Slashdot Mirror


Improving 3-D Printing By Copying Nature

An anonymous reader writes "Biologist Janine Benyus is excited about the 3-D printer revolution and she thinks it can be improved by modeling natural processes. 'Benyus, who wrote Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature and co-founded the institute Biomimicry 3.8, would like to see a transition in manufacturing—from big, smoke-belching factories to small, clean desktop printers. The key to making it truly sustainable, she said, lies in mimicking how a natural ecosystem functions. "Nature uses life-friendly chemistry, which is nontoxic and water-based, and which does not require high heat," said Benyus. In contrast, most of the products people use today have been forged in industrial-size furnaces, with a plethora of toxic solvents. A potato chip bag may seem like a simple item, but it is actually made up of several thin layers of different materials, one to make it strong, one to make it airtight, and so on.'"

33 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Nature uses life friendly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Nature uses life-friendly chemistry, which is nontoxic and water-based, and which does not require high heat." So where is the water-based oil, coal and natural gas? What a load of hooey.

    1. Re:Nature uses life friendly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are called "sugars" and "vegetable oils". Plants and algae make them from water and carbon dioxide.

      They can be used as is or further transformed into alcohol or biodiesel, respectively.

    2. Re:Nature uses life friendly.. by Turbio · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, a good part of the chemistry occurs in or around oil based membranes.
      And biological toxins are all around us. I am not talking just about toxic fungi, pathogenic bacteria or poisonous animals. The very potato chips she mentions are toxic if eaten uncooked, as well as soya beans and many others. Those compounds prevent the plants from being eaten. So we cook our foods to inactivate toxic compounds (and kill pathogens). There exists an arms race out there in the wild, and she's a biologist, she knows how it works.

    3. Re:Nature uses life friendly.. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Only green parts of uncooked potatos are toxic.

    4. Re:Nature uses life friendly.. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      How this is "Interesting", I don't know. The hydrogen in the hydrocarbons came from water.

    5. Re:Nature uses life friendly.. by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there anything that hasn't 'been shown to cause cancer in animals'?

  2. Slow by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nature also takes 40 years to give me a two-by-four.

    1. Re:Slow by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you don't have high standards for your 2x4s (and if you're buying what your local home-improvement store sells, you probably don't), it's more like 15-20 years for some fast-growing pine lumber.

      </pedantry>

  3. But I like big, smoke-belching factories by drwho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great granddaddy left the crappy farm and came to the USA and worked in the factory. Finally, his family had enough food to eat, a roof over their heads, and people weren't trying to kill them every other week. But the factories are all going away now. No more forges, no more assmbly lines, no more smog, no more jobs. Unless you're lucky, and move to Silicon valley, and manage to strike it rich and not develop a disease, go insane, or burnout before you hit age 30. At age 30, you either reture to a beach somewhere on your IPO cash, or are shuffled off to jobs that can't keep up with inflation, as your job functions are moved overseas.

    1. Re:But I like big, smoke-belching factories by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      Trade unions prevent a race to the bottom and help maintain standards. It's not the unions keeping you out of a job; it's the fact that I wouldn't hire a tradesman outside of a union.

  4. More important than using recycled stuff by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    -- is ensuring that whatever we end up using for our 3D printed parts can, itself, be easily recycled. The problem with a lot of hard plastics is that they're difficult to recycle. Using softer polymers in 3D printing, and engineering their structures to create the strength (as the article discusses with the abalone shells) will allow us to create objects that can be used until they are no longer needed, then melted right back into the tank for new stuff. Having objects made from natural materials is all good and well, but the material has to be suitable for the purpose. I don't think I'd want a gear for my car made out of wood chips.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:More important than using recycled stuff by drwho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      thermoplastics do that. Thermosetting compounds don't. Sometimes you can get away with a thermoplastic, sometimes not. Then there's the problem of miximg them in the recycling stream, especially when people add all sorts of things to the thermoplastics like metals and colors and stuff. Also, the big move has been to make plastics that don't last forever...in landfills, they tell us. UV light breaks them down. No recycling then!

      Sometimes you just have to burn the stuff. Then use the atmosphere and the sun and the ocean to make it back into the really basic material.

