Functioning ‘mechanical gears’ seen in nature (2013)(cam.ac.uk)
cam.ac.uk
Functioning ‘mechanical gears’ seen in nature (2013)
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/functioning-mechanical-gears-seen-in-nature-for-the-first-time
33 comments
Issus was included in a recent episode of "Nature" on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/video/natures-miniature-miracles-c7il7p/
http://www.pbs.org/video/natures-miniature-miracles-c7il7p/
This is almost as impressive as the Pistol Shrimp who uses a sonic weapon to incapacitate it's prey:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC6I8iPiHT8
Or for that matter the much more commonly known electric eel.
Or for that matter the much more commonly known electric eel.
While not quite a gear structure in the strictest sense, don't forget about the amazing flagellar motor[1] in bacteria!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Motor
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Motor
I was amazed when I first learned of this, finally finding something like an axle and wheel in a living organism.
Study: Interacting Gears Synchronize Propulsive Leg Movements in a Jumping Insect
Citation: Malcolm Burrows, Gregory Sutton. Science. 13 Sep 2013: Vol. 341, Issue 6151, pp. 1254-1256.
Link: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1240284
DOI: 10.1126/science.1240284
Abstract: Gears are found rarely in animals and have never been reported to intermesh and rotate functionally like mechanical gears. We now demonstrate functional gears in the ballistic jumping movements of the flightless planthopper insect Issus. The nymphs, but not adults, have a row of cuticular gear (cog) teeth around the curved medial surfaces of their two hindleg trochantera. The gear teeth on one trochanter engaged with and sequentially moved past those on the other trochanter during the preparatory cocking and the propulsive phases of jumping. Close registration between the gears ensured that both hindlegs moved at the same angular velocities to propel the body without yaw rotation. At the final molt to adulthood, this synchronization mechanism is jettisoned.
Citation: Malcolm Burrows, Gregory Sutton. Science. 13 Sep 2013: Vol. 341, Issue 6151, pp. 1254-1256.
Link: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1240284
DOI: 10.1126/science.1240284
Abstract: Gears are found rarely in animals and have never been reported to intermesh and rotate functionally like mechanical gears. We now demonstrate functional gears in the ballistic jumping movements of the flightless planthopper insect Issus. The nymphs, but not adults, have a row of cuticular gear (cog) teeth around the curved medial surfaces of their two hindleg trochantera. The gear teeth on one trochanter engaged with and sequentially moved past those on the other trochanter during the preparatory cocking and the propulsive phases of jumping. Close registration between the gears ensured that both hindlegs moved at the same angular velocities to propel the body without yaw rotation. At the final molt to adulthood, this synchronization mechanism is jettisoned.
That reminds me to the Oklo natural fission reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reacto...
This is very interesting. It is important to remember that "man-made" and "natural" are on the same continuum. We are a part of nature, and vice-versa. This discovery is stunning, but not surprising, given the other incredible inventions by mother nature in the history of evolution.
On the one hand, you're right: Humans are a part of nature.
On the other hand, the definition of "natural" is "untouched by humans".
On the other hand, the definition of "natural" is "untouched by humans".
I heard someone use 'Nature' as untouched-by-humans. With the use of a capital. They didn't give any rationale.
Maybe once Nature has been corrupted by humans it ceases to be such.
Woe is human -- with our ontological flagellation. (We grant the existence of Nature only to turn it back on ourselves.)
Maybe once Nature has been corrupted by humans it ceases to be such.
Woe is human -- with our ontological flagellation. (We grant the existence of Nature only to turn it back on ourselves.)
Man, it’s just a useful label for something that occurs independently of human presence. No need to break out the vogon poetry for that.
Just looked up the Vogons. From Wikipedia:
> Vogon poetry is described as "the third worst poetry in the Universe"
That's quite a good insult, really. Well, if what I had done was poetry. So a good insult in a different situation.
> Vogon poetry is described as "the third worst poetry in the Universe"
That's quite a good insult, really. Well, if what I had done was poetry. So a good insult in a different situation.
Vogons are perfectly capable of corrupting Nature without the help of humans. And even restoring Nature by wiping out humans to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
At least he didn't say it was bad as Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings's poetry about decaying swans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/poetry.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxPeIiU2kx4
Or the Electronic Bard's horrible poems:
http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/lem/HorriblePoems.html
Despair not, never give up, and just keep practicing: there's always room for improvement:
http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/lem/WonderfulPoems.html
At least he didn't say it was bad as Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings's poetry about decaying swans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/poetry.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxPeIiU2kx4
Or the Electronic Bard's horrible poems:
http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/lem/HorriblePoems.html
Despair not, never give up, and just keep practicing: there's always room for improvement:
http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/lem/WonderfulPoems.html
> Despair not, never give up, and just keep practicing: there's always room for improvement
There's nought to improve. It wasn't poetry. & if you-all are suggesting my prose is poetic, then that's a compliment, not a zing.
There's nought to improve. It wasn't poetry. & if you-all are suggesting my prose is poetic, then that's a compliment, not a zing.
Sure, super useful.
That doesn't seem like a good definition.
If I pick up a baby bear in the woods and play with it for a moment before its mom finds out, does it cease to be natural?
If I don a wig, am I covering my unnatural hair with artificial hair?
If I pick up a baby bear in the woods and play with it for a moment before its mom finds out, does it cease to be natural?
If I don a wig, am I covering my unnatural hair with artificial hair?
>That doesn't seem like a good definition.
