Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Whales inspire better blade designs
csmonitor.com — Biologist Frank Fish discovered that these bumps, called tubercles, are this creature's secret weapon, allowing a whale the size of a school bus to make tight turns and capture prey with astonishing agility. "This can be applied to any lifting surface, like airplane wings or windmill blades or sailboat masts," he says.
petsheep- 669 diggs
- digg it
- petsheep, on 05/16/2008, -1/+22Frank Fish, yes, that's his name,...the design inspires energy efficiency and many different uses, score one for the whale.
- blakeage, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Will the whales be compensated for the rights to the design?
- cawpin, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3It definitely made the story a little weird to read. Take this for example, "Fish found that humpback fins act a little differently."
I read that and went "WTF?" Always read every sentence starting at the beginning I guess.
Also, later in the article..."Envira-North Systems, Canada's largest supplier of industrial ceiling fans, with 75 percent of the market, recently licensed the design for a new line of fans that measure up to 24 feet in diameter."
Licensed? What? Who'd they pay? The whales? God?- bwa236, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I'm sure there is a patent or patent application holder for this. People rarely make the mistake of publishing anything prior to applying for patent protection, mainly because such disclosure would be used against them.
Many inventions come about by pure discovery or accident. I am sure this is patentable.- kurtu5, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Actually if you publish, you have a year or so to apply for a patent. Anyone else who patents the idea after you publish will not be able to hold their patent because you have prior art. And by publish, I mean you can write an editorial to a paper, take out a one day ad in a paper with your idea or even post a comment on digg.
So its better to not patent, but to publish immediately. Then you can take your time to patent it correctly.
- kurtu5, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Actually if you publish, you have a year or so to apply for a patent. Anyone else who patents the idea after you publish will not be able to hold their patent because you have prior art. And by publish, I mean you can write an editorial to a paper, take out a one day ad in a paper with your idea or even post a comment on digg.
- bwa236, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I'm sure there is a patent or patent application holder for this. People rarely make the mistake of publishing anything prior to applying for patent protection, mainly because such disclosure would be used against them.
- troyfoley, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1it would mean more if biologist michael mammal made the discovery...
- sanman, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Maybe that Swiss jet-pack guy could use the tubercles on his next design
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -42/+10Hurray, there's the "design" word again applied to nature - more proof that life was created - fitting that we name living things as creatures. Did the whale really earn the score itself or did its Creator?
- burketo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+14how is this proof of anything other then that whales who developed growths on the end of their fins were better at catching prey and thus survived to pass this trait on?
infact i would go further and ask; if this was intelligently designed, why do all whales not have these bumps?- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1Who developed? - did you say "whales". I didn't know that whales were self-genetic engineers?
- burketo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5have you ever developed an ulcer or a cold? did you do that with shear force of will or something?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/develop i'll skip to the good part:
your definition:
to create or produce especially by deliberate effort over time (transitive verb)
my definition:
1 a: to go through a process of natural growth, differentiation, or evolution by successive changes
2: to become gradually manifest.
(intransitive verb)
don't try and twist words until you know what they mean. - kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1Ulcers and colds are degenerative natural developments much like mutations.
But development into a functional design by only through intelligent action because statistically, for a natural process to develop design is statistically impossible. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3@ken
Wrong! From wikipedia:
Cold: Acute viral nasopharyngitis, or acute coryza, usually known as the common cold, is a highly contagious, viral infectious disease of the upper respiratory system, primarily caused by picornaviruses (including rhinoviruses) or coronaviruses.
Ulcers: A major causative factor (60% of gastric and up to 90% of duodenal ulcers) is chronic inflammation due to Helicobacter pylori that colonizes (i.e. settles there after entering the body) the antral mucosa. The immune system is unable to clear the infection, despite the appearance of antibodies.
Functional design:
Your claim is unsupported, and requires justification. It is not inherently true, nor even *apparently* true. A "function" is only defined by human terms, and is not a property inherent in the life form itself. Mother nature, after all, can't see functions and purposes. All it sees are molecules and atoms clashing around. A storm cloud has many parts that work together functionally to produce lightning and thunder. However, that function is only an interpretation by the human mind, not an inherent property that the storm cloud can comprehend.
