimetics, and in the case of Parker, Cohen, and Rubner, it has led to several promising applications inspired by the Namib beetle and other insects. Using a robotic arm that, in a predetermined sequence, dips slides into a series of nanoparticle suspensions and other exotic ingredients, they have assembled materials layer by layer that have the same special properties as the organisms. Soon they hope to apply the method to create a synthetic surface inspired by thorny devil skin.

Though impressed by biological structures, Cohen and Rubner consider nature merely a starting point for innovation. "You don't have to reproduce a lizard skin to make a watercollection device, or a moth eye to make an antireflective coating," Cohen says. "The natural structure provides a clue to what is useful in a mechanism. But maybe you can do it better." Lessons from the thorny devil may enhance the water-collection technology they have developed based on the microstructure of the Namib beetle, which they're working to make into water-harvesting materials, graffiti-proof paints, and self-decontaminating surfaces for kitchens and hospitals. Or the work may take them in entirely new directions. Ultimately they consider a biomimetics project a success only if it has the potential to make a useful tool for people. "Looking at pretty structures in nature is not sufficient," says Cohen. "What I want to know is, Can we actually transform these structures into an embodiment with true utility in the real world?"

Which, of course, is the tricky bit. Potentially one of the most useful embodiments of natural design is the bio-inspired robot, which could be deployed in places where people would be too conspicuous, bored to tears, or killed. But such robots are notoriously difficult to build. Ronald Fearing, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, has taken on one of the biggest challenges of all: to create a miniature robotic fly that is swift, small, and maneuverable enough for use in surveillance or search-and-rescue operations.

If a blowfly had buzzed into Fearing's office when we first sat down on a warm March afternoon, the windows flung wide to the garden-like Berkeley campus, I would have swatted it away without a second thought. By the time Fearing finished explaining why he had chosen it as the model for his miniature aircraft, I would have fallen on bended knee in admiration. With wings beating 150 times per second, it hovers, soars, and dives with uncanny agility. From straight-line flight it can turn 90 degrees in under 50 milliseconds —a maneuver that would rip the Stealth fighter to shreds.

The key to making his micromechanical flying insect (MFI) work, Fearing said, isn't to attempt to copy the fly, but to isolate the structures crucial to its feats of flying, while keeping a sharp eye out for simpler—and perhaps better—ways to perform its highly complex operations. "The fly's wing is driven by 20 muscles, some of which only fire every fifth wing beat, and all you can do is wonder, What on Earth just happened there?" says Fearing. "Some things are just too mysterious and complicated to be able to replicate."

After CalTech neurobiologist Michael Dickinson used foot-long plastic wings flapping in two tons of mineral oil to demonstrate how the fly's U-shaped beat kept it aloft, Fearing whittled the complexity of the wing joint down to something he could manufacture. What he came up with resembles a tiny automobile differential; though lacking the fly's mystical 20-muscle poetry, it can still bang out U-shaped beats at high speed. To drive the wing, he needed piezoelectric actuators, which at high frequencies can generate more power than fly muscle can. Yet when he asked machinists to manufacture a ten-milligram actuator, he got blank stares. "People told me, 'Holy cow! I can do a ten-gram actuator,' which was bigger than our whole fly."

So Fearing made his own, one of which he held up with tweezers for me to see, a gossamer wand some 11 millimeters long and not much thicker than a cat's whisker. Fearing has been forced to manufacture many of the other minute components of his fly in the same way, using a micromachining laser and a rapid prototyping system that allows him to design his minuscule parts in a computer, automatically cut and cure them overnight, and assemble them by hand the next day under a microscope.

With the microlaser he cuts the fly's wings out of a two-micron polyester sheet so delicate that it crumples if you breathe on it and must be reinforced with carbon-fiber spars. The wings on his current model flap at 275 times per second—faster than the insect's own wings—and make the blowfly's signature buzz. "Carbon fiber outperforms fly chitin," he said, with a trace of self-satisfaction. He pointed out a protective plastic box on the lab bench, which contained the fly-bot itself, a delicate, origami-like framework of black carbon-fiber struts and hairlike wires that, not surprisingly, looks nothing like a real fly. A month later it achieved liftoff in a controlled flight on a boom. Fearing expects the fly-bot to hover in two or three years, and eventually to bank and dive with flylike virtuosity.