There's no such thing as a "good" definition. We begin with the definition, not with some pre-existing concept (which would require an earlier definition of the same thing).
The definition is what it is: just a name we use to collect certain phenomena together.
There's no such thing as a "good" definition. We begin with the definition, not with some pre-existing concept (which would require an earlier definition of the same thing).
The definition is what it is: just a name we use to collect certain phenomena together.
I think that the disagreement stems from the difference between what you and him mean by definition.
We use words to describe, and to categorize stuff. But naturally this vague. Everybody undestands if you describe a shirt as blue.or green, but most people would find it hard to describe when one turns to another, where the boundary between them is. So we use other names for that, or describe it as blueish green, or something similar.
To get rid of confusion, handle edge cases, and for other reasons, we define formal defenitions, which are different from the ambiguous idea we have of something.
What the comment you replied to means, is that the formal definition doesn't fit his idea of what is natural. You on the other hand are saying that the formal definition is the only (valid) meaning of the word, and so it can't be good or bad.
We use words to describe, and to categorize stuff. But naturally this vague. Everybody undestands if you describe a shirt as blue.or green, but most people would find it hard to describe when one turns to another, where the boundary between them is. So we use other names for that, or describe it as blueish green, or something similar.
To get rid of confusion, handle edge cases, and for other reasons, we define formal defenitions, which are different from the ambiguous idea we have of something.
What the comment you replied to means, is that the formal definition doesn't fit his idea of what is natural. You on the other hand are saying that the formal definition is the only (valid) meaning of the word, and so it can't be good or bad.
Yes.
Not to mention that "anything untouched by humans" is not the formal definition of "natural."
Not to mention that "anything untouched by humans" is not the formal definition of "natural."
> There's no such thing as a "good" definition.
This is completely useless.
> We begin with the definition
No. We begin with a name, used to describe a particular entity, phenomenon, or class thereof. As the name comes into greater use, its meaning becomes known through some measure of positive (this is X) and near miss (this is like X, but not X), and eventually a definition is clarified that attempts to capture those linkages between the word and the represented things.
This is completely useless.
> We begin with the definition
No. We begin with a name, used to describe a particular entity, phenomenon, or class thereof. As the name comes into greater use, its meaning becomes known through some measure of positive (this is X) and near miss (this is like X, but not X), and eventually a definition is clarified that attempts to capture those linkages between the word and the represented things.
Following that reasoning we could say everything is a continuum, and that wouldn't be a useful observation.
[deleted]
Another not man made thing. I have to say I'm surprised I thought it would be to inefficient to grow something like this for an organism..
ps: that said, it seems hidden enough to keep a little bit of credit to our ancestors brains I guess :)
ps: that said, it seems hidden enough to keep a little bit of credit to our ancestors brains I guess :)
This was featured in the August 2015 Awake magazine [1] on the back cover. A copy of the article is here [2].
[1] The Awake magazine is widely distributed for free by Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious evangelising work that is now banned in a few countries including Russia.
[2] https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201508/issus-l...
[1] The Awake magazine is widely distributed for free by Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious evangelising work that is now banned in a few countries including Russia.
[2] https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201508/issus-l...
Ok, and this was published two years earlier in 2013. What’s the point?
The point is, the mentioned magazine (and its sister) holds the world record for 1st and 2nd most distributed magazine in the world as well as most widely translated magazine. 41 million copies of this article was distributed in hundreds of languages, so many people have already seen this.
This precedes Justin Bieber's video for "Where Are Ü Now" by a couple of years.
Please no more downvotes by people who clearly haven't watched this film all the way through, or who somehow avoided ever seeing Justin Bieber's.
> Please no more downvotes when you cannot even understand how irrelevant this comment is.
FTFY
FTFY
I was not warned that the entire second half of the film, about an art project, would be considered off-topic.
You also didn't explain why it was on-topic. If you respond to a science article with a reference to a music artist which as far as I can see is entirely unrelated, without explaining what's going on, you shouldn't be surprised about downvotes.
Like most children, I loved insects. In 2nd grade I wrote a poem about insects that so impressed my teacher that I was promoted from the “slow” 2nd grade class to the “advanced” 2nd grade class. It’s my first memory of experiencing pride.
But I didn’t actually love insects, I loved studying them. To the young mind these are just animated toys which you could freely disassemble and experiment.
When I was around 9, I recall taking my collection of insects and using my saliva as to perform a pre-selection test to determine which insects in the collection could potentially be amphibious. The next step was to take the ones that performed well and increase the severity of the experiment in hopes of discovering an amphibious insect.
My father was in our yard at the time and, for some reason, I paused to ask, “is it OK if I kill these bugs”. To which he replied “you can kill them, but don’t let them suffer”. I don’t recall if I proceeded with my full water immersion experiment. But I do recall the use of the word “suffer” had implications that would soon end all my research. Kill is used metaphorically in mechanical systems, you “kill” an engine, but it comes back to life later. But there is no creative interpretation of the word suffer.
Years later I had the similar experience my first year in EE grad school. I wanted to research/improve cochlear implants as aiding the disabled is a noble pursuit of study. But then I went to meet a friend of mine, a PhD candidate, in the lab, he was literally eating a sandwich, talking to me, while operating on auditory system of a chinchilla. Maybe it was a cadaver, it was a really healthy-looking one if it was and I didn’t ask. I just wanted to leave so he could focus on his patient and so that I could reconsider what else I could study.
To be clear, my comment is not a criticism of biological research and I am grateful for the resulting knowledge and benefits. It is Sunday morning and I just felt compelled to write.