Statistics:
What math are you using here? Regardless, simply because an event, or a chain of events has an extremely low probability of occurring does not mean that it can not occur. If that were true, then no one would ever have won the lottery, been bitten by a shark, or been struck by lightning. - burketo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3"development into a functional design by only through intelligent action because statistically, for a natural process to develop design is statistically impossible."
i gather you mean that statistically it is so rare for a mutation to be of any use that it makes it impossible.
actually the opposite is true and has been shown to be true countless times. for one example:
Staphylococcus aureus is a common bacteria which lives - among other palces - in the noses of most people and on the odd occassion causes an infection. methicillin is an antibiotic related to penicillin. methicillin kills staph. A. however, some staph. A. mutated (around the 50's i think) and became resistent to methicillin, therefore ensuring it's survival. this is known as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA. this evolution can and has been recreated in a lab, because all you need is for a bacteria to replicate a couple of million times and the statistical probability of a useful(from the bacteria's point of view) mutation is basically unity ( or 100% ( or fo' shizzle)). if you have a more complicated organism you have more likelihood of mutations etc. and if you have millions of years you have evolution.
your maths is wrong. Darwin is right. - kenrayd, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1The math is correct and Darwin was wrong as far as discrediting the Creator. He gets credit for the painstaking observations, but that's all.
All the examples you used involved an organism which never changed it's identity. That kind of mutation ability was already built into organisms by the Creator but He is not to blame for the harmful organism; that came about because of the sinful conditions of earth.
But there has never been demonstrated an incidental change of an organism which made it into a new identity with "higher complexity." We're not talking about the chances of a shark bite or lightning strike. We're talking about countless events to form a functioning "life" incidentally and then each event having enough suvivability to make it to the next event - statistically the chances are infinitesimal. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4You have provided no evidence for any of the ridiculous assertions you gave. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Dimensio, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2"But development into a functional design by only through intelligent action because statistically, for a natural process to develop design is statistically impossible."
Please provide the statistical calculations and justify all values incorporated. Please explain the mechanisms of the "intelligent action" through which the "development" was accomplished, and describe the observations that constitute evidence of the occurrence of these mechanisms. Be specific.
- burketo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5have you ever developed an ulcer or a cold? did you do that with shear force of will or something?
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -8/+2Why? because God did not create all whales equal, just like He didn't create birds equal - some don't fly but some that don't fly can sure swim. Ostriches were made primarily for their comical value.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Evidence for this assertion?
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1The evidence is demonstrated by your common sense and sense of humor when you see an ostrich in action.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Claiming that something is "common sense" is a poisoning-the-well fallacy. The "evidence" you submit is subjective and based solely upon your own interpretation.
- Cerebron, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0It isn't even proof that "whales who developed growths on the end of their fins were better at catching prey and thus survived to pass this trait on."
But why other whales don't have these traits is a good question for both sides.- ApokalypseNow, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Simply put, either those traits were not advantageous to that particular group of whales and their behaviors, or the variation that produces these traits has not shown up or not been rewarded by selection properly so as to cause it to have a large impact on those populations.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1Who developed? - did you say "whales". I didn't know that whales were self-genetic engineers?
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -4/+12The "design" word was applied to the wing surface, not the whale. Man-made wings are designed. Life evolved. This is hardly evidence of life being "created", nor is it anything that would require a supernatural explanation.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Yes and man used the fin design to make their designs better. Man has many man-made designs because they copy designs from nature.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Man has copied structures found in nature, but there exists no evidence that those structures have supernatural origins. That structures in nature exist alone is not evidence for your position.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1The evidence for the supernatural is found in prayer. If you ever venture to try it without human conditions, then you're spiritual light will turn on.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1It's one thing to talk about the supernatural power that did the designing - no one comprehends that. But if your talking about just design itself in raw nature which implies a Designer (OK "proof" is a little strong) - but design in and of itself is so abundant, the library of congress could not hold the listings.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Prayer to what? Vishnu? Allah? FSM? The invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer? Each of these has as much evidence as the next, though some are more popular than others. Prayer to any of them is neither objective nor empirical.