    2. Re:More important than using recycled stuff by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We could fix a lot of this by engineering stuff to be recyclable. Imagine assembly with connectors designed to come apart in easy to create environments. Maybe the rivets release all ABS parts at 75C, and all aluminum parts at 90C.

      --
      John
    3. Re:More important than using recycled stuff by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      The rivets already release ABS at ~105C.
      Aluminium parts don't get released until 660C though.

    4. Re:More important than using recycled stuff by plover · · Score: 2

      What I meant was to use different materials engineered to self-destruct as the rivets or fasteners. Then you could follow a formula to recycle it: Heat it to 50C and the case separates. Heat it to 60C, and all the 60C screws holding the circuit boards melt, allowing recovery of electronics and precious metals. Heat to 75C and all the ABS parts pop off. Continue heating to 90C and all the aluminum rails come apart. Apply steam, and all the steel separates.

      You could even spring load the fasteners so that when it's melting time, the correct materials literally fly out of the assembly.

      Then you simply drop an unwanted clock-radio in the waste stream, scan its recycling code, and all the recyclables are automatically separated and recovered.

      --
      John
    5. Re:More important than using recycled stuff by mirix · · Score: 2

      Sometimes you need a thermoset, for heat tolerance. (generally phenol resins, like bakelite, excel here). Pretty common in cooking pot handles / barbeque handles, some automotive parts, etc.

      They are one shot, they don't melt, but generally decompose into toxic stink, if you do get them hot enough. polyester resins and epoxies (like in fibreglass) are like this too.

      Though for lower temperature stuff, nylon seems to be more popular now, and it is recyclable ( melts at ~200C, I think).

      Hardness isn't really the right word you're using. For example polystyrene (as in CD cases, etc), polycarbonate (lexan) (the CDs themselves, safety glasses), and plexiglas/lucite/acyrlic (PMMA) are all quite hard/brittle, but melt fine, being thermoplastics.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    6. Re:More important than using recycled stuff by Nutria · · Score: 2

      I don't think I'd want a gear for my car made out of wood chips.

      30 years ago, I was driving down the Interstate in my Chevy Monza (hey, it was cheap and fuel efficient) when the engine suddenly sputtered to a halt. The mechanic showed me that the timing gear was made of particle board which had disintegrated after about 50,000 miles worth of centrifugal force.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  5. Non-toxic? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If nature does things in a "non-toxic" manner, it's only because other life adapts to the things that were toxic.

    Case in point: oxygen in the atmosphere

    I don't have a problem with sustainable practices, because that will be better for all concerned, but lets steer clear of justifying it with Gaianism crap.

    1. Re:Non-toxic? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The nontoxic part doesn't really make sense even taking adaptation into account. There are plenty of natural toxins that are toxic to us and other organisms. Nature sometimes "invents" them specifically for their toxicity, as in the case of reptile venom or mycotoxins.

      And as for natural vs. unnatural chemistry: chemical-weapons programs use "unnatural" chemistry, while biological-weapons programs use "natural" chemistry. But does that distinction mean anthrax is the earth-friendly "green" alternative to mustard gas?

  6. Not all PLA is made from maize by vik · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's made from sugarbeet, milk waste, and current pilot plants are looking at cellulosic production piggybacking on ethanol research. Only in the US where agricultural subsidies encourage it is it made from maize. That's a political problem, not a biological problem.

  7. Please quite making asinine statements. by nashv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate such noob statements ""Nature uses life-friendly chemistry, which is nontoxic and water-based, and which does not require high heat," These are essentially teleological arguments.

    Nature (the environment) uses what is available. Life evolves to survive, or it ceases to exist. Simple as that. You are a biologist, quit with the Mother Nature-Goddess Gaia worshipping nonsense.

    --
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    1. Re:Please quite making asinine statements. by drwho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd mod you up.

      There's the whole problem of what is 'nature' and what 'use' means. Is not man a part of nature? Are we not just clever monkeys? The only thing outside of nature is the supernatural, but last I checked, neither gods nor ghosts were making much of anything.

      life-friendly chemistry. WTF does that mean? "nontoxic and water-based" - ok, so now it's all about what solvents are involved? Water is a great solvent, but right now I am enjoying it mixed with some ethanol. Than you, yeasts. Yeast is natural, right?