To find a biomimetic bot already up and running—or at least ambling—one need only cross the bay to Palo Alto. Ever since the fifth century B.C., when Aristotle marveled at how a gecko "can run up and down a tree in any way, even with the head downward," people have wondered how the lizard manages its gravity-defying locomotion. Two years ago Stanford University roboticist Mark Cutkosky set out to solve this age-old conundrum, with a gecko-inspired climber that he christened Stickybot.

In reality, gecko feet aren't sticky—they're dry and smooth to the touch—and owe their remarkable adhesion to some two billion spatula-tipped filaments per square centimeter on their toe pads, each filament only a hundred nanometers thick. These filaments are so small, in fact, that they interact at the molecular level with the surface on which the gecko walks, tapping into the low-level van der Waals forces generated by molecules' fleeting positive and negative charges, which pull any two adjacent objects together. To make the toe pads for Stickybot, Cutkosky and doctoral student Sangbae Kim, the robot's lead designer, produced a urethane fabric with tiny bristles that end in 30-micrometer points. Though not as flexible or adherent as the gecko itself, they hold the 500-gram robot on a vertical surface.

But adhesion, Cutkosky found, is only part of the gecko's game. In order to move swiftly—and geckos can scamper up a vertical surface at one meter per second—its feet must also unstick effortlessly and instantly. To understand how the lizard does this, Cutkosky sought the aid of biologists Bob Full, an expert in animal locomotion, and Kellar Autumn, probably the world's foremost authority on gecko adhesion. Through painstaking anatomical studies, force tests on individual gecko hairlets, and slow-motion analysis of lizards running on vertical treadmills, Full and Autumn discovered that gecko adhesion is highly directional: Its toes stick only when dragged downward, and they release when the direction of pull is reversed.

With this in mind, Cutkosky endowed his robot with seven-segmented toes that drag and release just like the lizard's, and a gecko-like stride that snugs it to the wall. He also crafted Stickybot's legs and feet with a process he calls shape deposition manufacturing (SDM), which combines a range of metals, polymers, and fabrics to create the same smooth gradation from stiff to flexible that is present in the lizard's limbs and absent in most man-made materials. SDM also allows him to embed actuators, sensors, and other specialized structures that make Stickybot climb better. Then he noticed in a paper on gecko anatomy that the lizard had branching tendons to distribute its weight evenly across the entire surface of its toes. Eureka. "When I saw that, I thought, Wow, that's great!" He subsequently embedded a branching polyester cloth "tendon" in his robot's limbs to distribute its load in the same way.

Stickybot now walks up vertical surfaces of glass, plastic, and glazed ceramic tile, though it will be some time before it can keep up with a gecko. For the moment it can walk only on smooth surfaces, at a mere four centimeters per second, a fraction of the speed of its biological role model. The dry adhesive on Stickybot's toes isn't self-cleaning like the lizard's either, so it rapidly clogs with dirt. "There are a lot of things about the gecko that we simply had to ignore," Cutkosky says. Still, a number of real-world applications are in the offing. The Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which funds the project, has it in mind for surveillance: an automaton that could slink up a building and perch there for hours or days, monitoring the terrain below. Cutkosky hypothesizes a range of civilian uses. "I'm trying to get robots to go places where they've never gone before," he told me. "I would like to see Stickybot have a real-world function, whether it's a toy or another application. Sure, it would be great if it eventually has a lifesaving or humanitarian role.…"

His voice trailed off, in a wistful, almost apologetic tone I had heard undercutting the optimism of several other biomimeticists. For all their differences in background, temperament, and ultimate aims, most practitioners conclude their enthusiastic discourses on their bio-inspired invention with a few halfhearted theories on how it may someday make its way into the real world. Often it sounds like wishful thinking.