Also, you're = you are, your = third-person possessive.
Again, that structures exist in nature is not evidence that they were designed by some third party, nor is it evidence for that third party's existence. There is no evidence that directly points to design.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Yes and man used the fin design to make their designs better. Man has many man-made designs because they copy designs from nature.
- Pinkertinkle, on 05/16/2008, -7/+4Did He design your girlfriend too? She looks like a whale.
- gordonj, on 05/16/2008, -3/+14So somebody uses the term "design" somewhere in an article and you take it as proof of intelligent design. Your definition of "proof" is way too relaxed.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1If the creature wasn't a design initially, then man couldn't get his copy from it to make his designs.
- halobender, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9What in the world kind of logic is that?
Perhaps you need to define design. - Dimensio, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4"If the creature wasn't a design initially, then man couldn't get his copy from it to make his designs."
Why not? Please be specific in your justification.
- halobender, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9What in the world kind of logic is that?
- gordonj, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8I don't suppose you'd care to explain why said "designer" would leave signs in the whale genome that it is closely related to ungulates (hoofed animals). In fact whales are genetically more closely related to a cow than a camel is. Why didn't the "creator" make whales appear to be more like fish (or at least have fish-like genes), as whales and fish have fins while cows don't?
"If the creature wasn't a design initially, then man couldn't get his copy from it to make his designs."
If those "designs" are shaped by selective forces in a given environment, then man could still copy the concepts without a need for there to be an initial designer.- Cerebron, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1I've seen whales, and believe me, their relationship to hoofed animals isn't as close as you think. :)
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Glad you mentioned that. "Why didn't the "creator" make whales appear to be more like fish (or at least have fish-like genes), as whales and fish have fins while cows don't?"
Very good question: I guess we'll have to ask the Designer when we see Him - oh yes, we will.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1If the creature wasn't a design initially, then man couldn't get his copy from it to make his designs.
- Harbinger67, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1So honestly, how angry of a person are you that you have to make this huge reach just to bash religion? This wasn't an article about creationism vs. evolution, it's an article on adapting things found in nature for better technology.
- dgendreau, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8Check his comments again. Kenyard is actually saying this is proof of intelligent design, which is ridiculous.
- kenrayd, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1Well it does depend on what definition of proof one goes by. If the definition is according to the man-made science method, then, one probably couldn't use the whale fin design as proof of a designer.
If one uses the proof definition based on common sense, then the whale fin (and every other life form), is definitely proof of a designer. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Again, claiming that something is "common sense" is a poisoning-the-well fallacy, and not a substitute for evidence.
- kenrayd, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1Well it does depend on what definition of proof one goes by. If the definition is according to the man-made science method, then, one probably couldn't use the whale fin design as proof of a designer.
- dgendreau, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8Check his comments again. Kenyard is actually saying this is proof of intelligent design, which is ridiculous.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Yeh
- DeFex, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6--------Normal--------
-------Retarded------
---------Peter---------
-----Creationists----- Ramble, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1As you can see, creationists are just over the line of Peter.
- Obzerva, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Who does God want to win? A predator which is "intelligently designed" to effectively hunt prey, or the prey which is "intelligently designed" to effectively escape predators? ID is not science, it's *****.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1The answer for that is that as a human, you're a sinner and the design of creatures (which were given to man in the beginning) changed to reflect the change of humans from good to evil.
- humblechild, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Humans are nothing special, we're just smart mammals.
- kenrayd, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Which proves the point that humans are sinners. For a mammal that is so smart, what makes them so destructive that in comparison with the most aggressive preditor, say a great white, is a mere puppy.
- Obzerva, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Hahaha kenrayd you crack me up. Your "argument" doesn't even make a bit of sense.
"For a mammal that is so smart, what makes them so destructive that in comparison with the most aggressive preditor, say a great white, is a mere puppy."
