@explorergrace @pablo @weka @robert_p_king I'm not an engineer but I've often wondered, while biking home into a Christchurch noreasterly, whether there's an engineering solution to cancelling out, or even reversing, wind direction at ground level. Some sort of solid scoopy sails on power poles, that pivot to face the wind. Maybe generate electricity at the same time. I can dream. 😃
@explorergrace @pablo @weka @robert_p_king Which [!tangent alert!] also reminds me of another thing I puzzle over while biking into a head wind. Why don't trees generate food from the wind? And why doesn't kelp make food from the currents in the ocean? There's a lot of energy roaring about that life, so far, doesn't seem to have evolved a way to tap into. #ScienceMystery #Biology
@joncounts those are very good questions. They certainly exploit that energy to distribute their genetic material... maybe the problem is there's no mechanical analogue to photosynthesis... at least I can't think of one (off the top of my head) @explorergrace @pablo @weka @robert_p_king
@lightweight @explorergrace @pablo @weka @robert_p_king I've got a science paper somewhere that poses the same question, and then puzzles over why evolution has overlooked one possible mechanism. Many bacteria and protists scoot about in water by using ATP (the currency of cell energy) to move their flagella (hairs). It's not clear (at least not to the authors of this paper) why a stationary bacteria having its flagella moved by the water couldn't run this pathway in reverse and make itself ATP.
@joncounts @lightweight fascinating discussion! It reminded me of this book you might enjoy from a biomechanicist about why wheels and rotary motion are so cool. It's surprising that there are so few (any?) examples of macroscopic rotary motion in living organisms, which seems key for harvesting kinetic energy from sources like wind or tides https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo23918290.html
@askennard @joncounts @lightweight Ivan Illych comments somewhere that Native Americans decided not to use the wheel (for transportation) in order to limit power. He might have mentioned all the round shapes in art and ornaments (dream-catchers?) to suggest that not applying the shape to hauling was conscious...
@bsmall2 @askennard @lightweight Interesting! Thanks for that. This conversation keeps on going off in more interesting tangents. I guess wheels for transportation aren't that useful without well formed roads, and roads make sense only for sedentary farming cultures with several large villages. (Although, to my very limited understanding, I thought some native American nations had those. I'm well out of my depth now.)
@askennard @joncounts @lightweight
Maybe it's a bit of an argument from incredulity, but there are no obvious steps to making rotating parts from joints and such. And a lot of issues like nerves and veins.. Evolution usually changes what it already has. You know a nerve down under the aorta just to go up to the larynx again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve
Microscopically, Mitochondria have rotating parts.
As have _bacterial_ flagella, maybe they can run in reverse? (1/2)
@askennard @joncounts @lightweight But do bacteria even tend to attach themselves? And if they do could they at near sufficient numbers find good spots?
And if they attach themselves, they're tiny, the gradient of velocity across the bacteria might be too small.. (Water flow is often modeled assuming zero velocity at the wall)
Protists are bigger, but i don't think their flagella and cilia are easily converted. (2/2)
@jasper @askennard @lightweight Thanks Jasper. Those are interesting points. Bacteria certainly form complicated biofilm colonies on surfaces in water, but maybe there's not any usable energy in a water flow at that small scale, especially right up against a surface. Perhaps this would only work at larger scales.
Here's the paper I found when I was first wondering about this. See the bit speculating about mechanotrophs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life10040042
@joncounts seems to me (my inner engineer) that nature isn't great at well balance, perfectly round & smooth, axels and bearings... which are probably needed for any larger scale rotating things. Similarly, clever rotating electrical contacts and plumbing aren't things with an analogue in nature, so far as I know. Could be the limiting factor in taking advantage of rotational energy in the environment. @jasper @askennard
@joncounts @askennard @lightweight looks it doesn't consider intermediary steps of it's evolution. (which make it seem possibly unlikely..)
Like i'd define `PsuedoLife(condition)` as:
* A identifiable pattern
* Which contains information, which...
* Affects the chance of the same pattern occurring later.
* In the given `condition`.
Suppose a problem is that the `condition` could depend on `life` for informational processes, i.e. virusses. But non-virii also depend on other life for food...
@joncounts @askennard @lightweight not sure involving thermodynamics into it is the way to go..
If you just simulate a random thing that thermodynamics does not apply on, you could have life in that... I.e. https://thelifeengine.net
Which is probably a very limited form of life, ultimately. Maybe someone should make a continuous movement version instead of the pixelation. Or hell, a C version, the javascript was also pretty inefficient when i looked at it.
@askennard @lightweight Brilliant. Thanks very much Andrew. That sounds interesting.