Biomimetics with Trade-Offs

Abstract

Our knowledge of physics and chemistry is relatively well defined. Results from that knowledge are predictable as, largely, are those of their technical offspring such as electrical, chemical, mechanical and civil engineering. By contrast, biology is relatively unconstrained and unpredictable. A factor common to all areas is the trade-off, which provides a means of defining and quantifying a problem and, ideally, its solution. In order to understand the anatomy of the trade-off and how to handle it, its development (as the dialectic) is tracked from Hegel and Marx to its implementation as dialectical materialism in Russian philosophy and TRIZ, the Theory of Invention. With the ready availability of mathematical techniques, such as multi-objective analysis and the Pareto set, the trade-off is well-adapted to bridging the gaps between the quantified and the unquantifiable, allowing modelling and the transfer of concepts by analogy. It is thus an ideal tool for biomimetics. An intracranial endoscope can be derived with little change from the egg-laying tube of a wood wasp. More complex transfers become available as the technique is developed. Most important, as more trade-offs are analyzed, their results are stored to be used again in the solution of problems. There is no other system in biomimetics which can do this.

Keywords: Pareto curve; TRIZ; dialectic; intracranial endoscope; inventive principle; trade-off; wood wasp ovipositor.

Figure 6

(a) IP Extract and separate. The remote actuation of the drill tip is a separation in space. (b) IP Use asymmetry. Includes both asymmetry of friction and asymmetry of shape. (c) IP Functional reversal. Alternate between pull and push. (d) IP Divide object or process into similar or different segments, subdivide length. (e) IP Consolidate. Two factors in the class merge components: longitudinal separation and segment before merging.

Figure 6

(a) IP Extract and separate. The remote actuation of the drill tip is a separation in space. (b) IP Use asymmetry. Includes both asymmetry of friction and asymmetry of shape. (c) IP Functional reversal. Alternate between pull and push. (d) IP Divide object or process into similar or different segments, subdivide length. (e) IP Consolidate. Two factors in the class merge components: longitudinal separation and segment before merging.

Figure 1

Megarhyssa drilling into wood with its ovipositor.

Figure 2

Factors leading to the apparent impasse. The orange bubbles define the basic conflict.

Figure 3

(a) TOP for the wasp ovipositor: reliable actions with the subset mechanical stability. (b) TOP for the wasp ovipositor: force due to interaction with the subset force generated.

Figure 4

Ovipositor tip showing the reversed teeth and the prestrained end bending over.

Figure 5

Forces at the tip of the ovipositor boring into a cell wall. T—tension; C—compression; P_crit—critical Euler buckling load.