Are you posing a question? Where's the question mark? Besides your lack of basic knowledge of english, your statement is B.S. How exactly do you prove that humans "sin" more than great white sharks? (What a retarded statement by the way...) - ashfish, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2So...if we never sinned what exactly were the animals going to do? All the carnivores were going to just sit around and eat grass? Not eat and be divinely fed? If so then why do carnivores have sharp teeth? Or why do animals have teeth at all? The story of Adam and Eve was one of my favorites and there was no mention of God changing any of the animals because of our sinful ways, with the exception of the serpent who then was made to walk on his belly and "eat dust," to my recollection. If you want to talk about logic and common sense apply a little bit to your own statements.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1The answer for that is that as a human, you're a sinner and the design of creatures (which were given to man in the beginning) changed to reflect the change of humans from good to evil.
- over900000, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3A lot of these natural stuff is being in being investigated and applied in F1 aerodynamics at the moment.
- burketo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+14how is this proof of anything other then that whales who developed growths on the end of their fins were better at catching prey and thus survived to pass this trait on?
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -20/+4Not only that, but whales are inspiring - incredible! Does that mean they remind us of the Designer?
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7No, it just means they inspired a new wing design. It is irrational to presume the existence of a "designer" without evidence.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1It's rational because the real natural world is filled with design and inspiration is a spiritual word, not intellectual. See comment below on Biomimetrics. The spiritual idea (divine mind) leads to intellectual (human mind) application.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5There exists no evidence for the supernatural - spiritual or otherwise. Your argument is based on the assumption of the existence of the supernatural, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Did you try praying yet?
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Well, did you try praying, then you will appreciate the Bible? And I can tell from the link that you probably fell for the "Da Vinci Code" also.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I have not read the book you referenced.
You did not specify to what mythological entity your prayer exercise should be in reference to, so in light of that lack of experimental constraint, I chose Odin and asked for the same Rune knowledge he gained from sacrificing his eye. Nothing happened.
Regardless, the exercise you ask about would be a subjective one, not an objective one, and any results from it are no more evidence for one side of the debate than the other. - humblechild, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Who else but Odin could come up with such ingenious designs.
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1It's rational because the real natural world is filled with design and inspiration is a spiritual word, not intellectual. See comment below on Biomimetrics. The spiritual idea (divine mind) leads to intellectual (human mind) application.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7No, it just means they inspired a new wing design. It is irrational to presume the existence of a "designer" without evidence.
- buffyangel108, on 05/16/2008, -4/+7Coming soon - Wesley Snipes in Blade V: Whaleology
- aminal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Not that soon
http://digg.com/politics/Wesley_Snipes_3_years_in_ ...
- aminal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Not that soon
- louiebaur, on 05/16/2008, -2/+20And they are just figuring this out now?
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Because you knew this the day you were born right?
- Elliuotatar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Nature has been working on the designs of animals for millions of years. If an animal has some bodily feature, then it's probably there for a purpouse. But for some reason, scientists choose to ignore this philosophy and do stupid things like fail to investigate these bumps, or cut everyone's tonsils out because they couldn't figure out for years that they're there to boost our immune systems.
If I were a submarine designer, I would most certainly have looked into the shape of the whale and the makeup of its skin to determine if those properties could be used to improve my designs.
- Elliuotatar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Nature has been working on the designs of animals for millions of years. If an animal has some bodily feature, then it's probably there for a purpouse. But for some reason, scientists choose to ignore this philosophy and do stupid things like fail to investigate these bumps, or cut everyone's tonsils out because they couldn't figure out for years that they're there to boost our immune systems.
- rotten777, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4That's what I was thinking. Seems they thought that millions of years of evolution was wrong. If a creature can do something spectacular, look at it through the eyes of an engineer because it probably has a lot to do with its form.
- Ashoro, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1marine biologists aren't engineers however
maybe we should require all citizens to get at least a BS in some engineering field
this way all fields can look at things through the eyes of an engineer
- noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Because you knew this the day you were born right?
- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 05/16/2008, -2/+19So the guy designing blades based on whale fins... is named Fish? love it.
- Pinkertinkle, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4A whale's not a fish.
- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Thank you World Book, I didn't learn that one in 3rd grade, please ignore my stupid post that simply points to the irony of the marine biologist's name.
- Pinkertinkle, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4A whale's not a fish.
- Witchbaby, on 05/16/2008, -3/+14Mother nature knows what she's doing.