For all the power of the biomimetics paradigm, and the brilliant people who practice it, bio-inspiration has led to surprisingly few mass-produced products and arguably only one household word—Velcro, which was invented in 1948 by Swiss chemist George de Mestral, by copying the way cockleburs clung to his dog's coat. In addition to Cutkosky's lab, five other high-powered research teams are currently trying to mimic gecko adhesion, and so far none has come close to matching the lizard's strong, directional, self-cleaning grip. Likewise, scientists have yet to meaningfully re-create the abalone nanostructure that accounts for the strength of its shell, and several well-funded biotech companies have gone bankrupt trying to make artificial spider silk. Why?

Some biomimeticists blame industry, whose short-term expectations about how soon a project should be completed and become profitable clash with the time-consuming nature of biomimetics research. Others lament the difficulty in coordinating joint work among diverse academic and industrial disciplines, which is required to understand natural structures and mimic what they do. But the main reason biomimetics hasn't yet come of age is that from an engineering standpoint, nature is famously, fabulously, wantonly complex. Evolution doesn't "design" a fly's wing or a lizard's foot by working toward a final goal, as an engineer would—it blindly cobbles together myriad random experiments over thousands of generations, resulting in wonderfully inelegant organisms whose goal is to stay alive long enough to produce the next generation and launch the next round of random experiments. To make the abalone's shell so hard, 15 different proteins perform a carefully choreographed dance that several teams of top scientists have yet to comprehend. The power of spider silk lies not just in the cocktail of proteins that it is composed of, but in the mysteries of the creature's spinnerets, where 600 spinning nozzles weave seven different kinds of silk into highly resilient configurations.

The multilayered character of much natural engineering makes it particularly difficult to penetrate and pluck apart. The gecko's feet work so well not just because of their billions of tiny nanohairs, but also because those hairs grow on larger hairs, which in turn grow on toe ridges that are part of bigger toe pads, and so on up to the centimeter scale, creating a seven-part hierarchy that maximizes the lizard's cling to all climbing surfaces. For the present, people cannot hope to reproduce such intricate nanopuzzles. Nature, however, assembles them effortlessly, molecule by molecule, following the recipe for complexity encoded in DNA. As engineer Mark Cutkosky says, "The price that we pay for complexity at small scales is vastly higher than the price nature pays."

Nonetheless the gap with nature is gradually closing. Researchers are using electron- and atomic-force microscopes, microtomography, and high-speed computers to peer ever deeper into nature's microscale and nanoscale secrets, and a growing array of advanced materials to mimic them more accurately than ever before. And even before biomimetics matures into a commercial industry, it has itself developed into a powerful new tool for understanding life. Berkeley animal locomotion expert Bob Full uses what he learns to build running, climbing, and crawling robots—and they in turn have taught him certain fundamental rules of animal movement. He has discovered, for example, that every land animal, from centipedes to kangaroos to humans, has precisely the same springiness in its legs and generates the same relative energy when it runs. Kellar Autumn, the gecko-adhesion specialist and a former student of Full's, regularly borrows bits of Cutkosky's Stickybot to compare them with the animal's natural structures and to test central assumptions about gecko biology that cannot be learned from the geckos themselves.

"It's no problem to apply a 0.2 Newton preload to a patch of gecko adhesive and drag it in a distal direction at one micron per second," Autumn says. "But try asking a gecko to do the same thing with its foot. It'll probably just bite you."

2009年3月23日 星期一

amphibious amphicoach tourist bus



網上看到水陸兩用的遊覽車,想到跨界的設計,設計原型的意義。曾經聽到有人說,原型是根本、本質、不可在減少的性質之類的說法,應該是基本型的意思。我對於原型,不是抱持這樣的想法。相反地,原型不是事物基本的性質,而是打破事物既有性質的方式,藉此重夠事物的秩序。而這輛車是一個小小的示範,如何重構我們對事物的認知。

i browsed the internet and found this interesting amphibious tourist bus which reminds me the meaning of a "prototype", a crossing boundary design. i heard some people defined a prototype as an essensial, unreduceable object which means "Being basic!". as for me, i disagree this aspect. In the opposite, a prototype is a way by which we break the existing organizational structure and redefine its texture order. this amiphicoach is an example which shows how we re-construct our definition towards a "tourist bus" or the boundary between land and water.