      What is the matter with high heat? Are you afraid of fire, Ms Benyus? I think you are. Fire from coal is pretty intimidating, for sure, but also very useful. Coal, iron, and steam changed the world but people like Benyus probably don't think it was for the better. You worship the sun, the wind, the moon. You don't want to think about the fire from the earth, the fire beneath the earth, energy that comes from other tan your god, Sol. You don't like coal, or petroleum, or nuclear power. But you won't tell yourself why. You just don't think they're 'natural'.

    2. Re:Please quite making asinine statements. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I always tell people not to anthropomorphize nature, as nature does not like it. :)

    3. Re:Please quite making asinine statements. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Especially when nature very often is toxic, and very painful......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Please quite making asinine statements. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chem Eng, Enviro specialty here. Biological processes are sweet because they run at/near SATP (room temp and pressure) and generally use water (cheap, non-toxic) as a solvent. Typical industrial processing techniques use harsh-assed chemicals (safety + environmental risk) and a lot of energy (usually heat). That being said, biological systems are typically inefficient as shit and can't produce the same output / rector volume but are much cheaper. SO if you can create a culture that's particularly suited to what you want it to do (E. Coli is often used) you can recreate an expensive process that involves toxic (read: expensive to dispose of) with a cheap process with a disposal cost that is orders of magnitude lower than the traditional solution.

      So yeah, that's why biological processes (low temp, nontoxic materials) are sweet. They cost less.

  8. "Natural" manufacturing is material-limited by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mother Nature doesn't do much manufacturing of metals of any kind, much less ferrous alloys.

    She only works with ceramics in a few limited ways.

    Those giant, hot, smog-belching factories were built specifically because we can't build starships out of wood and stone, or semiconductors out of sandstone and clay. Show somebody how to plant, fertilize, water, and grow a SSTO launch vehicle or a billion-plus transistor CPU, we'll be all over that. Until then, we'll do it with steel and silicone, and those materials have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere isn't a garden.

  9. Small, clean desktop printers by swampfriend · · Score: 2

    ...which are themselves manufactured in big, smoke-belching factories.

  10. Nature Is Exothermic -- Just Slow by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Nature uses life-friendly chemistry, which is nontoxic and water-based, and which does not require high heat,"

    Nature's manufacturing processes are exothermic, just like factory processes. They're just really slow, so the heat difference at any moment is fairly low. Take plants, for example -- they take in solar energy, increase order locally, and produce heat during respiration. The law of increasing entropy requires unordered energy to be released to offset the increases in local order.

    The heat produced is not as shockingly different as it seems based on casual observation; the waste heat is just being expelled over a longer period of time. According to Wikipedia, and my incomplete understanding of the entire process, photosynthetic biomass production is at most 32% efficient (see below). I would guess meatware manufacturing is not much more efficient, if at all.

    Wikipedia: Photosynthetic Efficiency:
    Stated another way:
    100% sunlight -> non-bioavailable photons waste is 47%, leaving
    53% (in the 400-700 nm range) -> 30% of photons are lost due to incomplete absorption, leaving
    37% (absorbed photon energy) -> 24% is lost due to wavelength-mismatch degradation to 700 nm energy, leaving
    28.2% (sunlight energy collected by chlorophyl) -> 32% efficient conversion of ATP and NADPH to d-glucose, leaving
    9% (collected as sugar) -> 35-40% of sugar is recycled/consumed by the leaf in dark and photo-respiration, leaving
    5.4% net leaf efficiency.

  11. Life-friendly chemistry? by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know of a few animals and plants you'd better not mess with or risk getting sick/dying.

    Why is it that the greenies always seem to equate natural things with healthy things? Nature will kill you, given half a chance.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. If nature is so relevant... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2

    Why not build a 400,000 lb bumblebee instead of a B747? Point being that imitating nature oftentimes isn't good or even possible.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  13. Re:FOX-News-like propaganda by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    Wow, it's almost like you didn't read the last of three lines in my post.

  14. Janine Benyus is not a biologist by brillow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Janine Benyus has a BS in Natural Resource Management and english lit from Rutgers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janine_Benyus

    1. Re:Janine Benyus is not a biologist by Terwin · · Score: 2

      BS has more than one meaning.

      Not when referring to 'Natural Resource Management and English lit'