- drgruney, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1No... she doesn't. The world runs on the premise of "survival of the good enough."
- gmweezel, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3Am I the only one that sees the possible irony that the blades the whales inspired are just going to end up killing them in boat-whale accidents?
- Pinkertinkle, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4If you put random dimples on the wing/blade surface it'll have even less air/fluid resistance.
- alittleroy101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3They're called speed holes, buddy.
- Elliuotatar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I've considered that before, but if that's true, then why don't they do it to cars to improve gas mileage?
Don't dimples on a golf ball just make it spin, and the spinning comined with the holes is what makes it travel farther rather than just the holes?
- Jacolyte, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Here's essentially the same article, but with pictures: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/biomimicry ...
Pictures make everything better :)- maelnum, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4"Pictures make everything better"
remember that when grandma talks about her hemorrhoids. - DeadlyCouncil, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1or if there was ever a news article about goatse. : (
- maelnum, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4"Pictures make everything better"
- Djerrid, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Biomimetics is a fascinating area full of promise. The National Geographic had a great article on it a couple of months ago:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/biomimet ...- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1Yes a recommended picture article where National Geographic finally admits design in nature.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4They did no such thing in the article - try reading the whole damn thing next time. From page 8:
"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."
This is an oversimplification, and their use of the word "blindly" is inaccurate, but it directly contradicts your above statement about "admitting design".- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1So "evolution" is an entity - now that's a new one. National Geographic has declared that "evolution" is a god. It even does blind experiements.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Evolution isn't an entity, it is a process of adaptation by a population to better fit or compete in an environment through selection pressures acting upon heritable traits.
As I said, their explanation is an oversimplification, and their use of the word "blindly" is inaccurate. - kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1So to clarify, evolution doesn't do blind experiments, but seeing experiments? And then after a set of experiments, there is a finished design?
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3No - as I said, it is a process of adaptation by a population to better fit or compete in an environment through selection pressures acting upon heritable traits. There is no analogy towards experimentation except for that, due to inherent variability in life due to many different factors (genetic recombination, mutations, different expression characteristics, etc), many different possibilities are "tried". Selection pressures weed out that which does not work, and rewards that which does. Also, there is no "finish" in evolution. If a population stays relatively static for a period of time, that would indicate that their niche was relatively stable, but not that there is some "finished" state for the population to reach.
- Ramble, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2You can't have a finished evolutionary state, you are no more or less evolved than anything else.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4They did no such thing in the article - try reading the whole damn thing next time. From page 8:
- kenrayd, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1Yes a recommended picture article where National Geographic finally admits design in nature.
- maldovix, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3It took this long to come up with this? I think just about every boy over the age of 12 knows what the fins of humpbacks look like
- noen, on 05/16/2008, -8/+5For a long time creationists cited bees as an example of Intelligent Design. The reason they said, was that aerodynamically bees should not be able to fly, yet they do, therefore God designed them. We now know that there are structures on the leading edge of bees' wings not unlike these tubercles on whale fins, that help create lift for the bees. Evolution wins again.
- Ashoro, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Intelligent Design means what it means, it was designed by an intelligent being. It doesn't imply magic. Your argument has no logic.
- Monkeydew06, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3First off, it's not a win for evolution because you have no evidence of an older species of bee that was less successful at flying because it had smooth wings. I could just as easily argue that a creator designed the wings to allow flight. You cannot win, or lose at these types of arguments.
And second, Natural Selection would be a more appropriate term rather than (1) evolution (assuming there were smooth winged bees in the first place.)
Footnote: 1. Evolution contains three subcategories: mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Logically one could assume that bees with smoother wings (assuming they existed) would be slower and thus more prone to being eaten by birds. Thus, nature has "selected" them for extinction. Personally, I doubt mutation, or a genetic drift would be a factor in the changing of the Bees physical structure.
- kh99, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1I just like saying "tubercles".
- buba1243, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Haven't we known this for a while? That's why there are dimples on a golf ball. Nothing new here to me now the harder part convincing people that putting dents in their car makes it more aerodynamic.
- Monkeydew06, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Those are concave dimples. They, in no way, resemble or represent the same dynamics of a whale's use of their tubercles.
- iFrikkenR, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2They exactly represent the same dynamics
Golf ball dimples are concave yes, but the idea works exactly the same if they are convex. However, for a golfball this isn't ideal as the resulting bumps would provide extra grip and prevent the ball rolling as far as it could once it hits the ground. It would also affect the way the ball is hit by the flat face of the club, the concave dimples still provide an essentially flat surface to strike.
- iFrikkenR, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2They exactly represent the same dynamics
- Tryptomine, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2What do you mean? I put Speed Holes all over my car.
- Monkeydew06, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Those are concave dimples. They, in no way, resemble or represent the same dynamics of a whale's use of their tubercles.
- protodon, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Interesting discovery! I attend the school where he teaches (WCUPA). I see his name occasionally and I always wondered if he changed it to reflect his interests. Otherwise, it's a really weird coincedence.
- TJ11240, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Sawtoothed wind turbines will look pretty ***** amazing.
- zadadka, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Not blade servers then.....
- V1ncent, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I don't want a Humpback whale ceiling fan! It's only a matter of time before a Japanese whaling ship harpoons the sucker and then I have to explain to my kids that the fan is in a better place and endure all those freaking nightmares and counselingsessions for their trauma. Bastards.
- WickEd101, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1one of those 99.9% of people dont care about it posts. whales and blades dont even match
- COINTELPRO, on 05/16/2008, -3/+0You guys (The Stassi) have been quiet the last three days, I hope I didnt piss you off, LOL. I hope you liked my letters, I wanted to throw a different pitch this time. I wanted to observe your reaction and comment; I hope you didn't chase that too hard. Give up on the surveil(mics), you are wasting your time.
What are you up to? What crazy ideas are running through your head...- Lunarbunny, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Are you just trying to be annoying/retarded or are you really schizophrenic or demented?
- asskicker32, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Dr. Fish? Eponysterical.
- bugmenottt, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Hi Biologist Frank Fish. I'm Meteorologist Ray Storm and please say hello to my wife, Archaeologist Sally Dig. It's a shame she kept her maiden name but you know how 21st century women are. My wife and I are also disappointed with our son, Auto, who became a taxi driver. We had such high hopes for him.
- diggcensors, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1This is old.... but at least the article is new. Dugg.
- greenvortex, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2This is great, great news. Wind power just got 20% more efficient. Suck on that, Big Oil.
- GentleRapist, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2You're telling me this guy is a biologist and wasn't previously aware of this whale's feature until he saw a figurine in a gift shop?
- ashfish, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1With the abundance of marine life, if he didn't specialize in whales I'm not surprised that he'd glance over the design of that particular whale.
- Ribique, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0I definitely thought the "blade" in the title was referring to knife blades... Man, I feel stupid.
- zenmastr, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0There's actually a company in Austria that has been doing this to create high-flow, low-noise pc cooling fans. http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=start
- Obzerva, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Nature is the most badass engineer.
- saxmaster, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2This article cites the green movement at the reason for the design's popularity. This seems typical of idealist thinking. The truth is that the design is simply more efficient, saving businesses money. Why does every new discovery in efficiency have to be attributed to green consciousness?
- Elliuotatar, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2If that's the truth, then why are they just getting around to doing it? Didn't businesses want to save money 20 years ago?
- zbeast, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1wow.. it sure took them a long time to thing of something to do with the tech.
The patent was filed back in 2000, receive back in 2002. So they have been playing with it from 1998 or so. - bincoder, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1It was a good idea, until I saw the word patent. The whale has been doing it for eons, sailboats and even other fan (or turbine, same thing) companys for a long time too. The vortex thing in a modified way even has been responsible for the development of sluice boxes to concentrate gold, old tech but currently the best way to do it. Hopefully since many including god have been doing this for a long time, he won't be able to go around suing anyone who 'steals' 'his' technology. I will now take out my nail file and prepare to notch a few items around the house.
- NowakFilms, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Shouldn't the patent belong to the whale.
- neofreakiii, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1It's amazing to see nature's perfection.
- dawnmathews, on 05/24/2008, -0/+0I love the way the answers to most things (maybe all?) come from nature itself
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by